"The world of any moment is the merest appearance. Some great decorum, some fetish of a government, some ephemeral trade, or war, or man, is cried up by half mankind and cried down by the other half, as if all depended on this particular up or down. The odds are that the whole question is not worth the poorest thought which the scholar has lost in listening to the controversy. Let him not quit his belief that a popgun is a popgun, though the ancient and honorable of the earth affirm it to be the crack of doom." --Ralph Waldo Emerson, "The American Scholar" (1837)
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Hackers
Stuff about hackers:
1. The 1995 film Hackers.
2. "The Hacker Manifesto," from a 1986 edition of Phrack ezine
3. Wikipedia's entry on "Hacker (computer security)"
1. The 1995 film Hackers.
2. "The Hacker Manifesto," from a 1986 edition of Phrack ezine
3. Wikipedia's entry on "Hacker (computer security)"
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Exxon Footnote
"From One Footnote, a Debate over the Tangles of Law, Science, and Money," from the New York Times
I have an opinion about this. The fact that Justice Souter's footnote is even remotely controversial is ludicrous. Exxon commissioned the research; Exxon funded the research; Exxon continued funding the research only when it said what they wanted it to say; legal representatives hired by Exxon were responsible for bringing the research before the Supreme Court. Exxon provided the idea, the means, and the conclusion. The only thing they did not do was conduct the research themselves. Therefore, the research is invalid. Period.
I have an opinion about this. The fact that Justice Souter's footnote is even remotely controversial is ludicrous. Exxon commissioned the research; Exxon funded the research; Exxon continued funding the research only when it said what they wanted it to say; legal representatives hired by Exxon were responsible for bringing the research before the Supreme Court. Exxon provided the idea, the means, and the conclusion. The only thing they did not do was conduct the research themselves. Therefore, the research is invalid. Period.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Bailout for Wooden Arrow Companies
One of the guys I traveled with last week told me that the $700 billion "bailout bill," passed in October, contained an earmark for companies that make bows and arrows for children. I didn't believe him. Pork-barrel spending is way too politically unpopular right now, and the public is scrutinizing this process way too closely, for this claim to be true, I thought.
H.R. 1424, "To provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy," Division C, Title V, Subtitle A, Section 503:
"Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children."
H.R. 1424, "To provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy," Division C, Title V, Subtitle A, Section 503:
"Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children."
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Why study stories?
1. To determine what a story says about the culture from which it came.
2. To determine how a story from the past relates to a contemporary situation.
3. To determine how a story was received by different audiences at different times.
4. To determine an author's original intended meaning and purpose.
5. To determine how a story participates in a particular storytelling tradition or traditions.
6. To determine the relationship between a story's form and its content.
7. To determine a story's genre.
8. To determine the relationship between stories in different genres.
9. To determine the relationship between stories from different cultures.
10. To determine which stories are the best and why.
11. To determine how stories reflect ideologies, even when those stories are not overtly ideological.
12. To determine how stories reflect biases, stereotypes, and attitudes with respect to race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.
13. To determine how a story participates in, or subverts, a particular intellectual tradition or traditions, such as Marxism, feminism, or psychoanalysis.
14. To determine the relationship between stories and economic systems.
15. To determine the relationship between stories by different authors.
16. To determine a story's moral content.
17. To determine the role of symbols in stories.
18. To determine how stories utilize and reinterpret pre-existing symbols.
19. To determine the elements of a good story.
20. To determine how cultural practices like law, science, technology, and medicine shape the way stories are told and interpreted.
21. To determine how specific technological advances transform the act of storytelling.
(That's all I can think of right now.)
2. To determine how a story from the past relates to a contemporary situation.
3. To determine how a story was received by different audiences at different times.
4. To determine an author's original intended meaning and purpose.
5. To determine how a story participates in a particular storytelling tradition or traditions.
6. To determine the relationship between a story's form and its content.
7. To determine a story's genre.
8. To determine the relationship between stories in different genres.
9. To determine the relationship between stories from different cultures.
10. To determine which stories are the best and why.
11. To determine how stories reflect ideologies, even when those stories are not overtly ideological.
12. To determine how stories reflect biases, stereotypes, and attitudes with respect to race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, or religion.
13. To determine how a story participates in, or subverts, a particular intellectual tradition or traditions, such as Marxism, feminism, or psychoanalysis.
14. To determine the relationship between stories and economic systems.
15. To determine the relationship between stories by different authors.
16. To determine a story's moral content.
17. To determine the role of symbols in stories.
18. To determine how stories utilize and reinterpret pre-existing symbols.
19. To determine the elements of a good story.
20. To determine how cultural practices like law, science, technology, and medicine shape the way stories are told and interpreted.
21. To determine how specific technological advances transform the act of storytelling.
(That's all I can think of right now.)
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Simplifications
"To simplify something accurately, you've got to understand it deeply."
--Thomas Friedman, qtd. in The New Yorker
I love that quote, but the problem I run into almost daily is, how do you know when someone's simple explanation reflects deep understanding, and when it reflects simple-mindedness? I like it when people use simple analogies and plain language to explain complex systems. For people who have spent a lot of time studying complex systems, like the financial markets or the human genome, it is a real gift to be able to explain them simply to people who aren't as familiar with those systems. But simplicity is also a useful tool for people who want to pretend they know more about a subject than they do, for people who think they understand the subject better than they actually do, or for people who want to influence public opinion on the subject.
My general solution is to trust simple explanations from people with good credentials on the subject, and to be skeptical of simple explanations from people who probably don't understand the subject in a very nuanced way. But even that is occasionally problematic, since some of my acquaintances have an uncanny ability to understand complex systems just by keeping up with the news and talking to people, and other acquaintances have a tendency to think they know a lot about a system when they really only know a little about it.
--Thomas Friedman, qtd. in The New Yorker
I love that quote, but the problem I run into almost daily is, how do you know when someone's simple explanation reflects deep understanding, and when it reflects simple-mindedness? I like it when people use simple analogies and plain language to explain complex systems. For people who have spent a lot of time studying complex systems, like the financial markets or the human genome, it is a real gift to be able to explain them simply to people who aren't as familiar with those systems. But simplicity is also a useful tool for people who want to pretend they know more about a subject than they do, for people who think they understand the subject better than they actually do, or for people who want to influence public opinion on the subject.
My general solution is to trust simple explanations from people with good credentials on the subject, and to be skeptical of simple explanations from people who probably don't understand the subject in a very nuanced way. But even that is occasionally problematic, since some of my acquaintances have an uncanny ability to understand complex systems just by keeping up with the news and talking to people, and other acquaintances have a tendency to think they know a lot about a system when they really only know a little about it.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Hate Crimes Against the Homeless
Here's an op-ed an intern and I wrote in response to an editorial in the Los Angeles Times:
The recent murder of John Robert McGraham, a 55-year-old homeless resident of Los Angeles' Mid-Wilshire area, is chilling testimony to the unique vulnerability that often accompanies homelessness. On October 9, McGraham, while sitting on the sidewalk, was doused with gasoline and set ablaze by an unidentified perpetrator. In spite of the assistance of passersby, McGraham failed to survive the attack.
A few weeks later, a similar occurrence took place in Long Beach, where five homeless individuals were shot dead in a homeless encampment.
Our organization, the National Coalition for the Homeless, has kept track of unprovoked attacks against the homeless such as these since 1999, when we released our first annual report on the topic. In our 2007 study, we reported that at least 160 homeless persons were violently attacked in that year--with at least 28 of those attacks resulting int he victims' deaths. While the nature of these attacks varies, they are most frequently committed by young men and teenagers against older male victims. Many attackers draw their inspiration from pop culture fads such as "Bumfights" videos and the YouTube phenomenon "Bum Hunters," in which actors assault, throw projectiles at, or set on fire unsuspecting, real-life homeless people. Only occasionally, according to our findings, are such attacks committed for material gain.
In response to mounting evidence that systematic, dehumanizing bias is at the heart of so many violent crimes against homeless persons, we advocate passage of the Hate Crime Against the Homeless Statistics Act (H.R. 2216) and its sister bill, the Hate Crimes Against the Homeless Enforcement Act (H.R. 2217). The former would direct the FBI to collect data on potential hate crimes against the homeless, while the latter would add "homeless status" to the list of protected categories under existing hate crime statutes--a list that currently includes "actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, and sexual orientation."
Expanding hate crime laws to protect homeless individuals would indeed mandate stricter sentencing for bias-motivated attackers. Our judgment that hate crimes warrant more severe punishment than some other forms of crime--those motivated by retribution or material gain, for example--has been corroborated by the U.S. Supreme Court, who in 1993 unanimously agreed that "bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest." Furthermore, our statistics, measured against the FBI's indicate that a higher proportion of attacks against homeless individuals results in death than do those against individuals of all other protected categories combined.
More significant to us, though, is the federal government's recognition that dehumanization and neglect of homeless persons is a cultural problem that manifests itself at all levels of society, from laws to attitudes. It is this recognition, we suspect, that has earned our proposed legislation the co-sponsorship of 20 members of Congress and the support of over 150 national, state, and local organizations, including the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
It is not our desire to suggest that crimes against the homeless are categorically worse than crimes against anyone else. Whether or not the recent attacks in the Los Angeles area warrant the "hate crime" label, we are unable to say. Sadly, however, our research suggests that violent crimes against homeless victims, motivated by little more than prejudice and hate, are not without precedent. As long as it is within the realm of possibility that homeless individuals like McGraham have been targeted solely on the basis of their homeless status, the hate crime question should continue to be asked.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Deep Thoughts about Genomics
"Scientists have learned that the canonical 'genes' account for an embarrassingly tiny part of the human genome: maybe 1 percent of the three billion paired subunits of DNA that are stuffed into nearly every cell of the body qualify as indisputable protein codes. Scientists are also learning that many of the gene-free regions of our DNA are far more loquacious than previously believed, far more willing to express themselves in ways that have nothing to do with protein manufacture."
Fascinating stuff. Especially since I spent so much time in biology and chemistry classes learning that genes are codes for protein synthesis. Four articles from the NY Times that I haven't read all the way through yet, but plan to do so in the near future:
"Scientists and Philosophers Find That 'Gene' Has a Multitude of Meanings"
"Now: The Rest of the Genome"
"In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition"
"The Promise and Power of RNA"
Fascinating stuff. Especially since I spent so much time in biology and chemistry classes learning that genes are codes for protein synthesis. Four articles from the NY Times that I haven't read all the way through yet, but plan to do so in the near future:
"Scientists and Philosophers Find That 'Gene' Has a Multitude of Meanings"
"Now: The Rest of the Genome"
"In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition"
"The Promise and Power of RNA"
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Are Jack Handey jokes examples of parody or pastiche?
Both parody and pastiche are forms of imitation. The parodist, writes Fredric Jameson, "capitalizes on the uniqueness of [the subject's] styles and seizes on their idiosyncrasies and eccentricities to produce an imitation which mocks the original." Parody usually carries with it an ulterior motive: to satirize or cast ridicule on its subjects. In such cases, parody therefore carries with it "the feeling that there is a linguistic norm in contrast to which the styles of [its subjects] can be mocked." In other words, parody presupposes a norm, and satirizes deviations from that norm.
Pastiche is similar to parody in that it involves "the wearing of a stylistic mask," but contrary to parody, it is "a neutral practice of such mimicry, without parody's ulterior motive, without the satirical impulse, without laughter, without that still latent feeling that there exists something normal compared to which what is being imitated is rather comic." In Jameson's words, pastiche is "blank parody.
After giving it some thought, I generally accept the distinction that parody is more humorous than pastiche. But then, what about Jack Handey jokes? Those are definitely more pastiche than parody, but they're also hilarious. Or am I wrong? Are they parody? Are they not hilarious?
Pastiche is similar to parody in that it involves "the wearing of a stylistic mask," but contrary to parody, it is "a neutral practice of such mimicry, without parody's ulterior motive, without the satirical impulse, without laughter, without that still latent feeling that there exists something normal compared to which what is being imitated is rather comic." In Jameson's words, pastiche is "blank parody.
After giving it some thought, I generally accept the distinction that parody is more humorous than pastiche. But then, what about Jack Handey jokes? Those are definitely more pastiche than parody, but they're also hilarious. Or am I wrong? Are they parody? Are they not hilarious?
Monday, November 10, 2008
"Melting Into Air," from The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2008/11/10/081110crat_atlarge_lanchester?currentPage=3
The two best parts of this article:
1. Warren Buffett on the absurdity of derivatives: "The range of derivatives contracts is limited only by the imagination of man (or sometimes, so it seems, madmen).... Say you want to write a contract speculating on the number of twins to be born in Nebraska in 2020. No problem—at a price, you will easily find an obliging counterparty."
2. The writer, John Lanchester, on the parallel between the financial crisis and postmodernism: "If the invention of derivatives was the financial world’s modernist dawn, the current crisis is unsettlingly like the birth of postmodernism. For anyone who studied literature in college in the past few decades, there is a weird familiarity about the current crisis: value, in the realm of finance capital, evokes the elusive nature of meaning in deconstructionism. According to Jacques Derrida, the doyen of the school, meaning can never be precisely located; instead, it is always 'deferred,' moved elsewhere, located in other meanings, which refer and defer to other meanings—a snake permanently and necessarily eating its own tail. This process is fluid and constant, but at moments the perpetual process of deferral stalls and collapses in on itself. Derrida called this moment an 'aporia,' from a Greek term meaning 'impasse.' There is something both amusing and appalling about seeing his theories acted out in the world markets to such cataclysmic effect."
The two best parts of this article:
1. Warren Buffett on the absurdity of derivatives: "The range of derivatives contracts is limited only by the imagination of man (or sometimes, so it seems, madmen).... Say you want to write a contract speculating on the number of twins to be born in Nebraska in 2020. No problem—at a price, you will easily find an obliging counterparty."
2. The writer, John Lanchester, on the parallel between the financial crisis and postmodernism: "If the invention of derivatives was the financial world’s modernist dawn, the current crisis is unsettlingly like the birth of postmodernism. For anyone who studied literature in college in the past few decades, there is a weird familiarity about the current crisis: value, in the realm of finance capital, evokes the elusive nature of meaning in deconstructionism. According to Jacques Derrida, the doyen of the school, meaning can never be precisely located; instead, it is always 'deferred,' moved elsewhere, located in other meanings, which refer and defer to other meanings—a snake permanently and necessarily eating its own tail. This process is fluid and constant, but at moments the perpetual process of deferral stalls and collapses in on itself. Derrida called this moment an 'aporia,' from a Greek term meaning 'impasse.' There is something both amusing and appalling about seeing his theories acted out in the world markets to such cataclysmic effect."
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Is "pragmatism" an alternative to liberalism and conservatism?
I've heard it suggested that Barack Obama is neither a liberal nor a conservative, but a "pragmatist." Google "obama pragmatist" for a smattering of evidence, typified here. I have heard the claim both upheld and challenged, by both his supporters and his opponents, as both a criticism and an accolade.
For some, pragmatism suggests a lack of dedication to ideals, "flip-flopping," and a politician's proclivity for saying anything to get elected. People who think of pragmatism this way might cite as evidence Obama's broken promise to only accept public financing for the general election if John McCain would agree. He initially spouted the ideals, these people would say, but when a more pragmatic option came up, he jumped on it.
One friend, a devout liberal, too liberal for the Democratic party, told me several months ago that her message to Barack can be summarized, "Quit pandering and get back on the Left where you belong!" (This was right after Obama spoke in favor of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the D.C. gun ban. Her allegation became even harsher when Obama began to support off-shore drilling.)
For others, pragmatism is a rare breed of politics based on consensus, utilitarianism, and an open mind. "Reaching across the aisle" is the phrase most often used to express this idea of pragmatism, and by that standard John McCain sought to portray himself as a pragmatist, as well. In fact, McCain frequently charged Obama with being the "most liberal Senator" and failing to provide convincing evidence of having "reached across the aisle" and "challenged his Party's leadership."
A similar but distinct definition of a pragmatist places "pragmatism" somewhere in the middle on the continuum of "idealism" to "realism." By this definition, the candidates have occasionally landed at different points along the continuum. For example, after Russia's invasion of Georgia, McCain declared that Russia should be kicked out of the G-8 as punishment for their unlawful actions; Obama responded that even though he condemned Russia's actions, kicking them out of the G-8 would only further isolate them and make future negotiations more difficult. McCain the idealist, Obama the pragmatist.
Still other definitions remain. Pragmatism is sometimes considered a disavowal of ideology and a commitment only to truth, common sense, fact, and expert advice. Nonpartisan problems, people who buy this idea of pragmatism would say, should be solved with nonpartisan solutions. Put the politics aside and get something done, they say.
Which of these definitions are more correct than others? Is the descriptor "pragmatist" an apt one for Barack Obama? These questions are difficult to answer with any certainty, and it doesn't matter. When politicians use the term "pragmatism" to describe their political philosophies or their approaches to an issue, I usually regard it as a meaningless rhetorical strategy, meant to suggest that the issues important to them are "beyond politics." (My response: no issue is beyond politics.) There is much to be admired in being led by the spirit of pragmatism, just as their is much to be distrusted, but the truth is that pragmatism is neither the exclusive domain of liberals nor conservatives, nor is it accurately conceived as an alternative to either.
For some, pragmatism suggests a lack of dedication to ideals, "flip-flopping," and a politician's proclivity for saying anything to get elected. People who think of pragmatism this way might cite as evidence Obama's broken promise to only accept public financing for the general election if John McCain would agree. He initially spouted the ideals, these people would say, but when a more pragmatic option came up, he jumped on it.
One friend, a devout liberal, too liberal for the Democratic party, told me several months ago that her message to Barack can be summarized, "Quit pandering and get back on the Left where you belong!" (This was right after Obama spoke in favor of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the D.C. gun ban. Her allegation became even harsher when Obama began to support off-shore drilling.)
For others, pragmatism is a rare breed of politics based on consensus, utilitarianism, and an open mind. "Reaching across the aisle" is the phrase most often used to express this idea of pragmatism, and by that standard John McCain sought to portray himself as a pragmatist, as well. In fact, McCain frequently charged Obama with being the "most liberal Senator" and failing to provide convincing evidence of having "reached across the aisle" and "challenged his Party's leadership."
A similar but distinct definition of a pragmatist places "pragmatism" somewhere in the middle on the continuum of "idealism" to "realism." By this definition, the candidates have occasionally landed at different points along the continuum. For example, after Russia's invasion of Georgia, McCain declared that Russia should be kicked out of the G-8 as punishment for their unlawful actions; Obama responded that even though he condemned Russia's actions, kicking them out of the G-8 would only further isolate them and make future negotiations more difficult. McCain the idealist, Obama the pragmatist.
Still other definitions remain. Pragmatism is sometimes considered a disavowal of ideology and a commitment only to truth, common sense, fact, and expert advice. Nonpartisan problems, people who buy this idea of pragmatism would say, should be solved with nonpartisan solutions. Put the politics aside and get something done, they say.
Which of these definitions are more correct than others? Is the descriptor "pragmatist" an apt one for Barack Obama? These questions are difficult to answer with any certainty, and it doesn't matter. When politicians use the term "pragmatism" to describe their political philosophies or their approaches to an issue, I usually regard it as a meaningless rhetorical strategy, meant to suggest that the issues important to them are "beyond politics." (My response: no issue is beyond politics.) There is much to be admired in being led by the spirit of pragmatism, just as their is much to be distrusted, but the truth is that pragmatism is neither the exclusive domain of liberals nor conservatives, nor is it accurately conceived as an alternative to either.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
"Tearaway Burkas and Tinplate Menorahs," by Al Franken
There's no Senate race I'm more interested in this year than Minnesota, where Al Franken (that's right, the same guy who wrote Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot) could actually defeat incumbent Norm Coleman. Lately Norm's been waving around a column Al wrote for Playboy in 2000 called "Porn-o-Rama." (Haven't been able to find it online. Any long-time Playboy subscribers who happen to frequent my blog want to send me a photocopy?) Norm says it's sexist, Al says it's satire, Norm says it's a blemish on Al's character, Al says Norm is just trying to distract you from the failing economy, blah blah blah. Same old. But, the exchange of words did manage to remind me of a great piece Al wrote for Mother Jones a few years ago, possibly as he was beginning to mull the possibility of a Senate run:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/03/02_400.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/03/02_400.html
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Nine Orders of Angels
Milton's Paradise Lost makes reference to a rigid hierarchy of angels in Heaven. As the footnotes hinted, Catholic theologians have specified that there are nine "Orders" of angels, ranked according proximity to the Supreme Being. St. Gregory the Great (alternately, Gregory I, pope from 590-604 A.D.) was the first to decree that there were nine; St. Thomas and St. Denis later ranked them as follows (listed from highest to lowest):
Seraphim
Cherubim
Thrones
Dominations
Virtues
Powers
Principalities
Archangels
Angels
In Paradise Lost, Milton uses this hierarchy to model the structure of Heaven after an army, and the kingdom of Heaven after an imperial power. Satan, an archangel, leads a band of upstarts and renegades in a revolt against God, loses the fight, and is subsequently banished to Pandemonium, the capitol of Hell. Among the "fallen angels" there with him are Beelzebub, Belial, Mammon, Mulciber, and Moloch. Satan, still discontent, learns about the creation of Adam and Eve in Eden and determines to continue his battle against God indirectly, by making his newly-created humans on Earth the battleground. In doing so, he finds himself in a battle of wits with some of the other angels of various rank, including Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Abdiel, Ithuriel, Uriel, and Zephron.
Paradise Lost is one of those books that will probably never stop serving as a source of analogies to the contemporary world. (Stanley Fish's last blog entry compares Obama's "passive campaigning" strategy against McCain to Jesus's method of responding to Satan's temptations in the sequel, Paradise Regained.) What I'm noticing on this read-through is how the two imperial powers, Heaven and Hell, wage their wars on smaller territories at the fringes of their respective domains, and how much this resembles the "Cold War" between the United States and the Soviet Union. The US and the USSR never came to blows directly, but the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and all of the wars in Israel-Palestine during that period were direct consequences of American and Soviet economic and political engagement. Two Empires playing chess on a map of the world. The question is, of Heaven and Hell (as Milton presents them), which does the United States most resemble, and which the Soviet Union? Perhaps I will take up that question in a future blog entry, after I finish reading the book.
Seraphim
Cherubim
Thrones
Dominations
Virtues
Powers
Principalities
Archangels
Angels
In Paradise Lost, Milton uses this hierarchy to model the structure of Heaven after an army, and the kingdom of Heaven after an imperial power. Satan, an archangel, leads a band of upstarts and renegades in a revolt against God, loses the fight, and is subsequently banished to Pandemonium, the capitol of Hell. Among the "fallen angels" there with him are Beelzebub, Belial, Mammon, Mulciber, and Moloch. Satan, still discontent, learns about the creation of Adam and Eve in Eden and determines to continue his battle against God indirectly, by making his newly-created humans on Earth the battleground. In doing so, he finds himself in a battle of wits with some of the other angels of various rank, including Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Abdiel, Ithuriel, Uriel, and Zephron.
Paradise Lost is one of those books that will probably never stop serving as a source of analogies to the contemporary world. (Stanley Fish's last blog entry compares Obama's "passive campaigning" strategy against McCain to Jesus's method of responding to Satan's temptations in the sequel, Paradise Regained.) What I'm noticing on this read-through is how the two imperial powers, Heaven and Hell, wage their wars on smaller territories at the fringes of their respective domains, and how much this resembles the "Cold War" between the United States and the Soviet Union. The US and the USSR never came to blows directly, but the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and all of the wars in Israel-Palestine during that period were direct consequences of American and Soviet economic and political engagement. Two Empires playing chess on a map of the world. The question is, of Heaven and Hell (as Milton presents them), which does the United States most resemble, and which the Soviet Union? Perhaps I will take up that question in a future blog entry, after I finish reading the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)