Monday, June 16, 2008
Excitement
I've had far too many cigarettes than is healthy to have in a day, nevertheless an hour, so apologies if this entry doesn't make much sense to you (or, in all likelyhood, me tomorrow morning). My head's spinning though. It's great. Try it.
Tonight during my routine (or not?) walk & smoke around my neighborhood, I was thinking about a lot of things, and smoking a lot of cigarettes, which made me think about more things (things that may or may not make any sense to a sane person). It was all a little random, until I finally made it back to my house. I was all ready to climb down my windowsill and crawl back into my room for the night, but I just didn't. Instead, I sat at the top of the windowsill and just looked around my dimly lit neighborhood, listening to the traffic off in the distance (which I love) and the quiet thumping of the neighborhood wildlife prancing around.
I sat there for quite a while. I kept looking down into my room, but I didn't crawl on down for the longest time. A practical voice in my head kept reminding me that it would be smart to go and get some sleep, which I'm not getting enough of, but I just didn't want to go down.
I'm not quite sure why, but I think it's just another indication that I resent being in my house. That's why I've started taking these walks at night (walks I seem to be blogging about a great deal); that's why I've started smoking; that's why I spend as little time as possible around my parents and sister. I'm just too old to be living in the same house as the family I grew up in.
It's true that I'm going to college in August, and that's the blessing of all blessings, but I'll still have to come back here for weeks a time throughout the year, and for months at a time during the summer. It isn't completely that my family and I don't get along and they make me resent being here, though that's all true. It's more that, quite frankly, I'm bored of the life I have here now. It's a life I've lived too long, and I'm ready to move on to something else. This sounds cheesy, but the life I have here is kind of the life of a child, and I need to not live that life anymore. I need a chance to be crazy, to be young, and that just isn't happening enough here. Sure, my friends and I get drunk (etc...) a fair amount, and I have fun with my girlfriend or in my free time, but there isn't enough madness in it all.
Basically, I can't fucking wait for college. It promises madness by the truckloads. It promises the thing I think that's lacking most in my current situation, my current rut: excitement.
Chice
Tonight during my routine (or not?) walk & smoke around my neighborhood, I was thinking about a lot of things, and smoking a lot of cigarettes, which made me think about more things (things that may or may not make any sense to a sane person). It was all a little random, until I finally made it back to my house. I was all ready to climb down my windowsill and crawl back into my room for the night, but I just didn't. Instead, I sat at the top of the windowsill and just looked around my dimly lit neighborhood, listening to the traffic off in the distance (which I love) and the quiet thumping of the neighborhood wildlife prancing around.
I sat there for quite a while. I kept looking down into my room, but I didn't crawl on down for the longest time. A practical voice in my head kept reminding me that it would be smart to go and get some sleep, which I'm not getting enough of, but I just didn't want to go down.
I'm not quite sure why, but I think it's just another indication that I resent being in my house. That's why I've started taking these walks at night (walks I seem to be blogging about a great deal); that's why I've started smoking; that's why I spend as little time as possible around my parents and sister. I'm just too old to be living in the same house as the family I grew up in.
It's true that I'm going to college in August, and that's the blessing of all blessings, but I'll still have to come back here for weeks a time throughout the year, and for months at a time during the summer. It isn't completely that my family and I don't get along and they make me resent being here, though that's all true. It's more that, quite frankly, I'm bored of the life I have here now. It's a life I've lived too long, and I'm ready to move on to something else. This sounds cheesy, but the life I have here is kind of the life of a child, and I need to not live that life anymore. I need a chance to be crazy, to be young, and that just isn't happening enough here. Sure, my friends and I get drunk (etc...) a fair amount, and I have fun with my girlfriend or in my free time, but there isn't enough madness in it all.
Basically, I can't fucking wait for college. It promises madness by the truckloads. It promises the thing I think that's lacking most in my current situation, my current rut: excitement.
Chice
Friday, June 13, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
No Laptop!?
So the year has ended; graduation has come and gone, and with it so has my school laptop, which I've had for the last two years. I wouldn't have thought this was a big deal, but turns out a lot of my life was on that laptop. Is this sad?
Two and a half years ago, when it was announced that every student would be required to use a school laptop, everyone freaked. Everyone thought it was a really fucking dumb idea, and we reluctantly took them at the beginning of our junior year. But two years with them have passed, and they've become a pretty intricate part of our lives. I check all my (four!) email accounts from the same application on mine; I visit all my favorite sites daily (which I can easily do because they're all bookmarked at the top of my web browser); and I keep various lists and word documents going on that computer continuously as things occur to me-very convenient (supreme court cases, or thoughts on my next show). It was all fucking great, and now I'm strangely lost without any of this convenience. I don't remember to check up on what the Court is doing, or see if anyone's emailed me, or update my blog (the most tragic of them all!). It's an oddly disorienting experience is what I'm saying I guess.
But is it also a liberating one? Over the past year, there have been only a couple of occasions when I've been completely deprived of electricity. The first time that comes to mind was a stormy day last July when the power went out in my house for a 24 hour period. I didn't have any electronics to entertain me, and most of my friends were out of town for the weekend. So what did I do? I curled up on the couch for hours and hours, reading a new book with a headlight that runs on batteries. It was an amazingly liberating experience for me-I hadn't had that much fun in ages. It was intellectually stimulating, and throughly enjoyable.
The other time that comes to mind took place last March when I was flying to New York to see some relatives and look at a few colleges. My dad and I were to take two flights: one from MN to Indianapolis, then one to New York. The layover in Indianapolis was supposed to last only two hours, but horrible weather (ah, a motif!) kept delaying our plane for an hour or two, and we ended up boarding our plane in the early hours of the morning, having been at the airport for almost twelve hours! Everyone that heard that story felt really bad for us, telling us that it must have been horrible being cramped in that airport for so long, but truth be told I had a blast. I didn't have my laptop with me, and my ipod was dead, so I did the same thing that I did during that storm in July-I read for hours and hours. This was also amazing and liberating. Being yanked out of my routine like that was a refreshing thing.
This all isn't a way of saying that I should read more, though I should and I'm trying to. That did seem to be a theme in those two stories, but the real theme was a lack of electronics. Without a computer, a tv or an ipod to mindlessly escape into, I had to resort to other things to entertain myself, and I enjoyed every second of it. That felt like real living, not the hours I spend playing xbox or WoW on my computer. I read a lot, talked to the people around me in great depth, and just thought endlessly. These last couple of days have been interesting in a similar way. It's a thought is all: what role do electronics really play in our lives? Is technology an improvement, or is it erosion? I'm beginning to suspect the latter.
I don't know though. It's a thought, is all.
Chice
Two and a half years ago, when it was announced that every student would be required to use a school laptop, everyone freaked. Everyone thought it was a really fucking dumb idea, and we reluctantly took them at the beginning of our junior year. But two years with them have passed, and they've become a pretty intricate part of our lives. I check all my (four!) email accounts from the same application on mine; I visit all my favorite sites daily (which I can easily do because they're all bookmarked at the top of my web browser); and I keep various lists and word documents going on that computer continuously as things occur to me-very convenient (supreme court cases, or thoughts on my next show). It was all fucking great, and now I'm strangely lost without any of this convenience. I don't remember to check up on what the Court is doing, or see if anyone's emailed me, or update my blog (the most tragic of them all!). It's an oddly disorienting experience is what I'm saying I guess.
But is it also a liberating one? Over the past year, there have been only a couple of occasions when I've been completely deprived of electricity. The first time that comes to mind was a stormy day last July when the power went out in my house for a 24 hour period. I didn't have any electronics to entertain me, and most of my friends were out of town for the weekend. So what did I do? I curled up on the couch for hours and hours, reading a new book with a headlight that runs on batteries. It was an amazingly liberating experience for me-I hadn't had that much fun in ages. It was intellectually stimulating, and throughly enjoyable.
The other time that comes to mind took place last March when I was flying to New York to see some relatives and look at a few colleges. My dad and I were to take two flights: one from MN to Indianapolis, then one to New York. The layover in Indianapolis was supposed to last only two hours, but horrible weather (ah, a motif!) kept delaying our plane for an hour or two, and we ended up boarding our plane in the early hours of the morning, having been at the airport for almost twelve hours! Everyone that heard that story felt really bad for us, telling us that it must have been horrible being cramped in that airport for so long, but truth be told I had a blast. I didn't have my laptop with me, and my ipod was dead, so I did the same thing that I did during that storm in July-I read for hours and hours. This was also amazing and liberating. Being yanked out of my routine like that was a refreshing thing.
This all isn't a way of saying that I should read more, though I should and I'm trying to. That did seem to be a theme in those two stories, but the real theme was a lack of electronics. Without a computer, a tv or an ipod to mindlessly escape into, I had to resort to other things to entertain myself, and I enjoyed every second of it. That felt like real living, not the hours I spend playing xbox or WoW on my computer. I read a lot, talked to the people around me in great depth, and just thought endlessly. These last couple of days have been interesting in a similar way. It's a thought is all: what role do electronics really play in our lives? Is technology an improvement, or is it erosion? I'm beginning to suspect the latter.
I don't know though. It's a thought, is all.
Chice
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Emancipation & Obama
I was reading the other day about a small period in 1790 when Congress (for the only official time, I think) had a few days of debate over slavery. Northern delegates argued that the institution of slavery was absolutely incompatible with the principles of the newly secured American Revolution, while Southern delegates argued that slavery was so woven into the fabric of American life that discussions of emancipation were irresponsible and unfair-they had only joined the union on the understanding that they would be allowed to keep their slaves.
But here's the thing: people who argued for emancipation never envisioned a biracial society. The newly freed slaves would be deported to either the relatively unexplored American West, or back to Africa. Any suggestion of any sort of integration into White culture would have been laughed out of the room. It would never have even come to a vote.
And now, a black man is the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States. Fuck that's fantastic.
Chice
But here's the thing: people who argued for emancipation never envisioned a biracial society. The newly freed slaves would be deported to either the relatively unexplored American West, or back to Africa. Any suggestion of any sort of integration into White culture would have been laughed out of the room. It would never have even come to a vote.
And now, a black man is the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States. Fuck that's fantastic.
Chice
Monday, June 9, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Peep Show
One of the funniest things I've ever seen. A British comedy. Here's the pilot episode:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Chice
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Chice
Monday, June 2, 2008
Cuellar v. United States
...came down this morning. Now, more than half of the cases on my list have been decided. Two of out three of this term's most controversial cases have yet to come down though, and those are Boumediene v. Bush (the Gitmo case) and DC v. Heller (the gun case). Good shit!
Chice
Chice
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Say "Stoic"
Look at these portraits of our Founding Fathers.
George Washington:
John Adams:
Thomas Jefferson:
James Madison:
Alexander Hamilton:
Ben Franklin:
(Okay fine) Aaron Burr:
Now look back at John Adams.
Notice anything different/special about his portrait? These men knew they were making history while they were alive, and pretty early on got ready for history to look back at them. They knew what they were doing. They knew we'd know them, and they wanted us to look kindly not only at them but on their cause, and their view of what the American Revolution really meant. They kept records of what they did. They kept all correspondences (and were often writing to us just as much as they were writing to each other). They also posed often for portraits. John Adams stands out in this area, because he could never stand to hold the same pose for very long at all. Everyone else has the same stoic, noble, courageous look on their face, but Adams looks hilarious, not being able to sit still (with that absurd expression) for a very long time at all. What a funny guy.
I know. I'm a geek.
Chice
George Washington:
John Adams:
Thomas Jefferson:
James Madison:
Alexander Hamilton:
Ben Franklin:
(Okay fine) Aaron Burr:
Now look back at John Adams.
Notice anything different/special about his portrait? These men knew they were making history while they were alive, and pretty early on got ready for history to look back at them. They knew what they were doing. They knew we'd know them, and they wanted us to look kindly not only at them but on their cause, and their view of what the American Revolution really meant. They kept records of what they did. They kept all correspondences (and were often writing to us just as much as they were writing to each other). They also posed often for portraits. John Adams stands out in this area, because he could never stand to hold the same pose for very long at all. Everyone else has the same stoic, noble, courageous look on their face, but Adams looks hilarious, not being able to sit still (with that absurd expression) for a very long time at all. What a funny guy.
I know. I'm a geek.
Chice
Sunday, May 25, 2008
3 Cases! Christmas Come Early!
Three huge cases came down last Monday at the Court, but I was so busy with the show that I didn't even post anything about them. I wonder if I'll get a chance to read them anytime soon...
Anyway, here's an updated list for the 20 best cases this term, with the new cases in bold. One of them is a major speech case (United States v. Williams) involving Child Pornography. Gruesome, but really interesting. Check that shit out!
Argued
3. Boumediene v. Bush
5. Cuellar v. United States
6. Davis v. Federal Election Commission
7. District of Columbia v. Heller
8. Giles v. California
9. Indiana v. Edwards
10. Kennedy v. Louisiana
13. Munaf v. Geren
15. Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle
19. Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party
Decided
1. Baze v. Rees
2. Begay v. United States
4. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
11. Kimbrough v. United States
12. Medellin v. Texas
14. New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres
16. United States v. Ressam
17. United States v. Rodriquez
18. United States v. Williams
20. Watson v. United States
Anyway, here's an updated list for the 20 best cases this term, with the new cases in bold. One of them is a major speech case (United States v. Williams) involving Child Pornography. Gruesome, but really interesting. Check that shit out!
Argued
3. Boumediene v. Bush
5. Cuellar v. United States
6. Davis v. Federal Election Commission
7. District of Columbia v. Heller
8. Giles v. California
9. Indiana v. Edwards
10. Kennedy v. Louisiana
13. Munaf v. Geren
15. Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle
19. Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party
Decided
1. Baze v. Rees
2. Begay v. United States
4. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
11. Kimbrough v. United States
12. Medellin v. Texas
14. New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres
16. United States v. Ressam
17. United States v. Rodriquez
18. United States v. Williams
20. Watson v. United States
Review: American Sphinx
I've recently finished a biography of Thomas Jefferson called American Sphinx, by the excellent Joseph J. Ellis. If I had some sort of strange rating system, it would most definitely get a perfect score. It's accessible, interesting, and I couldn't recommend it more. Be a cool cat and buy this!
Chice
Chice
What A Coincidence
I've always regarded strange coincidences as just that: strange coincidences. There are those who see freak coincidences and see great and fantastic things. Sometimes religious. Sometimes supernatural. They can't explain why a god (or a something?) would make such a thing happen (the classic line that drives me nuts, "God works in mysterious ways"), but they do say something along the lines of "no coincidence could be that big".
Is it true? Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were both on the committee in the Continental Congress in '75/'76 that was given the responsibility of writing the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wrote it alone (Despite what Adams later tried to claim), but both of these men were involved, and both of these men died on July 4, 1826-the 50th anniversary of the country's "birthday"! If there were ever a huge fucking coincidence in history, it would have to be this one. I ask you, can that be just a coincidence? Even I'm inclined to say no, and I have no patience for that argument. It's too bizarre! Too perfect!
Chice
Is it true? Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were both on the committee in the Continental Congress in '75/'76 that was given the responsibility of writing the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wrote it alone (Despite what Adams later tried to claim), but both of these men were involved, and both of these men died on July 4, 1826-the 50th anniversary of the country's "birthday"! If there were ever a huge fucking coincidence in history, it would have to be this one. I ask you, can that be just a coincidence? Even I'm inclined to say no, and I have no patience for that argument. It's too bizarre! Too perfect!
Chice
More Funny DS
The Daily Show was off this week, so here are a funny videos I left out last week that will make you smile...
Indecision 2008-West Virginia:
Golf War:
Some Like It Cool:
Chice
Indecision 2008-West Virginia:
Golf War:
Some Like It Cool:
Chice
Thanks, All!
Thank you to everyone who made it to Jonathan's Box over the last week. I couldn't be happier with how everything went. Thanks to all for all the support and nice thoughts throughout the whole process, and over this last week.
Chice
Chice
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Opening Night!
Sorry it's been a few days. I've been crazy busy with tech week for my show.
Which opens TODAY! Tonight at 7:30 at Breck, if you can make it down. There are two shows only and you'll want to come to both of them, so be a cool cat and show up tonight...
Chice
Which opens TODAY! Tonight at 7:30 at Breck, if you can make it down. There are two shows only and you'll want to come to both of them, so be a cool cat and show up tonight...
Chice
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Plug #1: Jonathan's Box
This will be the first of what I'm sure will be several plugs I'll slip in this week for my show this coming Friday. It's called Jonathan's Box, and it's my first play. I'm really proud of it, and god willing it will go well. So be a cool cat and come and see it!
There's a little issue with dates: there will for sure be two shows, one of which will be on Friday, the 23rd. The other will either be on Saturday the 24th (where I'd like it to be) or Thursday the 22nd (if I can't swing Saturday).
Go!
Chice
There's a little issue with dates: there will for sure be two shows, one of which will be on Friday, the 23rd. The other will either be on Saturday the 24th (where I'd like it to be) or Thursday the 22nd (if I can't swing Saturday).
Go!
Chice
Friday, May 16, 2008
DS: Jenna Bush, Scalia, & The Gas Crisis
The Wedding of Jenna Bush:
Headlines-Mind of Scalia:
Crisis in Covering The Gas Crisis:
Chice
Headlines-Mind of Scalia:
Crisis in Covering The Gas Crisis:
Chice
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Confirmed: Singing Detective
More like Singing Awesome! I just finished it. It's tight. Check it out.
And any word on John Adams? I'm too lazy to look anything up myself.
Chice
And any word on John Adams? I'm too lazy to look anything up myself.
Chice
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The Singing Detective
I'm only about halfway through the series, but I really like it. My aunt showed it to me, and it's tight. It's a six part BBC miniseries, and it's been praised by a couple different experts as one of the greatest things to ever be on Television. I'm excited to keep watching...
On a slightly different note, does anyone know when the HBO series on John Adams is due to be released? I've heard nothing but great things, and it looks really tight. I'd LOVE to watch that this summer.
Chice
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
So Far This Year
I have this strange tendency to documents things as they happen every year. I've been doing it for years with music (Best of 200? at the end of every year), and I've been tempted to do it with film before, though the money/time that would require made me change my mind. I'm also going to start doing it with Court cases though, and I've already written a list of what I think will be the 20 best cases for the 2007-2008 term. Here's the list:
Argued:
Boumediene v. Bush
Cuellar v. United States
Davis v. Federal Election Commission
District of Colombia v. Heller
Giles v. California
Indiana v. Edwards
Kennedy v. Louisiana
Munaf v. Geren
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle
United States v. Ressam
United States v. Rodriquez
United States v. Williams
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party
Decided:
Baze v. Rees (ScotusBlog, Wiki, Opinion)
Begay v. United States
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
Kimbrough v. United States
Medellin v. Texas
New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres
Watson v. United States
As you can see, most of these cases have yet to come down. It's already mid May-they have a lot of work to do. It wouldn't surprise me if a ton came down all of a sudden soon. As they do, I'll of course post about them, and as for the ones I've missed already, I'll maybe take care of that this summer. Good stuff!
Chice
Argued:
Boumediene v. Bush
Cuellar v. United States
Davis v. Federal Election Commission
District of Colombia v. Heller
Giles v. California
Indiana v. Edwards
Kennedy v. Louisiana
Munaf v. Geren
Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle
United States v. Ressam
United States v. Rodriquez
United States v. Williams
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party
Decided:
Baze v. Rees (ScotusBlog, Wiki, Opinion)
Begay v. United States
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
Kimbrough v. United States
Medellin v. Texas
New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres
Watson v. United States
As you can see, most of these cases have yet to come down. It's already mid May-they have a lot of work to do. It wouldn't surprise me if a ton came down all of a sudden soon. As they do, I'll of course post about them, and as for the ones I've missed already, I'll maybe take care of that this summer. Good stuff!
Chice
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Thomas Jefferson: BAMF
Did you know that Thomas Jefferson wrote 100% of his first (and I think second) inaugural address? This speech is also one of the finest ever given in our country's history. This is maybe my favorite political quote ever, and it's from this address:
If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it.
Can you imagine a modern politician writing large portions (or god-forbid the majority) of a major speech? An inaugural address, or a State of the Union? (Jefferson also wrote every State of the Union, except he discontinued the tradition established by Washington & Adams of speaking to congress at the beginning of every year, preferring instead to submit a written report to congress. Very Jefferson.)
Jefferson also of course wrote the original draft of (so most of) the Declaration of Independence. This excerpt is probably the most famous writing in American history:
We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these are life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Thomas Jefferson. What a BAMF.
Chice
Friday, May 9, 2008
DS: Rustbelt Fuckfest, Indiana Primary Sniping, & Hilary's Americans
My favorite Daily Show segments this week...
Rustbelt Fuckfest (5/6):
Indiana Primary Sniping (5/7):
Riggle: Hilary's Americans (5/8):
Has anyone else noticed how emphatically Pro-Obama, Anti-Clinton the Daily Show is? It's becoming more and more obvious.
Chice
Rustbelt Fuckfest (5/6):
Indiana Primary Sniping (5/7):
Riggle: Hilary's Americans (5/8):
Has anyone else noticed how emphatically Pro-Obama, Anti-Clinton the Daily Show is? It's becoming more and more obvious.
Chice
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
Sunday, May 4, 2008
America's Great Mystery
First, watch Oliver Stone's film about the Kennedy assassination, JFK. Then read this:
Human beings love a good mystery. Something about us is hopelessly drawn toward the unexplained, the suspicious, and the dramatic. This helps explain our endless fascination with the assassination of our 35th president, John F. Kennedy. Talk about a good mystery. This fateful event on November 22, 1963, has all the trappings of a good, unsolved mystery. But is it really unsolved? Oliver Stone would say so, and he does in his 1991 film, JFK. Stone attempts to disprove the Warren Commission’s findings that President Kennedy was killed by a lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, by implicating several agencies and branches of the federal government (among others) in the conspiracy that killed our president. It’s certainly an exciting story. It’s also all wrong.
The film JFK begins with President Eisenhower’s farewell address, warning Americans against the dangers of the Military-Industrial complex. It then shows us a few seconds of an interview of President Kennedy, in which he says (of the Vietnamese), “In the end, it’s their war to fight, not ours”. These words establish the political backdrop of the entire film (and the motives behind Kennedy’s assassination): the notion that Kennedy was killed because he was going to end the Vietnam War in his second term. This is most certainly false.
First of all, if one could see just a few more seconds of the very clip Stone shows us at the beginning of the film, one would hear Kennedy rule out any chance of withdrawal in the near future. Stone’s entire portrayal of JFK’s politics is interesting, but not very on the mark. In the film, he’s a noble progressive that was “soft on Communism” and popular, a bad enough combination that the Federal Government had him killed. In reality, Kennedy was a cold warrior who firmly believed in the Domino Theory and had no intention of pulling out of Vietnam completely in his second term. He told Walter Cronkite in September 1963, “I don’t agree with those who say we should withdraw”, later adding, “We are not there to see a war lost.” Kennedy “felt that he had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam, and that we should win the war.” His brother Bobby (who knew him better than anyone) backed this up on several occasions too. When he was asked if his brother ever thought about pulling out, he simply replied, “no.”
President Kennedy was actually conservative in several ways, which is contrary to Stone’s imagine of Kennedy. Examine his voting record as a congressman (or his appointing of Segregationalist Southerners as Federal judges) indicates. President Kennedy didn’t have the intentions that Stone claims got him killed by his own government.
Most of this theory (this movie-truth) is disclosed to Garrison in the film by the mysterious Black-Ops agent, “X”. This meeting in Washington never occurred, and this person never existed. He is loosely based off of former Air Force colonel Fletcher Prouty, who was the director of special operations at the Pentagon in the early 1960’s. However, this man is a prominent conspiracy theorist to this day, and is unable to produce any evidence to back up any of his claims.
Nevertheless, in the film, “X” implicates several departments and branches of the Federal Government in the conspiracy to kill the president, including the CIA, FBI, the Dallas constabulary, all three armed services, Big Business, and the White House itself!
No evidence is needed to refute these claims, just simple common sense. It’s hard to get a room full of people working in the government to agree on almost anything. This film suggests not only that all these government agencies were perfectly coordinated in their carrying out of an assassination (another laugh), but that everybody was completely on board. Not a single person got cold feet? Not a single person came forward? Not a single person didn’t think it was perfectly reasonable to kill the commander in chief?
Examine, for a moment, a well-known, actual government conspiracy: Watergate. This conspiracy, the bugging of the offices of the Democratic National Convention, involved far fewer men (not the dozens/hundreds of men that knew across the government according to Stone, but rather President Nixon’s “plumbers”) and much lower stakes (partisan political purposes, not the taking of a life). Yet this smaller, more tightly-wound conspiracy had leaks all over the place. John Dean wrote a letter to Judge Sirica before his sentencing, telling him everything in an attempt to get out of doing time. Alexander Butterfield blurted to the FBI the existence of the taping system in the Oval Office. And what about Bernstein’s contact in the FBI, “Deep Throat”. These are just a few examples of the many holes Nixon’s Watergate conspiracy had, when the number of men involved was much less than Stone alleges and the stakes were much lower than murdering the President of the United States. In fact, these guys were on the side of the President of the United States! Yet Stone expects us to believe that no one cracked at the time. No one thought it was a bad idea, and no one got scarred and backed out. Everything went perfectly.
Also, if no one talked at the time of the assassination, someone most certainly would have by now. We can once again examine the Watergate conspiracy here. One of the few remaining mysteries in the 21st century surrounding the entire chain of events was the identity of Bernstein’s FBI informant, “Deep Throat”. But he came forward in 200(6?), cashing in on the story to support his family. With a controversy as wide-spread and popular as the assassination of President Kennedy (especially after its comeback with Stone’s film), it’s unrealistic to believe that not a single person came forward with evidence of a conspiracy, were Stone right. Someone wouldn’t have been able to resist the temptation to become an instant millionaire by telling their story. The temptation to case in would have been too great.
A good way to tell when someone doesn’t really care about the truth is when they change their story/reasoning to come to the same conclusion. The friend who comes up with different political arguments everyday to prove their party’s righteousness. The judge who comes up with different legal reasoning to reach the same conclusion no matter what the legal retorts. In this case, the D.A. who changes almost everything about a conspiracy theory to prove there is one, in light of varying evidence to the contrary. Every time Garrison encountered a road block in his pursuit of “the truth”, he simply would find another route toward his intended destination (conspiracy).
Stone is once again off the mark in this area. Movie Garrison’s motives are pure. He’s a noble, American patriot after the truth of a “secret murder at the heart of the American dream.” The film shows us the result of Garrison’s search, a single conclusion. Real life Garrison’s conclusions shifted and mutated throughout the years. Originally in March of 1967, Garrison called the assassination a “homosexual thrill killing.” He told the American people to “look at the people involved. David Ferrie, homosexual. Clay Shaw, homosexual. Jack Ruby, homosexual. And then there’s Oswald…a switch-hitter who couldn’t satisfy his wife.” This theory evolved though, as the scope of conspirators widened to include anti-Castro forces, the CIA, and even the Nazis. Stone’s portrayal of Garrison’s theory included three assassins set up at various locations to ensure the president’s death. Garrison’s actual (eventual) theory proved to be too crazy for Stone, and included sixteen sharpshooters at five different locations! There’s no evidence of any of this, which is most certainly the reason for Garrison’s mutating theory.
Garrison never discredited the Zapruder film itself, calling it (in Stone’s film) “the evidence the government never counted on”. However, everything that’s recently been discovered from the footage has backed up even more what the Warren Commission found, and so modern Conspiracy theorists now implicate the film itself in the conspiracy! More than enough evidence that these people care not about the truth, but about their truth. Any and all evidence backing up the other side is just part of a cover up as far as they’re concerned.
So what of the actual event itself, the assassination. Plenty of people were there that fateful day in November. Some were there to see the president drive by. Some were in the area to buy the Beatles second album. But a lot of people saw a lot of things in the confusion, none of which can be considered evidence. People, after all, aren’t their most rational, reasonable, or perceptive in times of panic and crises, and this was certainly that for everyone present (the same was true for those leaving Fort William Henry when the massacre occurred).
Stone’s film exhibits several eye-witnesses that saw a lot of suspicious things during the assassination (men running away from their supposed locations during the shooting, homeless people who didn’t look homeless at all). These are all actual eye witnesses, but what they witnessed (or more accurately, what they say they witnessed) must be doubted not only because of the madness of the moment, but the obvious motivation one would have to be a witness to such a conspiracy (the attention one would get). A look at the body of people who did come forward would turn up some characters, like a man wearing a toga and sandals, claiming to be Julius Caesar.
Stone’s film also ignores all the eye witnesses who back up the findings of the Warren Commission, such as the people on the fifth floor of the Book Depository who heard shells his the ceiling during the assassination (right where Oswald is alleged to have been). People (in the calm of the moment the morning of the assassination) also saw Oswald enter the building with a large container, which clearly concealed a rifle. During the mayhem, people also saw a man with a rifle in the very place Oswald is alleged to have been, such as others saw men on the grassy knoll. Neither is evidence, but the film makes a huge fuss out of some of these eye witnesses and ignores entirely others.
According to the film, the assassination lasted under six seconds, and therefore one man couldn’t possibly have gotten three rounds out. That’s a very deliberate way of measuring the time though, as the Warren Commission found the assassination to take over eight seconds, giving Oswald more than enough time to get all three shots in.
The most controversial finding of the Warren Commission is undoubtedly the “Magic Bullet” theory. Stone’s film shows us in detail what this theory consists of, as Garrison traces (for the jury, and the audience) the ridiculous route the bullet would had to have taken, if you believe the Warren Commission. But this isn’t an accurate representation of the Warren Commission’s findings at all. The actual theory is less far-fetched. Furthermore, scientists have subsequently proven that it’s possible that Kennedy and Connally were positioned in such a way so that a single bullet could have done everything the Warren Commission claims it did.
The bullets found at the scene were all fired from the same rifle, the rifle that Oswald is believed to have fired. Overwhelming ballistic evidence confirms this, despite what the film would have you believe.
The trial sequence of the film also greatly emphasizes the direction Kennedy’s head moved when hit by the fatal shot: back and to the left (back and to the left, back and to the left, back…). According to movie Garrison, this proves the shot came from the front somewhere. But if you actually watch the Zapruder film, the head doesn’t go fully back at all. In fact, frame 313 clearly shows us that some brain matter flew forward, suggesting the shooter was behind Kennedy.
The film also argues that Jack Ruby was the conspirator’s hitman who was given the task of taking care of their “patsy” Oswald, tying off any loose ends. A couple aspects of Oswald’s murder (that Stone chooses not to show us) make this very unlikely. Firstly, there’s postal inspector Harry Holmes surprise interrogation of Oswald. He was going to church with his family on the Sunday after Kennedy’s assassination, but at the last second decided to head over to the police station to help with the investigation. He was allowed by his polices buddies to ask Oswald any questions he had, and this delayed Oswald’s transfer for thirty minutes. During this extra thirty minute period, Ruby was at Western Union, as a time stamp on a money order indicates. Had Holmes just gone to church on that Sunday instead of deciding at the last minute to help out his friends with the investigation, then the transfer would have happened half an hour earlier and Ruby would have missed all of it (as he was at the bank). If Ruby was the hitman put in charge of murdering Oswald, then he most certainly would have been down at the station half an hour earlier when Oswald was supposed to be transferred.
Jack Ruby was also a bit out of touch himself. Earl Warren (among others) was convinced of his insanity. He gave various reasons, like protecting Jackie Kennedy from going through a trial. Ruby had mental health issues for a while, and was reported to have seen demons in his jail cell.
Another major source of controversy is Kennedy’s corpse and the autopsy. Stone’s film shows us that the body was quickly moved out of Dallas (against the wishes of local law enforcement) to a more secure location, where a more controlled autopsy could be conducted. This is true, except the film includes the obvious implication that the body was transfered so the government could tamper with the evidence. The reality of the transfer lies with the Kennedy family’s insistence that it take place, so they could better control the findings of the autopsy and preserve certain family secrets (like the various health problems JFK had that were kept secret).
The film asserts that the entire autopsy was really conducted by the military, who rushed the neutral doctors through the proceedings to avoid any unpleasant findings. There’s no evidence of this. Actually, former President Ford tells us that nineteen out of twenty doctors put in charge of the autopsy concluded that all the bullet wounds came from behind. The twentieth doctor asserts that a fourth shot hit Kennedy’s head and disintegrated, leaving no evidence behind whatsoever. This twentieth doctor was consulted regularly for the film, and none of the other nineteen.
It’s conspicuous that several crucial pieces of evidence from the autopsy have gone missing or have been destroyed, as the film is quick to point out. It is true that some notes are missing, as well as Kennedy’s brain. There’s still no evidence this was part of any conspiracy; it was just a confusing and rushed procedure.
Garrison also asks us during the trial (in the film) why the photographs from the autopsy haven’t been released, suggesting they’d tell us something the government doesn’t want us to know. Earl Warren’s explanation though is perfectly reasonable and fitting with the time. He talked about how sick and disturbing the photographs were to him. He said “they were so horrible that I could not sleep well for nights.” This is also the reason the Zapruder film was released decades after the assassination: it was believed to be too gruesome for the public to see at the time. The general thought was, why would any healthy person want to see such a thing? They wouldn’t, Earl Warren (and others) believed.
Stone’s film frames the Warren Commission as part of the conspiracy, the government’s attempt to convince the public they’d investigated the assassination. Earl Warren himself laughed at this idea, saying (something along the lines of) “The crazy notion that Gerald Ford and I could agree on anything should disprove any conspiracy theory out there.” This is very true: these were two very different men who disagreed on just about everything. It’s very unlikely they could have been in on anything together.
Earl Warren was also outspoken about the accuracy and reliability of the Commission’s findings. He went to his grave convinced that history would look at their conclusions kindly.
Let us look for a moment at a couple main characters in this whole controversy. Stone’s film portrays Lee Harvey Oswald as what he claimed he was, a “patsy”. But an actual look at his psychological record indicates that he was a very mentally unbalanced man who had even tried to shoot someone before that day in November. The movie Garrison also talks about how terrible a shot Oswald was. Simply not true: Oswald won awards in the military for his sharpshooting.
The film’s portrayal of Jim Garrison is also incredibly misleading. Kevin Costner’s plays Jim Garrison as a noble, patriotic, American hero who will let nothing stop him in his pursuit of the truth. He’s an inspiring and relatable man who we all aspire to be, and his motives and methods are always pure and above question. This portrayal ignores the many allegations in real life against Garrison of bullying witnesses or suppressing polygraphs. He also (as is discussed above) changed his story quite a bit. He was a pretty strange man, and had little in common with the movie Garrison.
Here’s the bottom line: no evidence has ever been able to disprove any of the Warren Commission’s findings, despite what Oliver Stone’s film asserts again and again (always incorrectly). Stone, in his film, does exactly what former President Ford calls it in his Washington Post piece: he “cover[s] up the overwhelming weight of the evidence and instead paste[s] together scraps of testimony to form a case for conspiracy in an attempt to cover up the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.”
All of that said, JFK is a phenomenally well-done movie in it’s design, execution, and performance. Stone’s exceptional weaving of real and fake footage takes everyone along for the ride, and an enticing ride it is. None of it’s true, but it is a convincing, entertaining, and well made film. The only times the movie fails in its mood or feel are when Stone is forced to reconcile with the historical record. The finest example of this is the trial sequence, the best-made and most convincing scene of the film. Garrison’s closing statement is so convincing that there is little doubt in the (uninformed, anyway) viewer’s mind that the Warren Commission’s explanation is a little fishy. The viewer is then surprised to hear a verdict of “not guilty” for Shaw (which in realty took them only forty-five minutes to come up with). Had Garrison’s case really been that strong, or Shaw’s case really that weak (or non-existence, as it was in the film), the jury would have surely sided with Garrison. These are the only moments when the mood or feel of the film is interrupted, and the viewer is puzzled.
At its core, JFK is a great story, a story that America wanted to hear. It’s the story of an honest man who couldn’t be stopped in his heroic pursuit of the truth, despite the tragic personal consequences of such a pursuit. It’s a classic tale of one noble man against a lying, corrupt, sinister government trying to control the people (no matter the cost) and cover everything up. It’s a conspiracy story, where a generally accepted explanation about one of the most infamous events in the 20th century is given a dramatic and juicy twist. Lastly, it’s an explanation for the unexplainable: how did President Kennedy get shot that many times by one man? How did one bullet travel to so many places, ending up relatively unharmed? The Warren Commission’s rationale leaves some things unexplained. This movie explains them.
Oliver Stone’s JFK is a great story for all of these reasons, but life isn’t always a great story. Sometimes life isn’t good verses evil. Sometimes life isn’t completely explainable. Sometimes things just happen, horrible things, and we’ll never know the complete truth behind them. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy is such an event.
The public’s frenzied reaction to Oliver Stone’s film reveals something profound about human nature. By explaining the unexplainable, by attempting to tie together all the loose ends surrounding the President’s assassination (and in an entertaining and enticing way), JFK satisfied something in the American public that the Warren commission never did. JFK explained the unexplainable; it rationalized the absurd, and people ate it up. This reveals an eager willingness in human beings to accept what they want to believe as truth, the notion that willing something to be true will make it so. One could argue that this willingness dominates many if not most aspects of human interaction and behavior. JFK shows us this about ourselves: human beings love mystery. The only thing they love more is the solution to such a mystery, and this film offers hope that such a perfect explanation can one day be found. The film ends with these words:
Dedicated To The Young
In Whose Spirit The Search For Truth
Marches On
JFK really is a film of hope. Hope that the people of this country will always care more about justice and about truth than they do about power and greed, and that some great men will have the courage and the audacity to pursue such justice, such truth, and such virtue, no matter what the cost. Of course people also want to believe this. What person doesn’t want to believe this? JFK, if nothing else, is a reassurance that good, in the end, will triumph over evil, that truth will triumph over deception, and that integrity will triumph over corruption. People like to be reassured, and were persuaded by this film to pursue the truth. In a way, then it feels like virtue and integrity are also being pursued, and perhaps they are. JFK is a film of hope, and a great one, but it is to be viewed as fiction, not history.
Chice
Human beings love a good mystery. Something about us is hopelessly drawn toward the unexplained, the suspicious, and the dramatic. This helps explain our endless fascination with the assassination of our 35th president, John F. Kennedy. Talk about a good mystery. This fateful event on November 22, 1963, has all the trappings of a good, unsolved mystery. But is it really unsolved? Oliver Stone would say so, and he does in his 1991 film, JFK. Stone attempts to disprove the Warren Commission’s findings that President Kennedy was killed by a lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, by implicating several agencies and branches of the federal government (among others) in the conspiracy that killed our president. It’s certainly an exciting story. It’s also all wrong.
The film JFK begins with President Eisenhower’s farewell address, warning Americans against the dangers of the Military-Industrial complex. It then shows us a few seconds of an interview of President Kennedy, in which he says (of the Vietnamese), “In the end, it’s their war to fight, not ours”. These words establish the political backdrop of the entire film (and the motives behind Kennedy’s assassination): the notion that Kennedy was killed because he was going to end the Vietnam War in his second term. This is most certainly false.
First of all, if one could see just a few more seconds of the very clip Stone shows us at the beginning of the film, one would hear Kennedy rule out any chance of withdrawal in the near future. Stone’s entire portrayal of JFK’s politics is interesting, but not very on the mark. In the film, he’s a noble progressive that was “soft on Communism” and popular, a bad enough combination that the Federal Government had him killed. In reality, Kennedy was a cold warrior who firmly believed in the Domino Theory and had no intention of pulling out of Vietnam completely in his second term. He told Walter Cronkite in September 1963, “I don’t agree with those who say we should withdraw”, later adding, “We are not there to see a war lost.” Kennedy “felt that he had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam, and that we should win the war.” His brother Bobby (who knew him better than anyone) backed this up on several occasions too. When he was asked if his brother ever thought about pulling out, he simply replied, “no.”
President Kennedy was actually conservative in several ways, which is contrary to Stone’s imagine of Kennedy. Examine his voting record as a congressman (or his appointing of Segregationalist Southerners as Federal judges) indicates. President Kennedy didn’t have the intentions that Stone claims got him killed by his own government.
Most of this theory (this movie-truth) is disclosed to Garrison in the film by the mysterious Black-Ops agent, “X”. This meeting in Washington never occurred, and this person never existed. He is loosely based off of former Air Force colonel Fletcher Prouty, who was the director of special operations at the Pentagon in the early 1960’s. However, this man is a prominent conspiracy theorist to this day, and is unable to produce any evidence to back up any of his claims.
Nevertheless, in the film, “X” implicates several departments and branches of the Federal Government in the conspiracy to kill the president, including the CIA, FBI, the Dallas constabulary, all three armed services, Big Business, and the White House itself!
No evidence is needed to refute these claims, just simple common sense. It’s hard to get a room full of people working in the government to agree on almost anything. This film suggests not only that all these government agencies were perfectly coordinated in their carrying out of an assassination (another laugh), but that everybody was completely on board. Not a single person got cold feet? Not a single person came forward? Not a single person didn’t think it was perfectly reasonable to kill the commander in chief?
Examine, for a moment, a well-known, actual government conspiracy: Watergate. This conspiracy, the bugging of the offices of the Democratic National Convention, involved far fewer men (not the dozens/hundreds of men that knew across the government according to Stone, but rather President Nixon’s “plumbers”) and much lower stakes (partisan political purposes, not the taking of a life). Yet this smaller, more tightly-wound conspiracy had leaks all over the place. John Dean wrote a letter to Judge Sirica before his sentencing, telling him everything in an attempt to get out of doing time. Alexander Butterfield blurted to the FBI the existence of the taping system in the Oval Office. And what about Bernstein’s contact in the FBI, “Deep Throat”. These are just a few examples of the many holes Nixon’s Watergate conspiracy had, when the number of men involved was much less than Stone alleges and the stakes were much lower than murdering the President of the United States. In fact, these guys were on the side of the President of the United States! Yet Stone expects us to believe that no one cracked at the time. No one thought it was a bad idea, and no one got scarred and backed out. Everything went perfectly.
Also, if no one talked at the time of the assassination, someone most certainly would have by now. We can once again examine the Watergate conspiracy here. One of the few remaining mysteries in the 21st century surrounding the entire chain of events was the identity of Bernstein’s FBI informant, “Deep Throat”. But he came forward in 200(6?), cashing in on the story to support his family. With a controversy as wide-spread and popular as the assassination of President Kennedy (especially after its comeback with Stone’s film), it’s unrealistic to believe that not a single person came forward with evidence of a conspiracy, were Stone right. Someone wouldn’t have been able to resist the temptation to become an instant millionaire by telling their story. The temptation to case in would have been too great.
A good way to tell when someone doesn’t really care about the truth is when they change their story/reasoning to come to the same conclusion. The friend who comes up with different political arguments everyday to prove their party’s righteousness. The judge who comes up with different legal reasoning to reach the same conclusion no matter what the legal retorts. In this case, the D.A. who changes almost everything about a conspiracy theory to prove there is one, in light of varying evidence to the contrary. Every time Garrison encountered a road block in his pursuit of “the truth”, he simply would find another route toward his intended destination (conspiracy).
Stone is once again off the mark in this area. Movie Garrison’s motives are pure. He’s a noble, American patriot after the truth of a “secret murder at the heart of the American dream.” The film shows us the result of Garrison’s search, a single conclusion. Real life Garrison’s conclusions shifted and mutated throughout the years. Originally in March of 1967, Garrison called the assassination a “homosexual thrill killing.” He told the American people to “look at the people involved. David Ferrie, homosexual. Clay Shaw, homosexual. Jack Ruby, homosexual. And then there’s Oswald…a switch-hitter who couldn’t satisfy his wife.” This theory evolved though, as the scope of conspirators widened to include anti-Castro forces, the CIA, and even the Nazis. Stone’s portrayal of Garrison’s theory included three assassins set up at various locations to ensure the president’s death. Garrison’s actual (eventual) theory proved to be too crazy for Stone, and included sixteen sharpshooters at five different locations! There’s no evidence of any of this, which is most certainly the reason for Garrison’s mutating theory.
Garrison never discredited the Zapruder film itself, calling it (in Stone’s film) “the evidence the government never counted on”. However, everything that’s recently been discovered from the footage has backed up even more what the Warren Commission found, and so modern Conspiracy theorists now implicate the film itself in the conspiracy! More than enough evidence that these people care not about the truth, but about their truth. Any and all evidence backing up the other side is just part of a cover up as far as they’re concerned.
So what of the actual event itself, the assassination. Plenty of people were there that fateful day in November. Some were there to see the president drive by. Some were in the area to buy the Beatles second album. But a lot of people saw a lot of things in the confusion, none of which can be considered evidence. People, after all, aren’t their most rational, reasonable, or perceptive in times of panic and crises, and this was certainly that for everyone present (the same was true for those leaving Fort William Henry when the massacre occurred).
Stone’s film exhibits several eye-witnesses that saw a lot of suspicious things during the assassination (men running away from their supposed locations during the shooting, homeless people who didn’t look homeless at all). These are all actual eye witnesses, but what they witnessed (or more accurately, what they say they witnessed) must be doubted not only because of the madness of the moment, but the obvious motivation one would have to be a witness to such a conspiracy (the attention one would get). A look at the body of people who did come forward would turn up some characters, like a man wearing a toga and sandals, claiming to be Julius Caesar.
Stone’s film also ignores all the eye witnesses who back up the findings of the Warren Commission, such as the people on the fifth floor of the Book Depository who heard shells his the ceiling during the assassination (right where Oswald is alleged to have been). People (in the calm of the moment the morning of the assassination) also saw Oswald enter the building with a large container, which clearly concealed a rifle. During the mayhem, people also saw a man with a rifle in the very place Oswald is alleged to have been, such as others saw men on the grassy knoll. Neither is evidence, but the film makes a huge fuss out of some of these eye witnesses and ignores entirely others.
According to the film, the assassination lasted under six seconds, and therefore one man couldn’t possibly have gotten three rounds out. That’s a very deliberate way of measuring the time though, as the Warren Commission found the assassination to take over eight seconds, giving Oswald more than enough time to get all three shots in.
The most controversial finding of the Warren Commission is undoubtedly the “Magic Bullet” theory. Stone’s film shows us in detail what this theory consists of, as Garrison traces (for the jury, and the audience) the ridiculous route the bullet would had to have taken, if you believe the Warren Commission. But this isn’t an accurate representation of the Warren Commission’s findings at all. The actual theory is less far-fetched. Furthermore, scientists have subsequently proven that it’s possible that Kennedy and Connally were positioned in such a way so that a single bullet could have done everything the Warren Commission claims it did.
The bullets found at the scene were all fired from the same rifle, the rifle that Oswald is believed to have fired. Overwhelming ballistic evidence confirms this, despite what the film would have you believe.
The trial sequence of the film also greatly emphasizes the direction Kennedy’s head moved when hit by the fatal shot: back and to the left (back and to the left, back and to the left, back…). According to movie Garrison, this proves the shot came from the front somewhere. But if you actually watch the Zapruder film, the head doesn’t go fully back at all. In fact, frame 313 clearly shows us that some brain matter flew forward, suggesting the shooter was behind Kennedy.
The film also argues that Jack Ruby was the conspirator’s hitman who was given the task of taking care of their “patsy” Oswald, tying off any loose ends. A couple aspects of Oswald’s murder (that Stone chooses not to show us) make this very unlikely. Firstly, there’s postal inspector Harry Holmes surprise interrogation of Oswald. He was going to church with his family on the Sunday after Kennedy’s assassination, but at the last second decided to head over to the police station to help with the investigation. He was allowed by his polices buddies to ask Oswald any questions he had, and this delayed Oswald’s transfer for thirty minutes. During this extra thirty minute period, Ruby was at Western Union, as a time stamp on a money order indicates. Had Holmes just gone to church on that Sunday instead of deciding at the last minute to help out his friends with the investigation, then the transfer would have happened half an hour earlier and Ruby would have missed all of it (as he was at the bank). If Ruby was the hitman put in charge of murdering Oswald, then he most certainly would have been down at the station half an hour earlier when Oswald was supposed to be transferred.
Jack Ruby was also a bit out of touch himself. Earl Warren (among others) was convinced of his insanity. He gave various reasons, like protecting Jackie Kennedy from going through a trial. Ruby had mental health issues for a while, and was reported to have seen demons in his jail cell.
Another major source of controversy is Kennedy’s corpse and the autopsy. Stone’s film shows us that the body was quickly moved out of Dallas (against the wishes of local law enforcement) to a more secure location, where a more controlled autopsy could be conducted. This is true, except the film includes the obvious implication that the body was transfered so the government could tamper with the evidence. The reality of the transfer lies with the Kennedy family’s insistence that it take place, so they could better control the findings of the autopsy and preserve certain family secrets (like the various health problems JFK had that were kept secret).
The film asserts that the entire autopsy was really conducted by the military, who rushed the neutral doctors through the proceedings to avoid any unpleasant findings. There’s no evidence of this. Actually, former President Ford tells us that nineteen out of twenty doctors put in charge of the autopsy concluded that all the bullet wounds came from behind. The twentieth doctor asserts that a fourth shot hit Kennedy’s head and disintegrated, leaving no evidence behind whatsoever. This twentieth doctor was consulted regularly for the film, and none of the other nineteen.
It’s conspicuous that several crucial pieces of evidence from the autopsy have gone missing or have been destroyed, as the film is quick to point out. It is true that some notes are missing, as well as Kennedy’s brain. There’s still no evidence this was part of any conspiracy; it was just a confusing and rushed procedure.
Garrison also asks us during the trial (in the film) why the photographs from the autopsy haven’t been released, suggesting they’d tell us something the government doesn’t want us to know. Earl Warren’s explanation though is perfectly reasonable and fitting with the time. He talked about how sick and disturbing the photographs were to him. He said “they were so horrible that I could not sleep well for nights.” This is also the reason the Zapruder film was released decades after the assassination: it was believed to be too gruesome for the public to see at the time. The general thought was, why would any healthy person want to see such a thing? They wouldn’t, Earl Warren (and others) believed.
Stone’s film frames the Warren Commission as part of the conspiracy, the government’s attempt to convince the public they’d investigated the assassination. Earl Warren himself laughed at this idea, saying (something along the lines of) “The crazy notion that Gerald Ford and I could agree on anything should disprove any conspiracy theory out there.” This is very true: these were two very different men who disagreed on just about everything. It’s very unlikely they could have been in on anything together.
Earl Warren was also outspoken about the accuracy and reliability of the Commission’s findings. He went to his grave convinced that history would look at their conclusions kindly.
Let us look for a moment at a couple main characters in this whole controversy. Stone’s film portrays Lee Harvey Oswald as what he claimed he was, a “patsy”. But an actual look at his psychological record indicates that he was a very mentally unbalanced man who had even tried to shoot someone before that day in November. The movie Garrison also talks about how terrible a shot Oswald was. Simply not true: Oswald won awards in the military for his sharpshooting.
The film’s portrayal of Jim Garrison is also incredibly misleading. Kevin Costner’s plays Jim Garrison as a noble, patriotic, American hero who will let nothing stop him in his pursuit of the truth. He’s an inspiring and relatable man who we all aspire to be, and his motives and methods are always pure and above question. This portrayal ignores the many allegations in real life against Garrison of bullying witnesses or suppressing polygraphs. He also (as is discussed above) changed his story quite a bit. He was a pretty strange man, and had little in common with the movie Garrison.
Here’s the bottom line: no evidence has ever been able to disprove any of the Warren Commission’s findings, despite what Oliver Stone’s film asserts again and again (always incorrectly). Stone, in his film, does exactly what former President Ford calls it in his Washington Post piece: he “cover[s] up the overwhelming weight of the evidence and instead paste[s] together scraps of testimony to form a case for conspiracy in an attempt to cover up the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.”
All of that said, JFK is a phenomenally well-done movie in it’s design, execution, and performance. Stone’s exceptional weaving of real and fake footage takes everyone along for the ride, and an enticing ride it is. None of it’s true, but it is a convincing, entertaining, and well made film. The only times the movie fails in its mood or feel are when Stone is forced to reconcile with the historical record. The finest example of this is the trial sequence, the best-made and most convincing scene of the film. Garrison’s closing statement is so convincing that there is little doubt in the (uninformed, anyway) viewer’s mind that the Warren Commission’s explanation is a little fishy. The viewer is then surprised to hear a verdict of “not guilty” for Shaw (which in realty took them only forty-five minutes to come up with). Had Garrison’s case really been that strong, or Shaw’s case really that weak (or non-existence, as it was in the film), the jury would have surely sided with Garrison. These are the only moments when the mood or feel of the film is interrupted, and the viewer is puzzled.
At its core, JFK is a great story, a story that America wanted to hear. It’s the story of an honest man who couldn’t be stopped in his heroic pursuit of the truth, despite the tragic personal consequences of such a pursuit. It’s a classic tale of one noble man against a lying, corrupt, sinister government trying to control the people (no matter the cost) and cover everything up. It’s a conspiracy story, where a generally accepted explanation about one of the most infamous events in the 20th century is given a dramatic and juicy twist. Lastly, it’s an explanation for the unexplainable: how did President Kennedy get shot that many times by one man? How did one bullet travel to so many places, ending up relatively unharmed? The Warren Commission’s rationale leaves some things unexplained. This movie explains them.
Oliver Stone’s JFK is a great story for all of these reasons, but life isn’t always a great story. Sometimes life isn’t good verses evil. Sometimes life isn’t completely explainable. Sometimes things just happen, horrible things, and we’ll never know the complete truth behind them. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy is such an event.
The public’s frenzied reaction to Oliver Stone’s film reveals something profound about human nature. By explaining the unexplainable, by attempting to tie together all the loose ends surrounding the President’s assassination (and in an entertaining and enticing way), JFK satisfied something in the American public that the Warren commission never did. JFK explained the unexplainable; it rationalized the absurd, and people ate it up. This reveals an eager willingness in human beings to accept what they want to believe as truth, the notion that willing something to be true will make it so. One could argue that this willingness dominates many if not most aspects of human interaction and behavior. JFK shows us this about ourselves: human beings love mystery. The only thing they love more is the solution to such a mystery, and this film offers hope that such a perfect explanation can one day be found. The film ends with these words:
Dedicated To The Young
In Whose Spirit The Search For Truth
Marches On
JFK really is a film of hope. Hope that the people of this country will always care more about justice and about truth than they do about power and greed, and that some great men will have the courage and the audacity to pursue such justice, such truth, and such virtue, no matter what the cost. Of course people also want to believe this. What person doesn’t want to believe this? JFK, if nothing else, is a reassurance that good, in the end, will triumph over evil, that truth will triumph over deception, and that integrity will triumph over corruption. People like to be reassured, and were persuaded by this film to pursue the truth. In a way, then it feels like virtue and integrity are also being pursued, and perhaps they are. JFK is a film of hope, and a great one, but it is to be viewed as fiction, not history.
Chice
Videos, videos, and...?
Looking down the page at my last week of posts, I realize that Chice Blog has become nothing more than a place for me to post videos everyday (revealing how much of my life is spent doing productive things). I'll make an effort this week to do...something else, something different, something glorious! Just you wait.
But this blog has become a simple gallery for videos about the Supreme Court, or from the Daily Show. Disgusting...this one's a couple weeks old, but it's amazing.
Chice
But this blog has become a simple gallery for videos about the Supreme Court, or from the Daily Show. Disgusting...this one's a couple weeks old, but it's amazing.
Chice
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Frenchman With An Italian Accent
I swear this is my last post about the Court for a while, but I am rather obsessed. This is a FANTASTIC discussion between two very smart, very brilliant Supreme Court justices about the role of the Constitution. A phenomenal debate over Jurisprudence. Also, notice how civil they are to each other. Never a personal or angry comment, and they actually wait until the other is finished talking! I wish politicians could talk this way...
Chice
Chice
Monday, April 28, 2008
For What It's Worth
CRAZY!
I'm way into Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young right now, and I was goofing around online last night when I ran across the Buffalo Springfield (the band Stephen Stills and Neil Young were in pre-CSNY) song "For What It's Worth". I LOVE this song, and I totally didn't know it was a Stephen Stills song. Crazy.
Listen to it (via you tube) here:
Chice
I'm way into Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young right now, and I was goofing around online last night when I ran across the Buffalo Springfield (the band Stephen Stills and Neil Young were in pre-CSNY) song "For What It's Worth". I LOVE this song, and I totally didn't know it was a Stephen Stills song. Crazy.
Listen to it (via you tube) here:
Chice
Saturday, April 26, 2008
The Mitchell & Webb Situation
Farming:
Detectives:
Getting Over Lucy:
Poison (my fav):
Holmes & Watson/Can People Levitate:
Chice
Detectives:
Getting Over Lucy:
Poison (my fav):
Holmes & Watson/Can People Levitate:
Chice
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wrapping up Baze
Plenty more has been written about last week's Supreme Court case that came down, a very important and memorable Baze v. Rees. I've updated my earlier post that included some great articles about the case (which now includes even more), so be a cool cat and check that out. Also, here's my original post on the case. Peace.
Chice
Chice
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Love Songs
This is a French movie that I originally thought looked dumb but now really want to see (I'm pretty sure), called Love Songs. I think I'm attracted to the whole liberal European thing, the music, and the obvious meditations on love, sex, and long-term relationships, a topic that fascinates me to no end.
Here's the Trailer:
Chice
Here's the Trailer:
Chice
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Live A Life...
You know that saying, "live a life of disappointment rather than one of regret"? I've always kind of liked it, but recently I've experienced a couple of minor things that really have taught me how true that is.
Last night, for example, I was taking a midnight walk around my block to clear my head, when I came across a couple great pieces of furniture out on someone's lawn with a "free" sign on them. They were small, simple, and would have been perfect set pieces for my show this spring (and to just have in general). I was amazed, and I almost just picked them up right then and there, but I was tired, it was late, and if my parents woke up and saw me in the backyard with a big table in my arms (they didn't know I was out), I didn't want to have to explain myself. Now it sounds dumb, but I just shrugged and told myself I'd set an early alarm and get them tomorrow morning. So this morning, surprise surprise-they're gone.
I know that if I had gotten them last night and my parents had found me or something else awkward would have happened, it would have been just that-awkward, for a moment, and then we would have moved on. I would've to trade in one awkward moment at 3 in the morning for a glorious table and nightstand that I can have for the rest of my life if I want. And now that I waited for no good reason: I have no table, no nightstand, and some regret.
I know, I know. What a dorky example. It is a silly thing to worry about in this case, and I could give you more serious examples, but I'll save the drama. I really do believe that though: "live a life of disappointment, rather than one of regret." In other words, go for it.
Chice
Last night, for example, I was taking a midnight walk around my block to clear my head, when I came across a couple great pieces of furniture out on someone's lawn with a "free" sign on them. They were small, simple, and would have been perfect set pieces for my show this spring (and to just have in general). I was amazed, and I almost just picked them up right then and there, but I was tired, it was late, and if my parents woke up and saw me in the backyard with a big table in my arms (they didn't know I was out), I didn't want to have to explain myself. Now it sounds dumb, but I just shrugged and told myself I'd set an early alarm and get them tomorrow morning. So this morning, surprise surprise-they're gone.
I know that if I had gotten them last night and my parents had found me or something else awkward would have happened, it would have been just that-awkward, for a moment, and then we would have moved on. I would've to trade in one awkward moment at 3 in the morning for a glorious table and nightstand that I can have for the rest of my life if I want. And now that I waited for no good reason: I have no table, no nightstand, and some regret.
I know, I know. What a dorky example. It is a silly thing to worry about in this case, and I could give you more serious examples, but I'll save the drama. I really do believe that though: "live a life of disappointment, rather than one of regret." In other words, go for it.
Chice
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Relationship People
I'm starting to believe more and more that everyone is either a Relationship Person, or not. (A singles person?) Everyone I know seems to be one or the other. Aka, they either are happiest when in an actual relationship, or they feel claustrophobic in a relationship and they're only happy when they're completely free.
I have a friend, for example, who's "dating" a girl who's very much the latter. Whenever she's been in something that even resembled a relationship before, she immediately would get scared and end things. She doesn't get around tons or anything, but she absolutely can't ever be in anything that would be deemed an actual "relationship", or she'd freak out. She knows this about herself though, and has told my friend all about it. My friend, therefore, is currently bending himself backwards over trying to give her enough space to not feel like this is a "relationship", even though they're exclusive and see each other all the time. She can't be seen in public with him (then people would talk and they would be on some kind of official status), and they can't hang out alone for too long.
Now, I'm not judging this, her, or my friend in any way. It's not my deal, and therefore not my place to judge, but permit me a chance to at least say that it's a bit peculiar to me, a relationship person for sure. I've always kind of thought about myself this way, but I've very recently realized how true it is.
A relationship of over two and a half years, most of my high school career, ended a few days ago, and the last few days have taught me a lot about how much of a relationship person I really am. This was a relationship that I wasn't getting tons out of towards the end of things, and it ended mutually and civilly because we both kind of felt this way. Aka, we weren't right for each other anymore, and we both just felt like things had run their course. I felt fine for a day or two, but now I feel strangely lonely and empty, and I'm thinking tons about her and all of it.
How bizarre: I wanted out of the relationship (at least at times) when I was in it, and I really was okay when things ended. I've thought a lot about it, and this is my theory: I don't miss the relationship itself (or her in particular), but I miss a relationship. I think that I'm such a relationship person in general, that when I'm not in one I do feel lonely or empty in a way.
Now, I'm not as much a relationship person as my friend's (...girlfriend?) is a singles person. I'm not by any means one of those people who absolutely can't be alone and needs constant validation that way, but I do get lonely when I'm without someone I think, maybe more than most people. It's also possible this is just me dealing with the break up, I don't know. It's a theory...
Chice
I have a friend, for example, who's "dating" a girl who's very much the latter. Whenever she's been in something that even resembled a relationship before, she immediately would get scared and end things. She doesn't get around tons or anything, but she absolutely can't ever be in anything that would be deemed an actual "relationship", or she'd freak out. She knows this about herself though, and has told my friend all about it. My friend, therefore, is currently bending himself backwards over trying to give her enough space to not feel like this is a "relationship", even though they're exclusive and see each other all the time. She can't be seen in public with him (then people would talk and they would be on some kind of official status), and they can't hang out alone for too long.
Now, I'm not judging this, her, or my friend in any way. It's not my deal, and therefore not my place to judge, but permit me a chance to at least say that it's a bit peculiar to me, a relationship person for sure. I've always kind of thought about myself this way, but I've very recently realized how true it is.
A relationship of over two and a half years, most of my high school career, ended a few days ago, and the last few days have taught me a lot about how much of a relationship person I really am. This was a relationship that I wasn't getting tons out of towards the end of things, and it ended mutually and civilly because we both kind of felt this way. Aka, we weren't right for each other anymore, and we both just felt like things had run their course. I felt fine for a day or two, but now I feel strangely lonely and empty, and I'm thinking tons about her and all of it.
How bizarre: I wanted out of the relationship (at least at times) when I was in it, and I really was okay when things ended. I've thought a lot about it, and this is my theory: I don't miss the relationship itself (or her in particular), but I miss a relationship. I think that I'm such a relationship person in general, that when I'm not in one I do feel lonely or empty in a way.
Now, I'm not as much a relationship person as my friend's (...girlfriend?) is a singles person. I'm not by any means one of those people who absolutely can't be alone and needs constant validation that way, but I do get lonely when I'm without someone I think, maybe more than most people. It's also possible this is just me dealing with the break up, I don't know. It's a theory...
Chice
Friday, April 18, 2008
Thursday, April 17, 2008
More Death Penalty
Yesterday was a huge day at the Court: there was a great oral argument, and two interesting cases came down (one of which I discussed yesterday). The great argument was for Kennedy v. Louisiana, which asks if using the death penalty for child rape violates the 8th amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. If at all interested, you can find the transcript of the oral argument for that on this page (the Oyez audio has yet to be uploaded).
Here are a few more links on the death penalty case that came down yesterday (crazy, that there's two in one day). They're posts off of ScotusBlog, the leading Supreme Court website run by constitutional lawyers.
Lethal Injection Allowed
Commentary: Praise for Baze
First Post-Baze Maneuvers
Baze Commentary: Going Forward
Baze Commentary: Protocol & Practice
Analysis: The Baze Sequels - A Single Pattern
Chice
Here are a few more links on the death penalty case that came down yesterday (crazy, that there's two in one day). They're posts off of ScotusBlog, the leading Supreme Court website run by constitutional lawyers.
Lethal Injection Allowed
Commentary: Praise for Baze
First Post-Baze Maneuvers
Baze Commentary: Going Forward
Baze Commentary: Protocol & Practice
Analysis: The Baze Sequels - A Single Pattern
Chice
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Baze v. Rees
In Baze v. Rees, the Supreme Court, for the first time in history, heard constitutional challenges to the three-chemical formula that 36 states use to carry out the death penalty by lethal injection. The issue is raised by two Kentucky death row inmates, neither of whom faces an imminent execution date. Their appeal poses three questions dealing with their claim that the particular drug protocol causes unnecessary pain and suffering that could be avoided, and thus violates the Eighth Amendment ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.” The case does not raise the question of whether lethal injection is always unconstitutional; it is an attack only on a specific formula.
This case came down today-very interesting. Here are some links if you're interested:
Wiki
Post of SCOTUSBlog
Oral Argument
The opinion can be downloaded in this post.
Chice
This case came down today-very interesting. Here are some links if you're interested:
Wiki
Post of SCOTUSBlog
Oral Argument
The opinion can be downloaded in this post.
Chice
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Candor & Courtesy
Thomas Jefferson always regarded candor and courtesy as incompatible. Aka, one can usually choose between being honest and being nice, but not both.
Do you agree with him?
Jefferson had a tendency his entire life to simplify things into black and white, when naturally they are almost never that simple. This is probably an example of that: candor and courtesy are of course compatible in some situations, and when they aren't we all naturally go with on or the other depending on the situation. This begs the question though, how often do you go for candor, and how often for courtesy? How often are you honest with someone when you could have been a bit more polite or told them what they wanted to hear? And how often do you think one thing and say another?
I think a great deal of it depends on where you grew up. I've found that Midwesterners, for example, choose courtesy over candor much more than East Coasters do . In general actually, it's been my experience that the more urban you are, the more blunt you are, and the more small town/country you are, the more courteous and polite you are.
Neither way is inherently better or worse than the other; it's naturally just a cultural thing. But do you think one is superior to the other (most of the time). I know I'm inclined to favor candor over courtesy in most situations, having grown up in the Midwest (where people are very mannered, polite, and modest). These tendencies drive me crazy, and I have the time of my life any time I travel East and hear people talk the way I think they're meant to. So not all of it is completely related to your upbringing either. (Unless my dislike of all the courtesy is a subconscious rejection of my roots, a desire to grow up and be different than my parents. I do want this, but I don't think that's it. Think what you will.) It's also very possible then that we're all just wired too for one way or another. But look at me doing what I criticized Jefferson for doing: simplifying everything into black and white. It's of course a mix of your upbringing and your biology.
It's still an interesting question though, isn't it? What do you choose more often, candor or courtesy (when they are indeed incompatible)? Why?
Chice
Do you agree with him?
Jefferson had a tendency his entire life to simplify things into black and white, when naturally they are almost never that simple. This is probably an example of that: candor and courtesy are of course compatible in some situations, and when they aren't we all naturally go with on or the other depending on the situation. This begs the question though, how often do you go for candor, and how often for courtesy? How often are you honest with someone when you could have been a bit more polite or told them what they wanted to hear? And how often do you think one thing and say another?
I think a great deal of it depends on where you grew up. I've found that Midwesterners, for example, choose courtesy over candor much more than East Coasters do . In general actually, it's been my experience that the more urban you are, the more blunt you are, and the more small town/country you are, the more courteous and polite you are.
Neither way is inherently better or worse than the other; it's naturally just a cultural thing. But do you think one is superior to the other (most of the time). I know I'm inclined to favor candor over courtesy in most situations, having grown up in the Midwest (where people are very mannered, polite, and modest). These tendencies drive me crazy, and I have the time of my life any time I travel East and hear people talk the way I think they're meant to. So not all of it is completely related to your upbringing either. (Unless my dislike of all the courtesy is a subconscious rejection of my roots, a desire to grow up and be different than my parents. I do want this, but I don't think that's it. Think what you will.) It's also very possible then that we're all just wired too for one way or another. But look at me doing what I criticized Jefferson for doing: simplifying everything into black and white. It's of course a mix of your upbringing and your biology.
It's still an interesting question though, isn't it? What do you choose more often, candor or courtesy (when they are indeed incompatible)? Why?
Chice
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Come Back, "Almighty Physician"
Thomas Jefferson called the sun his "almighty physician". He said that pretty much no matter what was the matter, no matter what was bothering him, the sun would cheer him up and make things alright.
It's April, and it's still snowing here! I can't remember the last time it's been this crappy this late in the year. Everyone I know is pretty down, and I know I am. It really does go to show how powerful an impact the weather has on us, how at its mercy we all are.
Not really sure how I feel about that. It kinda sucks, because it means no matter what you do, in a lot of ways happiness is completely out of your control, but I guess that's always true to some degree, isn't it?
On the other hand, when the sun does finally come out, you'll also be much happier than you normally would have been. This brings up an interesting point I think. I have a friend who used to go to camp in the wilderness every single summer. Most people go to camp because they enjoy it in one way or another, but my friend did it for the exact opposite reason-it made him so miserable, that it made him appreciate the rest of the year so much more. This always made me really sad, and I still think it kind of is, but I do think there's something to the quality/quantity argument.
Still, the sun needs to come back. Now please? Sigh...
Chice
It's April, and it's still snowing here! I can't remember the last time it's been this crappy this late in the year. Everyone I know is pretty down, and I know I am. It really does go to show how powerful an impact the weather has on us, how at its mercy we all are.
Not really sure how I feel about that. It kinda sucks, because it means no matter what you do, in a lot of ways happiness is completely out of your control, but I guess that's always true to some degree, isn't it?
On the other hand, when the sun does finally come out, you'll also be much happier than you normally would have been. This brings up an interesting point I think. I have a friend who used to go to camp in the wilderness every single summer. Most people go to camp because they enjoy it in one way or another, but my friend did it for the exact opposite reason-it made him so miserable, that it made him appreciate the rest of the year so much more. This always made me really sad, and I still think it kind of is, but I do think there's something to the quality/quantity argument.
Still, the sun needs to come back. Now please? Sigh...
Chice
Friday, April 11, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Stop & Smell The Roses
My Senior Speech...
I’m going to begin this speech the way every speech should begin: I’m going to read you a Calvin & Hobbes comic. Calvin and Hobbes are walking through the woods, and Calvin’s ranting to Hobbes, as he often is. He says, “You know how everyone says you should stop and smell the roses? Well, this morning I did. Big Deal! They smelled like a bunch of dumb flowers! It was the most mundane experience I’ve ever had! Who’s got time for this nonsense! I’m a busy guy! I’ve got things to do! The last thing I need is to stand around with my nose in some silly plant!” Hobbes replies, rolling his eyes, “I’m glad you somehow found the time for his edifying conversation.” Calvin then checks his watch and says, “Yeah well, I’m going to have to wrap it up. My TV show is about to start.”
Calvin has a bit of a point here, doesn’t he? After all, anyone expecting to get anything too extraordinary out of “standing around with your nose in some silly plant”, as Calvin puts it, will probably be disappointed. But really, Calvin of course missed the point by taking this expression literally. For most people however, even a non-literal reading of the phrase “Stop and Smell The Roses” won’t do much good, because this expression is one of the most feared things in the literary world-a cliché, something so repulsive and hideous that most people will run in the opposite direction the moment they realize what they’re dealing with.
There’s good reason for that. Who likes cliché? Why would anyone like something that’s repeated countless times, rendering it utterly meaningless? And yet, there’s something ever so slightly tragic about a cliché. After all, many if not most clichés at one time contained a relatively good piece of simple advice, before they were repeated over and over. Before they lost all meaning That is, before they were clichés. But now it’s too late: everyone’s so sick and tired of hearing these little fortune cookie philosophies that their ears close up the second they hear one. You have to wonder if there’s a way to disguise a cliché like this one so that won’t happen.
Ferris Bueller said, “life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in awhile, you could miss it.” Good advice from a good man. Ferris Bueller certainly knows a thing or two about stopping to look around every once in a while. After all, he did miss nine days of school in just one semester, and life would be a terrible thing to miss. So how does one do this exactly?
You could take a page out of Ferris’s book and take a day off of school once in a while. I’m not suggesting you miss anywhere near the nine days Ferris did, but a mental health day every now and then can work wonders.
Or, you could try lounging at the bottom of a big tree with nothing but the bright sun and your thoughts. Can you remember the last time you spent some time outside, doing absolutely nothing at all? Just sit back, close your eyes, breathe in the sweet spring air, and enjoy the sun. It’s amazing to me how many problems a little sunshine really can solve. Thomas Jefferson always talked about the sun’s healing effect on him; he called it his “almighty physician.” Spend some time outside. Don’t do anything else. Just enjoy the solitude. One can accomplish quite a bit out of doing absolutely nothing at all.
You could also take a moment and think about the little quirky things in life. I know I love to think about the road not taken. History can be fascinating this way. Take the Beatles, for example. It’s hard to imagine a world without the Beatles, a world that they never touched with their music and wit. How could such a world exist? What if dream team John Lennon and Paul McCartney hadn’t become the creative duo that wrote the bulk of the Beatles songs? What if they’d never even met? On July 6, 1957, John Lennon’s band was playing at a church event, and Paul McCartney was brought along by a mutual friend, expecting to find girls there. During intermission, John caught Paul fiddling with his guitar, and the rest is history, as they say. But what if Paul hadn’t come at all on that fateful July day in 1957? What if he had to say home? What if his dad had a cough that day? What if, at the breakfast table, Jim McCartney, felt a big cough coming out but forgot to cover his mouth, accidentally coughing all over his poor son Paul, causing him to get sick and not be able to go to the church social? Imagine, one man raising his hand to cover his mouth when he coughs, and the entire world changes! Otto Von Bismarck said that “the hinges of history are held in place by tiny nails”. Jim McCartney’s cold is proof of that.
As I think more about Ferris Bueller’s advice to “stop and look around every once in a while”, I’m reminded of an assembly we had towards the beginning of the year where Ms. Franke and Ms. Sager invited us all to enjoy some cookies and punch in the Chapel gallery, so as long as we adhered to proper Gallery Etiquette and didn’t just take the cookies and run. I’m sure all of you remember Mr. Moos’ comments immediately following this: “I have a confession to make”, he said. “I’ve already sampled one of the cookies from the gallery. Oatmeal Raison.” This was an amazing moment for me. I remember walking down to assembly that day and coveting the golden brown sweets on the table to my right, but I never even dreamed of taking one, fearing the horrible consequences that would befall me if I were caught, cookie-in-hand. When Mr. Moos confessed that he had indulged and snatched up one of the cookies, I realized that although he probably shouldn’t have taken the cookie and violated Gallery Etiquette, he also did something amazing. By eating that Oatmeal Raison cookie, Mr. Moos was doing exactly what Ferris’s advice is getting at.
Now, I’m not saying that the only way to live a little is to skip school or violate Gallery Etiquette. But I know as well as anyone that Breck can be an intense place, and I also know all too well how to ease back when things get rough. Just ask anyone that’s tried to teach me Math. But I still think that it’s crucial to find a way to stop and look around every once in a while. Take a day off from school. Relax against the big tree. Think about the road not taken. Eat the Oatmeal Raison cookie. Stop and smell the roses.
Chice
I’m going to begin this speech the way every speech should begin: I’m going to read you a Calvin & Hobbes comic. Calvin and Hobbes are walking through the woods, and Calvin’s ranting to Hobbes, as he often is. He says, “You know how everyone says you should stop and smell the roses? Well, this morning I did. Big Deal! They smelled like a bunch of dumb flowers! It was the most mundane experience I’ve ever had! Who’s got time for this nonsense! I’m a busy guy! I’ve got things to do! The last thing I need is to stand around with my nose in some silly plant!” Hobbes replies, rolling his eyes, “I’m glad you somehow found the time for his edifying conversation.” Calvin then checks his watch and says, “Yeah well, I’m going to have to wrap it up. My TV show is about to start.”
Calvin has a bit of a point here, doesn’t he? After all, anyone expecting to get anything too extraordinary out of “standing around with your nose in some silly plant”, as Calvin puts it, will probably be disappointed. But really, Calvin of course missed the point by taking this expression literally. For most people however, even a non-literal reading of the phrase “Stop and Smell The Roses” won’t do much good, because this expression is one of the most feared things in the literary world-a cliché, something so repulsive and hideous that most people will run in the opposite direction the moment they realize what they’re dealing with.
There’s good reason for that. Who likes cliché? Why would anyone like something that’s repeated countless times, rendering it utterly meaningless? And yet, there’s something ever so slightly tragic about a cliché. After all, many if not most clichés at one time contained a relatively good piece of simple advice, before they were repeated over and over. Before they lost all meaning That is, before they were clichés. But now it’s too late: everyone’s so sick and tired of hearing these little fortune cookie philosophies that their ears close up the second they hear one. You have to wonder if there’s a way to disguise a cliché like this one so that won’t happen.
Ferris Bueller said, “life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in awhile, you could miss it.” Good advice from a good man. Ferris Bueller certainly knows a thing or two about stopping to look around every once in a while. After all, he did miss nine days of school in just one semester, and life would be a terrible thing to miss. So how does one do this exactly?
You could take a page out of Ferris’s book and take a day off of school once in a while. I’m not suggesting you miss anywhere near the nine days Ferris did, but a mental health day every now and then can work wonders.
Or, you could try lounging at the bottom of a big tree with nothing but the bright sun and your thoughts. Can you remember the last time you spent some time outside, doing absolutely nothing at all? Just sit back, close your eyes, breathe in the sweet spring air, and enjoy the sun. It’s amazing to me how many problems a little sunshine really can solve. Thomas Jefferson always talked about the sun’s healing effect on him; he called it his “almighty physician.” Spend some time outside. Don’t do anything else. Just enjoy the solitude. One can accomplish quite a bit out of doing absolutely nothing at all.
You could also take a moment and think about the little quirky things in life. I know I love to think about the road not taken. History can be fascinating this way. Take the Beatles, for example. It’s hard to imagine a world without the Beatles, a world that they never touched with their music and wit. How could such a world exist? What if dream team John Lennon and Paul McCartney hadn’t become the creative duo that wrote the bulk of the Beatles songs? What if they’d never even met? On July 6, 1957, John Lennon’s band was playing at a church event, and Paul McCartney was brought along by a mutual friend, expecting to find girls there. During intermission, John caught Paul fiddling with his guitar, and the rest is history, as they say. But what if Paul hadn’t come at all on that fateful July day in 1957? What if he had to say home? What if his dad had a cough that day? What if, at the breakfast table, Jim McCartney, felt a big cough coming out but forgot to cover his mouth, accidentally coughing all over his poor son Paul, causing him to get sick and not be able to go to the church social? Imagine, one man raising his hand to cover his mouth when he coughs, and the entire world changes! Otto Von Bismarck said that “the hinges of history are held in place by tiny nails”. Jim McCartney’s cold is proof of that.
As I think more about Ferris Bueller’s advice to “stop and look around every once in a while”, I’m reminded of an assembly we had towards the beginning of the year where Ms. Franke and Ms. Sager invited us all to enjoy some cookies and punch in the Chapel gallery, so as long as we adhered to proper Gallery Etiquette and didn’t just take the cookies and run. I’m sure all of you remember Mr. Moos’ comments immediately following this: “I have a confession to make”, he said. “I’ve already sampled one of the cookies from the gallery. Oatmeal Raison.” This was an amazing moment for me. I remember walking down to assembly that day and coveting the golden brown sweets on the table to my right, but I never even dreamed of taking one, fearing the horrible consequences that would befall me if I were caught, cookie-in-hand. When Mr. Moos confessed that he had indulged and snatched up one of the cookies, I realized that although he probably shouldn’t have taken the cookie and violated Gallery Etiquette, he also did something amazing. By eating that Oatmeal Raison cookie, Mr. Moos was doing exactly what Ferris’s advice is getting at.
Now, I’m not saying that the only way to live a little is to skip school or violate Gallery Etiquette. But I know as well as anyone that Breck can be an intense place, and I also know all too well how to ease back when things get rough. Just ask anyone that’s tried to teach me Math. But I still think that it’s crucial to find a way to stop and look around every once in a while. Take a day off from school. Relax against the big tree. Think about the road not taken. Eat the Oatmeal Raison cookie. Stop and smell the roses.
Chice
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
If Ever You Are Sad...
Just think of this historical fact:
George Washington's nephew's name was Bushrod.
Bushrod Washington. My life is complete.
Chice
George Washington's nephew's name was Bushrod.
Bushrod Washington. My life is complete.
Chice
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Down By The River
A recent discovery of mine (out of my lifelong affair with the 1960's) is Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. I've been a huge Neil Young fan for a while, but when these guys are together...man!
So...money:
Chice
So...money:
Chice
Originality
I've been thinking a lot lately about originality-true originality. How do you know when something you say or write is genuinely original? I used to think achieving genuine originality was a simple thing: just don't borrow from other works of art or scholarship and what you've done is original. That sounds so childish now. (I guess it makes sense that it was though, doesn't it?)
Reality is naturally much more complex than that. How does one really know that their work is original when there's SO MUCH art and scholarship out in the world already? When you have a thought, how do you know if someone else has had it already? How do you know if someone else has published their idea? After all, just because something is original to you doesn't mean it's original to the world.
It's also possible to copy someone else's work without knowing it (as opposed to copying it consciously or copying it without ever having known it existed). Paul McCartney dreamt the tune to "Yesterday" in 1963 (then called "Scrambled Eggs") but didn't record it for years, worrying he was stealing the tune from someone else. He hummed it to everyone he knew for years, and no one had heard it before so finally he recorded it. Wise choice.
George Harrison (unfortunately) also woke up one day with a tune in his head-the tune to "My Sweet Lord". George sadly didn't bother to hum to the tune to anyone he knew though and was eventually sued for ripping off the tune-he'd stolen it verbatim from "She's So Fine". Oops.
W.B. Yeats had a theory about originality that I've really come to embrace. He said that the only way to become a truly original artist was by mastering all the classics that preceded you, imitating them (to get to know them and yourself), and then and only then can you branch out from that and become an original artist. You can see this in Yeats's own career as he got more and more abstract and strange (but creative and original) the older he got.
Still, it's never possible to know for sure. It's also silly to worry too much about it. Thomas Jefferson was accused of plagiarism throughout his entire career, and had a standard response to such an accusation: "Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing", he said he drew his ideas from "the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in letters, printed essays or in the elementary books of public rights, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc." I dig that too.
Chice
Reality is naturally much more complex than that. How does one really know that their work is original when there's SO MUCH art and scholarship out in the world already? When you have a thought, how do you know if someone else has had it already? How do you know if someone else has published their idea? After all, just because something is original to you doesn't mean it's original to the world.
It's also possible to copy someone else's work without knowing it (as opposed to copying it consciously or copying it without ever having known it existed). Paul McCartney dreamt the tune to "Yesterday" in 1963 (then called "Scrambled Eggs") but didn't record it for years, worrying he was stealing the tune from someone else. He hummed it to everyone he knew for years, and no one had heard it before so finally he recorded it. Wise choice.
George Harrison (unfortunately) also woke up one day with a tune in his head-the tune to "My Sweet Lord". George sadly didn't bother to hum to the tune to anyone he knew though and was eventually sued for ripping off the tune-he'd stolen it verbatim from "She's So Fine". Oops.
W.B. Yeats had a theory about originality that I've really come to embrace. He said that the only way to become a truly original artist was by mastering all the classics that preceded you, imitating them (to get to know them and yourself), and then and only then can you branch out from that and become an original artist. You can see this in Yeats's own career as he got more and more abstract and strange (but creative and original) the older he got.
Still, it's never possible to know for sure. It's also silly to worry too much about it. Thomas Jefferson was accused of plagiarism throughout his entire career, and had a standard response to such an accusation: "Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing", he said he drew his ideas from "the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in letters, printed essays or in the elementary books of public rights, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc." I dig that too.
Chice
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
