The Beckham Experiment

Posted in books, reviews, soccer, sports with tags , , , , , on July 21, 2009 by zackc

Sports nonfiction is not usually on my reading radar.   Between books about historical, political, religious, and philosophical topics (not to mention all the books I have to read for school) nonfiction sports books are something I usually don’t have time to indulge in.  Combined with that reality is that books about my favorite sport (soccer) are few and most soccer books are biographies about European players (particularly English players…go to the wiki pages of the English national team and odds are you’ll see [auto]biographies for many of the players), stories I don’t usually like to read.  I prefer the stories about teams, such as in books like Friday Night Lights or A Season on the Brink.  A story about a team can also be found in Grant Wahl’s excellent new book The Beckham Experiment.

 

I first heard about this book on some sports program on ESPN, probably in connection with the recent success of the US National Team in the Confederations Cup.  The book sounded intriguing, mostly because of the comments by Landon Donovan that were “leaked” criticizing David Beckham.  Intrigued by the candid comments from Donovan and the description of the book as “unauthorized” (meaning to me=not filtered by the Beckham handlers) the story intrigued me, so today at the bookstore I picked it up.  And I couldn’t put it down.  It is an excellent read, providing an excellent look not only into the Beckham “experiment” of trying to raise soccer’s standing in the eyes of Americans, but also a peak into the day to day existence of an MLS team and run-of-the-mill MLS players.  The second reason is the reason I enjoyed this book.

The Beckham experiment was nothing new to me, as an avid MLS fan I followed the transfer speculation (and still follow the Beckham story when I have time) and the ups and (mostly) downs of Beckham’s three years with the Galaxy.   It seemed to play out the way I figured with Beckham growing frustrated with the restraints of the MLS system that kept the Galaxy from building a better supporting cast outside of Landon Donovan, but the books look into the reality of the lesser beings on a MLS team is worth the price of the book in my opinion.

I’ve certainly heard about some of the things MLS players do to pay the rent (such as on broadcasts of MLS games on ESPN where the “fact bytes” about the goalkeeper include his college, years of experience, and day job selling insurance or being a real estate advisor or whatever (a story my dad could not believe, and which I’ll use this book to prove).  A constant theme of the book is the economic disparity between Beckham’s salary of $6.5 million and the rest of the team, including players making the league minimum of $12,900.  The stories of Galaxy players rooming together (sometimes even with players from city rivals from Chivas USA) are fascinating.  That professional athletes are forced to work second jobs or live paycheck to paycheck is a sharp and interesting contrast to athletes from other sports.   This reality certainly makes them more interesting, more accessible and realistic than players complaining about making 8 million rather than 9 million.

In the meantime the Beckham Experiment story is itself fascinating, if only because so much behind-the-scenes information is explained and uncovered in Wahl’s reporting.  I’m sure Galaxy fans will find the story of how Beckham’s management team usurped power and decision making rights from Galaxy officials quite angering, and perhaps frustrating that their team has such chaos behind the scenes. 

The one enigma from the book is of course Beckham.  This book, being an unauthorized [read=unfiltered and unspun] look at Beckham and the people who work so hard to protect and santize his image, lacks very much first hand material from the eye at the center of the storm.  Beckham from the descriptions of his teammates comes across as a man very much out of his element, who deals with the vast economic and social realities that separate him from his teammates by drawing himself further into insolation behind his image.  He appears frustrated at the American soccer world where soccer isn’t king, as a pouting player who grew disinterested as the reality of playing on a lopsided team that wasn’t going to win every game.  His claims of desire to be a soccer ambassador for MLS in America stand in sharp contrast of his real behavior of running from the responsibility of claiming that ambassadorship.  The enigma is whether or not he was actually acting this way or if his handlers were acting on his behalf.  Either way he doesn’t look particularly good.  That tends to happen though when you don’t have total control over the story, as Beckham usually does.  This story is useful if only for showing Beckham and his circle, warts and all.

PS:  On a sidenote this book reminds me of a book about Michael Jordan’s baseball journey called Rebound.  This book is much better though.

Thoughts on The Best and the Brightest

Posted in books, education/academia, government, history, ideology, politics, reviews with tags , , , , , , , , on July 18, 2009 by zackc

I finally (finally!) finished David Halberstam’s excellent book The Best and the Brightest, a book about America and Vietnam.  The book is part history, part politics, part serial biography.  The title takes it’s name from the people who worked in the Kennedy/Johnson Administrations, the so-called “best and brightest” men who shaped the policy on Vietnam.  The book’s thesis and question is how the cream of America’s corporate, academic, and military worlds, men successful throughout their careers, could create policy that was so flawed.

 I don’t want to write a full on review, but instead urge anyone who is interested in the 1960s, the Cold War, Vietnam, or the Kennedy/Johnson administrations to read this book.  My professor asked us to read the book for a class, his argument that it was the best book ever written about Vietnam.  I haven’t read them all, but the book is very good.  It provides a very utilitarian overview of the war, the players in the American bureaucracy that made the Vietnam policy, and the policy itself.  The book goes further to make several good points about how Vietnam was something of a crossroads of several long term Cold War events (such as how China going Communist in 1949 effected Vietnam via the Domino Theory or howMcCarthyist purges eliminated the best Asian experts from the State Department when they would have been very useful during the buildup in the 1960s) that made Vietnam such a quagmire. 

What I found most interesting about this book is how the problems with Vietnam and the justification for the war continue to exist.  While I won’t go as far as some people in drawing a direct comparision between Vietnam and the Iraq War (mostly because America has not gone as deep into Iraq in terms of raw man power as they did in Vietnam which has meant far fewer casualities than were experienced in Vietnam) I do believe that some of  the same fundamental flaws exist(ed) in both cases.  

Perhaps the idea that American military might can wear down an enemy  force in their own country.  One of my favorite passages from the last quarter of the book said something like “The North Vietnamese/Vietcong were totally committed to the war effort.  The war effort wasn’t just the most important thing, it was the only thing.”  America on the other hand was dealing with the whole Cold War and all the problems at home.   America (or any occupying force) simply cannot commit the same dedication as a native people, particularly if those people are feeling nationalistic sentiments (such as what was going on in Vietnam at the time…the idea of the Vietnam war as a war against communism for America and a war against colonialism for Vietnam is another interesting issue from the book.)

A sentiment that I believe overlaps in Iraq.  Violence has died down in Iraq (perhaps because of an American time table for withdrawl?), but the idea that America can outlast a native people in their own land or can make them surrender through atrition is foolhardy in my opinion.  Think back to the American Revolution.  Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” seems to be the ultimate freedom cry.  A cry that extends to all people looking to make their own may in the world without any controls by foreign rule.  The idea of atrition seems silly to a committed force who would rather die than be subjects of a foreign government (or a govt that is a puppet for a foreign government such as was seen during 1954-63 under Diem).

Another interesting issue I saw was the idea of fighting foolhardy wars in the name of combating vague ideas.  Vietnam~Communism.  Iraq~Terror.  They both seem to have that basic problem of fighting wars in the name of what might have happened based on shoddy evidence (or made up/fudged evidence/events) leaving the problem of being wars based or started on lies.  Certainly an interesting parallel between the two events.

Well that’s enough for now.  Read the book.  Be champions.

Myth under the Internet’s microscope

Posted in education/academia, government, history, human nature, ideology, internet, knowledge, politics, religion, society with tags , , , , , , , , on June 15, 2009 by zackc
I love the Internet.  I love the skepticism that it has bred about all institutions and traditions.  I love that you can find experts on anything and pick their brains about their given expertise.  I love that you can find information on any given thing.  And I love the constant debate going on all around the world via people’s personal Internet terminals to certify that that information we seek is right or wrong.  Say something on the Net and you might be called to provide evidence for that statement.  And that evidence will then be vetted to certify that it’s legit and not some flimsy BS “evidence”.  I love that. 
This new world of people gadflying about makes me wonder how religious charlatans would be unmasked in the certification meat grinder we call the Internet.  Can’t you just imagine a scenario where Moses announces his “mission” on an Internet message board?  Something like this:
******************
Moses: Behold! I recieved a message from a burning bush!

Internet Critic: I Call b***s***! CFR! CFR!!!!

Moses: CFR? WTF? The Lord spoke to me. He said to go to Egypt and free his people from bondage.

Internet Critic: What “people”? I want evidence that these people A) exist B) exist in Egypt C) need to be let go. From whom should they be freed? How are the living conditions intolerable in Egypt? According to whom? Your opinion or due to city/county/state/federal/international law? The specific statute that suggests that they should be freed? Statute suggesting that you an unelected private citizen should be allow to facilitate the release of people in a foreign state? Philosophically speaking can anyone truly be free? CFR that you recieved a message from a burning bush! Where is the audio/video of this burning bush? CFR! (Btw Bondage is totally cool as long as both parties are adult and consent to the act. Just because you disagree with a person’s sexual appetites does not give you the right to suggest they need to be freed).

********************************

Unless it happened on youtube in which case Moses would be called a homosexual slur beginning with “F” and rhyming with “bag”.  But I think the point is made.  In the Information Age there are some people who never take something at their word.  Say you raised people from the dead or can part the Red Sea and there will be a factchecker in the background going….”Did he really?”  
I find this development very good, not just because it goes after the more benign myths like religious stories but is just as useful because people fact check their elected officials.  Heck the government also keeps an eye on the people for this reason to make sure they aren’t breaking the law.  All of which of course is meant to keep everyone playing by the rules.  And people are checking the rules, making sure they work right and that they’re unfair.  All of which is of course means we have an imperfect system, but we’re always working on it right?
~Just a thought

Happiness

Posted in life story, relationships with tags , , , , on June 8, 2009 by zackc

I was cleaning out my blogging drafts in lue of actually blogging and came across an unfinished piece called “Is Bliss Boring?”.  The main question I wanted to explore in that entry was about films and books and how you never see stories of total happiness where nothing goes wrong.  Something dramatic must happen (losing family, pet, tragic accident, whatever) to make the person realize the lesson or moral or whatever point is trying to be made by the creator of the story.  That was the entry, but going back I reexamine that question in a more personal sense due to the recent changes that I’ve had in my life. 

In short.   I’m dating the girl I love.  I met her about a year ago and within 10 minutes of knowing her I wanted to be with her, and it’s finally come to pass.  And for the past six weeks I’ve been in a state of bliss.  Truly.  I feel so…settled and comfortable in my own skin.  Perhaps it’s because I know there is someone in the world who truly accepts me as I am that I now able to be happy.  It’s not the best that I need approval from anyone (that whole: “You should be true to yourself and screw everyone else” cliche’ comes to mind at the moment) but I guess it’s part of my social nature.  But having found that acceptance, I am truly happy.  A long way to come for me.

I’ve never been this way.  Not really.  Happiness for me was something I always thought was unattainable.  I thought the most I would ever be able to be would be content, to be able to tolerate existence.  I never thought I’d enjoy existence, not every moment of it.  I certainly have had moments of happiness, but I’ve never experienced a total state of bliss as that which I’m currently in and have existed in for the past six weeks.  It’s like a different realm of reality.  It’s simply wonderful.  I wake up and smile.  I feel wrapped in a bubble that will protect me from any bad or negative thing.  Certainly a long way for me from the darkest corners of depression.  It’s been a long road, but I believe with certainty that I have left depression behind for good.

Being depressed I always looked behind, to various missed opportunities (at least in my opinion) to be happy.  Times when I screwed up and did the wrong thing or didn’t do anything that kept me from experiencing happiness.   No more am I like this.  I no longer look back to mistakes (well I don’t look back nearly as much) but instead look forward to continued bliss.  Happiness in this context for me is having a girlfriend I’m totally in love with and who I know loves me back.  The certainty of my feelings and my certainty that she feels the same for me gives me strength and a foundation with which to face anything.  I feel like I have added another rock to my life that I can anchor too.  Previously I had my family, now I have my love as well.  Both are excellent bedrock in my life, but this new foundation makes me look forward to building a future, as opposed to my family, which is very much something old.  Not old in a bad way, but this new thing I believe will make me grow much more as a man and person than my immediate family does.

I honestly can’t believe I’ve arrived at this point with this person.  It’s finally sinking in.  At first I was in a constant state of “OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!” but now I’ve accepted that this isn’t a dream and really enjoy it.  I’m not holding my breath either, waiting for some tragedy to happen or for it to crumble.  I’ve been there done that.  Depression for me was alot about looking for deadfalls, and upon seeing what appeared to be a deadfall (whether real or not) stopping for fear of the consequences.  I’m done with that.  I’m not afraid of the consequences of my actions, I’m only afraid of not acting because of fear of consequences that might or might not happen.  I’m no longer pessimistic because I’ve learned that sometimes things do work out.

Look for enough deadfalls and you might find one.  If you don’t find a real one you might in your constant looking decide to manufacture one that you expect to arrive.  After all the movies and books say that the drama is supposed to exist, so it must come right?  Bad things happen to those happy people in the movies, won’t they happen to happy people in real life as well?  Perhaps, but perhaps a continual state of bliss is possible, although they’d never make a movie of a totally blissful relationship, that would be boring.  Bliss might be boring, but I’m loving every moment of it.

Debunking the myth about Hobbes’ Leviathan

Posted in education/academia, government, human nature, ideology, philosophy, politics, society, writing with tags , , , , , , on June 1, 2009 by zackc

I’ve been looking for an issue to write about, and have thus dove into my notes from a political theory class I took a few years ago.  The issue I want to tackle is the myth that Thomas Hobbes’ book Leviathan is pessimistic.   The main reason that some have reached this conclusion is the most often quoted passage from the book.  The section is in Chapter 13 and describes “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”, an existence that happens in the state of nature. 

The State of Nature according to Hobbes is an existence for humans in which there is nothing good (no civilization or culture) and no leisure to produce anything because all time is spent in continual fear of violent death.  The State of Nature is a state of war in which all men are at war with all other men because there is no government above all to regulate behavior and there is no gurantee of peace/security.  Within the State of Nature men are governed by their passions and desires and constantly attempt to outdue their fellows over goods and materials.  The State of Nature can only be escaped when a recognized government exists over all and a gurantee of peace and personal security exists.  To that end people I(according to Hobbes) should agree to create a government headed by a Sovereign who wields power, agreeing to give up some of their rights in exchange for a gurantee of personal security. 

Now a decent reading of Leviathan clearing shows that Hobbes is using the worst case scenario of human existence to make existence under a government more appealing (it also can be taken as a metaphor for civil war, as Hobbes was writing during the English Civil War in the 17th century).  The Commonwealth (govt) he advocates is quite liberal (with a Sovereign who is benevolent) and which is meant to be a far better existence that allows people to live safely and be productive.  But a glance at Leviathan by some people only look at the State of Nature description as an example that the book is pessimistic.  Not so much in reality, as the book appeals to the ability of humans to reason to realize that coming together to create a government that will exist to protect themselves and each other from the worst elements of society.

Jesus H. Christ: The Bible Bill?

Posted in government, politics, religion, soccer with tags , , , , , , , on May 22, 2009 by zackc

I woke up and knew I wanted to write something on my off day, but found myself without any interesting ideas.  So I went to that great bastion of ideas-Yahoo!-and found this story about a resolution by Congress to make 2010 “A Year of the Bible” (Or some such nonsense).

Wow.  Can I say wow.  Is this not 2009?  Are we still doing this religious nonsense?  I guess so.  Bleh.  I find this whole thing quite irritating because it’s a continual reminder of the distraction that religion plays in society and the divisive nature of religion.  From the article:

The resolution specifically asks the president “to issue a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture which has profoundly influenced and shaped the United States and its great democratic form of government.”

Talk about divisive!  “Citizens of all faiths” are not going to care about the message of the “Holy Scripture”.  That’s the whole point of recognizing that people hold different beliefs.  Why should Muslims or Jews or Buddhists (or atheists!!!) recognize Christian scripture?  They don’t, and they won’t, at least not in the way that Christians want them to.  Why should those minority groups compromise their beliefs?  The danger of such a resolution as the one advocated by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) is that it’s an attempt to force the President to take a professional position on what should be a private matter.   If it were to pass and make it to Pres. Obama’s desk it might serve as a useful tool for Republicans in distracting the American people off the real issues the country faces.

This isn’t the first time such a thing has occurred.  1983 was actually called a “Year of the Bible” by Pres. Reagan.  Interesting how this “Year of the Bible” might be percieved compared to the 1983 version.   I see this as an attempt to energize the Republican base (the bill has 15 co-signers in the House, all Republicans) by providing an emotional issue to a base with few issues.   The real issues (the economy, the wars, torture, etc) are being handled by the Democratic majority, thus the listless Republican party (which has failed on all of those “real” issues) must manufacture an issue that might score them a few headlines.  What better than “The Bible”?  Throw religion out there and reignite the “Separation of Church and State” issue in a country where secular and atheistic thought is gaining strength as science and rationalism make dents in a country that became highly saturated in emotional religious thinking in the years starting with Reagan (the 1983 year must have been highly useful in touching the Evangelical part of the Republican party) and culminating with Bush II in the 2000s.

As to my personal opinion on this resolution…whatever.  I won’t recognize the Bible as having any productive rules that we humans cannot have invented independently of “God”.  Sorry.  From my reading of the Bible “God” (if he exists) is a megolomanical jerkweed who has murdered millions of his own creations who failed to follow his fickle rules.  I will not worship anyone like that nor honor his/her/its rulebook.  Sorry.  If this resolution passes I will ignore it, as I do Christianity as much as possible.  We got bigger fish to fry in this country than honoring a book of fairy tales for adults.

Michael Vick

Posted in football, society, sports with tags , , , , , , on May 20, 2009 by zackc

Michael Vick was released from prison recently and I’m assuming that means the lottery to get him as a quarterback will begin for certain NFL teams soon.  Sure he’s currently talking about getting in touch with his family and “football being on the backburner”, but I would bet he’ll play football somewhere again, which is a real shame.  I remember when the stories came out about his dog fighting cabal and his subsequent arrest and found myself thinking “he’ll go away for a few years, but at some point he’ll wear a uniform again.”  He might not, but I have a feeling that NFL teams will be able to look past a “little” animal abuse when they might see a few more wins.  Such is the nature of a big business like pro sports.  We’ve seen that you can pretty much do anything and they’ll keep paying you if you’re talented enough athletically.

Let’s not forget what he did.  He (and his pals) trained and tortured animals so that they would kill other animals.  He maliciously abused (or had animals abused, or paid to have animals) animals to make them meaner.  We currently have a debate going on in this country about torture…well here is a guy who tortured.  Here he is…19 months and 4 months of house arrest.  More than the Bush Administration will get, but still.  It gives me a headache. 

And beyond that…he’ll probably be back in the NFL within a few years.  Probably.  Maybe he’ll turn over a new leaf in his behavior, but…he should have known better in the first place.  Right?  I’m sure he’ll be getting in touch with God and doing charity work to end dogfighting, but that’s what all people do when they get caught and want to “rehabilitate”.   

And what about the NFL people?  Are they going to hire this guy back?  I know that quite a few teams have chronic quarterback problems, but will they sacrifice their last strands of moral fiber to hire an animal abuser?  Yeah, probably.  I wouldn’t be suprised.  *Sigh*

Greetings to All!

Posted in Autumn's posts, miscellaneous on May 19, 2009 by arwhit11

Hello Zack’s readership (including those pesky crickets and mimes)! So I’m Autumn, Zack’s blogger-in-crime and feminine side to this blog space (alright, not really) . I’ll try not to leave too many entries on this side, as Zack has developed this space as his own, but I’ll drop in from time to time.  Make sure to check up regularly on his Random Thoughts (as he has many….) and drop in on mine if you want to at www.arwhit11.wordpress.com ! Until then, happy blogging to all! <3

Semper Ama

Posted in relationships, writing with tags , , on May 19, 2009 by zackc

[My manifesto concerning relationships.  Cheesy?  You decide.]

********

What is a relationship?

It’s a connection between two people.  That is all.  And yet it’s not.  It’s an agreement to comfort and support each other, an agreement to help each other make the tough times bearable, the good times better, and good times bliss. It’s a mutual friendship, a unique and special thing that two people define themselves. It’s a secret everyone vaguely knows about but can only be understood by the two who are in on it. It’s a message of trust and respect written in a language of their own creation, a language of silly jokes, sad experiences, and moments everywhere in between that the two share together.

It’s a secret public friendship, bounded by an agreement of togetherness and understanding that each is special to the other.  A team, it doesn’t encompass the members totally, but simply augments their lives, adding to the quality of their existence. To each other the members should be the most staunch of allies, first on the scene to provide help, and yet also the last line of defense, ready to pick each other up should all other support systems fail. To each other the members act as confidant and friend, ready to help at all times, even if that help is not what the person things they need sometimes. 

It’s their thing, and only they truly know what it means. Any and all time they spend together is important if only because of with whom they spend it. It’s not measured by the amount of time they spend together or how, but how that time helps them both and that they cherish the moments shared together. Nor should it to be measured against other relationships, it simply exists.  To compare it to another relationship would not only be an insult to the relationship, but to all relationships.  Such a unique and beautiful thing should not be forced to face rivals, but should exist untainted by any bands to society as a whole.  It won’t of course, and will be trampled and tarnished and tattered by various bumblers, and thus must constantly be repaired, restored, and remade.

There should not be rituals such as set dates to meet, but simply an agreement that dates should be set and time spent together. There should not be quotas of time or money spent on each other, only agreements that quotas and money are silly compared to the unquantifiable energy that exists between the two. There should not be points scored or recorded, only an agreement that the game be played honestly and always with each other.

The future is not set, but together at any given moment the future does not matter between the people in a relationship.  Nor does the past.  Nor does anything except the person sitting two feet away.  Within that two feet are a thousand special moments, stretching back to the first time the two met.  Also within those two feet are a thousand more special moments, as yet not acted out but floating in the future, comforting the two. From the many moments, both in the past and the future come comfort, for the two have a future, and a past.  Both are filled with ups and downs, highs and lows, but they have been overcome together.  From that history comes strength.  The strength to endure and the reality that there is reason to endure.  Love of the other.

Within the relationship there should be fun and there should be laughter, both to drive away sadness and stress and simply, because.  Because the joy they bring each other should be a continuing refuge from the ravages of the world. There should be happiness and joy, there will be sorrow and tears, but they should be shared, enjoyed, and dealt with together. There should be comfort and compassion, both given and received, and there should be love. Always. Semper Ama.

College Graduation

Posted in education/academia, life story with tags on May 19, 2009 by zackc

[Reader note:  my fellow blogger Autumn is maintaining an independent blog as well as writing here.  Her blog can be found at www.arwhit11.wordpress.com]

I’m back my beloved readership, and I’m now certified as a college grad.  I think so.  Still haven’t got the diploma but they let me walk across stage so that has to count for something right?  Right???  Yeah it’s probably as valuable as TP isn’t it?

I’m not sure how to feel about being a college graduate.  Did anything change?  Am I taller?  Am I more handsome?  Am I smarter?  Alright you have me on the “more handsome” one but the movement to college grad from um…ungraduated seems to be more of a change in how I’m viewed by society rather than an innate change in my own composition.  I’m still me.  I think.  I still work the same job as before.  I still drive the same car and sleep in the same bed.  I still tell the same silly jokes as before and yet…and yet…I’m a college graduate!  It took awhile to sink in, but I am.  Yah!

My future plans are to pursue a MUP (that’s Masters of Urban Planning, I like to call it a “MUP” and people I know would like it if I’d shut up about my “MUP”).  Should take me two years.   After that I’m not sure.   A Ph.D in history is my real dream, but getting out and making some money is quickly becoming an urge (not to mention an ego and vanity problem) that I can’t ignore.  But I have time. 

Thanks to my beloved readership who still check in (I see that the views were rather consistent while I was gone!) and I hope they check back in as I plan to write alot this summer.  I’m…..Back.

Introducing…

Posted in writing with tags , on May 17, 2009 by zackc

My new blogger in crime:

arwhit11!

A great gal who will now be sharing this space, I introduce my readership (*crickets*) to arwhit11, well that’s her username, although her parents considered other cruel names such as brwhit12 and crwhit13.  I welcome her to the team (of 1) and wish her blogging luck.  Hopefully she’ll produce something useful, seeing as I’ve been unproductive for months.  Welcome!

George Kennan’s “Article X”: The Sources of Soviet Conduct

Posted in American history, education/academia, government, history, ideology, politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , on April 23, 2009 by zackc

[Zack note:  I don't know how to set up a post so that it hides most of the text (I did look for awhile but have other papers to work on).  This paper is about George Kennan's article about Soviet motives and containment theory.   I found it quite interesting, but maybe you won't my beloved readership.  This one was quite long, read it if you wish, if not scroll down to something else.  I will get back to normal blogging in a few weeks I promise, one more term paper to go before I graduate.]

 

*******

“It is clear that the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies[1],” is perhaps the most famous line written by American foreign policy strategist George F. Kennan.  The line comes from his article “The Sources of Soviet Conduct”, popularly known as “Article X” because Kennan signed the article “X” for publication to maintain some anonymity due to his position as a government official and thus avoid the misconception that Kennan’s paper laid out concrete government foreign policy. 

            Article X’s main thesis was that the Soviet Union and the United States, two countries with different economic systems that are diametrically opposed to each other, must be viewed as constant rivals rather than as anything approaching potential allies.  Writing from the American perspective Kennan argues that the Soviet Union is motivated by socialist ideology to bring about the communist revolution over capitalism, and that the Soviets are constantly working towards the goal of spreading Communism.  Consequently the United States must act with a policy of containment of the Soviet Union that keeps the Soviet Union from expanding power.  The United States must also during this time maintain pressure which might in time bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union by exacerbating the numerous social, economic and political problems the Soviet Union faced because they practiced an oppressive form of government.        

Article X and the ideas it contained were not without criticism.  It has been called ignorant of Soviet history[2] and overly idealistic, to the point that Derek Leebaert said that “the article wound down with a gloss that could have been signed with equal sincerity by Pollyanna and the elder Field Marshall von Moltke[3].”  The policy of containment that it famously advocates is itself subject to debate, concerning whether it advocates all or a combination of political, economic, and military intervention.  It has been argued that what it advocated was misunderstood (most notably by Kennan himself) leading to numerous interpretations and assertions concerning the often vague language of the article.   The vague language has been interpreted in numerous ways leading to many diverse opinions about the article, some calling it the “theoretical justification for the Truman Doctrine[4]” while others, such as long time diplomat Dean Acheson, suggested the dismissal of most of Kennan’s writings as coming from someone with a “marshmallow mind[5].”

            Whether it was right or wrong, the impact of Article X cannot be denied in the history of American foreign political thought.  It articulated the philosophical reasoning for U.S. foreign policy for almost half a century, perhaps to the current day.  Kennan might not have been advocating military intervention with his article, but it was read that way in certain circles.  Indeed the language of the article is so vague that anyone reading it can interpret it how they wish.  The article could mean anything to anyone, depending on what that reader already desired.   It served a mine from which many foreign policy ideas could be extracted and as a well from which many foreign policy actions could be fueled.  

The Long Telegram

 

            Considered by many to be the most influential message in American Foreign Service history, the Long Telegram began Kennan’s commentary on Russian motivation[6].  Originally written while serving as a deputy head of the United States  mission to the Soviet Union, Kennan’s response was an expansion on a question about why the about why the Soviets were not supporting the World Bank or World Monetary Fund[7].  Frustrated (to the point of threatening resignation) by a lack of interest from Washington in his opinions about Soviet motivation, Kennan dictated (because he had been ill for a few days) more than five thousand words of cable that was to become, as one historian said “the most influential cable in the history of the American Foreign Service[8].” In it he proposed two main ideas, that the United States must use force to stop further Soviet expansion and that the United States must forge an alliance with Western powers (particularly Britain) for that purpose[9].  The Long Telegram was not the first time Kennan had said such a message, but it was the first time when Washington was ready to listen[10], quite possibly a circumstance that was to repeat itself when he wrote Article X the next year.  Kennan wrote in his memoirs that:

 

The effect produced in Washington by this elaborate pedagogical effort was nothing less than sensational.  It was one that changed my career and my life in very basic ways.  If none of my previous literary efforts had seemed to evoke even the faintest tinkle from the bell at which they were aimed, this one, to my astonishment, struck squarely and set it vibrating with a resonance that was not to die down for many months[11].

 

The Long Telegram was Kennan’s first real noteworthy event in the American foreign policy community, being read by numerous important government officials, such as the President (and Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, who would commission Article X a few months later[12].)  The Long Telegram was significant not only because it advocated the message of containment of the Soviet Union with a western alliance, but also because it unified the thinking of various advocates of firmness against the Soviet Union[13].  Coming out of the glow of writing the powerful Long Telegram, Kennan went to Washington to work as part of a Policy Planning Committee.

Article X

 

            “Article X” was published under the formal title “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” in the July 1947 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine[14].  Its origins can be found in private correspondence between Kennan and Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal while Kennan was working at War College in the winter of 1946.  Forrestal asked Kennan to write a response to a paper concerning Marxism and Soviet power written by a member of Forrestal’s staff, to which Kennan responded with his own paper on the issue rather than to simply comment on the original paper[15].  The result Kennan said was “a literary extrapolation of the thoughts which had been maturing in my mind, and which I had been expressing in private communications and speeches for at least two years[16],” a paper that Forrestal liked and said would suggest that the Secretary (presumably the Secretary of State) should read.   

            The article might have died at that point if Kennan had not been solicited for a paper by the editor of Foreign Affairs magazine, Hamilton Fish Armstrong, after Kennan delivered a speech at the Council of Foreign Relations in January 1947.  Armstrong was impressed with Kennan’s speech and asked if he had anything in writing along the lines of his speech that could be published in Foreign Affairs.  Kennan, having spoken without notes, asked Forrestal if he could publish the paper he had sent him, a request that Forrestal had no objections too.  Kennan consequently submitted the article to the Committee on Unofficial Publication for clearance, which was granted April 8th.  Kennan signed it “X” to create a level of anonymity for himself and did not think much about the paper until it was published a few months later[17]

            Article X was written divided into four parts.  Part I laid out Kennan’s ideas about the evolution of the Soviet Union’s political personality.  Kennan argued that Soviet power was a product of ideology that Soviet leaders inherited from the movement in which they had their political origin and the circumstances of power that they exercised in Russia[18].  The ideological concepts were difficult to summarize because of the constant process of evolution in Russia’s communist projection, but Kennan summarized the main principles of Communist thought as: man being the central factor in life and determines the system and manner in which material goods are dealt with, that capitalism is a nefarious system that leads to the exploitation of the working class by the capital owning class, that capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction and will eventually lead to a revolution transferring power to the working class, and that “imperialism, the final phase of capitalism, leads directly to war and revolution[19].” 

            Kennan, having created a basic framework for dealing with the Soviet Union, proceeds to deliver a brief history of the Russian revolutionary movement elements and their desire to get rid of the Tsarist regime.  He notes that the revolutionaries were:

Frustrated, discontented, hopeless of finding self-expression—or too impatient to seek it—in the confining limits of the Tsarist political system, yet lacking wide popular support for their choice of bloody revolution as a means of social betterment, these revolutionaries found in Marxist theory a highly convenient rationalization for their own instinctive desires[20].

Kennan is saying that the Bolsheviks found Socialism a convenient ideology because it advocates a revolution, something they wanted because it was seen as the best way to remove the Tsarist regime, a regime long noted for stifling political freedom and democratic reform, from power.  Kennan then writes that the successful socialist revolution and the aftermath of civil war and foreign intervention to remove the socialists from power “made the establishment of dictatorial power a necessity.[21]” 

Having established dictatorial power and fresh from winning the bloody Russian civil war, the socialists insisted on the submission or destruction of all competing power driven by skepticism that rival forces could exist for any length of time peacefully[22].  This desire to secure and maintain absolute power at home was viewed by Kennan as a primary interest of the Soviet and thus a motivating factor in their behavior, because the Soviet regime viewed any behavior, either from internal elements or outside intervention meant to aid dissidents within Russia, as suspect.  Consequently, concerns by the Soviet leadership about the loyalty of all peoples within Russia, even the most seemingly loyal communists, created a sense of insecurity about Russian security.  That insecurity must also have surely been exacerbated by the internal knowledge of Soviet leadership that their movement was not a popular uprising, but a seizure of the government by a minority political movement that took power through force and had to use force to maintain power.  Thus Kennan wrote that “the security of Soviet power came to rest on the iron discipline of the party, on the severity and ubiquity of the secret police, and on the uncompromising economic monopolism of the state[23].”

Part II describes the Soviet Union’s (circa 1946-47) modern political personality.  Kennan argued that, “Belief is maintained in the basic badness of capitalism, in the inevitability of its destruction, in the obligation of the proletariat to assist in that destruction and to take power into its own hands[24].”  The innate conflict between capitalism and socialism, argued Kennan, had profound implications for Soviet conduct because it assumed a constant conflict (or at least possibility of conflict) always existed between capitalist and socialist states.  The fundamental incapability of the two economic systems meant that the Soviets would always be suspicious of capitalist countries.  That suspicion, particularly of countries such as the United States with superior force must have fed the Soviet insecurity.  The only solace for Soviets, according to Kennan, was the theory that capitalism would inevitably fall[25].  This assumption meant that the Soviet Union only had to survive, a theory that further pushed the Soviet desire for security and complete control of the State.

The second concept Kennan listed, along with the conflict between capitalism and socialism, as important Soviet outlook was “the infallibility of the Kremlin[26].”  A side effect of the Soviet desire to maintain absolute control via a dictatorship of power and state organizations (such as secret police forces) was that the Communist Party leadership became the sole source of truth in Russian society.  This idea that the Communist Party is always right created a symbiotic relationship with the state organs created to make sure that discipline was maintained.  As Kennan wrote:

On the principle of infallibility there rests the iron discipline of the Communist Party.  In fact, the concepts are mutually self-supporting.  Perfect discipline requires recognition of infallibility.  Infallibility requires the observance of discipline.  And the two go far to determine the behaviorism of the entire account: namely, the fact that the leadership is at liberty to put forward for tactical purposes any particular thesis which it finds useful to the cause at any particular moment to require the faithful and unquestioning acceptance of that thesis by the members of the moment as a whole.  This means that truth is not a constant but is actually created, for all intents and purposes, by the Soviet leaders themselves[27].

This reality where truth is subject to change and yet requires absolute loyalty and submission at the behest of Soviet leadership seems particularly unsettling to a country, the United States, where freedom of expression and constant political truths (such as those articulated in the Constitution and other founding documents) creates a situation according to Kennan in which containment is the only option for controlling the Soviet Union.  The ability of the Soviet Union to change policy in reaction to any given set of circumstances in order to exploit and gain power, or to not react and instead act cautiously makes the Soviet Union a very unpredictable and dangerous state.  Kennan wrote that “caution, circumspection, flexibility, and deception are the valuable qualities” in the pursuit of Communist purposes[28].  These traits combined with the pursuit of goals that require no time table but only results suggest in Kennan’s mind that “it is clear that the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies[29].”

In Part III Kennan, having discussed Soviet motivations and having come to the conclusion that the Soviet threat should be contained, examines the reality of the Soviet Union’s realistic positions compared to the ideological thesis of Communism.  Part III of Article X further looks at the Soviet Union and areas where weakness might exist, allowing containment to pressure the Soviet Union into change.  As Kennan wrote:

It will be clearly seen that the Soviet pressure against the free institutions of the western world is something that can be contained by the adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and the maneuvers of Soviet policy, but which cannot be charmed or talked out of existence.  The Russians look forward to a duel of infinite duration, and they see that already they have scored great successes[30].

With the idea that containment must be practiced by the United States in order to contain an expansionistic Russia, a Russia determined to fulfill its strategic goals and yet not restrained by any time table other than eventual achievement of socialism’s triumph over capitalism, the Russian threat would appear quite menacing.  To soften the ideology of Russian conquest Kennan examines various realities that stand in the way of Russian hegemony over the United States.

            The basic arguments that Kennan lays out in Part III are the material realities the Soviets face and which might be used to undermine Russian gains.  Among these realities is that the Soviet Union, in building their heavy industry and in maintaining, wasted human lives and energy because of the use of forced human labor[31].  In addition, the Soviets were exhausted, both in spirit and in materials by the toll of destruction from World War II, leaving them highly disillusioned with Soviet power and ideology[32].  Finally the Soviets were limited by their economic development, which was “spotty and uneven,[33]” a reality that should have made communists who harped about “uneven capitalist development” blush from hypocrisy[34].

            The upshot of all of these shortfalls between the Russian ideology and the reality of the Soviet’s situation creates weaknesses that might be exploited by the United States via containment.  Kennan draws attention to the economic reality of Russian backwardness, noting that despite the economic growth in industry the Russians are poor in terms of transportation, construction and other forms of infrastructure, all of which is highlighted by the reality that Russian peasants have nothing like the productive capabilities of the skilled western worker[35].  Despite the supposed “invulnerability of the Kremlin” and the notion that the Communist Party held absolute sway was the reality that political leadership changes within the Soviet Union’s brief history were violent messy affairs.  Stalin came to power in a transfer of authority that took twelve years to complete and “cost the lives of millions of people and shook the state to its foundations[36].”  The matter of whether or not a smooth change in leadership could happen (something certain to happen eventually, and did happen with Stalin’s death in 1953) was certainly an issue that could be exploited by the United States by pressing the Soviet Union.  Foreign containment could certainly, by sheer pressure, create cracks in something even as rock solid as the Communist Party and the Soviet Union.  Keenan thus concluded that “the future of the Soviet power may not be by any means as secure as Russian capacity for self-delusion would make it appear to the men of the Kremlin[37].”

Part IV of the article serves as a conclusion that says that the United States must continue to view the Soviet Union as a political rival rather than a potential partner because of the difficulty in establishing a “permanent happy coexistence of the Socialist and capitalist worlds[38].”  In this line of the thinking the United States should act with a policy of “firm containment” in order to control the Soviet Union, the weaker party who, unable to measure up directly to United States military or economic power, will try to act in a highly flexible manner to encroach upon the non-Soviet spheres of influence[39].   Within this policy of containment America should not be content to simply hold the line, but to also “create among the peoples of the world generally the impression of a country which knows what it wants, which is coping successfully with the problem of its internal life and with the responsibilities of a World Power, and which has a spiritual vitality capable of holding its own among the major ideological currents of the time[40].”  In effect the United States must not just contain the Soviet Union through political, economic, military and all other means; they must also proactively create an image of American invincibility to counter the threat of Communist ideology.

A Firm Policy of Containment

            On of the greatest legacies of Article X must be the articulation that a foreign policy of containment must be used by the United States against the Soviet Union.  Containment theory was not created by Kennan or original to Article X, but the popularity of the “X” article and his famous line that “the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment[41]” did much to popularize the term, especially publicly due to the reprinting of the article in mainstream magazines such as Life and Reader’s Digest.  Article X’s popularity, particularly in many sectors of government (both political and military) but also in the mainstream public via popular magazines, helped popularized the theory of containment at a time when the Cold War was certainly intensifying, coming just a few months after the announcement of the Truman Doctrine in March 1947.  As historian Melyvn P. Leffler wrote “waging a worldwide struggle against totalitarian communism was something the American people could understand and support[42].”

            Containment theory was a policy by the United States to use political, military, and economic power to contain Communism while increasing American power and security abroad to prevent a “domino theory” in which countries fell under Communist control. In theory those countries would be far more sympathetic to the Soviet Union than to the United States, weakening the U.S. while strengthening the Soviet Union strategically.  Containment was implemented both through the Marshall Plan and through the Truman Doctrine.  The Marshall Plan functioned as the soft (economic) side of containment by building up countries susceptible to communism economically to help them resist communism while the Truman Doctrine acted as the hard (political and military) side, with the United States acting to resist aggressive communism and break up possible Soviet penetration[43].  Kennan’s article, in the opinion of Thomas G. Paterson, “seemed to provide the theoretical justification for the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan[44].”  It seems clear that perfect storm of ideas happened in 1947 where “the globalism in Kennan’s thinking comported well with the administration’s political needs[45].”

Melvyn P. Leffler wrote in A Preponderance of Power that:

                    Kennan’s analysis was appealing because it provide a unifying theme o U.S. foreign policy.  Rather than tackle deep-seated problems in disparate parts of the globe, Kennan urged policymakers to view Soviet Russia as their enemy and to approach all other issues from the viewpoint of competition with the Kremlin.[46]

Containment policy was attractive because it simplified the debate about how to handle American security.  Rather than dealing with the numerous security issues along the Soviet borders as individual problems that could only be solved with solutions unique to the circumstances on the ground, containment theory was a simple solution for every problem.  The simplicity of the solution became another problem however because American foreign policy strategists often failed to see the underlying problems of attempting to aid countries in their bids to avoid falling under communist regimes.  Chief among those problems were small countries aversion to foreign rule (in any form because of the stigma of imperialism), the moral issue of America backing brutal right-wing regimes, and the fact that America often ignored the desires of the “pawn countries” on the Soviet periphery while only looking toward the grand strategy that existed in the conflict between the two superpowers.  The lack of thought toward the  desires and interests of those tiny countries caught between the interests of Soviet and American strategy created numerous instances where America rarely received full pay for their aid because the countries often looked to their own interests (particularly maintaining their sovereignty from both America and Soviet power) rather than adhering to strict American aims.

            A major issue of containment was for historians concerning Article X was whether Kennan meant global or regional policy of containment.  In his memoirs Kennan singled out Eastern Europe as one of the area he should have specified in Article X[47].  That he did not was on based on the reasoning that he did not want to open up an issue that would “confuse the thesis [he] was developing, and carry the paper beyond its intended scope[48].”  Despite Kennan’s spirited defense of his position that he advocated only a regional containment policy, writers such as Walter L. Hixson in his biography of Kennan said that:

Kennan’s contention that he meant to limit containment to the five industrial regions of the world [the United States, Great Britain, the Rhine Valley, the Soviet Union, and Japan] was inconsistent with his later actions, however.  Although he did warn against offering military and economic aid “on a grand scale” and often referred to the primacy of containment in industrial regions, when it came time to make decisions on the implementation of containment in areas beyond the five industrial regions—in the Near East, in Korea, in Southeast Asia, and in Latin America—he advocated the assertion of American power.  Containment, as it evolved in Kennan’s own thinking, was, as we shall see, global in scope[49].

Kennan might have been able to argue that he meant regional rather than global containment, but his other speeches and writings suggest that he advocated global containment and only spoke against that argument in a revisionist attempt to avoid being marked with the stigma that comes with being one of the architects of an overly broad foreign policy scheme.

Whatever Kennan meant personally is somewhat irrelevant because once Article X hit it took on a life of its own.  The lack of specification in the article’s language created much grey area subject to interpretation.  That grey area was an area that could easily be filled with the preconceptions that any government official held about how to control the Soviet Union. 

The other issue in Kennan’s writing about containment was whether he meant global or regional containment.  The vagueness of Kennan’s language is one of the true shortcomings of Article X, but Kennan cannot be viewed as totally innocent in his lack of clarity.   One historian said about Kennan and the use of military force as a control mechanism that:

Kennan conceded a great deal to the military point of view.  Secretary Forrestal, his initial patron, was widely recognized as one of the most military-minded men in Washington.  Kennan could not have been ignorant of the uses to which Forrestal was putting his ideas.  Furthermore, it is a truism in international relations that to be effective political and economically a great power must have a hefty military punch.  Kennan himself had frequently spoken of an “adequate military posture[50].”

This quote, along with the statements Kennan previously made (such as the statement in the Long Telegram that the Soviets respond to force rather than logic[51]) suggests that Kennan was hawkish despite his later claims to support political and economic containment only.  Despite Kennan’s own writings (particularly his Long Telegram claim) historians such as Melvyn Leffler have argued that Kennan’s government colleagues, if not the public, knew that he was addressing only political containment because the Soviet military was so much weaker it could not realistically challenge the United States with force, but only through “economic dislocation, social unrest, political turmoil, and revolutionary nationalist upheaval.[52]”  This seems to stand in face of Kennan’s writings, but it must be left up to the reader to decide if Kennan was discussing military or political economic containment.  The main problem lies in Kennan’s liberal use of vague and undefined terms, which can be open to any of a number of interpretations, many of which would depend on the already preconceived opinions and foreign policy ideas of a given reader.

Kennan and the Aftermath of Article X

The publication of Article X, despite under the anonymous moniker “X”, rapidly launched Kennan (who was soon unmasked as the author of Article X by Arthur Crock who had seen the article in Forrestal’s Office[53]) to a position of fame. Kennan wrote in his memoirs that:

                        It was not long…before the authorship of the article became common knowledge.  Others began to write about it, to connect it with the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan, to speculate on its significance.  It soon became the center of a veritable whirlpool of publicity.  Life and Reader’s Digest reprinted long excerpts from it.  The term “containment” was picked up and elevated, by common agreement of the press, to the status of a “doctrine,” which was then identified with the foreign policy of the administration.  In this way there was established—before our eyes, so to speak—one of those indestructible myths that are the bane of the historian.[54]

The publication of the article caused a minor sensation.  Kennan was quite overwhelmed to be a celebrity, feted over at parties in Paris[55].  Kennan’s public recognition created some conflict for him with his superior, General Marshall, for breaking the principle that “planner’s don’t talk[56]”, and he was questioned by his superior for the breach in protocol.  General Marshall was only satisfied when Kennan explained that the article had been cleared for publication by the official committee.   

            Kennan had other problems besides bureaucratic protocol to deal with as Article X grew in popularity.  To Kennan it was quickly becoming clear that his article, which he meant to be an analysis of Soviet character, was being seen as a prescription for U.S. foreign policy[57].  Unfortunately Kennan was quite unable to clear up the problems created by the vague language of his article, and was left “feeling like one who had inadvertently loosened a large boulder from the top of a cliff and now helplessly witnesses it’s path of destruction in the valley below[58].”  Despite the problems Kennan supposedly saw in X Article, he reprinted the article verbatim in his 1951 book American Diplomacy 1900-1950 without any additional comments or alterations to refine his thinking away from any sort of military force in containing the Soviet Union[59].  This reprint without any attempt to fix any perceived errors in the paper creates a mixed message from Kennan.  On the one hand he laments not being more precise with his original prose, but on the other he took no action to update the paper, only writing about the mistakes that were made in interpretation of the paper.

            Walter L. Hixson said in his biography of Kennan that “after serving for years as an outsider and critic, he had been summoned to Washington to play a prominent, perhaps even indispensable, role in establishing the intellectual framework for postwar national security policy[60].”  For one moment in time, Kennan was the darling of many government officials for producing the paper that justified their actions.  But Kennan’s success was fleeting.  He thought that the pendulum, which he had shoved mightily with the Long Telegram and Article X had swung too far toward militarism, and consequently he began to fall out of favor in Washington[61].

His rise to the top of diplomatic circles was just as sharp as his return into diplomatic exile.  He was rather inept in the Washington social circles and grew frustrated as his article continued to be misinterpreted and used for things beyond what he had originally intended it to, and felt that his ideas had been “vulgarized, coarsened, and distorted by the failure of policy makers to understand essential nuance[62].”  He thought that containment was working and that the United States should move toward the next phase, that of mutual arms deduction[63].  Unfortunately he fell out of favor as Dean Acheson, who held him in nowhere the regard as George Marshall had, came to be the Secretary of State.  That fact, along with the Berlin Crisis in 1948 and the 1949 acquisition of the Atomic bomb by the Soviet Union militarized the debate significantly, leaving Kennan somewhat out in the cold.  Kennan never reached the height of influence he held in 1947-48 again, and except for two short stints as ambassador (to Russia in 1952 and to Yugoslavia in 1961-63) he effectively retired from public service to take up academic positions where he wrote many histories of the Soviet Union, primarily at the Institute for Advanced Study.

The long term effects of the X Article probably cannot fully be appreciated because it is truly unknown if the containment policy effected United States policy or if the arguments Kennan made simply came at a convenient time and were seized by the administration to bolster the Truman Doctrine of combating communism.  It is rather irrelevant at this point which theory affected which, as they both helped each other.  The X Article provided philosophical justification for containment by shedding light on Soviet motivations, namely the belief in a communist triumph over capitalism. Whether it was correct or not is somewhat irrelevant to the point of whether it was believed to be correct.  It would appear that it was, given that Marxism preached a message of revolution over capitalism and that a struggle seemed inevitable in a world quickly being divided by two super powers.  Some policy of containment of the communist threat seemed natural and needed in the evitable struggle that was going to come between capitalism and communism.  In turn the Truman doctrine of combating communism aggressively was practical application of the theory advocated in Article X.  Making containment a reality rather than just another discarded theory from a policy think tank meant that documents outlining containment were elevated and their writers along with them.  Kennan, if only for a brief time, was the star of the foreign policy world, and his article was the reason he reached that position.

            In time much of Article X would be more heavily scrutinized and the various points disentangled and shown to be flawed, particularly in terms of Soviet history and also the idealistically naive prose Kennan used to woo his audience, but Article X’s main point, that of containing the Soviet Union, was used for the Cold War policy.  Many major actions undertaken during the second half of the twentieth century by the United States, such as wars in Korea and Vietnam and coups in Iran and South Guatemala were about containing communism.  The creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was undertaken in part as a counter to the Soviet Union in Europe.  Economic pressure was put on the Soviet Union as well with arms races and battles to open markets in geographic hot points such as Eastern Europe and Asia.  Containment, it cannot be denied, was American foreign policy during the Cold War, and Article X played a part in bringing that policy into being.


[1]George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Edited by Walter LaFaber, 330-343 (New York, NY: Chelsea House Publishers, 1973), 337.

[2]Jerry F. Hough, “The ‘X’ Article and Contemporary Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Containing The Soviet Union: A Critique of US Policy edited by Terry L. Deibel and John Lewis Gaddis 139-154. (Washington D.C.: Pergamon-Brassey’s International Defense Publishers, 1987), 141.

[3]Derek Leebaert, The Fifty Year Wound: How America’s Cold War Victory Shapes Our World (Boston, MA: Little, Bown, and Company, 2002), 36.

[4]Thomas G. Paterson, Meeting the Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1988), 131.

[5] Derek Leebaert, The Fifty Year Wound: How America’s Cold War Victory Shapes Our World (Boston, MA: Little, Bown, and Company, 2002), 190.

[6]Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends And The World They Made (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Inc., 1988), 352.

[7] Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends And The World They Made (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Inc., 1988), 352.

[8] Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends And The World They Made (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Inc., 1988), 352.

[9] Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends And The World They Made (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Inc., 1988), 354.

[10] [10]Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends And The World They Made (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Inc., 1988), 354.

[11] George F. Kennan, Memoirs: 1925-1950, 294.

[12] George F. Kennan, Memoirs: 1925-1950, 295.

[13] [13] [13]Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends And The World They Made (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Inc., 1988), 355.

[14]X, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” Foreign Affairs, July, 1947, 566-82.

[15]George F. Kennan, Memoirs: 1925-1950 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), 354.

[16]George F. Kennan, Memoirs: 1925-1950, 355.

[17] George F. Kennan, Memoirs: 1925-195, 355.

[18]George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union., 330.

[19]George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union., 330-331.

[20]George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union., 331.

[21] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 332.

[22] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 331-332.

[23] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 334.

[24] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 335.

[25] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 335.

[26] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 335-336.

[27] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 336.

[28] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 336-337.

[29] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 336.

[30] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 338.

[31] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 338.

[32] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 338.

[33] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 338.

[34] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 338.

[35] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 339.

[36] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 339-340.

[37] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 341.

[38]  George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 341.

[39] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 341.

[40] George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 342.

32George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” in Dynamics of World Power: Documentary History of U.S. Foreign Policy 1945-1973, Volume III: Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 337.

[42] Melvyn P. Leffler, A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992), 181.

[43]  Melvyn P. Leffler, A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992), 145.

[44]Thomas G. Paterson, Meeting the Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1988), 131.

[45] Melvyn P. Leffler, A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992), 181.

[46]Melvyn P. Leffler, A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992), 108.

[47]George F. Kennan, Memoirs: 1925-1950, 357.

[48] George F. Kennan, Memoirs: 1925-1950, 358

[49] Walter L. Hixson, George F. Kennan: An American Iconoclast (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989), 44.

[50] Thomas G. Paterson, Meeting the Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1988), 133.

[51] George F. Kennan, “The Long Telegram” (Wikisource.org, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki-/The_Long_Telegram, accessed March 20, 2009).

[52] Melvyn P. Leffler, A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992), 181.

[53] Thomas G. Paterson, Meeting the Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1988), 131.

[54]George F. Kennan, Memoirs: 1925-1950 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), 356.

[55]Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends And The World They Made (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Inc., 1988), 420.

[56]George F. Kennan, Memoirs: 1925-1950, 356.

[57]Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends And The World They Made (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Inc., 1988), 420.

[58] George F. Kennan, Memoirs: 1925-1950 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), 356.

[59] Thomas G. Paterson, Meeting the Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1988), 134.

[60]Walter L. Hixson, George F. Kennan: An American Iconoclast (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989), 45.

[61] Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends And The World They Made (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Inc., 1988), 435.

[62] Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends And The World They Made (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Inc., 1988), 434.

[63] Walter Isaacson and Evan Thomas, The Wise Men: Six Friends And The World They Made (New York, NY: Simon & Shuster Inc., 1988), 436.

Downfall of the Roman Republic part duo

Posted in education/academia, history with tags , , , , on April 6, 2009 by zackc

I haven’t been blogging (at all) due to school work but this comment (by a user named Natty) came up on a blog entry I did long ago about the downfall of the Roman Republic found here. I thought the post was adequate but since the person decided to ask I guess I’ll respond again quickly. Here’s the comment.

ok i doubt that zackc will still be around, but it would be sooooo helpful if he could, or anyone could give thier own gerneral opinion on the downfall of the Roman Republic. i also am one to believe that the republic downfall was caused by the lack of control, only been able to be controlled by a small Senete in Rome. i mean look at, (i think it was Ceasar…) that marched twice on rome land with an armie to attack the Senate, to try and take control and change the way it was runned, as the ‘government’ was pathetically controlled.
Im kinda doing an assignment on the Republic Downfall, so i’d find it interesting to found out other peoples interpretations on the downfall.
thanx
xx

I don’t believe that it was so much a lack of control by the Senate, but instead was that the Senate was an outdated institution for dealing with such a large empire. Caesar himself was a Senator, so it’s not like he was acting against the Senate, instead he was acting against a certain segment of the Senate (the conservative faction, known as the Optimates or in the later Republic the boni (good men)). Civil war during the later Republic was between factions of the Senate, not between the Senate and outside generals.

The main reason I think the Republic fell was the change in the army and the effect this had on generals. The switch from armies of small landowners to armies predominately made up of landless poor allowed generals to accumulate private armies, rather than armies belonging to the Roman State. This is because the Roman soldiers looked to their general for rewards rather than to the State. The Senate was obstinate in giving rewards (particularly land) to soldiers because they used public land (ager publicus) for their own economic interests. This created conflict between generals of the progressive part of the Senate (such as Marius and Caesar) who wanted to act on behalf of the soldiers against the conservative parts of the Senate (who in turn had their own generals such as Sulla and Pompey [in his later life]) to get their soldiers land while using the soldiers votes to gain political power for their own interests. This problem over soldiers’ rights and the conflict between conservative and progressive factions of the Senate over many issues led to Civil War. The soldiers’ rights issue is important because for the first time soldiers were willing to fight against own Romans, because to do so would give political power to their general, who in turn would give them what they wanted.

That is why I think the Republic fell really originally, as the start of Civil War was caused by those issues. Eventually Civil War led to more and more consolidation of armies under one general, with the culmination of Octavian gaining all troops in 30ish BC. A side effect of all the Civil War was that the conservative elements were removed from the Senate due to the general success of the progressive armies (beginning with Caesar) meaning that a progressive Senate (many of whom were installed by those same progressive leaders) would be willing to be sub servant to the general. After that it was natural for the leader of the general to assume the leadership of the State as an autocrat controlling the army and the Senate as Emperor.

Big Love Episode 3.10 Review

Posted in entertainment, religion, reviews, television with tags , , , , , , , on March 23, 2009 by zackc

Episode 3.10 Finale

Right to the points:

  1. The main issue (besides Nicki and Bill’s relationship) was Ted and Cindy’s daughter being kidnapped by the Greens. That was a long drawn out hit and miss storyline of the season, with Roman misfiring in his attempt to get the girl because he wouldn’t kneel to Hollis Green in a secret meeting that involved a double cross. Second time around Ray (the DA) was tired of Bill’s shenanigans to get both Roman and the Greens for crimes, so decided to go after the Greens only. Roman once again tried to double cross the DA and the Greens…and well it’s too much to explain. Roman ended up free, the Greens got arrested, the girl was saved by Bill via Selma [Hollis's wife and Roman's sister] who let her go. Nuff said? Oh yeah Roman kissed Bill on the mouth in the 4th most awkward man on man kiss ever [side note: 3rd was Fredo/Michael in Godfather II, 2nd was The Rock/Steve Carell from Get Smart, 1nd was Jack Twist/Enis Del Mar in Brokeback Mountain]

  2. Did I say Roman went free? Yeah guess where he went? To the compound. He wasn’t going to be there long though because the DA was going to swoop in and get him for murder with testimony from Selma over Kathy’s murder. He went into the abandoned “Big House” and got ready for bed like always. But he wasn’t alone….

  3. Joey jumped out of the darkness and smothered Roman. That’s right…Roman is dead. Unless he pulls a Lazarus we have seen the last of one Prophet.

  4. The Pretender Albe wasn’t in the Big House because he was trying to blow up his mother’s hotel room. Yeah…he was going to bomb his own mother to dead. Sadly the maid came around [at least she didn't do the cliché “Housekeeping?”] and drove her cleaning cart over the letter bomb. For real. Albe’s health unknown.

  5. What else…Margene’s jewelry business is rocking, she went on some type of television infomercial program and sold a crap load of jewelry. Bill didn’t like her doing this naturally, and she basically told him to shove it cause she was the only wife who is driving on all four wheels. She basically rocks….no nudity though so she still kinda sucks.

  6. Nicki is off the reservation this episode trying to deal with the fact that she has met her fourteen year old daughter who she abandoned. The girl finally seems to have broken her away from the compound a bit as the daughter was about to be put into the “Joy Book” and married. Needless to say Nicki didn’t like that and so took her child to live at the Hendrickson’s compound.

  7. I call it a compound because Bill decided he was going to be a Prophet and start a new church. Hardcore right? I called it if you look at the previous post btw.

  8. Barb was thrilled that she gets to be part of a church now. Her family was thrilled to get their daughter back, and Bill found a way to screw Ted over. Bill must have gotten some of Roman’s mojo from that kiss. Probably a bit of his saliva as well. But I digress.

  9. Hmm…Sarah proposed to Scott. He accepted. Apparently they’re getting married. Bill was okay with it since she’s 18 and all. Whatever.

  10. Oh yeah…The letter was a fake.  Turns out Roman was channeling Mark Hoffmann or something and was turning out high quality forgeries.  They’d been doing it for years and robbing the Church blind.  Good stuff Roman.  But no legitimizing letter for polygamy.

  11. So that’s about how it ends after three seasons.  Below is a recap of what most of the characters are doing.  I haven’t heard about a 4th Season yet, so if this is how it’s going to end it really ended well.  If my recap seems rushed…well it was.  I really didn’t do this episode any sort of justice.  It was generally excellent.  A very good season that started slow but picked up well and climaxed at the right time, unlike Season 2 which was like a Bell Curve of polygamous fun.  The good guys are safe, the bad guys are in jail or dead.  If it ends here then it ends in a really good spot.  Thanks for reading…please drop me a comment if you found this useful.  Zack

CHARACTERS:

  • Bill: starting a new church apparently. Still happily married to all of his wives apparently. Businesses apparently sorted out and safe. Seems to be fulfilling his destiny as a religious leader.
  • Barb: Excommunicated from LDS Church but seems happy that Bill is going all Prophety so she can get outta Outer Darkness rap.
  • Nicki: Found her lost child. Seems content with that redemption. Living at Hendrickson’s compound.  Marriage status unknown although she was being moved across town.
  • Marg: Rocking the Jewelry world. Totally hot.
  • Sarah: Getting married to Scott.
  • Benny: Going into Air Force
  • Teeny: ??? Possibly still peddling smut
  • Other kids: Growing like weeds!
  • Roman: Dead
  • Joey: Made Roman Dead
  • Hollis/Greens: Imprisoned
  • Albe: Wounded in Action
  • Lois: Living with Joey/Wanda…still puckered up.
  • Frank: ??? Buying smut from his grand daughter?
  • Heather: ???
  • Rhonda: ??? In Hollywood?

Final Big Love point

Posted in entertainment, religion, television with tags , , , , , , , on March 18, 2009 by zackc

I forgot to mention this point from Episode 3.9, but at the end of the episode when Bill and Joey have their falling out, Bill falls through a floor and lands on his back.  He looks up at the sky to the stars and the episode fades to black.  I think he had a moment of clarity and will take it as a sign that he should be a Prophet. 

His line from earlier in the episode that no one has the keys and has the ability to lead, and his frustration that both Roman and the Church are corrupt leads me to believe that he will create a new group as it’s prophet.  It does seem to be his destiny.  He is the descendant of a prophet and is a natural leader.  I think this is where the show will go.  The conflict between his personal and professional life have been heading toward each other on a collison court, but I think his personal life will win. 

So that’s my prediction:  Bill as a Prophet.

Big Love Temple Scene Video

Posted in entertainment, religion, television with tags , , , , , , , on March 17, 2009 by zackc

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=V8H6L4H0

Here’s a link to the video.  Click on the “Play” button and the temple scene starts around 27:30 minutes.

For those who are interested the Court of Love scene can be found at around 47 minutes.

Hopefully the link works for people.

Big Love Episode 3.9 Review

Posted in entertainment, reviews, television with tags , , , , , , on March 16, 2009 by zackc

Episode 3.9

One to go…last time Nicki was caught practicing prosecutorial pseudo-polyandry (how’s that for alliteration!) and now the whole family is in jeopardy.  Ah screw it…you want to hear about the Temple ceremony stuff right?  I thought so…to the points!

  1. Well let’s get to it.  Yeah they showed some wacked out Temple stuff.  I’m not even sure what to say about it.  I don’t think I breathed for three minutes.  Actually I know I didn’t because I woke up twenty minutes later with the dog licking what had been a plate of beef stew, with only vague recollections about Jeanne Tripplehorn in a totally white outfit doing crazy stuff with guys dressed like Pillsbarry Doe men.  Seriously, it was weird in the way that only a famous actor doing something freaky can be weird and creepy.  Like when Ned Beatty was raped in Deliverance.  Or when Ving Rhames was raped in Pulp Fiction.  Or when…um.  Sorry.  Back to the topic at hand.
  2. So what actually happened?  Well Barb got a visit from her Bishop and the Stake President about her practicing polygamy.  Barb, not being the skilled liar that is her sister wife Nicki, admitted it to these two yahoos she hasn’t seen in a few years, so she got called before a Church Displinary Council aka “Court of Love”.  During all this time she was in her bathrobe.  Intruding much?  Anyway Barb, knowing she was probably going to be excommunicated, decided she wanted to visit the Temple and get her endowments.  I’m sure most Mormons are thinking “she’s in her mid-40s…shouldn’t she already have gotten them?” but whatever.  Since she doesn’t have a Temple Recommend (for those who don’t know you have to jump through all sorts of hoops to gain access to an LDS Temple ceremony) she decides to borrow one from her sister and/or mother.  Not sure who lets her borrow it.  Anyway she goes through the Temple and it’s all weird and freaky.  Secret handshakes were shook, secret messages uttered, she passed through the Veil.  I really don’t know how to talk about, it was so many levels of weird above what I can describe that well…you just have to find it and watch it yourself.  If I can find a video I’ll post it.  Stay tuned on that end.
  3. For those of you who found this blog entry and only wanted to hear about the Temple ceremony you can stop now.  The rest is just my normal recap stuff.
  4. After Barb went through the Temple she found out her sister had outed her to her Bishop.  Cindy (Barb’s sister) gets off the hook for that one when her adopted child gets kidnapped by the Greens.  The Greens are holding her for ransom against the letter proving polygamy was never going to be outlawed.  Bill decides to cut a complex deal (that would require three flow charts and the sacrificing of a steer to explain) between himself Ted, Roman, and Ray the DA to get the daughter back.  That was the big cliff hanger.  Interesting to see how that will play out.  In helping Roman Bill has become estranged from his brother Joey who is totally pissed that Roman killed his second-bride-to-be.  Joey is totally going to kill someone. 
  5. Nicki sat at the compound for awhile and schemed with Alby, and then was called home by Bill.  Nicki arrived just in time to find Sarah and her exboyfriend/exbaby daddy freaking in her bed.   Too bad the young lovers came down with a case of Nicollettus Coitus Interruptus or they might have gone two for two on getting Sarah knocked up.   No nudity though.  Bummer as usual.  Nicky did have the descency to not throw them under the bus though, although she got even by making them wash the sheets.  I think things are about square.
  6. Nicki returned home to find (in addition to the sexual antics of her daughter) that Bill doesn’t want to be married to her.  He proved this by sexing her in turn.  Mixed signals much?  Or was it a dream sequence?  Bill was weirding out this whole episode.  He’s under a lot of stress.  The “will Nicki be divorced?” question is the other big cliffhanger going into the season finale.  This episode was mostly about Barb.
  7. Beyond the Temple thing (which was weird but well aren’t we all a little weird?  I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.  I’m also a compulsive liar…) Barb did end up going through her “Court of Love”.  If the Mormon church got a black eye from this episode it was this scene that gave it.  I think that Nonmormons are going to have a hard time figuring out how a church can eject members.  This has to be a foreign idea for most people.  Perhaps social shame will make a person leave, but for a church to actually have mechanisms in place to kick you out for your behavior seems well…overbearing in my opinion.  So anyway she was excommunicated.  Before the meeting began she was asked numerous times about her having recording devices.  She also was asked if she was keeping her temple promises which led to a humorous quote by Barb (below).  Needless to say she was excommunicated.  That’s about it setting up the Nicki divorce issue and the kidnapping issue.  Roman has been quiet for awhile so I think he’ll pull something out of his hat to gain control of the compound.   Ta till then.
  8. Best quotes (some paraphrasing):
  • Barb:  “There is no difference between family and the Church.”
  • Barb: “President are you asking me what type of underwear I’m wearing?”
  • Barb:  well….actually just about the whole Temple scene could be typed up here.
  • Bill to Ted: “You’re a prick”
  • Nicki: “Both of you downstairs now.  Bring the sheets.”
  • Stake President quoting Boyd K. Packer: “There are some truths that aren’t very useful.”  EPIC!

Big Love and the Sacred Temple Ceremonies

Posted in entertainment, religion, television with tags , , , , , , on March 12, 2009 by zackc

Since I’m the greatest Big Love reviewer on the Net (something that’s not disputed, unlike my claim to be the sexiest man alive…Brad Pitt pssst) I think I’ll weight in on this issue before the episode premieres.  Why not?  Everyone else seems to be giving their $.02.

For my readers who don’t know (like I have readers!) Big Love is television show about a polygamist family living in Utah.  The members seem to hold many of the same beliefs as mainstream Mormons, but their practice of polygamy sets them apart from regular Mormons (popular term for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) gave up practicing polygamy in 1890.  Anyway mainstream Mormonism has been in the background the first few seasons but has been coming to the forefront with the recent characters of Barb’s (Jeanne Tripplehorn) sister and brother in law.   Both of these relatives have been butting heads with the Hendricksons (that’s the main families’ last name) about various issues, leading to Barb’s sister going to visit her Bishop about Barb and polygamy.  Needless to say the previews for the next episode hint that Barb will be visited by Church officials about her lifestyle choice, which might put her on the road to excommunication from the Church.  My guess is that will be the lead in to the Temple and endowment issue, either by flashback or some other such device to put the “sacred” temple ceremony out there for all of HBodom to see.  How this scene will play out is anyones guess. 

Now much of this bruhaha came from a TV Guide photo of Barb in full temple outfit.  This picture alone is going across the line for most Mormons who in response have called for boycotts of HBO and full the episode to not be shown.  This won’t happen of course, the episode will air, but much bad feeling seems to be coming from Mormons on message boards, social networking sites, and the like about the sacred temple ceremonies being aired for all to see.

Frankly I guess this was inevitable, as the Temple is one of the great skeletons that Mormonism faces, along with polygamy.  It’s just one of those iconic issues that people think about when they think Utah.  Show anything about Utah and you’re going to see the Temple in Salt Lake.  It’s just one of those things people think when they think Mormon.  I figured Big Love would have shown the ceremonies before now, but finally the issue is here.  Either way its going to make the Mormons furious, the question that will be answered next Sunday is: “How mad will they be?”

Because there is no way to show the ceremony with dignity and respect, as the creators of the show claim to have done.  To show the ceremony at all is to be disrespectful to Mormons.   They think those things that happen in the temple are for their eyes only, and well the airing of their ceremonies isn’t going to make them happy.  They want to keep their secrets, but in this Information Age nothing is secret.  So I guess the HBO world will be introduced to the weird and exotic temple rituals. 

I wonder about that issue.  The usual claim you’ll hear about the ceremonies from Mormons is that they’re “sacred not secret” and for that reason they won’t be discussed.  However (as people who have seen the photos of Jeanne Tripplehorn in temple dress can attest) it has to be fed a bit by shame at the weirdness of the outfits.  On some level it must register with those clean cut white bread Mormons you know who attempt so much to be mainstream how bizarre their rituals are.  I mean seriously.  Google it, look at the outfits.  Surely shame at the inner knowledge that they’re dressed ridiculously has to be feeding the desire to keep these ceremonies secret.  That’s my thought anyway.

However I think the only thing they can do is the private protests of pulling their subscriptions.  Any organized boycott attempts or protests or whatever will simply feed the publicity and mean that more people will see the episode.  I think the best thing to do is to let it happen and not make a big deal out of it.  Of course they won’t do that, because the Mormons want to eat have their cake and eat it too, so I guess the episode will enjoy record audiences.  We shall see how they portray the ceremony.

From The Music Vault XXIX: The Beach Boys

Posted in entertainment, music, the musical vault, youtube with tags , , , , , on March 11, 2009 by zackc

How could I forget these guys in twenty eight previous entries?  For shame Zack, for shame.  Actually I only am posting them now because they do the Theme Song for Big Love, which has been my main blogging issue (when I have time) lately and well it’s time they got their own entry.  You know The Beach Boys right?  Lots of harmony with a side of early psychedelic?  You know…God Only Knows (video)?  Good Vibrations?  In My Room?  That’s right, you just remember them for their Surfer Songs.  Too many to list on that end.  Tons of good music all around.  Check out Pet Sounds, one of the best albums of all time, and one of the few that came that could stand up to the Beatles. 

Big Love Episode 3.8 Review

Posted in entertainment, religion, reviews, television with tags , , , , , on March 9, 2009 by zackc

Episode 3.8

Last week we saw Kathy (Joey’s soon to be second wife) stab a pig (and a polygamist extra) and get her neck broken for her trouble. This week, the funeral. To the points:

  1. 1. As stated, the overall plot of this episode was based around Kathy’s funeral. As you can expect, she was buried. In the ground. Ho hum. There was more important things afoot.

    2) Bill’s war with his brother-in-law continued unabated. Frankly I think we should just lock them in the Dome of Devastation and give them pointy objects at this point. They butted heads over the Woodruff document (that proved polygamy wasn’t originally going to be stopped) and the casino (brother in law [whose name I don't know apparently!] once again is getting the casino slowed down). Needless to say it’s a big mess. I thought that Barb’s sister was going to be the major conflict, but as everyone knows behind every snippy woman there is a social climbing man looking to buy historical documents to protect his church.

    3) The couple (Barb’s sister and brother in law) must appear to familiar to some LDS who see people who act as if the Church is a career, moving around for different positions as they are called to “service”. Making a career out of the Church does appear plausible right? The sister also had a weird trip to meet her Bishop (who called her “sister”) to discuss her sister the polygamist. Next week Barb will probably get a visit from the Church. This quick scene probably sending chills down the spines of many an exmormon. Stay tuned on that issue.

    4) Anyway, the real storyline this episode was Nicki. Her chickens came home to roost. First she told Ray (the DA guy who was prosecuting Roman) that she was done with her other guy, so Ray, poor schmuck, had the gall to try and date her. Silly Ray, you’re dealing with Nicolette Grant. Nothing is at it seems. She’s got a BS in BS and a Masters in Liberal Interpretation of the Truth. You’ve been told a bigger fib than those stories your grandpa used to tell you on the front porch after he’d had his third cup of “tea”. So Ray like brings her flowers and well…he arrives at Margene’s house. Needless to say Nicki finally has to drop the truth and Ray goes a bit well bonkers, not only at the realization that the daughter of Roman Grant was holding his legal notes, but that he was dating the wife of the guy who was trying to get him to put his girlfriends’ father in prison for killing the sister in law of the girl he was dating. Wow. I’m surprised his head didn’t explode. So basically Nicki was humiliated in front of her entire family as this was all outed right there on the street. Nicki is facing criminal charges for a slew of things, and Ray articulates an interesting thing we tend to forget as we watch Big Love, polygamy is still illegal. Nice. Ray is one of my favorite characters.

    5) Nicki decided to stay on the compound for a while after the funeral, seeing as she was caught cheating on her husband with the guy who was trying to help her husband put her father away for crimes against humanity (or something like that.). Man without a program it’s hard to keep all the alliances and relationships in perspective. You piss off one person and you piss off half of your own family. Nicki was thrown out of Joey’s house and ended up staying with…Albie. I see an alliance forming. Oh yeah.

    6) Joey was pissed the whole episode. He’s going to end up killing someone. He broke into Adeleen’s (Roman’s wife) room and threatened her. For a moment I thought he would kill her, a little quid pro quo, but he didn’t. I do think he would rip Roman in half if he had the chance. Stay tuned.

    7) Back to Bill, who in order to blackmail his brother in law (I really need to learn that guy’s name) had some black ops done by some hoodlums to steal the certificate of authenticity that proves the Woodruff letter exists. Not exactly the letter, but could be decent leverage. Those hoodlums then turned around and told the Greens’ (who last week helped in the killing of Kathy) who in turn tried to strong arm the document from Bill. Luckily Don showed up to scare them away. He also had taken the document to try to get his ex wives to come back to him. They didn’t and laughed at him. He’s such a loser.

    8. What else, Barb didn’t do much except talk to Sarah who didn’t do much except make a cake and talk to Barb. Basically they were shocked at Nicki’s behavior. Marg started a jewelry business. Which doesn’t make up for the no nudity issue. Once again. Bleh.

    9) That’s about it. Another really good episode. The Ray-Nicki confrontation scene was excellent, and the bit actors (Joey, Wanda, the Greens) really do excellent support work. Really good ensemble cast. Next week…well apparently they will be Temple bound.