The Age of Extremes?

There is a book that I have, but have never read, called "The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991". It is a history book, written by author Eric Hobsbawm, that I picked up while attending college at Rutgers University, but I never had time to read it, but I do remember thinking it was rather presumptuous on the part of the author to assume that this era that was allegedly more extreme than any other was already a part of the past. He associated this extremism with the breakout of World War I in 1914, through to World War II, then through the Cold War, into the conclusion, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the breakout of war in Iraq (the first Gulf War, that is).

What makes me approach with this book trepidation was not any lack of legitimacy towards what he was arguing. Indeed, the era he is talking about and arguing as more extreme than any era that had come before it was, in fact, more extreme. There were more bloody wars fought during that time, the stakes rose in just about every facet of life. I did not (yet) read the book, but I certainly do not have to read it to have a basic understanding that, at the very least, the time period he specified has some legitimacy – with one glaring weakness in it: the assumption that this era of extremes is over. Because it implies that the world following 1991 has become more sane, more peaceful, and less extreme. Sorry, but I don't see it. In fact, 1991 now seems relatively quaint and peaceful, when compared with the world we now know. A world where we have to take off our shoes before boarding planes at the airport. A world where we seem to have endless scenarios of doomsday that become the flavor of the moment for a while, until they pass, and we go on about our lives like nothing strange has happened. A world that faces so many problems, we do not even know what to do or how to even begin to address them. A world that many, many people seem to assume, and with some measure of justification, is failing. That humanity itself has failed.

The thing is, what Mr. Hobsbowm seems to be arguing was likely on a political history level, but the problem has become much more complicated and involved than that. It permeates almost everything, and touches most of our lives on some level or other, as I will argue in a moment. I do not have the length of a book with which to argue it (at least, not yet). However, I think the more extreme behavior that is reflected in the politics of the modern era is an offspring of a more extreme behavior outside of the field of politics. Let me explain what I mean.

It seems that we have reached a point in our society where extremes are seen in a positive light, rather than it being something regarded with alarm and trepidation, traditionally.

Yet, we have "extreme sports" that seem to be gaining in popularity both in viewership and in participation, some of which are already being compared to the Romans gathering at the Coliseum in order to watch Christians and other heathens of the time thrown to the lions, or fighting other gladiators in grueling death matches. We might not be there yet, but we are getting closer, with more "extreme" fighting leagues and sports. We even had a very short lived "Extreme Football League", although it never really gained in popularity too much.  Late night infomercials advertise "extreme workouts" promising incredible and shocking results in just days! We can turn on our television and watch some "extreme makeover" reality shows. Yes, these days, when we see commercials that use words like "total insanity", it is interpreted as a good thing, as something marketable and to be pursued, something that "only serious" people about whatever product is being pushed will get. In other words, the more extreme things are, the better and more marketable.

This has permeated to the entertainment industry, as well. The more "extreme" the video graphics are depicting seemingly realistic looking violence, the more popular the video game. The more realistic looking scenes of violence, the bigger the explosions, the more "extreme" and shocking the movie, and the more likely it will be to see it featuring prominently in box office ticket sales. We have more "extreme" entertainment, with shock jocks and outrageous personalities in the entertainment industry (and let us be clear on the point that it is an "industry", rather than art, these days – it is a business like everything else).

Quite naturally, this extends to the fields of religion and politics, as well. We hear and see "extremist" political commentators and religious leaders of mega-churches (another extreme), that seem to enjoy tremendous publicity and enjoy the benefits of a lot of air time on the radio and television, sometimes even in book stores, pushing their views any way that they know how, and pocketing the profits all the way, of course.

We also have "extremist politicians", often elected and wearing their pious, often "extremist" interpretations of religion, and advocating a more "extreme", which is to say, unyielding, version of their political vision of "total" immersion into their religion for their country, and  contradictorily advocating some kind of a total war effort (another extreme) against "terrorist extremists" here and abroad. While that last label may be regarded as a negative, the very fact that it is seen as such an extreme seems to push us to an extremity in response to it, if you follow the logic. Hence, our response becomes extreme, unless you find the war strategy labeled "shock and awe" as moderate and appropriate. Think about what it might feel like if we were the weaker ones that had angered a militant superpower that then utilized their own "shock and awe" against us. Do you think we would want to bear witness to such "shock and awe", or perhaps be as impressed with news reports from that superpower nation showing this strategy in such glowing terms? Do you think we would just shrug our shoulders and dismiss it as a cost of war when they would talk about "accidental" bombings of non-military targets, or alarming levels of civilian deaths, if it were us being targeted, if it were family and friends of ours that numbered among the casualties?

Yet, it is seemingly a badge of honor for our politicians to gravitate towards a purer" ideological ground, which is to say, more "extreme". Ironically, as I was writing this, I heard an interview with Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich was mentioning how he thought that most Republicans were hoping to avoid a "moderate" like Romney, in order to promote more pure, conservative values. So, according to him, we need someone more "extreme" than Romney, and he is not alone in feeling that way.

Given all of this, it really should not come as any sort of a shock that our collective behavior has grown more extreme as well. We take our cues from everything that we are bombarded with everyday, and it is reflected in our behavior, in the way that we look at each other, talk to each other, treat each other. At a time when life seems to be getting more difficult and stressful in every conceivable way in our real, everyday lives, when the population growth is creating unbelievable pressures and levels of overcrowding on unparalleled levels, and our roadways are congested with thick traffic and gridlock like never before, when the price of everything, including homes and cars and clothes and food and utilities and bills and debts, perhaps it really is only to be expected, after all. Turn on the news, and this excess is reflected there, because all you will hear is bad news. Violence and killings in the cities like never before, regularly reaching record numbers. Inexplicable acts of violence are being reported on like never before. Our schools are locked down tight more often than not these days with at least one security guard, in order to minimize the possibility of school shootings that feature regularly during the course of our school years these days. We see and hear reports of children being kidnapped and tortured and murdered, sometimes by their parents or other loved ones. We see horrific accidents, and enormous levels of ineptitude and alack of consideration or professionalism being responsible for epic horrors that cause death and suffering to many, and perhaps environmental disasters, to boot. That ship off the coast of Italy, where the Captain evidently pulled himself away from featuring in photographs by tourists in his charge, was among the first to flee from the scene of the disaster that he largely created to get to safety over the weekend. It reminded me, quite a bit, actually, of the Captain who was drunk and responsible for the Exxon Valdez disaster, way back in 1989, which was the largest oil spill in recorded history until the Gulf Oil Spill, another human made disaster.

We have grown so used to such bad news, such horrible news being fed to us every day, just every single day, that we have collectively, largely become immune to it. Nothing shocks us, these days. Kidnapping and disappearance of a child in Maine? It surely reminds you of others, right? Casey Anthony, perhaps, who is featured prominently, making a video that surfaces for a while, and she inadvertently becomes the media darling with such a video release, much like Osama Bin Laden not all that long ago, with each new video release. The child model in Texas who mysteriously disappeared, and the strange father who seemed quite suspicious in the eyes of the media, and thus, as a result, of the country. We get wrapped up in these stories, and we ignore everything else around us. That includes the more subtle violence of the everyday, in the unpleasantness that marks the way that we treat other people, and in which we ourselves are treated.

Is it any wonder that this world seems to be "going to hell in a hand basket", as the saying goes? When we are all told, here in America, that we need to believe in the "American Dream" of getting rich, of owning car (or two, or three, or four), and having a nice parkway to park it (or them) in a beautiful house (or two, or three, or four),  Everyone is told this from the first, and so everyone seems to feel entitled to exactly that future. Nobody does the math, and so there is a lack of understanding that there simply is not a workable future where everyone gets that kind of a lifestyle, that not everyone can get that dream job that is so well paying. That permanent happiness based on wealth is essentially an empty promise. Those who do have the money, having grown up believing in that dream of grabbing what wealth you could and feeling entitled to it, have gotten so aggressive with grabbing every little bit of wealth that they can, even when it seems unfair and excessive.

There is an absence of a spirit of fairness, and that is why the Middle Class is disappearing. In an extreme society, there is little room for anyone in the middle, so why should our social classes be any different. The extremities are winning out, and it is to the detriment of our society, and of our "western civilization" as a whole, choking off the decent standard of living of the majority, in order that the most elite few can have a little bit more. When they win this "right", then the rest of us have a little bit less, because again, there are only finite amounts of wealth and resources available. In a shrinking world, with less open spaces and less resources, and more competition for these because there are more people than ever before, is it any wonder that those who have the power to grab what they can are doing exactly that? People are perhaps beginning to wake up to that now, but it is only a beginning, really.

So, we have grown cynical. I read an article about a year ago, for the 50^th anniversary of the Inauguration of John F. Kennedy, which questioned how well that speech would go over now, in this era of extreme cynicism. I remember growing up and hearing about how inspiring that speech was, and how it seemed to truly represented a new era being usher in. These days? It would sound like just another politician giving a high-minded speech, while hoping to cover up what transgressions they will likely be caught with during their term in office. When a politician makes a speech like that these days, we hardly pay attention, because we are not a united society by any means these days. In an age of extremes like the one we live in and take part in every day, how can we possibly overcome our extreme differences, after all?

The anger in reactions to the way we treat each other grows more extreme as well. Things just seem more unpleasant on an everyday basis, and there is a sour taste left in our mouths, both individually and collectively. There is a sense that something has gone terribly wrong, and again, not to repeat the point to death, but is it any wonder that in this age of extremes, we keep dreaming about the most extreme conclusion possible to this world that we have created? We have the end of the Mayan calendar coming up, and people are expecting a fiery apocalypse to come. That, after last year's May doomsday that never happened, followed by a "correction" form the prominent church leader who had originally forecast it, adjusting his doomsday calendar so that it would now take place in October, when it also did not happen, and everything passed as normal. Some church members had sold their life savings to promote the event, hoping perhaps to save as many people as possible. It is hard not to wonder what they are thinking about their actions now. It was much like the Y2K disaster that never happened. When we pass the December 21^st date without major incident, are we going to have some authorities claiming a "new date", because it was apparently read wrong? Are we then going to have another event date to look forward to, and another countdown, and another letdown for those expecting a fiery end to the world, an apocalypse?

Think back to when the United States in particular seemed to work best, when it was seemingly a happy place with a tremendous amount of promise and potential, yet was also already the envy of the world. That would be the "golden era" of the 1950's and early 1960's, according to most people who lived through it. What was different then, and what can we learn from it and hopefully apply now to make this a more livable world?

Well, it seemed a much friendlier place back then from the outside (again, I was not actually there at the time), but there was a reason for that, because it was not as extreme an era. Did extremes exist? You bet. It was the time of Jim Crow segregation. There was the threat of a nuclear holocaust hovering over us all of the time. There was the Cold War, which on occasion, flared up into relatively hot wars, like in Korea and Vietnam.

Yet, it seemed a much saner era than we live in now. Perhaps it seemed crazy at the time as well, I do not know. However, I doubt that they were as rude, even obnoxious, towards one another. I also doubt that they had this fixation with the end of the world, like we do now. Certainly there were not as many distractions as there are now, which I think goes a long way towards making this world, making our world, a ruder and more isolated place. A place where people simply cannot get along. Because they never learned how.

Bill Bryson makes the argument that when we had a downtown community in our towns, before the era of shopping malls and superstores and well before the internet, people would see each other every single day. They might not always agree, or even like one another. But you saw each other everyday so there was an understanding that, yes, neighbors do exist, they are real people, and we should make an effort to get along. That is something we have lost with the ability to fixate on only what we want in our world. Today, that is increasingly the case – we can isolate ourselves in our own little world, and never dare venture out of it, and never invite people from the outside in, if we choose not to. Perhaps that explains why we have lost so many of our apparent social skills, collectively and individually.

I went to Strand bookstore in the city this past summer, and while there, I stopped by the Washington Square Park nearby. As always, it was crowded with people. But a few of them caught my eye in particular. They were wearing the turtle signs, like protestors, almost. Only, the thing written on these were for something else entirely. They read:

FREE HUGS

I watched a bit, and saw someone come up to a woman with that sign, and ask if there was some kind of a message or anything, and she just shrugged and said no, that they were only offering huge. Nothing more, nothing less. It was just to be understood as a random act of kindness.

Now, I am not advocating for anyone to go out with such signs and stand in a street corner or a park like that, giving people free hugs. But then again, I am certainly not arguing against it, if the spirit moves you to do so.

What I will posit, however, is that we perhaps at least make an attempt to take a step back from the world that we have created for ourselves, and understand perhaps how we may be contributing to this world being a colder, unfriendly place, hard as it might be because we are all, collectively and individually, out of practice with it. To understand, and not merely theoretically, but in actuality, that others exist outside of our little worlds and our daily exchanges, and moreover, to understand and appreciate that they have every right to exist and to pursue their own course towards happiness, so long as it does not hurt anybody. To recognize their humanity, and to treat them accordingly, perhaps even keeping the Golden Rule in mind, religious or not. By affirming the humanity of others, we can actually affirm our own humanity, which is the greatest loss that I think we have suffered in this present age, collectively and individually.

Book review - “Finding Forrester”

This was a fantastic movie that I may even have seen in a movie theater (how sad is it that I cannot even remember this?).I definitely saw it not long after it came out on DVD, and it was so good, I decided to go ahead and buy a copy, and I seem to watch it at least once a year, or so. It was the other movie directed by Gus Van Sant about a troubled but brilliant student with enormous potential, who falls in love with a girl while finding a mentor that changes his life, only to almost squander these opportunities and throw it all away, before everything finally (predictably, perhaps?) falls into place a the end. You can definitely see the similarities between the two movies, for that matter.

Largely forgotten, however, was a copy of the book I had gotten some years ago (apparently, according to the sticker that is still on the cover, way back in 2007). It was used and in the discount racks, and when I saw it, I grabbed it. But it had remained kind of hidden in storage for a while, and I was pleasantly surprised to find the copy again not long ago. I was reading some other stuff at the time, but kept it nearby, wanting to finally get around to reading it, which I definitely wanted to do. A few days ago, I picked it up, and just started reading it. It was captivating, and I just got into it. It is not a long read, and so I finished within a few days. Probably could have finished it within a day, two tops, if I had really wanted to.

It was a rewarding read. If anything, it is even better than the movie! There are more details, and it explains certain aspects that the movie is not clear on, or only glosses over. It makes me want to go ahead and see the movie again!

Let me be clear, though: it is not a radical departure from the movie, or anything. In fact, it is one of the movies that stays fairly true and close to the book. The only differences, seemingly, were cuts of scenes from the book, in the interests of time, presumably, and perhaps understandably.

The book delves a bit more into some of the actual written words of the main character, Jamal, and his mentor, William Forrester, the fictional great writer of this story that this story largely revolves around. There is obviously more psychology in the book than in the movie, which is only normal, after all.

James Ellison writes this work with an emotional punch, and I think the ending in the book is more thorough, and more emotionally charged, than the movie, and that is saying something! The language, ironically, seems stronger, rawer, in the movie, than in the book. Usually, it seems like that is the reverse. I do not know why that is, but it kind of raised my eyebrows a bit, since it seemed so unusual.

It is a testament to this story, and James Ellison, that it was the kind of book that I wished was a bit longer, and that I almost regretted finishing, because I was enjoying it and wanted it to go on a little longer, not ready for it to end yet.

Consequently, on a completely unrelated note: I wrote this review while listening to a reading of Edgar Allen Poe's “The Raven” by James Earl Jones. Pretty unique, and his voice adds a very unique quality to this already unique and captivating poem. Recommended!

Review: Joseph Campbell’s “The Impact of Science on Myth”

I have been reading Joseph Campbell’s "Myths to Live By", an old book which is a collection of some essays that he wrote and, quite predictably, the reading is slow, and the ideas, as well as the writing, takes time to absorb and appreciate. Yet, as a reader, when I make the effort (and it almost always is quite an effort) to really slow down and understand what points he is trying to make, more often than not with furrowed brow and a look of deep concentration on the black and white print before me, there comes a startling moment that can feel like an epiphany ("Wow! That's a great point! I never thought of it like that before, but it makes sense!"). I usually would wait until I read the whole book to review something, but the first essay in the book, entitled "The Impact of Science on Myth", first published in 1961, just knocked my socks off!
Joseph Campbell tended to argue that humanity needs myths, and not in some kind of vague manner, either. He would posit that society needs appropriate myths to guide it, to get a sense of direction in general. When the myths do not work any longer, or when they have become outdated (which he argued that the traditional Western religions in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions were), then that society will tend to break down and not function properly. He did not shy away from controversy in this regard, but he always gave an honest assessment of his thoughts.
He mentions that, in more olden times, the arts (music, and paintings and such), were part of a distinct order in the world, and perfectly had their place, perhaps even being the closest we, as human beings, could come to viewing God, and expressing and creating God-like sentiments. Campbell describes the general thinking of this era further, and then mentions that, in his opinion, this era ended in 1492, with Columbus coming to America. From that time onwards, the world as a whole began to be systematically explored, and obviously, old boundaries were pushed back, and human knowledge advanced, shedding light on where before, there had only been the long shadow of ignorance. 
Nor should we feel threatened by this, he argues. Rather, we should take heart, and stand even more in "awe before the wonder of the universe that is being developed for us by our scientists", because this "surely is a far more marvelous, mind-blowing revelation than anything the prescientific world could ever have imagined."
He goes on to say that the increasing knowledge that we have gained of this world leaves little room for literal interpretations of the Bible anymore. “The little toy-room picture of the Bible is,” he says “in comparison, for children –or, in fact, not even for them anymore.”
“For not only have all the old mythic notions of the nature of the cosmos gone to pieces,” Campbell continues, “but also those of the origins and history of mankind.”
Campbell goes on to site some very specific examples of how people came to realize that a literal reading of specific aspects of the Bible could not possibly be true.
“The long and short of it”, he says, “is simply that the Hebrew texts from which all these popular Jewish legends of Creation, Exodus, Forty Years in the Desert, and Conquest of Canaan are derived are not composed by “God” or even by anyone named Moses, but are of various dates and authors, all much later than was formerly supposed.”
“Comparative cultural studies” he goes on to say, “have now demonstrated beyond question similar mythic tales are to be found in every corner of this earth.”
He then addresses the traditional notion, much treasured amongst all of the West’s (and I am including the different sects of Islam here) monotheistic religions tend to view themselves as holding a privileged place, and holding a monopoly on the truth.
This he counters by pointing out that many other cultures have felt the same way. He argues, “Comparative cultural studies have now demonstrated beyond question similar mythic tales are to be found in every corner of this earth.”
Joseph Campbell goes on to say that members of “all the great civilizations everywhere have been prone to interpret their own symbolic figures literally, and so to regard themselves as favored in a special way, in direct contact with the Absolute.”
He mentions how the clash of civilizations between whites and natives in Americas killed off the natives civilization, in effect, and argues that we are very much going through the same thing presently in large part because our outdated religions, and the values that they imposed on society, are constantly being put into question, and at every turn seemingly doing everything possible just to keep up with the dizzying pace of scientific discoveries and technological improvements that have changed our world around completely. Society is going through a period of flux as a result, and the result is that our culture is going through much of the same destruction that it itself once imposed upon native cultures: “With their old taboos discredited, they immediately go to pieces, disintegrate, and become resorts of vice and disease.”
The response is an intense resistance and disbelief in the power of science and technology to provide truth and guidance, and Campbell says that “most guardians of society have a tendency in that direction, asserting their authority not for, but against the search for disturbing truths.”
Changes occur, but rarely ever peaceably. “Every little group” Campbell explains, “is fixed in its own long-established, petrified mythology, changes having occurred only as a consequence of collision” Change then comes with the  “inevitable exchange of ideas”, but it is hardly a pain-free process.
So where do we go from here? What are the answers? Perhaps uncertainty, perhaps more questions than answers. In the end, Campbell explains that there really can “be only a continuing search for more as of a mind eager to grow.”

Why does it always have to be the 49ers?

Why is it always the 49ers?

This is always an interesting time of the year in sports (at least for me). Ever since the 1981 season (yes, I am aware that I am dating myself here and conceding to old age), I have watched the NFL playoffs unfold, and been fascinated by the process of watching what happens at the elimination level. There are often surprises and breathtaking moments. Over the years, fans that follow these playoffs have seen an undefeated team lose in the final minute of the Super Bowl, another team come back from a record 32 point deficit to come back and win in the greatest comeback in NFL history (playoffs or otherwise), some incredible and unorthodaox plays like Dave Tyree's side of the helmet catch in the Super Bowl, and Bret Favre's dumpoff in the snow. We have seen plenty of upsets, favorites falling. Teams that seem loaded with talent seemingly not showing up, or at least not being able to get the job done. We have seen some of the most dominant teams inm history (the 1985 Chicago Bears still seem the strongest team that I personally remember), where everything followed the script, and where the outcome was seemingly inevitable.

Yet, things do not always go according to script, right? The unexpected does happen, and there are teams that face seemingly impossible odds, either against a very strong opponent that nobody believes they can beat, or late in a game, when the outcome seems all but a fomrality, and yet, things can happen, and they can change the couse of the game, and possibly a season. That is why we tune in, right? Some of the greatest and most talked about memories that fans still love to talk about and when we have seen some unbelievable duels and great games between quality opponents, and last minute, fourth quarter comebacks starring such incredible and historical names like Elway and Marino and Montana.

Yes, Joe Montana was perhaps the most memorable of these stars, and I cannot think of anyone who has been prominently involved in more such epic moments. In fact, way back in that 1981 season, he starred in perhaps the most famous single play in the history of the playoffs, if not of the entire sport altigehter. It was such a huge play, that it still is known simply as “The Catch”. He was the most fun player to watch in his time, and I was a fan of his, and still admire the way he operated. He earned the nickname “Cool Joe”.

Which is why it pains me to say that, despite the fact that I always liked and admired Joe Montana, I never liked his team, the San Fransisco 49ers. I mean, every sports fan has that one team that irks them, right? For me, the 49ers were that team in football, while the Lakers are that for me in basketball, and the Yankees in baseball, perhaps Duke in college basketball, and perhaps even a few others that I am not thinking about at the moment. You know, those teams that you absolutely do not want to see win yet another trophy, or another victory. That team that you feel so much disdain for, that you pretty much pull for whoever is playing them.

Yes, that is how I feel about the 49ers, which is why it annoys me to write something like this, which grudgingly gives them the respect that, as a franchise, I know they deserve.

There is just something about them, and in particular, there is something about that franchise seemingly enjoying more than there share of these magical and immortal playoff moments. Truth be told, I was rooting against them in every single one of those moments. I was rooting against them when they beat the Dallas Cowboys, 28-27, in the 1981 Championship Game, forever immoratlized for “The Catch”. I was against them when they they had the drive in the last minutes of Super Bowl XXIII, coming from behind to beat the Bengals with a late touchdown with 34 seconds remaining. I was against them once again during the Wildcard Game against the Green Bay Packers following the 1998 season, when they got a lvery late touchdown with seconds remaining to eliminate the Packers in miracle fashion.

Imagine what I was thinking yesterday, when they ocne again pulled off a miraculous victory in the playoffs, this time against the New Orleans Saints, who I thought were truly a better team than they showed yesterday. I probably rolled my eyes and thought “Here we go again” as San Fransisco had the ball and entirely too much time on the clock mto work with, following what must have seemed for the Saints (and had seemed to me, admittedly), to be the clinching touchdown late in the 4^th quarter. But there were the 49ers, marching down the field. There they were again, with seconds left, very near the goal line, with another quarterback (this time, Alex Smith) passing it into the end zone and completing to Vernon Davis in what I understand is being called “The Grab”, thus completing yet another epic 4^th quarter comeback in the playoffs for this franchise's history, to win, 36-32. Once again, San Fransisco is in the Championship Game. Sigh.

So, why is it that I came to hate the 49ers, and what is it about them that I actually hate? Well, I am not sure about the first part of that question, except that they always seemed to beat my Giants early on, and they eventually became, undisputably, the most succesful team of the 1980's, the “Team of the Decade”, while my Giants, though succesful, were not, and like everyone else in the league, were in the shadow of those 49ers. Ironically, the Giants actually enjoyed more success, really even far more success, than most other teams did during the peak of the 49ers glory days on the 1980's. Yes, they lost those games against the 49ers, but they won some huge ones, too. After never seemingly beating tyhem since I started following the sport, they finally beat the defending champion 49ers, 17-3, in the 1985 Wildcard game. They came back from a 17-0 defiicit in San Fransisco on a Monday niight in 1986 to win, largely on the strength of Mark Bavaro managing to break numerous tackles and famously pulling several 49ers, Ronnie Lott among them, several yards, to trigger the comeback effort. Later that season, the Giants tore the 49ers apart in the playoffs, 49-3 – the second straight year that the Giants eliminated San Fransisco, and by such a margin! They would meet again in the playoffs (in fact, these two teams have met in the playoffs during my lifetime more than any other two teams have, even still!) after the 1990 season, when the 49ers, again the defending champions, hosted the Giants, loking to “three peat”. Instead, the Giants defense punished San Fransisco and took Joe Montana out of the game, eventually winning it on the final play, with Matt Bahr's field goal sending New York to the Super Bowl, which they eventually won against the powerful and favored Buffalo Bills, albeit beating Buffalo by a single point, which is still the losest Super Bowl margin ever! The next season, the two teams had another epic battle on Monday Night Football to open the season, and the Giants prevailed – barely – 16-14, again on a last minute field goal by placekicker Matt Bahr to clinch it. At the time, it snapped a record 20 game road winning streak by the 49ers that still stands today.

So, with all that success that my team had against them (again, more than any other team enjoyed during the 49ers best days), why is it that I still cant's stand the 49ers? Mostly because they won at least as often against the Giants, as well. They beat them twice in that same 1981 season, including the playoffs, a game I still remember. It was the game that earned the 49ers the chance to host the Championship Game, which would forever be remembered for “The Catch” that ave the 49ers their first Super Bowl appearance and, eventually, their first championship. When the Giants made it to the palyoffs again, they made it back to the divisional round, only to face the 15-1 49ers, who once again defeated New York soundly, en route to their second Super Bowl victory. In fact, the 49ers won the vast majority of the regular season meetings that the two teams faced off in and, after the Giants had that bit of success against San Fransisco in the mid-80's and again in the early nineties, the 49ers would go on to elimiante the Giants by a whopping 44-3, exacting a measure of revenge for the 1986 Giants threashing of San Fransisco, and again following the 2002 season, when the Giants blew a 38-14 lead in San Fran and eventually lost, 39-38, which became the second largest playoff comeback in history, behind trhe 32 point comeback for the Bills. Sickening.

Still, isn't that a part of sports? I have to admit, it is actually fun to root against a team, much like it is fun to root for your favorite team. When the 49ers are in the playoffs, I of course still root against them, and for whatever team they happen to be playing at the time. Yes, I wanted New Orleans to win, and was disappointed when they did not. But again, that makes follwing the sport fun, doesn't it? So, in a weird and indirect way, perhaps I am happy that the 49ers are in the ployffs, and making it a bit more interesting than it otherwise may have been? Shhhh....don't tell anyone!

Warhorse

            Wow! Two Stephen Spielberg movies out at the same time? Damn! He seems really busy!

            I already reviewed "The Adventures of Tintin" earlier, and had kind of wanted to go see this one, since it seemed intriguing. But I had not seen it yet, and it's always better to review a movie once you have actually seen it, n'est ce pas?

            It starts off in rural Ireland, with more or less a predictable beginning. A peasant family gets in over it's head in obtaining an expensive horse to tame the land for farming, while time is running out before they lose everything.

            The boy, in the meantime, has a special bond with the horse, but once war comes, the horse is taken to serve jolly old England. There is a promise made by the boy to the horse that they will be together again.

            The horse goes off to fight in the front in France, and of course faces all sorts of horrors. It endures, of course, otherwise there would be no movie, right?

            In the meantime, the boy joins the army and goes off to fight himself, although this is years later.

            The thing that was refreshing with this movie was the complete absence of bad guys. There was a war, but nobody on either side is simply identified as clearly bad (well, maybe a couple of the German military leaders, but that's it). Somehow, the horse falls under the guidance of good people, despite the odds, and without regard to their nationality. To actually see both sides in the war as human and, ultimately, decent, is a bit of a different take than far too many war movies tend to take, when they glorify one side and demonize the other.

            The backdrop of this movie is, of course, World War I, and Spielberg, I think, does a pretty good job of illustrating the futility of that war, the arrogance and blindness of inept military leadership, and the blood and destructiveness that devastates not only the land, but the people fighting the war. The infamous "No Man's Land" and the squalor of the trenches ranked among the best depictions of these that I have ever seen, and perhaps did some justice to the actual conditions. You truly feel like the war is unfolding in front of you on a screen, in ways that some of the other movies about the era simply could not quite capture. For that alone, this is a movie worth seeing.

            Ultimately, it is a feel good movie. Despite some of the standard depictions of the poor but noble peasants doing their best to work the land and make it productive while eking out a living, versus the arrogant rich landlord who sees nothing but the bottom line (his money), or the seeming feel good friendships between horse and people, and horse and horse, it is a good movie with some interesting and believable versions of history, and well worth seeing, overall.

            Steven Spielberg seems to know how to make good war movies, doesn't he?

"Nope, I Don't Like to Read! Hurts My Brain!"

Many years ago, and I'm talking the nineties here, my parents received a letter form some book club, where you order books for a very cheap price now, and then pay more money for books later on. Such schemes now seem almost laughable, given the cheap and readily available supply of books, and just about everything else, available at the best possible price online, but back in those ancient days before the big internet boom, that was the way things worked. I can almost hear Dana Carvey's SNL character, "Grumpy Old Man", complaining that "In my days, we didn't have no in-ter-net! We ordered fifteen books for a penny today, and then paid top price for a book we did not want or need or read later. We were stupid ignorant morons, and we liked it! Hell, we loved it!"

Well, this particular company was rather obnoxious. They had a couple of stickers to respond to their offer with. One was the affirmative "Yes, I like to read!", as if a requirement to liking reading was to necessarily order books through them. The other sticker was red and circular, meant to evoke a stop sign, I think. And it read, "Nope! I Don't Like to Read! Hurts My Brain!"

Needless to say, we all enjoyed a good chuckle when we saw these stickers. My parents even graced the refrigerator with it, so that the "Hurts My Brain" sticker could be a source of amusement years (even more than a decade) later.

That was like a joke, but in fact, a lot of people do view reading as a burden, and even the mere thought of it seems to hurt their brain.

Truth be told (and I don't know if this is your experience or not), but a lot of people - and I mean a LOT of people - simply don't like to read all that much. I have been asked by so many people why I read so much, don't I find it boring, how can it not force me to fall asleep during the overnight shifts? On and on, a lot of people are amazed that I can find reading actually interesting. It's still weird to me, and I recognize that reading help fosters the imagination, allows you to be, or feel, more creative (justified or not). More often than not, and this alludes to your point about the spelling, it helps you become, or at least appear, more intelligent. Your vocabulary expands, and so does your ability to communicate effectively and with confidence. Your intelligence likely increases, as does your patience, your curiosity (which seems like a good thing), and already mentioned was the fostering of one's imagination.  So, it's a win-win. It possesses some meditative qualities to it, as well. Think about it: you're sitting there quietly (at least on the outside), but your mind is focused, perhaps even intensely so), on something else. It is a means of communication. I am writing this that you are reading, but I am not uttering a word to others in this room right now. You are reading it, but not actually "hearing" me. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but that is pretty cool, isn't it? Sometimes, we take for granted all that is in front of us. But when you really think about it, it's unique, and something humans really only managed to accomplish very recently in their history, yet it is such a powerful mental tool, and changed history completely. It also separate us from the other animals (hope I'm not offending anyone's religious sensibilities here). Yet, so many people don't see it that way. Too many people dismiss it, and turn to TV or movies or the internet (exclusively) or video games (especially guys, I think). Those things can be good, but when taken to an extreme, they become distractions and obsessions, and serve to limit, rather than expand, one's mind and imagination. Or maybe, again, I'm overthinking it. You decide for yourself - lol!

Is Political Conservatism a Mild Form of Insanity?

Death Fear (among other unsavory attributes) Predicts Republicanism

Published on September 6, 2008 by William Todd Schultz, PhD in Genius and Madness

A Political article review - This was a strange article, and I did not know exactly what to make of it. On the one hand, some interesting points are made, undeniably. As someone who tends towards a more "liberal" perspective, there is, admittedly, some comfort in hearing or reading some thoughts that I myself have felt for some times, even if I never fully expressed it. There were definitely things that I could agree with in this article, such as the tendency of so-called conservatives of the present age to be a little to comfortable with the language of "hate". Like Mr. Shultz, the author of this particular article, suggest, there seems to be a long list of people that they find reasons not to like. So long is this list, in fact, that you wonder how short the list of people that they do like tends to be.

He cites an article (you can find more information in his article, which makes the proper citations, presumably), in which scientists did some research and concluded that, indeed, conservatism is a mild form of insanity. Here is the conclusion that they drew, summed up with his words and a quote:

"The researchers conclude, a little chillingly, that “the core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and a justification of inequality.”"

While it may be tempting, being French and feeling well-educated, and undeniably tending towards what are generally considered more "liberal" positions, to so dismiss the conservative mindset.

That said, I think this article tends to gravitate towards finger pointing and attempting to single out what is wrong with the inevitable "them", as opposed to coming out with a creative alternative solution. It is, in other words, more partisan. Far from being an example of rational and dignified behavior and mindsets, it seems, on many levels, to be a childish, although this is disguised in college-level language and research. He focuses exclusively on the negatives, and does not lend any credibility to any other viewpoint than apparently his own, although s bit puzzling to me was that he does credit President Obama for being able to do so.

I am not a conservative, much less a Republican. However, it seems that there are some legitimate points that conservatives tend to promote. I do not believe that I would personally be offended with a conservative in the mode of Dwight Eisenhower, let's say, as I am with a conservative in the mode of George W. Bush. In this day and age, FOX news is representative, evidently, of the conservative mindset, or at least proclaims to be loudly enough that this has become accepted. In that regard, I agree with the author, because the irrationality of that network of hype and phobias definitely at least borders at times on some measure of insanity and irrationality, if not downright immorality. There, he might have an argument. But more moderate levels of conservatism, that is to say, those that do not gravitate towards such extremes that have become so common as to be accepted as the norm in this day and age, I can definitely respect, if not always agree with. Like with everything else, "all things in moderation" seems like a worthy lesson that this country, and indeed this world, can learn from. It is precisely this tendency towards extremism that leads to hatred, something that I think both the left and the right tend to be guilty of, that is coming closer and closer to being justly defined as insanity, and is contributing to the increasingly seeming insanity that this country, and indeed this world, is falling under.