Theory of International Politics by Kenneth Waltz

Theory of International Politics
By Kenneth Waltz
Copyright 1979

In “Theory of International Politics,” Kenneth Waltz begins by discussing how to construct a good theory and providing definitions of some of the component parts. He then creates his own systemic theory of international politics based on the balance of power, and applies it.

Chapter 1 – Laws and Theories
Laws establish relations between variables. They are of the form: “if a then b with probability x.” Theories are collections of laws pertaining to a particular behavior or phenomenon – they explain laws and are not obvious from laws. You can’t just get the answer by looking at all of the data. Statistics don’t explain why things are related – that’s why we need theories.

Chapter 2 – Reductionist Theories
Theories can be reductionist or systemic. Reductionist theories concentrate causes at the individual or national level. They assume the whole can be understood by understanding all of its parts. Systemic theories conceive of causes operating at the international level. They believe that internal explanations alone cannot explain how states choose to act – external conditions matter.

Waltz describes some existing reductionist theories, including those that attempt to relate imperialism, capitalism, and war. However, he believes these do not adequately explain past events or predict future ones. Theories are manipulated by broadening the meaning of definitions to fit new events or by making exceptions based on variables outside the theory. He concludes that reductionist theories have failed so far in explaining international politics.

Chapter 3 - Systemic Approaches and Theories
Systems-level forces seem to be at work in international politics – outcomes are affected not only by the properties and interconnections of variables, but also the way they are organized. Some existing system theories are not theories because they just organize thoughts and don’t explain them, or because they incorporate non-system-level items, such as internal characteristics of states. He argues that the current balance of power theory does not adequately describe international politics – it has loose language and is not clear when different types of power distributions take place.

Chapter 4 – Reductionist and Systemic Theories
This chapter includes more discussion of defects of current reductionist and systemic theories – generally that they don’t have explanatory power, or they allow too many details into the discussion – allowing exceptions to be made. Often they are organizations of thoughts – structures for thinking – rather than theories.

Chapter 5 – Political Structures
Waltz showed previously that international political outcomes cannot be explained reductively, and that current systemic approaches confuse system-level and unit-level causes. International politics must be a domain separate from social, economic, and other domains. Domestic political structure is defined by three things: 1) the principle by which it is ordered, 2) the specifications of the functions formally differentiated units, and 3) by the distribution of capabilities across those units. He gives the example of how character of the prime minister is different than the character of the president because of the different systems in the U.S. and U.K. The president is elected as an individual, but has less power once in his position. The Prime Minister has a lot of power, but comes to power based on moving up slowly through the ranks of government and generally being a person known for compromise that keeps the party united.

In a systemic theory of international politics, states are the relevant units – the international system is decentralized and anarchic. States are not differentiated by the functions they perform – they are like units (similar to markets being defined in terms of firms – international political structure in terms of states). The units of such an order are distinguished primarily by their greater or lesser capabilities for performing similar tasks.

Chapter 6 – Anarchic Orders and Balances of Power
Waltz first explains how hierarchic and anarchic orders are different. In hierarchic orders (within states) government has monopoly over legitimate force, while in anarchic orders, states are in a self-help system. Within states, groups can specialize and benefit from trade. Among states, nations wish to remain loosely connected and not overly dependent on other states. Also, within a global system, each state, acting in their own interest, can lead to outcomes that none wanted – similar to a run on the bank in economics.

Balance of power theory is a theory about the results produced by the uncoordinated actions of states. Assumptions are made about the interests and motives of states (it does not explain them). It explains the constraints that confine all states. Balance-of-power theory can explain why a certain similarity of behavior is expected from similarly situated states.  The theory leads us to suspect that states behave in ways that result in balances forming. (This is in contrast to behavior such as band-wagoning – all jumping to the winners side.) It predicts that states will engage in balancing behavior, whether or not balancing is the end of their acts. The theory predicts a strong tendency of balance in the system – not that balance, once achieved, will be maintained, but that balance, once disrupted, will be restored in one way or another. Suggests that states will be competitive and will imitate each other to become more successful.

Chapter 7 – Structural Causes and Economic Effects
Capabilities of states depend on how they score on size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capabilities, military strength, political stability, and competence. Though there may be many states in the international system, international politics can be understood simply by studying the most prominent. (Similar to the study of oligopolistic systems in economics, in which industries with many firms can still be best understood by looking at most prominent of them.)

In this chapter, Waltz shows that smaller number of prominent states in the system is better – systems are most stable when barriers to entry are high (fewer, bigger firms). The costs of bargaining are lower with less units involved – less diversity in participants makes reaching agreements easier, and members have a greater stake in the system and more incentive to invest in enforcing agreements.

The idea that the world is becoming more interdependent and that this leads to peace is a myth. Interdependence should be understood as sensitivity to other states or vulnerability to other states – asking whether they are actually dependent on each other, rather than just one being dependent on the other. Interdependence actually decreases as the number of states decrease – large, powerful states are more self-sufficient.

Chapter 8 – Structural Causes and Military Effects
A two-state system will be the most stable. With only two powers acting on a world scale, anything that happens anywhere is potentially of concern to both of them – no unexpected events coming from an ignored region. With only two powers, miscalculation is less likely. Nuclear forces should not be discounted just because states don’t use them – the fact that violence does not need to be used shows that they are able to protect their interests in other ways.

Chapter 9 – The Management of International Affairs 
Power does not bring control over the international system, but it does four things: 1) Power provides the means of maintaining one’s autonomy in the face of force that other wield. 2) Greater power permits wider ranges of action, while leaving the outcomes of action uncertain. 3) The powerful enjoy wider margins of safety in dealing with the less powerful and have more to say about what games will be played and how. 4) Great power gives its possessors a big stake in their system and the ability to act for its sake. In a bipolar world, there will be more effort at management of the system.

Caribbean Cruise - Day 3 - Gran Cayman

The day started with breakfast on our balcony at 9am, before we leisurely headed to the lounge to get a tender ticket. (Celebrity had a system where you get a number for the tender you'll ride, and then wait in the lounge until they call your number - this way they avoid the lines of people up and down the stairs that I've experienced on other ships.)

We began our visit to Gran Cayman with a quick walk around the shops in the town near the pier. There wasn't too much that Jeff and I were interested in, so we stopped into a little cafe with free wifi. We used email for a bit while drinking iced tea.

From there, we headed to 7-mile beach. It was beautiful - white sand, crystal clear blue water. The water was so warm that even Jeff was excited to get in and play in the water.

I spent a little time (maybe 30 minutes) laying in the sun, before we rented and umbrella. Then we laid in the shade of the umbrella and read for the rest of the afternoon.

Once I got back to the ship, I realized that somehow, despite the fact that I'd put on sun screen and really hadn't spent all that much time in the sun, I was really sun burnt. Ah, well. Jeff was burnt in some spots, but I don't think he was quite as bad as me.

We headed back to the ship around 2pm. While standing in line to catch the tender back to the ship, Celebrity had a little tent set up with ice water and wet hand-towels that were covered in ice. Perfect for the super-hot day.

Jeff and I had lunch at the ocean-view buffet - the main buffet on the ship. The food was actually pretty good quality. I was particularly won over by the icecream bar, where I got chocolate soft-serve covered in mini M&M's almost every day.

After lunch, we followed our usual plan - relax and read in the solarium, work out in the fitness center, head back to the room to get ready, and then relax and read in the room until dinner.

After dinner we headed back to the room. I'd gotten completely caught up in 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' and stayed up reading until I finished it.

I've been meaning to read 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' for quite a while. It's a bestseller, it has good reviews, and it was even one of our book club books. I had started the book twice, but only got so far as two guys on a boat talking about Swedish financial issues, before putting it down for months at a time. The book did seem to have a slow start, in my opinion. Then in the middle it picks up, and I flew through most of the book without wanting to put it down. It slowed down again in the end, when the mysteries seemed to all be revealed, but somehow there were almost 100 pages left. I did enjoy the end though, and I like it when books are very thoroughly completed. (That's one of my favorite things about the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy five-book trilogy - at the end, you definitely have a sense of closure.) Overall, I'd recommend reading it - it's interesting, clever, and keeps you guessing. And it really made me want to visit Sweden. (And as proof that I liked it, I started on the sequel almost immediately after finishing.)

Fantastic Mr. Fox & Love in the Time of Cholera

These movies are really not similar or related in any way, except that I watched them both this past weekend. Oh, and that they're both based on books.

The Fantastic Mr. Fox is a Wes Anderson Movie (Royal Tenenbaums, Darjeeling Limited, etc.), and I usually really love his movies, so I thought I'd watch this one. And I liked this one too. It's just a good mix of funny and quirky and visually interesting. The whole movie is stop action. It roughly follows the Roald Dahl book by the same name (though I never read that book). It's about a fox that decides to steal from some farmers and they try to track him down, and all sort of mischief ensues as he tries to evade them. Fun but quirky is probably the best description. I'd recommend it.

Love in the Time of Cholera is based on a book by Gabriel Garcia Marquez, who is a wonderful writer. (He also wrote One Hundred Years of Solitude - great book!) His books often have a mix of reality-based character-driven story as well as fantasy or myth. Love in the Time of Cholera is about a man who falls in love with a girl at first sight and decides that he will marry her, and essentially waits his whole life for her to be available. He pledges fidelity to the woman, but he can't quite manage it, so he keeps a log of all the women he sleeps with while waiting for her, and it goes into the hundreds. The story is a bit odd, the characters are sometimes sympathetic, sometimes not, but it's interesting. Anyway, I read the book and enjoyed it and thought I'd check out the movie. As always, the movie was not as good as the book. Not sure if I'd recommend the movie or not, but I would recommend the book. 

American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony

American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony

By Samuel P. Huntington

The general premise of “American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony” by Samuel P. Huntington, is that some eras in American politics can only be explained by the existence of “creedal passion periods” in which the American people become aware of a gap between American ideals (the American creed) and American institutions. Americans then depart from politics as usual to try to make their institutions more reflective of values of liberalism, democracy, and equality.

He begins the book by discussing prevalent academic frameworks for understanding American politics, including: progressive theory, which argues that the driving issue in politics is class conflict; consensus theory, which suggests that the U.S. doesn’t have significant class conflict, and is marked by a general consensus in society; and pluralist theory, which suggests that American politics is best understood as a completion among interest groups. He argues that progressive theory is wrong, because compared other nations, the U.S. has never had significant political class conflict. He argues that pluralist theory explains how American politics works much of the time, but doesn’t explain these ‘creedal passion’ periods. He believes that consensus theory is right in arguing that American s have a consensus on values, but that this doesn’t explain why political conflict still occurs. He argues that the politics is actually explained by a gap between ideals and institutions (the IvI gap). This creates a disharmonic system – one in which inequalities exist, but are not considered legitimate by society.

He goes on to argue that unlike other nations, the United States’ national identity is based on its national creed. Rather than a particular ethnicity, heritage, or other organic feature being used for national idenitity (as it may be in France, England, or other countries), Americanism is defined by belief in liberty, equality, democracy, and the rule of law under the constitution. (“To be an American is an ideal, while to be an Frenchman is a fact.”) He argues that this creed, developed early in American history, has had little modification over time, and is extremely widely embraced throughout the United States across various classes, ages, and ethnicities. This is the situation that allows people to argue that a government action in the U.S. may be “un-American” - since true American politics is an ideal, and is not just defined by whatever the government does.

Though the United States is united on these basic ideals, the effort to bring the political reality into accord with the ideals is a major force for political change and upheaval. This is in part because a distinctive aspect of the American Creed is its antigovernment character. The Constitution restrains government power through fundamental law. Liberalism calls for freedom from government control. Individualism is seen as the right of each person to act according to their own will and not be subject to external restraint. Egalitarianism rejects the idea that one person has the right to rule over another. Democracy involves popular control over government and responsiveness of government. Given these basic ideals, any attempt to get closer to American ideals will necessarily mean challenging and weakening the power of the government. This means that it will never be possible for America to fully get rid of the gap between ideals and institutions. When compared to other nations – both in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, he finds that these ideals are unique to culture of the United States.

There are multiple ways that Americans have coped with the gap between ideals and institutions over time, depending on the current intensity of their beliefs and their perception of the gap. If they have a high intensity of belief in the American ideals and a clear perception of the gap, they will choose moralism, and attempt to eliminate the gap. If they have a low intensity of belief, but a clear perception of the gap, they will choose cynicism, and tolerate the gap. With a high intensity of belief, but unclear perception of the gap, they will be hypocritical, and deny the gap. With a low intensity of belief and low perception of the gap, they will be complacent, and ignore the gap. He argues that all of these conditions exist in the U.S. at varying degrees at varying times. He believes there may be a cycle in which moralistic reform leads to an effort to eliminate the gap, but since this isn’t possible, the effort eventually runs out of steam and leads to cynicism, during with the gap is still perceived, but people don’t believe anything can be done to reduce it. Cyncism gives way to complacency, in which Americans try to live with the cognitive dissonance of the gap. Next is hypocrisy, in which Americans re-iterate their belief in the principles, but do not acknowledge the IvI gap. This eventually gives way to a renewed perception of the gap and a move to moralistic reform.

Huntington argues that there have been four major periods of creedal passion in American history: the American Revolution, the Jacksonian Era, the Progressive Era, and the protest, exposure, and reform of the 1960s and 1970s. In all of these eras, there was an atmosphere of discontent – government actions that may have been tolerated in the past were now noticed and denounced. The basic American political ideals were made central. He notes that it is interesting that none of these periods of upheaval are associated with new political ideas – only the re-affirmation of old ideas. In each era there is an attack on power and hierarchy – the British parliament during the Revolution, the Banks and corruption during the Jacksonian Era, Monopolies, trusts, and political machines during the Progressive Era, and the Presidency and the military-industrial complex during the 1960s and 70s. In each era there was an increase in political participation and organization as well as a growth in media and communication. The politics of exposure – just making facts available to the public – was prominent in each era. Interestingly there isn’t a pattern in the groups on each side of the arguments in each era – groups calling for change cut across social and economic barriers.

In each case, the ‘movement’ group appeals to American ideals and pushes for immediate action to bring American institutions into line with American ideals. Often the ‘establishment’ or opposition group, agrees with the ideals, but prefers a more incremental or gradual change in the American system – or takes a pragmatic view that things cannot be improved. In each of these eras, the ‘movement’ groups succeeded to varying degrees – breaking up monopolies, providing suffrage to women, abolishing slavery, providing civil rights to African-Americans, etc. However, moralistic reform does not last indefinitely, and not all of the reforms put into place last, and not all of them have the intended consequences.

Towards the end of the book, Huntington examines why creedal passion periods occur. Though he notes that creedal passion periods may be a rational response to abuses of power or other issues, or that they may be caused by exogenous events, such as rapid development, he doesn’t believe that these explanations are sufficient. He suggests that the creedal passion periods may be a cyclical feature of the American system, based on the moralism-cynicism-complacency-hypocrisy-moralism cycle mentioned earlier. Creedal passion periods seem to occur every 60 to 70 years.

Huntington devotes his penultimate chapter to a discussion of the 1960’s and 70’s, the most recent creedal passion period. He argues that in the 1950’s, the U.S. was in a state of complacency – Americans believed their government was living up to American ideals. In a 1960 poll, 85 percent of people said that their government and political institutions made them proud. There may have been a brief period of hypocrisy in the 1960’s, when American’s promoted their ideals in foreign policy, but did not acknowledge any gap in their domestic institutions. This quickly gave way to moralism as domestic issues such as the civil rights movement and the opposition to the Vietnam War became central. He gives examples of activists during this period appealing to American ideals of equality, liberty, and democracy. Later in this period, the dynamics of exposure began, as issues such as Watergate, the exposure of CIA domestic intelligence operations, and other government abuse came to the forefront. He explains that exposure didn’t come until late in the period, because protests began in response to public and obvious abuses, such as the lack of civil rights and the Vietnam War, and this led to the uncovering of hidden abuses. He adds that exposure eventually gave way to cynicism, eliminating the motivation for protest and exposure.

Huntington notes that a Rip Van Winkle that fell asleep in the late 1950s and awoke in the late 1970s might hardly believe that the intervening time had involved domestic upheaval, protest, war, men walking on the moon, and all of the other extraordinary events of that time. With the exception of the withdrawal from Vietnam and the creation of civil rights, the American system seemed much the same.

In his final chapter, Huntington discusses what this Ideal versus Institution gap means for the United States going forward. In general, he argues that the cycle is likely to continue. However, as increased development requires the existence of large, complex economic and political institutions, it will be harder for Americans to close the IvI gap without harming their ability to function efficiently in the increasingly complex world. He also notes that as the U.S. becomes more engaged internationally, it will have a trade off between supporting stronger institutions to give it more international reach and weaker institutions more in line with its ideals. He argues that America will need to strike a balance in pursuing their ideals at home and abroad, and in embracing development, but still working to reduce the IvI gap.

He closes the book with this: “Critics say that America is a lie because its reality falls so far short of its ideals. They are wrong. America is not a lie; it is a disappointment. But it can be a disappointment only because it is also a hope.”

Book Club - The Lost Symbol

Yep. Our book club read 'The Lost Symbol' this month. It's a national (maybe international?) bestseller, and it's set in our city. Every tourist is going to ask how to find the 'secret' buildings, so we might as well know what they're talking about.

To be honest, I've read both 'Angels and Demons' and 'The Davinci Code.' I thought they were fun, easy reads, interesting, but not to be taken too seriously. This book was the same. The plot was very similar to the other two books, which is ok, since that's about what I expected.

It actually was fun to read a book like this that is set in your own city. Lots of the highlighted sights are within just a few blocks of my house, and they do have interesting histories. Though I don't buy into conspiracy theories, I thought you could still get the 'stop and smell the roses' lesson from reading this book. It's fun to take the time to notice your surroundings and learn about the history of the city and its various buildings, and this book reminded me that there are lots of fun things still to be discovered and learned about in DC.

The Time Traveler's Wife

I read this book a couple years ago, and then our book club decided to read it, so I just finished reading it again. It really is a great book - the mechanics of the time-traveling aspect are done well enough that scifi fans will be kept interested and happy and the love-story aspect of the book is extremely well thought out and interesting. It's the only example of a book I know that puts these two genres together so well. I highly recommend the book!

The alternative, you may know, is to try to save time by just seeing the movie. You could do this, you might even like the movie, but be warned that it is considerably less interesting and dynamic than the book. Watching the movie (which I did within 12 hours of finishing re-reading the book - that may have made me hyper-sensitive to changes) I felt like they had taken this complicated and adult-themed book and made it into a movie a 13-year-old girl might enjoy. My main problem was that Clare, who in the book is smart, logical, and self-possessed, becomes the stereotypical whiny, illogical girl in the movie. In general, anything in the book that required thought or complex emotion - things about the characters that might not be entirely wholesome or comfortable/cute get left out. So, see the movie if you like (especially if you've already read the book - just to jog your memory) but also read the book so you can appreciate how good the story really is.

Vonnegut, Anime, and Opera

Another quick update on some books and movies I've read or seen recently.

I recently finished "Mother Night" by Kurt Vonnegut. I really love Vonnegut - Slaughterhouse 5 is amazing, Cat's Cradle, Enter the Monkey House, etc. are all great. They all are fun to read, creative, and make you think about bigger issues. This book revolves around events in WWII. I think it's interesting when Vonnegut writes about WWII, because he really was in the war. Slaughterhouse 5, my favorite book by him, is partially made up of the true story of his experience as a prisoner of war in Dresden when it was bombed. This book is written as the memoir of Howard Campbell Jr., a man currently being tried as a war criminal for his participation in WWII. He's an American, but lived in Germany during WWII. He became an American spy (though he can't prove it) and infiltrated the Nazi's - he became a famous radio propagandist. In the introduction to 'Mother Night', Vonnegut says its the only book he's written for which he knows what the moral is supposed to be: "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." Definitely a recommended read.

We watched "Howl's Moving Castle" recently - this movie was made by the same people who did Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away (both great movies). I loved the animation - the moving castle itself is just awesome-looking. The story-line was pretty good, though not as good as Spirited Away, I think. Still worth seeing.

The last one is the oddest. I saw a movie called "Repo: The Genetic Opera." I think the best way to describe the feeling of the movie is to say it's a combination of Sin City (with the comic book images and the comic-book feel to the live action), Evil Dead (because of copious blood and dark humor), and Rocky Horror Picture Show (because of the whole cult classic musical aspect). I actually did enjoy the movie - it's creative, visually interesting, and occasionally funny. The premise is that organ transplants have become a fashion statement, and they're now very common. To finance the operations, people take out loans. Then, a law is passed that if the loans aren't paid, the organs can be repossessed (hence the title - Repo). An interesting tidbit is that Paris Hilton is in the movie, which is a bit odd - it doesn't really seem like her genre. However, she doesn't have a ton of screen time, and her face falls off, so don't let her presence stop you from watching. :) If you read this description and think it sounds cool, you'll probably love the movie, otherwise you might want to skip it - this movie's good, but maybe not for everyone.

Book Club: The Shadow of the Wind

I haven't written in quite a while, mostly because it's been very busy! Last week we had our July book club meeting. The book was "The Shadow of the Wind" by Carlos Ruiz Zafron. I really enjoyed the book, as did the other book club members. It's a global best-seller, and I've seen copies of it all over the place - my Isreali friend was reading a Hebrew copy in Barcelona, I saw it on my German friend's roommate's night stand, and it just keeps seeming to pop up, so I figured I'd better check it out.

Since the book is set in Barcelona, we decided to have our meeting at Jaleo, a Spanish restaurant in DC. That way we could enjoy sangria and tapas during the discussion. (And the food was great!)

The book is set in Barcelona just after the Spanish Civil War. The main character, a young boy, is brought to the cemetery of forgotten books, where he picks one to read and keep. He really enjoys the book and tries to track down further works by the author, only to find out that someone else has been searching for the books and burning every copy. The mystery plays out over many years and with a multitude of characters as the boy tries to figure out who's destroying the books and why.

The book was fun to read and kept you turning the pages. There were a number of themes I found very interesting.

I really liked the post-war aspect of the book. I think post-war literature and movies are really interesting and complicated of the pychological situation they put people in. After so much has happened, people need to come to grips with what people (and themselves) are capable of and figure out if and how they can return to normal life. (Sidenote: For a really interesting example of this, watch "The Murderers Are Among Us" - it was the first movie made in Germany after WWII.)

Of course, I loved the fact that it was set in Barcelona. After being there for the summer last year, lots of the street names and parts of town were familiar. The book even includes a map and a walking tour as an appendix!

I liked the theme of books being important. I think this is a fun thing I've seen once or twice before (like in "The Thirteenth Tale" by Dianne Setterfield) where a book glorifies how meaningful books can be. It's just gives it an interesting 'meta-story' feel.

The bildngsroman or coming-of-age aspect of the book was also interesting. When the book starts, the main character is about 10, and by the time it ends, he's 16 or 18 or so - basically grown up.

And the overall wealth of intriguing characters and unraveling mystery kept me turning pages.

Books and Movies

With all this traveling, I've had a chance to do some reading and see a few movies, including...

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies - This is the book we read for our June book club. It had been on the New York Times Bestseller list for a while, and I was curious. I'd read (and enjoyed) Pride and Prejudice before, and I'm always game for a zombie story. Sadly, I wasn't very impressed. It wasn't particularly funny, and the zombie parts were mostly added in places where it had no effect on the story at all (i.e. any time they rode in a carriage, they fought zombies along the way). So it didn't really add entertainment or much of a new twist to the story, except in really superficial ways. I'd say you can probably skip this one and go for the original instead.


The Alchemist - I'd always heard good things about this book before, so when I saw it in a book store in Narita airport, I thought I'd get it. It's a pretty short book - I was able to finish it in the first part of the flight home, but I really enjoyed it. It's about a boy who decides to follow his dream, and not give up just because it seems impossible. It's fun, interesting, and the philosophy is uplifting. I'd definitely recommend this one.




The Duchess - I had actually seen the first half of this movie on a plane a long time ago, and just finished it recently. The movie is supposed to be based on a true story (I think). It was interesting, entertaining, a little sad.







Race to Witch Mountain - I watched this on the plane, but I have to say, it was not the greatest movie I've ever seen. Slightly more interesting just staring at my own feet. Well, maybe not that bad, but it was corny and slow moving. Skip this one and watch the original instead.







He's Just Not That Into You - This was another 'on the plane' movie for me. It was pretty well and was entertaining. I had actually read the book in the past and found it funny and well written. The movie had a lot of the same ideas and themes as the book.







Rachel Getting Married - This movie was as depressing as it seems like it would be from the trailers. Emotionally troubled recovering drug addict comes back for her sister's wedding, selfishly making herself the center of attention at every opportunity and causing emotional difficulty for everyone involved. Anne Hathaway was good in the role, though, quite different than her Princess Diaries beginnings.




For Your Consideration - This is the most recent Christopher Guest movie. Hilarious, of course, though not as good as Best in Show or Mighty Wind. It seemed like there wasn't enough time for the characters to really develop, since there are just sooo many actors.

Watchmen

Our book club book for March was "Watchmen" by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. It's a graphic novel (actually originally released as a set of individual comic books), but now hailed as one of the top 100 novels (by amazon.com).

I did really enjoy the book - all of the heroes (except one), are just normal people that for varying reasons decided to dress up in a costume and fight crime. Some are insecure, or crazy, or have other issues, and most seem aware of how weird it is to, for example, dress up like an owl and fight bad-guys. I thought this aspect of the book was really interesting to think about - the nature of a hero and what makes people do what they do.

It also presents a very interesting basic ethical dilema - what's more important - principles, or accomplishing the best end result. In Spiderman, when he has to choose between saving his girlfriend or saving a speeding train, in the end he's able to save both. In this story, the characters don't get to skirt around the difficult issues. I think this makes you think about what makes a hero (or a person) seem 'good' - is it because they actually make the right choice, or just because of the situation they were in.

Of course, the movie "Watchmen" has now been released, and having read the book, I had to go see it. I did enjoy the movie, and there were some aspects in the beginning that were remarkably similar to the book - including the way the scenes were set up and shown. The characters, particularly Rorschach, were very well cast. There are some changes from the book that seem major on the surface, but the spirit of the book is definitely still there.

However, the fighting in the movie was a big 'larger than life', which took away from one of the aspects of the book I really enjoyed - that they were all real people with no special ability, just an odd urge to dress up and fight crime, all for very different reasons.

It's hard to judge the movie, having read the book, because it's hard to imagine how it's perceived by a first-time watcher, without all the background included in the book. I'd be interested to hear how other people like it.

Bless You, Mr. Rosewater

I recently read Bless You, Mr. Rosewater, by Kurt Vonnegut. I usually love Vonnegut (Slaughterhouse Five and Cat’s Cradle were both amazing), but I didn’t think this book was quite as good. It was funny, but not laugh out loud funny. It was interesting, but not wildly creative. It makes you think, but not on the kind of scale of the other two books I mentioned. So, I’d say this book is still worth reading, but it still scores last place in the hierarchy of Vonnegut books I’v-read.

The Man Who Was Thursday

Continuing my reading spree, I decided to get started on the January book club book - "The Man Who Was Thursday" by G. K. Chesterton. I think the title (and author's name) have quite a ring to them, and the text of the book is similar. I sometimes get bored by long descriptions in books, and prefer more action, but Chesterton is so creative and unique in the way he describes things, that I loved it. That said, there is some interesting action that happens as well.

The book is basically about a police officer (in early 1900's London) who semi-accidentally joins the 'European high council of anarchists'. The book is funny and entertaining, and the writing style is different and interesting. It's not the type of book that I'm used to reading, but I really enjoyed it.

Some of my favorite excerpts:

Talking about the main character, Mr. Syme:
"He came of a family of cranks, in which all the oldest people had all the newest notions. One of his uncles always walked about without a hat, and another had made an unsuccessful attempt to walk about with a hat and nothing else. His father cultivated art and self-realization; his mother went in for simplicity and hygiene. Hence the child, during his tenderer years, was wholly unacquainted with any drink between the extremes of absinthe and cocoa, of both of which he had a healthy dislike.... Being surrounded with every conceivable kind of revolt from infancy, Gabriel had to revolt into something, so he revolted into the only thing left – sanity.”

A policeman explaining to Mr. Syme why they need a new philosophical police force:
“We say that the dangerous criminal is the educated criminal. We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher. Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men; my heart goes out to them. They accept the essential ideal of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fullness of of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people’s.”

Three Cups of Tea

Just before Christmas (thanks to lots of time on airplanes) I finished the book "Three Cups of Tea" by David Relin and Greg Mortenson. It's a book about Greg Mortenson, who used to be a mountain climber. In 1993, he went on a trip to climb a mountain in Pakistan, but through a series of coincidences and mistakes he ended up in a small mountain village. The people there helped him, and he promised to build them a school. Though it wasn't intention at the time, that ended up starting what would be his life's work - building schools for poor, remote villages in Pakistan and surrounding areas. The details of trying to make his promise into a reality, and the story of how this all evolves, as well as where he is now, are the topics of the book. It's really interesting - both his story and his philosophy - believing education is the key to stopping poverty and promoting peace. I'd highly recommend reading this one!

You can learn more about the story, and buy the book (7% of proceeds go to the Central Asian Institute, which builds the schools) at this website: http://www.threecupsoftea.com .

November Book Club Meeting

We just had our second book club meeting for our newly formed DC book club. It was a really fun meeting. We read the book "The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society." It's an epistolary novel (all made up of letters) about the Channel Islands during and after World War II. Generally people enjoyed the book. It was an easy read and had some really interesting themes, but didn't go into much depth. The characters were fun, but also a bit one-dimensional. To fit the theme, Stephanie, who hosted the meeting, made a baked-potato bar for dinner. Overall a very fun night.

For the next book club meeting, we're reading "Under the Banner of Heaven: The Story of Violent Faith" by Jon Krakauer. It's more serious than our last couple books - its a non-fiction book about an extreme sect of the Morman church. Should be interesting...

A Long Way Gone

I just finished reading the book "A Long Way Gone", by Ishmael Beah. It's a memoir about growing up in Sierra Leone. There was a civil war that went on there for a long time, and he was a child soldier.

The book was very interesting. It's written very much as recounting of the events starting with his normal childhood through his time in the war, rehabilitation, and escape to the U.S. It isn't really written as a story to pull you in, though, which was interesting. I think it could have been much more gripping and upsetting. It surely is disturbing, but it keeps the reader a bit removed the whole time,. Overall, I would recommend reading it - it's not long and does provide good insight into an important period in history as well as some understanding about child soldiers - who are still used now in a number of conflicts.

Right Turns

I just finished reading the book "Right Turns" by Michael Medved. It's about his life and how he went from being an liberal activist to a conservative champion. The book is intriguing, and he has definitely had an interesting life.

I like that he often used very reasoned arguments, pointing out possible holes and addressing those as well. He uses data and talks about the sources of the data. As a technical person, this is something I can appreciate. Whether you agree with is conclusion or not, you can see that he is well-trained in the skill of debate. He also complains a number of times with arguments or statements taken out of context, and I agree that this is a frustrating thing that is often done in politics. However, I don't know any talk show host or political group that doesn't use soundbites, or that prefers to talk about the spirit of their opponent's speech rather than exploit one particular comment.

One thing that kept me from taking things too seriously is his tendency throughout his life to do things for the publicity rather than because they align with his beliefs. As a writer, movie critic, and radio host it's his job to be controversial, but this stops me from taking anything he says at face value.

I think I'll address a few issues throughout the book that I thought were interesting in some particular way:

In chapter 9, Medved states that the highway provides a better education that the ivy league. He spent a lot of time hitchhiking and enjoyed his time in the midwest, but disliked the people at Yale, who he viewed as elitist. He criticizes the people at Yale and people on the east coast in general for generalizing about the people in the midwest. The first thing I noticed in this chapter was the irony of him making a negative generalization about all east coast people, since his problem with them is the tendancy to generalize about another group of people. Also, having grown up in the midwest and lived on the east coast for six years, I can pretty safely say that there are good and bad people in both places. Though each may have their own jokes or suspicions about the other, for the most part, people don't really think less of people from other parts of the country. I do think it'd be useful for people from the coasts to visit the midwest more, however, only because I think they're missing out on some beautiful places. Or maybe the impetus is on the midwest to develop its tourism industry more aggressively.

In chapter 10, he talks about meeting John Kerry in college and disliking Kerry's superior, calculating personality. However, it seems like Medved is pretty calculating as well - working in politics this is a clear part of the job description - and he often shows his skill in these areas throughout the book. However, in this chapter, he also talks about the importance of volunteering and teaching and the value you can get from paying attention to the people you're trying to help. This is something I completely agree with - it's not useful to go into a situation assuming you know more about everything and are going to help people - you should also be humble and aware of the many things that you could learn from them. I've found this to be true whether studying with other students at MIT, mentoring failing students at a local high school, or living in a rural Indian village - if you give them a chance, other people can teach you a lot.

One of the big themes he discussed in the book, though I don't remember the chapter, is the idea of practical vs. idealistic political action. I don't have a clear decision on what I think about this - it's easy for me to see both sides. On one hand, I agree with Medved that you need to be practical if you want things to get done. In a slowly moving system, you may compromise and take baby steps in a better or at least less-bad direction. You need to live in and deal with reality. On the other hand, when there are things you really believe in, compromise can seem impossible - it can be better to know that you tried your best for something you really cared about rather than just gave in and became a cog in the machine. Just think what a horrible movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" would have been if Jimmy Stewart had been practical and had either joined the curropt group or left DC. Ralph Nader argues that if you are voting for things you don't really believe in, how can you ever expect to see change - things don't have to be good, they just have to be less bad. It's definitely an interesting issue.

In Chapter 13, "Publicity is Power", he talks about his ill-thought out plan to try to ban ROTC from Yale's campus during the Vietnam War. He admits in his book that though he was the leader of a number of anti-war rallys, he didn't fully understand or think about the consequences of his actions. I think this is something that happens at both ends of the political spectrum, and is something that really frustrates me - people do something because that's what they think they should rather than because they really understand and believe in it. In particular, I think its awful that people were so anti-military during the Vietnam War - you can disagree with government policies, but it makes no sense to direct your anger towards people who are doing their job. I remember learning about the Vietnam war in high school, and a man spoke to us about his experience. He told us that the first thing he did when he returned to states, before even leaving the airport, was change out of his uniform. Even then, I remember thinking what a sad and nonsensical situation that was. Most reasonable people would agree the military is important, and soldiers do not get to choose which wars they want to fight in, (especially when there was a draft!) so why would people be so angry towards them? Anyway, back to the general point: I think people need to be more careful to understand the issues they are pushing for and the practical effect that their actions will have - both on people and institutions. I often see people in the street asking for signatures for various petitions, and I feel like there is no way I can sign my name to a cause that I haven't studied, and where the only information I get is in a five minute speech from a person who obviously has a stake in me agreeing with one side. You can't know everything about everything, but I'm certainly trying to do the best I can to be informed.

One thing I thought was odd was a statement in Chapter 31 - "A More Christian America is Good for the Jews". He is discussing his thesis that an increase in religiousity, including evangelical Christians, supports the Jewish way of life, partially because it promotes the same basic values. There are three Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I would have expected that with his open-minded consideration of how Christianity and Judaism can support each other through common values, he would also have included Islam, which has the same foundations and very similar values as well. However, the only time he talks about Muslims in the chapter is to mention "the current reality of tens of millions of murderous Muslim extremists who menace Jewish lives and institutions in the Middle East, Europe, Latin America, and around the world". I thought it was odd and irresponsible to only acknowledge the violent and extremest sect of Islam. Violent extremism exists in all religions, and though I understand he is particularly sensitive to this topic, being Jewish and having relatives in Isreal, I would think as a rational and seemingly considerate person, he would mention the importance of the tens of millions of responsible, kind-hearted, principaled Muslims all over the world, fighting for the same values and rights that he believes in.

I was not a big fan of chapter 33 - "Never Apologize for Partisanship". His idea is that you should surround yourself with likeminded people and be supported in your beliefs. I think this is an awful idea. I also think it completely contradicts his comments in Chapter 9 that people on the east coast need to learn more about people in the midwest. It's difficult to be uncompromisingly partisan and also to keep an open mind to people in other parts of the country and their ideals. I think its important to respect other people and their beliefs, and the best way I've found to do this is to actually talk to them and understand why they believe in what they do. And I don't mean talk to them in a patronizing way or listening to people of your own partisanship talk about straw-man arguments of the other side, I mean really finding a person that you respect and then learning about their views. This is one thing I felt that I was lucky to be able to do when I was in Minnesota - there were a variety of political beliefs around me, and I could hear each person's point of view. When I went to college, I continued to seek out new points of view. However, along the way, I've seen that it would be easy to end up in a group of like-minded people who have no real understanding or respect for the other side. I refuse to believe that half of America is right and half is wrong, or half smart and half stupid. Both sides of the political spectrum have important insights, values, arguments, and beliefs. It's this conviction that causes me to read both "Audacity of Hope" by Obama, and something like "Right Turns" by Medved. I don't think that declaring partisanism and ignoring the other side would make me a better person, in fact, I think it would likely detract from my understanding of our country and my own beliefs. To be fair, despite being a conservative talk show host, Medved does talk about having at least one close friend and a family member that are liberal. He also tells a story in which he debated someone on the show that he disagreed with, but then later invited him home for dinner and shared a meal and nice conversation with him. I think these are good examples of how to act.

The last chapter of the book was on "Do-it-yourself Conservatism". In this chapter he promotes taking local action - picking up garbage in your own neighborhood or working with your church, rather than always trying to create society-wide government solutions. I had mixed feelings on his idea here, because I didn't think it was well developed. I definitely agree that it is important to understand and be active in your local community and that when you believe in something, the first steps you take should be to change your own actions and immediate surroundings. I also agree that if you support wider change, you should carefully consider the goals and effectiveness of your proposed solution (that's what good policy-making is all about!). I just believe that there is still a place for trying to reach more people or make a bigger change for something you believe in.

For example, he says that to fight homeless, people support programs that provide feeding, but do nothing to address underlying problems. But what does he propose we do to address those "underlying problems"? For public education, he says that people support enacting standardized federal tests, but ignore the troubled home environments that cripple underachieving students. But what does he propose we do to help solve "troubled home environments"? He suggests that parents choose home schooling or at least get involved in the local school. I think those are admirable things, but it seems unlikely the the students coming from "troubled home environments" are going to have parents interested in providing quality home schooling or joining the PTA. Are those students just out of luck with this do-it-yourself method? He suggests that if you're concerned about congestion or commuter traffic, you should take the bus or ride a bike. I agree. But if the federal government never increased the size of freeways or spent money fixing roads and bridges, would that really be a good solution? He suggests that if you don't like the values shown in Hollywood movies or on TV, than rather than signing petitions, participating in boycotts, or writing letters, you should just change your own watching habbits. I tend to agree - let the market run its course, since you can choose not to be exposed to a film or TV show. However, this suggestion comes from a man who wrote books and gave multiple speeches about "Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values", which seems slightly more active than just changing your own behavior. He also runs a daily radio show, which he describes as do-it-yourself because he's making one argument at a time, but that also seems somehow different to the "change your personal life and actions" that he proposed earlier. I don't really disagree with his actions or choices here, but just don't think this concept was very well defined.

Now this has really gotten to be a long review/ response, and I'm sure not many will make it this far, but if you're still reading, let me know what you think (via email is fine if you don't want to post a comment). Though I didn't agree 100% with everything in the book, it was a really fun and interesting read, and I would recommend it to others. Enjoy the stories of his interesting and varied life, and use it as a springboard to think about your own experiences and beliefs.

Colossus - Book Comments

My friend Adam lent me the book "Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire" by Neill Ferguson. I just finished reading it, so I thought I'd write a little about my thoughts. I can't claim to be the most educated person about foreign politics, so as I learn more I reserve the ability to change my mind. I'll include page numbers in some spots for others who have read the book.

Overall, I thought it was an interesting book with some good points. His general thesis is that America is an empire in denial. The term empire is defined broadly as having influence outside your national borders, which the U.S. does - if not through military action, than through its pervasive culture, companies, and NGOs. He then argues that because the United States won't admit (to itself or others) and that it is an empire, it does a poor job when it decides to interfere with other countries. Rather than take a long-term view and accept the job as re-builder (as we did in Germany in Japan), he argues, we tend to think we can take quick military action and then step back and leave the nation-building to the citizens there, which doesn't seem to work in practice.

There are some interesting general issues he brings up. First is the question of how (if its possible) you can successfully cause a regime-change in a country. He argues that the (long) process of nation-building must be carefully and determinedly taken on - you can't plan only for the military action and not what follows, and you can't expect this type of action to come to a quick conclusion. This seems pretty likely to me, and maybe a more realistic understanding of what was going to be involved when we invaded Iraq would have made people less frustrated at our continued presence now (it also might have meant many less people would have supported it in the first place). It's definitely an interesting question to consider.

Another general issue (pg 293) is what America's obligation to the world is, and what kind of role we ought to take on as the only superpower. Should we ever interfere with other nations? Should we be using our power to overthrow more dictators and oppressive regimes? I think this is a question that is very difficult to answer. A nation that feels it knows what is best for the rest of the world and unilaterally goes around using its military to change regimes it regards as oppressive, seems like it could easily get out of hand. Similarly, if the only nation that has the people and money to take action refuses to ever step in, that could seem irresponsible. If you do believe that the United States (or the world) in general should take action in some cases, then the question is when should we take action, and who gets to decide? What about Sudan, where thousands were being killed by the government? Or in Myanmar, where thousands died because the government wouldn't allow aid after the cyclone? Or Zimbabwe, which is being torn apart and bullied by Robert Mugabe? What about Turkmenistan where the political system is a presidential republic, but only one political party is legally allowed, and any non-sanctioned political gatherings are illegal? There are lots of non-democratic countries around the world, and it's not clear what justifies unilateral or multilateral action by the world.

Some might think intervention is only an option if the people within the nation want outside intervention, but this seems impractical to me, since there are always going to be mixed reactions to any type of action. I think this was one of the things that confused Americans about the Iraq war, there was an idea that all Iraqis would be greeting us with a warm welcome, and though I believe some did, many did not - while this was unexpected to some, it seems inevitable to me.

A few other intersting issues: In the book (pg 152-157) Ferguson addresses the path from 9/11 to Iraq, but doesn't discuss why Iraq was chosen in particular, except to say "there had been elements within the Republican Party who yearned for a settling of accounts with Saddam Hussein." Also, it seems to me that the rationale for war he gives in the book is not quite the same as what was put forth in the popular media.

One thing I thought was missing from the book was an acknowledgment of all the negative effects of colonialism on the former colonies. Ferguson discusses the benefits in infrastructure and other areas that he believes colonies received, but seems to gloss over the extreme inequities and violence that occurred during this time. Regardless of the economic arguments, the moral issues need to be addressed as well. Similarly, he says (pg 175-176) that de-colonization did not lead directly to economic growth, as was predicted, but he also does not show that de-colonization had a negative effect. I would have liked to have had more information about the changes caused by de-colonization, as well as the likely progression that would have occurred with a plan of non-interference.

He argues that one of America's problems in successfully re-building Iraq was in the public's non-interest in actually going to Iraq. In Britain in the early 1900's, he argues, many Cambridge and Oxford grads were eager to get involved in the colonial authority in other nations. American Ivy League grads would rather go to Wall Street. He quotes some statistics about the low numbers of Americans who choose to live and work abroad in general. I thought this was an interesting comment, and am curious exactly what has driven this change.

On page 101, Ferguson says that it was not the general public that was against imperialism, but the elite and the academics. I'm curious if that is still the case now. Is that state of affairs a good thing or a bad thing? Why does it occur that way?

On page 139, Ferguson talks about Clinton's policy, and argues that Clinton's main goal was to avoid getting soldiers killed. In the book, Ferguson doesn't seem to think this is much of a policy, but to me it seems like an acceptable goal - preserving American lives seems like a good thing to keep in mind. Clinton still took military action, but in a way that minimized danger to our troops. I wish he had included more information about this policy and what he thought were the negative aspects.

This has turned into a pretty random collection of thoughts on this book, but maybe it will be somewhat interesting and possibly spark some thought and discussion! Overall, I'd recommend the book - an interesting read and a unique opinion.

Midwest Roadtrip

One of the offices that my mom works with is in Omaha, Nebraska. She had to go down for a few days and invited Jeff and I to come. Since he and I have never really done a road trip in the Midwest, we decided to check it out. She was going for a full week, so we thought we'd leave a couple days later. That meant we had to rent a car one way from Minneapolis to Omaha.

Our adventure began around 11am today, when we walked to the Avis rental place in Maplewood Mall (about a mile from my house). Then we spent the next 6 hours in the car. Pretty much all the scenery looked the same. Cornfields as far as the eye could see.

We considered stopping for food in Des Moines, Iowa, but were indecisive. Once we got a little past it, Jeff decided that he really would like to grab some fast food next time we pass a McDonald's or something. It turned out the next time we'd pass a McDonald's would be in two hours when we arrived in Omaha. Ah well, won't make that mistake again.Determined Driver - I went 6 hours without stopping.

On the way we listened to McCain and Obama speeches played repeatedly on NPR, and then listed to Bill Bryson's "The Lost Continent" on CD. (We picked up some books on tape from the library before starting our trip.) The book was actually about Bill Bryson's trip back to the home to the United States after living in the UK for 10 years. His hometown? Des Moines, Iowa. So we drove through the great plains listening to Bill Bryson complain about the emptiness and monotony of the Midwest. He's a bit negative for my taste, but it was still a pretty entertaining book.

We got to Omaha around 6pm and had dinner in the Old Town area at Upstream Brewery, which was pretty nice. I'm actually fairly excited to explore the city tomorrow, and I'm sure I'll take lots of pictures.

Movies and a Book

While traveling around I finally had time to read a book for fun (yay, summer vacation!) and watch a few more movies. Here's what I've got:

Water for Elephants
This is novel about a man who works on a circus in the 1930's. It's a fairly dark book, but reads quickly and is interesting. The author actually did a good amount of research into circuses and into the time period in general, so there are some situations pulled from real life - I recommend reading her notes on this, which are included at the end of the novel. Good summer read. (Another interesting thing about this book is that my copy had a mis-print so the first 25 pages or so were printed upside-down, which mean everyone around me at that time thought I was a complete moron...)

Judge Dredd
This movie takes place in a dystopian future and stars Sylvester Stalone - do you really need to know anything else about it? He's a policeman/judge that can catch a criminal and sentence him immediately, but you'll never guess what happens... he gets framed and he gets sentenced! So then he has to escape, clear his name, and save the world from the person who framed him. If you like campy scifi and over the top action (which I do), you'll love this movie.



Heartbreak Kid
Ugh. Don't see this. Starring Ben Stiller, I expected it to be a vaguely funny, stupid slap-stick comedy, and even that was expecting too much. It's not even that some of the jokes aren't funny, it's that there are long spans (in a pretty short move) that don't even attempt to be funny. Many of the situations are just sad - a woman with third-degree sunburns, a guy cheating on his honeymoon. Other situations with the potential to be funny, like Ben Stiller trying to escape Mexico by crossing the boarder illegally, are just drawn out and boring.


Bladerunner
I wasn't sure what I thought about this movie when I first finished it, but it's beginning to grow on me. It was another movie set in a dystopian future with a fight between robots and humans. It stars Harrison Ford, the best robot-hunter (bladerunner) around, and it stars Rutger Hauer as the leader of the escaped robots. It had a familiar theme - robots rebel against humans, humans ruthlessly hunt robots, not all robots are evil, perhaps the humans are the bad guys, etc. (though perhaps in the 1980's when it came out this was all new). <> One thing I've decided I like about it is that though the robots are perhaps not actually bad, and mostly are just wanting to live, Harrison Ford (the hero) hunts them down anyway. Just an interesting twist that keeps the movie from being tied up too neatly.

L4yer Cake
This is a British Movie starring Daniel Craig (James Bond from Casino Royale) as a cocaine dealer. It has lots of characters and interesting plot twists, which keeps it interesting. It reminds me vaguely of a mix between Snatch and Pulp Fiction, which are both movies I enjoyed quite a bit. The only thing bothering me is that I still don't get why the A in the title was changed to the number 4. (Adam, I don't think the fact that 4 and A look similar is a good enough reason to just switch them whenever you feel like it...)

Movies, a Book, and a Board Game

I've been watching lots of movies again, which usually means I either have no work to do (yeah right!) or I have tons of work to do, and I'm trying to avoid it. Anyway, here's what I've seen:

An Inconvenient Truth
I'd heard a lot about this movie before I saw it, but it was still not what I expected. I thought there would be a lot of pictures of the earth, and of changing climates, and there were, actually. However, there was also a lot of discussion of graphs and scientific results and more technical issues, which I thought was really interesting. There was also a decent amount of Al Gore autobiography, which I really wasn't expecting, but was also fairly interesting. It was a heavier movie than I thought it'd be - more technical and serious than emotional - at least compared to what I had expected. I'd recommend checking it out and then reading up a bit more on the issue. This movie also brought up the issue of scientific integrity and how you tell good science from hack science, which I think about a lot, and I'm going to try to blog on that issue in a bit.

August Rush
I actually saw this one on the plane on the way back from Ecuador. I didn't really like it at first, because I didn't know what it was and couldn't tell if it was going to turn into a corny Disney movie or an existential indie-film. It's about a boy who can hear music in everything (kind of like Bjork in Dancer in the Dark - which is an amazing film). His parents are also very musical, but all three of them are separated, so the boy decides to try to find the parents by "following the music". It also has a creepy Robin Williams who gets homeless children to live in a warehouse and play music for money during the day. I won't tell you the end, but I'd say it was a mix of corney Disney and odd indie-film. It was pretty entertaining along the way, and a cute movie overall, but I wouldn't say great. Maybe if Bjork was his mother instead of Keri Russel, it would have been more interesting. ;)

Good Night and Good Luck
This movie was about Edward R. Murrow, a news anchor during the 1950's that decided to take on Senator McCarthy. If you took social studies in middle school, you should know about McCarthyism, but if you weren't paying attention, get a little reminder from wikipedia. Anyway, the movie is well done and interesting, particularly because its based on real events. It also highlights how difficult it is to fight a popular movement, since just by putting yourself against it, you risk everyone disliking and not trusting you. This one is worth watching.

Water
Water is an Indian movie about widows living in a city in India. It is set in the 1940's era when India is on the verge of independence, and Ghandi is traveling the country. It follows the story of one young girl whose (much older) husband dies. She is sent to live in the enclosed area for widows where she will have to stay for the rest of her life. They talk about how the practice is more economic than religious - since a woman could not have a job, she would be an economic burden for the husband's family, so she is sent away. It is a really interesting movie, and is nothing like the big Bollywood films with millions of dance numbers, there is actually no singing and dancing in this movie.

Next
This one is mentioned partly in jest. I actually watched it while on a bus in Ecuador, so it was all in Spanish. (And I don't speak Spanish.) Luckily, in this fast-paced film starring Nick Cage, that didn't seem to matter. Also, whoever did the Spanish translation did a pretty good job on the Nick Cage accent. He is a guy who can see into the future about what is going to happen next, so the government wants to get a hold of him to stop a nuclear explosion in he U.S. For some reason he doesn't seem to be interested until his girlfriend is kidnapped. But then he becomes the action hero we all knew he was. Watch out for the rediculously action/ sci-fi twist at the end.

The Panama Hat Trail
This is a book that I read while I was in Ecuador, because it is about Ecuador. The Panama Hat is actually made in Ecuador, which is basically the point of the book. It was pretty interesting and is mostly a travel journal of all the places this person goes while trying to learn about how the hat is made and shipped all over the world.




Settlers of Catan
My friends and I have played this two weeks in a row, and it's getting a bit addicting. It's a super nerdy board game - the board comes as a series of colored hexagons so that the board is different every time. You build roads and houses and cities and you need these to get materials to build more- it's kind of like a board game version of some of the online games around - but this one came first, I think. Anyway, it sounds complicated the first time you play, but actually becomes clear very quickly and is really fun. I'd recommend checking it out!