The United States' government, with its executive, legislative and judicial branches always checking and balancing each other, is the pride of the patriotic American people. However, this government is more of a Frankenstein's Monster than an Adonis. In his 1996 essay, Professor of Political Science at Yale University Juan Linz reveals the perennial instability of presidential governments compared to their parliamentary counterparts. While it cannot be denied that there are some merits to the U.S's presidential government, it is historically obvious that America's presidential government is highly unstable.
Linz argues in his essay that the dissident powers of legislative and executive branches in the American government have long been a fault line in the U.S. government. This idea, which essentially points out the dangerous clash between the president and congress regarding who holds the democratic "power of the people" has been a long running theme in American government. During the presidency of accidental president Andrew Johnson, this political disparity almost destroyed the American political structure. Johnson disagreed heavily with the legislative majority Republicans regarding how to carry out Civil War Reconstruction. Johnson ignored the party's obvious majority opinion in the Senate and House and vetoed all bills passed by the party. Heavily annoyed by this stalemate, Republicans impeach Johnson on illegitimate grounds. Johnson was not removed from office and a crisis was averted; however, had he been removed it would have set a dangerous precedent that the legislature could remove the president at any time just because they didn't like his policy. Thus, the constant power struggle between the executive and legislative branches undermines the stability of the American Government.
Despite the relative instability of American Government, there are still benefits to the American political system. The constant checks and balances between the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches protect the country from polar decision making and excess political expediency. French philosopher Montesquieu believed that government needed checks and balances between its major institutions in order to ensure that no one interest could carry out highly polarized actions. The American system of government upholds this belief as the presidential veto, legislative power to pass bills, and judicial review allows all governmental decisions to be checked before being passed into law. This means that no rash decisions (hopefully) will be pushed through the government into law, but also means that almost nothing ever gets done. So while this system may provide necessary checks, it also is extremely inefficient and overall largely unstable.
America has thus far been able to operate with relative effectiveness under our current system of government. However, as Linz shows in his essay and as history has shown us, there are many faults in America's system that will inevitably lead to its downfall. The question that remains is when?
Monday, February 15, 2016
Sunday, January 31, 2016
IRB Intro #3: A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius
I generally try to stay away from "feel good" books with a tragedy that ultimately leads to a warm and fuzzy moral about the triumph of the human spirit--sentiment makes me nauseous. Due to this, I thought that A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (just look at the title) by Dave Eggers would be the same type of heart-warming-turned-into-a-made-for-TV-Lifetime-movie memoir that I try to stay away from. However, after seeing the book crop up in various lists of top nonfiction reads online, I decided to check it out. The book is a "memoir" by Dave Eggers, but its clear that the book is trying to chew off more than the title memoir would imply just based on the reviews. The book is about Eggers' hardships as the sole guardian to his little brother after both of his parents died of cancer. While this sounds like the prime subject matter for soppy, sad, beach reads, apparently the book is rather known for its sardonic nature and bitter self consciousness. In other words, it has been likened more to David Foster Wallace than Jodi Piccoult. This makes me extremely interested in reading this book as I really do not know what to expect, and I hope to gain (perhaps) some moral or philosophical insight into the more human side of loss through reading this.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
TOW #16: IRB (2)
Sebastian Junger's book War, an account of his time in the Korengal Valley of Afghanistan during American occupation of the country in the late aughts, spends much of its time humanizing war. Junger focuses much of the first half of the book on the relationships between soldiers and the psychological effects of war that are seldom seen in press clippings of numbers of dead and progress made. The human aspect of war is a very important part of Junger's attempt to show war at its rawest and most honest, and in the second half of the book Junger also highlights the distortions between the progress we think is being made oversees in short news clippings and what is actually happening. In comparing the distorted and overly optimistic view of the U.S's progress in Afghanistan to the haphazard reality, Jungr effectively shows how war is much less black and white, and (in the case of Afghanistan) much more dire than the average civilian American would know.
Junger's account of the war in Afghanistan is far from saccharine. Much of the book consists of first hand accounts of the bloody, gruesome firefights between the Taliban and Battle Company on the Abas Ghar in the Korengal Valley. The death's of Americans are frequent and ironically unheroic, and the deaths caused by the American's follow in the same way. However, if you listened to military press officers, who presented only part of the truth about the war (the positive truth), you wouldn't know that. Junger shows this distinction to the average civilian by comparing the truth of war (which he has been describing throughout the entirety of the book) to what he calls "Vietnam moments". According to Junger, "Vietnam moments" were when journalists "weren't so much getting misled as getting asked to participate in a kind of collective wishful thinking" (Junger 132). Junger provides an example of this when he recounts how "more American soldiers were killed that year than any previous year before" (Junger 132), but this was distorted as being the cause of soldiers "taking the fight to the enemy"(Junger 132). This tweaking of the facts often distorts the public's perception of a war, and simplifies it into a black and white conflict that is an easier pill to swallow. Through showing the disconnect between how the war is presented and how it actually is, Junger demystifies the often-shrouded-in-mystery nature of war. This, along with his harrowing descriptions of the fear felt by soldiers in firefights and the connection between soldiers, does not necessarily argue against war but seemingly shows it in its rawest and most unadulterated context.
Junger's account of the war in Afghanistan is far from saccharine. Much of the book consists of first hand accounts of the bloody, gruesome firefights between the Taliban and Battle Company on the Abas Ghar in the Korengal Valley. The death's of Americans are frequent and ironically unheroic, and the deaths caused by the American's follow in the same way. However, if you listened to military press officers, who presented only part of the truth about the war (the positive truth), you wouldn't know that. Junger shows this distinction to the average civilian by comparing the truth of war (which he has been describing throughout the entirety of the book) to what he calls "Vietnam moments". According to Junger, "Vietnam moments" were when journalists "weren't so much getting misled as getting asked to participate in a kind of collective wishful thinking" (Junger 132). Junger provides an example of this when he recounts how "more American soldiers were killed that year than any previous year before" (Junger 132), but this was distorted as being the cause of soldiers "taking the fight to the enemy"(Junger 132). This tweaking of the facts often distorts the public's perception of a war, and simplifies it into a black and white conflict that is an easier pill to swallow. Through showing the disconnect between how the war is presented and how it actually is, Junger demystifies the often-shrouded-in-mystery nature of war. This, along with his harrowing descriptions of the fear felt by soldiers in firefights and the connection between soldiers, does not necessarily argue against war but seemingly shows it in its rawest and most unadulterated context.
Monday, January 18, 2016
TOW #15: Visual Text
The visual was released in a 2012 pre-olympic ad campaign containing diverse images captioned "find your greatness". The campaign strove to contain not only images of physical-adonis-pro-athletes, but also average people in order to show that greatness resides within everyone. This particular image's stark placement of the struggling obese child against sprawling fields and an open road creates a very powerful effect. The audience can feel the perseverance of the child who, when faced with nothing but open road, continues to run despite his physical hinderances. The setting sun in the background and the emptiness of the frame hyper-focuses the audience's attention to the running boy, and simplifies the image to nothing but a boy and his goal, at odds with each other but destined to meet. The placement of the words "Find your greatness." written in sans serif font with all capital letters underscores this perseverance by not fussing with motivational words but bluntly stating the ultimate goal of everyone's physical endeavors--to reach greatness. This message, characterized by the running boy, causes the audience to see a nobility in striving for greatness, and shows them that greatness manifests itself differently for everyone. It shows that greatness, no matter if it is just running a mile or winning a marathon, knows no excuses and can be achieved by anyone as long as they put in the work.
This image can be criticized for its portrayal of the boy; however, criticizers cannot deny the power of the image's message of undying determination in the name of greatness. This image appeals to any person who has ever debated not going to the gym, ending their run early, or slowing down their game pace. If they simply recall the image of the running boy, they will remember that greatness knows no boundaries and can be achieved by even the most unassuming of athletes.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
TOW #14: The League of Extraordinary Assholes
In our modern world of regulated capitalist democracy it is increasingly easy to see the inflated entitlement of the wealthy or privileged, whether it be while we are driving, in line at Starbucks, or waiting for luggage at the airport. While we look on from our relative squalor compared to these paragons of privilege, it is easy to see how their false air of superiority can contribute to, as University of Toronto Philosophy professor and writer for The Walrus Magazine Mark Kingwell rather gracefully calls it, "assholery". While this characteristic disregard of other human beings is often reserved for the privileged, Kingwell argues in his op-ed that there is a logical reason for "jerkiness", and that this "jerkiness" can be manifested in all of us whenever we are in a position of superiority.
Kingwell writes for the common man--but with an academic's flair--and deftly illustrates the tenets of "jerkiness" by defining and then providing examples for its various parts. He paints the picture of the jerk in everyone, saying that most people "may not be a jerk most of the time--except when I feel myself superior". By defining the superiority complex that enables jerkiness, the reader is able to connect to the concept of jerkiness, for they themselves have probably felt entitled in their superiority at one point or another. In order to reinforce this idea of "jerkiness", Kingwell provides examples of where jerky superiority might be manifested. He gives an example of feigned superiority, saying "Thus servers, clerks, students, cashiers, and—especially—strangers can be seen as easy targets. Without fear of reprisal or loss of status, indeed with a sense of confirming it by getting one’s way or securing an advantage, jerkiness can seem justified". Through showing how jerkiness grows and rears its ugly head, Kingwell thus shows that jerkiness is not just reserved for the over-privileged (who he describes to be not just jerks but rather at a more unsavory level of entitlement) but can be seen in all of us when we lose our sense of empathy and see ourselves as better than others. Thus, Kingwell begs the question, are you or have you ever been a jerk? And for most of us, the answer is yes.
Kingwell writes for the common man--but with an academic's flair--and deftly illustrates the tenets of "jerkiness" by defining and then providing examples for its various parts. He paints the picture of the jerk in everyone, saying that most people "may not be a jerk most of the time--except when I feel myself superior". By defining the superiority complex that enables jerkiness, the reader is able to connect to the concept of jerkiness, for they themselves have probably felt entitled in their superiority at one point or another. In order to reinforce this idea of "jerkiness", Kingwell provides examples of where jerky superiority might be manifested. He gives an example of feigned superiority, saying "Thus servers, clerks, students, cashiers, and—especially—strangers can be seen as easy targets. Without fear of reprisal or loss of status, indeed with a sense of confirming it by getting one’s way or securing an advantage, jerkiness can seem justified". Through showing how jerkiness grows and rears its ugly head, Kingwell thus shows that jerkiness is not just reserved for the over-privileged (who he describes to be not just jerks but rather at a more unsavory level of entitlement) but can be seen in all of us when we lose our sense of empathy and see ourselves as better than others. Thus, Kingwell begs the question, are you or have you ever been a jerk? And for most of us, the answer is yes.
Sunday, December 20, 2015
TOW #13: Führer Humor: The Art of the Nazi Comedy
Many a user of YouTube has seen a parody meme that goes something like this: a scene from the German movie Downfall, a biopic about the last days of Hitler, depicts an enraged Hitler screaming in fury over Nazi failures; however, the subtitles are parodied to make it seem as if Hitler is screaming about late pizza, learning Santa isn't real, or any number of ridiculous topics. This lampooning of the genocidal dictator has become commonplace in the decades following WWII, and is seen as a "defanging" of the Nazi regime. However, turning one of the most insidious leaders in history into a joke has its detriments according to Atlantic writer Daniel Gross. Following the release of a German Hitler comedy, Look Who's Back, Gross argues that while seemingly harmless in nature, these comedies dehumanize the atrocities committed by Hitler.
As early as Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator Hitler has been the butt of comedic ridicule as society tries to demystify Hitler and reinforce the fact that Nazism was defeated. However, Gross argues that this demystification has distanced society from recognizing the magnitude of Hitler's atrocities. To prove this point, Gross effectively presents a counterargument and then refutes that counterargument in order to develop an objective and analytical view that proves to the viewer that Hitler's lampooning detracts from society's admission of his horrendous acts. Gross explains how this lampooning can be good, saying "Every time Hitler dies on a movie screen, every time he's reduced to a pathetic and bumbling fool, society reasserts its loathing for Nazism. Films that ridicule past injustice can help distance society from a history we’d rather not repeat". However, he then asserts that this distancing from history can be too effective: "But that distance is also the key disadvantage of Nazi slapstick. When audience members laugh at The Great Dictator or parodies of Downfall, it can become harder to imagine the thoughts or motivations of actual Nazis". Through juxtaposing his counterargument with his refutation, he not only establishes ethos as a level headed source, but logically conveys to the reader that Hitler comedies have good intentions but detrimental effects. In doing this, Gross shows us that while we must distance ourselves from the horrors of the past, we must not go too far or else we are doomed to repeat.
Sunday, December 13, 2015
TOW #12: IRB "War"
War is a concept that is almost incomprehensible to those who have never experienced it first hand. It matters not how many times someone has seen Saving Private Ryan or American Sniper; ultimately, war is still fantasized and glorified to them. One might think that they have a good idea of the PTSD and mental trauma that soldiers experience, but they never will until they find themselves in a firefight. Sebastian Jungr, author of the critically acclaimed and harrowing nonfiction account Into the Storm takes on the challenge of portraying the effects of war in their most raw state in his book War, an account of his time in the Korengal valley of Afghanistan while on assignment from magazine Vanity Fair in 2007. In this book, Jungr does not glorify the valor and courage of war but rather presents it at face value in its rawest form. In doing this, he uses extremely vivid and lifelike imagery to thrust the reader into the real world of war and its barbaric, dehumanizing nature.
Written for the American whose only exposure to war has been in the form of TV, movies, or short news clips, Jungr's main purpose in writing War is to objectively expose average Americans to the harrowing nature of war. Jungr spent varying increments of time over two years in the Korengal valley with American soldiers at the extremely remote and constantly imperiled Restrepo Outpost. His accounts of the constant threat of Taliban insurgency are extremely detailed and tense, and he perfectly encapsulates the constant state of heightened anxiety that the soldiers in Korengal constantly experienced. In one expository passage, Jungr's imagery perfectly encapsulates the constant grinding stress that the soldiers of the Korengal endure: "First Squad goes thirty-eight days without taking a shower or changing their clothes, and by the end their uniforms are so impregnated with salt that they can stand up by themselves. The men's sweat reeks of ammonia because they've long since burned off all their fat and are now breaking down muscle. There are wolves up in the high peals that howl at night and mountain lions that creep through the KOP looking for food [...] one species of bird sounds exactly like incoming rocket propelled grenades; the men call them "RPG birds" and can't keep themselves from flinching whenever they hear them" (Jungr 53). This exhaustive passage, a passage fraught with tormenting imagery, takes the reader right to the heart of the Korengal. The reader feels as if they are there themselves, waiting in a constant state of fear and exhaustion for the next RPG to soar past the outpost, or worse, hit it. Jungr's imagery appeals heavily to the reader's sense of sympathy as it creates a feeling of constant suspense that could be cut with a knife, or the gunfire of a Taliban sniper. The reader is easily able to see how soldiers are in a constant state of mental and physical stress, and this reveals to the reader that soldiers are in a much worse state than short apathetic news clippings and movie glorifications admit. Jungr shows us that war is not a fantasy of valor and heroics, but instead a purgatory--constantly waiting for hell to erupt.
Written for the American whose only exposure to war has been in the form of TV, movies, or short news clips, Jungr's main purpose in writing War is to objectively expose average Americans to the harrowing nature of war. Jungr spent varying increments of time over two years in the Korengal valley with American soldiers at the extremely remote and constantly imperiled Restrepo Outpost. His accounts of the constant threat of Taliban insurgency are extremely detailed and tense, and he perfectly encapsulates the constant state of heightened anxiety that the soldiers in Korengal constantly experienced. In one expository passage, Jungr's imagery perfectly encapsulates the constant grinding stress that the soldiers of the Korengal endure: "First Squad goes thirty-eight days without taking a shower or changing their clothes, and by the end their uniforms are so impregnated with salt that they can stand up by themselves. The men's sweat reeks of ammonia because they've long since burned off all their fat and are now breaking down muscle. There are wolves up in the high peals that howl at night and mountain lions that creep through the KOP looking for food [...] one species of bird sounds exactly like incoming rocket propelled grenades; the men call them "RPG birds" and can't keep themselves from flinching whenever they hear them" (Jungr 53). This exhaustive passage, a passage fraught with tormenting imagery, takes the reader right to the heart of the Korengal. The reader feels as if they are there themselves, waiting in a constant state of fear and exhaustion for the next RPG to soar past the outpost, or worse, hit it. Jungr's imagery appeals heavily to the reader's sense of sympathy as it creates a feeling of constant suspense that could be cut with a knife, or the gunfire of a Taliban sniper. The reader is easily able to see how soldiers are in a constant state of mental and physical stress, and this reveals to the reader that soldiers are in a much worse state than short apathetic news clippings and movie glorifications admit. Jungr shows us that war is not a fantasy of valor and heroics, but instead a purgatory--constantly waiting for hell to erupt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)