Drunk History, Ctd

Jenna Martin looks back at the brilliant web series as it premieres as a TV show tonight:

When a teen-aged Michael Cera, playing Alexander Hamilton against type, opens his mouth in the first episode, his high-pitched stammer is replaced by a deep, slurring voice. Both Cera and Jack Black, who brings his manic energy to the character of Benjamin Franklin in two episodes, are returning for the television incarnation of “Drunk History,” which premières on July 9th on Comedy Central. The show will feature other famous comic actors including Kristen Wiig, Owen Wilson, Will Forte, Bill Hader, Jack McBrayer, and Rob Riggle.

Much of the humor of the Web series comes from seeing the conventions of the historical documentary corrupted. Every episode includes stirring music, reënactments filmed in soft focus, and portraits fading into other portraits. In one episode, Benjamin Franklin’s mistress, played by Jayma Mays of “Glee,” is strumming a harp and looking off into the distance, until Franklin pops up from behind a nearby window. I giggled, remembering a documentary about Napoleon which showed a woman’s hand strumming a harp every time that Josephine was mentioned. For people who found Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln” a bit too sanctimonious, then the episode, featuring Will Ferrell as Lincoln and Don Cheadle as Frederick Douglass, might be the perfect antidote.

Previous Dish on the series here and here.

If Immigration Reform Dies

In a post urging Republicans to kill immigration reform, Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry claim that, if “Republicans take the Senate and hold the House in 2014, they will be in a much better position to pass a sensible immigration bill.” Wonkblog pushes back:

The odds that Republicans would go anywhere near immigration reform in 2015 after they painfully, anxiously killed it in 2013 are vanishingly low. But let’s say, hypothetically, they did. It’s easy enough to imagine the Democratic — and Hispanic — response: If Democrats win the White House again in 2016 and increase their numbers in the House and Senate, they will be in a much better position to pass a sensible immigration bill.

That’s the thing about “later” The other side has a vision of it, too.

Waldman contrasts GOP opposition to Clinton’s and Obama’s healthcare bills with GOP opposition to immigration reform:

Those two efforts at health care reform were always understood as a conflict between a Democratic administration seeking a longtime Democratic goal, and Republicans in Congress trying to stop them. It was reported like a sporting event: Clinton loses, Republicans win; Obama wins, Republicans lose. Immigration, on the other hand, has been reported largely as a battle within the Republican party. President Obama, knowing full well that anything he advocates immediately becomes toxic for most Republicans, has been using a lighter touch when it comes to public advocacy for comprehensive reform. I’m not saying he hasn’t been pushing for it, but he hasn’t done the all-out, campaign-style barnstorming tour that would help turn it into a purely Democrats-versus-Republicans issue. The story has always been, “What will the Republicans do?” and if reform goes down, the headlines won’t read, “Obama Defeated on Immigration Reform,” they’ll read, “Republicans Kill Immigration Reform,” with subheadings like “Danger ahead for GOP as Latino voters react.”

Those headlines got more likely today. Brian Beutler reports that “John Boehner stated a specific policy preference Tuesday that will alienate the entire Democratic Party if he adheres to it, and thus doom the reform effort”:

“It’s clear from everything that I’ve seen and read over the last couple of weeks that the American people expect that we’ll have strong border security in place before we begin the process of legalizing and fixing our legal immigration system,” Boehner said outside the Capitol Monday afternoon. … [Boehner’s statement] amounts to a de facto endorsement of the conservative view that any steps to legalize existing immigrants should be contingent upon implementation of draconian border policies. As is Boehner’s custom, it also eschews the word “citizenship,” suggesting that even if Democrats agree to a trigger, he won’t guarantee that it would be aimed at a full amnesty program, and, thus, eventual voting rights for immigrants already in the U.S.

Yglesias dismisses complaints about immigration reform’s border security measures:

The more nonsensical argument I’ve been hearing takes the Congressional Budget Office’s conclusion that the Gang of 8 bill would cut unauthorized migration in half and appends the word “only” to it. Get it? Immigration reformers say their reform bill will secure the border, but in fact it will only cut unauthorized migration in half relative to the current policy baseline. But of course not passing the immigration bill just leaves us with the current policy, which (by definition!) doesn’t cut unauthorized migration at all relative to the current policy baseline. So disappointment about the border security potency of the bill can’t actually be the reason for not passing it. The reason for not passing it would have to be what it plainly is—hostility to creating a path to citizenship for current unauthorized residents of the country that’s so intense that it outweighs other possible benefits of the bill.

The Badass Flight Attendants Of Asiana 214

Lisa Wade hails them:

[I’m] surprised to see almost no discussion of the flight attendants’ role in this “miracle.” Consider the top five news stories on Google at the time I’m writing: CNNFoxCBS, the Chicago Tribune, and USA Today.  These articles use passive language to describe the evacuation: “slides had deployed”; all passengers “managed to get off.” When the cabin crew are mentioned, they appear alongside and equivalent to the passengers: the crash forced “dozens of frightened passengers and crew to scamper from the heavily damaged aircraft”; ”passengers and crew were being treated” at local hospitals.

Only one of these five stories, at Fox, acknowledges that the 16 cabin crew members worked through the crash and its aftermath.  The story mentions that, while passengers who could were fleeing the plane, crew remained behind to help people who were trapped, slashing seat belts with knives supplied by police officers on the ground.  The plane was going up in flames; they risked their lives to save others.

At least one of the 12 flight attendants at the scene carried out an injured child on her back, while others freed trapped colleagues with axes:

[Cabin manager Lee Yoon-hye] herself worked to put out fires and usher passengers to safety despite a broken tailbone that kept her standing throughout a news briefing with mostly South Korean reporters at a San Francisco hotel. She said she didn’t know how badly she was hurt until a doctor at a San Francisco hospital later treated her. … Lee said that after the captain ordered an evacuation, she knew what to do. “I wasn’t really thinking, but my body started carrying out the steps needed for an evacuation,” Lee said. “I was only thinking about rescuing the next passenger.”

Passenger Eugene Anthony Rah took the above photo:

One tiny woman, who he said is flight attendant Kim Ji-yeon, stood out to him, because she was helping the injured, “carrying people piggyback” who couldn’t walk. Tears were streaming down her face, he said, as she helped clear the plane only minutes before flames engulfed the passenger cabin. He copied her name off her uniform name tag, he said, because “she was a hero.”

Update from a reader:

I used to work in the building that housed Virgin Airlines’ main office. One day their future flight attendants were training outside. They were training with their “emergency” voices.  Andrew, they had more power and authority in their voices than any movie depiction of a military drill sergeant I have ever seen. They actually scared me! I have never looked at a sweet, polite, gentle airline flight attendant the same after that day, knowing the firm fury that they can unleash should the need arise!

Egypt’s Insta-Democracy

Interim President Adly Mansour has announced that a new constitution will be drafted and voted on within the next five months and that parliamentary elections will follow soon thereafter. Nathan Brown thinks the declaration “will set off more political battles than it will resolve”:

Start with a constitutional declaration written in secret and dropped on a population that, still basking in post-revolutionary goodwill, is not reading the fine print. Then add a considerable measure of vagueness, an extremely rushed timetable, critical gaps and loopholes, and a promise that everyone gets a seat at a table but not much of a guarantee that anybody listens to what is said at that table: The generals are clearly calling the shots for the short term, but there’s just enough opacity, and a dose of influence for civilian officials and politicians, that it’s not clear where the real responsibility lies.

Reward those who cut deals with the military or security apparatus, but also allow those who missed out on cutting a deal to decry the very idea of such deals. Add in measures of repression, xenophobia, media restrictions and harassment, and the postponement of all reform questions. Use state media in a blatantly partisan way. And subject Egyptians to a rapid series of elections so that, as soon as they’re done with one round of balloting, they are called to vote on the next.

Allahpundit wonders if the Brotherhood will eventually play ball:

The timetable doesn’t give the Muslim Brotherhood and its political allies much time to choose whether to participate in electoral politics or sit out and hope that their absence will impact the validity of the results.  They should know, however, that this trick rarely works; usually the sitters end up isolated and delegitimized as everyone else moves on from the past.  If the military can keep a lid on further outbreaks of violence, the Muslim Brotherhood will have little choice but to participate — which means it will be in their interests to see violence flare up and derail the elections.  That’s why the issue of who started the shooting this time will be secondary to whether it starts up again, and who starts the violence in the future.

Meanwhile, Juan Cole unpacks the interim constitution:

The third paragraph says that the economic system is based on social justice and that no one shall be exempt from paying taxes (US corporations wouldn’t like that provision).

Para. 4 says that citizens are equal before the law and shall not be discriminated against on the grounds of gender (al-jins), origin, race (naw`), language, religion or doctrine. The 2012 constitution did not guarantee equality before the law for women.

Para. 5 says that the private lives of citizens are sacrosanct and protected by the law, and that correspondence, whether mail or electronic, and telephone conversations, and other means of communication, are all sacrosanct and their secrecy is guaranteed except by the issuance of a warrant by a judge, for a limited period of time and in accordance with the law. (This one is now in advance of the practice in the United States).

It also guarantees against arbitrary arrest (which is hypocritical since the military is rounding up Muslim Brothers not known to have committed a crime).

A Mini Military-Industrial-Complex, Ctd

In an excerpt from his new book, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police ForcesBalko warns that law enforcement agencies are increasingly deploying paramilitary units against gamblers, teen drinkers, and other minor-league offenders, such as the alleged cockfighter taken down by Steven Seagal in the above video. And the Fourth Amendment offers little protection:

While the Supreme Court has laid down some avoidable requirements for obtaining a no-knock warrant (or deciding to conduct a no-knock raid at the scene), there are few court decisions, laws, or regulations when it comes to when it is and isn’t appropriate to use a SWAT team and all the bells and whistles of a dynamic entry. The decision is almost always left to the discretion of the police agency–or in the case of the multi-jurisdictional task forces, to the SWAT team itself. The mere fact that there’s actually a split in the federal court system over the appropriateness of using SWAT teams to perform regulatory alcohol inspections at bars shows just how little attention the courts pay to the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement.

In other words, if the DEA wants to stick it to medical marijuana users because they’re flouting federal law, they can. If Steven Seagal wants to drive a tank into a man’s living room to demonstrate his love of animals, he can.

Previous Dish on the subject here and here.

Masculinity And Violence

FIGHTING-BRAZIL-UFC

In his new book, American Honor Killings: Desire and Rage Among Men, David McConnell examines four murder cases through the prism of masculinity:

I think of this book as a feminist work even though women barely appear in it. Crime is often about winning or triumphing or prevailing by destructive means. Rape is a vile “triumph” in the sexual realm. It’s not sex so much as it is “contest” in the mind of the rapist. This is the oppositional way a lot of young men think about women. Even though the stories I treated have a subcultural aspect, I think I’m talking about a larger general truth about men, and indeed about all people. Our minds are built for struggle. The struggle can darken into something truly terrible and unacceptable. I don’t want to make too baggy a generalization, but even terrorism, when you take away the politics and look at the acts of individuals, has the hallmarks of a half-formed and half-sickened masculinity.

McConnell offers advice about how we, as readers, might approach true stories of violence:

It’s immensely frustrating that we’re forced to deal with subjects as complex as violence with a vocabulary that amounts to “like,” “yes,” and “no.” … [F]or many of us, our habits of thinking have become a matter of votes or clicks. “Hate Crime” is a click of a phrase. It’s not meaningless or useless except that people will just, in a sense, click on it and then move on to the next story. There’s almost a greed for stories out there. People think knowing about every story and categorizing them all will bring a “big data” perfection of understanding. In fact, just knowing one or two stories well, turning them over in your mind, accepting the contradictions, is a much surer route to broad understanding.

(Photo: US Nik Lentz (top) fights against Brazilian Diego Nunes during the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) at Ibirapuera gymnasium in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on January 19, 2013. By Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP/Getty.)

A Redder And Bluer World

Protesters In Texas Statehouse Block Texas Lawmakers From Passing Abortion Bill

We used to live on a planet defined by collectivism/communism and individualism/market capitalism. It was a crude way to describe the second half of the 20th Century, but it worked relatively well. Vast, stultified masses were toiling under the disproven theories of dead Victorians in Russia, China, and parts of South America; while the West either endured a kind of socialism (in Western Europe/India) or a more robust capitalism. We know how that struggle played out. What we didn’t know was what would replace it, when India, China and Russia – let alone South America – embraced, in varying degrees, the tangible success of the market in making people’s material lives more pleasant than at any point in post-hunter-gatherer human history.

But we know now. Market capitalism could not be restrained merely to the economic realm. It necessarily empowered individualist challenges to tradition and totalist faith – and, empowered also by the information technology revolution – these challenges could not be TURKEY-POLITICS-UNREST-DEMOgeographically contained any longer. And so in the increasingly fundamentalist Pakistan, one of the most popular Google search terms is “gay sex”. In Nigeria, 30 school children are burned alive for the crime of getting educated outside of religious rote indoctrination. In Tehran, ecstasy is easy to find, while in the Iranian hinterlands, young gay men are hanged in public. In Turkey, middle class secularists are in open revolt against creeping Islamization. In Israel, the once largely secular socialist country is becoming more and more dominated by religious fundamentalists who are now shaping its foreign policy in such a way as to provoke religious war rather than prevent it.

In Egypt, we have just witnessed a key precedent for civil war. The secular pragmatists and liberals – having lost to Islamists in the last election by a landslide – have engineered a counter-coup against the incompetence and fundamentalism of the Morsi government, which showed not the faintest clue of how to run a country. What is particularly striking to me is how each side now has a clearly different set of facts than the other. For the secularists, it is a given that the Muslim Brotherhood started the fracas that became yesterday’s massacre. For the Islamists, and anyone with open eyes, the overwhelming evidence is of a premeditated slaughter of unarmed citizens.

In America, violence, mercifully, is held at bay in these struggles, but the political system has effectively ground to a halt under their weight. Despite getting fewer votes than the Democrats for president, House and Senate, the Republicans are using their gerrymandered majority in the House to block even executive branch appointees from approval. They are determined to destroy universal healthcare. Rick Perry Leads "The Response" Prayer Rally In HoustonThey are launching a national campaign to shut down abortion clinics. They deny climate science. They voted against tax cuts – purely because a Democratic president proposed them.

There are relatively easy compromises to be had right now in a sane republic: short-term stimulus accompanied by long-term structural tax and entitlement reform; reform of universal healthcare to empower individuals rather than burden companies; pricing CO2 more aggressively to abate climate change; investing in infrastructure to help accelerate growth in the long run. There are good arguments to be had in all these areas – how best to tackle climate change? what share of the economy should the welfare state take as boomers age? – but the differences, compared with the crises facing many other countries, are relatively minor.

But the cultural gulf has rarely been as deep or as wide. My view on this is that our division is not really about politics or even ideology. Ideology is an often ill-fitting misnomer for something much more powerful – deep cultural alienation between the two parts of America. That alienation, in my view, is at its core the same alienation we are seeing in countries as diverse as Turkey and Egypt and Iran and Israel. It’s about the response to modernity – a choice between fear/rejection and relish/adoption. It’s between a red world and a blue world. Or rather an increasingly blue world in deadly conflict between an increasingly red one.

David Brooks reviewed Charles Taylor’s masterpiece, “The Secular Age”, today. Money quote:

Taylor’s investigation begins with this question: “Why was it virtually impossible not to believe in God in, say 1500, in our Western society, while in 2000 many of us find this not only easy but even inescapable?” That is, how did we move from the all encompassing sacred cosmos, to our current world in which faith is a choice, in which some people believe, others don’t and a lot are in the middle?

The real question, however, is how societies can retain their coherence and unity when they are caught between the reassuring certainties of fundamentalism and the exhilarating disorientation of modernity. The worldviews are from such different places – and are now penetrating cultures which, before the globalization of information, were able to keep them at bay. And so a mutilated woman in Saudi Arabia can see unfathomable sexual pornography with a click of a mouse. And young, hip Tehran youth look on in disbelief as the crudest forms of religious frenzy guide an economy toward the rocks. If you go from the central cities of these countries and venture further and further into the rural heartlands, you will find not only that the blue parts of these countries are getting bluer, but that, in response, many of the red parts are getting redder. Soon, both parties create a different set of facts, as well as beliefs, about their world. Until they are barely able to communicate with each other at all.

The places where these forces are not as strong are in Western Europe and China – where traditionalist religion has either died or was killed by decades of brutalizing communist atheism. But in those countries where fundamentalism has not lost its power, and where ISRAEL-RELIGION-JUDAISM-WOMENmodernity has not lost its seductive appeal, the conflict is deepening. I thought Barack Obama could somehow transcend this, and help move us forward. He has in many ways, but he is not engaging in an argument with his opponents, because in a religious and cultural war, arguments are just less potent than symbolism, resentment, identity and a divine claim to absolute truth. My fear is that these two forces are intensifying the strength of the other. Egyptians now have their own set of facts about yesterday’s massacre – but we in America have FNC and MSNBC. And the more the fundamentalist forces recoil from a multi-racial, multi-cultural, sexually free society, the more secularists are tempted to move from condescension to outright hostility. Before long, we have atheism in its most unadulterated form banishing people of faith from any role in public discourse – and vice-versa (think of climate denialism among those declaring God in control of the weather).

All of this is an epic struggle for meaning – and the possibility of meaning in any communal sense. That’s why it’s so intractable. That’s why it is tearing countries and cultures apart. That’s why reasoned debate, however vital, is so disarmed right now. Because pride, honor and identity are at stake. The ressentiment in the rural heartland is echoed by the bigotry of liberal, urban Americans when they discuss their fellow citizens in the redder, fundamentalist states.

I’m not sure there can be a political resolution to this in the short term. Obama was as good a try as any – and he has made under-EGYPT-POLITICS-UNRESTappreciated pragmatic progress in reforming America, shifting our foreign policy back toward sanity, saving us from a second Great Depression or the fate of much of Europe, and even winning universal healthcare. But there comes a point at which he simply hits a brick wall, just as the Islamists did in Egypt and the Green Movement did in Iran and the secularists have in Turkey and the liberal individualists in Tel Aviv against the settlers on the West Bank.

The only way through this impasse is through religious reform, in my view. This may take more than my lifetime. But proving the ineptness of theocracy, exposing the fallacies of the fundamentalist psyche, while treasuring varieties of religious experience that include within them a toleration of the conscience of others, is surely the only way forward. It will not be easy getting to a more purple world. But if it is not possible, then we face a century of warfare and social dysfunction. The unanswered question, to my mind, is whether this dynamic has so purged religious institutions of free thinkers and writers and theologians and saints that it has sealed its own – and everyone else’s – demise. As a Christian I refuse to believe that. But as a writer and observer of the world, it becomes harder each day.

(Photos in descending order: Reproductive rights advocates fill the Texas capitol celebrating the defeat of the controversial anti-abortion bill SB5, which was up for a vote on the last day of the legislative special session June 25, 2013 in Austin, Texas. By Erich Schlegel/Getty Images.

A woman protestor plays with a water gun on Taksim square on July 6, 2013 before clashes on Istiklal Avenue in Istanbul. Riot police fired tear gas and water cannon on July 6 to disperse some 3,000 demonstrators who tried to enter flashpoint protest spot Taksim Square in Istanbul. By Bulent Cilic/AFP/Getty Images.

Donna George of Houston, TX, stands and prays during the non-denominational prayer and fasting event, entitled ‘The Response’ at Reliant Stadium August 6, 2011 in Houston, Texas. Thousands attended the event organized by Gov. Rick Perry in order to pray for God to help save ‘a nation in crisis’ referring to America. By Brandon Thibodeaux/Getty Images.

An Orthodox Jewish man chants slogans to protest against members of the liberal Jewish religious group Women of the Wall who pray with traditional Jewish prayer apparel for men on June 9, 2013 at the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City marking the first day of the Jewish month of Tamuz. By Gali Tibbon/AFP/Getty Images.

Egyptian supporters of deposed president Mohamed Morsi sit in front of barbed wire fencing that blocks the access to the headquarters of the Republican Guard in Cairo on July 8, 2013.  By Mahmud Hams/AFP/Getty Images.)

The View From Your Window Contest: Winner #161

vfyw_7-6

A reader writes:

Ok, more red-roofed buildings. What is this, like the fourth one in the last two months? I was thinking of the combo of more modern buildings with tin shacks to be China, again, but the area is more a feeling of somewhere else in Southeast Asia. I’m going out on a limb to think it’s in the Philippines, but I can’t find a single visual clue to pinpoint a city, so I’m just going with Manila. (It’s probably Burma, or Thailand, huh?)

Another:

The tropics somewhere, but there is something about the cream-colored walls and the red tin roofs that make me think of San Jose, Costa Rica!

Another:

Pretty sure that’s one of the favelas outside of Sao Paulo. Might be one outside of Rio.

Another gets on the right continent:

Kampala, Uganda? The hills, trees and architecture are consistent. As a guess I’d put the photo on the east side of the city near the Jinja/Kampala road, near Mbuya.

Another:

Kampala? This is an easy one for me simply because I am looking out on a very similar view from my window as I write this. Wonderful place by the way, despite all the negative press it receives back in the states. The weather is about as perfect as you could ask for and the people are very friendly.

Another:

I’d say that this is surely le pays de mille collines. In a big city, so we’ll say Kigali. From there, it’s hard to say.  The Serena Hotel has metal railings on the exterior-facing windows, so it’s a possible match. So: 3rd floor from the Serena Hotel, Kigali, Rwanda. I don’t have any stories from there, never having been, but I have taught English to many Rwandan immigrants here in Brussels.

Another nails the right city:

This picture reminds of the city I grew up in … Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Although I left the Ethiopia about 10 years ago, my best guess is the picture is taken from the Top View restaurant.

Our grand champion strikes again:

Normally when you find a view, you also find where the picture was taken from, such as a specific hotel or apartment building. But this week’s view is so far off the map that I’m left hoping the viewer will provide us details about their location. In any case, here goes:

This week’s view comes from Addis Ababa, the capitol of Ethiopia. The view was taken from a modest high rise building and looks south by southwest along a heading of 212 degrees. As I couldn’t find your viewer’s address, the best I can do is provide the approximate coordinates which are 8°59’7.74″N and 38°43’11.87″E. The neighborhood does contain quite a few orphanages, NGOs and Christian groups with links to the U.S., so if I had to guess I’d say your viewer might be involved with one of them. A marked bird’s eye view is attached.

VFYW Addis Ababa Marked - Copy

(When I opened the original file’s metadata [the original file was subsequently swapped out] I saw an “8” for the longitude or latitude before looking away, so this response is partially a cheat, but I figured I’d send it in if you need the copy. Ironically, I thought the 8 was for longitude, which initially led me to exclude Addis Ababa when I found it using clues in the image.)

Thus, only one reader – the native Ethiopian – correctly guessed the window this week without any hidden help. From the reader who submitted the photo:

Here is a view from the top floor of our house in the Old Airport neighborhood as we pack up and leave this beautiful, if exasperating at times, country after three years.

The reader follows up:

Excited to see my VFYW submission as your contest this week. I’m not particularly tech savvy (and I moved two weeks ago, so I can’t snap any additional angles), but here is a Google Map to pinpoint the location:

Screen Shot 2013-07-09 at 12.54.28 PM

I’m expecting that this will be one of the harder contests, since we lived in one of the outer neighborhoods without any noticeable landmarks looking south. And to be honest, there aren’t a whole lot of landmarks beyond obvious monuments and government buildings in all of Addis, so this should be a stiff test for even the diehards.

One of the interesting characteristics of Addis that sets it apart from other African capitals is the mix of classes in all neighborhoods. Although there are certainly rougher areas to avoid, there is no one place that serves as a rich or privileged enclave. Old Airport (the area where this picture was taken) tends to have a lot of ferenji (foreigners) due to close proximity of the African Union and the largest international school. Even so, there are a lot of simple homes and shanties mixed in as well. Houses tend to be on walled compounds that are a bit of overkill, since Addis has a low crime rate and violent crime is rare. We enjoyed walking to shops and the school although every time I went out for a jog I got a lot of bemused looks and cat calls of “Haile Gebreselassie”.

Ethiopia is a fascinatingly idiosyncratic country with its fair share of problems. Hopefully more of the benefits of its recent economic growth will start to flow down to the masses.

(Archive)