One Night

I've been watching a BBC program called "One Night". It's one of those shows that uses multiple viewpoints to slowly reveal and fully explore a single event in the format of Rashomon.

 It's a really well-made show, with quiet moments, action that could never be mistaken for glossy or glamorous, some beautiful shots, and interesting commentary on human behavior. It takes the little frictions we experience in our daily lives: a bad experience with customer service, the insecurity of throwing a party for someone you want to impress, the fallout of random acts of vandalism, the expectation of persecution among those living in dangerous places coupled with the sense of superiority of those living just outside them. All of these social rough spots are woven together into a beautiful and tragic story.

Its setting is somewhere between suburban and urban, and they use real UK accents and slang, so it can be a bit hard sometimes for the american ear. In particular, the second episode, it took me a long time to really sympathize with the boyfriend, instead of just thinking the girl was wasting her time. That may be by design, but it could also be that I couldn't parse the slang and find the flirtatious content. If you can be patient, the story is worth it. It's just 4 episodes, each an hour long, so it's less of an investment than most American TV. I give it 5 stars.

A modest proposal

I'm going to break format here for a second. I was listening to This American Life, and they were discussing money and politics. They were doing their best to follow the money and find where it comes from, who it goes to, what effect it has on elections and what effect it has once the election is done.

Off Topic: One of the most surprising things they found is that lobbyists don't hound politicians, politicians hound lobbyists(like a telemarketer hounds senior citizens).

For those with short attention spans: click here

I think that everyone has decided that there's too much money in politics. Even if you don't think it corrupts the process, you have to think, there must be some better use for this money. Imagine if all those millionaires and billionaires were to use that money to fund new businesses(job creators!), or even just donate it to their favorite charity. I'm not really going to argue this point here, but you can if you want to in the comments.

But assuming money is bad for politics, the real problem is, how do you divorce money and politics? Everyone knows it takes a lot of money to run for office. Many congresspeople spend at least some time every day(365 days a year) doing fund-raising. Every attempt at campaign finance reform has tried to control the source, or the expenditure of the money. What if instead, they just cut off money for campaigning for everyone? I mean, maybe in this day and age, with the magic of the internet, we don't need so much money for campaigning, right? I'm about to get radical, and probably infeasible.

What I'm thinking is this: For any given office(senator, representative, city council), there is one campaign. The campaign sets up events, debates, town hall meetings, televised or not[1], depending on the budget, and importance of the office. The campaign has a certain(preferably small) budget, provided by the state, local or federal government. All the candidates for that office are invited to all these events set up by the campaign[2]. The campaign provides equal time at events to each candidate(or equal space if it's a meet and greet), and an equal budget for signage/publicity materials[3].

Candidates are required to qualify by some method. It could be paying a fee(somewhere between 1,000 to 10,000), which they can raise however they wish or maybe by getting enough signatures on a petition[4].

Candidates can use twitter, facebook, or any other free service to get their message across. They can create a website on a space provided by the campaign. They cannot buy any advertising. Premium services can either provide free access to all candidates, or to none.

In short: I propose that no one contributes to political campaigns[5], and that for any one office, there is instead a single budget shared between multiple candidates, with the side effect of prohibiting political ads.

Does that sound crazy? Is there any way to get from here to there?

A few notes:
1. I'm guessing that there would be a lot less politics on the TV. In the age of the internet, maybe that's ok, since you can still get your message out to anyone who wants to hear it. But would this mean less political conversation in our society? or just less work for that guy who does voice overs for attack ads?
2. Who's going to work at the campaigns? What if they aren't impartial? Who do they report to? I'd like their philosophy to be: "My job is to make this the best race for treasurer there ever was. We'll have 10 people at our meet and greets instead of 5(including the candidates)."
3. What if you get 20 candidates who qualify? I guess that just means you split everything into smaller slices, but then how do voters tell that 15 of them are crazy? I guess you have to set the qualifying bar sufficiently high to avoid this, but you also want to set it low enough that grassroots efforts can reach it.
4. One danger of having all the parties in the same place for events: riots, or compromise. Currently, there's a subculture of heckling at political events, but maybe if there was more political mixing... Of course, we could just have separate but equal events...
5. The constitutional argument being that maybe money isn't speech after all, so no one should get to vote with their wallets.

Desolation Island

Desolation Island by Patrick O'Brian
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Every once in a while, Hollywood tries to put together a nautical tale of courage and danger. White Squall, The Perfect Storm, even a movie based on this series of books -- Master and Commander. There is something about the sailor's life that is compelling. Months at sea, close quarters, the variable morality of those before the mast(the enlisted men) and those abaft the mast(the officers) cause a certain social tension.

In a book such as this, the discussion of pintels, forecastles, orlop decks, hawsers can either turn you off the book, turn you to a dictionary, or turn you into a willingly ignorant, but bedazzled spectator, as the intricacies of managing a ship are described in details that allow you to understand only the broad strokes of the action. I actually feel a lot like Dr. Maturin in the novels. I somehow feel like a knowledgeable amateur, when in fact, I only kind of know the difference between a wear and a tack(wearing is a slower way of turning to catch the wind when it's not blowing in the direction you want to go).

Somehow, above these details, the action in this entry in the series is particularly riveting. Sea chases, monster storms, and antarctic shipwrecks make for exciting reading, aside from the spy intrigue and shifting loyalties of the crew which a careful reader can get much satisfaction from. Patrick O'Brian is never one to point out the subtleties. An example is a midshipman, nervous of heights, takes one trip up the main topmast with his captain. We're never explicitly told, but his name is mentioned later, and we know his continued presence speaks of his loyalty to Lucky Jack Aubrey.

The movie made from these books is kind of a conglomerate of the novels, and it seems a few of the elements were pulled from this one. If you liked that movie, there's a good chance you'd like these books.

View all my reviews

The Kingdom of Gods by N.K. Jemisin
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

In elementary school, we read stories about Icarus, Hercules, Midas and Zeus. We learned that Hermes was fast, and a messenger. And maybe he towed the Sun across the sky in a chariot? Neptune was kind of a jerk, and Hades was evil, but not? And of course, our Greek mythology was confused with Roman names, and there was something about the titans who wanted to swallow the world. Anyway, it was cool. Everyone likes mythology when they're little. Even if it's just for the pegasi, or the medusa.

N.K. Jemisin has tapped into that same sense of delight at a world where the powers that be are personified. These mythological characters spend most of their time loving, betraying, holding grudges, and considering the value of keeping mortals around. Then, sometimes they have to keep the world from being torn apart by crazed, ambitious, or vengeful siblings and/or offspring.

This isn't the kind of book(series of books, this is the third) I would normally like, but something about the prose, or about the characters kept me really interested. There was just enough political maneuvering, mystical action, and metaphorical adventure.

I have to mention that there was a lot of morality bending in this book. The gods' genders are malleable, and their attitude towards sex is that it is never a shallow thing, but monogamy is for mortals. I was never very comfortable with the author's treatment of all things sexual. There were two things that made it bearable. Sex was always described in spiritual terms, and almost never physical. The morality of gods was distinct from the morality of mortals. I never felt like a certain idea was being pushed. It was just that they were entirely different things.

View all my reviews

Simon of Space

Simon of Space by Cheeseburger Brown
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

In 2005, just before Episode III of Star Wars came out, there was a story on Slashdot.org about a blog, The Darth Side: Memoirs of a Monster, which was fan fiction, written as if from the journal of Darth Vader. At times it was funny, at times human. It was well timed for all those eagerly waiting(despite the disappointments of Episode I and II) for the birth of Darth Vader. And I think it did prepare me in some way, it made the movie seem deeper. Soon after reading the Darth Side, I saw that he had written a novel, in blog form, called Simon of Space. I began reading, and found a very compelling story and world. Melinda is wary, she doesn't like Space novels. But this is a very human story.

Simon is an amnesiac. He lost his memory in a hyperspace travel accident. Sounds like a bad sci-fi movie? That's what everybody tells him. What makes this book so enjoyable is Simon's optimism, decency, and friendliness. That and the unconventional prose. Matthew Hemming (more commonly known as CheeseBurger Brown), has a way of approaching things from a different angle. Comparing the first moments of memory to the first day of an infant's life is but one way we are able to inhabit Simon's head. The absurdity of his life encompasses the basest, crudest functions and interactions: bowel movements, hot nurses, and farting dogs, as well as the deep, complicated things: trust and fatherhood.

As Simon takes his tour, trying to find his purpose, the imagination, and preparation of Mr. Brown becomes evident in the variation and beauty of the worlds. There is obviously an entire universe with its own history to explore, and we're only seeing parts of it. He's written more stories in this universe, and if you enjoy this book, they're well worth visiting.

View all my reviews

March Violets

March Violets by Philip Kerr
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

This hardboiled detective novel was set in 1936 Nazi Germany. Melinda immediately asked if he was after Nazi treasure, because she was just expecting the cliche. The novel doesn't fit in that cliche, though it probably follows the film noir detective plot pretty closely.

The little bits of life under a Nazi regime are fascinating, with associations for ex-convicts, secret police, unsecret police, the non-military military uniforms, propaganda, and the olympics. These setting details don't get in the way of the story, though I sometimes wish they did. I find the details of governing through fear fascinatingly horrifying.

Unfortunately, I don't think the hardboiled genre is for me. Up until the last 3/4 of the novel, it was amusing to read the similes and metaphors that drive the point home, this guy is tough, bitter, and cynical. In the last 1/4 of the novel, it just got too dark. And it wasn't the Nazis, but the treatment of women. This just wasn't the right book for that content. I'm sure that sometimes our literature needs to expose the injustices of the world, and that sometimes means including scenes that are dark and evil. But this wasn't that book. And I'm not sure I want to read those books. I guess I'm judging a little harshly for what was probably one page of the whole book. But I didn't like that page. And it kind of ruined the book.

View all my reviews

The Kingdom on the Waves

The Kindgom on the Waves by M.T. Anderson
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This is not a happy book. The tragedy is eloquent and slow building. It's almost enough to make you wish the redcoats had won. But in the end, neither side is that sympathetic from the perspective of the slaves.

The Revolutionary war tends to be romanticized, cast as a conflict of freedom versus tyranny. A war of rhetoric and patriots. Patrick Henry: "Give me Liberty or give me death." The federalist papers. George Washington crossing the Delaware. Minutemen militias and muskets.

All of that is true. But it's all a little sanitized. The rhetoric was passionate, but also inflammatory. The Boston tea party was a mob, and they were not kind to those loyal to the king. Liberty was a grand new(ly important) idea, and it was still incomplete. Liberty to own slaves was as important as taxation without representation.

This book is about the part of the revolutionary war that was a war, with soldiers, cannon, imperfect officers, disease, poor rations, and death. The author in his afterword talks about how he wanted to dispel the historical fog that surrounds the revolutionary war. I think he did that.

View all my reviews