Ross Barlow

*Popular Culture and Philosophy,* Part 2. The book series *Popular Culture and Philosophy* was originally published by Open Court publishers, but now it seems to have turned into the Blackwell *Philosophy and Pop Culture* series, published by Wiley and with the same series editor. Notice a subtle change of name, but it seems to be the same idea. So if you are interested in looking at any topic treated in these series, be aware of two different publishers named when you search. This general series idea seems to be expanding rapidly, with new titles appearing all the time, and I cannot keep up with it. It seems that, if they keep it up, they will eventually have a book for every popular topic. Then there will no excuse for anyone for not venturing into philosophical readings. (Yet I am far behind in keeping up with pop culture, so I am out of the loop in most of these topics, especially anything to do with TV.) I had originally read and reviewed *The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy: One Book to Rule Them All,* and on the strength of that one volume – whose subject matter I felt quite familiar with – I predict that other volumes may be of interest. (See my other postings about the series in general and/or my review of the Tolkien volume.) I just bought *Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul* (2008). It is dedicated “To the memory of Heath Ledger (1979-2008).” It will be a while before I ever get to it, because I am trying to finish *The Beatles and Philosophy: Nothing You Can Think That Can’t Be Thunk* and review that. In the bookstore I saw *Beer and Philosophy,* but I did not buy it because I have terrible taste in beer. Here in Thailand I put ice cubes in my beer, so that tells you where I’m coming from. Some additional titles listed in the new Blackwell continuation of the series are: *Metallica and Philosophy* *Family Guy and Philosophy* *The Daily Show and Philosophy* *Lost and Philosophy* *24 and Philosophy* *Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy* *The Office and Philosophy* *House and Philosophy* *Heroes and Philosophy* Enjoy. . -Ross Barlow.

No, Brant, I was a volunteer. But I’ll bet you asked that because my enlistment was only two years, the same length of a draftee’s enlistment. My cousin volunteered in the USMC in 1966 and had to go with the three year enlistment that was then the shortest hitch, but by the time I signed up in the summer of 1968, policy had changed I could choose a two year hitch. -Ross Barlow.

Michael, thanks for pointing out Gebert d'Aruillac, aka, Pope Sylvester II. Interesting man. I am eager to read more about him. Also regarding the introduction of Aristotle into medieval Europe, I have an old memory of reading somewhere about Christian universities holding out and refusing to allow courses or lectures on Aristotle to be taught even though rumors of his works were starting to excite university students. If I remember right, the University of Toulouse in southern France was the first Christian university to have teachings about Aristotle, mainly because it was just across the Pyrenees from Islamic Spain where Arab scholars had written such great commentaries on Aristotle. The “free market” nature of the university systems at that time meant that students went to hear the lectures of whichever teacher they liked, and they took their tuition money with them and paid the lecturers. (Perhaps teachers paid a sum from this to the school, I am not sure.) Since Aristotle was the latest trend in the imaginations of some of the best and brightest students, they flocked to Toulouse. Any other university in Christian Europe that wanted to compete now had to open the floodgates and allow lectures on Aristotle after that. (I may have read this in Will Durant’s works.) -Ross Barlow.

Bob, you old pirate, thanks for starting such an interesting thread. You mentioned the movie “The Vikings” with Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis. Yes! I saw this when I was very young, and I have been a wild man ever since. Great movie. The more recent “The 13th Warrior” was also good. I have only vague memory of the film “The Long Ships.” I agree with you, Bob, about the Vikings’ astonishing seafaring feats. Bold. No compasses; cloudy and fogged-over skies; short summer navigating periods. Most of the important land discoveries they achieved – Iceland, Greenland, North America -- were from being blown off-course by storms, running into unknown land masses further west than they had planned to go, and then being lucky/skillful enough to make it back to known lands. Many were lost at sea, but enough bold mariners returned to add knowledge of the northern seas. The Vikings were definitely bad-asses, but as Ginny said, it was the Middle Ages and barbarism was everywhere. As for Rand’s admiration for some aspects of the Viking, I am quite sure that she could recognize the general barbarity of the age and its culture while still abstracting out of it the heroism of the strong individual. Although your point about the famous brutality of Vikings is well taken, Rand’s romanticism was not goofy, in that she made it clear that she was abstracting the better human traits (“the best within us”) – e.g., independent vision, courage, overcoming obstacles, etc. -- and using fiction to inspire people and to point at a vision of “life as it might be and ought to be” for an application of specific virtues into an individual’s life. The Ragnar of *Atlas Shrugged* had a Norse heritage, a Norse name, and perhaps a residual yet harnessed Norse ferocity, but within the context of the novel his character was clearly defined. I think I have read that Ragnar was, in part, her homage to Hugo’s Enjolras, that cold devotee of justice. And historic individual Vikings differed quite widely in character. Erik the Red was a murderer, as was his father, and they were forced out of Norway. Erik murdered a couple of times in Iceland and was banished from there. But of his children, Leif was described in the sagas as a decent and “fair-dealing man,” while his half-sister Freydis was a murdering bitch. She took after Daddy. When I taught senior high school Early US History classes, the textbooks’ treatment of the Vikings’ contact with America was pitifully short. This topic was also at the very start of the course, in the first week when teacher and students are still sizing one another up, a critical time in the course if any cooperation is to be achieved for the rest of the year. So I had done a bit of extra research and had a arsenal of stories to tell, especially about the Age of Discovery, a topic that always exhilarates me. A teacher’s excitement can be contagious, and that is the way I started US History 1, every class, every year. I had many students tell me later that they had always hated History until I spread my own excitement about it. For my Honors classes, they had to know extra stuff like the technology of the day in detail, e.g., why a Viking knorr was an excellent raiding ship because it could go up rivers with its shallow draft but also why it was not a good settlement ship because its cargo space was so limited for extended trips. Square-rigged sails were a limitation, as was the lack of a compass. Etc. Later they would have to compare this technology with later technological developments such as the compass, the Portuguese caravel with its lateen sail (which was borrowed from Southeast Asia via the Arabs), etc. The caravel was the exploratory spaceship of its age. It could slip up the wind. For my extremely hard to teach General level classes – you know, the louts and the stubbornly anti-academic kids found in any school – I would tell them the stories of Vikings and other explorers sometimes just to give them (and me) a rest day where they could sit back, relax and listen. I always made the stories gory enough to hold their attention. For me to tell stories that I love would charge me up. Some days I would start a General level class on, say, a Monday and see that everyone was half-asleep, pissed off or bored stiff. So I would say, “Well, today we really should cover this chapter about such and such, but we could choose an option. We could postpone it until tomorrow, and today I can tell you a historical story that is still relevant to the material. What is your opinion?” In immediate unison they would exclaim, “Mr. Barlow, tell us a story!” I would tell to sit back and enjoy, and then I would tell them about Leif Erikson establishing a settlement and wintering over in Vinland and then his family members leading future expeditions when he could no longer sail west from their Greenland base. Leif’s sister, Freydis, was on a later expedition to Vinland when the Natives attacked the Vikings without warning, chasing them and scattering them into the forest. Freydis was heavily pregnant and could not run, so she picked up a sword, faced the Natives, lifted her shift to show her pregnant belly, and slapped the flat of the sword against her bare breasts while yelling defiantly and insanely at the pursuing Natives, who stopped in their tracks, turned and ran. Stories like this usually got my students’ undivided attention. The Old Norse Sagas tell these stories in detail. How historically accurate they are, we can not be sure, but they sure as hell hook kids on history immediately. Later in the course we would look into and discuss problems of finding accuracy in historical documents, but that can wait until all students are on board and involved with the subject matter. On the last expedition to Vinland, it may have been the barbaric element associated with Vikings that ended their American settlement enterprise. The biggest and best house built in the Vinland settlement was built by Leif on his first and only trip there, and his extended family members routinely lived in it over the winters on later trips. But when his sister Freydis and her husband led the last trip, their ship was delayed and they found that other families had arrived first and moved into Leif’s house. Freydis ordered her husband to take his men and get them out. They hit at night, and as he and his men dragged out the usurping men, she told him to kill them. Then Freydis grabbed an axe, went inside and personally killed off all the women. That winter was an uneasy one in Vinland. And it was also the last one. The above recollections are from my aged memory but are close to the lecture notes I once used. It has been decades since I read the relevant Sagas where most of the information comes from. My most recent research had been from a secondary source that summed it up and that I highly recommend, Daniel J. Boorstin’s *The Discoverers.* His book was well written and his excitement contagious. He opens by stating, “My hero is Man, the Discoverer.” Amen. . -Ross Barlow.

Holden, Semper Fi, and welcome to OL. Nice people here. I am also a veteran Marine, but two years were enough for me (1968-1970). We were a Marine family. My father was in the 1st MarDiv on Okinawa, one of my cousins was a 20-year man in the Marine Band, and another cousin did two very rough tours in Vietnam. One tour there was enough for me. North Carolina is a beautiful state. I almost moved there many years ago when looking for a teaching job. It was my number one choice of area, but I got an offer of a job in my hometown instead. A professional mountaineer that I once met, who had been to Everest and just about every good climbing spot in the world, told me that “North Carolina is the best-kept secret in American rock climbing.” Vast walls of granite. One can even ice climb there in high remote places in winter. -Ross Barlow.

Kat, I also thank you for posting and pinning this excellent poem. A classic of Western thought. Many years before I had ever heard of Ayn Rand, I heard this poem recited many times by my late father as we were working together on our family farm. My father only went through high school, then WWII and directly to the hard-working life of a farmer, but he had a great memory and would often recite long classic English language poems unexpectedly. We had cows and chickens on our farm, we pasteurized the milk and gathered the eggs, and then we delivered them house to house three days a week. As we drove in his pickup truck along our route, he would suddenly turn to me with a smile and start reciting these poems, Kipling’s *If* being his favorite. Father to son. Years later, reading of the funeral of Frank O’Conner, I noticed the mention of this poem being read at graveside by David Kelly. I accessed the poem again and decided to share it with loved ones, so I took a course in calligraphy in order to ornament it properly. Then, of course, Ayn Rand wanted it read at her own graveside, again by David Kelly. When my own father died, I gave a eulogy for him in which I mentioned his penchant for quoting great poetry. I quoted parts of some of his favorites. But I ended it by quoting all of *If,* his favorite. Son to father. -Ross Barlow.

Aristotle: writings by him or about him, as well as your thoughts about him. If I may, I would like to start a topic thread dedicated to Aristotle and the literature connected to his work, as I have not found one yet on OL. I am not an expert on him, but I have long been an enthusiastic fan, inspired by another fan of his: Ayn Rand. The first book that leaps to my mind is: *Aristotle* by John Herman Randall, Jr. It is really a small world. Last evening I met some interesting American expatriates in Bangkok. After one of them heard that I had majored in philosophy and had taught it at high school level, he started telling me about his uncle who had been a philosophy professor at Columbia University. He was telling me about what an interesting man his uncle had been, about his great witty dinner table conversations and then about his writings. I interrupted him at one point and said, “What was your uncle’s name.” He replied, “John Herman Randall, Jr.” I almost choked on my coffee: “THE John Herman Randall, Jr.? Who wrote *Aristotle*?” Yep. How many of you here have read this book? It has been over 35 years since I last read it, yet I still recommend it highly. It is probably out of print, yet available used. I remember it being reviewed quite prominently sometime in the 1960s in either *The Objectivist Newsletter* or *The Objectivist,* and I am quite sure that Rand was the reviewer. Correct me if I am wrong about that. Later, my dear late mother mailed me a whole box of philosophy books at my request when I was in Vietnam, and Randall’s *Aristotle* was in it. I was fresh out of high school and had no formal schooling in Western philosophy – only what I learned from the writings of Rand and her NBI associates, as well as a few odds and ends that I picked up here and there. Randall’s book was the one I really tried to tackle whenever we had lulls in fighting and down-time at base. It was tough reading for me, since my philosophical knowledge was so limited, and the vocabulary quite new to me and I had no dictionary. I finally did plough through it and finish it, and I just sat back and thought: “Wow, I have a hell of a lot of hard learning ahead of me.” Randall had taken me on a guided tour of a great mind and, although I did not understand much of it, I was humbled and awed. I re-read it a couple of times after returning to civilian life. I still have that paperback volume with its owl drawing on the cover -- in my sister’s attic – and it still has the water damage, dirt and squashed mosquitoes between its pages from its time of hard use in the tropics. I remember the reviewer (Rand) explaining how – even though she did not agree with everything Randall said – the appearance of this volume was very important in the context of 20th century philosophy. She viewed it as a breath of fresh air – and those may have been her exact words. The first time I ever heard of the famous opening quote of Aristotle’s *Metaphysics* was in Randall’s volume, where Aristotle is quoted as writing: “All men by nature desire to know.” Randall immediately quipped something to the effect of: “But then Aristotle did not have the honor of teaching in an American university classroom.” (My own paraphrase from ancient memory.) This was an example of Randall’s excellent wit that his nephew said was typical of the man. (I later recycled this joke in my own teaching career, altering it to “…an American high school classroom.” My students never seemed to see the humor, so I guess I was just amusing myself.) Randall then went on to state that Aristotle himself was one of the great Knowers in the Western tradition because of the range and depth of his thought. Following up on the subject of these opening words of Aristotle’s, I recently had occasion to quote them to my own family over a month ago when I had became a great-uncle for the first time and my sister had become a grandmother. My niece had just given birth to a baby boy whose most immediately striking attribute was what everyone described as being his eyes: big, curious, outward-looking and serious. So I paraphrased from memory for my family: “All men by nature desire to know. As an indication of this, consider the delight we take in our senses, particularly the sense of sight.” – Aristotle, *Metaphysics.* It is our nature to desire to know. At least that is true of all those I call friends. -Ross Barlow.

Anithero3000, Glad to find yet another fan of *Equilibrium* (2002). Most Americans are not aware of it because it did not get much – or any – theater release in the States. Sean Bean’s cameo is also great. This film reminds me of Fritz Lang’s *Metropolis* (1927) with the shuffling crowds of a humanity without joy. -Ross Barlow.

In keeping with my renewals of year-old threads that are well worth reviving, *Fracture* was another of the great Anthony Hopkins movies. I saw it in theater in its original Bangkok run, but just now I acquired it on DVD and watched it again, and it is a very good film. -Ross Barlow.

Wow, I just saw – unexpectedly on Thai TV – the last part of the 1951 film *Quo Vadis* with Deborah Kerr, Robert Taylor, Peter Ustinov and Leo Glenn. It is so well done. Kerr is radiant. This is an old OL thread not active for over a year, but I had to renew my vote of appreciation for Kerr et al, as well as for the original author of the novel, Henryk Sienkienwicz – whom Rand adored for this particular work being a great piece of romanticism. John Dailey, in your post #13 to this thread on October 20, 2007 you mentioned that the first time you read the novel of *Quo Vadis* it was a book “with tape holding it together.” I would bet that that was the same edition I first bought and read, as the paperback binding was extremely fragile and it was falling apart before I was halfway through reading it. To anyone who has not seen this great Deborah Kerr movie – or has not read the novel – I most highly recommend it. -Ross Barlow.

“I was told to kill to my last breath.” This is chilling. It also reminds me of my own training instructions during USMC boot camp and infantry training (1968-1969). But of course there was a difference: we were taught to kill only enemy combatants who were demonstrably trying to kill us, whether in NVA uniform or in civilian dress. Brant, my comrade in arms, any input from you on this matter? -Ross Barlow.

Michael, nice to meet you. I think you will feel welcome here. There will always be bickering and nit-picking, as in any philosophical group, but hang in there because there are some very nice folks here. Where in upstate NY did you hang out? I am originally from NW Pennsylvania (Warren County), two hours south of Buffalo, but my favorite playground was the Adirondack Mountains of upstate NY. You are in the Navy and you ship out in January? Have you ever been to sea before this? There are few things more beautiful than night on the vast open ocean with the moon lighting a greenish-silver sea. I did 17 days and nights crossing the Pacific when returning to “the World,” and I will never forget it. Re: Terry Goodkind and Sword of Truth series. I have not read these books, but they sound good. What books in the series should one start with first? -Ross Barlow.

Looks good, Roger. Stay on the trail of those elusive Muses. -Ross Barlow.

There can be a lot of disagreement on what is the best path to flourishing for any one single person or even on what “flourishing” actually entails. For these reasons it is not easy to answer Ba’al’s initial questions. From immediate memory, there are two books that I most highly recommend on this subject. First there is the book by the late American philosopher David L. Norton (1930-1995), *Personal Destinies: a philosophy of ethical individualism* (1976). Norton recognizes the vast natural differences among individuals, in their natural temperaments, their strengths and weaknesses, their psychologies, etc., and he counsels that we must each strive to understand our own particular pathways that are best for us and that “fit” us. This is eudaimonia, our individually “truest” or “best” spirit/ potential self. To copy or ape the exact pathways that work well for others is often to betray our own unique natural pathway. An enormous amount of honest self-scrutiny, self-discovery and self-understanding is necessary here. Norton discusses the Aristotelian concept of “eudaimonia” better than most for the enlightenment of the Western reader. I do not see Norton as a relativist in ethics here. I see him as a thinker who recognizes many truly universal human values and virtues, while at the same time he recognizes the extreme diversity of human individuality and thus the many different pathways and lifestyles that may be most natural and proper for any of us as individuals to take, within the constraints of this universal human nature. Norton’s book is on my shortlist of the 20 best books I have ever read. The second book I recommend in this context is Aristotle’s *Nicomachean Ethics.* If you have not read it yet, I urge you to buy a decent compact paperback copy and keep it close at hand to browse through over time. Throw it in your bag when you travel. Keep it close, and it will grow on you. It is one of the more readable works of Aristotle’s, with more coherence and relevance than many of his works that have survived to be handed down to us. And it is not too long. One of its virtues is that it has a Topical Table of Contents where each Chapter and Section has a title with enough info to let you know what you will find there – as well as enough info to maybe pique your curiosity for certain sections. This makes it infinitely browsable. Few can plough right through it from start to finish on first picking it up. After browsing at random through it for some time and getting familiar with some of its terminology, you might one day be ready to read it through. You may be surprised at how similar his ethics are to Rand’s. Personally, I had been browsing through it randomly for a few years before taking my college class on Ancient Philosophy. During that course I decided to do my term paper on it so I read it through with great delight. If I had to take only one book on an exile to a desert isle, it may well be the *Nicomachean Ethics.* For those not familiar with it, the word usually translated as “happiness” in English translations of Aristotle is the original Greek word “eudaimonia.” Happiness is a top value in the ethical systems of both Aristotle and Rand. Ba’al, I still have not really addressed your initial questions, but you got me thinking. If I can get to it later, I would like to comment more. . -Ross Barlow.

I have not watched much TV since after I was a teen in the 1960s. I used to listen to radio news in the States in the 1990s and first half of the 2000s on my favorite Classical music station out of Buffalo, and it was either from the Christian Science Monitor, NPR or BBC. Because they were only a short interruption from the otherwise non-stop Classical music radio programs, I kept them on. Here I can get Australian or BBC news on the radio. But here I mostly read news online, and I look at BBC World News online to catch the highlights. There are a couple of English language local news websites out of Bangkok that I check if I am going out, most of all to see if there is a demonstration, riot or police action happening in places I want to visit downtown. (My adopted country is heading into civil war.) I try to buy the latest print copy of The Economist each week and take it with me if I have to wait anywhere for a spell. I think that it is one of the all-time great English-language weekly news magazines, and if I had to choose only one weekly it would be this one. I have found, through over a decade of close reading of it, that The Economist has uncanny predictions of looming global trouble spots long before the coming problem is even mentioned by other news sources. An American acquaintance of mine here was once giving me the guided tour of the classic go-go bar/whore venues in Bangkok’s sordid late-night underbelly; I think he was trying to shock me or something. He remarked that I was the only person he had ever witnessed who brought along a copy of The Economist into the infamous Susie Wong’s on Soi Cowboy (see an early scene just outside this bar in the remake of “Bangkok Dangerous” with Nicholas Cage). But my philosophy is that, when one is prowling unarmed through the bowels of Bangkok, one must keep some culture, rationality and focus firmly within one’s grip. And, a rolled up magazine is also an unobtrusive – and legal -- defensive accouterment. . -Ross Barlow.

Here is one of my own favorite literary passages, from the Pali records, c. 450 BCE: . “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” . – The Buddha. . . -Ross Barlow.

Until recently I have not visited OL (or any other Objectivist e-list) since around the time of the last June solstice. I took a vacation from all things Objectivist for a while, and I might elaborate on this more later on a different thread. But it is good to come back and see old friends engaged in earnest discussions, fruitful information sharing, endless quibbling and nitpicking, etc. I have always felt at home here. . -Ross Barlow.

Another possible cause of the dearth of participants, men in particular, is the lack of dumb women. Men like dumb women; they want to "educate" them. Men say they like bright women, but studies have shown that when and if they decide to be truthful, they prefer the dumb clinging vine type. Now, unfortunately, Objectivist Fora preferentially attract intelligent and independent grown-up women (for example, Judith) not those simpering, "oh you big wonderful man!" baby doll sexpots. There used to be a couple of them on Solo, but they were not really Objectivists, not being intelligent enough to understand it without the help of a big wonderful man; they spent most of their time flirting, but this was too offputting to the beta males they didn't flirt with, who ultimately drove them off. But if we can attract a few of them here, that will bring in the big wonderful men; such men will bring in many more such women. With more of these women around, the beta males will finally have scraps for the picking. . Barbara . Excellent riposte, Barbara. Wow! It is women like you who represent the most supremely elegant aspects of the Objectivist world. . -Ross Barlow.

I have DVDs of all the Bond films and have watched them several times. I do not have Rand’s *Romantic Manifesto* at hand, but I seem to remember that one of her big criticisms of the film version of *From Russia with Love* (1963), Sean Connery’s second time in the role, was that it portrayed Bond as visibly showing fear, implying that Connery’s first Bond movie, *Dr. No* (1962), did not. But if you watch *Dr. No* (one of my very favorite Bond movies) again, you can see Bond showing quite intense fear. The instance I am talking about is in the middle of the night when he discovers something moving under his sheet – and I am not referring to a sexual situation with a woman in bed with him. (I am trying to avoid spoilers since you have not seen that classic yet.) The profuse sweating might or might not be attributed to the tropical setting. But Bond seems a bit shook by the event, as most of us would be. I fully expect some folks to register disappointment after seeing the second Daniel Craig film, in the same way some folks did about Connery’s second. And I can understand that to some extent, because quite often an actor’s exciting debut in a role can influence a viewer’s personal expectations of any later reprise of the role. . -Ross Barlow.

If I may, I would like to try and get back to Michael Marot’s excellent original question, “How to Defend America?” My perspective comes from being a student of history and from experience and interest in all things military. I certainly don’t have all the answers, and I have lots more to learn, but here are some of my reflections. My first concern is a long-range strategic one, i.e., China (the Red one). China is an up-and-coming powerhouse. They lack a decent navy for projection of their power, and it would take a long time for them to get into the big leagues. The US Navy’s global reach is unsurpassed at this moment, and American power (for good or ill) can be projected almost at will, as far as global ocean distances are concerned. With such a rule of the waves, the US Navy, Army, Air Force and Marines can reach far. China can make a fast-track move to threaten or reduce America’s naval superiority. The US Navy is vitally dependent upon its satellite system (GPS) for everything, for navigation and for weapons targeting. If China could disrupt the US navigational satellite system, it could damage US military strength quite badly. China has demonstrated a crude but effective proto-ability to kill a satellite, by simply ramming one of their own. This shows that they are thinking of such warfare on the high ground of orbital space. I agree with the idea that one should “avoid land-wars in Asia” at almost all costs, so I think the US should secure the high ground of orbital space now that the US is ahead there. Developing and deploying the technologies for protecting one’s own satellites and being able to threaten another’s satellites or missiles is an imperative. The US should look at this as a primary goal. As for present-day concerns, the US military is stretched too thin, being engaged in both Afghanistan and Iraq, just as al Qaeda had hoped. A third theater of operations, if one should come up, is too much to handle for our ground forces. The fine American men and women who have volunteered are doing admirably – and much better than their DC “commanders” -- but morale and effectiveness are being threatened by combat burn-out in long tours of duty. (If the US government tried to activate the draft, I think there would be a revolution of the young in the streets; at least I hope American youth are spunky enough to resist.) What to do in the short term? Political sentiments in the US seem to show that the American people are burnt-out on the Iraq occupation. People want out, but the US must get out of mainstream fighting in Iraq without allowing the foreign jihadists or Iran to fill the power vacuum. Let’s look at the maps. Saudi Arabia, as sleazy as it is, is historically a top “ally” of the US in the region, a key oil supplier. But – despite US sales of weapon systems – the Saudis are weak and could not counter Iranian power moves in the immediate region. The Saudis fear the Shiite and non-Arabic nation of Iran. Iran wants to dominate Iraq through Iraq’s Shiite majority, who happen to sit on the main oil reserves. How to balance Iran’s moves? A US attack on Iran is nuts. Besides being a much bigger nation than Iraq, Iran is geographically a nightmare to invade and occupy. Iran’s middle classes probably are sick of radical Islamist rule, and they still represent a chance in the future for a regime change from within, if the right time and opportunity arrives. But when any nation is attacked from without, the people tend to rally around the government in place. Iran will have *some* influence on post-occupation Iraq, simply because of their proximity and their bond with Iraqi Shiites, but they must be balanced and checked. Turkey is nearby and is an oftentimes ally of the US. Turkey is non-Arab and is (still at this moment, at least) a secular state. They fear radical Islamists at home and nearby, e.g., Iran and Iraq. Turkey’s military is big-league in this part of the world. The US needs to balance Turkey against Iran’s ambitions in the coming Iraqi power vacuum. When US forces are out (or deployed at the margins such as in SW Iraq’s unpopulated border areas as nearby quick-reaction forces protecting Saudi Arabia) it will be Turkey that balances power in Iraq, checking Iranian moves (along with a shaky, US-propped-up Saudi Arabia). Who loses? The Kurds. “Kurdistan” straddles the borders of Turkey, Iraq and Iran, causing concerns for all three countries by ardent Kurdish separatism and armed conflict. Despite sympathy for independence movements, the US is selling out the Kurds right now as we speak. Publicly, the US protests the Turks taking the fight across the border into Kurdish Iraq, but Turkey must be accommodated in order to use their power to check the Iranians. Dishonorable or not, this is the way geopolitical power-brokering works. Any arrangement among governments is always an agreement among thieves. These are the ugly realities as I see it. The US must deal with the power realities in the region – as in “make a deal.” This means dealing with everyone in the region, including Iran. And these deals are no doubt being made right now. With (shaky) alliances with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the US is in a fairly effective negotiating position. As for building wider friendships, alliances and international relationships that will aid the US and the West, I think the US military learned too late in Iraq, but they can continue their learning experience by sticking to the old Small Wars Manual: i.e., if you must occupy a foreign people, at least make friends with as many of them as possible, protect them, teach them how to defend themselves, bring them peace while allowing them to achieve prosperity and while respecting their (civilized) traditions and autonomy. Of course I would hope that peoples cease from occupying other peoples’ countries, but that may be the idealist in me dreaming. These are some of my own reflections. They are not written in stone and they will hopefully evolve with more experience. . -Ross Barlow.

Two weeks until Christmas, so it is time to share recommendations of Christmas Movies. Here in Thailand it is hard to find old classic movies or rentals, so I cannot just browse the movie aisles for long forgotten classics to jog my memory. I will list a few Christmas movies that I remember at the moment off the top of my head. The Holidays (2006). This romantic comedy was popular here last year around this time. Kate Winslet, an Englishwoman, and Cameron Diaz, an American woman, both have romantic breakups and each want to get away from it all. So they meet online and agree to trade homes for a while. (Not likely, but it works very well as the story unfolds.) Also starring Jude Law and Jack Black, with Eli Wallach, Edward Burns and Rufus Sewell. It was a much better movie than I had expected. Love Actually (2003). Romantic comedy. Well written, from a British point of view. Very good cast, with numerous storylines entwined. Starring Liam Neeson, Emma Thompson, Keira Knightley, Hugh Grant, Laura Linney, Alan Rickman, Billy Bob Thornton, Bill Nighy, Colin Firth, Rowen Atkinson, Elisha Cuthbert, and many more. My favorite scene has Hugh Grant caroling. A Christmas Story (1983). A corny comedy but an annual must-see for my Stateside family. Darren McGaven is great. I especially love the cynical Santa and even more cynical elves in the department store. (I guess it matches my grouchy personality.) Which Christmas movies do you have to add to the list? . -Ross Barlow. (Bah! Humbug!)

Shane, Thank you for your military service. It is always good to know that there are solid and thinking individuals standing watch. You are doing honorable work. You mention your father and the F-4 in Vietnam. Where was he stationed? I have very good memories of the F-4. One time I was on a hillside there in 1969 with numerous NVA trying to fight their way up to and through our position, when all of a sudden – unbeknownst to us and totally surprising us because it came so suddenly from the other side of the hilltop above and behind us – an F-4 (out of Da Nang, I think) came screaming low over our heads and delivered its ordinance directly on the enemy right below us. The Phantom flew over, scaring the shit out of us with the incredible speed and sound. He let loose and was gone just as quickly as he had appeared. I had had no idea jets could turn so sharply. The jet was gone behind the hill and on its way back to base before its ordinance even hit, and the valleys echoed its roar. I will never forget that. The cavalry had definitely arrived. Be sure and thank your father for keeping those fine machines in tune. (And thank you, Brant, for your service; be sure and give a thanks to your uncle as well. Thanks also to any other veterans who may read this. Consider it a late Veteran’s Day congratulations.) . -Ross Barlow.

My daemon is Azaria the chimp: modest, a leader, fickle, softly spoken and solitary. It fits. But I sure wish that I could climb like a chimp (or, better yet, like a gibbon). -Ross Barlow. -P.S. – I briefly reviewed this movie on a separate thread/new topic on the Movies forum here at OL.

Go and see this movie, friends! I was most pleasantly surprised and delighted by it. Do not put it off. See it while it is on the big screen. I will go see it again because I missed some dialogue (why can’t people from England speak proper English?). ;-) The young girl, Lyra, is an exceptionally individualistic and plucky heroine (played by Dakota Blue Richards). The virtues that are celebrated in this story are rationality, independence, courage, science, skepticism and resistance to mere authority and dogma. Heresy is honored. I can see why the Catholic Church in particular is afraid of these stories entering the minds of children. The author of the book series, Philip Pullman, is an outspoken atheist, but the movie series has reputedly toned down the controversial references to religion in order to not scare away American prude puritan audiences. The Christians are afraid that if this movie is a Xmas-time hit then parents will buy their kids the (much more explicitly atheistic and heretical) book series. I knew nothing about the book series before this movie, but it is obvious that this film is crying out for a sequel – which I look forward to. I might even get the book series (called “His Dark Materials”). In Lyra’s parallel universe, humans have their souls/spirits – or “daemons,” in the Greek sense (think of Aristotle’s “eudaimonia,” i.e., “truest” or “best spirit,” “happiness” or “human flourishing”) – living outside their bodies as accompanying animals whose “personalities” match their own most genuine individual styles. Be forewarned that the sense of life in this movie is a tad “Byronic” and dark. Much of it takes place in the darkness of the far North. But I never was convinced that dark, Viking or Byronic fiction could not also contain elements of the benevolent and inspiring. Modern film special effects capabilities have allowed Fantasy movies to take on such a realistic appearance that the stories have a kind of believability to them. These techniques provide a kind of seamlessness to the aesthetic experience which were never possible before. This movie has a great cast. Daniel Craig (our new James Bond) plays Lord Asriel, whom I believe we will see more of in future films of this series. Sam Elliot (a favorite character actor of mine) may be playing his greatest role here, making the best use of his characteristic light-hearted goodness mixed with thoroughly American grit. Christopher Lee is the First High Councilor of the sinister Magisterium (which is eerily similar to the RC Church), and his brief cameo absolutely reeks of evil – this beloved actor has perfected his craft. Eva Green plays Queen of the witches (good witches), and is as enchantingly beautiful as ever. Ian McKellen provides the voice of an animated warrior ice bear. Nichole Kidman plays the bad, bad Mrs. Coulter (and she almost seduced me with her incredible charm; in fact, I think I am right now starting to defect to the Dark Side because of her smile; I cannot resist it; I am falling…). Seriously, don’t miss this film. -Ross Barlow.

King Bhumibol of Thailand’s 80th Birthday. A Kingly Public Servant. Today, 5 December 2007 C.E. (Year 2550 of the Buddhist Era), is a big national holiday here in the Kingdom of Thailand, celebrating King Bhumibol’s 80th birthday. The king is easily the most loved and honored person in the entire kingdom. The king’s birthday serves as Father’s Day each year as well (just as the queen’s birthday on 12 August is Mother’s Day). I have said before that I have never been much of a fan of monarchy. I see myself as a Jeffersonian republican (small “r”) with libertarian principles and some very strong anarchist sympathies. But even this farang has tears in his eyes when contemplating this exceptional king. They really love him here, and I can see why. He provides a new perspective on the term “public servant.” During his long life and 60 year reign, he has shown a genuine concern for the people of his kingdom, traveling to remote rural villages, with maps in hand, to ask people personally what he can do to make their lives better. As a former teacher of geography, as well as of history and philosophy, I find the Thai people’s love for the king to be fascinating and instructive. King Bhumibol of Thailand is the world’s longest reigning monarch and longest-serving head of state. Thailand has been a constitutional monarchy since 1932, so his position is ceremonial and his power is mostly that of cultural tradition. His living example of Buddhist ethical principles are an inspiration to his people. He was born in 1927 in Cambridge, Massachusetts while his father, Prince Mahidol, was studying public health at Harvard. Bhumibol is grandson to the great King Chulalongkorn and great-grandson of the great King Mongkut. He never really expected to ever become king. Bhumibol started his early primary education in Bangkok and then completed his secondary education in Switzerland, getting his high school diploma with a major in French literature, Latin and Greek. He then studied science at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland. His older brother became king in 1935, and Bhumibol visited Thailand briefly in 1938. When his brother died in 1946, Bhumibol was made king. He wanted to continue to study in Switzerland, so his uncle acted as regent while he studied law and political science in order to prepare himself to be a good king. While visiting Paris, he met Sirikit, the daughter of the Thai ambassador to France. It was during this time that he had an automobile accident in Switzerland in which he lost his left eye. Bhumibol returned to Thailand in 1950 and had an official coronation along with his new bride, young Queen Sirikit. (Linked immediately below is a photo of the two of them on their coronation day.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Portrai...bol_sirikit.jpg Queen Sirikit is an absolute doll, smiling warmly, enjoying life and counseling toleration in social and religious life. She is a living example of “mudita,” the Buddhist principle of cultivating within oneself the feeling of a genuine and sympathetic joy at witnessing the happiness and achievements of others. King Bhumibol temporarily entered the order of Buddhist monks in 1956, as is customary for Thai males, and he named his wife regent for the brief time that he was in the monastery. King Bhumibol is the personification of the image of the wise and compassionate king who serves his people. His many projects to improve the life of the rural poor include the establishment of medical centers, improvements in education, water projects, soil conservation, and agricultural experimentation and development. He holds patents for inventions he came up with to improve agricultural production. He has traveled frequently throughout the kingdom to meet the common people, to talk with them and stay in tune with their lives and problems. His concern for the people is very real, and there is no trace of a politician’s faked concerns. He rarely intervenes in political affairs, but has stepped in during emergencies and carried the day with no power except for his immense prestige, popularity and moral authority. A good example is Bloody May 1992. After a military coup, followed by new but unsatisfactory and possibly fraudulent elections in which the coup leader came out as prime minister, there was blood and death in the streets as pro-democracy demonstrators clashed with police. At the height of the crisis, the king summoned the two opposing leaders – the coup leader and the pro-democracy leader, both of them generals – to an audience before him. He basically told them that they were behaving unethically and to knock it off. Significantly, he had it televised. The live image of King Bhumibol on his throne and the two antagonists, side-by-side on their knees before him (per royal protocol), diffused the entire situation. The coup leader resigned later and new elections were held. The king’s only power is moral power, but it is tremendous. He is a symbol of calmness, peace, benevolence and decency. Widely recognized as an accomplished jazz musician and composer, he used to play on the radio earlier in his reign. He has jammed with many of the old Western jazz greats from time to time. CDs of his performances and compositions are widely available in the Kingdom. Featured in many bars is an old photo of him and Queen Sirikit talking with Elvis Presley (who is in his Army uniform) – two kings and a queen conferring. King Bhumibol is definitely cool. Bhumibol is also known as an artist, a photographer and competent sailor of small craft. His personal self-development and his mastery of many languages and skills is a great example to the Thai people. This is the hardest working royal family I have heard about in recent times. Following the example of King Bhumibol, the Queen and the four children are constantly in the news as diplomats to foreign nations and concerned citizens in their own native country here. You will almost daily see clips on TV news of a royal family member giving out diplomas at university graduations, cutting ribbons for some important opening event, or being welcomed in far off places around the globe at either diplomatic events or scientific expositions. Even the former wife of the crown prince is involved, as well as the prince’s present wife and little son. The king is quite frail and is often in the hospital. Sad to say, his life and reign will probably not endure for a whole lot longer, and a comparable replacement is not on the horizon. The crown prince does not have the same kind of charisma, popularity or veneration. He will most likely be the successor, although a female heir to the throne is theoretically allowed and not out of the question. Besides the one son there are three princesses. The oldest is into fashion, jet-setting and high society, appearing at Paris fashion shows and such events. She married an American, and her son was killed in the tsunami on 26 December 2004 while jet-skiing at Phuket. The youngest princess travels the world often as an ambassador for the royal family. (She attended the movie “Stardust” at the Siam Paragon Theatre when we were watching it recently, and we were wondering why so many soldiers and police were suddenly there and why our exit from the theater was held up.) But it is the middle princess that the Thai people love most. She never married, nor does she care for fashion or glamour, being unfashionably a bit over-weight, wearing a very plain hairstyle, modest dresses and sensible shoes. Always smiling and laughing genuinely, and lacking in pretensions, she appears as one of the people. She has charisma. She speaks over half a dozen languages and travels to many nations for ideas in science, business and culture that she can apply at home, and she is frequently seen taking notes in a plain spiral notebook. Recently she was in Germany attending a university event, and she addressed those present in German. I suspect that secretly many Thais wish she would inherit the throne. Queen Sirikit is well loved as well, and she is known as the voice of toleration. She defused a potentially contentious situation here recently. After the military coup of September 2006, a new constitution was being drafted to be put up for a referendum and approval from the people in the summer of 2007. The big controversy was caused by many Thais wanting the constitution to proclaim Buddhism as the “official” religion of Thailand. (Being a big First Amendment fan as an American, this suggestion caused me some real concern, because my study of history shows that church/state entanglement usually leads to no good.) Thailand is 95% Buddhist, so such a law is not needed. The 4% Muslim population is tolerated well and they are generally very good citizens. That is, except for the separatist insurgency in Thailand’s far South by ethnic Malay Muslim terrorists. The remaining 1% of Thais are Hindu, Sikh or Christian. If Thai Buddhists are concerned about Buddhism losing influence on the Thai people, they should set better examples, not pass laws. And that is basically what Queen Sirikit counseled on her birthday address to the nation the day before her birthday last 12 August. She quietly and patiently talked about understanding the concerns of Thai Buddhists, but she also explained why such a law was neither necessary nor prudent. Toleration of other religions goes all the way back to the Buddha in the Buddhist tradition. All of this message was spoken with her characteristically warm and benevolent smile. The question was thus settled by reasoning and moral example. Yesterday the King gave his customary speech on the day before his birthday. It was televised, showing the pomp and splendor of Thai royal traditions. He counseled unity and toleration between all Thai people, especially military and civilian special interest groups. Today was a celebration at the Grand Palace, also televised. It is a big holiday, and you hear crowds shouting, “Long Live the King.” As for me, I am a huge fan of King Bhumibol. His example touches my heart. . -Ross Barlow.