A Momentary Lapse

I could have informed my readers of this a while ago but I'm not really one to 'clue people in'. I'm escaping into literature again and I'm not sure when I'll be back. My amateur attempts at writing satisfied a urge but, now that it's satisfied, I feel no compulsion to continue the Elephant at this time. I apologize for those five or ten people (I flatter myself) who actually read the stuff I posted here. With another nod to Vonnegut I say: "So it goes". You can always stay apprised of my uneventful goings on via Facebook if you so desire. I'm sure all of the above sounds piteously self indulgent but I'm not really in the mood to care.

So. More on The Agency may come later but I'm not sure. Perhaps I'll start something different.

I guess that's all I have to say.

Perhaps a parting quote?
"Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body."
-Sir Richard Steele

The Agency: Part 2

This was a bit delayed...but it's here now.

Chapter 2: The Girders

A flash of light, a whirring, irritating, screech, the smell of ozone. These were the familiar smells of time travel to Dr. Draminov. Dr. Draminov spun through time. Glimpsing, briefly, his past, present, and future missions but focusing particularly on his current one. “That jump had seemed so perfect! Damn it! I had to kill an innocent man to save my skin! Someone will hear about this!” the doctor’s anger grew as he continued his nauseating spin. Due to a clerical error by one of number crunchers at the Agency, and to his own ailing memory, though he was slow to admit it, Dr. Draminov had been forced to discharge his weapon in the presence of innocents and kill the chief coroner. “I suppose that’s what they meant when they said ‘restoring the time line could be messy and often unpleasant’” the doctor mused. Suddenly, with a jaw grinding halt, Draminov was thrown from his spin, landing, as he had practiced many times before, with slight unsteadiness on his perfectly spotless dress shoes. His fur coat curled in front of him momentarily as if caught in a wind. Before him, spread out in all directions, was the city of Washington D.C. Draminov had arrived at his destination.
Draminov continued his musing, for time was, at least for members of the Temporal Studies and Time Line Protection Agency, utterly irrelevant. It wasn’t the first time that Draminov had elongated his mission time window for careful reflection. He liked the time to think and, to Draminov, the views from the Lincoln Memorial in the years before the invention of time travel were some of the best. Really, that had been one of the only reasons he had taken the assignment. He was, he felt, getting too old for the chase. Reconstruction and repair of the time line needed to be left in the capable hands of the next generation. He was getting far too slow to keep up with the hacks, snakes, and Girders. His little quarrel outside the theater a few hours ago had proved that. He’d been forced to make too many miscalculated jumps for the mission to remain clean sweep. Secretly, Draminov hoped that the agency would relieve him of his badge and let him slip into blissful retirement. But, deep down, he knew they wouldn’t do it even if he had to kill an innocent like the coroner. As the most senior agent on staff the agency higher ups needed him for the more difficult and more delicate assignments. His discretion and experience more than made up for his lack of speed. Draminov thought back to his incident earlier. His target window shrinking Draminov had prepared his well orchestrated incursion. And then, the unfortunate had happened. He blew it. From his seat in the balcony of the theater Draminov had taken out his glasses and pocket watch. The man sitting next to him had shifted slightly. Draminov then had done as he had so many times before. Placing his glasses on his nose he had removed his pocket watch from his pocket. Glancing at the dial, he saw his time window, Seven thirty exactly. “Just five more minutes and he’ll be here” he had thought. While still gripping his watch Draminov had returned the watch to his pocket. Carefully concealed from innocent eyes, he had given the watch a squeeze and felt the pocket watch morph into the familiar shape of his revolver. It was now 7:33. Two minutes. The man on his left had shifted slightly again. This time, Draminov took notice, but it was too late. The man had revealed a gun in his left hand. “Sorry piggy. You agency scum have all the time in the world and yet you’re still late for the party. Outside. Now.” The man had motioned for Draminov to exit the theater. Exiting into the cool air outside Draminov had come face to face with his assailants. “These Girders were all the same.” He’d thought, “They all dressed impishly and hoped to catch rookie agents on their first few jumps.” It embarrassed Draminov that he had fallen for their trap. If he had paid enough attention he would have seen the Girder. He would have realized the alteration in the time line. Recently however, he had often forgotten some of the numerous keys to continuity in the mission brief. New agents almost always fell prey to a Girder or two. Usually harmless pranksters with time devices who enjoyed tormenting new agents, the Girder, as this type of criminal was called, had arisen almost as soon as time travel itself. By altering just one minute detail in the time line (and you’d be surprised how small that detail could be: a door locked, a window open, etc.) the Girder could completely destroy the setup of an agent’s mission. Consequently, this would place the agent and their target days, weeks, months, or, in some cases, even years apart from each other. Of course, protocol dictated that if a target did not appear at the exact time and place that was stated in a brief the agent in pursuit was supposed to make an immediate return jump to his own time period. This usually didn’t happen with rookies who, charged with the energy of the hunt, usually stayed back attempting to figure out what had gone wrong with their calculations. This was the Girder’s game. Keeping rookie agents tied up for hours trying to figure out how their mission fell through was, apparently, more fun than seeing the many other attractions that the time line had to offer. After mustering Draminov outside, the three Girders accosted him. Now that he thought about it, his assailants did seem unusually hostile for Girders. The mere fact that they were armed was a deviation from the norm. Usually, Girders liked to blend in with a crowd and silently have their giggles unbeknownst to the agent they were harassing. These Girders seemed especially bold. And to accost an agent in front of innocents was preposterous, even for a Girder! Draminov had no time to think about such developments then as he had stood facing three deadly weapons. Thankfully, the Girders weren’t very bright and, despite their continued threats, hadn’t noticed Draminov’s deft fingers cocking his revolver in the deep pocket of his coat. Usually, an Agency revolver needed to be produced to drawn enough electricity for a discharge. Since Draminov hadn’t drawn his gun, the Girders seemed to believe they had the upper hand. However, Draminov’s revolver was not an Agency revolver. An ancient family heirloom, Draminov’s revolver was from the late 26th century. And while its ammunition was hard to come by now without a time jump, it was worth the hassle. Firing polonium rounds, Draminov’s revolver left no trace of a victim making the stylish gun a perfect weapon for the leave-no-trace nature of a time line agent. Leveling his revolver in his coat Draminov turned to face the leader of the Girders.

Nikola Tesla's Birthday

I watched a really interesting snippet for Nikola Tesla's birthday today. It really is a shame that his genius was nearly lost on the people of his time. Tesla's wildest designs are now becoming reality and his more minor ones (who likes the radio?) continue to change our world. However, we are more likely to pay homage to his chief competitor, Edison, rather than the real genius behind the technology. Despite his inventiveness and dedication to peace, his technology, according to this show, is capable of being formed into weapons of untold power.
While the whole show was interesting, I was particularly enamored with the way he dealt with these possible weapons of mass destruction. In one instance he separated the schematics and distributed these chunks of research to the governments of Canada, Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union. Tesla felt that in order for this particular weapon to be realized the great nations of the world would need to cooperate with each other. While I'm not really sure why Canada came into the mix I think his idea is generally impressive. I have attached a link to the 'interesting show' and I encourage my readers to watch it. It truly is fascinating. Although, a bit of warning, it is rather long at 40 or so minutes.

Tesla's rumored "time travel" research and legitimate statements regarding such travel will also make an appearance in my latest stories. Stay tuned.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2188562935002257117

The Agency: Part 1

I am placing this bit of creative writing at your mercy my dear readers. Be kind, though constructive as this is my first attempt at anything really creative. I understand that it may be a bit strained or even a bit over the top...but what science fiction isn't? Additionally, I haven't had it edited yet...so I'm sure there is a plethora of grammatical mistakes and whatnot. I can only say I'm sorry. You're welcome to tell me where and I'd be glad to fix them.

It is my pleasure to present to you the first "chapter" of The Agency.

Chapter 1: The Sacrificial Lamb

“Should I prepare the body for a more extensive autopsy?” The coroner asked.
“Yes. That would be preferable. I’d like to get this figured out as quickly as possible. I’m in a bit of a rush.”
“I’ll have my findings printed up and on your desk in a few hours.”
“Good.” said the detective, more curtly than was, perhaps, necessary.

Turning on his heel, the detective left as quickly as he’d come.

“Not a very good conversationalist” The coroner muttered.
“At least the people in here don’t talk. Where shall we begin my friends?” the coroner turned to the newest inhabitant of his table.
“I think,” he said out loud, “we’ll begin with personal effects.”
Clipping his wireless recorder onto his ear he made the following notes:

“1 large ring (ruby stone with platinum band)
1 pocket watch (platinum, etched markings on face and interior)
2 cuff links (platinum, red crosses inlaid)
1 pair of glasses (medium magnification, bifocals, platinum rimmed)
1 wallet (currency of various denominations from various countries, driver’s license)
1 metal coin (of heavy weight and containing no visible markings)”

The coroner was only minorly intrigued by the presence of such lavish possessions. After all, it wasn’t the job of the coroner to solve the mysteries of homicide. That job, as he had been reminded many times before, fell to the detectives. The initial crime scene report that the coroner was given only mentioned the perceived cause of death and the basic circumstances surrounding the man’s untimely end. It appeared that the man, a Dr. Igor Draminov aged fifty, was walking home from an evening at the theater when he was attacked by a group of three people. In the ensuing altercation, Dr. Draminov was shot in the chest. The bullet, a solid point, had not left an exit wound, suggesting to the coroner that it was still present in the body. After removing the man’s clothing (1 fur overcoat, 1 suit coat, 1 white button shirt, 1 pair black slacks, 1 pair black argyle socks, 1 pair black dress shoes,) the coroner attempted to look for the entrance wound. Finding only a rather small hole, smaller than that of the traditional entrance wound, near the left pectoral the coroner was momentarily stumped. The crime scene report offered no further insight other than the rather extraneous fact that Dr. Draminov held a doctoral degree in experimental physics. Turning back to the body, the coroner realized that something was wrong. The hole, though small before, was gone. Pondering the oddity of this situation the coroner quickly related the phenomenon to muscle contraction. Deciding it best to get the autopsy completed for the detective, the coroner pressed on. Starting with the head, the coroner made his notes:

“Hair graying clean shaven, eyes ok, no anomalies in ears, mouth, or nose.”
“Facial musculature appears unnaturally contracted near left side of jaw.”

In probing the jaw line the coroner made a rather startling discovery.

“There appears to be some kind of crease on the jar, indicating skin reconstruction or some kind of extensive surgery”.

Indeed, upon lifting at the crease, a great portion of Dr. Draminov’s skin fell away, revealing jaw bone, teeth, and tongue. This was somewhat unusual though not unheard of. The coroner continued to make his notes, oblivious to the contraction of the doctor’s fingers on the other side of the table.

“Apart from the past surgery performed on the jaw, and the previously discovered entrance wound, now gone, Dr. Draminov’s body shows little signs of death.”

At this, the coroner paused, confused. Now that he had a moment to look at the full body on his table the coroner realized the rather impressive physical condition of the doctor’s body. If he didn’t know any better, he’d speculate that the doctor was much younger than fifty. The coroner went to his cabinet seeking a scalpel which was needed to perform the rest of the autopsy. Unfortunately, the new intern at the department seemed to have moved the entire department’s scalpels to the cleaning area after his shift.

“Bloody interns… I swear they’ll be the death of me.” the coroner muttered to himself.

Leaving the examination room, the coroner went to the cleaning facilities in search of a scalpel. If the coroner had, perhaps, remained in the room just a few moments longer, he might have noticed the persistent beating of Dr. Draminov’s heart. A few minutes longer than that and he may have seen the chest rise and fall for the first time in over five hours. A minute later, the formidable though lithe body of Dr. Draminov would rise from the table, reattach its faux jaw, and retrieve its precious “personal effects”. After five minutes into the coroner’s absence, Dr. Draminov could be seen standing fully clothed, once again, surveying his situation. The first noise the Draminov would perceive was the whistling of the coroner as he returned to the examination room. With quick steps Draminov hid behind the door to the examination room. As the coroner entered the room Draminov leapt from his hiding place, twisting the coroner’s neck so quickly and painlessly it took several moments for the doctor’s hand to let go of the scalpel it had held. Letting the coroner’s body to the floor, Dr. Draminov dragged the coroner by his leg towards the examination table. Hauling the body of the coroner onto the examination table, Draminov positioned the coroner’s body like that of every other corpse in the exam room. Moving towards the crime scene report, Draminov picked up a pen and changed the cause of death from “bullet wound” to “broken neck” and made a mental note to square everything away later. Putting on his glasses, Draminov reluctantly removed the platinum coin from his jacket pocket. Holding it in his outstretched palm he waited holding his breath. After five seconds had passed the coin began to hum and release a strong heat. Five seconds later there was a sharp snap, a flash of brilliant light, and Dr. Draminov vanished.

It would be four hours before the new chief coroner would enter the examination room. Lying on the table was the body of the new coroner’s predecessor, although, according to all records that man was Dr. Draminov, an aging physicist assaulted outside the theater. The new chief coroner went to work without a second glance. For, as far as he knew, he had been the chief coroner for nearly twenty years. The chief coroner that Dr. Draminov had killed four hours previously was now a non person, another sacrificial lamb to the continuity of the time line.

It's been nearly a month...

Forgive me for I have sinned. It's been almost a month since my last post. I don't even have a great excuse. I can't say I'm extraordinarily busy or preoccupied. In fact, I'm anything but. So, my fair readers, I'm truly sorry. I've been told that if I don't have anything nice to say I shouldn't say it at all and I suppose that this bit of wisdom applies to blog posts as well. Additionally, I really haven't had the need or desire to write anything for quite some time. I was stagnant. But never fear! For the past few weeks I have been working on a piece that I will soon post here for your enjoyment. It's quite a bit different than my other posts but rest assured it's coming. I hope all of you have been having a sun filled summer!

Scholarships

A brief bit of news today...I promise I'll follow this with actual writing.

Three days ago I received one of the greatest gifts a college student can ever receive. Money is great when you get it from a paycheck or from dividends but there really isn't anything like scholarship money. On one hand a scholarship is free money given to you to pursue your goals, and, on the other hand, it's a vote of confidence in your abilities as a student, academic, etc. After a few channels were crossed and repaired with the scholarship office I am the proud recipient of three scholarships. These scholarships should go a long way in taking the financial burden off of my family and college fund. The scholarships and their amounts are as follows:

Forrest W. And Ida J. Benson Scholarship - $1850.00
Ana Call Scholarship - $650.00
Albert Laferriere History Scholarship - $500.00

Special thanks goes to all of the scholarship sponsors and the Sonoma State Scholarship committee who, despite my numerous calls to their office, patiently assured me that I was still eligible for the scholarships despite the US postal service delaying my acceptance letter (long story).

The Kaiser: A Story from the Archives

When I was thirteen, my family and I made a pilgrimage to my great uncle’s estate in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for the annual family reunion. To this day, I don’t remember what the exterior of that house looked like; it must not have been all that exciting, or maybe it was just eclipsed by the house’s interior.
The estate was an "interesting" building internally, and "interesting" wasn’t always flattering. The interior seemed to have been designed by a person trapped in the 60's. If one could get past the yellow shag carpet, one might have thought the house "eclectic" but could not miss the floral wallpaper, the colors blending over the years into something resembling mud. The living room looked like the 60's had exploded outward with the force of an atomic bomb; a great lime green sofa dominated the room, facing a 1960’s television set surrounded by winged chairs of a terrible floral pattern. The kitchen featured the trademark pastel appliances that should not be confused with the new “retro” ones from Sears. The kitchen also sported a lovely, blue, Formica table ringed with four green cushioned chairs. In every room was the smell of old wood and moth balls.
Amid its ugliness however, the house contained several beauties. My great uncle, the artist of the family, had placed outside enormous sculptures of iron and steel. A great iron dragon stood in the center of the estate, surrounded by other works of twisting steel, artfully woven together to form great spires towards the heavens.
Reigning in the garage, untouched and unseen by the family for many years, sat the greatest beauty of all, ageless by all standards and evidence of a more sophisticated era. My father and I understood the beauty of my uncle’s car. The car was the color of fresh crème, a two door coupe, with rather peculiar pocket doors, and wine colored leather interior; it stood erect against the sands of time that had decimated the rest of the house. Few knew that it was in fact a 1954 Kaiser Darrin, perhaps one of a hundred still in existence. The man who engineered it, was, like my great uncle, an "art person."
Howard "Dutch" Darrin was a designer and friend of the automobile manufacturer Henry Kaiser. Darrin had always been infatuated with the idea of constructing a fiberglass sports car. Darrin, who worked for Kaiser, poured his own money into a design project unbeknownst to Kaiser. Darrin's project would eventually produce the Kaiser Darrin. Kaiser initially refused to manufacturer the Darrin, believing the car to be impractical, but, pressured by his wife, he eventually consented and began the production of 450 Kaiser Darrins. Before the order could be completed, however, the company collapsed, and the first fifty Darrins were sentenced to the scrap heap. Darrin was enraged and purchased the cars from the company himself, taking them to his warehouse in Santa Monica. After several years and many attempts to integrate the Kaiser Darrin into the automotive industry, Darrin sold the cars.
While I do not know how my uncle came to own the car, I continue to regard it as a piece of history, illustrating perfectly that our world changes as we do. Unfortunately, we do not have such cars anymore: cars artfully crafted from the blood and toil of mankind's labor. We just have the Honda or the Hummer.

Cleaning, A Dorm Room, and Parenting

{Above} I apologize for the language used above. I felt that despite the language it was a very good example of my frustrations. I did not take the picture nor do I know where it comes from.

While this is a rather old topic I feel it needs to be addressed. For the last academic year I was privileged to attend Sonoma State University. Perhaps one of the best parts of the SSU campus were the amazing dorm rooms where myself and my fellow students lived out our Freshman year. While I know that a certain degree of "messiness" in dorm rooms is to be expected, the accumulated piles of garbage in my dorm room and the damage done to our living room and hallways was, to say the least, extensive. Coming from a home that valued order and cleanliness, the experience of the dorm room was incomparable.
Thankfully, I was given a single suite which allowed me to close my door to the outside and granted me the ability to clean my room. The central living room and kitchen of the suite, however, was shared with several other people. While I cannot damn my dorm mates for their lack of cleanliness I do wonder how they will survive in the real world if they find it acceptable to live in a cesspool of filth and decay. When one has to tiptoe to the microwave and move large piles of week old milk bowls just to heat water, things have gone too far. When one has to kick a path through the living room to the back door, and once there, remove the ailing curtain from its hinges just to leave the dorm room, things have gone too far. I was appalled by my roommates' definition of "clean". Of course, I understand that, with all of our classes, extracurricular activities, and our particular suite being the meeting place for many people a fair bit of mess will be accumulated naturally. However, this doesn't mean that it is in anyway acceptable to leave the dorm room in such a horrific state for nearly the entire year.
Despite the more obvious reasons in favor of a clean dorm room there are a few others. First, allowing such volumes of black mold accumulate in the sink creates a considerable safety hazard. Second, if the dorm had been kept clean throughout the year fewer damages would need to be paid to the university. Third, keeping the dorm room clean, throughout the year, would have made move out week far less of a task and would have led to less strained tempers.
While I came to care for all of my roommates and wish them only the best of luck in their future undertakings I was less than pleased by their actions on move out week. I understand that many of us needed to pack up our belongings and clean out our own rooms with due haste, however, that does NOT excuse you from cleaning the common areas. There is no excuse for leaving before serious cleaning has taken place and you have personally contributed to said cleaning. While I appreciated a few of my roommates genuine help in cleaning the dorm I was quite angered by the actions of some of the others.
I felt used. Contrary to popular belief, I don't like to clean. I like order and cleanliness but spending my last days bent double over the floor scrubbing was not how I envisioned the last week of my Freshman year. Of course, it would be poor of me to blame my roommates for all of their actions. I wasn't born with a respect for hygiene, organization, or cleanliness. My parents taught me that.
Speaking generally, I wonder why (or how) many other parents seem to have missed passing this lesson to their children. It horrified me when I saw a fellow student in the laundry room unable to operate the washer. I saw this poor soul shove all of his clothes (whites, colors, etc.) into the washer and pound the console in an attempt to start the machine. When it didn't start he stared at it exasperatingly for another few moments. I decided to start my own laundry in the hope that he might pay attention and start his own. Thankfully he did.
Of course, I can't blame the parents entirely either. After all, they did their best, and now that we have moved out of their home it falls on us to adapt and take their lessons with us. Unfortunately, I fear that many of my fellow students don't see it that way. Perhaps they were raised in a home were all of these things were done for them. I certainly didn't have a difficult childhood. Many things were done for me. Now, I realize that. Now, I am able to appreciate a clean house, a clean kitchen, and ironed clothes. Even if I couldn't as early as last year. I suppose then, that this has become both a warning and a salute to parents. If you child doesn't know how to operate a dishwasher or clean a room properly don't send him or her to college, where, undoubtedly, your child will be a burden to those children who were PROPERLY raised. For those of you parents who have taught your children good hygiene, organization, and cleaning technique: Thank you! You have made the world a far better, more ordered, place.

A Brief Note:

I'm not a saint of cleanliness, nor do I put myself, in any way, above my roommates. I make my own mess. I also realize that my reaction to mess may be extreme, bordering on OCD. For that, I apologize. However, I was hurt by my roommates' lack of respect for our fantastic suite, and the time which others took to clean it.

Diary of the Passionless

If my calculations are correct this is the last few hours of my first week of summer. Unfortunately little progress has been made in the job department and my writing is stagnating from lack of prompts. Why is it that I seem to need prompts in order to write? If I don't have prompts I need to get angry (also known as "passionate") in order to get any good writing done. Without 'passion' I suppose I would be forced to more 'verbal diarrhea' posts like this one. I suppose that my recent bout of finals has drained my intellectual waters. Perhaps I just need time to re-water my brain sponge with more material.

I hope for your sake and mine that this bout doesn't last too long. Or you, my fair reader, may resort to eating your keyboard as you read each insufferable line of my verbal spillage. I'm terribly sorry.

Tribbles...They're Everywhere...

I never knew I had so much stuff until I had to pack it all up and bring it home. It would appear that, like tribbles, my things seem to reproduce like bunny rabbits. I guess it could have been worse. In fact, my roommates seemed to have a much harder time than I packing up all of their things. Lucky for me I managed to keep my room fairly clean which made packing less of a chore. Now that finals are over and I'm relatively unpacked back at home I will continue to make regular posts to this blog...just in case anyone is reading.

First on my list of things to talk about is the new Star Trek movie. While I know many people disregard it as a fan boy film of little merit, I was surprised by J.J. Abrams adaptation. While I have been a Star Trek fan for some time I can't say that I grew up with the series or know all that there is to know. That being said, I was impressed that Abrams was able to make his film something that both fans and newcomers alike could enjoy. For the long time fans there were the occasional references to the original series including a few token phrases (McCoy's "I'm a doctor, not a..." or Scotty's "I'm giving it all she's got captain!"). For the newcomers (like my roommates) there was plenty of ship to ship combat and a few epic fight scenes including a particularly memorable sword fight. Of course, it wouldn't be Star Trek without a little tampering with the space-time continuum or subcutaneous philosophical debate and, luckily for Abrams, he caught on to these Star Trek nuances and integrated them quite nicely into the film. All in all, it was certainly worth the ten dollar ticket and the late night show. For those of you who haven't seen it, I highly recommend it.

Becoming Death: The Manhattan Scientists, The Atomic Bomb, and Irrevocable Change

{Author's Note}
I know I said I wasn't going to post anything until after finals but I decided otherwise. I have a few minutes and my final history paper for the semester deserves a post. Now...on to art history and computer science!

P.S. The picture above is a particularly ecstatic J. Robert Oppenheimer

And now without further ado...Becoming Death.

When Robert Oppenheimer quoted the Bhagavad Gita (“I am become death, destroyer of worlds.”) after witnessing the awesome destructive power of the atomic bomb at the Trinity test site, he quite adequately summed up the atomic bomb. The Manhattan Project’s terrifying new weapon would, in the end, provide an appropriately climactic end to the horrible devastation of World War II and change world politics forever. The annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would prove to the world that the modern American giant was not only awake, but angry. The Soviet Union after the war would see the United States through a different lens, changing their policy from America as an ally to America as a chief competitor for global domination. The rest of the world would come to fear American might, setting a new standard for international diplomacy; keep the U.S. happy or suffer a fate similar to the Japanese. Once the Enola Gay released its terrible payload in August of 1945 the world was irrevocably changed (lecture).
While the first use of the atomic bomb may have changed the world, there lies, at the heart of history, a question which remains open. This question: “Why did we drop the atomic bomb on a heavily populated city?” has been debated by historians since the drop and, in all actuality, will continue to be debated until a definitive answer is provided by the U.S. government.
It is common opinion that the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessitated by the belief that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would lead to tremendous casualties on both sides (Alperovitz, 5). In order to avoid this destruction, the American command structure, the myth goes, seemingly arrived at the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was simply not the case. In fact, nearly all of the American military structure from Truman to Leahy did not approve of an atomic bomb drop on anything other than a purely military target (lecture). Why then was the atomic bomb released upon non military (or minimally military) targets if the command structure was so adamantly opposed? It appears that the command structure, for all intents and purposes, was swayed by the Scientific Advisory Panel and the rest of the Manhattan scientists that made “Recommendations on the immediate use of nuclear weapons” (Oppenheimer).
The report by the Scientific Advisory Panel clearly states that its member scientists, some of the leading researchers in atomic energy, “[could] propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war [and] see no acceptable alternative to military use” (Oppenheimer). This report is hilariously manipulative and near the end, obviously carefully designed to deflect guilt. The Manhattan scientists must have realized that the United States’ government which had “spared no effort in securing the earliest possible successful development of an atomic weapon.” would one day use it (Stimson, 1). Even a good politician couldn’t be faulted for believing the ‘experts’. To that effect, the panel scientists make an interesting comment at the end of their report “We have, however, no claim to special competence in solving the political, social, and military problems which are presented by the advent of atomic power” (Oppenheimer). This statement seems to be cleverly designed to remove all responsibility from the Manhattan scientists. And while this statement is true in general (the scientific community is not supposed to make decisions or determine policy only provide the devices and research for the policy makers), the Manhattan scientists must have realized that, if given a weapon of such tremendous might as the atomic bomb, no one could resist its terminating power.
Looking solely at this report by the Scientific Advisory Panel it appears that the Manhattan scientists should be held responsible for the dropping of the atomic bombs. Unfortunately, it isn’t that easy. Even though the scientists (the experts to Washington) proposed the immediate drop of the atomic bomb, the orders were still handed down by Truman and his staff. No one stopped the cataclysm that was to come, and, in that sense, all must share guilt. Additionally, a vast majority of the Manhattan scientists would, after witnessing the destructive potential of their creation, speak publicly that another course of action should have been considered. Dr. Edward Teller, father of the Hydrogen bomb stated that “We could have used the bomb to end the war without bloodshed by exploding it high over Tokyo at night without prior warning…If it had been exploded at an altitude over 20,000 feet there would have been…hardly any damage to property… [and] tremendous sound and light effects.”(Laurence). This course of action would, in hindsight, have been a far less destructive way of scaring the Japanese into surrender. If this particular method were not enough, a second drop could have been performed on an actual military target with far more destructive effect. However, from what we know today, it is unlikely that the Japanese would have continued the war (a war they were already losing) if they had witnessed such a deadly display over their capital (Laurence).
If the scientists proposed the drop sites and determined that the use of the bomb was necessary to expediently end the war, where does the President (the final authority) factor into the decision? Mr. Henry Stimson, Secretary of War to Truman, described the chilling final report to the President compiled by the Interim Committee in his article entitled The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb. In his article Stimson summarizes this report “1. The bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible. 2. It should be used on a dual target (a military target surrounded by civilian structures). 3. It should be used without prior warning” (Stimson, 100). Stimson goes on to explain that pre-warning and a demonstration in an uninhabited area, while both proposed, were both discarded as “impractical”. The Interim Committee believed that pre-warning followed by a failure to detonate an atomic bomb would be detrimental in forcing surrender. Perhaps they were right, but nonetheless, it was the job of the President to determine the ultimate strategy. President Harry S. Truman accepted the recommendations of the Interim Committee unequivocally and, in signing the orders, would be written into history as the first leader to publicly authorize the use of nuclear weapons (Stimson 100-102).
Henry Stimson ends his article with a rather interesting statement, one that remains true to this day, “They (the atomic bombs) made it wholly clear that we must never have another war. This is the lesson men and leaders everywhere must learn, and I believe that when they learn it they will find a way to lasting peace. There is no other choice” (Stimson, 107). Mr. Stimson’s statement has a fair bit of truth to it. While the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was both unwarranted and unnecessary in forcing Japanese surrender, and while the Manhattan scientists, in their eagerness to see their creation end a devastating war, are, to some degree, at fault for what they did the dropping of the atomic bomb changed the world. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki the world has been both blessed and cursed with the looming specter of nuclear holocaust. And while this constant enemy may strain diplomatic relations and lead to bitter (though minor) conflicts, it also guards the world against all out conflict, for in a nuclear war, everybody loses.

Finals

With finals now upon us I will be issuing no new posts until summer break. Thank you for your understanding and continued support.

-B

The State of The Party

I am, each day, becoming significantly disillusioned with my Republican Party. What has become of the party which I once loved so much? A series of betrayals, rampant religious fundamentalism, and, quite frankly, idiotic stances on 'the issues' have led me to a position that I do not relish. Disillusionment is not a state in which to live and certainly not one I favor. It is my firm belief that, in order for the Republican Party to recover the many things it has lost (the respect of the nation and party dignity), there must occur a radical renovation of party ideals and concepts. The loss of the election this year was no accident. My party has fallen into the greatest evil available to it. My party, once a proud defender of liberty and equality, has fallen into religious fundamentalism and social disgrace.
First, the social aspect of the Republican party must see gigantic overhaul in order for the party to draw more (much needed) voters into the fold. The Republican stances upon gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion are borderline barbaric and its adherents horrifyingly backwards. How is the issue of gay marriage any different than old question of emancipation for African Americans? The emancipation of the African Americans was, one must remember, actually brought to fruition BY the Republicans once upon a time. What has happened to that fundamental love of freedom, liberty, and rights? The Republican and Democratic Parties should never have been divided along the lines of fundamental human rights. We are, as Enlightenment philosophers stated, all endowed with certain inherent rights. Why then have some of those rights (ie. happiness and liberty) become divided along political lines, should they not be inherent in all political parties? It is a failure not just of the Republican party, but American politics in general, that allowed such rights to be split into political camps. And it is this failure that I will not soon forget.
Second, my hapless party has fallen into religious fundamentalism. This is an irritating, though not entirely unexpected fault. Since much of the Republican base comes from the deeply religious south it comes as no surprise that religion would leak into politics. However, this is simply not acceptable to any degree. The founding fathers and even the Enlightenment philosophers before them realized that religion and government must remain separate in order to maintain cohesive and fluid action. Religion dirties and distorts political reason. While religion is perfectly acceptable (even, at times, necessary) outside of politics it has no value in determining the political doctrine of a country, if only for the reason that religion does not provide sound (reasoned) justification for policy.
While there are many faults to the Republican party I remain a card carrying member. While I may not support some of my party's more ridiculous social policies, I can claim no aversion to the death penalty, the right to bear arms, laissez-faire capitalism, and the damnation of a universal health care plan. Despite all of its many failings, I find that, more often that not, I agree with a Republican far more often than I do with a Democrat. However, I am worried that without radical change (a word that has now been improperly cliched by the Obama administration) my party will never regain the respect of the public and never again be able to achieve power in any branch of government. I hope, for the sake of the party, that the Republican leaders can reexamine their stance upon issues and find innovative ways to integrate the political moderates or risk a total collapse of the Right.

Simply Fantasy: A Review of Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward

Looking Backward begins in 1887 with the fairly typical aristocrat, Julian West. The story begins with West waiting, somewhat impatiently, for the construction of his new house, a house which, once complete, will serve as a house for both his fiancée and himself. Unfortunately, the construction of Mr. West’s house is stalled by the striking of workers amid growing labor/government tensions in the United States. Waiting for his house to be completed, Mr. West suffers from severe insomnia and, hoping to cure it, he orders the construction of a sleeping chamber beneath his apartment. Additionally, Mr. West hires a hypnotist to lull him to sleep after particularly long bouts of insomnia. One night, after being lulled to sleep in his chamber, the house above catches fire. Since only the hypnotist and Mr. West knew about the chamber below the house, Julian West is presumed dead. Remaining in a state of suspended animation, Mr. West’s body remains in the chamber for quite some time. As the city advances and time passes, Julian sleeps. It is only in the year 2000 that Julian West, former aristocrat of the 19th century, is discovered.
After beginning construction on a new laboratory Dr. Leete and his construction team discover Julian’s underground chamber. Dr. Leete, a perfect representation of 20th century ideals (as Bellamy envisions them), revives Julian and explains the situation. Understandably confused, Julian takes several days to acclimate to his new time period. Interestingly enough, this turnaround happens extraordinarily quickly considering the vast amount of time that has passed and all that Mr. West has lost in his sleep (including his fiancée). For the benefit of the reader, Mr. West is insatiably curious about the society in which he finds himself. It is Mr. West’s great awakening that begins the protracted lecture by Edward Bellamy.
Writing Looking Backward from his seat in the nineteenth century, Bellamy saw the excesses of capitalism, class-ism, government regulation, and, in general, the unequal distribution of wealth as barriers to a greater, more peaceful, and (perhaps ironically) more free world state. A famous socialist himself, Edward Bellamy integrates a great deal of communist and socialist theory into his utopian United States. While obviously an advocate for socialism, Bellamy realized that his audience (in general) was, and perhaps still is, significantly more sympathetic to a capitalist system. It therefore fell on Bellamy to construct a nearly unarguable proposition. To a large degree, Bellamy does capture all that is “good” about a purely socialist system. After all, what could be better than a society that does away with ideas like the “analogy of the coach” “Society…was a prodigious coach which the masses of humanity were harnessed to and dragged toilsomely along…The driver was hunger, and permitted no lagging, though the pace was necessarily very slow.”?
Bellamy’s utopian ideas are explained in great detail to the reader throughout the course of the book. Perhaps the first and most important example of social change in Bellamy’s book is described shortly after Julian wakes up. In a brief conversation, Mr. West asks Dr. Leete “what solution, if any, have you found for the labor question?” Dr. Leete quickly claims that the problem seemed to solve itself through a kind of recognition of “industrial evolution”. To some degree this is true of our own history. With the development of the assembly line, replaceable parts, and mass production, society was able to rely more upon machines and less upon the labor force. Dr. Leete states that this “industrial evolution” in conjunction with a change in social construction, led to an ultimate solution of the “labor question”. It is here, with social reconstruction, that Dr. Leete’s past differs from ours. Dr. Leete describes his past’s social reconstruction thusly, “The industry and commerce of the country, ceasing to be conducted by a set of irresponsible corporations…were entrusted to a single syndicate representing the people to be conducted in the common interest for the common profit.” From what Dr. Leete has told the audience one can’t help but think of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. By dividing industry into a people controlled “Great Trust” there can be little manipulation of the system by an individual. Corruption is, in effect, completely done away with in the business sector.
At face value this idea seems marvelous and one is left wondering why it hasn’t been done in our own time. The answer is rather simple. Socialism violates human nature. Socialism, in effect, asks the people to be something that, according to many philosophers, they are not. Ayn Rand made this very clear when she stated that “man [is] a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” To Rand and even (farther back) Jean Jacques Rousseau, socialism would face defeat, ultimately, by the heavy hand of human selfishness. Edward Bellamy references this idea through Julian, “Human nature itself must have changed very much…” Unfortunately, rather than confront this problem head on, Bellamy dodges the question claiming that “human conditions changed” and therefore, socialism was made possible. Although the statementmay be, in many ways, absurd, Bellamy is not necessarily at fault for his promotion of what many believe to be a fundamentally illogical system. Bellamy has simply fallen into the great, and arguably, unsolvable question of innate human nature.
The second great change in society that the audience perceives is the widespread equality in Bellamy’s utopian United States. From education to gender, from the distribution of wealth to the purchase and sale of goods, Bellamy has designed his utopia on fundamentally equal terms. We are first introduced to this equality in the form of the distribution of goods. Each person, we are informed, receives an equal share of the annual national product. This idea comes from a pure socialist government. Ideally, once the initial government, in a socialist system, was deemed unnecessary, this kind of equal share of wealth would be established and humanity would have no need to change it. Marx reinforces this quite adamantly in the Communist Manifesto. And yet, as easy as Marx and Bellamy purport this idea to be, it has never been implemented in a government.
As the book progresses, we see further examples of the pervasive equality in Bellamy’s utopian U.S. We are introduced to the idea of equal job opportunities, “you had in the poorer classes a boundless supply of serfs on whom you could impose all sorts of painful and disagreeable tasks…but now that we all have to do in turn whatever work is done for society, every individual in the nation has the same interest in…lightening the burden.” This idea is similar to that of equal purchasing power in that they are both fundamental points of socialism. Bellamy has designed his ideal society around equality within the job market which essentially does away with unemployment and what he claims to be inefficiency in the capitalist system. In Bellamy’s perfect world everyone works for a designated time in their life and then, at age 45, is able to retire. This sounds like a tremendous proposition, and it is.
In addition to this job equality, Bellamy’s society asks its people to work for very little reward. How can a meritocracy such as capitalism suddenly achieve such levels of selflessness? It seems we are left to ponder this question as Bellamy provides us with little real answer other than, perhaps, his former explanation that since “human condition” changed and thus society’s construction.
Perhaps the most ‘real’ and historically accurate equality that Bellamy references, however briefly, is the freedoms which women have achieved in Bellamy’s year 2000. As in our own history, equal rights for women were pursued and, eventually, were attained. Writing from the nineteenth century Bellamy witnessed the great inequality between the sexes with revulsion. Regardless of social structure or governmental plan the capitalist United States was able to make one of Bellamy’s great propositions a reality. Julian West expresses his surprise at this revolution which appears to Dr. Leete as an afterthought “’Are credit cards issues to the women just as to the men?’ ‘Certainly.’ ‘The credits of women, I suppose, are for smaller sums…’ ‘Smaller!’ exclaimed Doctor Leete. ‘Oh, no!’ ‘The maintenance of our people is the same.’”
While the United States may not be able to claim that it has advanced much since Bellamy’s time, certainly not along the path that he would have liked, we have managed to put forward some fantastic accomplishments. While we may not have discarded capitalism we have fundamentally altered it (arguably) for the better from its former days of trusts and excesses. Additionally, the United States, more than any other country has advanced the ideas of natural human rights and freedoms, even achieving universal suffrage in 1964 (though the exact year may be disputed). Since the nineteenth century the United States has risen to the top of international politics, dictating world policy, and determining the economic success or failure of the world at large. While we may not be purveyors of peace or prosperity we have achieved a level of greatness that was, perhaps, only fantasy in Bellamy’s time.

A Culture of Immediacy

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-05/mf_jjessay?currentPage=all

While I know this isn't a piece of my own writing I came across this article the other day in my Wired Magazine and really enjoyed it. I hope you do to.

The Project (read as: My life for the last two weeks)

What follows is my complete project for my FYE class. If you don't feel up to reading the whole thing (and I certainly don't blame you) here's the condensed version: The Commies were bad and the US was pretty bad...but ya know...we were all kinda bad. So, it's time we recover and get back to business. Or, for those of you Vonnegut fans: "Everything was beautiful and nothing hurt."


Preface

In February of 1917 something was happening in Russia that would fundamentally alter world politics and, ultimately, determine U.S. foreign policy for the next 90 years. This event, the Bolshevik Revolution, began in the streets, among the angered labor force of the once great Russian Empire. The Bolsheviks would, in time, make their way to the lavish palaces of the high aristocracy, tearing down centuries of accumulated excess. The revolution, pushed by popular sentiment, hunger, and oppression, would only come fully to bear at the Winter Palace, where after protracted resistance; the Czar’s government would finally surrender. Here “the people” made their stand. Here, the Czarist monarchy, which had stood for generations, would meet its bitter end. Eventually, through the work of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, and Alexander Kerensky, the Russian Empire would become the United Soviet Socialist Republics (Massie 764-766).
At the same time, across an ocean, a very different revolution was taking place. In 1917, the United States stood on the precipice of war in Europe. Raking in great dividends from war loans to the Allies, and making nearly two billion dollars in war contracts with their brethren across the Atlantic, the United States was prospering. With the Russian state officially withdrawn from the war, the German divisions of the Eastern Front were pushed to the Western Front where they bolstered the German lines. Now that Germany had the “upper hand” in the Great War, U.S. involvement seemed necessary for the preservation of England and France (Massie 532).
Urged by American capitalists and justified by a series of German blunders (the Zimmerman telegram, the sinking of the Lusitania, and, in general, Germany’s declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare) President Woodrow Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war on April 6, 1917 and officially entered the Great War on the side of the Allies. Upon entering the war, capitalism, while already a force in American industrialism, was proclaimed (unofficially) the standard in regards to American economic and political structure. It can be argued that, without the collective might of the capitalists and industrialists, the United States would never have been able to make war on Germany (Massie 528-553). After the war, President Wilson would marshal the United States into the image of “super power” and “protector of republicanism” through his famous Fourteen Points. Promising self determination to all colonies of empire, Wilson would set the standard for United States intervention. Later, Wilson’s “Open Door” would be the opening through which the United States would see the Cold War. From the end of World War II to the collapse of the Berlin Wall the United States would attempt to make good on Wilson’s promise at the end of the Great War: All nations have the right to determine how they will be governed (Cox and Kennedy-Pipe 97-8).

A Cold War Turned Hot

Fast forward twenty six years, and the United States and the USSR are embroiled in a conflict which will shape not only their own development, but the development of their fellow countries. These fellow countries: the battlefields, upon which capitalism and communism shall wage war, will be fundamentally altered economically, socially, and politically. Indeed, this overarching conflict between super powers continues to affect international relations to this day for better, and for worse.
Fundamentally, the United States and Soviet Union were different. While much of this fundamental difference is based in their economic and political ideologies, the two countries were also different socially and culturally. A relative fledgling of popular government, the people of the USSR had only been in control of their own government affairs for twenty-eight years. Comparatively, the people of the United States had been involved in their own government affairs since the late 18th century. While the Soviet Union may not actually have promoted popular government (Stalin could be regarded as the archetypal tyrant) in its first decade of life, it gradually became more focused on popular consent like the United States. Socially, the Soviet Union operated a closed system; little freedoms existed for the people of the Soviet Union, even at its most democratic moments (Kennan). In contrast, the United States regarded freedom with, perhaps, a singular obsession, representing such obsession with rights and liberties in every aspect of society, from the media, to religious institutions. The United States also drew heavily from Enlightenment philosophers in its political construction. The rights of man, envisioned by Voltaire and John Locke, and the division of government as promoted by Jean Jacques Rousseau stood at the forefront of the United States’ political infrastructure. Additionally, the United States was constructed around a capitalist system praised by Ayn Rand, John Maynard Keynes, Adam Smith, and, to a lesser extent, Bertrand Russell. Comparatively, the Soviet Union drew on more modern thinkers like Vladimir Lenin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Karl Marx, and Frederick Engels, who collectively advocated a communist society founded upon selflessness and class equality.
Both the Soviet Union and the United States were founded upon idealistic bases which formed the center of their differences. The Soviet Union in the Cold War operated under the philosophy that its form of government, namely communism, was a gift that should be shared with all countries. According to George F. Kennan’s Long Telegram, this policy was perpetuated by a belief that the USSR should be “in constant war with capitalism”. Since the United States was, perhaps arguably, the largest and most powerful capitalist state, it goes without saying that the USSR, according to its “holy war” against capitalism, would regard the United States as its mortal enemy (Kennan). Comparatively, the United States operated partly upon its World War I promotion of “self determination” for all nations and partly in favor of its own business interests. If communism were to spread the world over, the United States would have no trading partners. Without trading partners the very structure of capitalism, based upon free trade, would collapse taking the American democracy with it.
How did the USA and USSR, bonded allies during World War II, grow to despise each other? This is a troubling question, and one which has no true answer. Perhaps one of the most likely answers is that the amalgam of differences and similarities between both the USA and USSR, coupled with both countries rapid increase in military efficiency and production drove both nations into a kind of reciprocal fear and paranoia of nuclear holocaust. Recently, however, a new theory has developed that centers both on the construction of post World War II alliances (NATO and the Warsaw Pact) and on the American aid package to post World War II Europe (dubbed the Marshall Plan).
In his paper entitled “A New History of Cold War Alliances”, Vojtech Mastny states that the formation of the Warsaw Pact (a confederation of communist/pseudo-communist states in the Eastern Bloc) was in direct confrontation to the growing danger which NATO posed to the USSR. In effect, Mastny argues that the Warsaw Pact may have actively prevented the eruption of a nuclear World War III by simply remaining in existence and on the side of the Soviets. A nuclear war, initiated by NATO and the United States would be forced to contend, not just with the Soviet Union, but also the added destructive power of the Warsaw Pact. Mastny references, as an example, the Berlin Crisis in which he asserts that both superpowers believed that their alliances (NATO and the Warsaw Pact) could work out their differences without involving the USA and USSR. Mastny asserts, however, that this was not thoroughly thought out and the two superpowers were closer than they imagined to all out war. (Mastny 60-67)
In addition to the influence of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the Marshall Plan held tremendous clout in the growing schism between the USA and USSR. In a joint paper entitled “The Tragedy of American Diplomacy? Rethinking the Marshall Plan”, Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, pose the idea that the American aid package to Europe in the post World War II era served more as a way to alienate the USSR than as a gesture of good will to the war torn Europeans. Essentially (as Cox and Kennedy-Pipe assert) the Marshall Plan was instituted to protect Europe from falling, due to its economic destitution, to the allure of communism. Taking the cue from George F. Kennan’s “Long Telegram”, the United States’ government believed it crucial to revive Europe economically or risk losing the region to the communism of the USSR (Cox and Kennedy-Pipe 109). It was in this vein (stabbing the USSR while strengthening its neighbors against communist ideology) that the United States all but officially excluded the Soviet Union from the Marshall Plan. In fact, the United States offered the Soviet Union participation in the plan. It came as no surprise to anyone, however, when the USSR turned it down (Cox and Kennedy-Pipe 109). The implementation of the Marshall Plan, therefore (as supported by Cox and Kennedy-Pipe) was a fundamental move in deepening the schism between the USSR and USA.
With their inherent differences (cultural, political, economic, etc.), coupled with the implementation of the Marshall Plan and the creation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the United States and Soviet Union were, perhaps, destined to meet on the battlefield to settle their differences.
On August 2, 1964, with several indirect conflicts already under their belts, the United States and Soviet Union, squared off for supremacy on the world stage. On August 2nd on a routine reconnaissance operation in the Gulf of Tonkin, the USS Maddox was attacked by several North Vietnamese torpedo boats. Surviving with minimal damage the Maddox returned on the 4th with the USS Turner Joy for backup (Atwood 2).
While the incident is still disputed, the Turner Joy and Maddox claimed to have been attacked again by two North Vietnamese vessels (this time destroyers) without provocation. With this ‘justification’ President Lyndon B. Johnson asked Congress for a resolution that would allow the United States to intervene in Vietnam. In accordance with the unprovoked attack, and the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty which the United States was obligated to uphold, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on August 7, 1964 (Johnson). This resolution allowed the United States to intervene in Vietnam without an official declaration of war, a practice which is now carried out by the United States government on a more regular basis than a congressional declaration of war. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary this process is known as a “police action” and is carried out “without formal declaration of war by regular armed forces against persons (such as guerrillas or aggressors) held to be violators of international peace and order” (“police action”). Such ‘actions’ made up the bulk of US conflict and intervention during the Cold War.
With the congressional resolution in hand, the United States military was able to legally intervene in Vietnam and protect the interests of its ally, South Vietnam. By 1965 the United States had dispatched combat forces to the area with the distinct goal of pushing the pro-communist North Vietnamese out of the country. Unfortunately, the North Vietnamese were led by the enigmatic Ho Chi Minh and were being liberally funded by the USSR. Initiating a guerilla war with the United States, Ho Chi Minh and his nationalist army constructed a trail from North Vietnam to the South which allowed the Vietcong to smuggle weapons through Cambodia and Laos to the South Vietnamese guerillas (Atwood 2).
The Ho Chi Minh Trail ignored the boundaries of traditional warfare, pushing the conflict into a nearby state without the consent of that nearby state’s government. Intelligence gathered on the ‘trail’ led U.S. military commanders to order an increase in aerial bombardment of the region. With little consent from the Laotian and Cambodian government the United States increased the scale of its air operations in Vietnam and began to bomb the trail inside and outside of Vietnam. As a result, relations between the United States and Cambodia and Laos became strained (Atwood 2-3). However, with victories in North Vietnamese territory and the ‘destruction of the trail’ by the USAF, the United States believed it was close to a decisive victory. General Westmoreland declared that the U.S. had reached the point where the “end comes into view”.
Westmoreland and the U.S. were wrong. North Vietnamese forces under Ho Chi Minh increased their efforts, and on the Lunar New Year (Tet) initiated a surprise offensive on the United States military. The Tet Offensive, while eventually pushed back, represented to the American people a ‘failure’ of the United States military establishment to read the course of the war. As such, public outcry against the war soared, despite continued military success (Atwood 4). Additionally, the free media, a treasured liberty of American social infrastructure, captured the hell and torment of daily life at the Demilitarized Zone and in the jungles of Vietnam. Under extreme pressure and psychological distress many Marines became progressively more brutal and cruel in the pursuance of the enemy (Atwood 4).
On March 16th 1968, the My Lai massacre which resulted in the deaths of ~400 innocent Vietnamese incited further outrage in the States and, together with Johnson’s slipping public support, increasing U.S. casualties, and declining international approval, the South Vietnamese offered peace to the North. With the United States mediating the Paris Peace Accord in 1973, North and South Vietnam declared peace. However, the peace was only an illusion. The United States’ failure to resupply the South Vietnamese army with weapons in case of further North Vietnamese aggression effectively abandoned the South to the mercies of the North. In that same year, the conflict reignited and, this time, without the support of the United States, the South fell easily under the USSR funded boot of the North Vietnamese (Atwood 4-5).
In 1975, the United States evacuated its embassy in Saigon, abandoning its former South Vietnamese ally and undoubtedly straining diplomatic relations with the governments of South East Asia. The abandonment of South Vietnam and its subsequent surrender to the North showed the power of Cold War conflict. While fairly balanced militarily without international interference, the conflict between the North and the South might have been settled through primarily diplomatic means. However, with military aid from the United States and the USSR, both sides believed it possible to overwhelm the other, and, as such, both sides met on the battlefield. As a result, casualties were catastrophic. In an article for the online encyclopedia, Encarta, Dr. Paul Atwood estimated that nearly “3.2 million Vietnamese were killed, in addition to another 1.5 million to 2 million Lao and Cambodians.” Near the end of his article, Dr. Atwood depicts the devastation of post war Vietnam:
“About 10 percent of all bombs and shells went unexploded and continued to kill and maim throughout the region long after the war, as did buried land mines. Vietnam developed high rates of birth defects, probably due to the use of Agent Orange and other chemical defoliants. The defoliants used during the war also destroyed about 15 percent of South Vietnam’s valuable timber resources and contributed to a serious decline in rice and fish production, the major sources of food for Vietnam. There were 800,000 orphans created in South Vietnam alone. At least 10 million people became homeless refugees in the south. Vietnam’s government punished those Vietnamese who had been allied with the United States by sending thousands to ‘reeducation camps’ and depriving their families of employment. These measures, combined with economic hardships throughout Vietnam, led to the exodus of about 1.3 million people, most as refugees to the United States.” (5)
Despite the horrific destruction in Vietnam, the United States also suffered heavy losses, though less epic in scope. Dr. Atwood states in his article that nearly 58,000 servicemen and women lost their lives in the war and those that returned to the States were often met with hostility and general distaste by the largely anti-war American populace.
Unfortunately, the Vietnam War was not the last conflict between the USSR and USA. In December of 1979 military forces from the USSR invaded Afghanistan in support of pro-communist government factions. Until the Soviet invasion the Afghani government was constructed around a kind of joint rule between Nur Mohammad Taraki (a military commander and communist) and Hafizullah Amin (the more popular leader). The anti-communist forces in Afghanistan (who made up a clear majority of the population) had protested the rise of Taraki to power and, since 1978, had been fighting a guerilla war against the communists in their country. This anti-communist force would be known collectively as the Mujahideen. On December 24, 1979, the Soviet Union, at the request of Taraki and communist officials in the Afghan government, invaded Afghanistan with 30,000 troops. Hafizullah Amin was toppled and a new puppet leader installed (Grau).
Believing the task to be completed the Soviet military focused on training the Afghan army to defend itself against the Mujahideen without the aid of Soviet troops. Initially the Soviet trained Afghan army did well at crushing the resistance of the Mujahideen forcing many opposition leaders out of the country into neighboring Pakistan (Grau). This exile into Pakistan of opposition leaders is still present today with a large concentration of terrorist cells (former and current members of the Mujahideen) still operating out of the mountains of Pakistan (Bajoria).
Seeing this Soviet intrusion from his position on the House Appropriations Committee on Defense, Congressman Charles Wilson requested an increase in funding to the Mujahideen resistance movement. As shown in both the movie (Nichols), and the (more factual) book by George Crile, CIA operative Gust Avrakotos approached Representative Wilson (in direct violation of CIA protocol) in order to request further funding for the Afghan resistance. Wilson granted his request and appropriated, with the approval of Congress, an additional fifty million dollars to the Mujahideen (Nichols).
Congressman Wilson’s efforts were not in vain. With aid and weapons from the United States, the Mujahideen was able to mount an effective guerilla war against the Soviets, a true reversal of the roles in the Vietnam War. Lester Grau supports this theory, “The United States, smarting from the support that the Soviet Union had provided North Vietnam and the Vietcong during the Vietnam War, looked on aid [to the Mujahideen] as a way of reciprocating and giving the Soviet Union ‘a bloody nose’” (Grau).
Facing extreme resistance from the Mujahideen the Soviet military attempted to “reinvent their tactics in the middle of the conflict”. Unfortunately for the Soviets, this was a doomed process. As Grau states, “in a guerilla war the side with the highest moral commitment will hold the ground at the end of the conflict” (Grau). As the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was largely kept secret from the population of the USSR the Soviets lacked both the advantages and disadvantages of popular support (as illustrated by the United States in Vietnam). Additionally, the Mujahideen were fighting both for their freedom from political oppression inside Afghanistan, and against the invasion by the Soviet Union. It is fair to say then, that the Mujahideen possessed much greater “moral commitment” than the Soviet Union.
In February 1989, the Soviet Union, facing the breakdown of its state at home and an interminable conflict in Afghanistan, (which was beginning to appear similar to the United States’ conflict in Vietnam) pulled out of the country after signing the Geneva Accords. The destruction left behind the treads of the Soviet tanks was almost unfathomable. Millions had died; Afghan society was in shambles, the country’s very people were displaced, living abroad in countries across the globe (Grau). Lester Grau describes the damage caused by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan at the end of his paper entitled “The Soviet Afghan War”:
Afghanistan lost over 1.3 million people, the bulk of them civilians, in pursuit of this war…The economy was shattered, the population was scattered in neighboring refugee camps and across the globe. Society was shattered. [Afghanistan] was no longer a liberal Islamic country under secular rule. Tribal law and morals no longer controlled the rural youth. Now Afghanistan had a fundamentalist Islamic orientation and was rife with schism and lawlessness. The Mujahideen was no longer an unpaid volunteer. Now, he was the man with the gun who could take what he desired. Anarchy rocked the nation and threatened its neighbors. Pre-war Afghanistan may have had a 10% literacy rate [after the war, even lower]. Farming was at a standstill due to the loss of irrigation systems, orchards and vineyards. Mines and unexploded ordnance cluttered the fields. Warlords battled warlords as Afghanistan took the position as one of the poorest countries on the planet—the country that led the world in infant mortality and death in childbirth. The Mujahideen could claim victory, but it was a hollow victory indeed—a victory that eventually spawned the Taliban movement and the bloodiest ethnic civil war in Afghanistan’s history. (par. 63)
Not only was the Soviet-Afghan War devastating to Afghanistan but the Soviet Union, crippled further by this prolonged war, succumbed in 1990 to political collapse, officially ending the USSR (Grau). Clearly, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a brutal conflict that aptly demonstrates the destructive power of the various hot wars of the Cold War.
It is easy, from a nationalist standpoint to blame one country or another for the destruction caused by the Cold War and the resulting international turmoil that we deal with to this day, and to some degree this should be expected. However, it is clear that, despite their (perhaps, best) intentions, the United States and Soviet Union are, perhaps, fairly equal in guilt. The destruction caused by the United States in the ‘police action’ of Vietnam and its subsequent abandonment of the South Vietnamese, destroyed Vietnam’s fragile farm-based economy, left the communist and anti-communist conflict unresolved in government, deepened the social and cultural divide between the North and South Vietnamese, and even, ecologically “firebombed” the Vietnamese jungles with Agent Orange. Only now, years later, has Vietnam been able to creep slowly towards recovery. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan destroyed the fragile Afghan political structure, killed millions of Afghanis, displaced millions more, and destroyed infrastructure, education, and led to the general decay of law and order. While the battles of the Cold War may have ceased with the destruction of the Berlin Wall in 1990, the generations that follow have and must continue to lead their respective countries along the path to global recovery.

An Artistic Venture

Both of these pictures were taken at the Exploratorium in San Francisco.

On the Rights of Women

“It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.”
-Susan B. Anthony

From 1877 to 1945 American women began to stand up and demand an equal share in American democracy. Up until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, women were excluded from politics (they had no voting rights and were unable to hold public office) and, as such, they were missing an element vital to integration into American society. Other aspects of society followed with being denied the right to vote and experiencing unequal opportunity in the workforce. Women were subject to the whims of the “male-ocracy” including fashion and sex. While some women successfully distanced themselves from these restrictions (most notably the female outlaws of the west and the hardened feminists) subjugation was the norm and society took its time in reversing its medieval misogyny.
While less crucial than the right to vote or the right to equal treatment in the work force, women were in need of cultural acceptance. In general, women were believed to be weak, and submissive. This typical strain of thought came through in sex, dress, and entertainment. This prevailing opinion was voiced by Margaret Sanger “No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose conscientiously whether she will or will not be a mother” (343). While Sanger’s motives in the promotion of birth control are shady (she is a known eugenicist) her general theory is, undoubtedly, sound. While women were subject to men sexually, it can be argued that other issues like voting and work force equality were impossible. In fashion, women of the 1800’s and early 1900’s were captive too. The constricting garments of earlier eras still held prominence and domination over the functionality and freedom of the modern woman. The revolution of the Gibson Girl style and the Flapper style in the 20’s would change this restriction into functionality. Though minor, the revolution in the fashion industry was a small step forward on the road to equality for women.
In the arena of government and economics men still reigned supreme. Although, that is not to say that women were not fighting in the political arena. Women like Susan B. Anthony (aged 80 in the era of women’s liberation), Crystal Eastman, Helen Keller, and Mother Jones (to a lesser extent) fought both for women’s suffrage and, in most cases, socialism in the United States. Joining together, women like Mother Jones, created powerful workers unions that would be proponents of a socialist system. Promoting socialism made sense to the feminists, as a socialist revolution in class hierarchy meant an equalization of wealth and luxury. This equalization would allow women to achieve (theoretically) the same amount of wealth as men. Howard Zinn represents this idea, “Once the economic base of sexual oppression was corrected [by socialism], would equality follow?”(342) and “The argument became sharper as the women’s movement of the early twenties grew, as women spoke out more, organized, protested, paraded—for the vote, and for recognition as equals in every sphere…”(342) While socialism would fail in the United States women did not give up. Continuing their campaign for equality they eventually picked up the banner of the populists who would, at long last, help to give women the right to vote. With the right to vote, came other freedoms. Middle class women, inspired by the struggles of the feminists and suffragettes, flocked to higher education, “They became doctors, college professors, settlement house workers, business women, lawyers and architects. Spirited by an intense sense of purpose as well as camaraderie they set a remarkable record of accomplishment in the face of overwhelming odds.” (Zinn-William Chafe, 343). With this increase in the general level of education of women came a demand for equality in the job market. While this may still pose a problem to society (even now there are instances of discrimination based on gender), it was granted, in large part, by employers looking ever more desperately for employees.
As Virginia Woolf once said, “For most of history, Anonymous was a woman.” It is a testament to the ingenuity of both women and the feminist movement in general that so much was achieved in such a short time. From 1877 to 1945 America did away with most gender restrictions, specifically those in fashion, the work force, politics, education, and even sex. Granted our history, as Virginia Woolf reminds us, was plagued by discrimination. However, we chose to do away with our unjust misogynistic ways. Sure, it took too long to realize our mistakes, but in the end, we managed to look beyond class, party affiliation, race and even sex, and realize our national hypocrisy. In the end, we chose “liberty and justice for all” over liberty and justice for few.

A Quick Review of The Great Gatsby

There is something grand about F. Scott Fitzgerald’s work that makes even the wildest individual stoic and introspective. When I first read The Great Gatsby in my freshman year of high school I’m not sure I completely grasped the weight of Fitzgerald’s message. After re-reading and watching the film (which is, unlike most novel adaptations, quite good) I started to appreciate the complexities of Fitzgerald’s love triangle and ingenious central message.
The novel itself is narrated by Nick Carraway who describes a love affair between a man named Gatsby, (a Great War veteran) and his life long love, Daisy (a kind of clueless aristocrat). While Gatsby has, for the majority of his life, pursued Daisy romantically, he has been blocked by many (often unfortunate) circumstances. The Great Gatsby is Jay Gatsby’s last attempt to rekindle his lost relationship with the, now married, Daisy Buchanan.
To me, The Great Gatsby epitomizes all that is great and evil about American society. While Jay Gatsby made it to the highest levels of society through his own hard work, he fell victim, like many others before and after him, to the harsh mistress of money. When he finally gets Daisy’s attention again, after many years, he has nothing human left to offer her. He is forced to show her instead, not the kind and compassionate Gatsby that she remembered, but the various possessions that he has accumulated through his journey to the highest levels of American aristocracy. While Fitzgerald does a great job in showing the positive powers of “true love” he also depicts, equally well, the danger of unmitigated affection. As a high school freshman, I did not glean this information from my first read. However, the ultimately enduring part of The Great Gatsby is that the book’s characters appear to change as you do. While I see Gatsby now as haplessly soulless, and Daisy as a fiend, other people, may see the roles in a completely different way. This effect, while a simple illusion (the actual lines of the book never change), ultimately makes The Great Gatsby and enduring work. In a more general way, the real power of The Great Gatsby is not its realistic characters, its plot, or the suspense of the affair, but its truthful view of love and attraction.

My Epic Introduction

I've decided to post the introduction to my end of term paper for FYE. It's in no way finished but I'm quite proud of the introduction so far. I will post the entirety of the paper when I finish.

About the capitalist states, it doesn't depend on you whether we (Soviet Union) exist. If you don't like us, don't accept our invitations, and don't invite us to come to see you. Whether you like it our not, history is on our side. We will bury you.
-Nikita Khrushchev
Russian Soviet politician (1894 - 1971)

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
-Ronald Reagan
40th president of US (1911 - 2004)

In February of 1917 something was happening in Russia that would fundamentally alter world politics and, ultimately, determine U.S. foreign policy for the next 90 years. This event, the Bolshevik Revolution, began in the streets, among the angered labor force of the once great Russian Empire. The people would, in time, make their way to the lavish palaces of the high aristocracy tearing down centuries of accumulated excess. The revolution, pushed by popular sentiment, hunger, and oppression, would only come to a stop at the Winter Palace, where after protracted resistance; the Czar’s government would finally surrender. Here “the people” made their stand. Here, the Czarist monarchy, which had stood for generations, would meet its bitter end. Eventually, through the work of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, and Alexander Kerensky, the Russian Empire would become the United Soviet Socialist Republics.

At the same time, across an ocean, a very different revolution was taking place. In 1917, the United States stood on the precipice of war in Europe. Raking in great dividends from war loans to the Allies, and making nearly two billion dollars in war contracts with their brethren across the Atlantic, the United States was prospering. With the Russian state officially withdrawn from the war, the German divisions of the Eastern Front were pushed to the Western Front were they bolstered the German lines. Now that Germany had the “upper hand” in the Great War, U.S. involvement seem necessary for the preservation of England and France. Urged by American capitalists and justified by a series of German blunders (the Zimmerman telegram, the sinking of the Lusitania, and, in general, and Germany’s declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare) President Woodrow Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war on April 6, 1917 and officially entered the Great War on the side of the Allies. Upon entering the war, capitalism was proclaimed (unofficially) the standard in regards to American economic and political structure. It can be argued that, without the collective might of the capitalists and industrialists, the United States would never have been able to make war on Germany. After the war, President Wilson would marshal the United States into the image of “super power” and “protector of republicanism” through his famous Fourteen Points. Promising self determination to all colonies of empire, Wilson would set the standard for United States intervention. Later, Wilson’s “Open Door” would be the opening through which the United States would see the Cold War. From the end of World War II to the collapse of the Berlin Wall the United States would attempt to "make good" on Wilson’s promise at the end of the Great War: All nations have the right to determine how they will be governed.