Bridge of Spies is a highly engaging political-adventure based on a true story about a highly covert Spy swap deal between the CIA and KGB during the cold war.
Lawyer James Donovan played by Tom Hanks is tasked to provide legal representation to a Russian Spy captured on American soil. He is eventually solicited by the CIA to travel to Berlin and act on behalf of US interests ‘as a private citizen’ to negotiate an exchange with the Russians. It is of course a delicate time in Berlin as the infamous Berlin wall is swiftly being built separating the former Soviet bloc and the West.
Bridge of Spies also heralds the first time Steven Spielberg has teamed up with the Coen Brothers’ writing team. The nuance and wit of the Coen’s writing and Spielberg’s large and epic visuals work wonders. The effectiveness of this collaboration is probably no better substantiated…
Something that has been trending of late on social media is Ben Shapiro’s controversial interview with BBC journalist Andrew Neil where Shapiro cut short the TV debate. The interview has sparked the question in many leftist circles: Is this the beginning of the end for Shapiro?
Before I detail my response to this question I should add the caveat that I am a supporter of the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) community where Shapiro resides. If a video appears in my you tube feed with an interview or talk by one of the IDW constituents I normally press the ‘play’ button. I think the IDW has been tainted and misaligned by the ‘modern-left’ to be an ‘Alternative-Right’ soundboard. If one takes a look at the graphic below of the individual political positions of each member I think we can safely discard them being anything which resembles how the modern-left classifies the group:
Now returning to the question, I have a hunch that the interview probably marks the end of a potential political career for Shapiro. Regarding his social network career (his podcast and public opinion), I think he has a lost a huge amount of respect from people who admired his gusto and honesty even if they generally disagreed with his ultra conservative opinions. I would consider myself in that league of soft followers. Obviously it’s all speculative, but I do think that interview has done him a great disservice; the likes of which may not be known until it comes back to bite him real hard if he ever decides to run for public office. I always found his smugness and ‘I’m smarter than you’ lawyer brashness a turnoff, but I was willing to look past it because he did make some good arguments. But these negative traits and his immaturity were on full display. I cannot think of another IDW constituent who would act as poorly (and counter IDW intuitive) as Ben did in that interview.
Ben has since admited that he was ‘destroyed’ in that debate which was to be expected. But how much of a lifeline does that give him and how much more patience remains from moderates who had taken the time to hear him out? In my humble opinion very little on both fronts.
When I was a child, I used to play this record incessantly. (Part 1 & 2 of the audio below). Today, as a 45 year old man, it still brings a tear to my eye! It remains the most beautiful and heart-wrenching fable I have ever had the pleasure to read or listen to. On Christmas Day, as a family we flipped the LP over to listen to Bing Crosby tell the beloved Christmas Story The Small One. I recently procured the The Happy Prince in my children’s native tongue, so I can pass the story onto them (see image inset).
When I was a high octane and emotionally-charged youngin my father sat me down on occasion to watch his favourite movie Citizen Kane by Orson Welles. I normally made it to the scene where young ‘Charles’ slams his snow-sled into ‘Mr Thatcher’ (his soon to be be foster parent) until I fell into a blissful slumber on the couch whispering Rosebud…………..(Crystal ball falls from hand and breaks into pieces). Don’t mind me..I got carried away there. Unbeknownst to me for many years it was Orson all along who narrated my all time favourite short story. And of course Citizen Kane would become the ants-pants currently sitting at number 2 in my 100 favourite movies list.
I think anyone who uses social media needs to see this video especially right up until the end because in a sense the future of war most definitely will involve each one of us. If you haven’t got time to watch the whole video you can read the brief extract below.
Some may view it as war propaganda. It depends if you are talking about the derogatory word for propaganda, that lies in order to manipulate perspectives falsely and not in good faith. The way I see it is purely information.
‘(25.15) We like to think of this Internet place as just a fun consequence free place…(but) Something’s happening. I just had a four star general tell me that the cyber domain and specifically the human elements – that being us affected within that cyber domain is one of the 5 most important components to modern warfare…I believe the biggest threat right now is division. They are going to find the division within our society and they are going to try and amplify it. I would like to submit for your consideration a countermeasure….a way to get through this modern bombardment; this new battle-space that we haven’t considered before. I think if they are going to divide us, I think the way to get around this is proactive intentional unity. We all need to be more conscious of what types of content we are consuming online. What are we liking and what are we sharing. How is it affecting our minds. Is it affecting the way we treat people both online and offline. If we just extend patience and political grace but also to those we disagree these maneuvers in the cyber domain meant to divide us simply will not work. Political grace, the art of disagreeing well. This is the ultimate countermeasure.‘ – Destin Sandlin SmarterEveryDay
So modern cyber combat is coming in the form of creating and exacerbating division within our societies. Well it already has occurred as you maybe be aware by foreign meddling in elections and targeted consumer research on Facebook to exacerbate political divisions.
Political Grace (The Art of Disagreeing Well)
I couldn’t help but reflect on what Jordan Peterson said or words to the effect: ‘What you really want to do if you have an argument with someone is you help them. You want to make their argument as magnificent as you possibly can and then see if you can undermine it… Don’t strawman it, rather steelman the opposing view until it’s the best it can be and reflect on it until you respect it highly. Like how the Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky empowers his characters with immense impartiality no matter their psychological state or philosophical bent. Then and only then only can you disagree well.’ Peterson expands on this in the snippet of his lecture below.
I’m currently reading Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment and like Peterson I can attest this book flattened me. Rarely these days do I read with that kind of hopeless, helpless feeling of being completely, utterly lost in the imaginary world. Who else can create such authentic human emotions that I feel I’m experiencing all of them myself?
After the big box-office smash hit Bohemian Rhapsody, film studios must have been wiping the dust off dozens of musical homage scripts faster than they could sing: ‘We will, we will rock you!’.
Yesterday and Blinded By The Light In similar vein to the upcoming movie about the Beatles if they had never existed called Yesterday, another UK movie set to be released in June this year which pay’s tribute to Bruce Springsteen called Blinded By The Light.
IMDB Storyline: In 1987 during the austere days of Thatcher’s Britain, a teenager learns to live life, understand his family and find his own voice through the music of Bruce Springsteen.
Based on the trailer, I could relate to the teenager being swept up by the lyrical worlds of Springsteen. Coincidentally it was also 1987 when I was introduced to the Boss by a friend at school. I was in absolute awe of Springsteen’s odes to the working class, striking melodies, not to mention the superior musicianship of the E Street band.
‘I saw rock and roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen‘ – Jon Landau’s Real Paper column on Bruce Springsteen’s May 9, 1974 performance in Cambridge’s Harvard Square.
RocketMan In May this year we are set to be treated to the Elton John biopic RocketMan by the same director who polished up the Oscar Award winning – Bohemian Rhapsody. Like many of us, I was brought up on Elton John’s music as soon as I was able to hear so I need to keep my expectations in check on this one. From gleaning the trailer below, I don’t see Elton John in Taron Egerton nor hear Elton in his renditions. I hope I come around by the end credits.
Some interesting trivia detail about RocketMan from IMDB: * Elton John told Taron Egerton to not copy him too much in the film, and make his own version out of it. (So that takes care of any criticism that John’s alluring singing and presence isn’t present!) * Taron Egerton does all of his own singing in the film. * Back in 2012, Elton John revealed his top choice to play him in a biopic was Justin Timberlake.
IMDB Storyline: Rolling Thunder Revue: A Bob Dylan Story by Martin Scorsese’ captures the troubled spirit of America in 1975 and the joyous music that Dylan performed during the fall of that year. Part documentary, part concert film, part fever dream, ‘Rolling Thunder’ is a one of a kind experience, from master filmmaker Martin Scorsese.Written by Netflix.
Also Dylan will release on June 7th his much anticipated 14-CD “Rolling Thunder Revue” Live Box Set which will coincide nicely with the the Scorsese documentary on June 12.
Well at least this old nostalgic fart is licking his chops!
My brother Jonny and I sat on two wooden chairs opposite the bed hunched over our knees. Numb. The chairs had never got so much use as they did that morning nor would they get any kind of practical use again except as features in Mum’s new bedroom. Dad’s eyelids started to rise slowly and it appeared he was looking at us. We shivered and Jonny said, “That’s a bit eerie huh?”
It was in his face too, you could tell. It wasn’t him anymore. Then we realised ‘it’ is gone altogether. It wasn’t ‘him’ gone so much, but ‘it’; the heartbeat, the rhythm, the core, the point around which the wheel of our family span. All incomprehensibly gone. The ‘something’ who always put us in front of himself as if he was of no consequence. Other days may have passed by barely noticed, but this day, this hour, this minute would stick in our minds for the rest of our days.
I didn’t know then what I know now that my ground of history gave way. It was a changed world. Well it would be years later when I realised how changed it was. I remember Mum walking in, grabbing his hand, and shaking it, yelling “Come Back Colin, Come Back!”. Finally I curled up on the couch, wanting to sleep. Dad still laid in the bedroom for hours. The ringing in my ears of Mum’s plea wouldn’t go away. The replay was relentless. I would also learn that tragedy is repetitive. Offering neither the fulfillment of detachment or release from change, it would merely always be there, always terrible.
*****
Neglect was a solution I took after Dad died. I lived in a culture which turned its back on its annoying traditions. I turned my back on the family. Family seemed a vehicle of oppression. Family was like a tapestry of characters who I belonged to but didn’t quite gel. At middle age I still felt I can’t turn back. I had learnt this in my own traditions and rituals. You are probably more self conscious, a bit more vain, a bit more brittle in your youth which scars you later. But there is a lot in the culture which is nurturing. Only now in a sense I felt I betrayed Mum. I kind of turned my back on her. I didn’t give her her due. My method of problem solving is avoidance. But what I know and struggle to embrace is there is so much culture in the family. I will revisit the same place because it’s me, it’s who conceived me into this world and out of that learn to recuperate from the self obsessed world I built since then.
No other album was played as often in our house during my youth than Tarot Suite by Mike Batt (with the London Symphony Orchestra). My father adored this album like no other. When my parents entertained new friends, my father was insistent this record be played. My mother recalled, ‘he first heard it on ‘2UE’ with Mike Gibson one morning on his way to work around about the middle eighties‘. I also had this urgency to get this album out there. I played songs from Tarot Suite for school friends in the hope that they would reaffirm its ‘greatness’ and low and behold on a makeshift camping getaway they confided to me it was the bees-knees. At this time in my youth, a version of Introduction (The Journey of a Fool) from Tarot Suite was used as the theme for Sydney’s radio station, Triple M, but everyone was seemingly unaware of its origin.
Mike Batt’s second solo release on Epic, Tarot Suite, was inspired by the 22 major arcana trump cards of the tarot deck. If the listener wants to make sense of the concept of this album, the insert provides a handy description and explanation of the various cards and how they relate to the music. If not, Tarot Suite certainly holds its own as an artfully and literate collection of orchestrated rock & roll.
To this day it boggles the mind how underappreciated and unrecognized this album is. It doesn’t even have its own Wiki-page. It is scantily mentioned in Mike Batt’s wiki-bio. Also, I have read my fair share of music blog posts in my life and talked to lots of music aficionados, but all were oblivious of Tarot Suite. Only when I searched it on Google did I find some positive music reviews such as the one above. Despite that, it’s as though it never existed.
I still consider Tarot Suite one the greatest albums I have heard, and I don’t put that solely down to unbridled nostalgia. The album’s opener ‘Introduction (The Journey of a Fool’) and Imbecile (presented below) are probably in my top 20 favorite songs. Two other standouts on this album are Lady of the Dawn and Run Like the Wind. Overall, the album is a real trip when listened to in its entirety. To me the album has a medieval-mythological movie soundtrack feel.
To give you just a small taste of the magnificence and originality of this album; below is the riveting Imbecile sung with full gusto by the much-maligned singer Roger Chapman:
I would normally put ‘Related Articles’ in this section of my post, but there just isn’t anything noteworthy available on this album. It remains perplexing to me and will continue to be so I gather until I rest my weary head.
Some Navy members referred to their vocation as the ‘Puss’. Personally, I found it an ill-bred term because I was a stuck-up son a of a bitch. But I cackled when a drillie berated our whinging group, “Build a bridge people – Get over it! The Puss’ bus is for us!” Drillies appeared to seamlessly interweave between the roles of untamed, fearless autocrat and Monty Python comedian.
One such Drillie SGT Tucker barked fatuous rhyming sayings from his verbal artillery. “Don’t panic flight mechanic” and “No danger park ranger”. The way I saw it, parade trainers were born into this. The way you couldn’t imagine SGT Hartman in Full Metal Jacket do anything else.
Two great public intellectual heavyweights met last night for their much anticipated debate: Happiness: Capitalism v Marxism. In January this year just prior to the announcement of their debate, I wrote a post about Zizek and Peterson titled: Chomsky on Žižek and Peterson’s ‘Logos’ and ‘I act as if God exists’. So if you would like a smidgen of background leading into this event, then you can read that.
Firstly, it was assumed that Peterson would be arguing for how Capitalism can bring forth the most human happiness and Zizek would argue that Marxism brings forth the most happiness. However this was not the case exactly as Peterson stated in his first rebuttal of the evening, which I will discuss shortly. Overall it was a good-natured, humorous and mature discussion which was exemplified by Zizek’s remarks after he received ravenous applause at the end of his introduction:
‘(1:12:20) Please don’t do this…I hope you Jordan agree with me why we are here engaged in this debate don’t take it as a hit (?) competition..we are desperately trying to confront serious problems.’
Jordan Peterson stated in his opening of his first rebuttal: ‘(1:14:00) I would say that Dr Zizek focused more on the problem of Capitalism and the problems of happiness than on the utility of Marxism…and that actually comes as a surprise to me.’
JP (1:39:30) ‘You’re a strange Marxist to have a conversation with…You’re a character..it’s a sign of originality and a certain amount of moral courage…you appeal to young people the way outsider intellectual rebels appeal to young people. Why is it you came to presume…that the promotion of Marxism was appropriate? There is enough originality in your body of thought and lateral thinking their isn’t any reason why you should be allied with a doctrine which is 170 years old.’
SZ (1:41:50) ‘I still admire in Marx…I think his political critique of economy and capital and so on is a tremendous achievement.‘
If you want to get to the crux of the debate where they throw less caution to the wind then I recommend you watch from 1:46:00 onward. Certainly their differing world-views; namely Zizek’s propensity for Marxist critique of Capitalism and Peterson’s scathing critique of post-modernism and neo-marxist ideology are probed in some detail.
For instance Peterson’s principal concern regarding Zizek’s support of Marxism philosophy is best encapsulated here:
JP: ‘Any support for Marxism especially those directed to those who are young is likely to be read as support for the most radical and revolutionary proclivities…by trying to rescue the sheep you’ve sort of invited the dragon into the house‘.
And rhetorically Zizek puts to Peterson:
SZ: ‘You designate your enemy or what you are fighting against Post Modern neo-Marxism. Where did you find this data? I don’t know them. Give me some names or whatever. Where are the Marxist here?…. They are for equality and cultural struggle.’
Without casting my own partial opinion based on limited understanding about who I feel was the victor (which really isn’t the point of these conversations anyhow) I will leave you instead with the final words from each speaker about the ‘one thing’ they hope people take away from this debate:
JP: I hope they leave this debate with a belief in the power of communication of people with different views and they can come out of that communication improved.’
SZ: ‘I hope sincerely we made some people think and to reject this simple opposition…Please if you are a leftist don’t feel obliged to be politically correct. Don’t be afraid to think.’
Where I think this debate was most illuminating and entertaining was on each speaker’s psychological interpretation of ‘happiness’ and how its significance affects us profoundly as individuals. I hope you enjoy this discussion as much as I did.
‘(1:03:00) You know yourself by watching, paying attention. That’s why the Egyptians worship the Horus, the eye as a God…..it’s watching like you’re a snake. A snake is a symbol of wisdom in part…I suppose because encounters with snakes if they are not fatal they make you wise. A snake watches cold-bloodedly with no emotional reaction just to see what’s there. Symbolically speaking it doesn’t allow what is wanted or desired to interfere with what is observed. So you watch yourself like that as if you don’t know who you are…….You also have to be willing to undertake that as an adventure. It’s a hell of a thing to bear that kind of responsibility. It takes a person out of the ordinary. It takes them out of themselves. There’s an alienation and isolation that goes along with that and a great sorrow. But there’s deep meaning to be had in it and there isn’t anything better that you can do.’
Bridge of Spies is a highly engaging political-adventure based on a true story about a highly covert Spy swap deal between the CIA and KGB during the cold war.
Observation Blogger 