Topics that lead to conversations that go deep into the night…
In honor of my attempt to spend today playing golf here in DC despite the rain-soaked forecasts, I offer up my weekend LINKS. Let’s take a minor break from SYTYCD and spread ourselves out a little:
Obama vs. McCain:
Although I hesitate to put my own political beliefs out there, those who know me know that I’ve been an ardent Obama-believer since Day 1. Nevertheless, one of my favorite aspects about politics is the analysis of each candidate’s pros and cons, and there are plenty for both Obama and McCain. In any case, here’s a couple of articles from today that come from both sides of the spectrum:
McCain and Obama: Two Different Kinds of Men (RCP): What are some potential downfalls of each?
August is the Time to Take Obama Down (Fox): Two Fox analysts argue McCain has been too soft!
Running While Black (NYTimes): The Smearing of Obama
Hillary Clinton:
I wasn’t the biggest Hillary fan, but sometimes she just feels like a comfortable shirt. It will be very interesting to see how her speech at the Convention will be taken. In reality, despite all our talk about Obama’s cult following, his rockstar status, Hillary in her way has her own equally fervent followers.
Clinton Asks Not to Be Nominated (NY Daily News): Her delegates – what will happen?
Phillies:
Ah, back to my roots and my real interests – sports and in particular, the Phillies. I am, if nothing else, a baseball fan. If you love baseball (any team), let’s talk – leave a comment! The Manny trade? Check. Bay in Boston? Check. Fantasy leagues? Check check check. But for now, this zinger from Bissinger.
Where Losing is Everything (NYTimes): The losing culture in Philly.
Video Games:
And finally, my favorite fighting game of all time, not because I played it the most (that would go to Street Fighter II Turbo) or because I was any good at it, but because I love the idea of fighting with samurai and ninja, sees a rebirth on the Wii and PS2.
Samurai Shodown II and Anthology Come to Wii (Kotaku): Yesssss!
Coming Up Soon:
My top 5 performances on SYTYCD this season!
More on the Phillies and sports in general.
Let’s step into our way-back machine, a time machine that I have made out of a cardboard box, and let’s turn the dial to “The West Wing“.
Everyone remembers this show, right? If you’re a liberal, then you particularly remember Bartlet as “the president we wish we had,” at least for the first four seasons (we won’t be remembering the last three seasons with quite so much fondness). Maybe some day I’ll write something on Barack Obama and whether he’s the true life Bartlet, but let’s leave that question to another day.
Here’s my question for today: What was your SINGLE FAVORITE EPISODE for the show? That’s right, just one episode.
Very very difficult for me to pick just one. Like many others, I have the DVD set for the first four seasons, and if I were to rank the seasons, I’d probably go (1) Season Two, (2) Season One, (3) Season Three, (4) Season Four. The reason I’d switch Season One and Two on my ranking – well, there are two: Moira Kelly and schmaltzy writing in spots. For example, and yes, it’s just the pilot, but Bartlet’s speech at the end “With the clothes on their back…” is a little cringe-worthy. There are others. And I think Moira Kelly was is was a good actress, but either the writing or her stress levels on the show let her down.
SO. One episode. Your favorite. Which one? Well, based on which episodes I have watched the most from the DVD set, there are three candidates for me:
1. In the Shadow of Two Gunmen, specifically Part Two. This was the two-part Season Two premiere, during which Josh recovers from being shot at Roslin.
2. Celestial Navigation, Season One, where Josh talks to the university about the administration’s efforts to nail down Justice Mendoza.
3. Noel, Season Two, where Josh works through his lingering issues with the gun shot during Christmas.
(Hmmmm… Looks like I like the Josh episodes? Didn’t think about that before.)
In the end, I have to go with In the Shadow, Part Two. Why? Something about seeing the Bartlet candidacy come together from absolutely nothing, or at least only a minor town hall-style meeting in New Hampshire with locals eating jello and chicken. Watching the staffers put together a winning primary strategy. Seeing how “What’s next?” was already woven into the fabric of the show by the writers, even by Episode 1 of Season 1 (wait until after Bartlet’s speech at the end). It all just worked for me.
What about for you? Which episode worked for you the best?
I recently finished American Brutus, a reconstruction of sorts of the Lincoln assassination by John Wilkes Booth. The author, Michael Kauffman, references some never-used sources, namely many original documents and transcripts from the “Trial of the Century”. His goal, as he puts it, was to debunk some of the popularized myths surrounding the assassination, and to attempt to get behind Booth’s motivation for shooting Lincoln. Not as easy as it sounds, actually, getting at his motivation. One of the theories going around (which I had actually subscribed to, for lack of better knowledge) was that Booth was simply a deranged individual, with broken dreams of Southern glory. While this may have played a part, Booth wasn’t quite the deranged person he was made out to be. I’ll leave it to you to read the book – a surprisingly quick read for a 400 pager – but these are what I found to be most interesting:
1. A Day May Have Made All The Difference.
Lincoln, in the 1860s, was quite the controversial figure. He, along with his Secretary of State, William Seward (of Seward’s Folly fame), were seen in the South as tyrants, unwilling to allow their succession. Lincoln also made some interesting decisions during the war, namely suspending habeas corpus and allowing many confederate supporters to be detained without cause. Sounds somewhat familiar.
And it wasn’t just the South. New York was a haven for confederate sympathizers, and Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Herald, had openly written of the need to kill Lincoln!
Given this, it’s not hard to see how Booth came to the decision to kill Lincoln. The plan had actually begun as a plot to kidnap him and use him as leverage for the return of confederate prisoners, but it eventually became the assassination “plot”. Booth, a well known stage actor, had been in many Shakespearean plays, particularly Julius Caesar. As we all know from having read that play in high school or college, Caesar was killed on the Ides by Brutus, who believed he was doing so for the greater good.
Flash forward to 1865. April 13 was the Ides of April, and Booth had planned on killing Lincoln on that day to provide the overt symbolism of Lincoln as the Caesarean tyrant (remember “Sic semper tyrannis!” or “Thus always to tyrants!”). Booth would be seen as the hero, who acted for the greater good of the South and indeed America. However, he missed his chance and had to kill him on April 14… which was Good Friday. The media latched onto the Jesus Christ analogy instead, and Lincoln became the savior and Booth the detested terrorist. Who knows what might have happened had Booth acted on the 13th.
2. Mary Surratt was the first woman put to death by the federal government.
In fact, many were later outraged that Andrew Johnson did not commute her sentence due to “her gender and her age.” Even worse, in my mind, is that it looks like Mary Surratt may not have been so central to the plot.
3. Dr. Samuel Mudd (“thy name is Mudd”) was most likely innocent.
The details are better left to the book, but Dr. Mudd may have gotten a bum rap in this historical event, forever condemning his family name to children’s stories. How could that have happened? See number 4.
4. John Wilkes Booth was one wily, sneaky, crafty conspirator.
He may have completely fabricated his “conspiracy” through artful (and devious) uses of handwritten notes, staging of appearances with “co-conspirators”, and letters stashed with his family members. For example, he wrote a note to Andrew Johnson saying “Don’t wish to disturb you, are you home?” Problem is, Johnson wasn’t even acquainted with Booth. However, this note cast doubt on Johnson’s innocence, particularly during his impeachment hearings. Or, Booth would go on a horse ride with another person, making sure he was seen by townsfolk, and making it look like in hindsight that they had been mapping out escape routes. Crafty!
Bottom line: Great book. Is Kauffman 100% correct with his theories and conclusions? Probably not. But it was an educational read nonetheless.
