River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt’s Darkest Journey

I read River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt’s Darkest Journey back in January. It was the selection for my book club, the first non-fiction selection we’ve read since I joined the club last April. The book tells the story of how TR, after losing his run for president as the nominee for the Bull Moose Party, decided to go to South America to do some exploration. Once he was there, he was persuaded to traverse the River of Doubt (at the time, this was an unchartered body of water – no one knew where the river fed). The narrative describes the hardships of the journey – the expedition did not have the proper equipment or enough supplies; there were also the problems of insects, waterfalls, angry natives, restless hired hands, sickness, and injury.

The book was easy to read for a non-fiction book. There was a lot of discussion of the natural world, which could have been boring but was expressed fairly well (I believe the author is a writer for National Geographic). But I thought the story was a bit boring and I found the author’s writing style to be very academic sounding at times; she included a lot of quotes that detracted from the flow of the book.

It was interesting to read how TR treated others and how others treated him. I guess it should be expected that a former American president would receive some special treatment, but it was disheartening to read about how everyone else on the journey had to sacrifice in an attempt to make TR more comfortable. They packed ridiculous supplies (such as a wooden chest of over 50 different spices) so the former president would be pleased. Everyone had to sacrifice the bulk of their personal items, whereas the President was able to keep many of his hardback books so he could be entertained on the journey.

Everyone in the book club really liked the book, but they seem to like most of the books we read (they ask good questions, but they do not ever state that they dislike a book – I am assuming that is because they do not want to offend the person who selected the book). Overall, I give the book 3 out of 5 stars.

Housing

I read this op-ed piece yesterday in the Richmond Time-Dispatch. The whole piece was an explanation of one part of the current housing crisis in America (this article is specific to Richmond). It discusses the inexperience of many people who were looking for mortgages and how they agreed to adjustable interest rate loans. The interest rates on these loans were initially low, but now they are rising dramatically, causing many to be unable to pay their monthly mortgage payments. However, the most interesting part of the article to me was the following:

THE NUMBER of subprime home-purchase loans in Metro Richmond increased by 234 percent between 2000 and 2004. These high-cost loans are not evenly distributed. In 2005, 52 percent of all loans made in Richmond-area Census tracts with an African-American population greater than 80 percent were high-cost; only 9.2 percent of the loans made in equivalent white census tracts were.

These disparities put the area’s African-American families and neighborhoods at much greater risk for foreclosure, with all the personal and community devastation that implies.

Foreclosures in Virginia rose by 49 percent last year, with subprime loans leading the way. One study projects that one in five subprime loans made in the Richmond area in 2006 will default.

Were African-Americans singled out for these subprime loans, with the “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” idea that because they were black they would be unable to pay these loans back? Were African-Americans less educated then their white counterparts in what to look for in a mortgage loan, in how to understand what they would or would not be able to pay on a monthly basis (especially on an adjustable rate mortgage where the monthly payment can change)? Have African-Americans been discriminated against for so long that their financial solvency is less then whites, and they are therefore forced to take out an adjustable rate mortgage because it is the only way they can afford to buy their own homes?

Just some questions to discuss.

Set

This weekend, Tim and I had a game night, as we were stuck waiting at the Holocaust Museum (there was a private party, and a representative of the museum had to be there – usually, another person does this, but she was out of town, so Tim got the job). We played Mexican Train dominoes (thanks Jes and Seth) and then tried to play Set (which I had bought earlier in the week).

The object of the game is to group cards in sets of three based on their similarities and/or differences in 4 different categories (shape, number, color, and shading). Either the set of 3 cards has each category all the same or all different (for example, all 3 cards in a set must have the same number of shapes (e.g. 2 shapes on each card) or they must have a different number of shapes on each card (1 shape on 1 card, 2 shapes on 2 cards, 3 shapes on 3 cards). You cannot have a set with 2 cards with 2 shapes on them and one card with one shape on it. And you have to think this through for each category listed above. Now, I’m not very good at this game – it requires a spatial reasoning ability that I just don’t have. I was first introduced to it by Heather who is really good at it – she would see the sets as the dealer was laying out the cards. However, I guess I’ve gotten better at it over time (although I haven’t played it in years), because my mind intuitively “sees” many sets without conscious thought.

I tried explaining the game to Tim, and we read the examples, but he is just not getting it (and is becoming increasingly frustrated). We had to put it away on Saturday night. He did take the game out on his own on Sunday morning and tried again. He got better, but it is still not clicking for him, and he is pretty smart. Does anyone have any suggestions for explaining this game? I don’t remember how I learned it and I don’t remember anyone explaining it to me; I just remember watching (incidentally, we now have a running joke around the house: whenever Tim cannot do something or asks a silly question he follows-up with, “Well, what did you expect? I cannot even master Set”).

Serbia

I read with interest this article during lunch today:

The United Nations’ highest court on Monday exonerated Serbia of direct responsibility for genocide in Bosnia in the early 1990s, but ruled that it failed to prevent the slaughter of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica . . .

It was the first time a state had been tried for genocide, outlawed in a U.N. convention in 1948 after the Nazi Holocaust, although individuals have been convicted in genocide cases linked to massacres in Bosnia and Rwanda.

Is it possible to hold a state responsible for the actions of its citizens? I don’t know. The Serbian government did not act to stop the killings and it did seem to encourage them, but did it force people to actually commit these atrocities? Shouldn’t there be some sort of individual responsibility (of course, the court is trying individuals as well)? On the other hand, perhaps the state’s lackadaisical response allowed individuals to proceed with acting on their hatred, knowing that there would not be consequences. Presuming that Serbia was found guilty, how could the court punish it? Does Serbia have the resources to pay reparations? Would the reparations even matter to those families who lost people due to the genocide?

Babel

Tim and I managed to catch Babel this weekend as well (I told you we were going to make a push through some Oscar-nominated movies). I actually went to the video store to rent this, because we didn’t think we could get it from Netflix in time, as it was released last Tuesday. I hadn’t been to the video store in so long that we owed money from late returns from when the price of renting movies was substantially lower. The clerk was amazed at this. Anyway, back to Babel.

As you probably know, this is an ensemble piece that tells three separate stories: one takes place in Calfornia and Mexico and deals with a Mexican nanny left to care for two American children while the children’s parents are out of the country – the nanny is trying to go to her son’s wedding in Mexico, but the parents do not come back in time for her to attend; the second story takes place in Morocco where the above-mentioned parents are vacationing and where the wife gets accidently shot by 2 young brothers who are playing with their newly acquired rifle; the third story takes place in Japan and deals with a deaf teenager who is trying to come to grips with being a teenager, a deaf mute, and the suicide of her mother. This last scenario is connected to the other plots in that the Japanese girl’s father went hunting in Morocco and gave the aforementioned rifle to his hunting guide who then sold it to the father of the boys. As you can see, these stories are tenuously connected at best, but are mostly three distinct narratives.

Through a lot of misunderstandings, bad choices, bad luck, and some racism, the only people who make out in the end are the American couple. The Mexican nanny gets to her son’s wedding, but on her return trip, winds up getting deported. The Japanese girl begins to work through her grief, but we’re not sure where that is headed. One Moroccon boy winds up dead and the other arrested for shooting the American woman.

It was a well-shot and well-acted movie; I thought the musical score was excellent, although there were far, far too many musical montage scenes. Like The Departed, this movie could have had about an hour of footage cut out and it would have made no difference to the plot. Better yet, this movie could have been made into 3 separate films, adding a little more detail to each of the 3 stories. The movie did not raise too many profound questions to me except that Americans get their way wherever they are. And I think we already knew that. I’m going to give this movie 3 out of 5 stars. I don’t think it was worthy of a best-picture nomination.

Hops

As I mentioned in a previous entry, Tim and I went out Friday night to see The Queen with a stop for a quick dinner beforehand. Since we were forced to go to the Southside for dinner, our options for food were limited to chain restaurants (the Southside is primarily suburban). Anyway, Tim has always liked Hops, so we thought we would go there, as it was across the street from the movie theatre. Hops brews their own beer and had some good happy hour specials (beer for only $1.75/pint). We were quickly seated (of course, we were there at about 5:45, and the only really crowded place was the bar).

I ordered a chicken breast with a goat cheese, tomato, basil, and corn relish on top of it. It came with a side of black beans and rice. I liked the cheese/salsa relish, but thought the chicken breast was a bit dry (it was also very thin but very large – too much to eat). The black beans seemed slightly congealed, but not awful. I mostly just mixed the rice up with the cheese/salsa relish and was fairly content. Tim had half a club sandwich and a bowl of potato soup. He said the turkey on the club was very good and fresh; it looked like thick slices off a real bird (like Thanksgiving) to me. He just told me (he is sitting next to me as I write this) that the soup was really good – peppery which he liked. He did think there was too much cheese in it (actually, he got a big string caught in his goatee, which was kind of funny).

Service was fine although we had different people seat us, take our order, and bring our food. They mixed up our checks, but fixed it quickly. Overall, I give Hops 2.5 out of 5 stars.

Bel Canto

I finished Bel Canto several weeks ago, but just haven’t had time to write about it yet (I am trying to write something for each book I read in 2007). I really liked this book a lot. The story takes place in an unnamed Latin American country. The leaders of this country are trying to woo a Japanese businessman to invest in their country, so they decide to honor him with a banquet on his birthday. Many dignitaries attend, including a world-reknowned opera singer who will perform for the group. The Japanese businessman only comes to the party because he adores opera and especially admires this singer. After the soprano performs, the mansion is suddenly overtaken by a group of terrorists, and everyone is held hostage for several weeks. The book investigates the relationships that develop between all the people in the mansion (kidnappers and kidnappees alike) as they try to survive and create lives in their microcosm of a society.

The most interesting character in the novel, at least to me, is Gen, who is the personal assistant/translator for the Japanese businessman. Gen acts as a translator for everyone in the house (including the terrorists), as there are many foreigners being held captive. He helps people communicate about basic necessities like health care and food, but also helps in other matters – for example, he helps one of the Russians express his love to the opera singer, and he develops a relationship with one of the terrorists (Carmen) because she asks him to teach her English. Carmen and Gen develop a more intimate relationship as the novel progresses, as do the Japanese businessman and the opera singer. One of the interesting aspects of the novel is how almost every character seems happier at being in the hostage situation then they were when living their “real” lives. Some experience passionate love, all come to appreciate music more, some find that they have hidden talents (the young terrorist who discovers he has a natural gift for singing), some finally get to express their personal desires (the priest who finally has his own flock to minister to, the other Japanese man who suddenly is an expert piano player because he opera singer needs an accompaniest), etc.

Of course, the novel ends in tragedy, as the government eventually tires of negotiating for the release of the hostages. I thought the writing in the novel was exquisite; it flows beautifully and reads like an opera (which I believe was the author’s intention). A lot of action happens at the beginning of the novel, then we move into longer, slower sections where relationships develop, then we come to a tension, and denoument. Lastly, there is an epilogue, where we have a sort of happy ending added for our main characters. I also liked that the author used a distanced voice to describe the action. I thought this added to the believability and beauty of the action and the characters.

The book is sad, though, and leads you to ponder how your existence can change just by chance meetings; to also ponder how life can be wasted (like Carmen, or the terrorist who had the beautiful voice, or even the more “advantaged” people – coming to life because they lived in this unrealistic bubble of time and place).

I made Tim read this book, and he did not like it very much, mostly due to the lack of action moving the plot. I didn’t see this as a detriment, but wanted to give you a second opinion. This is the best book I have read so far this year, and I recommend it. I give it 4.5 out of 5 stars.

The Queen

Last night, Tim and I went and saw The Queen, in our last dash to try and see some Oscar-nominated films prior to the big night. We did this last year as well, and I am not sure why. Around mid-February, we suddenly have this urge to see as many of these films as possible, even though we are inevitably disappointed that other films did not get nominated. Friday we had to leave straight from work in order to muddle through traffic and get to the Southside in time for a quick bite to eat before the movie started at 6:55 (we’re too old and tired on Friday evenings to try for the late show).

The Queen stars Helen Mirren (who I love from Prime Suspect on PBS), and tells the story of Queen Elizabeth II and her reaction (or lack thereof) after the death of Princess Diana. If you recall (and you should unless you were in a coma when this happened), there was an overwhelming public display of grief and remorse over the passing of Princess Diana. Many British citizens felt betrayed by the Queen because the royal family did not issue a statement or take any action upon Princess Diana’s death. The newly elected Prime Minister, Tony Blair, reading the pulse of the nation, assists the Queen in seeing that she must do something to acknowledge her subjects’ feelings about the death. And that’s the whole film; not a lot of action or substantive plot.

The film really deals with the juxtaposition of generations, I think. Queen Elizabeth represents a generation of stoic individuals who hide their grief (and basically all emotions) behind a sheen of what is considered proper. I think part of it is a repercussion of living through World War II (especially in Britain): people had to keep their chin up and believe in themselves and their leaders in order to survive admidst all the grief and loss. The other generation is more modern: people express their emotions, go to therapy, and don’t hold anything back. In the movie, the Queen believes that the royal family’s grieving should be done in private. She also firmly believes that the public’s feelings will ebb quickly and they will act “properly” again. Much to her chagrin, they do not, and she has to come to terms with the fact that the world and people have changed; that emotions are not repressed any more, but freely expressed and acted upon. She also must deal with the fact that her subjects do not unconditionally love her.

I want to side with the Queen, being a relatively emotionally repressed person myself. And I actually think that she is correct: the people who knew Diana should be able to grieve privately if they wish (the Queen also had Princes William and Harry with her (Diana’s children) so she wanted to keep them out of the spotlight as well). But the film also shows a different reason for why the Queen and the royal family acted the way they did – they just hated Diana and how she “tarnished” the royal family’s image. The movie makes it seem as if the Queen did not care that this woman (mother to her grandchildren) was dead – she and the king took the princes hunting every day for days following the accident, she refused to fly the flag over Buckingham Palace at half-mast because it was improper, etc. I wish people were more emotionally restrained, but not to the point of indifference.

All the acting in the film was wonderful; Mirren was especially good – she seemed like the Queen both physically and personality-wise. I think she is deserving of the Best Actress award but I do wonder how much easier it is to play a character that exists – you can study the person’s mannerisms, voice, walk, etc. I would imagine it would be more difficult to create a believeable yet unique fictional character, but what do I know. I remember discussing this with Stephanie when Ray came out: we both though Jamie Foxx did a wonderful job imitating Ray Charles, but is imitating the same as acting?

The writing, directing, and editing all were good. The only shortcoming was the story – it just wasn’t extremely interesting. Perhaps if I was British or if I gave a damn about Princess Diana’s death (either then or now)? I’ll give this film 4 out of 5 stars, mostly for execution.

Hillary Clinton

Yesterday, I read an interesting Op-Ed piece in the Richmond Times-Dispatch by David Brooks, a commentator for the New York Times (I realize this was originally printed in the NY Times on 2/18, but it only made its way to our paper yesterday). In the piece, Brooks talks about how he re-examined many of Clinton’s speeches concerning her vote for invading Iraq in light of recent calls for her to apologize for assenting to the invasion. These were the paragraphs I found the most interesting:

On the one hand, she rejected the Bush policy of pre-emptive war. On the other hand, she also rejected the view that the international community ’should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.’ Drawing on the lessons of Bosnia, she said sometimes the world had to act, even if the big powers couldn’t agree.

She sought a third way: more U.N. resolutions, more inspections, more diplomacy, with the threat of force reserved as a last resort. She was triangulating, but the Senate resolution offered her a binary choice. She voted yes in order to give Powell bipartisan leverage at the U.N.

This is how she’s always explained that vote, and I confess that until now, I’ve regarded her explanation as a transparent political dodge. Didn’t everyone know this was a war resolution? But now, having investigated her public comments, I think diplomatic leverage really was on her mind.

I never felt that Clinton thought she made an error and thence, no apology was forthcoming. Did she (and everyone else who voted for the war) make an error? Can we excuse them if they apologize and/or if they end the war as soon as possible? Were they fooled like everyone else? What is a politician’s responsibility to the people he/she represents?

At the time, I thought Clinton was trying to find a middle-ground as she was (in my opinion) quickly moving to the right, as the nation overwhelmingly supported Bush and his right-wing nutjobs (and she wanted to maintain/increase her power). Now I think that perhaps she was acting moderately but forced to choose one side or the other and not follow the course she actually thought was the wisest.

But the reason I wanted to write this post on Clinton is that I don’t understand why most people hate her. Well, I understand, but it makes no sense. Yes, she is strong, domineering, and, in my opinion, practices realpolitik – but all modern successful American politicians have to do this – they have to be shrewd, they have to change tactics, they have to adjust to their audiences and be nuanced in their responses. We may not like it but, apparently, that is what we want to hear. I believe the reason people don’t like her is because she does all of this and she is a woman. She is a hard-nosed bitch, but I think any woman has to be in order to succeed in a male-dominated political world.

At my old job at a conservative brokerage firm, the only woman who ever made it to the executive committee of the business was my former boss. And she made it because she was a bitch – not a horrible person, but strong, smart, confident, and not willing to play nice and meek to get what she wanted (which is what a lot of women do – I know that I have done it). People listened when she spoke and they trusted what she said, even when they disliked her or were scared of her. Interestingly, she always hated Hillary Clinton (I hope it was because of Clinton’s political views).

I just think most moderate Republicans should like Clinton – she is fairly moderate in her policies, she usually moderates her rhetoric to fit the popular view, and she is very intelligent. I just think people cannot wrap their minds around a woman leader (and then there is that irrational hatred of all things Clinton).

Departed

Last night, as mentioned previously, Tim and I went and saw the movie Departed, at the Byrd. If you haven’t heard, it is currently nominated for Best Picture at the upcoming Oscar’s. It is a somewhat typical Martin Scorcese movie in that there is a good amount of violence and it deals with the Mafia (in this case, the Irish Mob in Boston). The movie juxtaposes the stories of two cops – one a rising star who is really an informant for the mob, and one who is recruited to work deep undercover within the same mob circle (and is basically denied a life or an existence other than his undercover life). I believe the undercover cop’s story is the most interesting – he loses his identity and is on the edge – he has to fully embody his character as a mobster or he will become suspect and potentially be killed (I know, this story has been done a trillion times before – see Donnie Brasco or the old TV show Wiseguy). Only two other people know that he is truly a cop; everyone else believes he is a mobster. I thought both Leonardo diCaprio (as the undercover cop) and Matt Damon (as the informant) gave good performances. The ending is great – people die and not the ones you expect. It begs to ask the old questions – does anyone’s life matter in the big picture? do the ends justify the means? do you get what you deserve?

I liked the movie, although at least a quarter of it could have been cut without making a discernible difference in the film as a whole. There was some violence, but not as excessive as say Goodfellas. Overall, I’ll give it 4 out of 5 stars. I’m still thinking that Little Miss Sunshine is going to take the best picture award. I think Tim and I are going to try a movie marathon this weekend and catch the other 3 best picture nominees (The Queen, Sands of Iwo Jima, and Babel). I’ll keep you posted.