Syrian Airstrikes

There was a gas attack in Syria, but who did it is a little unclear:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/syrias-latest-chemical-attack/story?id=46617872

After apparently having some good intel that the Syrian regime under Assad was responsible, Trump launched 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase:
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-airstrike-20170406-story.html

What does this trike mean for relations in Syria, with Russia, across the globe, and with politics at home?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/us/politics/trump-syria-airstrikes.html?_r=0

The Food of the Future

The industrialized world produces a vast amount of food.  During the middle ages, over 90% of the population were farmers; now, that number is less than one percent, and and yet they feed hundreds of times more people.  Even so, there are problems with food supplies all over the world, and these problems are probably only going to grow.  As the climate changes and sea levels rise, as droughts and natural disasters increase in frequency, it seems likely that our food supply will become more and more uncertain.

What can we do to counteract this?  Many projects aim to increase farming efficiency, ranging from borderline barbaric treatment of animals to vertical farming to new types of higher-yield crops.  One argument that I've heard supporting vegetarianism is that it takes about eight pounds of, for instance, corn to produce one pound of beef from the cow that eats it.  Would it not be more efficient if everyone only ate these higher efficiency foods?  It could help, but even putting aside personal opinions on going meatless, there are nutritional and economic issues to this.

However, there is another high efficiency food source rich in nutrients and easy to raise.  The only problem is a far greater societal rejection than that of vegetarianism, because this food source is insects.

Various insects are already regarded as delicacies around the world: an estimated 2 billion people worldwide partake of insects as part of their diet.  In most western countries, however, that number is almost zero, and shows no real signs of changing anytime soon.

Insects such as grasshoppers reproduce extremely rapidly, reach maturity quickly, require very little space, are high in protein and other nutrients, and have a feed-to-food ratio of less than two.  In addition, they produce little waste, no methane (cow farts are actually a rather high source of the greenhouse gas), eat a wide variety of feeds, and are very cheap.  The only downside is an almost complete lack of demand in the western world.

For now, sure, maybe insects are neglected as a food source because of a social stigma.  But as time goes on, that could change.  In many places throughout the US, snacks made from a variety of insects are being sold, and such things are already commonplace in many Asian and African countries.  Who knows what could happen with what we want to eat, or even what we need to eat?

What Political Polarization has Wrought

There is a troubling trend that I have recently been noticing among politics and news in the past months.  More and more, people on both sides of the political spectrum are building echo chambers and refusing to give credence to anything that contradicts their worldview.  No amount of evidence or reasoning will be able to pry them from their holes, as they resist with cries of "fake news," "librul tears," and "deplorables."  Because yes, both sides are doing this, but only one side is in power right now.  And that makes this situation incredibly dangerous.

Before I go on, allow me to digress into "fake news," a term I see popping up more and more.  The term fake news had a correct, accurate, and useful meaning for about two weeks, then it rapidly morphed into what means today.  What fake news did and should mean is entirely fabricated, clickbait articles manufactured by illegitimate news sources to generate traffic on social media to their sites.  What it now and should not mean is "I get to ignore this piece of news from a main-stream source because it contradicts my views."

The vast majority of still legitimate news sources will have a bias, but that is a far cry from reporting objectively false information.  This method of simply ignoring everything you don't want to consider exacerbates the problem outlined above.  Again, both sides have fallen and are falling into this trap, but fake news agencies themselves have noted that certain types of conservatives are more likely to "fall for" these articles, and therefore write and target them at those demographics.

Using this process of delegitimizing the media and listening to only sources that support their views, supporters of everyone from Obama to Clinton to Sanders but especially Trump are able to maintain support for their candidates no matter what actually happened/is happening in the real world.  And it is this that is so incredibly dangerous, because this is how tyranny begins.  When you have a popular base in a democracy that will support you essentially no matter what you do, it stops being a democracy and begins becoming a dictatorship.

I can absolutely understand why many people voted for Trump.  He said a lot of good things that often needed to be said.  In the end, for me, that was outweighed by everything else about him.  For many others in different situations, the opposite is true, and that makes perfect sense.  What I cannot understand and what repulses and scares me is not Trump supporters, but Trump followers.  I do not understand those people who tune out everything criticizing their "god-emperor," who blindly attack all opponents of their candidate, who do and probably will continue to follow and exalt Trump no matter what he does and no matter what is revealed about him.  It is these people that are a threat to society, the nation, and democracy itself.

If Trump were not actively ignoring or even reneging on so many of his campaign promises, this would not have to be said.  As it is, it must be.  Anyone, Trump supporter or not, who finds themselves unable to consider that they might be wrong, that their views might not be correct, that someone else may in fact have a better or the correct way to do things, is fundamentally un-American and undemocratic.

A Mile In Ma's Shoes

          In class, we have talked a lot about interpreting what we see of the real world as described by Jack.  His views and style of description are certainly not normal, and sometimes leave us guessing as to what could really be going on.  The core disconnect here is, I think, that Jack is essentially unable to put himself in the perspective of others.  This is, perhaps, something that every five-year-old is prone to, but Jack's specific situation likely exacerbates it.
          There are many examples of Jack simply not being able to empathize with others.  Much of the time, he is simply unable to understand the actions and reactions of others--for instance, his frequent bafflement at the rules of "politeness" and "manners" in the real world.  In some cases, though it sounds rather harsh, I feel that if Jack were simply to put some thought into things, he would understand them much better.  It is, however, quite likely that a large component of Jack's lack of empathy could be due to simply lacking the correct life experiences to be able to relate to others on any meaningful level.  From looking at this idea in a vacuum, it would seem that the person Jack would most be able to relate to would be Ma.  And, to an extent, this is true.  But there are still core disconnects between their perspectives that Jack makes little effort to bridge, even though I feel that he could.
          When Jack expresses a desire to revisit Room towards the end of the book, his insistence really hurts Ma.  At one point she says something along the lines of "If you would just think of someone besides yourself for one moment..."  And that is, I think, one of the core problems that Jack has.  He is very selfish.  I suppose that most children are like this to one extent or another, but even if they are it just goes to show how being raised in a completely different environment results in the same attitude, perhaps indicating a core aspect of human nature.
          Ma does not understand why Jack would want to go back to Room, even though it makes perfect sense from Jack's perspective.  Jack does not understand why Ma doesn't want to go back to Room.  Of the two perspectives, Ma's is the only one that is reasonable and based on an accurate assessment of the world--but Jack is unwilling or unable to consider the situation from Ma's perspective and realize why Room was not a good place to be.
          If this selfishness is a common trait among children, it again just shows how it is an innate trait independent, or at least less dependent, of environment.  This is the kind of experiment that behavioral scientists would love to be able to perform, but are unable to because of ethical concerns.  On the other hand, if this self-centeredness is more or less unique to Jack, it shows a distinctly unheroic aspect of Jack's character: his either refusal or inability to "walk a mile in the shoes" of another.

Merry Christmas

          Little kids believe in Santa.  Not always, and if they do, not because of any inherent belief, but because of their parents telling them about him.  Parents lie to their children about this, and the children believe them because they don't know any better.  Studies have shown that when the children inevitably find out or are told that "Santa Claus" is actually Mommy and Daddy, they experience a diminishing in trust for their parents that can last for years.
          Obviously, the situation being undergone by Ma and Jack is nothing like normal circumstances, but Ma especially attempts to maintain a semblance of normalcy.  In everyday life, if not in some of their stranger rituals, it seems almost like a normal mother and child going through a normal day.  And, just like other parents, Ma lies a lot to Jack.  She lies to make their situations seem normal.
          This next part can read like a bad conspiracy theory, so bear with me.  Old Nick is, in some ways, a twisted, cruel mockery of a "normal" childhood experience--that of Santa and the "benevolent" deception by your parents.  Besides the superficial similarity between their names--Old Nick and Saint Nick--there are several parallels that highlight the strange and horrible situation that Jack and Ma are in.
          We don't actually know whether Ma and Jack celebrate anything like Christmas in Room, but there are certainly bits of present-giving within the narrative.  First of all, Old Nick is the one who supplies Ma and Jack with everything they need.  This is highlighted by Jack's query as to why they don't give thanks to Old Nick rather than Baby Jesus.  In addition, however, Old Nick does get Jack an RC car for his birthday, a rather Santa-like gesture in its own way.
          Most significantly, however, Old Nick, like Santa in a normal childhood, is something that parents lie to their children about "for their own good."  Where Santa is no more than a cute lie to give Christmas time a magical quality, Ma's lies about Old Nick conceal his monstrosity from Jack until Ma thinks he is "ready."  Just as it is debatable whether the myth of Santa is any good, it is also dubious whether knowing all there is to know about Old Nick and Jack's situation is good or bad for Jack.  Ma concludes in the end that Jack should know, and tells him.  In a normal household, on the other hand, around five is usually the time in which the child is most convinced of Santa's existence.
          Lastly, in a twist that would be almost comical if it weren't absolutely horrible, both Old Nick and Saint Nick turn out to be the child's parents--or at least father.

A Thousand Words

          The path of "the hero's journey" and the path of a coming-of-age story are often heavily related and intertwined.  In some ways, it could be said that all coming-of-ages are, in and of themselves, hero's journeys, although the reverse is likely not true.  I would say that Persepolis absolutely falls under both categories.  The protagonist is literally coming of age in it, and she is meanwhile dealing with a world that is heavily fraught with peril where formerly it was not.
          However, there is one stark difference between Persepolis and every other book we have read and will read this semester.  It is, of course, a graphic novel.  So the questions must be asked: why did Satrapi choose this format, how does this format serve the story, and how does it differ from a standard, text-only format?
          I will begin with probably the easiest question to answer: how is it different?  The answer seems pretty obvious - rather than relying on words to convey an image to us, it conveys the image directly through simple black and white drawings.  But more than that, and tying into the other two questions, this format both eliminates the need for lengthy exposition and explanation and more quickly evokes emotions from readers.  Rather than having to explain what a veil looks like, and the difference between fundamentalist and modern men and women, Satrapi simply shows us.  Rather than explaining the emotions and perils in the book, Satrapi expertly uses the expression afforded by her simple art style to convey fear, sadness, and happiness, among many other emotions.
          From the above, the answer to the second question is likely rather clear already.  Graphic storytelling allows Satrapi to condense the novel, letting her better convey emotions, which I feel is the main driver of her book.  The art style and lack of heavy narration is far more fitting to a child's point of view on the world.
          As to why Satrapi chose to write her life story as a graphic novel, I think it is mostly because it is told from the point of view of a child, and that format fits that perspective a little better.  Where a text format would have to explain things that a child would not be able to understand, we can simply see the situation and understand what is really happening while simultaneously seeing that Marji does not understand.  Where a picture is worth a thousand words, pages of pictures are worth more than a novel of words.

The Paul Paradigm

          In a previous blog post of mine, I talked about how, sometimes, I feel that a lot of the things that are said about books in English classes are just reading way too much into the book and what the author intended.  I recently had an interesting conversation about this with some classmates and some non-classmates, specifically dealing with A Lesson Before Dying and especially Paul.
          First of all, allow me to say that much of what I usually say about the supposed "classics" we read in English classes does not apply here.  The reason for this is simple: A Lesson Before Dying is by far the best book I have ever read for any class in school, and is quite high on the list of my all-time favorite books.
          With that out of the way, the conversation between myself and three other students (who shall remain unnamed) was a debate of sorts.  The two sides mainly argued were whether the parallels between the deputy sheriff Paul and the apostle Paul were superficial coincidences, or intended and deliberately included by Gaines.
          On the one hand, it is likely possible to take any fictional character and find however many connections to historical figures, biblical figures, or whatever else.  It could just be a coincidence that these parallels appear, and a character is just a character, nothing more.  I often complain of too much being read into a story, finding deep and hidden meanings where, really, none exist.  Of course, I often have this complaint of books that I read for English classes.  I wouldn't like to think that just because I like a book I start seeing connections and metaphors where there really shouldn't be any.
          However, in this case I really do think that the connections between the deputy sheriff Paul and the apostle Paul are real and significant.  I think that it would be far too much of a coincidence for an enemy of the main character who is then more or less "converted," and who holds a position of power before and after his conversion to also be named Paul, just as Jesus's enemy and then ally in the Bible.  In this case, I think it would be far stranger if, in fact, the characters had nothing to do with each other, as that would be a genuinely scary amount of coincidence.
          In addition, I think that it is important to note just how important Paul's "conversion" is.  This is someone who, in all likelihood, could be the sheriff of Bayonne at some point in the future, and this series of events has destroyed much of his prejudice towards the blacks in his community.  Just as Paul became instrumental to the spread of Christianity after Jesus's death, so Paul could become a huge part of progress in his community in the future.