So I watched Superman III. Well, that did it for me. I'm done. I cancelled Superman IV from my Netflix queue. I just don't think I can handle it. Instead, I have Cache coming next. I'm interested in seeing how that movie is. They say it's very good. Supposedly it links things to French Algeria, which is one of the topics I cover in my courses (we watch The Battle of Algiers).
The film I really want to see is The Wind that Shakes the Barley by Ken Loach. The film tells the story of Irish independence, but unlike Michael Collins, it focuses on rank-and-file members of the movement. It came out in the UK and much of the world last year, and it won the Palm d'Or at Cannes. Somehow, though, it never made it here. Well, the wait is almost over. It's supposed to be released in March (around St. Patrick's Day).
It got some mixed reviews in the UK, because it takes a relatively strong anti-British stance. It's a little problematic because most of us think about the mess in Northern Ireland when we think about conflict between Britain and Ireland, where the IRA refuses to give up its weapons and such. In the early part of this century, however, the British did a number of incredibly brutal things in Ireland, though, sending in the notorious Black and Tans to quell unrest. This is probably the first time a British filmmaker has taken these abuses seriously.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Date Night
Plainbellied and I had a free date night tonight. We got a babysitter who would watch Her Nibs for service credit at school, and then we went to a lecture at my department (preceded with a reception, where we ate). The speaker was a very distinguished scholar of American history who I have admired for a long time. I had never heard him speak, and it was great to have that chance. Unfortunately, the lecture disappointed me.
One thing in particular troubles me. He said that the electoral college had been instituted by the founding fathers because they did not trust the citizens to make the right choice for President. He used this to argue that the system is antiquated and needs to be removed in favor of a direct presidential election. Well, my own reading of the past conflicts with this view.
I know that the founding fathers did not trust average people to make good decisions. They feared democracy more than almost anything else. However, the electoral college dealt with a different problem. The property requirements for voting made sure only "qualified" people (i.e. rich white men) could influence elections. The electoral college was created to protect the interests of the smaller states (just like the Senate was). If they got rid of the electoral college, candidates could bypass rural states, thus leading to a situation where city-dwellers held political hegemony. Imagine a world in which candidates only campaigned in New York, California, Florida, and Texas. Having the electoral college forces candidates to campaign for each state.
I realize that this system can cause a disparity between the popular and electoral votes (see 1876 and 2000). However, the benefits definitely outweigh the cost. The criticism most often invoked is that many other countries do direct elections. But in most parliamentary systems, people vote for a party (not a candidate), which chooses who will sit in Parliament, and who will be the government. I know that in Spain candidates' names don't even appear on the ballot. How's that for a democracy? You don't even know who you are voting for, even though you're voting "directly." Do you really think it's that much better than an electoral college?
Actually, my favorite reason for having the electoral college is that when your choice for president does something boneheaded, you can honestly say, "I didn't vote for him," because technically you voted for his electors. We're all off the hook now.
Well, I waded into politics again. I promise not to do it again for at least a few days.
One thing in particular troubles me. He said that the electoral college had been instituted by the founding fathers because they did not trust the citizens to make the right choice for President. He used this to argue that the system is antiquated and needs to be removed in favor of a direct presidential election. Well, my own reading of the past conflicts with this view.
I know that the founding fathers did not trust average people to make good decisions. They feared democracy more than almost anything else. However, the electoral college dealt with a different problem. The property requirements for voting made sure only "qualified" people (i.e. rich white men) could influence elections. The electoral college was created to protect the interests of the smaller states (just like the Senate was). If they got rid of the electoral college, candidates could bypass rural states, thus leading to a situation where city-dwellers held political hegemony. Imagine a world in which candidates only campaigned in New York, California, Florida, and Texas. Having the electoral college forces candidates to campaign for each state.
I realize that this system can cause a disparity between the popular and electoral votes (see 1876 and 2000). However, the benefits definitely outweigh the cost. The criticism most often invoked is that many other countries do direct elections. But in most parliamentary systems, people vote for a party (not a candidate), which chooses who will sit in Parliament, and who will be the government. I know that in Spain candidates' names don't even appear on the ballot. How's that for a democracy? You don't even know who you are voting for, even though you're voting "directly." Do you really think it's that much better than an electoral college?
Actually, my favorite reason for having the electoral college is that when your choice for president does something boneheaded, you can honestly say, "I didn't vote for him," because technically you voted for his electors. We're all off the hook now.
Well, I waded into politics again. I promise not to do it again for at least a few days.
Potatoes
My last post made me think of something I wanted to share. Did you know that potatoes made the industrial revolution possible? Potatoes were introduced to Europe from America, and they are a high-caloric, easy-to-grow food source. If cooked properly, they also have a lot of vitamins (in the skin). The introduction of the potato during the agricultural revolution gave peasants a much-improved staple crop, which helped create a surplus population later harnessed into the factory system.
Of course, potatoes have their down side as well. In Ireland, the average adult male ate about six kilos of potatoes every day. Women and children over ten ate about five kilos, and children younger than ten about two. They completely depended on it for their sustenance. When the Irish potato famine hit in the middle of the nineteenth century, it killed a million people and forced a million more to emigrate. One more reason not to rely on a single crop.
Today, we live in a very different (and much more sedentary) society, where potatoes provide too many calories for us. If we worked the fields, they would be great. But mostly we sit in offices, and a starchy, high-calorie food is not what we need. But mashed potatoes are yummy. . . .
See? When you come to my blog you just might learn something new.
Of course, potatoes have their down side as well. In Ireland, the average adult male ate about six kilos of potatoes every day. Women and children over ten ate about five kilos, and children younger than ten about two. They completely depended on it for their sustenance. When the Irish potato famine hit in the middle of the nineteenth century, it killed a million people and forced a million more to emigrate. One more reason not to rely on a single crop.
Today, we live in a very different (and much more sedentary) society, where potatoes provide too many calories for us. If we worked the fields, they would be great. But mostly we sit in offices, and a starchy, high-calorie food is not what we need. But mashed potatoes are yummy. . . .
See? When you come to my blog you just might learn something new.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)