Captive in North Korea

Layers of Intensity

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: a fascinating read, to be sure.  I read it in less than a week (which is a strong accomplishment, I think.). Larsson keeps your attention and is a hell of a writer, The fact is, I couldn't put it down and was a complete nerd for the course of about 5 days... 

To start --fairly quickly, I picked up three major layers to the story, (and a few sub layers I decided I was right about). The first, are his comments on the media and journalists themselves. He seems to find that media in general, or perhaps in his society is relatively weak and would rather contort old news, beat "a dead horse" or slander contenders than uncover serious mysteries, aka, the truth. The second layer: Corporate greed and their battle for reputation w/in a society. Finally, and the reoccurring, if not the most important theme: violence against women and sexuality. 

And it's all plotted around a murder mystery. 
First, I will discuss the latter. I have gone through numerous blogs, comments, articles, discussion boards on the nature of the author's motive behind the destructive events against main female characters in the book. 

There are some that believe Larsson is a sick sadist, trying to get twisted erotica out of his readers. Some believe that he is discussing the culture as it is: and then creates a strong heroine who knows how to get revenge. And still there are others state he's acting as an advocate, revealing the truth about violence against women in Swedish society, creating a raw picture of what actually occurs.

After reading several government, non-profit, studies and news websites -along w/ bios about the author- that discuss the statistics of rape and violence in Sweden; I am convinced that there is a mix of the latter two in Larsson's writing. 

First and foremost, he started his career as a Journalist/writer. He was known, even before that as a political voice against Nazism and extreme right-wing behaviors- to the point of death threats on his life. There are some that say his long-time girlfriend had a hand in the story itself, but that's not something we'll probably not ever find out for sure.

Nevertheless: as a journalist, myself, I read the story w/ investigative curiosity. And I think that his writing has that descriptive character.

It is believed that 6% of women in Sweden (if not more) are annually raped or experience extreme forms of violence. One article in the NY Times reported that in 1990, 14.000 rapes were reported and that shot up in 2003 to over 22,000~ and this is just what is reported! Some stats estimate that 1 in 3 women suffer rape in the country, and they are 3x as likely to experience violence than the rest of Western Europe, due to the belief that men can get away w/ it more. A Cambridge Study showed that Sweden's efforts to rehabilitate violent men did not meet it's goals roughly 7 years later (b/t 1999-2006). 

While there are few more things I could rattle off; I think you get the idea. The point is, I believe that Larsson was making a statement. And I think he's doing what journalists should do: tell the gory truth for better or worse. 

YES, there are a couple of scenes that absolutely made me uncomfortable reading, but I am of the belief that the media is weak and that exposing the truth, while it may be ugly, is important. I can't tell you how many pictures every day we sift through at work b/c the rules are ultimately "don't offend anybody." The fact remains, journalists aren't at all what they used to be...but nor is public reception. 

Needless to say: I speculate that Larsson's intention was to expose the fate of so many women in his own country, and while the book is still on it's way up in reviews (though it was published in 2005) and now that the film reached theaters in the last month- what attention the public, the UN and other organizations will divert to the problems in Sweden? Moreover, in the US: in our Judeo-Christian society: will more aid trips be taken to reach such women? Honestly, I can say that I don't know. 

But those women need someone to tell their story, and I'm glad that Larsson did so. I've seen several articles and "about author" pieces that note the book was originally to be called "Men Who Hate Women." Obviously not as catchy, but defines many of attitudes among characters in the book. It leaves the others complicated and searching.

"He Chuckled Slyly, As if He had Outwitted His Enemies"

"For one reason, mainly, chiefly and eternally, no matter how much your Party promises to accomplish, no matter what paradise it plans to bring mankind. Whatever your other claims may be, there's one you can't avoid, one that will turn your paradise into the most unspeakable hell: your claim that man must live for the state." (We The Living, Rand, p.74)

"Listen, do you know how many millions of eyes are watching us across the lands and oceans? They're not very close and they can't see very well. They see a big shadow rising. They think it's a huge beast. They're too far to see that it's soft and brownish and fuzzy. You know, fuzzy, a glistening sort of fuzz. They don't know that it's made of cockroaches. Little glossy, brown cockroaches, packed tight, one on the other into a huge wall. Little cockroaches that keep silent and wiggle their whiskers. But the world is too far to see the whiskers. That's what's wrong withe the world, Comrade...they see a black cloud and they hear thunder" (We The Living, Rand, p.354)

As to the latter of the two quotes: it's one of the most interesting descriptions of Communism I have ever read. Though quoted by a fictional, disillusioned, character, there is something to be said for it. Communism is an old ideal that made its way into Russia at the turn of the 20th Century. And it is an ideal that still stands in China, North Korea, Cuba and others at the turn of the 21st. It is an ideal that, flatly, does not work.

Karl Marx may have had unique intentions- creating a utopian society in which every man gives and takes and is equalized within the community. But the step he missed was the part that when you give a man or a group power to control for the sake on one nationalistic state, even temporarily: you actually create a disgruntled-poor and starving society, that ultimately lives in fear and fear alone. And thus after just over half-a-century, the USSR finally saw its end.

What's more, as to the former statement, should a man only have the state to count on and the state does not meet their needs, what's next? By only relying on the state, with no other source, the state has all power to give and withhold, and with pride and greed existent in the heart of man, no one has the ability to question corruption. The fact remains that the freedom of will is then disposed- dreams are truly diminished and god must become something that of a manipulative state- a survival of the fittest, so to speak, and a game that goes beyond boundaries.

By trying to eliminate a 2-or-3 class system, you only create a stronger 2-class system. And this presents a list of problems for which those in Government or for the State Controlled system become the higher, sophisticated "class," and those who are not go w/ out.

Ayn Rand, who was born in Russia in 1905, at the explosion of wars and conflicts that created the Communist State- was an anti-Communist. She, and her family, experienced the rule of the "Red" state and rejected its ideologies. Her first book, published in the United States, 11 years after she left the country- We The Living- addresses the matters of USSR. And Rand became almost known as an advocate, through her work, for individualist rights and a capitalistic society. She believed in an extremely limited Government.

She had the right idea and went on to become a play write in Hollywood and continued author. Her "philosophy," if you will was called "Objectiveism" which she described as a concept who's "essence is "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

How dignifying is it to know that one has the true ability to further than what is possible- in practical and personal ways. And in a government system, where one has a choice, where a man can start a dream w/o being dictated by the state is cause worth fighting for.

Ironically, We The Living, was rejected for three years by New York Publishers who said she did not have a true grasp on Communism. 

Religious Complaint

In all the commotion about about Muhammad's Bear costume appearance on South Park - a stirring of rational and irrational emotions have emerged. Granted, SP is an equal opportunity "exploiter." Still, the Revolution Muslim site has made their threats apparent - that if the creators of SP did not stop (as this is the second time a Mohamed character has been portrayed), their fate may end like that of a Dutch producer who's film depicted Islamic Crimes against Women in particular cultures. Sadly, they even showed the graphic picture of his death.

I have read through blogs and comments of various members of the public: political, religious, or personal. The one that stuck out to me most came from a woman called, Shelia.

"Honestly, how can someone "harm" Allah? If he even exists, I doubt this "harms" him in any way. To imply that it does implies that he is weak. YOU are implying he is weak." 

I find her statement to smart and thought out, and what's more: right.

The fact remains that if there is an ultimate Creator and/or Ruler of the World- that is Highest above all: would not their Created beings be weaker and more feeble? And if such beings rely on their God, use the name of their God to move forward in life: are they not admitting to needing His protection? And if this God is Ruler of all: just how offended could he be by the image of his "prophet" slandered? Are not prophets of God often ridiculed and ostracized to begin with?

Those who would say their big God is offended, so easily, by another's portrayal, to me it seems, does not KNOW their God. For people who do not believe will deduct a point of view of this God by way of his followers. And in the age of entertainment, the highest extremities present themselves. As such, how can a non-believing person be responsible for blaspheming a God they do not know? If a person does not believe that such a God exists, then is their slander really of God? Or is it of the people who follow Him? People who make their God weak? Incapable?

Revolution Muslim- I would say to you: Allah, is not offended. Muhammad has been dead for centuries. Did he really dictate to you that his picture is never to be shown or drawn? Would he really want you to avenge him? Doesn't vengeance belong to Allah? I venture to say- that Mohamed does not know. And if you are concerned w/ offending Allah, then you must be concerned w/ his Heart, correct? So what is the heart of your God? If you are offended, can you not turn the television off? 

Revolution Muslim- you are Americans. I believe in First Amendment Rights, which include- the freedom of speech and religion. However, to threaten (directly or indirectly) a fellow American, who is using the same right you are using to exist, is unacceptable. My friends: Run and seek your God- find his heart and what you are missing. You will be surprised. The Creator of all things desires your dedication, not your retaliation.

Role Call

The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s was one of, if not the most prominent movements in U.S. History to date. The Civil Rights Bill was signed in 1964. But what came before and what came after are events remembered by those who were involved much more than L.B. Johnson's signature. 

Friday afternoon, I went to the Atlanta Film Festival's, Crossing in St. Augustine: a documentary of the events that took place in Florida right before the passing of the bill, and events that Andrew Young, akin to Dr. King and his cause, participated and fought for among the St. Augustine community. 

Long before Young and even King arrived: the stirrings, in what is believed to be the United States' oldest town, were already getting heated. Teenagers were beginning to realize that the severe segregation in the community was not right and they were taking it into their own hands to protest White Treatment. Their devoted leader, and community dentist, Robert Hayling helped push them and guide them to make a stand for their rights and tried to do so peacefully, following the SCLC message. 

The summer of 1964 was certainly the most explosive. The town's officials were grossly unaware of their prejudices against the black community and even advertised that they were among the first to provide services and education. Nevertheless, integration did not exist. As the boomer children began to recognize their limits- assigned them by the white community, they grew to realize that action needed to be taken. During one day side march; six youths under the age of 18 stopped for a break and a burger. When they were refused and would not leave, they were arrested, and told by a judge that they parents must sign a form barring them from protesting until they were 21. Four of them did not sign and were sentenced to prison.

Following, protesters in St. Augustine became known for their night marches, mostly to accommodate working men and women who could not join during the day. They were stopped, met and beaten by members of the KKK. Their fellow white friends and neighbors that joined the marches were often yanked from the crowd and beaten even more.

Andrew Young had actually been sent to Augustine in hopes to quiet the protests (as Dr. King was concerned for violent outbreaks with the Civil Rights Act on the line). He had intentioned to turn them back, as some had been found w/ weapons, and teach them the art of non violence. However, they were not willing to give up fighting for their rights and so he stayed to teach them. One night when he led them to the "crossing" street --he was met with severe blows to the head and kicked fiercely on the ground. He didn't realize all that had happened until 2006 when he saw the footage.

Nevertheless; he got up and kept moving w/ the people. Less than a month after Young's arrival in June- a significant event took place that just may have pushed President Johnson to sign the Civil Rights Act into Law (July 2, 1964). A Hotel owner, James Brock, poured acid into a pool in order to get protesters out. The picture found it's way around the country and the world.

Crossing in St. Augustine applauds all the heroes from that summer, from that year, both members of the black community, the protesting white community and even the journalists that participated- that received beatings and even those who were out to attack the black community. In way, Andrew Young noted, they were "unsung" heroes- for if they had not resisted equal rights to the extent in which they did, St. Augustine might not be given the credit due for what was needed and what happened there.

Mr. Young presented a powerful message, a peaceful one. He provided a history lesson that is important to remember, particularly b/c the town often refuses to address its past.

I was pleased with how the film presented itself. And I hope that continued progress will continue for the people of St. Augustine in the light of this film.

Peace, Love...Tunes

Woodstock: the (in)famous concert that is believed to have defined a culture or rather, a subculture. Three days of peace, love & music...that was their anthem, their slogan and one of the largest mass gatherings in history.

I recently finished the 4-hour long documentary film as well as finished reading The Road to Woodstock by Michael Lang (the brain behind the banner).

I was immediately drawn into the film by the intimate overview of the scene. Throughout the movie- the music kept coming with the opening act from Richie Havens, to songs from The Who, Janis Joplin, Canned Heat, Santana and Jimi Hendrix. In between each two-song set, the film cut to the "happenings." Everyone was covered from the kids who attended the festival to the towns-people scrambling to make food for as many as they could to the port-a-potty plummer (no joke). What caught my attention was how many of the officers and towns-people complimented kids attending, noting that they were pleasant and mannerly. At one point, two men were caught on tape arguing- one said, in a very bitter tone, "they're all happy and on pot!" while the other contorted "well if it makes 'em happy, then why not let 'em have it? we got to feed them, what else are gonna do?!"

The film often went to a split screen of multiple "events" taking place, for example- a reporter interviewing on person in one window, and naked people taking a bath in another. It was an amusing site.

But, I would have to say that the part that stuck out to me the most is Santana's set. He was a new artist at the time and according to Lang's book, one of the latter artists to be signed. His set was one of the longer ones in the film and apparently was the first band to really get people on their feet dancing. At one point, Santana's drummer slipped into an incredible solo. The documentary did a fantastic job showcasing the drum talent with an overlapping-triple split screen: I felt like I could have been part.

Ironically though, Woodstock was not with out backyard drama among the organizers, the town and the musician's managers. Hendrix's managers insisted more money than what Lang & his team were offering anyone and had to settle for splitting him into two acts (an acoustic set at the beginning and the last performer) and therefore two payments to justify a $30,000 compromise. The Who caused problems from the moment they arrived and included rude occurrences at the local hotel accommodations. For some artists, half of their agreed payment was due upon arrival to the Woodstock site, and of course, by that time, the organizing team didn't have a dime and and John Roberts pulled out family funds to make up for the loss. And estimated 500,000 people went to the event, after losing track ticket sales and collectors, fencing problems, it became a free....and the masses swarmed- and stayed through rain and mudslides.

Despite the financial disaster; Lang said that it he felt the weekend had been a success, both interviewed in the film and written in his book 40 years later. Even Max Yugsar, who owned the land, thanked the crowd for being able to show the world that they could gather so many- peacefully and respectfully -against the critics.

Lang's book definitely provided an in depth view of the chaos behind the scenes, while the film itself- grazed the surface of bohemian expression and incredible music.

I'd have to say my only eye-brow raising moment was Michael Lang's comparing the weekend to the 2008 Inauguration. The political accomplishment for Barack Obama- while seemingly symbolic for it's moment could not truly be characterized what would come for better and worse. Not only so, but Woodstock-- the people, the weekend, the music, the equality and even the substance abuse-- will long live judged for that weekend alone. The Inauguration, in my opinion, will fall by the waist side and the political figure will be judged by his Presidential run. Nevertheless, I will agree that today's generation shows some reflection of a previous one.

Undercover Owl

Recently CBS came out with a reality show called, Undercover Boss. The idea is that the CEOs of major corporations would visit and work with their employees in order to see what the work-flow was really like and to see if there might be improvements necessary for their company to succeed in the economic downturn. The show that I was most interested in and the only one I've watched was Hooters. Why? Well, the brand has a significant reputation in our society- and the brand, some despise, some love and most are rather indifferent, like myself. Either way: I was curious to see what kind of CEO runs the company anyway?

Coby Brooks, the son of founder, Robert Brooks actually never had any intention of taking over his father's business but it fell into his lap after his father's retirement in 2003. Needless to say: Brooks noted that he was more than willing to step down for a week and check out several of his stores and their success or failures that he might make the company better...or at least as good as his father had once done.

Brooks worked hard over the course of the week. One manager said he would have fired him, another, a female manager told him (thinking he was working on a documentary about entry level jobs and workplaces) that she thought female mangers might have a better grip than male managers at Hooters. She had been a hooters girl at one time and now older and with a daughter, carried the same "motherly status," with the girls and could better help them and assist them as they needed in their life. She was also willing to get dirty. And still there was a male manager in Texas, that Brooks encountered, who exploited the girls for his own enjoyment, making them play "games" that were derogatory (including them bending over a table and eating beans w/o hands in order to go home even making one girl miss a class for school).

Brooks noted how uncomfortable he was with the latter manager's style and was set for disciplinary action when he revealed who he was. But this is where my disappointment comes in: rather than firing "Jimbo"- he gave him speech about apologizing. Questionable behavior, of that extremity, in my mind, should have terminated him.

However, the one redeeming note for Brooks was that he rewarded the female manager w/ and all expenses vacation for her and her little girl and donated money to a military npo in the name of the manager who would have "fired" him (previously a marine). He went back to his board with his notes on how to make the company more personal and felt that maybe he really did need to get back in touch with his employees, something he said his father had done and had made it a better environment to work in.

He also promoted two waitresses to help with marketing - an area obviously controversial but perhaps, much needed.

Do I care any more about the company than I did before? Nah. But it was interesting and good to see CEO willing to step down and find out what his people really think, see and hear around them...something that is very rare.

waves in sunrise

as i stepped out onto the sand, i couldn't take my eyes off of the glistening waves. the morning sun was perched softly over the water and my toes dug deep into the cold sand as if it was the most natural thing to do. i took a deep breath and moved closer. a little prayer. complete admiration. i sighed with relief. i was at peace. it had been too long. i was so grateful for it's presence, almost as if it had been waiting there just for me.

reflections of winter still lingered. i couldn't help but smirk when i saw large blocks of ice floating to the shore. but when i slipped my feet beneath the ocean, it wasn't cold....or at least not that cold. spring was here. it was a warm beautiful day with a slight refreshing breeze to start a perfect morning.

i snapped a few pictures and stood for awhile, clear of all unnecessary thoughts.

the rest of that day would prove to be resourceful, energetic and fulfilling. day three, opening weekend of the thorn. i was thrilled to be part of something, even if only in a small capacity, something that would change a life.

Rock Star....and a Piano

He's a rock star in his own right. His talent precedes him (as do his giggling-groupies -and their single green glow stick- with their wavy hands.). Dressed in his hipster sweater and nerdy glasses, Ben Folds put on the best one-man show I've seen. After a short half-hour struggling set by local musician Zach Williams, Folds strutted out in style and redeemed the crowd. His loose humor and opening jokes about coming to Georgia with a welcome sign that looked like a "big ass" (aka, the Georgia peach) made the audience feel comfortable. In fact, the entire night was engaged with humor-filled lyrics and stories.

But two things stood out the most: his energetic ability to move his fingers up and down the piano effortlessly with skill (and even passion) and his belief that people who came to his shows "must have better pitch."

Rather than the classical piano bench, Folds had a stool. But for the majority of the night, he either balanced the stool on one leg or didn't sit down at all. He stood over the piano, feet apart, like a mad scientist in anticipation of an explosive substance. His fingers struck the keys with fervor, playing lydian blues that made me feel like I was drinking a pint and sitting with friends at a pub (the song, Piano Man, comes to mind). He played "some old shit" and some "new shit" and jumped around to songs that were hits across the board. He even pulled out two new songs from a collaboration album with fictional author, Nick Hornby. A song called "Levi Johnston's Blues," produced the most hilarity of note. The lyrics take a look at Bristol Palin's former (and political) fiance, Levi Johnston and the challenge he may have experienced being thrust into an unwanted lime-light. Whether he was pounding melodious keys on the piano, shaking a maraca against the microphone or improving wry ridiculous lyrics- Ben Folds showcased his plethora of talent as a musician.

What's more- is how he got the audience engaged. At several points during the concert; he played a series of notes in 3 and 4-part harmonies instructing the crowd to sing. Having grown up participating in choirs, the sound was immaculate. He would often stop in the middle or at the end of a song and conduct the crowd accordingly....mostly for fun and partly to add to the very essence of the song's intended sound.

The night was a success, for the musician and his fans. And in my expert opinion Ben Folds...and A Piano was insanely brilliant!

He's on a Horse...

Let's start the month off right, with a little humor and the probably the best commercial out there right now-