Egypt seems to be in the news. The New York Times is marvelling at the similarities between the educated elite of Egypt and Ivy Leaguers. The Chicago Tribune is impressed that both Illinois and Egypt have a city named Cairo.
And from the sacred archives here is my guide to governing Egypt:
February 8, 1904: Remember Port Arthur!
In Japan today, there probably are a half-dozen or so 125 year-olds celebrating this anniversary of the Russo-Japanese War. It is unlikely that there are similar commemorations in Russia. First, you don’t celebrate a defeat. More importantly, Russia had trouble keeping its troops alive in 1904; so the odds of anyone surviving another century of Tsarist incompetence, Soviet brutality, and the damn Russian climate would be very unlikely.
The Russo-Japanese War could be described as a fight between two vultures. The decaying corpse happened to be Korea. However, Japan was the more popular vulture. The American and British publics were rooting for it; my grandmother remembered pep songs for the Japanese. Japan’s imperialism was not necessarily more endearing than Russia’s, but the Little Bully seemed preferable to the Big Bully. For 90 years, ever since Waterloo finally pacified the French, the chief aim of British foreign policy was to contain Russian expansion.
The British and Russians were fighting proxy wars in Afghanistan, Persia, and the Balkans. They fought a real one in the Crimea. And to frustrate Russian expansion in the Pacific, Britain formed an alliance with that up-and-coming little power Japan. Of course, the British lent their unmatched expertise in training the Japanese navy. Furthermore, the British assistance was not merely academic. How do you think that the Japanese knew the exact movements of the Russian fleets?
On this day in 1904, Japan started the war with a surprise attack on the Russian base at Pearl…Port Arthur in Korea. The Japanese army soon overran all of Korea and then proceeded to bash the Russians in Manchuria. The war lasted 19 months; the Russians did not win a single battle. Worse, the disastrous incompetence of the Tsarist government led to rioting in Russian cities, mutinies in the armed forces and demands for reform that would drag Russia at least into the 18th century.
But even Japan was suffering from the cost of war–literally. For all its victories, it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Modern war is expensive, and British assistance had not included blank checks. So both countries were ready for peace: Russia was tired of losing, and Japan was just tired. Despite the fact that Teddy Roosevelt looked somewhat Japanese, he was the accepted mediator for the peace negotiations which occurred at Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The ensuing treaty established Japan’s hegemony over Korea; no, the Koreans were not at the conference.
Russia was so thoroughly humiliated that Britain finally felt that it could stop worrying about the Tsarist Empire. Indeed, Whitehall was finally noticing just how obnoxious Kaiser Wilhelm was. For its part, Russia considered the need for long-overdue reforms but decided to blame the Jews instead. The same Tsarist incompetence would soon commit Russia to the defense of Serbia; but that eventually would cure Tsarist incompetence. As for Japan, it had Korea and a little bit of Manchuria. What more could it possibly want?
|
Director, Consumer Activation
Description
The Director, Consumer Activation is responsible for the development and execution of multi-channel consumer activation plans to achieve business unit growth and profit goals. Provides leadership and consumer promotional/experiential marketing expertise to the team to insure effective/efficient program development within an innovative mindset. This person is responsible to oversee the promotional program budgets and insure said budgets are not overspent.
|
Once upon a time, an English king had a stammer. However, thanks to a decisive form of surgery, Charles I was cured. That therapy happened on this day in 1649.
But some 350 years late, my friend Hal Gordon is still trying to save King Charles. Hal has taken up fencing so he is ready to skewer entire regiments of Roundheads. Unfortunately, time travel remains a challenge. Hal’s first attempt transported him 750,000 years into the future where he found himself siding with the Morlocks. (Well, Hal is a Republican.)
Even worse for Hal, it seems that Charles I defies rescue. The Four Musketeers tried it in “Twenty Years After.” (Actually, the sequel to “The Three Musketeers” came out just a year later. Dumas had no problem with writer’s block; he had a staff of ghostwriters.) The Musketeers think they have the rescue plan all worked out. The real axeman is kidnapped and replaced by one of the Frenchmen; the others are hiding under the scaffold. Somehow they will snatch the king, fight their way out of London and make it to the ship awaiting them in the Channel.
Will they need a miracle? As a matter of fact, they do have an omniscient power on their side: Oliver Cromwell. He knows exactly what they are planning and intends to let them succeed–up to a point. Cromwell prefers not to be blamed for regicide, so he will let Charles escape–at least from England. But, if the ship in the Channel should mysteriously explode before reaching France, Cromwell can’t be blamed for that. (Only suspected.)
In any case, Charles should have survived the scaffold. However, the Musketeers’ hopes, Cromwell’s scheme and King Charles’ neck are spoiled by Mordaunt, the thoroughly vindictive son of Lady DeWinter. With his Oedipal devotion, Mordaunt is determined to kill everyone from the first novel. He, too, disguises himself as an axeman and he gets to the scaffold ahead of the musketeer. Now, if John Woo had worked for Dumas, there could have a great dueling scene between the two axemen. But Dumas simply has Mordaunt kill the king; the author saves the climactic confrontation abroad the floating bomb in the English Channel.
(You will be relieved to know that the Musketeers survive, and there is no vindictive grandson of Lady DeWinter in “The Man in the Iron Mask”.)
However, I digress–which is my usual means of communication. But if Hal can travel back to the 17th century, so might someone else–not merely to spoil the rescue but to make “Paradise Lost” funny.
And now for a factual account of this day’s history: https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/01/30/english-hystery-2/
Freelance Writer
Writing & Editing | Chicago, IL, United States
Freelancers are the ronins of the writing world, splitting the skulls of readers with word-swords wielded for the highest bidder. Groupon’s editorial department is looking for a few writers with the hardened souls of mercenaries and the tender diction of secret diarists.
The one and only qualification for this gig is that you can write well, and in our voice. We have housebroken our house style and need writers who can produce it effortlessly even from remote locations. If you are not familiar the Groupon voice, please spend a fortnight reading our features before you apply.
If you had any doubts, yes I loved “The King’s Speech.” The story of George VI and his valiant struggle to overcome his stammer is poignant and moving, with a wonderful cast. It is a conventional film; there are no dazzling computer graphics, no possible video games from it, no tie-ins with McDonalds or Baskin-Robbins. “The King’s Speech’ is merely everything you would want in a good movie.
Yes, I also noticed the historical errors and distortions. Given our reverence for Winston Churchill, it is hard to think of him being in the wrong. In fact, hidebound traditionalist that he was, Churchill supported Edward VIII in his royal snit to have both the throne and Mrs. Simpson. The film gives the contrary impression, a tactful fabrication to protect Churchill’s reputation. “”The King’s Speech” also gives the impression that Wallis was planning to redesign the royal crest, replacing the lion and unicorn with pugs. However, in the Thirties the Windsors had yet to become pugherders.
I was also bewildered by a scene in which Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin tenders his resignation. According to the film, Baldwin admits his shame in failing to recognize the threat from Herr Hitler. Actually, Baldwin did not have the scriptwriter’s hindsight. In 1937, Baldwin couldn’t have cared less about Hitler, rather regarding him as antidote to Stalin. Baldwin probably was more affected by the death of Jean Harlow. No, he was just ready to retire, and leaving at his political pinnacle. A nice peerage was awaiting him.
But these faults do not seriously detract from viewing a fine film.
Now, if only a filmmaker would do justice to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Judd Apatow certainly would give them the respect they deserve. The thought of Seth Rogen playing him would torment the Duke more than anything he currently is enduring.
Helena Bonham Carter (whose forebears would have known the original cast) could recommend a talented, if somewhat surreal, director. Imagine Tim Burton’s portrayal of the Windsors. By comparison, the Romanovs might have gotten off lucky. And Johnny Depp would be just right for the role. Yes, I am thinking of the Duchess.
And let’s not forget the theological significance of this day; https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2010/01/21/patrician-noster/
A few weeks ago someone asked me my opinion of the Sea Hawks. Of course, he was referring to the football team but–in my historical monomania–I began discussing the Errol Flynn swashbuckler of that name. Looking for suitable scripts for its gorgeous, dashing star, Warners Brothers had bought the film rights to the best-selling novel, a pirate epic by Rafael Sabatini. The original novel tells of a kidnapped noble, sold into slavery, who becomes the leader of a pirate fleet and the scourge of the Mediterranean. Warners Bros. only kept the title; its version would tell of an Elizabethan privateer who protects his beloved Queen and England from the growing and imminent menace of Spain.
“The Sea Hawk” premiered in 1940 and any semblances in the film to contemporary characters and events were magnificently intentional. In the film’s opening scene, Philip II in Spain rues how his plans for world domination are defied and stymied by “”this puny rockbound island as barren and treacherous as her Queen.” While Spain is preparing an invasion armada, Philip is counting on his collaborators in the Elizabethan court to keep England lulled and disarmed. “With England conquered, nothing can stand in our way. Northern Africa… Europe as far east as the Urals… then the New World: to the north, to the south, west to the Pacific… over the Pacific to China and to the Indies will our empire spread. One day, before my death, we shall sit here and gaze at this map upon the wall. It will have ceased to be a map of the world. It will be Spain.”
Rest assured, Errol Flynn discovers the invasion plans and warns England in time. A grateful (and infatuated) Queen Elizabeth knights the valiant privateer and then rouses the English fleet to defend freedom against tyranny.
Of course, we clearly see the historical parallels and have no problems with the film’s obvious bias. You don’t have to be objective when you are in the right. Yet, when the film premiered, the prevalent mood of the American public was isolationist. It was Europe’s war, not ours. I was curious as to how film reviews at the time discussed the pro-British stance of “The Sea Hawk.” This is what I found. “Time Magazine” ignored the issue, preferring to regale its readers with anecdotes about director Michael Curtiz’s thick Hungarian accent. The New York Times, however, did make note of the plot’s parallels. While dismissing “The Sea Hawk” as an overblown trifle, Bosley Crowther added,
But count on the Warners to inject a note of contemporary significance. This time, it seems, Queen Elizabeth is undecided between a policy of appeasing Philip of Spain or building a fleet to oppose his growing Armada. A certain Lord Wolfingham, in the sheep’s clothing of one of her counselors, is doing a bit of fifth-column work within the castle for the Spanish ambassador, while her loyal subjects beg to build a fleet. But it is only after Geoffrey Thorpe, one of her most daring and dreaded sea rovers, has done a desperate turn on the Spanish Main, has been caught and impressed in galley slavery, has escaped and captured an enemy ship and come bounding home to inform her that the Spanish are coming that Elizabeth senses the peril. Quite an interesting parallel. Get it?
Yes, you smarmy Ivy Leaguer, we get it. And London was about to get it, too. As Crowther snipes, Warners Bros. was the interventionist, Democratic studio of Hollywood. Jack Warner was not actually a liberal, but he felt compelled to be the political opposite of Louis B. Mayer. (Even as late as 1941, Mayer wanted MGM to avoid controversy and “be even-handed about the Germans”. Perhaps Mayer was hoping for a private shower at Auschwitz.) Yet, even Warners Bros. made one concession to isolationist sentiment. For the American release, “The Sea Hawk” ends with the hero’s knighthood; the Queen’s call to defend freedom was edited out.
Nonetheless, films from Warners Bros. would continue to flout our official neutrality. In the film “The Sea Wolf” you know that Edward G. Robinson is a monster because he reads Nietzsche. (And which kultur was so fond of the syphilitic philosopher?) Isolationists in Congress demanded an investigation of certain studios and individuals, wanting to know if they were the paid agents and propagandists of Britain. The hearings were scheduled for December, 1941. For some reason, the hearings were called off.
So, why am I writing about “The Sea Hawk”? Of course, I really don’t need a reason to be pedantic but “The Sea Hawk” is going to be broadcast this Saturday night on Turner Classic Movies. Despite Bosley Crowthers’ opinion, the film is excellent–with an incisive and eloquent script, superbly acting–particularly the 38 year-old Flora Robson as Elizabeth, and with one of the greatest musical scores in Hollywood history. (Composer Erich Korngold left Germany in a hurry but remembered to take generous amounts of Brahms and Wagner.) Of course, Errol Flynn is unhumanly glorious. Furthermore, Turner Classic Movies will be showing the uncensored version, concluding with the rousing call-to-arms by Elizabeth.
Even if you can’t see it this Saturday, you couldn’t find a better use for your DVR.
p.s. Let’s not forget the historic significance of this day: https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2010/01/20/simon-says/
As you probably guessed, I have been tutoring Sarah Palin in medieval history. You can now expect her to make erudite but casual references to Eleanor of Aquitaine, Thomas Aquinas and the Byzantine Empire. Of course, you have heard and read of her use the term “blood libel.” Yes, I should take a bow.
Ms. Palin had been unaware of the canard that Jews murdered young Christian children to improve the taste of matzoh–as if anything could. Given her encounters with William Kristol and Ben Stein, she assumed that Jews only slobbered over Christian women. (And but for the dry cleaning, she was quite flattered.) Through the Middle Ages whenever a child died suddenly or simply disappeared, it had to be a Jewish recipe. With the expulsion of the Jews from Britain in 1291, apparently no English child fell down a well ever again. In the 16th century, Martin Luther added some variety to the blood libel by accusing the Jews of being vampires. At the time, it was not meant as a compliment to our sensuous mystique. But Luther had a bad word for everyone, and his Anti-Semitism did not incite violence; just four centuries of exclusion from country clubs.
Indeed, thanks to the Reformation, and Catholics and Protestants preoccupied with killing each other, Western Europe became somewhat safer for Jews. However, Eastern Europe now was catching up with Anti-Semitism. The blood libel, and its ensuing massacres, were still common in the early 20th century. It is surprising that Tsarist Russia never issued a celebratory postage stamp: Go Pogroms! And today the Arab World is disseminating the blood libel, although the recipe has been changed to young Moslem children. Evidently, when it comes to inciting Anti-Semitism, that age-old lie is more effective than “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”
Of course, I had to explain this to Ms. Palin in terms that she would understand. Medievel means media evil, and the blood libel referred to the New York Times’ recipe to turn her into quiche.
p.s. And here is the Spanish example of blood libel: https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2007/11/16/enhanced-interrogations-circa-1490/
Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) — An Andy Warhol print of Mao Zedong that the late actor Dennis Hopper shot up during a wild night in the 1970s sold for $302,500 at Christie’s International in New York today.
The price, which included buyer’s commission, was more than 10 times the high presale estimate of $30,000. “Warhol’s Mao: one plate” was among over 200 artworks Christie’s was selling from the estate of the actor, who died at 74 last year from prostate cancer.
The blue-faced Mao print went to investment banker Amed Khan, who bested several telephone bidders to acquire his first Warhol.
“I heard about it over the years,” said Khan, about the work. “It’s a remarkable piece of history.” Hopper shot the print twice when he mistook it for the actual Chinese leader, according to Christie’s.
This may lead to an unfortunate trend, however….
2050: The estate of the late Charles Sheen is offering for sale his art collection. The paintings include “Sunday Afternoon on the Island of the Grand Jatte”, a collaborative work by George Seurat and Mr. Sheen. The 19th century Frenchman did the original work and Mr. Sheen subsequently connected the dots with several cans of Cheez Whiz. Presale estimate: $4 billion, with an opening bid of $27.
Another offered work was originally titled “The Execution of Emperor Maximilian”, Edouard Manet’s depiction of the unfortunate Austrian Archduke’s appointment with a Mexican firing squad. To Mr. Sheen however, the scene seemed unfair. So, with the use of some magic markers, he had the bullets bouncing off Maximilian and the Emperor firing back. Presale estimate: $700 million with an opening bid of just take the damn thing.
I recently encountered a person who claimed an interesting job: teaching theater at a business school. She said it with a straight face, although that could have been her botox. But I think that we have all encountered a salesman who could have taught drama to Olivier. Marketing and theater do seem synonymous.
And we must remember that, after every major corporate scandals, MBA programs vow to include ethics in the curriculum. The colleges probably realize the futility of teaching morals to ravenous sociopaths; but with a good acting class their MBAs can fake the ethics.
But how widespread is the Theater of Business? Today, I saw this job posting.
|
SR. MGR, TALENT & ORGANIZATION EFFECTIVENESS
KRAFT FOODS – Chicago, IL
|
So, it is not enough to make cheese. You have to sing and dance. Fortunately, a good talent and organization manager will have the foresight to hire Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney. When the cruel bank threatens to foreclose on Widow Kraft’s dairy farm, the kids will put on a show to raise the money for the mortgage.
Of course, I don’t think that Judy and Mickey are the answer to every scandal or shortfall. No, for major investment firms you might want Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler.