MB and Me on Movies

For this blog post and hopefully future ones I have invited my friend Mary Beth to respond to a question about movies.
  

Cole:

Last night we watched Michael Haneke's "The White Ribbon," about a German town just before World War I that undergoes a series of strange and brutal events, perhaps by the design of some really creepy children.  I think we both liked it, but I know we both also struggled to stay awake.  Like many artistic European films, this film just felt so long and slow.  What obligation do you think a director has to make his or her film entertaining?  Do you consider movies like "The White Ribbon" to be less good because they're boring?

MB:

First I would like to say that an artist has no obligation to make his or her artwork entertaining. Artists have a right to present their work however they think best suits it. The White Ribbon certainly fits the definition of art. It is beautifully shot; there is some very impressive acting; the story is affecting. It is altogether an admirable film. That said, by the middle of film I would have given my right arm for a car chase, a ticking time bomb, a pseudo-jive talking sidekick, anything to break up the monotony

When you have a boring film, you don’t necessarily have a failure of filmmaking. What you really have when you have to will yourself to finish a movie is a failure of storytelling. There is a reason that the oldest stories we have inherited from the past have been adventure epics. Beowulf hunts monsters. Moses works miracles as the leader of wandering gaggle of screw-ups. Odysseus soldiers on despite being shipwrecked, sidetracked, and seduced a dozen times. Gilgamesh wrestles with the beasts of heaven itself. The stories that endure not only have something to say but say it with excitement, intrigue, suspense, a little pizzazz. 

The best stories are also those that are tautly told. You can have descriptions of magnificent scenery or examinations of stymied ambition but underneath it all things have to move forward and be revealed. If that doesn’t happen a story feels self-indulgent and people don’t have the patience to wait for the storyteller to once again care that his or her audience is shifting in its seats and eying the door. Audiences can’t stand movies that don’t tell their story well and filmmakers that don’t have the inclination or the talent to be good storytellers deserve to have their work turned off with an hour left to watch. 

Cole:

I definitely agree with you that the artist, or filmmaker, doesn't have an obligation.  As a matter of artistic expression, any man can film himself shaving for two hours as far as I'm concerned, and there's a marketplace that selects the movies worth watching, via the highway robbery of modern-day ticket prices.

That brings me to your point about the stories that endure.  They have obviously survived in this marketplace for a very long time.  But does that really mean they're good?  Perhaps Homer was dismissed as too commercial in his day.  The blindness shtick had to annoy his competitors.  Maybe in the next town over there was another, less appreciated storyteller recounting the struggles of slaves or inventing social realism, but the audience of the time just didn't care.

In fact, your logic about the epics from past millenia frightens me that three hundred years from now people will still be watching Avatarwhile The White Ribbon lies idle on library shelves.  If that turns out to be the case, would we call James Cameron a superior storyteller to Herr Haneke? 

MB:

Dear God. Never let it be put in writing that I called Avatar a timeless classic.

With that chilling thought aside, maybe Cameron is a better storyteller. A better philosopher or examiner of the human existence? No. A man who can keep you hooked from scene to scene? Yes. I contend that the story of Avatar will eventually fade from consciousness. The most enduring tales (the ones that survive centuries) combine big ideas with a gift for spinning a yarn. Cameron was clearly out of his depth philosophically with Avatar. His filmmaking talent exceeded his grasp of the themes. But if given the choice between watching Avatar again with all its ham-handed lessons and watching 2001: A Space Odyssey again where we watch a ship dock fortwenty minutes (I cross myself as I say this as I know I speak blasphemy) I pick Avatar. And I hate that movie. If filmakers want their ideas to endure, they have to at least feign an interest in engaging the audience.

Works bursting with innovative, thought-provoking ideas are rediscovered later, but the best stories are never lost to begin with. They are passed on not just because they are edifying, but because they are enjoyable to experience. They entertain.

Cole:

The insult toward 2001: A Space Odyssey requires no detailed rebuttal here.  I trust time and your reliably good taste to accomplish this for me.


I think you're right that the golden mean of entertainment and insight makes a great film.  And to be honest, if I were forced to give up either The Ghostbusters or The Seventh Seal for all eternity I would quickly choose the former.  Once every twenty years I could put a cape on a creepy old Scandinavian, play chess for two hours, and be satisfied.

Unfortunately, if one refuses to watch boring movies, one also misses out on perhaps half of the "great films" in film history.  So now I'm just curious: knowing that they are likely to be as or more slow and ambiguous as The White Ribbon, do you plan to watch other films by Haneke, or his partners in plodding, Bergman, Tarkovsky, etc.?

MB:

I plan to watch more films by the less...thrilling directors, but since I have so much more of film history to explore, I have a feeling that their films will get pushed to the back (Hmm, I should probably watch more Bergman, but hey, isn't my knowledge of Hong Kong action film just as thin. John Woo it is!). Part of me wishes I had the patience but part of me thinks that directors shouldn't make movies that inspire about as much enthusiasm as flossing does.

(On a separate note I actively sought out The Seventh Seal and was enthralled. Meandering meditations on the nature of God and the existence of evil? Where is my popcorn?!)

They Hate Us For Anne Hathaway

While watching NFL football this weekend, the commentators dutifully thanked the men and women of the armed forces who are defending our freedom.  This is what everyone says now—that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are to defend our freedom.  Regardless of whether one supports or opposes the wars and how they’ve been conducted, I think there are basic arguments with which we can dismiss this notion. 

First, our enemies, al-Qaeda specifically, have never claimed to hate us because of our freedom.  Read speeches by Osama bin Laden and try to find where he says this.  In fact, Osama bin Laden himself responded to the freedom accusation in October 2004, saying—quite logically—that if freedom was his enemy, why didn’t he attack Sweden?   Obviously the murder of three thousand Americans was an assault on those individuals’ freedoms, as well as every other American's freedom to live without fear of terrorism, but the argument that the September 11 attacks were motivated by a hatred of freedom is not found in al-Qaeda’s own rhetoric.

Second, we are currently fighting two wars “for our freedom,” and neither one appears to be going very well.  And yet, we aren’t becoming less free.  If we were to lose a war to defend our freedom, wouldn’t it make sense that we’d have less freedom?  “Losing” the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (more than we already have lost in them) would arguably diminish our power and possibly our security, but it’s not like they’d take away the 1^st Amendment.

The point could be argued that our own government is the largest threat to our individual freedom.  That would seem to be something that anti-Patriot Act Progressives and Tea Partiers could actually agree on.

Isn’t it strange that our political leaders and mainstream media never told us the reasons bin Laden says he attacked the United States?  All of us would agree that despite whatever reasons bin Laden claimed, the September 11 attacks couldn’t be justified, but we should still at least know the actual reasons, for strategic and political purposes if nothing else.

There are obvious reasons that the hating freedom narrative took shape.  Optimistically, we could say that our country needed unity after September 11, and the hating freedom narrative was something we could all get behind.  More cynically, the hating freedom narrative allowed the government to mobilize popular support for their anti-terrorism agenda.  If the issue were our support of Israel, our military presence around the world, or our diplomatic support for dictatorships in Muslim countries (these are al-Qaeda’s actual complaints), then maybe Americans would have some debate about our response to the terrorist attacks.  But if freedom is threatened we go get our rifles, or—more precisely—we recruit poor and disenfranchised youth to go get their rifles.

What I have outlined is standard propaganda that is depressingly transparent and effective.  But hey, we have our freedom, right?

In the spirit of identifying erroneous reasons why we are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to illustrate my point, I will offer an equally plausible lie our government could have told us.  For example, I personally would have been more likely to be mobilized against terrorism if I had been told that they hated Anne Hathaway.  I mean, Anne Hathaway is so beautiful and she’s also—as she proved in Rachel Getting Married—a  very talented actress.  Here is a look at how the “War on Terror” could have been framed:

“For all who love Anne Hathaway and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place.” –George W. Bush

“I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in Anne Hathaway”—George W. Bush

“We can’t allow the world’s worst leaders to threaten, blackmail, hold Anne Hathaway-loving nations hostage”—George W. Bush

“You can’t put democracy and Anne Hathaway back into a box”—George W. Bush

“This is not a battle between the United States of America and terrorism, but between Anne Hathaway and terrorism.”—Tony Blair

“Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder Anne Hathaway. If we are to win this struggle and spread Anne Hathaway, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction.”—Barack Obama

Fear not, Anne Hathaway.  We have a great plan to make sure they don’t win.  Just ask our president.

Shhhh

For years I’ve taken note of an interesting phenomenon in my adopted home—ASU’s Hayden Library. The concourse level of the Hayden Library is a common study zone, graphically represented a by a green traffic light that says it’s ok for group discussions. Even so, the concourse level is usually fairly quiet, perhaps with a generic, light hum from everyone’s hushed conversations. Somewhat frequently the stale but peaceful environment is disrupted by a group of loud people who lambently disobey basic rules of library behavior by running, laughing loudly, or calling to people who are far away.  But these are isolated incidents of ASU students trying to gain celebrity.


Probably once a week, however, something else disturbs my peace. It has two variations. Sometimes a group is studying together and they for some reason choose to speak in a normal volume, or “outside voice.” Either that or someone talks loudly on their cell phone to handle some urgent crisis. Both of these occurrences often have one thing in common: they are perpetrated by foreigners speaking in a foreign language.

Why do they not behave by the library rules? It’s like the loud American tourists that would ride public transportation in Istanbul, failing to notice that all the Turks sit quietly. Likewise, maybe in the home countries of these loud library people, libraries have different social norms—it might be commonplace to conduct regular conversations or business negotiations in the library.

But even if this were the case, shouldn’t they easily observe that everyone else is being very quiet and going outside to talk on their cell phones? Do you remember in elementary school, when the teacher would ask everyone to be quiet, and suddenly you and your friend would be the only ones still talking? I always felt such embarrassment at these moments. They should feel that way too!

My best guess is that it’s not actually the rules of being quiet that keep the rest of us—the natives, one might say—from socializing normally in the library. It might be that if we were to talk loudly, everyone would hear and understand what we had to say. We’re just not comfortable with that level of exposure.

For foreign language speakers, speaking in their native language protects them from this embarrassment. Their behavior in itself might be annoying, but at least no one knows what they’re saying. They could be guiding someone through heart surgery for all anyone else knows.

To properly test my theory, we would need to see how foreign students interact in the library in English-speaking situations. We would also of course have to observe how many “natives” also socialize loudly to make sure that I have not manufactured this theory from simple racism. Finally, we would have to place English speakers in foreign countries’ libraries and observe if their behavior changes. I find all of this sociologically interesting, but at the end of the day rules are rules.

People of Earth: Don’t make noise in the library—I’m trying to study!

Saints Are Out-Paytoned

In preparation for the season, commentators have been repeating—as they do every year—that the Saints will struggle because every team they play will play extra hard to knock off the defending champs. I traditionally haven’t given much credence to this theory. The NFL is a wonderfully competitive league, which means almost any team has a legitimate shot at beating the Super Bowl champions on any given Sunday. But after the first three weeks of watching my Saints struggle, it seems that either they really are playing a regular season of Super Bowls, or the Saints are just not yet back in form.

It’s a fair argument that the Saints should have won yesterday’s game. We gave up three turnovers, a 100-yard rusher and a 100-yard receiver, and we were still a missed field goal away from winning. That said, the Saints were fairly lucky to leave 0-3 San Francisco with a victory last Monday night, and the Falcons really did earn that victory. Unlike with Dallas Clark in the Super Bowl, the Saints never found an answer for Tony Gonzalez. The Falcons’ second quarter, 19-play touchdown drive was demoralizing and downright emasculating. And Atlanta showed guts and resilience on the Saints’ home field.

What most concerned me about the game yesterday was that the Saints were out-Paytoned. What I mean to say is that the Saints’ game-plan was less dynamic and less aggressive than we’ve come to expect from Sean Payton. Mike Smith attempted three fourth down conversions, converting two of them, and he kept running the ball to keep the defense honest. On key plays, including a failed fourth-down conversion, Sean Payton gave the ball to rookie Chris Ivory rather than Drew Brees.

Finally, on his home field, Sean Payton elected to kick a field goal rather than try to score the touchdown. Mathematically it probably made sense not to risk anything. Pierre Thomas was possibly injured; Chris Ivory had already fumbled; Drew Brees had thrown two interceptions. But to me the call didn’t match the identity of the New Orleans Saints as Payton and Brees have sculpted it. The same team that attempted an onside kick in the Super Bowl should say: We have home field. We have the best quarterback in the league. We’re gonna take two shots at the end zone. And then we can talk about a field goal.

The Expendables Win Gold in Turkey

Team USA beat Turkey 81-64 for the FIBA World Championship earlier today. Winning gold in this tournament is especially noteworthy given that this was really Team USA’s “B-Team.” The 2010 team has zero returning members from the gold-medal unit of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. It was the youngest team in the tournament, and this group has never played with each other before. Prior to the tournament, I would have given them a 50-50 chance at the gold, but they made it look easy. Indeed, their gold-medal victory was more convincing than the 2008 team’s final against Spain.

I think there are two big picture things to take out of the game. First is that this Team USA did not play beautiful basketball, but they beat all the competition anyway. The Americans were consistently unable to break Turkey’s zone defense. Ball movement wasn’t fluid and there was hardly any penetration. Usually the players passed the ball several times around the arc until finally someone decided to take a shot. I felt like the intensity of play and the skill of the players at the international level was perceptibly lower than NBA basketball in the playoffs.

The second point is that Kevin Durant is emerging as one of the absolute elite, worthy of mention alongside Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, and Dwyane Wade. He was absolutely dominant, and I would be willing to say that without Durant’s efforts, Team USA likely would not have won the tournament. His shooting is impeccable, and he seems to be a solid team player with a good attitude and a humble spirit. If he continues this way, I’ll enjoy rooting for him for years to come.

One question as we move forward from this tournament is who will play for the Americans in the 2012 Olympic Games. One can expect Durant to be there, but what about the others? Will Kobe be returning, or will he rest his legs this late in his career?

The other question is whether Team USA will maintain its humility and its focus following this tournament. For several years Team USA has been “redeeming” its image as the leaders of international basketball. That mission seems to be accomplished. Will the players continue to try as hard and will it mean as much, or will everyone lose interest now that we’ve reached the mountain-top with our second unit?

These days it feels like the shine is rusting off of America everywhere you look. I know this was just a game, an expression of primordial competitiveness that most Americans weren’t even watching, but I have to admit that it does feel really good to watch America still dominate the rest of the world at something.

1-0

The Saints’ title defense has begun successfully, if unimpressively.  By defeating the Vikings 14-9, they have put to rest any accusations that they didn’t belong in the Super Bowl, not that the argument was ever legitimate to begin with. 

Just as in the Super Bowl, the Saints were sharper in every phase of the game, except for special teams of course.  Hey, Garret Hartley—what up??  Aside from Hartley’s two missed field goals, Brees was accurate; the defense made key stops; and the Saints didn’t turn the ball over.

As Cris Collinsworth incessantly observed on the telecast, Favre’s timing and accuracy were both off, and I can think of three third downs where it proved costly.  Just as significant in the Vikings’ loss, however, was that Peterson only had 19 rushes.  In the second quarter Peterson led the Vikings downfield, came out of the game, and everything stalled.  That should have been a signal to Brad Childress.  Instead Childress mysteriously abandoned the run in the second half, even though the game was always within one possession.  If the other team has five more points than you do, your quarterback is struggling, you have the second-best running back in the league, and there’s fifteen minutes of football left, you run the damn football!

Aside from Childress’ game management, the Saints had two major advantages.  One was the surprising effectiveness of Pierre Thomas, who really sealed the game.  Anyone who watched would be surprised that he averaged only 3.7 yards per carry.  The second was Sean Payton’s play-calling.  Payton got Brees going early, and he really surprised the Vikings in the second half with the power rushing game.  There were a few great play-calls, although on multiple drives the Saints struggled at the edge of field-goal territory. 

Neither team looked ready for highly competitive play tonight.  The Saints basically looked less rusty than the Vikings, and they had a better quarterback—I might say they have the best one, and I’d have numbers to back me up.

Let me just quickly note that by my count, of 21 “experts” on NFL.com and foxsports.com, only one—Deion Sanders—is predicting the Saints to repeat in the Super Bowl.  We’ll just have to see.

Why to Avoid Intro Classes, and Bullshit

Recently Foreign Policy Magazine ranked the world’s worst textbooks, defining “worst” as being the most propagandist.  For example, China made the list, supported by the following quote from a “widely used history textbook:”

"The fundamental reason for the victory [in World War II] is that the Chinese Communist Party became the core power that united the nation."

Foreign Policy Magazine doesn’t explain, but I assume that the “worst textbooks” they cite were written for children or young adults, not for college students who presumably are trying to hone some skill of critical thinking.  My textbook for POS 110: American Government and Politics does not share this excuse.

The textbook for POS 110 is quite inspiringly called The New American Democracy.  From the title one could guess the authors cast a rather rosy hue on our empire, but like any good political scientist and unlike most ASU students, I decided to actually read the textbook before making any judgments.

On page 8 the authors contrast government by the many with government by the few, writing: “In the twentieth century alone, millions of people have died at the hands of rulers who gained near-absolute power—tyrants such as Germany’s Hitler, the Soviet Union’s Stalin, China’s Mao, and Cambodia’s Pol Pot.”

Woh now!  As a political scientist, I’m afraid I have to question some shit.  If our purpose is to assess the efficacy of different regimes, we should also mention successful governments headed by one person, like Turkey under Mustafa Kemal or Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew.

After laying out the US system, the authors use page 21 to address some common criticisms of the US government:

“If American politics and government are so blameworthy, why are the governments of so many new democracies adopting institutions similar to those found in the United States?”

Now, as a political scientist I might have some reservations about this rhetorical question, like why are the authors asking a rhetorical question?  Their intended audience is college freshmen who are ill-prepared to argue with academics in the field.  Being a little more experienced, I would point out that the authors don't specify which governments have adopted similar institutions.  Nor do they explain which institutions are adopted and why.  They also don’t try to analyze whether foreign governments are really adopting American institutions or just democratic institutions that might be more similar to Britain’s or France’s.

Next the authors defend America by saying, Hey, at least we’re not as messed up as these countries:

“Americans have watched in horror as civil war or genocide has erupted in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Northern Ireland, Cambodia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Rwanda, Burundi, Chechnya, Albania, Zaire, Kosovo, East Timor, and Sierra Leone.”

The first thought of a college freshman reading this is probably: Where the fuck are all these countries?  As a political scientist, however, I might have to ask these authors what exactly our country's role was in these conflicts.  How many were started, supported, or ignored by the United States while we “watched in horror?”  I’ll give you a few seconds to count.

Now that our blowjob to American government textbook has generously opened its pages to the world, ASU political science freshmen are given their first summation of US foreign policy.  It goes like this:

“Citizens of the United States have enjoyed a government that has a better record than most at protecting them against foreign aggression while usually avoiding unwise involvement in foreign conflicts.”

Ok, good record . . . (thinking) . . . 7 + a tie in Korea – 1 for Vietnam + 2 for the Gulf War cause you know, it was awesome + Trail of Tears = ok yeah they keep us safe, the first part is legit.  Now for the sec—OH DEAR LORD!  I mean I'd like to know just which unwise foreign entanglements got past us?  There’s invading Canada, Vietnam and Cambodia, junta in Greece, coup in Chile, terrorist war in Nicaragua, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanist—we’re running out of countries!  Oh, there is one place where we didn’t intervene.  Rwanda.  Well thank God we stayed out of that mess.

Of course these authors aren’t idiots.  They’ve been saving their trump card to refute the non-believers.  And right there on page 21 I found it:

“Critics selectively cite statistics showing that the United States is worse than Germany in one respect, worse than Japan in another respect, worse than Sweden in some other respect, and so on.  But can one conclude with confidence that any other government of a large country works better? Probably not.”

Indeed, I for one am so pleased that these authors have taken on critics who would stoop so low as to select their data—or even have data.  Notice that the authors do not explain what these statistics say, or why they might be wrong.  As a political scientist and a native speaker of English I have to question countering statistics with “Probably not.”  And again with the rhetorical questions.  You, college freshman, in your first college class reading your very first chapter, will you argue—with full confidence—that any other country is better than America?

To conclude my fellow students’ indoctrination, the authors, on page 23, write:

“The United States, for all its problems, has as good a government as exists anywhere, and a better one than most.”

“Better than most”—well that means good.  “As good as exists anywhere”—ok so we’re definitely at least tied for first place.  That means we won, right?

Now imagine being a Chinese citizen and reading this American college textbook about our government.  I think a lot of this would sound about as jingoistic as the Chinese history book that attributes Japanese defeat in world War II to the Chinese Communist Party.

I often criticize the American government’s past and current policies, and many people disagree with me.  That’s ok.  As political scientists, we need to understand multiple points of view, see the big picture, and evaluate arguments with evidence, rather than unsubstantiated propaganda.  Perhaps many people will agree with the statements in my textbook that I have ridiculed.  Regardless, where is the academic merit in criticizing others’ statistics without citing them, explaining them, and refuting them?  Is there anything remotely scientific  in saying that our government is “as good as exists anywhere” and “better than most?”  

This is not a high school giving us just enough background to simply function as citizens.  This is a university that students are paying to guide them in analyzing, criticizing, and reshaping politics.  And—to be frank—they’re being handed propagandist bullshit.   Thank God I can smell it, probably because I never took POS 110.

He's Just Not That Into You, EU

Today, Roger Cohen of The New York Times wrote a column arguing that there may be negative consequences in the future for the Obama Administration's "benign neglect" toward the EU.  I would argue that there's a more complex strategy behind this benign neglect, that the Obama Administration is attempting to constrain the EU's role in global affairs.  This is a trimmed-down excerpt from an essay I wrote on this topic last May for my class on European Union Security and Defense Policy at Boğaziçi University:

After the breakdown and forced reconstruction of Atlantic relations in George W. Bush’s presidency, many hoped that Barack Obama’s administration would re-emphasize alliances and multilateralism.  Over the last fifteen months, however, the Obama Administration’s signals to the European Union have been contradictory.  Diplomatic officials speak of the EU as a global security actor, but the president and the Secretary of Defense reflect frustration and perhaps disinterest.  

Key members of President Obama’s foreign policy team have publicly welcomed a strong Europe as a global security actor.  Philip H. Gordon, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, was a long-time critic of President Bush's relations with Europe.  He proposed a division of labor between NATO and the EU in which the EU would handle homeland security, democracy promotion, and humanitarian assistance, while NATO would remain the key instrument for military action.  

One could also look at the March 1, 2010 report of the Atlantic Council, which in Bush’s first term heavily criticized Europe.  In this report, the Atlantic Council, like Philip H. Gordon, recommends a division of labor in European defense between NATO and the EU: “If military action is called for and a U.S. role is required, NATO will have primary responsibility; if not, then the operational framework can be the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) or the United Nations.”  

Similarly, in a speech to the Atlantic Council, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “We do not see the EU as a competitor of NATO, but we see a strong Europe as an essential partner with NATO and with the United States.”  Clinton’s and Gordon’s shift in rhetoric toward a division of labor between NATO and the EU’s own defense forces was also perceived by EU officials. In March of 2009,  EU External Affairs Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner proclaimed that “we see with this administration a very different attitude . . . We have the United States with us and the United States has Europe with her. This is a different approach and we are quite hopeful!”

However, the president and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have delivered opposite signals.  In a February 23, 2010 speech to the National Defense University, Gates criticized the “demilitarization of Europe,” claiming that “large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it — [this is] an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21^st [century].”  

Perhaps most importantly, President Obama has been reportedly cold to the European Union, preferring to meet bilaterally with individual countries and repeatedly “snubbing” various European leaders.  After his first U.S.-EU Summit Obama is reported to have wryly quipped that “political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate.”  Months later, President Obama famously snubbed dinner with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris.  Most telling, Obama seems to have repeatedly excluded EU participation from central negotiations.  At the December 2009 Copenhagen Summit for Climate Change, Obama tried to negotiate with the Chinese Prime Minister directly, without Europeans in the room.  In February 2010, Obama declined to attend the 2010 EU-US Summit in Madrid.  Finally, President Obama failed to invite even one EU representative to the signing of the new START Agreement in Prague and his nuclear summit in April, which brought more than forty heads of state.  In a report by the European Council on Foreign Relations, which claims to have input from Obama Adminsitraton officials, the writers say: “the Obama administration has seen European governments . . . weak and divided—ready to talk a good game but reluctant to get muddy. Seen from Washington, there is something almost infantile about how European governments behave toward them—a combination of attention-seeking and responsibility-shirking.”

It is not clear whether the European Union will be treated as a global security actor by the United States under the administration of Barack Obama.  I would argue that the Obama Administration is trying to constrain the EU’s role in global affairs by simply denying it a seat at the table, as President Obama literally did in Copenhagen and Prague.  If the European Union wants to be an effective global security actor, it will need to break free from the current dynamic with the United States and reshape it to match the EU’s own identity and interests.  

No Love for New Orleans

I’ll admit I’ve been waiting for this.  I knew it would happen, and it has.  I’m responding to the NFL Network staff’s picks for various awards and games in the upcoming NFL season, in which my beloved New Orleans Saints have been dissed.

Some things to remember.  Drew Brees has been exactly as good as Peyton Manning and Tom Brady over the last four years.  Brees has thrown for more yards than either of them, more touchdowns than Manning, with the same QB rating as both of them, with a higher completion percentage than either of them.  He’s admittedly thrown a few more interceptions than they have in that time span, but he’s also won a Super Bowl in the last four years, against Manning no less.

Speaking of that Super Bowl, yes, that would be the game in which Drew Brees proved he was an equal of Manning and Brady.  That’s the game where the Saints dismantled the favored Colts in a come-from-behind victory with an efficient, balanced offense, a defensive touchdown, perfect execution on special teams, and perhaps the largest disparity in coaching style and quality in Super Bowl history.

But now the New Orleans Saints’ season of dominance has been swept away and forgotten (I’ll resist the obvious metaphor).  Of eleven NFL Network analysts, only one listed Drew Brees as the most likely offensive player of the year.  Well, actually I would probably agree with that.  Hasn’t Brees finally progressed from the subtle insult of that award to the legitimacy of being the league’s most valuable player, should he reach the same mastery as he did last season?  No.  Not a single expert is picking Drew Brees, the best quarterback of last year statistically and one of the best three for the last four years, to be our most valuable player.

In fact, of the eleven analysts, only four think that New Orleans will even repeat as the champions of the NFC South!  The rest pick the Atlanta Falcons.

Four of the eleven also see the Saints reaching the NFC Championship game.  Only Deion Sanders predicts the Saints will return to the Super Bowl.  Sanders emphasized that Saints coach Sean Payton is “the best play-caller” in the league and called Drew Brees “the best quarterback in the game today.”

Now I’m not saying the Saints are entitled to predictions of a Super Bowl-repeat.  These people make predictions based on evidence to say what will happen, not what should happen.  But I think they have made a mistake here.  A long tradition of dismissing the “Aints” is clouding their judgment.  It’s the same reason that last season week after week sports writers talked about the Saints needing to prove they were for real.  When they were 3-0, it was said they needed to beat the Jets to be the real thing.  They did.  When they were 5-0 they weren’t legit until they beat the Giants.  They did.  Even at 10-0, people were saying the Saints needed to prove themselves by beating the Patriots on Monday night.  Bam, it was done.  And then the Drew Brees and the Saints outgunned, out-thought, and out-fought the four-time MVP Peyton Manning and his Indianapolis Colts.

I don’t blame these people for not picking the Saints.  They might not be my choice either.  But I’ve never seen a Super Bowl champion regarded with this little respect.  And, based on last season, there’s a common outcome when people doubt the New Orleans Saints.  It involves Gatorade, a halftime show with an aging rock band, and some new jewelry.

The Oyo System

With a recorded history that begins in the 1400s, but possibly began much earlier, the Oyo Empire in modern-day Nigeria developed a noteworthy political system. In this empire the Oyomesi, a council of seven wise men believed to have divine powers, selected the Alaafin, or king. Imagine British parliament if there were seven parties whose leaders together appointed the prime minister. The Alaafin was expected to consult to Oyomesi on all critical decisions, and the Oyomesi would sometimes select a weak Alaafin to prevent the office from gaining dominance.

There was also a standard procedure for removing a bad Alaafin. The Oyomesi had to present him with a basket of parrot eggs, which effectively ordered the Alaafin's abdication. Then the Alaafin, his eldest son, and one of the seven members of the Oyomesi each had to commit suicide so the government could start anew.

This system of checks and balances is obviously a little exotic, with parrot's eggs, group suicide, etc. On the other hand, as my African Politics and Society professor emphasized, the process makes some sense. Why parrot's eggs, he asked. I thought about symbolism, and it took me nowhere. Because it's hard! he exclaimed. It requires planning and searching. Parrots don't leave their eggs on the lowest branches. The same followed for the suicide of the society's three most visible leaders. It ensures the Oyomesi would not depose Alaafins recklessly.

My professor stressed that this was a remarkably stable system. If one simply looks at the history of the Oyo Empire, it's clear that this system couldn't save them from colonialism, or themselves, but I agreed with my professor that it possessed a certain elegance.

I kept thinking about this after class for two reasons. One, I remembered hearing the story and how strange it all sounded until the professor explained more. My mind was too closed at the beginning.

Second, I imagined such a system's impact in today's America. For example, would Republican leaders have impeached President Clinton if it would have required a human sacrifice, not to mention the suicide of innocent Chelsea Clinton?  Presumably not. Then again, I can easily see the Republican candidates pledging to sacrifice themselves to stop Obama's jihad against Capitalism, perhaps each one jostling to volunteer for a more gruseome suicide than his or her rivals will. If their roles were reversed I suppose Democrats would probably agree that someone should commit suicide without ever deciding who and in what manner. Maybe our politics are just too dysfunctional to adopt the Oyo system.