![]() Alex and I started this show on a whim one evening, and after just the first episode we were relieved to have finally starting a quality series. HBO usually does not let down, but even though I was exhausted from moving back to Houston the same day, we finished the first two episodes and started the third. Knowing this show documents events that actually occurred, it is horrifying in a unique way - sort of like a car accident you cannot look away from. We ended up finishing the miniseries in 2 days, which isn’t that surprising given the intense and gripping subject matter as well as it’s short length (five episodes that barely exceed an hour). Obviously, the science related content is a bit difficult to grasp, but not because the show does a poor job explaining it. In fact, the show provided me with a very amended understanding of nuclear energy reactors - so beyond the historical information I can confidently say I learned something from this series. As for the historical aspect, I do believe that it supplemented what I already knew, but particularly through an emotional lens. The stories of those who suffered the consequences of Chernobyl are as painful as it gets, and the creators do not hold back in depicting how heartbreaking the reality of situation was. There were multiple instances where Alex and I were both left in tears, unable to imagine the pain of the people involved but trying desperately hard to. The idea of something like this happening to you terrifying, something that you can’t even see with your eyes literally destroying you. I guess our best comparison is the pandemic, but still this tragedy takes on a completely different form of disaster. The show was very well made, as HBO usually does, and I appreciate it for bringing attention to the disaster. Watching it, you will realize the level of censorship that existed in the USSR and still survives in Russia. Whether is is the death toll, the documentation of the issue, or the reprimanding of those responsible, there is a huge disconnect between the state actors and what actually occurred that day. I remain unsure on just how accurate the historical recounting is, in terms of the specifics such as the flaws of the machine, state procedure, and person lives of the characters. I will definitely look into this. There are a lot of cutis origins that resulted from this show, beyond the events at Chernobyl. As I am currently reading 1984, it is impossible not to think about the level of state control, censorship, and overall corruption that existed. Could so many lives really have been saved if there was transparency? It is hard for me to grasp how unethical the people in power were to let this negligence occur. If you think you understand, let me know your rational, because I don’t get choosing your own life over thousands of innocent ones. Regardless, if you haven’t watched the show, you definitely should.
1 Comment
![]() I hopped into this read quite quickly, mostly because it was on my list and I recently discovered it was free on audible. I do not even have the physical copy of this book, but staying engaged to the story through the audiobook has been impressively easy. This isn't impressive in terms of me, the listener, but George Orwell, the author, for writing such a captivating story. A classic book by a classic author that had some how been left out of my adolescent education. Perhaps this was in part because of the very theme the book explores: censorship. Joking, of course, I obviously don’t think that George Orwell was removed from the experiences of my public education because of censorship, as many of my peers have enjoyed “Animal Farm,” and even this novel I am sure. But the thought does make you wonder… This book explores what I am sure Orwell feared to be a potential future path of humanity. Living in London, Winston was surrounded by people, but it was not the many individuals he say that came across as suffocating. It was rather the government, which interestingly enough, rarely took on any sort of physical presence in the book. The ideas and demands of the Party was mostly in through the propaganda conveyed to us through Winston’s thoughts. Other Party inclement came from public announcements, Hate week, the notable and grand (and the working for) the bureaucratic buildings, or the presence of cameras, microphones, and telescreens. We did not often see regular interaction with law enforcers or soldiers, the manner of overbearing political control that I would suspect someone to write about in 1949 when indirectly condemning strong government. He seems ahead of his time, as the status quo conveys these same concerns but though capitalistic control. Rather than the government overtly spying on us and feeding us propaganda, we have these corporate powers quietly monitoring and surveillancing all of our digital (and sometimes non-digital) existence. Furthermore, all the information we absorb comes to us from one of the media conglomerates, once again indirectly controlling and managing our thoughts in a way that could be described as censorship. Of course we can often discuss what we would like, but whether or not our word will have worth and the capacity to spread and it is largely up to the businesses which are necessary mediums of communication (social networks, news companies, publishers, and more). How can we stray away from this? (SPOILER IN THE NEXT SENTENCE AND FOR THE REST TO FOLLOW). How far away are we from being the skeptical Winston at the beginning, the revolutionary in the middle, or the puppet at the end? Perhaps we are all doomed to this fate, that we must accept this control or we cannot participate in this life, as it is life of coercion or death. One of the aspects of the book that I found most intriguing was the notion of truth. If everyone believes 2 + 2 is 5, then is that the reality? Do we have to reconstruct the fundamentals of mathematics to allow this to be true, or is it simple what is in the human mind that exists. What about human history, dinosaurs, dead relatives, childhood memories, are these only real just because it exists in the minds of humans? Or is there some ultimate reality out there that we are limited to understanding because of the constraints of human perceptions. This “fallacy,” was one of the most enjoyable and frustrating inner-dialogues shared with readers (p. 278). Another fascinating dialogue (p. 270)explores the principal of moral superiority that comes with increased understanding. My initial thought is to refute this, at is often an argument I hear people make to justify the eating of animals. That is, that humans are superior because they are more intelligent (to human standards, might I mention) so it is okay that they subject animals to cruelty for their unnecessary pleasures. Regardless, I want to explore - even just on the basis of humanity alone, - are people really better than others just because they lack ignorance? I can imagine a world where ignorance can be good, where acting without knowledge would result in more ethical actions than otherwise. So I doubt the idea that being more aware inherently makes the individual more valuable. On the other hand, knowledge is power/valuable, and having such information in the hands of one can still permit the exclusion of that information to others, thus controlling the benefits to ignorance from a managerial sense. So what am I saying, that censorship is good? I mean, of course! But also no. It is so hard to say, I want to know as much as I can but I also believe that withholding information from some (or perhaps the masses) can be the more ethical route. I guess all this means is that I subscribe to consequentialism. I wonder if deontologists believe that like being untruthful is always wrong, that not being completely (and ever absurdly) truthful is also always wrong. If there are any deontologists out there, of even someone who enjoys playing devil’s advocate, leave a comment below. Although this review does not applaud or discuss the powerful storyline and plot building as this book deserves, I stress the quality of this piece of nonfiction work. It tells a story that can be timeless to any society, exploring themes of love, hate, passion, rebellion, coercion and more, while also providing in intriguing story which subtly suggests moral and philosophical qualms with the way of political and social life. Admittedly, this becomes less subtle at the end, but the quick switch of the direction of the plot makes for a compelling story that makes more transparent in the lessons and thoughts it aims to provoke in the readers mind. I cannot stress this book recommendation enough, as it hits all the marks. I would say it is a hard book to put down, but being that I consumed it mostly through audio (which was free by the way), I would say that this is a book you won’t want to pause. ![]() Perhaps I should not admit this, but I was not aware of this book and it's stature when I came across it at Half-Priced Books. I was captured by the obviously intriguing name, and was immediately interested upon reading the premise of this book. Now - it is clear that this book is one I would have naturally come across in the pursuit of politically philosophical knowledge. It was also free an audible, which is always a plus. Unfortunately, the translations are quite different, making the portions where I read it quite different experiences from when I listen. I don't mind this, as it adds spice to the experience. The first chapter discusses the ethical response to thievery, and Raphael praised the Polylerits of Persia for how they force them into underpaid labor as punishment rather than sentencing them to death. This is an easy premise for me to follow, but apparently not for those around him until Raphael explains this. Then Peter and Raphael disagree on essentially whether or not you can have a government with only just people, or if it is impossible for such a state to exist. Raphael says it is possible and that it does. Let me guess, this place will be the island of Utopia. I hope this book is not meant to be satirical of political solutions that seem so obvious but unattainable, because when certain ways of life are conveyed, I can't help but think, "See, it is just that simple!" This ideas include that people serve the public good, particularly the political leader, and that wealth is of no goal to rulers. In fact, they suggest that the poorest person should be the king, since a rich man controlling the poor is closer to slavery than government. They reject the right to property, as I find necessary to a just world but also find unappealing to individual rights. This, and many other aspects of the society draw from Plato's Republic, which I am have glad to read prior to this. Similar to myself, Peter see's this a Something I appreciate is how the notion of work is praised, and to put it frankly, being lazy is condemned. Everyone has to have some job, or as I like to phrase it, a regular contribution to society. Despite this, the work day is limited to no more than 6 daily hours, which I see as reasonable. There is no rich or poor class, everyone dresses "simply" and has all of their modest needs met (because luxury is NOT a good thing here). People can freely choose what they do with their spare time, but they must preform some for of exercise. This is not necessarily physical, and includes music, art, learning, reading, etc. It is interesting because they word is as if this is in opposition to the luxury of "idleness," but I find idleness extremely unappealing. The freedom to pursue a mental exercise seems much more pleasant to me. Let's not forget one outstanding flaw of this island, they have slavery, in fact, every family has two slaves. Clearly this is not an ideal state for all. Funny enough, there is only murder for food consumption. They eat animals but only the slaves are permitted to kill them, since allowing the citizens to do so would rid them of pity and compassion. Is there something to learn from this? Two huge flaws of society intertwined. I find the notion of slave ownership corrupts every other successful element to this society, as all things problematic are oversimplified by the outsourcing of the issue to slaves. It is justified by the source of slavery, as often they are saved from death sentences. They phrase it as such a positive thing, since they are given the opportunity to redeem themselves. This is still extremely flawed to me, but at least no one is born into slavery? Along with this comes the restrictions of roles to gender, age, and somewhat class. If you are a women you have confined norms, although they are anomaly. So - there are social constructs for gender but they are not restricting. Is that natural? Another thing of note, I really like how they explained the notion of having souls in the portion about the religious life in Utopia. He says, paraphrasing, that it would be naive to believe that the extend of our existence is limited to what humans are capable of seeing. Well said, Thomas more. Overall, this book was a very short read/listen and very insightful. It provides a great depiction of the ideal and just state that ancient greek philosophers spoke of, particularly Socrates. Seeing it employed through a fiction story results in a different perspective of such ideas, and I think it does a good job in forcing the audience to reflect on their own ideologies. This book is fun, do not be intimidated by the subject matter, it is an easy read. I think everyone should take time to reflect on their own political ideologies, and Utopia does a good job inspiring readers to do that. ![]() A book recommended by Alex that explains a novel definition of wildlife that reshapes perceptions on conversation politics. This is particularly relevant to my interests and career interests, but it utilizes a scientific voice that made me feel a bit under qualified as a reader. In fact, it provoked this need to educate myself on the biological and geological aspects of environmental science, as the author expresses such expertise. I do not believe that such knowledge is a prerequisite to participating in the environmental political field, but it sure would help. It would alleviate the discomforts of inadequacy that this book often brought. This is not particularly noted to criticize the book, although it sure could use some revisions if it is meant to be approached by the layman, but to explain my takeaways. Concepts such as dramatic, shocking, and horrifying and imagery and campaign strategies is something that I have previously studied. I agree with Jamie Lorimer that although it is effective at grasping attention, it motivates apathy and pessimism that is counterproductive. In fact, I wrote a paper on the environmental communication strategies of PETA that explores this idea, I will make sure to link that at the end of this post. But to continue, I enjoy the commentary on the commodification of wilderness that may lead to advances in conservation, but still are "masking the socially and ecologically disastrous relations of their production," (133). Such is why I implore conservation and environmentalism through ecological altruism, but I am not certain Lorimer agrees (although I am confident the foundations of his ideology are similar). This book has made me even question my own ethical perspectives, particularly when discussing the criticisms of the management of the OVP in The Netherlands. Animals were introduced to an human-made island, a form of rewilding, in conservationist. My initial reaction was positive, but the author explains the international criticism it faced from animal rights groups that detested how these animals were left to die of starvation since they did not come to this habitat on their own volition. Advocates believed that these animals should be given the same rights as those in farms, zoos, or laboratories. Initially, I agree, but what if it is for the greater good of the global ecological community? I wonder if anyone will be able to make that call. I found myself more comfortable in the later sections of the book, where the author employs ideas of exploitation using through Marxist theories to explain our relationships with other species. The commodification of charisma in species plays an interesting role on their domestication, treatment, and advocacy. I wonder why certain charismatic animals, such as cows, seem to be an exception. He says that less captive, captivating charismatic species "might fare better than their non-charismatic, undomesticated, or non-resilient kin," but what does it mean to fare better (156)? Is that relative to treatment from humans or their existence, which is quite subjective. The notion of charisma and encounter value makes sense conceptually, but I find too many gaps in the argument when I think of animals we consume. Overall, this book provides a different outlook on what it means to be natural and wild, particularly in the context of the developing world. We cannot over simplify the multilateral nature of wildlife, but the complex care of the subject seems much more difficult the the author makes it seem. The cosmopolitics, as it is called, of the dynamic process of conservation is going to inherently be flawed to the perspective of the researchers and spectators. The role of capitalism mentioned is what I found most compelling, but the recommendations provided seem to ail the symptoms of the issue at hand rather that suggest an overarching solution. Perhaps that is too big picture of me, and these are the suggestions for those involved in the conservation politics of the status quo. I look to shift the entire structure which biopolitics exists on, how daring of me. At least now I can understand the complexities that exist in the now. ![]()
![]() Great things come in threes, the the first three books of Frank Herberts "Dune" series exemplifies that pattern. Alex and I began this series on our road trip almost a year ago. I was quite hesitant to the idea, resistant to the imitation of this book. I was one of the few individuals who had not been aware of the reputation of this novel and series, so I had little reason to be excited. Upon hearing the praise and impacts of this created universe, I was willing to give it a shot. Now, the first half of the first book is discouragingly slow (or perhaps too fast and filled with unfamiliarity that it feels slow), but once you cross over that bridge you are launched into the most magnificent realm of fiction. This has continued throughout the books I have read thus far, the sequel, "Dune Messiah" and "Children of Dune." It is hard not to claim that I prefer the sequels to the original, but it makes sense. Once you fall in love with the world and characters that Herbert created, you do not want to stop enjoying the fiction. Just like the rest of my experiences with the series, I listed to this as an audiobook, which I feel is perfect to absorb the dialogue and dynamics of the story. Being that this is the third of the series, it is difficult to discuss content without giving anything away, and I cannot express enough how much I urge everyone to read these books. Although sometimes I feel like the foreshadowing in this novel is too obvious, The twists and turns culminated in the last few pages of the book left my heart racing. I am very eager to move on to the next book of the series. The author does an impressive job of moving the story forward through the introduction new story elements, but satisfies fans by not letting go of the original themes, characters, and settings. I enjoy how each chapter functions so differently in terms of plot progression, but without being explicit, tie the story together so well such a way that satisfied the reader for connecting such storylines into one grand tale. I do not think it will be long until I am reading Frank Herberts work again, and I hope the same goes for everyone reading. Oh how things have NOT changed - and I am not complaining. I want to clarify, Africa by TOTO is only on there because it was my morning alarm, as in my Spotify would play it every morning that I set an alarm through "Alexa". I was shocked when Alex though that I had only recently discovered that song, how RUDE. Obviously, I recommend all of these songs on my playlist, especially the top five, but I will point to some others not ranked here that I really think everyone should listen to. These will be songs that are particularly relevant to 2021 for me, as in I had not come across them until this year. This really limits the songs I can recommend, considering that this was not an exploratory year for music for me. Although, on Alex and I's road trip, we prompted (more like pressured) strangers to inform us of their favorite song, and we complied a playlist of the responses. It was pretty interesting and diverse, and in fact, the first of my recommendations came from this playlist! Give these a listen!This song was recommended to us by a park ranger when we stayed in - Colorado? I want to say that it was after we left Great Sand Dunes National Park, checked out Aspen, and then went to our campsite that had alerted us of a recent bear attack. Yes, it must have been here, because we were gravely paranoid of a bear attack that night. This paranoia was induced by something else as well, something that we could only get ahold of in Colorado... Regardless he mentioned this song and I fell in love immediately. I have known The Smiths, and listened to them before, but not this song. I took a deep dive into there music at some point this year and I could not get enough of. There is something so depressing, romantic, and calming about their music. This song exemplifies that. As does This Charming Man, which also had a place on my playlist. This song feels like a classic, and it probably is. I am sure Alex is the one who introduced me to it, as he very much enjoys showing me classic rock that I am unfamiliar with. I love doing the same, it is fun that we get to do that for each other. Can you believe that he had never listened to I Can't Stand Losing You by The Police until this year? Unfortunately, that probably will not show up in his Spotify wrapped. It also did not show up in mine for the same reason. A lot of the music that I listen to on repeat comes from CD's! This song, though, was listed to on repeat elsewhere. As a write each of these descriptions, I also listen to the song, which of course makes sense. Lili asked me what song this was, because of course she was enjoying it. She already had it saved, I even recall when I showed it to her. We were in the car, driving either to or from Greenbelt Botanicals, a Delta 8 bar where you can smoke indoors - legally! How easily this song brought back this memory. I really wanted to see them at ACL, as they had 2 other songs on this playlist (Eagle Beach and Judy French) but I was alas unable. Random side story, I did get to see Greta Van Fleet for free at ACL. I ran 5 miles to Zilker and asked someone who was leaving for their bracelet, and they were glad to share it was me, a GA+ even! Epic - but the band didn't stick, but White Reaper did.
On our most recent road trip, Alex made a comment regarding a song I was playing. I can't recall which one, but it was a move at taking credit for older rock music. Now, he isn't wrong - he has shown me a lot of older music that I have become more a fan of. This has only supplemented the music I had come to know from my dad. I made a short playlist during the trip, adding songs that fit this vibe.
|
Categories |