A Defense of Western Civilization: Introduction

Western Civilization, long the dominant culture on Earth, for the first time in a great deal of time is under significant threat, both from internal critics and external enemies. In Europe, the cradles of Western civilization in Greece and Italy are nearing the demographic point of no return. The rest of Europe has suffered a great decline in military power and international prestige, and are suffering from a varieties of civil unrest. Canada suffers from similar ailments, with immigration unable to meet the declining birthrates. The United States, faced with the prospect of the long and difficult tasks of being the world’s only superpower, appears to be balking at the responsibilities.

This essay will introduce my own understanding and classification of Western Civilization, which is admittedly fairly different than the traditional literature; it will also introduce the critics and opponents of Western civilization and why I have chosen them as opposed to others. This will lay the ground work for the more thorough historical explication in the next three weeks and then into the actual defense of what I have defined as Western civilization in the face of her modern opponents. This whole series is to be taken as a work in progress, and I reserve the right to edit them as I see fit. I welcome all constructive criticism, and thoughtful consideration of what I am putting forth in these essays.

I think that while getting many of the details wrong, like most of us, Samuel Huntington struck a much more appropriate historical analytical tool in his work The Clash of Civilizations. As with most groundbreaking work, there were some considerations that should have, but weren’t taken into account; but his analytical tools in my opinion ought to be the foundation for historical and political analysis. Unlike Huntington and most historians, I do not view the unit of civilization to be historically homogenous. For example, while the Roman Empire and the Middle Ages are very much historically continuous, but certainly not the same civilization, politically or culturally. Both are distinctly different then what followed or came before; they are both in my view civilizations.

So then we need some new unit of analysis, what I call streams. Streams are broader than civilizations, but encompass what is traditionally within what we call civilization. So for a western example, The unified Roman civilization and Medieval civilizations are a part of the Western stream, but not the same civilization. For another clarifying example, Imperial China and the PRC are a part of the same Chinese stream, but are NOT the same civilization. Civilizations may cross streams, depending on the closeness of these streams, but generally remain separate. One example of this would be the dominance of communist civilization, a production of the western stream, in Russia, considered to be a part of Orthodox civilization by both Huntington and myself.

Civilizations are the summation of various political, religious, and socio-cultural trends and elements within a given stream that exist for a period of time. Not only can there be multiple civilizations within a stream, there can be multiple civilizations at the same time, and interact with each other based on the differences within the described civilizational traits. Some civilizations maybe different based on politics, while others solely on religion or on various elements of the two. Even within these civilizations there can be various elements, usually political bodies but not restricted solely to them that compete with each other of land, resources, or other perceived differences. The point is that these civilizations are united based upon common philosophical assumptions about politics, religions or cultural elements. Tension between civilizations in my view thus becomes one of the fundamental sources of conflict within nation-states, as their may be several civilizations and their adherents combating each other for control over that nation-state.

So what exactly then is Western civilization, as opposed to the Western stream? It is what I consider the manifestation of all that is unique to the Western stream of humanity in a single civilization, generally co-terminus with what in modern historical textbooks is called the Enlightenment period, and Modernity as a whole. The fundamental political, religious and socio-cultural that make up Western civilization include, but are not limited to republicanism, constitutionalism, free commerce and trade or captialism, limited government, Judeo-Christian religious groups, commitment to exploration (See Frontier Thesis), nationalism, rationalism, classical liberalism, humanism, individualism, and above all, a commitment to liberty and equality.

Within the current period of time, there are several groups that challenge Western civilization for supremacy within the Western stream. These come from both within the Western stream and from without. Within the Western stream, the critics come from two sources, from proto-Western and post-Western thought. Proto-Western critics attack Western republicanism and political thought from a monarchial perspective, viewing Western civilization as insufficiently cohesive and ultimately unstable. In the past, particularly in the early era of Western civilization, this was the dominant stream of criticism. In the current time however, this has become a distinct minority voice, and most proto-Western critics tend to applaud returns to more Western political norms. Nevertheless within academic circles proto-Western critics present some profound arguments against Western civilization. Two prominent public figures who have put forward proto-Western criticisms would be Allan Bloom and Irving Kristol.

While proto-Westerns tend to be much more amenable to Western civilization as a whole, post-Westerns represent the most serious anti-Western thought from within the Western stream. Within post-Western thought, there are two competing civilizations that present a serious threat to the continued dominance of Western civilization. The first is the Marxian civilization, which has been the most prominent threat for the latter half of the 19th century and the 20th century as a whole. Marxian civilization tends to be presented as the opposite of Western civilization, and is largely true. While Marxists are not the only critics, if one were to draw a line with pure Western thought at one end, the other end would be Marxist thought. The second is the charistmatic-Nietzschean civilization, based on the criticisms of Christianity and rationalism of Western civilization. Politically, charismatic-Nietzschean civilizations tend to be led by singularly charismatic (hence the addition) leaders and are authoritarian in nature, highly corporate/group-focused as opposed to individualistic, though generally nationalistic rather than class-based as Marxian societies.

There are other groups of critics within the Western stream, but I do not consider them to have civilization status. The first would be feminism, which in my view lacks a philosophical cohesiveness in order to be considered a civilization. Environmentalism, in my view, is certainly a proto-civilizational movement, with the potential to become a civilization, but at the current point in time lacks political power and a definitive political structure, among other things, to be considered a true civilization. Ultimately those critics from proto- and post-Western civilizations argue against Western civilization from an primarily ideological standpoint, which despite Huntington’s claims are still particularly important in the current political environment thanks to the historical alliances between the nations within the Western stream. However as each civilization develops, more post-Western proto-civilizations emerge and non-Western streams, each civilization views this as the time that they can emerge and take away the dominance of Western civilization for themselves.

Outside of the western stream, things begin to appear more in line with Huntington’s thesis regarding civilizations. While the ideological differences no longer remain, Russia has returned to the world stage as a world player thanks to its discoveries in oil and other resources. Islamic streams continue to oppose the Western streams one and all, based on a multitude of justifications, but primarily religious in nature and Western stream governance in theocratic terms, making them nearly the opposite of the Western stream as a whole. I must point out as I close this introduction that I do not view proponents of these points ‘inferior’ in any way, but rather as opponents worthy of my time to combat their claims about Western civilization.

A Defense of Western Civilization: Preview

It has been far too long since I’ve posted anything on this blog, and hopefully this new series will resolve this. I don’t know if it will, since it seems like every time I come back to this blog I have grand intentions that come out to nothing. But here we go.

This series will be my own attempt to define and defend this vast and long lived entity know as Western civilization, which appears to be approaching a significant turning point in its history. Widely viewed to be collapsing because of internal decay and outside attacks, whether it be from power (as opposed to ideological) rivals outside of the Western tradition, such as Russia, or ideological opponents such as Islam and communism. This series of essays will be my attempt as a student of history to defend what I view as the current pinnacle of human civilization against outside attacks and to buttress its internal structures against internal decay and do my part to rebuild what has been torn down.

I have no illusions about what this will accomplish, but it is my duty as a citizen and soldier to defend my nation and culture against all threats, foreign and domestic.

What follows is a current outline of what I currently plan to cover. The first four essays will be expositional in nature, an attempt to define and extrapolate in a somewhat limited form the idea of Western Civilization, while the following four to six will be an attempt to defend and answer criticisms, internal and external, directed at Western civilization.

1. Introduction
2. Ancient Origins
3. Modern Manifestations
4. Tenets and Foundations
5. War and Peace
6. Republic and Democracy
7. Religion, Christianity and Atheism
8. Capitalism and Commerce
9. ?
10. ?

Any suggestions would be welcome. Try to keep them broad enough to warrant their own category based on what I provided here.

I’ll be looking to start my introduction this weekend.

Thanks to iMonk for his inspiration for this series with his The Evangelical Liturgy series for inspiration

Kings: A Post-Mortem

As much as it pains me to write that title, it’s true. The best single season of a television series to come out of NBC since the first season of Heroes has come to an end. Kings, a modern adaptation of the story of King David in the books of Samuel and Chronicles, is no more, the series finale aired yesterday with more than a little air of shame from the network. Booted around the schedule like a football, originally intended for ERs vacated spot, was then put to Sundays, and after declining ratings shifted to Saturday before being unceremoniously dumped to the middle of summer. According to the executive producer and creator of the show, there was a significant divide between NBCs creative and marketing staffs, which apparently led to the disruptive scheduling and distinct lack of any advertising campaign.  While the show was arguably the best on NBCs lineup, and certainly the most creative, it is no more, with the chances of it being picked up by another network are slim to none. But one can hope, can one not?

Plot: The plot of the series, while obviously covering the King David story, was remarkably complex. It expanded on the story, filling in spots left untold in the biblical account. The main conflicts of the story, particularly the Gilboa-Gath conflict are left ambiguous, which in my opinion kind of hurt the show, and the focus on ending that war left a little to be desired. But the introduction of the William Cross character as a powerful industrialist who bankrolled Silas and the creation of Gilboa was well done, and provided a much more natural and believable source of conflict within the Court. That being said, the evil industrialist who wants war to continue to line his own pockets was a bit blah. That being said, the basics of the plot were strong and compelling, particularly the ways in which the conflict between Silas and David emerged.

Acting/Characters: This is where the writers got into the most trouble with me, particularly in the way they changed some of the elements of the story around. Some of it had to do with the fact that this was definitely a post-modern retelling (David’s dad is dead), but a couple places here and there were self-inflicted and totally avoidable. The first mistake, and in my opinion the most egregious, was the Samuel character. While it is clear that his character has vast influence over the population, it’s not entirely clear why or how he developed it, and to be frank why he deserves it. Until the last episode, Samuel sputters around looking lost in the drama with no real purpose within the plot and lacking the moral foundation that served the Biblical Samuel so well. Even with some of the other character changes that I didn’t like, but eventually made sense within the thematic context of the show, it just didn’t work, mostly because the scences in which Samuel’s humanity is revealed lack context. They almost redeem themselves though in the last episode with his impassioned prayer before he gets whacked, and if it was anyone but Samuel, it would have been genius, but it was Samuel, so it wasn’t.

Another character that rubbed me the wrong way was David, at least for the first 9 episodes until he finds out that Silas killed his daddy and goes all bitter on us. Much like Samuels, he just didn’t have much to do other than blow up the tank, rescue the prince and sit in Shiloh looking all angsty and awed at the big city. It wasn’t that his character was built as a pushover, the character was subsumed into the others, reacting only as the writers needed him to. The character, in short, had no agency, until late in the show. I think it suffered because of it, but I can at least understand why, given the early focus on Silas and the Royal Family. The writers redeemed themselves with David’s growth later in the season, but they shot themselves in the foot by sidelining arguably the central character in the story so early.

One change I didn’t have too much of a problem with, mostly because there wasn’t ultimately enough time to develop the relationship, was Jonathan’s portrayal. This is where the writers of the series editorialize the story the most, making Jack much more like his father. Now obviously, there were bound to be some “OMG JACK IS GAY!!1!11! HERESY!” reactions, I actually think it was handled extremely well within the thematic context of the show’s discussions on the nature of power and what men will sacrifice to obtain it. Jack is not gay because to show is trying to promote gay rights, but it flows naturally from what the show is trying to discuss regarding the nature of an absolute monarchy and what is required of that monarchy. Which is nice, still a little annoying considering the whole “Jonathan and David were gay!” school of thought, and thus a little excessively provocative. But really, what can you expect from NBC? On two side notes though, the moment during “Javelin” when Silas calls Jack a faggot was in my mind one of the most powerful moments on the show, and proof positive that a single well-aimed insult is more powerfull than a thousand f-bombs. Second, Jack’s punishment for trying to take Silas place was one of the most creative ways to create hell for a character than I’ve seen in a long time. Well done.

Now, enough with the negatives, on to the positives. First, Ian McShane is a genius, a brilliant actor playing a brilliantly written character. After watching this series, I wonder if it was originally written for Silas, because he was the star of the show, commanding every scene he was in with royal dignity. I’d have no problem believing that Ian McShane could actually be a king and pull it off extremely well. Silas’ descent into madness was brilliance, and he delivered dialogue that a lesser actor would make melodramatic with such flair and panache that I really believe that McShane actually talks like that. Simply brilliant.

Second, Susannah Thompson was brilliant as the complex Queen Rose. While her original characterization was that of a shallow figurehead, she is shortly revealed to be a cunning and ruthless public servant who would do (and does) anything to protect her family, the throne, and the nation. It’s remarkable how she manages to portray someone so continually on the edge yet with such poise and amorality. Another brilliant casting choice and well developed and well written character.

Thirdly, Brian Cox is amazing in his few short appearances as the former king of Shiloh, Vesper Abaddon. His first appearance is that of a insane tyrant rotting in Silas’ special dungeon, he become the devil on Silas shoulder, enjoying pushing him over the edge to the point where Silas with overthrow himself. But he is not without regrets, clearly demonstrating to David in the second-to-last episode, he delivers the line with clear regret and powerful emotion, “It is always better to be loved than feared.”

In the end, this series was almost too good to be true. Excellent production values, and a high level of Biblical knowledge and backstory development, continually remarkable writing, brilliant acting, a reasonably well-developed plot and amazing secondary characters  means this show goes with great sorrow from me.

The Internet…

…is a depressing place.

July 4th

Family, Friends, Countrymen,

Today we stand together in celebration of this great, this fine, this proud nation. From the humble beginnings of persectured churchmen and political dissidents, to the outcasts of enlightened society, the refuse of the English Empire, those with too much ambition, those with too little of anything to speak of, our nation has transformed, a chrysalis bringing forth this beacon of liberty, of hope and of justice. Since Columbus set foot on his New World, these lands have been a place to start anew, to begin again; a source of hope, of freedom unknown, of life unhindered, of love and life and faith with burning passions.

On this day, men of letters, proud, principled, intelligent and gifted with God’s wisdom set forth in ink this Grand Experiment. Our Republic, founded by the gun, the pen, and the men and women of this great nation both high and low, set forth as the small backwater refusing to allow exploitation by the Great Lion, the might British Empire, upon whom the sun never set. With unyielding will, minds a lit with the fires of freedom’s promise, and with a little luck, the humble American trapped the mighty Redcoat upon this very shore, and soon this great nation, began the painful, glorious and mighty process of birth.

Ladies and gentlemen, today we have inherited the dreams of our fathers, our mothers, of men and women yet unborn in nations where freedom’s bell rings not, were the bootheel crushes, where hope lives not, where darkness covers the land. The question presented to us today is simple: do we continue to feed that fire? To live that dream? That some day, some place, men may be treated as  equal, before God and men gearter merely by merit, and that the oppressed may find freedom, the crushed maybe lifted up, and that all that means to be human will be celebrated in birth, in life, in death.

Across this world people dream of a better life. They dream of security that comes from wealth, from the lights of hope and freedom, that they may be men and women, respected by God and others for their inherent natural worth, they dream that as beings with wills and aspirations, filled to the brim with life they may live it, for better of worse. They dream that this life lies here, in these hallowed lands, from sea to shining sea; in these flowing plains, in these broad forests, in these harsh deserts, in this mighty cities, in the hearts of the citizens here.

But we must not forget that this Mighty Republic is the world’s Greatest Experiment, and that our freedoms are not forever, nor are they our natural state. They were taken by force from men with far greater means. Whether it was from the British or the slaveholder, from the party machine boss or the gangleader, from the drugs dealt on our streets to the fears and hatreds that spring from our very hearts, freedom is not free! It is not given to us like a present at Christmas, or our names at birth, it is power removed from few and given to the many, that none may dominate over all. It is fought for and many more men and women die seeking than reach it.

It is in this spirit that today, on the day of our independence, and the flower of the virus of freedom, I call upon each of us to bring hope to those men and women within and beyond, to serve and to love, to hope, and most of all to live free. While our light may be covered, our lives may be taken, our homes may be laid to waste, our dream will never die! It shall live on in the hearts of men on worlds far distant from our own, in the skies and in the oceans, in the farthest stars and the closest hearths. It shall be spread across all borders, across all colors and creeds and into the very soul of humanity.

Today, friends we celebrate as we should. And tomorrow, we fight!

God Bless You All

God Bless America

J.M.G.

Misc. Inc.

So I’m just about over not having a job. Not much to do, no money to do anything with. It’s a bummer.

On the one hand, it’s nice to have time to write again, but if that’s all I have to do, it gets old fast, especially since I don’t get paid to write.

I do think it’s extremely funny that I’m getting a lot of Russian spam though, for no apparent reason.

On the lighter side of life, I thought this 17 Great Historical Moments Ruined by Modern Technology | Cracked.com was absolutely hilarious, especially number 17.

In other news, these playoffs have been great for the sport of hockey, and I hope that in the coming years hockey will get the recognition it deserves alongside baseball and football as great sports.

Yeah right, pigs fly, Nancy Pelosi’s honest, and the Canucks will one day win the Stanley Cup.

Judiciary Day

Before I get started on my rant about two major judiciary occurances, an interesting short post about the unintended consequences of closing Guantanamo Bay.

So, two major announcements today from the land of the judicial branch of the American Government. First is that the California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Prop 8, on a 6-1 basis. First off, I feel its a good sign that despite being subject to extreme pressure from the political establishment in California the court upheld the right of the people to amend their own constitution. The arguments brought forth by the varying lawyers opposed to Prop 8, particularly the idea that if a constitutional amendment violated a fundamental right then the court was bound to overturn Prop 8. Now, the utter ridiculousness of this argument should be immediately apparent. The California Constitution is the document which defines the fundamental rights of Californians. This isn’t the United Kingdom, or any other commonwealth country where there is a series of unwritten precedents that are consulted in the constitutional court. The simple fact is that roughly seven million Californians voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Whether you like that or not, that is now enshrined in the California constitution. If you want to change it, go to the voters, not the courts.

There’s another rant to be had about the whole gay marriage debate, but I think I will just leave it at this.

The second major happening was the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor by President Barack Obama to the Supreme Court. Even though this nomination is to succeed Breyer, who has been one of the more activist judges on the bench, this is extremely disappointing, and indicative of just how the federal judiciary is going to be changed for the next four years. Rather than sober application of laws, empathy and subjectivity is going to be the primary determinant of how justices are to rule, creating laws in order to create more “social justice,” not, you know, whether someone has broken the law or whether a given law is ultimately lawful, or constitutional.

Case in point: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” – Sonia Sotomayor

This is completely and totally absurd. It should be utterly irrelevant in the judicial realm one’s life experiences. I’m willing to grant that ones life experiences would be important in the legislative process, but once that process is finished, than you want the most objective, even-handed person who is willing to ignore his or her personal convictions in order to deliver the most just ruling possible. She has admitted that she finds it impossible to be objective. *sighs* I don’t think I really need to say anything more.

Some Actual Musings!

Well, good to see this is still here, I would’ve thought the WordPress people would’ve deleted this place for inactivity long ago. So now that school is over and I have time, to you know, breathe, I thought it would be nice to muse about things going on in the world.

First, the wide world of sports. Now I hate to say it because I know it might provoke the one Canadian who frequents this place, but Jim Balsillie will never own a team, and the Phoenix Coyotes will never move to Southern Ontario. Sorry, but this is simply not going to happen. Ever. No, it’s not because Gary Bettman is the spawn of Satan, George W. Bush’s secret fraternal twin, or Ronald Reagan’s illegitimate son. First of all, this is because Jim Balsillie is a spoiled brat, and behaving like it. If he can’t get his team legally and through proper league procedures, then he’ll just break the rules (and possibly the law) in order to get it. Look at his behavior in regards to his attempts to purchase the Pens and Preds. Trying to get the Pens out of the Pitt was a bad idea in the first place, mostly because Mario Lemieux remains one of the classiest guys ever, with undying loyalty towards his team and because Pittsburgh is a great hockey town in general. Though his legitimate attempt to purchase the franchise probably helped keep the Pens in Pittsburgh, it still was not the smartest move ever. But where Balsillie lost me, and probably the rest of the NHL establishment, was his behavior in regards to his attempts to purchase the Nashville Predators. What gall, after promising to keep the Preds there at least a season, to putting up season ticket deposits before he even bought the team! That’s right up there in the Clay Bennett-Bill Laurie-Michael Heisley level of owner sketchiness. I’d use another term, but I want to try and keep this respectable. In his obviously fervent desire to bring another team to Canada, he proceeded to alienate basically everyone south of the 49th parallel. For that reason alone, Balsillie has been basically the worst thing to happen to Canadian expansion. The most obvious candidate to own the next Canadian team is now the least desirable. He proceeded to make Gary Bettman angry, ignored the Board of Governors and the other owners, drive a wedge between Canadian fans and those who desire to see the game of hockey expanded, even to non-traditional markets. He has single-handedly guaranteed it will be at least another ten years before another Canadian hockey professional hockey team will be founded, and there is no one else to blame but Balsillie. Had he been patient and played by the rules, there would most likely be another Canadian team, whether in Southern Ontario, Quebec, Winnipeg, or Saskatchewan. But now, don’t expect it.

Which brings me to my next topic, that whole ‘non-traditional market vs. Canadian’ debate that is going around in most hockey circles. The argument from the Canadian side is basically the “don’t give your pearls to swine argument,’ which for all it’s provincial, anti-American sentiment, is completely understandable. Because is played on ice, having a team in the desert doesn’t make a great deal of natural sense. There are better places to have a hockey team, even in the United States. Seattle, Vegas, where there are no other major professional sports teams, Wisconsin, Indiana, even another team in New England would probably better bets financially speaking than in Phoenix. All of this I admit freely. However, one thing I would like to point out is the Coyotes have sucked for a long time. As demonstrated by Colorado this season who after basically a decade of winning, now have run out of gas, Chicago for a decade, and Boston since Bobby Orr,  fielding a winning team is pretty important to putting backsides in the seats. No one wants to see a losing team all the time. Perhaps the only expection would be the Clippers, because of the unique dynamics of actually being able to afford to see a basketball game. When the Coyotes played well, they were financially ok. When they sucked on the ice, they didn’t. That’s basically all there is to it. Plus, the Coyotes had a unique opportunity, had they put together a winning team, to lodge themselves in the Phoenix sports market, which consisted of the Worst Team In The History Of Sports (The Arizona Cardinals) and a pretty decent baseball team that sold it’s soul to win a championship way too early. The basketball team was pretty entertaining, but they are on the downturn, and again were very bad when the ‘Yotes moved from Winnipeg. But they blew it, and now look what happened. Plus, the overriding problem with the “They don’t deserve a hockey team” is the economy, which hit Phoenix especially hard because of it’s suburban nature. So to put it bluntly, a lot of things went wrong with Phoenix, not just the fact that the team is in the Desert. There could be a lot more said about what it would take to grow hockey, or any sport really in a non-traditional market, but the potential is there. Especially with the Suns on the down turn.

Which brings me to my final sports rant for the day, which is this: I don’t get (professional) basketball. I just don’t. That sport holds utterly no appeal to me. The broken salary cap system, the blatantly manipulated playoff scenarios by both the league and the sponsoring companies, the absurdly bad and more than likely corrupt officiating (you really think Donaghy was the only ref to be corrupt?), the poor arena/game atmosphere, the stratospherically expensive tickets (not that hockey is any better, but you can at least justify the expensive tickets in relation to basketball because it’s expensive to keep an ice rink running, especially during in the warmer climes), the flopping, and until recently the basically gangster nature of the players, the outlawing of one of the two defensive systems possible in the game of basketball, the lack of any real developmental system for players outside of college basketball (which is alright, but the absurd draft eligibility system is the subject for another rant), the worst Last Two Minutes in sports, all of which leaves me with a simple question. How can anyone like the NBA? I just don’t get it. How this league is more popular than the NHL will always baffle me. I don’t care if the NHL is basically a regional league at the moment, though that is largely changing thanks to a renewal in amazing talent and the bigger media markets. The on-ice is far superior to what the NBA puts out, especially since the rule changes. Maybe I’m just a hockey homey, but I just don’t get it. I get baseball, I get football, I even college basketball. Some one please, explain to me the appeal of the NBA, before I go crazy.

Final Banner Blog

Well, it has been quite the madness for the last month. Seems like school never let up, always throwing something new at me. Which is why this poor neglected puppy got and remained that way. I don’t think that without these assingments for the Banner that this poor blog would ever see anything posted on it at all! It certainly was a tough semester, particularly working in the journalism program. It was not something I had anticipated doing at all, but nevertheless turned out to be pretty rewarding. Even though I have always considered myself something of a writer, it was always within the context of fiction. The idea of writing for a newspaper was new to me, and not necessarily something I was looking forward to.

But it certainly taught me much more than I was expecting. It taught me the importance of going outside of your areas of interest and experiencing writing about new topics. One of the most enjoyable articles I wrote this semester was the profile on Professor Renfro, who taught my Honors seminar in Russian Literature. It was a new experience to me, meeting someone who had grown up in what had been the Soviet Union, and who had experienced so much in her life. I felt very honored when she chose to share some of her life with me, particularly during our interview when she told me a story about how a Soviet journalist had twisted things that she had said in order to make a political point. The necessity, nay the sanctitiy of my job as a recorder of someone elses experiences was really impressed upon me in that interview.

As for writing in the future, I think I’m done with journalism. Even though it has been a wonderful, if occasionally challenging experience, I just am not cut out for this kind of thing. It is not my temprament to write like that. But I will always thank this course for reinvigorating my interest in writing and I have planned to write a novel length story this summer and hopefully try and get it published when I return from Air Assault school at the end of May. While I am kind of scared of what it would take to finish all that, my experience in this class and the feeling of seeing my name attached to something real and concrete that was published and read by others as something authoritative was very powerful and has given me a lot of motivation to continue writing and to see my work improve to the point where it can be published.

Spring Break

So I’m going on ‘vacation.’ Hooray, vacation!