RIP

The soul of a hero.

(via Angus)

Discovering Alexander

Because I enjoy inflicting pain upon myself, I decided to tune into the Discovery Channel's hour-long presentation called "Becoming Alexander." It's a chronicle of Colin Farrell's journey to "become Alexander the Great" as he prepared to portray the giant in Oliver Stone's latest picture.

Actually, the show did have a few interesting moments, but that was overwhelmingly outweighed by the utter stupidity of the concept. As Oliver Stone put it, the "spirit of Alexander" somehow infused the cast and crew with strength and was responsible for the success of the project. To top it all off, somehow the spirit of Alexander was living through star Colin Farrell. The show became a one hour hagiography of Farrell (I hate the fact that I have to, one principle, dislike Farrell for his stupid Hollywood persona and such self-aggrandizing drivel; he seems like a hard drinking, cigarette smoking, cool Irish dude apart from it all).

It was fascinated by the three months of training the cast went through prior to shooting (though again, the show over-played the difficulty of that; Alexander and his men went through upwards of eleven years of actual combat and hardship). Also, as an interesting bit of method acting, Farrell assumed a leadership role during the "boot camp;" the rest of the cast would call him "Regent," he led his men in exercises, etc. I wonder if that ends up affecting the realism of the battle scenes, and I wonder if any other directors have tried out such a technique.

I'll probably end up seeing the movie at some point, just out of curiosity, despite the fact that it looks likely to be disappointing. Judging from the ads this will prove to be a poorly written and conceived movie.

Alexander

It's good to see I'm not the only one who's a little concerned about Oliver Stone's take on Alexander the Great.

As I've noted in some combox discussion about the movie, the prevalence of homosexuality in classical Greece is often overblown. Aristophanes made fun of it in his plays. Plato wrote that it should be illegal in his laws. Spartan law (as drawn up Lycurgus) actually banned the practice, as did Athenian law. Xenophon, a thoroughly pro-Spartan Athenian (as were most elite Athenians) did not have kind words for the practice. Of all the erotic art that is extant, pottery in particular, an overwhelming proportion (well over 95% even) depicts heterosexual acts.

At best, Hellenic homosexuality was a secretive and shameful practice that existed despite legal and cultural norms to the contrary. At worst, modern conceptions of the practice constitute historical revisionism. I tend to think that, in reality, it's a little of column A, and a little of column B.

My impression is that the modern reader and exegete is way too quick to read physicality into accounts of classical Greek male-male relationships. An analogy first occurred to me in thinking about members of sports teams. To be blunt, such men spend a lot of time around each other engaged in strenuous sport (like the Greeks) and, though they don't play football nude, they do share a locker room. Such men tend to have very close, physical relationships that are far from homosexual (though a lot of that contact is often used to poke fun at homosexuality). Regardless, some observers like to read homosexuality into the sports culture (at the line of scrimmage, where are the quarterback's hands?).

There are many Greek words we translate as "love" and "lover" and I think there is still some disagreement as to precisely what "eros" and "eromenos" and the like mean (as historians and philosophers point out), in part because we still don't fully understand the cultural context. That "beautiful" often comes up in association with "eros" does not necessarily mean that "eros" is necessarily or exclusively a physical concept, for instance.

Of course, to take another step back, homosexuality as we understand it today was thoroughly alien to the world pre-19th century (I suppose the trial of Oscar Wilde can be considered a turning point). It was not a lifestyle or means of self-identification so much as a practice. All I'm arguing here is that, though we can safely point to certain cultures and see fairly widespread homosexual practice (like during some periods in feudal Japan; at one point the government actually banned certain types of theater because men played the roles of women in such a stylized and hyper-feminized way that the samurai would actually fight over the actors in the theaters), I think mainstream attitudes about ancient Greece are mistaken.

Specter

It turns out his pro Roe v. Wade stance was just a gag.

It was schtick, I tell you. He was just doing a bit.

Humminah-humminah-humminah.

Quite possibly...

The funniest beginning to a legal opinion ever.

For those who are curious, this is an excerpt from Stambovsky v. Ackley, 572 N.Y.S.2d 672 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 1991).

Plaintiff, to his horror, discovered that the house he had recently contracted to purchase was widely reputed to be possessed by poltergeists, reportedly seen by defendant seller and members of her family on numerous occasions over the last nine years. Plaintiff promptly commenced this action seeking rescission of the contract of sale. Supreme Court reluctantly dismissed the complaint, holding that plaintiff has no remedy at law in this jurisdiction.

The unusual facts of this case, as disclosed by the record, clearly warrant a grant of equitable relief to the buyer who, as a resident of New York City, cannot be expected to have any familiarity with the folklore of the Village of Nyack. Not being a "local," plaintiff could not readily learn that the home he had contracted to purchase is haunted. Whether the source of the spectral apparitions seen by defendant seller are parapsychic or psychogenic, having reported their presence in both a national publication ("Readers' Digest") and the local press (in 1977 and 1982, respectively), defendant is estopped to deny their existence and, as a matter of law, the house is haunted. More to the point, however, no divination is required to conclude that it is defendant's promotional efforts in publicizing her close encounters with these spirits which fostered the home's reputation in the community. In 1989, the house was included in a five-home walking tour of Nyack and described in a November 27th newspaper article as "a riverfront Victorian (with ghost)." The impact of the reputation thus created goes to the very essence of the bargain between the parties, greatly impairing both the value of the property and its potential for resale. The extent of this impairment may be presumed for the purpose of reviewing the disposition of this motion to dismiss the cause of action for rescission (Harris v. City of New York, 147 A.D.2d 186, 188-189, 542 N.Y.S.2d 550) and represents merely an issue of fact for resolution at trial.

While I agree with Supreme Court that the real estate broker, as agent for the seller, is under no duty to disclose to a potential buyer the phantasmal reputation of the premises and that, in his pursuit of a legal remedy for fraudulent misrepresentation against the seller, plaintiff hasn't a ghost of a chance, I am nevertheless moved by the spirit of equity to allow the buyer to seek rescission of the contract of sale and recovery of his downpayment. New York law fails to recognize any remedy for damages incurred as a result of the seller's mere silence, applying instead the strict rule of caveat emptor. Therefore, the theoretical basis for granting relief, even under the extraordinary facts of this case, is elusive if not ephemeral.

"Pity me not but lend thy serious hearing to what I shall unfold" (William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act I, Scene V [Ghost] ).

From the perspective of a person in the position of plaintiff herein, a very practical problem arises with respect to the discovery of a paranormal phenomenon: "Who you gonna' call?" as the title song to the movie "Ghostbusters" asks. Applying the strict rule of caveat emptor to a contract involving a house possessed by poltergeists conjures up visions of a psychic or medium routinely accompanying the structural engineer and Terminix man on an inspection of every home subject to a contract of sale. It portends that the prudent attorney will establish an escrow account lest the subject of the transaction come back to haunt him and his client--or pray that his malpractice insurance coverage extends to supernatural disasters. In the interest of avoiding such untenable consequences, the notion that a haunting is a condition which can and should be ascertained upon reasonable inspection of the premises is a hobgoblin which should be exorcised from the body of legal precedent and laid quietly to rest.

Since I've recently begun reading Southern Appeal, they deserve a spot on ye olde blog roll.

Boo Hiss

Immediately following his re-election, President Bush had to go and ruin things by recognizing the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" as "Macedonia."

This is a very bad move for two reasons. First, it's a smack in the face of history. Macedonia has, in modern times, always been a Greek province. In ancient times Macedonia was a part of the larger Greek nation, just as Athens and Sparta were (the only difference was that Macedonia didn't adopt the city-state model of politics, and thus was considered a little primitive; that didn't stop Macedonians from competing in the Olympic Games, where participation was limited to Greeks).

Second, this recognition causes unnecessary problems in Europe. Tensions are always high in the Balkans. Why enflame passions by recognizing "Macedonia?" This just enrages Greeks and further polarizes Europe.

Either way, since the 1960s American ruling elites have been less than friendly to the Greek people (evident in everything from dimished levels of cultural respect to the US-sanctioned Turkish invastion of Cyprus). Certain anti-civilization forces have an interest in ensuring that memories of past glories (which could translate into present achievements) are extinguished, I suppose.

Hilarious

Check this out.

Via Jonah Goldberg over at The Corner. He's accurately titled the link "20 reasons not to put your picture on the internet."

I had to stifle what would have been a huge laugh, and I think my left lung almost imploded.

A Specter Haunts the Senate

Sen. Arlen Specter has made a not so thinly-veiled threat to the White House: don't mess with Roe on my watch.

"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

"The president is well aware of what happened, when a bunch of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster," Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. "... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."

So who the senator like to see on the bench?

"I would look for justices who would interpret the Constitution, as Cardozo has said, reflecting the values of the people."

So he wants justices that obey the whim and fads of the day rather than follow intellectually rigorous and principled constitutional analysis. How bold, what leadership.

Arlen Specter should not chair the Senate Judiciary Committee. If he does, the recent politicization of the Court will only get worse. We need legal scholars, not weathervanes that point with the popular mood.

Justice Scalia (a wonderful justice respected by all sides because of his rigorous analysis of constitutional issues and amazingly rational opinions and dissents) explains the issue.

Ugh. Pneumonia, high fever of 103.6 degrees. Beautiful.