The Desk.

"An Ideological Defense of Arrogance" or "Reasons I'm Better Than You, Part 26"

"Geography and War" or "Why the Bosporus is almost as Bad as Organized Religion"

It is a well-known truth that geography is a critical factor in the military strategy in any war. Control of high ground, waterways, and general knowledge of the terrain are known to be instrumental to success, but what I propose is that such things can be the very cause of a war, and not just points of use in the actual fighting. My example shall be the straight between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, known as the Dardanelles or the Bosporus straight. To understand the signifigance of this strip of water and the land on either side of it, we must look at the territory immediately around it, as well as the larger region. To the South is the Turkish pennisula, and the Balkans to the North. The Western mouth of the straight opens to the Aegean and the Mediterranean proper, while the Eastern mouth flows to the Black Sea. The only other exit in the Eastern Mediterranean is at Sinai, and even that was not an open waterway until the British had it dredged in the 1890's. So what's the point of this geography lesson, you ask? Everything in history comes back to money, sex, or power, and the story of the Bosporus has all three. First I'll talk about the Trojan War. Much of this story is myth, but there was a city Troy, and they did have a war with Greece some time aroud 1200 BC. The city sat on the Turkish coast, right on the Western edge of this straight. The Trojan navy, therefore, controlled all traffic going in and out of the Black Sea towards the then rich lands of the Causasus Mountains, what is now Armenia and Georgia, and Eastern Turkey, and of course the land route to Asia. That means if the Greeks wanted to trade with any of those people, they had to go through Troy. Any time that happens, you're bound to get a war sooner or later when people figure out they're getting a raw deal. Because somebody's always going to get a raw deal with that kind of power imbalance. The whole bit about Paris stealing Helen out of her bed in Mycenae, pissing off Menelaus to fight is irrelevant. It could have happened, sure, but the real reason for the war was economic and had to do with control over this strategic trade route. A few hundred years later, Greece would again take an interest in the Bosporus when the Macedonian Alexander swept South from his homeland in what is now Bulgaria, using the straight as his means to persuade the Greeks to his cause. He seized the straight and choked the Greek islands of the Aegean until they joined him, convinced of the economic benefits to be gained, and then the same Troy became his launching point for his march through to the Ganges. Rome, too, would eventually see the use of this region, and go about whomping whatever unsuspecting and pathetic civilization may have been living there by that time. Simply by the very existence of the geography, whoever was living there is just asking for a war. Now I will jump ahead to the age of the crusades, when Instanbul, then Constantinople, which sits on the very Eastern point of the straight on a small jutting penninsula on the Northern side, would be the focus of every major advance for both the European Christians and the Turkish and Middle-Eastern Muslims. I propose that the reason for fighting here, however, was not religious. The crusades themselves were religious in nature, but it would make more sense for the Europeans to sail straight to Jerusalem from Italy, Greece, or even France rather than march across the Balkans to Constantinople. Everybody knows it takes way longer to march that far, especially up and around those mountains. I'd say the crusades were just an excuse for the pope to send troops to conquer this strategic point. Especially at that time when the papacy was the institution running Europe, you know he had his stake in the affairs of economy and power. Again, the very existence of this geography was what provoked war, and holy war was just something to get the people willing to fight. I will discuss one last thing, but it is the most significant and relevant to modern politics. The Dardanelles were the reason for World War I, and, as we know, WWI was the initial point which created the havoc wrought throughout the 20th century. Nobody wanted WWI, and nobody had a real reason to want to go to war except Russia. Even after the assassination of Ferdinand, nobody really thought war was necessary. It was Russia who convinced the Serbs to start everything. Why? The Bosporus. If Russia could start a world war in which the Ottomans, who controlled Turkey and much of the Balkan territory, would be forced to fight and lose, then they could create pro-Russian states in those ethnically Slavic areas and be able to access trade in the Mediterranean and beyond without having to go from St Petersburg all the way around Europe or over land. Russia started World War I because they wanted to take from the Ottoman Empire political control over the Balkans and the Dardanelles, under the guise of pan-Slavism and supporting their fellow Slavic peoples. Indeed this small straight has caused much greif for those who inhabit it.

So geography not only plays a role in determining military strategy in battle, but can also be a reason and a cause of war in the first place. Therefore, I was previously mistaken, and I shall change my statement to say "The combination of organized religion and the Bosporus Straight are the bane of human existence and will be the ruin of the Earth."

Theatre is something that is alive. With film and television, you are seeing a finished product, something that has been through countless takes, revisions, and editions until it has reached what the director wanted. Such things are directors' mediums because they can be done over and over again, and even once they're done, be edited again and again. Theatre, on the other hand, is an actor's medium. There's only so much the director can do to prepare it for viewing. Once the rehearsal process is over, it is up to the actors alone. Each show is its own production and will be different every time. If I feel like giving my character a little tweak or a twist one night, I can, and the other people in the scene will play off of it and it will be a little bit different show, but a movie is the same show every time. But more than that, it's the audience that brings theatre to life. Because of this, black box or "intimate" theatre is as different from the bigger houses as it is from film because of the nature of the audience-actor relationship. Intimate theatre means I can see the face of every audience member. Both actors and audiences have certain expectations going into any performance, and black box, especially in the round, breaks them all, no matter how many times you've done it. As an actor who has only ever done black box except for one show way back, I'm a fan, and most people do seem to like it once they get used to the idea. The way I figure it, if I and my castmates worked our ass off getting this show together, and we're tirelessly putting it on the line every single night, you're going to have to work too. You're not going to sit fifty rows back in pitch dark in a cooshy chair and go to sleep; no, this show is going to be your job for the next two hours. Because that's entertainment. And so, going in with this attitude, I have lots of fun with the audience members unfamiliar with my confrontational acting style, combined with the inherent confrontationality of intimate theatre. Because they aren't used to it, they refuse to look the actor in the eye when he directly addresses the audience, and that's a lot of fun to watch. I can really hook into the ones that do look at me, and that's what this style is all about, but a lot of them, when you come to them, will do anything they can to look anywhere but at you. Then once you move past them they are so relieved, but embarrassed at the same time. I don't know if they're afraid of the actor or if they think they're going to make me mess up or what, but it's hilarious. Many actors, too, are afraid to actually make eye contact with audience members for the same collection of reasons, or because they come from the proscenium school. They don't want to look because that breaks the forth wall, and therefore the reality, in a regular, realistic, sort of play. So it turns into this funny little dance between the actors and audience members where neither one really knows where they're supposed to look until you get a hard-core black box actor like me to drop some hurtin' on the audience. I wake them up too, cause damn, parts of this play are boring. I guess my affinity for intimate theatre comes not from my desire to perform as it does for most actors, but rather that part of my personality that is oh so familiar to you all - my need to get in people's heads and shake things up.

On that note, come see Phedre, and, since I know most of you are already planning to, thanks in advance for coming and enjoy the show. I mean that. I'm just an actor, and as such I am only a servant of the theatre. The audience is what keeps theatre alive and it is here to serve the public. Don't let this be the generation that loses sight of legitimate theatrical art, whatever the form.

It's that time again. Here's everyone making my life difficult right now and why they feel the need to do so. I'm going to use the numbers again because it's a good way to do what I want to do without using names, and, let's face it, it's fun for everyone, even when it is painfully obvious who's who. But here's the trick for ths time: I'm going to discuss the whole lot in relation to a particular situation and I know you know what I'm talking about.

1 is the one whom this situation is regarding, and I don't feel the need to discuss her particulars in depth because you'll get it with the rest of the thing. 2 has been put at number 2 because she has never before been second to anyone in her whole life; princesses like her never are. Especially given her fear of being replaced in a certain other venue, she feels an extra need to hold onto everything else, making it all the more difficult to get away from her when it was alright before. Even though she "knows" that my intentions with 1 are nothing that would interfere with our arrangment, she doesn't like the increased amount of time 1 has taken, or the attitude that 1 has apparently adopted towards her. We established early on that our arrangment would never interfere with other things either of us was doing at any time, but the combination of my shift of focus and a new little animal at home has thrown her into a state of confusion, fear, and jealousy. That's right, I went there. Prove me wrong. 3 has been put at number three because she proudly fills the office of Corporal Thirdwheel. A lot. This is hard to avoid, given her relationship to 1, but you'd think one of the two of them would catch a hint once in a while. She has it in her head that she's back in, but not only is she not, she never was. Luckily for me, though, she is on 1's side in a way that the rest of them aren't. And this stems from her different theory on my intentions with 1. So since it has to be someone in that role, it's good for me that it's 3, otherwise I wouldn't stand a fighting chance; 3 at least lets me in and gives me information I need and helps the both of us out. 4 is a boy-crazy whore with a new crush every week. She and others don't know the difference between the incapacity for emotion and just not throwing it around at everybody who gives you a passing glance. She is no position to give relationship advice to anyone, ever, and I should hope none of you put any stock in anythng she says. Luckily my very presence is enough to drive her away, so I personally don't have to deal with her anymore. 5 is the biggest hypocrite in the lot, but that's normal in a psychologist. She refuses to believe that I'm nothing more than a heartless jackass, but only if it's for her that I'm not a heartless jackass. If it's for 1, then naturally I am just a heartless jackass and 1 ought have nothing to do with me. You see, that whole thing had nothing to do with me; she just wanted to play Freud and be the one to exorcise my demons. Classic bad-boy self-esteem appeal - what would that say about her if she was the one to tame the wolf. Well she's just got her green card now, but that doesn't mean she can work her voodoo here. 6 I still haven't figured out beyond simple green, and that might just be it; all I know is the more time she spends with 4, the better. Who knows, maybe those two'll run off and get married and be out of my hair forever. Her and 5 scares me just a little bit; I never know what they might be plotting. These last three are working under the guise that I'm only luring 1 into my trap so I can work my emotionally sadistic wagic on her like I've done so many other times, and that they're there to protect her from me because they don't have much confidence in her. But of course that's all to paint over the green. Oh well. I think that does it for my primary issues. There's a whole network of people affected by this dynamic, namely the guys next door, but I'm good for them. I make them the good guys, and herd the flock right into their pen and that's good for all of us.

Now here comes the really pretentious part (as if the notion that these people's motivations all stem from my behaviors wasn't the really pretentious part). As much as all these people claim to hate me right now, that can change any time I want it to. You know and I know that the second I let any of them back in, they'll be eating out of my hand again. I have that kind of power, and I don't know where it comes from, but almost across the board they desperately want to have something to do with me. It's all situational - these people have no ties built on actual conviction - and as soon as I decide to change the situation, they'll be wherever I put them and they'll want whatever I make them want. That's right, I went there too.

Side note: everybody needs a bad guy and a scapegoat for all they're problems. I'm doing you people a service by filling that role and giving you an easy one, otherwise you might just accuse the Jews or somebody else undeserving of your hatred and unprepared to stomach it. My scapegoat of course is y'all, so it evens out.

"Bring me the Blaze" is a phrase I've been using sparingly for several years but more recently of late as I'm sure you've noticed, so I thought I'd give y'all some insight into what the saying has to do with anything since I say it so much. It began on an AT trek where I was hiking with the first year scouts. The ones ahead came to a fork in the trail and did not know which path to follow. I told them about the white blazes that mark the AT and that there are blue ones for the spur trails. The blaze is a tool, but also a goal. One of them saw the white blaze down the one trail and told me about it. Upon hearing of the blaze, I told the boy to "Bring me the Blaze," meaning to go ahead and lead the crew down towards that direction until we reached the next blaze. I took a liking to the sound of it, and I still use it in this context whenever we head out on the AT, and tell my navigator or whoever's leading to "Bring me the Blaze." Then I began to say it whenever I wished to go to the hills, whether a trip was eminent or not. I'd be at school or at home and the call of the woods would hit me and I'd say it to whoever was there. Sometimes they would know what I meant and the next weekend we'd be up there. Other times they pretended they didn't know me. I began to use the phrase to describe more than just backpacking now, but it is always a direct order, often to myself. As I started working on my website - story time in particular - the phrase became like an invocation to a muse. If I got stuck writing or whatever, I would say to myself "Bring me the Blaze," and the words would come. Indeed the same is true of writing my Desk posts and the poems, though the poems weren't informally commissioned like the stories or the Desk. Later it came to refer to whatever I happened to want to do or have. It means I need whatever it is that will ignite the fire of passion in me. The meaning has not changed - it is often still a call of longing for the hills, as that has not changed in its meaning for me - but rather its meaning has expanded to include any of a number of things. Just like on the AT, the blaze is the beacon that marks my way. It is not only the trail marker, but the goal at the end. The blaze is everything I don't have inherently that I want, and the tool I use to get more. So what else is the blaze besides the hills? I'll tell you. You might say that if I'm the Dragon you ought not dismiss, she's the very Blaze in every breath to burninate the peasants. So burninate the peasants and bring me the Blaze!

In lieu of writing a new post today because of the gradual decline in the quality of my posts over the last six months, I've decided to call up some of my very first posts. I'll copy and paste them here rather than have you dig through the catacombs, but I would also like you to take a look at the top 5 I have listed if you haven't and also the most controversial. So here's two posts from way back in March of last year.


Wednesday, March 17, 2004
"I really need to beef this thing up with a series of good blog-esque posts, so here's another, this time on what it means to be a man. (by man I mean person, but man sounds better and it is better)I see these fool children in school, and I wonder what the mental process is that drives them. My motivation is knowing that I am a member of the greatest race on Earth. (by race I mean species, but race sounds better and it is better) As a man, it is not only my ability, but my duty to live up to my potential. There are people in this world who have conditions which disable them from functioning properly. These mentally and physically disabled individuals drive me to make the most out of my situation. Because I have a functional mind and body, it is my duty to myself and my community to make the best of my abilities. A mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste. I regret the last several years of my life because I have become a monument to mediocrity. I have slipped quietly through the system and have done what I needed to do. Anyone can do that. The great one are those that take full advantage of their abilities. I could have been in the top twenty in my class, but I am a slacker, I am 93rd. Good enough for Wilmington, but I could have done more. But what's truly sad, is these kids that can fail theatre, these kids that do absolutely nothing when they could easily do what they are capable of. I don't understand their mentality. Mine has always been to do what is asked of me, not because of the punishment I will receive if I don't, but simply because it needs to be done. My father never gave me any great speeches or great words of advice, not even that infamous 'man-to-man- talk'. He simply showed us how a great man lives, and that is how I intend to live. I'm not even sure he was aware of all he taught us simply through his actions: I am just now beginning to understand everything he did. There was never any opposition to his rule, either, there was never any reason to. You do what you are supposed to do because that's just the way things are done. Call me old-fashioned, but there's no excuse for acting like a damn fool for no good reason."
And the Lord spake unto the masses@ 6:40 PM


"A word on being one's self. I hear a lot these days about 'being yourself' and quite frankly it pisses me off. First we must ask, what truly is the self? A man is more than his genes; he is that plus his experiences. But a man is more than the sum of his experiences; he is that plus his own interpretation of those experiences. But it is previous experiences which define his interpretations. So essentially, there is no self outside of the environment, the self is the environment. My self happens to have no reality. I have no real voice or real personality. That is because my self is in fact the lack thereof. It is my nature to assume the voice and character of fiction, just as it is someone else's nature to be something or other. A man's self is whatever it is most natural for him to be. For me to 'be myself' is to be a character. I can be my self, but that self is not me.

Watson, just be yourself.

Alright, which one?"
And the Lord spake unto the masses@ 6:24 PM