Homeland Security and the War on Terror

“They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”[1]  When we wage war, on terror, drugs or anything else we affix after “war on," we simultaneously define an enemy.  It becomes an ‘us against them’ affair.  “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”[2]  In the modern ‘war on terror’ we have defined the two sides.  Through the execution of trying to procure safety and win the ‘war’ we have employed our biases and prejudices, not all of which has been successful, beneficial, or constructive.  This paper will briefly examine the causes of biases and suggest remedies to overcome those biases.  Two examples from the homeland security arena will be used throughout. 

The early part of the twenty-first century has witnessed terrorism and attempted terrorism centered on the aviation industry in the United States.  Examples include the September 11 attacks and the infamous underwear and shoe bombers.  In response, security measures at airports have increased.  Two practices, employed with the Transportation Security Authority (TSA), require the screening of passenger behavior and additional security measures of passengers holding a passport from identified countries.  These practices have resulted in charges of racial profiling based on the bias of the TSA employee charged with ensuring safety.  One officer is quoted as saying “They just pull aside anyone who they don’t like the way they look – if they are black and have expensive clothes or jewelry, or if they are Hispanic.”[3]  Essentially, passengers are being identified if they look like the vision of a terrorist the officer holds.  One example is from King Downing, the national coordinator of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Campaign Against Airport Racial Profiling.  The allegation is that he was stopped, ironically as it seems, because he is of African descent and wears a short beard.[4]  His race and appearance attracted attention.  Another example is the security practice of additional screening for holders of passports from 14 named countries.  The countries have been labeled “state sponsors of terrorism” or “countries of interest” by the State Department.[5]  The populations of the vast majority of countries are predominantly Muslim.

It would be nearly impossible to know the exact reason for officers’ biases in these situations.  However, we can make an educated guess.  Biases arise from our experiences.  They are formed and influenced by our social interaction with family, friends, and others in our daily lives though exposure to ideas and modeling our behavior after theirs.  There also exists a complex interaction between what we learn in social settings and an individual’s personality.[6]   The collective experience of terrorism in the United States is has been given the face of someone with darker skin and a beard, emblems of radical Islam.  This raises issues of security in one’s personal effects and against unreasonable search and seizures. 

Another example of bias in a homeland security situation is the case of Abdul Ameer Yousef Habeeb.[7]  He was detained, which was eventually determined to be illegal, by officers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement while traveling to a new job in Washington DC from Washington State.  His alleged crime was being from Iraq and not registering with the government.  Habeeb was a legal refugee from Iraq and was under no obligation to register with officials.  He was stopped based solely on his appearance.  It is doubtful that had he appeared as someone of western European descent he would not have been stopped.  Habeeb sued the government and won, receiving an official apology from the government.  The bias here again is the perceived appearance of a passenger. 

Profiling such as the examples cited above are detrimental to safety and security.  They redirect resources from other, more constructive endeavors.  This misuse of time and manpower is based on biases; biases that can be reduced and overcome.  One approach is the intergroup interaction.[8]  This method seeks to add to our collective set of experiences.  Individuals are placed in situations with those from the biased group.  Security officers would then be mixed in with members of the Arab and Muslim communities.  They would, hopefully, quickly learn that not all Muslims are terrorists.  Another approach to bias reduction is cognitive.  This approach conditions individuals to examine their own thought processes by, for example, showing statistical data to disprove held biases.  More accurate assessments are generally obtained.[9]  Both approaches, intergroup and cognitive, can be combined in an integrated approach to bias reduction.[10]      

Benjamin Franklin’s quote at the beginning of this paper has been bandied about often in the post 9/11 world.  It is true that we have given up personal liberties in the quest to win the ‘war on terror.’  Most citizens accept this as evidenced by the lack of rioting at security checkpoints at airports.  However, we seem to have accepted it in haste.  Biases exist in nearly everyone.  The amount of information can, at times, be overwhelming and, whether for the sake of simplicity or self-preservation, must then be categorized for efficiency of cognitive storing and recall.  However, there are methods and approaches to reduce or extinguish biases.  This begs a response as to why such programs seem to lack effective training.  Security programs appear to have been employed too hastily with training forsaken for immediate safety.  It is treating the symptoms, not the cause.  It is treating our fears, not defeating terrorism.  Through an unbiased approach to homeland security, we can know that the liberties we have given up are truly for our security. 

---

[1] Franklin, Benjamin. (1756).  Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor.  Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, 1755-1756, 19-21.

[2] http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html - President George W. Bush Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People.  September 20, 2001.

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/us/racial-profiling-at-boston-airport-officials-say.html?pagewanted=all

[4] Dwyer, Michael. (2007, Dec. 3).  ACLU Official Alleges Racial Profiling at Airport.  NBCNews.  Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22087842/#.Usli8fRdU8I

[5] http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2010/01/03/tsa-statement-new-security-measures-international-flights-us

[6] Farley, John E. (2000).  Majority-Minority Relations, 4^th Ed.  Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

[7] https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/aclu-sues-federal-agents-illegal-arrest-and-detention-iraqi-refugee

[8] Paluck, E.L. & Green, D.P. (2009).  Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339-367.

[9] Schaller, M., Asp, C. H., Roseil, M. C., & Heim, S. J. (1996). Training in statistical reasoning inhibits the formation of erroneous group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(8), 829-844.

[10] Paluck, E.L. & Green, D.P. (2009).  Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339-367.

Immigration: Salad Bowl or Melting Pot

Two general theories try to explain the assimilation of immigrants in American culture.  First, there is the “melting pot” theory.  It argues that a homogenous society will form as different ethnic groups interact together.  The end result is a common culture shared by all.  The second theory is that of salad bowl.  This argues for a more mosaic like approach.  Ethnic groups do not melt into each other; rather, they retain their differences, existing next to each other not amalgamating into one.  In this paper I will argue that the melting pot theory may have been true for earlier generations, but has given way to our modern salad bowl and will likely become more heterogeneous in the future.

William Booth, in his article One Nation, Indivisible: Is it History?, discusses the myth of the melting pot.  The idea that immigrants to the U.S. assimilate and contribute towards a homogenous society has long roots in the American psyche.  Early waves of immigrants sought opportunities.  Once their feet hit these shores, they began searching for the ‘American dream.’  To realize that dream was to assimilate into the dominant culture, which was prescribed by white Protestants.  Often those promoting and encouraging the dominant culture were not always welcoming of outsiders.  Legislation and preterlegal measures were employed to maintain the cultural status quo in certain areas of the country.

A close look at census data dispels the melting pot theory.  Even though Booth is correct in claiming that assimilation and ‘success’ are hard to measure, through observation we can see the diversity and division.  Ethnic enclaves have always existed to some degree but, through data the definition becomes sharp and clear.  These boundaries are formed not only by a shared cultural heritage but economics as well.  Economic opportunities are about whom one knows.    It is circular arrangement.  Immigrants arrive in the U.S. in areas similar to the culture they emigrated from.  Connections that may stretch back to the old country lead to the foundations of a new life in America.  The process is repeated.   

Today, it does not seem enough to simply be an American.  One might be Korean-American, Congolese-American, or Irish-American.  A hyphenated identity, with one foot rooted in cultural heritage and the other climbing a rung of American economic advancement.  Cultures are not blending or melting.  They are staying intact and producing two cultural spheres: one of the immigrants’ home and one American. 

Studies indicate that immigrant parents are concerned about their children becoming “too American.”  Holly Atkins (2001) paints a picture of the diverse American cultural landscape, one that is not blurred together.  It is more of a salad bowl; different cultures existing together yet clearly defined.  Her palette is the vestiges of the home that immigrants left.    To stave off homesickness, people celebrate the culture of their homeland.  Not being an American is simply not an option.  But, that does not mean they must forget who they were, who they are, and where they came from. 

The melting pot theory has dissolved to the more acceptable and accurate ‘salad bowl’ theory.  It is no longer necessary, economically, to full assimilate as soon as possible to the dominant American culture.  Ethnic enclaves provide economic opportunities while existing in a familiar cultural framework.  Assimilation is just not necessary for immigrants to succeed.

There is another factor to consider as well.  The United States was long considered to be the land of freedom and opportunity, and may still very well be.  Some may have gone so far as to call it the best country in the world.  Booth (1998) cites a study by researchers Alejandro Portes and Ruben Rumbauthow of children of immigrants in southern Florida and California.    When asked if they believed the U.S. was the best country in the world, most answered ‘no.’ 

The America of earlier generations was one of possibility and, to an extent, unknown.  Today, American cultural hegemony is broadcast on TVs and computer screens throughout the world.  Immigrants know more of what lies on the other side of the ocean, on the other side of the fence.  The exclusionary legislation and preterlegal actions of before are no longer culturally or morally supported.  The prescribers of dominant American culture have simply moved.  (Booth, 1998)  They have taken to more homogenous towns, far from the crowds of cities and their hinterlands. 

With immigrants believing that America is not the best country in the world and American culture being so widespread, we can partially understand global attitudes towards the U.S.  The more militant others become towards America, the more Americans seems to embrace and exalt a shared American culture.  Immigrants, while decrying militancy, have not necessarily bought into this embrace.  They continue the traditions of the ‘old country.’  With American culture becoming more defined, and ethnic enclaves holding onto their cultural identity, it appears as though the salad bowl is becoming more defined than ever before.  And, if American culture continues to vilify others, it will throw into question if there will even be a bowl left to contain the salad. 

Works Cited

Atkins, Holly.  (2001, December 17).  An American ‘tossed salad’.  St. Petersburg Times.

Booth, William.  (1998, February 22).  One Nation, Indivisible: Is It History?.  The Washington

Post, pp. A1.

Chekhov's "The Seagull"

“I’m in mourning for my life.”  So writes Anton Chekhov.  His play, The Seagull, has stood the test of time.  It has been produced across the globe for a number of reasons.  One reason is the method and style that Chekhov employed.  It allows audiences to focus more on the characters, their motives and emotions, which, ultimately makes them easily relatable.  Another reason is the quality of characters that he developed in the play.  One further reason, and the final one addressed in this paper, is that the themes of the play transcend time. 

The Seagull stood in contrast to the mainstream nineteenth century contemporary theater.[1]  The most physical, and therefore vivid, actions were not presented on stage.  This places more pressure on the dialogue, both what is spoken and not spoken, to deliver the real meaning of the play.  By sequestering action off stage, Chekhov is able to develop characters fully and make them into believable human beings.  The actions, attempted suicides, actual suicides, pregnancy, and affairs bolster the more emotional and cerebral aspects not only of the play but of what are relatable to the audience.  These elements are projected to the forefront.  The audience, then, is not overly concerned with the shock of lurid action.  As a result, it is easier to empathize with the characters.  The hollowness of unrequited love and derision from peers and family are conveyed in a more humanistic method.  We, the audience, know what should be said, but characters do not take cues from the audience.  The characters are more relatable as their emotions are given a voice, or lack thereof, and not merely inferred by actions.

The character of Irina Arkadina is one example of Chekhov creating an individual to which we can relate.  Arkadina’s actions in the play are never explicitly decried as wrong, nor are they hailed as morally right.  Rather, he appoints the audience as adjudicators of her character.   Arkadina is jealous, of nearly everyone.  She does not want her son to eclipse her station in the art world, even going so far as being the most vocal critic of her son’s play.  She does not want Nina’s youth and beauty to detract from her own (no matter how hard she tries to hold on to her own fading youth and beauty).  She hoards money to a fault, refusing the assist her family.  Today’s audience would see such acts as morally bankrupt. 

However, we can see Arkadina’s beating heart at times.  Moments of compassion, helping a less fortunate neighbor, caring for the physical health of her family, and, most poignantly, when she begs Trigorin not to follow Nina, prevents the audience from entirely judging her as evil.  There beats a heart, perhaps chilled by vanity and jealousy, but not devoid of the human characteristics of a mother and lover.  This duality of endearment and repulsion pulls the audience in.  When the curtain falls, we empathize with Arkadina and the news she will soon hear.  We contemplate what she might do after she hears of her son’s suicide.     

The Seagull has been staged around the world and has become well known.  While many adaptations and interpretations have been produced since the play was written, Martin Crimp’s version is of particular interest.  Crimp transforms Chekhov’s writing from the failure of interpersonal relationships to political and social failures predicated upon the audience, the spectators of life.[2]  Chekhov’s Russia may be noticeably absent from Crimp’s interpretation, but the echoes of serfdom, of inequality, and the need to redress grievances ring louder in the updated version.  What Crimp has done is take an existing text and “selfishly, write a play, because the material is already there: a sense of structure, a sense of character and a sense of situations.”[3]  He took The Seagull out of the nineteenth century and planted it firmly in the twenty-first century.  However, I believe that Crimp stayed loyal to Chekhov’s vision of the need for vigilant personal ethics.  Crimp takes it one step further, however, and positions the audience in the spotlight then drives the theme into spectators’ memories.  It is not enough for the audience to see that duplicity and poor ethical choices create carnage.  He posits that inequality can be conquered by its antithesis.   When Crimp is finished with the audience, we may well be in mourning for our lives. 

As we don our mournful garb, we can reflect on The Seagull and recognize why it still touches us years after it was first penned.  Chekhov’s style is timeless.  We can remove it from its original Russian context and, following Crimp’s lead, stage it today and still be intellectually engaged with it.  It is Chekhov’s use of subtext and well developed characters.  We are not told what to think or believe; rather we are left to make our own moral judgments.  As times change and eras ebb from one to the next, we can sit in the audience and play our part, perhaps even learn something and emerge from the theater morally superior to when we entered.  Then, and only then, we may not mourn our own lives. 

---

[1] Benedetti, Jean.  Stanislavski: An Introduction.  London: Methuen, 1989.  Print.  

[2] Escoda, Clara.  “A Textual Analysis of Martin Crimp’s Adaptation of Anton Chekhov’s The Seagull: The Importance of Testimony and Relationship.”  Platform 5.1: 54-70.  Electronic Print.

[3] Laera, Margherita.  “Theatre Translation as Collaboration: Aleks Sierz, Martin Crimp, Nathalie Abrahami, Colin Teevan, Zoe Svendsen and Michael Walton discuss Translation for the Stage.”  Contemporary Theatre Review 21.2, 213-225. Print.

The Volcker Rule and Dodd-Frank Act

The Volcker Rule is part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that was signed into federal law in 2010.  The Dodd-Frank Act was a direct response to the financial crisis and Great Recession.  The Volcker Rule is named after Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve and chair of President Barack Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, who proposed the rule.  Under the Volcker Rule, banks and federally backed financial institutions are, with certain exceptions, prohibited from proprietary trading.  Essentially, any trading that does not support the economy or a bank’s consumers is outlawed.  However, even though the Volcker Rule is meant to user in new consumer protections, banks will feel more of the affects than consumers.

Proprietary trading is investment made with a bank or financial institution as the principal.  As the principal, the institution keeps all profit.  Proprietary trading uses consumers’ deposits to make the investment.  Any gains or profits do not directly benefit the consumer; rather, these profits are kept by the institution.  Proprietary trading has been named as one of the causes of the financial crisis that led to the Great Recession. 

Financial institutions have indicated that because of the new report requirements and loss of avenues for profit, that consumer fees will either be introduced or raised.   All investments must now be explained as to their rationale of the investment and also whose money is being used to make the investment.  Regulators, from five agencies, will be charged with implement and executive the new rules and reporting procedures.   Banks and agencies will, therefore, be required to hire additional workers to ensure adherence to the law.  With restrictions on trading, institutions must avail themselves of alternative outlets for profit making.  Charges for new employees and recouping of profits will be passed onto consumers in the forms of ATM fees, checking account fees, and lower interest rates on interest bearing accounts, just to name a few.  These fees are limited only by the imagination of institutions.

The Volcker Rule could also affect any company’s efforts to raise capital.  Many businesses rely on loans and investments to build new facilities, supply research and development, and hire additional employees.  With new restrictions on investment and trading, financial institutions speculate that it may be harder to raise the money needed to fund capital investments.  This would affect anyone from the construction industry to manufacturers to those looking for employment. 

The Dodd-Frank Act was passed in 2010.  The implementation of the Volcker Rule was delayed.  Then it was delayed again.  Regulators and banking lobbies pushed back the date of implementation.  Lobbies, not in favor of the rule, tried to delay as much as possible, if not trying to abolish the rule.  Regulators have revised how they will administer and execute the rule, again causing delays.  Currently, financial institutions have until the middle of 2015 to fully comply with the new regulations.  As such, the effects that consumers will feel can only be spoken subjectively and in possibilities.  It remains to be seen the full extent of the Volcker Rule, on institutions, on the economy, and the public.  

The Market Abuse Directive II (MAD II)

The Market Abuse Directive II (MAD II) is a new European community wide set or rules that prohibit insider trading and market manipulation.  MAD II is a more expansive and restrictive revision of the original Market Abuse Directive (MAD) enacted in 2003.  New technologies and platforms for trading as well as loopholes in MAD have proven the original directive inadequate.    MAD II rectifies these issues and strengthens efforts to ensure market integrity and investor protection. 

As the shortcomings of the original 2003 legislation became apparent, the European Commission began a consultative process across its member states.  The process revealed deficiencies.  New legislation was crafted that covered a wider scope.  Included in the new directive was everything from emission allowances to commodities and all aspects of financial trading.  Specifically spelled out in MAD II is a new criminal charge of attempted market manipulation, where even the attempt of manipulating markets, regardless of the actual outcome, is criminalized.  Furthermore, greater oversight and enforcement policies were established to harmonize criminal and administrative sanctions across the EU.

One glaring inadequacy of MAD was the fact that each member country of the EU had different laws governing trading on insider information and the manipulation of markets.  Under the old legislation, investors and traders wanted to use proprietary information to their benefit could shield themselves by taking advantage of the differences in legislation between countries.  Some country’s authorities were vested with less effective sanctioning powers while other countries lacked criminal sanctions for certain offences.  MAD II rectifies this situation by creating sanctions that all member states must adopt.  Each country will have a regulator to implement the new directive.  Effective and parallel legislation across all member states is essential for the stability of European markets.  MAD II also strengthens the cooperation between regulators in the financial and commodities markets and their investigative powers, ensuring even greater oversight and execution. 

Execution is nothing without sanctions.  The old directive allowed for varying sanctions to be implemented on individuals and entities accused and convicted of market manipulation.  This allowed investors to manipulate financial prices and indices, causing severe losses to consumers, from a safe haven.  MAD II institutes minimum sanctions against individuals and business entities across the European community.  The directive requires all member states to have national legislation that is consistent across the EU.  These sanctions are meant to have a deterrent effect.  Legal persons, including businesses, will be punished by proportionate fines and may include exclusion from public benefits and aid, disqualification from carrying out business activities, and permanent closure of the business.

MAD II, when fully implemented over the next few years, will usher in far reaching legislation designed to maintain the integrity of the European markets.  The new directive will also harmonize criminal and administrative sanctions, provide oversight and enforcement, and, ultimately, attempt to protect consumers from fraudulent market activities.  A key feature of MAD II is the enduring legacy it will provide.  Included in the legislation is a review clause that legally requires the European Commission to report to the European Parliament on the directive’s functioning and any changes that are required.  This report must be filed within four years.  While technology continues to advance, legislations to protect markets and consumers will follow.  

The Implementation and Effect of CRD IV

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision agreed on voluntary financial regulatory standards in 2010 and 2011.  These standards have been adopted by the European Union and implemented under the fourth amendment to the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD IV).  CRD IV requires financial institutions to increase their reserves to protect against losses.  The implementation deadline was originally set for March of 2013 but has currently been extended until March 2019.  CRD IV allows flexibility in its implementation while maintaining broad minimum standards.

The financial crisis of 2007 exposed further possible flaws in the global banking structure.  Because of the crisis, the Basel Committee recommended regulations that require financial institutions to carry more capital reserves and increase liquidity.  Greater access to liquid assets, the committee argues, will provide greater security for the institution during times of economic and financial crisis.  The reserves banks are required to hold are a set percentage of that institutions risk assets.  That percentage can be increased during stable periods of high growth.  Whether it is increased is at the discretion of the country or regulatory body. 

The Basel Committee regulatory standards were drafted based on voluntary enforcement.  CRD IV and its corresponding European Union regulation give the standards the force of law across EU member states.  Member states do have discretion on certain aspects of implementation.  Not all financial institutions are required to maintain the same percentage of reserves.  Small and medium sized investment firms may be exempt from implementing reserve quotas.  Large multinational banks are the focal point of the legislation.  However, the definition of global systemically important institutions is left up to the national central banks.  Buffers against long term, systemic risk are at the discretion of each member state. 

CRD IV implementation has been extended until March 2019.  A phased approach will be undertaken than what was originally planned.  Milestones will slowly be phased in until full implementation in 2019.  Because of this delay, the impact of CRD IV is partly theoretical at the moment.  An Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development study predicts a medium term average drop in gross domestic product of 1%.  Such economic output could be offset by a reduction, or at least a delayed increase, in monetary policy rates.  Further, to meet the new reserve and capital requirements, banks and financial institutions will, most likely, pass that cost on to customers.  As with all forms of legislation prior to implementation, critics have argued that regulation will slow grown while others argue that the regulation does not go far enough to protect consumers, financial institutions, and global markets and economic systems.

The intended effect of CRD IV is to strengthen the financial institutions that have a multinational or global influence.  Ultimately, the aim is to prevent another recurrence of a financial crisis that the world experienced in the 2000s.  It is difficult to tell whether CRD IV will succeed in these terms.  A global economic downturn will prove the legislation’s worth.  But, given the flexibility in implementation, based on local economic conditions, and the maintenance of minimum reserve requirements across the EU, CRD IV stands a fair chance of dampening the fallout of future financial crises.   

Hyphenated Americans

While coaching at a youth summer sports camp in Ireland, I was asked if my last name was American.  It certainly wasn’t Irish, much to the shock of the kids, after all, how could I be in Ireland without an Irish name?  The conversation was as follows:

Girl:  Is your last name American?

Me:  No.

Girl:  What kind of name is it?

Me:  German

Girl:  So, you’re German?

Me:  No, I’m an American.

Girl:  So, your parents are German?

Me:  No, they’re American as well.

Girl:  How are you an American if you have a German name?

Many people who go to the United States, especially those from Ireland, find it odd, irritating, and even ignorant to hear Americans say they are ‘Irish’ or ‘German.’  So, are they?

Yes.  And, no.  The demographic history of the United States tells the tales or world oppression, pestilence, conflict, and greed.  Those born in the U.S. are not, categorically, anything other than American.  But, we are more than where we are born or our last name.  Native Americans are the only real, true Americans.  They roamed the Great Plains long before European ‘discovery.’  The rest of us are immigrants, or descendants of immigrants. 

It would be foolish to believe that once immigrants land on American shores they lose the identity and culture of their homeland.  Euphemisms and colloquialisms may change, but the core remains intact.  A son of Polish immigrants growing up in Chicago will be taught the Polish language and will be raised nearly identical to the way his parents were.  Likewise the daughter of Swedish immigrants, and so on. 

So, who am I?  Am I German?  Am I American?  The answer is, I am the combination of my entire heritage.  Am I German?  Partly.  Am I American?  No.  My ancestors came to this country from across an ocean.

If, on your travels in the United States, you come across one of the many claiming to be ‘German’ or ‘Irish,’ keep it in perspective.  Accept the fact that culture can transcend generations and that we can be more ‘German’ than ‘American.’   

What a Watch Can Say About a Man

Watches are indicative of the people they adorn.  Regardless of whether a watch turns into a little robot (I was the coolest kid at school when I was 5) or shoots lasers like James Bond, they can still be used to tell time.  But, they are also so much more.  After all, what is the point of telling time if you cannot chime it out like Big Ben?

Omega

While Omega may not have the worldwide recognition of its competitor, Rolex, it boasts a far more spectacular lineage.  Omega watches are known for their precision and durability, especially the Omega Speedmaster Professional.  They are a luxury brand not for the status seekers.  Rather, Omega’s are for the real men who make decisions that affect life and death.  It is the brand of powerful men.  If you are seated next to someone wearing one, you are at the big boys table.  That timepiece belongs to American presidents and British princes alike, and even favored by 007 himself.  However, more telling is the fact that Omega’s were, and are, the only trusted watches to be taken to the moon.

Pocket Watch

The pocket watch is iconic.  For centuries, it was the standard.  Today, the watch is mainly used by hipsters, train conductors, and psychotherapists.  In today’s busy world, one can hardly be pressed to pull a watch from their pocket and open the case just to tell the time.  Unless it is a Patek Philippe: an iconic watch from an iconic watchmaker.  If the wearer has an opulent chain then they are just showing off.  But, if their Patek Philippe is modestly adorned, the wearer is cool under pressure, mentally collected, and, above all, iconic.

Rolex

What can anyone say about Rolex that counterfeiters the world over have not done so already?  More likely than not, one brandishes a Rolex so that everyone knows they have a Rolex.  It is a status symbol.  Certainly, they are quality watches, but the name has eclipsed their utility.  The wearer plays golf with tycoons and rap stars.  Time does not matter, those pesky minute and hour hands only get in the way of the name on the face of the watch.  Nonetheless, Rolex’s are a trusted brand, with a great history (see the Great Escape) and are deserving of their reputation.

IWC

The International Watch Company was created in the mid-1800s with the idea of fusing Swiss craftsmanship with American engineering technology.  Today, IWC crafts high end timepieces for people who actually want a watch.  Who buys an IWC?  The philosophers.  They think about what a watch actually means.  The wearer desires the safety of knowing that when they cease thinking, time will march on: a timepiece for the end of time. 

There is a watch for everyone.  Some opt for clocks around their necks; some for one that turns into a robot.  Many others will be content to rely on their satellite adjusted cell phone for the time.  But, to many, their watch is one item they carry with them on a daily basis.  Look at your wrist, or in your pocket.  What does your timepiece say about you?  If you are looking for a new watch, what do you want it to say about who you are?  

The Terrible Passions of Humanity

“I have tried to express the terrible passions of humanity.”  Vincent Van Gogh wrote these words in a letter to his brother about his painting The Night Café, one of his most well-known works.  It is this idea that underlies Van Gogh’s art.  He, the artist, sees this particular café as the embodiment of ruinous human desires.  However, we can only see the outcome of humanity’s darkness; “night prowlers,” the destitute, the drunks take up residence in the all night café.  The desolation is not conveyed in the details.  Van Gogh chooses to use the contrast between colors to create the loneliness and despair of the scene.  The viewer is left dispirited and alone. 

Van Gogh is considered a post-impressionist painter.  He used color and thick brush strokes to evoke feelings and his perception of the scene.  Impressionism sought to recreate sensation in the viewer.  Through stylistic techniques, ordinary subject matter, and emphasis on light and angles, painters presented elements of human perception and experience.  Van Gogh derived his art from this style.  Having been born in March of 1853 in the Netherlands and spending most of his career in France, he would have had great exposure to the impressionists of the time.  While he was influenced by impressionism, he expanded on some of the techniques, colors, and subject matter to create a more expressive effect. 

Vincent began drawing as a child and never stopped.  He took up professional painting relatively late in his life.  The last two years of his life saw the production of some his best known and critically acclaimed work.  He painted extensively including oils, watercolors, drawings, sketches, and prints.  In his nearly ten years as a painter Van Gogh produced more than 2,100 works of art.  His work covers a wide variety of subject matter including portraits, self-portraits, and landscapes.  One of the theories Van Gogh held about art was that “real painters do not paint things as they are . . . They paint them as they themselves feel them to be.”  This emotion and perspective forms the basis of his work.

Van Gogh suffered years of painful anxiety and frequent bouts of mental instability.  The well-known incident of Vincent cutting off his own ear, while shrouded in mystery as to the motive and precise timeline of events, is a clear indication that he was not mentally well.  The sheer volume of his productions is even more astonishing considering that he would, from time to time, enter periods where he was unable to work due to despair and mental illness.  The demons in his mind could, and would, shout down the artistic angels.  Perhaps the greatest gift Van Gogh documented for us was the emotional honesty he was able to convey in his works.  Today, we can only speculate the extent his mental health influenced his paintings.  But, for an artist who wanted to paint the world as he saw it, we can only surmise that his art does not necessarily speak for itself, rather, for himself. 

At the early age of 37, Vincent Van Gogh died.  Again, the exact series of events is shrouded in mystery and conspiracy.  However, death is death, regardless of the cause.  On July 27, 1890, he was shot in chest with a revolver.  There were no witnesses and it is unclear where the event even took place.  He died on the 29^th of July.  Thus ended a tormented life. 

Van Gogh only ever sold a couple paintings, and those he did sell were to family members.  He was not celebrated as a great artist in his lifetime.  Through all the uncertainties of his life, we can be certain of this: he used all of his passion and all of his pain to portray the magnificence of our world.  We see the world slightly different after viewing his work.  He was, and continues to be, one of the world’s greatest artists who has ever lived. 

Vincent Van Gogh did not have any children.  He viewed his paintings as his progeny, a piece of himself.  In this regard, he is the father of modern art.  His work has influenced generations of painters producing heirs that paint today.