The Complex Legacy of Fidel Castro

Last night, almost sixty years since the 1959 Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro passed away at ninety years old.  Many people are celebrating his death, many people are mourning it.  A lot of news sources based either in the United States or countries close to the United States have painted an oversimplified picture of an oppressive dictator.  Others have romanticized and emphasized his positive accomplishments.  Most sources will ignore a lot of the important historical nuances and misconceptions that don't fit into either a good guy or bad guy narrative.

My goal here is to paint a detailed and nuanced picture of Fidel Castro and his leadership of Cuba.  As a scholar of  modern Latin American history, I think it's crucial we have a strong understanding of a leader who was arguably the most influential Latin American leader of the 20th Century.  As a history scholar in general, I think it's always important to educate people about historical figures without using a hero or villain narrative.

What I will do here is give a brief background on Cuban history, then a quick overview of Fidel's part in the revolution and its aftermath, then summarize a few key parts of Cuba under Fidel.  I hope this post is helpful.  Enjoy!

The Platt Amendment

The end of the 1800s was a time of great hardship, but also great mustaches.

In 1898 the Spanish-American War officially popped off between Spain and the United States.  It was a brief war that only lasted from April 21st to August 13th, when the US won.  It marked not only the emergence of the US as an unofficial empire in nearby Latin America, but the end of Spain as a serious colonial power.  Part of the reason the US gave for fighting was that it was trying to "free" Cuba and other Spanish holdings.

In a tragic foreshadowing of future affairs, Cuba did not really have say in the post-war talks.  Cuba was freed from being a Spanish colony, but became a "protectorate" (basically, colony) of the United States.  In 1901 Cuba was forced to integrate the Platt Amendment into their constitution, which forbade it from entering into treaties which "compromise Cuban independence" (which would be judged, of course, by the US), guaranteed US interests on the island, and gave the US authority to overthrow any Cuban leaders that it saw fit.  This last clause wasn't put there for show- the US intervened in Cuba multiple times from 1901 to the time of the Cuban Revolution in 1959.

Fulgencio Batista, Castro's Predecessor

The man who Castro would overthrow, seen here totally pulling off that hat.

Fulgencio Batista emerged as a popular figure in the Cuban military in Platt Amendment Cuba.  In 1933, he led a coup with other reformist officers known as the Revolt of the Sergeants against then president Gerardo Machado.  Machado was yet another in a long line of presidents who had a blend of US-backed democracy and authoritarianism.  Like most presidents of that time period, Machado had promised to modernize and improve infrastructure, education, and water access while challenging US dominance.  Not to blow anyone's mind, but this politician didn't follow through on his promises.  Crazy, right?

After the overthrow of Machado, Batista gained control of the military and was one of the most influential figures in the temporary coup government during the rest of the 30s, though he didn't officially run for office until 1940, when he ran for the Cuban presidency.  He was elected by a wide margin.  People from groups ranging from US-friendly economic elites to the Communist Party of Cuba supported him.  The Cuban Constitution he helped establish in 1940 was actually pretty progressive for the time.  It included labor rights, greater voting rights, furthered the system of checks and balances in the Cuban government, and even introduced the idea of communal rights in addition to individual ones.  He also had an authoritarian side, but generally his presidency went well by the standards of the time.

His term ended in 1944 and he went to live in the United States.  He came back in 1952 to run for president for the second time, but was a distant third place in the polls.  That's when things got ugly.

After it became clear he wouldn't win, Batista launched another coup to overthrow the government in Cuba on March 10th, 1952.  He installed himself as "president" of Cuba, but he was the "president" in the same way that Buffalo Wild Wings sells "buffalo" wings.  Despite this, President Eisenhower still recognized Batista's regime on March 27th.  One of Batista's first acts was to suspend the very 1940 Constitution he helped create.  During this period of dictatorship he suppressed civil liberties, outlawed strikes, censored the media, and got rid of anyone who opposed him.  He also had extensive ties to US corporations and organized crime, who helped him establish power at the expense of the Cuban people.

Even JFK himself would later criticize Eisenhower for supporting Batista and his human rights abuses, including being responsible for the death of around 20,000 Cubans (which is too many people no matter what country you're in, but extra devastating when it's in a tiny country with a population as small as Cuba's).

Fidel's Role in The Cuban Revolution

"Look, all I'm saying is that Batista is kind of a tool."

I'm not going to spend much time here, but one thing that can't be emphasized enough is that Fidel Castro was not the head leader of the Cuban Revolution.  He was definitely one of its biggest stars, but his regime's narrative that he and his homies in the Sierra Maestra Mountains were the only true revolutionary force in 1959 is bullshit.  There were many different revolutionary factions.  This will become important later.

Castro was a lawyer and activist who was running for a local office in the 1952 elections when Batista overthrew the government and ended the semi-democracy that the island had in place.  Castro, to put it mildly, was not a fan.  On July 26th, 1953, Castro lead a group of people to attack the Moncanda Army Barracks.  They were stopped and arrested, but were eventually released after intense pressure from the Cuban people.  Castro and his collaborators, now called the 26th of July Movement because of the date they attacked the Moncanda Barracks, left to Mexico City and continued to plot against Batista.  In December of 1956 they returned to Cuba by boat.

Castro and his crew, which Che Guevara had joined in Mexico City, went to the Sierra Maestra Mountains to continue their fight.  The 26th of July Movement was one of the most visible forces in the Cuban Revolution, which had fully popped off by then.  They were not the only fighting force, however.  Others fought in the countryside and many in the cities as well.  On New Year's Day, 1959, the revolutionary forces had won.

A New Cuba

"We won!  We'll never have to worry about human rights abuses again!"

Through a combination of popular support, crafty political maneuvering, and good ol' fashioned repression tactics, Fidel Castro emerged as the leader of Cuba after the 1959 Revolution.  Fidel, as a leader, actually didn't have a strict ideology.  He leaned socialist, but was no ideologue.  This was tricky, as he found himself in a complex geopolitical situation in the Cold War.  He also found himself in the middle of two camps within his own clique: radical, pro-revolution figures like Che Guevara made up one side and pro-Soviet, more bureaucratic figures like Fidel's brother Raul made up the other.  From day one Fidel tried to accommodate both, but over the years his position on this spectrum shifted quite often.

The US relationship with Castro was shaky, but cautiously optimistic at first.  They really didn't know much about him.  After his victory, Castro went to the United States to meet with politicians and citizens.  After meeting with Castro, then-vice president Richard Nixon concluded Fidel Castro was naive about communism and didn't understand its dangers, but probably not a communist himself.  There will still tensions, however, which were made worse when Fidel instituted land reform in Cuba, nationalized the telephone industry, and re-opened trade relations with the Soviet Union after they had been halted in 1952.  Awkward!

The US responded by cutting sugar imports.  Cuba responded by nationalizing more industries and moving closer to the Soviet Union to make up for the lack of trade with the US.  This set off a geopolitical pissing contest between Eisenhower and Castro where one side would distance themselves further from the other, resulting in the other doing the same.  This downward spiral led to Cuba nationalizing foreign (basically all US) holdings in the country in July of 1960 and the US cutting sugar imports from Cuba by 95% two days after.

Castro's Cuba

Castro loved two things: revolution and cigars.

Castro's rule of Cuba is, to put it mildly, quite a source of controversy.  I'm not going to spend much time talking about his negatives, not because they're not important, but because media based in the United States and countries close to the US have already done a thorough job of doing so.  Still, it's worth repeating.  Castro was only a fan of free speech as long as it didn't criticize him- in other words, he wasn't really a fan of free speech at all.  He crushed dissent and had a lot of political prisoners.  It should also be said, however, that a lot of this is common after a revolution, including the American Revolution.

 
Equally undeniable as his dickishness, however, was how much he improved living conditions for Cubans.  Healthcare and literacy campaigns in the countryside drastically reduced disease and illiteracy among some of the most neglected parts of Cuba.  Even in 2014, the director of the World Health Organization praised Cuba for having a "model" healthcare system.  Today the literacy rate of Cuba is actually higher than that of the United States, 99.7% for Cuba and about 99% even for the US, and exponentially higher than the literacy rate in the comment section on Youtube.  Castro's economic policies also virtually eliminated extreme poverty (ie, the kind of poverty you see in Feed the Children advertisements), though less severe poverty still very much exists as it does basically everywhere.

Cuba's healthcare is so good, in fact, that it uses health care as part of its foreign policy.  Called "medical diplomacy" by people much smarter than me, they send doctors abroad in exchange for trade (such as Venezuelan oil) or political goodwill.  When natural disasters strike other countries, Cuba often sends more doctors and supplies than almost any other country- in fact, during the ebola outbreak back in 2014, they sent more doctors than any other country.

It is worth reiterating that Castro accomplished all this in a small island country with US hostility, including the economic embargo and multiple assassination attempts.  At the same time, it's also worth reiterating all the repression of his own people he partook in.

Castro's Cuba and the Soviet Union

"Hey lil' Khrushchev lemme whisper in ya ear, tell ya something that you might like to hear."

Cuba and the Soviet Union were, of course, close during the Cold War.  A misconception, however, is that Cuba was a puppet of the Soviets.  Sometimes when we see smaller regimes linked to larger regimes, we make the mistake of thinking of the smaller regime as a mere puppet of the larger one.  Really, Cuba and the Soviet Union were less a perfectly coordinated puppet-puppeteer duo and more a dysfunctional couple who stayed together out of convenience.

As mentioned earlier, there were two camps in Castro's Cuba: the pro-revolutionary side headed by Che and the pro-Soviet side led by Raul.  Fidel listened to different sides at different times.  In the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, for example, landed Fidel on the side of Che's revolutionary camp.  Fidel, who had been left out of the US-Soviet negotiations, feared that removing the missile bases in Cuba would lead to more US attempts to overthrow him.  The agreement struck between the US and Soviets did include the promise from the US that they would not interfere in Cuba's affairs.  The problem was that Fidel had, y'know, literally seen the US carry out regime overthrow in Cuba and other Latin American countries already, so he didn't trust the US's pledge.

This led to Castro more openly criticizing the Soviet Union and supporting revolutions abroad even when the Soviets opposed the decision, which they almost always opposed in Latin America.  For those wondering why the SU didn't support certain revolutions, even communist ones, remember that they were an empire before anything else.  They did not want to risk everything by pissing off the US to the point of war.  They may have used communist rhetoric about abolishing global capitalism, but they often did not support the Cuban export of revolution, especially when it was in Latin America, which was recognized as the US's backyard.  Castro and Guevara went about spread revolution during this time anyway since, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Castro felt the Soviets did not have his back.

A few years later, however, a wacky thing happened.  In 1967, Castro promised that in 1970 the Cuban Revolution would reach another step in achieving unity through hard work by producing ten million tons of sugar.  Its annual production was usually about six million tons in a good year.  During those three years between 1967 to 1970 Cubans mobilized, working extra hours, redirecting resources from other industries, and mobilizing workers from outside the country to help out.  Even Fidel worked four hours a day in the fields.

The result was a disaster.  About seven and a half million tons were produced, which is incredibly impressive but fell short of the ten million ton mark, hurting the morale of the country.  It was probably a good thing they didn't actually reach ten million tons, though, as the excess sugar Cuba produced reduced global sugar prices and hurt the sugar business, aka the biggest industry on the island.  The fact that so many resources and workers from other industries had added to the sugar harvest cause meant other industries suffered, too.  Basically, it was an economic clusterfuck.

Guess how many times Cuba criticized the Soviet Union or went against their wishes during the resulting economic downturn?  This up and down pattern defined the Cuban-Soviet relationship for as long as the Soviet Union existed.

Castro's Cuba and The Third World

What I would've given to see a buddy cop movie starring these two.

The victory of the Cuban Revolution sent shock waves through Latin America, many of its citizens having its own problems with the US's role in their home countries.  A small island nation repelled the Yankees?!  It was like the Rebels overthrowing the Empire in Star Wars.  "Fidelismo" was the name given to the optimism Fidel's victory inspired in a sizeable number of Latin Americans.

Meanwhile, to reiterate what I said above, Fidel felt that the Soviet Union turned their back on Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Because of this, Cuba decided it wanted to support revolution abroad so that it could create "multiple Cubas" that would make it harder for the US to single out and target Cuba(1).  In other words, Cuba didn't just support revolution out of idealism- it saw it as the key to its own survival.

Initial revolutionary movements supported by Cuba didn't do very well.  This is because Castro and company simply bought way too much into their own hype.  Che Guevara firmly believed that his and Fidel's 26th of July Movement had been the key component in the Cuban Revolution.  Because of that, he coined the "foco" theory- the idea that a small band of guerillas in the countryside could ignite a spark of revolution that would spread everywhere else.

Considering that isn't even how the real Cuban Revolution played out, it didn't work out too well anywhere else either.  It didn't play out well in the African movements they intervened in (most of which happened with \out Soviet knowledge) (1), and it certainly didn't play out well for Che in in Bolivia.

Cuba seemed to learn its lesson after Che's death in 1967, however, and decided to pick who it supported more carefully.  Instead of recklessly jumping in and trying to spread revolution where there wasn't already meaningful calls for one, or joining a liberation movement when it barely had any membership or substantial support, Cuba figured out it'd be a good idea to, y'know, join movements that were already showing promise and momentum.  This lead to great success, with Cuba helping Angola, among others, achieve independence and defend it against apartheid South African invaders.

This military defeat of apartheid South Africa also helped weaken its government.  According to Nelson Mandela, aka That Guy Pretty Much Everyone In The World Agrees Was Good, this also showed South Africans that the apartheid government wasn't invincible and helped give morale to the internal South African movement against it.  Castro's regime itself opposed apartheid and supported Mandela's African National Congress.  It is worth noting that Ronald Reagan was one of apartheid's biggest supporters.

In victory, Nelson Mandela had this to say about Castro: "The Cuban people hold a special place in the hearts of the people of Africa. The Cuban internationalists have made a contribution to African independence, freedom, and justice unparalleled for its principled and selfless character."

Conclusion

The present state of things, though we'll see what wacky antics ensue when Trump comes in.

To say this post just scratches the surface is an understatement.  There is so much more to be said about Cuban policies in both the domestic and international arena.  Entire books cover single negative or positive aspects of the Castro regime, as well as certain aspects that don't fit into a good/bad narrative.

No doubt people who view Castro only as a hero or a monster will have a problem with this post.  That's not even an attack on these people, either- Castro's regime had a huge impact on people all over the world.  Some people's lives have been made much better thanks to Castro.  Some people's lives much worse.  When talking about history, it's crucial to remember the human impact.

Usually this is where I end with some sort of main point.  Instead, though, I will leave you with some questions.

Does Fidel Castro's improvement of the livelihood of most Cubans justify the severe methods of repression he practiced?  Did the fact that his support of anti-colonial liberation movements was rooted in self-preservation mean that this support was selfish, or was it still noble?  Does the US deserve to point fingers at Cuba's human rights abuses when it has its own extensive history of supporting regimes with far worse human rights abuses?  On the other hand, does that mean Fidel's human rights abuses should be ignored because other countries can be just as bad?  How complicit was Fidel in the human suffering inflicted by the Soviet Union after aligning so closely with it?  As the leader of a small island nation, did he have a choice?  What would've happened if cooler heads had prevailed and the US and Cuba hadn't drifted apart?  Would Cuba's list of good and bad look as it does today?

Just some food for thought.  Thanks for reading!

(1)This idea, as well as my information about Cuba's involvement in Africa, is primarily drawn from Piero Gleijeses's book "Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington, and Africa, 1959-1976".  This book gives an excellent overview of Cuban assistance of anti-colonial liberation movements in Africa.  Incidentally, Piero Gleijeses might just be the historian with the best works covering Cold War Latin America.

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind and Active Nonviolence

Handling nonviolence in a work of fiction is tricky.  In settings where characters are confronted with violence, how do you integrate the idea of nonviolence in a way that is compelling?  More often than not, the subject is approached in one of two ways.  Either a character engages in a passive nonviolence, where they become passive actors who refuse to engage in confrontation, or they extol the virtues of nonviolence while still engaging in violence.  Either of these can be interesting when handled well, but it's a shame there is such a limited scope in ways that most entertainment deals with violence.

There is another way, however.  The Hayao Miyazaki film Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind features a protagonist, Nausicaa, who has her own approach to nonviolence.  She engages in nonviolence throughout the entire movie, save for one scene.  Rather than her nonviolence being a passive act, however, her brand of nonviolence is an active one.  This post will discuss and analyze what I mean by active nonviolence, and how this challenges us to think about the subject in ways that other films that advocate "nonviolence" are not able to do.

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD.

Who needs violence when you have an awesome air glider?

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind does not take place in a happy world.  A thousand years before the start of the film, the Earth was devastated thanks to humanity's constant need to go to war with itself.  The land is now covered in a toxic jungle that continues to spread over the land, destroying all human settlements it comes into contact with.  It is in this setting that we see different groups of people engage in a desperate, often violent quest for survival that doesn't have clearly defined "bad" guys, a common theme in Miyazaki's works.

Our protagonist here is Nausicaa, the princess of the Valley of the Wind (gotta love straight to the point movie titles).  Despite the human ugliness going on around her, Nausicaa refuses to act violently.  Unlike most characters who choose nonviolence, however, her brand of nonviolence isn't to passively sit around and refuse to engage in what is going on around her.  Rather, she bravely puts herself in the middle of the turmoil anyway.  She takes as many risks and is just as much a part of the action as anyone else.  This is what I will call "active nonviolence", where the character is ready to actively engage in what's going on and continue pushing forward nonviolently.  Even in the face of danger.

The movie does a great job of establishing Nausicaa as a character based in active nonviolence right away.  When she sees a smoke signal in the distance and goes to find out someone is being chased by a giant insect, she decides neither to avoid the confrontation nor try to harm the insect until it runs away out of fear.  Rather, she runs straight in and uses her ability to sooth the insects to deescalate the conflict.  She is very much in danger the whole time, but that doesn't stop her.  She displays the same amount of bravery and determination as any other action hero you can think of- if not more- and she does it without resorting to violence.

What's good, other action blockbusters?

The rest of the movie shows her continually pushing forward on a path of active nonviolence.  She guides the bugs from the crashed Tolmekian airship back to the jungle instead of fighting them, she stands on top of an airship to stop Prince Asbel of Pejite from firing on the Tolmekian airships (which she has every reason to want to see destroyed), she goes to save the very same Asbel when he crashes in the jungle and is being swarmed by the insects that he has upset, she rushes the (armed) Pejite's metal air balloon holding the baby ohmu as it fires upon her, she stops that same baby ohmu from stepping into the acid lake water by physically holding it back even at the expense of her own well-being, and she soothes the rage of the ohmu herd by calmly standing in from of them.  These are just some of the major examples.

So, we have active versus passive nonviolence, but what does it matter?  Well, in terms of both entertainment and philosophy, it actually means quite a bit.  The problem with more passive nonviolent characters is that it is hard to put them in chaotic situations where their nonviolence is engaging for an audience, and it can also be difficult to make it feel like there is truly something at stake because of the lack of urgency from that character.  If they're calmly standing around and avoiding confrontation, why should we care?  With Nausicaa, however, we are rarely left with a dull moment or without an idea of what exactly is at stake.  She charges forward at the same pace as any other character in an action movie, she is always proactively standing up for what she believes in, and her urgency in doing all of this subtly reminds us how much is on the line.

Beyond just entertainment, however, this movie allows us to think critically about exactly what nonviolence can achieve.  Even if it's an unfair sentiment, it's easy to call passively nonviolent people cowards and be done with it.  But what about those who participate in active nonviolence, those who put themselves in the middle of chaos while still refusing violence?  Revolutions for democracy and human rights have been won by nonviolence, like in Guatemala in 1944.

Guatemala's first democratically elected president,

Juan Jose Arevalo, basically the Lord Yupa of Guatemalan politics.

Having such a powerful, proactive representation of what nonviolence is capable of in characters like Nausicaa doesn't just make for compelling entertainment.  It challenges us to think what nonviolent action is able to achieve.  It challenges us to question when violence really is or isn't necessary.  If Nausicaa found a way to save her people from annihilation and stop all the different human factions from warring without harming anyone, and if 1944 Guatemala could overthrow dictator Jorge Ubico to install a democracy, what else can nonviolence do?

That's a question that's important to reflect on.  Most of us won't ever be involved in direct violence in our lives after high school, but violence is everywhere.  Our views on violence affect how we vote, how we relate to other people, how we understand the media we consume, how we raise our children.  There are ripple effects that are too significant for us to simply ignore violence, and our understanding of and relationship to it.  With characters like Nausicaa, we're challenged to think in a way that few other nonviolent protagonists can.

So thanks, Hayao Miyazaki, for creating a character that helps us think about our relationship with violence.  Hopefully more characters like Nausicaa continue to pop up in popular entertainment.  The stakes are too important for us to not have characters like her around.

Profiles of Badass Women: Gioconda Belli

In celebration of International Women's Day, I wanted to do a profile on a prominent mujer from history who I feel deserves more recognition and respect than they currently get.  Considering women are, and have always been, about 50% of the global population, that is no easy task.  To say there are many candidates for this post is a bit like saying aggravated assault is impolite, or that Zero Dark Thirty was overrated.  The statement is technically true, but does nothing to adequately convey just how true it is.

I look slight uncomfortable during torture scenes, and use non-torture methods

in addition to torture (which I do literally nothing to stop).  Woah, so much nuance!

In the end, I knew I had to go with a woman from Latin America.  Not because women in Latin America are more deserving than women from anywhere else, but because Latin America is my main area of study.  There aren't too many things I could say about Angela Davis or Malala Yousef that people more thoughtful and informed than me haven't already said.

Even still, choosing a single woman to write about from a region as vast and diverse as Latin America was a challenge.  There were many I wanted to choose.  The person whom I chose is only one example of a rich history of badass women in Latin American history.  Consider this post a small pathway to learning about more organizers, revolutionaries, writers, and other notable women from Latin America.

With all of that being said, the woman I chose to write about is Gioconda Belli.  Gioconda is a poet, novelist, revolutionary, and mother.  She fought in the Nicaraguan Revolution with the FSLN (Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional, or Sandinista National Liberation Front), also known as the Sandinistas, against the Somoza dictatorship.

I came here to kick ass and write beautifully worded poems

that explore a wide spectrum of the human condition... and I'm all out of poems

First, a brief bit of background. Since I've already written about the Somoza dictatorship in my post about Immortal Technique lyrics and Latin America, I'll just copy what I have from there:

"Nicaragua gained its independence in 1821, but instability and harsh leadership were there in abundance.  Starting in 1909 the United States occupied Nicaragua, including stationing marines there in 1912 to protect US interests.  There was a lot of resentment and resistance from the majority of the Nicaraguan population during this occupation.  This included an armed resistance led by Augusto Cesar Sandino, who became a national hero of Nicaragua (and is still considered one to this day).

The occupation lasted until 1933.  At that point the United States withdrew, but established the National Guard, led by Anastasio Somoza Sr and trained by the US so that they would be loyal to US interests.  Soon after, Somoza ordered the assassination of Sandino in 1934 and came to power in a rigged election in 1937.  This launched the beginning of the Somoza Dynasty, which included Anastasio Somoza Sr and his two sons Luis and Anastasio Jr.

Their reign was of a right wing military dictatorship that were responsible for numerous human rights violations.  However, that didn't stop the United States from being extremely close to the Somozas.  In fact, when Anastasio Somoza Sr was shot in 1956, Eisenhower had his own medical staff flown out to treat Somoza.  Aww, besties!"

 

Alternatively, instead of that explanation, I could've just

conveyed how awful he was by showing you a picture of him with that mustache 

Basically, the Somoza Dynasty was the type of regime you'd see in a dystopian novel.

Gioconda Belli opposed the Somoza Dynasty, but she didn't have to do anything about it.  She wasn't one of the people living in the slums of the city or working the land out in the countryside.  She grew up in privilege, in an upper middle class suburb in Managua, the nation's capital.  Her parents were from high society.  In fact, long before becoming a revolutionary, Belli spent a lot of her early years resisting the conservative, high-society values she grew up around.

Her family didn't like the Somozas, but her parents didn't actually do anything to resist his regime.  This isn't to condemn them, because resisting a dictator who has a love for violent repression is easier said than done.  Belli grew up relatively shielded from the Somoza's violence, but still opposed the regime.

Above I mentioned that she was also a mother.  This was no random detail; it guided everything she did.  As she explained in her memoirs, after first meeting Sandinistas through her work, she first started working with them precisely because she was a mother.  She felt strongly that she owed it to her kids to fight for a better world, so that "[her daughter] wouldn't have to do the work that [she] was not willing to do"* in fighting the Somozas.  It was love that compelled Belli to become a revolutionary.

Look at these hooligans, trying to create a better world for their children!

Her transition towards becoming a revolutionary happened in tandem with her rise as a poet.  As she put it in her memoir: "Poetry was the result of exuberant, life-giving spirit.  Once I could assert my power and strength as a women I felt able to shake the impotence our dictatorship made me feel, with all the misery it had sown.  I could no longer feel that change was impossible."*

That's what makes her story noteworthy: how all of her identities intersected.  Her identity as a revolutionary grew alongside, and intertwined with, her identity as a woman, poet, and mother.  It's an idea that isn't new by any means, but beautifully stated by Belli throughout her memoir.

As a Sandinista, Belli essentially acted as a spy for the revolutionaries.  She maintained her life as a bourgeois housewife and office worker during the day, but met with different contacts in the Sandinistas and helped them organize at night (or whenever else she could make the time).

Eventually, however, the regime began to suspect her.  She found herself frequently tailed by Somoza's national guard when she drove, and her house often had patrol cars stationed outside.  Still she continued to assist the revolution whenever she could.  Eventually this caught up with her in 1975, but since she was wealthy, she ended up in exile rather than dead.

Then again, even affluent voices of dissent weren't safe, even non-violent/non-revolutionary ones.

Even abroad, Belli still found ways to help out the revolution in her home country.  She acted as an ambassador of sorts, going to different countries to make a case for the Sandinista cause against the Somoza Dynasty and participating in Sandinista solidarity marches in these countries.  This continued until her return to the country 1979, just before the Sandinistas won the Nicaraguan Revolution on July 17th.

Her work wasn't done after the revolution's victory, however.  After the FSLN won and established a socialist democracy in Nicaragua, the FSLN transitioned from a revolutionary force to a political party.  She served as the party's international press liaison beginning in 1982 and the director of State Communications in 1984 after the FSLN as a party won the 1984 elections that international observers deemed to be fair.

Unfortunately for Nicaragua, Reagan became president shortly after the Somoza Dynasty was overthrown.  He funded right wing terrorists, made up largely of National Guard members of the Somoza regime, to wage war against Nicaragua.  Belli helped organize against these counter-revolutionary forces, known as the Contras.

Unfortunately, while the Contras weren't strong enough to defeat the FSLN, the backing of the US allowed them to hold on long enough to devastate a country already recovering from the Nicaraguan Revolution.  The fighting tore Nicaragua apart, and a demoralized population voted against FSLN candidate Daniel Ortega for moderate candidate Violetta Chamorro in 1990 after the Reagan/Bush administrations promised to end support for the Contras and the embargo against Nicaragua if Chamorro was chosen.  Unlike the 1984 elections, which had an electric air of excitement and optimism to them, there was "a sense of mourning" after Chamorro's victory, though Belli makes the point that Chamorro "turned out to be a maternal figure whose simple words cradled and consoled the divided, broken country"* during her presidency.

Belli has since lived in both Nicaragua and the United States, having fell in love with and married an NPR reporter from the United States.  She hasn't been afraid to criticize different aspects and people of the FSLN in the years since, either.  Especially former/current president Daniel Ortega, who many allege is an opportunist who is a Sandinista in name only.

Apparently with terrible mustaches comes terrible leadership.

To this day Belli still organizes, though she spends more time as a writer and speaker.  Even with everything she has experienced, she remains an optimist.  Her memoir ends with one of the most beautiful, insightful passages I've ever seen, and I'd like to share it with you:

"I dare say, after the life I have lived, that there is nothing quixotic or romantic in wanting to change the world.  It is possible.  It is the age-old vocation of all humanity.  I can't think of a better life than one dedicated to passion, to dreams, to the stubbornness that defies chaos and disillusionment.  Our world, filled with possibilities, is and will be the result of the efforts offered up by us, its inhabitants.  Just as life was a consequence of trial and error, the social organization that brings us the full realization of our potential as a species will issue from the ebb and flow of struggles we jointly take across the globe.

The future is a construct that is shaped in the present, and that is why to be responsible in the present is the only way of taking serious responsibility for the future.  What is important is not the fulfillment of all one's dreams, but the stubborn determination to continue dreaming.  We will have grandchildren, and they will have children too.  The world will continue, and whether we know it or not, we are deciding its course every day.

My deaths, my dead, were not in vain.  This is a relay race to the end of time.  In the United States, just as in Nicaragua, I am the same Quixota who learned through life's battles that defeat can be as much of an illusion as victory."

 *All quotes drawn from her excellent memoir "The Country Under My Skin"

On Creative Writing Classes

One of the most hotly debate topics among authors is whether or not creative writing classes are worth an aspiring writer's time.  The internet is filled with wonderful think pieces by writers of all types on the topic.  While a few of these pieces are unrelentingly pro- or anti-creative writing class, the majority of them have a more nuanced view that weighs the relative pros and cons of creative writing classes.  Many of these articles that end up being against creative writing classes recognize their merit, while many of these articles that conclude they are worth it do recognize they aren't without drawbacks.

Well, as an author myself, I figured I would take a moment to weigh in on the debate.  I took two creative writing classes in college and both had a tangible impact on my writing.  In this post I will lay out why I think these classes can be of a lot of benefit to aspiring writers, though they are not without their drawbacks.

Of course, no amount of writing classes can be as helpful for your writing

as finding a frenemy to become dramatic rivals with.

The first and most obvious merit to creative writing classes is one that almost every think piece on the subject, regardless of their ultimate position, regards as a merit for creative writing classes: time spent reading other creative works and writing your own pieces.

There doesn't seem to be much to say here, really.  The more practice you can get at whatever you're trying to do, the better.  A creative writing class mandates that you read and write a certain amount, and that extra practice on top of whatever else you do in your free time is important.

On the other hand, you can say that a dedicated writer will find time to write no matter what.  There is a lot of merit to this idea at first glance, especially considering the majority of authors we consider great never took a creative writing class in their life.  Sure, you might not be doing it for a class project, but that doesn't matter if you're getting in that practice on your own, right?

Well, yes and no.  To get at what I mean, let's talk about another one of my favorite topics for a moment: boxing.

First lesson: if you can throw a punch, you can write a book.

Say you want to try your hand at boxing.  You scoff at the idea of going into a gym "because all you need is a heavybag and the practice", and so you go to your local sporting goods store and buy yourself your own gloves, mouth guard, wraps, heavybag, and heavybag stand.  Of course, knowing that direct practice is what counts, you make sure to get in your sparring rounds by boxing with friends in your backyard.  After training for a while you set up your first boxing match and, surprise surprise, you lose terribly.

It doesn't take a professional boxer to figure out what went wrong in the scenario above.  You didn't have a coach to instruct you on how to better your technique and fight more effectively.  Meanwhile, your opponent was being guided along a path of proper boxing and constant peer-review from people who have at least an idea of what they're doing.  But that's completely different from writing, right?  Boxing is about objective results (winning matches), whereas writing is a much more subjective experience.  Stemming from that, there is an objective way to be a good boxer, whereas there isn't really a standard way to be a good writer, right?

Well, not exactly.  Yes, there are general ways to become a better boxer- keeping your hands high to protect yourself from getting hit, for instance.  It's one of the first things they try to teach you in any boxing classes.  "Hands up, hands up, hands up!"  Yet tons of famous boxers, including the infamous Muhammad Ali, had a habit of winning fights with their hands down.

Hah, this "Ali" fella clearly knows nothing about boxing!

There is no universally "correct" way to box.  Check out just a few seconds of a highlight reel of Pernell Whitaker, then Roy Jones Jr, then Roberto Duran.  I could go on, but the point is clear: the way each of these men fight and move are very different, and yet they're all regarded as some of the greatest boxers of the last few decades.  None of their styles are "wrong" even though they don't clearly resemble each other at all.

So, we can understand there isn't a "right" way to box, even if there are general principles you want to keep in mind.  The same can be said of writing.  And this is where someone might reasonably come in and say "but writing is completely subjective!  Proper boxing is partially subjective, but you're still trying to win.  Writing is completely subjective!"  That technically isn't wrong, but it's also not an opinion most people actually hold, even if they think they do.

Let's try something real quick to see what I'm getting at.

"Once there was a guy named Sam.  Sam worked at an office.  One day he died of a heart attack and it was super sad."  If story telling were completely, absolutely subjective, do you think it is perfectly reasonable to say what I just wrote is as compelling and absorbing as The Great Gatsby?  Or, to compare it to a work of comparable length, even as much as Hemingway's famous six word short story "for sale: baby shoes, never worn"?  Probably not.

Like with boxing, there isn't a "proper" way to do everything, but there are some guidelines you should try to follow.  How can you make readers care about your characters, or challenge them to think about the themes in your story, or keep them on the edge of their seats as they race through your story's plot?  The story I wrote above doesn't even try to answer any of those questions.  You don't know who Sam is and why you should care about him, you aren't challenged to think about any sort of themes, there is no story arc for us to get absorbed in.

*scoff*  Obviously my story was a commentary on post-industrial capitalism.

So what does all this have to do with writing classes?  A lot.  The feedback from your instructor and peers will be valuable, and guide your practice in the right direction.  In your writing teacher you will have the equivalent of your boxing coach, who presumably has more writing experience than you and therefore some valuable perspective on what you're trying to accomplish.  In your classmates you have your sparring partners: putting your work up for review is like stepping into the ring to test your technique.  Like the feedback that comes with testing your boxing technique in sparring, the feedback that comes with testing your writing technique in peer editing will help immensely.

It's important to note this feedback is coming from other people pursuing the same craft as you.  That's what makes it so important.  It's not that people who haven't taken a creative writing class can't bring equally valuable advice to the table- of the friends I turn to for trusted feedback on my writing, a number of them have never taken a creative writing class in their life.  It's that a creative writing class gathers a group of people who enjoy creative writing and spend time thinking about it.  That's not easy to find outside of a classroom specifically dedicated to the subject, especially if your city doesn't have any sort of writer groups/clubs.  Getting feedback from people who also take writing seriously is what counts, and a creative writing class just happens to give you an environment where you are more likely to get that.

Let's go back to something we mentioned earlier: the fact that many writers we call great never took a creative writing class in their life.  That is absolutely true.  Yet most of them still had a lot of experience in writing-related environments: Ernest Hemingway, Mark Twain, Maya Angelou, and Sinclair Lewis all worked as journalists before becoming novelists, for instance.  Countless writers began as copy editors and other such small time jobs involving writing.

All of these experiences helped them shape their writing and understanding of the written language itself, making claims of "they didn't take any creative writing classes at all!" true but disingenuous when looked at in context.  Even if they weren't writing fiction when they worked in these other fields, they were still interacting with the written word, day in and day out, consistently.

Sort of like how a background as a breakdancer can help you on your way to becoming a Jiujitsu blackbelt in a record amount of time (yes, I am shamelessly promoting my Jiujitsu coaches).

Now, this isn't all to say that you should take feedback from others unquestioningly.  I have written an entire post about this topic before.  The gist of my final point in that post: even when you're getting feedback from people who know what they're talking about, not all feedback will work for what you're trying to do.  Sometimes you may even get directly contradictory feedback; one person may suggest a certain part of your story needs less descriptive writing, for instance, while another may suggest more for the exact same passage.  You have to weigh the pros and cons of each bit of feedback you get, while also making sure you reject or accept feedback for the right reasons (for instance, making sure your ego isn't getting in the way of accepting certain feedback).  This is, of course, easier said than done.

But the point here is that creative writing classes offer a good chance to get this sort of feedback, which will help guide your writing with useful tips and guidelines to keep in mind.  This practice, as in any other pursuit, is a lot more valuable than practice that isn't informed by any sort of feedback or awareness of craft.

This is all without getting to specific exercises and ways of writing that you can get in a creative writing class.  To give an example of something that helped me early in my writing, in the first of the two writing classes I've taken in my life our teacher had a rule when it came time for writing: we couldn't kill off our characters.  His reasoning was that too many aspiring writers try to kill off their characters at the end of a story as a shortcut for unearned drama and tragedy.  At first I scoffed and rolled my eyes, but in the long run it helped me.  It gave me practice writing stories where the stakes are raised without character deaths, and practice writing tragedy which comes from more than just the end of life (unfulfilled dreams, compromised values, other such things that can deflate us without death).  It also meant I was more careful about choosing when a character dies.

That's just one example of a few rules that teacher had.

Another rule: if possible, be Murakami.  Not, like, emulate his writing style.  Just literally be him.

In both classes we also did specific writing exercises, beyond just free writing, that helped our story-telling.  In the second class I took, one incredibly helpful writing exercise we had was to read short stories and analyze specific story telling decisions the writer made in putting the story together.  The point is to zoom in on every narrative decision made to determine whether each decision worked, and in what way, and to what extent.  I used that exercise in writing a post about poignant moments in videogames and another one in looking at the writing in Avatar: The Last Airbender/The Legend of Korra.

So, creative writing classes are very helpful.  That said, they're not perfect.  While I had a great experience in both of my classes, I've heard mixed results from others who have taken creative writing classes.  Sometimes the instructor is pretentious, sometimes the instructor doesn't like writing styles that don't fit their definition of what writing "should" be, sometimes the teacher doesn't have much of a background in writing at all, sometimes there is nothing wrong with the teacher but their teaching style and your learning style just don't vibe; sometimes the instructor is great, but your classmates suck for various reasons.

Beyond that, maybe you're already in an environment where you have plenty of exposure to the written word and don't feel the need to take a creative writing class.

Also, with college being as expensive as it is, maybe you can't afford paying over $100 just to take a 3 unit creative writing class- or, you can, but that's still a lot of money and you don't want to risk spending that much in case the class doesn't turn out to be good.  That is perfectly understandable, even wise.  But in that case I would recommend supplementing your reading and writing practice with looking up reading and writing exercises online, reading books about writing from masters of the craft, and other such forms of enhancing your practice in guided and informed ways (which, to be fair, you should be doing even if you have taken classes before).

Whatever your field, it's important to supplement your practice with study and thought about your art.  A creative writing class is a good way to get that, hence why I would recommend it, but it is by no means a necessity.  Just remember the most important part of writing: keep creating, and have fun!

Top Everything of 2015

With 2016 now upon us many news outlets, columnists, and bloggers are creating lists about different parts of 2015.  Topics like entertainment, politricks, science, and all sorts of other areas are each getting their own end of the year write-ups.

As anyone who knows me or has read this blog can probably guess, I have a lot of interests.  Writing an entire article about only one subject just isn't my style when looking back at the entirety of 2015.  Therefore, like with 2014, I've created a comprehensive end of the year list that encompasses picks for a variety of topics.  The list will cover everything from hip hop to politics to MMA to science to film, and more.  The categories will mostly be the same as those from last year, give or take a few changes.

My criteria for each pick is a combination of merit/quality, personal preference (anyone who tries to pretend their "top" lists are objective are lying to themselves), achievements in a given field, and cultural significance/impact.

Let's dive in!

Movie: Straight Outta Compton

This was a tough entry for me to select. There were a lot of movies that I loved this year, from very different genres, so much so that even narrowing my favorite films of the year list to just five presented quite a challenge.  But movies that stay with me the most are those that challenge me to both think and feel, and after reflecting about all the movies I've seen this year, one movie stayed with me more than the rest of my favorites by a slim margin.

Straight Outta Compton is the story of the NWA, covering their story from their inception to the death of Easy E.  The movie can be thought of in three stages: the group's rise, the group's fall, and the group's reconciliation.  Both the first and third stage are fantastic.  The beginning of the film introduces us to each member of the group and gives societal context to their ascent: the streets of Los Angeles.  A place of violence, racist cops, and little opportunity.  The group rises from the hood by harnessing the very anger that the hood gave them in their music to powerful effect.  The second phase is when the NWA falls apart, with Ice Cube and Dr Dre each going their own separate ways after tensions come to a head and the group disbands.  The final phase covers the group reuniting after Easy E is diagnosed with AIDS.  Overcoming ego and squashing beef is always easier when the specter of death is an imminent reality instead of an abstract idea.

While the movie loses some of its intrigue when covering the group's fall, my main problem with the film isn't that second phase.  It may be formulaic, but the first part of the movie (mixed with brilliant performances by the actors) got me invested enough to care when they started to fall apart.  The biggest problem with the film is its portrayal of women.  Women have two roles in this movie: mother or nameless sex object.  The only exception is Easy E's girlfriend, who is only around for less than half the movie.  It also goes out of its way to downplay the misogyny of the group, including completely erasing the history of domestic abuse by some of NWA's members.

Aside from this glaring flaw, Straight Outta Compton is top notch.  Had it handled women better, it probably would have become one of my favorite films of all time.  Still, the rest of the movie is so strong that it is my favorite movie of the year.  The performances are great, the characters are compelling, the social commentary about the hood (specifically the police) is important, and the emotional moments hit the mark every time.

Comedy Movie: Spy

I love comedy movies, but I never know how to rank them alongside "real" movies.  Comedy movies have such different goals from most other movies that it's hard to compare them.  So, I figured I might as well make a category specifically for comedy!  (For what it's worth, if I'd created this category last year, it would've gone to 22 Jump Street).

Spy is another Paul Feig directed comedy featuring Melissa McCarthy, continuing the hilarity train that started when the two worked together for Bridesmaids (I haven't seen The Heat, though I've heard good things about that one as well).  The movie stars Melissa McCarthy as Susan Cooper, a character who sits behind a computer monitor directing CIA Agent Bradley Fine (Jude Law) through his missions.  To keep this summary short and spoiler-free, early on in the movie bad things happen and circumstances lead to McCarthy's character going out to the field as an agent.

Both the writing and performances are all on point; almost every single joke hits perfectly.  My only problem is that the movie sometimes leans a little too heavily on fat jokes about McCarthy.  At times these jokes are piled on so much they become cringe-worthy.  That aside, though, this movie is absolute comedy gold.  The funniest parts come with Jason Statham's character, an unhinged loose canon who recklessly stumbles through the film with no regard for anyone's safety, including (perhaps especially) his own.

But while Statham's character maybe the funniest, McCarthy's character still stands out as the most interesting.  Cooper has a distinct character arc, gradually coming out of her passive, self-effacing shell to believing in herself and taking action.  This character archetype has existed as long as human beings have been telling stories, but McCarthy and the writing team bring enough life to the role that her character's journey feels relatively fresh and engaging.  She isn't the only prominent female character, either; her boss, best friend, and main enemy are all women who play important roles and have agency in the plot.

With almost nonstop laughs, a well-done character journey, one of the best comedy performances I've ever seen thanks to Jason Statham, and more female character agency than you'll see in almost any other film this year (or any other year), Spy is an easy pick for comedy of the year.

Animated Movie: Inside Out

The competition for this year's best animated movie isn't as fierce as last year's (Big Hero 6, The LEGO Movie, How to Train Your Dragon 2, and The Book of Life all came out in 2014).  Yet even if the competition were equally as steep, Inside Out would still be my pick for movie of the year.  This is the best movie Pixar has put out since their amazing three consecutive years of instant classics with 2008's Wall-E, 2009's Up, and 2010's Toy Story 3.  Yes, this movie truly deserves to be mentioned in the same conversation as those three.

The premise of this movie is refreshingly creative.  It takes place inside the mind of an eleven year old girl named Riley, following the five anthropomorphized emotions that run her brain: Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust, and Fear.  The five emotions work together to take care of Riley, with Joy being the leader.  Of course, as with any movie, things go wrong and it is up to our heroes (in this case, Joy and Sadness) to set things right.

The creative premise of the film leads to some brilliant ways of representing the human mind, with tons of imaginative set pieces and clever jokes about how the mind works (or, sometimes, how it doesn't).  Throughout the movie I was excited for each new scene and location, eager to see what other imaginative things Pixar had cooked up for the human mind.

The movie is about more than the inside of Riley's head, however.  Much more.  The central conflict of this movie is Riley's trouble adjusting to San Francisco after moving from Minnesota.  The message of this movie is a simple one, but also one of the most important and emotionally healthy messages you'll ever see in a kid's movie: it's okay to feel sad.  Each emotion has its own uses in certain situations; the movie shows us we shouldn't try to suppress them to appear happy all the time.  That's an extremely important message to send to children so that they don't grow up hiding their vulnerability from people who care and suppressing their emotions.

This is a movie with a vivid imagination, great laughs, creative metaphors for the human mind, and an important message for kids.  Like with The Book of Life, my favorite animated movie from last year, this movie trusts kids enough to cover an important subject thoughtfully and is all the better for it.

Actor: Michael B Jordan

This was a difficult category to pick.  Oscar Isaac and Sylvester Stallone each occupied this spot at one point as I kept changing my mind on who to pick, and a few other names came close as well.  There were a lot of compelling performances this year.  But in the end, I had to go with Michael B Jordan.  I've been a fan since Chronicle and I thought his performance in 2013's Fruitvale Station was fantastic, so it was nice to see Michael B Jordan become an A list star in 2015.

Of course, that is entirely on the strength of his performance in Creed.  I didn't see The Fantastic Four reboot, and according to everyone from friends who had seen it to 90% of critics, it was better that way.  But in his role as Adonis Johnson, the son of Apollo Creed, I bought every minute of his performance.  I felt the pain of Adonis that came with him not knowing his father growing up, going from foster home to foster home.  I felt his enthusiasm when he tracked down Rocky Balboa to ask to become his student.  I felt his dedication in every training montage.

Michael B Jordan didn't just convince me of his dedication through his acting abilities, either- he also took to boxing quite well.  This movie has the best boxing choreography I've ever seen and, as someone who has actually trained at a boxing gym before, I can say that Michael B Jordan actually looks and moves more like a boxer than any other character I've seen in a boxing movie before.  This is no small statement.  I've seen Raging Bull, The Fighter, Million Dollar Baby, Ali, and many other good boxing movies.  Of all of those films, none of the actors involved showed the same level of dedication to learning how to box for their role as Jordan did in this film.

Had Jordan not given his all for this performance, Creed would've fallen flat.  The story is formulaic and lacks any real surprises.  While the writing helps give some life to the roles, what truly gives them their heart are the performances of the actors and actresses involved, especially Jordan and Stallone.  Not only does Jordan do a great job with his own performance, but the dynamics he has with his love interest, his adopted mother, and Stallone are all interesting and full of chemistry.  Michael B Jordan proves with Creed that he is star material, even for a movie series that has as many high expectations for it as the Rocky series does.  I already can't wait to see the next time he is on screen.

Actress: Daisy Ridley

Yes, the original cast returns and Harrison Ford does a great job acting as the wise old mentor type for the group.  Yes, John Boyega is a likable, relatable actor who helps ground the movie while also providing a lot of its funniest moments.  Yes, Oscar Isaac plays an impossibly charming and good looking pilot who makes me question my heterosexuality.  But we all know who the real star of The Force Awakens is: Rey, as played by Daisy Ridley.

Rey is a scavenger on the desert planet Jakku, having been abandoned by her parents there at a young age.  Even before she gets mixed up in intergalactic political conflict, we are shown during the exposition that she is a tough and resourceful character, while also having a kind side and showing occasional moments of vulnerability.  Throughout the film Ridley has to convey every single emotion one can think of.  If a sequel to Inside Out were made starring Rey, she'd need over a dozen characters to represent all the emotional layers Daisey Ridley convincingly gives her.

Criticism against Ridley's Rey aren't common, but among those who do have complaints the biggest one by far is that Rey is too naturally talented at everything she needs to do in the film.  At first glance this doesn't seem to have a lot to do with Ridley's acting, but it actually does.  As I mentioned above, the film establishes early on that Rey is a scavenger who knows her way around a ship and how to use a weapon when attacked by other scavengers.  Rey's journey in The Force Awaken's isn't like Luke's in A New Hope.  Luke's conflict is external and his growth comes largely in his skills, which also results making him braver yet more grounded.  To keep this write up relatively spoiler-free, I'll just say that while Rey shares some of the same goals as Luke, her conflict is a lot more internal in this film.  She's already physically capable of a lot of what she needs to do- again, not because of bad writing, but because the film establishes early on that these are skills she has already learned living by herself on Jakku.  She's not some naive farmboy on Tatooine.

In a sea of fantastic performances (seriously, naming your least favorite performance in this movie is like asking a parent to name their least favorite child), Ridley's performance stands out.  She presents a rounded character who can be brave, scared, angry, happy, sad, regretful, determined, conflicted, horrified, and somber.  The depth she adds to Rey's character is astonishing for such a newcomer and definitely deserving of an Oscar nod.  I can't wait to see her in the rest of this trilogy, and I can't wait to see what else Daisy Ridley does in the future.

Hip Hop Album: Meow the Jewels

Run the Jewels has a lot going for it: two seasoned MCs, clever lyrics that are witty and often insightful without being self-important, top notch production thanks to El-P, and wonderful chemistry.  Their music is a lot like a Quentin Tarantino movie: fun and exciting at first glance, but also done with an impressive amount of attention to detail and craft upon further inspection.

Nothing epitomizes how fun this duo is than their album this year, Meow the Jewels.  The entire album is composed of songs of theirs remixed with cat noise centered beats.  Meows, hisses, purring, bells, kitten squeals, anything you can think of.  Whereas most rappers are concerned with projecting an image of gravity and grandeur, with Run the Jewels we have two seasoned rappers releasing an album with cat noises in the background.  And, aside from being both funny and fun, the cat-infused beats actually sound great.

With strong introduction track "Oh My Darling (Don't Meow)" and standout joints like "Close Your Eyes (And Meow to Fluff)" and "Paw Due Respect", these songs go hard, entertain relentlessly, and are just plain fun.  While Kendrick Lamar's album To Pimp a Butterfly is also excellent and is arguably much more important on a societal level, I've found myself bumping Meow the Jewels a lot more often.  As a result, it is my pick for album of the year.

Hip Hop Song: Black Friday

I mean, holy shit, right?  If hip hop is dead, someone forgot to tell Kendrick Lamar (and J Cole, and El-P, and Killer Mike, and Logic, and...)

MMA Prospect: Yair Rodríguez

Over the last few years we've seen an emergence of a lot of moves from Karate, Tae Kwon Do, and other martial arts that a decade ago were mostly ignored for "not working" in serious MMA competition.  I even wrote a post about it last year.  Side kicks, spinning back kicks, front kicks with the ball of the foot, and other such moves have been used by MMA fighters at all levels in increasingly large numbers.

The problem is that a lot of fighters have began to use these moves without properly gauging distance or setting them up.  Using some of the flashier kicks that have become popular, like the spinning back kick, leaves you out of position to defend yourself should your attack miss.  That is why it's important to throw it at the right time, when it is least likely your opponent will take advantage of the opening your attack leaves.  If not, it can cost you- Chris Weidman lost his title because of a poorly timed spinning back kick that left an opening for Luke Rockhold to take Weidman's back, get him to the ground, and lay on some of the nastiest ground 'n pound I've ever seen.

Yair Rodríguez is a featherweight who has a black belt in Tae Kwon Do.  Because of his time invested in Tae Kwon Do, Rodríguez hasn't just learned how to throw fancy kicks but has spent years learning exactly when he should throw them and how he can build a game around them.  He throws punches as distractions from his kicks, his footwork does a good job at maintaining kicking range distance, and he changes stances to effectively change the angles of his attacks.  He is also quite capable in the clinch and has a slick ground game that is about as entertaining as any MMA fighter's.

Rodríguez is not without his weaknesses.  When pressured too much he retreats straight backward, rather than circling out; his punches are sharp enough in the opening round, but get progressively sloppier as the fight goes on; he leaves a lot of openings, like by leaving his hands too low or leaning forward when on the offense against an opponent.  But he is twenty three years old and has only had seven professional fights, three of which have been in the UFC.  It'd be weird if he weren't making mistakes, and he has years ahead of him to correct them.

The 145 pound division is already electric; it has easily become my favorite division in the UFC.  While much of the talent toward the top of the featherweight heap is relatively young and won't be going anywhere soon, it's nice to see a prospect with such potential coming up.  Seeing Rodríguez grow as a fighter and continue his ascent among the 145-ers in the UFC will be a real treat for years to come.

MMA Fighter I'd Like to See Bounce Back: Kyoji Horiguchi

I first noticed Kyoji Horiguchi in his match against Jon delos Reyes in September of 2014.  His impressive fight style immediately caught my attention: he combines the excellent range-conscious movement of someone like Machida with the head movement and combination-punching ability of someone like Ross Pearson.  His striking is, essentially, a mixture of some of the best parts of karate and boxing for MMA.

When I first saw him fight, I remember thinking to myself that he had it in him to someday beat flyweight champion Demetrious "Mighty Mouse" Johnson, one of the most well-rounded and strategically intelligent fighters in the world regardless of weight class.  This confidence in Horiguchi only increased when he fought Louis Gaudinot.  Against Gaudinot, who is currently ranked #12 in the flyweight division, Horiguchi performed brilliantly and let his unique karate-boxing hybrid style shine.

His victory made me think he might be ready for a shot against Mighty Mouse if he got past someone in the top 10, then someone in the top 5 to earn a title fight.  Instead, Horiguchi received a title shot after his victory against Gaudinot because Mighty Mouse had cleared out the flyweight division of any other contenders.  Horiguchi fought Johnson in April and did well the first round, but as the fight went on Might Mouse's control of the fight became more and more pronounced.  The final round had Johnson dominating the match completely and submitting Horiguchi with an armbar at 4:59 of the 5 minute round, a record that can literally never be topped.

I sincerely hope Horiguchi can bounce back and work his way to another title shot, this time fighting top 10 fighters on the way up.  His fighting style is the rare combination of entertaining yet strategically sound.  If he takes the loss against Johnson as a learning experience and keeps getting better, I think he has a very real shot at winning his next title fight, provided that he is given a more gradual path instead of being thrown in head first again.  He is already off to a good start, having beat Chico Camus in September.  I hope this trend continues, if for no other reason than to keep the flyweight division interesting (seriously, Might Mouse has totally cleared out that division).

Male MMA Fighter: Conor McGregor

I'm going to get this out of the way: I don't like Conor McGregor's schoolyard trash-talk antics.  I don't personally dislike McGregor (or any other fighter) for doing it because it's a proven model for success, but I hate that the fastest way for a fighter to gain attention is to talk shit like a high schooler desperate for attention and what they think is respect.  There are plenty of ways to market fighters for their personality beyond the shit talking, but media outlets love drama and interpersonal conflict.  It's the same reason Donald Trump gets so much attention from the press.

But let's forget about McGregor the personality and talk about McGregor the fighter.  His ability to gauge/control distance, throw flashy kicks in strategically well thought-out ways, and counter with that excellent left hand are all top notch in MMA.  McGregor is excellent at using his kicks and footwork to control the range of his opponents and bait them into attacks that he then counters with his left hand.

McGregor's first opponent of the year was Dennis Siver, an elite striker who up until that point had only lost to Cub Swanson since dropping down to the featherweight division.  McGregor ran through him.  McGregor then beat Chad Mendes, who up until that point had only lost to featherweight champion Jose Aldo.  Finally, McGregor beat Aldo himself in an astonishing 13 seconds.  That's impressive for any professional fight, but especially so when you're fighting the UFC's then-longest reigning active champion.

It should be noted those last two victories might come with an asterisk of sorts.  Chad Mendes took the fight on a week's notice after Aldo had to pull out due to injury and Jose Aldo had been out of commission for over a year when the two finally fought.  But neither of those were McGregor's fault, and he did everything he had to in order to beat the champion of arguably the deepest division in MMA today (or perhaps the second deepest after the lightweight division).

2016 will be a big year for McGregor.  Will he defeat Aldo in a rematch?  Will he defend the title against other contenders like Frankie Edgar and Max Holloway?  Will he move up to lightweight to fight for the lightweight crown?  I don't know what path he'll take or how well he'll do.  But I do know that I look forward to seeing those fights (while ignoring all the silly pre-fight man drama).

Female MMA Fighter: Holly Holm

Joanna Jędrzejczyk, the champion of the new women's straw weight (115 pound) division, is an excellent fighter.  After capturing the title from Carla Esparza in the beginning of the year, she has since defended her title twice.  She deserves a lot of praise for her performances and accomplishments this year.

But the clear winner of female fighter of the year goes to the woman who dethroned Ronda Rousey, who was the UFC's biggest star at the time of this fight.  Holly Holm, who is also a former boxing champion and kickboxing competitor, beat two middle of the pack bantamweights to earn the title shot against Rousey.  Many wrote her off as not having a chance, while others "predicted" she would win simply because they wanted Rousey to lose.  Most fans wrote this off as yet another bout where Rousey would clinch up, hip toss her opponent, and eventually sink in that killer arm bar of hers.

As we all know, that's not what happened this time around.  Holly Holm used the footwork she gained as a high level striker to continuously slip away from Rousey and pick her apart with piston-like straights.  Rousey is excellent at operating once she has the clinch in a fight, but she doesn't have as much skill in setting it up.  Usually she rushes her opponents, who often try to stand their ground and strike with her in the hopes of getting a knockout before Rousey can sink in her clinch.  With her opponent standing right in front of her, Rousey would throw a bunch of wild punches until she saw an opening for the clinch.  When Holm decided to circle out and not let Rousey rush her, Rousey didn't have an answer.

Holly did a fantastic job picking Rousey apart and defending on the few occasions she did get caught in the clinch, eventually seeing an opening for a beautiful headkick that killed all wildlife in a five mile radius.  Many people afterward blamed Rousey for "trying to strike with Holm instead of using with her Judo", but make no mistake, this was Holm's doing.  In professional MMA, you simply can't walk into the clinch.  You need to set it up with strikes to create an opening.  Holm did everything she needed to in order to make sure Rousey couldn't do that.

Holm defeated one of the biggest stars the UFC has ever known thanks to sound striking strategy.  She also became the first fighter to hold championships in both MMA and boxing.  Heading into 2016, she will inevitably have a rematch with Ronda Rousey.  This winner of this rematch will be determined by who has the better footwork.  If Rousey improves her ability to cut off the cage instead of just chasing opponents, she will win.  If Holm is able to continue escaping Rousey, she will win.  Either way, it will be a hell of a match.  Until then, though, Holm has rightfully earned her place at the top of the women bantamweight division.

MMA Fight: Cormier vs Gustafsson

This category came down to a very, very close decision.  After whittling down an extensive list of fantastic fights this year, I was left with two: this one and Robbie Lawler vs Rory MacDonald.  Both fights were incredible championship fights that demonstrated the heart, technique, and versatility of each fighter.  In the end, I went with Cormier vs Gustafsson because (1)the fight felt slightly closer and (2)there were some specific aspects from this amazing bout that I wanted to talk about (though shout out to Lawler's excellent MMA boxing, which might just be the best in MMA right now).

Before we get into the details of this fight, the outcome is a perfect example of the fact that styles makes fights.  Tallying who has beat who in MMA doesn't always work because every fighter's style contains its own strengths and weaknesses.  Alexander Gustafsson got destroyed by Anthony Johnson, who was meticulously picked apart by Daniel Cormier in their fight.  If Cormier so effortlessly beat the guy who demolished Gustafsson, clearly Cormier should've smoked Gustafsson himself.  As we saw, though, that's not how things went down.

This was a phenomenal fight.  The first round made it look like Cormier would neutralize Gustafsson's striking with his wrestling and grind out a decision on the ground.  Clearly that didn't end up being the case.  Gustafsson did an impressive job using his polished footwork, strong combination punching, attacks to the body, and excellent gauging of distance.  Cormier, on the other hand, did a fantastic job of cutting off the cage with his footwork (that is, intercepting Gustafsson instead of just following him), striking from the clinch, and setting up his right hands with lighter kicks and punches, rather than just winging crazy right hands like most wrestler-turned-strikers do.

One thing that I appreciate about Gustafsson is that he isn't afraid to go for takedowns against wrestlers.  Conventional MMA wisdom says that lanky strikers should never try to grapple against stocky wrestlers.  Gustafsson reminded us here that conventional wisdom is something that should always be challenged.  Like against Jon Jones, he only scored a couple complete takedowns, but that was all he needed.  As I've talked about on this blog before, shooting for the hips against an opponent in MMA gets them thinking about your wrestling and takes away from their ability to focus on striking defense.  Grappling-based MMA fighters use this strategy all the time to out-strike opponents that have stronger striking credentials than them.  When you're a striker who can employ this strategy, all the better.

Another noteworthy part about this fight was how each fighter battled it out in the later rounds.  In MMA it is common for tired fighters to stand still in the later rounds and wing powerful, sloppy strikes at each other.  Not in this fight, though.  Cormier still used good intercepting footwork, Gustafsson still did a good job of being elusive, and both fighters (for the most part) kept their strikes diverse instead of only trying to throw wild right hands.  Even in the last round there were jabs, body kicks, lead uppercuts, lead hooks, feints, and combinations.  That is a large part of what makes a champion level fighter: not just physical attributes and their "heart", but also the ability to keep fighting sensibly even towards the end of an exhausting, exhilarating, incredibly close fight against the best in the world.

Cormier said in the post-fight interview with Joe Rogan that this bout made him a better man.  For those of us who payed close enough attention, it also made us better fans.  This fight didn't just prove a lot about Cormier and Gustfasson, but also about certain aspects of MMA itself.  For the first time in a few years, I am truly excited to see where the light heavyweight division is going, especially with the return of Jon Jones.  It's gonna be a hell of a 2016 for the 205-pounders.

Scientific Discovery: Liquid Water on Mars

For centuries humans have written about Mars, before the name "Mars" was ever given to it.  As astronomy advanced and people learned more about our red neighbor in the solar system, the possibility of life over there captured our popular imagination.  Could there be sentient lifeforms over there?  Could we find a way to reach out to them someday, or them to us?  If they looked like us, what are the intergalactic protocols about getting freaky with aliens?  Creative minds of all sorts told compelling stories to answer all of these questions, and more.

Toward the end of the 20th Century we began to realize that our Mars fan fiction wouldn't become true.  There weren't any civilizations on Mars.  But even with the idea of intelligent Martians being put aside, there are still a lot of interesting questions to be asked.  First and foremost: does any form of life exist?  Well, if life as we understand it does, it needs liquid water to function.  The question of water on Mars, therefore, became a big one.

In 2015, we found proof of liquid water on Mars.

Now, a problem with popular science journalism is how sensationalist it is.  It's a bit of a necessary evil, considering how few people would pay attention otherwise.  Headlines about water on Mars and speculation about the possibility of life on Mars went wild.  Often this went beyond the scope of the actual findings.  What we figured out with this discovery was that water seasonally trickles on Mars and leaves salty residue behind; there were no actual bodies of water discovered.  Scientists have a few different hypotheses about where this water is coming from.  Two of the leading ones right now are (1)that it comes from the atmosphere or (2)that it comes from the ice beneath Mars' surface.

We still don't know everything about the water on Mars yet, so we can't jump to any conclusions.  But that being said, we still made an incredible discovery about our rusty red neighbor that could hold the key to figuring out whether or not life exists.  Yay science!

Scientific Achievement: Teixobactin

I personally think science is at its best when it's being used to save lives.  Medicine is one of the best things we have done as a species, figuring out ways to cure ourselves (as well as animals) so that we don't have to contemplate our own mortality each time we get sick.  While the industry behind it is incredibly greedy and often shady, modern medicine itself is a wonderful testament to what the human scientific mind can do.

One of the challenges faced in modern medicine is the arms race between antibiotics and antibiotic-resistance bacteria.  Whenever we use anything anti-bacterial, the overwhelming majority of bacteria won't survive.  There will always be a tiny percentage, however, who are immune to whatever anti-bacterial item you're using.  These immune bacteria, being the only ones left alive, go on to reproduce and suddenly you have a whole generation of bacteria inheriting resistance to the anti-bacterial products that killed most of the previous generation.  This is why antibiotics are always becoming stronger and stronger.  We need stronger medicine as newer generations of bacteria are born from bacteria that is resistant to the previous generation of antibiotics.

Thanks to researchers at Northeastern University, we now have a new type of antibiotic joining the fray.  Teixobactin is the first new antibiotics developed in decades.  Ignore all the pop science articles that claim in the headlines there are no bacteria resistant to it, that's just because the antibiotic is so new.  Once teixobactin becomes widely used, bacteria with genes that make it immune to teixobactin will start reproducing and we will eventually have the same problems with immunity to teixobactin that we do with other antibiotics.

That said, this is still incredible news.  For now, we have an antibiotic that bacteria are not at all used to.  This means that current infectious diseases that are difficult to fight because of antibiotic immunity can be treated.  Teixobactin has the potential to save millions of lives the world over once it becomes readily accessible to medical professionals.  This is what we as human beings are capable of when we decide to find new ways to help save each other instead of new ways to kill each other.

Bullshit News Story: Muslim Brit Support for 'Jihadis'

According to an article from The Sun, one of the biggest news organizations from the United Kingdom, almost one fifth of British Muslim support "jihadis" who left the UK to fight in Syria.  The numbers are even higher in the 18-34 age bracket at about one in four.  Clearly something must be done!

Except for the fact that this article is complete bullshit.  The survey itself did happen and the report is based on an actual question, so it wasn't a complete fabrication.  Rather, it was a manipulation of information that would have even the most repressive of dictators nodding in approval.  The question The Sun points to asked British Muslims how much sympathy they had for "young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria"; the answers were a lot of sympathy, some sympathy, no sympathy, or don't know.  You'll notice that literally nowhere did the term "jihadi" come up.

See, there are a metric fuckton of groups fighting in the Syrian Civil War right now.  To even begin to try to make sense of all the factions, their ideologies, and their allies would take days, but suffice to say that ISIL isn't the only group over there.  There are many groups representing many different ideologies, including some that are fighting for democracy and human rights.  So when asked about "young Muslims" who go to "join fighters in Syria", that can mean a number of things.  It certainly doesn't automatically mean support for "jihadi" groups- which, can't be stated enough, is a word that doesn't come up at all in this question.

It'd be easy to roll our eyes and make an offhanded comment about bullshit in the media before forgetting about this story, but it's not that simple.  Hate crimes against Muslims in the UK are on the rise.  We're seeing the same thing in the US.  Whether it's The Sun or Donald Trump, whenever bullshit is spread that vilifies a group of people, we're not just dealing with intellectual dishonesty.  We're dealing with physical threats to the livelihood of living human beings, their families, their communities.  And that's complete bullshit.

Actual News Story: The Paris Attacks

If you didn't spend 2015 living under a rock, you know about the attacks that happened in Paris.  It was by far the biggest media story of the year.  On the night of November 13th, coordinated attacks happened all over Paris that left 130 dead and many hundreds more injured.  There are no amount of adjectives that can encompass all the horror and tragedy about the situation.

These attacks also reveal some troubling aspects of US and European media that require some examination.  The issue, though, is that an attack that killed 40 people and injured many more in Beirut, Lebanon happened the day before.  The attack received only a fraction of the media attention the Paris attacks did, and never became a Facebook profile picture.  As a result, few people knew it happened, and the beautiful outpour of support that Paris received wasn't extended to Beirut.

On top of that, hundreds of innocent people have been killed by coalition airstrikes led by the US that include France.  The attacks on Paris weren't a random attack, but another drop in the bucket of the horrible cycle of violence that has been going on between Western Europe/the US and the Middle East since the early 20th Century.  A cycle of intervention by what is traditionally referred to as "the West" and desperate counterattacks by those from the Middle East have gone on since before World War 1 and continued throughout the century.

The problem is that our media, thanks to an intersection of private and government interests, doesn't acknowledge this history.  A "tension between cultures" narrative is often used to describe the current conflict between the US/Western Europe and the Middle East, without acknowledging the historical legacy of Western intervention that contextualizes it.  As a result, we're given a narrative that doesn't properly acknowledge the historical background of everything going on.  Imagine walking in on someone punching another person in the mouth and having someone tell you that these two have been fighting for the last ten minutes, without clarifying that it started after one person killed the other's family.

This story and the way it was covered shows how media creates narratives without acknowledging historical context.  Media not giving us the full background is a serious issue.  By doing so, we are denied the ability to create a fully-informed opinion about one of the most important issues of our time.

Meme of the Year: Hotline Bling

All of these Hotline Bling memes were comedy gold.  Or at least comedy silver.

Video of the Year:

I first stumbled across this video on Facebook, shared by one of my coaches at 10th Plant San Diego.  The video features the coach of 10th Planet Decatur, Brandon Mccaghren, revealing the "dirty little secret" of Jiujitsu.  No, it's not some secret forbidden technique to beat your opponent effortlessly or gossip about the seedy underbelly of the Jiujitsu scene.  In fact, it's not about anything unique to Jiujitsu at all.

This video, at 1 minute and 45 seconds, is the most important video you will watch today, whether you practice Jiujitsu or not.  The "dirty little secret" that Mccaghren reveals: everybody had thought about quitting Jiujitsu.  Everybody.  Because mastering a skill, whether it's Jiujitsu or anything else, requires tons of hard work and hours invested.  On this journey, you will face setbacks; progress isn't a linear path.  There will be times where you feel you have stagnated, or even taken steps backward.  There will be times where you feel it is all pointless.  There will be times where you want to stop what you're doing and never pick it back up again.

As Mccaghren puts it: "that's precisely why you can't quit, no matter what.  You gotta keep going.  Because it's hard, because it makes you wanna quit.  The discipline and the perseverance that you learn from going through something incredibly difficult and then to keep going, that's gonna carry over into every other part of your life.  It's gonna become the most important part of your training.  Not the fact that you can choke somebody unconscious or that you can break their foot, but the fact that you know that when your back gets put against the wall, and when everything is going wrong and all you wanna do is just stop, you know you got what it takes to keep going."

Again, this goes well beyond Jiujitsu.  Anytime we stick with something that challenges us, whether it's a martial art or anything else that requires discipline and perseverance, we're building ourselves into people who can keep our cool and get shit done under pressure.

For me, being able to maintain my composure when someone is on top of me or trying to yanks my limbs in directions they weren't built to go is what I value most in my Jiujitsu training.  Same with my training in other martial arts.  Keeping my cool, making sure I don't leave any openings out of panic or carelessness, and thinking about how I can work my way out of that bad spot has translated directly over to other parts of my life.  I just finished my first semester of graduate school, and to call it stressful would be an understatement.  There were times where I felt I couldn't possibly handle the workload and wanted to quit.  I honestly considered dropping out at a couple points.  But thanks to my years of martial arts training (among other challenges I have worked through) I was able to take a deep breath, find my center, and focus on what needed to get done.  I ended the semester with a 3.9 GPA.

I may not be the biggest badass in Jiujitsu (I only competed for the first time in November), and those of you reading this might not be the best boxer or soccer player or sex architect around.  That doesn't matter.  What matters is that we stick with something we have a passion for, cultivate a skill that we can take pride in, and forge an iron will that will get us through whatever challenges we face in life.

Photo of the Year: Alan Kurdi

Sometimes we think of geopolitics as an abstract idea.  This picture is a heart-breaking reminder they aren't.

The only difference between refugee kids like Alan, the elementary school students I mentor for my job at an after-school program, and any kids any of us happen to know, whether our siblings, children, nieces, nephews, or whoever else, is where they were born. But many of these refugee children are dead now because of awful geopolitical machinations that they had nothing to do with.

Too many children have been buried, and will continue to be buried, by their parents, their siblings, their grandparents.  Not just those fleeing Syria, either.  While Syrian refugees are currently the ones most prominently in the headlines, it is worth noting the Central American refugee crisis is still happening despite no longer being in the headlines.  There are refugees being created every day in other parts of the world as well.

These tragedies are why understanding international affairs matter.  Politics aren't abstract ideas.  They're very real policies and institutions that affect lives all over the globe.  Sometimes they also end them.

Badass of the Year: Aura Elena Farfán

Some of the entries on this list have touched on the grim side of humanity, the horrors we commit against one another, the tragedies that result from the often ugly world we have created.  Especially the entry before this one.  To call these injustices discouraging is an understatement.

But the power to fight back and work for a better world is possible.  It's not just possible, in fact, but it's something that many people around the world are doing right now as I type this and as you read it.  This entry is partially for them, but also for us: a reminder that action, not cynical resignation, is what we can and should strive for.

The Guatemalan Civil War began in 1960 and lasted all the way until 1996, when peace accords were signed and democracy restored.  Yes, 1996; me and many of you reading this are older than Guatemala's current democratic regime. Democracy had existed once before, from 1944 to 1954.  But in 1954 the US overthrew the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz and installed military dictator Castillo Armas, who was assassinated by Guatemalans in 1957.  The United States tried to impose order by backing more military dictators after Armas was killed, but stability didn't come.  In 1960 Guatemala's Civil War erupted between a repressive military government and left wing guerrillas.  Gross human rights violations occurred, 93% of which were perpetrated by the military government, with 83% of its victims being indigenous Mayan people.

In 1984, Aura Elena Farfán's brother was kidnapped and killed by the military regime.  She opposed the military regime when it was in power, and in 1992 she founded FAMDEGUA, an NGO that supports families in their search for missing loved ones who were kidnapped (and usually killed) by the military regime.  She gets results, too, which would probably explain all the death threats she gets from people still connected to the military regimes of the Civil War.

But does that stop her?  No.  Aura Elena Farfán still presses forward, continuing to support the families of people who lost loved ones during the Civil War, and fighting to get those who committed atrocities behind bars.  That takes a ridiculous amount of courage to do in a nation still plagued by corruption and violence.  For that reason, Aura Elena Farfán is my pick for badass of the year.  A reminder that a better world is possible, but only if we take up the effort to make it so.