Line of Duty: Best bloody show I’ve seen in a bit

After watching Bodyguard last year, I was on a lookout for British police/action TV shows. Recently, I’ve started watching Line of Duty, and after finishing Season 3, I have nothing but the highest regards for it. It turns out that it was written by the same mastermind behind Bodyguard: Jed Mercurio. The following review is without spoilers, so please feel free to dive in.

Season 1 was great all-around. I was fascinated by the moral dilemma faced by DCI Gates. The tension and the complex character of Gates was molded by the end of the first one-hour episode, and it only got better from there. An award-winning copper (what they call a police officer in England), a brilliant mind, and an inconvenient relationship — such were the ingredients that brewed the drama throughout the season, though other characters and the overarching plot was captivating as well. I disliked Steve Arnott at first, but later, I began to like his doggedness, even his naïveté. The episodes in the middle never got dull, and I followed the plot quite well to the ending.

Season 2 was ambitious, perhaps too much so. The premise was fascinating: an armed escort of a protected witness gone wrong, and the only officer, DI Denton, is under suspicion. However, the interweaving plot with a missing persons case and an affair took away from the tension. It was simply too complex for its own good, and I got distracted. Still, what came out of the season did not disappoint: the character development of DI Denton. Was she a desperate, innocent woman or a manipulative, bent (colloquial language for corrupt) copper? Both? I’ve got to give credit to both the writers/directors and Keeley Hawes, who portrayed Denton. A hint: her character is quite important in Season 3 as well.

Season 3 has got to be my favorite so far. The premise was more direct — characters that would normally linger on are killed in quick succession, much to the surprise of the audience. This brought the focus to what the show does best: unraveling a large (but singular) conspiracy against bent coppers. Both seasons have been building up an underground network of crime, and the premise of season 3 reaps the fruits of this context. The action serves a clear focus to the audience, and the tension kept me on the edge till the very end. It has the best of both seasons: the plot and character development.

I’ve learned a good bit of UK Police procedure and ranks. Detectives, which most of the season centers around, are denoted by Detective (D) in front of their title. Some common ranks are as follows, in ascending order: DC (Detective Constable), DS (Detective Sergeant), DI (Detective Inspector), DCI (Detective Chief Inspector), and Superintendent. Also, I can now watch the series without captions, and you’ll even occasionally find me reading to myself in a British accent.

Again, I recommend that you check out Line of Duty. The show can be streamed on Hulu, but apparently it has been quite popular in the UK for almost 10 years now. I cannot wait for what the rest of the seasons have in store. Stay tuned for more movie/show reviews.

“The Simpsons” Names Came From WWII (?)

After FDR died in April of 1945, the new president, Harry Truman, was not in a position to make an informed decision about the weapon. As vice president, he had only met with FDR twice. Taking note of his unpreparedness, Secretary of War Henry Stimson wanted to brief him about the horrible nature of the bomb. Another politician, James Byrnes, wanted to market himself as “Mr. Atomic Bomb”. He took a rather bullish stance on using the weapon and was motivated by political self interest. In the end, both Stimson and Byrnes supported using the weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945. [Source]

In US History, we were discussing the background behind the decision to drop the atomic bomb and its ethics. My history teacher mistakenly said “Simpson” instead of “Stimson” and remarked how similar the two names were. A few seconds later, my hand went up. “Wait… Homer Simpson actually worked in a nuclear power plant!” Already the class was amazed and ready to jump on the theory. As the conversation shifted to Byrnes, my hand shot up again. “Hold on. Homer’s boss at the nuclear plant is Mr. Burns.” Another student jumped onto Wikipedia to conduct more ‘research’ that is definitely not related to class. A few moments later, he reported back, “At the end of World War II [Mr. Burns] was personally hired by President Harry S. Truman.” Indeed, James Byrnes became Truman’s Secretary of State in July of 1945. He became very close with the President and accompanied him at Potsdam. It is also important to note that Mr. Burns attended Yale University and was a part of the Skulls and Bones society. James Byrnes did not go to Yale, but Henry Stimson did! He was also part of the Skulls and Bones society. [Source, Source, Source]

Now, is this the actual origin of the characters’ names? Therein lies the rub. On one hand, Matt Groening, the creator of the series, has said that Mr. Burns’ character is inspired from Citizen Kane (which was a classic from… the WWII era) and his own childhood memories. On the other hand, The Simpsons is known for historical references and eerie predictions of the future. Matt, if you’re reading this, feel free to leave a comment below. [Source]

Joe Biden’s Broadband Plan: Connecting America’s future with lessons from the past

A few minutes before class starts, a high school student from a Massachusetts private school wakes up and logs on to Zoom. A student in rural Arkansas drives 20 minutes and parks outside their municipal library — his only consistent source of WiFi. He has not turned on his video for months because the broadband is too slow. However integral high-speed internet is to our daily lives, it is a luxury that 21 million Americans cannot afford. Under President Biden’s American Jobs Plan, a $2 trillion infrastructure project, the US government would dedicate $100 billion to expanding broadband access and infrastructure. Lessons from the New Deal show that President Biden’s broadband plan must be passed to ensure social equality and economic relief. 

Like electricity and gas, broadband should be universally accessible. Due to the pandemic, the nation turned towards the internet for education and healthcare, both of which are fundamental human rights. With the dominance of work-from-home and the gig economy, broadband is also the cornerstone of the American economy. However, 35% of rural Americans lack access to fast and affordable broadband. When the pandemic started, half of West Virginia’s students did not have access to broadband. A year later, band-aid solutions like hotspots fail to provide a long-term solution. According to the National Education Association, black, hispanic, and indigenous students are less likely to have access to broadband than white students. The issue with cost is just as severe as infrastructure: Americans pay more to access the internet than the rest of the world. Biden’s plan takes aim at both accessibility and affordability.

President Biden’s plan is indeed a “once-in-a-generation” opportunity to not only provide lasting infrastructure, but also immediate economic relief. His proposal is reminiscent of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, a response to the Great Depression that built government agencies and infrastructure alike. In Massachusetts alone, the Works Progress Administration built thousands of miles of roadway, bridges, parks, and utilities — many of which still stand today. Also part of the New Deal, the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 empowered millions of families with electricity through the 1960s. The number of farms with electricity increased from 11% to 97% over 30 years, achieving “near-total electrification” of rural America. 

Critics argue that the government should not regulate or spend money on broadband. However, given the importance of broadband, it should be treated like a highly regulated public utility (such as electricity or gas) — though Biden’s plan does not even propose to take it that far. It proposes to support municipal broadband networks, or city-ran infrastructure whose primary goal is to provide affordable internet instead of making a profit. Republicans and large internet companies strongly oppose municipal broadband on the basis that they reduce competition. They recently introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would ban them nationwide. 

Yet, the current lack of affordable broadband shows the flaw with letting laissez-faire capitalism dictate access to an essential utility: companies simply are not motivated enough to lay down costly cables for rural communities. Further, there is no real notion of “competition” in the status quo. Internet service providers split up their territory in order to maximize profit. As a result, 50 million Americans only have access to one or zero internet service providers. In 18 states, it is not even legal for municipal broadband to compete with private companies. Republicans’ plan does not even allow for public-private partnerships, a proven model from the Rural Electrification Act that decreased initial costs by more than 50%. Under Biden’s plan, affordable broadband access can be expanded through competition between bidders and economies of scale.

The long term benefits of infrastructure are intuitive and indisputable. Though the New Deal did provide employment for millions and decreased unemployment by 10 percent, critics would rightfully point out that it did not end the Great Depression. Therefore, many modern day conservatives point towards the New Deal as a cautionary tale against large government spending; they claim that it was World War II that ended the economic crisis. However, historians argue that the main reason for the New Deal’s immediate shortcomings was that it did not spend enough. Historian Eric Raunchway writes, “An argument that war mobilization ended the Depression is an argument that the New Deal was an effective policy, and could have worked better only by being as big as mobilization for war.” 

Nearly a century later, the United States is faced with another devastating economic crisis. Biden’s American Jobs Plan would spend much more than the New Deal in proportion to the crisis, making it a government response of unprecedented scale. The $100 billion investment into the broadband industry would create countless jobs that would ripple throughout the economy, providing immediate relief to multiple industries. Further, expanding broadband itself has strong economic benefits. A study by the World Bank showed that a 10% in broadband accessibility would translate to a 1.2% GDP growth for developed countries. The FCC stated that improving broadband access yields higher returns than any other infrastructure investment. Broadband would connect and uplift communities not only socially, but economically. 

By using Keynesian stimulus to revive the economy while building critical broadband infrastructure, Biden’s plan would kill two birds with one stone. The US government can spend as long as the debt it would take on is a worthwhile investment, which it absolutely is in this case. Just like in the 1930s, now is the time for the government to prioritize people over corporate interests: if not for the immediate economic benefit, then for the millions of children that would otherwise grow up disconnected to the future.

Cantabrigians rally against Anti-Asian hate crime

By Daniel Wang, published on the Cambridge Day on Sunday, March 28, 2021.

A rally to Stop Asian Hate is held Saturday in Harvard Square. (Photo: Daniel Wang)

More than a hundred people gathered by the Harvard Square T station Saturday to protest surging hate crimes against Asians and Asian Americans. From elementary school students to elders, people of all races and walks of life stood together, held signs and gave speeches to “Stop Asian Hate.”

Many protestors saw the Tuesday murders of six Asian American women in Atlanta as an “explosion point” in the trend of rising violence against Asian Americans. While the overall rate of hate crimes decreased in the United States over the past year, hate crimes against Asian Americans have skyrocketed, said Lily Shen, an event organizer with the The newly formed Chinese American Association of Cambridge, which organized the rally with partners the University Forum, Woodenfish Foundation and Boston Asian Moto Club.

In Cambridge and Somerville, there have been at least 16 acts of physical and verbal abuse reported by the Asian American community since the spring of 2020, according to IAmNotAVirus.net, a platform created by Harvard graduate students Boram Lee and Ja Young Choi. In Boston, the number of hate crimes against Asian Americans has increased by 150 percent, according to NBC News.

Jiaxuan Tong, a data analyst working in Cambridge, was one of the main organizers of the Saturday rally. “We have the obligation to organize this event to give our community a chance to speak up, but also to let our community know that we do exist and what we have endured for the past year,” Tong said.

Two people at the rally hold a sign with urging an end hate crimes against Asians and Asian Americans. (Photo: Daniel Wang)

The CAAC had only a week to put the event together, Tong said, crediting other Asian American organizations as well as the city government for support. “[The City of Cambridge is] really active about this. Whatever we requested from them, they would respond immediately,” Tong said.

City government supported a vigil last March 21 that took place in front of City Hall to honor the victims of the Atlanta shooting. Officials including Mayor Sumbul Siddiqui took part. “She has a lot of feelings and thoughts herself, and I think that’s why she’s super supportive of this event,” Tong said of Siddiqui, an immigrant from Pakistan.

Encountering hate

Some demonstrators spoke Saturday about their own experience with anti-Asian hate, though reluctant to give their full names. Ting, an international student from China who came to the rally to show support after seeing it promoted on social media, said she was abused verbally by a white woman while crossing a street. “I don’t think I did anything wrong to be yelled at,” Ting said.

Mark, a Cambridge resident of Chinese descent, said he has seen many Asians and Asian Americans suffer racial discrimination that might not have been reported due to cultural characteristics — in certain Asian cultures, for instance, children are taught to be nonconfrontational. In recent months, police have also attributed underreporting of acts of discrimination to language barriers and the cumbersome process on victims. “We should stand up and say, ‘Hey, this is not right,’” Mark said.

For some non-Asian protesters, the event was about standing up for their neighbors. “Hate against all people is wrong, whether it’s Asian people, African American people, people of any nationality or color,” said John Robinson, 72, of Somerville. “Violence, hatred or division have no place in this society.”

About 10 demonstrators spoke, including Michelle Chen, a second-generation Asian American from Cambridge who attends high school out of the city and denounced anti-Asian racism whether in the form of banal microaggressions or overt violence; and Isabelle H. Leighton, a first-generation Korean immigrant and the owner of an education company. Michelle Oh, a political researcher, offered insight on national trends of discrimination and division. Lucas Liu, a student at the Buckingham Browne & Nichols School, asserted that the “model minority” myth must not drive Asian Americans apart from other communities of color.

Tong agreed. “This [model minority label] is also denying the fact that we, the Asian community, are just as diverse and complicated as other communities. We have vulnerable groups as well,” Tong told the rally. “We hope to celebrate the diversity together without fear. Our voice is your voice, and yours is ours.”

Vehicle for protest

Boston Asian Moto Club members rally Saturday near their motorcycles. (Photo: Daniel Wang)

The demonstration drew significant attention from pedestrians and vehicles along Massachusetts Avenue. Cars and MBTA buses punctuated speeches with their horns, showing support. In response, demonstrators cheered and waved back. Several passersby engaged in conversation with demonstrators. Some stopped to hold signs.

A conspicuous fleet of motorcycles from the Boston Asian Moto Club parked alongside motorcycles of the Cambridge Police; signs attached to their bikes read “Peace Loves” and “Stop Hate.” From noon to 2:30 p.m., they rode around Harvard Square with pomp. Along with chants of “respect” and “justice,” they revved their engines and honked their horns.

“We must make noise to be heard, or else we will be silenced,” a protester remarked.

Should We Make Hate Crime Laws Stricter or More Lenient?

The horrific murder of 6 Asian-American women on Tuesday ignited calls to action. The Asian-American community has long been overlooked and subjected to immense hatred, especially since the pandemic. However, there is disagreement within the AAPI community over how to address that hate. More specifically, how can we reform hate crime laws so that they are more conducive to less violence?

In New York, where hate crimes against Asian-Americans have increased around 1000%, only one person has been prosecuted for hate crimes in the past year: a Taiwanese man. It is often difficult for prosecutors to find evidence that would prove a motive, and the process for advocating for a prosecution is strenuous for the victim. On one hand, some are advocating for stricter hate crime laws that are easier to prosecute. On the other, some fear that aggressive prosecution would not only be counterproductive, but may also cause prosecutorial discrimination against other communities of color and tensions within communities. This side argues that crimes are crimes, and it does not make sense to penalize one over another (given mostly equal circumstances).

Vincent Chin, 1955-1982

While reading the debate, my memories are haunted by the brutal murder of Vincent Chin, a young Chinese-American who was killed in the 1980s. Despite the brutal nature of his death and explicit evidence supporting a hate-driven motive (The white perpetrators were mad that Japan was taking their manufacturing jobs. Chin was of Chinese descent.), the perpetrators got away with only a $3,000 fine. The tragedy occurred before hate crime laws were implemented.

Crimes are already prosecuted differently by intent. For example, there are different degrees of murder. Hate crimes have an especially heinous motive and also underscore an underlying disease that should be rooted out in our society. Hate — an intangible ideology — can and should be punished more strictly when they are manifested through tangible action. I stand for instituting stricter hate crime laws to protect not just Asian-Americans, but also marginalized communities of all backgrounds. Today, the victim might be Asian, but tomorrow, the victim may be from another group. The government needs to send a strong message that hate would not be tolerated against any, and justice would be delivered for all.

News Media Needs To Step Up to #StopAsianHate

It has been exactly a year since I wrote an op-ed entitled “Ignorant reference to Covid-19 as ‘Chinese virus’ is nothing new in Trump’s lazy repertoire of hate.” Though President Trump has since left office, the impact of his words have persisted and compounded at an alarming rate. I, along with many other Asian-Americans, are saddened and infuriated at the injustices, injuries, and deaths suffered by members of the Asian-American community in the past year — our community has suffered 3,800 reported hate crimes, an increase of 150% from last year. Defenseless elders were beaten in the streets, pedestrians were stabbed and slashed, and others were spat on and told to “never come back”. The murder of 6 Asian-American women in Atlanta on Tuesday struck a different tone, not just because of its brutality, but also because of how various news organizations failed to put the identities of the victims at the forefront of their reporting. Given that 6 out of the 8 victims are women of Asian descent, the initial headlines of the New York Times and Washington Post did not even mention the word “Asian”. Only after much outrage (and almost a day) did they update their headlines to “Georgia Killings Deepen Fear of Rising Anti-Asian Hate in U.S.” and “Rampage amplifies fear among Asian Americans.” These are only minor offenses compared to Fox News and other organizations that actively perpetuate President Trump’s hateful narrative, which has directly contributed to the rise in hate crimes. 

Mainstream media continue to disappoint and anger us. The solution to the problem at hand was the same as it was a year ago. First, news organizations must not conflate a foreign government and a group of ethnic people, for example, the Chinese government and Chinese-Americans. The impacts of scapegoating have become all too clear, and no community of any race should ever suffer from it. Secondly, news organizations must commit to confronting the problems faced by the Asian-American community, which has a long history of being viewed as a submissive “model minority”. Together, we can root out the disease in the narrative. It is time for everyone to step up, care for our neighbors, and hold each other accountable.

Talking Through Isolation(ism)

On the campus of Emerald Heights International School in Indore, India, I felt something different. I discussed climate change with ​Barazza​ groups at day and sang Bollywood songs with my dormmates at night. I met new friends from South Africa, Germany, and Malaysia and connected with students from my hometown in China. Among the over 1000 students from over 50 countries who attended the Round Square International Conference, I didn’t feel an “us” vs “them”. Everyone were equally strangers, eager to meet each other. It was a place devoid of alliances, platitudes, and assumptions. Everyone brought their background to the table along with a smile. It was a place of discovery.

While I was there, isolationism peaked in both India and the United States. The Trump and Modi administration both championed nationalist policies at the cost of international cooperation. Unfortunately, my experience at the conference was an exception to the global status quo rather than the rule. What are the forces that drive us apart, and how might we break them down?

Wars show the rawest of human intentions. In WWI, ​studies have shown that most soldiers intentionally missed at the enemy, not actually wanting to kill them​. How can a soldier kill when they know that the “enemy” is simply another human being? Realizing this, governments started using man-shaped training targets by WWII. On the Pacific front, the US government spreaded racist, anti-Asian rhetoric amongst the troops. This is how a government manipulates its people and builds barriers between nations. Of course, sometimes isolationism is necessary to some degree. Communities that we live in, whether that’d be our families, towns, or schools, depend on our people taking care of each other. In Chinese philosophy, one must take care of themselves before their family and their country. For political and economic benefit, American isolationism has hit all-time heights in recent years.

Just when we thought the world could not be more divided, the coronavirus pandemic hit. Unfortunately, the barrier that governments put up has proven to be dangerous. In the war against the coronavirus, ​Asian Americans feel besieged every day from racist rhetoric​. The Trump administration has blurred the lines between attacking a nation’s government and its ethnic people. The absence of empathy shows precisely why a global education is so vital.

Now is precisely the time when nations need to work together, from vaccine distribution to the climate. With my school’s Round Square club, I started hosting Global Community Conversations (GCC), a biweekly meeting that seeks to replicate the elusive (and now impossible) Round Square experience. We have had 14 conversations so far, each with about 30 attendants from around the world and a unique topic. During lockdown, we shared our country’s COVID-response, debated lockdown policies, and consoled each other. Once, we discussed how our nations may work together to build equity in primary education. After the conversation, a girl from Bangladesh remarked that she wanted to start her own school in the future to promote local culture, not just the European history required for international exams. Through these conferences, I’ve come to realize that people to people connections are the key to fostering a global connection. “The great part about GCC,” an attendant from Peru remarked, “is that we could connect with each other without the government or the media.”

That being said, while becoming more globally competent, we should not forget our neighbors. Early on in the pandemic, I saw my favorite small businesses in my hometown in China fall one by one: the restaurant where I spent my birthdays, the tailor downstairs, and the barber shop around the corner. Inevitably, the same tragedy happened in Cambridge, USA. These were not just businesses, but economic empowerment, dreams, and memories. ​Small businesses struggled to receive PPP loans funding while large businesses were bailed out by grants​. Globalism and “McWorld” should not erase local livelihoods and culture.

Amidst isolationism, we must seek to communicate and collaborate across the barriers between us, and by doing so, breaking them down. I’ve learned that the answer to isolationism is not an opposing ideology or concept, but rather how much empathy we have for our neighbors and other global citizens. The purest form of empathy can only come from conversation, and incidentally, the prominence of Zoom has laid the foundation for more people-to-people connections to the future. We have the means to change the world for the better — we just have to make that choice.

Pardon Me?

Presidents “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself.” These were the words of George Mason at the Constitutional Convention. More than two centuries later, President Trump pardons close allies such as Paul Manafort, Roger Stone Jr., and Steve Bannon. Though the Trump presidency brought the presidential pardon under scrutiny like never before, nothing fundamental has changed. The presidential pardon is a constitutional flaw that must be amended and replaced with an alternative system.

Pardons are meant to be a check on the judicial system — an acknowledgement of the system’s imperfections. In the past, there have been several notable pardons. President Carter issued a mass-pardon to all Vietnam draft-dodgers on the first day of his office. President Obama granted commutations to 330 nonviolent drug offenders. Arguably, these pardons have been wise in retrospect. 

Presidential pardons are indeed a double-edged sword. The Founding Fathers knew of the dangers of granting a god-like power to the president. In the defense of presidential pardons, James Madison said that impeachment would be the ultimate deterrent of abuse. 

However, if the pardon was meant to be checked by impeachment, President Trump has shown exactly why that is unfeasible. Impeachment is almost impossible in today’s political landscape — Trump has been impeached twice with no immediate and serious consequences. Understandably, presidents will issue most of their controversial pardons as lame ducks. If a president were to grant pardons in the last few hours of office, like President Trump did, Congress would have no effective recourse to remove the President from office in time. In the case of Mr. Trump’s second impeachment, the senate let the clock run down until after impeachment day. Pardons cannot be reversed or undone by future presidents or Congress. 

America’s justice system needs systemic reforms. At best, presidential pardons seek to apply a band-aid to a deep wound. At worst, pardons allow for rampant criminality. The intention of the pardon is noble, but the means it seeks to bring about justice is deeply flawed. What, then, should the nation do to replace the pardon? At the Constitutional Convention, Roger Sherman proposed a plan where presidents can only pardon with the approval of the senate. The plan was voted down for good reason — the whims and deadlocks of the legislative body is the same reason why impeachment is an unreliable means for justice. There should be an independent pardon board that operates similar to the Supreme Court — they will be appointed by the President and approved by the senate. Only presidents would be able to submit individual cases to the board. Members will have a lifetime appointment, meaning that while appointments would inevitably be political in nature, members would not have a political interest. Yes, this would place a king-like power into the hands of what seems like an oligarchy. However, this pardon board would eliminate Presidential self-interest — the main culprit behind atrocious pardons. 

President Trump has tested the limits of his executive power. Presidential hopefuls, including himself, are taking note. In the same objection, Mason feared that presidential pardons will one day “destroy the republic”. If our nation does not take action, Mason’s second prophecy may very well ring true. 

Soul

Disney’s new animated movie Soul was truly a pleasure to watch. It is Pixar’s first animation with a Black protagonist. As a jazz lover, it was amazing to see the often under-appreciated genre take the stage front and center. In the film, jazz is the soul of the protagonist, Joe Gardner. Or is it?

Throughout the film, director Pete Docter takes the audience through a metaphysical journey in which Joe’s spirit tries to find his calling in life. The alternate world that Joe falls into, reminiscent of the one in Docters’ Inside Out, has more to it than fantastical colors. Without going into much detail (please, do yourself a favor and see the movie), Joe’s journey confronts conventional notions of ambition and purpose. The plot is rich yet not convoluted, and raises a surprising amount of philosophical questions (along with some much welcomed quirkiness and humor). Most importantly, the movie offers a unique definition of passion, one that does not detract from the jazz motif while championing hope and positivity over dogma.

Band of Brothers: The Juxtaposition of Humanity Amidst Death

I just got around to watching Spielberg’s masterpiece, Band of Brothers, a 10-episode series that followed Easy Company throughout WWII. I can go on to talk about the series’ many merits — its ability to paint the awesome scale of war while showing the effect it has on the individual and its vivid, imperfect characters were present in every single episode. Overall, the series manages to find humanity amidst inhumanity.

The series has done a good job depicting war throughout, but its gritty, unromantic depiction of the Bulge is especially noteworthy. Bit by bit, the shelling took away the humanity from the men of Easy Company. The character of Bull is a perfect example.

The main theme that I was struck by is in the name of the show, the camaraderie among the men of Easy Company. They have trained together from the hills of Curahee and have lived through hell and back. They may have had their disagreements, but in the foxhole, they all have one virtue that would forever bind them — trust. Trust that is forged by the horrors of war. The baseball scene at the end, an epitome of the men’s friendship, really put a smile on my face. Of course, the men’s leader, Capt. Winters, deserves credit in building this company of heroes. Both in fiction and in real life, he is a leader whom I will look up to. Winters leads by example, from PT to bayonet charges. He never lets his ego get ahead of himself and places his fellow men at the highest of priorities (see “The Last Patrol”). The series does not hesitate to provide foils for Winters, for example, Sobel and Dike. One is simply incompetent while the other has an unrealistic expectation of respect.

Leadership structure in the military has been especially interesting to research. The ranks of the enlisted and commissioned are very much distinct, and to deliver leadership in the hells of battle is a very demanding task. I will perhaps write about this in the future.

At the end of the day, the series is also an examination of war itself through one of men’s largest conflicts. One quote from the very first episode comes to mind: “No mercy, no compassion, no remorse. All war depends on it.” This stark contrast from the friendship among the brothers is what makes Band of Brothers a timeless masterpiece.