Sitting among the crows and hawks,
we drink our after-lunch coffee.
She says that I'm more the poet than she,
and looks at me blankly.
As she objects that her eyes are behind shaded glasses,
that the blankness in my own mind,
I listen.
I study the notion for a while and look out on the ocean fog
rolling in beneath a craggy hilltop.
I am slowly learning a new language.
Soon we will be covered in a mist as we negotiate
a steep coastal road.
It is hot, and well must still get a pie to bring with us.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Shreveport's Forum Prints Ridiculous Opinions about Obama
In response to Louis Avellone's recent article on Barack Obama, et. al., in the Forum, let me say this: He gets just about everything wrong, as usual. The recent article makes the ridiculous claim that Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were supporters of religion. Avellone, no doubt, already knows that both men were non-sectarian deists who followed no religion at all, and that both men were critical of what they believed to be irrational claims made by the faithful of there own time (Thomas Jefferson once famously produced a redacted version of the New Testement in which he took out passages relating to the miraculous and supernatural elements.), yet Avellone sees fit to smear both of these venerable Americans with the taint of religion.
Shameless as the above example is, at least these men are dead and run no risk of ever having to read this drivel; however, not content to malign the dead, Avellone saves most of his weird negativity for the current Democrat presidential front runner, Barack Obama. And he continues to harp on the unbelievably silly issue of a lapel flag pin.
Why does Avellone insist on saying things like, "remember Obama still refuses to wear a flag lapel pin"? There is here, of course, a meaning implicit in the selection of the words. For example, why "Refuses"? Here is the implication that a person is obliged to have a wearable flag on his person (at least in camera range), or he is unfit to hold the office of President. This belief is so obviously not true that even Avellone doesn't bother to try to support it. He just mentions it over and over again, which is an old rhetorical trick that saves one the bother of having to make sense. In this way the cognitive process is bypassed and in its place is merely the politics of images and slogans, which happens to also be everything that is currently wrong with this country's political environment.
It is probably true that a small number of marginalized, ignorant people will believe that things like a candidates lapel pin or his personal religious beliefs should be considered when casting one's ballot, but for most of us, it's just further proof that Obama's detractors have so little in way of substantive criticism—If for no other reason than this, Louis Avellone's recent Forum article is a hopeful one for Obama supporters.
Shameless as the above example is, at least these men are dead and run no risk of ever having to read this drivel; however, not content to malign the dead, Avellone saves most of his weird negativity for the current Democrat presidential front runner, Barack Obama. And he continues to harp on the unbelievably silly issue of a lapel flag pin.
Why does Avellone insist on saying things like, "remember Obama still refuses to wear a flag lapel pin"? There is here, of course, a meaning implicit in the selection of the words. For example, why "Refuses"? Here is the implication that a person is obliged to have a wearable flag on his person (at least in camera range), or he is unfit to hold the office of President. This belief is so obviously not true that even Avellone doesn't bother to try to support it. He just mentions it over and over again, which is an old rhetorical trick that saves one the bother of having to make sense. In this way the cognitive process is bypassed and in its place is merely the politics of images and slogans, which happens to also be everything that is currently wrong with this country's political environment.
It is probably true that a small number of marginalized, ignorant people will believe that things like a candidates lapel pin or his personal religious beliefs should be considered when casting one's ballot, but for most of us, it's just further proof that Obama's detractors have so little in way of substantive criticism—If for no other reason than this, Louis Avellone's recent Forum article is a hopeful one for Obama supporters.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Upon Contemplating Solzhenitsyn
We were lost when we came to find ourselves,
unaware that we had been arrested—
On the Gulag floor ‘mist lice and ill-health,
We were blank men, torpid, vile, dejected;
Dying ones there told us what’s expected.
We had not heard the knock upon the door,
nor the clinking sound of gates erected,
and no one knew what he was taken for,
Nor why boots pushed his teeth into the floor.
The man who tortured me sold real estate,
in civilian life, a father of four.
Our heads but not our minds upon a plate;
They chopped our hair with rusty garden sheers;
Post-Saddam, these were American years.
unaware that we had been arrested—
On the Gulag floor ‘mist lice and ill-health,
We were blank men, torpid, vile, dejected;
Dying ones there told us what’s expected.
We had not heard the knock upon the door,
nor the clinking sound of gates erected,
and no one knew what he was taken for,
Nor why boots pushed his teeth into the floor.
The man who tortured me sold real estate,
in civilian life, a father of four.
Our heads but not our minds upon a plate;
They chopped our hair with rusty garden sheers;
Post-Saddam, these were American years.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Response to "Scandal in the Media."
I know that the point Louis Avallone was trying to make in his March 19 Forum article, "Scandal and the Media,"LINK was that the media establishment gives a "pass" to sexual deviants who are Democrats and rides Republican ones out of town on a rail. That this is his point is made clear by his statement of this very proposition, but not in any way by the evidence he offered to support it, much of which is based on casual conclusions and, in at least one notable case, a falsehood. A close look at this article’s false claim, I think, reflects also the irrational divisions that have come to define much of our current political environment.
Mr. Avellone is upset that several news programs covered the Eliot Stitzer scandal without making clear that he was a Democrat. He points out that several congress people who were touched by scandal were clearly labeled Republican. This, incidentally, is an much-discussed and, to my mind, meaningless issue that is currently being warmed over in the "conservative" blog world. I suppose I would be more likely to look to my past experiences as a television watcher and remind myself that, in my experience, the news usually does not attribute party affiliation to Governors, yet almost always does to Congress people. At any rate, he gives a list of Democrats that have been involved in scandals, and it is here that he leaves the world of opinion and enters the land of libel.
Mr. Avellone brings up the case of Congressman Barney Frank, and says that Frank had ". . . permitted the operation of a homosexual prostitution ring in his home in 1989." This is an admittedly excellent example that might serve to shows a relative difference in treatment between Democrats and Republicans involved in sexual scandal (Frank is, after all, still in Congress). This is such a compelling example in fact that one is almost tempted to overlook the fact that it is untrue.
Though there were allegations that he had done so, Frank, who fully cooperated with them, was cleared by the Congressional Ethics Committee in 1990 of any such knowledge that his premises were used for any improper activity. He was however reprimanded for fixing a friend’s parking tickets and for trying to influence the parole status of the same friend, the only pieces of incriminating evidence to come out of the investigation.
This particular libel is an old one, but it has recently been revived in the service of partisan political attacks, another rusty weapon that must be used because it is there. Media Matters has documented the following two cases that relate to this issue: In August of 2007, Pat Buchanan, a conservative journalist and former Presidential candidate, made the statement that Frank, "had a fellow running a—basically a full-service whorehouse in his basement." It is interesting, and not altogether un- instructive, to note that this statement was in reaction to more contemporary Congressional sex scandals, of which the case of Congressman Larry Craig was then the latest example. Craig had just recently (strangely) pled guilty to soliciting a policeman for sex in a public bathroom. He later said that in spite of this he was innocent of the charge. (Congressman Craig had incidentally been one of three members of the House Ethics Committee who had pushed for the harshest of punishments for Barney Frank in 1990.)
The second example of this calumny is to be found in a recent edition of Rush Limbaugh’s radio program. On March 12, 2008, in reaction to the Eliot Spitzer scandal, virtually the same comment was made as crude satire by a Bill Clinton impersonator who, while jokingly extolling the tolerance of the Democratic Party, said, "You can be a prostitute . . . or like Barney Frank, let a prostitution ring be run out of your home." So, the point is, by the time Mr. Avellone’s article was published in the Forum, this particular bit of nonsense had made its way into the blogosphere, or semiosphere, or whatever sphere it is where people who don’t won’t to be bothered with things like facts and details go to find out what to talk about.
As is often the case, it is perhaps more important to examine why people are saying something rather than what they are saying. I’m just guessing here but I think this is yet another example of the general culture of opposition. I honestly don’t think any of Mr. Avellone’s details show much of a double standard; I think his argument and the article itself merely show how reactive our political environment has become.
At the heart of this reactive environment is a binary and Manichean view of the world. The idea that there are two equal and opposite worldviews, one Democrat and one Republican, is now so firmly wedged into our cultural narrative that it has become a conditioned reflex for people to just attack each other, and no one seems to care whether or not what he or she says is even true. It is a perspective that is reinforced by such trite phrases as "both sides of the isle." Moreover, it has the effect of encouraging people to see the world through a distorted lens where everything is an endless cycle of reaction, and where any criticism of my side must necessarily be "balanced" with an equal or greater criticism of your side.
This is the situation we find ourselves in, in 2008. Although many of us who think this is a counterproductive and obscure way of looking at the world, it appears, at least, to be the dominant view in the media, if Mr. Avellone’s article is any example.
Mr. Avellone is upset that several news programs covered the Eliot Stitzer scandal without making clear that he was a Democrat. He points out that several congress people who were touched by scandal were clearly labeled Republican. This, incidentally, is an much-discussed and, to my mind, meaningless issue that is currently being warmed over in the "conservative" blog world. I suppose I would be more likely to look to my past experiences as a television watcher and remind myself that, in my experience, the news usually does not attribute party affiliation to Governors, yet almost always does to Congress people. At any rate, he gives a list of Democrats that have been involved in scandals, and it is here that he leaves the world of opinion and enters the land of libel.
Mr. Avellone brings up the case of Congressman Barney Frank, and says that Frank had ". . . permitted the operation of a homosexual prostitution ring in his home in 1989." This is an admittedly excellent example that might serve to shows a relative difference in treatment between Democrats and Republicans involved in sexual scandal (Frank is, after all, still in Congress). This is such a compelling example in fact that one is almost tempted to overlook the fact that it is untrue.
Though there were allegations that he had done so, Frank, who fully cooperated with them, was cleared by the Congressional Ethics Committee in 1990 of any such knowledge that his premises were used for any improper activity. He was however reprimanded for fixing a friend’s parking tickets and for trying to influence the parole status of the same friend, the only pieces of incriminating evidence to come out of the investigation.
This particular libel is an old one, but it has recently been revived in the service of partisan political attacks, another rusty weapon that must be used because it is there. Media Matters has documented the following two cases that relate to this issue: In August of 2007, Pat Buchanan, a conservative journalist and former Presidential candidate, made the statement that Frank, "had a fellow running a—basically a full-service whorehouse in his basement." It is interesting, and not altogether un- instructive, to note that this statement was in reaction to more contemporary Congressional sex scandals, of which the case of Congressman Larry Craig was then the latest example. Craig had just recently (strangely) pled guilty to soliciting a policeman for sex in a public bathroom. He later said that in spite of this he was innocent of the charge. (Congressman Craig had incidentally been one of three members of the House Ethics Committee who had pushed for the harshest of punishments for Barney Frank in 1990.)
The second example of this calumny is to be found in a recent edition of Rush Limbaugh’s radio program. On March 12, 2008, in reaction to the Eliot Spitzer scandal, virtually the same comment was made as crude satire by a Bill Clinton impersonator who, while jokingly extolling the tolerance of the Democratic Party, said, "You can be a prostitute . . . or like Barney Frank, let a prostitution ring be run out of your home." So, the point is, by the time Mr. Avellone’s article was published in the Forum, this particular bit of nonsense had made its way into the blogosphere, or semiosphere, or whatever sphere it is where people who don’t won’t to be bothered with things like facts and details go to find out what to talk about.
As is often the case, it is perhaps more important to examine why people are saying something rather than what they are saying. I’m just guessing here but I think this is yet another example of the general culture of opposition. I honestly don’t think any of Mr. Avellone’s details show much of a double standard; I think his argument and the article itself merely show how reactive our political environment has become.
At the heart of this reactive environment is a binary and Manichean view of the world. The idea that there are two equal and opposite worldviews, one Democrat and one Republican, is now so firmly wedged into our cultural narrative that it has become a conditioned reflex for people to just attack each other, and no one seems to care whether or not what he or she says is even true. It is a perspective that is reinforced by such trite phrases as "both sides of the isle." Moreover, it has the effect of encouraging people to see the world through a distorted lens where everything is an endless cycle of reaction, and where any criticism of my side must necessarily be "balanced" with an equal or greater criticism of your side.
This is the situation we find ourselves in, in 2008. Although many of us who think this is a counterproductive and obscure way of looking at the world, it appears, at least, to be the dominant view in the media, if Mr. Avellone’s article is any example.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
A James Joyce Scat
No greater love hath a man that he lay down his wife for a friend. Go thou and do likewise. Then it came to pass that they crossed the Ozarks to reach the land of milk and money, and there he purchased a hamburger, of which his goodly wife would have to understand, for the tavern-master would not otherwise allow him to watch the game, and there saw he the very Saints themselves beaten into the ground by Giants, so severe were these Giants that they full sore oppressed each challenger with mighty dispatch and were destined to reach the bowl after which they quested.
This be no benefit to Sir Traveler who was of the throwback cloth and, unlike others of his order, had a true faith in the intercession of saints. For relief he and one of his kind were beguiled by blasphemous parchments that could only be acquired on the Internet, at a cost of 100 per diem.
They too quested after the bowl and took faith that even Jesu knew not the day or the hour. And they tacked messages upon the doors of the church to give comfort to them who were also given to the faith of saints. “Be it next year,” saith they.
This be no benefit to Sir Traveler who was of the throwback cloth and, unlike others of his order, had a true faith in the intercession of saints. For relief he and one of his kind were beguiled by blasphemous parchments that could only be acquired on the Internet, at a cost of 100 per diem.
They too quested after the bowl and took faith that even Jesu knew not the day or the hour. And they tacked messages upon the doors of the church to give comfort to them who were also given to the faith of saints. “Be it next year,” saith they.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Aphorism #1
One proposition proved true by Jesus and Socrates is that people who rigidly adhere to moral precepts are much like those people who always drive the speed limit. They disrupt the flow of traffic and everyone hates them.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Dream of Sept. 15, 2007
This evening I had what was among the most vivid dreams I have ever had. Had it been a film I might have said the director was mad. First, I was an insurance salesman who was walking off, jogging off, to get breakfast for a client. I was in a city unfamiliar to me, but my dream self, Dream Me, knew it quite well. (Note: I am now remembering that I had left my house also because the Golden Girls sans Sophia were getting naked there).
My client was an old woman whom I knew to be senile; she wanted only Cap'n Crunch cereal. I found a smarmy waiter in an out-of-doors cafe who took the order but required, before hand, a tip/bribe of five dollars; I had only one ten, a one, and (strangely enough) a three dollar bill. I did not want to give him the ten on principle—Dream Me doesn't need the money.
After getting change, I gave him five, but then a major shift (plot twist?) occurred and I was unable to receive the order—famished client will no doubt haunt me in my next dream!—I was thrown into a wormhole which brought me to a strange land (My dream self was at such a loss) which was being torn apart by unknown forces.
I found a method of escape back to Broadmoore by floating on red bricks. This was the only way out of the devastation. A race of industrious lizard people who were indigenous to the area had created this expensive method of escape for the unexplained many who had found themselves in this strange land. These bricks were a prized commodity among the natives who depended on transportation charges for their existence. (Had they also brought us here?)
So expensive were these bricks that bipedal creatures were sold only two, on which they were expected to stand for a period that I was given to believe would be some months' time. I tried to explain to the creatures that I and my friends, for by now I was representing a number of other humans who had found themselves in this odd situation, were not of a species that could be expected to stand for such a long time, and would, therefore, require additional bricks.
I argued before the appeals tribunal of lizard magistrates, who were tan and green (my thesis committee?). I prepared a brilliant ad hoc case, or so I believed. while wobbling badly on two bricks, I presented my argument. I argued through algebra and prime numbers (such is the brilliant logician that is Dream Me) that the moral precepts represented in the Principle of Universality demanded we be given better accommodations. Fairness and equality of condition after all demanded it.
The tribunal was unimpressed. It did not appear to them that the humans were at all equal in any respect, so unlike the beautiful, streamlined lizard genus of their home world. "Of course, that is why we need better accommodation." I was reaching. "Since we are unlike, we need to accommodate the mean"—whatever that meant! This, however, impressed them as being very reasonable and we immediately received a yacht of red bricks. And in this manner we began the long journey home.
###
My client was an old woman whom I knew to be senile; she wanted only Cap'n Crunch cereal. I found a smarmy waiter in an out-of-doors cafe who took the order but required, before hand, a tip/bribe of five dollars; I had only one ten, a one, and (strangely enough) a three dollar bill. I did not want to give him the ten on principle—Dream Me doesn't need the money.
After getting change, I gave him five, but then a major shift (plot twist?) occurred and I was unable to receive the order—famished client will no doubt haunt me in my next dream!—I was thrown into a wormhole which brought me to a strange land (My dream self was at such a loss) which was being torn apart by unknown forces.
I found a method of escape back to Broadmoore by floating on red bricks. This was the only way out of the devastation. A race of industrious lizard people who were indigenous to the area had created this expensive method of escape for the unexplained many who had found themselves in this strange land. These bricks were a prized commodity among the natives who depended on transportation charges for their existence. (Had they also brought us here?)
So expensive were these bricks that bipedal creatures were sold only two, on which they were expected to stand for a period that I was given to believe would be some months' time. I tried to explain to the creatures that I and my friends, for by now I was representing a number of other humans who had found themselves in this odd situation, were not of a species that could be expected to stand for such a long time, and would, therefore, require additional bricks.
I argued before the appeals tribunal of lizard magistrates, who were tan and green (my thesis committee?). I prepared a brilliant ad hoc case, or so I believed. while wobbling badly on two bricks, I presented my argument. I argued through algebra and prime numbers (such is the brilliant logician that is Dream Me) that the moral precepts represented in the Principle of Universality demanded we be given better accommodations. Fairness and equality of condition after all demanded it.
The tribunal was unimpressed. It did not appear to them that the humans were at all equal in any respect, so unlike the beautiful, streamlined lizard genus of their home world. "Of course, that is why we need better accommodation." I was reaching. "Since we are unlike, we need to accommodate the mean"—whatever that meant! This, however, impressed them as being very reasonable and we immediately received a yacht of red bricks. And in this manner we began the long journey home.
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
