A bot in praise of you guys–keep up the good work!:
I’m just really impressed because there is not any worthless comments on your blog as there is on the majority of sites on the web today.
A bot in praise of you guys–keep up the good work!:
I’m just really impressed because there is not any worthless comments on your blog as there is on the majority of sites on the web today.
Perhaps you’ve heard of Edna St. Vincent Millay. She was a lyric poet of great renown during the 1920s and until her death in 1950, known mostly for her sonnets. Her fame as a poet was of a magnitude difficult to understand today because there’s no equivalent. Part sprite, part sexual magnet (her candle burned at both ends, with a vengeance), part intellectual—ethereal, earthy, fragile, strong, and brilliant all at the same time—she was an essentially romantic figure.
She was political, too, as poets sometimes are. She opposed the First World War and picketed against the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti.
But something happened to her right before World War II. During the late Thirties, she became alarmed, enraged, and activated by what was happening in Europe, including the appeasement that led to the fall of Czechoslavakia, and the anti-Semitism of Kristalnacht. Millay was moved to speak out publicly and loudly [the following excerpt is taken from the Millay biography by Nancy Milford, entitled Savage Beauty]:
I used to be a most ardent pacifist, but my mind has been changed. I am afraid the only hope of saving democracy is to fight for it…[There are people in power who are] not human beings in the sense that we have been brought up to understand that term. We have beasts in control of human beings. I am not speaking of the German people themselves, but if we have a wild animal to deal with we cannot be pacifists forever. Whatever we do, we cannot keep aloof from the general world situation, and it would be silly to think we can.
Words such as those were not going to sit well with the crew Millay usually hung out with. But in living her rather shocking life until then (lots of sex with men and women, inside and outside of marriage), courage is one thing Millay always had in abundance. She showed it now by stating:
Persons who begin writing lyric poetry at a young age are deeply concerned with themselves…As they mature, they begin to grow out of themselves and they feel a concern for others. Lyric poets who continue writing lyric poetry are likely to go into a dry rot and just say the same thing over and over again.
One impulse motivating Millay seems to have been a fear for the end of freedom of speech, a right she prized highly. She correctly saw that freedom as being imperiled far more by the threat from without than from within. The following passages from the Milford book concern a radio broadcast Millay made in October of 1939:
What we had to fear most, she said, was the menace of the “most loyal and idealistic Communist, and the most loyal and idealistic Fascist.” If we love democracy, then “We must love it in England and France. In Germany we must love it, if only we could find it there”—and here she paused for a long time—“but we have not found it there.”
Millay added:
Why, then, should we be so afraid to say that as regards the war between a Germany whose political philosophy is repugnant to us and an allied Britain and France whose concepts of civilized living are so closely akin to our own that we hope with all our hearts that Great Britain and France may win this war and Germany lose? [We must avail ourselves] as partiotic Americans, of this fine free speech of ours.
Her 1942 poem “The Murder of Lidice” was highly controversial, and many of her friends were highly critical—not just of its poetic value (I have no way to judge this, not having read it) but of its politics. No surprise there; we’ve seen this sort of thing before and since. Merle Rubin noted, “She seems to have caught more flak from the literary critics for supporting democracy than Ezra Pound did for championing fascism.” And in his journal, her old friend Arthur Ficke wrote:
…this is so bad for her, so false to her real nature…
As a lyric poet, she was superb, unsurpassable…I cannot, I will not, believe that this war is an ultimate conflict between right and wrong: and although I do not doubt for a moment that we are less horrible than the philosophy and practice of Hitler, still I think we are very horrible: and I will not, I must not, accept or express the hysterical patriotic war-moods of these awful days.
This was written in 1942, in the middle of the horror of World War II. It’s the familiar typical stuff; the difference is that, today, most poets would probably say we are more horrible. But after all, this was the Nazis Ficke was talking about. And still, still, this poet called those such as Millay “hysterical,” a practitioner of kneejerk patriotic jingoism rather a clear-sighted observer of an intense conflict between morality and immorality.
You may not have noticed it, but Obama’s tepid SOTU speech was actually a cunning trap cleverly set for his enemies, according to Ed Kilgore in TNR.
Did you think it boring and devoid of good ideas, re-circulating tired slogans and a pastiche of ineffective and worn-out solutions—if you could bear to listen at all? Well, think again:
…[T]hat’s the beauty of Obama’s address. He basically put together every modest, centrist, reasonable-sounding idea for public investment aimed at job creation and economic growth that anyone has ever uttered; and he did so at the exact moment that the GOP has abandoned the very concept of public investment altogether.
Only Noam Scheiber’s latest, also in TNR, can match the breathtaking cynicism of the following paragraph of Kilgore’s [emphasis mine]:
Moreover, Obama’s tone””the constant invocation of bipartisanship at a time when Republicans are certain to oppose most of what he’s called for, while going after the progressive programs and policies of the past””should sound familiar as well. It was Bill Clinton’s constant refrain, which he called “progress over partisanship,” during his second-term struggle with the Republican Congress. During that period, the Republicans being asked to transcend “partisanship” were trying to remove Clinton from office. And Clinton wasn’t really extending his hand in a gesture of cooperation with the GOP but, by creating a contrast with their ideological fury, indicating that he himself embodied the bipartisan aspirations of the American people and the best ideas of both parties. It was quite effective.
So, similarly, Obama will pose as a bipartisan, contrasting his tone with that of the angry GOP. Brilliant! And this is from a supporter, who seems to think it’s not only okay but remarkably clever and bound to succeed.
Only problem is that, if the American people have any smarts at all, they will recall that Obama’s outstretched bipartisan hand has only come on the scene after the Republicans won back the House. Funny timing, that.
One more thing: Clinton had the personality to pull it off. Obama does not.
Oh, and GOP “fury” much more clearly matches the mood of much of the country right now than it did in Clinton’s time.
It’s showtime!
Talk amongst yourselves.
[ADDENDUM: It’s over, so now I could turn on my TV.
Watching Fox afterward, I heard Krauthammer—who sometimes praises Obama highly—say it was “flat” and “uninspired.” That’s certainly how I feel about most SOTU speeches. Krauthammer said Obama spent a great deal of time defending the expansion of government he presided over during his first two years.
Brit Hume says it was a rationalization for further government spending. But “How much borrowed money, sir, are you willing to spend on these items?”
So although the more upbeat Obama showed up, he apparently hasn’t gotten that old-time fiscal restraint religion (as I had incorrectly predicted here)—not much anyway, not even rhetorically.]
[ADDENDUM II: Reading a bit around the blogosphere, I see that Sputnik was a big theme.
Sputnik! That’ll pull the young folks in.
I remember it well, although I was just a little kid. It meant that big bad Russia had beaten us, or something like that. It meant we kids had to learn more math and science, faster and better than our elders, so it wouldn’t happen again. Sputnik was thrown in our faces for years, as though we were personally responsible. I hated Sputnik! Down with Sputnik!]
[ADDENDUM III: Jennifer Rubin also fails to find that elusive centrist Obama who is the One we’ve all been waiting for.]
I wonder. Ann Althouse highlights a few hyprocrisies in what purports to be Obama’s leaked SOTU address, as well as this upbeat reference:
What we can do ”“ what America does better than anyone ”“ is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook….
And here’s Thomas Sowell in Investors Business Daily, appearing early today in an essay that’s well worth reading in its entirety:
At one time, people like Rockefeller, Edison, Ford and the Wright brothers were regarded as heroes, for having opened vast new possibilities for other human beings. The fact that they got rich doing it was an incidental part of the story.
We still have people revolutionizing our lives. Just think of the computer and the pharmaceutical drugs that have not only lengthened our lives but made them more healthful, so that being 80 years old today is like being 60 years old in times past.
But today we seldom even know the names of those who have made these monumental contributions to human well-being. All we know is that some people have gotten “rich” and that this is to be regarded as some sort of grievance.
Many of the people we honor today are people who are skilled in the rhetoric of grievances and promises of new “rights” at someone else’s expense. But is that what is going to make a better America?
The best ones seem to take off from originals made in the 80s, the Golden Age of ridiculous rock videos:
I have little doubt which Obama will be on display tonight in the SOTU speech.
Gone is the crusading leftist. He went as far as he could in that direction, and the American people wised up to his act. Now, another role’s in order.
It’s not a new role, either. It’s one we’ve already seen a great deal of, the one Obama first played for the American people, beginning with his speech at the Democratic convention in 2004, and then polished to a fine luster during the 2007 and 2008 campaign. It’s Obama the moderate conciliator, the bipartisan compromiser, the rational and capable one.
Deficit? Reduce it. Jobs? Focus like a laser on them. Compromise? His middle name. Spending? Never heard of it.
It will be a rhetorical performance. I’ve never been especially interested in rhetoric and performances from politicians, although I admire a fine phrase as well as the next person, perhaps more. I’m primarily interested in action, and as far as I’m concerned Obama has revealed his true self by his actions during the past two years.
He is not interested in any of these things or he would have shown us by now. But in fact he’s shown us the opposite. If he is now co-opting the Republican agenda to some extent it’s because the election of 2010 gave him no choice but to fight them tooth and nail and lose in 2012 (even to the dread Palin, should she be nominated), or to appear to capitulate and get that old-time fiscal restraint religion. After 2012, he can always pivot back again—this guy’s a regular corkscrew—if Congress should become more Democratic and favorable to his original agenda.
If the American people buy this current transformation—which they might—and re-elect him in 2012, well then it’ll just be too bad, won’t it. As DaTechGuy writes:
It’s clear that this is the template that the White House/Democratic Party/MSM has embraced to prepare the ground for 2012 but in a world where social networks allow us to bypass these sources, can they convince the public to buy it?
If we do, or if we don’t, we will get the government we deserve.
I can’t predict what the public will do in 2012. It’s too far away, and way too many things can and will happen. But I do believe the answer to the question of whether the public will buy it depends on what will actually happen (especially economically), not the narrative du jour—and on who the public decides to blame or credit for those events: the Republicans in the House, or Obama in the White House.
…a rash of articles lately saying Obama is riding high, and will be hard to beat in 2012?
Kay Hymowitz has written an excellent piece for City Journal explaining one of the linchpins of female rage at Palin from the left: she is seen as a traitor to feminism. Although this may seem paradoxical, since Palin is a powerful female, she’s not their powerful female.
I’ve written a lot about woman-on-woman hatred of Palin. I have long believed it’s multiply-determined; there’s an embarrassment of riches there. But lately I have come to think that what Kymowitz calls the battle for feminism is at least a large part of it. I have a draft for a post on that very subject that I wrote a few days ago; unfortunately, it’s not ready for prime time yet and I’m very busy today, so it will have to wait. In the meantime, Hymowitz’s article is quite fine.
[NOTE: And although I’m not familiar with it, this about-to-be-released book by Hymowitz sounds fascinating.]
Although no one is officially saying it yet, today’s bombing at Moscow’s Domodedovo airport that killed 35 people and wounded scores of others was almost certainly the work of terrorist suicide bombers from the northern Causcasus region of Chechnya and/or its environs.
Any other origin would be a big surprise. That area has been the source of most (if not all?) of the terrorism in Russia, including the horrific Beslan school massacre. In an especially chilling detail, many such bombers are female. They perpetrated a subway suicide bombing last March.
Here’s a timeline of the last 15 years of terrorist attacks on Russia; you can see there have been a large number with heavy casualties, including a previous one involving this same airport:
Aug. 24, 2004: Two female suicide bombers bring down two Russian airliners that took off from Moscow’s Domodedovo airport, killing 90 people.
It is no surprise, either, that the Reuters article on the current bombing manages to use about 700 words to describe it, but the only time it says either “terrorist” or “terrorism” is when directly quoting a Russian official using the word. ABC News is hardly any better, employing scare quotes around the terms.
I can understand being reluctant to finger the perpetrators’ identity. Even though it is easy to guess, newspapers shouldn’t be guessing (although they often do—in this country, the default position is that it’s someone on the right). But the fact that this is terrorism is obvious beyond any possible argument.
Words matter. If the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” must be censored by much of the press, as they have been for years, we are in an enormous pack of trouble, and it’s not just from the terrorists themselves.
Oh. and one more unmentionable thing: the Chechnyan region is Sufi Muslim. Religion is certainly not the complete motivation for the bombings, which are separatist in nature, part of the area’s arsenal in a long and bloody war against Russia. But the particular form it takes in these attacks—suicide terrorism of the most vicious kind—is almost solely the province of Islamic “militants.” This is no accident, despite attempts to whitewash the situation.
Here’s the proof (as if we needed any) that death comes to all: Jack Lalanne, pioneering fitness guru, has died at 96 of pneumonia.
Jack in his youth, at the age of 94:
“The good old days are this second.”