New pictures of Twyla, our true-blue-for-you bathroom, yours truly along with my father — that and more over at Hannah's blog, as rockin' and lively in the commentary as ever.
Cartoons abstract from real life in much the same way philosophers do. Homer is not realistic in the way a film or novel character is, but he is recognisable as a kind of American Everyman. His reality is the reality of an abstraction from real life that captures its essence, not as a real particular human who we see ourselves reflected in.
The satirical cartoon world is essentially a philosophical one because to work it needs to reflect reality accurately by abstracting it, distilling it and then presenting it back to us, illuminating it more brightly than realist fiction can.
That's why it is no coincidence that the most insightful and philosophical cultural product of our time is a comic cartoon, and why its creator, Matt Groening, is the true heir of Plato, Aristotle and Kant.
ROME (AP) -- Archaeologists said Tuesday they have dug up a woman skeleton dating to the 10th century B.C. in an ancient necropolis in the heart of Rome.
The well-preserved skeleton appears to be that of a woman aged about 30, said Anna De Santis, one of the archaeologists who took part in the excavations under the Caesar's Forum, part of the sprawling complex of the Imperial Forums in central Rome.
An amber necklace and four pins were also found near the 5.25 foot-long skeleton, she said.
Salon.com interviews this insightful religious scholar. Check it, wreck it, it's a good one. Kosmic kwote:
[Salon]: You're saying these ancient sages really didn't care about big metaphysical systems. They didn't care about theology.
[Armstrong] No, none of them did. And neither did Jesus. Jesus did not spend a great deal of time discoursing about the trinity or original sin or the incarnation, which have preoccupied later Christians. He went around doing good and being compassionate. In the Quran, metaphysical speculation is regarded as self-indulgent guesswork. And it makes people, the Quran says, quarrelsome and stupidly sectarian. You can't prove these things one way or the other, so why quarrel about it? The Daoists said this kind of speculation where people pompously hold forth about their opinions was egotism. And when you're faced with the ineffable and the indescribable, they would say it's belittling to cut it down to size. Sometimes, I think the way monotheists talk about God is unreligious.
Armonstrng is great. Her views are quite sympathetic with Paglia (who advocates comparative world religions be fundamental to education). And on that line, I still wonder where Armstrong's insights leave the actual practice of religion today? Here are some practical questions -- what are people who go to church every weekend doing, what might they add to that habit that is in line with the core of all Axial religions? To what extent are the "consolations of faith" (so vital to humans) incorporated into a contemporary religious practice? To what extent does a regular meditation practice support the essence of religion? What about a practice that combines study of comparative world religion with meditation and some form of community service, is that getting there?
In any event, here's another kosmic kwote:
I began to read [sacred texts] like poetry, which is what theology is. It's poetry. It's an attempt to express the inexpressible. It needs quiet. You can't read a Rilke sonnet at a party. Sometimes a poem can live in your head for a long time until its meaning is finally revealed. And if you try and grasp that meaning prematurely, you can distort the poem for yourself.
Which tells me that teaching better poetry-reading skills might go a surprisingly long way to renewing religious insight, relevant to today.
That stands for Self Help and Actualization Movement. It is critiqued in a book reviewed on the Scientific American website. Kosmic Kwote:
...extensive market surveys revealed that "the most likely customer for a book on any given topic was someone who had bought a similar book within the preceding eighteen months." The irony of "the eighteen-month rule" for this genre ... is this: "If what we sold worked, one would expect lives to improve. One would not expect people to need further help from us--at least not in that same problem area, and certainly not time and time again."
Check the new longer list. The listmaker, John Miller, also offers his working definition of conservative:
What’s conservative? There are of course many varieties of conservatism, a term which I define broadly in the fusionist custom of NR. The original article said: “The lyrics must convey a conservative idea or sentiment, such as skepticism of government or support for traditional values.” A few lefties have pointed out that they’re skeptical of government, too, especially with Republicans in power. Fair enough. I would modify this to say “skepticism of big government” -- i.e., the welfare state, the nanny state, the left-wing state, etc. Also, claiming that a song is conservative certainly does not mean to suggest that the artist who wrote it or performed it is a conservative. For the most part, I interpreted the lyrics the way a New Critic would interpret a poem -- i.e., by examining a text without reference to biography or historical context. I bent this rule in a few places, but only when it seemed appropriate. Rest assured, I don’t think the Sex Pistols are a conservative band -- but their great rock song “Bodies” resonates with conservatives in a very particular way.
Interesting, don't you think, that Miller adopted the approach of the New Critic. That has been an ongoing topic raised in this blog. I think the New Critic (or Criticism) approach is a fine place to begin, because it rightly anchors investigation on the art object. The problem is that is just stays there. It falters not only because of the limitations that Miller cites, namely lack of artist biography and historical context, but also out of failure to take some account for how audiences have responded to the art object. By taking the more limited approach only, Miller takes a short cut of sorts.
I don't attribute to his efforts anything but well-meaning attempts at playful listmaking, and it is rather interesting to see the threads he uses to weave together his, now, 100 conservative rock songs. Almost subversive in its efforts to bust preconceptions, in the spirit of rock, itself. And Miller deserves credit for giving exposure (via NRO's significant clout) to artists, as well as links to purchase their music.
Following Paglia, I believe that rock music is best thought of as the explosion of repressed pagan emotionality in the rhythms of nature that allows the transcendent Divine to manifest in everyday moments. Thus I say again that rock music (like any authentic art) is actually upstream from political concern, left/right, liberal/conservative; politics attempts to clean up from the wild party the night before. Rock blows down doors. It is (in its best moments) profoundly radical ("at the root") of life. Its primal, chthonian energy can be taken any number of ways, and perceived through any number of lenses, from conservative to liberal to transgressive to conventional to political to apolitical to whatever. When the wind blows, how we breathe it is largely up to us. Rock works the same way.
"If you are still jumping, you're still using your legs as well as your arms, and getting the cardiovascular workout. You just don't have to worry about tripping on the rope."
From the home page of ALACE (the Association of Labor Assistance & Childbirth Educators), and via Hannah who is considering studying through ALACE to become a childbirth educator herself:
Only recently in the long story of humanity has the linkage of knowledge and reassurance between generations of birthing women been broken. Pregnant women today often find themselves without ties to female relatives who can reliably teach them what to expect from childbearing. Birth has often come to resemble a mechanized, medical emergency. It is no wonder that many first-time mothers' images of birth are filled with fear and pain.
Knowledgeable childbirth educators and labor assistants/birth doulas can do a great deal to provide pregnant women with information and practical alternatives so that they may give birth with confidence, strength and joy. Laboring women who feel confident and supported are much more likely to achieve satisfying outcomes than are women without such support.
Hannah and I have had many discussions that go late into the night, as the wolves howl at the moon, about how attitudes and perceptions about childbirth mirror the core of our entire set of attitudes towards life and creativity. There is much to learn from the birthing process, from midwives and childbirth educators, and from mothers who take an active approach to bearing children.
This is to say, from one point of view, that perhaps that the eternal Tao cannot be spoken, but perhaps it is best metaphored by childbirth, from conception through labor and beyond.
Interesting because this is the 50 greatest conservative rock songs. I'm surprised who makes the list, as well as the reasoning involved. The one that caught my eye was "Cult of Personality", by Living Colour. Hands down my favorite band in high school (late '80s/early '90s). And #1 on the list? My high school rock band Union Jack played it at our very first gig. Good times. Obviously none of this is to be taken seriously; rock songs of any caliber are far upstream from political camps of any kind. Tis why Paglia refers to the best rock songs as the culmination of American transcendentalism.
To grok the implications of choices and of new knowledge in one's own time, this the artist of integral awareness. To evoke such awareness through mysterious, unifed ordering in aesthetic media is the task of integral artistry. All media, inherantly, are extensions of processes and psychological personae that originate in the body, senses, and are rooted in common human experience throughout the ages. In a deeply essential way, the medium is in fact the message — the medium re-tunnels and re-channels perception at its fundamental rhythm; this dynamic (the "magic of media"), is easily veiled in perception of a regular variety. The content of every medium is actually another medium (or media); the endlessness of that fact in part accounts for the mystery of art; most people choose to remain amidst mystery's rapture, sans analysis; but if desired, it can be recognized through a study of aesthetic semiotics. Which leads to this: meaning is not content. Meaning is an organic relationship — the result of the user and the used, engaged through the user's aesthetic response capacity within an overall memesis, a dynamic anchored in sexuality and culture that can also be called the experiential "work" that art objects (and their venue) instigate and invite. The work, or meaning, of authentic art is largely an intuitive re-creation of sign associations and archetypal symbols, and effect a constellation of entertainment, education, and enlightenment through emotional culmination, formal freshness, and imaginative fullness. All of art is a great, mighty river, flowing since the beginning of time to remind us of our origins and, through its rituals, to renew human life.
SO WHY EXACTLY DON'T YOU WANT $10,000, EVERY YEAR?
Everyone in the U.S. ought check out what Charles Murray is proposing. Grants for everyone over age 21 who is not in jail and has a bank account. His radical ("at the root") but in my few entirely sensible plan is outlined in his new book, In Our Hands and summarized in this article for the Wall Street Journal.
With regard to the U.S. Federal Government, I'm feeling more and more that a libertarian perspective perhaps is most appropriate — namely, that the federal government ought be concerned primarily (perhaps even only) with "public goods". These are benefits/services that are available to all people on equal terms, and can be consumed by one citizen without reducing availability for anyone else. The best examples are national defense, police protection, clean air, secure borders, interstate highway maitenance, and others.
The assumption (some say enough evidence is present for this to be a conclusion) is that the federal government really doesn't do other things very well, very efficiently, or with much flexibility. And so we would all be better off it the federal government stuck to public goods, which it can do efficiently and with flexibility. Part of Murray's proposal is that at some point over the next 10-30 years, this belief that government at the federal level is inherantly inefficient for non-public goods will be commonly held by most people in this country.
And so, knowing his plan is politically impossible at this time, he has nonetheless proposed it (in, I might add, very clear and understandable terms) so as to be in the public consciousness when, given worsening financial realities of our current structure, radical changes are more feasible, politically. He welcomes comment and debate upon the plan's merits, so I say we give it such consideration and critique.
Let me start that by saying what is immediately attractive about this plan is that is satisfies basic concerns of both left and right. The left gets non-discriminatory, equalilty of distribution — everyone over the age of 21 who is not in jail gets $10,000, every year, deposted into their bank account in monthy increments (i.e., $10,000 divided by 12, every month), and further, wealthier people have to pay part of the money back, so poorer people get all of the $10,000, and wealthier people only a portion (based on income levels). On the other hand, the right gets a smaller government with reduced bureaucracy, and an end to welfare programs, farm subsidies, and other "New Deal" and "Great Society" programs they so object to, on grounds that they diminish the moral emphasis on "self-reliance" and insert the federal government in matters it doesn't belong, or can efficiently or cost-effectively manage.
That Murray's plan answers fundamental concerns of both left and right is very, very good. There's a lot more to say about his plan, including in the area of health insurance. His plan would make a new federal law that, in his words, would “legally obligate medical insurers to treat the entire population as a single pool.” And thus about $3,000 of the $10,000 would be required to go to health insurance costs. So — everyone is covered. Not a bad situation, by any measure.
All in all, this sounds like a "radical middle" way, and I like it. Interestingly, a website called "Radical Middle" has a decent explanation of more of Murray's details. See here.
An interesting peek behind the curtain, if you will.
Grist Magazine: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
Al Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Key phrase, "appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations".
From his entry in the Oxford Handbook for Aesthetics, called "Aesthetics and Evolutionary Psychology":
... a persistent intuition about art ... can be traced from the Greeks to Nietzsche and Freud: art is somehow connected, at base, to sex. The mistake in traditional art theorizing has been to imagine that there must be some coded or sublimated sexual content in art. But it is not the content per se that is sexual: it is the display element of producing and admiring artists and their art in the first place that has grounded art in sexuality since the beginnings of the human race.
For me this echoes McLuhan—the medium (here, the displayed or presented art object) is the message (triggered sexual resonance via admiring).
That this insight does not at all begin to deal with the particular characteristics of the art object (whatever those may be), also echoes McLuhan's secondary, oft-overlooked corrolary, that the content of any medium is another medium (or media). If sexual resonance (noted by Dutton) is the "content", in some fundamental juncture, then that resonance is a medium for something else, which now leads perception (as semiosis or mimesis) indirectly and directly down the road towards the particular charateristics, images, tones, markings, utterances, contours, and so on that make up that ordered form that is the art object.
But then each of these, as "content", are mediums, too, of something else, which are also mediums of something else, which are also mediums...so, is it really any wonder why art is so delicious and mysterious?
To the extent I have sympathies towards aspects of conservative thought, and processes of reasoning and making arguments, I want to say that I have no symphathy whatsoever with this blog entry by NRO's Stanley Kurtz, having to do with arts/culture. You have to read it to believe it; because it's lameness boggles the mind. So deluded, paranoid, so bent on control, you almost feel sorry for the guy.
And it reminds me that I do not consider myself in any way part of the "movement" that is Buckleyean conservativism (this is the form of conservatism that founded National Review and is highly influential, in many ways deservedly so). I respect much in its best thinkers, and find respect for aspects of what nearly everyone says, at least in some way or from some perspective. I appreciate, as I said, the process by which these folks arrive at arguments, conclusions, and (most importantly) the first or fundamental principles from which thought springs. Old codgers have a place in the world; their methods are rightly timeless.
Let's give them their due. Conservatives, the public intellectual ones, are one of the only groups of people standing up for dispassionate and sober analysis, rigorous and logical arguments, sustainable rhetoric, and a host of other boring-sounding things, all related to "the archetypal Scholar". Further, they stand against the vacuousness of identity-politics, Foucault/Lacan/Derrida, and 'victim'-status. Conservatism rightly believes that human nature has no history, and that the course of human events over time have no tangible direction. The good writer/thinkers have the ability to not only see through the mirrors of poor thinking/reasoning/arguing found in the "pathetic left" (the sub-group of the left that sadly gets the most play in the media), but can isolate it, find its generative patterns, and literally make fun of it without (some) people knowing.
I agree very much that ideas have consequences, which is a fundamental part of conservatism; in the same way, tones have consequences, colors have consequences, images have consequences, tastes have consequences, and so on in the materials that make up the world of art. That means we ought not give our ideas much consideration, but their consequences equal if not more consideration. Doing both is the insight of American pragmatism, and in that way, pragmatism is entirely applicable to the arts. I take the consequences of tones very seriously; thus, I am a composer, and that is exactly the way I see it. It is not that I pretend to know all the consequences, or "effects", of my music on others, but I do take them into account in no small way. Art's only moral purpose is to clarify perception, and I think about that capacity as I compose. All of which is a logical extension of the conservative insight that ideas have consequences.
As someone most tied probably to the thought of Camille Paglia's as far as the arts/humanities, I seek resonances in print and on the web wherever I can find them. You'd think that the most sympathethic to her thought amongst the major web journals (Salon.com, Slate.com, Prospect.com, NationalReview.com, Reason.com, etc.) would be Salon, since they have been her primary web publisher; yet in practice is it clearly the National Review folks (not including, of course, Kurtz and the other non-aesthetic literalists that congregate there). National Review still believes in the power of the canon, and stand up against the forces that seek to substantially alter or even destroy it. The way Salon operates day to day, you'd think that literally no one on staff reads her work.
As an ideas junkie in the spare time (full time being husband, father, and artist), I am and will always be a maverick, at best only lightly associated with political groups, and usually not at all. Artists are best generally upstream from the workings of politics, anyway. That is not an advocacy for a head-in-the-sand attitude; far from it. But art (or good art, anyway) is what people look to as a source for renewal. Of what, you ask? Well, if politics is the art of what is possible, art is the demonstration of imagination, before we have the words to talk about it, and certainly before we gnash teeth on topics of politics.
"AMNESTY IS OVERLOOKING ('FORGETTING', AS IN AMNESIA)"
As I've been writing on this blog (about 'undocumented' vs 'illegal'), it is important to have our terms and meanings straight. The above is a reminder from a recent Thomas Sowell column.
A youtube thing that is Funny, and well done. I have no idea whether this actually reflects on Microsoft; but it certainly does reflect on the advertising process, between client and ad agency. Working for an agency myself, the reality is that the former usually kill any and all good ideas. It is a wonder that the iPod marketing concepts ever made it as far as they have.
Rich Lowry apparently had an extra shot of espresso when he penned this new column:
All the rhetoric about “not speaking for me” and “not in my name” indicates a certain self-obsession. At the New School it was in full flower. As McCain spoke about the lessons of his life, students yelled, “It’s not about you!” and “It’s about my life, not yours!” Apparently what they wanted to hear was: “I’m here to tell you that every unexamined prejudice you hold is absolutely correct. You represent the summit of human wisdom, and in all the years you have left on this Earth, you will never learn anything important that you don’t already know as a snotty 21-year-old. And don’t let anyone ever dare to tell you otherwise.”
And this at a speech that, according to Lowry (who was in attendance), was "largely a self-effacing account of his own folly as an arrogant, know-it-all youth." That is some good irony, huh?
I think the whole cultural emphasis on "self-esteem" has a lot to do with this. A couple years ago, a study was famously released that said the violent criminals have high self esteem (not to mention narcissism). I'm not comparing college grads to criminals; I mention this simply to say that self-esteem is hardly a sacred cow. In my own experience, not self-esteem but humility is the one of the most important requirements for real learning. After all, unless you admit at some point that "I'm not smart enough to figure this out on my own" or "I was wrong, can you show me the right way?" or "I am small" or other variations, then you will at best repeat your old patterns and that is not learning.
In any event, certain college campuses are hardly bastions of free-thinking and open-debate; if anything, that function is now served by the blogosphere, and in adult education classes. The capacity to not only value debate, but to cherish it as necessary for growth and learning is directly related with a depth of maturity that, it seems through countless examples from college campuses over the last twenty years, is lost on a large portion of college grads. It is a shame; but at least if parents want their kids to learn the value of debate with opposing viewpoints, they don't have to worry about those high tuition costs (which are currently officially obscene). Because for schools such as the Ivy League and others on both coasts (as well as some in the Midwest) the cost is quite clearly no longer worth it, at least in the humanities.
What we need for a real Liberal Arts and Humanities education: a curriculum based on the Great Works of Art and Literature, the History of Ideas (philosophical, political, aesthetic), and Comparative World Religions. We need a renewal in What Lasts. Till then, just home-school yourself.
He's posted images of some of his recent visual work, over at his zaadz site. Fantastic.
He did the cover art for I Am Sound and Hannah and I have a painting of his (Fractalized) in our bedroom. I'm thrilled to see his newest directions, such as the pieces from his recent "Fire Exhibition".
All performed by the City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra. Everything in this collection is classic in some way or another. The remarkable thing is how well these orchestral compositions live on their own, without the film itself. Taken as a whole, further evidence that scoring for film is where the many of best composers have been operating over the last sixty years.
Why is that important? Read the essay of mine, just below.
My first lesson with W.A. Mathieu since before Twyla was born. I'm excited, scared, eager to be challenged, and also peaceful about the whole thing. It is just music, after all. But giving one's soul a fair hearing in such an intimate way as with a teacher you trust is nothing to be undertaken lightly. The advice I come back to time and time again is to empty my cup so as to allow it to be filled again through our lessons. I think I just bastardized some pithy Zen saying but you get the idea.
I did set up my piano last night in the new Play Room. The wall isn't yet finished, and until it is carpeting has to wait. But in anticipation of tomorrow's lesson Hannah and I rolled and lifted the piano from the kitchen out to the Play Room (nee back porch). I'm psyched and crying right now and I think it is in no small measure to the fact that I'm listening to the main theme from the film Cinema Paradiso, one of the most gorgeous and weepy films ever.
We are also driving up to Sheboygan, in Wisconsin. Hannah's cousin Taylor has his confirmation on Sunday; it is also a celebration of the birthdays of his father and brother (aka Uncle Rocky and Carter). They live in the country, next to farms on nine acres. It is quite a nice retreat ever time we visit. Not to mention unbelievably delicious because Aunt Bones is an excellent cook (excellent being an understatement).
ERICH NEUMANN, CONSCIOUSNESS AND UNCONSCIOUSNESS, & COOL
A key passage from his brilliant essay, "Art and Time". The ideas here are fundamental to his thought, with self-evident relevance to artistry:
In the group as in the individual, two psychic systems are at work, which can function smoothly only when they are attuned to each other. The one is the collective consciousness, the cultural canon, the system of the culture's supreme values toward which its education is oriented and which set their decisive stamp on the development of the individual consciousness. But side by side with this is the living substratum, the collective unconscious, in which new developments, transformations, revolutions, and renewals are at all times foreshadowed and prepared and whose perpetual eruptions prevent stagnation and death of a culture. But even if we see the group as an integral psychic field, the men in whom reside the compensatory unconscious forces necessary to the cultural canon and the culture of hte particular time are also essential elements of this contellation. However, only the historian—andhe, too, is limited by his personal equation and his ties with his epoch—can evaluate the authentic historical significance of a group, a movement, or an individual. For there is no necessary relation between the true importance of a man and that imputed to him by his own time—that is, by the representatives of his own cultural canon. In the course of time, "leaders" and "geniuses" are exposed as frauds, while outsiders, outlaws, nobodies, are found to have been the true vehicles of reality.
Let me add that Camille Paglia, herself very sympathetic to Neumann's view and especially this essay, has defined "canon" as those works of art shown to have inspired artists—a definition that works in tandem with Neumann's view that the canon functions consciously in the collective, which for practical purposes we can simply define as "working artists" as well as "working appreciators" of art (active supporters, patrons, curators, and so on).
If the canon (the most inspiring works of art) is the tip of the iceberg, that which we can actively perceive, then the collective unconsciousness is that part of the iceberg below water, the "sub strata" of the solid ice (the anchoring force) as well as the depths of the body of water itself. Which works nicely if we think of art creation as "concretizing" or "making solid form and ordering" out of the floating invisible forces and sensations (Dewey calls these "impulsions") that animate in the intuition of artists, as a result of their own personal experiences and inate forces of humanity.
Ice is made of the same substance of the ocean; the difference is a matter of temperature. The same relationship follows with art objects and the intuitive imagination. Thus we use the word "cool" when we sense we are in the presence of authentic works of art.
To America, of course. But where in America? From this article:
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has offered Hirsi Ali a position. Karlyn Bowman of AEI tells me that “President Christopher DeMuth extended the offer to her on May 16 to become a resident scholar.” Ali had visited AEI last year and spoke to a small group, who were “impressed by her extraordinary odyssey and by her courage, charmed by her easy manner, and also impressed by the scholarly projects she wants to pursue.”
So, one of the world’s leading feminists has been offered a safe perch by a conservative think tank.
More evidence that, contrary to continued popular usage in the culture (and even by me), "conservative" and "liberal" are dead terms.
At the last minute, I was offered free tickets to the Cubs game last night. They played the Washington Nationals. It hailed in these parts in the afternoon, into the evening. I waited at home with Twyla as Hannah showed our available apartment to two couples (one signed up right away, yay). By the time she was done, it was 8 pm. Gametime was 7:05. I figured, "what the hell, I'll go and show up late. It is still Wrigley Field."
And it was.
I got there earlier in the game than I anticipated. The storms were gone. I was thinking it'd be the 5th but it was only the top of the 3rd. Pretty sweet. I was alone, because I couldn't find anyone to go with at the last moment. It was cool, though. Literally. Glad I wore layers.
It is cliche to say that Wrigley is one of the earth's best things, but it is true. Small, cozy stadium in the middle of a residential neighborhood in one of the world's best cities, Chicago. And I saw some sweet plays. Cubs centerfielder Juan Pierre did a crazy cool diving catch. Third baseman Neifi Perez did a sweet one-handed-pickup-then-throw-to-first on a slow roller, getting the runner by a hair. Several clutch strikeouts by rookie pitcher Sean Marshall. An an exciting pinch-hit homerun by Freddie Bynam, to dead center and barely into the bucket (aka, the fence that runs along the entire outfield wall, above the famed ivy).
The Cubs won in a shutout (and a one-hitter, at that), though I took off for home right after singing the seventh-inning stretch. I'm usually way-against that sort of early leaving, but I was cold, alone, the Cubs had the game more or less in hand, and it takes about an hour by public transportation (train + bus) to get back to our house, directly west of the stadium. First, we got tenants for our available apartment, then I caught five innings for free at Wrigley Field on a crisp and clear night. Pretty damn good night if you ask me.
In case anyone was wondering, I'm not blind to the fact that when it comes to current events/political issues, more often than not I link to the Buckleyan conservatives that comprise National Review Online than I do to, say, the more progressive Salon.com, Slate.com, or for that matter the more libertarian Reason.com. I check in with all of these everyday, and when I find something interesting, I read it no matter the source of publication, or even the author. I've said before that I'm an "ideas junkie" and I care far less about political persuasion than I do about fresh arguments, intellectual honest, and good writing.
Nonetheless, NRO gets the most play from me, at least over the last couple years, and I think this is the reason why: because of the nature of NRO, it is the primary point of departure for the current events/political realm, in this country. Assembled in their ranks are very influential and celebrated writers, intellectuals from think tanks, academia, and journalism. Of course various biases are involved, even worldviews if you want to use that term. But no matter your own political constellation, if you are an ideas junkie, you simply can't go wrong with NRO, and specifically their group blog, The Corner. This is true, I believe, even if you despise a conservative perspective.
This is not about mere agreement or disagreement. I agree at best half the time, and usually far less than that. But the solidity of ideas presented is why The Corner (and columnists such as Goldberg, Nordlinger, York, and Lopez) is so important. There is meat on the bones of their arguments, which themselves evolve, and reframed, and renewed over time if you pay attention to the site. With meat, you have stuff to consider, real stuff, and then disagreement, agreement, and all the workings of considering perspectives begins and so on.
Slate.com, to be fair, has several good writers (Saletan, Hitchens), but it suffers from a kind of blandness and disconnect from D.C. (the physical epicenter, of course, of American current events); Salon.com will forever be close to my heart due to their support of Paglia, yet frankly their site is barren of measured, reasoned arguments save for the rare exception (their arts coverage should be better, as well). Reason.com, is much like Slate: good writers, but missing the pulse that comes from "insider" status. Of course, my preference from NRO is just that, a preference, but I think there are objective reasons for that, beyond my own tastes, and I'm tried to ennumerate those here.
I say all of this because I just watched the replay of one of their best known writers, Ramesh Ponnuru, in his appearance on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.
And I think, after watching it, it is too bad that Stewart didn't let Ponnuru get much of a word in edge-wise, or more than a sentence at a time without interruption. This is his show and he can do whatever he likes (thus my recent criticisms of Colbert don't apply here). If you are particularly pro-choice, and don't see what I'm saying after watching the clip, just ask yourself, "ok, what do I know about Ponnuru's perspective that I didn't before?" and I think the answer is "next to nothing".
To me this was a missed opportunity to allow Ponnuru's case about abortion to stand or fall on its merits, at least a little. Instead of that, we get Ponnuru patiently tacit through Stewart pontificating—apparently, no one left or right on television is immune to lecturing. What Stewart focused on is, I believe, a result of pent-up frustration at provocative various recent book titles from conservatives circles. That criticism of titles (I'm talking about Treason by Coulter, etc.) is something of course that applies on both sides of the political street (Michael Moore being one example). The real enemy on that is not the author, but rather book publishers in general, who want to provoke sales through obnoxious book titles that people object to, argue about, and inevitable promote as a result.
But folks, have we forgotten our childhood-taught maxim, to not just a book by its cover? Apparently many have.
Having read excerpts of Ponnuru's book, it is clear that it is the product of, essentially, a generation's worth of thought about the U.S. Supreme Court and abortion, from the point of view of thinking it was a poorly reasoned court decision. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or methods or not, it is impossible to not take his book seriously, if one is serious about the abortion debate. One can be to some degree pro-choice and still anti Roe v. Wade.
Of course Stewart's is a comedy show, he is usually very funny, and television itself is a sound-byte-based medium. So, forces were naturally pitted against measured discussion of Ponnuru's perspective, or for that matter Stewart's. But still, because of the central role of the NRO crew in debate of important issues, it would have been nice to allow the space for that point of departure to actually manifest. That is, for those of us who (no matter political contellation) are simply yearning for depth of discourse about current events. The chasm between surface and depth was visually abrupt (The Daily Show as the former, Ponnuru as the latter, no matter who you are sympathetic or in agreement with). And, frankly, Stewart is guilty of the precise thing he rightly criticized the hosts of Crossfire for: insulting the intelligence of the viewers. More well-intentioned than Crossfire, to be sure, but still, unmistakably blatant.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan thinks that "Stewart did an extremely good job of flushing out the absolutism of Ramesh's position." How, he doesn't say. Sorry, don't see it; strikes me as more wishful thinking than reality. A connection between war and abortion is highly abstract, to the point of uselessness. To me, what Sullivan wants requires an actual discussion. Clearly, that didn't happen. Lectures flush nothing but the speaker's poo.
This is an excellently done review. That Derbyshire has problems with Harris' The End of Religion are mentioned but are hardly the point of his article. That is to say, you feel that Derbyshire has honored Harris' arguments without resorting to cheap shots or outworn, essentially reactionary, cliches against atheism. Check it out, first published in the New York Sun. Kosmic kwote:
What is wrong with Harris’s prescriptions is, of course, what was wrong with them in Russell’s time, and Spinoza’s and Erasmus’s too, for that matter: they go against the grain of human nature. Russell himself argued that the kind of thinking that mathematicians do is in some sense deeply unnatural, and that this is why so many people are repelled by math. Russell was a mathematician in the first place -- co-author of Principia Mathematica -- and always displayed that abstract, reductive style of thinking. To a certain kind of person (I write as a mathematician manqué) the style is immensely attractive; but alas, there are not many of us; and even among us, there are some who find life insupportable without the consolations of faith.
That last gesture is quite interesting. For some reason, I think "you know, I can't find music supportable without the consolations of melody." The same?
I came to Holland in the summer of 1992 because I wanted to be able to determine my own future. I didn’t want to be forced into a destiny that other people had chosen for me, so I opted for the protection of the rule of law.
Here in Holland, I found freedom and opportunities, and I took those opportunities to speak out against religious terror.
In January 2003, at the invitation of the VVD party, I became a member of parliament. I accepted the VVD’s invitation on the condition that I would be the party’s spokesman for the emancipation of women and the integration of immigrants.
What exactly did I want to achieve?
First of all I wanted to put the oppression of immigrant women -- especially Muslim women – squarely on the Dutch political agenda. Second, I wanted Holland to pay attention to the specific cultural and religious issues that were holding back many ethnic minorities, instead of always taking a one-sided approach that focused only on their socio-economic circumstances. Lastly, I wanted politicians to grasp the fact that major aspects of Islamic doctrine and tradition, as practiced today, are incompatible with the open society.
Now I have to ask myself, have I accomplished that task?
I have stumbled often in my political career. It has sometimes been frustrating and slow. However, I am completely certain that I have, in my own way, succeeded in contributing to the debate. Issues related to Islam – such as impediments to free speech; refusal of the separation of Church and State; widespread domestic violence; honor killings; the repudiation of wives; and Islam’s failure to condemn genital mutilation -- these subjects can no longer be swept under the carpet in our country’s capital. Some of the measures that this government has begun taking give me satisfaction. Many illusions of how easy it will be to establish a multicultural society have disappeared forever. We are now more realistic and more open in this debate, and I am proud to have contributed to that process.
Meanwhile, the ideas which I espouse have begun spreading to other countries. In recent years I have given speeches and attended debates in many European countries and in the United States. For months now, I have felt that I needed to make a decision: should I go on in Dutch politics, or should I now transfer my ideas to an international forum?
In the fall of 2005 I told Gerrit Zalm and Jozias van Aartsen, the leaders of the VVD, that I would not be a candidate for the parliamentary elections in 2007. I had decided to opt for a more international platform, because I wanted to contribute to the international debate on the emancipation of Muslim women and the complex relationship between Islam and the West.
Now that I am announcing that I will resign from Dutch politics, I would like to thank the members of the VVD for my years in parliament – to thank them for inviting me to stand for parliament, and -- perhaps more importantly -- for putting up with me while I was there, for this has been in many ways a rough ride for us all. I want to thank my other colleagues here in parliament for their help, although some of our debates have been sharp. (Femke Halsema, thank you especially for that!). I would also like to thank the 30,758 people who in January 2003 trusted their preference vote to a newcomer.
But why am I not remaining in parliament for my full term, until next year’s election? Why, after only three and a half years, have I decided to resign from the Lower Chamber?
It is common knowledge that threats against my life began building up ever since I first talked about Islam publicly, in the spring of 2002. Months before I even entered politics, my freedom of movement was greatly curtailed, and that became worse after Theo van Gogh was murdered in 2004. I have been obliged to move house so many times I have lost count. The direct cause for the ending of my membership in parliament is that on April 27 of this year, a Dutch court ruled that I must once again leave my home, because my neighbors filed a complaint that they could not feel safe living next to me. The Dutch government will appeal this verdict and I grateful for that, because how on earth will other people whose lives are threatened manage to find a place to stay if this verdict is allowed to rest? However, this appeal does not alter my situation: I have to leave my apartment by the end of August.
Another reason for my departure is the discussion that has arisen from a TV program, The Holy Ayaan, which was aired on May 11. This program centered on two issues: the story that I told when I was applying for asylum here in Holland, and questions about my forced marriage.
I have been very open about the fact that when I applied for asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, I did so under a false name and with a fabricated story. In 2002, I spoke on national television about the conditions of my arrival, and I said then that I fabricated a story in order to be able to receive asylum here. Since that TV program I have repeated this dozens of times, in Dutch and international media. Many times I have truthfully named my father and given my correct date of birth. (You will find a selection of these articles in the press folder). I also informed the VVD leadership and members of this fact when I was invited to stand for parliament.
I have said many times that I am not proud that I lied when I sought asylum in the Netherlands. It was wrong to do so. I did it because I felt I had no choice. I was frightened that if I simply said I was fleeing a forced marriage, I would be sent back to my family. And I was frightened that if I gave my real name, my clan would hunt me down and find me. So I chose a name that I thought I could disappear with – the real name of my grandfather, who was given the birth-name Ali. I claimed that my name was Ayaan Hirsi Ali, although I should have said it was Ayaan Hirsi Magan.
You probably are wondering, what is my real name?
I am Ayaan, the daughter of Hirsi, who is the son of a man who took the name of Magan. Magan was the son of Isse, who was the son of Guleid, who was the son of Ali. He was the son of Wai’ays, who was the son of Muhammad. He was the son of Ali, who was the son of Umar. Umar was the son of Osman, who was the son of Mahamud. This is my clan, and therefore, in Somalia, this is my name: Ayaan Hirsi Magan Isse Guleid Ali Wai’ays Muhammad Ali Umar Osman Mahamud.
Following the May 11 television broadcast, legal questions have been raised about my naturalization as a Dutch citizen. Minister Verdonk has written to me saying that my passport will be annulled, because it was issued to a person who does not hold my real name. I am not at liberty to discuss the legal issues in this case.
Now for the questions about my forced marriage. Last week’s TV program cast doubt on my credibility in that respect, and the final conclusion of the documentary is that all this is terribly complicated. Let me tell you, it’s not so complex. The allegations that I willingly married my distant cousin, and was present at the wedding ceremony, are simply untrue. This man arrived in Nairobi from Canada, asked my father for one of his five daughters, and my father gave him me. I can assure you my father is not a man who takes no for an answer. Still, I refused to attend the formal ceremony, and I was married regardless. Then, on my way to Canada -- during a stopover in Germany -- I traveled to the Netherlands and asked for asylum here. In all simplicity this is what happened, nothing more and nothing less. For those who are interested in the intimate details of my transition from a pre-modern society to a modern one, and how I came to love what the West stands for, please read my memoir, which is due to be published this fall.
To return to the present day, may I say that it is difficult to live with so many threats on your life and such a level of police protection. It is difficult to work as a parliamentarian if you have nowhere to live. All that is difficult, but not impossible. It has become impossible since last night, when Minister Verdonk informed me that she would strip me of my Dutch citizenship.
I am therefore preparing to leave Holland. But the questions for our society remain. The future of Islam in our country; the subjugation of women in Islamic culture; the integration of the many Muslims in the West: it is self-deceit to imagine that these issues will disappear.
I will continue to ask uncomfortable questions, despite the obvious resistance that they elicit. I feel that I should help other people to live in freedom, as many people have helped me. I personally have gone through a long and sometimes painful process of personal growth in this country. It began with learning to tell the truth to myself, and then the truth about myself: I strive now to also tell the truth about society as I see it.
That transition from becoming a member of a clan to becoming a citizen in an open society is what public service has come to mean for me. Only clear thinking and strong action can lead to real change, and free many people within our society from the mental cage of submission. The idea that I can contribute to their freedom, whether in the Netherlands or in another country, gives me deep satisfaction.
Ladies and Gentlemen, as of today, I resign from Parliament. I regret that I will be leaving the Netherlands, the country which has given me so many opportunities and enriched my life, but I am glad that I will be able to continue my work.
I will go on.
This is a powerful woman, folks. May her power shine all the more.
Under appreciated American philosopher Suzanne Langer says: "A philosophy is characterized more by the formulation of its problems than by its solutions of them".
Which reminds me of a fundamental aspect of my own art philosophy: the question, "how shall art be full?"
I recommend this album for folks who don't know where to start with symphonic music. This is by all measures immediately likeable and absorbable music. Part of the fun is hearing how parts of it have been, ehem, "reimagined" in the works of film composer John Williams (especially for the Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter serials). Williams for his part gives plenty of acknowledgement that Holst is a prime influence. Anyway, music is meant to be loved; if this film were wine, it would be called "very drinkable".
I also want just to mention that film composers, in general, usually compose very listenable works; too little is said about the quality of composers such as Bernard Herrmann, Elmer Bernstein, Ennio Morricone, and more, as composers. This is in part because certain important film composers have generally enshewed the trends in post-European composing that have led to "overly-mental, not very enjoyable for its own sake" music. They instead write in support of the dramatic narrative of the film; a more limited, nuanced responsibilty than the automony afforded composers of non-film music. Sometimes this means that is silly to listen only to the music, without the film; sometimes it doesn't. We must sort through to find the gems of film music that can stand alone as fine, satisfying compositions of music, with a place earned in the canon. In my view, film composers are carrying the torch for tonality—very noble, very underappreciated.
Back to Holst. A performance of all seven movements of The Planetsby the Grant Park Orchestra was Twyla's first live concert, which was outdoors in Chicago's Millennium Park last August, only weeks after she was born. Hannah was still recovering physically from her pregnancy, and I was still limping because of my four broken bones. Quite a site, the two of us! We weren't exactly speed walkers, let me say.
But we needed to get out of the house, cooped up as we had been. So we got some Thai take out, drove down, and found a spot of open green grass to plop down upon. We missed the opening half of the show, with works by Stravinsky and Britten. But actually all I cared about was The Planets, and the orchestra and choir did not disappoint. Really beautiful in the summer, outdoors, in front of 10,000 folks relaxing, picnicking, yet still by my estimation, engaged in the music. Here's the post-show Cellph Shot:
This is from Denis Dutton, art philosopher as well as progenitor of the well-loved (and deservedly so) Arts & Letters Daily website, which is linked at left under Rags, along with Dutton himself, under Heavies. This New Zealander actually attended the White House Correspondants Dinner. In his extended recap, there's this on Colbert:
Then TV political entertainer Stephen Colbert stepped up for what amounted to a sarcastic, 15-minute indictment of the president.
Colbert got off some stinging lines. “I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least,” he pronounced, “and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.” But his jib about the administration rearranging deck chairs on the Hindenburg was an old joke, and it elicited only scattered laughter.
One Colbert wisecrack was directed not at Bush, but at the Chinese Ambassador, who was in the audience: “Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong, welcome. Your great country makes our Happy Meals possible.” It was a joke that might have been made about Japan in the 1950s, but it was weirdly rude and anachronistic at an event where D.C. insiders are supposed to take pot shots at each other.
Since the event, the Bushophobic segment of the blogophere has been running hot with indictments of the mainstream media for not giving more coverage to Colbert. I can understand the spleen: anyone who despises Bush and reads the transcript will be in jolly agreement with Colbert. But a celebrity roast is not a political column. Colbert was ridiculing a president who had already exquisitely mocked himself, his mannerisms and malapropisms. George Bush playing straight man against his own inarticulate, ridiculous Id was a funnier show. In fact, as the New York Times admitted, he stole the show.
So, like I wrote in my own mini-review, the objection to Colbert here is largely one of decorum. Which is another way of saying that Colbert's bit did not functionally fit with the situation. This may sound inconsequential, especially if your venom towards Bush runs hot. In fact, through the electric prism of cyberspace (which refames the television medium), it is easy to think it less important that meat-space decorum be a consideration towards meaning (as in, the larger meaning of Colbert's bit in our culture).
As McLuhan pointed out nearly 50 years ago, television diminishes distance in favor of a comparatively new intimacy. This explains why news anchorpersons often thank their viewers for allowing them "into their living room". The distance erased by television means that the steps normally taken to be "that close" to Colbert, President Bush, and actually at the dinner in person do not need to happen. Fundamental to those steps are the emphasis (perhaps need) for social decorum. I say "need" because without widespread customs of decorum, government (and the culture around it) in no small way would fall apart into a mess. You may hate the policies of the president, but in person, the sustainability of society requires more than token respect. We need the president to be a symbol.
We can and should criticize where necessary, but in proper times and places. In this way, Colbert's "rudeness" might strike some as no big deal; when in fact "rudeness" is a very big deal. For the president himself, only to some degree—the real harm is to our American society, which underscores the need to remind ourselves of why "symbols" are important and need be respected, in the first place. Of course Colbert's act ought not be blown out of proportion (another tendancy of our cyber-culture; i.e., the lack of perspective, due to decentralization of cyberinformation). But the key point (call it a "teaching moment") is important and even easy to miss, unless we understand how our perception is shaped by the mode or media of delivery.
I'm very sympathetic with this quote from this renown Italian aesthetic philosopher, via his "Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General Linguistic". He discusses what happens to concepts when they are used as material for artistic creation:
Those concepts which are found mingled and fused with the intuitions, are no longer concepts, in so far as they are really mingled and fused, for they have lost all independence and autonomy. They have been concepts, but they have now become simple elements of intuition. The philosophical maxims placed in the mouth of a personage of tragedy or of comedy, perform there the function, not of concepts, but of characteristics of such personage; in the same way as the red in a painted figure does not there represent the red colour of the physicists, but is a characteristic element of the portrait. The whole it is that determines the quality of the parts. A work of art may be full of philosophical concepts; it may contain them in greater abundance and they
Hannah and I have had many discussions that go late into the night, as the wolves howl at the moon, about how attitudes and perceptions about childbirth mirror the core of our entire set of attitudes towards life and creativity. There is much to learn from the birthing process, from midwives and childbirth educators, and from mothers who take an active approach to bearing children. 
Everyone in the U.S. ought check out what Charles Murray is proposing. Grants for everyone over age 21 who is not in jail and has a bank account. His radical ("at the root") but in my few entirely sensible plan is outlined in his new book, 
I say all of this because I just watched the replay of one of their best known writers, Ramesh Ponnuru, in his appearance on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show.
