Literally. The tax collector came, and my body is paying its dues. Hopefully more tomorrow. Tweedy, btw, was fantastic. Catch him solo whenever you can.
Oh, and read Hannah's first report about her film here, with pictures.
Two new articles — one, an article by Jean Rivard on erotic experience in art; the other, my interview of William Harryman (curator of Elegant Thorn Review), on his poetry background/perspective. Plus, Elegant Thorn itself has new content. Much going on, as usual, at the only site of its kind on the web.
In Milwaukee, at the very classy Pabst Theatre. I'm headed up after work with Ben Rogerson, Twyla's gudfudda. And he just told me that Wilco's bassist, John Stirrat, is opening the show in duet with his sister. I have no idea what that'll be like. I'm hopeful that they, along of course with Tweedy, will be a good show. Though as I've said before, the death of all aesthetic experience is high expectation. Isn't a practice unto itself that of rather training the mind to lower expectation?
Perhaps the deeper meditation is to considering whether there is some point of view, some perspective, from which everything is already perfect, without need for anything to be added, taken away, or replaced. Of course the world is complicated and troubling; of course what good art does is renew the juices of life; all that one cannot in good faith deny. But is there also, simultaneously, something true of the former? And can finding truth in that perspective lower one's expectation about, in this case, art, while not diminishing our enthusiasm for going out and checking new stuff out?
Well, it is a thought, anyway. In any event, this will be the second time this year seeing Tweedy solo. I wrote about the first one, back in January, here, when he performed a short walk from my house, and I checked out the show with my brother, Christopher, itself a special moment of brotherly sharing I shant forget.
I already posted to the The Woodshed several art-related quotes from a recent Salon.com interview of Camille Paglia. Below are some non-art nuggets, but before I go there.... How I do love Paglia (though, of course, I don't agree with her 100%, but I don't of anyone, so that's no big deal). Those of you who have followed my work over the last three years know that there's been a tension I've felt between her work and its ideas and those of Ken Wilber.
Having thought about that a bit this morning, I realized that while it was a tremendous opportunity to work in such close proximity to such a well-known figure for 16 months (I'm of course talking about Wilber right now, even though that opportunity soured so), my appreciation of Paglia's work and thought predates that for Wilber's (which has with some small exceptions, is over for me). I mean, this morning I remembered that during the very first extended conversation I had with Wilber (round about July 2003, on the phone), one of my first main questions to him was what he thought of Paglia's essay "Cults and Cosmic Consciousness" (which you can read here, and should, over and over again if you ask me).
I think my overall arc as a serious thinker on art really began when I started reading Paglia, which was sometime around 1997, first at Salon.com, and then my first pass at Sexual Personae, which I returned to regularly. What my intellectual roots are has been an open question I've explored for several years. It is affirming to realize that while I have many, Paglia is likely the most influential (among a lineage that includes McLuhan, Dewey (his art writings, not educational theories), and others. While I am not altogether comfortable with such a formulation, you could say a lot more wrong things about my art writings than to say they exhibit a markedly Paglian strain. While it is quite difficult to find the time to accomplish everything I'd like to, I do hope my art writings are seen as a continuation and even elaboration of several of Paglia's key, timeless insights about art and artistry.
Anyway, to the newest, non-art nugs:
Foley is obviously a moral degenerate, and the Republican House leadership has come across as pathetically bumbling and ineffectual. But the idea that this is some sort of major scandal in the history of American politics is ludicrous. This was a story that needed to be told for, you know, like two days.
Mark Foley was never on the radar of anyone outside the small circle of news junkies. So his fall and banishment from Washington were nothing but a drip in the torrential flood of current geopolitical problems. The way the Democratic leadership was in clear collusion with the major media to push this story in the month before the midterm election seems to me to have been a big fat gift to Ann Coulter and the other conservative commentators who say the mainstream media are simply the lapdogs of the Democrats. Every time I turned on the news it was "Foley, Foley, Foley!" -- and in suspiciously similar language and repetitive talking points.
After three or four days of it, as soon as I heard Foley's name, I turned the sound off or switched channels. It was gargantuan overkill, and I felt the Democrats were shooting themselves in the foot. I was especially repulsed by the manipulative use of a gay issue for political purposes by my own party. I think it was not only poor judgment but positively evil. Whatever short-term political gain there is, it can only have a negative impact on gay men. When a moralistic, buttoned-up Republican like Foley is revealed to have a secret, seamy gay life, it simply casts all gay men under a shadow and makes people distrust them. Why don't the Democratic strategists see this? These tactics are extremely foolish. Gay men through history have always been more vulnerable to public hysteria than are lesbians, who -- unless they're out there parading around in all-leather bull-dyke drag -- simply fit more easily into the cultural landscape than do gay men, who generally lead a more adventurous, pickup-oriented sex life.
...
Every feminist who wants to smash the glass ceiling should realize she has a stake in Condi Rice's success. Rice is a brilliant woman, but diplomacy is an art. Preaching in steely tones sends the wrong message. This administration lacks deftness in international relations.
...
The mass of the population always want to live their own lives; change is always driven by small, committed groups of ideologues and fanatics -- even in our own revolution. Representative democracy is a great ideal, but major shifts are rarely achieved by majority rule, which prefers the status quo.
...
I think the center of the Republican Party really is small-businessmen and very practical people who correctly see that it's job creation and wealth creation that sustain an economy -- not government intervention and government control, that suffocating nanny-state mentality. The Democrats are in some sort of time warp in always proposing a government solution to every problem. It's like Hillary's philosophy that it takes a village to raise a child. Well, does it? Or does it take a strong family and not the village?
...
It began as a challenge to the right-wing media [his challenging of journalist Chris Wallace], but I think Clinton got out of control and went embarrassingly too far. It was a perfectly civil and reasonable question from one of Fox's most neutral commentators. But Clinton went off on a tirade, waved his finger in Chris Wallace's face, and accused him of sitting there with a "smirk." That was over-personalizing the interview by any standard. And to charge Wallace with setting his guest up, with ambush journalism -- good heavens, the problem with American journalism is hardly that it's too severe and punitive. Our reporters' questioning of politicians is pallid and wimpy compared to what goes on in Britain and Europe. BBC journalists jump right in the face of every political figure from the prime minister on down. So for Clinton to make a huge fuss about a mild question about his administration's record in dealing with Osama bin Laden was a bullying of our journalists -- an act of war, in fact, on American journalists, saying, "Don't you dare go off our agreed-to list of questions!" Every Democrat who was disgusted by the American media's cowering passivity leading up to the Iraq war should have gone red-hot over this episode and said, "Clinton, back off! We want journalists to be bolder, ruder in challenging authority. Put more spine into our reporters!"
...
This overblown fear of Fox News is such a sentimentality on the part of too many Democrats. Talk radio is infinitely more powerful than Fox. Radio hosts are blanketing the country with round-the-clock conservative ideology -- not because they're dastardly conspirators manipulating the media but because they've achieved their success, market by market, in creating programs that millions of people want to listen to. The recent filing for bankruptcy by Air America dramatizes my party's abject failure to produce shows that are informative and entertaining and that systematically build an audience -- the way all the top radio hosts did who climbed the ladder from obscurity to their present prominence. Aren't we the party of Hollywood? The fact that we've failed so miserably at this central medium of communication shows how something has gone very wrong in Democratic sensibility.
...
And we do face an international crisis of mammoth proportions. What should we do in the face of this ruthless and barbaric Islamic fundamentalism? Is there an answer to the problem of Israel? There was a time when the left's call for a transnational Israel made sense to me, but at this point does anyone really think that, if Israel stops calling itself a Jewish state and opens its borders to all Palestinians who wish to return, there would be instant peace? Because of the shocking upsurge in anti-Semitism in the last few years -- exacerbated by the American incursion into Iraq -- surely such a development would mean suicide for Jews who reside in Israel. Passions have become too inflamed among young Muslims all over the world. I think it will be a century before any of this is resolved.
...
The more liberal parents are, the less contact their children have with religious ideas. That will surely disable our future American leaders from being able to understand the religious commitment of Islamic fundamentalists. Liberal journalists often seem incredulous about how anyone would seek death for religious principles. But that was the entire history of early Christianity, when the saints willingly sought martyrdom. We're heading into that world again.
Tonight, through Sunday night, each day. 10-person cast, 20-person crew. Shooting on film. Tonight, the call is at 10 pm, and ends at 6 am tomorrow. It's me and Twyla and probably not a lot of sleep for either of us tonight. Rest of the shoots are in the day. Tonight, the biggie. Wish us luck. Especially Hannah, who is nervous but I think is going to do just a great job.
My dream duel for the presidency in 2008 is Gov. Mitt Romney getting the Republican nomination, and Sen. Barack Obama getting the Democrat nomination. These are two bright, energetic, creative people. I think such a battle represents the potentially best quality of debate and comparison of ideas that of all the candidates from either party. So while this is no prediction (I'm pretty bad at those), nonetheless, these two gentlemen going for the presidency is definitely my hope.
UPDATE: Here's is Hewitt's review/reaction to the interview. I will correct Hewitt on one point: I don't think Sullivan is a radical, "like Pelosi and Reid and the rest of the left...". No, I simply think Sullivan is often wrong, skimpy on actual reasoning, really bad with people who disagree, but also the possessor of plenty of good insights (and plenty of silly ones). It is sad that the word "radical" has lost its meaning of "at the root", in favor of "extremist" or something like that.
As far as Sullivan's response to the interview, just this so far. If he posts anything more, I'll update this again.
Someone asked me what I thought of Ken Wilber's short bit on his blog, liner notes for an album by Corrado Rustici, that attempts defined what "integral art" is. I'll post it in entirety below (one of its advantages is its brevity) and then respond here and there. Let me just say off the bat that I no longer take Wilber seriously, I find his work irrelevent to the task of reconstructing the importance of the Humanities (which I think will lead to genuine sustainability in the art world), and that he is a sophist, of the kind that Socrates deplored and whose seductive, persuasive rhetoric he fought against on the grounds that real learning had nothing to do with that. But anyway, here goes. Note, these are largely observations on an admittedly short piece (though one, if you look at other works, such as his introduction to a book by painter Philip Rubinov-Jacobson, that is representative of his overall thought). And note, this is the first and only time I'll do such a thing with Wilber's work.
Having spent over three decades developing an Integral Approach to "life, god, the universe, and everything," many people have come forward to ask, "What is integral art?"
Ah yes, the old "appeal to authority", right off the bat. Thus the presentation is "I am the one to talk about integral." Or, "heeeeeeeeeeere's Wilber!" — I swear, if I every ask someone to write liner notes for one of my albums, and that person starts off asserting how important they are, rather than talking first from the music, you have permission to shoot me.
If we take integral to mean comprehensive or inclusive, then what does that mean if I am an artist?
Which means if we don't adopt that definition, then Wilber can be ignored. Just for the record, I do not adopt this defintion of integral as "comprehensive or inclusive", though I have done so in the past. The change of my thinking over the last couple years is not yet reflected thoroughly in my essays posted on this site, but will as I publish more as well as (finally) finish my book. In a recent essay posted at POLYSEMY Online, called "The Humanities as the Integral Tradition", I wrote, "I regard integral as a living tradition, waiting patient for artists to tap back into, that goes back to ancient Greek and Roman thought, and has produced the greatest minds in the Western arc of history, and that is tragically masked under the counterproductive forces of 'theory'". That gets to my current understanding better than most anything else I've written. And I think it is better, more liberating and heuristic, than anything Wilber has ever provided on that count. But of course, I'm tooting my horn on that one (sorry).
Let me also say here: is the point of listening to this man's music to learn how to be an artist? Last time I checked, the answer is clearly, um, no. So why is this relevant to Mr. Rustici's liner notes, for this album. And compare, if you will, Wilber's modus operandi (demonstrated here as well as in other places where he introduces an artist's work) and that of, say, Roger Ebert, who refuses to insert himself between the audience and the work of art. To me, that is far more honorable and respectful an approach to writing about music, not to mention more engaged with the actual work of art (which Wilber never indicates beyond easy generalities).
If, for example, I am a painter, must I blend together all known styles of painting-abstract, to realist, to impressionist-and simultaneously make visual reference to every known aspect of human experience? Surely something must be off here. A "comprehensive approach" to cuisine doesn't mean stacking burritos on top of sushi on top of lasagna, does it? That would simply be nauseating, and the same is true for art.
I am aware of no serious artist who holds anything like this sort of view, but apparently Wilber is talking to other people than I.
So what, then, is integral art? Simply put, integral art is anything created by an artist with integral consciousness.
Let me echo Frank Visser in saying how tired it is for Wilber to keep using the "simply put..." formulation. I realize that this entire passage is liner notes for an Italian musician, and thus the audience here is like people who aren't familiar with Wilber. But why the near-neurotic use of the "simply put" formulation when even a cursory look at Wilber's oeuvre demonstrates that his work is not "simple"? Let me also point out that Wilber has compounded a pretty vague defintion with using that as the basis to define "integral art". His confident writing style, unless examined, gives the impression that solid, useful definitions are at play here, when in fact they are not.
Integral consciousness can hold in mind the entire spectrum of creative possibility, but one doesn't therefore combine every "color" in his or her palette, which creates, precisely, mud.
Therefore? What in god's name is that doing there? And again with this "burritos on top of sushi on top of lasagna" argument that I've never heard of, and which makes me wonder if this is a straw man argument. Wait, nevermind, I know it is. So we have appeals to authority, multiple vague definitions built upon one another, and now straw artists. Pretty good for just a couple paragraphs, wouldn't you say?
If integral awareness is anything, it is an increase in one's ability to discriminate and to judge what is pleasing, and therefore also what to reject. As an integral artist, one is free to choose the stark purity of a solo piano, or the complex rhythmical synthesis of a dozen musical elements, but both can be equally integral.
Let's play a pretty easy game. Try substituting "better artistry" for "integral awareness", "better artist" for "integral artist", and "good" for "integral" (in order of each's appearance). This passage not only starts to make sense, not only benefits greatly from being in ordinary language, but also becomes something that no artist would disagree with, no art teacher would object to, and therefore no special or important claim whatsoever — i.e., like "duh, dude, you call yourself America's preeminent philosopher and we get this?"
(For those interested, see chapters 4 and 5 of my book The Eye of Spirit for an in-depth discussion of integral art.)
To be clear, those chapters deal with art interpretation strictly (from the point of view of a scholar), and have nothing in particular to do with art creation. Of course those topics aren't entirely unrelated, but nor is there that much practical intersection, either. This is more than odd given that being an artist was, I thought, the point of this spiel.
My good friend Corrado has deeply integral consciousness, and Deconstruction of a Postmodern Musician is a direct and beautiful testament to this fact. Composed and expressed with an incredible display of technical skill, his music radiates with a fullness of being that wants nothing more than to share the abundance from which it flows. Employing a wide range of musical voices and emotional tones, what one is left with is the tangible feeling of depth, long after the last note is struck.
And that "wide range" is, what? I mean, this violates Music Criticism 101 — non-specificity. Hell, it wouldn't pass muster in high school writing class. Now, I have no idea whether Mr. Rustici''s music is any good (having not heard it), but I do observe that he supposedly has "integral consciousness" largely based on Wilber's say-so. In other words, another appeal to authority. Sensing a pattern here?
What is it about depth that touches us so? How is it that the human soul can distinguish between the superficial and the profound? Most of all, what is this absolutely stunning miracle of beauty? Science cannot measure, count, or point to beauty, and so according to the worldview of most hip, savvy, modern human beings, beauty technically does not exist. Yet there it is. And we all recognize it, just as we might recognize love, or justice, or wisdom.
Oh pulease ... "most hip, savvy, modern human beings"...? Wilber would know? Talk about straw man/woman/being. Beauty "technically does not exist" for these unnamed, unexplored people, and this is a claim we are to take seriously? I don't, and I don't see how any thinking, intellectually discriminating person could.
Perhaps it is here, amidst those delicate intuitions of something more meaningful than a world composed of frisky dirt, that we can find the true essence of integral art.
Again, who holds such a strange view, that of "frisky dirt"? Anyone in the art world? Oh, I remember, these hordes of hip, modern people. Right.
Be it the haunting chords of a song, a fiery sunset emblazoned in paint, or the face of a stranger captured on film, beauty takes us beyond ourselves, beyond the tension of separation, to a place we might not have otherwise suspected existed.
No real objection here. Except my wonder about the claim that beauty "takes you to a place". Some people say that good art "transports" them. But does beauty really do that? Hmm...wouldn't exploring what that means, and doesn't, be more interesting? Well, it would to me, at least.
For a moment, there is no song, no sunset, no face... and no self. For a moment, something else entirely shines forth, and even the sun is but one small ray of the Grace illuminating the Kosmos from within.
Ah yes, here we are, where Wilber wants to go each and every time, in all of his writings — the "no self" place. All I can say is that you read this sort of thing as much as I did (being involved with Wilber's start-up company for 16 months, and reading his work for four years before that) and this sort of thing gets pretty predictable. All of Wilber gets pretty predictable, but that is a longer story.
It is here that beauty, truth, and goodness find their home. It is here that the integral impulse towards wholeness finds its timeless source in Wholeness. And it is here that the Great Artist is revealed, and that Artist is none other than the one looking out through your eyes right now, painting through your brush, singing through your voice, dancing through your body, marveling at the wonder of it all... astonished at what you have created.
"Find their home", how? Lowercase "wholeness" differs from upper-case "Wholeness", how? Lots of base-stealing here. Mind you, I'm not asking Wilber to make a strictly logical case, here. But some kind of case would be, well, nice, especially given the vagueness, etc., that has polluted this entire thing. No, we are supposed to just shallow this, without really being given the opportunity to know whether we buy it or not. The rhetorical build-up, of course, makes for a momentum whereby you are subtley put into a trance through the unobjectionable, poetical metaphors. If you are the least bit skeptical, then this stuff doesn't work. I mean, the "Great Artist" (upper-case) looks "through your eyes" and is "astonished" (another predictable Wilber word) and "marvels". You think about this sort of formulation long enough, and it gets pretty creepy, to me at least. But of course, this stuff is built on an initial house of cards that I sounds nice when you first hear it, but falls apart when you actually think about it, soberly beyond the trance.
What is integral art? Why not find out yourself with Corrado's inspired and daring Deconstruction of a Postmodern Musician? It's quite a wonderful experience, and a journey well worth taking.
Again leaving the album aside, just notice that never has a particularly useful or unique definition of integral been provided; it was lopped onto "consciousness" without much definition; and then that vague thing was used to define "integral art", which is still undefined and we are left with, essentially, "you know it when you hear it". Which is precisely the kind of airy blech asserted confidently that has been around for thousands of years (see, for example, Plato's dialogue, Meno), and which thinking people deconstruct and fight against.
If an Integral Approach has caught your interest, we'd love to have you visit us at Integral Institute, the Center for Integral Art at Integral University, and Integral Naked, where you can find Corrado in dialogue with our own resident integral artist, Stuart Davis.
Ah yes, the appeal to join in a vast party of vague.
But for now, enjoy the music....
Which, I'm sure, it is easier to do when obstacles of sophistry aren't put in your way. But to each their own.
One last point — perhaps the single most flagrent violation I see here is this: putting a theory in front of the work of art. This is precisely the move of theory (no matter French, Frankfurtian, or Wilberian), each and every time. The notion that the acceptance of an "-ism" such as Wilberism (even as it is watered down here) is in any way important to the aesthetic experience. It. Is. Not. Ever. This is what warriors such as Camille Paglia have fought for the last twenty years, and warriors before her. It is the battle to evict the belief that "theory" has any place in the house of art. The poor, embattled work of art, if it is anything important, must stand on its own. If it needs theory, then it has not been created as best as it could have been. Now, I'm not indicting Mr. Rustici in any way. Again, I haven't heard his music.
No, my indictment is of this incoherant piece of trash masquarading as capital I "Important" thought. And my indictment is of the notion that soulful art making requires the hoops that a theorist puts before us. The artist's responsibility (besides to his/her family, friends, and audience) is to the traditions of art that came before. There is a "great conversation" going on, timelessly through the ages, and ignoring that essentially spits on our great artists of the past. The artist's obligation never ought be to a philosopher who doesn't actually get to writing about the music or musician until halfway through the liner notes, demonstrating he believes than his thought is more important than the music, after the branding and eventual selling of vague theorizing he's been working on for 30 years, or whatever. It is not to anything at all that gets in the way of a deeper, more palpable, more direct contact with works of art, and one's intuition.
The temptation is to buy into this sophistry (and if you want to, actually pay Wilber's company to hear more of it) because it feels and seems like a shortcut to depth. It is as if you can read this stuff, and settle in its warm bath of spiritual trance, rather than doing the hard, meditative work of studying and evaluating the great conversation (such as that through Homer, Plato, The Bible, and Shakespeare) in both public and personal ways. No, the intellectually confident, good with words, rhetoretician that Wilber is makes him not Socrates, but those Sophists he fought bitterly against, such as Meno and Gorgias, those of ancient Greece that charged people to hear them speak and teach how to persuade for its own sake. Thus Wilberian theory is not a brand new distraction, but in fact a very old one, come back to visit.
All of this little thang of Wilber's is disgusting, offensive to genuine intellectual seeking/learning of truth, and profoundly distracting from getting to the business of both making better art, or for that matter, perceiving art with more clarity. Details matter. The particular aesthetic choices on this album matter. How these are unique matter. What the album is dealing with, concretely, whether it be musically, lyrically, or strictly sonically, matter. Wilber could have written this little spiel for anyone he wanted, changing nothing significant here except the name of the artist and work. All of this has the unmistakable feel of Wilber not taking the time to actually do the hard work of criticism, but rather hopping on whatever momentum this artist has going for him, mutually beneficial, of course.
This is the newest example of a long line why I believe that Wilberian theory is irrelevent to artistry, itself the fruits of goal-less goal of labor as an artist trying to get things right in their work, amidst a larger embracing of the great works of the Humanities (theology, the arts, history, philosophy, languages). That sort of path, entirely non-theoretical, brings to life the great souls of our human past, as mediums to animate the message and content of our own works of art, made today intuitively.
Well anyway, thanks for reading. Sorry for excess here (if it feels that way) given that I imagine a great many of you already don't Wilber all that seriously. There are so many other things that are relevant to working artists. I'll get back to those presently.
This is an interesting column to me, written by John O'Sullivan, that laments the lack of sympathy the Western political left had for the Hungarian Revolution. For O'Sullivan, "A revolution against socialism was a crisis and embarrassment for them rather than a cause."
I wonder about education, if its reform in this country is hampered by those that regard it as less a cause, than an embarrassment to their ideals. What are those ideas? Well, public, government-run schooling strives for equal outcomes (rather than equal opportunity); it strives for sensitivity (to ethnicity, sexual persuasion, to the opposite sex, etc.); it strives to condition people to be able to sit still for long periods of time; it strives to replace the parent as the primary teacher (in loco parentis) so that both parents are free to work outside the home; it strives for standardization; it strives for an artificial learning environment.
So I'd say yes, these are ideals held by a great many people in this country, and the fact that these aren't helping to educate our children very well is an embarrassment. And that embarrassment is an impediment to actually dealing with the problem in any fundamental, radical way. Of course, support for public schools is something that crosses party affiliation, both right and left. I don't look at the issue that way.
Rather, I look at it this way: all options ought be on the table (for how to best educate your child). Which is the one that provides the most sustainability for the child's overall learning, the health of the family dynamic, the seeking and learning of knowledge from all sources, an engaged, informed citizenry, and the vibrancy of this country's core, unique traditions?
Since it is quite clear that government does not do school very well, then that leaves either private schooling or home education. And, well, neither Hannnah or I can justify the expense of a private education, nor get around our belief that the best people to teach a child is that child's parents. In this way, I see a continuum from the Attachment Parenting approach we've adopted (via Dr. Sears' books) since day one, and home education, which obviously involves being attuned to your child's wants, and of course their needs (whether the child immediately wants those or not). And home education involves learning together, because any true knowledge is of the kind that bears repeated rituals of absorption, by all involved. Hannah and I are going to learn right along with Twyla. Our enthusiasm will, hopefully, be infectious. We'll teach, in that way, in a fundamental modeling sort of way.
This article, by E. Donald Hirsch Jr., explores just that dichotomy, and does so in an insightful fashion. In exploring the philosophical roots of current American education (which are called "progressivism"), he finds their roots in Romanticism, which he writes, is a kind of religion: "The word “nature” in the romantic tradition connotes the sense of a direct connection with the holy, lending the tenets of progressivism all the weight of religious conviction." Thus, his argument is that the American educational system found in our public schools is a kind of religion. How to battle that?
One cannot hope to argue against a religious faith that is impervious to refutation. But there can be hope for change when that religious faith is secular and pertains to the world itself. When the early romantics lived long enough to experience the disappointments of life, they abandoned their romanticism. This happened to Blake, Wordsworth, and Coleridge. One of Wordsworth’s most moving works was the late poem, “Elegiac Stanzas,” which bade farewell to his faith in nature. Similar farewells to illusion were penned by the other romantics. There is a potential instability in natural supernaturalism. Romantic religion is vulnerable because it is a religion of this world. If one’s hopes and faith are pinned on the here and now, on the faith that reading, arithmetic, and morals will develop naturally out of human nature, then that faith may gradually decline when this world continually drips its disappointments.
So far, progressivism has proved somewhat invulnerable to its failures. But its walls are beginning to crumble, and none too soon. Only when widespread doubt is cast on public education’s endemic romanticism will we begin to see widespread improvements in achievement. Everyone grants that schooling must start from what is natural. But schooling cannot effectively stay mired there. With as much certainty as these things can be known, we know that analytical and explicit instruction works better than inductive, implicit instruction for most school learning. To be analytical and explicit in instruction is also to be artificial. Also, it is to be skeptical that children will naturally construct for themselves either knowledge or goodness.
Stick it out, seems to me the answer, if you believe (as I do) that classical eduction, allowing for the inclusion of certain contemporary insights, still can provide the best education for our kids.
This is pretty thorough article from the Cato Institute, from 1998 (though, on balance, things seem pretty current to me). In addition to addressing 10 frequently-asked questions about homeschooling (which I call home education, by choice), it provides several kosmic kwotes, including this one, as its conclusion:
In short, homeschooling is here to stay and is giving new meaning to the old maxim "there's no place like home." It is likely that the number of homeschoolers will grow if the current public school system continues to be viewed by parents as an irrelevant institution that can hinder a child's ability to learn. The lesson for reformers bent on promoting statist educational models, such as Goals 2000 or School-to-Work, is this: homeschooling has produced literate students with minimal government interference at a fraction of the cost of any government program.
Homeschooling families believe they are using their liberties well and wisely. The American can-do spirit is evident in the homeschools and households parents manage simultaneously. Those families, however, could use some further deregulation, be it through homeschool tax credits or a loosening of compulsory attendance school laws, to make their task easier. Indeed, policymakers of all political stripes who are anxious for some good news from the educational front lines should ponder the words of Martin Luther King III. At a homeschooling convention, King observed, "The kind of things homeschoolers are doing may be the saving grace of our nation."
I particularly like how that ends, don't you? One thing the article doesn't mention is what I believe to be the key resource in home education, the book The Well-Trained Mind, by Jessie Wise. Her book spells out so much about the process, with much clarity, depth, and relevence. With home education, you trust children, and you trust parents to know how best to educate. In other words, you strengthen families by making education a shared discovery. On its face, that couldn't make any more sense to me than it does.
Well, it is Film Week in the House of Dallman. Hannah begins shooting on Thursday. Then Friday, Saturday, and concluding on Sunday. She has a cast of 10 (plus extras) and a crew of 20. She's shooting on film (not digital), and she has four locations — a pizzeria, an alley, a furniture store, and an apartment. The film will be about 10-minutes long. I'm going to do the score for it. She will shop it to festivals (her last one was in the 2005 Chicago International Film Festival). We are, of course, very excited for her to start shooting. She's hoping her script (which she wrote, and received good feedback on) translates to screen. You never know until you see it, of course.
I say this because dealing with logistics took up pretty much the entire weekend for her (as they should, of course); which leaves me hanging with Twyla solo and that's good fun, to be honest (though sometimes trying, but so what, that's the deal of being a father and mother). A little difficult when she needs milk and my breasts don't do that sort of thing, but overall, we have a good time. Whether it is taking walks in the neighborhood, going to our Saturday morning music class, driving around waiting for Mama's meeting to conclude, or falling asleep on my shoulder while I'm in the rocking chair, it is good. Straight up.
One thing we did on Sunday was go to church. Me and her. For the first time together, ever, that wasn't for a funeral or Christmas service. I got my new sportcoat on, and new orange tie; Twyla had a red dress, fancy shoes, and nice sweater. We hit the 10:30 am service at St. Luke's Lutheran Church of Logan Square (about a 20 min walk from our house). To say I'm a lapsed Lutheran is an understatement. St. Luke's, though, had some human things going for it. For one, it was the first service of their brand new pastor, a young guy about my age. I found out (as we entered the church and were rather barraged with two older ladies' questions and welcoming words) that their hope is that he will help save the church. Five years ago, you see, the church was recommended to close its doors, due to declining numbers. Which, if you ask me, would be a shame on architectural grounds alone. The church is quite beautiful, though not awe-inspiring. Greystone exterior, exposed brick interior, tall arched ceiling, lots of stained glass (yellowish, which made for a rather seipia-toned vibe all around).
I can see what the ladies meant about declining numbers. On this clearly special day, still only 1/3 of the 375-person capacity chapel pews were filled. There were of course plenty of older folk; but there were some younger folk, and even, dare I say, hipster folks. One couple had a four-month old boy with them, and they sat near Twyla and I.
In truth, all I'm looking for out of a church would be, in order, good music, good music, good music, good architecture, friendly people, and non-political sermons. Did I mention music?
Well, St. Luke's does have a pipe organ, medium-sized I'd say. But good-sounding. Twyla clapped not once, not twice, but three times for the organist, an older gentleman who looked like he had a rough night at the bar. Then she started to fuss a bit, because she didn't quite fall asleep for a morning nap on the walk to the church. Which meant that for most of the service, I walked the hall of the church trying to coax her to sleep, which eventually worked. I'm glad for this, because it turned out that the sermon (delivered not by the new guy, but some VIP from Berkeley, Cal, got all sorts of political. Do sermons really need to talk about Jack Abramhoff when either testament of the Bible has bountiful good poetry to dig into?
Sheesh.
Anyway, because all of Christianity I take as allegory (in a sort of non-dual way, I imagine, though I don't use that term much), I don't particularly get into any sermon that doesn't treat The Bible as divine poetry of the human condition, each and every human, the deepest kind of metaphor. The thing is that this has meant that, out of poetical frustration, I don't go to church (which I haven't, save holidays, for fifteen years). I'm trying to get over this, because it would be nice to have hang around good organ music on Sunday mornings, get to know some people in our neighborhood, maybe contribute to the food pantry the church operates for the hungry, maybe sing in the choir (which is really hurting at St. Luke's, all of three people, each off key in their own surely well-meaning way), and have Twyla (and all our kids) become familiar with the sacred space that a church can be. The medium is, after all, the message — hearing an organ's music through its pipes, and bouncing around the tall ceiling, is an important experience unto itself, regardless of what is read as scripture or sermonized. I have no idea if we'll make church regular for us. Hannah does want to check it out. Her feelings about church largely echo mine. So we'll take it one step at a time.
At the end of an impassioned (but logically tortured) defense of his bookThe Conservative Soul from critique by David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan writes:
To paraphrase Oakeshott, I am a conservative in politics so I - and anyone else - can be a radical in every other activity, if we so choose.
I have no idea whether he is paraphrasing Oakeshott; it is far more likely, though, that the original source (conscious or not) was Gustav Flaubert, talking about art:
Be regular and orderly in your life so that you may be violent and original in your work.
Which is a far deeper idea to mediate upon than Sullivan's version, if you ask me.
Barack Obama is clearly taking the cultural temperature, to see if conditions are right for him to run for the presidency. In publicizing his new book, he's been on Oprah, Larry King Live, the cover of Time magazine, and, just this weekend, on NBC's Meet The Press, where he said it was "fair" to say that he's thinking about running. (And he's on the cover of today's Chicago Sun-Times, at right.)
The MTP appearance, in particular, catalyzed several blog entries in the last 24 hours on The Corner. This is the political blog that, by far, I read the most (though I read such from all parts of the spectrum, as a choice). I think it will be quite interesting to see what those posters (being conservative) have to say about Obama's candidacy, if he does carry that forward. While conservatives hardly think anything close to monolithically, they'll likely approach him in degrees of non-sympathy, and with skepticism (though in several occasions over the last couple years, Obama has been written about favorably; such as after his electric speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention). In other words, generally speaking, Obama won't get an inch. Being that we are two years away from the next presidential election, now is the time when we might get a clearer understanding of how Obama is regarded by these conservatives, rather than closer to the election when things really heat up.
Here's what the last 24 hours of The Corner have yielded about Obama:
Barack Obama [John Derbyshire] ...Was very presentable on MTP this morning. Lots of charm (though, as Bob Novak noted in the discussion afterwards, not much sign of humor), articulate, only squirmed visibly when Russert brought up his having said flatly 9 months ago that he won't run for Prez in '08. Good — I mean, if you like that sort of thing, which I don't — Third Way stuff, a Tony Blair for the U.S.A. Expressed admiration for both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. (Cf. Blair's kind words for Maggie Thatcher.) Some vague policy statements, all pure Social-Democratic. "The American people don't want less govt or more govt, they want smarter govt." Uh-huh. Posted at 11:45 AM
HILLARY, BARACK. BARACK, HILLARY [Byron York] From the Associated Press, based on today's "Meet the Press":
Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged Sunday he was considering a run for president in 2008, backing off previous statements that he would not do so.
The Illinois Democrat said he could no longer stand by the statements he made after his 2004 election and earlier this year that he would serve a full six-year term in Congress. He said he would not make a decision until after the Nov. 7 elections.
"That was how I was thinking at that time," said Obama, when asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" about his previous statements.
"Given the response I've been getting the last several months, I have thought about the possibility" although not with any seriousness or depth, he said. "My focus is on '06. ... After November 7, I'll sit down and consider it."
Posted at 11:56 AM
Obama, Brilliant [Kathryn Jean Lopez] I really don't believe this Obama for president business is serious — though stranger things have certainly happened. But I gotta imagine his publisher is happy. Posted at 8:39 AM
Obama 'O8 [Rich Lowry] At this point, I think he'd be crazy not to run. 1) Nothing he will ever do in the Senate will live up to his current buzz; 2) his celebrity will probably be a declining asset over time—best to try to cash it in now; 3) unless you embarass yourself, running for president usually becomes a credential for running again sometime in the future, and it may increase Obama's desirability as a VP candidate this time; 4) you never know—he just might win the nomination. So let me join those saying, "run Barack, run." Posted at 10:25 AM
Obama [Myrna Blyth] Personally, I think Barak Obama is the David Caruso of this political season. Caruso, you may remember, was the star of NYPD Blue and so hot, hot, hot that he left the show after just one season to become a Big Movie Star. Only trouble, after making several crummy movies, he is back on CSI: Miami, twelve years later, playing virtually the same role he played then. I don't doubt that will be Obama's career path. Posted at 10:29 AM
Obama [Jonah Goldberg] Well, since now is the time to divulge our feelings about the man, I'll join the fray. I think Obama is a compelling and attractive political figure. He's got charisma. He's legitimately bright. I thought his 2004 Convention speech was outstanding. I disagree with Myrna about the David Caruso comparison because it doesn't take into account the fact that there is an enormous yearing out there for a black president (as opposed to a successful Irish-looking actor with an Italian last name). This yearning is largely bipartisan among political elites and in much of America as well. Of course, Republicans want the first black president (or vice president) to be a Republican and Democrats want a Democrat. Personally, I think it'd be great to have a black president. Though that doesn't mean any black candidate would be good for America.
Regardless, my point is that more than anything media elites just really want a "moderate" black guy or gal in the Oval Office (more than they want a woman). One can almost hear Katie Couric's heart palpatating over the prospect. I think the mainstream media would give an Obama candidacy tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in free media and serve as firewall against negative campaigns. I agree with Rich that Obama should run now, in part because Senators get stale very quickly and politicians should always seize their moments (I'm talking strategy here). But also because I don't think Obama can afford to wait for another "minority" to get the nomination and win. If Hillary runs and wins. Obama's prospects plummet. If Hillary runs and loses Obama's prospects plummet. The Democratic Party won't throw up two identity politics candidates in a row. If Condoleeza runs as VP and wins, the novelty over Obama evaporates as well.
One last point about Obama. If he were a Republican, the left would be vicious about his "Oreoness." He grew up in Hawaii. His father was an African, not an African-American and Obama's life story has almost no interaction with traditional American black culture until he launched his political career. His mother is white. His name gives the impression that he's got some radical Afrocentrist credibility. But the truth is, it's just an African name. I don't hold any of this against him. Why would I? But, I think the double standard he benefits from is just one of the things he's got going for him. Posted at 10:55 AM
Re: Obama [Jonah Goldberg] Two views, from readers:
Jonah,
FWIW, as an Illinoisan, I agree with you about Barak Obama. I have watched his career for quite a while and he is no flavor of the day. He beat a party insider for his State Senate seat, and most out there have probably forgotten that he challenged (former Black Panther) Rep. Bobby Rush in the Dem Primary on the grounds that he was too radical and got nothing done in Congress. He might have won that seat if Rush's people hadn't put another guy in the race to split the opposition. He won the Senate Primary because he was the only candidate (in a large field) who was not joined at the hip with Daly, Madigan, et al. I opposed him in the general mostly because he would likely hold that Senate seat for life. Do not underestimate Obama, he's no John Edwards.
And:
Mr. Goldberg -
I don't get why anyone would think that Barak Obama is ready to run for president. What political success — as opposed to publicity success — has he achieved? In his only significant race, his maiden run for the Senate, he drove his Republican opponent from the race by getting a friendly California judge to open the sealed record of his divorce from Seven of Nine. Republicans then dithered for weeks looking for a replacement and settled on — Alan Keyes! Now, I admire Mr. Keyes as a principled public speaker, but he was not a credible Illinois resident, let alone a credible Illinois Senate candidate.
So, Barak beat Keyes. Big deal. Is Barbara Boxer a credible presidential candidate because she will beat Dick Mountjoy this year? John Kerry similarly won several Senate races in Massachusetts, and found out that running for President is not so easy when you have not been battle-hardened.
No one knows whether Obama is a decent candidate because he has not been tested in even one close election race. He might be good, but its unlikely. One reason Hillary Clinton is a strong candidate is that she has been so closely involved in two tight presidential elections, as well as her own Senate campaigns.
Obama for president? Not ready for prime time.
Obama the "Moderate" [Jonah Goldberg] Let me clarify one point. I shouldn't have suggested that I think Obama is a moderate. I think that's at best an open question. But I think the media certainly want a moderate black, and from their vantage point that's exactly what Obama is. Remember, all liberals are "moderates" according to the MSM. Posted at 11:35 AM
Labels & Obama [Jonah Goldberg] Ah, yes. The dye-marker "I don't believe in labels." From a reader:
One other note on Obama that struck me watching him on MTP:
The only people that talk about wanting to "get past labels" are people who are uncomfortable with the label that obviously fits them. Obama is a liberal, with a 100% ADA voting record. One question I wish Russert had asked (how many times have I thought that!) was "name three occasions when you've broken with the liberal interest groups that control the Democratic party." Sheesh, name one!
He's not a moderate, and his is not a Third Way. It's the same old liberalism, albeit intelligently and charismatically expressed.
Posted at 12:35 PM
The Obama Boomlet [John Podhoretz] May I just remind people that Senator Obama has a book out — and that Colin Powell inaugurated the brilliant marketing ploy of toying with running for president when he had a book out? Obama is very young, has no record to speak of, no foreign-policy or military experience and not much more than autobiography to sell him. It would be fun if he ran in 2008, but it would be a little bit nuts unless by the middle of 2007 it really looked like nobody who voted for the Iraq War resolution (i.e., Hillary) could win an early Dem state — in which case his lack of a Senate vote on the matter would be helpful to him. I still say he's basically selling a book and keeping his powder dry, but that he has 20 years to run for president and doesn't have to go in 2008. He could just go back to Illinois and become governor first, which is always a better perch to go for the White House. Posted at 1:46 PM
If he runs, I'll keep tabs and post what The Corner has to say. By the way, I agree with Podhoretz that being a state governor is a better route to the presidency than being a senator. After all, the responsibilities of governor parallel those of the president, in proportion.
After insightful metaphor of ostrich and owl, she provides (in an article at the Los Angeles Times) this kosmic kwote on how to save European culture and civilization:
This approach will be translated into a three-dimensional, comprehensive policy.
First, controlled or planned immigration. The European Union will introduce quotas such as those in the U.S., based on the selection of migrants who are beneficial to the economy. The current system in most European countries is designed to attract the highest number of people with truly heartbreaking stories, not the highest number of people who are willing and able to adapt to the European society.
Second, an intervention, sometimes proactive, in Europe's neighboring states or in failed states with conditions that force people to migrate in large numbers. This plan will consist of aid, trade, diplomatic pressure and military intervention, if necessary. That's taboo in Europe at the moment. Right now, the EU selects the countries it wants to aid based on lists provided by the World Bank or the United Nations. The criteria for aid are based on such vague notions as the 100 poorest countries or countries with good governance or some other goody-goody sounding reason. That should change.
Finally, in a best-case scenario, the EU will implement an assimilation program guided by the lessons learned from our failed attempts at multiculturalism. It will acknowledge that the basic tenets of Islam are a major obstacle to integration. In practice, Muslims will continue to enjoy religious freedom, as long as exercising that precious right does not infringe upon the freedoms of others, including daughters and wives.
In a best-case scenario, EU policymakers will invest in girls and women, protect them from violence and punish those who try to limit their freedoms. Those policymakers will reform the welfare state; regulations pertaining to the hiring and firing of employees will be made more flexible, making it easier for migrants to enter the labor market.
I believe Hirsi Ali has it in her to be the single most penetrating voice in the world on this issue. After just moving to America from Holland, she's just getting going. Judging by this article, she's off to a flying start.
Incidently, over at her blog, Hirsi Ali wrote movingly of meeting Oriana Fallaci, just before Fallaci died.
Dashh posts a good critique using the ever-more common line that Wilber does not provide evidence for the assertions he makes about human psychology. Here's a good kwote:
The slight of hand Wilber uses though is what bugs me, which is this - in that endnote Wilber takes a leap and asserts that he thinks the process that Blanck and Blanck summarize for early development also holds true for the conversion of temporary peak experiences and altered states to enduring structures/stages of consciousness – states and stages that are beyond the scope of those researched in mainstream developmental psychology. Is that a fair leap to make? Is it fair to use their research as support for his contentions about as yet studied states and stages assertions? I am certainly not saying that Wilber can’t theorize about these things but I do not think he should throw out the “research shows” and evidence cards for them if it doesn’t actually support that theorizing.
This would have made it to the upper echelon of all-time sports highlights had the Mets won last night; they didn't (the Cards did, which I'm glad for), so as it stands, still a phenomenal play, but will it be widely remembered? Probably not.
On video, a preview of her DVD "Metal Techniques of Bronze Age Masters: Russian Filigree". She is a true master herself, something quite evident from this preview alone. And if you are even thinking a little about acquiring one of her beautiful pieces, do it...because not only would you support a fantastic artist, but you will own something you will treasure, and will always be able to turn heads with. Her pieces are gorgeous!
That the implication from a recent study, at least when it comes to the subject of mathematics. As discussed in the Washington Post:
WASHINGTON - It is difficult to get through a day in an American school without hearing maxims such as these: "To succeed, you must believe in yourself," and "To teach, you must relate the subject to the lives of students."
But the Brookings Institution is reporting this week that countries such as the United States that embrace self-esteem, joy and real-world relevance in learning mathematics are lagging behind others that do not promote all that self-regard...
...Tom Loveless, the report's author, said that the findings do not mean that student happiness causes low achievement. But he wrote that his analysis of the international math assessment, the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, shows that U.S. schools should not be too quick to assume that happiness is what matters in the classroom.
"It is interesting that people grasp this notion in other areas of self-improvement -- eating healthy foods, getting exercise, saving for retirement -- but when it comes to education, for some reason, the limitations of happiness are forgotten," Loveless wrote.
Actually, here, at Hannah's blog. I happen to think they are 'effin cute, but then again, its my kin and I'm biologically compelled to. But, I mean, come on, a 15-month old and 65 acres of pumpkins and squash? Come on ...
Here's but one of many ... Twyla conducted rigorous testing to determine that these were the best hand drums of the patch:
BARACK OBAMA GIVING A RUN FOR PRESIDENT MORE THOUGHT
That's the report from today's Chicago Tribune. The main question appears to be how doing so will affect his family. I can relate to that, even in a small way.
Plus an update of how Hannah's film is coming along (nearing the end of pre-production; she shoots in just over a week!!)...all that and more over at her blog.
And like silly exhibitionists, we've decided to publish our IM chats publically at POLYSEMY Online. I know. Silly. But it is about art, talking about creativity, and Paul writing his novel. You gotta check it out.
Elegant Thorn Review, the poetry and photography journal created independently by William Harryman, is now live at its new home, POLYSEMY Online. Bill's newest content includes two brilliant poems by William Everson.
Check it out, adjust your bookmarks, and add the RSS/ATOM feeds to your reader. Because Elegant Thorn Review rocks.
Although 1 in 8 is not as bad as I thought it might be.
The United States could be rife with Internet addicts as clinically ill as alcoholics, an unprecedented study released suggested. Researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine in Silicon Valley said their telephone survey indicated more than one of every eight US residents showed at least one sign of "problematic Internet use."...
...According to preliminary research, the typical Internet addict was a single, college-educated, white male in his 30s, who spends approximately 30 hours a week on non-essential computer use.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's population officially hit 300 million at 7:46 a.m. EDT Tuesday, when the Census Bureau's population clock rolled over to the big number.
But there weren't any wild celebrations, fireworks or any other government-sponsored hoopla to mark the milestone. Why bother? Many experts think the population actually hit 300 million months ago.
"I don't think anybody believes it will be the precise moment when the population hits 300 million," Howard Hogan, the Census Bureau's associate director for demographic programs, said in an interview before the milestone was reached. But, he added, "We're confident that we're somewhat close."
It's not easy estimating the exact number of people in a country the size of the United States. It gets even more complicated when you take into account illegal immigration, another reason for the federal government to let the milestone pass quietly.
Technically, I'm 0.00000033333...% of the US of A. At least my digits go on to infinity...
Ok, silly math aside, what's interesting to me is both that U.S. population is increasing (counter trends in Western Europe), and that even with 300 million people, this country's population density is pretty low. We are roughly at 85 people per square mile. Whereas, for example, Germany is 598.5/sq mi, Italy is 499.4/sq mi, Israel is 787/sq mi, India is 852/sq mi, and so on. This is still a frontier country, with wide open spaces.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush signed legislation Tuesday authorizing tough interrogation of terror suspects and smoothing the way for trials before military commissions, calling it a "vital tool" in the war against terrorism.
Bush's plan for treatment of the terror suspects became law just six weeks after he acknowledged that the CIA had been secretly interrogating suspected terrorists overseas and pressed Congress to quickly give authority to try them in military commissions.
"With the bill I'm about to sign, the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people will face justice," Bush said.
A coalition of religious groups staged a protest against the bill outside the White House, shouting "Bush is the terrorist" and "Torture is a crime." About 15 of the protesters, standing in a light rain, refused orders to move. Police arrested them one by one.
I struck gold when I found an online collection of free sheet music of the works of songwriter/composer Stephen Foster (America's first on both counts). Of Foster's pen are classics such as "Beautiful Dreamer", "Camptown Races", "Oh Susanna!", "Gentle Annie" and so many more. My favorite right now is "Slumber My Darling". It is a startlingly gorgeous lullaby.
If you are an American, there is really no way you have escaped the influence of Foster's music, directly or indirectly. So many people through the last 150 years have learned and performed his music; it has permeated the air of America. It feels like home. I find, as I learn them now and perform them for Twyla and Hannah, that I enjoy the fact that these songs deal with death, sorrow, home, family, and deep longing. I think children should be exposed to all of these (especially death and the importance of family) from an early age, rather than shielded (as, sadly, so much children's literature, music, and theatre of the last century has done). Why? Because understanding life requires it.
When handled with care and life, his music today is as immediate as anything. Check out this NPR report that features cuts off the album Beautiful Dreamer: The Songs of Stephen Foster that is well worth purchasing. And, as you will learn, he is no uncomplicated artist, and produced no uncomplicated music. That, too, means his work is all the more part of America's history. For all this and more, I view Foster as a main cultural root of what makes this country alive.
That's the name of CJ's recent thoughtful piece which takes up a question I had posed, namely "If we aren't to take the Bible literally, how then is the Bible still relevant to our lives?" I particularly enjoy that he quotes from the Gospel of Matthew, invites us to close-read it, and then provides insights. Check it out, and I'll have something to say soon, in the spirit of civil back and forth.
I actually wonder if this question is something other bloggers would be interested in taking up? This question can be gotten at from many angles, of course. And I'd be interested in reading all of them.
Two videos (one of the official Fox broadcast, the other from a fan's point of view) of the fantastically moving home run by Ordonez that won the pennant for the Detroit Tigers, and marched them into the World Series. Watch them both — the second one, in particular, because the emotion is palpable. Stuff like this is why we watch sports.
Hannah reminded me about the discussion about immunization, and what led to our eventual choice. So I added the two paragraphs below to my short essay Raising Twyla:
Deciding whether or not to immunize Twyla was an important early discussion. At first, our inclination was to not immunize. Our rationale being that Hannah wanted to breastfeed as long as Twyla wanted to, and because breast milk contains so much medicinal for children, that would be enough. We further thought, as a result of various readings, that immunizations would set Twyla up for a cycle of dependency on modern medicine. One thing we were lucky about was that Twyla's Dr. Lang was open-minded, willing to talk at length with us about this issue, and said upfront he didn't want to impose his preference upon the situation. What we decided, ultimately, was this: we delayed immunization until Twyla was four months old, then she started the regular course for immunizations thereafter.
We decided this, in part, because we learned that there is no solid reason to begin immunizations as soon as some pediatricians want to, and, furthermore, by allowing Twyla to get older, not only would she be stronger physically and emotionally (to deal with the pain of the injections), but also more aware of Mama and Papa. This meant she was better able to realize that we were there, protecting her, ready to sooth and comfort her after the injections were done. Another piece of information which helped our choice: in a moment of candor that we appreciated, Dr. Lang said that in part he could not understand the movement in developed countries of parents refusing immunizations, when so many third-world and developing countries are trying so hard to get children in their countries immunized. For us, everything clicked: the desire to not immunize was understandable, but ultimately something that if all parents chose, would mean a likely return of many childhood diseases, which widespread immunization has successfully prevented. Plus, if we travel to other countries, Twyla will need to show proof of various immunizations, and we certainly want to travel.
Barack Obama is clearly taking the cultural temperature, to see if conditions are right for him to run for the presidency. In publicizing his new book, he's been on Oprah, Larry King Live, the cover of Time magazine, and, just this weekend, on NBC's Meet The Press, where he said it was "fair" to say that he's thinking about running. (And he's on the cover of today's Chicago Sun-Times, at right.)
I struck gold when I found an online collection of free sheet music of