|
|
Friday, September 26th, 2008
(Warning: not-completely-coherent post by upset and angry blogger:) The Republicans have scuttled an agreement to address the crisis in our banking system. Paul Krugman (whose blog The Conscience of a Liberal is absolutely vital reading right now) notes an interesting exchange between Henry Paulson and Nancy Pelosi: In the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, not to "blow it up" by withdrawing her party's support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal.
"I didn't know you were Catholic," Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson's kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: "It's not me blowing this up, it's the Republicans."
Mr. Paulson sighed. "I know. I know." So the point is, if he knows, why isn't he -- why aren't responsible Republicans -- doing something about it? They have been spending the last 30 years building up and enabling and empowering the most vile, reprehensible elements of their party. Change at this point is their responsibility and their burden.
 Note: and as far as, "What can we-who-are-not-'Responsible Republicans' do?", it seems to me like all we can do is concentrate the power of the Republican party in the hands of the irresponsible crazies -- the Republicans who can be forced from office by Democrats are more likely to be of the "RR" type, is how it seems to me anyways. Kind of paradoxical but giving power to RR's is giving power to those they enable.
posted morning of September 26th, 2008: Respond
➳ More posts about Politics
|  |
|
 The Apostropher links to photos of an abandoned train station in Abkhazia (originally posted by LiveJournal user zyalt). Just beautiful. Reminds me a bit of the beautiful (if not nearly as ornate) abandoned train station in Liberty State Park, in Jersey City.*
 The ru_sovarch community at LiveJournal has lots more photos of old architecture in and around Russia. *Note: Hm, it just occured to me I should specify that said station is not really that beautiful anymore; for about the last 10 years it has been converted into a park building, with a new floor put in and is basically unrecognizable now.
posted morning of September 26th, 2008: Respond
➳ More posts about Pretty Pictures
|  |
|
Tonight we're going in to the city and listen to Spike Lee and James McBride discussing their new movie, Miracle at St. Anna. The talk is sold out! Exciting -- I'm looking forward to that star-struck feeling I get from being in the same room as an author whose work I respect. This movie looks like it's going to be really interesting! Afterwards we will meet up with my sister and who knows? Maybe watch the presidential debate. If McCain succeeds in cancelling it we will just hang out and commiserate about the times and the mores.
posted morning of September 26th, 2008: Respond
➳ More posts about The Movies
|  |
Thursday, September 25th, 2008
Saramago says (apologies for the roughness of the translation):
I suppose that in the beginning of the beginnings, before we invented speech, which is as we know, the supreme creator of incertitude, no serious doubt tormented us about who we were, about our personal and collective relationship with the place where we found ourselves. The world, obviously, could only be that which our eyes see at each moment, and furthermore, as important complementary information, that which our remaining senses -- hearing, touch, smell, taste -- appreciate. At this initial hour the world was pure appearance and pure superficiality. Material was simply rough or smooth, bitter or sweet, sour or bland, sound or silent, smelly or odorless. All things were that which they appeared to be, for the simple reason that they had no motive for appearing some other way or for being some other thing. ... I imagine that the spirit of philosophy and the spirit of science were manifest on that day, when someone had the intuition that appearance, being the external image that consciousness could capture and use as a map of knowledge, might also be an illusion of the senses. It is more often used in reference to the moral world than to the physical, the popular expression that says: "Appearances can be deceiving." Or illusory, which is more or less the same thing...This scribe has always been preoccupied with what was behind mere appearances, and now I'm not talking about atoms or subatomic particles, which, as such, are always the appearance of something that is hidden. I speak, yes, of current issues, routine, everyday, for example, the political system we call democracy, one that Churchill called the least bad of all known systems. He did not say the best, he said the least bad. For that which we are seeing, which it seems that we consider more than sufficient, and that, I believe, is an error of perception, whether we recognize it or not, we will be paying every day of our lives. Let us return to the matter.
posted evening of September 25th, 2008: Respond
➳ More posts about Saramago's Notebook
|  |
Wednesday, September 24th, 2008
I found a really well-written, informative review of Stroszek at Pajiba's Twisted Masterpieces. Recommended. Also, in comments thereto, the information that Joy Division lead singer Ian Curtis killed himself after watching this film.
posted morning of September 24th, 2008: Respond
➳ More posts about Stroszek
| |
Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008
After the event this evening I made my way over to where Mr. Pamuk was sitting and said "Thank you very much for your books." I felt uncomfortable and more than a little star-struck; but he was very gracious and thanked me for saying it. And signed my book! -- Other Colors, that is; he signed it, as I asked him to, on p. 110 at the head of the essay "On Reading: Words or Images", which has made a very strong impression on me. (Unfortunately my plan where he would say, "Oh, you're the fellow who's writing so much about my work in his blog! listen, I was very taken with your reading of..." didn't pan out. Oh well, maybe next time...)
posted evening of September 23rd, 2008: Respond
➳ More posts about Orhan Pamuk
|  |
|
Just a few things that caught my attention. Tonight marks the first anniversary of the September 24th demonstration in Rangoon and the regime's ongoing brutal response. Part of the program was a film of that day's events -- the scene that remains in my head is of a wounded protester lying on the pavement crying, "Don't retreat! Let them wash their feet with our blood!" Joseph Lelyveld spoke about the difficulty of printing news in Burma and the actions of the censorship board -- with visual aids of a newspaper laid out for printing, with six out of nine stories struck through by the censor's pen. He told us about author Saw Wei, imprisoned this spring for a Valentine's Day poem containing the acrostic statement that "General Than Shwe is crazy with power." (The poem references acrostic poet Walter Arensberg.) Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro spoke about his meeting with U Win Tin, who at 79 is the oldest political prisoner held by the Burmese regime. Earlier today Win Tin had been released, ostensibly as part of an amnesty of political prisoners by the regime. He is refusing (if I understand correctly) to be considered as part of a larger amnesty and says, "I will keep fighting until the emergence of democracy in this country." Pamuk and Kiran Desai conducted a readers' theater in which Desai read first-person accounts from victims of Cyclone Nargis, and Pamuk read state-sanctioned reporting of the same events. The articles from the state press were just unbelievable -- total disregard for the truth, totally condescending toward the subjects of the reporting -- one piece was a column about the trees being back in leaf, noting that the trees had not needed any tarpaulins or bottled water or chocolate bars distributed by international relief agencies.
Pictures of the event at MediaBistro and at Tricycle.
posted evening of September 23rd, 2008: Respond
| |
|
Hey anybody who's around NYC tonight and has no plans or easily changeable ones: this event is going to be well worth your time and the price of the ticket. Orhan Pamuk, Salman Rushdie and several other authors will be reading from their work at a PEN benefit for victims of the cyclone and for freedom of expression in Burma. 7 pm at Cooper Union. If you can make it, drop me a line and we can meet up.
 Update: Not "from their work", not sure how I got that idea -- readings were from the work of imprisoned Burmese dissidents, as would make more sense given the nature of the event. What an amazing evening!
posted morning of September 23rd, 2008: Respond
➳ More posts about Readings
|  |
Monday, September 22nd, 2008
Saramago says (approximately -- I am no Jull Costa; but with a little help from Google I can get something I think close to what he has written):
I believe that every word we pronounce, every movement and gesture,... each one and all of them together, can be understood as pieces of an unintentional autobiography, which although involuntary, or for that very reason, is no less sincere and truthful than the most thorough of stories of life written on paper. ...I propose a day, more earnestly than it might seem at first glance, when every human being would have to let his life story be written down, and that these thousands of millions of volumes, as they began to overflow the Earth, should be transported to the Moon. This would mean that the great, the enormous, the gigantic, the excessive, the vast library of human existence would have to be subdivided, at first into two parts, and then, with the passage of time, into three, into four, eventually into nine, always supposing that the eight remaining planets of the solar system would have environments hospitable enough to respect the fragility of paper. ...Like the greater portion of good ideas, this one too is unrealizable. Have patience.
posted evening of September 22nd, 2008: Respond
➳ More posts about José Saramago
|  |
|
Matt Yglesias links this really interesting article in the Washington Post: Study Ties Wage Disparities To Outlook on Gender Roles. If I'm reading it correctly, it seems to be saying that traditional-minded sexist men earn substantially more money than "egalitarian" men, for similar work -- egalitarian men in turn earn more than egalitarian women, who earn more than sexist women. It would be interesting to see how the study separated people into "traditional-minded" and "egalitarian" baskets. With respect to the lowest-earning group, sexist women, the study's author asks, "If you were a traditional-minded woman, would you say, 'I am fine working the same hours as a traditional-minded man in the same industry with the same education but earning substantially less'? I don't think traditional-minded women would say that." This seems wrong to me -- it seems like the difference between "traditional-minded" women and the other groups is probably the easiest to explain in terms of self-image and expectations. (Caveat -- this depends on what is actually meant by "traditional-minded" in the context of the study. I am thinking of it as inoccuous shorthand for "misogynist," which was how the article seemed to be portraying it, but I have no idea how close to accurate that may be.)
 You can see more information about the study, including the participants form and a dissertation proposal, at Beth Livingston's site; Ms. Livingston is a co-author of the study.
posted afternoon of September 22nd, 2008: 2 responses
| Previous posts
Archives  | |
|
Drop me a line! or, sign my Guestbook.
•
Check out Ellen's writing at Patch.com.
| |
