Quite Possibly the Definitive Reading of Ferris Bueller's Day Off

...or, at the very least, a really fabulous non-canonical reading. Quoting from some dude on the internet (via Gerry Canavan), cutting only the totally unnecessary spoilers for a different movie (which I'd never seen, thanks a lot S.D.O.T.I.):

My favorite thought-piece about Ferris Bueller is the [following] theory, in which Ferris Bueller, the person, is just a figment of Cameron's imagination... and Sloane is the girl Cameron secretly loves.

One day while he's lying sick in bed, Cameron lets "Ferris" steal his father's car and take the day off, and as Cameron wanders around the city, all of his interactions with Ferris and Sloane, and all the impossible hijinks, are all just played out in his head. This is part of the reason why the "three" characters can see so much of Chicago in less than one day -- Cameron is alone, just imagining it all.

It isn't until he destroys the front of the car in a fugue state does he finally get a grip and decide to confront his father, after which he imagines a final, impossible escape for Ferris and a storybook happy ending for Sloane ("He's gonna marry me!"), the girl that Cameron knows he can never have.

Portrait of a Regional Party?

Based on this Kos post, I made up this map of the post-Specter Senate Republicans:

The claim is that this is a regional party, based in the south and the western Mormon corridor.

Maybe I'm just overly pessimistic, or cautious, but I think that's jumping the gun. Sure, those areas are where their strength are. And with only 40 Senators, its not that surprising their strength is somewhat localized. But while they may be becoming a regional party, I think it's overly optimistic to say they are one. (Not to mention that the Democrats have made real inroads back into the South, albeit mostly the upper South.)

That New England Republican remnant sure stands out, though.

Meanwhile, if anyone wants to make a map like this for House districts, I suspect that'd be far more telling... and far more murky (hence my being unwilling to say flatly, yes, they're a regional party.)

Shorter Obama Administration

Shorter Obama Administration: We'll confirm that torture was committed; we just want to assure everyone that we won't actually prosecute the crimes.

As Benen implies, this might be a justifiable stance -- at least it'd be defensible -- if it was coupled with aggressive prosecution of those who authorized, ordered and supervised the torture while letting off the grunts who actually committed it. But absent full war crimes trials of the torture masterminds -- including Bush and Cheney along with all the rest -- this is simply a pathetic nullification of basic laws, seasoned with some particularly hypocritical rhetoric about this being a "nation of laws".

Yes, we're a nation of laws: therefore we'll make sure everyone knows precisely what those laws are as we let the torturers off the hook for violating them.

Despicable. And edging horribly close to being an accomplice-after-the-fact (morally, I mean: I don't know about the legality of that status -- IANAL).

Update: Interestingly, Glenn Greenwald -- who has been following this issue extremely closely -- is more upbeat. He also seems to take seriously a statement by Senator Russ Feingold that while Obama won't "prosecute those who acted reasonably and relied in good faith upon legal advice... his decision does not mean that anyone who engaged in activities that the Department had not approved, those who gave improper legal advice or those who authorized the program could not be prosecuted." (Similar statements were made by anonymous administration officials.)

So perhaps I'm too pessimistic here. I dunno. I oppose the "following orders" defense, which Andrew Sullivan (like Greenwald, an admirably close follower of this issue) properly calls the Nuremberg defense. On the other hand, it is unquestionably more important for those who created, justified and authorized the torture to be prosecuted than those who obeyed orders. If that's still in the cards, I may retract this post.

But for the moment I'm disappointed.

Quotes of the Day: The Blessing of the New Sun Edition

The heavens declare the glory of God,
the sky proclaims His handiwork.
Day to day makes utterance,
night to night speaks out.
There is no utterance,
there are no words,
whose sound goes unheard.
Their voice carries throughout the earth,
their words to the end of the world.
He placed in them a tent for the sun,
who is like a groom coming forth from the chamber,
like a hero, eager to run his course.
His rising-place is at one end of heaven,
and his circuit reaches the other;
nothing escapes his heat.

-- Psalm 19:2-7 (JPS translation)

Today observant Jews say birkat hachama, the blessing for the sun (sometimes translated the blessing for the new sun). It is said only once every twenty-eight years (it was last said April 8, 1981; it will next be said April 8, 2037).*

It's all a fraud, of course. It's based on the Julian calendar, which is inaccurate; it's based on the incorrect date for the equinox; even on its own terms, the Jewish calendar is off by 165 years; and, of course, the entire thing is based on the notion that the sun was created 5769 years ago, which is off by about 4,600,000,000 years. (You can find more on the errors behind the blessing at Dov Bear (and also (but also)), at parshablog and here from Rav Bar-hayim. More on every aspect of the blessing can be found at Hirhurim.)

And those are only the prettier aspects of the matter -- I'm not even mentioning that it's based upon a cosmology which was upended by Copernicus (see above quote from Psalm 19), let alone the fact that it celebrates a creator for whom the existing evidence is non-existent. We don't need to go there, since even in a quite traditional framework, it's all based on a series of errors (if not myths).

But so what? It's not about accuracy. It's about the ritual. And it's a once-in-twenty-eight-years opportunity.**

So around the time this post is published, I'll be getting up at a quite ungodly hour, and will take my new son with me to say the blessing of the new sun. And I hope that when he's 28 years, 15 weeks, and 3 days old, we'll go together again.

But, of course, what occurred to me when I heard about the Blessing of the New Sun was this:

What struck me on the beach--and it struck me indeed, so that I staggered as at a blow--was that if the Eternal Principle had rested in that curved thorn I had carried about my neck across so many leagues, and if it now rested in the new thorn (perhaps the same thorn) I had only now put there, then it might rest in everything, in every thorn in every bush, in every drop of water in the sea. The thorn was a sacred Claw because all thorns were sacred Claws; the sand in my boots was sacred sand because it came from a beach of sacred sand. The cenobites treasured up the relics of the sannyasins because the sannyasins had approached the Pancreator. But everything had approached and even touched the Pancreator, because everything had dropped from his hand. Everything was a relic. All the world was a relic. I drew off my boots, that had traveled with me so far, and threw them into the waves that I might not walk shod on holy ground.

-- Gene Wolfe, The Book of the New Sun
(The Citadel of the Autarch, chapter 31)

-- which, of course, is the point of the whole thing.

Happy birkat hachama day to everyone. For those of you who wish to say it, you have until a third of the daylight hours have passed (more lenient authorities say half).

Oh, and isn't there something else that Jews do tomorrow? What was that again? Well, happy holiday (to any and all who wish to receive it) for that one too...

_____________________
* Yes, April 8, both times, despite the fact that the Jewish calendar doesn't line up with the Gregorian calendar -- because this bracha is timed to (oddly) the Julian calendar, which lines up well enough with the Gregorian to preserve the date over this span.

** Of course some will object that I could get up and say the words "Blessed are You, Lord our God, sovereign of the universe who makes the works of creation"near sunrise any time I'm willing to get up that early.*** But that doesn't affect the fact that this is a once-in-twenty-eight-years opportunity. I mean, sure, you can say the words when you want -- just as (borrowing a metaphor from Stanley Cavell) you can go to a chessboard and pick up the little piece of wood called the knight and move it horizontally eight spaces. But this is not moving the knight; it's pushing around a piece of wood on a board. Similarly, the words can be said whenever you like; but the only opportunities to do the ritual come once every twenty-eight years.

*** Which makes this, yes, about a once-in-twenty-eight-years event, for a whole 'nother reason.

And Then There Were Four

Vermont just became -- along with Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa -- the fourth state in our union to allow marriage on a non-discriminatory basis.

Even better, it was the first one to do so simply through legislative action -- there was no judicial ruling that it was necessary. (The governor vetoed it; the legislature overrode the veto.) Like many other proponents of equal marriage rights, while I think the court rulings in its favor are proper, correct and entirely legitimate, I think it is preferable to have equality achieved legislatively.

Hey -- New York? My home state? We could still be #5 y'know. How about it?

I'd say "4 down, 46 to go" but actually there is another battle too -- one that is arguably more important than any victory in the remaining 46 states -- namely, getting the federal government to recognize the marriages done in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa & Vermont on an equal basis. Currently, the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" prohibits that (as well as stating that no state needs to recognize same-sex marriages done in another state). Putting aside for the moment the issues of recognition by other states, it seems to me that we should at least get rid of that provision. At the moment, same-sex couples who marry in one of the four non-discriminatory states have many benefits denied them due to federal non-recognition of their marriages. It seems to me a top priority is assuring that, at least in those states that choose to be non-discriminatory, marriages can be fully and genuinely equal.

But that's for tomorrow. For today: hooray for Vermont!

RIP, Andy Hallett (1975 - 2009)

Andy Hallett, who Whedon fans know as the actor who played "The Host" a.k.a. Lorne a.k.a. Krevlornswath of the Deathwok Clan on Angel (from season two on) just died of heart failure at the really appallingly young age of 33. He added a really astonishing amount to the show, and was fabulous throughout. It's really a terrible loss, even far beyond his family and friends, who must be devastated.

RIP.

Quote of the Day

When I was a kid, I remember hearing that cockroaches would not only survive the sure-to-happen US-Soviet nuclear holocaust, but actually emerge stronger than ever as they devour our irradiated corpses. Similarly, there’s a new think tank in town, headed by Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan, and former Coalition Provisional Authority spokesguy Dan Senor.

-- Matt Yglesias

...although, on second thought, this is grossly unfair to the cockroaches, who under the nuclear-holocaust scenario would simply be benefiting from our stupidity; whereas Kristol and Kagan (and maybe Senor, I don't know) were major players in causing the destruction they are now attempting to feast of off. For this parallel to work we'd have to imagine cockroaches actually starting a nuclear war, and then flourishing as they devoured our corpses....

File Under "Google is !@#$%ing Awesome"

A google search for "Lilly Rosemary" -- just those two words -- brought up, first, a video of the Dylan song I was searching for. The fourth hit was a link to the lyrics on Dylan's official site; the fifth was to the song's wikipedia page.

Amazing.

Besides, this recent Google logo:

--was enough to warm any new parent's heart. (More here; design by Eric Carle himself.)

On blog-related matters: sorry for my recent radio silence. There is no reason except the main reason. I keep hoping that my life will return to a sufficient balance that I can blog somewhat more (I have a number of longer pieces I want to write when I find the time); but so far, no. (By this time last year, I'd put up 54 posts; so far this year, I've managed a third of that, and almost all of those have been quick links & quotes, rather than more substantial pieces.) I continue to hope things will change. In the meantime, my apologies; and, as always, I invite you to browse the archives -- or the other fine blogs in my sidebar.

Quote of the Day My Year

Infancy conforms to nobody: all conform to it, so that one babe commonly makes four or five out of the adults who prattle and play to it.

-- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

...Emerson just mentioned forcing conformity to overall attitude, but I swear that I somehow remembered him also specifically referring to schedules (and nap times in particular).

The Perfect Counter-Protest to Fred Phelps's Hatred

You know Fred Phelps, that guy who goes around picketing funerals (I mean, really -- picketing funerals -- how low can you go?) with signs that say things like "God hates fags"? Well, via Pharyngula, someone came up with possibly the ideal counter-protest:

(Explanation for the Lovecraft impaired.)

Poem of the Day: A Postcard from the Volcano

A Postcard from the Volcano

Children picking up our bones

Will never know that these were once

As quick as foxes on the hill;

And that in autumn, when the grapes

Made sharp air sharper by their smell

These had a being, breathing frost;

And least will guess that with our bones

We left much more, left what still is

The look of things, left what we felt

At what we saw. The spring clouds blow

Above the shuttered mansion house,

Beyond our gate and the windy sky

Cries out a literate despair.

We knew for long the mansion's look

And what we said of it became

A part of what it is ... Children,

Still weaving budded aureoles,

Will speak our speech and never know,

Will say of the mansion that it seems

As if he that lived there left behind

A spirit storming in blank walls,

A dirty house in a gutted world,

A tatter of shadows peaked to white,

Smeared with the gold of the opulent sun.

-- Wallace Stevens

Quote of the Day: The Elves of Iceland

Stealing just a bit of Hilzoy's quote from Vanity Fair:

Alcoa, the biggest aluminum company in the country, encountered two problems peculiar to Iceland when, in 2004, it set about erecting its giant smelting plant. The first was the so-called "hidden people" -- or, to put it more plainly, elves -- in whom some large number of Icelanders, steeped long and thoroughly in their rich folkloric culture, sincerely believe. Before Alcoa could build its smelter it had to defer to a government expert to scour the enclosed plant site and certify that no elves were on or under it. It was a delicate corporate situation, an Alcoa spokesman told me, because they had to pay hard cash to declare the site elf-free but, as he put it, "we couldn't as a company be in a position of acknowledging the existence of hidden people."

Hilzoy adds: "Possibly the Icelandic banks should have made sure there were no hidden people lurking in their balance sheets, waiting to take revenge on anyone who disturbed them."

Eugene Onegin in English: Comparing Translations

One of my more neglected hobbies is comparing poetry translations. Because poetic translation is so over-constrained -- so that, in the words of Vladimir Nabokov, a rhymed translation that also "translate[s] the entire poem literally is mathematically impossible" -- any attempt to put it into a new tongue is going to involve contentious aesthetic choices. For that matter, the same is hardly less true of translation of unrhymed poetry: since poetry, practically by definition, involves playing with the specifics of its original language ("poetry is what's lost in translation" opines Robert Frost from off under his apple tree). So it's fun to see the different ways that people do it. Watching others attempt the impossible is always entertaining, which is why people go to circuses.

For me, it's fun in particular with canonical heavyweights -- if only because lots of translations of them tend to exist. In times past, I've collected translations of, in particular, Goethe's Faust, but also (to a lesser extent) of the Odyssey, the Bible, and Dante's Divine Comedy.

And Eugene Onegin.

Onegin is particularly fun for a number of reasons. Above all, it's form is so ridiculously confining that -- even knowing, as I do, not a word of the original language -- it look like it ought to be impossible to translate. And, indeed, Vladimir Nabokov -- one of my personal favorite authors, a giant of both 20th-century English and 20th-century Russian literature -- specifically declared that doing a rhymed translation was impossible (indeed, mathematically so; op. cit.). And his furious attacks on the attempts of Walter Arndt to prove him wrong created the biggest literary spat of the 1960's, including the rupture of his famous friendship with critic Edmund Wilson, who rose to Arndt's defense. Despite Nabokov's mathematics, a number of translators have attempted Onegin while preserving its rhymes.*

A word about the Onegin stanza. It's a cousin to a sonnet, although with some key differences. First of all, it's in tetrameter, not pentameter (four beats per line not five). Secondly, as opposed to either the traditional Petrarchian (ABBAABBACDECDE) or Shakespearean (ABABCDCDEFEFGG) rhyme schemes, the Onegin stanza uses one of its own (ABABCCDDEFFEGG) -- one which deliberately goes through the three possible variations on a rhymed quatrain (ABAB, CCDD, EFFE) with an additional couplet to close it off (GG). Finally, Pushkin alternates masculine and feminine rhymes (the former are rhymes which rhyme only one syllable -- head, dead -- and the latter are ones which rhyme more than one -- platter, clatter).

Some English-language poetry has been written directly in Onegin stanzas, so you can get an idea of what it's like. First and foremost, Vikram Seth's absolutely delightful verse novel, The Golden Gate, is written entirely in Onegin stanzas, in a direct homage to Eugene Onegin (actually, to its 1977 translation by Charles Johnston); you can read some sample stanzas from it here, but they only give a taste -- you really ought to go read the whole thing. Then there's Nabokov's two-stanza poem "On Translating Eugene Onegin", also written directly in English in Onegin stanzas.

Anyway, the point here is that it's a tight, tough little form. Hard to do.

I had heard of Onegin before -- I'd taken a whole college class on Nabokov back in the day -- but what really turned me on to the existing English translations was reading Douglas Hofstadter's delightful (if often infuriating) book Le Ton Beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language. He devotes two chapters two Onegin. One he devotes to praising and comparing four rhymed translations -- those of Oliver Elton (1937, later rev. by A. D. P. Briggs), Walter Arendt (1963, rev. 1978), Charles Johnston (1977), and above all that of James Falen (1990); the other he devotes to attacking the "vile non-verse" of Nabokov's deliberately ugly translation. And, much to my surprise as a self-identified Nabokov fan, Hofstadter won me over.** I began collecting Onegin translations when I saw them.

One of those eventually included that of Douglas Hofstadter himself (1999), who taught himself enough Russian to go at the task, so enamoured was he of the poem after his two-chapter gear-up in his earlier book. In the introduction he talks about all of the above-cited translations as well as his own, and also about the translation of Babette Deutsch (1936, rev. 1964) which he had read since the completion of his earlier book. In the first book, he gives four stanzas in each of the five translations (counting Nabokov) that he highlights; in the introduction to his own translation, he gives an additional stanza in seven (counting his own).

Hofstadter, by the way, is still at it. If you scroll way down in this online talk of his (or simply search for the word "Deutsch") you'll find eight versions of Chapter 2, Stanza 38 (the original Russian and seven translations of it), which he quotes and discusses.

But yesterday, while I was procrastinating on grading the papers I need to grade engaged in deep intellectual questing, I discovered that there are two new rhymed translations since Hofstadter's discussions were published: that of Tom Beck (2004) who, like Hofstadter, taught himself Russian for the task (sample stanzas here), and that of Stanley Mitchell (2008), which seems to be the most recent (chapter two is online in its entirety here).

Since I happened to have on hand the first stanza of all of Hofstadter's seven translations -- plus a literal one Arndt did for a book called Pushkin Threefold, plus the Russian (of which I did not understand a word), I dug up the first stanzas of the Beck and Mitchell two, and thus had a complete set of ten versions to compare.

Rather than hide the fruits of my obsession, I decided to post all ten here. (I put them on a separate web page to hide them from all this blather, and generally for easier reference.) As I say in the sidebar, I may add more when I have another set of papers to get through the time. (I don't know if I should post the stanzas that Hofstdater reprints -- which might be nice to have online, and with the Beck and Mitchell added -- or if I should try to add others, whether my favorites or simply ones that have gotten some attention from other people (e.g. the one Boyd compares in his Nabokov biography, or perhaps "the great/Fourth stanza of... Canto Eight"). Any thoughts?)

Anyway, once again, here's a link to Nine different versions of a Eugene Onegin stanza in English (with a bonus couplet from another stanza tucked in at the end). I hope that at least some of you may find them half as fascinating as I do. I think that reading them can tell you a lot about translation, poetry, rich dying relatives, and other noteworthy things.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I might have some papers to grade. Or something.

Update: At the suggestion of several readers, I've added the 1881 translation of Henry Spalding (that link goes to the complete text on Project Gutenberg) -- not one of my favorites, but for completion's sake it's now there.

______________________
* Which doesn't by itself prove Nabokov wrong, since he only said it was impossible to translate Onegin faithfully with rhymes preserved.

** For a good argument on the Nabokov side of the debate, see Brian Boyd's comparison of the Deutsch, Arndt, Johnston and Nabokov translations in the Onegin chapter of his biography Vladimir Nabokov: the American Years.

Updike on Science

Quote from here (via Andrew Sullivan):

The non-scientist's relation to modern science is basically craven: we look to its discoveries and technology to save us from disease, to give us a faster ride and a softer life, and at the same time we shrink from what it has to tell us of our perilous and insignificant place in the cosmos. Not that threats to our safety and significance were absent from the pre-scientific world, or that arguments against a God-bestowed human grandeur were lacking before Darwin. But our century's revelations of unthinkable largeness and unimaginable smallness, of abysmal stretches of geological time when we were nothing, of supernumerary galaxies and indeterminate subatomic behavior, of a kind of mad mathematical violence at the heart of matter have scorched us deeper than we know.

-- John Updike (1985)

-- an oft-said sentiment, but, as is his wont, Updike just expresses it so bloody well.

Obama's Bushian Policies

What Hilzoy said about Obama's endorsement of Bush's use of the state secrets program. ("What Hilzoy said" is the new "what Digby said", I think...)

Shame, shame, shame on the Obama administration.

Glenn Greenwald's two posts on this issue are also highly recommended.

Why Obama's Losing (Control of) the Debate

I don't dissent from the emerging (left) blogosphere consensus on why Obama is getting kicked around on the stimulus bill, and losing a lot of momentum in general in his presidency in the process (see e.g. Josh Marshall, Steve Benen, Digby and company; etc). In fact, it seems to me that you could sum it up in a sentence:

Post-partisanship is an extremely successful political strategy, but an extremely poor governing strategy.

Obama's penchant for post-partisanship -- which shows every sign of being quite sincerely held -- was always the thing I liked least about him; and it damaged him in one of the few areas I thought he needed real improvement, namely his inconsistency in articulating a powerful liberal philosophy (which he did well when he wanted). But I was the exception here. A lot of people have a vague sense that the problem in politics is all the political bickering, and that politicians need to sit down, get past ideology, and be practical -- indeed, this is a belief that unites (ironically) those who pay very little attention to politics and the David Broders of the world who compose the American political & media elite.* It sounds adult and serious; when Obama said it, it sounds uplifting and hopeful. It made you want to vote for him. So it's good politics: it gets votes.

But it's terrible for governing. Because to govern, you need to actually pass bills that deal with issues people disagree vehemently about. Because the Republican party is terrible at running the government (as we all learned these past eight years of misgovernance), but are far, far better than the Democrats at being the opposition party: controlling the debate, blocking things that need doing. Because the Republicans know that if nothing gets done -- and dear God there are a lot of things that need doing, desperately and urgently -- then whatever the reasons for the failure, however much there may be good arguments that it was an obstructionist minority party that messed it up, voters will (in their recurring and basically sound strategy of low-information voting) throw out the ruling party when things go badly. So as long as they care only about power and not about the country -- and frankly I think that's pretty clear (if you disagree, simply read this as: "as long as they, like Rush Limbaugh, are rooting for Obama to fail") -- then they can win simply by blocking every attempt at solving the mess we're in. Because, ultimately, the Republicans aren't going to try to work with the Democrats in good faith; they're going to try to sabotage them. And they're very, very, very good at sabotage.

Having won the election on a campaign that included both a host policy proposals and a vague rhetoric of post-partisanship, what Obama needed to do -- and still needs to do, since I don't think it's too late, although if he doesn't change course soon it might be -- was confine the post-partisanship to symbols like giving Rick Warren an inauguration slot and going to dinner with conservative columnists, and get his damn agenda through the Congress. Get us out of Iraq. Stimulate the economy. Start to deal with global warming. Repair some of the damage Bush did to our constitution. Make things better.

Because if hope and rhetoric about a new politics are what get you elected, things getting better are what get you reelected.

Not to mention the fact that we're in deep shit and the country really needs a lot of help.

Focusing on post-partisanship lets them control the debate, and the Republicans just want Obama to fail (as their liege-lord, Limbaugh, said plainly; and woe betides any Republican who crosses Rush!). So throw them a rhetorical bone and get to work repairing the country already.

When Republicans controlled everything, they dominated the political debate, marched in lock-step, and passed through Bush's program... which resulted in a generational disaster for the country in practically every area of life, since conservative policies are almost uniformly disastrous when put into application. Now that Democrats control everything, they need to push through their agenda to show that it works (which, I think, it will... in a sufficiently strong form, one that isn't emasculated with pre-negotiation giveaways to conservative grumbling). Otherwise nothing will happen... and conservatives will get back into power, and resume their destruction of our country.

Act like the damn majority party already. Write your ideas as if the Republicans didn't exist, pass the bills and let Obama sign them. If they work, no one will remember the process. But if they're not tried, no one will care what the process was.

All they want is for Obama to fail, even if the country goes with it. So stop taking them seriously, stop negotiating with them, and save the country. That's what matters.

Update: Theda Skocpol puts the matter succinctly (via): "Obama is, sadly, much to blame for giving the Republicans so much leverage. He defined the challenge as biparitsanship not saving the U.S. economy."

Ryan Avent, guest-blogging chez Yglesias, says something close to what I'm saying here too:

A changed tone in Washington, if costless, would be a wonderful thing. But voters put Obama and Democratic majorities into office in order to get results. If Obama chooses to embrace Republicans even as they actively work against the interests of the vast majority of Americans, then we have to question his judgment. It takes two to change the tone. Republicans aren’t interested, and they’re using his overtures to undermine the American economy and the Obama presidency.

So far, Obama's done some good things -- e.g. good appointments at Justice and the beginning of the work undoing Bush's lawless torture regime -- but he's not doing well at his main task. Now, he's a good counterpuncher, or was in the campaign anyway, so I still hope he'll pull this out. But I think it's reasonable to worry at this point. Particularly since we no longer have much leeway for error.

Update 2: This is a good start. More like this, please. Much, much, much more.

Update 3: Krugman writes his version of what I called above the left blogosphere consensus, with some added emphasis on the level of economic doom we're facing.

___________________
* Ironic, but not really, because neither really focuses much on policy: the former because they lack the time or energy or aptitude or interest or whatever to focus on politics at all; and the latter because they're much more interested in politics as gossip about people they know and something akin to spectator sports, their for strategy bull sessions and entertainment. People who care about actual policy are rarely prophets of bipartisan utopia because they actually care what happens, and the parties differ on most issues. (And on most of the issues they are fairly similar on -- intellectual property, the drug war, blind support for Israel, etc. -- the are uniformly bad and not uniformly good).

Poem of the Day: American Poetry

American Poetry

Whatever it is, it must have
A stomach that can digest
Rubber, coal, uranium, moons, poems.

Like the shark, it contains a shoe.
It must swim for miles through the desert
Uttering cries that are almost human.

-- Louis Simpson, 1963
[Source]

It Probably Goes Without Saying

...so I won't.

John Updike (1932 - 2009)

The man who was, in all likelihood, the greatest writer of English prose sentences of our time (whatever the faults in some of his larger structures of paragraph, chapter or book, he was the master of the sentence) has died at the age of 76.

Rest in peace.

...I suddenly got a glimpse of how disassembled and undirected and simply bereft I would feel if I were to learn suddenly through the Associated Press of Updike's death. All I wanted, all I counted on, was Updike's immortality: his open-ended stream of books, reviews, even poems, and especially responses to pert queries from Mademoiselle and The New York Times Book Review.... I wanted more of these monocellular living appearances. More awards-acceptance speeches! He was, I felt, the model of the twentieth-century American man of letters: for him to die would be for my generation's personal connection with literature to die, and for us all to be confronted at last with the terrifying unmediated enormity of the cast-concrete university library, whose antitheft gates go click-click-click-click as we leave, dry laughter at how few books we can carry home with us.

-- Nicholson Baker, U and I

Do I really want it, this self, these scattered fingerprints on the air, to persist forever, to outlast the atomic universe? Those who scoff at the Christian hope of an afterlife have on their side not only a mass of biological evidence knitting the self-conscious mind tight to the perishing body but a certain moral superiority as well: isn't it terribly, well, selfish, and grotesquely egocentric, to hope for more than our animal walk in the sun, from eager blind infancy through the productive and procreative years into a senescence that, by the laws of biological instinct as well as by the premeditated precepts of stoic virtue, will submit to eternal sleep gracefully? Where, indeed, in the vast spaces disclosed by modern astronomy, would our disembodied spirit go, and, once there, what would it do?

-- John Updike, "On Being a Self Forever", Self-Consciousness

It Pays To Consider All Sides of These Questions

"What if the mightiest word is love?"

-- Elizabeth Alexander, 20 January 2009
Inaugural Poem, "Praise Song for the Day"

Indeed!

But!!

What if the mightiest word is indigestion?
What if the mightiest word is doorknob?
What if the mightiest word is synteresis?
What if the mightiest word is metempsychosis?
What if the mightiest word is polychromatic?
What if the mightiest word is oxidize?
What if the mightiest word is hebetude?
What if the mightiest word is fluoridation?
What if the mightiest word is aardvark?
What if the mightiest word is dysentery?
What if the mightiest word is glue?
What if the mightiest word is zygomatic?
What if the mightiest word is antepenultimate?
What if the mightiest word is anapestic?

And last but not least...

What if the mightiest word is trite?

Inquiring minds, as the saying goes, want to know.