The Nudist, The Chemist and Artist Ethan Murrow
WilliePilgrim makes me feel guilty. (It's of course not your fault Willie.) I seem to be always the party pooper here. But I read your column regularly now because you're a nice young girl and because I'm an artist too.
I have seen so many clones of these artist that I am rather biased against them at this juncture in my life. I will admit that the water in "Off the Gaspe" has some interesting qualities. But on balance I find all these photo imitating artists a bit pointless. There's so little understanding of what drawing is, for instance, how it is utterly different from what a photograph does.
A drawing is more like a notation that evokes or describes a visual "thought." And thoughts are such funny things. A thought can be very elaborate, very specific or "filled out." Or it can be most vague and ineluctable. A great artist can make a drawing that is like a sigh ("ahh...") or a shrug or like a bright glance or a keen message. This artist strikes me as being unaware of all that. He is so achingly "modern" wearing it like a Boy Scout merit badge. But he's hardly alone. Ninety percent of "artists" are just like this.
Sigh. One can think that Picasso was a brat. But then modern art makes one almost long for Picasso, a true draughtsman!
http://moderationsmuse-about-art.blogspot.com/2008/03/longing-for-picasso.html

Well, alas. I'm the party pooper. Nonetheless, your essays are a breath of fresh air for Huff Po.
posted 03/15/2008 at 18:58:36
St. Patrick's Day: More Bless, Less Beer
Thank you for the lovely eulogy to the writer; many thanks for pointing us to this book. Wow. Are we still at Huff Po? posted 03/15/2008 at 19:09:05
McCain: Al Qaeda May Intervene To Tip Election Towards Dems
Several people here evidently need to read the post again. McCain is saying if al Quida does spectacular attacks in IRAQ = Dem points. Spectacular attack here = Republicans.
Does this math help anybody.
He is not being inconsistent. Though in Spain, even attacks on their country ultimately benefited al Quida.
posted 03/15/2008 at 17:48:13
The Bush Effect
I have been lately reading Reagan's autobiography "An American Life," which is a truly amazing book. Of course, one expects the Huff Po to treat the Republican party as though it were a disease. That is unfortunate since the principles of the Republican Party are not only sound, but nobel. Certainly the philosophy that Reagan embraced was a bright and idealist view of the American idea.
Senator McCain is supposed to be a black sheep of his party. There is much cliche in that view. It assumes, for instance, that more segment (the so-called "core" voters) are defining for the party as a whole just as the most "leftist" are assumed to represent the Democratic party (which, I would add, is another falacy).
Whatever the stated differences in the two parties (and they are significant enough that I'd be very reluctant to associate myself with the Dems), nevertheless in many practical respects both parties share much common ground. Their is something definably "American" and whatever there is of genuine partisanship, it's a fact that our lives are not that much different. We are all members of one society that is uniquely American.
So, one can emphasize the partisanship -- though I'd consider voting for a Democrat that I admired as an individual. I think that we should, indeed, look more at these candidates as individuals. Surely, we shouldn't eliminate that estimation from our calculus.
I may vote for McCain. Or I might even vote for Obama (I've been considering it). I will assuredly never vote for HIlliary. In whatever judgment I make, I will look at the individual more than at the party. I think it's high time we did. The divisiveness of politics has gotten out of hand. It's one thing to have parties -- we need them both! They provide a necessary competition of ideas and they act as foils to expose the worst ideas of each side. But in recent elections, it's gone too far.
We need to look at ourselves in a more unitary way for a season, to recall that we're Americans, to figure out how to solve problems in cooperation, to find diplomacy right here at home in learning to talk to people with whom we disagree.
So I hope some of the Dems will give McCain a look. Go beyond the "policy" statements and look at the human being. Which one has the best chance of leading well? posted 03/15/2008 at 18:17:42
Bad Apples and Bad Policy: Stereotyping a New Generation of Vets
I am not a "neocon." And I don't appreciate the label. Moreover, I am not someone who could enlist any more than you are. However, as a former soldier, you should be aware (I will assume that you are aware) that we have a civilian government. So, yes, people like me who are not soldiers are involved -- admittedly at a great remove -- in our country's decisions to go to war or not to go to war. It is not a decision that soldiers can make. They enlist to serve and once having chosen that course they are vowed to obey orders.
Your argument is specious. We see it repeated ad nauseum in this society. That you served in Vietnam is commendable. My father served in WWII. But your having been a soldier does not put you into a unique or morally richer position to comment on the current policy of this war in Iraq.
Lots of people can argue positions for this or that, but their arguments ultimately hinge upon the cogency of the ideas they express and not upon the identities of those making the argument.
And I am not "evil" because I evidently do not agree with you. So long as you evaluate the ideas of others in those terms you are certainly not likely to understand the opinions of those with whom you disagree. posted 03/15/2008 at 17:37:06
You are so mistaken. People who enlist in the military are always being stereotyped this way. All the soldiers I ever met were very proud to service in the military. And I would like to know what is so great, by the way, about going to college? People stereotype that as well. Perhaps a college could make you intelligent. But most people are as intelligent as they are, period. Universities are grand places to become exposed to ideas. But so is the military. Serving in the country as a soldier has lots of points in common with university education -- well, except that it's a lot more disciplining.
Don't have gas for the car. Maybe you should rearrange your priorities before you ask your country to abandon Iraq. Whatever the wisdom on invading Iraq (something that history will have to judge), it would be obscenely immoral to just abandon the Iraqi people to whatever happenstance fate awaits them if we leave. You're obviously not a friend of "peace."
When our brave soldiers come home, some people will be quick to jump forward and feel sorry for them. Why not let them win instead? Why not be proud of them? Indeed, why wait. Why not just be proud of them now? They put their lives on the line for a nobel cause. The US eliminated a vicious dictator's rule. Failed policy? Not yet. Some were calling it a failed policy from the beginning. It was a quaqmire on the third week, I think. But we've had troops in Germany since WWII. They're still there. They're still in Korea too.
All these soldiers are helping keep peace in the world. So I believe we need to think beyond the price of gasoline and try looking at the big picture. Yeah, let's keep trying to invent beyond the automobile. I'll be the first to cheer new technology and new sources of energy and methods of energy efficiency and wise energy use.
But that's no reason why the people of Iraq cannot begin having stability in their broken country. It's not something that could happen over night. It's a long process. But whether we should or shouldn't have, we did. And now we -- the US -- have responsibilities to honor. So let's honor them.
posted 03/14/2008 at 16:13:23
Amen. For the length of this war, there's plenty of crocodile tears shed and plenty of bragging about how we'll make sure the troops have everything they need. And I'm talking about the Democrats.
But the Republicans have soul-searching to do as well.
No one has been our there recruiting new troops. We leave that to the military outlets in offices and in strip malls around the country. And we let Code Pink be their suburban USO. But no politician, including President Bush, has ever actually asked people to enlist.
I can understand somewhat (only somewhat) why Bush has refrained. It would indeed invite a kind of 60s style renaissance of "ho,ho, Ho Chi Minh." But no one has. Not John Kerry who likes to wax eloquent about how the goverment isn't funding enough flak jackets (was he talking about jackets for the troops or his own use?)
And so on.
But what our soldiers need most of all is other soldiers. Relief troops. Second shift. Somebody who can take over so this shift can come home and rest. And they need other soldiers who can understand what is was like, after it's all over. Others to share the burden of memory of both the tragedies and the challenges as well as the achievements. They need other soldiers to be witnesses to the fact that there were achievements, though we hear little of them.
I see bumper stickers all the time of "I support the troops" and see them from both parties. Saw one yesterday saying "I support the troops, but question the policy." We have lots of bumper stickers over here about our feelings. But what we need is fewer bumper stickers and more volunteers.
Cause the help they need is over there. posted 03/14/2008 at 15:39:36
Teen Sexual Health Crisis: What Parents Can Do
As an epidemiologist, you might have confined your comments to disease vectors; hence I'm surprised to find you lauding the loss of an adolescent's privacy when you write: "If sex is discussed early, often, and without shame or judgment, your teen is more likely to come to you when they do decide to start having sex. " First off, let's acknowledge that I'm being funny since of course you aren't an epidemiologist. In fact, we can safely presume that you don't even know what you're talking about. As someone who has been an adult for over 20 years, I can assure you that people have done nothing but "talk about" sex ad nauseum. The increase in STDs can with more logic be tied to all the talk rather than to the repressed fictional reticience you describe.

I recommend you read the book "Influence "by Robert B. Cialdini. While he doesn't address sex education and propaganda programs per se, other studies that he presents certainly would lead a thoughtful reader to conclude that all the talk is more likely to lead children to seek sexual experiences rather than the contrary. Shouldn't you be writing to Huff Po's Hollywood friends telling them how detrimental their movies and their hipness has been (for several decades) upon the young? Or would the loss of hipness be more than you can bear? Quel dommage.

But to return to my original point. Whether you realize it or not (I'll take a wild guess and suggest "not") you are arguing that a young person -- first of all is absolutely unlikely to fall in love! No. It will be "just" sex. And that secondly this character failing, or pessimism, or whatever it is that rejects love or the search for love in favor of animal behaviors is something the young person should share with their parents. Okay, Mom and Dad, you found love and family, but I think I'm old enough to tell you now that I'm "hooking up" so I'll need so medical advice.

What a wonderfully idealist world you inhabit! (I'm kidding.) (I guess you knew that.)

Maybe youngsters should read the Bible and some Jane Austen instead -- find out what life was like back when people envisioned the possibility of love, devotion, selflessness, honor, integrity, and again love.

Remember that? Love? Has it gone out of style?

Oh, I've got another book idea for you. Just finished reading it myself: "I love you, Ronnie" by Nancy Reagan. Ask yourself if you're ever likely to find a man who will write letters to you like the ones he wrote to her.
posted 03/13/2008 at 19:34:05
Hillary and the Gender Issue
You wrote in an earlier blog that: "The effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks have thrown us off course. Since the shock of 9/11, the United States has been exporting fear and anger rather than our more traditional values of hope and optimism. Guantanamo has become a more powerful global icon than the Statue of Liberty." You say now that "We need to see leaders less in heroic terms of command that George W. Bush has touted," this kind of generalization might sound good in a blog, but it has little substance. Let's hope your book is more cogent both as to broad ideas and their manifestations.

Consider for instance the American "image" overseas. We hear about this constantly in the media and I hear anecdotal comments from friends who travel a lot so I'm willing to grant that we might have an "image problem." But why does the government have to address this problem as though it were exclusively a foreign policy issue? It once used to be true that the US was isolated and that travel overseas was exceptional. In that long ago time, diplomacy between governments was crucial as being the essential tie between countries. But that isn't so anymore.
Millions of Americans travel. If we have an "image" problem, maybe it's not the government that lies behind it. It might be comforting to blame it on Mr. Bush. But my sense is that Mr. Bush's exit from the stage will not suddenly solve our relationship with the world. Maybe we're the problem. Do you want ambassadors? You already have hundreds of thousands of them. Maybe it's the American visiting overseas who needs to rethink the "image" they cast on this country when they travel. And if we don't like the image, maybe it's time to stop blaming the president and start looking in the mirror.
As to gender, we have plenty of ambassadors of both types visiting the world. But let's consider this idea of Bush as touting heroic command. Yeah, I'm not seeing Hilliary in that role. Her husband didn't project heroism abroad either. Al Quida, the locus for an Islamic renaissance movement in the Middle East, is a male-dominated ideology. (It also has much more in common with communism than is generally acknowledged, but that's another and ironic story.)
I'll ask you, what will be the likely Islamic response to a victory by Hilliary Clinton (after surprise -- that is)? Yes, it matters there that Hilliary is a woman. It matters there more than it matters here. Here, we'd be wise to ask ourselves what kind of woman she is. For myself, I don't see her as anyone I want leading this country. Hence her gender is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
But it's not irrelevant to them. Our foreign policy in the Middle East would be a harder, a more uphill climb with Hilliary in charge. Her first problem would be how to respond after a new wave of terrorist attacks, because her arrival would signal to them that it's time to hit us again. After all, the Clinton years would be back.
The bombing of two African embassies, the bombing of the USS Cole, and of course the bombing of the World Trade Center and the retreat after Black Hawk down.
If you think we need Hilliary's mothering and nurturing skills to heal the world, you're sadly mistaken. Sometimes military power is the only effective solution. But don't we forget that the threat of military action means something too. And sometimes the threat is as good as the deed -- better, in fact -- by making the deed unnecessary. Who will talk softly and carry a big stick?
The first Clinton thought terrorism was a law enforcement problem. As a consequence we got a war. Maybe we need somebody who realizes we're at war, so that we can win get peace. Remember winning? Interesting concept.
We have an image problem overseas. And we have an immigration problem here at home. How can that be? Evidently we don't have an image problem everywhere. In some locales, we are the longed for destination. Let's not forget that.
posted 03/14/2008 at 15:20:33
Spitzer v. Fallon: Tales of a Prostituted Press
How do we get the media to write about life? Granted that the governor's downfall is "life" too, but even in that "real" story, whatever tragic trajectory it took, the truth is not really told -- only the sensationalist version -- though in this I will not complain because I really already know more about this man than I ever wanted to know (and I only read the headlines).
Recall what it took to get the tragic story of young, murdered Chandra Levy off the front page of the Washington Post. It took an al quida hijacking of four American airliners and the subsequent destruction of the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon and about 3,000 casualties.
What was moreover most deeply disheartening about the Chandra Levy story was how little the media seemed to care what had happened to the girl before her body was finally discovered or about the identity of her killer after it was.
The whole story was her affair with an until then little known Congressman.
What is a reader to do? I stopped reading print newspapers regularly a long time ago. So, it seems have hords of others (given the steady decrease in newspaper circulation statistics over time). Maybe the papers thought we wanted more sex and mayhem. Um, actually we wanted less. We wanted news, the kind of thing you mention.
So one finds out the news from a potpourri of sources these days, which does include newspapers online which is cheaper and just a "click" away from "switching channels." But I read them with more skepticism than ever. If this is what they think is important, or what they think I think is important, they've already made one huge blunder in judgment. So, why should I trust them to get the story of the resignation of Admiral Fallon right?
Credibility. The thing they lost when they began competing with the grocery store tabloids. I don't read Huff Po for the news, either. Oh, God no. I read the comments. And I write mine. posted 03/12/2008 at 18:09:12
Obama and Clinton: Are the Times a Changing?: A Modest Proposal in Lieu of a Train Wreck: The Rhodes Campaign Part 2
Couldn't make it through the entirety of your long blog (and this comes from someone who is similarly long-winded), but to comment on some highlights. Your modest proposal is wonderful and I hope somebody reads it and that somebody, someday does it. Doing their jobs. Works for me.
As to the Republicans (with whom I vote, though I'm not a wearer of labels), you misread them now as you have for a long time. "Its message has always begun with the expectation that the voters feel bad about themselves," etc. with rather sensationalist examples.
Try Reagan (that "great good man"). Not the Reagan-lite media version (still available at a media outlet near you), but the man in his own words. (And his words are many! Speeches, letters, diaries, autobiography, as-recalled-by others, etc.) Voters feeling bad about themselves, that was Carter. Great malaise and all that. Reagan was morning in America. The old man as visionary.
Obama made one passing reference to the most popular 20th century president after Roosevelt and got his hand slapped by the Left. But a wise pundit would look back -- not to '68 which is the Democrat's mess. But to March of 1981 when Reagan, president for only 3 months, was in the ER at George Washington University hospital quipping to the doctors, "I hope you're all Republicans."
Whoever wins one for the Gipper, will rewin the American heart. I'm quite sure that won't be Hilliary. It might be Obama. It might even be tough John.
But I put the smart money on believing in the people, the ordinary, sensible, prudent American people who really would like to put someone good into the highest office. posted 03/11/2008 at 19:38:24
Why Artists Shouldn't Have Blackberries
Mr. Keiser, Am a big fan of your paintings and the painting a day concept, which of course one wouldn't know without the internet. Ironies all round. But before we get back to our easels, let me refer you to the paintings of Paul Foxton of the UK, a painter of small realistic and very compelling still lifes
http://moderationsmuse-about-art.blogspot.com/2008/03/and-this-guys-art-and-his-story-is.html
It's kind of a small world .... seems you have a kindred spirit across the pond.
posted 03/11/2008 at 18:28:16
My daughter (who's in elementary school) has perforce to spend more hours alone than lots of kids her age -- or rather she spends them with me which is a little like being alone if I'm working -- and I've worried about this enforced solitude. But this post and its various comments make me feel better. There is a lot of noise in modern life, and not enough time to spend in quiet with oneself. We can learn valuable lessons in life during solitude.
As for me, I like solitude. I especially enjoy taking long walks outdoors, preferably under trees or in a woodsy place, during which time I reminisce about various things -- often about time spent with those close to me. And, oddly, it's often during these walks alone that I notice things I hadn't noticed in the moment. I'll recall the expression on someone's face or the tone of voice and will suddenly understand something that person was trying to say that I hadn't heard when the conversation was actually happening. So, I find interestingly enough that solitude draws me closer to the people most important to me.
I like the picture of the studio. It's a very lovely room for work. posted 03/08/2008 at 18:37:13
Antiquated Gender Stereotypes Underlie Radical Experiments in Sex-Segregated Education
I never heard any of these studies given as reasons for having separate for boys and girls. I doubt that they have had much influence. Indeed, I'm trying to think of a school in my region that is segregated by sex. There must be some, but the trend has gone the other way toward co-education.
So, I'm thinking this is a tempest in a teapot. However, I still find myself wondering why parents should select whatever kind of education they believe best benefits their kids. When you cut through the rhetoric here, that's what I see this article being about.
By the way, which parent is usually making this decision? Take a guess. posted 03/06/2008 at 19:33:34
Obama Plans To Pick Republicans For Cabinet
There was this guy who came down to New York from Boston and was mugged and robbed by a bunch of guys. They tore his clothes, robbed him of his coat, injured him and left him half dead. And by chance a very progressive environmentalist saw him as he lay there and crossed over to the other side of the street. Similarly a journalist went by, but also passed quickly along. But then a Republican who worked on Wall Street was rushing to work, and saw this guy lying in the bushes and felt sorry for him.
So he went over to him and took a look at his injuries, and called 911 on his cell phone. After the ambulance arrived, he persuaded the paramedic to let him ride with the injured man and he talked to him during the trip when he could, trying to lift his spirits. Later at the hospital he gave the administrators his name and contact information and declared that he would pay in full the injuried man's medical expenses, and said to them, "This guy's really been through a lot. Make sure you take care of him, and call me if I can be of any help at all."
Now which of these persons do you think was a neighbor to the man who was mugged?
Who understands the meaning of this parable? posted 03/02/2008 at 19:20:01
Evolving Evangelicals
Dap, I'm glad I was fondly in your thoughts, but I just call 'em like I see 'em. Greater intolerance? Why does it have to be greater or lesser? Genuine Christians never harmed anybody. But anybody can call themselves whatever they like. There's always been false Christians. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to interest oneself in the genuine. And since when do multiple wrongs make a right? Why not just live and let live? Why does any group of people have to be libeled because of some cliche that's used to stereotype them? I thought diversity was the watchword of the day.
Muse posted 03/06/2008 at 18:07:48
This is all fine and well, your recognition that you don't really believe in God. However, in projecting your loss of faith to everyone who sat around you in the pews is perhaps less forthright. I met a minister once who was an unbeliever. I met one minister. I didn't assume he was representative of anyone but himself. I also stopped attending that church, where I was only a visitor and not a member. There seemed little point in being there.

The atheists here take comfort in hearing about people like your Episcopal priest, though I'm not sure why. Your disbelief says really nothing about whether God is real or not. Your supposing that he was "in the sky with the remote control" was not a very adequate metaphor, certainly, as you yourself admit. But the first pertinent question is this, might God be real? And if God is real, might there be a better metaphor for understanding who God is? And -- well, I'll jump out there and suggest that the metaphors in the Bible are certainly superior in various ways to your guy in the sky with remote control -- a last pertinent question is this: aren't all metaphors forms of communication that fall short? God is God and won't be boxed in by your smallish notions about him (or mine either).

I find these discussions tiresome, though I've participated in them rather often formerly.

People are seeking rationalizations here for their disbelief, ironically too, since no one is compelling them to believe anything. Sorry, friends, but the Middle Ages are over. Spiritually, you're on your own now! Celebrate if it suits you.

But the comments Horton made here really offend me. They remind me of things I used to hear people say about blacks when it was socially acceptable to indulge in racist rhetoric. I know people who never set foot in a black person's house who used to say, "they're like this and they're like that," and all the talk here sounds identical.

This is the new racism. Enjoy it if you must, folks. But at least stop kidding yourselves, and see it for what it is.

Evangelicals are stupid. Evangelicals are sub-human. Evangelicals have low IQs. Evangelicals blah, blah, blah.

Welcome to the new racism.

posted 03/04/2008 at 15:58:17
And Now for Some Accountability: An Open Letter to the Bicoastal Gang of Two who Confirmed Attorney General Mukasey and let the Rule of Law be Damned
I would like to know how our national interest would be served by prosecuting the CIA agents who water-boarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed. What are we supposed to do? Shut down our government? Perhaps the president could have found an Attorney General who is pure. Oh, please. Like anybody George Bush would nominate was going to be acceptable. Maybe he could have nominated Mrs. Clinton. THat would have been fun. Then he could have added, "just kidding" and we could have all had a great laugh.
Perhaps the Congress could entertain you by putting Bolter and Meirs on trial, as it were -- one of those media circus events now so famous that take the place of soap operas and lead various otherwise little noticed politicians into long, sanctimonious, grandstanding little speeches that can be replayed at 6 and 11.
Yeah. God forbid, that Congress should actually do something. Like legislate. Or something. posted 03/02/2008 at 15:42:04
Bush Won't Promise Further Troop Cuts
Saying what people want to hear is more a Democrat's specialty. For that, turn to Ms. Clinton et al. Hilliary will promise you the moon in exchange for your vote.
But bravo, Mr. Bush. Whether the US lefties like it or not, we have a responsibility to the people of Iraq now. One can pointlessly debate whether a US invasion of Iraq was wise policy. We invaded. And now we have an obligation to provide security to the new Iraq.
People have made much of McCain's comment regarding a "hundred years." We've had troops in Germany and Japan since 1945. Doesn't seem to have done any harm there.
Bush is one of the Americans who honors his word. Wonder when that notion will have value on the other side of the aisle. posted 03/01/2008 at 18:13:04
TED 2008 / Day 4 : Al Gore: Let's Be The Generation That 1000 Years From Now Orchestras And Poets And Singers Will Celebrate
Gore doesn't need an orchestra to celebrate this generation, he has scientist/singer Madonna to do it all. posted 03/02/2008 at 18:01:26
Contextual Intelligence and the Next President
I cannot find the comment box so I'm "replying" to yours here at the top, though my comment is not directly addressed to yours, yet it is not unrelated to it either.

I have a quote for Mr. Nye, a kind of "guess who said": "From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden...."

Good judgment is not a complex chess game such as Mr. Spock plays on board the Starship Enterprise. Good judgment is an intuition. And in order for it to be "good" those making the judgments have to be "good." If we want to reform government, we're wise to begin by reforming ourselves -- for we are the government. posted 03/14/2008 at 12:56:27
Ellen DeGeneres Decries Murder of Gay 15-year-old (But Why is That "Not Political"?)
Of course the boy's death is tragic, but I don't understand this at all. Would his death have been less notable if he weren't gay? If a teenager kills another teenager for other motives, we are less moved? For me there's a different kind of tragedy here, it's this whole thing of labeling the victim. So I guess if he'd have been heterosexual, we wouldn't even be talking about it. That's tragic. I long for the day when we can go back to being human beings. posted 03/02/2008 at 15:22:23
Feminist Infighting
You have an interesting story to tell, but HRC is not more qualified. She has served in the US Senate not a full 2 terms. She got her Senate seat because of being "Clinton." She never served in any public office prior to that. She was a lawyer (so are millions of other people). She has as much qualification to be president as Laura Bush (twice First Lady as the president's wife, twice First Lady as a governor's wife). Hilliary in the White House is Bill's shadow third term. So, I see an endorcement of Hilliary in terms of "women's rights" as a cynical endorcement indeed. There are women who are qualified. She's not one of them.
I'm the last person to be a fan of Nancy Pelosi, for instance. But Pelosi is a thousand-fold more qualified for the presidency than Hilliary. posted 03/04/2008 at 15:30:39
Perhaps I'm spliting hairs, but I think there's a difference between merely naming verses the labels. The difference has to do with ideas that are canned. Some people get so accustomed to propoganda that they lose touch with reality in the sense that they have so much of their experience filtered through the psychobabble. The experience described in the photo you found in the Washington Post was obviously an example of the extreme opposite. Life and death circumstances have a way of cutting through the haze, but it's a shame when it takes something of that magnitude to jolt someone awake. And I'm assuming, kind Lemeritus, that you were already experiencing life in a very nuanced way before seeing the photo that prompted your empathy with the unidentified Iraqi man.
Perhaps Americans generally are a little too well off. As a consequence of having so much, we whine a lot over trivia. People who have less to start with appreciate what they have. But being essentially an optimist, I think even "wealthy" Westerners can find contentment when they take the blinkers off, look at life more objectively, open their minds, and adopt a more grateful attitude for just the fact of being alive. Life is good, after all. posted 03/02/2008 at 15:08:33
Well, friend, your labels have deceived you. Sorry to disappoint you. I am not male, am not privileged. But I'm doing just fine without the labels. You should try it before you knock it. posted 03/02/2008 at 14:59:30
Whenever I hear people talking about one of the "isms" I wonder if they still have the capacity to see life. Just life. Life without the label. Life in the form of nature and other people existing.
What do you think? Is there capacity left to see "the whole" of life? Anybody care? Is Plato's cave it now? Labels-as-reality?
There are men. There are women. Without labels, you'll gain more insight into their mutual transit through this world. posted 03/01/2008 at 18:39:21
Artist Stefanie Schneider And The End Of Polaroid Film
I love these images. Was also charmed to discover that Kimberly Brooks has used old photos in her own work. I guess probably a lot of artists have done so. Some of my paintings using old photographic images can be seen here: http://oldphotosintopainting.blogspot.com/

I looked at Kimberly's paintings on the website link above and find the Mom's friends series really delightful. My favorite is this one:
http://moderationsmuse-about-art.blogspot.com/2008/03/kimberly-brookss-painting-portrait-of.html
Don't know, strictly speaking, if it's one of the 70s vintage images? But it has a very striking design and strong psychological element.

When I first realized I wanted to be an artist, it was Degas's drawings that particularly attracted me. I have been looking back at Degas's work lately, rediscovering my love for the dynamism of his images -- noticing things in them I'd not noticed before even after very long acquaintance! It has spurred me to draw a lot. I also find myself wanting to deal with the figure, portraying people in ordinary settings as Degas did and searching out the formal beauties of that.
About Stefanie Schneider, I don't usually enjoy photography as an "art form." Somehow turning photography into "art" has, to my mind, diminished "art" without adding much of value to "photography." Nonetheless, I like Schneider's images and the ways that she has been influenced by painterly ideas in the manipulation of these images. They are very enchanting.
posted 03/01/2008 at 17:13:15
Learning for a Lifetime
One can also just read. University education is over-rated. It can be wonderful. It can also be a waste of time. Increasingly it becomes so expensive that it begins to fall into the "diminishing returns" category.
People have forgotten what education is. Perhaps they need to be reminded. Once every generation, reminders are necessary. What should one say, then? Well, let's look at it like this: what kind of education is it, that comes exclusively from the university's side? Presumably the student has a native intelligence. When the student has intellect, the university is there providing a large spectrum of ideas upon which intelligence plays. But if, as many seem to suppose, the student is just this passive thing upon which the university acts, then that is training -- as when one trains a dog to sit.
For someone to pay for an "on-line education" ... that is the tops. That is the ultimate rip-off. The thing one pays for, chiefly, is the credential which of itself is meaningless.
For anyone who really wants to learn, because understanding life is one's heart's delight, for that person, EVERYTHING is classroom. posted 02/29/2008 at 19:12:43
What's Wrong with Being a Lefty?
What a sweet comment! Greetings to you, as well. -- Muse posted 02/29/2008 at 20:29:17
I cannot say that I see much advantage in being a lefty, nor any advantage in being right. We have to use the whole brain. Similarly, we need to muster the whole citizenry if we want the nation to really blossom. I think we've have altogether too much of partisanship and not enough of commonwealth.
Anyway, one can certainly shift back and forth between modes. I am right handed, and I usually vote Republican, a fact that has gained me undue criticism here at Huff Po. But I'm an artist, and I sometimes draw with my left hand -- as here http://flowerstudiesaftercezanne.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post_4875.html
and most the time I draw with my right hand -- as here http://flowerstudiesaftercezanne.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post_7553.html
And I think both ways of drawing are wonderful. I began drawing with my left hand to see what it would be like to use the right hemisphere of my cortex in a direct way. Because it's not my typical habit, the line is shakey. And I discovered that I loved this wavering outline.
So, what do you suppose we might gain by getting outside our confort zones, from time to time, and looking at the world through the eyes of someone different. Lefties, I think you ought to all go hug an Evangelical today. It would do you good. posted 02/28/2008 at 18:55:09
How gauche. posted 02/28/2008 at 17:40:25
What's The Fastest Growing Religion In America?
They forgot to question survey respondents about Hipsterism (the religion most represented here at Huff Po) otherwise known as the Church of What's Happening Now. It has a sister sect called Our Lady of Perpetual Hand Wringing and Whining.
It's experiencing growth of an exponential sort (along the lines of there being a "sucker born every minute," except that PT Barnum was too conservative regarding his mathematics).
The real question of affliation is not what people say to the Pew poll, but the census that God keeps. When the roll is called up yonder ....It's the only one that counts. posted 02/28/2008 at 19:08:01
Myths About The Pill
The biggest myth about the pill is the idea that it's necessary. But then I'm biased. My friend died as a consequence of the pill (cause of death: pulmonary embolism). posted 02/29/2008 at 19:04:50
More Bailouts For Over-Indebted Homeowners Coming?
One could also question "how much house does somebody need?" What's being forgotten here is the relationship of the housing crisis to so-called environmentalism. Many of the same people who want to blame Bush for this lending crisis, also wanted to blame him for the weather, i.e., "global warming."
Well, it's horse and carriage. I'm a bit heartless regarding people who wanted to live it up, on credit, and then expect somebody like me, who is living it "down," to bail them out.
I suggest they take what equity they can get and rent an apartment. It's wiser land use, and it has its own quite genuine charm. posted 02/24/2008 at 12:30:54
"What??????
Who better? An unknown nobody like you?
What planet do you .... never mind."

Herm, You addressed these comments on the Clooney post, apropos those defending the actor for his various political stances, suggesting that Mr. Clooney's fame alone (based entirely upon his looks, one might add), makes him an appropriate spokesman for various causes. Someone, in turn, remarked that an actor's use of his celebrity to advance his own agenda was a "douche" move. And you replied with the remarks above.
The more I've thought about what you said, the more remarkable I find it. Do you really think of your fellow citizens writing here as "nobodies"? What exactly makes someone like Clooney as "somebody"? That he is considered to be good looking? That he's related to the late Rosemary Clooney, wonderful singer and entertainer? What knowledge does Mr. Clooney bring to his advocacy? Any? And if the people he appeals to are simply "nobodies," exactly what is the point of his being influential?
I would beg that you rethink the inferences of your comments. Speaking for myself, I could not disagree more with what you said. I do not think Clooney's celebrity is an asset to any "cause," since the actor can be presumed to know very little of substance about the causes he touts.
I suspect that most my serious fellow citizens see through the celebrity vanity syndrome and take Clooney's (and similar other remarks) for the fluff that they are. I look to experts for real information about political problems, and as regards the serious troubles of the "third world," I am even willing to grant that the adult citizens of various far away countries might be able to solve their own problems.
What or who is the "nobody" of which you speak? It's really a troubling notion, especially in a democracy. I would also point out to you that the identities of most the people posting here are pseudononymously unknown. How do you know that the rest of us aren't celebrities?
If we were, our comments only garner cogency by their inherent persuasiveness. In a forum like this one, it is uniquely words themselves that win the day. Celebrity is irrelevant. And that's as it should be if you ask me. You didn't. But I'm commenting anyway.
Best, Moderationsmuse
posted 02/24/2008 at 12:05:33
George Clooney: Hollywood Heartthrob Comes Over For Dinner, Compares Self To Clinton
Herm, The more I've thought about this remark of yours regarding a "nobody," the more troubling I find it. Do you really think of your fellow citizens writing here as "nobodies"? What exactly makes someone like Clooney a "somebody"? That he is considered to be good looking? That he's related to the late Rosemary Clooney, wonderful singer and entertainer? What knowledge does Mr. Clooney bring to his advocacy? Any? And if the people he appeals to are simply "nobodies," exactly what is the point of his being influential?
I would beg that you rethink the inferences of your comments. Speaking for myself, I could not disagree more with what you said. I do not think Clooney's celebrity is an asset to any "cause," since the actor can be presumed to know very little of substance about the causes he touts.
I suspect that most my serious fellow citizens see through the celebrity vanity syndrome and take Clooney's (and similar other remarks) for the fluff that they are. I look to experts for real information about political problems, and as regards the serious troubles of the third world, I am even willing to grant that the adult citizens of far away countries might be able to solve their own problems.
What or who is the "nobody" of which you speak? It's really a troubling notion, especially in a democracy. I would also point out to you that the identities of most the people posting here are pseudononymously unknown. How do you know that the rest of us aren't celebrities?
If we were, our comments only garner cogency by their inherent persuasiveness. In a forum like this one, it is uniquely words themselves that win the day. Celebrity is irrelevant. And that's as it should be if you ask me. You didn't. But I'm commenting anyway.
Best, Moderationsmuse

posted 02/24/2008 at 12:08:51
andyboy,
My apologies. It never dawned on me that Mr. Clooney's publicist posts here.
However just to set the record straight (I fibbed a little), I actually have seen one Clooney movie: Perfect Storm. I watched it for the special effects, which were supurb by the way.
Cannot say as much for Mr. Clooney, however.
I remain not a fan. posted 02/23/2008 at 19:54:34
George Clooney is an actor? Gosh, who knew? I thought he was a politician. Or perhaps he thought he was doing stand up. Maybe he should keep his day job, if he has one, magazine cover notwithstanding.
Sign me,
not impressed posted 02/21/2008 at 16:48:51
Why John McCain Owes The New York Times a Thank You Card
I agree that McCain should consider it a compliment. First off, how many 71 year old men are so accused? It's a nice irony considering the age card. Also, it seems to show that the NYTimes Puritans (i.e., the Lefter-than-thou crowd) are worried. McCain is a formidable candidate. Does Obama have enough charisma to stand up to McCain's experience?
Of course one assumes that Hilliary's "30 years experience" (being Mrs Bill) won't be a factor, thank goodness. Obama will spare us from four years watching Hilliary bob her head up and down like one of those dolls people set in the back of their car.
Question I'm asking is not about McCain's integrity, but about who's running the smear campaign. Who benefits? Motive. Opportunity. Hmm. posted 02/21/2008 at 16:59:28
To Vilify Obama for his Ability to Inspire is to Ignore the Principal Lesson of the Last Three Decades of American Politics
Some of the things you expect Obama to fix are beyond the reach of a president -- and should be. So, even if we both end up liking Obama (I did say I was sitting on the fence), we are not likely to see the long list you present fulfilled.

Attracting better people into teaching is not a problem that presidents have created, and they are not likely to fix it. The problem isn't money (teachers are actually rather well paid). The mediocrity of the teaching profession is a direct result of teacher certification (a process that dumbs down their requirements), teacher union rules and other non-federal aspects of the profession.

Ditto for "making college more affordable." Colleges are ripping people off. I visited a local university recently looking for a language textbook for French. The text being used in the French 101 class was $90 used. I was in shock (even though I've known for sometime based on other indicators that college was reaching the point of diminishing returns). I can go to Barnes and Nobel and get a wonderful French grammar for under twenty bucks. So why can't the university locate texts for their students that cost less than $90? And that's just one text for one class. One soon realizes that it would be cheaper simply to go to France.
"Try to prevent the country from becoming the slaves of faceless corporations, serving ever more powerful billionaires." Huh? Is Obama going to make it illegal to become a billionaire in the largest free market country? Would you have the billionaires move elsewhere? And what does it mean to say a corporation is "faceless"? That doesn't even make sense. There's a CEO, he or she has a face, is usually rather well known, etc. And a large corporation employs and benefits thousands of people who also have faces. (This is the fantasy land element peeking through.)

I started my comments saying I liked Obama generally. I like his intelligence and candor and optimism. I do think, as you do, that he might be the mediator figure that the country could sorely use. Notice how my comments were greeting by things like "right-wingers" and "rethugs," etc.? You see, those folks are not interested in compromise with partisans from other parts of the political spectrum.
If I should decide that Obama is a stealth candidate for the sanctimonious lefter-than-thou crowd then McCain will have my vote. But actually Obama seems to be the real deal. I'm keeping an open mind.
Wish some of the friends here at Huff would join me.

posted 02/25/2008 at 18:37:18
I have looked at Obama, and though I disagree with just about every idea I've heard associated with him, have considered voting for him. He seems intelligent, which suggests to me that he would abandon the more syrupy aspect of his rhetoric once he faced the reality of leading the country.
However, perhaps I'm mistaken. If he is the genuine "progressive" that many here at Huff Po take him for, then I'll vote for McCain. Four years of fantasy land is not my idea of desirable change.
I will sit on the fence a while longer.
As for Hilliary, I will always be thankful for the way Obama is taking her out of the race. She is neither a "moderate" or a "progressive." Hilliary's cause is Hilliary. If she wishes to pretend to be the Senator for New York, fine. But she'd do herself and the rest of us a favor by retiring somewhere. Eight years of the slimy Clinton ethos was more than enough. posted 02/24/2008 at 12:40:48
Washington, Lincoln, Bush
History will be interested in the fact that members of the US military have held President Bush in great respect at the same time as an "anti-war" "progressive" demographic has vilified him. History will examine the role that US aid has played in fighting AIDS in Africa and other parts of the world during this president's term. It will know the outcome of the Iraq war and will be able to assess the good or ill that came from US intervention in the Middle East, something that is purely speculatory now. History will be able to compare what this president has said with what his critics said he said (often quite different things), and will be able to assess the shrill cries of the moment for what they are.
History will be able to judge whether Madonna and Al Gore were really good scientists when it came to "global warming," and take a generally disinterested look into many of the sacred cows of the present time and see them for what they are.
Many of the really momentous changes of the late 20th and early 21st century that have gone unnoticed, that bore little relationship to politics at all, whether "left" wing or "right wing," discoveries in astronomy (black holes at the centers of gallaxies), wonderful developments in art (the great but little celebrated jazz masters like Didier Lockwood, Birelli Lagrane, Regina Carter, Joshua Redman, and others), and similar, wonderful things will stand out more sharply.
And the tiresomely predictable blah, blah, blah that characterizes the engage political fiz and soap bubbles of the moment will have gone "poof!"
That's my prediction. posted 02/24/2008 at 14:09:25
The Macho Art World
There's a big difference between artists and the idea of "being an artist." An artist is someone who "creates upon a flat surface, any visible object whatsoever." Whereas the "artist," can be someone of real ability (like Picasso) or it may be a trendy poseur (Damien Hirst) who is without ability and who will eventually go by the wayside. The "art world" is hardly something that even exists. There are all manner of businesses, some large, some small that sell "art." But one would be hard-pressed to find one characterization that fits them all.
Anyone who wants to paint would be wise to learn fundamental skills, study the history of art, have an open mind, and follow one's heart. It's rather like learning a musical instrument. A violinist doesn't expect to master the instrument without playing some scales. Music develops through a process of both serious and inspired work. And so does real painting. But many people are actually enamoured of "being an artist" and have no interest at all in making pictures of things. As to innovation, nothing could be more challenging than to take ideas that have captured the attention of generation after generation of human beings and to make those ideas come to life again.
The greatest and most "revolutionary" art is really the most traditional -- when ideas that participate in a perpetual present tense have real life in them. posted 02/16/2008 at 18:21:43
Who Are Red Letter Christians?
The pressure to accept gay marriage is a similar gesture, though more subtle. It's a way of dividing the church and dissolving it over a contrived and false controversy about acceptance. If the church conforms to the expectations of the world, in what sense is it still a church? And if it is not a church, then what is the point? The real question, the only question that can possibly matter, with regard to the church is what does God require? People who want designer religion are chasing after the trappings of religion, a kind of "good housekeeping seal of approval" for their "lifestyles."
As to people who found Evangelicals foolish and ridiculed them, I don't think that genuine followers of Christ have ever cared how they stood in the cavalier and ephemeral opinions of the world. And why should they? If their hearts are fixed on God, they have a real anchor of being to take them through life.
Anyone who wants to find God needs to care only about what God wants.
Everything else is irrelevant. posted 02/21/2008 at 17:25:23
I think you're missing the point when you say, "There are Evangelicals who argue against environmentalism, claiming that global warming is a myth (or at least grossly exaggerated), and that environmental concerns distract Christians from those matters that should fully occupy our moral and political attention: gay marriage and abortion." You expect people to care about "the environment." Look at how much we lost when we started speaking of "the environment" instead of Nature. But why should anyone care about "the environment" especially when contemporary relativism undermines the most basic element of Human Nature -- our awareness of the soul and our command to respect human life.
Mother Theresa got to the heart of the problem when she said, "if a mother can kill her own child, what is to keep any of us from killing each other?" The heartlessness of abortion stands at the core of all the social issues upon which you would have us fix our attention. Carrying a pregnancy to term is a gesture of faith, faith in the providence of God, faith in an unknowable future, thankfulness for a wonderful gift of life. Jesus's mother accepted her pregnancy in humility, and it's hard to see how Christianity has any meaning at all if abortion is sanctioned.
posted 02/21/2008 at 17:24:58
It's Not Race or Gender, It's a Generational Conflict
What was your point? All these distinctions remind me of the scholastical question about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Well, at least the angels were dancing. I really cannot see any purpose served by putting labels on people, unless it keeps you from having to figure them out as human beings. posted 02/12/2008 at 15:59:52
Potomac Primary Coverage
I think if Hilliary wins the nomination, we'll start seeing the negatives increase -- a miniature replay of the polarized politics of the Clinton years. It won't be McCain causing it, it will come from Conservatives who really find both Clintons quite loathesome. (And, have got to tell you, that group includes me.) I also believe that revisiting the negatives associated with both Clintons is only fair. Candidates should get deep scrutiny. And scrutiny doesn't play well for a candidate whose first claim is already deeply suspect -- 35 years experience? Doing what? Bimbo management?

In sharp contrast, Obama brings real idealism to the Democratic party, enough so that I suspect more Republicans than you would think would consider voting for him. I say this since I may, quite possibly, vote for him myself if the Dems nominate him. But there is not way I will ever vote for Hilliary Clinton.

In the primaries I voted for Huckabee. I admire McCain and had hoped he'd get the nomination eight years ago instead of Bush. (I voted for Bush.)

For the first time in a long time, I feel quite hopeful about a presidential race -- meaning that, if McCain wins, a very experienced and distinquished American becomes president. If Huckabee still has a chance (would take an act of God), I think he'd be truly fine. And if a Democrat wins, and it's Obama -- that also will take the country in a really new and positive direction.

However, if by some very unfortunate fate, Hilliary Clinton wins the White House, it is one huge, disappointing step backwards. The Clintons set into motion the big pendulum swing of "liberal" vs "conservative" that has continued on through two Bush terms, with plenty of animosity on the part of both parties.

We really do need a uniter. I'm thinking that either McCain or Obama could be it.

Yea, give me a chance, and I might vote for Obama. It would be the first time I've voted for a Democrat in I don't remember when. posted 02/12/2008 at 19:41:43
I think if Hilliary wins the nomination, we'll start seeing the negatives increase -- a miniature replay of the polarized politics of the Clinton years. It won't be McCain causing it, it will come from Conservatives who really find both Clintons quite loathesome. (And, have got to tell you, that group includes me.) I also believe that revisiting the negatives associated with both Clintons is only fair. Candidates should get deep scrutiny. And scrutiny doesn't play well for a candidate whose first claim is already deeply suspect -- 35 years experience? Doing what? Bimbo management?

In sharp contrast, Obama brings real idealism to the Democratic party, enough so that I suspect more Republicans than you would think would consider voting for him. I say this since I may, quite possibly, vote for him myself if the Dems nominate him. But there is not way I will ever vote for Hilliary Clinton.

In the primaries I voted for Huckabee. I admire McCain and had hoped he'd get the nomination eight years ago instead of Bush. (I voted for Bush.)

For the first time in a long time, I feel quite hopeful about a presidential race -- meaning that, if McCain wins, a very experienced and distinquished American becomes president. If Huckabee still has a chance (would take an act of God), I think he'd be truly fine. And if a Democrat wins, and it's Obama -- that also will take the country in a really new and positive direction.

However, if by some very unfortunate fate, Hilliary Clinton wins the White House, it is one huge, disappointing step backwards. The Clintons set into motion the big pendulum swing of "liberal" vs "conservative" that has continued on through two Bush terms, with plenty of animosity on the part of both parties.

We really do need a uniter. I'm thinking that either McCain or Obama could be it.

Yea, give me a chance, and I might vote for Obama. It would be the first time I've voted for a Democrat in I don't remember when. posted 02/12/2008 at 19:40:32
Agnostics for Obama
I repost this here for whomever doesn't like narrow posts!

Thank you Stevesrant and HS. We already have intelligence-in-nature in the form of homo sapiens and his antics. Just about everybody who's read a book today agrees upon the likelihood of the universe holding other intelligent beings somewhere. A certain small percentage of science research is devoted to finding any ol' slim evidence of intelligence elsewhere, which naturally raises the essential question of "what do we look FOR?" What defines intelligence in such a way that we would know its artifacts when they hit out satelites. So that is one analogy.
Then ask yourself, what you would look FOR in wondering if an intelligent being (God or whatever) exists. First you have to ask what you would look for.
Next question. This is a micro/mega kind of thing, of Chinese nested boxes. We're assuming we're intelligent (no irony, really, honest, I mean it). If it turns out that our mitochondria were also kind of smart, would they be able to know that "we" exist and realize that they, with their organelle smarts, were living inside an even smarter (by Golly) system?
posted 02/12/2008 at 13:53:43
Thank you Stevesrant and HS. We already have intelligence-in-nature in the form of homo sapiens and his antics. Just about everybody who's read a book today agrees upon the likelihood of the universe holding other intelligent beings somewhere. A certain small percentage of science research is devoted to finding any ol' slim evidence of intelligence elsewhere, which naturally raises the essential question of "what do we look FOR?" What defines intelligence in such a way that we would know its artifacts when they hit out satelites. So that is one analogy.
Then ask yourself, what you would look FOR in wondering if an intelligent being (God or whatever) exists. First you have to ask what you would look for.
Next question. This is a micro/mega kind of thing, of Chinese nested boxes. We're assuming we're intelligent (no irony, really, honest, I mean it). If it turns out that our mitochondria were also kind of smart, would they be able to know that "we" exist and realize that they, with their organelle smarts, were living inside an even smarter (by Golly) system? posted 02/12/2008 at 13:52:23
Flames shooting out the butt. Now, you understand why religious art can be sort of dynamic. You've just given a pretty good description of Hieronymus Bosch! posted 02/12/2008 at 13:35:36
I am delighted that I asked. Seek and you will find, ask and it will be given. I asked. I got. Works for me.
Your reading list is amazing. Just don't forget to stop and smell the roses.
We have a fat book on Bach sitting on the shelf here at the Muse household, but we still have to listen to the music if we want to understand it.
Agape, back at ya. posted 02/11/2008 at 18:59:48
Don't be so quick to judge. There's time to think. posted 02/11/2008 at 18:54:33
Yet to find wisdom, "if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God."
Various quotes from the book of Proverbs. Wonderful book.
I can hear Wondering reacting to the "fear of the Lord," oi vay.
It's a complex thing. Not a science book, my friends, definitely not science. It is more of a mirror. Or a window into the heart. posted 02/11/2008 at 17:50:46
The paradox of Christianity is that is is available to the lowly. The poor, the weak, children, the uneducated, perhaps have an easier time understanding God than do their opposites. [Muses, mea culpa.] Paul had to have faith knocked into him on the road to Damacus, where he was heading hot for the purpose of attacking Christians. "For God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty." [1 Cor 1:27] And it's an intriguing stance, this Christian idea of the primacy of the weak, particularly in regard to knowledge. Compare it with the famous image of Wisdom in Proverbs: "she" stands in the street corner where anybody might meet her. She "cries out," she's shouting. This image of wisdom certainly suggests it's readily available like a KMart of well-being to anyone who will listen: "She crieth at the gates: at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors." (She's hard to miss.) "How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity?" "Ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart." (Note, she's not big on flattery.)
She's a little like your elementary school teacher, Sister Mary Catherine with the ruler, ready to give your fingers a snap! Not hard to find her because she's the one yelling. Erasmus of Rotterdam wrote a wonderful parody based on the figure of Wisdom, called the Praise of Folly.
What is wisdom? "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth ...." "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth ...." [It's a little like the notion of "intelligent design" by a power of Nth magnitude.]
posted 02/11/2008 at 17:50:12
I'm going to offer a different definition (at the risk of sounding uncomfortably like the Baptists who camped in my family's living room of old) -- a Christian is someone who has a relationship with Jesus, who has said "yes," to God. I only make this distinction because "following the teachings" is a harder one to narrow down, not just in regard to "all" the teachings, but even as to agreeing what the teachings are.
Human beings are notoriously good at disagreeing about details (of anything).
The book of Revelations suggests that the identity of God's people is "written in the book," an image which my atheist friends will have fun with no doubt. But, in short, it suggests to me that the identity of believers is known really only to God. (So when the roll is called up yonder, who knows atheists, you might be first in line!) Since I understand the Christian God as a mysterious and loving presence behind the mask of reality, I see that "book" of hidden names as hopeful.
posted 02/11/2008 at 17:08:26
HS, I was just curious what the atheists were up to -- have to note that you fellows are inordinately fond of religion -- in your own interesting, back-handed sort of way.
I saw your comment about reading a book about Jesus as a Pauline myth, etc. In your study program about religion, do you ever just read the Bible to see what it says? Seems to me that you're ready for the primary text rather than continual references to interpretative sources. The NT letters are (so far as I'm aware) the only evidence that Paul exists. So anything that Paul says about Jesus, etc, comes from there.
I'm assuming you've read the New Testament, but in light of your current fascination with debunking it, why not reread it?
Just a thought. posted 02/11/2008 at 16:54:16
To Republicans: Conservatism Has Failed. Deal With It
I have just seen that Obama ad on tv. Just now. Tell me, what's wrong with having industry in the US? Why can't Americans make products for sale within our own borders? Why can't Chinese industry serve its people? We wanted cheaper goods, but eventually we do so at the expense of our neighbors.
Somebody tell me why Americans cannot work for each other and maintain a high standard of living?
For that matter, why do we HAVE to be a consumer society? What if we began to consume morality, beauty, dignity, self-respect, and kindness?
How about less stuff -- and more of life. posted 02/10/2008 at 19:29:48
I think readers can judge for themselves, comparing your commentary with mine, and discern the relative intelligence of each one's author. posted 02/10/2008 at 17:06:35
Mrs. Clinton, the candidate with experience-by-marriage, is doing reruns of her husband's campaign -- she's making empty promises. Most notably she's claiming she'll take the US out of Iraq 60 days after becoming president. The blood bath that would follow doesn't concern her, evidently, since Iraqis don't vote in US elections. Her other empty promise is universal health care. I guarantee the Clinton family will not have the same care as the rest of America under her "universal" program.
We have three very distinquished, principled people left running: Senator Obama, who in inexperienced but impressive nonetheless; Senator McCain, who has a long distinquished career, and Governor Mike Huckabee, who is new and refreshingly human and normal.
Don't know about the "labels" crowd ("left-wing," "right-wing," "progressive," "neo-con," blah, blah, blah), but I'd be pleased to see any of these men serve as president.
It's a hopeful time. Possibly we'll go back to being a country of people instead of two mean gangs shouting insults back and forth. posted 02/09/2008 at 18:41:52
The United States used to be conservative. We had trees. Streams. Wild animals. Clean air.
Now instead of "nature" we have the environment. We could be protecting a historic parking lot or a forest. From the terminology alone, it would be impossible to tell.
Changing "nature" to the "environment" is a lot like seeing Terry Schiavo as just a "brain dead" non-entity, whose life could be terminated at the will of her husband -- a man who stood to gain financially from her death and who was already the de facto husband of someone else. Schiavo's parents wanted her to be allowed to live, and it's interesting that Democrats are not interested in protecting parental rights in this case just as they consistently oppose parental rights in other areas of law.
"State's rights" is the simple recognition that the United States is not defined as the sum of New York added to California -- that a continent lies between. (Something that the hipster class only experiences as clouds to be flown over.)
The Democrats have defined themselves in modern times as a peace party. But they cannot make peace with the half the electorate who live in this country and vote for Republicans. The claims for peace are touted alot, but antigonism and party spirit, rudeness and mean-spiritedness are still the order of the day.
Senator Obama has said he'd work with Republicans to unite the country. And I believe he means it. I shall assume you are not his supporter, since you prefer the old rant of "our side, rah, rah."
I think a lot of people are sick of this. More people are registering as Independents because they're sick of the split of the country into two bullying, power-mongering camps.


posted 02/09/2008 at 18:41:30
Biofuels Deemed A Greenhouse Threat
Well said. What do we have to change about ourselves that we will not want to do the stuff that causes pollution? We need a conservative revolution (that's probably not what you intended, but I put my own two cents in). We need to create a society that values walking, being outdoors, spending time closer to the land, more gardening, less driving. Teaching our kids about nature, spending more time looking at the sky over our heads, tuning ourselves more into the rhythm of the day's passage and the change of the seasons. Being more contemplative, less avaricious. Less hipster chic, more concerned about the state of our souls. Interested in people, in the well being of our neighbors, less focused on the "media." Life is short. Each one of us is put here for a reason. What are we doing to find purpose in our lives? posted 02/10/2008 at 18:55:44
Oh, by the way, for what it's worth: I'm a registered Republican who loves to drive. But maybe it's time to evolve past the automobile. posted 02/10/2008 at 17:25:33
It is irrelevant who is "behind" a study. All that is really of significance is whether the study is accurate and true -- or not.
If you haven't anything to say about the study's accuracy then you are indulging in propaganda.
However, as far as advocacy and propaganda are concerned, there are other sectors of society that see a big problem with biofuel: small farmers. Using agricultural land to make a fuel is short-sighted in the extreme. People need to eat. And they have always needed to eat. But home sapiens actually flourished for a very long time without vehicles. And the biggest error of arithmatic of modern times may be the equation that says every individual needs his/her own personal car.
Maybe it's time to rethink that -- before we have asphalted the entire planet. posted 02/10/2008 at 17:23:47
Why Isn't Poverty a Story?
The problem with Edward's poverty theme was its hypocrisy. Edward's is fabulously wealthy. Those people who arrive in the US from South of the Border, who you advise to continue north, are one reason why the US's poverty levels persist. But they came here for a reason. Give them a generation. The comparison with Denmark and Finland is telling. Not a lot of Mexicans in Finland, not many of anybody who isn't Finn; notably absent is a large Muslim population, as one find in the Netherlands or France or Britian all which feel the tensions associated with competing cultures. Denmark is bigger, but similary homogeneous. Are you suggesting that the US should become an all white, homogeneous glacial, sparely populated country like Finland?
The immigrant poor themselves seem to think the US offers them hope. Perhaps some of them also believed Edwards when he cried crocodile tears. But Edwards was making promises to get elected. The empty, meaningless promises didn't succeed. (Not even in the Carolinas.)
As long as there's opportunity in this country, people will come. And give them a generation. They had the stamina to get here. They'll have the stamina to succeed. It's not patronizing that they need. It's freedom.
You're writing a feel good piece for elites. I fail to see how writing about poverty makes anybody richer. posted 02/07/2008 at 19:16:22
Sweet & Sassy: Do Tweens Need Their Own Salons?
First off, stop calling them "tweens." What is the contemporary idolatry of adolesence? It is a passage between childhood and adulthood, but a sexually-obsessed society (one fostered more by Democrat's ideology than the conservatives) turns its focus on youth and would have us be STUCK in adolescence for eternity. Not only are children, for some mindless reason, being encouraged to act like teenagers at the earliest possible moment, but people who should be acting like adults, including many people who blog here at Huff -- "Max and the Marginalized" comes readily to mind -- need desperately to grow up before they have wasted big, irrecoverable chunks of their lives.
A wise parent protects her kids from the Church of What's Happening Now and its worship of "cool." And the beauty lessons a mom ought to teach her daughter are things like these: kindness, self-respect, decency, friendliness, intelligence, integrity, honesty, and endurance. posted 02/10/2008 at 17:52:01
Judging The Campaigns By Their Colors: Shades Of Red And Blue
Mouselion,
I looked at your blog and just see the two images. Are there just two? Perhaps you're just starting the blog.
I'm glad I said "draw." Your ideas are graphic, flat (2-d), inventive. I want to tell you something to look at that I think you'd learn from -- but I'm thinking Domenico Tiepolo and his drawings are not easy to find. The Punchinello drawings are whimisical and full of life, humor, sadness, drama.

Here's a few:

http://www.oberlin.edu/amam/images/tiepolo_giovanni_fi_001.jpg

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_1975.1.473.jpg

http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?57217+0+0

http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?57218+0+0

http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?74601+0+0

There's a continuous narrative of them and these are taken out of context, but they tell the story of the Punchinellos -- and these Punchinello figures have modern cousins in the Saltimbanque figures of Picasso.
http://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pimage?46382+0+0

Tiepolo made his Punchinello drawings late in his career so they contain kind of an artist's life of knowledge -- wonderful costumes, texture, use of wash, line (note the striped dress the woman wears -- he has a blast with line).
There's one Punchinello drawing that it seems Picasso must almost have certainly known, so similar it is to the Saltimbanques, but I can't find that one on line.
Well, anyway, you might find them interesting.
Cheers,
Muse posted 02/11/2008 at 20:27:26
adoris
I wrote a long winded thing below that refines my point but just want to acknowledge your comment.
Art is not isolated, certainly. But I think "politics" is granted more sphere than it does have or should have in life.
The distinction is perhaps this: art is made within society, but ultimately it addresses the soul. Art becomes the distinctly personal. It is perhaps the place where public and private meet.
Best,
Muse posted 02/11/2008 at 20:03:16
I apologize. I went nuts with this. Talk about long-winded. But THIS is the topic that I love.
Thanks. posted 02/11/2008 at 19:42:09
The "political" realm of people interacting with each other is separate from this. Granted your being an artist (as I agreed) has political elements, but not the art.
Art comes from within the mind, from aspects of the self, from your visual cortex, from degress of skill (or lack of skill) with which you are born -- over which you have practically zero control. Think of Paul Cezanne, French 19th c Impressionist painter. Cezanne's hero was Peter Paul Rubens. Cezanne would spend hours in the Louvre making drawings after Rubens. Rubens is one of the greatest draughtsman the West has ever produced. Cezanne -- not the greatest draughtsman. But Cezanne's not being able to draw like Rubens did not prevent Cezanne from becoming a great artist also. One of art's wonderful mysteries, this sort of thing.
People have private lives. Artists are perhaps more aware of this than others in our politically saturated world. What transpires when you hold a pencil and draw whatever common object catches your notice has nothing to do with society. The pencil, various conventional ideas about art, perhaps the object might all have various tenuous connections with the political -- but not the drawing. The drawing is more like a dialog between you some "reality" "out there."
It's an amazing thing.
Shouldn't say this to someone who is tired from working all day in a graphic design studio, but I'll say it anyway. Draw. Pick something of no significance whatever except that its visually appealing for you. Then draw.
Nothing could be further from politics. There are no rules for the order in which your senses notice the features of visual reality.
Best wishes, Muse posted 02/11/2008 at 19:41:32
How delightful this reply of yours. You haven't persuaded me! But you make some wonderful points. Let me see if I can be persuasive. I agree that we depend on society -- so, okay, in that sense politics pervades everything. But that isn't a helpful definition of politics -- not if we want to understand distinctions between political parties, or what motivates voters, or even broader questions like different kinds of political order (democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, tyranny, etc.)
Art benefits similarly by some narrowing of definitions. True that formal questions of how things are ordered visually, line, form, color, etc. are part of every kind of design from old master paintings to business cards. But there is a huge difference between your work as a graphic designer, trying to put visual information into the format dictated by your boss or your customer and you making a drawing for no other purpose than to satisfy your curiosity.
"Fine" artists have customers too, of course. Michelangelo had to answer to the Pope. But certainly there is no way that Michelangelo's customer could have dictated anything of the essense of what Michelangelo was doing. On a very high order of skill like that, he's thinking in formal ways that kind of defy rules. The Pope might have said "add more angels" or something, but none of a tampering with subject matter really touches what is happening formally -- and the formal structure underlying the subject matter conveys more of its meaning than people typically realize.
Well, we're not Michelangelos so maybe that doesn't apply to us .... But no. If you just begin looking at something and draw it. After a while you lose yourself in it. Your attention is captured in various ways by what you see and want. You may not know yourself why various features of the world capture your notice and others don't. This is what "art" is really about. Politics has no relevance to it. posted 02/11/2008 at 19:41:19
Here's some examples of Bonnard painting:
http://www.resurgence.org/2006/moore236.jpg

http://cooldesource.blog.lemonde.fr/files/bonnard.jpg

http://www.moma.org/images/collection/FullSizes/11703002.jpg posted 02/11/2008 at 16:41:20
You are defining the political as "everything" so naturally you find art political. But two points,the political isn't "everything," there is for instance such a thing as a private life. Second, I would not define these candidate graphics as "art," at all. So the blog really has nothing to do with art.
However, I'm very glad my comment got you to look at Bonnard who is a wonderful, important, and under-appreciated artist -- he is being "discovered" now by a wider audience.
And I'm glad to see that Kimberly, the blog's author is getting more responses.
Now if she can manage to get them for art, and not politics -- that will be something! posted 02/11/2008 at 12:35:47
You are not really talking about colors in a visual way. You are talking in color words. Poor vilified Phthalo blue, for instance, is not one unitary color at all. How could it be? But as with any pigment it appears in slightly subtle forms depending upon the colors surrounding it, the character of the light source and the perceptiveness of the viewer. Color is nothing more than the photons that reach your eye, there to be interpreted by your optic nerve and your mind. Photons, my friends.
I paint with Phthalo blue and with the Phthalo greens rather a lot and find them to be amazingly true and durable pigments. Depending upon the formulation they come either cool or warm from the tube (there is a Phthalo blue "red" shade that's closer to Ultramarine except for being darker). Mixed with other dark colors, Phthalo can be blended into rich darks that can contrast with either Mars or Ivory black.
I think it's unfortunate that even the art blog has to bow to politics. It demonstrates how unimportant art has become to the hipster class. Lots of people blogging over there. Hardly anyone blogging over here.
One has to discover what in art really speaks to people in genuine ways. I think in our time there's a kind of unacknowledeged hunger for real art, for that which is true to life, personal, that reveals life to us. It is contemplative and serious yet filled with delight. It's not a brand, any more than a rose is a brand, or a jonquil.
I have loved the paintings of Pierre Bonnard for a long time. It's surprising to look at them with attention to the dates. He painted things when France was split in two by World War II. Yet the paintings are filled with a timeless, enduring life. They are not "about" the war. They are not "about" anything so transient as political change. Instead they are about food, the bath, an open window, the outdoors coming indoors. They are about a dachshund lying in a chair, the artist's faithful companion. posted 02/09/2008 at 17:23:07
Why Hillary Is The Right Choice For Women
If there were a woman's right to choose, it would be an overturning of Roe v Wade and turning that decision over to voters (there are rather MORE women voters than Supreme Courts Justices).
But since one doesn't have THAT right to choose, I'll be using my woman's right to CHOOSE somebody who is not Hilliary.
Cheers! posted 02/04/2008 at 18:42:42
Why This Former Right Winger Likes Obama
I voted for Bush, and given all the identical circumstances I'd vote for Bush again (against Gore, against Kerry). I don't endorse all Bush's views, but he was a far superior choice to either of his opponents.
However, I could vote for Obama and indeed might. He'd be the first Democrat I voted for in I cannot remember how long. He comes across as thoroughly honest and dignified. In contrast, Hilliary is grasping and ideological, disingenuous and untrust-worthy (my opinion). I certainly will not vote for her "because" she's a woman. Having Hilliary as the first woman president might result in Hilliary as the last (if that's what the female president is supposed to be).
I don't think Democrats fully understand how polarizing she is, or how polarizing their party is. I wouldn't be changing parties by voting for Obama. I am philosophically closer to the Republican party than to the Democrats. But one can vote on character, one can vote for individuals. The Dems seem to be the ones who don't get this. They are all about ideology. I'm more interested in the individual.
I'd prefer an Obama with more experience. But an inexperienced Obama is greatly to be preferred to a Hilliary, the former wife, the glamour senator, the otherwise complete newbie candidate. posted 02/04/2008 at 19:00:50
Obama might be wrong to think Hilliary supporters will back him, but he is not mistaken in courting Republicans. posted 02/04/2008 at 18:53:17
It's your point of view that helps create the pendulum form of government -- that swings first one way -- and then the other. Are you anti-war? Really. You seem quite comfortable with hating people. You hate Republicans which you lump all togther. How is this an anti-war stance. The war in Iraq was not fueled by animosity, but national security.
It's this Us verses Them ideology that is our national un-doing. posted 02/04/2008 at 18:52:21
Clinton's Health Plan May Require Tapping Into Wages
She's an independent who will not be voting for a Democrat if the Democrat is Hilliary. posted 02/03/2008 at 19:20:06
Well, maybe I can come over to your house to have dinner while the Dems are working out the details.
Hope you're a vegetarian. posted 02/03/2008 at 19:17:40
What planet are we talking about? It's so "not free" now. Health care is eating my family's budget up. Soon I suppose we'll have to choose between "health care" and, say, eating.
That's how bad it is for me. Don't know about you. posted 02/03/2008 at 17:34:07
Read and enjoy, Dems. She's your gal. posted 02/03/2008 at 17:31:26
Iraq as Metaphor
Is the price of freedom, electricity and drinking water? Yes, the US did liberate Iraq, though what Iraqis do with that chance will depend much on their courage.
As to your rhetorical question about liberating Saudi women from their culture, I'm pretty sure you don't really want to accomplish that by military means.
Meanwhile, in the interest of not being dependant on foreign oil, we can count on you to stop driving? Great! posted 02/11/2008 at 12:31:05
Iraq is not a metaphor. It's a country in the Middle East -- newly liberated from a vicious dictator thanks to American President George Bush.
This distinction demonstrates why we should be very cautious about entrusting American foreign policy to Democrats: because Iraq is not a metaphor; it's a country. It's a country whose people are on the brink of change -- for good or ill. Let's hope and pray, their change will be for democracy and for the good. posted 02/10/2008 at 18:09:54
Clinton Responds To Coulter Support With Coughing Fit
Coda: I should never have defended Coulter at this forum since anything I'd say would likely be compared to "Mein Kampt," but take note Huffers. Whenever you only talk to people who are carbon copies of yourself, you can get a very distorted view of the world.
This reaction you feel toward Coulter is exactly how many people feel about Hilliary (including yours truly). The "complexity" remark that I made regarding Coulter, I could apply to Hilliary. Certainly I realize that she's a human being with a heart and soul, cares, hopes, dreams, whatever. But I do not want her (or her loathsome husband) running the country.
Hilliary is radioactive. While I voted for Bush, I can still admire Obama. He has made numerous statements with which I firmly disagree, yet the man's integrity seems to me quite resonante and clear. I could actually vote for Obama, even though on Iraq as well as numerous other issues I think he's mistaken. An interesting paradox? No. Character matters. It really does.
I'd rather have in office a man with whom I disagree, but who I can yet admire.
The Dems have had trouble understanding the moderates and independents. So much trouble in fact that they think Hilliary is a moderate!
Ooh, la la! Not even close. posted 02/04/2008 at 13:52:45
democraticjack
We don't all eat pork rinds. I'm a vegetarian, thank you. posted 02/04/2008 at 13:44:31
Wish I could quote one of the passages I found funny. Don't own a copy of the book, so I'm out of luck and perhaps you'd be surprised. Not all the humor is so strident.
posted 02/04/2008 at 13:43:56
I'm sorry if I was construed as supporting her hurtful statements. However, she has written intelligent things that are less talked about -- which is partly her fault since her more strident opinions prompt the sensationist reactions.
Her questions surrounding evolution are very cogent. I would enjoy seeing them addressed in some specificity by biologists (other than Dawkins who science's version of Coulter, in short, a grand-stander).
posted 02/04/2008 at 13:42:55
Actually I didn't express an opinion about her. I said I found the book intelligent and funny. If she were a Dem, anything she said would be forgiven.
In fairness to Coulter, who is probably abrasive based on the two times I saw her interviewed, people's personalities can be complex. She can be intelligent and have lots of "issues."
It's the black/white, all-or-nothing attitude (which I find oft times here at Huff) that is unhelpful.
I agree with you that Coulter has received more attention than she warrants. And, ironically, she gets it from the Left. I had hardly any awareness of her until I began posting here. posted 02/04/2008 at 13:40:20
Mein Kampt, the stale, evergreen reference to Nazis, the cliche that refuses to die, blah, blah, blah. Sorry. It deserves less reply than I've given.
As to the Coulter quotes, I've not read the list. I'm sure they're biting kinds of lines. I note they are taken out of context.
Coulter's wit is definitely biting. I have seen her on tv (twice, I think -- I never paid any attention to her before I began posting on Huff where she's a fave-to-hate -- I was introduced to her BY her critics, ironically). Her in-person remarks I found a bit over the top. Some of her writing is wicked. But on balance, I still say she's very funny in "Godless." (Haven't read anything else.)
She comes across as very intelligent. She takes aim at evolution in an intelligent, elegant way that her critics would be wise to notice. She takes no prisoners when it comes to the public schools. (That was especially refreshing.)
I think a Democrat doing similarly razor-edged comedy would not be chastised for being too tough on opponents. Your reasons for disliking her is that she's making fun of you.
But, hey, why do you have to take it personally.
I find Jon Stewart every bit as hysterical, especially when he's roasting the GOP.
It's healthy to laugh. At yourself, most of all.
Peace & love,
Muse posted 02/03/2008 at 19:30:48
Woah! I had earlier asked for the show of hands (how many have actually read a Coulter book) -- now I've actuallly seen the Hilliary video.
Yeah! I'm really seeing her "defending" the US better than McCain, decorated Veteran, former prisoner of war.
Talk about Hubris. Really. posted 02/03/2008 at 17:29:02
How many here have actually read a book by Coulter? Come on, let's have a show of hands.
I read "Godless" and found it hysterically funny. I wanted to send her a letter thanking her for some very healthy laughter!
She's a smart lady. Read her book, then argue ideas. posted 02/03/2008 at 17:00:37
Hillary's Looming Electability Crisis
I'm sorry, but the Dems are the ones with problems of race. Republicans put Colin Powell and Condi Rice in the highest executive offices held by African-Americans to date. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Secretary of State is in Constitutional line of secession to the president. So, in a sense, the GOP has already rehearsed the black president thing.
Anyway, Powell would have won by a landside if he had run. posted 02/03/2008 at 20:17:12
Nellie,
You are biased. Of course you don't think so. And it's your bias that prevents you seeing why so many Americans loath Hilliary.
Yours was the comment to which I originally appended my posting (regarding Hitchen's allegation) that didn't appear. Don't know if I was censored by the authors or by a computer snafu.
I think if Hilliary gets it, we'll have another Republican administration. That's okay by me, of course. But if Obama wins the Dems, at least the GOP won't feel they have to migrate to Canada! posted 02/03/2008 at 16:30:31
After reading your age discrimination comment I'd think you'd welcome a conservative court. Then they can overturn abortion and rescue the very youngest among us from anniliation. posted 02/03/2008 at 16:25:34
Do not "evolve" much after 30? Pray how old is nellie? Twelve? posted 02/03/2008 at 16:24:26
That's heartening to know! posted 02/03/2008 at 16:17:33
duh, I got my favorite "love to hate" people mixed up -- I meant to say it's a theme Christopher Hitchens has trumpeted. posted 02/03/2008 at 16:08:32
I posted a comment that I find was not permitted to appear, given (I presume) some content about Hilliary that was felt to be too sensitive for Dem's ears (even Obama supporters).
It's unfortunate. (As you recall, I'm from the Bush camp.) If Hilliary gets the nomination, I think it would next to miraculous if that information does not become more widely circulated. It's a theme of Richard Dawkins, a darling of the left, so I am quite sure somebody across the aisle will make a case out of it.
Hilliary is, as someone else here said it, radioactive. More so if she's the ticket holder than if she's just one contender.
That said, even as someone who leans toward the Republican side of the universe, I must say that Obama strikes me as a very dignified candidate -- someone we wouldn't be embarassed to have occupying the White House.
You should encourage your Dem audience to get all the bad news out now while it can affect their choice, rather than later when it might be a really very bitter pill to have to swallow.
Republicans another four years? Well, okay if you insist. posted 02/03/2008 at 16:04:34
Yes, Obama on Hilliary's ticket. Look what it did for President Gore.
If Obama accepts a spot on a Hilliary ticket, I'll know I misjudged the man. THAT would disqualify him for the White House in my estimation. posted 02/02/2008 at 17:24:40

On being left or right

I cannot say that I see much advantage in being a lefty, nor any advantage in being right. We have to use the whole brain. Similarly, we need to muster the whole citizenry if we want the nation to really blossom. I think we've have altogether too much of partisanship and not enough of commonwealth.

Anyway, one can certainly shift back and forth between modes. I am right handed, and I usually vote Republican, a fact that has gained me undue criticism here at Huff Po. But I'm an artist, and I sometimes draw with my left hand -- as here http://flowerstudiesaftercezanne.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post_4875.html

and most the time I draw with my right hand -- as here http://flowerstudiesaftercezanne.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post_7553.html

And I think both ways of drawing are wonderful. I began drawing with my left hand to see what it would be like to use the right hemisphere of my cortex in a direct way. Because it's not my typical habit, the line is shakey. And I discovered that I loved this wavering outline.

So, what do you suppose we might gain by getting outside our confort zones, from time to time, and looking at the world through the eyes of someone different. Lefties, I think you ought to all go hug an Evangelical today. It would do you good.

To Republicans: Conservatism Has Failed. Deal With It
Mrs. Clinton, the candidate with experience-by-marriage, is doing reruns of her husband's campaign -- she's making empty promises. Most notably she's claiming she'll take the US out of Iraq 60 days after becoming president. The blood bath that would follow doesn't concern her, evidently, since Iraqis don't vote in US elections. Her other empty promise is universal health care. I guarantee the Clinton family will not have the same care as the rest of America under her "universal" program.We have three very distinquished, principled people left running: Senator Obama, who in inexperienced but impressive nonetheless; Senator McCain, who has a long distinquished career, and Governor Mike Huckabee, who is new and refreshingly human and normal.Don't know about the "labels" crowd ("left-wing," "right-wing," "progressive," "neo-con," blah, blah, blah), but I'd be pleased to see any of these men serve as president. It's a hopeful time. Possibly we'll go back to being a country of people instead of two mean gangs shouting insults back and forth. posted 02/09/2008 at 18:41:52
The United States used to be conservative. We had trees. Streams. Wild animals. Clean air. Now instead of "nature" we have the environment. We could be protecting a historic parking lot or a forest. From the terminology alone, it would be impossible to tell.Changing "nature" to the "environment" is a lot like seeing Terry Schiavo as just a "brain dead" non-entity, whose life could be terminated at the will of her husband -- a man who stood to gain financially from her death and who was already the de facto husband of someone else. Schiavo's parents wanted her to be allowed to live, and it's interesting that Democrats are not interested in protecting parental rights in this case just as they consistently oppose parental rights in other areas of law."State's rights" is the simple recognition that the United States is not defined as the sum of New York added to California -- that a continent lies between. (Something that the hipster class only experiences as clouds to be flown over.)The Democrats have defined themselves in modern times as a peace party. But they cannot make peace with the half the electorate who live in this country and vote for Republicans. The claims for peace are touted alot, but antigonism and party spirit, rudeness and mean-spiritedness are still the order of the day.Senator Obama has said he'd work with Republicans to unite the country. And I believe he means it. I shall assume you are not his supporter, since you prefer the old rant of "our side, rah, rah." I think a lot of people are sick of this. More people are registering as Independents because they're sick of the split of the country into two bullying, power-mongering camps.posted 02/09/2008 at 18:41:30
Why Isn't Poverty a Story?
The problem with Edward's poverty theme was its hypocrisy. Edward's is fabulously wealthy. Those people who arrive in the US from South of the Border, who you advise to continue north, are one reason why the US's poverty levels persist. But they came here for a reason. Give them a generation. The comparison with Denmark and Finland is telling. Not a lot of Mexicans in Finland, not many of anybody who isn't Finn; notably absent is a large Muslim population, as one find in the Netherlands or France or Britian all which feel the tensions associated with competing cultures. Denmark is bigger, but similary homogeneous. Are you suggesting that the US should become an all white, homogeneous glacial, sparely populated country like Finland? The immigrant poor themselves seem to think the US offers them hope. Perhaps some of them also believed Edwards when he cried crocodile tears. But Edwards was making promises to get elected. The empty, meaningless promises didn't succeed. (Not even in the Carolinas.)As long as there's opportunity in this country, people will come. And give them a generation. They had the stamina to get here. They'll have the stamina to succeed. It's not patronizing that they need. It's freedom.You're writing a feel good piece for elites. I fail to see how writing about poverty makes anybody richer. posted 02/07/2008 at 19:16:22
Judging The Campaigns By Their Colors: Shades Of Red And Blue
You are not really talking about colors in a visual way. You are talking in color words. Poor vilified Phthalo blue, for instance, is not one unitary color at all. How could it be? But as with any pigment it appears in slightly subtle forms depending upon the colors surrounding it, the character of the light source and the perceptiveness of the viewer. Color is nothing more than the photons that reach your eye, there to be interpreted by your optic nerve and your mind. Photons, my friends.I paint with Phthalo blue and with the Phthalo greens rather a lot and find them to be amazingly true and durable pigments. Depending upon the formulation they come either cool or warm from the tube (there is a Phthalo blue "red" shade that's closer to Ultramarine except for being darker). Mixed with other dark colors, Phthalo can be blended into rich darks that can contrast with either Mars or Ivory black.I think it's unfortunate that even the art blog has to bow to politics. It demonstrates how unimportant art has become to the hipster class. Lots of people blogging over there. Hardly anyone blogging over here. One has to discover what in art really speaks to people in genuine ways. I think in our time there's a kind of unacknowledeged hunger for real art, for that which is true to life, personal, that reveals life to us. It is contemplative and serious yet filled with delight. It's not a brand, any more than a rose is a brand, or a jonquil.I have loved the paintings of Pierre Bonnard for a long time. It's surprising to look at them with attention to the dates. He painted things when France was split in two by World War II. Yet the paintings are filled with a timeless, enduring life. They are not "about" the war. They are not "about" anything so transient as political change. Instead they are about food, the bath, an open window, the outdoors coming indoors. They are about a dachshund lying in a chair, the artist's faithful companion. posted 02/09/2008 at 17:23:07
Why Hillary Is The Right Choice For Women
If there were a woman's right to choose, it would be an overturning of Roe v Wade and turning that decision over to voters (there are rather MORE women voters than Supreme Courts Justices).But since one doesn't have THAT right to choose, I'll be using my woman's right to CHOOSE somebody who is not Hilliary.Cheers! posted 02/04/2008 at 18:42:42
Why This Former Right Winger Likes Obama
I voted for Bush, and given all the identical circumstances I'd vote for Bush again (against Gore, against Kerry). I don't endorse all Bush's views, but he was a far superior choice to either of his opponents.However, I could vote for Obama and indeed might. He'd be the first Democrat I voted for in I cannot remember how long. He comes across as thoroughly honest and dignified. In contrast, Hilliary is grasping and ideological, disingenuous and untrust-worthy (my opinion). I certainly will not vote for her "because" she's a woman. Having Hilliary as the first woman president might result in Hilliary as the last (if that's what the female president is supposed to be).I don't think Democrats fully understand how polarizing she is, or how polarizing their party is. I wouldn't be changing parties by voting for Obama. I am philosophically closer to the Republican party than to the Democrats. But one can vote on character, one can vote for individuals. The Dems seem to be the ones who don't get this. They are all about ideology. I'm more interested in the individual.I'd prefer an Obama with more experience. But an inexperienced Obama is greatly to be preferred to a Hilliary, the former wife, the glamour senator, the otherwise complete newbie candidate. posted 02/04/2008 at 19:00:50
Obama might be wrong to think Hilliary supporters will back him, but he is not mistaken in courting Republicans. posted 02/04/2008 at 18:53:17
It's your point of view that helps create the pendulum form of government -- that swings first one way -- and then the other. Are you anti-war? Really. You seem quite comfortable with hating people. You hate Republicans which you lump all togther. How is this an anti-war stance. The war in Iraq was not fueled by animosity, but national security. It's this Us verses Them ideology that is our national un-doing. posted 02/04/2008 at 18:52:21
Clinton's Health Plan May Require Tapping Into Wages
She's an independent who will not be voting for a Democrat if the Democrat is Hilliary. posted 02/03/2008 at 19:20:06
Well, maybe I can come over to your house to have dinner while the Dems are working out the details.Hope you're a vegetarian. posted 02/03/2008 at 19:17:40
What planet are we talking about? It's so "not free" now. Health care is eating my family's budget up. Soon I suppose we'll have to choose between "health care" and, say, eating.That's how bad it is for me. Don't know about you. posted 02/03/2008 at 17:34:07
Read and enjoy, Dems. She's your gal. posted 02/03/2008 at 17:31:26
Clinton Responds To Coulter Support With Coughing Fit
Coda: I should never have defended Coulter at this forum since anything I'd say would likely be compared to "Mein Kampt," but take note Huffers. Whenever you only talk to people who are carbon copies of yourself, you can get a very distorted view of the world.This reaction you feel toward Coulter is exactly how many people feel about Hilliary (including yours truly). The "complexity" remark that I made regarding Coulter, I could apply to Hilliary. Certainly I realize that she's a human being with a heart and soul, cares, hopes, dreams, whatever. But I do not want her (or her loathsome husband) running the country.Hilliary is radioactive. While I voted for Bush, I can still admire Obama. He has made numerous statements with which I firmly disagree, yet the man's integrity seems to me quite resonante and clear. I could actually vote for Obama, even though on Iraq as well as numerous other issues I think he's mistaken. An interesting paradox? No. Character matters. It really does.I'd rather have in office a man with whom I disagree, but who I can yet admire.The Dems have had trouble understanding the moderates and independents. So much trouble in fact that they think Hilliary is a moderate!Ooh, la la! Not even close. posted 02/04/2008 at 13:52:45
democraticjackWe don't all eat pork rinds. I'm a vegetarian, thank you. posted 02/04/2008 at 13:44:31
Wish I could quote one of the passages I found funny. Don't own a copy of the book, so I'm out of luck and perhaps you'd be surprised. Not all the humor is so strident.posted 02/04/2008 at 13:43:56
I'm sorry if I was construed as supporting her hurtful statements. However, she has written intelligent things that are less talked about -- which is partly her fault since her more strident opinions prompt the sensationist reactions.Her questions surrounding evolution are very cogent. I would enjoy seeing them addressed in some specificity by biologists (other than Dawkins who science's version of Coulter, in short, a grand-stander).posted 02/04/2008 at 13:42:55
Actually I didn't express an opinion about her. I said I found the book intelligent and funny. If she were a Dem, anything she said would be forgiven.In fairness to Coulter, who is probably abrasive based on the two times I saw her interviewed, people's personalities can be complex. She can be intelligent and have lots of "issues."It's the black/white, all-or-nothing attitude (which I find oft times here at Huff) that is unhelpful.I agree with you that Coulter has received more attention than she warrants. And, ironically, she gets it from the Left. I had hardly any awareness of her until I began posting here. posted 02/04/2008 at 13:40:20
Mein Kampt, the stale, evergreen reference to Nazis, the cliche that refuses to die, blah, blah, blah. Sorry. It deserves less reply than I've given.As to the Coulter quotes, I've not read the list. I'm sure they're biting kinds of lines. I note they are taken out of context.Coulter's wit is definitely biting. I have seen her on tv (twice, I think -- I never paid any attention to her before I began posting on Huff where she's a fave-to-hate -- I was introduced to her BY her critics, ironically). Her in-person remarks I found a bit over the top. Some of her writing is wicked. But on balance, I still say she's very funny in "Godless." (Haven't read anything else.)She comes across as very intelligent. She takes aim at evolution in an intelligent, elegant way that her critics would be wise to notice. She takes no prisoners when it comes to the public schools. (That was especially refreshing.)I think a Democrat doing similarly razor-edged comedy would not be chastised for being too tough on opponents. Your reasons for disliking her is that she's making fun of you. But, hey, why do you have to take it personally.I find Jon Stewart every bit as hysterical, especially when he's roasting the GOP.It's healthy to laugh. At yourself, most of all.Peace & love,Muse posted 02/03/2008 at 19:30:48
Woah! I had earlier asked for the show of hands (how many have actually read a Coulter book) -- now I've actuallly seen the Hilliary video.Yeah! I'm really seeing her "defending" the US better than McCain, decorated Veteran, former prisoner of war.Talk about Hubris. Really. posted 02/03/2008 at 17:29:02
How many here have actually read a book by Coulter? Come on, let's have a show of hands. I read "Godless" and found it hysterically funny. I wanted to send her a letter thanking her for some very healthy laughter!She's a smart lady. Read her book, then argue ideas. posted 02/03/2008 at 17:00:37
Hillary's Looming Electability Crisis
I'm sorry, but the Dems are the ones with problems of race. Republicans put Colin Powell and Condi Rice in the highest executive offices held by African-Americans to date. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Secretary of State is in Constitutional line of secession to the president. So, in a sense, the GOP has already rehearsed the black president thing.Anyway, Powell would have won by a landside if he had run. posted 02/03/2008 at 20:17:12
Nellie,You are biased. Of course you don't think so. And it's your bias that prevents you seeing why so many Americans loath Hilliary.Yours was the comment to which I originally appended my posting (regarding Hitchen's allegation) that didn't appear. Don't know if I was censored by the authors or by a computer snafu. I think if Hilliary gets it, we'll have another Republican administration. That's okay by me, of course. But if Obama wins the Dems, at least the GOP won't feel they have to migrate to Canada! posted 02/03/2008 at 16:30:31
After reading your age discrimination comment I'd think you'd welcome a conservative court. Then they can overturn abortion and rescue the very youngest among us from anniliation. posted 02/03/2008 at 16:25:34
Do not "evolve" much after 30? Pray how old is nellie? Twelve? posted 02/03/2008 at 16:24:26
That's heartening to know! posted 02/03/2008 at 16:17:33
duh, I got my favorite "love to hate" people mixed up -- I meant to say it's a theme Christopher Hitchens has trumpeted. posted 02/03/2008 at 16:08:32
I posted a comment that I find was not permitted to appear, given (I presume) some content about Hilliary that was felt to be too sensitive for Dem's ears (even Obama supporters).It's unfortunate. (As you recall, I'm from the Bush camp.) If Hilliary gets the nomination, I think it would next to miraculous if that information does not become more widely circulated. It's a theme of Richard Dawkins, a darling of the left, so I am quite sure somebody across the aisle will make a case out of it.Hilliary is, as someone else here said it, radioactive. More so if she's the ticket holder than if she's just one contender.That said, even as someone who leans toward the Republican side of the universe, I must say that Obama strikes me as a very dignified candidate -- someone we wouldn't be embarassed to have occupying the White House.You should encourage your Dem audience to get all the bad news out now while it can affect their choice, rather than later when it might be a really very bitter pill to have to swallow.Republicans another four years? Well, okay if you insist. posted 02/03/2008 at 16:04:34
Yes, Obama on Hilliary's ticket. Look what it did for President Gore.If Obama accepts a spot on a Hilliary ticket, I'll know I misjudged the man. THAT would disqualify him for the White House in my estimation. posted 02/02/2008 at 17:24:40
I have thought so too. I voted for Bush twice because I greatly disliked first Gore and later Kerry. But in 2000 my real choice would have been McCain. However, he didn't get the nomination. (I had hoped Bradley would get it for the Dem nomination, but of course that didn't happen either.)If McCain got the job, he'd obviously be a one termer. But maybe a great one-termer is to be preferred to a novice. posted 02/02/2008 at 17:23:12
The "Soul Hypothesis" (Part 3)
I was stung by a bee. posted 02/08/2008 at 17:46:37
I have hardly given you any "info" at all. I'm deep. posted 02/07/2008 at 17:30:46
It's good to be anti-sophist. Honesty counts! Head injuries have been known to cause religion for some. Conversions by sword were once more the Muslim specialty (I've heard) let's hope the Catholics don't try it. Presbyterians like to form committees -- probably one reason I'm less of a Presbyterian than I used to be -- whoever stays awake the longest is voted the most religious I think. Jesuits to debate with -- that sounds like something you could enjoy. And, if memory serves me, you also had an appreciation of Catholic school uniforms for girls? posted 02/07/2008 at 17:18:25
The boonies where I was baptized was really wonderful. The minister who baptized me I had met by chance. Most of his time he spent visiting elderly people who were invalids, but he detoured to baptize one young outsider. He was elderly himself and die many years ago. A xenophobic parent, however, might have some health problems (?) -- don't know how old your father is, but personality changes are sometimes signs of illness. I hope it's just the effect of different surroundings and glad to hear he's not handling snakes! They've been known to cause health problems too.Glad to hear you like the paintings. posted 02/07/2008 at 17:12:56
We agree again, my friend.Soon we'll be twins! posted 02/06/2008 at 18:18:22
Well, thanks for your supportive words. I am a plain Christian though. I do not revere Jesus as a teacher so much as accept his being God's Son, though I don't really know what that means. However, I cut my teeth on Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self-Reliance" when I was a youth, and something of its Unitarian message has also stuck with me even as I became a Christian. (Emerson seems to have thought of Jesus in more the terms you describe.)However my favorite passage from the Bible is one of the "trinity" intimations:from John 1 "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." [10] "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."[14]"Word" in that passage is "logos", the same greek word from which we derive our "logic" and the "-ology" ending for all our scientific "study-of" words.No religion or culture has the corner on the market of kindness or morality. C.S. Lewis's ideas about the "other religions" [found in his book "Mere Christianity"] represent, I think, the sensible stance. (He noted that the NT is really pretty silent about other faiths.)So glad you visited the blog pages. And very glad to hear you like the koi! Very glad indeed! posted 02/06/2008 at 16:38:32
I don't know why you thought I was Catholic, but it provides an intriguing, perhaps, Dr. Freud moment. Are you sure you're not anti-Catholic? But, no, I am a protestant Christian. Formerly a card-carrying Presbyterian, though baptised in a lovely, small fundamentalist church out in the boonies. I have always been keenly interested in Catholicism since the bigger chunk of Christian history tends that way.As to the UFOs around their heads! Interference patterns and/or gold/gilding, shiney stuff in general is often associated with the divine -- all around the world from very early times! Don't know why. Where's Dap? He'll have the cognitive scoop!Or quite possibly they were just visited by space aliens. That's probably the explanation. Though ... we don't want to get you started down THAT road again! (I'm wearing my tinfoil cap, can you tell? It's VERY shiny!)Agape (Ooh, alien communications coming in now ....) posted 02/06/2008 at 16:25:47
Yes, sorry about the first link. The painting's on the site but you have to find it. This new site takes you right to it.http://www.u.arizona.edu/~zegurae/botticelli.jpghttp://cgfa.sunsite.dk/botticel/bottic15.jpg posted 02/05/2008 at 19:41:59
Here's a beter link to Primavera (I hope)http://www.u.arizona.edu/~zegurae/botticelli.jpg posted 02/05/2008 at 19:40:11
I was looking at a book on Botticelli, the Renaissance painter. The lovely "Primavera" is one of my absolute favorite paintings. In response to the preachings of Girolamo Savonarola, Botticelli shifted from painting light, mythological works to painting Pietas and similarly somber Christian themes. The difference between the two sets of works is quite striking. Of course, Botticelli is a great artist and both courses in his painting are quite beautiful. But it does show, quite graphically, the dividing lines between two currents of thought.http://www.abm-enterprises.net/artgall1/botticelli-primavera.jpghttp://cgfa.sunsite.dk/botticel/bottic15.jpgJesus wept. (Shortest sentence in the Bible.) Socrates laughed. He laughs in the Apology, his own trial, which he loses -- as surely as HeevenStevens "lost" among the Tinfoil hats. But one senses that Socrates might have as easily won -- that he possessed the skills to shape the verdict .... But he was not a sophist. So he drank the hemlock.I would say we need both. Some would say that makes me a poor Christian, but then even Augustine liked Plato. Socrates's laughter is very healthy and prudent. But Jesus wept. Socrates gives us no comfort in regard to civilian casualties in war, or even concerning a justice killing, as for instance Saddam Hussain's death sentence.What has any of this to do with science? I don't know. The Church was very unkind to Galileo, but his ideas were nontheless preserved and spread where eventually they prevailed. That blossoming also took place amidst Christian ideas. So it's complicated. Newton poured over theology, devoting as much or more of his attention in that direction than to his mathematics. Human beings can have complex motives.I like the debate here. Gracious, it's got me thinking about my faith so much more than I am accustomed to -- to which I am much indebted to my fine atheist interlocutors. You are sharpening my mind.Agape all. posted 02/05/2008 at 19:38:19
Am I the only Christian posting on this one? I've noticed that everybody seems to be a former something -- mostly Catholic. I can't help thinking that the assumption of atheism is chiefly in reaction against Christianity rather than purely in favor of scientific reason -- though I don't see reason and Christianity as hostile, indeed I approach Christianity as a rational faith.Well, anyway, just thought I'd toss out something about my own history. When I grew up it was Baptists. They decamped in the living room because an important family member was Baptist. They used to ask my parents their famous question about "have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior," and imply that eternity in the inferno was inevitable for most of homo sapiens. Thankfully, I became a Christian really despite my early exposure to these particular Baptists, who really had personal agendas of which they seemed to be quite unaware.I accepted Christianity through a process that began -- rather like science -- as curiosity. And while I have little information about other faiths, I am comfortable being a Christian. Yet I see no particular purpose in critiquing other religions. One lacks the "insider awareness" first off to even know what the other religions are to their adherents. And such criticism has little relevance to one's own faith. And there are just too many other religions. It would be to approach them as items at a buffet table. You deal in fragments and never see the entirety of any of them.As to the inferno, I do think there has to be some kind of divine justice. At least in light of so much human injustice, one hopes that there is. But the particulars of such a thing, its meaning, its manifestation are not things I think much about. Perhaps that makes me a milktoaste Christian. Who knows? I don't particularly judge myself either. I am a Humanist too. Perhaps these two ideas are in conflict? If so, I'm not aware of it. posted 02/05/2008 at 19:20:51
Dap, I don't follow. What happened to your science? posted 02/05/2008 at 19:02:32
Well, obviously I misinterpreted your earlier remarks. So I guess we don't agree. I don't find the Bible ridiculous, though my much esteemed atheist acquaintances here at Huff do. The Bible is not an easy read. posted 02/05/2008 at 15:58:38
I saw a UFO once, which my daughter on the other side of the family car saw very clearly. She drew a picture of what she saw later (at age 9) and it was a well drawn, classic image of one version of the "standard" UFO! Please note, however, that I use the term very literally -- the object was unknown. We saw it at rush hour and in a strange airspace to be seeing anything bigger than a Cesna. But what struck me later was this question of modern life: supposing space aliens really did visit earth. Depending upon the timing of their visit, they might prove to be only a most annoying distraction-- cause I'll guarantee you that nobody much cared what the mysterious object was! We just wanted an escape from bumper to bumper traffic! posted 02/05/2008 at 15:47:28
It's possible to persuade someone without teaching them, so possibly one could make the argument by entirely different, especially by non-logical means and gain their concurrence. But teaching is harder. It's the ol' bringing the horse to water thing. They were not thirsty for engineering facts. Still, people need to be exposed to ideas -- whether they "get" the facts or not. You fought a good fight. And you learned one hard lesson the only way anybody learns them. I think it's instructive regarding dogma. Much of it serves emotional ends, most of the time it's harmless. I don't think the tin foil hat crowd is a large enough demographic to effect the real issues of security. Politically it's the intelligent middle ground one needs to sway -- a demographic composed of Republicans, Democrats and Independents -- ahem -- and the conspiracy crowd will pass onto another topic that meets their needs, after this one fades. And so it goes. posted 02/05/2008 at 15:40:21
I am not Catholic so I learned about St Theresa in a round about way, but find her life very intriguing. However, this book, in characterizing the Catholicism of her generation of French people, relates an intellectual history whose themes are virtually identical to much that we've discussed in these forums. I've browsed the book & afterwards have begun reading from the beginning. An early chapter on Renan, Lamarrais, & Chateaubrian is very apropos. posted 02/05/2008 at 15:32:48
This answers my question about which "side" you address. Just curious, does this mean you're Hindu? posted 02/04/2008 at 17:36:59
A person could learn something about credulity. That's useful data, too. In regard to all argument (assuming that all the interlocutors are sane), a certain "je ne sais quoi" always pertains. People have emotional as well as intellual reasons. The emotional reasons are not always available to scrutiny, even to the particular individual. Sometimes it's the brain that tricks us, sometimes the heart.However, you did good. People need a little exposure to sanity first, before they come around. posted 02/04/2008 at 17:32:42
I completely agree. How about that?(And you didn't believe in miracles.) posted 02/04/2008 at 17:23:43
Amen Pandu! You are absolutely right! Only the dreamer can even report the dream, though it's narrative often is explained, interpreted or analyzed by others -- as was the case in the Book of Daniel or at Dr. Jung's psychoanalytical couch. The validity of such interpretations, likewise in the eyes of the beholder. BUT, I daresay, I dearly hope that the beholder's eyes count for something. I say this as an artist! Yikes, it's my bread and butter.I am more hopeful about the validity of senses. I don't recall whether your one of the atheists or of another camp, but speaking as a Christian I will certainly wish to give "evolution" its due and commend my senses for their mostly good working order.We are getting a little heady with philosophy. The senses, not perfect, nevertheless give trusty information. It takes some education to get into a real muddle like the one we're in, my friends!I really do think science and subjectivity can live in some kind of pleasant harmony. posted 02/04/2008 at 17:22:01
DapI was quoting you. You wanted me to leave "it" to you. It is none of it in our hands, dear Dap. Reality belongs to others. And this is a good thing. Muse likes to talk about philosophy but is unwilling to be put in charge! I have enough on my plate.Meanwhile you do not have to live on faith. We were discussing dreams, right? Some people claim never to remember dreams. Nothing to interpret! It's like me and math. Nothing to interpret! I am math-proof, for good or ill!That's not sophistry. I am not a Sophistical Muse. Agape. posted 02/04/2008 at 17:17:27
Perhaps it makes the load lighter. posted 02/04/2008 at 14:41:30
I love the question here. We do not recall our beginnings, and what really very early childhood memories we form are perhaps only accessible through brain waves that are not normal in adult consciousness (I read some tentative science about this once, about developmental changes in brain wave patterns). However, the mind does create its own sort of continuity -- more as sensation than in narrative. One feels as though one just always "was" though of course we know narratively that we were born, etc.The sense of rounded-out being comes evidently from the right hemisphere and strange things happen when people suffer right-hem injuries. Oliver Sacks has written prolifically on the topic with one of the best books being, Anthropologist From Mars.As to the fights among dogmas, it is sadly "natural" for human beings to fight. People chiefly fight their neighbors. One doesn't usually care particularly what other people are doing when those doings are not visible. It's one's neighbor that one learns to hate. Republicans and Democrats, Iraq v Iran, the French and the Germans, the Chinese and Korea, etc. posted 02/04/2008 at 14:40:06
You've written this other places so I must comment. Will you see it? Why would God knowing all about us give us cause for vaunted egos? The Bible describes God as "knowing when the sparrow falls," which doesn't exactly exalt human beings, "though we're also reassured that we are of more importance to God than even a sparrow."Navel gazing. Yeah, who needs it. But one's gaze is wisely directed at God.I would ask why the tendency to anthropomophize arises. I think it connects us in interesting ways to the rest of creation. It's seems to me a very positive manner of thought, in it's place. posted 02/04/2008 at 14:34:19
Practical pi like practical pie is for the consumption of many. If the Bible were as precise as you want it to be, would you be able to understand it? Forget about poor Muse, struggling to do arithmatic. posted 02/04/2008 at 14:29:38
Not strange at all. The Bible is speaking to innumerable human beings living in many diverses times and cultures. I think its remarkable the translatibility of the Bible -- not into other languages, but into other "horizons" of thought. String theory is our current Cosmology. Once is was Kepler, once Copernicus, once Ptolemy, etc. How would the Reality be accessible to each Culture -- of even the West (forgeting about everybody else) when it would be beyond their imagining? It's not a math book!Even our String theory is just mathematics. So, it's definitely off limits to me.The Bible speaks to other things. I once attended a Bible study class with a woman who was mentally retarded. Where else do the professors sit around the seminar table with people who are barely literate and learn together?Why is it important to know how reality works? It's important to some, but not to everybody. I learned an uncommon lesson in courage from that lady who was mentally retarded. She was in her 50s at the time. I will never forget her.I met her counterpart at the other end of life, a little girl age 6 who had Downs Syndrome who was also an amazing, spunky, daring person.The realm of human things is amazingly diverse and the Bible is more about that -- the human life on terra firma than it is about the nature of hydrogen and helium. Still it does not rule any of that out. I suspect hydrogen and helium are there too -- but only in various poetical disguises.Agape. posted 02/04/2008 at 14:27:50
stevesrantI'm not sure who said what either, but nice essay!We're sort of opposite in the conclusions we draw, but what an eloquent commentary on curiosity.And, thank you for pointing out the intriguing demarcation between humanity and nature. I don't quite agree -- or I'm not sure what I think actually. We are obviously inside nature, but are we not also in ways outside it? I think an argument can be made for our separateness. posted 02/04/2008 at 14:16:57
Dave24I quite disagree. It is popularly supposed that the Bible, for instance, makes scientific claims, as for instance, about creation. The "Creationists" seem to think so as well as their critics. I believe both camps are completely mis-reading the two Genesis stories. That itself needs to be noted: there are two versions. Please also note, I'm not saying that anyone is an infidel or likely to suffer eternal punishment for disagreeing with me. I'm fairly confident that God is not giving an exam, that knowing the "correct" answer as to the meaning of Genesis is not a ticket to paradise.It's true that "religion" is a complex of competing and often antagonistic ideas. But such is life.I agree with your first statement: "you can prove love by action." I think love for God can certainly begin with respect for the intellect. The ability to reason is a beautiful thing. Not everybody is cut out for deep thought, however. So, if a Creationist finds comfort in believing Genesis in a literal way, why would I disturb that belief? How does it injure me? I'm quite free to search out other meaning. Freedom is the key (which, thankfully, a democracy mostly provides!) posted 02/04/2008 at 14:13:23
Dap,This is one's "faith" in science. Since when is something "enough for you to know." Of course the contents matter. Better leave this one to the artists. How does a novelist create a story's plot? In some radically different way? Of course not. The dream content is very significant, revelatory, and a wonderful topic for study. However, it's difficult to see how science can add much to the study of the content.Though, who knows?Muse posted 02/04/2008 at 14:05:06
Hello stevesrantI don't follow your reference to dreaming, but it's one area -- still rather un-studied by science, perhaps unstudiable -- where the difference between things that can be recorded like EEGs and dream narratives yield wildly different results. The simple appearance of a certain kind of brain wave demonstrates that someone is dreaming, but tells us nothing about why people dream generally -- and really cannot tell us, I think, anything about the purpose of the contents -- the meaning -- of a specific dream. posted 02/03/2008 at 19:44:49
HS, I just recently began reading an very interesting bookhttp://www.amazon.com/Therese-Lisieux-Gods-Gentle-Warrior/dp/0195307216/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202075573&sr=8-1about Therese of Lisieux. It mirror many of the themes that we've debated on these various posts -- dealing with them from a 19th c perspective, where many of them originated.posted 02/03/2008 at 16:56:47
Many claims by religion have been misunderstood by science. The religious claims are not always about what you think they're about. The Bible, for instance, has nothing (that I'm aware of) to say about science. posted 02/03/2008 at 16:46:58
First Person Artist Willie Cole: An Art Installation Carrie Bradshaw would Love
The artist you've heralded has a very nice resume, I'll grant. Compare it with Van Gogh's. It's an interesting comparison. Which of them is the great artist?Van Gogh was an authentically great artist, and while he was unknown in his time, some of that came about by the combination of his problems of mental health and the very rigid marketing options available in 19th century France. But he had a natural audience, and ironically we see that audience today. Van Gogh is loved by ordinary people all over the world. You can buy a nice monograph on the artist in any Walmart anywhere. The people who buy these books and who love his images do not need to have the images explained to them. They get it. Not because we have "assimilated" Van Gogh's ideas (that is nonsense), but because Van Gogh was a humane and sensitive observer of life. People respond to the beauty, the order and logic of his pictures, their subject matter (which is not confusing or mysterious at all) and to the delicacy of life contained in them. Van Gogh is as accessible as Gerard David or as the great cave images of Lascaux. In contrast these shoes are "cute" -- one gets the gimmick of them. But that's it. There is nothing of substance in them and they are no different from the mountains of similar things available in the "art world."There is a real world outside the "art world," and that reality is the natural territory of real artists.posted 02/06/2008 at 17:39:25
I'm all alone here among these three other folks posting. I am wondering why you wrote about this guy. It's universally accepted by anybody who went to art school that this kind of assemblage thing is art. But it isn't art. I don't say this because I'm "conservative" which is the official Art World explanation for all defenses of "realism," but because I know what real art is. And his ain't it. Moreover these shoes in a pattern are ubiquitous now. One sees this kind of thing everywhere. It is a fad, and sadly not a particularly interesting one.I really doubt that the artist makes these things from an impetus coming from within himself. He is doing what's expected of him. When representation was recognized as the preeminent form (it remains the preeminent form for most of humanity, excepting the 80,000 people who subscribe to ArtNews), most art (usually painting) was not made by great masters. While there might be a real genius somewhere making humane art from old shoes in works that reach deep into the fondeur of the mind, I say the odds are rather against it. However, most representational artists while not geniuses still must possess a high level of skill to paint at all. Look at Turner, then look at Bonnington. The latter is not in the same camp as Turner, but at his best he gets close. By continually focusing our attention on the hip and trendy "School of What's Happening Now," we divert our attention from the kind of genuine visual inquiry that leads to great art or at least to almost great art. posted 02/06/2008 at 17:39:10
9/11 "Truthers" a Pack of Liars
What foolishness is this? The Sun??? Give me a break. Obviously, it's on the Moon.Sun .... I'm gonna be laughing about that one a long time.(Where do people get this stuff?) posted 02/03/2008 at 20:48:45
Ilk? Were you to actually attend to HeevenSteven's comments, geeze, you might learn something. He's an engineer making scientific statements which he supports with facts and references. And you throw Naomi Wolf rhetorical talking points back at him? Please. I hope you don't kid yourself that you are persuading anyone. posted 02/03/2008 at 20:22:41
RadicalWhigPerhaps you might do some research about how bin Laden amassed his fortune. It would tell you something about bin Laden's caves.I think your analysis of al Quida tells us everthing we need to know about your 9/11 conspiracy theory credentials.posted 02/03/2008 at 15:56:10
RadicalWhigI particularly like the obvious and common-sensical parts of your argument. I'm looking out the window now, and my common sense tells me that it's obvious the earth is flat.So, I guess it is.(And you thought religion had nothing to contribute to this debate, HeevenSteven.) posted 02/03/2008 at 15:52:36
HS, you rascal. The only sky god you'll acknowledge is John Pike.Well, it's Men in Black who are behind all this. Agent Scully? Agent Muller? Are you there? posted 02/02/2008 at 14:14:06
A family from my daughter's school was on Flight 77, husband, wife and their two kids. Also the son of a local university professor. And a woman from our community. They all died on 9/11 on Flight 77 at the Pentagon, along with Barbara Olson the wife of the US Solicitor General (and Bush's attorney at the time of the recount).I guess the cynical believe that Bush killed the wife of the man who helped him win the recount battle that led to his becoming president.Of course, Donald Rumsfeld was at the Pentagon when it was hit (a fact the truthers have conveniently forgotten). Only by a fluke, more people weren't killed. The Pentagon had recently undergone remodeling and that section of the building was only then going back into use. Much of the office space was still vacant or there would have been many more deaths. posted 02/01/2008 at 18:55:24
I love this. Gotta tell you. Speaking as someone who voted twice for the guy, arguing here at this Bush love-fest site, I just adore this.Wait a minute. I thought Bush was too "stupid" for words. Isn't that the official line of the Huff Po demographic? This guy is so dumb we're amazed that he walks and talks. (Though he was smart enough to beat both Gore and Kerry -- but I digress.)Yet ol dumb-bo is the Great Mastermind behind the greatest, most devastating attack on US soil.Sure. Geeze, when you explain it like that. posted 02/01/2008 at 18:41:07
Au contraire. Remember Dick Clark? The only person interviewed by the 9/11 commission who apologized for "having let you down"? Read his book. Compare it with Michael Scheurer's account. You can see how two key figures in the hunt for bin Laden disagreed over the particular actions that they felt should or should not have been taken to kill bin Laden -- this was PRIOR to 9/11. Clark had some cause to apologize -- at least according to Scheurer. But I don't want to spoil the suspense for you. You can read. Go read.http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/0743260244http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1597971596/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201908908&sr=1-1 posted 02/01/2008 at 18:35:46
PuckspellHow about some EVIDENCE that the truthers seem conveniently to have forgotten? Remember that Bush "stole" the election (according to the losers). Who, pray tell, was at his side fighting Al Gore in court over the Florida recount? Ted Olson. Olson's wife Barbara, you might recall, died on Flight 77 that plowed into the Pentagon. Ted Olson was U.S. Solicitor General at the time. She had been scheduled to take another flight, but changed at the last minute to celebrate her husband's birthday. How does that factor into your conspiracy? Donald Rumsfeld was in his office when the plane flew into the building. Was Bush trying to bump off his Secretary of Defense along with his attorney's pretty young wife? (Olsen was 61 and his wife was in her forties. They'd been married since 1996.)Those two facts alone demonstrate that the Government Conspiracy has "stupid" written all over it. You have to be both gullible and cynical to the Nth degree to believe this stuff. posted 02/01/2008 at 18:29:51
You really are grasping at straws. So you think the Air Force could take out airliners with US citizens on them, no problem? This is almost amusing. The US is at war in Iraq (who are foreigners, okay) and the whole Democratic party and many others besides are pretty upset about it, you know. But the Air Force could just pop airliners full of civilians and we'd have narry a peep.Anomalies? You act as though the US government is sitting at the right hand of God. I don't think even Bush's supporters believe he has god-like powers. But evidently you think he should have them. posted 02/01/2008 at 18:08:26
OldOne, it sounds like you need to read up on Bin Laden. He was hardly a "diabetic cave dweller," etc. And his organization had already successfully taken out two African embassies and a big hunk of the USS Cole. So he was no novice. He was not a friend of the Saudis and has been trying assiduously to bring down the Saudi government for years. posted 02/01/2008 at 18:02:56
I meant the Deepak Chopra thing. This here. Oh, no debate. Just lots of swatting at imaginary flies. posted 02/01/2008 at 10:14:32
Now HeevenSteven, it obviously has not done that to me. Hmm, hmm. But to err is human. Let's just say these folks are very, exceedingly, more than average human.It would take a miracle, I agree, to get them to see the logic here. posted 02/01/2008 at 10:11:43
I missed an excellent debate. Sigh. I'll have to read it sometime at my leisure. Though I might need a tutor. Do you guys have bring in the quantum big guns? Geeze a little parting of the Red Sea is refreshing after that. Cecile B. Demille I can understand. Chuck Heston as Moses. Yeah!My speed.Anyway, howdy.posted 01/31/2008 at 20:20:54
condieshoesAirlines have such a rich history of economic failure that betting on their fall is a pretty good assumption almost any time. (Their very expensive to operate, you know.)If this item is counted as "evidence" of conspiracy, then the case for conspiracy is weak indeed. posted 01/31/2008 at 19:54:12
They would have to ship it to another planet to hide it, OldOne. posted 01/31/2008 at 19:49:10
How could they have searched for the remains of those who died on 9/11 without removing the debris? Perhaps you are looking at this exclusively through the lens of engineering. But all the people who died have relatives who wanted to be able to know definitely that they died and then bury whatever remains were found. It's part of people's grief and their need to put the event into perspective psychologically. And it's not at all difficult to understand. posted 01/31/2008 at 19:48:26
The Race-pectations Game
jstockPeople are so cynical. What is in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, my friend. Actually it was just a typo. Osama has been around in the news much longer than Obama, so my fingers have typed his name more times and hence remember his name's spelling more readily.But my enthusiasm for Obama is quite genuine, regardless of the coincidental similarity of names. Barrack Obama seems like a real person, honest, principled.And I hope he wins the Democratic nomination.I also like Huckabee for many of the same reasons I have given for liking Obama. The differences in their respective ideologies doesn't bother me given how both men are honest and statesmanly.posted 01/29/2008 at 17:40:23
Okay, I voted for Bush twice and I'm glad I did. And I do not discount Osama because black people in South Carolina voted for him. Indeed, the way I look at the numbers, a whole bunch of whites seem to have voted for him too.Would you have had South Carolina's black voters stay home?Duh.Hooray for Osama. I hope it gives him tons of momentum for the race ahead. Right now, this citizen who voted for Bush hopes mightily that Obama wins the Democratic nomination. I'm still undecided regarding who I'd like to see win on the Republicans side. I could vote for Obama. And even if I vote against him, he might win anyway. And I'd much rather that he was the Democratic winner than dreary Hillary.So, you see, my friends, if a supporter of President Bush can get excited about Obama, maybe South Carolina's black voters merely reflect the demographics of their state. But their support for him does not mean that they voted "on race." Maybe they just like the guy. Like I, just like the guy.What's so hard to believe about that? posted 01/26/2008 at 20:45:33
The "Soul Hypothesis" (Part 2)
See, the other atheists left just when it's getting interesting. I feel like Gladys Knight without the Pips. Where'd the Pips go?? posted 02/03/2008 at 16:42:20
E=MCsquared. Is it material or immaterial? Did it arise only with the humans? Or has it an independent expression? Calling my view a suspension of disbelief works because -- who am I? just your garden variety Muse? But this is classic Plato. Come on. Plato. We have to have firmer evidence than we possess to eliminate Plato's "Ideas" from the Cosmos. posted 02/03/2008 at 16:40:52
Atheists, where did you go? Especially Wondering. I wrote such a nice essay -- even Dap was in Raptures for a while.And I was particularly going to ask Wondering about the primes. Come on. How can we not believe in God, what with all these huge immaterial primes out there in the Cosmos of thought?? (He and the kids must be digging for dinosaurs again ....)Gotta love the primes. Riemann's hypothesis ....Atheists, I was just warming to the topic ....Hello? posted 02/01/2008 at 19:21:29
Ockham's razor is a little crude for cranial surgery. I don't see the bio-chemical as conclusive at all. We are going round and round. You are pointing to the neurons firing in John Doe's brain, but I'm talking about the contents of thought (which are immaterial).They are apples and oranges.These contents matter, that's what Jung adds (the uncontroversial aspect of Jung, his "world lit" side). Jung saw that there was a resurrection myth that pops up all over the place in different cultures. But he also realized that the particular clothing of the myth is also significant.It's like the difference between dreaming and monitering the EEGs of the sleeper. The latter tells you there's cerebral activity of different kinds. But it cannot predict the content. Henry James's cortex probably lit up like a Christmas tree when he worked on his novels. Still, there's a huge difference between "Portrait of a Lady" and "The Bostonians." posted 02/01/2008 at 19:15:42
Dap. I knew you couldn't possibly remain in that state of aporia. But I had you transfixed, if only (alas, sigh) for a brief, golden nanosecond.By the times, it would appear I had you stumped for about 12 hours.That's not bad. I'll take that.Agape,Muse posted 02/01/2008 at 19:04:32
Holy Cow. Dap, at a loss for words. I'm going to have to think about that one a while. Gracious. Now, I'm at a loss for words. It's contagious! posted 02/01/2008 at 10:20:57
I have a metaphor worthy of a Muse. A spider weaves a web without being taught. It is just encoded with the knowledge. Today we'd say it was programmed for web building. What are human beings programed to do? What is the web we weave? To know that we cannot turn our gaze away from myth. Quite the contrary, to find out we have to look into myth with the greatest care and lively perception.BUT! Once looking into the myth, there's always the "danger" of being persuaded by it. If your kids read Milton in college, there's always a danger of their becoming Christians since Milton meant his poem to be persuasive, and the "myth" of Christianity ITSELF means to be persuasive. It is paraphrasing Socrates in the Phaedrus (?) "an intelligent word ... that can defend itself and knows when to speak and when to be silent." Things like myth are not ineffectual because they appeal to us at the deepest levels of our being. Anyone who thinks Homer's Gods and Goddesses are old hat, just hasn't read Homer laterly. Enter into that world and its effects come alive again.So, goodness gracious Wondering, what shall we do? Should we, as in Plato's Republic, ban the poets from the City? Because there will always be those who listen to their music and will be swept away by it ....posted 01/31/2008 at 19:26:57
Thought experiment: assume Jung is right. Examining the contents of religion is like looking at data encoded on a micro-chip (the chip being our DNA and the architecture of mind). Surely such information about us would reveal something about our external circumstances (evolution, fate, intelligent design, whatever name you give it). We do not just toss that information away because some of it is offensive. posted 01/31/2008 at 19:19:30
Wondering,I missed the party, but reading your most recent posts set me thinking ....Actually we agree about religion's needing a shaking and that one who genuinely believes one's faith is true need not fear doubts. Religion needs to be open to criticism if it's an active, living thing and certainly there are churches that stiffle inquiry. But I cannot go so far as to connect religious belief to all the kinds of things that go wrong sociologically, even when they are done in religion's "name," since one has to admit the possibility that not all claims are equally valid. One's profession of faith could be bogus.But even were I willing to champion reason to the extent that you do, I would still urge caution in eliminating religion -- for one would have to examine religion's contents first to know what was being lost. Carl Jung (and later Joseph Campbell) persuasively demonstrated that different stories arise within cultures that are completely cut off from each other. So the Mayans had myths/religious ideas that parallel elements of Christianity, or Egyptian religion or whatever. Jung argued -- somewhat more controversially -- that the similarities derive from an "archetype" that is somehow intrinsically part of the psyche.If Jung is correct one would expect atheism to take on some of the qualities of a religion -- eventually. The "stealth religion" blog alleged something like that though I don't recall a reference to Jung. Such a manifestation of resurgent myth would not necessarily be recognized as such by its adherents -- it might appear "rational" and seamlessly connected to other "rational" assertions -- myth in reason's garments.I think the more prudent move therefore is to take religious motivation as a fact about human beings (whatever else Muse might believe it is). If we examine religion's contents and make them part of our meditation, we learn more about the humans.posted 01/31/2008 at 19:18:41
Dap, Dap, Dap. posted 01/31/2008 at 18:59:51
stevesrantI thought at first you were kidding about the Shroud/Leonardo connection. But your serious? It's not a claim that art historians would find persuasive. Leonardo is a famous name being attached to a controversial object, but there's nothing to indicate that he had anything to do with it. posted 01/31/2008 at 18:48:29
Actually mine's 10, but the toys still abound. posted 01/31/2008 at 11:37:29
I've just popped by at the moment and must go without being able to say much. But I will say this we agree upon one thing: religious people need to "be shaken up." And I'm trying to shake up some atheists also. (A whole lot of shaking going on.)That would be an incredibly healthy thing in my view. But more on that later.Muse posted 01/31/2008 at 11:36:30
And did you find any? posted 01/31/2008 at 11:32:28
I'll take marshmellows. Just in case. posted 01/31/2008 at 11:30:37
You're a born moderate! posted 01/31/2008 at 11:28:32
Goodness, you talked of much besides me. How shall I ever catch up? And quantum mechanics! Ooh la la. I never even took high school physics.Of course, HS has started recommended books again. I think he has stock in Amazon. posted 01/31/2008 at 11:27:53
To all my atheist friends, you are SO serious! But don't ever change. Don't ever change! God loves you just the way you are!Hit it, Ella --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4md2q-hEEo&feature=related posted 01/30/2008 at 19:00:17