So Deborah knows and likes James Tate. I'm not surprised. Me too.
***
Goodtime Jesus
Jesus got up one day a little later than usual. He had been dreaming so deep there was nothing left in his head. What was it? A nightmare, dead bodies walking all around him, eyes rolled back, skin falling off. But he wasn't afraid of that. It was a beautiful day. How 'bout some coffee? Don't mind if I do. Take a little ride on my donkey, I love that donkey. Hell, I love everybody.
I can't quite tell what her point was because instead of a thesis restatement at the end she pulls her favorite quote-Jesus-back-to-Christians trick, but it seems to be sum up several standard Althouse themes:
* I'm so smart and insightful. * Gays have won. Get over it, you intolerant conservative bigots. * I know what Jesus meant better than you hypocritical Christan bigots. * I'm liberal and enlightened. It's my position to scold everyone, especially conservatives. * Because cruel neutrality!
Maybe that's a tad harsh. Perhaps someone could provide a better explanation.
Well, perhaps I do go too far. Today Althouse asks a question that seems to mystify her:
Why is the left taking the narrow view of the concept of freedom? It's a general principle, not something you save for your friends. Like Paglia, I remember the broad 1960s era commitment to free speech. There was a special zeal to protect those who said outrageous things. Today, we're back to the kind of repression that in the 60s seemed to belong to the 1950s. What the hell happened?
Of course, her conservative commenters get it from the first comment on:
YoungHegelian: Back then free speech was used to defend lefties. With said lefties now in positions of power, free speech is now not a useful concept to the movement.
Exactly right. When liberals hold the whip, freedom of speech is a whole nother ball game. But I don't get why -- at this point -- it perplexes Althouse. It's just the basic liberal will to power that trumps liberal principles most of the time, which is why I'm no longer liberal.
...some liberals are making the predictable narrowly legalistic point that freedom of speech has only to do with rights held against the government.
I can sorta see the legalistic point, but ultimately I come down with Althouse, as well as Mark Steyn et al. in rejecting at as nitpicking.
If liberals want to continue to wrap themselves in the flag of freedom of speech for the Hollywood Blacklist folks, they can dam well uphold Mr. Robertson's right to take his stand without losing employment.
Way off topic, but that runnin' rabbit looks more like a "hare" to me...like the Belgian Hare I had as a little kid...made me laugh every time someone tried to cuddle him, 'cause he'd bite them...and he could also kick the cat's ass if he got too close. Cool rabbit.
Meade didn't have anything to do with the post I was critiquing.
I see by this Wapo article, liberal support for polygamy is growing already despite Althouse's breezy, dishonest dismissal of the issue during the halcyon days of gay marriage debate at AA.
The title of the article is intriguing:
Thanks to the "Sister Wives" lawsuit, we have one less morality law. That's a good thing.
Of course de facto penalization of conservative speech will continue to grow and by Wapo's lights, I'm sure that's a good thing too.
Creely, I don't really know James Tate, but I know that poem from a beloved book of poetry from high school days, On City Streets. And yes, the libs were working overtime to encourage us to see the plight of the inner-city poor. It worked! And you have inspired me to begin a series of posts :)
As far as A, I've for a long time considered her essentially a classical liberal. She can see both sides on many issues, e.g., free speech. But when it comes to blacks and gays, I think her emotions overrule her logical faculties. For example, a few days ago she said law-abiders like her are handi-capped when it comes to being able to smoke pot in Colorado. Because it's not a federal law. And someone in the comments asked why she thought it was okay for gays to marry in states where homosexual marriage was outlawed, or some such.
deborah: James Tate is worth reading as a black humor surrealist. He possesses the usual liberal sympathies, as do 99% of American poets these days, but he doesn't write from there. I'd say the Tate poem you quoted from On City Streets was misused for that collection.
I'd agree that Althouse is a classic liberal who slides into a leftie-liberal, i.e. a soft fascist, when her emotions about blacks and gays become involved.
Is the style here not to mention Althouse directly? I've forgotten where that got left and why. I for one don't think she is owed any special consideration.
Is the style here not to mention Althouse directly? I've forgotten where that got left and why.
There is no style set for references here to the best of my knowledge. You'll note that "Althouse" is linked periodically in the side bar.
That said, during the meltdown redux of last summer her hobbit insisted we not mention them, here, or he'd continue to comment bomb with his bullshit... thus "TOP" arose.
For myself, it is just personal to not credit them what-so-ever by name. The hobbit and his mommy know why.
Creely, I meant to comment on the piece you put up, I liked it :) I misrepresented the book as about inner-city poor. It has other flavors and tones. I'd always assumed Tate to be white, from that poem.
No, I, and several others say Althouse, but just then I used A as shorthand.
deborah: Tate is white; his humor is black -- as in Jonathan Swift.
***
Teaching the Ape to Write Poems
They didn't have much trouble teaching the ape to write poems: first they strapped him into the chair, then tied the pencil around his hand (the paper had already been nailed down). Then Dr. Bluespire leaned over his shoulder and whispered into his ear: 'You look like a god sitting there. Why don't you try writing something?'
20 comments:
I am on my way to Georgia, by car. We may not get there until late morning.
Like a glum cricket
the refrigerator is singing
and just as I am convinced
that it is the only noise
in the building, a pot falls
in 2B. The neighbors on
both sides of me suddenly
realize that they have not
made love to their wives
since 1947. The racket
multiplies. The man down the hall
is teaching his dog to fly.
The fish are disgusted
and beat their heads blue
against a cold aquarium. I too
lose control and consider
the dust huddled in the corner
a threat to my endurance.
Were you here, we would not
tolerate mongrels in the air,
nor the conspiracies of dust.
We would drive all night,
your head tilted on my shoulder.
At dawn, I would nudge you
with my anxious fingers and say,
Already we are in Idaho.
-Jame Tate
Go bunny go.
So Deborah knows and likes James Tate. I'm not surprised. Me too.
***
Goodtime Jesus
Jesus got up one day a little later than usual. He had been dreaming so deep there was nothing left in his head. What was it? A nightmare, dead bodies walking all around him, eyes rolled back, skin falling off. But he wasn't afraid of that. It was a beautiful day. How 'bout some coffee? Don't mind if I do. Take a little ride on my donkey, I love that donkey. Hell, I love everybody.
--James Tate
I dropped by because I was annoyed by Althouse's post last night, which Insta had linked and I had bit on:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/12/widely-held-religious-beliefs-that-you.html
I can't quite tell what her point was because instead of a thesis restatement at the end she pulls her favorite quote-Jesus-back-to-Christians trick, but it seems to be sum up several standard Althouse themes:
* I'm so smart and insightful.
* Gays have won. Get over it, you intolerant conservative bigots.
* I know what Jesus meant better than you hypocritical Christan bigots.
* I'm liberal and enlightened. It's my position to scold everyone, especially conservatives.
* Because cruel neutrality!
Maybe that's a tad harsh. Perhaps someone could provide a better explanation.
Well, perhaps I do go too far. Today Althouse asks a question that seems to mystify her:
Why is the left taking the narrow view of the concept of freedom? It's a general principle, not something you save for your friends. Like Paglia, I remember the broad 1960s era commitment to free speech. There was a special zeal to protect those who said outrageous things. Today, we're back to the kind of repression that in the 60s seemed to belong to the 1950s. What the hell happened?
Of course, her conservative commenters get it from the first comment on:
YoungHegelian: Back then free speech was used to defend lefties. With said lefties now in positions of power, free speech is now not a useful concept to the movement.
Exactly right. When liberals hold the whip, freedom of speech is a whole nother ball game. But I don't get why -- at this point -- it perplexes Althouse. It's just the basic liberal will to power that trumps liberal principles most of the time, which is why I'm no longer liberal.
To Althouse's credit she also says:
...some liberals are making the predictable narrowly legalistic point that freedom of speech has only to do with rights held against the government.
I can sorta see the legalistic point, but ultimately I come down with Althouse, as well as Mark Steyn et al. in rejecting at as nitpicking.
If liberals want to continue to wrap themselves in the flag of freedom of speech for the Hollywood Blacklist folks, they can dam well uphold Mr. Robertson's right to take his stand without losing employment.
Way off topic, but that runnin' rabbit looks more like a "hare" to me...like the Belgian Hare I had as a little kid...made me laugh every time someone tried to cuddle him, 'cause he'd bite them...and he could also kick the cat's ass if he got too close. Cool rabbit.
Creeley23 @ 10:14 AM...
Sounds like you've got TOP figured out. Congratulations. However, you did forget to mention TOP's snarling pet hobbit.
Meade didn't have anything to do with the post I was critiquing.
I see by this Wapo article, liberal support for polygamy is growing already despite Althouse's breezy, dishonest dismissal of the issue during the halcyon days of gay marriage debate at AA.
The title of the article is intriguing:
Thanks to the "Sister Wives" lawsuit, we have one less morality law. That's a good thing.
Of course de facto penalization of conservative speech will continue to grow and by Wapo's lights, I'm sure that's a good thing too.
Creely, I don't really know James Tate, but I know that poem from a beloved book of poetry from high school days, On City Streets. And yes, the libs were working overtime to encourage us to see the plight of the inner-city poor. It worked! And you have inspired me to begin a series of posts :)
As far as A, I've for a long time considered her essentially a classical liberal. She can see both sides on many issues, e.g., free speech. But when it comes to blacks and gays, I think her emotions overrule her logical faculties. For example, a few days ago she said law-abiders like her are handi-capped when it comes to being able to smoke pot in Colorado. Because it's not a federal law. And someone in the comments asked why she thought it was okay for gays to marry in states where homosexual marriage was outlawed, or some such.
As far as Sister Wives and legalized polygamy, it's a no-brainer when you consider the societal effects of reality tv on the populace.
deborah: James Tate is worth reading as a black humor surrealist. He possesses the usual liberal sympathies, as do 99% of American poets these days, but he doesn't write from there. I'd say the Tate poem you quoted from On City Streets was misused for that collection.
I'd agree that Althouse is a classic liberal who slides into a leftie-liberal, i.e. a soft fascist, when her emotions about blacks and gays become involved.
Is the style here not to mention Althouse directly? I've forgotten where that got left and why. I for one don't think she is owed any special consideration.
creeley23 asked ...
Is the style here not to mention Althouse directly? I've forgotten where that got left and why.
There is no style set for references here to the best of my knowledge. You'll note that "Althouse" is linked periodically in the side bar.
That said, during the meltdown redux of last summer her hobbit insisted we not mention them, here, or he'd continue to comment bomb with his bullshit... thus "TOP" arose.
For myself, it is just personal to not credit them what-so-ever by name. The hobbit and his mommy know why.
Yeah, everyone knows. It's because it hurts Aridog's vagina.
which he uses for lying to himself.
creeley23 .... and there you have an example of a comment bombing.
My vagina is fine. Oh, wait....as in most of what the hobbit says, that'd be a lie, both in context and assertion.
Hang around. Soon he'll tell you/us about how generous he is and how selfish we all are, who has wronged he and his bride, etc., ZZzzzzzz......
Creely, I meant to comment on the piece you put up, I liked it :) I misrepresented the book as about inner-city poor. It has other flavors and tones. I'd always assumed Tate to be white, from that poem.
No, I, and several others say Althouse, but just then I used A as shorthand.
deborah: Tate is white; his humor is black -- as in Jonathan Swift.
***
Teaching the Ape to Write Poems
They didn't have much trouble
teaching the ape to write poems:
first they strapped him into the chair,
then tied the pencil around his hand
(the paper had already been nailed down).
Then Dr. Bluespire leaned over his shoulder
and whispered into his ear:
'You look like a god sitting there.
Why don't you try writing something?'
--James Tate
Oh. *dons dunce cap*
Post a Comment