Suite Madame M (apologies to Styx):
The current debt standoff might have some effect, but I doubt it. Short-attention spans, and constant changing of the picture and the news item of the week, will likely see to that. How many people are still talking about BP? Dodd-Frank “Financial Reform” Act? Real strategy for the nation? The real items go away quickly or never even come up.
When you say a flat tax, I assume you mean income tax, and not the other taxes that would likely remain (payroll, excise, sales, etc.) I will say that a flat income tax would go a good portion of the way toward removing some inequities, but would accentuate others. If one’s system is so corrupt, as Russia’s was/is, then a flat tax actually is beneficial to all, but especially government. If your system is not so corrupt, then a flat tax burden falls disproportionally on the middle class (assuming the lower class is exempted out by certain minimums). However, it does bring certainty, which markets and business love and reward because it allows for ready calculation into plans and operations. One of the tricky parts of a flat tax is making sure that collection is not only solid, but that the rate is set high enough to actually achieve the revenue streams needed.
Nearly the whole idea behind progressive taxation, as opposed to flat rate taxation, is that the burden of supporting a government that serves a society should be borne proportionally to ability to do so. While fairer to the middle class, the upper class (and sometimes the middle class and lower classes as well) want to tinker with the tax code to bend the effects of progressive taxation, or to achieve some reward or preference, or politicians try to steer national policy and economic effect through it, etc., all leading to ever more (maddening) complication. In a world where no constant tinkering with the tax code would occur, progressive taxation would work superbly. Even imperfectly, it has worked well for some decades of the American experience. But regretfully, that was decades ago.
People don’t much remember, but for a brief period of time, we had a semi-flat tax hybrid of two tax rates, 15% and 28%. This seemed to combine the best features of progressive and flat tax, but alas, the tinkering would not stop, and not only did many loopholes return (just different kinds of loopholes), but the rates and brackets got messed with as well.
Our system is so subject now to special-interest manipulation, a flat tax would, while not as fair as the ideal progression, greatly simplify American personal and business lives, and also free up a lot of misspent money and energy presently wasted in either wrestling with the tax code or manipulating it (or having to pay someone to do so). One could almost think of the flat tax as a membership fee for residing in America or benefitting from it.
But really, as I have said in the past, a better way is to stop taxing productive things altogether. Producing income is often (although not always—witness much of Wall Street for example) economically productive, and for the middle class person almost certainly so. Instead of taxing (punishing) income, we should instead tax the things which are harmful to environment, to individual health, to society itself. One therefore would reward what we as a society want more of (economic productivity), and punish what we want less of (harmful things), and in the process fund our necessary servant (government).
On to travel: Possible you say? That some people—the self-centered, the ideologues, the close-minded—are not bettered and broadened by travel, or even a period of foreign residency: it has happened. While thankfully, far fewer remain unmodified by their travel experience than the number that are bettered, it has happened and continues to happen, and there are some notable (and sometimes infamous in a way) examples.
As to the semi-rhetorical question, yes, there are some things I can’t or won’t find another side to. Not many, because the real world, and humanity itself, is just so complex there are nearly always two or more sides to something. What are some examples of things that I can’t or won’t find another side to though? Wanton cruelty, to animals, humans, or the planet. Rape of a little child. Irreverent enslavement or destruction against free will.
The kindness of strangers in lands where community is valued is something to behold—thank you for the link. And even in our community-dessicated American culture, people still long for and will gladly do it if they get a chance to come out of their self-preservation and promotion shell.
Interesting, isn’t it, that the small business owners, many of whom are struggling or even going under, still refuse to point in the direction of the specific big corporations that are responsible for, or at least fomenting the problems, but instead blame a generalized thing like “the media.”
You have started off well with an insightful and appropriate quote from Hedges. Nice segue! How very applicable to the vaporous drivel that passes for information “of note” in this spectacle culture. Ah, Plato would have felt right at home in drawing all the parallels. But perhaps he might also have been a little disappointed that after three millennia the basics had still not been taken to heart!
As to opening salvo on the new book, ladies first! :)
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Headlines and Sidelines
Professor J,
To counteract having the Glenn Frey song "The Heat is On" stuck in my head I am dreaming of hauling in armloads of firewood to a snowy mountain cabin and whipping up some Irish coffee. Planning a wedding in this heat has given me nightmares of a cake that liquifies as the topper sinks into it and melting unity candles. I'm hoping September feels like fall. I'm glad you are enjoying the heat wave, though! :)
So if something good has come about from the Murdoch circus it has at least brought to light just how common some of these practices are. By the same token couldn't we say that the current debt circus is bringing about the same result? Everyone is talking about the debt, which seemed to be on the radar of very few Americans until recently.
Here's a question: Wouldn't a flat tax go a long way toward solving a large part of the problem with loopholes and deductions for those who can most afford to pay? (Yes, I know that lots of people are getting out of paying under the current system and that tax prep is a multimillion dollar business, so this would be hard to accomplish.) I'm envisioning a 60 second commercial to run nightly during tax season giving the public a refresher on how to calculate percentages if they've forgotten it since high school.
When you came back from your recent R&R you commented on my piece about travel and how it changes us (Is there anything you can't find another side to? ;)) I suppose it's possible that people may stubbornly remain the same if they really try. How sad. In The Wall Street Journal I've been following the adventures of Yoder & Sons (or in this case one son) as they have been taking a dream father/son trip across Africa. They are nearing the end of their journey and I found this excerpt from Sunday's article particularly interesting:
"We have scores of similar stories, and they're all the more humbling -- shaming, really -- because we'd fully expected to face anti-American sentiment, perhaps open contempt, especially in the predominantly Islamic countries we've traveled through. And we expected to have to watch our backs a little. It was an ignorant preconception: Not once have we encountered any anti-American hostility or sense of personal danger.
Instead, the English words we hear most frequently from perfect strangers are "welcome" and "thank you." Surely, we thought, we would encounter hostility in Sudan, a country with many recent disagreements with the U.S. Our most frequent conversation: "Where from?" "America." "Welcome to Sudan! Thank you!" Strangers invited us to tea more often in Sudan than in all other countries combined."
Here is the link to the full article. Taken Aback by the Kindness of Strangers I fully expect these two to write a fabulous travel memoir at the end of their trek.
Oh, and it looks like BP recovered nicely just as you predicted a year ago. Recently when I was at the gulf I talked to several business owners and you know who they blame for their dismal tourist season last year? The media. Yes, they say that BP did the physical damage but the media did the economic damage. But you know what they wanted to know from me? How was MY area getting along with all the water we had. "We saw it on the news." :)
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming: I know you've been getting antsy to move on to our next discussion. This may be a good time. When the news this week is filled with the end of the NFL lockout and the unfortunate but oh so predictable death of Amy Winehouse, I can't help think of Hedges' quote "We are chained to the flickering shadows of celebrity culture, the spectacle of the arena and the airwaves, the lies of advertising, the endless personal dramas, many of them completely fictional, that have become the staple of news, celebrity gossip, New Age mysticism, and pop psychology."
Note to the reader: If you would like to follow along with us in this upcoming discussion the book to read will be Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle by Chris Hedges. Yes. It is just as cheerful as it sounds. Did you enjoy your summer break? :)
To counteract having the Glenn Frey song "The Heat is On" stuck in my head I am dreaming of hauling in armloads of firewood to a snowy mountain cabin and whipping up some Irish coffee. Planning a wedding in this heat has given me nightmares of a cake that liquifies as the topper sinks into it and melting unity candles. I'm hoping September feels like fall. I'm glad you are enjoying the heat wave, though! :)
So if something good has come about from the Murdoch circus it has at least brought to light just how common some of these practices are. By the same token couldn't we say that the current debt circus is bringing about the same result? Everyone is talking about the debt, which seemed to be on the radar of very few Americans until recently.
Here's a question: Wouldn't a flat tax go a long way toward solving a large part of the problem with loopholes and deductions for those who can most afford to pay? (Yes, I know that lots of people are getting out of paying under the current system and that tax prep is a multimillion dollar business, so this would be hard to accomplish.) I'm envisioning a 60 second commercial to run nightly during tax season giving the public a refresher on how to calculate percentages if they've forgotten it since high school.
When you came back from your recent R&R you commented on my piece about travel and how it changes us (Is there anything you can't find another side to? ;)) I suppose it's possible that people may stubbornly remain the same if they really try. How sad. In The Wall Street Journal I've been following the adventures of Yoder & Sons (or in this case one son) as they have been taking a dream father/son trip across Africa. They are nearing the end of their journey and I found this excerpt from Sunday's article particularly interesting:
"We have scores of similar stories, and they're all the more humbling -- shaming, really -- because we'd fully expected to face anti-American sentiment, perhaps open contempt, especially in the predominantly Islamic countries we've traveled through. And we expected to have to watch our backs a little. It was an ignorant preconception: Not once have we encountered any anti-American hostility or sense of personal danger.
Instead, the English words we hear most frequently from perfect strangers are "welcome" and "thank you." Surely, we thought, we would encounter hostility in Sudan, a country with many recent disagreements with the U.S. Our most frequent conversation: "Where from?" "America." "Welcome to Sudan! Thank you!" Strangers invited us to tea more often in Sudan than in all other countries combined."
Here is the link to the full article. Taken Aback by the Kindness of Strangers I fully expect these two to write a fabulous travel memoir at the end of their trek.
Oh, and it looks like BP recovered nicely just as you predicted a year ago. Recently when I was at the gulf I talked to several business owners and you know who they blame for their dismal tourist season last year? The media. Yes, they say that BP did the physical damage but the media did the economic damage. But you know what they wanted to know from me? How was MY area getting along with all the water we had. "We saw it on the news." :)
We now return to our regularly scheduled programming: I know you've been getting antsy to move on to our next discussion. This may be a good time. When the news this week is filled with the end of the NFL lockout and the unfortunate but oh so predictable death of Amy Winehouse, I can't help think of Hedges' quote "We are chained to the flickering shadows of celebrity culture, the spectacle of the arena and the airwaves, the lies of advertising, the endless personal dramas, many of them completely fictional, that have become the staple of news, celebrity gossip, New Age mysticism, and pop psychology."
Note to the reader: If you would like to follow along with us in this upcoming discussion the book to read will be Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle by Chris Hedges. Yes. It is just as cheerful as it sounds. Did you enjoy your summer break? :)
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Summer Sizzle (or alternatively, As The Windbag Huffs)
Most Esteemed Madame,
Nope, not roasting. I actually enjoy the heat of summer. I’m weird like that. My mother could tell you stories about her odd son who would shut off the vent to the A/C in his room so he could have the screen window open! This tolerance of heat only got more pronounced after an extended stay in a really hot locale I was in for 6 months.
Testifying? Seemed more like contributions to the heat entropy of the universe, and with about the same effects so far. Time will tell better, but it seems only a little more elevated than the meaningless “tribulations” of BP’s chairman when he also supposedly was “called to account.” People are constantly diverted, constantly, distracted, and constantly put upon by a stressful life. Remaining on focus is difficult, and that may be planned. The one factor in this one that may yield fruit is that some of it happened to people with money and influence. But even if it doesn’t, if journalistic ethics are being given a boost by our British cousins, I’m all for it!
I agree with Bryant Gumbel. Blind praise is worthless in the absence of fair criticism. The pendulum has indeed swung too far the other way for this and a number of other instances, and it sews (among other things) confusion and enfeeblement that are unnecessary. In this, as in much else, we are quite out of balance.
The nation is ready for sacrifice, but not uneven sacrifice. People sense intuitively that things can’t go on as they have been. The hard decisions don’t get made because there is selfishness, greed, ignorance, and fear. The middle class and below, if they bother to look with clear vision, can see an upper class, the main (by far) beneficiaries of the policies of the last 10—really 30—years, a class not only unwilling to sacrifice for the good of the country, for the very future of it, but wanting instead more sacrifice from the at best stagnant (and often declining) fortunes of the middle class. Rolling back generous tax breaks (which have done little to bring the prosperity that was heralded by their passage—indeed, may have done the opposite) can barely be called “sacrifice,” yet it is resisted with the selfish mania of a cult. It does not matter to these cultists—both as individuals and their Lovecraftian corporations—that they are the ones who have benefitted the most from the system of this country, and have the means to provide for its sustenance. Like the wealthy of Empiric Rome, they are disconnected from the citizens they only grudgingly recognize as so titled, and these wealthy are so incredibly unconcerned with the public good, and so self-absorbed, that our Framers—many of them wealthy men themselves—would have considered them treasonous. The exceptions like Buffet and others only serve to demonstrate the rule.
In a sense, it’s true that this debt crisis is partially manufactured at this particular moment (the debt ceiling was raised 13 times in the presidency of George W. Bush, for example). And it’s also true that the our national debt as a percentage (about 90%) of GDP does not come close to that approaching Japan (about 230%), and Japan is not in crisis. But comparisons of that nature can go too far. And neither of those debts are healthy.
It’s also important to remember that many “entitlements” (Social Security and Medicare in particular) are largely (although nowhere completely) funded by specific revenue streams, often from the present and future beneficiaries. The differences between funding and projected outgo are troubling, but would not be even close to being insurmountable if the other things that play a part had not been already enfeebled. The Trust Funds, for starters, should never have been raided and replaced with semi-meaningless IOUs, but instead should have been actually invested. But as a media controlled directly or indirectly by the wealthy increasingly lace the lexicon with terms to shade the perception and discussion, we get the surreal scene of the downsized and outsized formerly middle class being portrayed as “freeloaders” by the very class that not only drove them there, but that owns most everything, pays very little proportionally, and enjoys the lion’s share of the benefits of a society, infrastructure, and social fabric that that upper class contribute very little to.
The US budget problems are structural for several reasons, including the fact that we run large trade deficits that no nation can sustain indefinitely (indeed, is in the process of making us a second-rate power—we seemed to have learned nothing of the economy/spending inversion of the Soviet Union, let alone the examples of other historical trash heaps). But two other reasons stand out in their immediacy: 1) the wealthy—both individuals and corporations—have effectively and continually underfunded the government for a very long time. They know that a weak government prevents the people from using their creature (government!) to enforce their will on them. Yet at the same time, they have diverted the money that government DOES spend to contractors (17% of all federal dollars last year went to contractors), to subsidies (often disguised as something else), to bare survival enthralling entitlements, to mindless exorbitant “Defense” (rather than strategically minded and purposeful Defense), and then moved to starve much in the government machinery that could actually bring the upper class in line. Whatever escaped this process was essentially largely co-opted. The effects of this fiscally have been to create a reinforcing process. More money is owed, more must be borrowed, the usual remedies don’t work; the cycle is repeated but things only get worse, etc. Much of this has been quite deliberate.
Number 2 in immediacy is (and it’s related to number 1, partially as effect) is that drastically underfunded liabilities, combined with largely economically unproductive or counterproductive spending (and government spending in general, while much of it may be necessary, is rarely economically productive and certainly never completely), have made the present course of spending unsustainable, even if a large infusion of new tax revenue is secured. We pay now a price for our past and present willing ignorance, our blindness, our denial. Too long have many things gone unfunded or underfunded, and excessive promises have indeed been made that can’t be kept. And although some of this has been normal (short-sighted) American politics, much of it has been deliberate.
As I’ve said in different ways, you can’t burden the producers to support the able unwilling non-producers. People like to conjure up images of the deadbeat and shiftless sponging off the hardworking folks of the country. But those cases, once the onion layers have been peeled back to reveal the real story, don’t add up to much in the way of real money. And it all drips with irony. Because many of the upper class are not wealthy because they are economically productive, they are wealthy from exploiting a system they helped design and modify so that they could exploit it (does a hedge fund manager, one of whom makes $4 billion a year for example, actually produce ANY economic,--let alone social—good while being rewarded by the system so fantastically the rest of us cannot even imagine it?). And not only do many of these wealthy not produce any social good either, but even worse is that their net effect is to actually leech social capital. We should be VERY wary of any talk of them being labeled economic or social producers.
What we need to do is help entrepreneurs who actually do social and economic good while doing well. We don’t necessarily need to help them directly, we just need to remove the roadblocks and favoritism set in place by and for the controlling members of the parasitic upper class. People know intuitively that it is the middle class, working and having a good, albeit perhaps basic, quality of life, that has been the backbone of the country. And those in the middle class should have real opportunity, if they desire to take it, to improve their station and become wealthy by hard work, good ideas, good sense, and a bit of luck. Yes, some insightful and fortunate technopreurs have evaded a system that didn’t understand them long enough for that system to buy into them instead of swat them down, and so become wealthy, but their examples stand out as fortunate exceptions, not shining pathways.
The budget crisis is, in the short-term, politically driven for partisan purposes on most or all “sides.” In the term just past the short, however, it is a real crisis, and a systemic failure to address reality (and by no means just budget wise), and especially failure to address the public good. And that fault lies with us. Real and specific budget cuts demand sacrifices, authentically SHARED sacrifices. So do real revenue increases, although perhaps less in that arena since the main recent beneficiaries would still be as prosperous as they were in the quite prosperous 90s if they agreed to rollback the tax structure to what it was then. The people will have to exert enormous pressure—given their reduced effectiveness, far more than they would have had to previously—to make either and both of those happen.
Nope, not roasting. I actually enjoy the heat of summer. I’m weird like that. My mother could tell you stories about her odd son who would shut off the vent to the A/C in his room so he could have the screen window open! This tolerance of heat only got more pronounced after an extended stay in a really hot locale I was in for 6 months.
Testifying? Seemed more like contributions to the heat entropy of the universe, and with about the same effects so far. Time will tell better, but it seems only a little more elevated than the meaningless “tribulations” of BP’s chairman when he also supposedly was “called to account.” People are constantly diverted, constantly, distracted, and constantly put upon by a stressful life. Remaining on focus is difficult, and that may be planned. The one factor in this one that may yield fruit is that some of it happened to people with money and influence. But even if it doesn’t, if journalistic ethics are being given a boost by our British cousins, I’m all for it!
I agree with Bryant Gumbel. Blind praise is worthless in the absence of fair criticism. The pendulum has indeed swung too far the other way for this and a number of other instances, and it sews (among other things) confusion and enfeeblement that are unnecessary. In this, as in much else, we are quite out of balance.
The nation is ready for sacrifice, but not uneven sacrifice. People sense intuitively that things can’t go on as they have been. The hard decisions don’t get made because there is selfishness, greed, ignorance, and fear. The middle class and below, if they bother to look with clear vision, can see an upper class, the main (by far) beneficiaries of the policies of the last 10—really 30—years, a class not only unwilling to sacrifice for the good of the country, for the very future of it, but wanting instead more sacrifice from the at best stagnant (and often declining) fortunes of the middle class. Rolling back generous tax breaks (which have done little to bring the prosperity that was heralded by their passage—indeed, may have done the opposite) can barely be called “sacrifice,” yet it is resisted with the selfish mania of a cult. It does not matter to these cultists—both as individuals and their Lovecraftian corporations—that they are the ones who have benefitted the most from the system of this country, and have the means to provide for its sustenance. Like the wealthy of Empiric Rome, they are disconnected from the citizens they only grudgingly recognize as so titled, and these wealthy are so incredibly unconcerned with the public good, and so self-absorbed, that our Framers—many of them wealthy men themselves—would have considered them treasonous. The exceptions like Buffet and others only serve to demonstrate the rule.
In a sense, it’s true that this debt crisis is partially manufactured at this particular moment (the debt ceiling was raised 13 times in the presidency of George W. Bush, for example). And it’s also true that the our national debt as a percentage (about 90%) of GDP does not come close to that approaching Japan (about 230%), and Japan is not in crisis. But comparisons of that nature can go too far. And neither of those debts are healthy.
It’s also important to remember that many “entitlements” (Social Security and Medicare in particular) are largely (although nowhere completely) funded by specific revenue streams, often from the present and future beneficiaries. The differences between funding and projected outgo are troubling, but would not be even close to being insurmountable if the other things that play a part had not been already enfeebled. The Trust Funds, for starters, should never have been raided and replaced with semi-meaningless IOUs, but instead should have been actually invested. But as a media controlled directly or indirectly by the wealthy increasingly lace the lexicon with terms to shade the perception and discussion, we get the surreal scene of the downsized and outsized formerly middle class being portrayed as “freeloaders” by the very class that not only drove them there, but that owns most everything, pays very little proportionally, and enjoys the lion’s share of the benefits of a society, infrastructure, and social fabric that that upper class contribute very little to.
The US budget problems are structural for several reasons, including the fact that we run large trade deficits that no nation can sustain indefinitely (indeed, is in the process of making us a second-rate power—we seemed to have learned nothing of the economy/spending inversion of the Soviet Union, let alone the examples of other historical trash heaps). But two other reasons stand out in their immediacy: 1) the wealthy—both individuals and corporations—have effectively and continually underfunded the government for a very long time. They know that a weak government prevents the people from using their creature (government!) to enforce their will on them. Yet at the same time, they have diverted the money that government DOES spend to contractors (17% of all federal dollars last year went to contractors), to subsidies (often disguised as something else), to bare survival enthralling entitlements, to mindless exorbitant “Defense” (rather than strategically minded and purposeful Defense), and then moved to starve much in the government machinery that could actually bring the upper class in line. Whatever escaped this process was essentially largely co-opted. The effects of this fiscally have been to create a reinforcing process. More money is owed, more must be borrowed, the usual remedies don’t work; the cycle is repeated but things only get worse, etc. Much of this has been quite deliberate.
Number 2 in immediacy is (and it’s related to number 1, partially as effect) is that drastically underfunded liabilities, combined with largely economically unproductive or counterproductive spending (and government spending in general, while much of it may be necessary, is rarely economically productive and certainly never completely), have made the present course of spending unsustainable, even if a large infusion of new tax revenue is secured. We pay now a price for our past and present willing ignorance, our blindness, our denial. Too long have many things gone unfunded or underfunded, and excessive promises have indeed been made that can’t be kept. And although some of this has been normal (short-sighted) American politics, much of it has been deliberate.
As I’ve said in different ways, you can’t burden the producers to support the able unwilling non-producers. People like to conjure up images of the deadbeat and shiftless sponging off the hardworking folks of the country. But those cases, once the onion layers have been peeled back to reveal the real story, don’t add up to much in the way of real money. And it all drips with irony. Because many of the upper class are not wealthy because they are economically productive, they are wealthy from exploiting a system they helped design and modify so that they could exploit it (does a hedge fund manager, one of whom makes $4 billion a year for example, actually produce ANY economic,--let alone social—good while being rewarded by the system so fantastically the rest of us cannot even imagine it?). And not only do many of these wealthy not produce any social good either, but even worse is that their net effect is to actually leech social capital. We should be VERY wary of any talk of them being labeled economic or social producers.
What we need to do is help entrepreneurs who actually do social and economic good while doing well. We don’t necessarily need to help them directly, we just need to remove the roadblocks and favoritism set in place by and for the controlling members of the parasitic upper class. People know intuitively that it is the middle class, working and having a good, albeit perhaps basic, quality of life, that has been the backbone of the country. And those in the middle class should have real opportunity, if they desire to take it, to improve their station and become wealthy by hard work, good ideas, good sense, and a bit of luck. Yes, some insightful and fortunate technopreurs have evaded a system that didn’t understand them long enough for that system to buy into them instead of swat them down, and so become wealthy, but their examples stand out as fortunate exceptions, not shining pathways.
The budget crisis is, in the short-term, politically driven for partisan purposes on most or all “sides.” In the term just past the short, however, it is a real crisis, and a systemic failure to address reality (and by no means just budget wise), and especially failure to address the public good. And that fault lies with us. Real and specific budget cuts demand sacrifices, authentically SHARED sacrifices. So do real revenue increases, although perhaps less in that arena since the main recent beneficiaries would still be as prosperous as they were in the quite prosperous 90s if they agreed to rollback the tax structure to what it was then. The people will have to exert enormous pressure—given their reduced effectiveness, far more than they would have had to previously—to make either and both of those happen.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Headline Stew
Professor J,
I'm glad it wasn't a roast of me. Though I am roasting in this sweltering heat wave as I'm sure you are.
How interesting that while we are having this little "What happened to the real news?" discussion Rupert Murdoch and son are testifying before Parliament. I'm not the first person to point out the irony of Murdoch having the tables turned on him and the absolute glee with which many are absorbing every detail of the downfall of The News of the World and the public bashing of its owner. We've heard some discussions of journalism ethics (however vague) and the criminality of hacking phones and paying bribes so it seems that there are still, dare I say it--standards, (however low) even for a tabloid. Then yesterday in the midst of something that looked like a serious inquiry, a man entered the proceedings and threw a "pie" in his face. His wife leapt to his defense. The anchors quickly dubbed her "Tiger Wife" and it was the lead story. Ah, we're back to farce again.
You are absolutely correct about the gender inequality and the cases are numerous. One only has to remember how the Duke lacrosse players were raked over the coals of public opinion and assumed guilty (no matter what the law says). While people remember that they are less likely to recall the name of the prosecuting attorney (Nifong) or that he was disbarred as a result of his unethical behavior.
And now for sports: :)
Last night while watching Real Sports with my son, Bryant Gumbel had a little tirade about how the women's soccer team was portrayed after their loss to Japan:
“Finally tonight, can we stop coddling women in sports? Are we now so fearful of being labeled sexist that we can’t objectively assess the efforts of female athletes? Those are both valid questions that have come to the fore in the wake of the patronizing reactions that have followed the USA’s loss to Japan in the Women’s World Cup soccer final.
For the record, in the final, a very determined but unheralded Japanese team won the championship, upsetting a U.S. team that was heavily favored and ranked number one in the world of Women’s Soccer. En route to the loss, the American women failed to cash in on a wealth of early scoring chances, twice blew late leads with sloppy mistakes, and then got badly outclassed in penalty kicks.
Had a men’s team turned in a similar performance, papers and pundits nationwide would have had a field day assailing the players, criticizing the coach, and demanding widespread changes to a men’s national team that flat out choked. Yet the common reaction to this ladies’ loss were simply expressions of empathy for the defeat of the unfortunate darlings and pride in their oh-so-heroic effort.
Look, I have no desire to see anyone assail the women’s game or their athletes unfairly. But if the definition of true equality is treating folks honestly, without regard for race or gender, then it’s time we started critiquing women athletes in the same way we do the men. I’m sure some won’t like it, but blind praise is worthless in the absence of fair criticism.”
Is that a little harsh? Maybe, but the problem with any discussion of gender equality is that it isn't possible, on this planet at least ;), to find a disinterested third party. Everyone is viewing all these situations through one filter or the other no matter how hard we try to be unbiased. I will say that having a son caused me to be more cautious in my thinking. I thought about things I hadn't before, concerning males. When I had a daughter I worried about her being treated fairly. When I had my son I began to worry if the pendulum had swung too far the other way. There must be a balance somewhere we clearly haven't found it yet.
Back at home: The debt ceiling debate rages on. We see what the result in Greece is of taking on too much debt even with the EU effort to bail them out. Would Americans have any better reaction to the word "austerity" than we are seeing in Europe? That ordinary politics and posturing are still going on by both sides while they consider how voters will view it in 2012, is infuriating under the circumstances. Shouldn't we be doing much of what both sides are proposing, and more? Clear it up for us Professor and help us shake the summer cobwebs from our brains! :)
Yes, I see you resisting the urge to jump into our next discussion. You may be able to meander your way there from here. :)
I'm glad it wasn't a roast of me. Though I am roasting in this sweltering heat wave as I'm sure you are.
How interesting that while we are having this little "What happened to the real news?" discussion Rupert Murdoch and son are testifying before Parliament. I'm not the first person to point out the irony of Murdoch having the tables turned on him and the absolute glee with which many are absorbing every detail of the downfall of The News of the World and the public bashing of its owner. We've heard some discussions of journalism ethics (however vague) and the criminality of hacking phones and paying bribes so it seems that there are still, dare I say it--standards, (however low) even for a tabloid. Then yesterday in the midst of something that looked like a serious inquiry, a man entered the proceedings and threw a "pie" in his face. His wife leapt to his defense. The anchors quickly dubbed her "Tiger Wife" and it was the lead story. Ah, we're back to farce again.
You are absolutely correct about the gender inequality and the cases are numerous. One only has to remember how the Duke lacrosse players were raked over the coals of public opinion and assumed guilty (no matter what the law says). While people remember that they are less likely to recall the name of the prosecuting attorney (Nifong) or that he was disbarred as a result of his unethical behavior.
And now for sports: :)
Last night while watching Real Sports with my son, Bryant Gumbel had a little tirade about how the women's soccer team was portrayed after their loss to Japan:
“Finally tonight, can we stop coddling women in sports? Are we now so fearful of being labeled sexist that we can’t objectively assess the efforts of female athletes? Those are both valid questions that have come to the fore in the wake of the patronizing reactions that have followed the USA’s loss to Japan in the Women’s World Cup soccer final.
For the record, in the final, a very determined but unheralded Japanese team won the championship, upsetting a U.S. team that was heavily favored and ranked number one in the world of Women’s Soccer. En route to the loss, the American women failed to cash in on a wealth of early scoring chances, twice blew late leads with sloppy mistakes, and then got badly outclassed in penalty kicks.
Had a men’s team turned in a similar performance, papers and pundits nationwide would have had a field day assailing the players, criticizing the coach, and demanding widespread changes to a men’s national team that flat out choked. Yet the common reaction to this ladies’ loss were simply expressions of empathy for the defeat of the unfortunate darlings and pride in their oh-so-heroic effort.
Look, I have no desire to see anyone assail the women’s game or their athletes unfairly. But if the definition of true equality is treating folks honestly, without regard for race or gender, then it’s time we started critiquing women athletes in the same way we do the men. I’m sure some won’t like it, but blind praise is worthless in the absence of fair criticism.”
Is that a little harsh? Maybe, but the problem with any discussion of gender equality is that it isn't possible, on this planet at least ;), to find a disinterested third party. Everyone is viewing all these situations through one filter or the other no matter how hard we try to be unbiased. I will say that having a son caused me to be more cautious in my thinking. I thought about things I hadn't before, concerning males. When I had a daughter I worried about her being treated fairly. When I had my son I began to worry if the pendulum had swung too far the other way. There must be a balance somewhere we clearly haven't found it yet.
Back at home: The debt ceiling debate rages on. We see what the result in Greece is of taking on too much debt even with the EU effort to bail them out. Would Americans have any better reaction to the word "austerity" than we are seeing in Europe? That ordinary politics and posturing are still going on by both sides while they consider how voters will view it in 2012, is infuriating under the circumstances. Shouldn't we be doing much of what both sides are proposing, and more? Clear it up for us Professor and help us shake the summer cobwebs from our brains! :)
Yes, I see you resisting the urge to jump into our next discussion. You may be able to meander your way there from here. :)
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Well Done Madame
No, this isn’t a roast of you. :) The title of this was the first thought that came to mind upon re-reading your one-year anniversary address/post.
On to Déjà vu and succeeding posts:
This Prof does not grade on a curve (nearly always considered it a watering-down effect on standards, unless I was the one who had blown the test/assignment construction), and even if I did, as you are the only one in the running, it would statistically fizzle, lol.
Mark Twain (and you) seems mostly insightfully correct in the observations on travel. However (comma? lol) there are those whose own egocentricity or zealotry or selfish arrogance is so great that travel does not affect either their internal or external views. As Salman Rushdie alluded so well in one of his famous books, there are those who can close themselves off to outside influences to stay focused on what they believe. There are more than a few who do not let reality interfere with their set beliefs!
As for the Duke of Windsor, I do not know if he was sorry. The intricacies and complexities inside a close relationship are often impossible to accurately view from what the world sees from the outside. As for the well-known affairs of his “wild American wife,” that too could be covered in complexity. It is not unknown for the rich and famous (and perhaps the semi-bored rich and famous) to indulge sexual and even romantic flings by their spouses, and of course, the Windsors might have even been swingers/free-lovers of a sort. Whatever the case, there certainly appeared to be affection in the later years, and whether this was ever-present, or the result of senility bringing relief from painful memories, or some other reason entirely, well, a biographer might have a lot more accurate appraisal (I must confess to not having read enough on this subject), but some secrets do go to the grave.
For the Weiner and Anthony momentary “news,” the American public’s inability to focus (even assuming understanding) and instead to gravitate toward spectacle that is meaningless in comparison (let alone semi-invented), leans toward some weighty material we will pick up as the summer gets on toward its second half (can you feel me resisting the urge? Lol). Suffice to say at this point that, while some feel Weiner was targeted for reasons other than listed, the social standard fixation, detailed by now multiple authors, not only claims another victim, but keeps us diverted from our real interests. And as I say time and again, who does that serve?
I agree with you about the female reporters (and others). I have also said for a while now that “the sorority” (the mass of like minded women—let’s say for argument 60% of femaledom) sets the social standard, and also the punishment for violating it. Certain things are “acceptable,” or at least being able to be overlooked, but others are not, and the punishments, a sort of collective hive-mind among the sisters of the sorority, dished out in odd proportion. The sorority often assumes one hundred percent innocence on the part of their sister in anything concerning males, and one hundred percent (and unredeemable) guilt of the offending significant other. The punishments are harsh, strictly enforced, and often devastating to the man. And even when clear error is revealed, no apologies are forthcoming. A friend of mine a few years ago was accused of all sorts of things (and condemned in the most vicious terms) by the friends and co-workers of his soon to be ex-wife. Yet when it was not only revealed that most of those things were untrue, but furthermore, the soon to be ex-wife was guilty of the very things he had been viciously attacked for, no remorse from the attackers was seen. For the sorority, truth appears not very relevant—the paradigm is that a man once accused by the sorority is condemned in perpetuity (until one of them goes hypocrite and maybe ends up with him).
Well, that certainly sounded one-sided in the other direction, didn’t it? :) Ah, we are not even beginning to scratch the surface of all these complexities—indeed, I am at great risk of oversimplifying. Not to mention that I tread on the domain of someone far more qualified to speak on the matters female—you! :)
On to Déjà vu and succeeding posts:
This Prof does not grade on a curve (nearly always considered it a watering-down effect on standards, unless I was the one who had blown the test/assignment construction), and even if I did, as you are the only one in the running, it would statistically fizzle, lol.
Mark Twain (and you) seems mostly insightfully correct in the observations on travel. However (comma? lol) there are those whose own egocentricity or zealotry or selfish arrogance is so great that travel does not affect either their internal or external views. As Salman Rushdie alluded so well in one of his famous books, there are those who can close themselves off to outside influences to stay focused on what they believe. There are more than a few who do not let reality interfere with their set beliefs!
As for the Duke of Windsor, I do not know if he was sorry. The intricacies and complexities inside a close relationship are often impossible to accurately view from what the world sees from the outside. As for the well-known affairs of his “wild American wife,” that too could be covered in complexity. It is not unknown for the rich and famous (and perhaps the semi-bored rich and famous) to indulge sexual and even romantic flings by their spouses, and of course, the Windsors might have even been swingers/free-lovers of a sort. Whatever the case, there certainly appeared to be affection in the later years, and whether this was ever-present, or the result of senility bringing relief from painful memories, or some other reason entirely, well, a biographer might have a lot more accurate appraisal (I must confess to not having read enough on this subject), but some secrets do go to the grave.
For the Weiner and Anthony momentary “news,” the American public’s inability to focus (even assuming understanding) and instead to gravitate toward spectacle that is meaningless in comparison (let alone semi-invented), leans toward some weighty material we will pick up as the summer gets on toward its second half (can you feel me resisting the urge? Lol). Suffice to say at this point that, while some feel Weiner was targeted for reasons other than listed, the social standard fixation, detailed by now multiple authors, not only claims another victim, but keeps us diverted from our real interests. And as I say time and again, who does that serve?
I agree with you about the female reporters (and others). I have also said for a while now that “the sorority” (the mass of like minded women—let’s say for argument 60% of femaledom) sets the social standard, and also the punishment for violating it. Certain things are “acceptable,” or at least being able to be overlooked, but others are not, and the punishments, a sort of collective hive-mind among the sisters of the sorority, dished out in odd proportion. The sorority often assumes one hundred percent innocence on the part of their sister in anything concerning males, and one hundred percent (and unredeemable) guilt of the offending significant other. The punishments are harsh, strictly enforced, and often devastating to the man. And even when clear error is revealed, no apologies are forthcoming. A friend of mine a few years ago was accused of all sorts of things (and condemned in the most vicious terms) by the friends and co-workers of his soon to be ex-wife. Yet when it was not only revealed that most of those things were untrue, but furthermore, the soon to be ex-wife was guilty of the very things he had been viciously attacked for, no remorse from the attackers was seen. For the sorority, truth appears not very relevant—the paradigm is that a man once accused by the sorority is condemned in perpetuity (until one of them goes hypocrite and maybe ends up with him).
Well, that certainly sounded one-sided in the other direction, didn’t it? :) Ah, we are not even beginning to scratch the surface of all these complexities—indeed, I am at great risk of oversimplifying. Not to mention that I tread on the domain of someone far more qualified to speak on the matters female—you! :)
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Sex, Bread, and Circuses
Professor J,
The Simpson/Windsor scandal may be a "footnote of history" but I've always found it a fascinating one. It was depicted once again recently in the movie, The King's Speech. Several years ago I read a book of letters between the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Their correspondence was interesting and revealing. The relationship seemed to be one of those where each one needed or wanted a specific thing. He appeared to have been looking for the close mother figure he didn't have (He seemed to be playing the John to her Yoko.). It was fairly obvious what she hoped to gain and though she didn't get all of it she came pretty close (She was denied the title HRH, but when her jewelry collection came up for auction in 1987 it sold for a little over 53 million dollars). She was also Time's 1936 Woman of the Year.
Do you ever think he was sorry? I always imagine them arguing and him throwing the old "I gave up the crown for you!" in her face. It's a bit of a trump card as sacrifices for love go now, isn't it? He actually may have had the chance to say it as she was known to carry on several affairs during their marriage, some rather publicly. They were the epitome of dashing good looks and a glamorous lifestyle (in exile), though ostracized by the British upper class whose opinion mattered to them most. They made several serious mis-steps not the least of which was making a chummy visit to Germany and palling around with Hitler and Goebbels! For all the vitriol heaped on her, she probably did the Brits a favor by way of providing them with a king much better suited for getting them through the bleak years of WWII.
The way things work today, they would move to America and some network would build a reality show around them, The Abdicator. ;)
Speaking of scandals, this has been a summer full of the bread and (media) circuses sort. While the budget/debt crisis looms the public has been distracted by such serious news stories as Congressman Weiner's acting like a twit via Twitter and the Casey Anthony trial. I couldn't help but feel a bit sorry for the congressman. Some silly messages and revealing photos cost him his seat in the House. It seems fairly harmless behavior to me considering what we see from other politicians. He certainly paid a hefty price for NOT actually doing anything. Yet when the offender is a woman we often see a different outcome. Graphic sex tapes have earned the likes of Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian celebrity status and television/magazine deals. I can't help but wonder how long it will be before Playboy offers Anthony a mega cash deal, or if they have already.
In the south a few years ago we had the case of a woman who murdered her pastor husband in his sleep then collected her 3 children and fled the state. At her trial she confessed to doing it but claimed she didn't know what happened and didn't remember any details. The defense was abuse, of course. The jury found her not guilty.
At the risk of having members of my own sex heap disdain on me, I can't help but notice that female reporters and anchors set the tone for how the public is supposed to think of these things. A couple of years ago when South Carolina's Governor Sanford, went missing and lied to everyone from his staff to his best friend about hiking the Appalachian Trail when he was actually in South America with his Argentine mistress the media was ready to pounce when he finally came home and went public with a detailed confession. After a very strange and rambling explanation of his actions, confessing the affair, and referring to the woman as his soul mate along with describing the affair as "one for the ages" back in studios on several channels women were sympathetic. It probably helped that he choked up several times and said he had spent "the last five days crying in Argentina" (how's that for theatrics?) So the female anchors and pundits framed it as "It wasn't just about sex, the poor guy's in love." One woman reporter went so far as to say "He's ruined his marriage he should get back on that plane and go get the woman he loves."
This is the news, right?
He managed to hold on to his office (barely) but not his marriage. Ah, the beauty of a 24 hour news cycle. It certainly is different from what I use to watch with my dad every night after dinner.
The Simpson/Windsor scandal may be a "footnote of history" but I've always found it a fascinating one. It was depicted once again recently in the movie, The King's Speech. Several years ago I read a book of letters between the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Their correspondence was interesting and revealing. The relationship seemed to be one of those where each one needed or wanted a specific thing. He appeared to have been looking for the close mother figure he didn't have (He seemed to be playing the John to her Yoko.). It was fairly obvious what she hoped to gain and though she didn't get all of it she came pretty close (She was denied the title HRH, but when her jewelry collection came up for auction in 1987 it sold for a little over 53 million dollars). She was also Time's 1936 Woman of the Year.
Do you ever think he was sorry? I always imagine them arguing and him throwing the old "I gave up the crown for you!" in her face. It's a bit of a trump card as sacrifices for love go now, isn't it? He actually may have had the chance to say it as she was known to carry on several affairs during their marriage, some rather publicly. They were the epitome of dashing good looks and a glamorous lifestyle (in exile), though ostracized by the British upper class whose opinion mattered to them most. They made several serious mis-steps not the least of which was making a chummy visit to Germany and palling around with Hitler and Goebbels! For all the vitriol heaped on her, she probably did the Brits a favor by way of providing them with a king much better suited for getting them through the bleak years of WWII.
The way things work today, they would move to America and some network would build a reality show around them, The Abdicator. ;)
Speaking of scandals, this has been a summer full of the bread and (media) circuses sort. While the budget/debt crisis looms the public has been distracted by such serious news stories as Congressman Weiner's acting like a twit via Twitter and the Casey Anthony trial. I couldn't help but feel a bit sorry for the congressman. Some silly messages and revealing photos cost him his seat in the House. It seems fairly harmless behavior to me considering what we see from other politicians. He certainly paid a hefty price for NOT actually doing anything. Yet when the offender is a woman we often see a different outcome. Graphic sex tapes have earned the likes of Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian celebrity status and television/magazine deals. I can't help but wonder how long it will be before Playboy offers Anthony a mega cash deal, or if they have already.
In the south a few years ago we had the case of a woman who murdered her pastor husband in his sleep then collected her 3 children and fled the state. At her trial she confessed to doing it but claimed she didn't know what happened and didn't remember any details. The defense was abuse, of course. The jury found her not guilty.
At the risk of having members of my own sex heap disdain on me, I can't help but notice that female reporters and anchors set the tone for how the public is supposed to think of these things. A couple of years ago when South Carolina's Governor Sanford, went missing and lied to everyone from his staff to his best friend about hiking the Appalachian Trail when he was actually in South America with his Argentine mistress the media was ready to pounce when he finally came home and went public with a detailed confession. After a very strange and rambling explanation of his actions, confessing the affair, and referring to the woman as his soul mate along with describing the affair as "one for the ages" back in studios on several channels women were sympathetic. It probably helped that he choked up several times and said he had spent "the last five days crying in Argentina" (how's that for theatrics?) So the female anchors and pundits framed it as "It wasn't just about sex, the poor guy's in love." One woman reporter went so far as to say "He's ruined his marriage he should get back on that plane and go get the woman he loves."
This is the news, right?
He managed to hold on to his office (barely) but not his marriage. Ah, the beauty of a 24 hour news cycle. It certainly is different from what I use to watch with my dad every night after dinner.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Sigh Sigh
Madame M:
Shall respond to your déjà vu in a bit, but first:
Juliet talking about camp survivors in France who couldn’t move on with their lives: How often others want you to “get over it,” yet deny you the very means to do so, which is to talk out the experience, to relate the pain, to achieve some understanding (even though if you weren’t part of it or something very similar, you won’t understand it anywhere completely). It’s almost like we make others uncomfortable because we have lived something terrible, and they feel responsible in some way, and can’t handle the guilt.
The mentioning of Wallis Simpson, the woman the Duke of Windsor gave up (for love) the throne of England for in the 30s: How that riled so many of the English! That wasn’t quite keeping with sacrifice and a stiff upper lip and proper behavior! To marry a commoner (well, she was to the British) and an American at that! But to be twice divorced as well, and perhaps having initiated before the second divorce—scandalous! Where was his sense of duty, they cried, as he was effectively forced to abdicate. To us, it is a historical footnote. In their day, quite the scandal.
Juliet’s phrase “like having the Third Army at your back” was puzzling to me. The only famous Third Army on the British side was WWI, not WWII, which would have been the ready reference. Although possible, it’s unlikely a British person would have made a reference like that to the American Third Army.
Such a touching scene where Kit accepts Juliet completely, sharing her most precious treasures, and it became an obvious certainty that they would be together.
“What a blessing that I have no imagination and can see things clearly.” Isola’s “observation” skills were amusing to read about in their deficiency!
“His much-vaunted shyness has evaporated completely—I think it was a ruse to arouse my sympathies.’
Everything worked out, the secret piners got together! Ah, what a great summer read! And now, Madame, I await our next endeavor/choice of subject!
Shall respond to your déjà vu in a bit, but first:
Juliet talking about camp survivors in France who couldn’t move on with their lives: How often others want you to “get over it,” yet deny you the very means to do so, which is to talk out the experience, to relate the pain, to achieve some understanding (even though if you weren’t part of it or something very similar, you won’t understand it anywhere completely). It’s almost like we make others uncomfortable because we have lived something terrible, and they feel responsible in some way, and can’t handle the guilt.
The mentioning of Wallis Simpson, the woman the Duke of Windsor gave up (for love) the throne of England for in the 30s: How that riled so many of the English! That wasn’t quite keeping with sacrifice and a stiff upper lip and proper behavior! To marry a commoner (well, she was to the British) and an American at that! But to be twice divorced as well, and perhaps having initiated before the second divorce—scandalous! Where was his sense of duty, they cried, as he was effectively forced to abdicate. To us, it is a historical footnote. In their day, quite the scandal.
Juliet’s phrase “like having the Third Army at your back” was puzzling to me. The only famous Third Army on the British side was WWI, not WWII, which would have been the ready reference. Although possible, it’s unlikely a British person would have made a reference like that to the American Third Army.
Such a touching scene where Kit accepts Juliet completely, sharing her most precious treasures, and it became an obvious certainty that they would be together.
“What a blessing that I have no imagination and can see things clearly.” Isola’s “observation” skills were amusing to read about in their deficiency!
“His much-vaunted shyness has evaporated completely—I think it was a ruse to arouse my sympathies.’
Everything worked out, the secret piners got together! Ah, what a great summer read! And now, Madame, I await our next endeavor/choice of subject!
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Deja Vu View
Faithful readers of all three blogs may recognize this piece (originally called Kansas and the Razor's Edge: Eating, Praying, Loving) from my personal blog in April. Thinking of Juliet and how she defied convention in her search for her true self, like the travelers mentioned here, made it seem somewhat appropriate. Plus I'm in a lazy summer mood. Hopefully Professor J grades on the curve. ;)
"There's no place like home." the wizard had Dorothy say while clicking her heels. I'd agree with that in a lot of ways, but can't help wonder if the gingham clad heroine of that tale would have traded all she learned on her adventure to stay at home and help on the farm. I think not. The story of home is safety, comfort, predictability. While all those things are nice, a constant dose of them can be stifling which is what made Dorothy long for adventure over the rainbow. She's only able to come to the conclusion that home is the best place in the world after leaving it and learning something about herself apart from it. Had she stayed safely in the confines of Auntie Em's care she would likely spent a life filled with a certain restlessness, wondering what it was she'd missed. We, knowing all she would have lost out on, shudder at the thought.
At the library used book sale over the weekend I picked up a lovely and worn vintage copy of The Razor's Edge, a story of travel combined with searching for meaning in life, a recurring theme in literature which has more recently given us Eat, Pray, Love. So what is the connection between all this wandering and wondering? Mark Twain said " Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." That is certainly true on a larger social scale but I suspect it may also be true on a very personal level. We are likely to catch a new glimpse and expand our view of, not only the world around us, but of the one within us. We are more willing to let go of our narrow-mindedness about who we are as we embrace new experiences in strange places. We are going, whether we want to or not, to learn something about ourselves. Finding ourselves outside of our normal roles of employee, spouse, parent--being recast as merely a person in the larger world, is freeing while also being uncomfortable, challenging, and exciting. If "all the world's a stage" some of us desperately need new lines and a scene change from time to time. Our own selves, cast in a different light, may surprise us.
My dream trip to Italy, taken a couple of years ago with a friend, was life altering. Something new was woven into the edges of life's fabric and added an inexplicable layer of richness. Questions were answered; others beckoned. We just recently discussed over a long lunch how much fear that we'd harbored for years dropped by the wayside on that journey, a magical turn in a twenty year friendship. So when I read Somerset Maugham's story of Larry's search for answers I feel for him and the fact that few understand it. Least of all his fiance, Isabel who I dislike and not just because she says "I'm twenty, in ten years I shall be old." I can't help comparing her to Elizabeth Gilbert who enticed us with her journeys through Italy, India, Bali. Ms. Gilbert would have been an apt companion for Larry's spiritual journey. Quests call for loyal companions of like mind as all good storytellers know. A fellowship, a band of brothers, at the very least an honest friend, sometimes taken along, other times met along the way. In these three stories the friends are picked up as the roads and the stories unwind. Unusual bonds are forged between travel companions, no one else will quite understand your experiences like those who have shared them.
You cannot travel and remain the same, as Twain knew. You will, as Gilbert knows do some eating, and if you are a conscious traveler you will also pray and love. You'll try new things and expand your culinary horizons. You will pray prayers of gratitude and wonder, prayers of thanks for the kindness of strangers. You will fall in love with art, and sweeping vistas. You will love cities and the people in them, you will love fellow sojourners you meet on the way, as well as love and appreciate friends left behind and relish afresh the comforts of home.
Our distant observations are likely to be vastly different than our close up experiences. You cannot travel and remain the same. The world with all its permeating richness, color, diversity, and teeming life simply will not allow it.
Shimmering possibilities over the horizon beckon the sleeping gypsy soul.
Home will be waiting when you return.
(along with everything that piled up while you were away) ;)
 |
| Delphi, Greece |
At the library used book sale over the weekend I picked up a lovely and worn vintage copy of The Razor's Edge, a story of travel combined with searching for meaning in life, a recurring theme in literature which has more recently given us Eat, Pray, Love. So what is the connection between all this wandering and wondering? Mark Twain said " Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." That is certainly true on a larger social scale but I suspect it may also be true on a very personal level. We are likely to catch a new glimpse and expand our view of, not only the world around us, but of the one within us. We are more willing to let go of our narrow-mindedness about who we are as we embrace new experiences in strange places. We are going, whether we want to or not, to learn something about ourselves. Finding ourselves outside of our normal roles of employee, spouse, parent--being recast as merely a person in the larger world, is freeing while also being uncomfortable, challenging, and exciting. If "all the world's a stage" some of us desperately need new lines and a scene change from time to time. Our own selves, cast in a different light, may surprise us.
My dream trip to Italy, taken a couple of years ago with a friend, was life altering. Something new was woven into the edges of life's fabric and added an inexplicable layer of richness. Questions were answered; others beckoned. We just recently discussed over a long lunch how much fear that we'd harbored for years dropped by the wayside on that journey, a magical turn in a twenty year friendship. So when I read Somerset Maugham's story of Larry's search for answers I feel for him and the fact that few understand it. Least of all his fiance, Isabel who I dislike and not just because she says "I'm twenty, in ten years I shall be old." I can't help comparing her to Elizabeth Gilbert who enticed us with her journeys through Italy, India, Bali. Ms. Gilbert would have been an apt companion for Larry's spiritual journey. Quests call for loyal companions of like mind as all good storytellers know. A fellowship, a band of brothers, at the very least an honest friend, sometimes taken along, other times met along the way. In these three stories the friends are picked up as the roads and the stories unwind. Unusual bonds are forged between travel companions, no one else will quite understand your experiences like those who have shared them.
You cannot travel and remain the same, as Twain knew. You will, as Gilbert knows do some eating, and if you are a conscious traveler you will also pray and love. You'll try new things and expand your culinary horizons. You will pray prayers of gratitude and wonder, prayers of thanks for the kindness of strangers. You will fall in love with art, and sweeping vistas. You will love cities and the people in them, you will love fellow sojourners you meet on the way, as well as love and appreciate friends left behind and relish afresh the comforts of home.
Our distant observations are likely to be vastly different than our close up experiences. You cannot travel and remain the same. The world with all its permeating richness, color, diversity, and teeming life simply will not allow it.
Shimmering possibilities over the horizon beckon the sleeping gypsy soul.
Home will be waiting when you return.
(along with everything that piled up while you were away) ;)
Monday, July 4, 2011
We Hold These Blogging Truths to Be Self Evident
Carving a piece of joint intellectual property out of thin air isn't quite rewriting history but it has been challenging, rewarding, and entertaining (at least for the writers :)). We've juggled illnesses, vacations, and disasters. We've stared down writer's block and fretted over power outages when storms brewed and posts were due. Having a partner kept us faithful when we might have otherwise slacked off. We always knew at least ONE person would read what we posted and to be honest, although we let you in on it, that is who we are writing for. :)
Remember how we got here? Italy, Facebook, and Saving the World...
We've agreed, disagreed, rethought things, and nitpicked definitions and meanings. We've read online articles, newspapers, and books with the thought of whether or not it might be blog worthy in the back of our minds. On a couple of occasions we were fortunate enough to have real life face to face discussions. If you read our blog you can imagine how many more ideas we can turn over when a keyboard isn't involved.
"Conversation has no bottom line, it doesn't have to arrive anywhere, and more often than not it will lead to further discussion instead of resolution or answer...true conversation...turns ideas over and over, satisfying the soul with its nuances rather than extraordinary insights or explanations." ~ Thomas Moore
On this sparkling holiday one can't help but appreciate the freedom to say, write, think, discuss, and read whatever we like. In that way it seems the perfect day for us to be celebrating a place, and a public one at that, where we can do all those things and share them with each other and with you.
Thanks for reading!
Please join us for the second year of our pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of blogging happiness!
Happy Fourth of July!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
