Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, March 12, 2018

Recommended Reading

See My Family Fled Socialism. Let's Not Give It a Try Here in the U.S. by Gabriella Hoffman. 

Excerpt:
Here's my response to a Washington Post column calling for socialism in the U.S.

Socialism wasn't implemented correctly in the 20th century, we're told. Millions dying? "That wasn't supposed to happen under Marxist-Leninism!", leftists decry. We told, "If we're given a second chance, we'll do it correctly!"

Hogwash....
Read the rest HERE.

Washington Post opinion piece to which Ms. Hoffman refers was published on March 6, 2018, and can be read in its entirety below the fold.
It’s time to give socialism a try
by Elizabeth Bruenig

In the United States, we’ve arrived at a pair of mutually exclusive convictions: that liberal, capitalist democracies are guaranteed by their nature to succeed and that in our Trumpist moment they seem to be failing in deeply unsettling ways. For liberals — and by this I mean inheritors of the long liberal tradition, not specifically those who might also be called progressives — efforts to square these two notions have typically combined expressions of high anxiety with reassurances that, if we only have the right attitude, everything will set itself aright.

Hanging on and hoping for the best is certainly one approach to rescuing the best of liberalism from its discontents, but my answer is admittedly more ambitious: It’s time to give socialism a try.

Contemporary supporters of liberalism are often subject, I think, to what I call “everyday Fukuyama-ism” — the idea, explicitly stated or not, that the end of the Cold War really signaled the end of history, and that we can only look forward to the unceasing rise of Western-style liberal-democratic capitalism. (As the leftist scholar Mark Fisher recounted: “It’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.”) This assumption is reflected in the blindsided, startled unease of liberals in the era of President Trump: “There are moments when everything I have come to believe in — reasoned deliberation, mutual toleration, liberal democracy, free speech, honesty, decency, and moderation — seem as if they are in eclipse,” Andrew Sullivan recently lamented in New York [M]agazine. “For the foreseeable future, nationalism is likely to remain a defining political force,” Yascha Mounk fretted this weekend in the New York Times; “liberals should strive to make nationalism as inclusive as possible,” he warned.

Against this backdrop of liberal disquietude, the notion that everything either will be or already is all right, granted the correct attitude — that “we’re better than this,” as Joe Biden confidently declares on his newly launched political action committee’s website — appears particularly frail. It’s hard to square the late-Obama-era insistence that “America is already great” with the palpable sense that something — in the climate, in the economy, in society, in politics, in the wellspring of American ideas — is going badly wrong. What to do? Sullivan’s solution to liberalism’s peril is contemplative “self-doubt and self-knowledge”; Mounk’s is to “domesticate [nationalism] as best we can.”

But my sense is that while Sullivan, Mounk and all the other concerned liberal observers are right that something is wrong with the state of American liberalism, the problem is much deeper than they allow. I don’t think business-as-usual but better is enough to fix what’s broken here. I think the problem lies at the root of the thing, with capitalism itself.

In fact, both Sullivan’s and Mounk’s complaints — that Americans appear to be isolated, viciously competitive, suspicious of one another and spiritually shallow; and that we are anxiously looking for some kind of attachment to something real and profound in an age of decreasing trust and regard — seem to be emblematic of capitalism, which encourages and requires fierce individualism, self-interested disregard for the other, and resentment of arrangements into which one deposits more than he or she withdraws. (As a business-savvy friend once remarked: Nobody gets rich off of bilateral transactions where everybody knows what they’re doing.) Capitalism is an ideology that is far more encompassing than it admits, and one that turns every relationship into a calculable exchange. Bodies, time, energy, creativity, love — all become commodities to be priced and sold. Alienation reigns. There is no room for sustained contemplation and little interest in public morality; everything collapses down to the level of the atomized individual.

That capitalism is inimical to the best of liberalism isn’t a new concern: It’s a long-standing critique, present in early socialist thought. That both capitalism and liberal governance have changed since those days without displacing the criticism suggests that it’s true in a foundational way.

Not to be confused for a totalitarian nostalgist, I would support a kind of socialism that would be democratic and aimed primarily at decommodifying labor, reducing the vast inequality brought about by capitalism, and breaking capital’s stranglehold over politics and culture.

I don’t think that every problem can be traced back to capitalism: There were calamities and injustices long before capital, and I’ll venture to say there will be after. But it seems to me that it’s time for those who expected to enjoy the end of history to accept that, though they’re linked in certain respects, capitalism seems to be at odds with the harmonious, peaceful, stable liberalism of midcentury dreams. I don’t think we’ve reached the end of history yet, which means we still have the chance to shape the future we want. I suggest we take it.
Ask young people today, "What is the cause of the world's today?" I have recently asked around and have repeatedly gotten the response that the underlying problem is capitalism, that response being a variant on the one I heard in the 1980s: that the cause of all the world's problems was Western Civilization.

114 comments:

  1. Socialism is not natural above the family/tribe level. Collectivism seems to work to a certain degree, correlated with societal homogeneity, but breaks down when the crowd gets too large, or there are too many "others."

    It's also worth noting that behind every socialist project is/was a power elite who exempted themselves from the misery and privation their socialism inflicted on the masses.

    At the base of modern-day progressivism is a denial of historical evidence, a rejection of human nature, and most dangerously, an intolerant totalitarian urge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you see any connection –– direct or otherwise –– between Marxism and Progressivism?

      In other words: If there had been no Hegel-Marx, would we ever have had to deal with "Progressivism" as it stands today?

      If NOT rooted in Marxian Thought, how else would YOU explain the origins of the Leftist Insurgency against Western Civilization, which began in the mid-to-late-nineteenth-century?

      Do you believe, for instance, that Charles Dickens was a socialist?

      Delete
    2. Ah, I mentioned Dickens before reading this. I'm not a scholar of Dickens, but I do not think of him as a socialist, but a liberal. I think progressivism is mostly to do with extending opportunities to formerly marginalised groups, which is a liberal impulse, isn't it?

      Delete
    3. I think we should retire any further use of the word "liberal." It has been rendered meaningless since it was adopted by the Left after the term "Progressive" was regarded by the average American Joe and Jane as repellent.

      I would say that maximal freedom from authoritarian intervention and bossy supervision on every level generally results in extending the broadest possible spectrum of opportinities for the largest percentage of a given population.

      I do not favor a "homogenous" society. I believe in permitting the process of gradual evolution and natural selection to prevail. In that way "The CREAM" is allowed to rise to "The TOP" where in my view it rightfully belongs.

      An overworked analogy –– practically a cliché –– no doubt, but it still holds true from a Common Sense perspective –– insofar as I understand Commin Sense..

      Delete
    4. @FT:
      "Do you see any connection –– direct or otherwise –– between Marxism and Progressivism?"

      Not directly.

      Policy wise, Progressivism is a Chimera changing its guise metathetically but seemingly reverting back to its original form eventually. You mentioned the change in name from Progressive to Liberal then back to Progressive. The core belief seems to be that a professional class of bureaucrats - Elites if you would - should manage the affairs of men and institutions as humanity is too stupid to manage its own. They adopt whatever means and notions are necessary to accomplish those goals. As in, the ends justify the means.

      It does not correspond to textbook Communism as that would represent actual equality in wealth, - more like poverty - communal ownership and outcome. That would be a disaster to the Progressives as they believe themselves superior.

      It corresponds closer to Socialism as it gives them a greater control over every facet of life and they can choose who and what will "rise to the top".

      Under Progressivism everything becomes fluid, morals, gender whatever. What is moral today may be immoral tomorrow. Disunity is encourage as long as it furthers the goal. It's not necessary a spoken conspiracy although, right now, in the main it seems so. We have many power brokers that form alliances then maneuver to form even bigger blocks of power. Extortion, conspiracy, rumor, propaganda / agitprop are tools of the trade. The infiltration and acquisition of once venerable institutions have played a formidable weapon in this societal "revolution".

      In other words; even if they use the tools of Marxist Revolution they are not Marxists. In many cases you might find these "Progressives" playing cardinal Richelieu to some power brokers' King Louis XIII.

      If you want to get rid of Progressivism, get rid of bureaucrats.

      My thoughts, you may kick them down the rode if you want.

      Delete
    5. Thank you for a thoughtful reply, Warren –– a rare treat these days.

      I must confess to being a "Results are All that Count" kind of guy. I guess that makes me more of a Pragmatist as well as a Libertarian.

      At any rate, from what I've been able to observe most of the various "isms" seem to have one thing in common –– they end up enslaving people to one form of authoritarian-totalitarian control or another.

      I know, for instance, that scholarly people who love to do much research, like to make fine distinctions between Medieval Catholicism, various forms of Fundamentalist Protestantism, and Islamism –––– between Fascism and Communism, –– between Communism and Socialism, –– between Statism and so-called Liberal Democracy, et al.

      I'm not rigid on the subject, but it seems to me that ALL those things when carried to their logical extremes end up in virtually the same place –– denial of freedom and subservience –– too often total subjugation –– to a "master" of one kind or another.

      I see no easy way to escape all that, but if one exists, I'm pretty sure it must lie within the confines of our individual minds and the development of our souls.

      Prayer must be the most important way, if not the only way, we could search for that deep a knowledge of ourselves and possibly reach,
      "Salvation."

      Delete
  2. The nasty bourgeoisie - I say off with their heads. It's worked so well before, let's try it again for old times sake. Sadly, so few apparently appreciate our system, warts and all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The problem with capitalism isn't that there are "too many bourgeoisie," it's that there aren't ENOUGH of them. We've all become either "proletarians" or "salaried bourgeoisie". And a "Salaried bourgeoisie" is simply a proletarian with an "excessive wage", a non-risk taker who will lose his CEO job at the first unprofitable quarter.

      Delete
    2. Of course, our factory educational systems don't help... factories need lots of proletarian workers.

      Delete
    3. The PROBLEM is not CAPITALISM. It is the profound IMMORLIZATION that MARXISM has HAD on CAPITALISM.

      Delete
    4. Does that statement of mine provoke no questions? –– no arguments? –– no support? –– no opposition?

      Delete
    5. Did capitalism support and incentivise immoral practices prior to Marx's influence? What was going on in all those Dickens novels?

      Delete
    6. The problem we have is that for 100 years now we've been defending capitalism against communism. In defending it, we've overlooked many of the problem it brings in the belief that its' goodness is "universal". It's not "universally good". It has defects that require a degree of MODERATION, lest they do damage to our society.

      Delete
    7. ...but I'll be damned if I'll answer criticism of capitalism with anything these Commie apologist bimbos have to offer.

      Delete
    8. Agreed, except I'm not afraid of "socialism" as it is practised in my country.

      Delete
    9. I'm glad you are content with where you are and what you have, Jez. There could be no greater blessing than that.

      As I've told you before, I have spent a total of four months in England on two separate occasions –– summers of 1976 and 1981. I loved being there, and felt happily at home everywhere I went.

      But that was long ago. From what I've read in latter years I doubt I would recognize the place anymore. That makes me sad.

      I have a lifelong friend who has lived in London for most her adult life. She is a globalist, an ardent supporter of the EU, and a committed Socialist.

      I can't go into detail here, but even though we went to school as children and grew up in the same town, in the same neighborhood, on the same socio-economic level we couldn't be more different in the personal values we espouse.

      I am grateful to able to fulfill the lifeiong dream of being able to live an aristocratic lifestyle in a large house, filled with antique furniture and objects of beauty both inherited and happily acquired over a lifetime.

      It's hardly a palace, but it's surrounded by many trees and much shrubbery –– truly a park-like setting albeit on a small scale. It's as close to Chartwell as I could ever hope to get.

      My London friend, however, lives in what-looks-to-me like self-imposed poverty. A matter of deliberate choice –– not necessity. [There was a good deal of money in her family.]

      I'm sure she is privately appalled at the direction I've followed –– as I am at hers ––, but we are still the best of friends. Perhaps it's because we are fellow poets, members of the same generation, and have many shared memories and other mutual interests?

      She has never attacked me, but I can FEEL her "disapointment" that I turned out to be what she-doubtless-regards-as a selfish, materialistic, hopelessly Bourgeois reactionary.

      That's fine. She –– and everyone else –– can think whatever they like, as long as they don't try to impose THEIR paltry lifestyle choices on ME.

      It's the IMPOSITION I abhor. As far as I'm concerned OTHERS should be able to Iive any way THEY like,

      Delete
    10. Free speech has been banned in Britain. You couldn't PAY me to go there after this week.

      Delete
    11. @Jez,

      Stalin would be PROUD of the "socialism" practiced in YOUR country.

      Delete
    12. FJ,
      Free speech has been banned in Britain.

      I've been somewhat following that story.

      The ancestors of the present Brits must be rolling in their graves.

      Delete
    13. Snowflake Britain needs to go f' itself!

      Delete
    14. We don't have a right to control our borders?

      Lauren Southern is a brazen self-publicist doing her best to get into trouble. She's like a faux-punk trying to get her record banned.

      Delete
    15. Man, you really ARE –––– a CASE!

      You snidely refer to the active transformation of once-great Britain into a de facto Stalinist Dictatoshit "controlling our borders?"

      How perverse could any citizen get?

      Delete
    16. Freethinke, at the time of your enjoyable visits, Britain was at her most socialist. We've only moved rightwards since (remember Blair a nominal leftist, was considered by Thatcher to be her greatest achievement.)

      If I'm snide it's because I do not recognise the transformation you describe, I believe you are mistaken. I don't personally agree with this decision, but I do think it funny that a supporter of Trump should loose his mind over it. At least this is based on her behaviour as an individual, not just her nationality.

      Delete
    17. Jez,
      Question....In your opinion, is Britain's move rightwards, including Brexit, a manifestation of the Brits' yearning for the British Empire? I've heard so from a UK friend of mine.

      Delete
    18. I don't think so, I think we are nostalgic but not for that. Brexit is largely a result of the right-wing press carrying flagrantly dishonest stories about the EU for decades without anyone bothering to oppose them. (Don't get the wrong impression, I put plenty of blame on the EU itself; it was and remains far too unclear about what it really is.)

      Delete
    19. Jez,

      I was privileged to spend most of my time with several family members of a British friend who lived in the United States. I was on holiday and was much more interested in visiting the great museums, art galleries, cathedrals, historic houses, parks, gardens and taking long walks soaking up atmosphere during the day while attending the theater, opera at Covent Garden, symphony concerts and solo recitals in the evenings, et al. than i was in discussing –– or even thinking about –– politics.

      I loved being there, and was treated very well by everyone, but in light of this particulart conversattion I feel compelled to say I was struck by the extreme modesty –– what-we-would-regard-as borderline poverty here –– of the domestic accomodations of my hosts.

      People in Britain seem satisified with far less than most Americans –– not that i see that as a bad thing necessarily. Gross materialism and conspicuous consumption appear vulgar and distasteful to me.

      Nevertheless, I prefer to be able to make lifestyle choices for myself rather than hving them. thrust upon me by authority.

      Delete
    20. Jez,
      I think we are nostalgic but not for that [the days of the British Empire].

      If not the British Empire, then nostalgic for what?

      Could you provide some examples?

      Delete
    21. Although it persisted into the 20th century, the Empire feels like a Victorian concept and we're embarrassed by the presumption inherent in it.
      I think we're mostly nostalgic for the unambiguous morality and cultural confidence of the war and post-war periods. It's from then that the essential components of our modern national identity were born: the meritocratic social mobile society, the sense of fair play (that might go back further, I'm not an historian), institutions like the NHS and the BBC; it all came from or was exemplified by that era IMO.

      Delete
  3. I completely agree with Silverfiddle. Neolithic groups remained within the range of 25 to 40 members, but after that cooperation with one another was seldom achieved and only then at the hands of a strong dictator. Expelling members of the tribe was a common occurrence.

    The Bruenig effort was at best sophomoric; I have little doubt that she's dusted it off from a high school portfolio. That said, she is young; she has an awful lot to learn about the real world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her recent article makes good sense

      The possibility of dialogue with people who insist they have learned the rules of the real world are limited but having them learn what good faith means is a start.


      Delete
    2. Good faith? When has the Left ever argued in "good faith"? Was it when they kicked all the classical liberals out of the universities?

      Delete
    3. Only a Never-Trumper could be stupid enough to believe that a discussion about "socialism" with the Left would ever be conducted in "good faith".

      Delete
    4. Elizabeth Bruenig is an assistant editor at the Washington Post, whose writing focuses on ethics, politics, and culture from a Catholic social justice perspective.

      Just your kinda girl, mcduck. A modern Dorothy Day.

      Delete
    5. The fact that she may write from that perspective hardly invalidates her ideas. They can be argued "in good faith".

      I'm surprised this pope hasn't considered Day for sainthood.

      Delete
    6. Her article makes sense? Ben Shapiro eviscerates her silly, pollyannish flight of fancy.

      Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. Socialism--outside a few small monochrome high-conformity cold nations--has slashed deep and wide swathes of death, destruction, squalor and starvation across the globe.

      First, Scandinavian countries are a homogeneous group living off of North Sea Crude.

      Secondly, they have low levels of corruption and crime (at least before the invited the muzzies in), and they enjoy small, efficient governments.

      America is a tower of babel nation of diverse, clashing tribes with a corrupt, bloated, grossly inefficient government.

      I would love for just one of these absurd articles to show us how the math works.

      Finally, one could argue we are already enjoying some socialism lite.

      Anyway, Scandinavia ain't so socialist nowadays...

      https://reason.com/archives/2016/09/01/does-socialism-work-for-sweden-why-thats

      https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/bernie-sanders-socialist-success-sweden/

      https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/swedish-economist-schools-sanders-on-the-ravages-of-socialism/

      Delete
    7. Good, Silver, but I don't think you've gone back nearly far enough.

      We effectively began our career as a de facto Socialist Republic when FDR ushered in. the NEW DEAL.

      Please don't doubt it.

      Things have gotten. "progressively" worse [pun intended ;-] ever since, despite two all-too-short intervals of peace and prosperitly presided over by Republican presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.

      Things would have gone well under Richard Nixon, –– despite his being a very liberal Republican ––, were it not for the urinalistic coup d'etat staged to show The Benighted States of America who is REALLY boss.

      Delete
    8. About the only thing I agreed with in that silly woman's article was that there is a continuum of socialism. We are socialist in some ways, and as I like to tell our prog friends, if government were as effective and efficient as say, Australia, it could deliver us socialism lite as Australia's government does, and nobody would be complaining.

      Delete
    9. @ Nostradumbass:

      "...learn what good faith means is a start."

      We have run out of cheeks to turn, troll. We won't be trying to kick that football for you anymore.

      Delete
    10. Mustang,
      The Bruenig effort was at best sophomoric; I have little doubt that she's dusted it off from a high school portfolio.

      I wonder if Bruenig has lived her life in an ivory tower. Perhaps. See this information about her husband.

      Are both Elizabeth Bruenig and her husband "trust fundistas/think tankers." If I cared enough, I'd do some research about both of them.

      Delete
    11. Here comes another Sweeping Statement from the Provocative Pen of
      of FreeThinke that NEVER seems to PROVOKE any sort of meaningful response –– only the occasional asarcastic, antagonistic quip from Leftist Site Pests, Alas!

      IF IT COMES frm the WASHINGTON POST or the NEW YORK TIMES, or any other organs of the ENEMEDIA COMPLEX, it must be categoriclly DISMISSED as LEFTIST POOPAGANDA. PERIOD!

      What could be the POINT of SULLYING our CONSCIOUSNESS with MIND POISON?

      Delete
    12. FT,
      My reason for linking to those publications:

      "Know thy enemy."

      Even as we type in our comments on various blogs, the doctrines espoused by those publications are being inserted into the minds of young people -- young people who will soon vote, some as early as 2018 and 2020.

      AND

      We now see the Left out in the open and, mainly, not pulling any punches.

      Opponents of the Left need to take off their gloves.

      Delete
    13. Better yet, don't make it a fight.

      Delete
    14. @ jez:

      The barbarians are here, where should we hide?

      Delete
  4. Elizabeth Bruenig writes:

    "Capitalism is an ideology that is far more encompassing than it admits, and one that turns every relationship into a calculable exchange. Bodies, time, energy, creativity, love — all become commodities to be priced and sold. Alienation reigns. There is no room for sustained contemplation and little interest in public morality; everything collapses down to the level of the atomized individual."

    She goes on to call for a "new" socialism, one devoid of its totalitarian bent and one that breaks free enterprise's "strangehold over politics and culture":

    Not to be confused [with] a totalitarian nostalgist, I would support a kind of socialism that would be democratic and aimed primarily at decommodifying labor, reducing the vast inequality brought about by capitalism, and breaking capital’s stranglehold over politics and culture.

    In other words this jejune dreamer, who be either fatally naive or profoundly evil –– would –– lke virtually everyone else of her stripe –– DENY REALITY and supplant it with frankly absurd WISHFUL THINKING.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I LOVE capitalism/reciprocity. Without it, we'd likely be physically FORCED to do everything we do. We could elsewise never detach ourselves from the daily interminable demands of and obligations to family and society. The alienation of capitalism, like everything elses, is a GOOD thing (in moderation).

      And it is through democracy and government that we set the limits to the degrees of of dominance, communality and reciprocity in social relationships. There is no "new socialism". There is only a need for new laws to limit socialism's excesses (ie - the socialism inherent in corporatism).

      Delete
    2. How corporate socialism works — privatize gains, socialize losses and destroy competitors who do not get subsidies.

      Delete
  5. ONCE AGAIN I BEG YOUR INDULGENCE AND OFFER THE FOLLOWING POEM AS AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL ATTITUDES THAT UNDERLIE LEFTIST ACTIVISM ALL PSEUDO-HUMANITARIAN PROTESTS TO THE CONTRARY. WHY NOT READ IT, AND SEE IF YOU DON'T AGREE?


    __ KIPLING'S LITTLE MAN __

    __________ ~ or ~ _________

    __ Bolshevism Revisited __

    A Leftist caught in doubt
    Lifts up his head to shout:

    Your treatment is unfair,
    You bully! How you dare
    To question my veracity
    With cruel, hard-eyed tenacity
    I do not know. My views
    Which boldly you accuse
    Of being falsely ranked
    In truth are sacrosanct.

    My thoughts are Holy Writ.
    Your thoughts are quite unfit;
    Based on selfish fears
    They inspire tears
    And dare to say the blame
    Lies squarely in the frame
    Of those whose failing lives
    Look to him who thrives
    And say: Your gold is mine,
    You greedy, bloated swine.
    You have more than you need.
    It's up to you to feed
    Me, the ill and weak,
    Else Heaven that you seek
    Will ever be denied.

    And I will see your hide
    Shredded, tanned and dried.
    And hung outside the gates
    Of each neighborhood that hates
    The needy and the poor,
    Who soon will storm your door
    And drag you from your bed
    And then lop off your head.
    While the masses you denied
    Will ever take great pride
    Your ignominious demise
    Was effected in the guise
    Of condign righteous wrath
    Giving Bourgeois digs a bath.

    With stolen food and goods
    We'll raze your neighborhoods
    And laugh to see you hurt
    Dying in the dirt.
    WE DO NOT CARE TO RISE:
    We live for your demise.
    We thrive on righteous hate.
    It is by now too late
    To make a plan to stop us
    End the Founder's opus.
    Our Marx destroyed your God.
    He's in - not on - the sod
    Feeding nematodes
    In their dark abodes.

    With mockery and shrill
    Sarcastic gibes we kill.
    We drool with sheer delight
    At the thought of endless night.
    Where everything that's witty,
    Charming, gracious, pretty
    Slumps to the nitty gritty,
    As we revel in the dung
    Corrupting all your young.

    For 'we are the little folk, we
    Too little to love or to hate.
    Leave us alone, and you'll see
    How quickly we'll drag down the state.'*


    ~ FreeThinke
    –––––––––––––––––
    * Rudyard Kipling

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd respond with something by Brecht but in the spirit of good faith I'll refrain.

      Delete
    2. You CAN'T respond to that, except with, sneers and jeers, because it is the TRUTH pure and simple.

      Your whole life would unravel, get trampled and would be laid waste, however, if you ever dared ADMIT that, so you'll continiue to go on your wretched, crooked way flinging sarcastic taunts and jibes while AVOIDING, ELUDING and EVADING direct confrontation with the TRUTH which you know in your heart you never could and never will be able to refute.

      Bertolt BRECHT?

      PLEASE! Don't make me laugh. He was EXCREMENTAL.

      Delete
    3. Clarice Mudd-Wikiman said

      Q.E.D. quod erat demonstrandum meaning "what was to be demonstrated" or "what was to be shown." Some may also use a less direct translation instead: "thus it has been demonstrated."

      Traditionally, the phrase is placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when the original proposition has been restated exactly, as the conclusion of the demonstration or completion of the proof.

      Delete
    4. This pseudonym is rather amusing.

      I do enjoy Brecht, though. I wonder what Ducky abstained from quoting?

      Delete
    5. @ Nostradumbass:
      "... in the spirit of good faith..."

      Indeed! As a matter of fact, your expressions of "good faith" are so widely known throughout the Internet that you have became a person widely renowned. [/sarc]

      Enjoy the fruits of your labors.

      Delete
    6. Who built the seven gates of Thebes?
      The books are filled with names of kings.
      Was it the kings who hauled the craggy blocks of stone?
      And Babylon, so many times destroyed.
      Who built the city up each time? In which of Lima's houses,
      That city glittering with gold, lived those who built it?
      In the evening when the Chinese wall was finished
      Where did the masons go? Imperial Rome
      Is full of arcs of triumph. Who reared them up? Over whom
      Did the Caesars triumph? Byzantium lives in song.
      Were all her dwellings palaces? And even in Atlantis of the legend
      The night the seas rushed in,
      The drowning men still bellowed for their slaves.

      Young Alexander conquered India.
      He alone?
      Caesar beat the Gauls.
      Was there not even a cook in his army?
      Phillip of Spain wept as his fleet
      was sunk and destroyed. Were there no other tears?
      Frederick the Greek triumphed in the Seven Years War.
      Who triumphed with him?

      Each page a victory
      At whose expense the victory ball?
      Every ten years a great man,
      Who paid the piper?

      So many particulars.
      So many questions.


      Bertolt Brecht

      Delete
    7. Brecht apparently depressed himself to death. Just sayin'.

      Delete
    8. Oh my! FT seems to be right. That particular poem was certainly excremental.

      Delete
    9. The snowflakes are now demanding top billing in the history books.

      Delete
    10. AoW: Brecht had a heart condition. I don't see the need to conjure any further explanation for his death.
      Thersites: Not top billing necessarily. Smaller print would be fine, but at the moment they're not even in parentheses.
      Warren: Why not question the Great Man theory of history? Even if you subscribe to that theory, it's a good question (leads us very quickly to the satisfyingly deep "what is the purpose of history?"). And even if you hate the question, there's some poetry in Brecht's language which is more than can be said for the kind of doggerel which is often tolerated around here.

      There's a very funny late poem which maybe you could enjoy more easily as it's very critical of the Soviets.

      Die Lösung

      After the uprising of the 17th of June
      The Secretary of the Writers' Union
      Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
      Stating that the people
      Had forfeited the confidence of the government
      And could win it back only
      By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
      In that case for the government
      To dissolve the people
      And elect another?

      Delete
    11. Smaller print would be fine

      ...but who would have the time to sit through the "credits"? A simple two hour film already takes a good 5 minutes.

      Delete
    12. Every WWII film would have to individually list the 61 million killed and billions affected. You'd count the fleas and overlook the dog.

      Delete
    13. But a physiology of a dog or any large animal that overlooked the role of its parasites would be hopelessly incomplete. Brecht's quarrel is with a history that complete elides that bulk of human experience. Perhaps a history that confines itself to kings and aristocrats is comparable to a celebrity magazine. Whom Henry IV slept with is adds little to our wider understanding of 15th century England.

      Delete
    14. Jez, I'm afraid that Brechts' musings, in this case, strike a little too close to home for me to consider humorous.

      Delete
    15. Jez,
      Brecht had a heart condition. I don't see the need to conjure any further explanation for his death.

      My mother, too, had a heart condition: 8 incidents in 4 years, when she was 44-48. Stress exacerbated her heart condition; once she quit reading the daily newspaper and stopped other interactions with news sources (television, radio), the heart incidents stopped.

      Mom lived to nearly age 72. She'd have died long before if she hadn't removed certain elements of stress from her life.

      Dwelling on negatives impacts our health -- in a bad way.

      Delete
    16. But life entails stress, you can't eliminate it all. You chose which elements to remove based not only on how much stress they cause, but also on what value they provide. In your mother's case, the news was more stress than it was worth. If in Brecht's case, his creative work was both a significant source of stress, yet also to a large enough extent his reason for living, he might well rationally decide to keep it up.

      I don't know about your mother, but Brecht's pre-existing condition was not related to stress.

      Delete
    17. Brecht –– who, I believe, was a self-admitted Marxist –– was hardly devoid of wit, but he had a disparaging, cynical, contemptuous, condemnatory out look on life.

      By dwelling almost wholly in negatives, he had to have led a sour, dour fundamentally unwholesome insalubrious outlook on life.

      Oh sure, he forces his audience to confront provocative, notably unpleasant ideas and contrived situations they'd probably prefer to ignore, and that's bound to provoke thought –– never a bad thing.

      However, I cannot imagine how or why anyone could claim to "ENJOY" the products of Brecht's bitter, cynical apparentky joyless outlook on life.

      Delete
    18. Weill did some lovely work. Probably the best thing one could say about Brecht was that he allowed himself to be persuaded to collaborate with Weill.

      True art is above politics. When Art becomes propagandistic and polemical, it ceases to be Art.

      True Art is DEEP and speaks directly to our individual souls.

      Propaganda and partisan polemics tend to be BANAL, SUPERFICIAL and MANIPULATIVE, probably because they are designed to serve narrow, short term goals, and are, therefore, tendentious and largely theoretical. In ther words they are not rooted in reality.

      Delete
    19. There's more than one type of art. There's a polemic aspect to the work of Orwell and GBS, for examples.

      Delete
  6. NEWS! NEWS! NEWS! NEWS! NEWS!

    Split Splat! Nobody cares
    Hillary Clinton just fell down the stairs
    Despite being steaded by two able men
    I guess Hillabitch, must be drunk yet again
    .

    _______________________________

    Hill and Bill went to Cap Hill
    To perpetrate more slaughter
    Hill fell down
    And broke her crown
    Bill nearly died of laughter!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this an outward sign of a soul filled with the holy spirit?

      Delete
    2. FT,
      Aha! Now I see that to which your first bit of verse refers.

      Delete
    3. Jez,

      You may take it as the Outward and Visible Sign of a mature person with a wry sense of humor and a penchant for satire who has lived too long to suffer fools gladly or to put up with charlatans, mountebanks, sophists, con artists, and relentless antagonism from those who pose as humanitarians but are in truth would-be totalitafrians.

      Jesus didn't like them any more than I do. In His day they were called Pharisees.

      If you think being a Christian means nothing more than being "NICE" all the time, even as people kick you in the shins, spit in your face, insult your ideals, and attack the very foundations of the life you feel privileged to lead, etc. your understanding of the faith is jejune –– sadly insubstantial.

      Delete
    4. Your conviction that Christianity accommodates schadenfreude indicates a level of sophistication I hope never to attain; I consider naivety preferable to that.

      Delete
    5. FreeThinke,

      You've often demonstrated your faith by wishing me dead on many occasions. You aren't the only one here.

      I sat it's a strange Christianity. Really just a smug self righteousness.

      Delete
    6. Indeed, it could be called Pharisaical.

      Delete
    7. Well we could sit here expressing disdain, engaging in willful misunderstanding, while trading insults all day and far into the night, but I have better things to do than waste time performing exercises in futility.

      Delete
  7. About Hillary Clinton...

    From Hillary Clinton Really Hates the American Heartland:

    Hillary Clinton goes to India to attack the American heartland as backwards and racist.

    Well, she was finally willing to admit it. Speaking out of the country in India, Hillary Clinton let loose with a diatribe against the American heartland. She told the Indian audience that Donald Trump's voters hated black people getting rights and women getting jobs. She claimed she won the successful parts of the country and Donald Trump won the failing, backward parts of the country. Her remarks dripped with contempt for Americans.


    News flash for Hillary et al:

    THOSE LIVING IN THE HEARTLAND ARE AMERICANS, TOO!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anyplace, anywhere in the world that is not acceptable to the HilBill types is heartlands.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Giving Socialism a try? Interesting that every single person I know who came from, or whose parents came from, Hungary or Rumania, etc., ALL vote Republican....they shudder at socialism and how our country's actually got people here who think it's a good idea "If it's done right"....They always say there is no 'right' about it. But our libs keep teaching it, keep pushing...subtle or not so subtle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I posted her response to the criticism and it's well worth reading.

      Her main point is that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with those who are stuck defining socialism as the dregs of policy from the great game. Soviet Russia was an abysmal abomination and failure.
      No sane person wants to transform the U.S. to that model.

      However, social welfare states that have taken from socialist theory like Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Norway and others have arguably a better standard of living than the U.S.

      Not being able to at least acknowledge that the left agenda is intended to make certain basics available to avoid creating an underclass makes discussion impossible and leaves the left with the view of the rgiht as reactionary haters. The understanding of mutual goals is impossible in that environment.

      Delete
    2. And you think the left is trying to create an "understanding of mutual goals," with their constant hate and astonishing amount of criticism just for criticism sake as long as it's against a Conservative, is that right? Like on CNN, or MSNBC, of Schumer, Schiff, Pelosi?...wow.

      Nobody I mentioned from Eastern Europe thinks socialism is only "policy from the great game"...they saw oppression, they saw limited self reliance, huge government, etc. To constantly bring up the USSR when discussing socialism isn't thoughtful.

      What the Left fights hard against is individualism....I'd choose that over a 'better standard of living' any day, and I do NOT believe those countries have a better standard of living for everyone.
      Yes, the left agenda is intended to make certain basics available...not sure which ones the right doesn't embrace but throwing in adherence to the Constitution, encouraging an open mind, hard work and many other things tips me in favor of the right every time.

      Delete
    3. @Z - What the left fights hard against is individualism
      --------------
      Well we'll both agree that I'm on the left.
      In the spirit of your blog's "What Makes Me Happy" topic today, allow me to answer and decide if I'm an individual:

      1. Finishing digging out after a nor'easter.
      2. Talking to my grand niece about her ballet class.
      3. Listening to John Coltrane and Bill Evans.
      4. Watching a 60's French film.
      5. A good breakfast
      6. Lunch with the guys talking baseball (Decision: Pitching injuries will end the Sox' chance)
      7. Sunday concerts at the Gardner
      8. Sam Smith Oatmeal Stout
      9. My film collection
      10. Boston

      I don't know if that indicates a closed mind to you or not.

      Delete
    4. Closed mind? What the...? Why would you even ask that? What would give you that idea knowing me as well as you do by now? I think all of these are great things to be happy about. I didn't know they have concerts at the Gardner.
      Are these supposed to represent individualism? I don't think so.

      Delete
    5. I do believe you see me and most all on the left as closed minded, yes.
      I'd equate close minded to a lack of individualism. Being open to experience is critical.

      As for the left not supporting individualism you can track the right's antagonism to it back to the response to Spock's Baby and Child Care .
      The right's support for rising income inequality and and decreasing social mobility is NOT support for individualism.

      Just trying to present leftists as normal people with a reasoned world view is difficult.

      Just how do evil leftists who rather enjoy life act to promote Soviet communism? We rather enjoy the offerings of Western culture but don't want to revisit Leave It to Beaver and the rebellion that straight jacket produced.

      Delete
    6. @Nostradumbass
      "I'd equate close minded to a lack of individualism. Being open to experience is critical."

      Yes, everyone should be burnt at the stake at least once.

      "As for the left not supporting individualism you can track the right's antagonism to it back to the response to Spock's Baby and Child Care ."

      Oh please spare me, you've never raised a child it's just an intellectual exercise with no data for you. Such a fine crop of maladjusted, ignorant, opinionated - with no bases to form a intelligent opinion - sexually confused goblins inhabit the universities and I would say Spocks' sophomoric book had a lot to do with it.

      "The right's support for rising income inequality and and decreasing social mobility is NOT support for individualism."

      No, it's a result of Leftist social experiment policy and the direct results of Progressivism - intentionally - because Progressives must have a permanent underclass to win elections. Isn't it amazing that most of the richest people in America are Progressives. The only individualism the Left supports is State approved.

      "Just trying to present leftists as normal people with a reasoned world view is difficult.

      That's because the Left is basically criminal or insane. But when the ends justify the means, you're going to have that.

      "Just how do evil leftists who rather enjoy life act to promote Soviet communism?"

      Go ask Thomas Friedman the "Foreign Affairs" columnist for The New York Times. He's one of yours.

      "We rather enjoy the offerings of Western culture but don't want to revisit Leave It to Beaver and the rebellion that straight jacket produced."

      I'm sure you would but you produce nothing substantial. You can neither cloth or feed yourselves so you need us nasty proletariat red necks to make your goods and feed you. We just don't mind very well. As for you, enjoy your artsy-fartsy state approved individualism. The goblins of your own making are eventually coming to eat you.


      Delete
    7. Thank you, Warren. That was very well stated.

      Just because someone likes to eat hot dogs while watching baseball games doesn't make him a True American (!) anymore than spending inrdinate amounts of time hanging around a garage is apt to turn a person into a car.

      Awkward paraellels I know, but I hope you can catch my drift anyway.

      Delete
  10. DUCKY QUOTED the FOLLOWING POEM by BRECHT ABOVE in an attempt to COUNTER a REVERENTIAL, TRADITION-ORIENTED WORLDVIEW, I suppose:

    Who built the seven gates of Thebes?
    The books are filled with names of kings.
    Was it the kings who hauled the craggy blocks of stone?
    And Babylon, so many times destroyed.
    Who built the city up each time? In which of Lima's houses,
    That city glittering with gold, lived those who built it?
    In the evening when the Chinese wall was finished
    Where did the masons go? Imperial Rome
    Is full of arcs of triumph. Who reared them up? Over whom
    Did the Caesars triumph? Byzantium lives in song.
    Were all her dwellings palaces? And even in Atlantis of the legend
    The night the seas rushed in,
    The drowning men still bellowed for their slaves.

    Young Alexander conquered India.
    He alone?
    Caesar beat the Gauls.
    Was there not even a cook in his army?
    Phillip of Spain wept as his fleet
    was sunk and destroyed. Were there no other tears?
    Frederick the Greek triumphed in the Seven Years War.
    Who triumphed with him?

    Each page a victory
    At whose expense the victory ball?
    Every ten years a great man,
    Who paid the piper?

    So many particulars.
    So many questions.


    ~ Bertolt Brecht (1898-1856)

    Brecht's point should be obvious. No temples, palaces, cathedrals, aqueducts, roads, bridge, tunnels, etc. could have been built without the armies of nameless, faceless laborers who put their ives at risk and did the heavy lifting. Therefore, Civilization would never have developed as it did were it not for "the workers."

    A tenable argument on the face of it, and a point well worth considering,

    HOWEVER, let me argue from another point of view with an obvious simile:

    Take for instance a BEETHOVEN SYMPHONY.

    1. It takes a full ORHESTRA made up of highly skilled INSTRUMENTALISTS to bring Beethoven's score to life.

    2. It takes a highly skilled CONDUCTOR blest with a fertile imagination, passionate devotion to the music, a strong personality, and either forceful or charismatic communications skills to ORGANIZE the instrmentalists, and SHAPE the MOOD and DIRECTION their performnce is to take.

    At this stage we might want to ask, so WHO or WHAT is the most important factor in producing a good performance –– the MUSICIANS,or the CONDUCTOR?

    The CORRECT ANSWER would be "NEITHER."

    It is BEETHOVEN and BEETHOVEN ALONE who is responsible for the work at hand. Without BEETHOVEN there woild be NOTHING either to PLAY or to CONDUCT.

    It looks to me as though Brecht's thinking stopped with his consideration for the too often unsung significance of the members of the orchestra.

    To me that is an upside-down, inside-out and backward approach to understanding and appreciating the true significance of phenomena.

    None of this is to say that neither the instrumentalists nor the conductor deserve respect or consideration far from it, but it IS an honest attempt to put an evaluation of the relagtive value of all participants in proper PERSPECTIVE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @FT - None of this is to say that neither the instrumentalists nor the conductor deserve respect or consideration far from it ...
      -------
      So we agree.

      Interesting we are discussing "great man" theory at the time of Stephen Hawking's death.

      Delete
    2. I know it's just an analogy, but remember that art is a far more solitary pursuit than politics or technology. So the Great Man theories work much better at explaining symphonies and paintings than they do to explain broader phenomena like the renaissance or industrial revolution or war. How much information is carried by the theory "Hitler started the War" compared to wider survey of the sentiments circulating around Europe through the '20s and '30s?

      Delete
    3. Would there have been an Italian Renaissance w/o Cosimo de Medici and Lorenzo the Great? Who would the patrons of the artists have been?

      As for starting wars, if you think that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was the start of the Vietnam War, you're nuts.

      Imagine if Tony Blair had not gotten wind of what Bush wanted in Iraq per the Downing Street Memo...

      Delete
    4. Wilson took an unwilling nation to war in 1917. Kennedy launched the Bay of Pigs. Hillary bombed Libya. The American people don't give a 'F about Libya (or Syria).

      Delete
    5. The Lafayette Escadrille didn't get America into WWI. Hemingway didn't get America into Spain/WWII. All Hemingway did was convince a few hundred Red-diaper fanatics to go abroad and die.

      Delete
    6. It takes a President or a King to prosecute a war. These are "titular" heads of state. What Germans and Europeans thought of world meant squat. What Hitler thought, mattered.

      Delete
    7. "Would there have been an Italian Renaissance w/o Cosimo de Medici and Lorenzo the Great?"

      Yeah, probably. I reckon it would have happened, maybe not in Florence, maybe not even in Italy, but the conditions were right or close to it in a few places in Europe.

      "What Germans and Europeans thought of world meant squat. What Hitler thought, mattered."

      Only because Germans had already voted him in, and then European governments had tolerated his belligerence for long enough. Fascism was happening anyway; which fascist would the Germans have elected if not Hitler?

      Delete
    8. ART is usually PREDICTIVE not REFLECTIVE of staid tradition. I think that's why it has often been referred to as The Avante Garde.

      Thersites' point about the Medicis role in the emergence of the Renaissance in Italy is well taken.

      "The People" en masse rarely-if-ever produce ANYTHING new, brilliant, innovative, ingenious, salubrious or advanced on their own.

      "The People" exist to be LED.

      The QUALITY of the leadership they follow determines the results of whatever policies the LEADER puts in motion.

      That's the "bare bones" of it.

      Just let me add what should be obvious, and then you can draw your own conclusions as to how it may relate to human progress and development.

      One the HEAD is removed frim the BODY, the body DIES.

      Delete
    9. "Being in the World" needs the kernel of dasein of "Being there" (the Great Man) to coalesce around.

      Yes, it could have been someone else, but it will always center upon some authentic "someone" whom history will record as "the great man".

      Delete
    10. ...and in the case of natural disasters, it will be remembered through the "inactions" of the great man (ie - Coolidge and the Great migration).

      Delete
    11. ...Nero fiddling as Rome burned.

      Delete
    12. ...but if you prefer, you can say that Trump didn't win the presidency on his own (he's NOT a great man). 4Chan did... ;P

      Delete
    13. ...or the Great man is just a way to chunk history into digestible "memes".

      Delete
    14. Great Man theories are certainly very appealing, bite-size memes.

      But I think a narrative in which Trump's victory is placed in the wider context of American culture and her anxieties is far more illuminating than a straight-forward biography of Trump.

      I'm not saying that some people have more impact than others, and I enjoy biographies. I just think that there are many other approaches history can take, and it would be a pity to overlook them all.

      Delete
    15. Funny, I think that the narrative should read in almost the polar opposite manner. Trump, IMO, is the quintessential American. What happened in 2016 was the failure of the former and traditional "great men" (Senators, Governors, politicians) to propose or envision a future to Americans in which the average voter would not be economically "worse off" than he currently was or had been in the recent past (pre-2008 housing crises). They, unlike Trump, had strayed too far politically from the voters that they were supposed to "represent". It was their "hubris" (especially as it relates to regulating immigration) that lead to the Establisment's joint (R-D) defeat.

      America pre-Trump was headed in an economic and organizational direction (corporate global ascendancy) that was rendering fewer and fewer American people "productive" and "employable" in the economic sphere. It was a direction in which expert's focused upon maximizing largely public works related structural "aggregate efficiencies" in the world economy instead of granting lower and more average IQ people a privatized but less-efficient "niche" within the economy where they could survive and perhaps even "thrive" short of turning into a progressively dependent and demeaning ward of the democratic (public) welfare state.

      Trump wants to create a world with more opportunities for private investment. In that light, reading Trump's biography would prove much more enlightening than any failed journalism graduate's analysis of the current American economy on the editorial page of the NY Times. In other words, it's not a reflection of existing "reality"... it's aspirational.

      Delete
    16. "They, unlike Trump, had strayed too far politically from the voters..."

      That's my point, any "great man" is constrained by what the wider population is "ready for" in some way. What's interesting about the election is that distance between the political class and the people - what it was, and how it grew so large.

      "Trump wants to create a world with more opportunities for private investment." Who knows. I've given up analysing his motives. Even if he were honest, the man would still be inarticulate.

      Delete
    17. In an autocracy, great men implement their aspirations. In a democracy, the people elect men who best represent their own, uniquely individual although ultimately "collective", aspirations.

      Delete
    18. That's my point, any "great man" is constrained by what the wider population is "ready for" in some way.

      Think Shakespeare's Coriolanus. Limited perhaps, but NOT completely constrained.

      Delete
    19. The "master discourse" eventually gets replaced by the "university discourse" in a democracy, now structurally/politically rendered devoid of "great men".

      Delete
    20. Replaced by the "great servant of the people" (aka- Stalin).

      Delete
    21. ...or a populist "Caesar". Then democracy, as stated in Plato's "Republic," gets replaced by "tyranny".

      Delete
    22. Hesiod, "Works and Days"

      (ll. 202-211) And now I will tell a fable for princes who themselves understand. Thus said the hawk to the nightingale with speckled neck, while he carried her high up among the clouds, gripped fast in his talons, and she, pierced by his crooked talons, cried pitifully. To her he spoke disdainfully: `Miserable thing, why do you cry out? One far stronger than you now holds you fast, and you must go wherever I take you, songstress as you are. And if I please I will make my meal of you, or let you go. He is a fool who tries to withstand the stronger, for he does not get the mastery and suffers pain besides his shame.' So said the swiftly flying hawk, the long- winged bird.

      (ll. 212-224) But you, Perses, listen to right and do not foster violence; for violence is bad for a poor man. Even the prosperous cannot easily bear its burden, but is weighed down under it when he has fallen into delusion. The better path is to go by on the other side towards justice; for Justice beats Outrage when she comes at length to the end of the race. But only when he has suffered does the fool learn this. For Oath keeps pace with wrong judgements. There is a noise when Justice is being dragged in the way where those who devour bribes and give sentence with crooked judgements, take her. And she, wrapped in mist, follows to the city and haunts of the people, weeping, and bringing mischief to men, even to such as have driven her forth in that they did not deal straightly with her.

      (ll. 225-237) But they who give straight judgements to strangers and to the men of the land, and go not aside from what is just, their city flourishes, and the people prosper in it: Peace, the nurse of children, is abroad in their land, and all-seeing Zeus never decrees cruel war against them. Neither famine nor disaster ever haunt men who do true justice; but light-heartedly they tend the fields which are all their care. The earth bears them victual in plenty, and on the mountains the oak bears acorns upon the top and bees in the midst. Their woolly sheep are laden with fleeces; their women bear children like their parents. They flourish continually with good things, and do not travel on ships, for the grain-giving earth bears them fruit.

      Delete
    23. (cont)
      (ll. 238-247) But for those who practise violence and cruel deeds far-seeing Zeus, the son of Cronos, ordains a punishment. Often even a whole city suffers for a bad man who sins and devises presumptuous deeds, and the son of Cronos lays great trouble upon the people, famine and plague together, so that the men perish away, and their women do not bear children, and their houses become few, through the contriving of Olympian Zeus. And again, at another time, the son of Cronos either destroys their wide army, or their walls, or else makes an end of their ships on the sea.

      (ll. 248-264) You princes, mark well this punishment you also; for the deathless gods are near among men and mark all those who oppress their fellows with crooked judgements, and reck not the anger of the gods. For upon the bounteous earth Zeus has thrice ten thousand spirits, watchers of mortal men, and these keep watch on judgements and deeds of wrong as they roam, clothed in mist, all over the earth. And there is virgin Justice, the daughter of Zeus, who is honoured and reverenced among the gods who dwell on Olympus, and whenever anyone hurts her with lying slander, she sits beside her father, Zeus the son of Cronos, and tells him of men's wicked heart, until the people pay for the mad folly of their princes who, evilly minded, pervert judgement and give sentence crookedly. Keep watch against this, you princes, and make straight your judgements, you who devour bribes; put crooked judgements altogether from your thoughts.

      (ll. 265-266) He does mischief to himself who does mischief to another, and evil planned harms the plotter most.

      Delete
  11. MORE GOOD NEWS! MORE GOOD NEWS!

    Souse Hillary Clinton gpt herself pissed
    Fell in the tub and fractured her wrist.
    In a marble washroom at the Jodphur palace
    (Doubtless while using the soap as a phallus).
    Hillary needs to stay off the sauce
    Lest her life soon be thought a total loss.
    But this Harpy once Secretary of State
    Could not hope to meet a more fitting fate!


    _____________________________________

    Now Hillary Clinton fractures her wrist after slipping in a palace bathtub during trip to India

    • Hillary Clinton's wrist injury is worse than originally thought

    • former Secretary of State was forced to cancel her appearances in Jodhpur, India this week when she slipped in a palace bathtub and hurt her wrist

    Doctors advised the 70-year-old to rest, but the pain grew unbearable so she was taken to the hospital early Wednesday morning

    A CT Scan and X-ray confirmed she had a hairline fracture on her wrist.

    This is the second time the former presidential candidate has injured herself on her India trip after slipping on steps at a 13th century harem –– TWICE –– the other day.

    ~ UK Daily Mail

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective