;)
The Commentariat -- Sept. 15, 2012
I didn't think I'd have time to address David Brooks Friday, but I did eventually manage to knock out a column for the New York Times eXaminer.
The President's Weekly Address:
... The transcript is here.
Juan Cole: President Obama played hardball with Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi. And it worked. CW: re: the same events Cole outlines, this was my impression, too. I'm glad to see that someone with Cole's expertise drew the same conclusion. And Tough Romney can just shut up.
Craig Timberg of the Washington Post: "... after the White House warned Tuesday that a crude anti-Muslim movie trailer had sparked lethal violence in the Middle East, Google acted..., keeping it from easy viewing in countries where more than a quarter of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims live. Legal experts and civil libertarians, meanwhile, said the controversy highlighted how Internet companies, most based in the United States, have become global arbiters of free speech, weighing complex issues that traditionally are the province of courts, judges, and occasionally, international treaty.... In temporarily blocking the video in some countries, legal experts say, Google implicitly invoked the concept of 'clear and present danger.' That's a key exception to the broad First Amendment protections...." ...
... BUT Gerry Shih of Reuters: "Google Inc rejected a request by the White House on Friday to reconsider its decision to keep online a controversial YouTube movie clip that has ignited anti-American protests in the Middle East. The Internet company said it was censoring the video in India and Indonesia after blocking it on Wednesday in Egypt and Libya...."
Adrian Chen of Gawker: "The anti-Islam film that's set off a firestorm in the Middle East was directed by a 65-year-old schlock director named Alan Roberts, we've confirmed. He's the creative vision behind softcore porn classics like The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood.... Roberts may have been duped by the film's producer in much the same way as the rest of the cast and crew. They believed they were participating in a period piece about ancient Egypt and had no idea the movie would be edited and dubbed into a piece of Islamophobic propaganda."
New York Times Editors: "There is still time before year's end for Congress to cancel this destructive sequester and negotiate a realistic plan to balance spending cuts with tax increases on the rich. One look at the details should persuade lawmakers that the task is urgent."
New York Times Editors: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is trying to browbeat President Obama into a pre-emptive strike [against Iran].... It is dangerous...."
Devin Dwyer of ABC News: "Conservative critics of President Obama are accusing him of 'skipping' daily intelligence briefings throughout his first term and in the days leading up to this week's deadly attacks on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Libya.... But the substance of the charge, aimed at undermining Obama's credibility as commander in chief, appears to be more a matter of semantics than hard fact.... Obama has never 'skipped' a Presidential Daily Briefing, aides say, even if an in-person briefing isn't listed on his schedule."
Mark Sherman of the AP: "More than 8 in 10 Americans in a poll by The Associated Press and the National Constitution Center support limits on the amount of money given to groups that are trying to influence U.S. elections. But they might have to change the Constitution first."
Abby Goodnough of the New York Times: "California -- home to seven million uninsured people, more than any other state -- is at the forefront of preparations for January 2014, when a controversial requirement that most Americans have medical coverage or pay a penalty takes effect.... The California Health Benefit Exchange has already hired 50 employees and is poised to hire 50 more. Construction of the Web portal through which some three million people are expected to buy insurance by 2019, and through which many others will likely enroll in Medicaid, is under way."
Gail Collins on the fine art of bamboozling teenagers into taking on huge, nearly life-long debt. ...
... The underlying story, by Andrew Martin of the New York Times (May 2012): "With more than $1 trillion in student loans outstanding in this country, crippling debt is no longer confined to dropouts from for-profit colleges or graduate students who owe on many years of education, some of the overextended debtors in years past. As prices soar, a college degree statistically remains a good lifetime investment, but it often comes with an unprecedented financial burden."
Presidential Race
Jeff Zeleny & Megan Thee-Brenan of the New York Times: "President Obama has taken away Mitt Romney's longstanding advantage as the candidate voters say is most likely to restore the economy and create jobs, according to the latest poll by The New York Times and CBS News, which found a modest sense of optimism among Americans that White House policies are working."
A new Obama ad answering the question, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" The ad will air in seven swing states:
Norm Ornstein in the Washington Post: Bob Woodward & other pundits want Obama to be more like Bill Clinton. "But ... Clinton's open and enveloping approach [did little] to improve his presidential performance.... All of the phone calls, flattery and schmoozing did not stop Republicans in both houses from voting in unison against the Clinton economic plan, and for almost eight months ... he did not have enough votes from his own Democrats." By contrast, "The accomplishments of the 111th Congress rivaled those of the Great Society Congress of Lyndon Johnson's era. And they were achieved without the midnight phone calls or warm interactions with allies and adversaries that characterized Clinton."
Jonathan Bernstein in the Washington Post: in his interview with George Stephanopoulos, Mitt Romney confirmed that he's "not going to balance the budget by raising taxes or by cutting spending; we're going to have presto-chango-magico growth. Exactly the way that Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush 'balanced' the budget by projecting magical growth rates." ...
... George Made Him Do It. Ashley Parker of the New York Times: "... Mitt Romney found himself at odds with his own foreign policy advisers. While two of his advisers in interviews said that Mr. Romney had a different 'red line' on Iran from President Obama, Mr. Romney told ABC News that his red line is the same as that of the president." The Romney campaign later blamed Stephanopoulos for mischaracterizing Romney's stance even though Romney agreed clearly -- twice -- that his 'red line' on Iran was the same as Obama's. CW: Parker pretty much calls Romney's people liars; this is breaking new ground for her. Maybe the worm has turned. ...
... During the Stephanopoulos interview, Romney also revealed he agrees with the embassy statement; which he twice characterized as evidence President Obama "sympathized" with violent protesters. In fact, Romney goes beyond the embassy statement to condemn the video that inspired the riots & murders. Jed Lewison of Daily Kos: "This whole thing would be crazy enough if Romney at least disagreed with the embassy's statement. But it's clear he agrees with it." Lewison thinks Romney might be insane.
Washington Post Editors: Mitt Romney should stop taking "cheap shots" at the President. He "needs to offer more substance and fewer slogans in foreign affairs."
Steve Benen reports that Mitt has the Mendacity train back up to speed. Week 34: 36 lies, most of which are doozies.
Jonathan Cohn the The New Republic on Romney's bad press: Romney can complain that the press is "biased," but "negative" doesn't mean "biased." Romney has earned most of those negative reports. (Cohn agrees that the horse-race stuff is over the top. It always is.) CW: Romney wasn't complaining when the horse-race reports showed him besting Obama.
The New Yorker's Steve Coll, Jon Lee Anderson & Ryan Lizza discuss the turmoil in the Middle East with Dorothy Wickenden:
Andrew Sprung of Xpostfactoid on "the Romney Doctrine": "Romney is not only denying the imperative that the U.S. be 'selective' in projecting its power -- his whole foreign policy is premised on a fantasy of unchallenged hegemony (albeit steered by Israel in one quarter) that never was.... Romney has surrounded himself with Bush administration hardliners and publicly positioned himself in pawn to Netanyahu, not to mention in the pay of Sheldon Adelson."
John Eligon of the New York Times: "Citing a wave of angry backlash, a Kansas man on Friday withdrew a petition in which he argued that President Obama should be removed from the state's election ballot because he did not meet citizenship requirements.... The state will continue to try to obtain the birth certificate, and officials will meet on Monday as scheduled to close the case officially. But without the petition, Mr. Obama will remain on the ballot, Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach told The Associated Press." CW: where is Mitt Romney in all this? Why isn't he telling Kobach, a Romney campaign advisor, associate, surrogate, friend or something, to STFU? Oh, I know; Romney "sympathizes" with birthers.
"I didn't know you had families." Scott Kearnan, writing for Boston Spirit & republished in the Boston Globe, recounts Gov. Mitt Romney's interactions with gay activists & high-level state employees. Via Jurassicpork of Brilliant at Breakfast. Even taking into consideration that the recollections are years old & they are accounts by people who opposed Romney's policies, Romney's remarks & actions were far beyond "insensitive." That is, you can bend over backwards to give Romney the benefit of the doubt, & he still comes across as a world-class jerk.
CW: I just read Paul Ryan's speech to the Values Voters Summit, a project of the Family Research Council. I hope you'll read it, too. The linked Politico site also has video of the full speech -- way too much for me to watch, but I'm sure it gives a good idea of the audience's reactions. The reason I'm suggesting you read Ryan's speech is that it is a masterpiece of propaganda that exposes the truly dark side of right-wing think. If Nazi comparisons weren't verboten, I'd make one. You will not recognize the Barack Obama depicted in the speech, because he is the Anti-Christ, the enemy of god, "peace, freedom and civilized values." When we attribute Obama hatred to racism -- as I have been inclined to do -- we are fooling ourselves. People who hate President Obama don't hate him because he's black -- they hate him because people like Paul Ryan have instilled in them true existential fear that his re-election would "set in motion things that can never be called back. It would be a choice to give up so many other choices.... If we renew the contract, we will get the same deal -- with only one difference: In a second term, he will never answer to you again." Re-electing Barack Obama is tantamount to the end of democracy, to the end of freedom, to the end of civilization. You don't have to be a birther to believe that Obama is the leader of an open conspiracy to attack the United States from within. Values Voters aren't specifically crazy; they are, to borrow a word from George Romney, "brainwashed."
CW: while searching for something else, I came across this terrific piece by Marcy Wheeler on Mitt Romney's convention speech. It's more than two weeks old, but it is still worth reading. Wheeler is an expert at bringing together little pieces of the puzzle to expose the whole. That's what she does here. Her bottom line is "to a large and increasing number of American people, Mitt's actually arguing that he should be President so he can solve the problem he got phenomenally rich by causing in the first place." It's the getting to the bottom line that's astounding.
Local News
Ed Treleven of the Wisconsin State Journal: "A Dane County [Madison] judge late Friday struck down Wisconsin's controversial 2011 collective bargaining law because he said it violates the state and U.S. constitutional guarantees of free speech and freedom of association." Thanks to Kate M. for the link.
Tom Brown & David Adams of Reuters: "An Iowa judge issued a temporary injunction on Friday blocking the state's plans to verify the citizenship status of voters before the November 6 election in the Midwestern swing state. The injunction was a setback for Iowa's Republican Governor Terry Branstad."
Laura Vozella of the Washington Post: "Virginia's Board of Health did an about-face on abortion regulations Friday, voting to impose strict, hospital-style building standards even on existing clinics and reversing its June decision. The reversal came two days after the office of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) sent a letter to board members advising them against grandfathering clinics -- and warning that they could be personally liable for legal fees if they were sued after ignoring his legal advice."
News Ledes
Reuters: "A California man convicted of bank fraud was taken in for questioning on Saturday by officers investigating possible probation violations stemming from the making of an anti-Islam film that triggered violent protests in the Muslim world. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, 55, voluntarily left his home in the early hours of Saturday morning for the meeting in a sheriff's station in the Los Angeles suburb of Cerritos...." ...
... Reuters: "Afghanistan's Taliban claimed responsibility on Saturday for an attack on a base which U.S. officials said killed two American Marines, saying it was in response to a film that insults the Prophet Mohammad. Camp Bastion, in southern Helmand province, came under mortar, rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire late on Friday in an attack in which several servicemen were wounded." ...
... Reuters: "The Yemen-based branch of al Qaeda urged Muslims to step up protests and kill more U.S. diplomats in Muslim countries after a U.S.-made film mocking the Prophet Mohammad which it said was another chapter in the 'crusader wars' against Islam." ...
... AP: "The U.S. is sending more spies, Marines and drones to Libya, trying to speed the search for those who killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, but the investigation is complicated by a chaotic security picture in the post-revolutionary country, and limited American and Libyan intelligence resources."
Reuters: "Thousands of striking Chicago teachers will march again on Saturday to keep the pressure on Mayor Rahm Emanuel to wrap up an agreement with their union so they can end a strike that has closed the nation's third largest school district for a week. The 'Standing Strong with Chicago Teachers Rally' could be the largest demonstration against Emanuel's education reforms since the strike began in Chicago on September 10."
New York Times: "Federal and state authorities ... are beginning one of the most aggressive crackdowns on money-laundering in decades, intended to send a signal to the nation's biggest banks that weak compliance is unacceptable. Regulators, led by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, are close to taking action against JPMorgan Chase for insufficient safeguards...."
Share Article
Reader Comments (17)
Amusing column by Hunter (Daily Kos) about Lyin' Ryan at the Values Voter Conference.
Oops. Sorry. Old age is gonna be the death of me yet.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/14/1131946/-Romney-Ryan-2012-Pallin-around-with-terrorists
Charles Blow told it to the MittWitt in his column tonight!
...."Remember: character moments.
It also doesn’t help that Romney seems incapable of concealing his anxiety. He too often looks like a boy who just stepped on a nail and can’t remember his last tetanus shot."
And, please.....REMEMBER THE SUPREMES! (-:
Yesterday Safari sang the Kansas blues wondering what the hell is wrong with their twang and rifts. When Thomas Frank's 2004 book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?" came out it directed its indignation at the baffling phenomenon of millions of Americans voting year after year against their self interest. Frank concluded that the Republican Party had tricked working people with a relentless propaganda campaign based on religion and morality, while the Democrats had abandoned these voters to their economic masters by moving to the soft center of the political spectrum. Underlying that theory is that many people are just plain stupid.
Then in 2007 four sociologists at the U. of Arizona, studying the voting behavior of the forty-five percent of white Americans who identify themselves as working class, they found the decline in white working class support for Democrats occurred in one period––from the mid-seventies until the early nineties with a brief lull in the early eighties. They concluded that social issues like abortion, guns, religion, and even (outside the South) race had little to do with the shift although this was before Obama was elected. Instead, according to their data, when industrial jobs went overseas, unions practically vanished and working class incomes stagnated––hence, the Democratic party was no longer any use to them. This class, their fortunes falling, began to embrace the anti-government, low -tax rhetoric of the conservative movement. In essence these voters no longer believed the Democrat's central tenet–-that government could restore a sense of economic security.
Whether this information is still relevant in 2012 is debatable since eyes have been opened and unions are fighting back inch by inch ––great news in Wisconsin––the folks in Kansas that appear to be out of tune and out of touch will, one hopes, be duly chastised for their singing off key.
@PD Pepe: Fascinating. In other words, working class people actually do vote their economic interests; it's just that when Democrats quit serving those interests, these voters switched to Republicans who better pandered to their "values."
I have long thought that Democrats made a terrible choice when -- led by Bill Clinton -- they abandoned unions & cozied up to big business. Yes, there were short-term benefits -- Clinton got elected & re-elected -- but in the long term, it left Democrats with no constituency except those of us bleeding-heart liberals who disliked the banker/conservative Democratic party but saw no viable alternative. To a great extent, I think the Democratic party is still a party without a base.
President Obama, with all of his tentativeness on liberal issues, does not speak for me: he was AWOL on the public option; AWOL when Wisconsin public workers needed him; AWOL on occupy; late on jobs; late on gay marriage (his Roman Catholic Vice President pushed him there); still -- after nearly 4 years -- anemic on mortgage foreclosure abatement; pretty awful on human rights; hand-holding Jeb Bush on "education reform" (i.e., privatization); wishy-washy on saving Medicare, Medicaid & Social Security, & so forth. Pundits make a BFD of how Obama is different from Clinton. I can't see much daylight at all. In fact, I don't see much daylight between Obama & Rockefeller Republicans, who were conventionally pro-business but liberal on the social issues of the day. Obama has more in common with, say, Bill Weld & Lincoln Chaffee than with Bernie Sanders.
But as Kate Madison may have mentioned -- Supreme Court. Plus, he might find his veto pen some day.
Marie
@Marie,
Regarding your last comment to P.D. Pepe: the reason Obama hasn't "found his veto pen" yet is that he hasn't needed it. He knows exactly where that pen is, and will use it where he deems necessary. Whether it is exactly how you - or I - would wield it remains to be seen. Unless the Democrats pull off a trifecta....then we'll never know.
@ Marie: Of course there is the other theory that liberals helped lift depressed people into the middle class who then became consumers who then shifted from those that got to those that wanted to keep and then switched to becoming Republican. No longer poor, but seemed so much poorer in spirit. And in the background we hear the strains of Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man."
All the beefs you cited re: Obama's policies I have to agree with except I thought his distance from the Wisconsin fight was the right move. Since we know this is a rigged system and the ones who pull the strings are the ones who are the industrial giants with the money and the influence we do see those flickers of push back, of ordinary people taking to the streets wanting to have a voice––wanting to make a difference. I think Obama was one of those voices, but found himself trapped in a logjam once he became president. I recall what Richard Hofstadter once said about Lincoln: "To become President Lincoln had to talk more radically on occasion than he actually felt; to be an effective President he was compelled to act more conservatively than he wanted." If Obama has a second term I expect to see some progressive moves and even if he can't get them through we will get to see where he intends to go; if not, then again we will be let down or/ and know for sure how broken our system is.
Something that I read in David Remnick's book, "The Bridge" that has stayed with me re: Obama. Remnick cites a Frank Marshall Davis, an aging poet and journalist in Hawaii , a friend of Obama's grandfather who would take Barrack on occasion to visit with Davis who told him that a place like Occidental College wouldn't give Obama a real education so much as "train him." "They'll train you so good you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity, the American way and all that shit. They'll give you a corner office and invite you to fancy dinners and tell you you're a credit to your race–––until you want to actually start running things and then they'll yank on your chain and let you know that you may be a well trained, well-paid nigger, but you're a nigger just the same. Go to college, but keep your eyes open."
Re: My head is spinning, must be the devil inside; Marie, PD comment and response. Marie, when you were having a fiddle contest with "Beelzebub"(good choice for a nom de web; bub, hope you have it inked on your forehead backwards so you can look badass in the mirror) in the Ex. I thought you were defending Obama's speech and in extension his years in office because of the circumstances of the times. Today in your response to PD your laundry list of Obama's failings or admissions seem to pretty much repeat what 'Bub' was saying. Difference being you are going to go with the lemons hoping for some lemonade where 'Bub' is going to suck on the lemon rind and vote his conscious.(Odd, for the devil or on second thought; maybe not. Ak does Milton give the devil a conscious or just feelings?)
Fast forward to PD comment today about the voting patterns of the working class and the conclusion that it is not social issues that define voting but economics.(I don't agree but my datum is anecdotal so who cares). So, we've go the rich voting their stuffed pocketbooks, we got the working class voting their empty pocketbooks, and we have got the poor voting in hopes of a pocketbook.
Now my question; why are not all of the social issues that Marie mentioned not being framed as economic issues by Obama's team? After all, under the microscope most, if not all, social issues are economic. The answer to "Are you better off then you were four years ago?" is Yes, the ship of state was on the rocks and now it is in harbor getting it's hull repaired; we need more revenue for the repairs and we need more workers for the repairs to be done. but we are no longer below waterline and sinking fast. Or simply put, taxes equal income.
Now for the reason my head is spinning; PD's mention of Frank's underlying theory, people are just stupid(I tend to agree); you people, me people, or us people? Are us people stupid because we want social change in an overall regressive culture? Are the me people stupid because they want it all for nothing? Or are the you people stupid like 'Bub' because he wants to throw the baby out with the bath water? I don't know. Maybe the word 'stupid' needs to be changed to 'ignorant'. To me the text 'stupid' means no hope for a change. 'Ignorant' gives me a meaning of not yet enlightened.
As I write I had a epiphanous thought; Obama could go a long way to solve all my head spinning by appointing Paul Krugman as his Department of Treasury chief.
Weird, huh, some hundred words in and I can reduce my sauce down to three; " Obama, appoint Krugman." I'm a fuckin' genius. But stupid.
@JJG: You are a delight! Love the lemon analogy along with the harbor and the rocks––I swear, you are one titillating titan of creative writing but the best thing was your wondering who exactly are the stupid–-thee, me, you, them? The Beezlebub confrontations were indeed, most entertaining albeit frustrating. Strange that I am thinking the Beezle was a she rather than a he as you mention. Wonder why that is?
P.D? Pepe - re your comment: "......If Obama has a second term I expect to see some progressive moves and even if he can't get them through we will get to see where he intends to go; if not, then again we will be let down or/ and know for sure how broken our system "
I concur completely. And I think Obama has been , and is, trying to do what he can with what you rightly term a broken system. Reading Gail Collins' piece on the disastrous student loan situation, I was touched that the Administration has been working diligently to gain cooperation from colleges to institute vital disclosure reforms in the absence of Congressional leadership. It is an uphill, frustrating battle, but they are making a little progress.
@JJG: I had two problems with Beelzebub, the first of which I don't think I expressed: he's (I think of Bee as a male) one of these paranoid conspiracy theorists who think successful politicians are indistinguishable -- they're all feeding at the same trough; they're all out to get "you." In his mind, Paul Ryan is just another version of Barack Obama. I don't believe that for a minute.
The other problem I had with him is his stupid solution. While he & I might have quite a few similar political goals -- say, universal health care -- his way of going at it is nuts: vote for the Green party. That's like choosing between two gifts: (1) $100 bill & (2) a promise an angel will bring you $1 million. Beezlebub picks Door #2.
What infuriates me about Bee & his ilk is not that he chooses Door #2 for himself, but that he chooses it for all of us. I think we have a civic responsibility to vote sensibly -- at least in important elections; we don't have the luxury of revenge votes or holier-than-thou purist votes. We may have a secret ballot, but its purpose is to advance the greater public good. The aptly-handled Beelzebub is a bad citizen because when he goes into the voting booth, he is thinking only about himself, not about the rest of us. The devil is a selfish little bastard.
So, yeah, I was defending Obama's speech, because in his speech, he said what I just wrote -- that we're all in this together; that we're not just individuals, we're citizens. Bee doesn't get that & doesn't care.
Marie
Marie, your review of D. Brook's education commentary is excellent. It's one that surely should be applauded by those in education. I could have highlighted so many sentences/paragraphs—but these two stood out:
"...As cumbersome and bureaucratic as a large urban public school system may be, it is preferable to the majority of non-public grade schools. Public schools answer to elected officials and members of the public. For-profit educational corporations answer to their shareholders. Religious schools answer to their Gods. I am not suggesting there are no good private schools. There are. They tend to be elite schools with high tuitions, large endowments and poorly-paid teachers. There are surely some charter schools that, because of their local prestige, attract highly-motivated students (or their highly-motivated parents). But these successful magnet schools are the exceptions.
In their zeal for turning Economy II institutions into “streamlined” Economy I factories, Brooks, Emanuel, Arne Duncan, Jeb Bush, et al., are undermining the single most factor that made the U.S. exceptional: public schools and public school teachers. The nation would be incalculably better-off if no one had ever heard of “school choice.” It is a scam. Conservatives should appreciate this even more than liberals. The reason their heroes – the Founding Fathers – limited voting rights was that they believed an uneducated people – that is, the majority of Americans at the time – would not make wise decisions about governance. Later generations agreed. But their response was – for the most part – not to maintain restrictions; rather, they expanded both educational opportunities and voting rights. Education is not just a part of the government sector. It is the engine that makes enlightened, responsive governance possible. And it is not coincidental that this country’s economy was the envy of the world precisely in those few decades that women heavily subsidized K-12 education and taxpayers generously endowed higher education. For individuals and for the nation, education is the key to the prosperity."
And, you nailed the problems precisely, particularly when you said: "The nation would be incalculably better-off if no one had ever heard of “school choice.” It is a scam."
Back when I was in college, (a state teachers college) the educator we looked up to was Horace Mann. A name I have rarely seen invoked in recent years. Mann's views on the importance of bringing together students from diverse backgrounds in public institutions was startling for his time, but later became a mainstream approach. Though now, we seem to be back-stepping even from this. He, also stressed the practical benefits of a common school education: both for the individual and the state. This concept, too seems in danger as education policies become confused, divisive; and, yes, regressive.
Too many options clutter the process. Privatize the schools?
Yeah, that's really worked well for 'higher education" hasn't it
Those student loan obligations are oppressive...and interestingly a recent chart showed just where the majority of those debts were incurred. Funny, not quite so much Princeton or Harvard or Yale...but those 'once-we-never-heard-of-THESE NOTED UNIVERSITIES-before-a-constant--barrage-of-tv-ads' Kaplan? Phoenix? Et al. These for-profits are sitting pretty, because the government is on the hook to be the BAD GUY in trying to collect the loan monies. These so-called universities are paid outrageous fees. Is this what the future is for (private) secondary schools? You bet there are leaches anticipating just that opportunity.
Wow,
Sorry I missed out on this exchange today. You guys have surpassed yourselves with cogency, heart, smarts, humor, and political mojo.
Only have a minute but since JJG sent a direct question my way I wanted to respond.
The question is a direct one about satan in Paradise Lost, but indirectly, I think, is a question about motives, and what moves us to action.
Satan, for my money, is the best reason for reading Milton's epic. I'm no devil worshiper but Lucifer, even as egomaniacal as he comes off here, is the most three dimensional character in the poem. God comes off a tad distant although Milton treats him with great care regarding the laying out of his (god's) motives. The son of god in many ways is much more the protagonist/hero. Adam is a horny dolt. The angels tend to be much more interesting because they are all (even satan) somewhat conflicted. Satan's has a big-ass problem with authority but in his own way he displays a kind of weird nobility for sticking to his guns. The essence of the whole schmeer is that, having fallen from grace, satan takes the road of the scorned lover and he pays a huge price for it. He knows the price will be enormous and he knows in his heart that he will lose but he basically says "Fuck it. Bring it on."
His concept of self interest, like PD's Kansans, becomes warped by his own perception of what is happening. He never seems to see--or care--about what the "rules" are, and what's driving the whole kaboodle, which is god's plan. Basically he votes against his best interest even though it has landed him in hell because he just can't stand this being whom he once loved and who, he feels, has unfairly jettisoned him and his followers.
But he is a bad-ass dude no matter how you look at it. He's eminently charismatic, but he can't bring himself to go along with the program, hence his famous solution "better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
The big difference between Milton's satan and Frank's Kansans is that Kansans, by kneeling before the right will never rule anywhere.
They'll end up serving in a hell specially made for them by Reagan, Bush, Norquist, the Kochs, Ryan, Cantor, Limbaugh, Beck, Palin.....
So while those Kansans and everyone else who has climbed aboard the Republican Express to Hell, they will be reciting:
Oro supplex et acclinis to their masters.
(I bow submissively before Rove)
If only they were able to see through the pretense and lies they would, hopefully be singing:
Confutatis maledictis,
flammis acribus addictis,
voca me cum benedictus.
(I'll feel a lot better
when these assholes
are burning in hell.)
Ancient texts repeatedly require supplicants to ask god to
Statuens in parte dextra (place me at your right hand).
Maybe they switch that to the left hand.
But I doubt they will by November. Maybe what they need is a little Dante to clear their eyes.
But don't get me started on that shit.
Apologies for the many gaffes. No time for decent editing today.]
Great series of comments though.
Excelsior!
From a review of James Buchan's "The Persian Bride." Apropos of Akilleus' comments re: Uncle Milty and Satan:
Buchan reminds us that the most convincing evidence of love is not so much in the prolonged hypnotic gazes…but as between Romeo and Juliet who speak to each other in cascades of verse as they speak to no one else. It is between Beatrice and Benedick whose most brilliant jokes are reserved for each other. How irritated Milton must have been when he realized that he’d captured it, but with the wrong couple, Eve and Satan.
Buchan’s couple manage to speak to each other with absolute intimacy and reciprocity even in public. Still later, in moments when they excruciatingly dislike or mis-understand each other, Buchan convinces us that what they have to say to each other is inexhaustible.
@Mag: Kudos to you for the excellent post on Marie's excellent article. I went to public schools, my children all went to public schools, and I taught in public schools. I applaud public education loudly and with much enthusiasm. Somewhere in all the places I have lived I remember distinctly a Horace Mann elementary school––hope there are many honoring him.
I should add that two of my grandchildren go to a private school in New Canaan, CT. Observing the difference between this school and public is for another discussion, but suffice to say when you hear that more money wouldn't make a difference (in public schools) it's bullpocky!