The New York Times' grammar blogger Philip Corbett on Subjunctivitis - the recurring dilemma in the English language of trying to use a verb form that doesn't really exist, or, at least, is being slowly pushed into oblivion. But I think that Corbett does a nice job of explaining the dos and don'ts of the subjunctive, and pointing out how even professional journalists often get it wrong.
CQ Politics posted an article last night on the Oregon Senate race between Gordon Smith and Jeff Merkley, and how that race has remained very tight going into the home stretch before election day. In terms of political press, Oregon has gotten a little spoiled lately. We were relevant in the presidential primaries for the first time in, like, forever, and, even though we're not a swing state this year like we were in '00 and '04, this Senate race is becoming extremely important as the Democrats try to build a fillubuster proof majority. And I, for one, am hoping for a Merkley upset, even though (a) Smith does have a record of working with Democrats and (b) Merkley has two hands. President Obama is just going to need that super-majority in order to push through (quickly) bills dealing with rebuilding our infrastructure, developing renewable energy, and achieving universal healthcare.
And, finally, Crooked Timber has this picture from a "George Salter designed cover for a 1930 German edition of Dos Passos’ The 42nd Parallel." (It's pretty funny. I think my favorite line from the blogger's is "I don't know what army is invading Chicago.") In the 20's and 30's, Germans went nuts for American Western/ Frontier narratives, epitomized by the fictional-autobiographical writings of "Old Shatterhand" Karl May. And I'm not sure that the craze has even passed: A few weeks ago, I was at the Art Institute in the "Western Art" room, which was filled with oil paintings and bronze sculptures from the early 20th Century depicting "authentic" Western life. There were two German women in the room with me, and they were soooo excited to be there. The security guard even had to shoo them away after one of the ladies started 'petting' a bronze-cast Indian pony.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Another Secret of the Universe Exposed!
On Saturday, R.A. and I were enjoying the Chicago Indian Summer by having brunch at the Guatemalan place down the road. While we were there, however, the same thing that always happens whenever I dine outdoors occurred: a bee came and landed on my orange juice. I would shoo the bee away, and then it would buzz about and then settle back down on my glass of orange juice! But, the problem was, I was thirsty, and wanted to drink my juice! So, while waiting for the bee to kindly leave, we (we being me, R.A., and the bee) composed the following haiku:
Oh, bee! You want my
juice. I also want my juice.
Eternal struggle.
Needless to say, this made me feel much better about my situation at the moment, and I consoled myself further my nibbling on fried plantains and sipping my Guatemalan coffee. It was then that I had something of an epiphany.
The only particulars of the above haiku are the words "bee" and "juice," which are both only one syllable. So, without them, the poem reads:
Oh, X! You want my
Y. I also want my Y.
Eternal struggle.
You can substitute any other pair of single-syllable words for "bee" and "juice" and retain the poem's structure as a haiku. For example:
Oh, dog! You want my
lunch. I also want my lunch.
Eternal struggle.
or,
Oh, bird! You want my
eyes. I also want my eyes.
Eternal struggle.
(That one happened to me yesterday.)
or,
Oh, God! You want my
soul. I also want my soul.
Eternal struggle.
The possessive pronouns are also (largely) interchangeable, meaning that you can also describe the state of desire as well as that of suffering, such as:
Oh, pig! I want your
chops. You also want your chops.
Eternal struggle.
or:
Oh, Steve! I want your
job. You also want your job.
Eternal struggle.
The possibilities are literally endless here. Even more apt, however, is that this poetic structure epitomizes the Buddhist/ Hindu concept of samsara, of the cycle of desire and suffering. As an added bonus, it also illustrates the fundamental economic principle of finite supply/ infinite demand. It could also be used to explain how Darwinism works.
Also, I have decided that plantains are delicious.
Oh, bee! You want my
juice. I also want my juice.
Eternal struggle.
Needless to say, this made me feel much better about my situation at the moment, and I consoled myself further my nibbling on fried plantains and sipping my Guatemalan coffee. It was then that I had something of an epiphany.
The only particulars of the above haiku are the words "bee" and "juice," which are both only one syllable. So, without them, the poem reads:
Oh, X! You want my
Y. I also want my Y.
Eternal struggle.
You can substitute any other pair of single-syllable words for "bee" and "juice" and retain the poem's structure as a haiku. For example:
Oh, dog! You want my
lunch. I also want my lunch.
Eternal struggle.
or,
Oh, bird! You want my
eyes. I also want my eyes.
Eternal struggle.
(That one happened to me yesterday.)
or,
Oh, God! You want my
soul. I also want my soul.
Eternal struggle.
The possessive pronouns are also (largely) interchangeable, meaning that you can also describe the state of desire as well as that of suffering, such as:
Oh, pig! I want your
chops. You also want your chops.
Eternal struggle.
or:
Oh, Steve! I want your
job. You also want your job.
Eternal struggle.
The possibilities are literally endless here. Even more apt, however, is that this poetic structure epitomizes the Buddhist/ Hindu concept of samsara, of the cycle of desire and suffering. As an added bonus, it also illustrates the fundamental economic principle of finite supply/ infinite demand. It could also be used to explain how Darwinism works.
Also, I have decided that plantains are delicious.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Morpheus Needs to Get Some New Writers
The night before last, I had a dream about baseball. And not in a cool, surreal, dream-like kind of way, where everyone walks with four balls and plays with their wooden, maple bats. No; this dream was just baseball. Two innings, to be exact. And I wasn't even in it. It was a little like watching TV except even more so because I was just a point of perspective. I was just (not) sitting there, watching two anonymous teams play twelve outs of baseball. One team got a hit, but nobody scored. It was very boring.
On the plus side, I had a dream the night before that was a trailer for a movie starring Christopher Walken as a corrupt, jaded congressman and Shia LaBoeuf as the idealistic young journalist trying to take him down. The plot had something to do with Yucca Mountain in Nevada, and I guess Christopher Walken was taking bribes so that people could keep storing their toxic waste there, which isn't exactly the issue with Yucca Mountain, but, you know, it was a dream.
A dream that could probably get moderate reviews and take in $15 million on opening weekend.
On the plus side, I had a dream the night before that was a trailer for a movie starring Christopher Walken as a corrupt, jaded congressman and Shia LaBoeuf as the idealistic young journalist trying to take him down. The plot had something to do with Yucca Mountain in Nevada, and I guess Christopher Walken was taking bribes so that people could keep storing their toxic waste there, which isn't exactly the issue with Yucca Mountain, but, you know, it was a dream.
A dream that could probably get moderate reviews and take in $15 million on opening weekend.
Battleground: Florida (Arrrr!!!)
So here's Florida... again, thanks to uselectionatlas.org and again, with the god damn colors backwards!
Again, the same trends that we have discussed are coming to the fore - the major urban areas of Miami (in the south) and Orlando (in the center) went for Kerry, but the rest of the state, to differing degrees, went for Bush. The one exception worth notice is the metropolitan area around Jacksonville, in the northeast of the state, which went pretty solidly for the Republican. Again, what we are probably seeing is the influence of a traditional Southern culture in an otherwise swing state.
So, you ask, how can Obama win this phallic shaped state? His best chance probably lies not with Jacksonville but with the St. Petersburg/ Tampa metropolitan area. These areas tend to be not quite as culturally conservative as Jacksonville, and, perhaps more importantly, they have been consistently ranking in the top ten nation wide in house foreclosures per capita per county. That is probably Obama's biggest selling point - at least for now - in Florida.
Again, the same trends that we have discussed are coming to the fore - the major urban areas of Miami (in the south) and Orlando (in the center) went for Kerry, but the rest of the state, to differing degrees, went for Bush. The one exception worth notice is the metropolitan area around Jacksonville, in the northeast of the state, which went pretty solidly for the Republican. Again, what we are probably seeing is the influence of a traditional Southern culture in an otherwise swing state.
So, you ask, how can Obama win this phallic shaped state? His best chance probably lies not with Jacksonville but with the St. Petersburg/ Tampa metropolitan area. These areas tend to be not quite as culturally conservative as Jacksonville, and, perhaps more importantly, they have been consistently ranking in the top ten nation wide in house foreclosures per capita per county. That is probably Obama's biggest selling point - at least for now - in Florida.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Battleground: Ohio (pakeeeww!)
Is that not the sound a missile makes?
So here is a map of the way that Ohio voted in 2004, thanks to usaelectionatlas.org, although the colors are reversed, with the red being districts that went Democrat, and the blue being Republican.
Now, the Democratic centers - as you know - focus around large industrial centers, so all of that red that you see in the northeast corner is around the cities of Cleveland, Akron, and Youngstown. The other Democratic "blips" occur around the cities of Columbus and Dayton. The key to winning the state, though? That tiny county in the southwest of the state, colored light blue, called Hamilton county. Home of the great city of Cincinnati. And Obama's best chance at carrying Ohio.
Why?, you ask? Because Cincinnati exists on a kind of border, between the Democratic-leaning urban areas of the Rust Belt and the culturally conservative southern regions that border Kentucky and West Virginia. And this is precisely the kind of region that needs to prioritize its economic interests over its cultural ones and vote for the Democrat!
So if you know anyone living in Ohio, specifically in the Cincinnati area, call their asses up an tell them to vote! Also, remember this: Cincinnati's population 1910: 363,591 1950: 503,998 2000: 331,285 Percentage of Black or African-American inhabitants: %42.92
Just sayin'.
So here is a map of the way that Ohio voted in 2004, thanks to usaelectionatlas.org, although the colors are reversed, with the red being districts that went Democrat, and the blue being Republican.
| Town (m) |
Now, the Democratic centers - as you know - focus around large industrial centers, so all of that red that you see in the northeast corner is around the cities of Cleveland, Akron, and Youngstown. The other Democratic "blips" occur around the cities of Columbus and Dayton. The key to winning the state, though? That tiny county in the southwest of the state, colored light blue, called Hamilton county. Home of the great city of Cincinnati. And Obama's best chance at carrying Ohio.
Why?, you ask? Because Cincinnati exists on a kind of border, between the Democratic-leaning urban areas of the Rust Belt and the culturally conservative southern regions that border Kentucky and West Virginia. And this is precisely the kind of region that needs to prioritize its economic interests over its cultural ones and vote for the Democrat!
So if you know anyone living in Ohio, specifically in the Cincinnati area, call their asses up an tell them to vote! Also, remember this: Cincinnati's population 1910: 363,591 1950: 503,998 2000: 331,285 Percentage of Black or African-American inhabitants: %42.92
Just sayin'.
Something That Has Been on my Mind for Awhile
So, it has been awhile. The Cubs have lost, the Sox have lost, and now we are faced with the utterly horrid prospect of a Dodgers-Red Sox World Series. Mon Dieu.
But, on the bright side, I have (slowly) gotten back into the habit of reading philosophy - if not actual hard-core philosophy of Kant and Wittgenstein, at least the nice, soft ball kind of philosophy of Michael Berube on Crooked Timber. Apparently, Professor Berube attended a conference held recently at SUNY Stony Brook on the philosophy of disabilities, a conference that included (at least the discussion of) such philosophical heavy-hitters as Martha Nussbaum and Peter Singer. Berube positions himself against both of these figures, insofar (as far as I can figure) in that he portrays them as holding the position that, ethically speaking, it would be morally equivalent to murder a squirrel as it would be to murder a human being with the mental capacity of a squirrel.
Now, as far as I can tell, the discussion with which Berube is involved focuses more on the philosophical questions raised concerning cognitive disabilties rather than physical ones, and I guess that I am a little disappointed in the fact that he never distinguishes between the two. However, I guess that I can't blame him too much because his primary question concerns the question of what legal rights someone with severe cognitive disabilities - say, someone with a major case of Down's Syndrome - would have. (i.e., if such a hypothetical person has the IQ of a chimp, should he be allowed to vote? Or, if we jettison the idea of the existence of some kind of immutable human soul, is it any worse to murder a severely mentally handicapped human being than a certain kind of mountain gorilla?)
As for me, my concrns lies less in the area of legal rights than those of political rights, or, I guess I should say, political power. Specifically in the area of political identities; as in, the notion that someone with Down's Syndrome is somehow equivalent to someone with Cerberal Paulsy, or that someone with attention deficit disorder is the same as someone with obsessive-compulsive disorder or thalidomide-induced syndrome. And this has been something that has bothered me for quite awhile - to try and put it succintly, that the American's with Disabilities Act is intended to cover all of those Americans with disabilties.
So I suppose - and please let me know if you disagree with me on this point - that my complaint rests in the fact that Berube and his fellow (analytic) philosophers are concerened primarily with the metaphysics of disability - those issues having to deal with the hypotheticals of a human being with the mental capacity of a tree rat - rather than the very real issue of there being a splintered demographic that is the "Disabled" population, and what it means for someone who has to cope with being a member of this (oppressed) group that by definition one does not want to be a member of.
But, on the bright side, I have (slowly) gotten back into the habit of reading philosophy - if not actual hard-core philosophy of Kant and Wittgenstein, at least the nice, soft ball kind of philosophy of Michael Berube on Crooked Timber. Apparently, Professor Berube attended a conference held recently at SUNY Stony Brook on the philosophy of disabilities, a conference that included (at least the discussion of) such philosophical heavy-hitters as Martha Nussbaum and Peter Singer. Berube positions himself against both of these figures, insofar (as far as I can figure) in that he portrays them as holding the position that, ethically speaking, it would be morally equivalent to murder a squirrel as it would be to murder a human being with the mental capacity of a squirrel.
Now, as far as I can tell, the discussion with which Berube is involved focuses more on the philosophical questions raised concerning cognitive disabilties rather than physical ones, and I guess that I am a little disappointed in the fact that he never distinguishes between the two. However, I guess that I can't blame him too much because his primary question concerns the question of what legal rights someone with severe cognitive disabilities - say, someone with a major case of Down's Syndrome - would have. (i.e., if such a hypothetical person has the IQ of a chimp, should he be allowed to vote? Or, if we jettison the idea of the existence of some kind of immutable human soul, is it any worse to murder a severely mentally handicapped human being than a certain kind of mountain gorilla?)
As for me, my concrns lies less in the area of legal rights than those of political rights, or, I guess I should say, political power. Specifically in the area of political identities; as in, the notion that someone with Down's Syndrome is somehow equivalent to someone with Cerberal Paulsy, or that someone with attention deficit disorder is the same as someone with obsessive-compulsive disorder or thalidomide-induced syndrome. And this has been something that has bothered me for quite awhile - to try and put it succintly, that the American's with Disabilities Act is intended to cover all of those Americans with disabilties.
So I suppose - and please let me know if you disagree with me on this point - that my complaint rests in the fact that Berube and his fellow (analytic) philosophers are concerened primarily with the metaphysics of disability - those issues having to deal with the hypotheticals of a human being with the mental capacity of a tree rat - rather than the very real issue of there being a splintered demographic that is the "Disabled" population, and what it means for someone who has to cope with being a member of this (oppressed) group that by definition one does not want to be a member of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
