I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK
As you get older, you do not get better. Sorry to break it to you. I am not talking physically; that's obvious enough. I mean in the capacity for moral reasoning. The unfortunate problem is that the valid ideals you learn while young become obstacles to professional, financial, and social advancement. You have to make compromises in order to progress, and you come to believe the justifications you devise along the way. This gives rise to unclear thinking. The better you do, the more muddle-headed you must become.
Joe Klein has done very well.
I suggest no moral indictment, nor moral claims for myself. Chances are with his opportunities, abilities, and luck, I would be in the same place. It's the ideas in his compendium of "left-wing extremism" that interest me. (JK has a special place in the MaxSpeak pantheon. He was the topic of my very first blog post, in May of 2002.)
The fracas arose in reference to Atrios, initially high on JK's list of extremists, later downgraded to a purveyor of "extreme and terminally smug rhetoric." Of course Atrios is a militant Democrat, no more extreme than Hillary Clinton, and no more profane than Dick Cheney.
The first thing to note is the implication that the left-wing extremist (LWE) is necessarily incorrect. It is not necessary to debunk his or her ideas, only to identify them, that un-extreme persons may safely flee and avoid the experience of wrong-headedness. Rather than defend extremism, my purpose is simply to correct Klein's description, so that you may know left-wing extremism when you see it.
The striking thing about Klein's litany is that it is written in baby-talk, much like current presidential rhetoric tailored to school children. The world is a panorama of simple absolutes that are either Good or Bad, associated with either Us or Them. It's My Pet Goat Goes to Washington.
JK says that according to LWEs, "America" (= U.S.) is "fundamentally negative," has a "fundamental imperialistic nature," is "fundamentally unfair," and "not really a democracy." Evidently the LWE cannot perceive ambiguity, but that original LWE Karl Marx cheered Abe Lincoln's prosecution of the Civil War and discussed the progressive nature of capitalism. Latter-day LWEs backed the U.S. campaign against Nazism and fascism, and later still the victories of the civil rights movement and the social advances of the Great Society. LWEs approve of American democracy, when it is allowed to function, unlike say in the non-trivial case of Ohio, circa November 2004.
Of course there are the bad parts, but unlike JK's imaginary extremist, we do not equate "America" with the machinations of what is aptly called "the national security state," nor with the elites who direct it. So what about these bad guys? Do we think they are fundamentally a negative force and imperialistic? Pretty much.
The interesting thing about the archaic term "imperialism" is the revival it has received, in the hands of both advocates at The Weekly Standard, and critics at The American Conservative.
With respect to these villains, JK supplies cartoonish characterizations: "fundamentally evil" and a "conspiracy that controls the world." Sounds like Axis-of-Evil Bush, no? But Karl Marx, again, eschewed manichean terminology and conspiracism; he described owners of capital (corporations then were 'joint stock companies') as driven by material incentives, including the incentive to collude, something not disputed ('fundamentally') by economists of varied persuasions.
The Iraqi debacle has of course degraded the credibility of imperialists as well as columnists who are not imperialist but always roll over in the face of jingoist rhetoric. What they share with ambitious politicians is a desire to combat anti-interventionist sentiment, the better to "keep all options on the table" for the next bogus crisis. If you don't keep this door open, you can't be elected president. Joe Klein and his colleagues in the commercial media will take you apart, turn you into Dennis Kucinich.
The LWE is a virus in the body politic, always ready to break out and sap the body's ability to be conscripted as cannon fodder. It must be painted as inflexible, unthinking, and anti-American, against people of faith like you and me, and all that we love. The LWE disrespects our deeply held values, such as abhorrence of gays and reproductive rights. He thinks that crime and poverty are your fault. (See elites, above.) He is intolerant of our intolerance!
This is my favorite part. The LWE "doesn’t believe that capitalism, carefully regulated and progressively taxed, is the best liberal idea in human history." To the contrary, we are quite certain this is the best idea liberals have. No doubt about it. But is capitalism really an "idea"? Did somebody think it up one day, then evangelize for its implementation? And can we say it is now "carefully regulated and progressively taxed"? (Compared to what?) If it isn't, why not? True enough, on the strength of examples like this, we "are intolerant of good ideas when they come from conservative sources."
Finally, in regard to believing "American society is fundamentally unfair," we only note the extreme of the extreme, one John F. Kennedy, who went a step further to say that life itself is unfair.
So there you have it. Know your left-wing extremism. Don't look back. It could be gaining on you.
I think Joe Kline is playing a part to earn his pay. I think Kline is much like the regular Democrats on FOX that know who signs their paycheck and know how far they can go, Kline too knows who signs his paycheck and acts accordingly; he mouths just enough of the right words to get people to see him as left of center, then he attacks the Democrats, and its this little ploy that supposedly gives his criticism legitimacy.
Its that old devil bottom line again....money.
March 5, 2007 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I participated in the Joe Klein exchange on Swampland. It was hilarious.
Klein is stuck in the 60's with images of flower children, faux socialists, pre-AIDs free sex and other items of bygone days.
I pointed out that he is locked in his twenties and thirties, like those who repeatedly tell stories of their military careers and high school/ college athletic exploits. He is further trapped by his arogance.
He stated that he came by his Centrist views after watching such leftie abuses as bussing. While there were some over-reaches in the fight for civil rights, he ignores the fact that Centrists would have remained on the sidelines and waited 30 years for the Southern Baptists, for example, to figure out that segregation was wrong.
His viewpoint is not a function of age, as many of his generation did move on and adapted to internet shopping, news, and blogs, iPods, PDAs,etc while the Luddites (read Klein) remained stagnant.
Klein is striking out against fringe elements representing the demons of his past. He is unable to confront the Neocon monster that is all to ready to curtail his journalistic freedom. He can't see the future because he's stuck in the past.
When asked to name "leftie" MSM equivalents of Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, FauxNews, Michelle Malkin, etc, Mr Klein remained silent. He and his Time magazine colleagues will not admit that there is no Liberal/Progressive columnist employed by their publication.
Don't tar an entire age group for the effects that chemicals that might have been used by Mr Klein in his early years to explain his thought process.
March 5, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if he isn't just another Lieberman. Is his real complaint with left of center social programs, or is he really fearful that the left opposes the neocon program of perpetual war and occupation in the Mideast?
March 5, 2007 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see Klein do a post about what makes a "moderate." I think it'd be telling. I think that most of what he'd define as moderate would actually be outside the mainstream of American opinion.
I also think there's such a thing as "moderate extremism," even though that seems like an oxymoron. It's actually the rather extreme belief that the right path is always found in between two ideas, which is demonstrably wrong (as anyone who has tried to cross a busy street on foot would know).
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
March 5, 2007 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Sawicky says:
One of the reasons I rant when my students use the second person in academic writing is perfectly demonstrated by this paragraph.
Address this "An Open Letter to Joe Klein" or some-such similar and there's no problem. But why assault every "older" reader as somehow incompetent to reason in the moral domain? And at what age does our capacity freeze or, horrors, begin to decline? 18? 28? I'd like to think I'm less muddle headed than I was in 1960 when I wore a button reading "If I were 21 I'd vote for Nixon". I'd like to think I have more ability to handle complexity now than I had at 22 exiting college or 31 exiting graduate school.
Granted I'm not very advanced socially. I'm confused when faced with an array of a dozen pieces if silver surrounding a plate when I sit down to eat rubber chicken and listen to someone orate at me. Is it outside in, or inside out? But if I can't handle the silver, I usually can handle the rhetoric.
I guess I haven't advanced all that much professionally, either. I'm in the same job I started in August 1972...somehow I convinced myself I liked that job (or maybe I actually did like it). I may flatter myself that I can still do it well--maybe better than I did it 34 years ago, and that there's a wee bit less muddle at the end of the semester, ethically speaking, than there was at the beginning of it.
Financially I make enough to know that I'm not statistically in the middle any more, though I try with all the patience I can muster to convince my students, coming from families that make multiples of my salary annually, that they're not in the middle, either. What's an old coot to do? Muddle on, I guess.
Forgive the little rant, Mr. S. But somehow this seems to be the year of gray-bashing. You were, if I remember, taking it a bit when others were dishing it out toward the end of January or the beginning of February--I forget which, being of a muddle with dates. The short-term memory is the first to go, after all.
aMike
March 5, 2007 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with aMike. Good piece, Max, except for the ageist intro.
I don't consider that my ideals have become obstacles to professional, social or financial advancement, and if they were, I damn well hope I'd have the good sense to stick with my ideals.
My ideals are now informed by a lot more facts and knowledge about how the world works, but that's reality, and not a compromise with my professional, social or financial advancement.
Yes, lots of elements of American culture would urge me and others to give up on our ideals, for financial gain, or so as not to be taken advantage of, etc. But I don't think we do ourselves or anyone else a favor by pretending that if I did, it would be because I had to; no, it would be a choice, and I'm not doing it.
Anyway, otherwise, I think you've got Joe Klein nailed.
March 5, 2007 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
With Klein now dabbling in the blogosphere, what strikes me is how far out of his intellectual depth he is. He's a smart guy, in his way, but it's as if his mind has somehow been flattened by years and years of writing MSM punditry, always on the prowl for the "serious" hook on which hang his next 700 words.
March 5, 2007 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lovely post. And I realize a minor point in the post, but also nice to have Marx used with a fair degree of insight and respect. It's grown hard to cite him without either saddling him with the Soviet Union, defending him from the Soviet Union, or elevating the cultural critics of the Frankfurt School as the only true Marxists. He was a philosopher and critic, with the same limits as others of that ilk from Plato through Kant to the present: you don't get the answers you need, but you get the insights you're willing to listen to and run with. But yeah, his paean to capitalism in The Communist Manifesto approaches poetry. And his insight that progress leads toward collectives (monopolies) that impoverish more people and deviate from open markets more than the libertarian model would dictate makes perfect sense to me. His concept of commodity fetish would even sound about right in a David Brooks column about liberals!
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
March 5, 2007 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The intro was meant to be facetious. I'm as old as Klein. Not for the first time, words have failed me.
Max
March 5, 2007 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Max, on both content and opening gambit. There are limited times when passive voice works, and I think the second person works here. Hey, it stimulated some good posts!
But seriously, folks...is it just me, or are we living in some sort of Rovian Neverland? On top of everything Max said regarding the economy, did anyone listen to any of the House hearings on Walter Reed today? They've given Bushco free reign (in both senses there too!) and have aided and abetted his trashing of the military for the last six years, and all of a sudden they are getting righteous about medical care for vets?
Has it already happened here, and we're just too stupefied to realize it?
Bushco delenda est
March 5, 2007 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Humans regularly compartmentalize and rationalize their behaviors and never more so than when those behaviors are at odds with moral or ethical values previously held .
Rationalize long enough -- say, over the length of a career -- and those original values which were in opposition to one's advancement will be missing in action.
Seems a commonplace to me.
Never trust anybody over thirty!
March 5, 2007 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to present an alternative view. I think it is rare that someone like JK actually colludes with his paymasters in some conscious way. Rather, it is a kind of subconscious process. He is situated somewhere in the fabric of opinion makers. And, let's face it, there is enough wiggle room in this field to coherently embrace a theory of the kind JK embraces without seeming to be selling out in his own mind. In short he actually believes he is on the right track. That he has subconscious motives to have wandered onto these grazing patches is another matter. He himself feels he is right and that justifies feeling that his paycheck has been honorably earned.
We run the risk of sinking into nefarious conspiracies and elaborate schemes to defraud the masses. There are those who make a living at that too, but JK is not one of them. Or at least, that’s my hunch
March 5, 2007 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen
There are some of us who took Socrates advice seriously i.e. "The self-examined life is not worth living". I find my own self-examination on a daily basis absolutely fascinating and rewarding.
March 5, 2007 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
We haven't yet recovered from the Age of the Fanatical Moderates.
Their elan is somewhat dented, first by the reign of the fanatics (I mean, honest to goodness fanatics), and second, by the failure of the sensible moderate stands like "surely we are better off without Saddam Hussein".
Third, reforming Social Security would be exactly the favorite task for Fanatical Moderates. Alas, it was not destined to be. The idea is in the doghouse.
Once, crossing through American scene in thundering herds, Fanatical Moderates are now afraid of extinction. Angry Dems, blogofascist etc. proliferate, DLC is but a shadow of its former self, New Republic switches to bi-weekly schedule, the writing in on the wall.
I would view the list of JK as an anguished call rather than smug self-congratulation.
March 5, 2007 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . repression, regression, projection, introjection, identification, reaction formation, reversal, blocking and displacement, isolation, undoing, denial, depersonalization, acting out, forgetting, obsessional thinking, neurosis formation, escape into madness, paranoia, hysteria, depression, sublimation . . . .
Take your pick!
March 5, 2007 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have grown steadily more and more radical through these fifty four years but admit to being an anomaly.As a socialist it is not America I oppose, I love this beautiful country and most of it's hard working people, it's an unjust economic system which subverts the democratic project, and political discourse in general, which I struggle against.Having JK label me an extremist and as such "frame" the discussion through the privilege of his position is a perfect example. There is a long and proud (and necessary) tradition of radical dissent in this great nation which the JKs hope to "dissapear".
And yes, there is a tie-dye or two mixed in with my Che and Durrutti shirts.
March 5, 2007 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think people like Joe Klein function as a sort of subtle and non-violent modern version of the inquisition.
Klein is a thought policeman who is supposed to serve as model and warning to convince potential dissenters to self-police themselves, as he ostentatiously does, and by constantly declaring their identity as "moderates," who by no means entertain the shadow of a forbiden thought about questioning -- let alone altering -- the status quo. If they know what's what they will join him in his vigilant watch for deviators and denounce them loudly.
Those who do not do this are considered "fair game" for ridicule, character assassination and ostracism. Truly, no holds will be barred. Those who toe the line, will be generously rewarded, as demonstrated by -- Joe Klein.
This model is supposed to be internalized and followed automatically and unselfconsciously.
March 5, 2007 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So do I. And my self-examination reveals that Ellen is right! :-)
Including myself...... I always ask myself for a second opinion.
March 6, 2007 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is just parroting Sawicky's egregious introductory paragraph, which he meant to be facetious. You have no evidence for it, and it's prima facie ridiculous.
No age group tells more transparent and self-serving lies than children. The whole purpose of raising children is to help them avoid "behaviors...at odds with moral or ethical values" that are held by parents and the community.
You may agree or disagree with some or all of those values.
What seems "a commonplace" to you is just not true. Prove it. Where's the research demonstrating that older people are less true to their values than young ones?
While young people may STATE their values more vigorously and judgmentally, this is not the same as living by them.
March 6, 2007 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The introductory paragraph was not just wrong and stupid, it was unrelated to the rest of the article, essentially a very well written attack on Klein's piece.
Since it was the intro that sits on the front page of TPM Cafe, Max really ought to have exercised a little more judgment. Maybe HE IS getting worse with age?!
March 6, 2007 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the "I resemble that remark" headline should have been enough to tip everyone off to the opening paragraph which clearly wasn't meant seriously. But such is the risk of using sarcasm - some people will always take words at their face value.
March 6, 2007 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
99 and 44/100ths per cent of your words are pure, a credit to you, and a benefit for us.
As an age test I'll see if you get that reference. (hint: it floats, or at least used to).
In all seriousness I really do appreciate nearly everything you write, and TPM Café would be less enjoyable without Sawicky statements.
I've just been cranky about that age thingy lately. Maybe it is gravitas (sic) causing everything to sag. I've had it suggested that I hang bat-wise evenings so that everything could sag back up into place. :-)
aMike
March 6, 2007 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the alternative view, good points. Perhaps I should have used the word "subconscience". But I'm still left to wonder how people like Klein are hired. Of course there is an inteview by the producers, and I wonder if there are parameters the producers put forth expressing what they want. From the paucity of Liberals on Cable News and Sunday Morning News shows, I'm left to wonder. One of the subtle forms of possible manipulation I see too often occurs when there are 3 or 4 guests on MTP or This Week, etc., and you see 3 reporters and a Conservative columnist.
Rather than seem like a conspiracy nut, (if it isn't too late), I'll end this here.
March 6, 2007 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Max's opening paragraph reminded me of this:
"One of the reasons that liberals in our time have been reduced in power, is that government, through Social Security, Medicare, through one public service or another, has made a very large number of of people....... comfortable, happy and conservative."
John Kenneth Galbraith
March 6, 2007 5:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Sawicky, just FYI, I would agree that words did fail.
To me it also came across to me as support for the ideological fervor, simplistic moral certainty or zealotry of youth and a dismissal of the whole idea of the "wisdom of age"--the kind of thing any 18-year old jihadi, many zealous young military or police recruits ("cannon fodder") or the more severe fans of Robespierre and Danton around 1794 would happily support in hearing from an elder.
Also, maybe I am an atypical boomer, but I never read "don't trust anyone over 30" exactly in that vein, most of the youthquake then was pretty relativistic and "laid back," hence such expressions as "that's cool."
Judging from what I have gleaned of your political preferences from what you have written on this site, I would not be surprised if you did prefer the former.
The message here really was not clear. I'm still not sure what it is.
March 6, 2007 7:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent commentary and analysis mrdoooo... deserves a 10 rating.You nailed on the head what I feel when reading JK's op-ed pieces.
March 6, 2007 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have noted this same thing on Sundays and daily cable 'news' broadcasts. I have begun to think that it is far easier and certainly more employable/lucrative to be a conservative pundit/analyst, Fundamentally, though I think 'liberals' simply have been worn down by the repetitive messages from the majority of pundits who oppose the 'liberal/progressive' view. Life is not easy when you hold the minority view.
Ever listen to Tucker Carlson on Tucker? He will deliver the extreme right message and then say he himself disagrees with it. This has given me pause on several occasions, I now have the impression that he is well-paid to deliver the talking points and understands that is what keeps the ratings up. So, he panders with aplumb.
This is what I believe accounts for the paucity of 'liberal/progressive' pundits moreso than anything. Folks, are just plain tired of being beat down for what they truly believe when they are so outnumbered. I think that also accounts for why you have so many folks who espouse those conservative views, it is so much easier to not hold the opposing view or have to debate your point. Being conservative you get to be in the 'in crowd' and not have to think before you speak, knowing others in the group will affirm that view for you. You belong. Folks desire to be in the majority not minority of views. Afterall, it is waaay easier.
I think this is what happened to 'conservative' Chris (Foxnews)Wallace the son of the 'liberal' Mike (SixtyMinutes) Wallace. It is also a way that he, along with his peers attempts to distinguish himself from his/their 'dad's generation'. The 'ol if daddy wore 'boxers' I am hip and progressive if I wear 'tighty whities'' syndrome, while the grandsons wear, whatelse, boxers, of course.
Have you noted how Brit Hume tolerates Juan Williams on Fox, with his audible exasperation and sighs when Juan has the opposing view? Juan is not even truly a leftie just barely left of center. Yet he incurs visible intolerance from Hume on that panel. Hume's barely concealed disdain for Juan's views however is palpable during the group panel. Hume effectively conveys an attitude of 'do I have to listen to this pap, again?", I am so tired of your warped views' ..letting the audience know that Juan's views do not merit respect and are just plain absurd, moronic even. I've even watched Chris Wallace referee their exchanges. Quite fascinating.
Juan. however, is old enough and of a generation that admired individuals for the integrity of their character to have principles and convictions enabling them to 'stick their guns' and does not back down when his opinion is not the majority view. He maintains his position despite holding the minority view..
The younger pundits however, like Tucker, Nora O'Donell, that Dana blond on CNN who covers the Hill...they all capitualated long ago, rather than have to display any real principles or convictions which would mean enduring relentless assault and personal dislike based on holding an opposing minority view. Being liked is more important than having convictions or principles to their generation. Majority rules negates right and wrong for them. They have no sense of obligation or responsibility to right or wrong. They all would rather be liked than right.
Bottomline what you are observing is not so much a conspiracy but a lack of will and convictions based on principles and values rather than political expediency, in an entire generation.
March 6, 2007 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one can speak for Max but Max, and there is some question about him, but his point is well taken - as life goes on and our circumstances come to depend upon our spoken word, we can and will justify positions taken that are in direct opposition to our stated beliefs. It's known as compartmentalizing - or rationallizing - and is in fact a feature, not a bug, in human beings.
But it is still sad to see in action.
How many of us are capable of resisting the lure of wealth and access? Hard to say. If you take the pundit class we have today, there are only two conclusions to be drawn - either almomst none of us are capable of resistance, and/or the job itself selects for those particularly weak in that aspect of character.
Jake
March 6, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "minority view" being the liberal/progressive view.
About 2 years ago we went to a family celebration in Delaware.
Our relatives there are right wingers, Mom, Dad and sons. They swear by Limbaugh, Fox, Hannity, etc. Their main view, as far as I can see it is the Republicans will get the "niggers" off welfare and out of our pockets. "I work hard for my money" is one of their mantras. They're armed to the teeth with the usual
right wing words and phrases; Liberal, Environmental whacko, welfare, socialist, DUMBOCRATS, FemiNazi, blah blah blah.
These are blue collar people, though I guess you could say the 3 sons are semi professional. I don't know whether to be ashamed of them or pity them.
On this particular day I took one of the sons aside and asked him if he supported Social Security. Perhaps because his grandparents were on the program, he said 'Yeah.'
I had a short discussion of each program I brought up before I asked the question.
About 25 minutes later I got him again and asked if he supported Medicare. 'Yeah' again.
A half hour latere I asked about Workmen's comp. 'Yep'
An hour later I asked if he supported Unemployment Comp. 'Yep'
Sometime later I asked if he supported safe workplaces. 'Sure I do'
Later still; do you support overtime after 40 hours.? 'Who doesn't?'
Some time later; Do you support Child Labor Laws? 'Sure I do'
I'm sure you can see where I'm going here. After about 8 Hours, we were getting ready to leave and I cornered him again.
'All those programs I asked about, the programs you supported, are Liberal programs, whose creation was fought against by the party you support. The Limbaugh Party, the FOX Party, Hannity, O'Reilly, Bush, Cheney, and to this day they're still trying to repeal them.'
Note: They are not direct quotes.
March 6, 2007 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a WWII vet I sometimes speak of trivial things I experienced during my time, but now and then circumstances lead me to expand a bit. My wife tells me that when I reflect on those years I'm trying to escape from my age and live again a part of my youth. According to her, I'm guilty of age escapism. :)
March 6, 2007 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, this sounds Freudian, care to expand? :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
also, you said:
"Never trust anybody over thirty!
Including myself...... I always ask myself for a second opinion."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's hilarious. :)
March 6, 2007 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Klein is striking out against fringe elements representing the demons of his past. rmrdooooo
Given his left-leaning history -- American Studies at Penn, reporting for small independent newspapers in Boston and for WGBH in the early '70s, Rolling Stone in the late '70s -- Klein acts more like someone whose values have been betrayed by history(?), reality(?), or the powers-that-be(?).
Hell hath no fury like a lefty scorned.
March 6, 2007 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good for you.
March 6, 2007 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 6, 2007 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Exhibit A: HRC
March 6, 2007 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess my point was--vaguely--that Klein could benefit from some self reflection. Instead he is a victim of his own inner opaqueness.
Of course, Ellen is always right. :-)
March 6, 2007 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know nothing about "ageist remarks".
Schoolchildren in Poland have to absorb a fair amount of Romantic poetry, and an important piece is titled "Ode to Youth". Translating poetry is hard, but I will try several verses
"let one adled by age, leaning toward ground with his furrowed forehead, sees only as much of the world as his posture allows, O Youth, lend me your wings to fly above the horizons and see the globe entire"
March 6, 2007 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
An aged man is but a paltry thing / A tattered coat upon a stick, unless / Soul clap its hands and sing / And louder sing for every tatter in its mortal dress / "Sailing to Byzantium" W.B. Yeats
March 6, 2007 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
BALD heads forgetful of their sins,
Old, learned, respectable bald heads
Edit and annotate the lines
That young men, tossing on their beds,
Rhymed out in love’s despair 5
To flatter beauty’s ignorant ear.
They’ll cough in the ink to the world’s end;
Wear out the carpet with their shoes
Earning respect; have no strange friend;
If they have sinned nobody knows. 10
Lord, what would they say
Should their Catullus walk that way?
--Yeats (again)
[except that if it weren't for the bald heads we wouldn't have Catullus to read]
March 6, 2007 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ain't Cultcha wunnerful?
I just have to add my own favorite...stolen from Professor Charles Lutwidge Dodgson
aMike
March 7, 2007 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I grow old....... I grow old.....
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach,
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.
I do not think they will sing to me.
Prufrock
March 7, 2007 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I'm schizophrenic
And so are you.
--
Howard
"That which does not destroy us makes us the stranger" (heard at a seance when the shade of Nietzsche was summoned to visit Newark, NJ)
Yes, I know the difference between schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder.
March 7, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
listen, anybody who claims to have clarity in these murky regions is as nutty as the Chimp himself.
March 7, 2007 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 8, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got it in one!
I remember reading maybe a million years ago that the first floating bar was the result of a technical error. The mixer was left running too long and aerated the product creating a lighter, but larger bar. A smart copywriter turned a vice into a virtue and thus history was made. (This may be less than 99 and 44/100th per cent true)
aMike
March 8, 2007 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink