Monday, August 06, 2007
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Other Voices in the Whale
Besides Norman Ornstein's article on executive privilege at the American Enterprise Institute, also read Adam Cohen's editorial in the NYT today. One explicit argument made is that "the Constitution cannot enforce itself," and that Congress has to push back agasint the Imperial president. James Madison would.
What Leviathan Whispers in W. The Whale's Ear
Reading Robert Alter's translation of Genesis and found verses that might have benefited the Great Whale if they had been whispered in his God-hungry ears. Abram has gone out with a number of his retainers to bring back Lot and his people who have been abducted by the four kings who defeated the rulers of Sodom and Gomorrah (Lot was vacationing nearby, what a mistake); Abram has conducted a night-time raid by which he has recovered Lot, all Lot's people, and all Lot's "stuff." Melchizedek, the king of Salem that Abram must negotiate with, offers to let Abram keep all the "stuff" he has gained in this battle. Abram defers, claiming only what the "lads," his men have consumed. This is Alter's note:
Now here's a voice in the night to listen to.
One should note, however, that the military exploit--apparently, a surprise attack by night--is dispatched very quickly while the main emphasis is placed on the victorious Abram's magnaminity and disinterestedness. Thus the idea of the patriarch's maintaining fair and proper relations with the peoples of the land, already intimated in his dealings with Lot in the previous chapter, comes to displace the image of mere martial prowess.
Now here's a voice in the night to listen to.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
New York Times Sights Two Leviathans
Well, what a morning for executive whales. Here's a paragraph from the NYT's article on Musharraf,
And here's a couple of paragraphs on the W. whale.
What we can say about the sightings of these two whales is that an effective seperation of powers (note the collusion of the Justice department with the White House in this country)keeps Leviathans from gobbling up more water than they should ever be allowed to hold.
General Musharraf's critics had accused him of dismissing the chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, so as to install someone more likely to bend to his authority as the general was expected to face critical challenges this year to his continued rule as president and army chief of staff.
And here's a couple of paragraphs on the W. whale.
A federal appeals court ordered the government yesterday to turn over virtually all its information on Guantanamo detainees, rejecting an effort by the Justice Department to limit disclosures and setting the stage for new legal battles over the government's reaons for holding the men indefinitely.
It was the latest of a series of stinging legal challenges to the administration's detention policies that have amplified pressure on the Bush asministration to find some alternative to Guantanamo, where about 360 men are now being held.
What we can say about the sightings of these two whales is that an effective seperation of powers (note the collusion of the Justice department with the White House in this country)keeps Leviathans from gobbling up more water than they should ever be allowed to hold.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Other Voices On The Whale's Privilege
Norman Ornstein in an American Enterprise Institute article on executive privilege ("Executive Privilege" Has Storied History, but It Can Be Abused) writes,
and
and
Mr. Ornstein points out that Congress has the strong argument, but now the Roberts Court is in power . . . so?
During the treason trial of Aaron Burr, Chief Justice John Marshall moved to compel President Thomas Jefferson to produce his private letters on the matter. Jefferson produced the letters--but said he had the power to withhold them and was complying voluntarily.
and
Nixon invoked executive privilege and refused to turn over any tapes. The Supreme Court actually acknowledged the existence of a privilege, the need to allow a president to get free and candid advice. But it denied that the president's claim of absolute privilege could prevail and said in this case that the public interest was served by obtaining the full truth during a criminal prosecution. Nixon gave up the tapes--and days later resigned from office. A quarter-century later, Clinton was rebuffed by a federal judge when he invoked executive privilege during the Monica Lewinsky scandal to try to keep his aides from testifying.
and
It may be a derived power, but executive privilege is a real power. It exists, as the Supreme Court said, to allow the president to have candid and free-flowing advice. But it is a presidential power. The logic is clear: It does not apply in a blanket way to every presidential aide; it applies when the information being sought impinges on the president's ability to get that free-flowing advice--in other words, when the communications are directly or indirectly between the president and his aides, or the president and his executive branch advisers. It does not apply to communications between Justice officials and White House aides who are, say, discussing the politics of firing U.S. attorneys or the legal basis of a surveillance program.
Mr. Ornstein points out that Congress has the strong argument, but now the Roberts Court is in power . . . so?
No Transparent Whales, Please
Sometimes voyaging in the whale is difficult due to prohibitions on seeing exactly what is up ahead. For instance, as reported in the Washington Post today.
Cheney removes himself from Google Maps, while the Whale blackens windows. But what of this reading of executive privilege?
As this Bushean reading of executive privilege appears based on a Justice Department opinion during the Reagan administration that was never tested in the courts, well . . . seems exactly this is where the Whale is sailing.
Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.
Cheney removes himself from Google Maps, while the Whale blackens windows. But what of this reading of executive privilege?
Mark J. Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration's stance "astonishing."
"That's a breathtakingly broad view of the president's role in this system of separation of powers," Rozell said. "What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."
As this Bushean reading of executive privilege appears based on a Justice Department opinion during the Reagan administration that was never tested in the courts, well . . . seems exactly this is where the Whale is sailing.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Other Voices in the Whale (Read Along with Kagan's article on Surging For Summer (Further Indigestion for the Whale)) or Alice in Surgeland
Zeyad Kasim on IraqSlogger writes the following (6/30/07)
"In their distinctive style of morbid humor, resourceful Baghdadis are circulating emails presenting their own personal assessment of the security situation in the capital. The detailed lists of what neighborhoods and areas are safe and what to avoid completely, because of Mahdi Army or Al-Qaeda activity or the random car bomb, are quite different from those found in Iraqi government or U.S. military statements. As many parts of the capital have become no-go zones for members of either the Sunni or Shia sect – or sometimes for both, it is a challenge for Baghdadis to identify areas where they are able to move freely and areas where they should better stay out.
The following is a translation of one such email making the rounds among residents of Baghdad and on Iraqi Web forums. The sarcastic email, which was written in Iraqi slang, attempts to classify the districts of Baghdad based on their level of danger. According to the author, the safest neighborhoods are the ones where the odds of staying alive are 50%:
The situation in different areas of Baghdad in regard to takfiri gangs of the new age: Al-Qaeda, the Mahdi Army, and their spiritual leaders – the forces of liberation.
fall into four different categories: safe, relatively safe, dangerous, and relatively dangerous. They are classified as follows:
- A safe area: where the probability of you staying alive is 50%.
- A relatively safe area: where the probability of you staying alive is 40%.
- A relatively dangerous area: where the probability of you staying alive is 30%.
- A dangerous area: where the probability of you staying alive is 20 to 10%."
Read the entire article at IraqSlogger.com / The Baghdad Death Map
and
Read The New Strategy in Iraq" at weeklystandard.com.
"In their distinctive style of morbid humor, resourceful Baghdadis are circulating emails presenting their own personal assessment of the security situation in the capital. The detailed lists of what neighborhoods and areas are safe and what to avoid completely, because of Mahdi Army or Al-Qaeda activity or the random car bomb, are quite different from those found in Iraqi government or U.S. military statements. As many parts of the capital have become no-go zones for members of either the Sunni or Shia sect – or sometimes for both, it is a challenge for Baghdadis to identify areas where they are able to move freely and areas where they should better stay out.
The following is a translation of one such email making the rounds among residents of Baghdad and on Iraqi Web forums. The sarcastic email, which was written in Iraqi slang, attempts to classify the districts of Baghdad based on their level of danger. According to the author, the safest neighborhoods are the ones where the odds of staying alive are 50%:
The situation in different areas of Baghdad in regard to takfiri gangs of the new age: Al-Qaeda, the Mahdi Army, and their spiritual leaders – the forces of liberation.
fall into four different categories: safe, relatively safe, dangerous, and relatively dangerous. They are classified as follows:
- A safe area: where the probability of you staying alive is 50%.
- A relatively safe area: where the probability of you staying alive is 40%.
- A relatively dangerous area: where the probability of you staying alive is 30%.
- A dangerous area: where the probability of you staying alive is 20 to 10%."
Read the entire article at IraqSlogger.com / The Baghdad Death Map
and
Read The New Strategy in Iraq" at weeklystandard.com.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Musings on Executive Power or Why Cutting Off The Head Doesn't Necessarily Kill the Body
Here's a quote from Caesar's apologist John Yoo in the Weekly Standard August 2003.
"Even now, finding and eliminating Saddam Hussein himself is likely to accelerate reconstruction, as followers of the Baathist regime lose hope, and the Iraqi people lose their fear of a restoration of the ancien régime. What some might call assassination, and what the laws of war deem a legitimate military attack, in the end could be a more humanitarian way to conclude the Iraq war and to conduct hositilities generally in the future."
Which is all fine and well if you're playing chess . . . and not in Iraq.
And this.
"Killing both sets of leaders is a legitimate method for defeating the enemy and bringing the conflicts to a close."
Killing as the means to an end. You would think by now with all the legitimate targets taken out in Iraq that we would be celebrating Mission Accomplished. Maybe this war thing is a little trickier. Maybe it's not all about executing the king. And actually if you look at the number of executed leaders whose deaths have ushered in civil war (that fun thing called Rwanda) you might wonder about the logic of this strategy. Of course, if it's all about Caesar alive it should be all about Caesar dead.
"Even now, finding and eliminating Saddam Hussein himself is likely to accelerate reconstruction, as followers of the Baathist regime lose hope, and the Iraqi people lose their fear of a restoration of the ancien régime. What some might call assassination, and what the laws of war deem a legitimate military attack, in the end could be a more humanitarian way to conclude the Iraq war and to conduct hositilities generally in the future."
Which is all fine and well if you're playing chess . . . and not in Iraq.
And this.
"Killing both sets of leaders is a legitimate method for defeating the enemy and bringing the conflicts to a close."
Killing as the means to an end. You would think by now with all the legitimate targets taken out in Iraq that we would be celebrating Mission Accomplished. Maybe this war thing is a little trickier. Maybe it's not all about executing the king. And actually if you look at the number of executed leaders whose deaths have ushered in civil war (that fun thing called Rwanda) you might wonder about the logic of this strategy. Of course, if it's all about Caesar alive it should be all about Caesar dead.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
A Walk Backwards With Tom Jefferson
Good and evil. According to my post on the habits of American readers and American politicians, it appears that such a world of the absolutely virtuous and absolutely craven exists (with no middle ground), if only in the reading habits of Americans and the assumptions of American politicians. Over the last few days, this idea has been ornately decorated by listening to viewers call in to The Washington Journal on C-Span to voice their opposition, nay, their hatred of the immigration bill. The conclusion: we are being invaded by bad people; the good American body politic is being corrupted by foreign bodies.; our leaders have sold us (good people) out, and we have to defeat them. Should there be a strict maintenance of the borders--of course; however, the continuing American narrative of us versus them, good American gunslingers versus felons, murderers, rapists, terrorists, liberals (no, sorry, they are already in the country--the virus within)only creates a monstrous American body and voice, certainly a Hobbesian Golem that is going to right all the wrongs done to poor, virtuous Americans. In that gargantuan Hobbesian monster all the fears of the American populace (and there are quite a few) are expressed in a sweeping black and white sentence structure that reduces reality to a black and white movie televised by a station without adequate power and received on a battered set that at best gets poor reception. Eventaully, all the talk of good and evil will create an American landscape not even worthy of being paved over for a Wal-mart parking lot.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Important Words in The Whale
Worth reading.
http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=277751&&year=2007&
http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=277751&&year=2007&
Monday, June 25, 2007
Sightings of Others in The Whale And That's One Gnostic Whale
Last night on C-Span 3, I watched a fascinating summary of American reading habits:John Heath and Lisa Adams discussed their forthcoming book, "Why We Read What We Read: Exploring Contemporary Bestsellers and What They Say About Our Books and Ourselves" as part of BookExpo America 2007 held in New York City. Their observations about thriller / horror / action fiction (Grisham, King, etc.) revealed a very polarized view of good and evil without either good or evil having any empathy or understanding for the other--evil people are insane and not at all like the good people who cannot fathom evil, crazy people. What they also found in the non-ficiton political genre was the same sort of assumptions: Coulter believes anyone marked by the "L" word is evil, and Franken and others on the left descend to easy generalizations about the right--in other words, whether a fiction thriller or non-fiction socio-political book, the same oversimplifications are in play.
Now add this column on Hullabalo.
[Cuz We're So Good
by digby
After 9/11, I remember being quite surprised that the US government would so freely use the phrase "good and evil" when our attackers had been extreme religious fanatics. Laden as those words are with religious association, it seemed to me to be fanning the flames when a smarter approach would have been to distance ourselves from such rhetoric and try to redirect the focus to more rational ground. I did a post quite early on in which I compared speeches by George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden in which their frequent references to God and good and evil and satan were nearly indistinguishable. Both speeches could have come right out of the 13th century. (It was one of the creepiest posts I ever did, and I recall that at the time we were in the grip of such paranoia, I wondered if I would gather the attention of the authorities for writing such a thing.)
From very early on Bush used archaic religious verbal constructions like "the evil ones" and "evil-doers." Perhaps the most startling example is what he reportedly told Palestinian Prime Minister Mamhoud Abbas in 2003: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." Yikes.]
Digby goes on to cite Glenn Greenwald's new book "A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency", which emphasizes how the Iraq war between "good and evil" became a reason to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution (see the post on the VP as not part of the executive branch).
So, an electorate that longs to be entertained by and edified by battles between absolute good and evil, absolutely estranged from each other, along with a president who believes in that same battle occurring in the Middle East right now. Lovely.
A loss of reasonable nuance, of understanding of the opposition, of history is critical for a republic, even for an empire.
Now add this column on Hullabalo.
[Cuz We're So Good
by digby
After 9/11, I remember being quite surprised that the US government would so freely use the phrase "good and evil" when our attackers had been extreme religious fanatics. Laden as those words are with religious association, it seemed to me to be fanning the flames when a smarter approach would have been to distance ourselves from such rhetoric and try to redirect the focus to more rational ground. I did a post quite early on in which I compared speeches by George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden in which their frequent references to God and good and evil and satan were nearly indistinguishable. Both speeches could have come right out of the 13th century. (It was one of the creepiest posts I ever did, and I recall that at the time we were in the grip of such paranoia, I wondered if I would gather the attention of the authorities for writing such a thing.)
From very early on Bush used archaic religious verbal constructions like "the evil ones" and "evil-doers." Perhaps the most startling example is what he reportedly told Palestinian Prime Minister Mamhoud Abbas in 2003: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." Yikes.]
Digby goes on to cite Glenn Greenwald's new book "A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency", which emphasizes how the Iraq war between "good and evil" became a reason to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution (see the post on the VP as not part of the executive branch).
So, an electorate that longs to be entertained by and edified by battles between absolute good and evil, absolutely estranged from each other, along with a president who believes in that same battle occurring in the Middle East right now. Lovely.
A loss of reasonable nuance, of understanding of the opposition, of history is critical for a republic, even for an empire.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
When An Executive Is Not An Executive Or When A Whale Is Not A Whale
Via Daily Kos here is Executive Order 13292 and as Karo X points out (David Walden who was just on C-Span this morning with Robert Bluey)several, no many instances of the power to safgeguard, classify and declassify information is given to the president and the vice-president, for instance:
[Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and
(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. ]
As (1) clearly states, the Vice President has executive duties. And yet,
"Other officials familiar with Mr. Cheney's view said that he and his legal advisor, David S. Addington, did not believe that the executive order applied to the vide president's office because it had legistaltive as well as an executive status in the Constitution." (courtesy of Scott Shane in the NYT Friday, June 22)
So . . .
[Article I The Legislative Branch Section 3: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
Ariticle II The Executive Branch Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term . . . ."]
The Constitution doesn't seem to have a problem viewing the Vice President as both executive and legislative. In other words, one doesn't eliminate the other.
What is the goal of such obtfuscations? One goal would be the ability of the future to read the past, and the interest of Bush / Cheney to make such a reading difficult if not impossible. What is the relevance of this? Well, let's read Livy.
"There is this exceptionally beneficial and fruitful advantage to be derived from the study of the past, that you see, set in the clear light of historical truth, examples of every possible type. From these you may select for yourself and your country what to imitate, and also what, as being mischievous in its inception and disastrous in its issues, you are to avoid" (Founding of the City).
Per my last post, if the executive branch does not allow for itself to be read, then the citizen's ability to know what to imitate or avoid is attacked.
Why do I put this forth? here is a quote from a Wasghington post series on Cheney by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker: "Cheney expresses indifference, in public and private, to any verdict but history's, and those close to him say he means it."
Here's another gem:
"Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that "the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch," and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance."
Much more. Excellent, detailed journalism.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/
It appears the Vice President is trying to write his history through distortive readings designed to choose what texts will be part of history.
[Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:
(1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President;
(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; and
(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. ]
As (1) clearly states, the Vice President has executive duties. And yet,
"Other officials familiar with Mr. Cheney's view said that he and his legal advisor, David S. Addington, did not believe that the executive order applied to the vide president's office because it had legistaltive as well as an executive status in the Constitution." (courtesy of Scott Shane in the NYT Friday, June 22)
So . . .
[Article I The Legislative Branch Section 3: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."
Ariticle II The Executive Branch Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term . . . ."]
The Constitution doesn't seem to have a problem viewing the Vice President as both executive and legislative. In other words, one doesn't eliminate the other.
What is the goal of such obtfuscations? One goal would be the ability of the future to read the past, and the interest of Bush / Cheney to make such a reading difficult if not impossible. What is the relevance of this? Well, let's read Livy.
"There is this exceptionally beneficial and fruitful advantage to be derived from the study of the past, that you see, set in the clear light of historical truth, examples of every possible type. From these you may select for yourself and your country what to imitate, and also what, as being mischievous in its inception and disastrous in its issues, you are to avoid" (Founding of the City).
Per my last post, if the executive branch does not allow for itself to be read, then the citizen's ability to know what to imitate or avoid is attacked.
Why do I put this forth? here is a quote from a Wasghington post series on Cheney by Barton Gellman and Jo Becker: "Cheney expresses indifference, in public and private, to any verdict but history's, and those close to him say he means it."
Here's another gem:
"Across the board, the vice president's office goes to unusual lengths to avoid transparency. Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs. His general counsel has asserted that "the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch," and is therefore exempt from rules governing either. Cheney is refusing to observe an executive order on the handling of national security secrets, and he proposed to abolish a federal office that insisted on auditing his compliance."
Much more. Excellent, detailed journalism.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/
It appears the Vice President is trying to write his history through distortive readings designed to choose what texts will be part of history.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
He Did Not Speak To Them Without A Parable or What's up with the Jabberwocky or Why We Must Read Cheney's Dark Mind
"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe."
Sweet Jesus! The New Testament in the belly of the whale? What does Mark have to say about parables--"Using many parables like these (parable of the sower, lamp, measure, mustard seed), he spoke the word ot them, so far as they were capable of understanding it. He would not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything to his disciples when alone." [courtesy of The Jerusalem Bible]
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
So the necessity of obscuring language out in view, yet when alone the meaning revealed. A rite is involved, a select community is called upon, narrative conceals and reveals. And as in Kafka's parable of the admittance to the Law, it appears each of us has a moment of interpretation: "No one but you could gain admittance through this door, since this door was intended only for you. I am now going to shut it." [courtesy Parables and Paradoxes, Kafka--Before the Law translated by Willa and Edwin Muir]
"He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought --So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought."
The inestimable Sir Frank Kermode in his parabolic / non-parabolic text "The Genesis of Secrecy" states an important defintion of parable: "Parable,it seems, may proclaim a truth as a herald does, and at the same time conceal truth like an oracle." "Proclamation and concealment" as Sir Frank goes on to define.
"And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came!"
The use of herald and oracle (think Oedipus) presents a message to be heard but not necessarily understood, though later on, if one is part of the club, that meaning may be revealed to you. O frabjous day, callooh callay!
"One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back."
Notwithstanding or standing Hobbes injunction against metaphors: " . . . when they use words metaphorically; that is, in other sense than they are ordained for; and thereby deceive others"(Leviathan Chap. 4). We are confronted with a deception of language that neccessitates our interaction, our interpretation.
"A Signe, is the Event Antecedent, of the Consequent; and contrarily, the Consequent of the Antecedent, when like Consequences have been observed, before: And the oftener they have been observed, the lesse uncertain is the Signe. And therefore he that has most experience in any kind of businesse, has most Signes, whereby to guesse at the Future time . . . ." (Leviathan, Chap. 3).
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy!O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy."
Which brings me to the New York Times and Dick Cheney. The NYT reported yesterday that the Vice-President was ignoring requests by the National Archives for information on the classification of documents, and going a step further, by seeking the eliminatino of that agency. Above the continuation of this article in the newspaper, the Times published an article on the imminent release of CIA documents concerning covert activities. An implicit quesiton arisies: what is the nature of secrecy in a society, what's supposed to be a secret in a whale, and without the ability to interpret the secrets how can we possibly gain admittance to the law or save ourselves?
"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. "
Sweet Jesus! The New Testament in the belly of the whale? What does Mark have to say about parables--"Using many parables like these (parable of the sower, lamp, measure, mustard seed), he spoke the word ot them, so far as they were capable of understanding it. He would not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything to his disciples when alone." [courtesy of The Jerusalem Bible]
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"
So the necessity of obscuring language out in view, yet when alone the meaning revealed. A rite is involved, a select community is called upon, narrative conceals and reveals. And as in Kafka's parable of the admittance to the Law, it appears each of us has a moment of interpretation: "No one but you could gain admittance through this door, since this door was intended only for you. I am now going to shut it." [courtesy Parables and Paradoxes, Kafka--Before the Law translated by Willa and Edwin Muir]
"He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought --So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought."
The inestimable Sir Frank Kermode in his parabolic / non-parabolic text "The Genesis of Secrecy" states an important defintion of parable: "Parable,it seems, may proclaim a truth as a herald does, and at the same time conceal truth like an oracle." "Proclamation and concealment" as Sir Frank goes on to define.
"And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came!"
The use of herald and oracle (think Oedipus) presents a message to be heard but not necessarily understood, though later on, if one is part of the club, that meaning may be revealed to you. O frabjous day, callooh callay!
"One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back."
Notwithstanding or standing Hobbes injunction against metaphors: " . . . when they use words metaphorically; that is, in other sense than they are ordained for; and thereby deceive others"(Leviathan Chap. 4). We are confronted with a deception of language that neccessitates our interaction, our interpretation.
"A Signe, is the Event Antecedent, of the Consequent; and contrarily, the Consequent of the Antecedent, when like Consequences have been observed, before: And the oftener they have been observed, the lesse uncertain is the Signe. And therefore he that has most experience in any kind of businesse, has most Signes, whereby to guesse at the Future time . . . ." (Leviathan, Chap. 3).
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy!O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy."
Which brings me to the New York Times and Dick Cheney. The NYT reported yesterday that the Vice-President was ignoring requests by the National Archives for information on the classification of documents, and going a step further, by seeking the eliminatino of that agency. Above the continuation of this article in the newspaper, the Times published an article on the imminent release of CIA documents concerning covert activities. An implicit quesiton arisies: what is the nature of secrecy in a society, what's supposed to be a secret in a whale, and without the ability to interpret the secrets how can we possibly gain admittance to the law or save ourselves?
"Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. "
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Ah, the Washington Journal
Truly, it brought tears of homecoming to watch Washington Journal this morning and again hear the voices of America cheer my soul. The man who's voting for Hillary but does not believe that a woman, a black man or a Jew can win in America because this is a mysoginistic, racist, anti-semetic country; the woman who is a Democrat but hates the Clintons, loves Kucinich, and most likely will vote for Rommney; and the man calling in on the Republican line who talked about the nefarious business dealings of the vice-president. What a country! What a surprising marine animal!
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Frontline and the Depths of Leviathan
Ah yes, Captain Langston. This whale is infinitely murky. Make sure you read the discussion section. So many in the great whale. Oh yes, delightful that in the show Cheney is referred to as Moby Dick. That is the beauty of being in such a big, water-bound mammal--it's also a giant rabbit-hole. Everyone put on your best Alice dress and let's go fishing.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_frontlinebrendgame_2007-06-20
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_frontlinebrendgame_2007-06-20
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Down the Rabbit-Hole Again
Yes Sir, that's Rummy on C-Span 3. Here's a link that explains his return to Primetime television: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh
Once More Near the Blow-Hole
Eight months lost in the belly of the great whale; eight months adrift from island to island in the deep waters of the big fish who is not a fish; eight months looking for a way out of the leviathan. No luck. Here's a message that washed up in a large, cavernous intestine.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence--economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence--economic, political, even spiritual--is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)