Home | Away

Leavin’ on a jet plane

I’m still in a copyediting frenzy, and my plane for State College leaves in two hours.  I finished the page proofs for What’s Liberal about the Liberal Arts? last night, having spent the entire day slogging through the first copyedit of Rhetorical Occasions.  But I had the odd experience of copyediting a book for the University of North Carolina Press in the offices of the University of North Carolina Press, surrounded by the people who’ve been working on the book for the past year.  That was cool.  Also extremely efficient.  Whenever I ran into a snag, I would just holler randomly down the hall: “hey,” I hollered randomly, “is ‘cohort of theorists’ singular or plural”?  This launched a learned debate about whether “cohort” implies the kind of collectivity and loss of individuality one associates with “herd,” since of course “herd” is singular.  It was finally decided by a 17-12 vote that “cohort” is plural, which suggests that the staff of the UNC Press are a cohort rather than a herd.  Then there was the question of whether Right and Left should be Capitalized Throughout, and the question of whether “sic” should be italicized if “ibid” is not.  All of these questions were answered within seconds, thanks to my hollering and my strategically central location at a large work desk that faced six offices at once.  In return, the staff asked me if I knew what “seditty” meant, and that gave me a rare and valuable opportunity to recite all the lyrics of Grandmaster Flash’s 1982 hit “The Message.” Which is not bad for an ofay.

I now think every academic-press author should be required to edit his or her book in the offices of their publishers.

Anyway, I’ll have a real post on my NC sojourn a bit later on, and in the meantime, here’s one of the paragraphs I was copyediting yesterday.  From “The Utility of the Arts and Humanities,” forthcoming in Rhetorical Occasions:

I sometimes think this is why the cultural right has urged us so often in the past two decades to return to the eternal verities of the fine arts:  it’s part of a two-step plan to eliminate the arts and humanities from any serious social or curricular consideration.  For when it comes to defending the utility of the arts and humanities, the cultural right is every bit as and ambivalent and divided as is the cultural left, yet far more coordinated:  one bunch of conservatives—we could call them the Allan and Harold Bloom Consortium—wants us to return to the canon, to aesthetics, to the pursuit of beauty, leaving behind all this queer theory and multicultural pabulum.  These are the conservatives one finds clustered around the New Criterion and the Hudson Review, the ones who line their shelves with volumes from the Loeb Classical Library and decry the mediocrity of contemporary American theater.  The other bunch of conservatives—let’s call them the Tom DeLay Gang—doesn’t see any reason why taxpayers should support public universities, or why parents and trustees should support private universities, in which faculty and students fritter away their time pursuing pointless things like “beauty” when there’s important work to be done and people need to see a return on their college investment.  These are the conservatives who, in alliance with economic libertarians, declaim from the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal that the “important work” to be done consists of eliminating estate and capital gains taxes, gutting workplace regulations, and shredding environmental standards.  They like to have a few Allan Bloomers around to talk about the cultural superiority of the West and the depravity of Western academic intellectuals, but as long as those estate taxes are repealed they really don’t care whether college students are reading Cicero or comic books.  The two-step plan, then, consists of this: the first group will urge arts and humanities faculty to return to beauty, whereupon the second group will come along and cut all funding for the frivolous aesthetic pursuits of the arts and humanities.

Oh, and one more thing before I grab my cab.  If you want to make wingnuts’ heads explode this week, just propose an illegal immigrant amnesty program in which immigrants become naturalized citizens if they agree to take jobs away from liberal professors

Posted by on 03/31 at 08:39 AM
  1. There are two steps to the plan? Huh, who knew? I figured the fund-cutting part was all there was to it. The wingnuts are a lot more complicated than I give them credit for, evidently.

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  10:43 AM
  2. "plane to State College”

    That sounds like it either costs 10 times more than it should, or involves 10 more transfers and layovers than I’d like to imagine.

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  10:49 AM
  3. "I now think every academic-press author should be required to edit his or her book in the offices of their publishers.”

    I forbid you to contact any of my authors.

    Posted by Clare  on  03/31  at  11:03 AM
  4. I like this plan, Michael. I suggest we invite over a bevy of Belgians, a covey of Canadians, a gaggle of Greeks, and a flock of Finns to take the jobs of the cohort of theorists.

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  12:04 PM
  5. So soon? Michael, we hardly knew ye. They’ll be bringing you back, right? For a month a year for 12 years running (as the equivalent of the usual one-year fellowship)? Next year try April so you can see the azaleas and dogwoods at their peaks. If I hear you’re coming, I’ll spring for a corkscrew.

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  12:08 PM
  6. By god, I knew it!  A midnight conspiracy between Harold Bloom and Tom Delay!!  Who else is in on it?  Paris Hilton?  Bill Gates?  John Gotti Jr.?  Charles Manson?  Give us all the juicy details!

    NL

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  12:56 PM
  7. Michael F. Berube wrote:

    “I now think every academic-press author should be required to edit his or her book in the offices of their publishers.”

    Heh. “I would prefer not to.” We’ll send someone out for ginger nuts.

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  01:19 PM
  8. Wait, a staff are plural?  Whoa!  I got some re-education to do!

    When Allan Bloom’s big book in which he dissed rock for obsessing on sex came out, I sang a tribute to him.

    If you knew
    Allan Bloom
    then you’d know what I’ve been through
    Oh Allan
    My Allan Bloo-huh-hoo-hoo-huh-hoo-hoom
    Oh I love you, I love you Allan Bloom

    Allan Bloom, Allan Bloom
    Pretty pretty pretty pretty Allan Bloom . . .

    etc.

    (I borrowed the music.)

    Then I found out that he was gay, which made me want to sing to him even more.  (I never did find out what he looked like—but this was a spiritual love!) Then he died before he ever heard my song.  Unless an extremely discreet and well-connected bootlegger got that show and gave him a tape . . .

    Posted by john  on  03/31  at  01:42 PM
  9. The two-step plan, then, consists of this: the first group will urge arts and humanities faculty to return to beauty, whereupon the second group will come along and cut all funding for the frivolous aesthetic pursuits of the arts and humanities.
    I am thinking it is a three-step plan.  The first two parts above added with the elimination of all funding for arts in the k-12 public education curricula.  This way they can thrash those already in the university; work on thrashing those coming up through the system; and by the time they are cutting all the public funding across the board, those that have been raised without any arts at all won’t know the difference.

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  01:56 PM
  10. Let’s not wait for the funding to disappear; let’s privatize. Announcement in local alternative weekly events calendar:

    Ofay Michael Bérubé performing Grandmaster Flash’s 1982 hit “The Message” and selections from Marginal forces/cultural centers: Tolson, Pynchon, and the politics of the canon. $5, Cat’s Cradle, all ages show, doors open 3:00-3:50pm MWF and 10:00-11:15am TR.

    They come for the Grandmaster Flash, they stay for the Tolson. Simple as that.

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  02:20 PM
  11. Michael,

    it’s much worse in my field: some AI bastards wanna replace me with a machine! a cold, unfeeling, theorem-proving, machine. from the nation of Robomania.

    (it turns out that it’s complicated)

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  02:52 PM
  12. Let the professors pick the fruits of literature.

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  03:15 PM
  13. "Copyediting frenzy” blogging? I can’t think of anything hotter than that.

    Posted by Orange  on  03/31  at  03:19 PM
  14. A midnight conspiracy between Harold Bloom and Tom Delay!!  Who else is in on it?  Paris Hilton?  Bill Gates?  John Gotti Jr.?  Charles Manson?  Give us all the juicy details!

    Well, we could start with a certain mathematician from Rutgers whose initials are NL, you know.

    Posted by Michael  on  03/31  at  03:22 PM
  15. "Cohort” as its used in the social sciences and epidemiology is singular. It’s basically a herd, not a “democratic” group.

    My experience with University press books is that they often need more editors, and more assertive ones at that. I’m sure your’s is fine, but many are horribly unreadable--jam packed but dull, or poorly organized coredumps, or totally lacking in any kind of original scholarship. One of my areas is HIV prevention in SE Asia, and there is a cohort (they’re all pretty much the same) of university-published monographs on female sex work in the region that rehash the most ridiculous claims, take questionable references at face value and never involve original field work with the women themselves.

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  04:42 PM
  16. The Triangle became a little quieter, a little safer today with the departure of dangerous Michael “Crash” Berube…

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  05:28 PM
  17. Crash! A Bull Durham reference. Awesome send-away.

    Actually we were glad to have him in these here parts. Y’all are invited back now, ya hear?

    Posted by Tyler Curtain  on  03/31  at  07:06 PM
  18. >>A midnight conspiracy between Harold Bloom and >>Tom Delay!!  Who else is in on it?  Paris >>Hilton?  Bill Gates?  John Gotti Jr.?  Charles >>Manson?  Give us all the juicy details!

    >Well, we could start with a certain >mathematician from Rutgers whose initials are >NL, you know.

    >Posted by Michael on 03/31 at 02:22 PM

    Since I’m obliged to teach one lecture per week of my Intro. Real Analysis course in enemy territory (the Eng. Dept. bldg), I regularly run into some weird shit, in the form of political manifestos, fliers for lectures, and conference posters tacked to the bulletin boards.  This time, in addition to declarations of love for the goddam Palestinians, like unto those of Krazy for Ignatz, the special of the week was the poster for “Psychoanalysis and Strategies of Resistance.”

    http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~bahunic/psychoanalysis.html

    This confirms the prediction of my friend Fred Crews that, sooner or later, Freudian theory and its offshoots will only be taken seriously in departments of literary studies.  Oddly enough, the title of the affair puts me in mind of that of an imaginary conference that I invented, for illustrative purposes, for a review/essay I once wrote for “Skeptic.” ("Why professors believe weird things,” “Skeptic” vol. 6, no. 3 (1998), 28-35.) That fictional talkfest was called “Reconfiguring Cultural Technologies of Resistance in Post-Identity Politics.” Perhaps, one of these days someone will tack that moniker onto a real, live conference.  Please.  Take it.  It’s free!

    But I digress: Without naming any particular miscreants, let me give vent to a long-stifled fantasy in which people who babble away about psychoanalysis and strategies of resistance (or psychoanalysis and any damn thing) are gently detached from the university tit and are oblilged to go out and support themselves through a useful trade that doesn’t oblige one to try to pass off twaddle as erudition--slicing lox at Zabar’s, say, or working construction at the new Yankee Stadium.

    Ah, but that must remain fantasy.  Even in gentler times, when David Horowitz and his minions do not stalk the land, it’s infra dig to go after your academic betes noires at the paycheck level.  This applies to even the worst of babblers, posturing fools, and assassins of English prose.  They, too, have mortgages and kids in private school.  So I’ll satisfy myself with making them sources of innocent merriment, with the help of such as Harold Bloom, Fred Crews and even the Nation (see R. Jacoby’s piece of E. Lott in the current edition).  And I’ll advise any young student within the sound of my voice to satisfy the Humanities requirement in some dusty academic enclave where sanity hasn’t gone wholly out of fashion.  But I’ll try to keep Tom DeLay out of the picture. Really!

    NL

    PS: If he’s going to show such deep solicitude for “the arts and the humanities,” hadn’t Michael better put in some time listening to “Die Kunst der Fuge” and that sort of thing, rather than B. Holly and the Crickets?  You can be a Liberal Professor without being a cultural cripple, you know.

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  07:24 PM
  19. Thanks for the preview. I thought this was going to be an arcane and indigestible scholarly tome but I only had to read the above paragraph three times.

    Snarky question: was this before or after the copyedit session?

    the cultural right is every bit as and ambivalent and divided as is the cultural left

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  07:43 PM
  20. Before, MikeG.  Blogging on the way to the airport, you know.

    And did Norman just say “cultural cripple”?  Because that would be really weird.

    Posted by Michael  on  03/31  at  07:49 PM
  21. You know what my favorite part of the assorted Bloom jackanapery is?  Many bits of literary evidence they use to prove the “cultural superiority” of the west are directly derived from the east. Or, they were lost in the west and recovered from the east.  Pinheads! (This is just one reason of many why medievalists are important.  We know stuff like this.)

    Posted by Heo Cwaeth  on  03/31  at  08:30 PM
  22. "And did Norman just say “cultural cripple”?  Because that would be really weird.”

    Said it.  Meant it.  Use it without restraint or embarassment, since I make up all the definitions.

    Tough.

    NL

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  09:29 PM
  23. Yes, but it’s imprecise—lamentably so for a mathematician.  You haven’t specified whether I’m a mere gimp, a moderate crip, or a full-blown gork.  Do I have a barely perceptible cultural limp, do I use a cultural wheelchair, or am I a cultural quadriplegic?  Because of my not giving a shit about opera, I mean.

    But seriously, Norm, you can’t actually offend my sensibilities.  You can only make yourself look foolish—which you started to do in comment 6.  Have a tough weekend!

    Posted by Michael  on  03/31  at  10:30 PM
  24. Damn, and here I was nearly willing to grant that the War on Theory™ was not political.

    Posted by Matt  on  03/31  at  10:52 PM
  25. So, popular music is bad unless it’s the popular music that the ostensible highbrow likes?

    Considering that Professor Leavitt’s rather odd elegy for Jacques Derrida, published on the Chronicle of Higher Education site, was a re-hash of “Lydia the Tattooed Lady,” written by Edgar Haburg and Edward Arlen, and sung by J. Cheever Loophole (played by Groucho Marx) in *At The Circus*, we are left to ponder

    1) Professor Leavitt’s idiosyncratic inscription of the borders of Philistine culture.

    Professor Leavitt’s New Bloomusalem would deny citizenship to Buddy Holly, but Haburg and Arlen play harps shoulder to shoulder with JSB? I’ve nothing against Haburg (who also wrote “Brother Can You Spare a Dime?” during the Great Depression), btw.

    2) Professor Leavitt’s apparent fixation on MEN (Harold Bloom, Groucho Marx) WITH BIG CIGARS.

    I detect perhaps a bit of the will to power?Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but, as Groucho said,

    “I love my cigar too, but I take it out of my mouth sometimes.”

    I’m not going to touch that one with one of El Duque’s 10-inch Macanudos.

    Captcha word: language.

    Posted by  on  03/31  at  11:19 PM
  26. So, popular music is bad unless it’s the popular music that the ostensible highbrow likes?

    Considering that Professor Leavitt’s rather odd elegy for Jacques Derrida, published on the Chronicle of Higher Education site, was a re-hash of “Lydia the Tattooed Lady,” written by Edgar Haburg and Edward Arlen, and sung by J. Cheever Loophole (played by Groucho Marx) in *At The Circus*, we are left to ponder

    1) Professor Leavitt’s idiosyncratic inscription of the borders of Philistine culture.

    Professor Leavitt’s New Bloomusalem would deny citizenship to Buddy Holly, but Haburg and Arlen play harps shoulder to shoulder with JSB? I’ve nothing against Haburg (who also wrote “Brother Can You Spare a Dime?” during the Great Depression), btw.

    2) Professor Leavitt’s apparent fixation on MEN (Harold Bloom, Groucho Marx) WITH BIG CIGARS.

    I detect perhaps a bit of the will to power?Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but, as Groucho said,

    “I love my cigar too, but I take it out of my mouth sometimes.”

    I’m not going to touch that one with one of El Duque’s 10-inch Macanudos.

    Captcha word: language.

    Posted by david ross mcirvine on 03/31 at 10:19 PM

    --------------------------

    That’s Harold (Stormy Weather) Arlen.  And, of course, Yip Harburg.  You know, “Over the Rainbow” and all that.  Even better, try “When the Idle Poor Become the Idle Rich” from “Finian’s Rainbow” for a nice little political piece.  While I’m at it, an odd coincidence.  When writing a book with Paul Gross a dozen years ago, I hit upon the title “Higher Superstition” thinking the phrase entirely new.  But a couple of years later, it turned up in a little piece of Harburg’s light verse--referring, of course, to the fatuities pervading academic culture, even way back then.

    The question, though, isn’t whether popular culture must be disdained, which obviously it musn’t.  Rather, the interesting phenomenon is the degree to which the stratum of the population that thinks it’s devoted itself to the life of the mind has detached itself from the long and deep tradition embodied in “classical” music.  Something has clearly gone haywire here.  I note that the rupture hasn’t afflicted the scientific community; show up when an itinerant harpsichordist comes to your campus to play the “Goldbergs” or something like that, and count the mathematicians and physicists in the audience, if you can count that high.  But, in my experience, the ostensible humanists won’t be much in evidence.

    I can’t help thinking that an insidious kind of groupthink is at work, shaped by the deadweight of accumulated academic fashion amongst the “theoretically” inclined.  It’s difficult to anatomize this with any precision, but I have the sense that the cultural postulates that perfuse that strand of academic culture simply encourage those under their sway, in a multitude of ways, to avoid the hard work (because there is hard work involved) of internalizing the “rules of the game” implicit in complex art music.  That’s a guess.  If anyone has a better one, let me know.

    I am afflicted by the malicious urge to give all you guys a pop quiz--you know, two dozen 30-second extracts from the “Waldstein” Sonata and the “Academic Festival Overture” and all those noble old warhorses; obviously it can’t be done, alas.  Probably just as well.  Still--how would you guys do?

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  12:07 AM
  27. Fairly effective prose, Mike, if a bit colloquial in spots.  I also suggest you avoid an over-reliance on “to be”: use more active verbs. Another thing to keep in mind: avoid what is called sweeping generalization; i.e., who are the people calling for an end to arts and humanities? How many of them are there? Though you suggest they are numerous you provide few examples (the Tom Delay gang).

    I am, however, not unimpressed with this attempt at a “think piece,” and I do feel you have the makings of a real essayist, if you apply yourself.

    Grade: B-

    Posted by L. Kenneth McHealymauck  on  04/01  at  12:20 AM
  28. Right, Harold, and HaRburg. These are somehow a better match for JSB than more recent popular music? Does not compute.

    One salient point about politics and (see below) “serious music”: why do symphony orchestras languish for want of funding these days? Donations to the local symphony orchestra decrease, while
    the number of Right-Wing Champions of Western Culture increase. Put ze money where ze mouth is, and my contempt might abate slightly.

    “Rather, the interesting phenomenon is the degree to which the stratum of the population that thinks it’s devoted itself to the life of the mind has detached itself from the long and deep tradition embodied in “classical” music.”

    Heh, the professional music snobs I’ve crewed with call that “serious music,” not “classical music.”

    “I am afflicted by the malicious urge to give all you guys a pop quiz--you know, two dozen 30-second extracts from the “Waldstein” Sonata and the “Academic Festival Overture” and all those noble old warhorses; obviously it can’t be done, alas.  Probably just as well.  Still--how would you guys do?”

    OH heck, the other commenters here could whip my keester at most such quizzes, and--having been on a College Bowl team at UVA with Michael (and Janet, and Dan Collins) I can certainly vouch for Michael’s Encyclopaedic Knowledge of Everything. Those Regis kids got game. But I, even I,
    scoff in ze general direction of such puny quizzes!

    I’d probably do less well than I’d like but--considering that my late brother Ted was a Bach scholar, composer, and a tenured professor, and my father the chair of a Symphony orchestra, I grew up with

    a) lots of familiarity with what we called “serious music” (which I listened to, played, and studied) and lots of famous conductors at our family dinner table

    b) the typical rebellious streak of the non-professional musician in the family. i.e. I liked Lou Reed, and introduced my brother to the music of Jimi Hendrix.

    My brother Ted (Baccalaureate from Eastman School of Music 1977, D.M. from Indiana University 1984 or so) had a place in his heaven for Jimi *and* JSB. Frank Zappa was somewhere there in the mix.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  12:55 AM
  29. "Said it.  Meant it.  Use it without restraint or embarassment, since I make up all the definitions.

    Tough.”

    Ah, the conservative style.  I think that Carlos characterized it most perfectly:

    “Short, tough, and inane. Like a Gurkha made of Cheez Whiz.”

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  01:31 AM
  30. Hi Norman, I have the malicious urge to give you a quiz:

    1. Who was better, John Smith or Dan Gable? Why? (Bonus points, who was the only man to defeat Gable in NCAA competiton, and what style did he use?)

    2. What was “total football”? What part did the training style of Ajax play in its development?

    3. Who developed the “triangle offense”? What was its original name? Which one is more descriptive?

    4. Said Aouita, Noureddine Morceli or Hicham El Guerrouj? Henry Rono or Haile Gebrselassie? Why?

    5. What was the great tragedy of Evelyn Ashford’s career?

    Captcha word: “mean”

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  02:11 AM
  31. Don’t forget “pugilistic.”

    captcha:  above

    Posted by Matt  on  04/01  at  02:56 AM
  32. Michael,

    did you invent NL to prove your point?

    a pompous guy pushing the canon of great European art while ignoring the canons of common decency as described by the multiculti pabulum-ificators—really, it calls to mind what Yeats said about satisfaction a poem gives, like the sound of a box clicking shut.

    Robin Morgan said it:  “P.C. stands for plain courtesy.” In other words, don’t traffic in oppressive, inhumane metaphors and stereotypes, it’s hurtful and rude.  NL (like perezoso the other day) revels in his hurtful trafficking in oppressive, inhumane metaphors and stereotypes.  (You called NL on his anti-disability trash mouth; perezoso was into a misogynist bag—“soccer mommies” as metaphor for weakness.)

    One thing about the Euro-derived canon, though, and its lovers.  Harold Bloom is, if I recall correctly, a political liberal who has positively blurbed the work of the gay lefty playwright Tony Kushner.  The politics of the canon-lovers defy stereotyping.

    This trafficking in inaccurate stereotyping by yourself, Michael, troubles me.  Seriously.  You poke fun at the cultural conservatives for decrying contemporary theater, and yet I don’t recall you posting on contemporary theater or poetry.  I’m not saying you haven’t, but I don’t remember it.  Friends of mine have been putting on their own original plays in Chicago for 20 years.  The Chicago critics—daily and alt—consistently review them glowingly, but almost no theater buffs outside of Chicago have heard of them.  (Theater Oobleck—I’m a former member, thanks.) Next time you’re in Chicago, you should check them out if you get the chance.  They’re very funny & very lefty.

    Posted by John  on  04/01  at  04:05 AM
  33. p.s.  I sang the Allan Bloom song at a fundraiser show-party-singalong-whatever for Oobleck.  In the same set I sang my setting of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 66.  Just because, you know, I had an inlking that 16 or 17 years later some “high-culture” snob might be impressed.

    The highlight of that particular party-show-whatever?  Three guys singing Janis Ian’s “At 17.” And everybody in the room singing along.  Hilarious AND poignant.

    Posted by John  on  04/01  at  04:13 AM
  34. You are an incredible nerd.  I’m getting my Phd in philosophy next year, so headed straight into academia, but are you kidding me; you’re really writing about whether “cohort” is singular or plural?  First of all, it’s definitely singular; you’re colleagues at UNC are whack; second of all, don’t write about that shit because it is lame.  COMMENT ON THE DUKE LACROSSE SCANDAL I WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

    Ben

    benherz.blogspot.com

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  04:38 AM
  35. Backpedaling:  I am aware that aspects of H. Bloom’s polemic put him in the conservative camp, such as his constant kvetching about the cultural capital of the multi-culti pabulum-ificators.  He deploys a subtle irony—or does the irony deploy him?—by continually, resentfully, accusing the theory-crowd of resentment.

    Posted by John  on  04/01  at  05:09 AM
  36. I love the way Leavitt assumes that only conservatives like or know classical music. Way to stereotype, buddy! while patting yourself on the back until risking dislocation. That’s what happens when you stay inside the conservative academic bubble and listen to your own propaganda too long. (I can say this authoritatively, because I used to be there.)

    The appropriate punishment would be the shock treatment of tossing him in a holding tank with the aggressively-nekulturny DeLay style cons, who think all that fiddly stuff and ballet is for fags, and couldn’t tell a concerto from a concert or a harp from a harpsichord if their lives dependend on it, and having them call him a “liberal” for knowing or caring about Mozart and Wagner and Tallis and all.

    Posted by bellatrys  on  04/01  at  07:28 AM
  37. Late last night, in a fearsome furious fatigue fugue (say that three times fast!), I gave Norman Leavitt a sports quiz, implicitly claiming that many areas of human culture require dedication to practice and hard intellectual work to understand, and that European classical music has no monopoly on that status. No response yet, so I re-read his entries, where I can upon this:

    This confirms the prediction of my friend Fred Crews that, sooner or later, Freudian theory and its offshoots will only be taken seriously in departments of literary studies.

    This confirms my prediction that Norman Leavitt isn’t up on the latest science, unless he wants to say that Jaak Panksepp doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he writes about the fruitfulness of linking psychoanalysis and affective neuroscience. An overview article is available here.

    The intro paragraph to whet your appetite:

    “Affective and cognitive neuroscientists are now in a position to link concrete neural entities to various abstract psychological and psychoanalytic concepts. Of course, we can anticipate that psychoanalytic theory and terminologies may need to be modified and fine-tuned when placed in the crucible of neuroscience. Likewise, functional neuroscience may become more refined by being ground with the pestle of psychoanalytic thought. Unfortunately, like the proverbial patient with a full array of defenses, practitioners of both may be reluctant to embrace change. The best that can be hoped for at present is that ongoing debates will promote positive interchange that leads to informative empirical inquiries. Clearly, psychoanalysis needs to anchor its thinking in a manner that will promote the empirical evaluation of ideas, and neuroscience needs to take emotional dynamics and defenses more seriously than it has in the past.”

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  10:39 AM
  38. Michael,

    I don’t know if you saw the memo from the KulturKampf Kanzlei which ammended the ‘Two Step Plan’.  IIRC it came out late 2002?

    The new plan, called the ‘Neutron Bomb Option’, and tested on PBS and Bill Moyers, is to simply erradicate treasonous vermin and replace them in the intact institutions with loyalist cadres.  The new plan is apparently based on the ground breaking theoretical work of the ‘Cheney Corollary’—‘deficits don’t matter.’

    Congrats on your work coming out.  Look forward to reading it.

    Posted by Leo Strauss  on  04/01  at  10:56 AM
  39. Godfuckingdammit!  I just wrote a 6500 word rejoinder to various Lilliputians, but the blogmeister algorithm rejected it and erased the whole goddam text.

    So I’ll merely respond to Protevi for the moment, that having been one aspect of the vanished response.  I don’t particularly care about sports trivia, not even if they invoke wrestlers, Dutch soccer teams, Nilotic distance runners, or female American sprinters.  I’ve even stopped asking people to name the starting backfield of the 1956 NFL Champion Giants.  The point of MY quiz is that it referenced only music that should be thrice familiar and more--no obscuranta allowed-- to any reasonably cultured person--a category which I won’t abandon nomatter how much it riles a certain class of academic twit.

    As to the Panksepp article: Following the link, one finds that it appears in a journal of psychoanalysis--not neurophysiology or cognitive neuroscience.  A few people have tried this gambit before and so far as I know it’s awfully thin stuff, saturated with special pleading.  I doubt Panksepp’s piece is any better.  In any case, even granting, which seems highly improbable, that there might be something to it, it hardly justifies the blithe dogmatism on behalf of Freudianism and its weirder offshoots that permeates the conference I cited.

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  11:35 AM
  40. *sigh* NL might want to look at Lee Patterson’s “Chaucer’s Pardoner on the Couch: Psyche and Clio in Medieval Literary Studies,” Speculum 76 (July 2001): 638-680. But as LP’s hobby horse is Marxist, materialist analysis, perhaps he’d irk NL as much as someone in a wheelchair.

    At any rate, as I told my students last Monday, Freud’s scientific claims are of course bogus: that’s just the dull groundwork you get out of the way in the first 5 minutes of seminar to avoid having a bunch of first-year students go on for 90 minutes about how their episteme is superior. The English Dept uses Freud’s insights--as modified by etc, etc, etc--because he gives a damn good entrance into discourse analysis and gets us past the tedium of a blithe Cartesian confidence in...ah, screw it. Spitting into the wind here.

    Here’s the thing NL, I know Bach’s Kunst d. f. backwards and forwards, I just shelled out *mumble mumble* $$ to get membership in the Met Opera in NYC to see 7 shows next season, but guess what? This music gives only a partial picture of the world I inhabit. And it certainly doesn’t jar my blithe confidence in a ....oh, there I go again. At any rate, it’s simply more fun--and more relevant, in a cultural analysis sort of way--to talk about the merits of Jr Walker and the All Stars vs. Edwin Starr or, for that matter, the narrative techniques, interests, and omissions of the songs performed on the Studio Der Frühen Musik’s Minnesänger Und Spielleute album vs., say, those of Arlo Guthrie.

    --
    By the way, MB: safe flights, cohort is for sure singular (since I don’t write “the group are safe"), and I’ve a shelf full of Loeb Classics. But I suppose that’s just my professional prerogative.

    --

    captcha (?) word, nicely, “language”

    Now off to goddamn grade all day.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  12:08 PM
  41. [. . .] any reasonably cultured person--a category which I won’t abandon nomatter how much it riles a certain class of academic twit.

    That would be the principle of argumentation known as stare decisis, which I believe is latin for “staring contest.”

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  12:16 PM
  42. Dear Norman, you see, I just don’t agree that the quiz I proposed is “trivia.” I wasn’t asking for names and dates, but for informed discussion of a magnificent area of human endeavor. Which means that I think the ability to meaningfully discuss these sorts of things is the mark of a “reasonably cultured person.” And if that is true, then we need to expand the expectations of what “reasonably cultured” means.

    As for Panksepp, I’d say that since he’s an acknowledged expert in affective neuroscience, that if he takes psychoanalysis seriously, then it’s simply not true that psychoanalysis is only taken seriously in literature departments.

    You’re of course right that what he writes has no bearing on the Rutgers English Department bit you referred to, but that’s my point!

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  12:27 PM
  43. Oh, I should also mention, NL, another point about the merits of the last 100 years’ popular music versus “classical” music. I had 10 years’ piano lessons, played Ravel, Bach, Chopin, and Hindemith more or less badly. In my teens I started to play guitar, too. Did my requisite number of piano recitals from age 6-18. Also played about 100 punk shows through my 20s. Guess which cultural activity: a) got me laid; b) inspired people to offer me drugs; c) actually makes for fun dancing for anyone capable of moving; d) didn’t require anyone to write a grant proposal or spend hella $ on lessons in order to perform or to find a place to perform? So, yeah, being a demotic kind of guy, I’d rather talk about the popular music. Better memories for me, anyway.

    And, NL, avoid the post-losing by selecting all and copy so you at least have your wheelchair jokes saved on the clipboard if the internet stumbles.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  12:35 PM
  44. Below are two links (linked they are too).  The first solves the cultural issues above, offering ease of access to the diversity of materials and resources.  The second stores it all the best possible mmmmmmm not sure where actually.

    http://www.wiebetech.com/aprilfools/index.php
    http://www.wiebetech.com/aprilfools/toughbit.php

    oh that’s it..  captcha word: data

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  12:39 PM
  45. COMMENT ON THE DUKE LACROSSE SCANDAL I WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

    Hmmm, someone apparently has trouble with caps lock.  So I should comment on this because I was living near Duke at the time?  Should I also have commented on the Muslim student hitting nine UNC students with an SUV earlier in the month?  Well, OK.  The Duke lacrosse scandal is just hideous, and testifies to a well-developed culture of race/class privilege on campus.  And those in the know at Duke, whoever they may be, have tolerated if not encouraged this for some time.  Sorry I can’t be more distinctive or original on this—mine is a pretty standard reaction among reasonably cultured people, I think.

    Now, apparently, I also have to write about contemporary theater and poetry.  Give me a few minutes on that one.

    Posted by Michael  on  04/01  at  12:43 PM
  46. Michael, you don’t have to—it’s up to you.  I only bring it up because you poke fun at someone for not doing it who actually has done it.  (You don’t make fun of them for not talking about contemporary poetry, and song lyrics are a species of poetry, so I’m not sure why I added that to my complaint.  My apologies.)

    Posted by John  on  04/01  at  01:22 PM
  47. >and song lyrics are a species of poetry

    At last.  Someone willing to take a stand for 2 Live Crew and their lyrical aesthetic!

    http://www.nomorelyrics.net/song/142839.html

    Please come inside, make yourself at home
    I want to fuck, ‘cause my dick’s on bone
    You little whore behind closed doors
    You would drink my cum and nothing more
    Now spread your wings open for the flight
    Let me fill you up with something milky and white
    ‘Cause I’m hopin’ to slay you, rough and painful
    You innocent bitch, don’t be shameful
    Bring out the ice cubes and the hot water
    This is the second half, and not the second quarter
    I’ll fuck you ‘till you sleep; you’ll sleep like a baby
    And in your dreams, you’ll say I’m crazy
    In the Fuck Shop!

    [Luke] (squeaky voice): YOU’RE IN THE FUCK SHOP, BABEEEE!I WANNA SEE YOU FREAK!!

    The misogynism is clearly a sign of defective appreciation of the gender dialectic, but re-education can remedy this flawed application of theory. ‘Scarborough Fair’ for urban alienation. 

    Take that, Alan Bloom! 

    Ozzie Osborne mumbled the other day that rap music was degenerate because it had no melody.  He opens up a new possibility for a Common Front to save Civilization. I think Ozzie even knows who Bruckner is. . .

    <g, d & r> wink

    Posted by Leo Strauss  on  04/01  at  01:42 PM
  48. Leo,

    I don’t know much Two Live Crew.  Apparently they were into Lord Rochester.

    I rise at eleven, I dine about two,
    I get drunk before seven, and the next thing I do,
    I send for my whore, when for fear of a clap,
    I spend in her hand, and I spew in her lap;
    Then we quarrel and scold, till I fast fall asleep,
    When the bitch growing bold, to my pocket does creep.
    Then slyly she leaves me, and to revenge the affront,
    At once she bereaves me of money and cunt.
    If by chance then I wake, hot-headed and drunk,
    What a coil do I make for the loss of my punk!
    I storm, and I roar, and I fall in a rage.
    And missing my whore, I bugger my page.
    Then crop-sick all morning I rail at my men.
    And in bed I lie yawning till eleven again.

    I’m not saying it’s good poetry.

    Posted by John  on  04/01  at  02:09 PM
  49. >*sigh* NL might want to look at Lee >Patterson’s “Chaucer’s Pardoner on the Couch: >Psyche and Clio in Medieval Literary Studies,” >Speculum 76 (July 2001): 638-680. But as LP’s >hobby horse is Marxist, materialist analysis, >perhaps he’d irk NL as much as someone in a >wheelchair.

    The someone in a wheelchair who irks me at the moment is Stephen Hawking, who doesn’t seem to want to explain, beyond vague heuristics, what he really means to do in generalizing Feynman path integrals to “averaging” over “geometries.” All very unclear to this point.

    >At any rate, as I told my students last Monday, >Freud’s scientific claims are of course bogus: >that’s just the dull groundwork you get out of >the way in the first 5 minutes of seminar to >avoid having a bunch of first-year students go >on for 90 minutes about how their episteme is >superior. The English Dept uses Freud’s insights->-as modified by etc, etc, etc--because he gives >a damn good entrance into discourse analysis and >gets us past the tedium of a blithe Cartesian >confidence in...ah, screw it. Spitting into the >wind here.

    What you seem to be saying is: I know it’s horseshit, but my paycheck clears anyway.

    >Here’s the thing NL, I know Bach’s Kunst d. f. >backwards and forwards, I just shelled out >*mumble mumble* $$ to get membership in the Met >Opera in NYC to see 7 shows next season, but >guess what? This music gives only a partial >picture of the world I inhabit. And it certainly >doesn’t jar my blithe confidence in a ....oh, >there I go again.

    Good for you!  Now lets get Berube to join the club.

    >At any rate, it’s simply more >fun--and more >relevant, in a cultural analysis >sort of way-->to talk about the merits of Jr >Walker and the >All Stars vs. Edwin Starr or, for that matter, >the narrative techniques, interests, and >omissions of the songs performed on the Studio >Der Frühen Musik’s Minnesänger Und Spielleute >album vs., say, those of Arlo Guthrie.

    I don’t want to be philistine, but the question is why anyone should pay you to do this?  It’s not self-evident, you know.  Underneath it all, I perceive a numbing loss of confidence that one has anything of real importance to say.

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  02:52 PM
  50. "Underneath it all, I perceive a numbing loss of confidence that one has anything of real importance to say.”

    Which confirms the usefulness of at least one Freudian concept:  projection.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  02:59 PM
  51. Going back to the sources, the Romans didn’t conquer the world because a cohort was a group of pluralistic individuals.  Singular if ever singular was.

    And I’ve always wondered whether those who keep the entire Loeb Classical Library on display have ever looked into it—tons of highly specialized stuff like Strabo’s geography, or even all of Livy, a major author whose complete works the finest teacher of Latin and Greek prose I ever knew (and the editor of a reasonably obscure Loeb text himself) admitted he hadn’t read himself.  Then the older translations of the major literary figures are by and large pretty bad, and the texts worse in some cases, mercifully both being replaced, but only very recently.  For most of them the description by the editor of the only real edition of Ausonius of the Loeb translation—“fudge and fustian” is perfect.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  03:07 PM
  52. Dear Norman, you see, I just don’t agree that the quiz I proposed is “trivia.” I wasn’t asking for names and dates, but for informed discussion of a magnificent area of human endeavor. Which means that I think the ability to meaningfully discuss these sorts of things is the mark of a “reasonably cultured person.” And if that is true, then we need to expand the expectations of what “reasonably cultured” means.

    As for Panksepp, I’d say that since he’s an acknowledged expert in affective neuroscience, that if he takes psychoanalysis seriously, then it’s simply not true that psychoanalysis is only taken seriously in literature departments.

    You’re of course right that what he writes has no bearing on the Rutgers English Department bit you referred to, but that’s my point!

    ----------------------------------
    Sports trivia is sports trivia, no matter how you rationalize it.  I don’t take your argument seriously, but you probably don’t either beyond its usefulness for current polemic.  I’m still waiting for the Giants starting backfield, 1956.  While we’re out it, who hit the ball that Willie Mays caught in deepest center field in the Polo Grounds in the 54 World Series?  Gotcha!

    I’ve googled your friend Panksepp a bit.  I find nothing to contradict my initial impression.  Just as a sampler, one gaping fallacy in his paper:  Why in the world should one give Freudian theory any particular pride of place in the investigation of relations between neurological phenomena and affective states?  There’s none in the world beyond the fact that Freudianism has been embedded in the ambient culture to some extent.  But so has astrology.  Should we be investigating the neurological correlates of birthsigns?

    Panksepp, it seems to me, is one of those characters who practices what Susan Haack calls “sham inquiry,” that is, he has an a priori commitment to finding positive evidence for Freudian constructs so that every time an emotionally charged idea evokes an observable neurological event (big surprise!), one construes it as positive evidence of a Freudian mechanism at work, rather than as minute data point possibly relevantto the evolution of a novel and as yet unknown theory.

    The guys who just did the “intercessory prayer” vs. cardiovascular disease study on Templeton money were similarly predisposed to find positve evidence.  However, they were honest enough to adopt a methodology severe enough to prevent them from conning themselves and us, with results that have just hit the headlines.  Would that your friend Panksepp were as scrupulous.

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  03:08 PM
  53. It seems to me that Michael’s point has yet to be called into question. Here it is.

    “The two-step plan, then, consists of this: the first group [of conservatives] will urge arts and humanities faculty to return to beauty, whereupon the second group will come along and cut all funding for the frivolous aesthetic pursuits of the arts and humanities.”

    The repertoire of music that tends to be played live by paid, conservatory-trained musicians is only a case in point that backs up Michael’s contention.

    Are Conservatives supporting their local Symphony Orchestra financially? One need only Do the Math, to find that the answer is “no.”

    Still, it must be fun to say, “As a Conservative math professor, I have the credentials to give Liberal humanities professors a pop quiz on Western Music.”

    Fun, but absurd.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  03:17 PM
  54. >Oh, I should also mention, NL, another point >about the merits of the last 100 years’ popular >music versus “classical” music. I had 10 years’ >piano lessons, played Ravel, Bach, Chopin, and >Hindemith more or less badly. In my teens I >started to play guitar, too. Did my requisite >number of piano recitals from age 6-18. Also >played about 100 punk shows through my 20s. >Guess which cultural activity: a) got me laid; >b) inspired people to offer me drugs; c) >actually makes for fun dancing for anyone >capable of moving; d) didn’t require anyone to >write a grant proposal or spend hella $ on >lessons in order to perform or to find a place >to perform? So, yeah, being a demotic kind of >guy, I’d rather talk about the popular music. >Better memories for me, anyway.

    Jeez, imagine all the dope and nookie you could have scored if you had hung out with Dubya in his salad days!  Thank goodness I was able to put in my time at the Fillmore (E. & W.) and the Avalon Ballroom before the advent of punk denatured everything.  Too bad you didn’t turn out like Murray*, the kid who lived across the street from me in the Bronx.  You wouldn’t be so bitter.

    “You’re the only one that you are screwing
    When you put down what you don’t understand.”

    K. Kristoffersen, “If You Don’t Like Hank Williams, Buddy, You Can Kiss My Ass”

    NL

    *Perahia

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  03:20 PM
  55. Sports trivia --

    From memory, Charley Connerly, Kyle Rote, Frank Gifford, Mel Triplett (the last almost certainly wrong).

    Vic Wertz.

    I’d talk about what the point of (maybe) remembering that would be, but I try not to take sides on the weblog.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  03:29 PM
  56. >Still, it must be fun to say, “As a Conservative >math professor, I have the credentials to give >Liberal humanities professors a pop quiz on >Western Music.”

    Next time I meet a conservative math prof--rara avis, that--I’ll ask if it’s fun.

    Unless you mean that I’m “conservative” in the sense that I share my granddaddy’s politics.  He was in the Russian Social Democratic Party (Bolshevik faction) until the cops hit him on the head once too often and he decided to make tracks for NY, which he had to do in disguise, leaving his wife and a couple of kids to get there on their own.  In hindsight, being a Leninist probably wasn’t the shrewdest choice he could have made, but it was difficult to see this in 1908.  In the States, he became a Debs man, keeping a bust of EVD in his apartment until he died.  That’s pretty much where I am, allowing for 80 years of unsettling history.

    Of course, what really burns my ass is the narrow, brain-dead tribalism of those “radicals” whose radicalism is born of the graduate program in comparitive literature or whatever.  If you reject any of their self-lauding dogmas or doctrinal superstitions--e.g., that Judith Butler is Spinoza and Rosa Luxembourg rolled into one--you are automatically characterized as Dubya’s golfing buddy.  And Lord have mercy if you transgress their priggish linguistic taboos!  Which is, of course, why they are such hopeless political cripples.

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  03:38 PM
  57. "From memory, Charley Connerly, Kyle Rote, Frank Gifford, Mel Triplett (the last almost certainly wrong).”

    Kyle Rote played end.  The other back was Alec “Big Red” Webster.

    (Yawn!)

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  03:40 PM
  58. Look, Norman, I’m afraid it’s a category mistake to say a call for a discussion of sports is asking for trivia. You’re asking for trivia. Don’t get me wrong, trivia is fun, and you’ll have to believe that I didn’t google this, but I’d guess the NY Giants 1956 backfield included YA Tittle, Frank Gifford and Charlie Conerly. But the other question isn’t even hard. It was Vic Wertz of the Cleveland Indians.

    But let me come right out with my argument: I don’t know much of anything about classical music. I would explain this by saying there is only so much time in one’s life, and that I concentrated on sports / physical activity: doing it, watching it, reading about it, and thinking about it. And it rankles me to have someone say that a lifelong involvement with sports is not a “reasonably cultured” thing to do, and I think many of the “reasonably cultured” among the ancient Greeks would agree with me. So all I’m saying is that while a knowledge of classical music is a sufficient condition of reasonable culture, it is not a necessary condition. There are many areas of human endeavor worth thinking about, and since we’re finite, we can’t all learn about all of them in depth. The point is that it’s not so much the traditional prestige of the area that counts, but the quality of the engagement with it that counts. So, for instance, if we really wanted to discuss the tragedy of Evelyn Ashford’s career, it would take us to the probable use of steroids in 1988 by Florence Griffith-Joyner, a use that robbed EA of a second gold at 100m. But that takes us to the Cold War, the East Germans, images of femininity among Af-Am women athletes (images that are deeply intertwined with many strands in American history), and a whole bunch of other stuff that is not trivial in the least. If I asked you what was EA’s time in Seoul, that would be trivia. But that’s not what I asked for.

    I only mentioned Panksepp as a respected neuroscientist who takes psychoanalysis seriously. I wasn’t defending his use of it. I was merely using his example to (successfully, I think) defeat your claim in #18 that psychoanalysis is only taken seriously in literature departments.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  03:42 PM
  59. Sorry for the yawn-inducing quality of my previous post.

    Mr. Protevi, in 1956 Y A Tittle was still on my front street in California amazing the kids how high and far he could throw the ball.

    SF Bay Area sports trivia—who were obtained by the Giants and 49ers in the two worst trades of all time, Y A Tittle and Orlando Cepeda?

    Perhaps a not unfair point is that such questions are almost necessarily discontinuous and personal?  And in the NY emphasis of most sports trivia rather provincial?

    Perhaps less trivial is the fact that my father once told me that in all his years of practicing industrial injury law he never dealt with a worse prick than the then general manager of the 49ers.  A man who in the eyes of the media, if not of local sports fans, could do no wrong.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  03:51 PM
  60. "Sports trivia is sports trivia, no matter how you rationalize it.”

    And music trivia is music trivia, no matter how you rationalize it. Playing more-civilized-than-thou is a fool’s game, friend.  There will always be people who can better appreciate music (or literature, or philosophy) from a certain era you consider to have been the pinnacle of western civilization. I spent much of my youth learning “the important things” rather than engaging with the rich culture around me.  Yet, it’s not with disdain but envy that I recognize the ability of others to have a meaningful conversation about recent musical phenomena.  They are not the “cultural cripples” (and you *are* a complete prat for using that phrase)in this equation.  Imagine this, what if Papa Bach and all the wee Bachlings had failed to re-imagine music, but only respected and reproduced the music that came before?

    Posted by Heo Cwaeth  on  04/01  at  04:04 PM
  61. GODDAMIT I WILL SPEAK TO THE DUKE LACROSSE SCANDAL!

    Well, not really. Just one anectdote/multiple choice cry for help:

    Two days ago, I’m walking around here on Duke’s west campus, often described as “idyllic” by the sort of people who describe it as “idyllic,” when I overhear one of my former calculus students discussing the case with some other Dukie. My student, a bright enough typical white male dude, says to the other, with no trace of (pre-911) irony:

    “I just don’t see how they’re making this a race thing? Really, what the fuck? what the fuck?”

    Should I have:

    a) set myself on fire?
    b) attempted to engage?
    c) done a shot?

    I chose option
    infinity times z) keep walking with a sad feeling in my heart.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  04:20 PM
  62. Always hate to see Cicero and the Classics crew so readily drafted into the Allan Bloom Conservatives & Co. gang. I wonder how much dust their Loebs are gathering.

    Posted by autismland  on  04/01  at  05:19 PM
  63. >> DUKE LACROSSE SCANDAL

    Michael,

    Oh, boy, it is a rare afternoon when I can confidently say that I have you bested on the facts and analysis of the subject matter at hand. I sort of feel like Winston in 1984 when he held in has hand, for a brief moment, before it was tossed into the incinerator and consigned to oblivion, an incriminating photograph that proved that the Party lied…. Well, not really, I don’t feel that way, I just had to dredge up 1 of the 3 literary references that I know, in order to keep up with the illustrious literati here.

    Anyway, this is what happened at Duke regarding the Lacrosse team and the aggrieved strippers – and I heard this from somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who was there, right there in that messy off-campus house where the sordid scene played out (go ahead, laugh at the provenance of my facts, but I stand them up to yours): It was a simple case of services contracted for, services performed, services NOT PAID FOR. That’s it: just ordinary, garden-variety, jock/frat boy, drunkenness, stupidity and meanness. These arrogant little punks thought that they could get away with not paying for the “services” rendered because, “What are they gonna do? Go to the police?. Ha, it’s illegal. Ha. Ha. Ha….” Well, yes that is exactly what they did; the enraged strippers went to the police and claimed they were raped when in fact they were ripped off, and now these punks in a lot of trouble, but there were no rapes. 

    Now it’s a terrible thing what happened to the ladies. It’s bad enough they have to strip and offer extras for a living, but to get ripped off by grinning, drunk, indulged jock/frat boys is infuriating.  The punks do deserve a beating. Kidding aside, there is a role for pimps. And for all the humiliation and embarrassment that these punks now feel (but don’t count on them feeling any), for the lost season and maybe even the jeopardized scholarships, well, I’m glad; but this story does not rise to the level of an object lesson on race/class and gender and how they play out in racist, oppressive, capitalistic, wing-nut controlled America.

    But I will tell you what does rise to that level: have you heard that besides the amnesty provisions of the proposed immigration reform legislation TED KENNEDY, HOWARD DEAN, DIANE FIENSTEIN and BARBARA BOXER among other liberal stalwarts have enthusiastically signed on to GEORGE BUSH, JOHN McCAIN and LINDSAY GRAHMAM’s plan to allow for corporate America to bring in - stating at a base level, but certain to rise yearly- 400,000 indentured laborers per year, in addition to the 250,000 H1b laborers that they propose. Laborers who will take the place of fired and denied Americans. Laborers whose terms and pay will not be determined by initiative and market forces but by the corporate sponsor. 400,000 (and certain to grow) imported laborers while the despair of young African American males and their isolation from the routine work world and society at large has never been greater.

    You see just like the WINGNUTS, TED KENNEDY, HOWARD DEAN, DIANE FIENSTIEN and BARBARA BOXER too have taken to heart the idea that there simply are jobs that Americans won’t do (they told me so, or at least their staffs did. I called them up and that is exactly what they said, “it’s not a cliché, there are jobs that Americans won’t do”). Americans do these jobs today, have always done them and will continue to do them; WE just want decent wages and conditions. Jobs That Americans Won’t Do.  Isn’t that an oblique way of saying lazy-blacks-would-rather-sit-on-welfare. 

    Now that’s a tale of racial and class oppression.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  06:52 PM
  64. ” the enraged strippers went to the police and claimed they were raped when in fact they were ripped off, and now these punks in a lot of trouble, but there were no rapes.”

    Because we all know that strippers are dirty whores who can’t POSSIBLY get raped.  Especially not by athletes at a good school. So if one of those athletes brings the logic of a tasteless joke into play and says that his buds didn’t rape anyone, that has to be true. It must be that the strippers are using the legal system as a personal collection agency.  Because we all know that the legal system is set up to favor women in rape cases, especially women who strip for a living.

    Posted by Heo Cwaeth  on  04/01  at  07:43 PM
  65. Hold on, I’m not apologizing for rapists. And I didn’t name strippers as whores, or imply such. I did imply that they are foolish, but that’s all. I was just reporting that, according to the sketchy information I have received, rape didn’t happen. Other bad stuff did happen but it didn’t involve rape.

    Now, I might be wrong, if it turns out that these bums did in fact rape the women then you call me on it: notify me by email and I will send $40.00 do 1 of your preferred charities.

    But if we want to talk about racial and class exploitation and the lies offered by the left, as well as the right, regarding the labor market in the U.S.A. and how these lies are destroying opportunity for millions of Americans, particularly young African American males, then we ought to talk about Ted Kennedy.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  08:37 PM
  66. Well, how come no one is pointing out that the title of this post refers to a John Denver song? I mean, if you’re getting on a plane, do you really want to be thinking about John Denver? You think there’s a reason they don’t show “The Amelia Earhart Story” as an in-flight film?

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  08:43 PM
  67. Michael,

    I’ve been struggling with why your diss of H. Bloom troubles me. 

    It seems to me that there a case to be made against him using his own terms.  His big concern is consciousness.  And writings by people “outside the canon” usually bring a consciousness to them that simply isn’t available to people within the canon.  “Aesthetics” is tricky, but one thing I like about it—and your blog emphasizes it in spades—is that people bring their passion to the aesthetic creations that they love.  For most of us, that means pop music & movies as much as anything else.  H. Bloom certainly brings his passion to the aesthetic creations he loves.  I honor him for that part of his work, even though he can be a crank about all sorts of things.

    Posted by John  on  04/01  at  09:16 PM
  68. OK, I have a Harry Potter-playing date with Jamie, so two very quick things.

    One:  the fact that some cultural conservatives love the Western canon does not mean that all who love the Western canon are politically conservative.  I have always supported rigorous Western Civ requirements, and I liked my six-semester Columbia core curriculum just fine, thanks.

    Two:  Daniel, I tolerated your remarks even during Katrina, when you were at your ignorant, race-baiting vilest.  For now, I’ll just remind my readers of your comments 14 and 15 in this thread, when you were offering us all your “opionion” that “I don’t see how we can avoid the conclusion that a substantial minority of the young black men turned into frenzied savages at the first imposition of a fractured infrastructure.” You were wrong then, of course, and will very likely be wrong now.  I’ll wait for the DNA tests in the meantime.

    Posted by Michael  on  04/01  at  09:51 PM
  69. You poke fun at the cultural conservatives for decrying contemporary theater, and yet I don’t recall you posting on contemporary theater or poetry.

    Oh, one last thing, because I just can’t stand being misunderstood so.  John, I wasn’t making fun of conservatives for decrying contemporary theater.  I was saying that the cultural conservatives who care about such things are vastly different creatures from the hard-core Republican right.  I wouldn’t try to pull rank on someone like Terry Teachout on this score, because (a) he does a decent job and (b) he lives someplace where he can actually see contemporary theater, and I live in the middle of rural Pennsylvania.  And I apologize in turn for being a bit short with you, but I haven’t been to Chicago in five or six years.  My loss, I know.

    Posted by Michael  on  04/01  at  10:00 PM
  70. >Leo,

    >I don’t know much Two Live Crew.  Apparently they
    >were into Lord Rochester.

    Yup, and likely derived inspiration from when Lord Rochester busted a cap taking down of Lord Kimbote from the West End School as well . . .

    LOL, great reply.  John, I hope my sardonic tone in the original note came across—I was trying to agree with you and others here playfully.  The attack on the egalitarian aspects of pop culture has long been a tool of Reaction, whether 90 years ago it was Jazz, the jitterbug, and later swing, to hip hop, etc. today (Along with the not so covert racial aspect, as well).

    Posted by Leo Strauss  on  04/01  at  10:05 PM
  71. >>For now, I’ll just remind my readers of your comments 14 and 15 in this thread,

    And you just reminded me of 1 reason why I gave up taking MSM reporting at face value; hence......

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  10:12 PM
  72. Norman:

    1) psychoanalytic discourse analysis isn’t bullshit. But as I said, spitting into the wind.

    2) No one’s paying me to compare Arlo Guthrie to 13th-century German songs. For one, I’m a grad student (although just a whisker from being done), so I’m not going to get paid too much to do that, anyhow. For two, my own work’s got nothing to do with that, or Edwin Starr, etc. I was speaking, oddly enough, about the chitchat on this blog, some of which might involve such analytic and taxonomic tomfoolery. Which you seemed to be sneering at when in fact it seems that if you don’t like it you ought to take your ball and go home. I tend to think that studying the words and categories that people use to think is a worthy field of study: which is why I do it.

    3) Why should I encourage MB to go to the opera? He talks about cultural stuff that interests me enough. But seeing that my tastes are catholic--in other words, I’m no snob---I’m easily entertained. By smart people, anyhow. Julie Taymor’s Magic Flute staging rocks; Zeferelli’s Traviata staging is largely boring; the Replacements hit sometimes, miss sometimes. What’s the big difference?

    Good for you!

    So knock off that back-pattery. I’m not your fellow traveller. I’m just a guy who likes some opera, but most who likes going out to the opera. Maybe I just saw Moonstruck too many times. Sometimes I like, depending on the day, Ray Millet and His Solid Senders, Slayer, Black Flag, and the Au Pairs. What does it matter?

    4) Thank goodness I was able to put in my time at the Fillmore (E. & W.) and the Avalon Ballroom before....

    Who says I’m bitter? I had my fun, and I got out while the going was good. And now I’m in a career that I also enjoy. The kids are alright, etc.

    And if you enjoyed rock music in your youth, more power to you. I’m sure if I were as old as you seem to be, I’d be happy about seeing, god help me, the Dead or the Jefferson Airplane in 1967. Or, if I were lucky, some of the good bands of 1965-67: the Seeds, the Sonics, The Flamin’ Groovies, the Art Woods, the VU, or Love. Or James Brown, Sam & Dave, or Wilson Pickett. Or maybe I would have stuck around and been lucky enough for Wattstax. Or, whatever. Maybe I’ve got my epochs wrong. Who cares?

    … the advent of punk denatured everything

    Funny, I thought that was Vorticism. Who woulda thunk it?

    And Lord have mercy if you transgress their priggish linguistic taboos!  Which is, of course, why they are such hopeless political cripples.

    Precisely, Norm, which is why I’m always having trouble whenever I accuse some cheat of “trying to Jew me.” They always get so touchy.

    --

    Gene in #51: I do use my LCL (which is far from complete: but then again, I’m not OCD about that sort of silliness), particularly the Prudentius for Cathemerinon III, “Ante Cibum.” It’s not the best edition, but I can get the Brepols online; it’s not the best translation, but I can handle that end of it myself. They’re convenient: small and cheaper than most Latin editions.

    --

    Owing to a laptop kicking me in the shins today until I kicked that mofo back, grading not done. So no comment on the Duke scandel. Hope y’all can fight it out among yourselves.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  10:27 PM
  73. Michael,

    No need to apologize.

    My touting of my friends’ theater came out too scoldy; I was trying to let you know where I’m coming from on it, namely, not a disinterested position.

    Posted by John  on  04/01  at  10:49 PM
  74. 1) psychoanalytic discourse analysis isn’t bullshit. But as I said, spitting into the wind.
    -------------------------
    Yeah, yeah, as Sidney Morgenbesser once famoulsy said.
    **************************

    2) I tend to think that studying the words and categories that people use to think is a worthy field of study: which is why I do it

    ------------------------------------
    Good!  Having finished your deg., you can now get another in linguistics or cognitive neuroscience, where you can study seriously what you claim to want to study (without pointless distractions like psychanal.) That’s the way to go. Trust me!!
    ********************************
    3) Why should I encourage MB to go to the opera? He talks about cultural stuff that interests me enough.
    ------------------------------
    His problem, not yours.  Unless he’s sandbagging, the guy doesn’t know, e.g., “Don Giovanni.” How the hell is he going to read Hoffmann, Pushkin, Kirkegaard, Shaw, or Joyce without those sounds in his ears?
    **********************************
    But seeing that my tastes are catholic--in other words, I’m no snob---I’m easily entertained. By smart people, anyhow. Julie Taymor’s Magic Flute staging rocks;
    ------------------------------------

    Which, of course, she learned from Peter Schumann of the Bread & Puppet Theater.  I recall a wonderful “staging” of “Jesu, meine Freude” at the B&P Circus in Glover, Vt. some 30 years ago.  Alas, the Circus died, mostly because of bikers and dopers--but also, I suspect, because the whole thing has become fossilized.

    ********************************
    Zeferelli’s Traviata staging is largely boring;
    -------------------------------

    What Zeferelli staging isn’t boring?
    ************************************

    I’m just a guy who likes some opera, but most who likes going out to the opera. Maybe I just saw Moonstruck too many times. Sometimes I like, depending on the day, Ray Millet and His Solid Senders, Slayer, Black Flag, and the Au Pairs. What does it matter?
    -------------------------------------

    Plato thought it mattered; Nietzsche thought it mattered; so did Wittgenstein.  Maybe they were on to something.  Worth thinking about.
    ********************************

    And if you enjoyed rock music in your youth, more power to you. I’m sure if I were as old as you seem to be, I’d be happy about seeing, god help me, the Dead or the Jefferson Airplane in 1967.
    -----------------------
    Actually, I didn’t much enjoy rock music in my youth, having moved over to Symphony Sid at age 12, thence to Beethoven and Tchaikovsky at 13, and, ultimately, having dropped Tchaikovsky like a dead fish while holding fast to LvB, acquiring Bach and Mozart at 14.  It was only in my 20’s, while hanging out in the Bay Area, that I heard some interesting stuff going on, a surge of actual creativity that lasted for four or five years before being drowned in dope and money and running into its own inherent limitations.  By the mid-70’s it was ABBA, and things haven’t gotten any better since, IMHO.  Ultimately, art can get only so far on brainless energy.
    **********************************

    And Lord have mercy if you transgress their priggish linguistic taboos!  Which is, of course, why they are such hopeless political cripples.

    Precisely, Norm, which is why I’m always having trouble whenever I accuse some cheat of “trying to Jew me.” They always get so touchy.
    -------------------------------

    Q. How do you say “Fuck You” in Yiddish?
    A.  “Trust me!!”

    Actually, I stopped worrying about this crap when we got a couple of hundred thermonuclear weapons of our own.  Nothing like it for one’s peace of mind.

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  11:01 PM
  75. Dear Norman, any comments on my post #58?

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  11:06 PM
  76. Karl,

    Maybe you would be interested in a CD that ropes together Arlo Gutherie, 13 century song, Prince, the Who and much more.

    Richard Thompson: 1000 years of popular song. It’s not out yet; will be in June. Here are some selections.

    1. Sumer is Icumen In (trad., arr. by Thompson)
    2. King Henry V’s Conquest Of France (trad., arr. by

    4. So Ben Mi Ca Bon Tempo (Vecchi, arr. by
    13. Cry Me A River (Arthur Hamilton)
    14. Drinking Wine Spo-dee-o-dee (Sticks McGhee- 16. Legal Matter (Pete Townshend)
    17. Tempted (Glenn Tilbrook-Chris Difford)
    18. Kiss (Prince)
    19. Oops! I Did It Again (Karl Sandberg-Rami Yacoub)

    Not bad, sounds good.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  11:08 PM
  77. Dear Norman, any comments on my post #58? 

    (From #58)
    So all I’m saying is that while a knowledge of classical music is a sufficient condition of reasonable culture, it is not a necessary condition.
    ----------------------------

    I’ll merely say that disdaining a deep and intricate theme of one’s culture, a historical structure incorporating intelligence of the very highest order, might not be a very bright thing to do, especially when one does it out of whimsy, petulance, laziness, or, worst of all, self-righteous fashion-chasing.

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  11:18 PM
  78. But surely you’re not saying that *I* “disdain” classical music? I said it was a sufficient condition of reasonable culture. That counts as praise the last time I checked.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  11:23 PM
  79. I’d have to agree with Heo about the fool’s game.
    She said it perfectly--there’s always someone
    who will know more about one’s favorite period.

    One reason I am glad I went to Reed College (one of many places where left-wingers learned the heavies of Western Civ, back in the Jurrasic Period when I roamed Eliot Hall) and trained hard under a number of demanding scholars elsewhere (with Michael, I went through the Paris Island of English Grad Schools (UVA)), is that I got to interact with people who were first-rate brains with first-rate training on this stuff.

    It makes it so much easier to spot the phonies and the lightweights.

    *Don Giovanni* heh. I actually wrote on it for Kit Lasch (who was one of the most brilliant lecturers I had, ever). One of my beagle’s favorite operas (she liked deep male voices--her favorite was The Flying Dutchman with it’s crew chorusing “Ya Hoy!").

    Oh, and as far as the sounds one needs in one’s ear to read Joyce, that would include lots of popular music in various languages, would it not?

    Can our resident Bloom-bot troll me the lyric referred to in this snippet of *Finnegans Wake*?

    “Primas was a santryman and drilled all decent people.” *FW* 14

    It’s the first line of a popular song.

    Posted by  on  04/01  at  11:41 PM
  80. Folks, it’s late, and I may have missed something, but I don’t think NL has a real point to make.

    He might, however, want to meditate on the definition of “seditty” while listening to an old recording of Eugene Esaye--or perhaps Lloyd DaCosta Jones on viola de l’amour.

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  12:08 AM
  81. DRM, I have my guide to FW on my shelf, but in honor of your contest, I leave it as it has been since 1992: unopened.

    I’ll merely say that disdaining a deep and intricate theme of one’s culture

    Er. Sort of reminds me of this:
    The poet “must be aware of the obvious fact that art never improves, but that the material of art is never quite the same. He must be aware that the mind of Europe—the mind of his own country—a mind which he learns in time to be much more important than his own private mind—is a mind which changes, and that this change is a development that abandons nothing en route.”

    But of course the same loverly fellow said: “What is still more important [than homogeneity of culture] is unity of religious background; and reasons of race and religion combine to make any large number of freethinking Jews undesirable.”

    You see, whenever anyone starts talking about “culture” as a singular and transcendent category, I wince. If there’s anything I’ve learned in my medievalist training it’s this: culture, like reason, like “the animal” (my particular interest, which linguistics, etc., won’t help me track one whit), has a history, and not only in the sense of the smooth development of Tradition that interested Eliot. It’s necessarily articulated by particular people and groups for the benefit of some, against the benefits of others, and completely ignorant of others. This isn’t to say that all cultural artifacts are records of barbarism, are propaganda, etc.. It’s just to say that culture needs to be understood in terms of cultures, heterogeneity, immanence, contingency, etc.

    There’s also my beef that, well, as lovely as Bach’s “Wann Kommst Du Mein Heil” from Cantata 140 is, it doesn’t always jar me sufficiently. And unless the answer is “Never” it doesn’t seem to fit the conditions of this world sufficiently, either.

    But we’ve all heard this before. Good night.

    And Daniel, if it’s the same Daniel who commented on the Katrina thread, your promotion of that music is enough to turn me right off it.

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  12:24 AM
  82. I’ll merely say that disdaining a deep and intricate theme of one’s culture, a historical structure incorporating intelligence of the very highest order, might not be a very bright thing to do, especially when one does it out of whimsy, petulance, laziness, or, worst of all, self-righteous fashion-chasing.

    I know (or at least hope) that this thread is dying, but I’m going to obey a petulant, lazy whim.

    First of all, Norman, what is “one’s culture”? Does mine have to be the same as yours? No, one doesn’t really get to choose a culture--any more than one gets to choose one’s family--but what if mine is different? Is your’s better? Why? What if mine’s better? And why must I resort to the terms I use to argue with my 3rd grade students? (oops! Shouldn’t said that last thing; I can already smell the comeback)

    Second: You are such a self-righteous fashion-chaser. Us multi-popular-cultural-pabulum-studies people know the “anti-trend” hipster very well. And, for some reason, they seem to hang out with the trendy hipsters a lot, even as they make a big deal out of rejecting the trends. It’s really cool that you got the balls and all, but how about some intelligence of the highest order? This would involve a serious critique of a specific “fashion.” And, as I hinted, we’ve all met the guy who doesn’t go to rock shows because everyone there’s a poser.

    Third: “Freud is baloney/bologna” does not constitute a serious critique of a specific fashion.

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  01:56 AM
  83. From way back in #18: ...declarations of love for the goddam Palestinians

    “Goddam Palestinians”? That’s disgusting beyond words.

    Oh, and the best way to foster appreciation among our young people for the works of Bach and other “serious music” composers is to continue slashing music programs in our schools. We’re on the right track, we just need to “stay the course” and finish the job.

    Sian -the preferred spelling for the famed violinist/composer you mentioned is Ysaye (with 2 dots over the second “y”). This is useful information, especially when searching for his works in a music store. But please don’t tell NL I told you this. You know, me being a Black radical feminist and Cal Berkeley grad and all, that just might make his head explode. And you damn sure better not mention the no less than four versions of Art of the Fugue on my CD shelf. 

    Also, did you by any chance mean viola d’amore?

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  05:59 AM
  84. I don’t quite know what’s going on in this current edition of the battle between classical music and the rest. But the battle itself has been well-institutionalized since, I don’t known, probably forever. But in this country (USA) one can pick it up in the 19th century with all the opera parodies that showed up in minstrelsey. More recently, it’s one of the enduring themes of cartoons from the 30s through the 50s. My impression is that those cartoons imply either an audience with more knowledge of the “classics” than is now current, or an audience more anxious about those “classics” and what they represent.

    And so forth.

    Having finished your deg., you can now get another in linguistics or cognitive neuroscience, where you can study seriously what you claim to want to study (without pointless distractions like psychanal.) That’s the way to go.

    I certainly think literary folks should know more about this stuff than they do. But it’s a real chore to relate any of it to literature in more than superficial ways, though I think it can be done—I’ve been working at it for 30 years myself. Any how, linguists don’t have deep discipline-wide agreement on, e.g. how to characterize syntax, nor do neuroscientists have substantial discipline-wide agreement on, e.g. how neural structures represent the external world. In both cases we’ve got lots of evidence and lots of models, but just how much knowledge we have, that’s a tough one.

    Posted by Bill Benzon  on  04/02  at  07:23 AM
  85. Oaktown Girl: Norman Levitt’s use of the phrase “goddamn Palestinians” at comment 18 may indeed be, as you say, “disgusting beyond words,” but I think he topped even that remark when at comment 84 he said, anent anti-Semitism,

    “Actually, I stopped worrying about this crap when we got a couple of hundred thermonuclear weapons of our own.”

    We’ve tickled more than one juicy hairball out of Norm in this thread, albeit none of us deliberately induced Norm to call our host a “cripple.”

    Here in my family, it’s been a busy weekend as my wife of many years, Debbie, who is permanently disabled, is dealing with the same bureaucratic snarls that many other folks who are on Medicare D have. I considered asking her to turn her verbal skills (she’s a left wing Barnard girl) loose on this thread. Sometime back she wrote a song to celebrate Michael being declared “dangerous” but I don’t have it at hand.

    Norm has yet to answer several questions--some rhetorical, beginning with Michael’s request for clarification of the “cripple” remark. Michael’s original point still stands, and some of us have residual guilt for troll-baiting and bad typing of proper names.

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  08:20 AM
  86. "Goddamn Palestinians” is vile enough, but then, as Michael says, Norm’s approach to this thread has been to make a fool of himself early and often.  My only complaint is that Michael didn’t offer Professor Levitt this valuable opportunity back in the days of the Sokal Hoax, but I suppose he didn’t have a blog back then.

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  10:06 AM
  87. >“Goddam Palestinians”? That’s disgusting beyond >words
    ---------------------
    Report: Zahar says ‘There’s no room for Israel on this land’

    By Haaretz Service and The Associated Press

    Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar was quoted in a weekend interview to a Chinese news agency defending Hamas’ declared goal of eventually destroying Israel.

    Zahar, a prominent Hamas leader sworn into the Palestinian Authority cabinet last week, told the Xinhua news agency that he is certain the goal will be realized, because “There is no place for Israel on this land.”

    According to the interview, Zahar maintained that Palestinians have no problem with the Jewish religion, only with the Israeli occupation, and said he does not rule out the possibility of Jews, Muslims and Christians living together in one Islamic state.
    -----------------------------
    Yes, it is appalling how little sympathy I have for shitheads who blow up 30 random people on a bus, even if they go along for the ride.  And even more appalling how little respect I have for the jerks who turn the blowers-up into poster boys for the kiddies to emulate.  And, worst of all, here I am dissing all the western inteleckshools who romaticize all this.  “Goddam Palestinians” converys this succinctly enough.  If it’s any comfort, I don’t much care for the goddam settlers either.  But perhaps we can have a meeting of the minds around the idea that the only good Republican is a dead Republican.

    I’m glad you like Bach.

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  10:16 AM
  88. >But surely you’re not saying that *I* “disdain” >classical music? I said it was a sufficient >condition of reasonable culture. That counts as >praise the last time I checked.

    No, I’m not saying that.  I’m just claiming that such disdain is fairly commonplace and virtually unquestioned in some trendy quarters of academic life, and that is one interesting aspect and symptom of a more general, long-term decay of both aesthetic and political insight within the professoriate.

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  10:24 AM
  89. >*Don Giovanni* heh. I actually wrote on it for >Kit Lasch (who was one of the most brilliant >lecturers I had, ever). One of my beagle’s >favorite operas (she liked deep male voices--her >favorite was The Flying Dutchman with it’s crew >chorusing “Ya Hoy!").

    Rather miraculous how Mozart writes not one but two key scenes for three low male voices and makes it not only interesting but riveting, isn’t it?

    >Oh, and as far as the sounds one needs in one’s >ear to read Joyce, that would include lots of >popular music in various languages, would it >not?

    Of course!  The deeper point, however, is that Joyce plainly and explicitly meant his masterpiece to be HEARD in some non-trivial sense, as well as “read”.  He was quite emphatic that it was as much a work of music as a literary text.  This is why public readings of “Ulysses” tend to fall flat.  The polyphony disappears.

    “Hearing” certainly means hearing the popular songs, and also the political songs.  But it also means hearing “La ci darem” and “Don Giovanni! A cenar teco” quite literally with all they invoke about love and death.  And if it means hearing John McCormack singing sentimental parlor music, it also means hearing echoes of him singing “Il mio tesoro.”

    >Can our resident Bloom-bot troll me the lyric >referred to in this snippet of *Finnegans Wake*?

    >“Primas was a santryman and drilled all decent >people.” *FW* 14

    >It’s the first line of a popular song.

    Nope.  But, as we know, lots of fun at Finnegans Wake.”

    Can you tell me the connection between “Don Giovanni” and the Battle of Gettysburg?  Hint: “The Star-Spangled Banner” has something to do with it.

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  10:36 AM
  90. >Oaktown Girl: Norman Levitt’s use of the >phrase “goddamn Palestinians” at comment 18 may >indeed be, as you say, “disgusting beyond >words,” but I think he topped even that remark >when at comment 84 he said, anent anti-Semitism,

    >“Actually, I stopped worrying about this crap >when we got a couple of hundred thermonuclear >weapons of our own.”

    >We’ve tickled more than one juicy hairball out >of Norm in this thread, albeit none of us >deliberately induced Norm to call our host >a “cripple.”

    1) The prissiness of the would-be vanguard of liberatory politics is replete with irony and a source of never-ending if somewhat cynical delight.

    2) Do you deny that blanket ignorance of a large swath of historical culture cripples the would-be cultural critic, or at least greatly restricts his range and depth?

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  10:42 AM
  91. >>I’ll merely say that disdaining a deep and >>intricate theme of one’s culture

    >Er. Sort of reminds me of this:
    >The poet “must be aware of the obvious fact that >art never improves, but that the material of art >is never quite the same. He must be aware that >the mind of Europe—the mind of his own country—a >mind which he learns in time to be much more >important than his own private mind—is a mind >which changes, and that this change is a >development that abandons nothing en route.”

    >But of course the same loverly fellow >said: “What is still more important [than >homogeneity of culture] is unity of religious >background; and reasons of race and religion >combine to make any large number of freethinking >Jews undesirable.”

    Unlovely fellow indeed.  You would be one too, probably, if you’d been cuckolded by Bertie Russell.  But does that mean one can simply and blithely ignore his point?  Life ain’t that simple.

    And, BTW, do you think you can read the Four Quartets if you don’t have you-know-who’s quartets in your ear?

    >You see, whenever anyone starts talking >about “culture” as a singular and transcendent >category, I wince.

    Ah, but do you reach for your revolver?

    >If there’s anything I’ve learned in my >medievalist training it’s this: culture, like >reason, like “the animal” (my particular >interest, which linguistics, etc., won’t help me >track one whit), has a history, and not only in >the sense of the smooth development of Tradition >that interested Eliot.

    If you’re saying that culture, in the large, is a dense, knotty, murky, contradictory palimpsest, who is going to argue with you.  But that’s hardly an excuse for not coming to terms with some of its richest lodes.  Indeed, it is a compelling reason for such engagement.

    >It’s necessarily articulated by particular >people and groups for >the benefit of some, >against the benefits of others, and completely >ignorant of others.

    This is rather underargued I think and is tainted by more than a whiff of “cui bono?” vulgar Marxism.

    >This isn’t to say that all cultural artifacts >are records of barbarism, are propaganda, etc.. >It’s just to say that culture needs to be >understood in terms of cultures, heterogeneity, >immanence, contingency, etc.

    Fine, as long as you don’t use all this verbal finery as a cheap excuse for blowing off whatever you’re uncomfortable thinking about.

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  10:55 AM
  92. Dear Norman, thanks for replying in #88. I’m glad you don’t impute this “disdain” of classical music that you see around you to me.

    Now about the other points of my #58: do you accept that I was not asking for sports trivia? And more importantly, do you insist that an appreciation of classical music deep enough to pass your quiz is a necessary condition of being “reasonably cultured”? Or do you accept my argument that it is only sufficient, and that other paths of life, other cultural formations, are “reasonable,” and that pursuing those paths in the depth they require may preclude an acculturation in classical music?

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  11:15 AM
  93. >“Goddamn Palestinians” is vile enough, but then, >as Michael says, Norm’s approach to this thread >has been to make a fool of himself early and >often.  My only complaint is that Michael didn’t >offer Professor Levitt this valuable opportunity >back in the days of the Sokal Hoax, but I >suppose he didn’t have a blog back then.

    >Posted by Bertrand Russell on 04/02 at 09:06 >AM

    “Only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.”

    Indeed, plenty of reason for unyielding despair, given all the silly bastards on this list.

    BTW, as long as you’re channeling B. Russell, can you tell me why the hell you had to go through all that crap with the theory of types, rather than sticking to ZF set theory or something equally straightforward?

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  11:19 AM
  94. >Second: You are such a self-righteous fashion->chaser. Us multi-popular-cultural-pabulum->studies people know the “anti-trend” hipster >very well. And, for some reason, they seem to >hang out with the trendy hipsters a lot, even as >they make a big deal out of rejecting the >trends.

    Not really.  I just sort of found myself sucked into this.  I’m going cold turkey forthwith and going back to my usual internet playmates, viz., physicists, mathematicians and philosophers discussing the foundational problems lurking in the disparities between quantum field theory and general relativity, as well as my Civ. War buddies going on about Longsteet’s Countermarch and Farnsworth’s Charge.  I don’t think the self-designation of “hipsters” holds up too well. The scent of grad student flop-sweat destroys the illusion.

    >It’s really cool that you got the balls and all, >but how about some intelligence of the highest >order? This would involve a serious critique of >a specific “fashion.” And, as I hinted, we’ve >all met the guy who doesn’t go to rock shows >because everyone there’s a poser.

    Say hello for me.  I don’t go to rock shows because they’re boring and stupid.  I have no idea of the poser quotient in the audience and I don’t really give a shit.  (I did,however, go to the Rolling Stones freebie at Lincoln Ctr. last spring; alas, no “Sympathy for the Devil.”

    >Third: “Freud is baloney/bologna” does not >constitute a serious critique of a specific >fashion.

    There are plenty of devastating critiques of Freud; I don’t have to write another, certainly not in this format.  But, so far as the “humanities” are concerned, there obviously is a specific and risible fashion.

    This correspondence shall now cease while I still have some skin on my typing fingers.

    NL

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  11:34 AM
  95. No, please don’t leave me hanging re: #92 and #58.

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  11:45 AM
  96. Not really.  I just sort of found myself sucked into this.

    How horrible for you. Worth noting, in any case, that the anti-hipster hipsters usually force a yawn and announce their departure (from the party, room, conversation, etc.) right after someone bothers to wonder what they are doing there.

    But thanks for the suggestion. From now on, I will respond to those who whine about “fashions” (academic, musical, poetic, sartorial) with “Norman Levitt says hello!” I like it.

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  12:46 PM
  97. No need to worry.  With a little coding work (25 minutes worth), we could have a bot to replace our kulturpessimismus martyr.  Just have an external txt file with the cant slogans for easy updating.

    It’s been low level fun to anticipate the predictable overall trajectory of the trope—including the latest self indulgent military fetishism (here civil war, in other manifestations, Stalingrad/Eastern Frontism). The only piece missing from the song list in this thread was the obligatory demographic paranoia about declining Occidental birthrates compared to ‘the Other’.

    Posted by Leo Strauss  on  04/02  at  01:36 PM
  98. Q: the lyric referred to in this snippet of *Finnegans Wake*?

    “Primas was a santryman and drilled all decent people.” *FW* 14

    A. “Saint Patrick was a gentleman, he came from decent people.” Probably early 19th century.

    Some data from the page at

    http://www.csufresno.edu/folklore/ballads/OCon105.html

    “odleian, Harding B 16(241c), “St. Patrick Was a Gentleman”, T. Birt (London), 1828-1829; also 2806 c.18(277), Harding B 11(3395), Harding B 20(151), Harding B 11(2874), “St. Patrick Was a Gentleman"”

    Nice day today: I’d rather be sailing. “Jehoje!"--to be excruciatingly faithful to the awful German language in the libretto.

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  03:33 PM
  99. And “_B_odleian.” I had the darn insert key on when I typed the inverted commas.

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  03:35 PM
  100. When i left this thread off yesterday, somewhere around post 53, i was fairly certain it wouldn’t get too much weirder.  Alas, i underestimated both, the time and energy NL has for cyberspace engagement, and the apparent willingness of one named for a Biblical book to make hideous and ugly suggestions about the Duke incident. 

    Anyway, last night watching an event--that took place earlier today, when our today was yesterday and their today is now tomorrow--i was reminded of the exchanges between NL and others over “cultural” hierarchies.  Formula One (F1) is the high art of the sport of auto racing as compared with NASCAR and short track etc.  The most sophisticated, most technologically advanced, most finely-tuned and over-engineered driving machines in the world (and most expensive), driven on hilly, swerving, road courses, F1 is one of my personal favorites in all of sport. 

    And yet the Aussie GP represented something a bit more interesting to consider, reflecting on this thread and all the posts.  Many of the cars yesterday were destroyed in carnage normally unprecedented in F1 races.  Multi-million dollar vehicles shredded into piles of rubble swept up by men and machines, somehow spoke to the insignificance of arguing about cultural canons and mandates of “what is right.” Carnage, even in the highest forms, is still carnage.  Much like hundreds of nuclear warheads, reducing one’s cultural claim for all that is best, to a wasteland without any culture whatsoever.  mmmmm

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  03:48 PM
  101. If you’re going to mimic the tired arguments of your beloved idols, at least you should cite your sources. I’m sure Andrew Ross would not appreciate your almost verbatim citation of his much earlier whine.

    “...one bunch of conservatives—we could call them the Allan and Harold Bloom Consortium—wants us to return to the canon, to aesthetics, to the pursuit of beauty, leaving behind all this queer theory and multicultural pabulum.”

    http://www.h-net.org/~nexa/sokal/

    In a speech in New Orleans last fall, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson declared that “multiculturalism equals relativism equals no supercollider equals communism.” Was this some babbling formula for a conspiracy theory of the end of the millennium, escaping the fevered lips of a mad scientist? Or was it the same old witches?brew of cold war paranoia reduced to its basic stock? Wilson has had a go at playing Cassandra before, and many would consider his brand of sociobiology—which glorifies aggressive competition—to be a classic product of the mentality of militarist science. But his comment referred to a new arena of conflict that some have dubbed the Science Wars, a second front opened up by conservatives cheered by the successes of their legions in the holy Culture Wars. Seeking explanations for their loss of standing in the public eye and the decline in funding from the public purse, conservatives in science have joined the backlash against the (new) usual suspects—pinkos, feminists and multiculturalists of all stripes.

    An E-mail list with discussion of Sokal, etc.

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  04:30 PM
  102. And whoever called Norman Levitt a “fashion chaser” is doing serious drugs. Berube is fashion chasing with this argument about the mean old scientists and mathematicians, but only about a decade late.

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  04:33 PM
  103. I see the thread’s continued. I’m done with it, but I felt like dropping in because I’m still. goddamn. grading. and I took a break to track down this ‘cohort’ nonsense in some more detail.

    OED wasn’t much help, but no surprise there. Middle English Dictionary not much help, either: the fact that every citation includes a gloss (e.g., “Þe secounde warde of þe legioun is clepid þe warde of fyue hondred, for he haþ fyue hondrid and fyue and fyfty footmen and he haþ six and sixty horsmen, and it is clepid chors") suggests that the word wasn’t so common that there would have been a consistent rule for whether it took a plural or singular verb.

    No version of ‘cohors’ appears in the Anglo-Norman Dictionary that I could find.

    The Treasury of the French language helped me out a bit, if I remember my French grammar well enough: they have an 1801 citation that suggests that it takes a singular ("C’est celle [la planète] de Herschell, accompagnée de sa nombreuse cohorte de satellites"), but then there’s a 1944 reference ("Un petit pré humide, enclos par la cohorte des arbres") that suggests otherwise. Maybe I’ve misrembered my French, though, and these quotations mean nothing of the sort.

    Then I went back to the Latin. Not a lot of help there, either, although, first off, thank god Lewis and Short is available online, and second off, this bit from Sallust has cohort taking a singular verb ("Pauci autem, quos medios cohors praetoria disiecerat, paulo divorsius, sed omnes tamen advorsis volneribus conciderant.").

    However I learned something else: “cohort” comes from “cohors,” which is “A place enclosed around, a court, enclosure, yard, pen, etc., esp. for cattle, poultry, etc.” Cohort as we know it derives from a metonym. Given its origins as a descriptor of physical space (and animal space! good for my diss.), I think “cohort” should take a singular.

    It’s the best way to honor our culture, you know.

    Of course I’m open to counterargument, that if, if I’m not too busy out saving the world as a medievalist to give two hoots whether I insult anyone.

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  04:44 PM
  104. NL: Usenet-style quoting (prepending each quoted line with a “>") will inevitably get mangled by just about all blog commenting systems.  If you want to inject responses into the middle of quoted text, it’s safest to use the HTML “blockquote” and “i” (for italic) tags, i.e:

    <blockquote>quoted text

    my response</blockquote>

    In re Freud, I can only quote Chip Morningstar’s unsurpassed essay How To Deconstruct (Almost) Anything:

    You are allowed to use the word “problematic” as a noun. You are also allowed to pretend that the works of Freud present a correct model of human psychology and the works of Marx present a correct model of sociology and economics (it’s not clear to me whether practitioners in the field actually believe Freud and Marx or if it’s just a convention of the genre).

    Posted by Doctor Memory  on  04/02  at  06:50 PM
  105. Bother and irony: the blog misformatted my example.  Let’s try that again:

    <blockquote><i>quoted text</i></blockquote>
    my response

    Posted by Doctor Memory  on  04/02  at  06:51 PM
  106. Chip Morningstar’s unsurpassed essay

    Unsurpassed only because no one needs to tell that joke anymore. I’m sure someone perfected Ptolomaic astronomy once too, but we don’t talk about that sad old case as “unsurpassed,” really.

    --
    (#91: 1) no need to read the quartets anymore; 2) I’m presuming you’re joking that we can lay the blame for that parvenu Eliot’s crabbiness on Vivienne’s humping an atheist, although it’s ironic that you’d use biography to explain away the nastiness of a New Critic. Anyway, I don’t ignore Eliot’s points any more than I can get away with, although I prefer to see them as symptoms rather than points; 3) The inability and/or unwillingness of “classical” music to engage with certain issues that interest me suggest that its value, at least in my thinking and perhaps for MB too, is chiefly historical. Most of it’s wrapped up in worshipping some invisible sky god and what do I care? Now if you want me to study “classical” music as a discourse rather than something I have to enjoy as an enthusiast, well, there’s a train I could get on, except that I already have a discipline. This isn’t to say that I can’t enjoy it from time to time, but there’s only so much “Jesus” this and “Resurrection” that and “Hooker w/ a Heart of Gold” this I can take before I want to cleanse my palate with that crabby antisemite Aquinas, since at least I don’t have some nostalgia-junky prodding me to like him; 4) and what’s wrong with cui bono thinking, anyway? What alternative do you propose? And no fair proposing anything transcendental. At any rate, given that medieval encyclopedias are among the chief artifacts that interest me (Sidrak and Bokkus anyone?), I find all this aesthetic enthusiast hoo-ha kinda beside the point. If I were into what I’m into for aesthetics, I’d just be another Chaucer/Dante fan and no scholar at all. I feel that I get a better handle on what medieval people thought by reading the texts that were most popular, and quite frankly, the good stuff, then as now, wasn’t the popular stuff; 5) no idea what you’re driving at w. the verbal finery argument)

    --
    Actually, I stopped worrying about this crap when we got a couple of hundred thermonuclear weapons of our own.

    Er. Let me get this straight: you’re too busy worrying about nuclear destruction to be, at least, polite to people you don’t respect because their bodies don’t work like yours?

    Posted by  on  04/02  at  08:07 PM
  107. If you want to make wingnuts’ heads explode this week, just propose an illegal immigrant amnesty program in which immigrants become naturalized citizens if they agree to take jobs away from liberal professors.

    How about “if you want to make wingnuts’ heads explode propose an amnesty program where immigrants become naturalized citizens if they agree to become artists”.

    Now that would be support for the arts!

    Posted by Jeff  on  04/03  at  09:17 AM
  108. Sure, that’ll work too.  Thanks!  Though it loses the “they’re taking jobs away from Americans” frisson.

    Posted by  on  04/03  at  09:30 AM
  109. Oaktown Girl: Beautiful! You’re right on both counts, and thanks for the correx. It was way, way past my bedtime.

    Karl: “Cohort” is a slippery one, isn’t it? Every now and then you find a word that just won’t herd up! Indeterminancy is cool except when it makes the steam blow from your ears. (Hope the grading’s done.)

    Posted by  on  04/03  at  10:05 AM
  110. Sian, thanks for the kindnesses. Grading would be done except, of course, I spent 4 hours on Sat. screaming at the laptop (verbum sap.: the downside of running a paperless classroom). Thankfully the fiancee came home from her errands that day w/ her ex (a friend of ours), who’s a computer smarty, and he fixed my “cyclic redundancy” problem.

    Came to me, though, as long as we’re promoting our hobby-horses as fit subjects for MB’s writing, since MB’s writing entries for New Keywords, “cohort” seems to deserve an entry. Why? Because somehow it accrued a disreputable meaning ("criminal cohorts” being the common usage). How’d that happen?

    Posted by  on  04/03  at  11:25 AM
  111. Good one! When did “cohorts in crime” (that familiar phrase) first appear?

    Karl, the citations included in your research on “cohort” led me down the garden path to the Bog of Classics, where I ended up spending 3-4 hours or so, on Sunday, reading Polybius and others.  If you’ll remember, Gibbon pretty much begins the *Decline and Fall* by discussing the development of the routine and disposition of the Roman Legions.

    As Joyce’s schoolboys scribbled, Balbus was building a wall...with the dirt he dug out of the ditch he had to dig when his legion made camp.

    I’ve always made cohort a singular noun, btw.

    Posted by  on  04/03  at  01:22 PM
  112. Michael,

    I know I’ve been bitchy, and it’s days old now too, but I can’t let it go.

    I just can’t see how you *weren’t* making fun of cultural conservatives.  The image of conservatives “decrying the mediocrity of contemporary theater” while surrounded by bookshelves lined with the classics is straight out of a John Houseman movie.  Nothing wrong with that.  I love the 2 tuxedo-clad geezers in the private box of the “Muppet Show” too.  But if you don’t want to give the impression that you’re poking fun, I strongly urge you to cut the line about theater.  Especially since that line disqualifies Harold Bloom from membership in his own Consortium, and there are good reasons otherwise to include him.  But the line about theater undercuts your whole case.  I looked it up:  Bloom included “Angels in America” in his book “The Western Canon.”

    Since you’re in copy-editing mode (according to today’s post), and I’m in free-advice mode, I also suggest that you make the distinction between cultural conservatives and political conservatives clearer.  Talk of “coordinated action” implies intent on the part of the H. Bloom Consortium, and not only do I not believe that to be the case, you’ve made it clear that *you* don’t believe it to be the case either.  But your paragraph as written implies otherwise.  Which, again, undercuts your argument, which is otherwise a good one:  That the actions play out *as if* they were coordinated, regardless of intent.

    I’m sorry to be so argumentative—please consider this a query from a volunteer.

    Posted by john  on  04/03  at  02:05 PM
  113. David Ross McIrvine … my wife of many years, Debbie, who is permanently disabled, is dealing with the same bureaucratic snarls that many other folks who are on Medicare D have. I considered asking her to turn her verbal skills (she’s a left wing Barnard girl) loose on this thread.

    David - my very best wishes for you and your wife.  And I would love read one of your wife’s rants whenever she is up to it. I love a good lefty rant. It’s so refreshing. Just makes me feel good all over.

    Sian - you are such a sweetie. Nobody should have to be able to spell Ysaye at any hour of the day. I can do it only because it’s in my particular geek zone. What that says about me, I don’t know.

    Michael, bravo for your succinct and on-the-nose remarks in#45 and #68. Anyone wanting to read more should go <a href=“http://blackfeminism.org”>here.</a> See the post called “Wilding”. (If my attempted hyperlink didn’t work, go to blackfeminism.org).

    captcha word: “grits” (not really, but wouldn’t that have been fun?)

    Posted by  on  04/03  at  02:15 PM
  114. I honestly don’t understand the doggedness, John.  The Loeb Classical Library bit was an allusion to Roger Kimball’s portrait in that 1995 New York Times Magazine essay on the “new conservatives” (the one with Laura Ingraham in a leopard-print miniskirt on the cover).  Check out Kimball’s work if you want to see what the Consortium looks like.  And the fact that Harold Bloom gave Kushner a thumbs-up for Angels in America does not mean that certain Old School cultural conservatives do not decry what they think of as the mediocrity of contemporary American theater.  Read around in the New Criterion and the Hudson Review for the next few years (or for the past few, if you have access to the back issues), and then get back to me on this.

    Posted by Michael  on  04/03  at  02:46 PM
  115. Michael,

    People bring different cultural referents to the reading experience.  I bring (among other things) respect for your writing and agreement with your general point of view, as well as the Muppet Show, John Houseman movies, a connection to theater, a handful of Harold Bloom books, a general idea of Allan Bloom’s polemic, and a bunch of books and articles by the multi-culti critics & a commitment to their critique.  I don’t bring Kimball, New Criterion, or Hudson.  My reaction was good-faith and reasonable, based on what I know.  You are free to do with it what you will, including assigning pre-requisites before I read your book. 

    Ah hell, you’re probably right.  Most people who read your book will have agreed with you beforehand and will forgive the marginal confusion of your calling Harold Bloom a political conservative who doesn’t like contemporary theater.  Rightwingers who complain about marginal confusions can be dismissed as picky.  And Harold Bloom himself would probably laugh; he seems like a “no publicity is bad publicity” kind of guy, from what I can tell.

    Posted by john  on  04/03  at  03:48 PM
  116. wasn’t this all just another Chantal Kreviazuk lyric as sung by Peter, Paul and Mary in 1960????  captcha word: “the” as in da? or was that duh?  or did we agree d’oh?

    Posted by  on  04/03  at  03:49 PM
  117. Isn’t Harold Bloom dead or something?

    Honestly it would be so much better if this conspiracy against the multiCULTturalists was being waged by someone with half a pulse!

    Posted by  on  04/03  at  05:18 PM
  118. David Ross Mc:

    I like my job just fine, but good lord that sounds like heaven. Maybe you can do the Keywords entry.

    Posted by  on  04/03  at  07:06 PM
  119. My apologies for the sexist adjective, “bitchy.” I don’t use “bitch” as a noun and rarely use it as a verb and even more rarely the adjectival form; it’s time to retire it altogether. 

    Maybe I felt an unconscious need to prove NL wrong about the inutility of Freud through the annoying tactic of inadvertantly embarrassing myself by thoughtlessly using ugly sexist language.  (Not that Freud was right about everything, but unconscious motivations seem real to me.)

    Posted by John  on  04/04  at  01:09 AM
  120. About games

    Posted by  on  02/19  at  10:08 AM
  121. Good evening. I was gratified to be able to answer promptly. I said I don’t know.
    I am from India and , too, and now am writing in English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “All the free resources, tools and advice for seo do it yourselfers, and downloadable seo worksheets and templates that we promised you in our book.One salsa customer, barcrusher boats.”

    With respect wink, Abeni.

    Posted by Seo  on  05/17  at  02:57 PM
  122. What an interesting article, obviously there are great discrepancies between these judicial systems… this makes me realize how relative everything is and that justice is an utopia.

    Posted by conservatory news  on  11/26  at  03:40 PM
  123. Karl: “Cohort” is a slippery one, isn’t it? Every now and then you find a word that just won’t herd up! Indeterminancy is cool except when it makes the steam blow from your ears. (Hope the grading’s done.)

    Posted by Ace  on  01/04  at  03:02 PM
  124. It helped me with ocean of knowledge so I really believe you will do much better in the future I appreciate everything you have added to my knowledge base.Admiring the time and effort you put into your blog and detailed information you offer!

    Posted by Roulette spielen online  on  03/25  at  06:13 AM
  125. Nice post Keep posting !!!!

    Technicien Informatique Montreal

    Posted by Technicien Informatique Montreal  on  09/08  at  10:55 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Science!

Previous entry: Local man of mystery

<< Back to main