Homage to Camille Paglia

 

Perhaps this is premature as I've read only a few of her books (most recently Provocations).  But I've enjoyed them, admired the clarity of her writing and more often than not agreed with what she has to say, and that I think makes her praiseworthy.  Not many persons are worthy of praise in these days of the decline of our Great Republic, or so I think.  Thus this post.

I like reading brief commentary and essays on culture, society, polics and event.  Brief commentary may be the only writing which has a chance if  being read, now, most everything else being texts, emails and social media (and blog) posts.  The days when geat essays were written may be gone.  Gore Vidal and Christopher Hitchens are two recent essayists I would consider among the great, and they're both dead. But I can't read everything.  Paglia seems more than capable as well.

She strikes me as something of a contrarian, in the sense that she isn't afraid to challenge the various maxims of established liberalism, and for that matter those of the shrilly outraged who represent themselves as conservatives these days.  Self-righteousness and sanctimony are characteristic of the denizens of the Right and the Left now, but I find nothing of that in her work.  She has strong and sometimes controversial opinions but argues persuasively in their support.

I'm reminded of Aaron Burr's statement--"The law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained."  More than the law, I think.

She has interesting things to say which I think establish that she values the application of intelligence in meeting what we encounter in life and taking responsibility for our actions and decisions.  She criticizes those who play the victim. Even better, she refuses to be one.  She seems irritated by the reluctance of so many to come to conclusions or even to believe that rational conclusions or judgements can be made; something which I think woukd make her unpopular in the Academy but reflects an attitude I admire.

So, Ave Camille Paglia.

Felix Dies Natalis

 

Another year of my life, as we measure it, has passed.  Too many years have passed, in fact.

In my less happy moments, I wonder why we say "Happy Birthday." I don't mean to say that birthdays aren't happy.  I do, however, think that birthdays aren't necessarily happy.  Not all birthdays are happy, in other words.  But that's not to say all birthdays are sad.

The birthday in question in this case is neither happy nor sad.  It's a day like any other.  I suppose most of us come to think this way as the years go by.  A birthday becomes less and less a cause for celebration.  It's still marked, as a kind of milestone on the road from birth to death, but is more a reminder than anything else.  Journey's end, and whatever comes after, lies ahead.

Cicero, Seneca and others wrote of old age as the crown of life.  That seems to me somewhat excessive.  Both body and mind diminish, and that isn't a cause for celebration either.  One does what one can to forestall the diminishment, but aging is relentless.  Perhaps sometime soon we'll find a way to extend our lives.  Will that make the crown heavier?

Taken to its logical conclusion (if one may use the word "logical" here) the Christian view would seem to be that life is unimportant.  What is important is life after death, which may be joyous or horrible, depending on how we spend our life before death.  That makes life before death important, though, doesn't it?  Or is it important only if we believe in the Christian God?  According to Augustine and others, we can only be saved by Jesus.  If he doesn't save us, our lives may be full of good works but we still go to hell.

Antinatalism, the cheerful belief that it's wrong to procreate as those born are exposed to harm without their consent, probably doesn't encourage us to continue living.  It may be said to provide reason for us to look forward to death, however.  Perhaps it gives us a reason to look forward to the death of our parents as well, since they failed to get our consent to be born while we didn't exist.

The Stoic view is that life is preparation for death. By this they seem to mean that we should be aware of death, of our own mortality, as we live our lives.

I doubt any of this impacts our view of birthdays to any significant extent.  Stoicism would at the least teach us that birthdays should be matters of indifference, which l suppose is my view.

What I find curious, though, is that people expect that your birthday is a cause for celebration, and expect that you'll feel the same way.  They ask what you'll do to commemorate the day.  They'll ask if you had a happy birthday and seem at a loss if you haven't.  You disappoint them if you don't have a happy birthday.

Which should make your birthday even more a disappointment to you, if it isn't happy.  

Unless, that is, you're a Stoic.

On With The Show

 

On with the show this is it, as Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck would say, or rather sing.  And what better place to put one on than Madison Square Garden, even if the show is a wedding? 

When MSG (as it's being called) was first rumoured to be the venue for this spectacle there could be no doubt that it was the place for it, climate change and expense be damned.  Close entire streets of the sweltering city but line them with black SUVs, engines running, packed with stars to join the stars of the show.  Not the tourists one would normally see, but those worthy of an invitation and the additional security and police doubtless needed.

It isn't clear that a wedding should necessarily be a show, but it's clear that in this case it could only be one.  These are, after all, show people.  They put on shows as a living.  The show they're performing, now, is a wedding. Does that render it less real as a wedding, or is everything a show, the wedding being merely a part of it, or one of a succession of shows?

Is it a show because one is expected in this case or because it was desired by those who put it on? I find it hard to believe anyone would want their wedding to be so gigantic and public an event. Perhaps they would, though, if everything about them and their lives is gigantic and public.  It would seem appropriate in that case.  Perhaps it would be impossible for someone who lives to put on shows to conceive of anything subtle and simple.

But in a sense weddings are characteristically excessive, in most cases.  They're intended to be great moments in the lives of those being wed; perhaps even the greatest moment.  They're meticulously planned, and then memorialized.  Not just photographed, but made into a kind of movie.  Yes.  A show, in fact, though not an enormous one, typically.  It becomes a matter of scale, and like most everything in our world, a matter of money.

This is unfortunate given the fact that it's more likely than not that those who are wed at these wedding-shows are ultimately divorced, no matter how splendid, costly and sizable the matrimonial spectacle may be.  The divorce rate is such that it's even likely that those who attend weddings expect that after some time they'll dissolve, and the relics of the ceremony will be forgotten, never to be reviewed or called to mind.

Will that happen even to a wedding held at Madison Square Garden?  Perhaps in that case the dissolution of the marriage, the divorce, will be a show as well.  It's unlikely that show will take place at MSG, though.

Ignorance, Religion and Education

 

The relentless efforts of the Texas State Board of Education to intermix its religion of choice (a form of Protestant Christianity) with public education continue, and even accelerate. Not content with requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in schools, it now seeks to make portions of the Bible (a Protestant version of it) required reading.  The extent to which such reading parrots the actual language of the Bible will, apparently, vary with the age of the students.

The Board is, of course, aware of the First Amendment.  It's also aware of the fact that a majority of the members of the Supreme Court are sympathetic to its quest to make our Great Republic a kind of theocracy, however, and so it feels it can actively pursue its goals and will ultimately be allowed to do so.

Because the first four of the Ten Commandments are devoted to the appropriate worship of the oddly jealous God it's claimed issued them, I find it hard to think the mandatory display of them in public schools doesn't promote the establishment of a particular religion or work to restrict others. 

But the selective, and shadowy, folk that make up the majority of the Supremist Court think otherwise.  So it's likely that they'll find a way to bless, as it were, any requirement that other portions of the Bible must be read by all public school students, Christian or otherwise.

It seems that some effort is being made to argue that the Bible contains stories which are part of the literary tradition of the West, and this justifies requiring them to be read.  This, it's maintained, removes any First Amendment concerns. But I think there's cause to wonder whether they'll be taught as fiction in the same way as other Western classics such as The Iliad.

 I doubt any teacher will risk the wrath of the Board by doing so.  I also doubt any will note the inconsistencies appearing in Genesis and other parts of the Bible or the plagues inflicted on Egypt or the slaughter of those living in the Promised land by the God of the Bible.  If reading the Bible as one would any literary work is to be mandated, though, how can one honestly  require that only portions of it be read and the rest of it censored?

Of course we also see the old canards that the Bible should be read in public schools because this is a Christian nation and founded on Judeo-Christian values.  Here we see the argument devolve drastically.  This is simply to make it obvious that the mandate is imposed because it is consistent with our established religion.  

The Board and its supporters also thereby demonstrate their ignorance regarding the fact that the Founding Fathers relied much more on the structure of the Roman Republic and the writings of pagan political philosophers in founding this nation than they did on the teachings of Jesus as reported in the Bible.  That follows from the fact that Jesus advocated the abandonment of the family and established order, and taught the arrival of the Kingdom of God was imminent.  Why look to such a person to form a government or nation intended to last many years?

Ignorance is characteristic of those who believe in a religion which claims that it alone is true. So for that matter is the demand that it be taught to all.

Not Beyond Thunderdome

 

 

We aren't beyond it, are we?  Not that the show put on at the White House was comparable to that in the film, and it certainly wasn't comparable to the shows on which all such contests are based--those of the ancient arena, much as we may imagine them to be.  Nor was the man presiding over the affair comparable to a Roman Emperor, much as he may want to be one. Perhaps he resembles Tiberius in his dotage, though, in some respects.

I've always been a fan of boxing. The violence seen in mixed martial arts cage fights doesn't necessarily disgust me.  Its lack of artistry annoys me, however, as does the preposterous display which accompanies it.  It's not quite as silly a display as we see in professional wrestling, but a cage?  Really?

Holding such a spectacle at the White House is offensive for a number of reasons, but it is most of all spectacularly vulger.  There's no other way to describe it.  It's crass and tasteless in the same sense as the Oval Office, now, stuffed as it is with golden gewgaws.  Vulgarity typifies this regime.  Even its version of the American Eagle adorning the lecterns it uses seem bloated, and resembles in the tilt if its head a dodo.  The arch it plans as well as its much desired ballroom are gargantuan, in the manner of the monuments of Nero or Hitler's plans for Germania.  One can only hope that the visit to Versailles doesn't inspire more in the way of crass imitation.

Does vulgarity explain everything?  It requires ignorance, and someone who doesn't read or want to read is ignorant by choice and nature.  Sophistication is clearly lacking, which is unsurprising as sophistication requires knowledge of other people and cultures.  Simply put, such people don't want to know such things.  The narcissist is a solipsist.  A sophisticated person wouldn't be so blatantly vulgar.

The vulgar lack any concern for consequences.  Their goal is immediate gratification.  Planning isn't a strong point.  There seems to have been little long term planning involved in either the war with Iran or even the proposed, or perhaps supposed, peace.

There's once sense in which Aging Orange or whatever one is to call the strange creature inhabiting an increasingly tasteless White House plans ahead, however.  And that is in causing harm to those he believed wronged or slighted him. It may be more appropriate, though, to say that given an opportunity he will take advantage of it.

Which brings us back to Thunderdome.  It's no surprise that this White House played host to such an event.  We're in a dystopia of our own courtesy of the grotesque players of the grotesque game which is the government of our Great Republic.