I work fairly long days . . . but on occasion, as I can, I collect some stuff . . . like stamps, but I'm only peripherally, it really at all, into philately . . . and like coins, mostly pennies, started probably because of my birth year . . . as you probably know, the steelie was a variety of the U.S. one-cent coin which was struck in steel due to wartime shortages of copper . . . I was born during the war . . . anyway, I collect stuff . . . some stuff is tangible and needs envelopes, boxes, etc. and demands (though seldom receives) inventory on occasion . . . I also collect family history, photos, etc. and pay a larger sum that I'm always comfortable about to a website that allows me to catalogue (actually most Americans usually say/write/type "catalog" . . . not sure why I'm stuck on catalogue . . . ) the information (and some of the photographs) . . . but some of what I collect is more difficult to put in a box and count up the collected numbers . . . for instance, I find that I always have a clear favorite poem in a book of an author's poems (more problematic in collections) . . . it is sometimes a temporary favorite and can change but there is always a poem I gravitate to when I first pick up the book (for instance with a book of Yeats poems at one time):
I whispered, 'I am too young,'
And then, 'I am old enough';
Wherefore I threw a penny
To find out if I might love.
'Go and love, go and love, young man,
If the lady be young and fair.'
Ah, penny, brown penny, brown penny,
I am looped in the loops of her hair.
O love is the crooked thing,
There is nobody wise enough
To find out all that is in it,
For he would be thinking of love
Till the stars had run away
And the shadows eaten the moon.
Ah, penny, brown penny, brown penny,
One cannot begin it too soon. 
that has now changed . . . I still very much love this poem but it is not my particular collected first choice . . . (perhaps I may share that some other time) . . . but I also collect first paragraphs of books that I have read . . . or rather of books that bend the rainbow of my life a bit . . . books that change the way the wind seems to move over water . . . books like Nikos Kazantzakis' Report to Greco . . . .

I collect my tools: sign, smell, touch, taste, hearing, intellect. Night has fallen, the day's work is done. I return like a mole to my home, the ground. Not because I am tired and cannot work. I am not tired. But the sun has set. 

I fear that different editions have slight variations on the first pages of this book . . . but still . . . this book kept me sane for a time in Bavaria but may have slightly skewed my life in other directions . . . this father of Zorba is the real Greek deity . . . the rest are mere broken statues . . .

coolin' off . . . winter comin' . . .

3 of my favorites . . . iris dement . . . john prine . . . a little bit of feeling good . . .

The Unknowable

The universe came into existence a little over 67 years ago, and it will end - well, who knows for sure, but almost certainly within the next 5 years. Before what I have learned to call the summer of 1945, there was nothing; and, unless one or another of the great religious fairy tales turns out to be more than ardent wishful thinking, when my light goes out there will again be nothing.

Throughout this span of time (whatever time is), I've been driven by one overarching question: What's going on here? I do know, incontrovertibly, that there is something going on - even if it's just one grand hallucination, it is at least that, and not simply nothing. I'll not venture as far as Descartes famously did with "Cogito, ergo sum"; the best I can do is "Sum, ergo sum."

At various times, I thought I was hot on the trail of some answers. But, sooner or later, every single one of the leads I pursued petered out in an absurdity or a mystery. It didn't help that I was raised in the old-school, pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic church, which claimed to have all the ultimate answers. I found out pretty early on, though, that these answers invariably relied upon either more mysteries or simple bald-faced assertions. Despite all this (I didn't adopt my online alias of "hardhead" for nothing) I've persisted and persisted in my search, far beyond any hope of finding even fragments of answers.

It's been gradually dawning on me over the last decade or so that, even were I to have 10,000 years at my disposal, I'm not going to find any answers beyond what I've already got. And that's because, in the nature of this hallucination or whatever it is that I find myself (and everything else, if it really exists independently of me), it is far, far beyond our powers, either individually or collectively, now and forever more, to find an answer or answers. We, either as we are or as we might become, will never and can never know why there is something rather than nothing (which is just another way of asking what's going on here).

Some philosopher/linguist types will insist that my questions themselves are meaningless or silly; I guess that suffices for them, but I can't help feeling deep pity for those who have no more sense of awe or mystery than to hold such views. It's also common for scientist types to imagine that they have answers for at least some of what's going on and why; but I invite you to peruse the history of science and tabulate the number of "eternal verities" that have turned out to be pure poppycock. As John Gray remarked in Straw Dogs, "after all the work of Plato and Spinoza, Descartes and Bertrand Russell we have no more reason than other animals for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow." I think it the deepest wisdom to get it into our bones that we don't know even the tiniest fraction of what we think we know, and to start acting accordingly.

Still, whatever it is that's going on, it's a wonder through and through, riddled with great beauty and deep joy. Despite the misery, anguish, and pain that also comes with the territory, I wouldn't have missed it for anything.

duckgistics . . .

Quack . . .

11/11 veterans' day . . .

changing . . . the times . . .

John K. Wilson interviews Ian Reifowitz about his book Obama's America: A Transformative Vision of Our National Identity at In These Times . . .

The language of unity, and specifically the language of cross-ethnic, American national unity that Obama has used so often strikes me as clearly progressive because it is a direct contrast both to laissez-faire hyper-individualism as well as to racial bigotry and other forms of prejudice. If Obama can get a middle-aged, middle-class white American to feel a stronger connection with someone different from himself on the basis of their shared American-ness, then that first person is more likely to be supportive of progressive ideals broadly defined, whether it’s on the economy or immigration or even gay rights.

Ultimately, left and right are relative terms. They are meaningless without a comparison that defines “left of what?” and “right of what?” Obama is to the left of conservative Republicans on virtually every domestic issue. On foreign policy, as he said in 2002 when he came out against the Iraq war, he’s no pacifist, he’s not against all wars, just “dumb” ones.

turning a corner . . .

hardhead said, "please explain."

After months of campaigning at a cost of around $6 billion, it looks almost exactly like the status quo ante to me. We've got the same president; the Democrats picked up two seats in the Senate (hooray for Elizabeth Warren!), but nothing like a super-majority; and the House is essentially unchanged, with the Republicans still firmly in control. Think this crew will be able to accomplish any more than they have the last 2 years? If so, please explain.

So, very much off the top of my head - no lengthy term paper, just some jotted notes . . .

Let me start by disagreeing that the Republicans remain firmly in control (see earlier post quoting Matthew Iglesias). And I'm satisfied with having the same President and expect as the economy continues to improve, he will be able to accomplish more of what he has talked about. I think the President's win was stunning in its potential to make sweeping changes - maybe more long-term than short-term. He has fashioned a coalition that is now the Democratic party going forward. This coalition is real (certainly not permanent) and promises to be long-lasting. It is the first time in the nation's history that we have a true multiracial political party. And if you go down the list of politicians at the forefront of the two major parties, the Democrats have almost without exception the cream of that limited crop. The Democrats are far more willing to accept reality - global climate change, dinosaurs with feathers that pre-date all the biblical stories, etc. Even with all of our fears of the Republicans owning and rigging the voting machines we manage to still stand in the long lines and vote. This country has an incredible way to go to overcome the continuing bigotry of our citizenry, but the Democratic party is no longer the party that accepts that bullshit - and says so. There appear to be some Republicans rethinking their silly tax pledges to Lord Darth Norquist and there are certainly many who were never that fond of weak tea. If the Senate reforms its rules as Senator Reid is suggesting to limit the filibuster that will be a starting victory for the short-term. President Obama ran very specifically on raising taxes on the very richest among us and I suggest that may well develop enough votes in the house to accomplish that - yes, I definitely fear what our side may bargain away. But I think the electorate will continue to pay attention our occupy cousins will continue. I think the tea party is mostly over . . . it was not quality tea anyway. I'm obviously optimistic (juices still flowing from Tuesday evening) but there is some room to be when the Bush era seems more and more behind us.

Update:Clearly spin is part of all this . . . I've just been scanning the WSJ Opinion section in the weekend edition, reading Peggy Noonan and Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., and learning that Obama won in 2012 with a smaller total vote than he did in 2008 (not much on the fact that the Republicans lost with a smaller total vote than in 2008), and that the President won by: "savaging the character of his opponent, and assembling a jigsaw coalition based on micro-targeting . . ." but the totality of the message as I read it is that the Republicans were out-organized, that the voters clearly would still prefer the Republican clarity of message to the hodgepodge mess of Democratic nonsense . . . that Republicans must work better to get out the vote but must not change their message or opposition in any form . . . full speed to the repetition of the nonsense of the last four years . . . etc. It is discouraging but not totally unexpected. In the world I inhabit, I experience a different election.

Boehner's bluff . . .

As often happens, Matthew Yglesias understands the bluffing Boehner better than the Speaker's fellow pols . . .

Remember the famous scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark when Indiana Jones faces off against a guy who unsheathes a scimitar and wows the audience with his fancy swordsmanship--only to get shot in the chest by Indy? The swordsman—that’s House Speaker John Boehner right now on the Bush tax cuts. Whether it’s out of deference to the office, eagerness to have an interesting story to write about, or plain gullibility, every congressional reporter in town is now dutifully reporting on his negotiating strategy. But this fight is over. Boehner has brought a knife to a gunfight, only nobody seems to have told anyone in the conservative movement.

To recap, the basic situation is this. Back when George W. Bush was in office, he wanted to cut taxes. And he wanted to disguise the cost of his tax cuts. So he had his allies on Capitol Hill write the legislation so that the tax cuts would automatically expire at the end of a 10-year window.

That window closed at the end of 2010. But during the 2010 lame-duck session, Republicans were riding high on electoral victory and the Obama administration was concerned that tax hikes would hurt the economy. So they cut a deal to extend the Bush tax cuts two more years into the 2012 lame-duck session. It was a smart idea for everyone concerned. With the economy weak, there really was no case for a short-term tax increase, and this way the presidential election would resolve everything. If Obama lost, his GOP opponent would surely sign a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts. But if Obama won, then he’d block any extension.

As you probably heard Tuesday night, Obama won.

. . .

The conceit here is the frankly bizarre idea that since Obama wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, he needs to engage in some kind of bargaining process. But this is silly. The Senate already passed a plan to extend the middle-class tax cuts. Now the choice before the House of Representatives is whether they want to vote to pass that plan before the new year or after the new year. Grover Norquist, the conservative Solon on taxes, appears to have made a metaphysical ruling that a vote for partial extension (before the new year) is a vote for higher taxes. That’s silly, but the dictates of holy writ are often a bit arbitrary. All Republicans need to do is wait until the Bush tax cuts have already expired. At that point, a vote for a tax cut that Obama will sign—i.e., the middle-class tax cuts only—would clearly be a vote to cut taxes rather than raise them.

. . .

There’s no political or substantive reason for Republicans to resist a post-new-year tax cut proposal. That means there’s no leverage on the GOP side and nothing for the parties to negotiate over. Republicans took a risk with the tax sunsets, and they lost. Boehner is bluffing, and it’s time for everyone to recognize that, take the next couple of months off, and pass the Obama middle-class tax cuts in January.

there are differences . . . some potentially dramatic . . .

This is a Trailer (or "coming of attractions"), of sorts, to the conclusion expressed below . . . One of the things we discussed, when I invited (was trying to convince) hardhead to take up some of the slack on "Peripatetic Patter" posting, was a "he sez / he sez" dialogue as we progressed . . . I discounted the idea (and might still do so to some extent) but I've noticed that one of the reactions I wait for when I post is his possible input or response to some of what I spew after having a Saint Arnold brew in hand (nectar of the saints) . . . and also, I find that I sometimes yearn to respond to much of what he says . . . while we are clearly not coming from an identical world view (migawd he sounds like an anarchist), even if we admit to a helluva lot of similar basic tenets as well as some 2-3 years of shared army security agency experience in Bavaria we do appear to share in some abundance a willingness to bullshit and to do so publicly (or as publicly as a blog like this - with so few followers that I can't count that low - will mathematically allow) on occasion . . . I think hardhead deserves an explanation and I plan to supply one . . . BUT it happens that I think slower than I talk (and too often slower than I write) so I will not elaborate this evening . . . this is a preliminary announcement to keep me on course; however, I have, from my prospective, a very adequate response (at the least, a most plausible rejoinder) to my friend's pessimistic review of the last election . . . there are differences and some are potentially dramatic . . .

• After months of campaigning at a cost of around $6 billion, it looks almost exactly like the status quo ante to me. We've got the same president; the Democrats picked up two seats in the Senate (hooray for Elizabeth Warren!), but nothing like a super-majority; and the House is essentially unchanged, with the Republicans still firmly in control. Think this crew will be able to accomplish any more than they have the last 2 years? If so, please explain.