The Crow's Eye: One Word

"...it's not the training to be mean but the training to be kind that is used to keep us leashed best." ~ Black Dog Red

"In case you haven't recognized the trend: it proceeds action, dissent, speech." ~ davidly, on how wars get done

"...What sort of meager, unerotic existence must a man live to find himself moved to such ecstatic heights by the mundane sniping of a congressional budget fight. The fate of human existence does not hang in the balance. The gods are not arrayed on either side. Poseiden, earth-shaker, has regrettably set his sights on the poor fishermen of northern Japan and not on Washington, D.C. where his ire might do some good--I can think of no better spot for a little wetland reclamation project, if you know what I mean. The fight is neither revolution nor apocalypse; it is hardly even a fight. A lot of apparatchiks are moving a lot of phony numbers with more zeros than a century of soccer scores around, weaving a brittle chrysalis around a gross worm that, some time hence, will emerge, untransformed, still a worm." ~ IOZ

Sep 19, 2011

One Word

An internet friend brought attention to this piece:

One Word Turns the Tea Party Around

For reasons which I hope are fairly plain to my 2.3 regular readers, I don't personally buy into one half of the argument, because I don't see any reason to separate the modern state from the modern corporation. They are not seamless, but the are nestled together pretty and neat.

Still, it cuts through the glibertarian bull shit fairly well, and that's something.

5 comments:

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...: Just flip government and corporations in that sentence:

The threat to our way of life comes from corporations, and the solution is to shrink corporations while freeing government from corporate control.

Exactly. But Kodos and Kang have us exactly where they want us. Is it too late? My sources are despondent.
~; September 19, 2011 at 4:50 PM
Landru said...: I'm far more persuaded by your musings on power than those on the organs of state--not that I would do you the injustice of thinking that you see those as particularly severable or distinguishable, and y'know, I'm just sniffing around the borders of your turf anyway.

That said, yeah, it's a real nice play.; September 19, 2011 at 5:26 PM
Rhys Ap Thomas said...: I think people pay way too much attention to what the Tea Partiers think and want. Were it not for the snooze media shoving them in our face all the time you'd never know they existed.

They're a media creation funded by a few billionaires and really aren't anything more than republicans.

Frankly, I just don't give a shit.; September 19, 2011 at 8:10 PM
Anonymous said...: I'd be interested in hearing more about your cellular biology expertise, Jackie Crowbar.

You can skip the whole "glibertarian" schtick and focus on another subject in which you pretend expertise but don't possess any of it.

So recount for your 2.3 readers the extent of your cellular biology and genetics experience for us all, would you please?

After all, at Charlie Davis's place, you pretended to disparage my comments by saying I'm wrong about industrial origins of many modern cancers.

Show us your Carville best, Jackie.; September 20, 2011 at 10:38 AM
Jack Crow said...: Your grasp of the arguments others make is somewhat deficient, Karl.

I would compare you to Don Quixote, but Cervantes' creation should not suffer the association.

A good day to you, all the same.; September 20, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Post a Comment

This one took a while to put into words.

I don't kid myself that I've stumbled upon a unique insight and I have little doubt that someone has already written or said this better than I. Five minutes after I hit the "publish" button, I'll probably regret the choice of words more than I already do now - because it's difficult to get my head outside of English language usage, to comment on a problem with that usage, whilst using the English language to do so.

In the interest of not making more of an ass of myself than necessary, I've pared a very long thesis down to a paragraph:

I find it troubling that, using English, I have very limited choice in expressing how I relate to people with whom I have ongoing interaction. If I want to reference the nature of my relations with the woman who has challenged me to grow in ways I never imagined possible, the woman who howled with a primal, gorgeous, earth shattering, mother bear of a refrain, transcending pain and pleasure in act of creation to which I will never be immediate party, who has with her defiant and proud womanhood still intact forged a family out of disparate parts - I have to write "my wife." I have to reduce her to property. That really pisses me off. I don't own her. I don't fucking want the title or the claim. I don't want to express possession, simply to refer to her (without writing a discursive dissertation). I don't like one bit that the short hand for "association" in English is expressed in the possessive. I don't own my wife or my children. They're not mine.

So, fuck you Latin and Germanic branches of the Indo-European language group.

That is all.