The Crow's Eye: New Hampshire

"...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

Jan 10, 2012

New Hampshire

Romney: I will give you austerity and war and you will thank me for my lily white face and my squeaky shoe Mormonism.

Obama, from the White House shadows: Yeah, but I'll give you austerity and war and someone to blame for it.

Goldman Sachs: Meh. It's all good for us.

4 comments:

Tao Dao Man said...: Sad, but true.; January 10, 2012 at 8:43 PM
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...: Don't forget J.P. More Gain.

Obama won't.
~; January 10, 2012 at 8:46 PM
Jack Crow said...: I think "Goldman Sachs" works as an identifier as well as "Hollywood," but point well taken Thunder.; January 10, 2012 at 8:51 PM
Randal Graves said...: In lieu of watching this vacuous miniseries, I hope you all are spending your time more fruitfully doing the important things like clipping your toenails or picking lint out of your belly buttons.; January 11, 2012 at 9:15 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.