An article on AOL news caught my eye, Historians See Little Chance for McCain and having been a history major, I read it, trying to see what grand truths from the march of time were being distilled.
Well, as the article says, a group of historians think that despite the apparent dead heat between the candidates, McCain will ultimately not win. Basically the thinking is that McCain happens to be from the party in power, and that party has been in charge for a number of years, and has not used them wisely. People want change, a feeling that helped Obama surge from out of nowhere to clinch the Democratic nomination. The article does point out, however, that McCain is not seen as a traditional Republican, and so that can help him. Also, he can play to racial fears and hatreds, and paint Obama as a closet Muslim and Marxist. Obama can strike back and bring up age. So the election this year can be pretty dirty, so much fodder for everyone to use.
There are two main comparisons made, with the presidential elections of 1968 and 1980. In 1968, there was an unpopular war and the party was not held in high esteem. In 1980, the sitting president was unpopular and even though he was an incumbent, there was a demand for a new approach to politics that somehow Reagan positioned himself as representing.
The problem with making such generalizations is that presidential elections are rarely mirror copies of each other. No one seems to make comparisons along the lines of, "this election is just like 1824..." or "we'll have a repeat of Tilden and Hayes!" Of course the modern party system begins in 1860, and electioneering as we know it started around the 1960 contest between Nixon and Kennedy, so there are few elections we can make comparisons too.
However I do think McCain's chances at winning are not very good. Slim, perhaps, but not impossible. His age, lukewarm support from his base, and his party are contributing factors to this. But comparisons to 1968 or 1980, are not well founded, despite the fact that this could prove to be a watershed election in which the Republican coalition (libertarians, social conservatives, security moms and dads, and business types) collapses, or begins to come apart at the seems.
Firstly, in 1968 there was an unpopular war, but not unpopular with everybody. In 1968 the tide was turning, but a majority still wanted to continue the war in Vietnam. If anything, people probably thought Johnson was not doing enough. And, even though the war was fought under a Democratic president at the time, the Republicans were pretty much staunchly for the it. There was no "peace" ticket. Humphrey probably would have beaten Nixon, and his defeat owed more to a strong independent candidate (Wallace) who took away blue collar and southern votes, than to the war.
In 1980, the situation was similar, and one could make a comparison between Obama and Reagan and the rhetoric they use, and the way they are perceived as bringing change to the table. Also, 2008 could prove to be a sweep for the democrats, much as it was for the Republicans in 1980. However the president is not running again and the candidate from the ruling party might be able to distance himself from the president. One has to go to 1928, to find an election with no vice-president or president running. This was an historical election too, because of the nomination of Al Smith for president, a catholic.
Perhaps the 1928 election provides the best example, given its historic significance in nominating a president from a minority group, and in the fact that there was no incumbent. In 1928 the first major chinks in the "Solid South" appeared because of Smith's religion. In 2008, a few southern states might go to Obama given the unpopularity of the current president, his popularity with the black electorate, and evangelical dissatisfaction with the Republicans (Plus the candidacy of Bob Barr). I doubt he will sweep the region, but he might win one or two states, and might help the Democrats pick up a few congressional elections.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
A Poem From Andrea's Blog
Well I wrote a poem based on the text of my friend Andrea's latest blog post. It's all cut-up, but there are patterns underneath, that my verse uncovers in its own special brand of alchemy. or something like that. This be the verse(s):
Rich by the Bosses
We got there all day.
I was reminded
At my job scoring again
With another comedian
Whose name confuses possession.
Drove around on tour,
The workplace around me
Left to explore guts
In different directions
Adequately entertained,
Then a benefit
Whose name I don't remember
Damn these crimes
Mike’s memories,
Keep the story
Miserable as usual,
I shouldn't actually have this,
I tour with a serial rapist.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
A Book Review: Ezra Pound, Volume I, The Young Genius
Recently I read the Ezra Pound biography by A. David Moody (sounds like the name of a blog). When one is unemployed, and an aspiring poet, (they go hand in hand) then one should try and do something productive. So I read this 410 page tome.
It is surprisingly a quick read, despite the density of information it contains. Every episode in his life is analyzed, every change of location, every publication, his meetings, his affairs, Moody has done his research and it shows. I would be very surprised if anything new about Ezra Pound's life will be revealed unless they find his elementary school valentines in the bottom of a sunken chest.
The approach is a more literary one, of course, and his life is told through his writing and the writing of others' mostly. This gives a very good picture of Pound the public figure, but some of the more intimate details of his life are lost. From a scholarly perspective, what he liked to eat and drink, how his apartments looked, and the kind of lover he is, are probably not as important, and writing about them creates a risk for digression, though it is hard to know what Pound was like when he was not in his "Poetic Genius Mode" unless he was in it all the time, which is possible.
I suppose knowing more personal information about him is only necessary for me because so little of him comes off in his own work, except his education and his linguistic skills. He was never a river merchant's wife, nor was he Malatesta. The closest we come to him is always an official version of his life, details in the Cantos, and in Hugh Selwyn Mauberley. But here he is still a character, a figure, a hopeful force for history, and if failing that, of history. We know he must have known what love was, eaten sweets, seen colors, etc. like any other poet. No poet can totally hide his or her life away from their work, it shows through the details. the only way around it would be to write nothing but lists of numbers and be in love with the sounds they make.
Another shortcoming is that in the work, it is hard to pinpoint where "Ezra" began to become "Pound." By the end of the biography, Pound is leaving London. It is 1920 and he has begun to help with the birth of modernism, him and Eliot are published, the Cantos have begun, etc. However there seems to be no singular point where we see him deciding this is where he wanted to end up. Was he always blessed with some sort of divine madness that drove him, right from the start of his life? Did it come to him later? Was there an awakening?
This is a hard thing to determine, and one may ask themselves, does it matter? Or can it even be found? Perhaps I am relying too much on the lives of the Beat poets, especially Ginsberg and Corso, who tended to have those moments, "Blakean Visions," a poet generally doesn't have the kinds of experiences they have, unless they are Ginsberg and Blake, or have a traumatic life that makes burst forth into poetry, like Sexton or Corso.
But Pound is still different from the other poets, it doesn't seem to matter when Pope thought he was good at verse, or even Shakespeare, one could imagine them simply "falling" into poetry and deciding to keep with it. With Pound, though, you have a figure who viewed himself as a poetic revolutionary, and so like any good biography of a revolutionary, Che, Mao, Jefferson, one wants to know when the spark went off, when the figure decided everything had to be changed, overthrown. The first poem is not enough, we want to know when the break happened, because when one tries to be revolutionary in anything, their lives are never seamless, there is is always a diving point.
But despite these two criticisms of mine, it is a strong work overall, soundly researched and it paints a good portrait of the family that Pound came from, I was surprised at the level of political involvement his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather engaged in, and how supportive his father generally was of his son's poetic ambitions. This is a stark contrast with T.S. Eliot's father, who pretty much disowned his son. the book also explores his poetry very well and the genesis of the Cantos. If it was extended another two years, his help on the Waste Land, but that will have to wait for volume II. It would not be right to break up Pound's life by his work with others, and the decision to divide his life around his departure from London, I think is justified.
Anyways, the biography is good for all fans of Ezra Pound and all you visionary and revolutionary poets out there. I think it shows whats in store for you and if you are a fan of his work, it is an interesting and captivating read.
It is surprisingly a quick read, despite the density of information it contains. Every episode in his life is analyzed, every change of location, every publication, his meetings, his affairs, Moody has done his research and it shows. I would be very surprised if anything new about Ezra Pound's life will be revealed unless they find his elementary school valentines in the bottom of a sunken chest.
The approach is a more literary one, of course, and his life is told through his writing and the writing of others' mostly. This gives a very good picture of Pound the public figure, but some of the more intimate details of his life are lost. From a scholarly perspective, what he liked to eat and drink, how his apartments looked, and the kind of lover he is, are probably not as important, and writing about them creates a risk for digression, though it is hard to know what Pound was like when he was not in his "Poetic Genius Mode" unless he was in it all the time, which is possible.
I suppose knowing more personal information about him is only necessary for me because so little of him comes off in his own work, except his education and his linguistic skills. He was never a river merchant's wife, nor was he Malatesta. The closest we come to him is always an official version of his life, details in the Cantos, and in Hugh Selwyn Mauberley. But here he is still a character, a figure, a hopeful force for history, and if failing that, of history. We know he must have known what love was, eaten sweets, seen colors, etc. like any other poet. No poet can totally hide his or her life away from their work, it shows through the details. the only way around it would be to write nothing but lists of numbers and be in love with the sounds they make.
Another shortcoming is that in the work, it is hard to pinpoint where "Ezra" began to become "Pound." By the end of the biography, Pound is leaving London. It is 1920 and he has begun to help with the birth of modernism, him and Eliot are published, the Cantos have begun, etc. However there seems to be no singular point where we see him deciding this is where he wanted to end up. Was he always blessed with some sort of divine madness that drove him, right from the start of his life? Did it come to him later? Was there an awakening?
This is a hard thing to determine, and one may ask themselves, does it matter? Or can it even be found? Perhaps I am relying too much on the lives of the Beat poets, especially Ginsberg and Corso, who tended to have those moments, "Blakean Visions," a poet generally doesn't have the kinds of experiences they have, unless they are Ginsberg and Blake, or have a traumatic life that makes burst forth into poetry, like Sexton or Corso.
But Pound is still different from the other poets, it doesn't seem to matter when Pope thought he was good at verse, or even Shakespeare, one could imagine them simply "falling" into poetry and deciding to keep with it. With Pound, though, you have a figure who viewed himself as a poetic revolutionary, and so like any good biography of a revolutionary, Che, Mao, Jefferson, one wants to know when the spark went off, when the figure decided everything had to be changed, overthrown. The first poem is not enough, we want to know when the break happened, because when one tries to be revolutionary in anything, their lives are never seamless, there is is always a diving point.
But despite these two criticisms of mine, it is a strong work overall, soundly researched and it paints a good portrait of the family that Pound came from, I was surprised at the level of political involvement his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather engaged in, and how supportive his father generally was of his son's poetic ambitions. This is a stark contrast with T.S. Eliot's father, who pretty much disowned his son. the book also explores his poetry very well and the genesis of the Cantos. If it was extended another two years, his help on the Waste Land, but that will have to wait for volume II. It would not be right to break up Pound's life by his work with others, and the decision to divide his life around his departure from London, I think is justified.
Anyways, the biography is good for all fans of Ezra Pound and all you visionary and revolutionary poets out there. I think it shows whats in store for you and if you are a fan of his work, it is an interesting and captivating read.
Wazee Journal
Alright, another post about a poem of mine, go read it here. Then check out the rest of the issue. I know I will.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
On AOL Posting
Well, I admit that I get a good deal of my news from AOL.com. Is this a bad thing? It's more of a convenience than something that I actively seek out. I check my emails there, so it makes sense to peruse the articles that they have. I take it all with a large grain of salt, perhaps that's why my tears are so corrosive these days. What always surprises me is how the important and trivial are laced together. Although I guess it shouldn't really surprise me given the state of news in this country. part of it is probably the fact the stories flash so quickly before you. One sees reports of cyclones in Myanmar, and then what color is the new black, followed by something involving Obama, and then foods that will ruin your appearance in a bikini.
What I have taken a real interest in, and perhaps this is just the sociologist in me, are the posts that readers leave behind. I suppose one can see how people are, what the rest of America other than elite, intellectual New Yorkers have to say, and what people will say when there are no consequences, which can result in some pretty offense/hilarious comments.
Anonymity is, of course, one of the major problems of the internet. At this point I don't really see it as a mixed blessing, rather a curse. It's not enough to ban the internet altogether, I'm not saying that, but it's like exhaust from the car, an unfortunate bi-product rather than something that has to be controlled, like the speed of a car for instance. I feel that anonymity tends to dumb down debates and discourse and gives people too much opportunity for prank statements that become red herrings.
This is most apparent in articles covering the political elections. One thing I have noticed, is that Clinton seems to have more supporters on AOL, or at least supporters with more time on their hands. If she does well among retired folks, that would explain it, and maybe AOL attracts an older crowd. The vitriol seems to be more anti-Obama than Clinton, with McCain left relatively unscathed. i think this is the result of the media's portrayal of Obama, which has been largely positive, although his controversy with the rev. Wright I think has received more coverage than the controversial politics of McCain's own religious advisers, or the role that Clinton played in Bosnia. Nonetheless I can understand the frustration of Clinton supporters with the media. This is how I've felt in regards to their portrayal of Bush after 9/11.
So Clinton supporters turn to where they can express their anger and then do nothing about it, like frustrated teenagers graffiti-ing an overpass that cut their neighborhood in half and caused its decline.
Comments have generally been like this (these particular posts are from this article, but I think they could come from anything political):
Conspiratorial:
"There is a media scam trying to convince Americans that Obama won. This scam will be apparent after the next few primaries that Hillary will win in dramatic proportions. There is a media campaign to push Hillary out of the race. She can still win this.
She is the only candidate able to defeat Mccain.That is why they are trying to push her out of the race." - mssspellr
Racist:
"Even John "LERCH" Kerry would have been a better choice than
Barak Hussein "buckwheat" Obama" - tune2atis
"Obama - corrupt Chicago politician, do-nothing Senator.
Never saw a tax he didn't like.
Change: Will ship every tax dollar he can get to Africa."
"I can't stand the thought of a black MUSLIM (B. Hussein Obama) as president. For once I hope every KKK member and secretly predjudicial person in America votes Republican. This Democrat would have voted for Hillary. I WON'T vote for Obama because he's black...because the black voted for him for that reason ALONE!"
Ones that are both:
What I have taken a real interest in, and perhaps this is just the sociologist in me, are the posts that readers leave behind. I suppose one can see how people are, what the rest of America other than elite, intellectual New Yorkers have to say, and what people will say when there are no consequences, which can result in some pretty offense/hilarious comments.
Anonymity is, of course, one of the major problems of the internet. At this point I don't really see it as a mixed blessing, rather a curse. It's not enough to ban the internet altogether, I'm not saying that, but it's like exhaust from the car, an unfortunate bi-product rather than something that has to be controlled, like the speed of a car for instance. I feel that anonymity tends to dumb down debates and discourse and gives people too much opportunity for prank statements that become red herrings.
This is most apparent in articles covering the political elections. One thing I have noticed, is that Clinton seems to have more supporters on AOL, or at least supporters with more time on their hands. If she does well among retired folks, that would explain it, and maybe AOL attracts an older crowd. The vitriol seems to be more anti-Obama than Clinton, with McCain left relatively unscathed. i think this is the result of the media's portrayal of Obama, which has been largely positive, although his controversy with the rev. Wright I think has received more coverage than the controversial politics of McCain's own religious advisers, or the role that Clinton played in Bosnia. Nonetheless I can understand the frustration of Clinton supporters with the media. This is how I've felt in regards to their portrayal of Bush after 9/11.
So Clinton supporters turn to where they can express their anger and then do nothing about it, like frustrated teenagers graffiti-ing an overpass that cut their neighborhood in half and caused its decline.
Comments have generally been like this (these particular posts are from this article, but I think they could come from anything political):
Conspiratorial:
"There is a media scam trying to convince Americans that Obama won. This scam will be apparent after the next few primaries that Hillary will win in dramatic proportions. There is a media campaign to push Hillary out of the race. She can still win this.
She is the only candidate able to defeat Mccain.That is why they are trying to push her out of the race." - mssspellr
Racist:
"Even John "LERCH" Kerry would have been a better choice than
Barak Hussein "buckwheat" Obama" - tune2atis
"Obama - corrupt Chicago politician, do-nothing Senator.
Never saw a tax he didn't like.
Change: Will ship every tax dollar he can get to Africa."
"I can't stand the thought of a black MUSLIM (B. Hussein Obama) as president. For once I hope every KKK member and secretly predjudicial person in America votes Republican. This Democrat would have voted for Hillary. I WON'T vote for Obama because he's black...because the black voted for him for that reason ALONE!"
Ones that are both:
START CHECKING WERE OBAMA IS GETTING THE MONEY FROM.
I KNOW THERE ARE LOTS OF BLACKS ON SUBSIDY CHECKS. STILL, THAT DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE AMOUNTS. SOROS? HOLLYWOOD LESBIANS AND GAYS? THE ICE CREAM OLD HIPPIES? NOT ENOUGH.
MY BET IS FROM IRAN/ISLAMIC ORGANIZATIONS. FUNNELED THROUGH COMMIE LEFTY GROUPS.
Occasionally rational and trying to make a point:
"55Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08
Dream Team, at last.
Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08
Dream Team, at last.
Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08
Dream Team, at last.
Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08
Dream Team, at last.
Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08
Dream Team, at last.
Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08
Dream Team, at last.
Although a McCain Rice ticket would be a good alternative." - alexandersfol
I am noticing a fair amount of ones claiming a conspiracy to put Obama in charge of the country, more than I saw in articles coming from the beginning of the campaign, especially among Clinton supporters. I suppose her followers are trying to understand why she didn't win the nomination outright by now. Something other than her own lackluster campaign and the desire not to perpetuate a political dynasty must be int eh works, yes, yes, a conspiracy!
"Every blog, board, article and website I read, the majority are for Hillary not Obama.
Why is the media and the dirty, filthy backstabbing politicians pushing Obama down our throats. Notice how the blacks all ditched Hillary after Obama won Iowa.
They did not think he had a chance....they got lucky. Then they blamed Bill Clinton
and his statement that Jesse Jackson won S.C as a reason to ditch them.
No loyalty, they all suck..but the fat, old white guys are the worst ever. pundits and politicians....throw your buddies under the bus.
Obama is a very weak candidate against the Republican machine...just wait and see. hope is nice but not now...we have serious problems in this country." - kmakdn
A lot of the posts seem to bash "hope" and "change" which I think is funny. Look at the above quote, "Hope is nice but not now," because without hope we will really fix this country up!
In case anyone wants to accuse me of approaching this with a slant or bias, I am just going to say that it is not there. Personally, I don't think I am going to vote in the 2008 elections. I just think it is interesting how the followers of one campaign react when their campaign flounders and their rivals takes off and does better than expectations. I would think similar charges could be flung by Obama supporters if they were losing.
Hillary would have to win approximately 70% of the votes to even make a dent in all the remaining primaries, at a time when her popularity has taken a dive.
Repetitive:Besides, who wants to vote in a race for the injured horse?
Her style is outplayed. We are starting a new era of optimism, vigor, principles and ethics where there is no room for her shenanigans.
Vive Obama! - fofoye
"55Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08
Dream Team, at last.
Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08
Dream Team, at last.
Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08
Dream Team, at last.
Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08
Dream Team, at last.
Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08
Dream Team, at last.
Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08 Obama Clinton '08
Dream Team, at last.
Although a McCain Rice ticket would be a good alternative." - alexandersfol
I am noticing a fair amount of ones claiming a conspiracy to put Obama in charge of the country, more than I saw in articles coming from the beginning of the campaign, especially among Clinton supporters. I suppose her followers are trying to understand why she didn't win the nomination outright by now. Something other than her own lackluster campaign and the desire not to perpetuate a political dynasty must be int eh works, yes, yes, a conspiracy!
"Every blog, board, article and website I read, the majority are for Hillary not Obama.
Why is the media and the dirty, filthy backstabbing politicians pushing Obama down our throats. Notice how the blacks all ditched Hillary after Obama won Iowa.
They did not think he had a chance....they got lucky. Then they blamed Bill Clinton
and his statement that Jesse Jackson won S.C as a reason to ditch them.
No loyalty, they all suck..but the fat, old white guys are the worst ever. pundits and politicians....throw your buddies under the bus.
Obama is a very weak candidate against the Republican machine...just wait and see. hope is nice but not now...we have serious problems in this country." - kmakdn
A lot of the posts seem to bash "hope" and "change" which I think is funny. Look at the above quote, "Hope is nice but not now," because without hope we will really fix this country up!
In case anyone wants to accuse me of approaching this with a slant or bias, I am just going to say that it is not there. Personally, I don't think I am going to vote in the 2008 elections. I just think it is interesting how the followers of one campaign react when their campaign flounders and their rivals takes off and does better than expectations. I would think similar charges could be flung by Obama supporters if they were losing.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Updates
Alright, so three more poems on the web.
The first is called "Strange Rain" in the online publication Temenos
The other two are in Denver Syntax, they are:
"The Absence of Psychosis"
"Delinquent Road"
I must say I rather like their formatting. The major advantage of appearing online over print, of course, you can do so much more with how things appear. The black background for Strange Rain for instance, that would be a major hassle for a print magazine.
The first is called "Strange Rain" in the online publication Temenos
The other two are in Denver Syntax, they are:
"The Absence of Psychosis"
"Delinquent Road"
I must say I rather like their formatting. The major advantage of appearing online over print, of course, you can do so much more with how things appear. The black background for Strange Rain for instance, that would be a major hassle for a print magazine.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Poetry Project Reading
So on Wednesday, April 9, I went to a poetry reading at the St. Mark's Poetry Project. The readings were done by Benjamin Friedlander and Anselm Berrigan. It was held in a building adjacent to St. Mark's Church in the Bowery, where interestingly enough, a 19th century vice-president of the United States is buried. I went because my poetry professor recommended it and I figured it was worth going to just to catch a glimpse of flavor of the local poetry scene.
One thing that impressed me was how much a community there is among the poets here in NYC, or at least in Manhattan, though I'm sure some were commuting from Brooklyn, maybe Jersey. The poets knew each other, greeted each other, gave updates on the lives they were living, or at least trying to. There were even a few small children there and I wondered what they must of thought of all the people in black with beards and/or various other forms of unkempt hair, talking in patterns of speech that must seem like twisted versions of Dr. Seuss to them.
Anyway, Benjamin Friedlander went first. I was not a fan of his reading. Part of the problem I think was his technique. He was using poems that involve found text, or something akin to it. He pieced together bits and pieces of words from the Internet, or from conversations, and tried to explore the disconnect between putting two things together that may or may not have any logical connection. More often not.
The problem with the found text or modified text method is that if you do not maintain a general theme, story, or at least focus or point, then the words simply come out of the mouth and the ears quickly tire of them. These kinds of poems degenerate into what I would like to term "Elevator Poetry," where sound, flow, etc. becomes everything and meaning is lost. The dedication to sound is usually what defenders of this kind of poetry cite. However I criticize this as well, because number one, the sound is usually not carried through or explored in the piece. Poets using this method should make songs out of their poetry if they are really going for sound and music and caring little about meaning. The other criticism I have is that this kind of poetry usually loses people's attention after a while and is prone to causing an audience to ether zone out or pelt a poet with paper.
I know that this may not be the avant-garde sentiment, but maybe it is. Sometimes I think I am more radical than the others for demanding a meaning from a text, when others have given up. Some might mistakenly call me a reactionary for thinking this way, however this title would not be accurate in my case, why? Because in my own work I often use the techniques that contemporaries use, but to try and produce a real meaningful effect. The reactionary dismisses the present and does not engage it. This is why reactionaries generally never achieve power in any field. Fascism, using this definition, was not reactionary, but as revolutionary as Leninism, since it engaged the present, albeit to promote the values of the past as they saw them. Likewise, I engage with the present, not to dismiss or mock it, but to learn from it. I agree with Dan Schneider, one learns more from near great poems than great ones, and I think one can learn from even terrible poems than great ones.
What is the value of great poems then? They can be read without shame, that s there value. But enough about elevator poetry. Enough about great, good, mediocre, bad, terrible poetry. Back to the reading.
Anselm Berrigan was much better. I think because he has come of age in the era of appropriating mass culture and Internet texts, he understands how to weave them better. He creates a real text and even though the earlier poems he read tended to go off a little in the direction of elevator poetry, I think he had a much better grip of his subject matter and method. His youth was perhaps an asset. Benjamin Friedlander would have been better if he was younger and more energetic, or so old that simply seeing him talking about odd types of sex and other pop-culture phenomena, perhaps his poems might have worked. But overall I think he tried too hard. Berrigan was more subtle, and I think this got him a better response from the audience.
He read selections from a longer work he is publishing soon, called "have a good one." It is structured into snippets and blocks of text, with the phrase "have a good one," cutting them off and changing the tone, focus, and diction for the next piece, which I suppose could be called a stanza. He read it as if it were one, although maybe it is written continuously on the paper. The poem was entertaining because Berrigan worked with small pieces of text, not grand mish-mash epics. He might also just be a better poet.
One thing that impressed me was how much a community there is among the poets here in NYC, or at least in Manhattan, though I'm sure some were commuting from Brooklyn, maybe Jersey. The poets knew each other, greeted each other, gave updates on the lives they were living, or at least trying to. There were even a few small children there and I wondered what they must of thought of all the people in black with beards and/or various other forms of unkempt hair, talking in patterns of speech that must seem like twisted versions of Dr. Seuss to them.
Anyway, Benjamin Friedlander went first. I was not a fan of his reading. Part of the problem I think was his technique. He was using poems that involve found text, or something akin to it. He pieced together bits and pieces of words from the Internet, or from conversations, and tried to explore the disconnect between putting two things together that may or may not have any logical connection. More often not.
The problem with the found text or modified text method is that if you do not maintain a general theme, story, or at least focus or point, then the words simply come out of the mouth and the ears quickly tire of them. These kinds of poems degenerate into what I would like to term "Elevator Poetry," where sound, flow, etc. becomes everything and meaning is lost. The dedication to sound is usually what defenders of this kind of poetry cite. However I criticize this as well, because number one, the sound is usually not carried through or explored in the piece. Poets using this method should make songs out of their poetry if they are really going for sound and music and caring little about meaning. The other criticism I have is that this kind of poetry usually loses people's attention after a while and is prone to causing an audience to ether zone out or pelt a poet with paper.
I know that this may not be the avant-garde sentiment, but maybe it is. Sometimes I think I am more radical than the others for demanding a meaning from a text, when others have given up. Some might mistakenly call me a reactionary for thinking this way, however this title would not be accurate in my case, why? Because in my own work I often use the techniques that contemporaries use, but to try and produce a real meaningful effect. The reactionary dismisses the present and does not engage it. This is why reactionaries generally never achieve power in any field. Fascism, using this definition, was not reactionary, but as revolutionary as Leninism, since it engaged the present, albeit to promote the values of the past as they saw them. Likewise, I engage with the present, not to dismiss or mock it, but to learn from it. I agree with Dan Schneider, one learns more from near great poems than great ones, and I think one can learn from even terrible poems than great ones.
What is the value of great poems then? They can be read without shame, that s there value. But enough about elevator poetry. Enough about great, good, mediocre, bad, terrible poetry. Back to the reading.
Anselm Berrigan was much better. I think because he has come of age in the era of appropriating mass culture and Internet texts, he understands how to weave them better. He creates a real text and even though the earlier poems he read tended to go off a little in the direction of elevator poetry, I think he had a much better grip of his subject matter and method. His youth was perhaps an asset. Benjamin Friedlander would have been better if he was younger and more energetic, or so old that simply seeing him talking about odd types of sex and other pop-culture phenomena, perhaps his poems might have worked. But overall I think he tried too hard. Berrigan was more subtle, and I think this got him a better response from the audience.
He read selections from a longer work he is publishing soon, called "have a good one." It is structured into snippets and blocks of text, with the phrase "have a good one," cutting them off and changing the tone, focus, and diction for the next piece, which I suppose could be called a stanza. He read it as if it were one, although maybe it is written continuously on the paper. The poem was entertaining because Berrigan worked with small pieces of text, not grand mish-mash epics. He might also just be a better poet.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
West Tenth Launch Party!
Well, what is this handsome Rothko? Just kidding. It's the cover of the first issue of what I hope will be many, of NYU's premier undergraduate literary magazine, West 10th Street. This Friday we will be having our official launch party at 7:00 PM at the Creative Writer's House, 58 West 10th Street, NY,NY. The theme is black, red, and white, so if you want to come wear one of those colors. If you don;t own anything white or black, I guess you could go topless (depending on your race) or somehow bloody yourself. Anyways it should be a good event. We're having poets and fiction writers reading their pieces. All are welcome. If you can't make it, look out for copies of our magazine on shelves, bathroom stalls, used as bookmarks, ask me for a copy if you would like to see one, I think I can photocopy a few.
And no, I don't have any poetry in it. But I helped to select them. There some really promising work by one young poet. Check it out.
Monday, March 31, 2008
A Find
I was digging around my poetry stash and found this poem I wrote as an exercise for my poetry class last year. We were supposed to write lines in iambic pentameter, but I decided not to count syllables and just write in the rhyme pattern I was familar with. I remember reading something that said English speech generally follows that kind of scheme so I went with what I had and wrote something CRAZY
Another Friday in Lent
He went down to the stream
And saw life floating past
He wondered if it was a dream
And how long it would last.
A fish swam up, green and free
It startled him a bit,
Under the reflection of a tree
Seeing he was lost in quite a fit.
The fish cried out, do not be afraid
For this is the world that you have made.
Another Friday in Lent
He went down to the stream
And saw life floating past
He wondered if it was a dream
And how long it would last.
A fish swam up, green and free
It startled him a bit,
Under the reflection of a tree
Seeing he was lost in quite a fit.
The fish cried out, do not be afraid
For this is the world that you have made.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
I AM DOING A POETRY READING
P OET R Y R E A DI N G P O E T RY RE A D I N G PO E T R Y R E A
JOIN US FOR A POETRY READING:
ROB FITTERMAN’S NYU ADVANCED POETRY WORKSHOP
169 BAR, MONDAY 3/31 - 6-8 PM
169 EAST BROADWAY (@ Rutgers Street)
[take the F train to the East Broadway stop—walk 1 block east]
READERS INCLUDE:
SARAH ADLER
WALTER ANCARROW
JANIE BUCKLEY
GABRIEL COREN
DAN DONNELLY
LEAH EVANS
JAMIE LESS
BENJAMIN NARDOLILLI
TAINI SANON
+ special guests
JOIN US FOR A POETRY READING:
ROB FITTERMAN’S NYU ADVANCED POETRY WORKSHOP
169 BAR, MONDAY 3/31 - 6-8 PM
169 EAST BROADWAY (@ Rutgers Street)
[take the F train to the East Broadway stop—walk 1 block east]
READERS INCLUDE:
SARAH ADLER
WALTER ANCARROW
JANIE BUCKLEY
GABRIEL COREN
DAN DONNELLY
LEAH EVANS
JAMIE LESS
BENJAMIN NARDOLILLI
TAINI SANON
+ special guests
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Videos! Videos!
See a Video I made of Ezra Pound, trying to capture the cadences of his voice and such. Thanks to Andrea for the filming, standing as still as she could for 8 minutes. I have 15 views! Most of which are probably me.
As long as I am on it, there are two more videos invovlign my face in one way or another.
This one is based on The Office. Apparently it's a TV show or something, I don't know. I don't watch HBO. I am Sketchy McGee in the back.
And this one is from Torch Day, where I talk about life, love, and my beard.
As long as I am on it, there are two more videos invovlign my face in one way or another.
This one is based on The Office. Apparently it's a TV show or something, I don't know. I don't watch HBO. I am Sketchy McGee in the back.
And this one is from Torch Day, where I talk about life, love, and my beard.
A Poet's Progress
Awesome, two new places that have decided to publish my work. One of them, Word Slaw has two of my poems up right now, and The Maynard, a new journal, will publish two more on April 1, 2008. Just in case any of you were wondering what's become of my writing career.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Americans Rank Lincoln as Top President
Well a new poll by Harris Interactive has come out, and when asked who they think the greatest American President was, respondants chose Abraham Lincoln. He won roughly twenty percent of the votes cast by 2,302 adults in the United States.
The options were somewhat structured. Not every president was included, for some reason, only those recognized previously as "famous," or "great," were allowed to be chosen, like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge. All presidents after FDR were included. Responses were tallied by how many answered "best" or "second best."
However, Lincoln seems to be the only name in its proper place, here is the list as selected by those 2,302 Americans, who seem to have trouble with amassing any collective long-term memory.
10 - George W. Bush
9 - Theodore Roosevelt
8 - Harry S Truman
7 - Thomas Jefferson
6 - Bill Clinton
5 - George Washington
4 - John F. Kennedy
3 - FDR
2 - Ronald Reagan
1 - Abraham Lincoln
Americans seem to suffer from the opposite problem that plagues many of the places in conflict around the world. In Israel, Kosovo, and Northern Ireland, there are long standing blood feuds between different groups that center on issues going back centuries. In Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites are fighting over massacres that took place over a millennium ago. But Americans easily forget it seems, which is good when it keep us from slaughtering each other, but bad when it leads to misplaced adulation.
George W. Bush does not belong on this list, period. He is probably going to go down as one of the worst presidents in American history. There is really no major positive achievement that his administration can lay claim to. He invented a mandate and used it to weaken the constitution, govern through religious fanaticism and patriotic bullying, and has ruined a surplus. He has been bad from any perspective, Liberal, Conservative, Communist, Libertarian, Green, Anarchist, all of them can agree that he has been a terrible influence on the country.
And neither does Clinton. While he was not a terrible president, he was pretty much just a caretaker. None of his major initiatives managed to get through Congress and his style of rule was too tied to polls. Regardless of the whole mess he made on that intern's dress, his presidency was slightly above average, a B- so too speak.
Ronald Reagan might be a good number 10, but only if I was feeling generous. The mess we are dealing with in Afghanistan and Iraq is partly his fault. His administration was probably the most corrupt since that of Harding's, and he did nothing to balance the budget. Victory in the Cold War belongs more to George Marshal, Truman, and Nixon's strategic use of detente and opening up trade with China, than Reagan's posturing. It is Reagan who brought the Christian Right to power, a dangerous development, and who was the first president who governed through his image, and not through any coherent or well thought out policy. His style ushered in Clinton and Bush.
And he raised the drinking age. What a real state's rights conservative libertarian he was!
Okay, this is what I think the top ten should be:
1 - Abraham Lincoln, he fought the Civil War and kept the country together and began the elimination of slavery, though he could not see its abolition through.
2 - George Washington, he ranks he for mostly setting a good precedent. He stepped down after two terms and was able to keep the country together during the rough first years. However in terms of actual legislation, his administration is pretty thin so I have to rank Lincoln higher.
3 - FDR, he held the country together during the Great Depression, and lead the US through World War II, to become the world's great superpower.
4 - Jefferson, doubled the size of the country and balanced the budget. He also represents a good form of pragmatism, not abandoning his ideals as a whole, but willing to keep institutions that were working and necessary, he preserved many of the achievements of the previous Federalist administrations despite being a Democrat.
5 - James K. Polk, although by getting us California and Texas, maybe he did more wrong than good. Still the most successful one term president.
6 - Theodore Roosevelt, who I think still is one of the best examples of strong willed and charismatic leadership founded on pragmatic and still idealistic principles.
7 - Harry S Truman, began turning the tide back during the Cold War, though at the time no one realized it. Probably the best campaigner in American history, winning the 1948 election despite losing two major wings of his party, proving once and for all, Nader did not cost Gore the election, Gore did.
8 - Lyndon Johnson - Simply because he put his party's future aside and supported Civil Rights. Vietnam was a bad decision, and the Great Society had its problems, along with Nixon, perhaps our most tragic of presidents, too ambitious and cut down by their personality flaws.
9 - Woodrow Wilson - America's rise to power was largely through his efforts, and his internationalism is a cornerstone of most president's foreign policy one way or another.
10 - I am having trouble finding people to put here, so it could either be Reagan, Jackson, Eisenhower, or Kennedy.
The options were somewhat structured. Not every president was included, for some reason, only those recognized previously as "famous," or "great," were allowed to be chosen, like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge. All presidents after FDR were included. Responses were tallied by how many answered "best" or "second best."
However, Lincoln seems to be the only name in its proper place, here is the list as selected by those 2,302 Americans, who seem to have trouble with amassing any collective long-term memory.
10 - George W. Bush
9 - Theodore Roosevelt
8 - Harry S Truman
7 - Thomas Jefferson
6 - Bill Clinton
5 - George Washington
4 - John F. Kennedy
3 - FDR
2 - Ronald Reagan
1 - Abraham Lincoln
Americans seem to suffer from the opposite problem that plagues many of the places in conflict around the world. In Israel, Kosovo, and Northern Ireland, there are long standing blood feuds between different groups that center on issues going back centuries. In Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites are fighting over massacres that took place over a millennium ago. But Americans easily forget it seems, which is good when it keep us from slaughtering each other, but bad when it leads to misplaced adulation.
George W. Bush does not belong on this list, period. He is probably going to go down as one of the worst presidents in American history. There is really no major positive achievement that his administration can lay claim to. He invented a mandate and used it to weaken the constitution, govern through religious fanaticism and patriotic bullying, and has ruined a surplus. He has been bad from any perspective, Liberal, Conservative, Communist, Libertarian, Green, Anarchist, all of them can agree that he has been a terrible influence on the country.
And neither does Clinton. While he was not a terrible president, he was pretty much just a caretaker. None of his major initiatives managed to get through Congress and his style of rule was too tied to polls. Regardless of the whole mess he made on that intern's dress, his presidency was slightly above average, a B- so too speak.
Ronald Reagan might be a good number 10, but only if I was feeling generous. The mess we are dealing with in Afghanistan and Iraq is partly his fault. His administration was probably the most corrupt since that of Harding's, and he did nothing to balance the budget. Victory in the Cold War belongs more to George Marshal, Truman, and Nixon's strategic use of detente and opening up trade with China, than Reagan's posturing. It is Reagan who brought the Christian Right to power, a dangerous development, and who was the first president who governed through his image, and not through any coherent or well thought out policy. His style ushered in Clinton and Bush.
And he raised the drinking age. What a real state's rights conservative libertarian he was!
Okay, this is what I think the top ten should be:
1 - Abraham Lincoln, he fought the Civil War and kept the country together and began the elimination of slavery, though he could not see its abolition through.
2 - George Washington, he ranks he for mostly setting a good precedent. He stepped down after two terms and was able to keep the country together during the rough first years. However in terms of actual legislation, his administration is pretty thin so I have to rank Lincoln higher.
3 - FDR, he held the country together during the Great Depression, and lead the US through World War II, to become the world's great superpower.
4 - Jefferson, doubled the size of the country and balanced the budget. He also represents a good form of pragmatism, not abandoning his ideals as a whole, but willing to keep institutions that were working and necessary, he preserved many of the achievements of the previous Federalist administrations despite being a Democrat.
5 - James K. Polk, although by getting us California and Texas, maybe he did more wrong than good. Still the most successful one term president.
6 - Theodore Roosevelt, who I think still is one of the best examples of strong willed and charismatic leadership founded on pragmatic and still idealistic principles.
7 - Harry S Truman, began turning the tide back during the Cold War, though at the time no one realized it. Probably the best campaigner in American history, winning the 1948 election despite losing two major wings of his party, proving once and for all, Nader did not cost Gore the election, Gore did.
8 - Lyndon Johnson - Simply because he put his party's future aside and supported Civil Rights. Vietnam was a bad decision, and the Great Society had its problems, along with Nixon, perhaps our most tragic of presidents, too ambitious and cut down by their personality flaws.
9 - Woodrow Wilson - America's rise to power was largely through his efforts, and his internationalism is a cornerstone of most president's foreign policy one way or another.
10 - I am having trouble finding people to put here, so it could either be Reagan, Jackson, Eisenhower, or Kennedy.
Monday, February 11, 2008
The MACH IV Test
So I took a test to see how Machiavellian I am. It is a few years old, but the idea of what it means to be a "Machiavel" has not changed. Of course it is always been off the mark, since Machiavelli was always more of a republican than an authoritarian, though these days it's easy to confuse the two. The test is alright, even though its basis is a false understanding of Machiavelli, but they needed to tie it to someone and HOBBS-IV just doesn't have the same ring I guess.
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree
1) Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so.
1 2 3 4 5
I put four down because it makes sense, you tell someone something because you think it is useful.
2) The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear.
1 2 3 4 5
I put a four down in this case because there are situations where it is better for you to tell someone the hard truth, or just plain tell them off.
3) One should take action only when sure it is morally right.
1 2 3 4 5
I put a three because I was unsure how they defined "morally right." My belief is no one ever does anything immoral willingly, that there is a confusion in their hearts or heads. What is moral is what people on some level already want. Now someone else will disagree with them, but they are doing what they think is moral, always. Hitler did what he thought was moral and we bombed the hell of Germany because we felt it was the moral thing to do to stop him.
4) Most people are basically good and kind.
1 2 3 4 5
I was in the middle here, people don't usually go out of their way to screw you, but they also are fairly impotent when it comes to helping others. People are self-interested, but not selfish.
5) It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance.
1 2 3 4 5
Plenty of experiments have confirmed this, as has my childhood experiences on the playground when no adults are watching.
6) Honesty is the best policy in all cases.
1 2 3 4 5
Sometimes you have to tell a little lie, but I find that lies get you into more trouble than honesty most of the time.
7) There is no excuse for lying to someone else.
1 2 3 4 5
The old murderer at the door problem, I know Kant would say this, but I believe better to lie to him than let the murderer find out from you where your friend is hiding.
8) Generally speaking, people won't work hard unless they're forced to do so.
1 2 3 4 5
I have noticed this amongst my fellow students. This might only apply to Americans though.
9) All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest.
1 2 3 4 5
Dishonesty wins a person no friends and in the end that's what you need if you are going to hold onto anything.
10) When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which carry more weight.
1 2 3 4 5
I always try to make them the same.
11) Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives.
1 2 3 4 5
Look at the current administration. I would like to quote Balzac here, "behind every great fortune, there is a crime."
12) Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble.
1 2 3 4 5
But then again, some people like trouble
13) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught.
1 2 3 4 5
Proof: There is a difference between a bank robber and me. He robs banks. I do not. He could be out on the lam, still not caught, but still would be a criminal. I have not just simply evaded the cops, I have not held up a Wachovia at gunpoint.
14) Most people are brave.
1 2 3 4 5
You see both in Human affairs. So I am going to go with a three
15) It is wise to flatter important people.
1 2 3 4 5
Who would argue with this? It is also wise to be honest when they ask you, but the question isn't trying to find that out.
16) It is possible to be good in all respects.
1 2 3 4 5
You make sacrifices when you are a leader, even just to live with other people requires some ideals to be given up. Why do you think there are so many saints who were hermits or lived in cloisters?
17) P.T. Barnum was wrong when he said that there's a sucker born every minute.
1 2 3 4 5
If 255 people are born in a minute, then one could potentially be a sucker. Statistically I think it is possible.
18) It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.
1 2 3 4 5
Yes, it is hard, but that does not mean it is right. A Machiavellian and an idealist could both agree here and draw different conclusions. The former would say "Yes, so..." while the former would answer "Yes, but..."
19) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death.
1 2 3 4 5
I don't see what this question is supposed to do. If they are voluntarily ending their lives, I don’t see what that has to do with Machiavellianism. One could believe in euthanasia as a humanist.
20) Most people forget more easily the death of their parents than the loss of their property.
1 2 3 4 5
I've read too many biographies of famous people to believe this. The absences of one or more parents is always mentioned, rarely the loss of a house. Both can be traumatic, but in terms of what people are more likely to actually swear revenge over is the former tragedy.
The test tells me I am a 68 out of a 100, a "high Mach." I think that this test really is not able to make that claim. Several of the questions could rank the same for either a low or high Mach, and 68 is not that far from the center, I feel. Being a high Mach seems like something you have to do fully or else you will end up hating yourself for everything you do and fail to do. I think a high Mach has to be an 80 or 85, at least.
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree
1) Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so.
1 2 3 4 5
I put four down because it makes sense, you tell someone something because you think it is useful.
2) The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear.
1 2 3 4 5
I put a four down in this case because there are situations where it is better for you to tell someone the hard truth, or just plain tell them off.
3) One should take action only when sure it is morally right.
1 2 3 4 5
I put a three because I was unsure how they defined "morally right." My belief is no one ever does anything immoral willingly, that there is a confusion in their hearts or heads. What is moral is what people on some level already want. Now someone else will disagree with them, but they are doing what they think is moral, always. Hitler did what he thought was moral and we bombed the hell of Germany because we felt it was the moral thing to do to stop him.
4) Most people are basically good and kind.
1 2 3 4 5
I was in the middle here, people don't usually go out of their way to screw you, but they also are fairly impotent when it comes to helping others. People are self-interested, but not selfish.
5) It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance.
1 2 3 4 5
Plenty of experiments have confirmed this, as has my childhood experiences on the playground when no adults are watching.
6) Honesty is the best policy in all cases.
1 2 3 4 5
Sometimes you have to tell a little lie, but I find that lies get you into more trouble than honesty most of the time.
7) There is no excuse for lying to someone else.
1 2 3 4 5
The old murderer at the door problem, I know Kant would say this, but I believe better to lie to him than let the murderer find out from you where your friend is hiding.
8) Generally speaking, people won't work hard unless they're forced to do so.
1 2 3 4 5
I have noticed this amongst my fellow students. This might only apply to Americans though.
9) All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest.
1 2 3 4 5
Dishonesty wins a person no friends and in the end that's what you need if you are going to hold onto anything.
10) When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which carry more weight.
1 2 3 4 5
I always try to make them the same.
11) Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives.
1 2 3 4 5
Look at the current administration. I would like to quote Balzac here, "behind every great fortune, there is a crime."
12) Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble.
1 2 3 4 5
But then again, some people like trouble
13) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught.
1 2 3 4 5
Proof: There is a difference between a bank robber and me. He robs banks. I do not. He could be out on the lam, still not caught, but still would be a criminal. I have not just simply evaded the cops, I have not held up a Wachovia at gunpoint.
14) Most people are brave.
1 2 3 4 5
You see both in Human affairs. So I am going to go with a three
15) It is wise to flatter important people.
1 2 3 4 5
Who would argue with this? It is also wise to be honest when they ask you, but the question isn't trying to find that out.
16) It is possible to be good in all respects.
1 2 3 4 5
You make sacrifices when you are a leader, even just to live with other people requires some ideals to be given up. Why do you think there are so many saints who were hermits or lived in cloisters?
17) P.T. Barnum was wrong when he said that there's a sucker born every minute.
1 2 3 4 5
If 255 people are born in a minute, then one could potentially be a sucker. Statistically I think it is possible.
18) It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.
1 2 3 4 5
Yes, it is hard, but that does not mean it is right. A Machiavellian and an idealist could both agree here and draw different conclusions. The former would say "Yes, so..." while the former would answer "Yes, but..."
19) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death.
1 2 3 4 5
I don't see what this question is supposed to do. If they are voluntarily ending their lives, I don’t see what that has to do with Machiavellianism. One could believe in euthanasia as a humanist.
20) Most people forget more easily the death of their parents than the loss of their property.
1 2 3 4 5
I've read too many biographies of famous people to believe this. The absences of one or more parents is always mentioned, rarely the loss of a house. Both can be traumatic, but in terms of what people are more likely to actually swear revenge over is the former tragedy.
The test tells me I am a 68 out of a 100, a "high Mach." I think that this test really is not able to make that claim. Several of the questions could rank the same for either a low or high Mach, and 68 is not that far from the center, I feel. Being a high Mach seems like something you have to do fully or else you will end up hating yourself for everything you do and fail to do. I think a high Mach has to be an 80 or 85, at least.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
A wikiHow Article
How to Lose a World War from wikiHow - The How to Manual That You Can Edit
It isn't as easy as it sounds, but there are two basic ways to do this.
It isn't as easy as it sounds, but there are two basic ways to do this.
Steps
- 1. Invade Russia, or
- 2. Attack the USA
Tips
- Make sure you don't have lots of spare oil all over the place.
- You might want to distract yourself with a genocide.
- Beware of badgers.
Warnings
- Attacking Poland is not an effective substitute for invading Russia
- Neither does Canada count as the USA
Article provided by wikiHow, a collaborative writing project to build the world's largest, highest quality how-to manual. Please edit this article and find author credits at the original wikiHow article on How to Lose a World War. All content on wikiHow can be shared under a Creative Commons license.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
