It’s August, and as I do every year I am going to disconnect from the Internet a bit. It’s necessary therapy — particularly so this year, I think, as I think the quality of recent posts has been noticeably off.
I also need to take some time to think about just what I want to say in these pages. In particular, I am increasingly struck by the extent to which we live in a hallucinatory society, in which up is down, realities are falsehoods, and wishes and mirages are imagined to be realities; in which we must all agree, on pain of commination and social exile, that the things that matter most are the things that matter least; in which the past and future have foreshortened into virtual insignificance — leaving us rootless and aimless, with neither heritage to cherish nor posterity to protect, adrift in a meaningless present. If our past is remembered only to be despised as a litany of sin and error and unwisdom, then we are stewards of nothing; if our existing reality is reduced to a mere, anodyne subjectivity, we have nothing to bequeath. Severed in this way from our root-stock, sliced away above and below until nothing remains but the deracinated individual in the present moment, we are atoms. We are dust.
A story: long ago my late friend Don Grolnick was playing a gig at one of the jazz clubs in Greenwich Village. It was one of those sweltering, steamy July nights in New York City, and Don and some of the others in the band were outside during a break. One of the city’s wandering lunatics, a large and wild-looking man, ran up out of the murk and confronted them.
“DO YOU KNOW I COULD KILL YOU ALL??” he demanded. It was an edgy moment.
Don shrugged, and with characteristic aplomb, replied:
“That may be true. But why bring it up?”
That’s the question I’ll be asking myself over the next few weeks. There may be posts, but probably not many. As always, please feel free to browse our ever-expanding archives, and to try the “Random Post’ link at upper right.
30 Comments
Hopefully the possible meaning of my posting this quote will come Malcolm sometime hence to possess another “quality” than it might at present.
As an anxious nation is transfixed by Megyn Kelly’s menstrual cycle, media reporters learned a valuable lesson: challenge Donald Trump, and there will be Hell toupee.
Malcolm it sounds like you are describing a nation in decline. Some people lust to preside over this decline. Others of us intend to stop it and begin reversal of it.
I hope your time away is fulfilling.
Robert
First Bill Vallicella and now you! Maybe I’m getting off-line too.
Enjoy the silence
Malcolm,
You may feel the quality of your posts is declining, but this certainly does not reflect it. Once again your command of the language is on show. Well said.
Enjoy your vacation.
Peace,
Bill
Bill…interesting blog you have there.
Thank you, Bill. There is a terrible poignancy in the understanding that a great civilization — one’s own civilization, so long in the building, and so glorious in its creations — is now a cut flower.
The question: How to light a candle in the crepuscular gloom?
Have a lovely holiday Malcolm, and come back refreshed, ready to carry on being a pain in the arse! You are the sane voice of the right wing, so they need you to keep on going. The fact is that you are incisive, and you have convictions, but unlike many of your fellow travellers you don’t feel the need to belittle those who oppose your views. Your tolerance is appreciated, your grasp of language admirable, and your all-round niceness is obvious, to me anyway.
I did have a small problem with your description of Hillary, you know which one I mean, as “reptilian” if only because there are those who are fairly literal in their views and I don’t think that you’re one of them, so you could have found a more appropriate adjective to describe her. I have a really good word to describe Donald, but I’m such a lady that you will have to imagine what it is.
While you’re away I will look in, now and again, and check out a certain photo. You might consider creating a gallery so that us ladies don’t get bored. Get the lovely Nina to take a few shots of you on the beach.
On a more serious note. What have you done with Henry?
Thanks for the kind words, Musey. I will stand by “reptilian”, though, as I would have difficulty finding an adjective that more aptly describes that slithering, cold-blooded, fork-tongued, venomous woman. When it occurred to me, I realized at once that it was le mot juste.
Henry, apparently, has taken up online bridge, and is fully absorbed.
Hello Musey, long time no see.
Malcolm’s actually aware of something y’all down there ain’t – though I know since you’ve mentioned Trump and what’s ‘er name you’re at least vaguely aware we’ve political campaigns ongoing.
One of the first states of our [dis]United States to choose its nominee (choice) being South Carolina. Far as everybody knows Trump hasn’t been to South Carolina yet.
But it’s well-known Hillary’s Learjet was spotted at the Bishopville South Carolina airport back on the 3rd of this month – but nobody’s confirmed to have actually seen Hillary in-the-flesh down there.
But. Perhaps purely coincidentally:
http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=1238682
Hi JK. I’m sure that Malcolm is aware of all sorts of things that I’m oblivious to, because most of the time I’m not paying attention.
All I can say, as a fence-sitter, and a non-aligned blog reader, is that there is huge similarity in the agenda of the right wing bloggers. So good at identifying the problems, so bad at providing a humane, sensible solutions.
I don’t think that Hillary is as bad as you think she is, and I do believe that a lot of you don’t like her simply because she is a “her”.
For some reason, I find the idea of Hillary, as president, far less terrifying than Donald. If that guy was to take the top job, just because he has a bit of money ..well, it will be world war three within six months.
So, in the absence of a sane, alternative front runner, and allowing that I’m not up to speed on the alternative candidates, it’s “Go Hillary” from me.
I agree totally (if not to say “will some qualifiers”) with your fourth paragraph Musey.
As to that “Go Hillary” in your fifth I agree with that too. Most likely we’d be disagreeing on the “where to”, though, I’d wager with a high degree of confidence. Always keep in mind I’m from Arkansas and so have a more extensive experience-set with the particular female than most.
Hi Musey,
I don’t dislike Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman. (I like women very much, in general.)
No, I dislike her because she’s a lying, arrogant, ruthless, remorseless, haughty, self-righteous, venal, greedy, vindictive, contemptuous, scheming, secretive, unprincipled, patronizing, grasping, vicious, shrill, corrupt and incompetent woman, with, as far as I can see, no redeeming or attractive qualities whatsoever, whom none of us would ever even have heard of were it not for her rapacious and philandering scoundrel of a husband, and with whom I disagree on every issue upon which she deigns to express an opinion.
Musey: I’m guessing that your self-acknowledged obliviousness to the hijinks and escapades of American political life, combined with your use of “holiday” instead of “vacation” or “vacay” indicates that you live overseas. You’ve missed what has been easily the most entertaining political season since Pat Paulsen ran. So here is what is happening.
Hillary Clinton is leading in all of the national polls (and was recently reported by Gallup to be the most admired woman in America, for the sixteenth time in the past seventeen years). Meanwhile, the carefully calculated electoral strategy of the Republican elite went haywire when Donald Trump entered the race. Hilarity ensued.
Trump leads the Republican field by a wide margin, having captured the Archie Bunker / Howard Beale vote. His blend of bombast, narcissism, and general nastiness has made him the political equivalent of Don Rickels. As one observer noted, those who support him would, in an earlier day, have been season ticket holders at the Roman Coliseum.
Trump’s ideology — to the extent that he has one — is not recognizably conservative. However, as Jonathan Chait explains, ideology doesn’t matter much to conservatives; Trump’s appeal is his ability to harness the forces of undifferentiated resentment.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/donald-trump-affect-and-the-conservative-mind.html
The front runner was expected to be Jeb! Bush, but his campaign has been falling apart. He is a gaffe-prone politician whose lethargic performance at the debate bored many and impressed few. Jeb! now has the added complication of having to compete with John Kasich for the sliver of the Republican primary voters who do not support one of the extremist candidates, which is an added burden to a man who thinks that the invasion of Iraq was a “good deal” and that too much is spent on women’s health.
Kasich is an interesting politician who acquitted himself well in the debate. However, he is far too compassionate for the Republican base, and his embrace of expanded Medicaid is a deal-killer for a primary electorate who would prefer the working poor to go without health insurance or access to comprehensive medical care.
Dr. Ben Carson became a darling of conservatives after he treated the President rudely at the National Prayer Breakfast. He demanded that government funding to Planned Parenthood be eliminated to protest its donation of fetal tissue for medical research, but now it is known that he conducted research himself on fetal tissue. Oops.
To call Ted Cruz reptilian is unfair to reptiles. This bellicose, overwrought, self-righteous prig is so dislikable that it is doubtful that his own mother likes him. However, he is getting out-crazied by Trump, so his fortunes are fading.
Marco Rubio is a good-looking man in an empty suit whose Senate service is best known for renouncing his own immigration plan after it ran into opposition among conservatives, showing him to be a few vertebrae short of a backbone. Those who believe that Hillary has an integrity problem have been strangely silent about his repeated lies about his family escaping Castro’s Cuba, while it was later found that they left years before Castro came to power.
The rest of the field includes a failed CEO best know for getting fired after nearly bankrupting Hewlett Packard; a former preacher who makes millions of dollars promoting dubious “health” products; a college dropout who slashed education spending in his state of Wisconsin to allocate $450 million to a sports stadium to benefit his campaign contributors, and believes that abortion should be illegal even if it is necessary to save the life of the mother (causing an incredulous response from the callipygian Megyn Kelly: ““Would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion?”); a corpulent and unpopular governor from New Jersey; and an obscure ex-governor of New York. Oh, and I think Rand Paul is running, but I can’t really tell.
One of these men will be nominated to run against Hillary, but whoever it is faces the same electoral problem: in order to win, he must do better than Obama did with non-white voters and/or worse than Obama did with white voters. This despite the problems of cohort replacement (a euphemism for the fact that the Republican base of older, white voters is dying out and not being replaced) and the fact that while the long knives of the right wing have been out for Hillary for months, the sheer number of Republican candidates has left the Republican candidates (except Trump) not scrutinized by either the media or the Democrats.
My guess is that whoever it is will be a spectator, and not a participant, on Inauguration Day 2017
Malcolm, you are supposed to be sunning yourself on the beach, getting ready for the photo shoot, not worrying about anything at all. May I suggest a shot of you in your “boardies” and another of you in your casual dress, and a few more formal photos of you in white, and black tie garb. Then you will have a portfolio to be proud of and I will be able to judge whether or not you suit a dark suit as well as you do the white one..
I am so shocked that you cannot be reasoned with as to Hillary but I do notice that you have dropped the reptilian thing, which has to be progress. I’m a little bit unhappy with “shrill” which is a word that men always employ to deride women who cause trouble.
I don’t doubt that you like women, Malcolm. In their place. I know this because you regularly post about the physical superiority of men, and on occasion, you’re not averse to suggesting that there is some brain chemistry which keeps the guys ahead. I don’t think so.
OEM, I’ve always believed that your input to the commentary enhanced this blog because you are as clever as Malcolm, and not a lot of people are, but you do put forward the case for the other side. Much as blogs are cries to like-minded people to get on board, they can also be open to other people expressing opposing views, and that makes the blog better. Thanks for all the info about the less well known players. I think I have seen Marcus Rubio on the news, and like you say, not bad looking and that seems to be a requirement for any US presidential candidate. Bald, short and ugly need not apply, never mind how clever you are, or if you’re a fine human being.
So, it’s clear that all these candidates have skeletons in the closet, but only Hillary will be relentlessly pursued. I think she’s pretty tough.
JK, is there a certain type of woman in Arkansas? I wouldn’t know. Also, I don’t warm to Hillary, but I don’t hate her either and she has made mistakes like the rest of them, but she is being held to account to a far greater extent. It’s going to be relentless.
Regards to your last paragraph Musey I don’t know there’s “a certain type of woman” from hereabouts … lemme do some research. Give me some minutes to hit the Gallup Polling Website …
Okay Musey I’m back, thanks for waiting. As of July 1 2014 the documented population of the US ranges from 318,857,056 to maybe in the neighborhood of 322,583,006.
Using the Gallup methodology (from its website) the 500 people it presumably asked – and I have to admit I’m shocked.
“The typical woman from Arkansas was born 1947, in Chicago, Illinois then at 18 enrolls at Wellesly in Massachusetts graduates then moves to Connecticut to attend Yale then around the age of 27 only then moves to Arkansas where she begins to make a nuisance of herself.”
_____________
Jesus Aytch Keerist!!!
That Trump feller is onto something – I hadn’t a clue the illegal immigration problem was that bad!
Musey,
I should have thought that by now a woman as genial and intelligent as you are would have forgiven me for referring occasionally to the simple fact — which, save for the curious philosophical pathology of the modern West, has always and everywhere been utterly uncontroversial — that men and women differ, in general, in various ways. It astonishes me on a daily basis that there are so many otherwise clear-minded people alive today who are able to reject, on some sort of ideological basis with no foundation in reality, this obvious and easily quantifiable truth, so essential to both our cultural and biological well-being. (Indeed, this is just the sort of thing I was talking about in the original post, above.)
As I said in my previous comment, I do not dislike Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. Nor do I think that a woman cannot, in principle, be a good and effective political leader. History gives us several examples of this, after all, and were the right female candidate to come along I’d gladly vote for her. (Indeed, it would be hard for me to imagine a candidate I would not vote for against Hillary Clinton; I’ve certainly yet to see one.)
I did not include the adjective “reptilian” in my latest remark simply because I had already used, and defended, the word, and didn’t care to repeat myself.
As for “shrill”: have you heard this woman speak? Have you heard her voice ascend into its soul-shredding upper register when she wishes to feign passionate engagement? Have you heard her laugh? If Hillary Clinton is not “shrill”, then nothing is, and we should simply retire the word from the language, as a concept with no referent in nature.
Finally, as regards the OEM’s contributions in these pages, you too have hit upon le mot juste. He is, as you say, “clever”: just what you want you want in a waggish courtier, or a border collie — or a Party guard-dog.
Wisdom, understanding, objectivity, scholarship, diligence, seriousness, and a genuine concern for human flourishing based not on blithe sloganeering and idealistic social fads, but rather on the the difficult lessons of history and the persistent and unavoidable realities of mankind’s nature and biological diversity: these are, of course, something else altogether.
Compare and contrast.
With the prognosticatin’ last time we had another two-termer in the near timewise rear-view.
As far as Bill and Hillary: if people associate Hillary Clinton with her husband, then she will be a shoo-in. Bill Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating.
JK, I get it now. Your experience with regard to Hillary is due to the fact that she was the wife of the Arkansas governor. Believe it or not, I was aware that Hillary was not born in Arkansas. I should have read what you wrote more closely, but that said, more often than not, a degree of interpretation is required.
Malcolm, I know that men and women are different! I even acknowledge that men have superior strength and speed but I struggle to accept that women cannot be the equal of men in the fields of maths and science whilst accepting that there is a gulf that currently exists, a gap which I believe is closing.
My daughter works with some very competitive alpha males in a “mathsy” environment. These guys are always trying to outwit each other or solve some obscure problem or other. Recently they had a quiz which was compiled by a few of the bosses to test the ultimate Maths brain (in their office). My daughter was not invited to participate until one of the receptionists questioned why she hadn’t been asked to join in with the latest “pissing contest”. Oooh, these Aussies are so crude. Guess who got the top score? She tells me that most of the guys were fine about it, but the Chinese man who had felt that his victory was assured was unable to hide his horror and shame. Anyway, she got taken out for dinner and drinks later, and enjoyed the evening despite having her ID checked three times because she looks about fourteen. Which has nothing to do with anything at all.
Is Nina taking lots of snaps? I can’t wait to see them.
But of course, some can. We’re just talking about statistical distributions here.
Seven-foot-tall men are far more numerous than seven-foot-tall women, but that doesn’t mean they tower over them.
Thank you Malcolm, and let me say that I don’t that our views are incompatible. It’s just that I suspect that my belief in a changing distribution down the line, is one that you don’t share.
I’m so pleased that you think that I am genial and intelligent. I am genial but unfortunately I’m not a good mathematician at all. That’s why I take great delight in my daughter’s facility with numbers…it’s all a mystery to me so I’m obviously a more typical specimen of femaleness.
Fortunately Musey your
Now has the US military’s attention and even as we type are coming up with innovative ways to combat those speciousities.
http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/07/ranger-school-women-pickle-jar/
I have no idea whether the differences between men and women (and this is not a matter of “superiority” vs. “inferiority”, but rather one of difference) will disappear in the future. I have no reason to hope that they do, however, as I certainly do not see any advantage in women and men becoming fungible, identical copies of one another; in fact I think that would be a terrible calamity. We are different for good and important reasons, and the complementary we roles have been shaped by evolution to occupy are equally important to our survival and flourishing.
JK, you cut me off mid-sentence which changes the sense of what I wrote, and I’m sure you know that because you are not a stupid man.
Malcolm, I embrace the differences between men and women. How could I not? I am surrounded by men, my life has been spent in a male dominated environment, but there is no doubt that your insistence that men have an innate ability in the cognitive side of life, most particularly as pertains to maths and science, that trumps the female, I don’t believe that at all.
My only argument is that women are the intellectual equals of men despite the stats (which I don’t dispute) and allowing that men dominate certain fields. This is absolutely a cultural issue and it’s not going to change overnight. Your assertion that you mean difference rather than inferiority does not hold water when you insist that men are biologically programmed to be better in specific academic fields.
Still, I agree that we have complementary roles and that will never change. It’s just not possible for us to be identical copies, neither is it desirable. That is not what I am saying, not for a moment.
I will say this though: I find it very alarming that the internet is awash with third rate men railing about their reduced circumstances, and spewing hatred because women have had the audacity to enter their places of work and to attempt to be a part of governments, legal systems, commerce and industry. They don’t want the competition because they are used to making all the decisions and wielding all the power. When I look in my own backyard at the political masters who make the rules, it is very clear that the few women who are in place are far more eloquent and intelligent than their male counterparts. The cabinet, that is the inner circle of MPs who run this country and shape its laws, are (on both sides of politics) the most uninspiring, mediocre group of nobodies that you could hope to find after scouring the entire country, yet they speak of a meritocracy. Don’t make me laugh. Politics in Australia is a boys club and the few “girlies” can run rings around them.
Oh, and Malcolm, in no way am I lumping you in with those pathetic men who write silly stuff and hark back to the fifties, because although I’m sure you share their concerns you do it with such eloquence and in a such a gentle, learned fashion that you get away with it..just. It’s obvious that you have a lot of compassion and huge intelligence and I don’t say that just to curry favour. There should be more people like you in politics who can express their views with clarity. Have you thought about running for President? You would be a shoe-in if you donned the white suit and took on the role of a white knight. I’ll send a donation to your campaign, but you so look the part you won’t need to try too hard. President Pollack. It sounds pretty good.
Musey, if you keep misunderstanding this I’m going to start thinking that you are trying to prove the very point you mistakenly think I’m trying to make.
I am NOT saying what you ascribe to me above. Nor am I saying this:
Let me make this as clear as I can: I am not saying anything about any woman, or any man. For any intellectual activity you care to name, there are — quite obviously — women who can achieve outstanding brilliance.
It is simply that the distribution in the population of the qualities that make such high achievement possible may differ by sex.
Let’s say there is some intellectual pursuit A, to succeed at which requires that a person have some cognitive attribute X.
For simplicity we’ll stipulate also that X is binary: either you have it or you don’t. If you do have it, you can do P as well as anyone else.
Now let’s imagine that if you look at 100 women, you’ll see that 80 of them have attribute X, while only 45 out of 100 men do. You would expect, then, that there would be lots more women than men who do A for a living. But it wouldn’t mean that the men who do do A for a living aren’t just as good as the women at it. It would also be meaningless to say that women are “better” than men at A; all that any of this means is that there are more women who can do A, or even want to do A for a living, than men. And if this reflects actual differences between male and female brains, it is not cultural.
Malcolm, do you know how much I love you?
I think we understand each other perfectly well, and that we could argue forever but why would we do that? We can just agree to disagree.
And as the mother of three sons who know their place, we have many moans and groans when the wimmin get shown on TV to show off their wimpy sporting skills. “Oh noooo, not the vomens!” My daughter who is fairly sporty, just laughs, as do I. It’s not that serious.
I hope you’re having a fine holiday. Come back soon.
Yes Musey not at all fair but, without changing the sense, opening the pickle jars joke wouldn’t either.
(Incidentally, this morning I noted on the news two female West Point graduates graduated Ranger School – which probably makes the pickle jar test maybe an unwise change to the curricula.)
________
Might I Musey make a suggestion?
Read Malcolm’s last paragraph posted at 11:33 above … perhaps print just that paragraph then, but this time without all the contexts of all your previous counter arguments.
In other words – read the proposition in isolation.
Provided you understand what I’m meaning/intending to convey in isolating I think it’s just possible you might recognize you and our host aren’t really at odds.
JK, I can’t divorce one comment and look at it in isolation because I know the mindset of a man whose blog I am familiar with through two years of reading.
The contexts of all my previous counter arguments was as a response to what I read, and continue to read on a regular basis.
I fully understand the logic of Malcolm’s argument in that last paragraph, and I agree with it as far as it goes.
You know this argument is far more complex than throwing around a few propositions and presenting them as though they’re the whole story. Ask my mother-in-law, my aunt, my sister, and many of my friends who were denied opportunities because of their gender before you rule out cultural reasons for some of the statistical facts.
Musey,
You are right that this is not either/or, and it is certainly true that in the past women have been denied opportunities due to their sex.
In the current climate, however, Western societies are bending over backward to hire women and non-Asian minorities for the kinds of jobs we’re talking about, to armor themselves against charges of prejudice. Today, especially in the STEM fields, if you are even minimally competent, being a woman or a NAM confers a hiring advantage. The fear of social opprobrium, or even discrimination lawsuits, is so severe we are even lowering standards in order to avoid the appearance of bias.
This is based, of course, on the assumption of an underlying absolute congruence in the distribution of the relevant innate attributes among the races and sexes — which, once assumed, leaves entrenched cultural prejudices as the only possible answer to the question of disparate representation.
Perhaps we can agree on this: Yes, we should of course eliminate pernicious judgments of individuals based only upon their membership in some sexual or racial category. But we do ourselves no favor, and indeed can do ourselves a good deal of harm, by building our social policies upon wishful and ideological blank-slatist illusions about human nature.
Malcolm, brace yourself: I totally and unreservedly agree with you.
The only comment I would venture, because I don’t want to ruin our moment of harmony, is that standards have dropped across the board due to a massive decline in educational standards. Also, I’m not suggesting that “absolute congruence” is likely or possible, just a closing of the gap. I think I’ve said before that despite the present day equality of opportunity which I don’t dispute, there is a gulf in expectation, a very strong perception that STEM subjects are the domain of the boys. Girls will still be steered towards the arts, the boys pushed into the arena of science. Obviously, not all. This change is going to take generations to work through, it was never going to be an overnight conversion.
As you say, these days there are many more women studying outside of their traditional subjects and according to my son who works as an actuary there is indeed an eagerness to employ women. These days it is an advantage to be a woman if you’re looking at a graduate entry position (and I don’t think that is right either) but the story is completely different the higher up the food chain you go. The managers are nearly all men and they don’t mind having the young girls work in the lower positions but they are very lukewarm about having to take orders from one. Possibly the climate here is less female-friendly than in the US.