Thanks outeast. I afraid I'm going to have to give this one a miss. At the moment, apart from a full-time job and a family, I have the OEDILF (http://www.oedilf.com) site to support, and a couple of other interests that are getting less than the attention they deserve.
Oh, bravo! That's brilliant - your Fictionology stuff never fails to put a smile on my face!
Incidentally, as an evidently rather gifted satirist would you be interested in participating in this project? http://aclosershave.blogspot.com/2005/05/modest-proposal.html It's not quite your focus of interest, I guess, but you've a wicked touch which might segue quite nicely with the scheme...
Socar: "At the same time, I'm wondering what that says about ME."
It says that you expect me to insert humorous, barbed, twisted, icky, or sick-punnish lines into otherwise serious poems just to play with people's heads. Now, I ask you, "Would I do things like that?"
Socar: "Was that an admonishment to grow up?"
Definitely not. I'd be hypocritical to do so.
1. I am relieved to know it is, indeed, a serious poem, without the rather bizarre interpretation I saw in it. At the same time, I'm wondering what that says about ME.
2. I WAS wondering where you got the idea from, although I didn't think it could be about you, entirely. You don't seem like the bullying victim sort to me.
Notes:
1. It was written as a serious poem. The punctuation is deliberate. I enjoy the way the juxtaposition of different lines with only punctuation changes modifies meanings in villanelles and terzanelles. In a sense, the sentence in the last three lines has an element of surprise, a punch-line quality, but it wasn't intended to deliver prurient humour or shock.
2. Just in case you were wondering, it's not all about me. I started writing with a couple of lines in mind that did reflect my own feelings, but as I wrote more, I found there were life experiences (more dramatic than those from my own boring existence) that I could express.
3. Youth is relative. ;-)
Whenever you post something serious, I find myself searching in vain for a punch-line! For a minute, there, when I read the last stanza, I thought you were talking about, er, you know. Something Greek. Something Greek and naughty. (I read the last two lines as a single sentence. Wait--WAS that intentional? Am I, perhaps, not a colossal pervert?)
Coincidence, but I saw "Into the Woods" on Saturday night. All the happily ever after of the first act turns to shit in the second. Price Charming cheats on Cinderella. Rapunzel can't get over her mother's awful treatment, realizes she can never be happy. The widow of the giant Jack killed comes after him.
Considering how little we hear about Australia, I can only imagine how America's complexity filters through to you.
It really is mostly heat and noise. The US political system really works like this: 1) the mainstream, where the votes are, moves in a direction and the parties try to guess what that is, 2) except that the parties are naturally driven by their most ardent supporters, who want to believe the country is moving their way (or that they can lead the country their way), 3) one party gets too far away from the mainstream guess and loses.
The right wing rhetoric is out of hand. If they keep this up, they'll lose.
I don't understand what they're actually trying to accomplish - other than protect Tom DeLay's butt - and I assume that they're being carried away by the force of their own rhetoric. Geography plays a role, I think, because when you're surrounded by like-thinkers, it's easy to believe the rest of the world should think like you and is wrong (or evil) if they don't. True here in liberal Boston.
The Republican base turned out in numbers hard to believe to re-elect GWBush, that in the aftermath of 9/11 and during the "War on Terrorism". Most of those voters are not hardcore foam-at-the-mouthers. Republicans can't count on that turnout next election. Holy war doesn't work in America.
Remember that the Republicans have no obvious Presidential candidate. Bush arguably should have chosen a new VP merely to create one and not leave the field open for a second Kerry run or for Hillary Clinton. Clinton, if you set aside her polarizing connections, fits the social moderate/economic conservative mold this country prefers.
Even though most new federal judges have been appointed by social conservatives, their effect will be marginal. Witness the decision in Nebraska to overturn the state's anti-gay marriage law because it was too overreaching. If that law were written better, it would have survived but a good conservative judge - and by far most federal judges are good - knows constitutional rules of interpretation. (One of my cousins is a federal judge, a known liberal who has made some very conservative rulings because that's his job.)
Thanks jk. It's always good to hear a realistic assessment of what's happening in the US.
On an intellectual level, I know that the noisiest idiots are the ones who create the most controversy and get the most news coverage, thereby creating a false media impression of a country full of rampaging idiots. I reassure myself with soothing rational words.
On an emotional level, it's "who next will be declared a foreigner with bad ideas?"
Socar, have you been pawing at your slapsticking keys?
Entire notion of an activist judiciary is more PR than real. The judiciary is less activist now than during a number of periods during the 20th century - and it had similar activist periods during the 19th.
What's really happening is that people who can't get their way are acting like babies. They lose every opinion poll on their major issues other than gay marriage and similarly lose most battles in state legislatures. So they complain that the judges are running amok.
My state's judiciary ruled that gay marriage is required, but we're perhaps the most liberal state in the country. No one would expect the judiciary of Iowa to rule the same way; diversity is expected.
The American judiciary has become significantly more conservative over the past 25 years simply because we've had mostly conservative Presidents and the federal judiciary turns over with time.
I told my kids yesterday that if Kansas wants to teach Intelligent Design, that's fine with me because it means more stupid people hindering their ability to compete in the world. If people worry about foreign ideas coming in, that's great for those of us who see the value in those ideas. These fools don't see that you can't - pick a cliche - stop the tide, put the genie back in the bottle, close Pandora's box.
If you can't fit your beliefs to the actual shape of the world, then you're better off pretending it's the year 1605.
Maybe an Internet idiot escaped from the Internet, and was loose in the mall. Or maybe George W. Bush was getting naked again. Or...or someone saw a RAT!
I'll include a chapter on Fictionology's dramatic arc in the book. Of course, hyper-Fictionologists will understand that whole chapter to be a Fiction in itself, and will decide for themselves whether to embrace it.
On passing from Naive to Real Fictionology, it will become apparent to adherents that their religiously inclined ancestors (of almost any faith) were actually Naive Fictionologists. Unfortunately, there isn't a way to retrospectively improve the peace of mind experienced by deceased ancestors (unless you're an extreme Dr Who worshipping Fictionologist).
I wasn't going to mention the post-death benefits of Fictionology as they are still controversial in Fictionology circles. However, there is a majority view that faithful Fictionologists do experience a Fictional Life Beyond The Grave (FLBTG). The dispute that rages is not whether FLBTG is eternal or finite, but whether your FLBTG would cease if nobody remembered your Life Fiction.
The details of these arguments are best left for discussion in the followup book, "Fictionology: A Panacea for the Information Age (Part 2)".
For a modern religion to be successful a) your ancestors should also be deemed Fictionologists so your passing from Naive to Real "saves" your whole family tree (a la Mormonism) and b) there should be a defining wrapper, a story line of mythic proportions into which the most extreme Fiction fits (a la Scientology's Thetan mythology).
You may have me licked on the double-dactyl front, but--B-U-T! The latest intelligence from the toad front says it IS birds, and all! They aren't causing toads to explode, though. They're just eating them exceptionally messily, and leaving them splattered about. Passers-by, seeing the mess, have jumped to a grotesque conclusion. (via nature.com)
Thanks outeast. I afraid I'm going to have to give this one a miss. At the moment, apart from a full-time job and a family, I have the OEDILF (http://www.oedilf.com) site to support, and a couple of other interests that are getting less than the attention they deserve.
Best of luck with the modest proposal.
Oh, bravo! That's brilliant - your Fictionology stuff never fails to put a smile on my face!
Incidentally, as an evidently rather gifted satirist would you be interested in participating in this project? http://aclosershave.blogspot.com/2005/05/modest-proposal.html It's not quite your focus of interest, I guess, but you've a wicked touch which might segue quite nicely with the scheme...
*whistles innocently*
"Would I do things like that?"
...YES! The fact that this time you didn't shouldn't be taken to imply that you never would.
Socar: "At the same time, I'm wondering what that says about ME."
It says that you expect me to insert humorous, barbed, twisted, icky, or sick-punnish lines into otherwise serious poems just to play with people's heads. Now, I ask you, "Would I do things like that?"
Socar: "Was that an admonishment to grow up?"
Definitely not. I'd be hypocritical to do so.
1. I am relieved to know it is, indeed, a serious poem, without the rather bizarre interpretation I saw in it. At the same time, I'm wondering what that says about ME.
2. I WAS wondering where you got the idea from, although I didn't think it could be about you, entirely. You don't seem like the bullying victim sort to me.
3. Was that an admonishment to grow up? ;-)
Notes:
1. It was written as a serious poem. The punctuation is deliberate. I enjoy the way the juxtaposition of different lines with only punctuation changes modifies meanings in villanelles and terzanelles. In a sense, the sentence in the last three lines has an element of surprise, a punch-line quality, but it wasn't intended to deliver prurient humour or shock.
2. Just in case you were wondering, it's not all about me. I started writing with a couple of lines in mind that did reflect my own feelings, but as I wrote more, I found there were life experiences (more dramatic than those from my own boring existence) that I could express.
3. Youth is relative. ;-)
Whenever you post something serious, I find myself searching in vain for a punch-line! For a minute, there, when I read the last stanza, I thought you were talking about, er, you know. Something Greek. Something Greek and naughty. (I read the last two lines as a single sentence. Wait--WAS that intentional? Am I, perhaps, not a colossal pervert?)
Congrats man!
Coincidence, but I saw "Into the Woods" on Saturday night. All the happily ever after of the first act turns to shit in the second. Price Charming cheats on Cinderella. Rapunzel can't get over her mother's awful treatment, realizes she can never be happy. The widow of the giant Jack killed comes after him.
SNF! SNFFFFF! SNNNNNNNNFFFFFFFFFFF!
(more noisy sniffling)
(more noisy sniffling, still).
Nicely done! Jack reminds me of my ex!
Considering how little we hear about Australia, I can only imagine how America's complexity filters through to you.
It really is mostly heat and noise. The US political system really works like this: 1) the mainstream, where the votes are, moves in a direction and the parties try to guess what that is, 2) except that the parties are naturally driven by their most ardent supporters, who want to believe the country is moving their way (or that they can lead the country their way), 3) one party gets too far away from the mainstream guess and loses.
The right wing rhetoric is out of hand. If they keep this up, they'll lose.
I don't understand what they're actually trying to accomplish - other than protect Tom DeLay's butt - and I assume that they're being carried away by the force of their own rhetoric. Geography plays a role, I think, because when you're surrounded by like-thinkers, it's easy to believe the rest of the world should think like you and is wrong (or evil) if they don't. True here in liberal Boston.
The Republican base turned out in numbers hard to believe to re-elect GWBush, that in the aftermath of 9/11 and during the "War on Terrorism". Most of those voters are not hardcore foam-at-the-mouthers. Republicans can't count on that turnout next election. Holy war doesn't work in America.
Remember that the Republicans have no obvious Presidential candidate. Bush arguably should have chosen a new VP merely to create one and not leave the field open for a second Kerry run or for Hillary Clinton. Clinton, if you set aside her polarizing connections, fits the social moderate/economic conservative mold this country prefers.
Even though most new federal judges have been appointed by social conservatives, their effect will be marginal. Witness the decision in Nebraska to overturn the state's anti-gay marriage law because it was too overreaching. If that law were written better, it would have survived but a good conservative judge - and by far most federal judges are good - knows constitutional rules of interpretation. (One of my cousins is a federal judge, a known liberal who has made some very conservative rulings because that's his job.)
Thanks jk. It's always good to hear a realistic assessment of what's happening in the US.
On an intellectual level, I know that the noisiest idiots are the ones who create the most controversy and get the most news coverage, thereby creating a false media impression of a country full of rampaging idiots. I reassure myself with soothing rational words.
On an emotional level, it's "who next will be declared a foreigner with bad ideas?"
Socar, have you been pawing at your slapsticking keys?
The floodgates have opened, and IDIOTS are poring out!
Pouring out, that is. My keyboard is not what it was. Certain keys have begun to stic. Stic. Stick!
Entire notion of an activist judiciary is more PR than real. The judiciary is less activist now than during a number of periods during the 20th century - and it had similar activist periods during the 19th.
What's really happening is that people who can't get their way are acting like babies. They lose every opinion poll on their major issues other than gay marriage and similarly lose most battles in state legislatures. So they complain that the judges are running amok.
My state's judiciary ruled that gay marriage is required, but we're perhaps the most liberal state in the country. No one would expect the judiciary of Iowa to rule the same way; diversity is expected.
The American judiciary has become significantly more conservative over the past 25 years simply because we've had mostly conservative Presidents and the federal judiciary turns over with time.
I told my kids yesterday that if Kansas wants to teach Intelligent Design, that's fine with me because it means more stupid people hindering their ability to compete in the world. If people worry about foreign ideas coming in, that's great for those of us who see the value in those ideas. These fools don't see that you can't - pick a cliche - stop the tide, put the genie back in the bottle, close Pandora's box.
If you can't fit your beliefs to the actual shape of the world, then you're better off pretending it's the year 1605.
I fear it is even worse than idiot, GWBN, rat or toad. See my next blog entry for details.
No, an exploding cane toad!
Maybe an Internet idiot escaped from the Internet, and was loose in the mall. Or maybe George W. Bush was getting naked again. Or...or someone saw a RAT!
You really have something here. Fictionology is the label that fits what people already believe, the hidden name of the shared universal truths.
Fictionology is "The Name".
I'll include a chapter on Fictionology's dramatic arc in the book. Of course, hyper-Fictionologists will understand that whole chapter to be a Fiction in itself, and will decide for themselves whether to embrace it.
On passing from Naive to Real Fictionology, it will become apparent to adherents that their religiously inclined ancestors (of almost any faith) were actually Naive Fictionologists. Unfortunately, there isn't a way to retrospectively improve the peace of mind experienced by deceased ancestors (unless you're an extreme Dr Who worshipping Fictionologist).
I wasn't going to mention the post-death benefits of Fictionology as they are still controversial in Fictionology circles. However, there is a majority view that faithful Fictionologists do experience a Fictional Life Beyond The Grave (FLBTG). The dispute that rages is not whether FLBTG is eternal or finite, but whether your FLBTG would cease if nobody remembered your Life Fiction.
The details of these arguments are best left for discussion in the followup book, "Fictionology: A Panacea for the Information Age (Part 2)".
Brilliant.
For a modern religion to be successful a) your ancestors should also be deemed Fictionologists so your passing from Naive to Real "saves" your whole family tree (a la Mormonism) and b) there should be a defining wrapper, a story line of mythic proportions into which the most extreme Fiction fits (a la Scientology's Thetan mythology).
Fictionology is liberating!
Tastily-Wastily
Murders of Packbawkies
Tear up the toads in an
Elbe burlesque,
Leaving a carpet of
Herpetological
Hamburgers; Ratty, that's
So Pythonesque!
You may have me licked on the double-dactyl front, but--B-U-T! The latest intelligence from the toad front says it IS birds, and all! They aren't causing toads to explode, though. They're just eating them exceptionally messily, and leaving them splattered about. Passers-by, seeing the mess, have jumped to a grotesque conclusion. (via nature.com)
Excellent, glad to know the meta-humor is being looked after...
it will be interesting to see what the OEDILF entry for 'blog' will be...