JOLLY DAYS, an artist's journal

Sometimes you feel there is a built in craving for conflict, like a craving for sweets. The audience for public debates and WrestleMania crowds aren’t that different in their emotional needs. If boredom or depression loom, those internecine venues can issue a siren call. No one is immune to the occasional shot of adrenaline.

The value of public political debates has devolved to vitriol. The left loves bigotry accusations, the right loves socialist accusations. Tough dads become the focus, saying respectively, you have to have compassion or be practical.This article says there actually is some grudging respect for each other in the political activism sphere. The article indicates it is more the mechanics of activism that is admired in their adversary, rather than a respect for commitment:

“We’re trying to compete with ActBlue but they’re way, way ahead of us. We’re playing catch-up,” said John Hawkins of Right Wing News. “Their panels are for advanced activism. This is basic, for getting into activism.” A sign in the hallway of RightOnline advertised “proven technology used by millions of Democrats.”

Speaking of this, David Carr’s NYT media blog did an excellent job nailing the Keith Olbermann phenomenon.

Olbermann is the left’s answer to Glenn Beck. I haven’t listened to Beck, but my guess is that Olbermann is funnier, more clever, but more deeply neurotic. Some of his former colleagues say the estimate of Olbermann’s difficult personality is overstated, but they miss the point; it is not as colleague, but as demagogue that Olbermann vitiates the debate.

Olbermann, like many fanatics, projects his own problems onto his opponents. He politicizes his emotional problems, and luckily, at least for the deplorable Charlie-Sheen-break-down-in-public MSM spectacle machine, Olbermann has no self-correcting mechanism. The frontal lobe has stopped filtering, if it ever did. That is key to Olbermann’s success in the mob culture.

“Each time [Olbermann] came into conflict at a job, he managed, through skill and a bottomless appetite for payback, to advance his career,” says David Carr @WaPo.

With MSNBC…

[Olbermann]…left [MSNBC] with no fanfare and no notice to his staff — he spent months nursing grudges on Twitter and plotting his return. …[Olbermann's] knack for forming toxic workplace relationships has followed him wherever he goes…Charley Steiner, who worked at ESPN with Olbermann, is quoted as saying that he might have been a genius, but “socially, he was, well, a special-needs student.”

Carr says that Olbermann is, “The one who likes the camera,” — more than the audience. Carr gets it. He understands that it is not about ideas with Olbermann types, but rather an infantile need for attention. Olbermann has contempt for the audience, as do all narcissists, except as the audience willingly plays the role of anonymous sycophants. The conventions of celebrity culture have troubling consequences when political activists form around narcissists but significant issues are being discussed. When politics adopts those pop culture defaults of hagiographic cults, values are traded-in for ego.

Charlie Rose repeated a March 2011 interview with David Brooks last night. Brooks was promoting his book, The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement. The book, as Brooks described it, is an allegory. Two fictional characters illustrate ideas. The ideas are drawn from psychological and sociological academic studies.

Some reviews indicate Brooks did not inhabit the characters, did not bring them to life, and the science might not be fully explored either. However, you don’t read such books for depth, but to get a feel for the landscape: a bright man trying to open a curtain so you can see what is being thought about in the realm of human behavior.

Brooks’ sensibility is quite appealing. He is someone who is “nice” without seeming weak. Brooks gives nice a good name. Brooks has underlying beliefs but sees no reason why arguments have to ensue. This is somewhat quixotic, as many people just want to argue, which often seems more the point for them, and so ideas are put aside no matter what someone like Brooks might wish. But to a remarkable degree, in the adversarial left-wing environment of the NYT, as it is now constituted, Brooks appears to be accepted and liked by the partisan community. Brooks has been damned as the conservative that liberals like. It isn’t really a condemnation at all, but rather a tribute to the man that he can force focus on ideas in the roiling emotional pit of public life.

I have to admit, and this is a bit unfair to Brooks as I have not read his book, but the ideas he discussed on Rose sound very like a New Age Benjamin Franklin redux. Work hard, care, come from or find a good environment, and you too can make it. Making it, prestige seeking, is one of the most off putting things about the NYT actually. The NYT and MSM in general have a conformist, career centered focus — rather than a values based or true achievement focus. Too often achievement is measured by salary (even, weird as it seems, inherited wealth), truly slimed by fame or popularity metrics, or simply defined as rising in the chosen bureaucracy — without questioning the cohort’s nature. I often have the same doubts about Brooks — a conventional, unquestioned deference to honorifics you could call it.

Brooks draws a larger circle than most commentators, seeing that the mysteries surrounding us can’t be easily formularized. Things are complicated, which is obvious, but in a meme loving, consensus culture, it is salutary to hear that things might not be so easy to understand or fix. Lopping off the ambiguities to fit the purity of idea doesn’t work in art, in life, or in serious thinking. At least Brooks gives complexity a try.

[via Instapundit]
Christopher Hitchens says about Pakistan,

There’s absolutely no mystery to the “Why do they hate us?” question, at least as it arises in Pakistan. They hate us because they owe us, and are dependent upon us. The two main symbols of Pakistan’s pride—its army and its nuclear program—are wholly parasitic on American indulgence and patronage.

This reminds me of Saul Bellow’s description of the attitude of the French in 1948 towards the Americans and Brits who had just liberated them,

…The city lay under a black depression…The gloom everywhere was heavy and vile. The Seine looked and smelled like some medical mixture. Bread and coal were still being rationed. The French hated [the Americans and the English]. I had a Jewish explanation for this: bad conscience. Not only had they been overrun by the Germans in three weeks, but they had collaborated. Vichy had made them cynical. They pretended that there was a vast underground throughout the war, but the fact seemed to be that they had spent the war years scrounging for food in the countryside. And these fuckers were also patriots. La France had been humiliated and it was all the fault of their liberators, the Brits and the G.I.s.

NYT book editor Tanenhaus has a brief, interesting conversation with the impressive Harold Bloom. Bloom’s stated idea in the interview is that writers who came after the classics were in a state of internal disarray (“Anxiety of Influence”), feeling in essence that everything had been said.

So Bloom places Whitman between Emerson and the King James Bible. This is a critics’s trope, where influence explains or places artists. It is a false approach I feel, because the process of influence is, as Matisse said, a kind of wrestling. Taking out of what you admire something you need for yourself; wrestling, again and again, until self emerges. But no doubt much more than two encounters were required for Whitman to become the great poet he was, and much circumspection was necessary for the poet’s voice to coalesce.

This formulation, that influence is struggle rather than adjusting to predecessors, does agree with Bloom’s formulation in one way: artists like Joyce or Kafka, as Bloom says, are part of an ongoing tradition and not “modernists”. Anymore than the human spirit is more modern now than it was 400 years ago. Art can’t be created in awe of anything or anyone other than life and experience.

Bloom’s impressive memory is in evidence at the beginning of the interview as he recites a magical Crane poem — Bloom called it incantatory. He felt that committing great works to memory meant a lot in his life. Helen Vendler, the great critic of poetry as well felt that her early memorization was crucial to her love of poetry. This is in contrast to the idea that memorization is a mind numbing and useless activity. But Vendler and Bloom are robust corrections to that idea.

Bloom also mentions his discomfort with the identity politics cohort trying to impose on great literature; he justly feels that the outward descriptions of creators have nothing to do with what they have mined in their work. It is actually a racist and prissy, reductive pronouncement — saying an artist is their sexual orientation, skin color or gender. Schools of critical thinking have become schools of indoctrination.

Tanenhaus was a student of Bloom’s at Yale. His review of his teacher’s work is fairly convoluted — it never really clarified for me. Bloom, in the quotations provided, is himself at times obscure. Tanenhaus does however have embedded in the noise a good number of subtle insights.

We only saw snippets but that was enough. In an orgy of self-indulgence Oprah has left the stage in an extended goodbye. A tribute to self.

Kimmel and Boyz II Men give their take:

Oprah did seem to make people feel good. Her shows early on were of the familiar stir-the-pot variety but of late she has been trying to be helpful, healthy and New Age wise. An American success story.

Bill Keller of the Kingdom of the NYT makes a point that he knows will be labeled as Luddite, but he persists admirably. Keller despairs of new media and its illusion: virtual connection.

Keller says,

My mistrust of social media is intensified by the ephemeral nature of these communications. They are the epitome of in-one-ear-and-out-the-other, which was my mother’s trope for a failure to connect…

The shortcomings of social media would not bother me awfully if I did not suspect that Facebook friendship and Twitter chatter are displacing real rapport and real conversation, just as Gutenberg’s device displaced remembering. The things we may be unlearning, tweet by tweet — complexity, acuity, patience, wisdom, intimacy — are things that matter.

The subtleties of human connection, all our sense data aggregating to patterns of connection, will unlikely be communicated with a digital filter in the near future, if ever.

The MSM has labeled and endlessly repeated their own coinage: Arab Spring. The phenomenon, of repressed Arab populations attempting to overthrow dictators, is indeed in process and one can hope for the best; but Arab Spring implies an outcome — a treacly Disneyland of freedom and democracy. This is far from certain and probably unlikely. There is no supporting example.

Obama was feeling pressure from advisors: you have to say something about the Arab Spring or you will continue to “lead from behind”. (“Leading from behind” is an Orwellian construction — pure self-satire.) So Obama, obeying interior dictates only he can understand, marches to the microphone and makes a speech, prior to Netanyahu’s visit, declaring longstanding American policy. This is then enabled using just that argument: longstanding policy. But why stir the pot with a pro forma speech just before the visit of one of the parties in an upcoming negotiation if nothing new is being said? The MSM asked this question and…wait, no, they never did…

What the MSM does not suggest is what is left out — the elisions; such an Israeli / Palestinian agreement must be in accordance with “conditions on the ground,” which is also longstanding US policy. Obama has estranged our ally and not won any friends in his ingratiations. This is characteristic of his leadership chops; no sense of the actual issues or judgment about focus. A president who squanders opportunities and credibility.

Soon the Iranian client state in Gaza will be merging with the kleptocracy in the West Bank. What possible hope for peace can there be in that? No matter the public declarations, it is transparent what the nature of Palestinian governance is all about.

For there to be peace Palestinians will have to renounce a culture of hatred and murder. Obama could not bring himself to say that because he knew he could only pressure Israel. Abbas had made plain in a recent op-ed and his enthusiasm for a UN declaration preemptively establishing a state (which Obama begged to be rescinded) that Abbas could care less what Obama wants. Thus dissed, Obama turns to our ally to pressure so he seems to be doing something.

Although Obama could not say it, or probably conceive the idea, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor could:

Stop naming public squares and athletic teams after suicide bombers. And come to the negotiating table when you have prepared your people to forego hatred and renounce terrorism — and Israel will embrace you. Until that day, there can be no peace with Hamas. Peace at any price isn’t peace; it’s surrender.

UPDATE

Obama saying today (5/25/2011) in the UK what he should have said originally:

“Hamas… has not renounced violence and has not recognized the state of Israel,” he told reporters this morning at a joint-press conference with the U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron. ”Until they do, it is very difficult to expect the Israelis to have a serious conversation, because ultimately they have to have confidence that the Palestinian state is going to stick to whatever bargain is struck,” he said.
…
“…I don’t want the Palestinians to forget that they have obligations as well…That is, I think, going to be a critical aspect of us being able to jump-start this process once again.”

A re-focus that was necessary for Obama to have any credibility as leader, peacemaker, or thinker.

The world has not ended but I’m sorry to say Supernatural has for the season. The ratings were not good for the finale although it is one of the best shows on TV. Like all herd metrics ratings are meaningless indicators of the quality of a show.

Witty and cleverly plotted, the stories have real characters and surprising turns. The special effects on Supernatural were never distracting, but supportive of the story line.

On the other hand, Smallville has ended with a thud. It followed a strange bumpy arc as a show. Starting out poorly — the family setting never worked, nor did Lana Lang — it seemed to climb out of the doldrums and for awhile was fun to watch. The special effects were among the best integrated on any show on TV, or the movies for that matter.

But then in the last season it suffered character bloat; inevitably the story line got lost in the ever enlarging cast. It was a poorly cast show. Erica Durance, Michael Rosenbaum and Justin “Green Arrow” Hartley probably the best of the the group. Not sorry Smallville is gone. (It was always amusing to see “Crazy” Joe Davola’s name in the credit crawl.)

Just finished listening to the audiobook of Lawrence Krauss’ biography of Richard Feyman, Quantum Man. The book is read by Krauss, who is a distinguished physicist himself — the insider knowledge helps,  as the quantum world is not intuitive. Krauss knew Feynman and admired him enormously. Feynman is such an interesting character, both in the scope and depth of his mind and richness of his personality.

Although the science is obscure in its details, the fundamental nature of the subject expands quickly — much of the subject matter spins off into philosophy. No surprise that after Newton determinism became a dominant influence in the mental framework of the West; Spinoza and Kant among many others. The idea of causation in the West spiked after Newton.

Bill Gates has put online Feynman’s “Messenger” lectures at Cornell (You will need Silverlight). This is a legendary series of seven lectures that inspired many physicists. Feynman worked hard on these lectures; the agreement was that he would only give these lectures once.

In addition, there are a number of clips from various biographical documentaries on youtube — so this also filled out the charismatic (overused but accurate word in this case) man for me.

Some random notes / thoughts:

I had not realized the crucial part the young Freeman Dyson had played in Feynman’s recognition. Dyson is an unusually modest man; he seems immune to the sci-careerism in his field. When asked about his being passed over for honors due, Krauss reports that Dyson simply expressed gratitude to have had such an excellent life, in such wonderful surroundings, and to be able to do the work he cares about. Dyson is at the Institute for Advanced Studies, if I remember correctly.

(Changing gears for a moment, I ran across this fascinating paper by Dyson, “TIME WITHOUT END: PHYSICS AND BIOLOGY IN AN OPEN UNIVERSE,” a speculation about the heat death of the universe. The first part is philosophical and for the general public.)

Feynman’s intuitive way of working, not building up from formalisms, as did Dirac, had a particularly energetic, American character. Feynman’s impatience, unpretentious grounding, and exploratory nature are noteworthy — you can see how those traits combined with a focused mind might yield great results.

The second lecture was particularly exciting: Feynman, a brilliant mathematician, describes the relation of physics and mathematics. The mysterious connection between mathematics and the physical world has long been noted. No second hand knowledge in Feynman’s lecture, but rather he explains the process of thinking a scientific genius uses to understand Nature with the tools of math. Feynman elucidated three principal ways of explaining the actions of the real world in numbers: Newton’s mathematics, action at a distance, and a minimal model for a mathematical explanation of the world. Feynman explains how Newton’s math, useful in the quotidian domain, is not of much use in the quantum realm; also, he explained that he felt the other two models will someday have to be united as a tool to explain the world.

Feynman notes — and this is truly a lifting of the curtain — the mysteries he perceives. He notes such things as the oddity that there are so many ways to describe the same actions in nature. That every instance in Nature is always that, unique, and never a general case. That it is impossible to extrapolate action from the micro world of the quanta to the macro world of physical reality. Feynman explains that physics uses not axioms, but modes of thinking; for example, Riemannian geometry might be exactly the tool needed by Einstein, even though it was formulated 75 years before Einstein worked on his theories. Mathematics is the generality and physics the specific, and so axioms don’t work in physics. Feynman explained that Einstein and Dirac made guesses as to how the physical world worked, and then used tools available (these mathematical models) that seemed most likely to help in the explanation.

I should add that I checked out Feynman’s paintings and drawings. They are competent but never got to expressing a true voice. He was a talented amateur. It was interesting to note that early on he was dismissive of the arts, but clearly, as time went on, began to realize there was something there. In one lecture he was dismissive of CP Snow’s Two Cultures, but in his trying to learn to draw and paint reflected a counter tendency — deeper and wiser — that there was something in art that is parallel to the complexity and beauty of the physical world, but which exists in the individual human soul and in the imagination. He would recoil hearing that, but I feel eventually he would admit it, if he had had the time to evolve that side of himself.

Feynman’s love for and gratitude to his father were beautifully expressed in a youtube video. He explained the way his father helped him understand in a deeper sense. People may know the name of a bird, and there are many names in different cultures of course, but that tells you nothing about the bird, said Feynman’s father. The difference between a name and knowledge.

His father was distrustful of the honorifics and uniforms of status. His father pointed out that the costumes of life are just that, and underneath, we all share a common humanity. People bowing before others, because of their uniform, or societal status, repelled Feynman and his father. A useful skepticism implanted early on. Following on this, Feynman did not even trust established laws of science, but derived them himself. This is parallel to the development of many artists, who, with their own individual emphasis, recapitulate in their work the history of art.

Feynman spent a long time trying to return to the bestower an honor many in science would lust for: membership in the National Academy of Sciences. Feynman even considered refusing the Nobel Prize, but felt that people would think he felt too good for such an honor, when really, he simply saw it a decision amongst people and of no real importance. The important thing was the knowledge he had gained of Nature. He remembered seeing scientists in one field trying to keep honors from chemists because they  did not want to sully their grandiose clique with mere chemists. He mentioned Arista, an honorary society of his early schooling, where all they talked about was who they would let in. He laughed at the idea of IQ scores. A truly egalitarian American spirit was Richard Feynman — all from the seed of his father’s character and evolved in his son Richard.

To be continued…

Obama’s order to go ahead with an on-the-ground mission to get the figurehead psychopath bin Laden deserves applause. The policy, and structure that finally got bin Laden, was put in place by Bush and to Obama’s credit, remained unchanged — as far as the public can know such things; the SEAL team dealt a blow to the loose association of thugs — that is called an organization in the media — which has been taunting, bullying and terrorizing.

Good riddance to the murderer.

Christopher Hitchens points to Pakistan as a petri dish of terrorism… bin Laden was enthroned by a state which is receiving billions from America. Pakistan has an interest in keeping the Taliban alive and has no doubt been sheltering more than bin Laden, all resulting from a cancer Pakistan created for internal political reasons and can’t eradicate now even if they tried.

Hitchens notes that bin Laden had long been as irrelevant as he was contemptible,

… in the past few years, their main military triumphs have been against such targets as Afghan schoolgirls, Shiite Muslim civilians, and defenseless synagogues in Tunisia and Turkey. Has there ever been a more contemptible leader from behind, or a commander who authorized more blanket death sentences on bystanders?

Not only does this elimination of a madman free the world of a toxin, it also puts on notice those next in line in bin Laden’s crew.

Whether Obama sees the foolishness of engagement with Pakistan, as Hitchens urges, is an open question. There were claims, made by Clinton, that Pakistanis sacrificed their lives to eliminate bin Laden’s allies in Pakistan. But, whether true or not, the broken state of Pakistan appears to be of little help even if it so wished, as it can’t help itself.

In yet another proof that Larry David is prescient, the recent misbehavior by Atlanta’s Roger McDowell has its predicate in a Seinfeld episode just replayed today.

The two Keith Hernandez episodes had as one of the story lines a satire of the Warren Commission’s report. On Seinfeld, Kramer and Newman accused Hernandez of spitting on them. But Hernandez implies in the second episode that it was Roger McDowell who was to blame because he had been arguing with Kramer and Newman as they heckled him through the game.

In the apology he offered this week, McDowell, 50, said he was provoked by heckling fans. Wren said the Braves were interviewing witnesses.