Rejecting Rogue

You can't flip on the television or surf the net without a picture of Sarah Palin popping on-screen. The hockey-mom, the lipstick-on-a-pig, the perpetrator of conservative wet-dreams the world over, Palin is pushing her book Going Rogue with a small-town book tour cutting through the small swatches of the counties carried by the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008 in states that (surprise!) will be battlegrounds in 2012. And guess what? The crazies are coming out to their local Wal-Marts and strip malls in support. It brings back a nightmare I frequently struggled through during the last campaign. This was that nightmare:

The nightmares are back again with the onslaught of this book tour, dredging up visions of the frightening 2008 campaign and conjuring visions of a 2012 run. (The New York Times offers a nice overview of the mayhem here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/us/politics/22palin.html?hp). For anyone out there claiming it's impossible that she'll run in 2012, I disagree. She will run. She craves the attention far too much and the delicious hypocrisy of deriding a national media that just helped sky-rocket her book to the top of the best seller charts. Though my friend and former Obama organizer Kevin Avery will point out that she has less experience than President Obama, I contest that those things don't matter for a Republican. For a Democrat? Of course! But not a Republican with the backing of Fox News and a slew of grassroots support.

It's crucial for Democrats to recognize that there is a different set of standards (especially for a mixed-race president) and to accept these standards instead of arguing for a change to the rules of the game. She will run. It will be competitive.

By no means am I an apologist for President Obama, nor did I strongly support him during the campaign, but the simple-minded, hate-driven outpouring of support for someone like Sarah Palin should be frightening to any objective outsider. It's hard to not find fault with statements like these from people waiting in line to have Sarah Palin sign their copy of Going Rouge pulled from that New York Times article I linked above:

"Kevin Witzigreuter, 38, a Fort Wayne firefighter waiting in line next to Mr. Miller, chimed in: 'And he can’t even make a simple decision about what to do in Afghanistan. We’ve got men and women fighting overseas. Either man up and fight the war to win it, or get out.'"

Regardless of your stance on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, it's irresponsible to suggest that taking the time to make an informed decision is a fault in one's decision-making abilities. I'm guessing too that no military family or soldier would call these types of decisions "simple."

Another quote: "'It’s more fun talking politics with people who agree with you,' said Lucy Vigmostad, who was celebrating her 18th birthday by being first in line in Grand Rapids."

Temporarily indulging the temptation to over-generalize, statements like these all-too-often seem to sum up the approach many Americans take toward political debate--what's the point of arguing with people? What could they possibly say to change my views? Who cares what they say or think?

Beyond that, it's a problem that stems beyond politics into our classrooms. It's becoming more and more rare to find students who engage with ideas and don't descend into stubborn ignorance or logical fallacies (or even are willing to change their perspective when presented with compelling evidence). It's the reason why Fox News has a large and loyal viewership that can completely ignore and dismiss organizations like Media Matters.

What I find most frightening, and what anyone should regardless of one's political leanings, is the uninformed, blind hatred spewed out by those who gather in lines at 3 a.m. and wait hours for Sarah Palin sign their books (and in one case, jeer her as she boards her bus, leaving some-300 families without a signed copy of her book after she promised to sign for 1,000 people). If you want to see a real horror film (at least a horror film for anyone in favor of level-headed informed debate, even with those who totally disagree with you), check out this clip from outside a McCain-Palin campaign stop:

I guess I aim this post more at my conservative readers, though I'm not sure how many people (if any) are conservative nor how many people in general read my blog regularly. I beg you, conservatives wherever you are and however you stumble upon this, to reject open hostility that works against the democratic process, to embrace logical debate instead of falling victim to ad hominem attacks or straw man arguments or slippery slopes or faults in causality. Palin is not the kind of divisive leader we need in this country. Whatever his faults, President Obama has made quite a bit of effort to bring bipartisanship into the White House by retaining some of President Bush's former advisers (to the frustration of some Democrats). Unlike Palin, he is engaged with what is happening in the world around him and takes the time necessary to make the well-informed decision. I stand in step with a lot of conservative and liberals who are frustrated over his policies, but I can respect his intellect and trust (yes, trust!) that he genuinely cares about leaving America much stronger than it was when he inherited it.

I encourage conservatives (and liberals for that matter) not to see voting for the opposition as a concession or a loss if your only choice on the party ticket is someone like Sarah Palin. Think of it as a sign that you reject rallies where one feels comfortable shouting the n-word in reference to President Obama and the presenter (in this case, Palin) doesn't even pause to berate such hate-speech. Vote with this mindset so that America won't descend into the madness depicted above. (No, that clip was not a preview of the movie adaptation of McCarthy's The Road). Have the courage to engage with those of different viewpoints and the strength to make solid arguments and concede points when your arguments are weakened. If we let personal attacks and ill-informed views trump common sense, it won't matter who's in charge of Congress or the White House. There will be no country left worthy of government.

Why We Love Suspense Novels

Perhaps it is because I am coming to the final 15 pages of John Smolens' The Invisible World (review forthcoming) and my mind is given to such thoughts, or perhaps I'm feeling smaller than usual today, but a police car just quickly pulled a Y-turn on State Street outside the window of the coffee shop in which I sit, and I thought, "Boy, I wish I was hiding out from the police who are tracking me down to arrest me for the murder of a family friend for which I've been set-up."

Or maybe I'm hiding an important historical document in the satchel slung over the chair across from me that contains a map to a cache of hidden treasure kept in the little known catacombs underneath the State Capitol building just up the street from where I sit (though of course, my breakneck journey will take me to all kinds of strange locations and will introduce me to an incredibly old but extremely wise man who once worked for the CIA). Or maybe I'm on the run from a deadly assassin who's trying to recover a duffle bag full of drug money I stumbled across in the desert.

And then it dawns on me. This is why we love suspense stories and movies so much: it makes us feel special, different, set-off from everyone else. For us hunted ones, jobs no longer matter, we don't worry about missing our bus (or about our stolen bikes), we don't ever have to stop to use the bathroom, and it's acceptable if we go a day or two without showering. We look around the room at the coffee shop where we sit--to catch a breather and get off the street (and away from those meddling cops), maybe to change our clothes--and know that we have a secret that no one else knows about, except for our goofy friend (who provides comedic relief and keeps us grounded through what otherwise could be an overwhelming experience) and the attractive ex-government worker who somehow feels drawn to our brokenness, our shaky and broken personal history. Everyone else is reading the paper or bickering on their cellphones or worried about their exam in Psychology, but not us. We're on the run.

Being on the run embroiled in some plot that will resolve itself in a tidy two hour and fifteen minute film, has all the charms of life that make it worth living: you can dress up in costume, you forget about saving money for tomorrow because, frankly, if the bad guys have their way, there won't be a tomorrow. You get to eat every meal in a dinner and say very cool things like, "I will take this secret to the grave" and "I don't care what happens, Mary. I promised my mother I would do this for her, and I will." You get to stay in a new motel room every night.

In suspense thrillers, no one has ever stubbed her toe. No one has ever picked up dry-cleaning unless the blazer she was picking up had a clue left in its pocket. No one has ever gotten her period. And sometimes, that's what we want from life: the simplicity of a singular task, however dangerous; the permission to let ourselves throw out social conventions and feel emotions like fear and love and excitement in their most raw forms. Sometimes that's all we want, though we know it's impossible. And eventually, the book has to end. We know that.

It is far too late to still be up...

Flipping through back issues of Poetry, I came across this gem of a poem by Jill Osier, which I somehow missed the first time through. See? It pays to keep all these old journals around the house.

One More Thing

Making the circle larger, I can include
the green shed fading in the lot. Sometimes I think
we already have it. I think the world’s that big.
Then your dog dies, and the planets are more perfectly
imperfectly-shaped than ever. I’m not afraid?
How else to explain invention? In that story
where the man wakes up and can’t find his wife, now,
suddenly, their bed’s a moon, too big and too bright.

P.S. What are the rules governing reprinting poems from journals or books on private blogs? Violations of copyright, I’m guessing, but are we too small for it to matter? Even if we are, do you all, as poets, see this as a dangerous thing or do you welcome the wider audience? I guess if someone is willing to take the time to transpose my poem and post it on her blog, I should feel honored, which I would if it happened. And surely, no one would be in favor of posting unpublished poems by other poets on their blogs thereby nullifying first publication rights. Still, all this brings up some good questions. Is an online presence, regardless of the form it takes or where our words show up, a good thing?

Finally, I leave you tonight with my first two line poem:

It is far too late to still be up.
There's a chance I might be pregnant.

This Week’s “The GRE Is Ridiculously Hard, So You Are Not An Idiot” Review

Today’s Topic: The Metaphysical Poets (with debt to Patricia Beer’s An Introduction to the Metaphysical Poets)

Period of Influence: Ranges from Donne’s birth in 1572 (though he started writing twenty years afterward), to Marvell’s death in 1678.

Major Writers: John Donne, Andrew Marvell, Henry Vaughan, George Herbert

Chief Characteristics: As Beer notes, “There was a great variety of tone, ranging from Donne’s impatience—(‘For Godsake hold your tongue, and let me love’)—to George Herbert’s grateful surprise—(‘Who would have thought my shrivel’d heart / Could have recovered greenesse?’) (Beer 14). The expressiveness was aided by a new freedom in rhythm and less confined by strict traditional forms. In fact, the irregularity of their rhythms was most often the reason for their censure by those who preferred the smoothness of Elizabethan poetry (Beer 15-16).

In some of their poems, they argued as in Andrew Marvell’s “A Dialogue between the Resolved Soul and Created Pleasure” and Donne’s “The Flea” and persuasion is a major signifier of metaphysical poetry (Beer 19). (On a side note, one of the few questions I got right on my GRE Subject Test was an identification question—I was able to pick out Donne by his use of the word flea or tic or something like that). However, in this persuasion, the poets often resort to “the use of deliberately false logic” (Beer 20).

This is seen in “To His Coy Mistress”: the speaker knows of his mental superiority and hides what is on its face, a pretty morose and subtle threat, in beautiful language that would convince a simple-minded maiden. The main argument they put forth, which as Beer notes “is nearly always pointed to first of all as being characteristic of their work,” is comparison, usually through metaphor and simile (22). Their comparisons, unlike the Elizabethans, were “so original as to be startling, and at their best so functional as to be far more than decorative” (22). Famous comparisons? Donne’s soul to his wife’s soul as a pair of compasses and the rhythm of the pulse to that of a drum (which was made by Henry King).

Another major characteristic is the wittiness of the poets, which is hard to define and easier to recognize; Beer offers this definition: “a witty poet can think of more than one thing at a time” (25).

Finally, religion draws a clear line between metaphysical poetry and its precursor, Elizabethan poetry: “The development of religious poetry in the first half of the seventeenth century is one of the most distinguished contributions of the Metaphysical Poets to English verse” (Beer 28). Very few Elizabethan poets wrote religious poetry, but with metaphysical poets, earthly love and divine love were both major subjects of the poetry. Many of the Metaphysics were either progeny of clergy or clergymen themselves.

On Giving Up Verbosity for Lent Five Months Too Soon

“Undulation” is such a poet’s word. No woman has ever said in a darkened bedroom as her man slips his Levis from his waist and steps lightly toward the bed, “My body is undulating. Ride me like a wave.”

It is also true that no recipe has ever read, “Add the pasta to the pot when the water begins to undulate.”

And nine in ten people don’t even know what the word means.

Love and Other Games of Chance

Leslie invented a new game this past weekend. It’s called Costumed or Crazy? Here are the rules if you want to play along at home (though I guess you’ll have to wait until next year to join in). Over the Halloween weekend, you are to point out people and challenge your partner to guess whether that person is dressed in a costume or whether he simply prefers to wear strange clothing. It’s as basic as that.

After finishing our second marriage preparation course this past Saturday (which we must do in order to marry in the Catholic church), we relaxed with some Olive Garden soup, salad, and pizza. We spotted a gentleman dressed like this:

So… 50s greaser or high fashion?

Try this one:

Real hobo or drunken Freak Fest go-er?

Note: You may want to stay away from anyone who’s wearing an eye patch. No matter how much they look like a pirate, there’s a chance the patch is legit and covering up an empty eye socket. They might even show you the empty socket to prove it to you, which you do not want them to do.

Here’s another game, this one from a “special writers’-convention-only preview of Mathias Svalina’s forthcoming [though now I think it’s published] collection of children’s games, Play.” It’s billed as short prose, but I think his form could work equally well as prose poems:

ANIMAL CHASE
(for 5 or more players)

Two bases are marked off, at either end of America. Each child takes the name of an Animal. One child is It. He stands in the center of America & writers newspaper columns about the decline of America. He starts a radio show & becomes tremendously influencial. He begins to see himself as no longer It but the voice of the people. When he goes to sleep at night his mother tucks him in & whispers “Sweet dreams, voice of the people.” When his father drops him off at school he calls out “Have a great day, voice of the people.”

The Animals lurk in the darkness of the forest & the shadows of the demolished factories. When stray children pass the shadows they pounce on them. Licking the blood from their claws & beaks they whisper to themselves “I am Animal. I am Animal.”

When the first fame ends all the children trade names & a new child becomes It.

Anyone want to be the first one It? Anyone else have new games to share?