two new hatchlings

Here and there, in the newspapers, advertisements, books, yes–in student papers–but even in publications from those folk who should know better, I find the expression, “As I was pouring over this idea,” or “I poured over his book,” or some whatnot . . . .

World, let’s not let the vulgar tongue take us down that trail!  One “pores” over something of interest such as a book; one does not “pour.”  The infinitives are, respectively, “to pore” as opposed to “to pour.”

There!  Now wasn’t that snippy of me?  Now, the interesting and instructive thing about these forms is that they both appear to come from the same Middle English “pouren,’ but somehow their spelling reflects a history of either transitive or intransitive usage.  Or they may be considered to have nothing to do with one another.  There is at least one instance of “pore” being used for “pour” in Chaucer.

Astonishing cynicism, or a way to insight?  Bear in mind Buttrick wrote right after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a world war had darkened things already for many years (consider the Asian and African experiences, not just the period between 7DEC41 and VJ Day).  And he focused his discussion on the dilemma of our ignorance, our inability to generate Light for life.

Of the demagoguery he mentions there are examples held fast in memory, the “Kingfish” Huey Long of Louisiana who was murdered at the capitol in Baton Rouge in 1935.  Without forgetting his populist devotion to Louisianans, I associate Long’s remarkable saga with Sinclair Lewis’ fascistic Berzilius “Buzz” Windrip in It Can’t Happen Here (1935).  “Berzilius” rings as “Beelzebub” in my ears; but, well, it was a satire, though with plenty of American referents.  Others have suggested other loose parallels — among the worst Hitler comes to mind.

It is not that people are “bad” or that they choose demagogues – and what American politicians can rise to the top unless they can “draw the people together” unto themselves to some degree?  No, “bad” doesn’t get it.  Says Buttrick, our known burden of ignorance pales before the “worse burden and deeper need” – that we are wicked.  We know that, too, and mostly deny it.  Though in admitting it we cannot help ourselves, we need a deliverer.  A demagogue?  No, but someone who can also take our mortality to task and assure us of Life.  So, Buttrick ended his chapter on these themes this way:

• Man is constitutionally ignorant, endemically wicked, irrevocably mortal; but he knows it, and is therefore above his ignorance, sin, and mortality; yet he is not delivered from his lower life by his own power, but remains helpless without the Great Companion.
• There is no book logic to uphold, or refute, these contentions.  There is only the logic of life: the reader must ask himself if this description of the paradox of human nature is true or untrue of his human nature.
• If he finds any truth in the description, he may be willing to ask further if the new-old words of the creed have an answering truth:  “God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God; . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, . . . and was made man.”  (from the Nicene Creed)

And among the four groups — the Unarians, Decenarians, Centenarians, and Millennarians — does the denomination suggest its members vary in their ability to cope with “the noonday demon” called acedia?  Do the Millennarians, who are allowed to emerge once every thousand years, have a special gift of focused discipline that allows them to endure?  Or do the others do better?  How do they vary in their encounters with boredom, or depression, or apathy?  Stephenson may have some answers from the geek-sci-fi- side; I’m reading Norris for hers.

9/16–The primary reference is to Neal Stephenson’s Anathem, which should be in release since September 9th.  (See the article in the Sep 2008 Wired .) Set on the planet Arbe where the people are either the Saecular (anti-environmental consumerist, sybaritics) or the monastic avaunts or auts who live and think amid ritual in the mathic world inside walled concents (sounds a bit like “cloisters,” eh?).  The four divisions of auts — Unarians, Decenarians, Centenarians, and Millennarians — are free to venture out of their assigned or chosen (?) concents according to classification:  by year, decade, century, and millennium.

Time is the central focus.

Already this sounds restrictive.  But suppose there could be an inversion of socio-cultural values that prized slowed time rather than life-lived-at-ever-increasing-velocity-with-no-end-in-sight — and decreasing returns on one’s efforts?

Some things to consider short of further comment for today:

First, the Christian tradition holds and provides an ideal, or varieties of the ideal, for maximizing time:  one in forms of the monastic tradition; another in expressions of Pietism; and another in personal expressions of piety and devotion, to name three examples.  And then — shall we never forget? — Sabbath, with an extra bolt of wisdom from the Israelitic/Judaic tradition.

Second, Jesus said something about rest; perhaps we should attend to that, too.

More later . . . .

The marvelous journalistic media assure we shall have our daily presentist mixed doses of shock and surprise, banality and the constant insistence that so much of what we see and hear is entirely new, unprecedented, even revolutionary.

How American!

Need a new way to lambaste a candidate who is too: old, young, verbose, close-mouthed, tall, short, liberal, conservative, inexperienced, connected, religious, irreligious . . . ? Those descriptors immediately call to mind: Reagan, Kennedy, Stevenson, Coolidge, Lincoln, Douglas, Clinton, Goldwater, Obama, Hayes, Wilson, Roosevelt . . . . Why, when RR ran in 1980 one would have thought some people expected a state funeral not long after inauguration — that is, IF the poor old guy lived long enough. (Hear the echoes directed toward McCain). There is always something to make fun of, either just for fun, or with sincere malicious intent.

So, what about the Paris Hilton thing this week? Fun, obviously. But what is so new about celebrities weighing in either to poke fun, or to soberly advocate the merits of their favored candidate? Nothing new there, not in all the history of American politics.

But it’s not fun for John McCain, really. What a challenge is laid before him! Consider the candidates and the varied, sometimes secondary, characteristics that influence voters. Who’s more entertaining? Who’s a better cheerleader? Who exudes youth and virility? Who shows confidence borne of experience?  Who’s the better debater (wouldn’t we like to know . . . )? Who’s more experienced overall (whoops, probably should be in another list)? Who better represents the U.S.A. demographically, attitudinally, and ideologically (are there some great debating points here)? Whom should we expect to work better with our multicultural America (an unfair question, or quite apt?)? Who would work better with the Congress? Who would help our international image and acceptability (don’t even suggest that’s not important!)?

No, John McCain is no rock star, no “celebrity” as we understand the word. But neither is Barack Obama, though I get the feeling many Americans deep down want a celebrity president — at least someone with the substance, respectability, depth, and character to make us feel better about our top leadership. With that celebrity they want some substance, a strong, respectable image, and confidence.

I think the more important features in that list are in reach both for McCain and Obama. I think we should demand those things. We don’t want celebrities, we want statesmen-leaders. We shall see what we get.

Let’s not forget: McCain and Obama are senators. That fact merits more discussion than it has gotten recently. Yes, McCain has been a senator longer, and the quality of that experience, its depth, is something we need to consider. Most Americans will not dwell on it though. One question dominates: how did these men become senators in the first place? Did they just throw their names in the hat? An appreciable electorate made them senators, no doubt trusting (hoping mightily?) that in the short and long terms they would do some good for their constituencies. That’s nothing to disparage.

Let’s remember, too, that the presidency is at best a humble office. At best it requires greatness in (so far) a man, and the American electorate does not long reward someone who makes us look bad (well, there is the Twenty-second Amendment for extra protection in that case, or even for more expressly partisan purposes, if you will). The comedians and humorists, and Paris Hilton, have a point, even as their jokes and poking fun acknowledge the power of celebrity in our culture. Yes, celebrity attracts us. But there is another side to the matter. A presidential candidate should not try to be God’s best gift to humankind.

Yet at the end of the day we want the kind of confidence, the sense of support, that assures us there are strong, principled, constant persons backing up our lifestyles, our dreams, our goals, and our efforts. These are considerations not entirely determined by age and experience, purpose and motivation, attitude and character. But these things are important. They are akin to the support we appreciate from the folk we value in our lives — those we can always count on to encourage us and to help us in times of trouble — like family elders, brothers and sisters, ministers and priests, coaches, teachers. These are the very qualities we expect from our civil servants from the local to national levels. At best we also expect that of ourselves in our civic and community service (we need to remember that!).

What do we need in a president? Paris Hilton cannot tell us, no, not really — that’s a media-commodity-entertainment thing. We need a president who evokes his commonality with us in our common life, who works to assure that security and liberty are maintained, who knows what makes a nation great in the community of nations and seeks to enhance that community, and who listens well.

I wish we had stronger candidates. Honestly, I cannot think of any presidential campaign, ever, when someone would not have said just that. But there is a truism not always fulfilled in American presidential history. The men have generally risen to the demands of the office. Some have fallen short. A few have succeeded beyond all human expectation. I am more sanguine about such prospects for McCain and Obama, but as always we shall have to wait, and see. For example, a key mark of competence and wisdom consists in the qualities of those cabinet, staff, and agency servants whom our presidents choose to help them advance their responsibilities in office. That has not always been well done.

One more thing: shouldn’t we be taking a look at the composition of our Congress for the next few years? Ponder the argument that the Congress actually is more important when we want to get things done. But that’s another discussion.

Don’t take me because I am faithful,

Don’t take me because I am kind.

If your heart settles on me, I’m for the taking;

Take me for longing or leave me behind.

Along with yet beyond all the reason, the negotiating, the policy statements, and the eventual platform, many American voters settle on a matter of the heart, a voting decision that allows them to leave the polls with hope and satisfaction: “I have made my best choice today.” Though it seems in recent presidential elections there have been no earnestly tantalizing choices, one could argue that few elections since 1800 have met that measure.

A brief word only about the delegate selection process, and I speculate: the Democrats could do worse for themselves than to risk anything like the grindingly close popular and electoral and judicial decisions of 2000 and 2004. Does choosing Barack over Hilary reduce that risk?

Take me for longing, or leave me behind.

Which candidate fits that bill?