Sunday Burst of Weirdness

[Wow! I wrote this post on Saturday and published it using Blogger’s new “Scheduled Publishing” feature, and it works! Cool!]

Here we go!

:: Geez, what a way to go. The question is, does this fellow get added to the official roster of Civil War deaths?

:: I’m going to apologize in advance for this, but I read of the New Jersey Hall of Fame, and I immediately wondered if the museum’s corridors will be punctuated every forty feet by a tollbooth, at which one must pay seventy-five cents to continue with the tour.

(OK, joking aside, I don’t think there’s anything the least bit weird about a New Jersey Hall of Fame. It’s an old and populous state, so of course it’s contributed lots of notable American citizens, including two Presidents. I just can’t help making fun of the Jersey Turnpike. Because the New York State Thruway isn’t mockable at all. Heh….)

:: Back in my orchestral trumpet playing days, I used to wish we could do the Main Theme from Star Wars — until just a few minutes ago when I saw the first page of the score, and saw that as the principal trumpet player, I would have had to make a fortissimo entrance on a double-C. Talk about being exposed if you screw up!

:: I’m conflicted by this. See, I actually agree with what the guy’s singing. Which makes me the biggest geek of all! (Oh, and Billy Dee Williams is awesome for taking part in this.)

OK, that’s all. Be well out there, folks!

Share This Post

Ben’s Folly

Ben Stein holds forth on the value of science:

Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.

Can this be true? Has science directly led to death and slaughter? Has science done this in itself and by itself? Did Auschwitz happen because of science? The very claim, put that way, sounds utterly ludicrous, probably because it is utterly ludicrous. The Holocaust didn’t happen because a dispassionate search for the nature of things, carried out by trial and error, led the Nazis to the inescapable empirical conclusion that the Jews are a subhuman race who needed to be wiped off the face of the Earth and erased from history. The Nazis were not given to evidence and experiment. They came to their ghastly enterprise with their conclusions already drawn, their beliefs already settled. The Nazi mindset was not, by any definition of the word that a reasoned person would employ, a scientific one. It was a religious one: a religion of the State carried to the kinds of extremes that leave science far, far behind in favor of absolute knowledge of absolute hatred.

Did science play any role in this? Only in the way that science ever plays a role in the more disturbing aspects of human history: the application of scientific knowledge toward horrifying ends. Science played a role in the development of Zyklon-B, clearly enough. But science also played a role in the development of penicillin. Robert Goddard’s pioneering work on rockets may have set some on the road to coming up with ways to rain explosives down on enemy cities from afar, but that same work allowed us to take our first step toward the stars.

Science is, in itself, neither good nor bad, which is what makes it the ultimate double-edged sword. The great fear of Carl Sagan’s life was that in a time when science had made it possible for humans to finally begin to peel back the pages of the Universe, it had also made it possible for humans to destroy themselves utterly. But it wouldn’t be science carrying out that ultimate act of societal suicide. It would be us.

But for people who would blame science for the things that go wrong in this world, perhaps some reminders are in order. It’s because of science that we can store entire movies on shiny discs so we can watch them on televisions or computer monitors. It’s because of science that we have those televisions and computer monitors in the first place. It’s because of science that we have movies. It’s because of science that we can listen to music without having to wait for our favorite musical ensemble to actually come to town and play the music for us. It’s because of science that we can live in very hot cities in the summertime and not have to accept that we’ll live with sweat.

It’s because of science that an average person today lives to their seventies, instead of their forties. It’s because of science that we can call our friends whenever we want to. It’s because of science that cancer isn’t the automatic death sentence that it used to be. It’s because of science that, even today, we can eat relatively cheaply and relatively healthily. It’s because of science that we can travel great distances in periods of time not best measured in days or months. It’s because of science that we know what our world looks like from afar.

And it goes back through history. It was because of science that we learned how to sail the seas, first out of sight of land, then to mark our way by the stars, and then to mark our progress by way of longitude. It was because of science that the oil lamp gave way to the electric one. It was science that taught us that our world circles a star, and it was science that revealed our world as a globe. It was science that revealed the age of our planet and the great beings that once walked upon it, for many more thousands of years than we, the world’s self-appointed masters, have so much as crawled. It was science that solved the problems posed by bodies in the night sky that moved in ways they seemed like they shouldn’t. It was science that revealed the causes of diseases and the steps required to either prevent them or cure them, and it was science that revealed the interconnection of every living being on this planet of ours and the ways they influence each other and evolve together.

It was science that kept my brain-damaged son from dying within hours of his birth.

What science did not do is make the Germans elect a government that held as one of its central tenets the inherent superiority of the German people; nor did science make that government comprise itself of some of the most murderous people ever to take the reins of a national government. Neither did science make the rest of the world rise up in opposition to that abomination. Did science make it possible for the Nazis to kill six million Jews and however many other “undesirables”? Doubtless, but science also made it possible for the rest of the world to defeat them. Science was, as it has only ever been, a mere tool. Tools can be used for varying purposes, but never has a tool made the user do anything at all. The hammer doesn’t make me strike a nail, nor does it make a murderer smash in a skull.

Carl Sagan once wrote, in Cosmos: “Science is only a tool. But it is the best tool we have.” The Ben Steins of the world would have us set aside that tool without ever realizing how their world has been built in its entirety using that very tool. They want to have it both ways. Would the world be a worse place if the Wright Brothers, experimenting as scientists do, flown at last at Kitty Hawk, and if no one else had ever followed up their insights? Most definitely. But it would be a world in which the World Trade Center would still be standing. Is science to blame for 9-11-01? Using science as a tool, the Nazis were able to create means of industrial murder that appall us even today. But also using science as a tool, we’ve created the very weapons that we employ in wars of choice, wars that I’ll wager Ben Stein supports enthusiastically, not out of any empirical questioning of the results, but out of the application of a kind of nation-as-religious-entity.

A carpenter who blames his tools for the collapse of his structure is a bad carpenter. Ben Stein is a very bad carpenter indeed.

Share This Post

The hyphen: is there anything it can’t do?

OK, I was tagged by Blue Girl with this. It’s a one-word answer quiz-thing. I’m never all that good at one-word answer stuff; I do best with lots-of-word answers. But let’s see how I do, eh?

(BTW, I wrote this on Thursday night and saved it, so some of the answers are incomprehensible if you don’t know that I was watching NBC’s Thursday night roster of comedies at the time.)

Yourself: Wondering.

Your Partner: Beloved.

Your Hair: Long

Your Mother: Librarian

Your Father: Logical

Your Favorite Item: Laptop!

Your Dream Last Night: Sensual (Well, it was! So there!)

Your Favorite Drink: Water

Your Dream Home: Bag-end (A loophole, I’ve found! Thank you, O magical hyphen!)

The Room You Are In: Book-filled

Your Fear: McCain

Where Do You Want to be in 10 years: There

Who You Hung Out With Last Night: Daughter

What You Are Not: Thin

Muffins: Lemon-poppyseed (I had to cheat there, that’s my favorite muffin flavor!)

One of Your Wish Items: Prius

Time: Incessant

Last Thing You Did: Ate

What You Are Wearing: Sweatshirt (Ahhh! You all thought I’d say something else!)

Your Favorite Weather: Autumnal

Your Favorite Book: Tolkien’s

Last Thing You Ate: Casserole

Your Mood: Pooped….

Your Best Friends: Beloved

What Are You Thinking About Right Now: Fey (As in, Tina.)

Your Car: Grannymobile

Your Summer: Hot

What’s on your TV: 30Rock (hence my answer three questions up)

What Is Your Weather Like: Chill

When Was the Last Time You Laughed: Michael-versus-Stanley (again, no way to do this one without resorting to Mr. Hyphen.)

What is your relationship status: Blessed

And there we go. That was fun. I’m not going to tag anyone, just grab-and-go, folks!

Share This Post

I dream of verse, but live in prose

All month I’ve been aware that it’s National Poetry Month, and all month I’ve been thinking, “Hey, it’s all month long, I can post something about it at some point.” And wouldn’t you know: now it’s the last day of the month, so I’m just getting this in under the wire.

I always want to post more about poetry, but somehow I don’t; maybe this is because poetry is, for me, the most personal of literary regions, and there are ways in which it almost feels unseemly to discuss the poems that mean most to me, like I’m sharing something deeply private that shouldn’t be spoken of in a forum such as this, even though it is (mostly) read by friends. But I do love the poetry.

I tend to read poetry in spurts. I will go a month or two without reading any poetry, and then I’ll binge on it, taking a poetry book to work with me every day to read during breaks. I’m probably due for another such binge in the near future; I suppose it’s a testament to my contrary nature that I am feeling poetic as Poetry Month draws to a close.

Have I written poetry? Yes, I have. Will I post any of my poems here? Not at present. This goes back to my very personal relationship with poetry. The poems that I’ve written in the past have, in almost every case, been written as gifts for loved ones, and I don’t feel that those poems are mine to share here, even though I wrote them. Most of them – and there have only been a few, really – refer to things that only the recipient would know about, and would thus be impenetrable to readers here. (Plus, I’m not at all certain that my poems are any good! Especially the ones where I actually try to work within the confines of an actual form. Sonnets are hard to write, folks.)

But setting all that aside, I figure I could at least share here a few poems that I’ve found most meaningful to me over the years. I’m sure this too will come as no surprise to longtime readers here or those who know me, but the poems that move me most are almost exclusively love poems. Here are a few.

“Love’s Philosophy”
Percy Bysshe Shelley

The fountains mingle with the river
   And the rivers with the ocean,
The winds of Heaven mix for ever
   With a sweet emotion;
Nothing in the world is single,
   All things by a law divine
In one spirit meet and mingle.
   Why not I with thine?

See the mountains kiss high heaven
   And the waves clasp one another:
No sister-flower would be forgiven
   if it disdained its brother;
And the sunlight clasps the earth
   And the moonbeams kiss the sea:
What is all this sweet work worth
   If thou kiss not me?

One of the poets nearest to my heart is Robert Burns:

“A Red, Red Rose”

O, my luve is like a red, red rose,
   That’s newly sprung in June;
O, my luve is like the melodie
   That’s sweetly played in tune.

As fair art thou, my bonie lass,
   So deep in luve am I,
And I will luve thee still, my dear,
   Till a’ the seas gang dry.

Till a’ the seas gang dry, my dear,
   And the rocks melt wi’ the sun,
And I will luve thee still, my dear,
   While the sands o’ life shall run.

And fare thee weel, my only luve!
   And fare thee weel a while!
And I will come again, my luve,
   Tho’ it were ten thousand mile!

This is an anonymous poem, very short. It served as the inspiration for one of the band directors at the high school music camp I attended to compose a piece of music:

O western wind, when wilt thou blow,
   the small rain down can rain?
Christ, if my love were in my arms,
   and I in my bed again!

I’ve never really felt that the poems JRR Tolkien wrote for The Lord of the Rings are as bad as many commentators seem to think; I actually like quite a few of them, none moreso than this, one version of the “Old Walking Song” that crops up throughout the trilogy, the last version:

The Road goes ever on and on,
   Out from the door where it began.
Still round the corner there may wait
   A new road or a secret gate;
And though I oft have passed them by,
   A day will come at last when I
Shall take the hidden paths that run
   West of the Moon, East of the Sun.

The novels of Guy Gavriel Kay, my favorite living writer, are full of poetry and verse, though as in Tolkien, the verse mainly appears in the form of brief quotations from what in the novels are reported to be longer songs. I would so dearly love to hear the full version of the song that contains this lyric, from A Song for Arbonne:

Even the birds above the lake
   are singing of my love;
And even the flowers along the shore
   are growing for her sake.

Another poet whose work often speaks directly to my own heart is Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

“The Miller’s Daughter” (excerpt)

It is the miller’s daughter,
   And she is grown so dear, so dear,
That I would be the jewel
   That trembles in her ear:
For hid in ringlets day and night,
I’d touch her neck so warm and white.

And I would be the girdle
   About her dainty dainty waist,
And her heart would beat against me,
   In sorrow and in rest:
And I should know if it beat right,
I’d clasp it round so close and tight.

And I would be the necklace,
   And all day long to fall and rise
Upon her balmy bosom,
   With her laughter or her sighs,
And I would lie so light, so light,
I scarce should be unclasp’d at night.

And of course, there’s no other way to conclude a post of love poetry than by turning to the Bard himself:

When, in disgrace with fortune and men’s eyes,
I all alone beweep my outcast state
And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries
And look upon myself and curse my fate,
Wishing me like to one more rich in hope,
Featured like him, like him with friends possess’d,
Desiring this man’s art and that man’s scope,
With what I most enjoy contented least;
Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising,
Haply I think on thee, and then my state,
Like to the lark at break of day arising
From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven’s gate;
   For thy sweet love remember’d such wealth brings
   That then I scorn to change my state with kings.

Poetry is why we invented language, I think.

Share This Post