Pale Morning Moon, Dark Blue Black Sea
green cypresses all black against
the sun's noon fire, liberty is
noble food. To divide
it makes it more; more of it, not
outstanding -- futile word. When insight
is not farsight, when grace would be
outstanding without having been
indwelling, there is reason to have sighed.
Boll-i-var, Bow - lee - var, I don't
know what you call it but I know
he set them free. For the
strengthenings of liberty, thought
of in our minds, done with our fingers,
hoped for in our lives, we're asking,
save us from the captivity
of surfeit; save us from complacency.
Life must stop stifling life with life.
It must. Alas that we must put
an end to death by death.
We're begging: we are begging for
news to the prisoner that he may
come out of his dungeon at last.
He's seen destruction and would see
deliverance. Turn sighing into breath.
The Poems of Marianne Moore, p. 248
Written about the same time as "Keeping Their World Large," "Pale Morning Moon, Dark Blue Black Sea," enlarges our understanding of the former poem by showing yet another facet to her thinking. This time she references Simon Bolivar, the freedom fighter of South America who opened up S. American nations to democracy. (This poem doesn't appear in Complete Poems, but is in the more capacious volume, edited by Grace Schulman, Viking Press, 2003.)
To be complacent about the children of Afghanistan, and the young women of Afghanistan, is more or less like being complacent about the young girl who was captured by psychopath Garrido, and forced to be his sex slave for two decades while living in a tent in his California backyard.
I can't understand how this can be done. Some people just look the other way, and are content to think, it's too much trouble to care about little kids around the world. Let them rot in captivity. Let them live in their dungeons.
Forget about delivering the slaves of the American South. Let their slavemasters live in fat peace, liberty is nothing. But Moore says instead that "liberty/ is noble food."
It's as important as food, and possibly more important. Communists don't understand it, any more than they understand economics. Liberty is costly. Not only in raw dollars. "Alas that we must put/ an end to death by death."
Communists mourn the death of Saddam Hussein and his evil sons!
The dove is also a hawk, depending on one's viewpoint.
Peace can only come through war.
"Save us from the captivity of surfeit," so that we can have the "strengthenings of liberty."
Can the prisoners of other systems be released now please?
People are trapped in their systems. But many would like to come out of their dungeons. Not just the concentration camps of Poland and Germany, but the brothels of India, the prison-house of Myanmar, the lunatic asylum of North Korea, the basketcase of Zimbabwe, the torture tunnels of contemporary Vietnam.
Let them breathe.
By the way, the reason that lobsters like the very cold waters off Maine is that there is more oxygen in very cold waters. Trout and most other fish prefer very cold water. More oxygen. Breathing is important. Liberty as breath. "Dark Blue Black Sea."
Image above: she dressed herself as an American Revolutionary War Hero. I assume the tri-cornered cap is similar to that of George Washington?
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." -- George Washington
62 comments:
i think i would've loved to have spent at least one night kissing that charming face
just to proffer a different point of view
now i understand why you don't care for cormac mccarthy
something horrid is happening every moment
i'd like to think it could all be stopped
but humanity just betrays a more sinister and wretched side each day
what i think is craazy about sadaams death is thaat george bush waatched it on the web andn he liked it he saaid he didn't but i think he liked it
if everyone would slow down and let people watch their neighborhoods life wouldn't be so crazy everyone is going fast too damn fast
in montana life goes slow people are alert to life around them that's the way it is..in canada too life is pretty relaxed kids are not in danger in the big cities they can walk to the store in the streets and not fear
here they'd get run over by a speeding car if not abducted
we've created our own monster
nuns with guns
now we're getting somewhere
one man's liberty is another man's lawsuit another man's pain
j
Pygmy nuns with Derringers!
I don't think anybody ever kissed Marianne Moore.
Also, I don't think she ever thought about it!
She should have been a pygmy nun with a Derringer but she was too tall, and Presbyterians don't have nuns. None.
maybe it's her puerile nunnishness
that attracts
can't imagine her having bad breath but maybe
none the less
i love odd characters
i seem to have a penchant for meeting them and conversing with them
perhaps i should read her poems seriously and consider it a conversation
perhaps i would have loved to have just beeen torn with desire in her presence struggling for the next word sipping something like gin and tonic or something something that might perhaps
liberate the soul the mind the lower gastric track something
ah hell
there i go
pining for marianne moore
what's wrong with me
!
j
A lot of men liked her. She thought she would get married, even in her fifties when her mom died she still thought she might. Maybe you were her man, JH, but born at the wrong moment.
Does Huckabee have a plan to compensate poor people unwittingly exposed to harmful and excessive levels of educadiation?
I don't know Huckabee's policies very well. I just watch his show, and have seen some of his stump speeches, and like him quite a lot. He's a good hearty, clear-minded, generous individual. But I don't think he believes in addicting the poor to hand-outs from the government for any reason.
Especially not in order to garner votes.
If Hobbes is God and Plymouth Rock is the Eden tucked away in the corner of Paradise, doesn't that make Locke the work of Satan?
Huh?
If Hobbes is God?
I was thinking of those whales stranded on the beach in The Steeplejack. Melville's whale was both a Hobbesian Leviathan and the deliverer of a prophet.
Aha! There are more whale poems in Moore. Perhaps I'll leaf through those, and see if we can't find out more about what she's doing with them.
Locke is obviously the work of Satan.
That would make America the work of Satan. So it looks like you're on the side of the Ayatollahs, GM.
:;
George III used to visit Samuel Johnson and ask him questions about literature. He wanted to know if Milton was on his side.
I'm just going to leave this here
Why would I be on the side of the Ayatollahs?
Stupid, stupid logic Kirby. The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
Especially if they advocate killing people.
Remember that in Iran they are constantly stomping on effigies of Uncle Sam, and calling him the Great Satan.
Your language recalled that. It doesn't mean you're identical, it just means that you're eye to eye with them on one practical matter!
No, Kirby -- you didn't say "you and the Ayatollahs agree on something" -- you said I was on the side of the Ayatollahs.
There is a very large difference.
On this one matter, that is the difference! Now try to calm down, GM.
I never said you now believe in clitorectomies, and the burkha!
It's just that I had heard America condemned before as the Great Satan, and I scratched my head, and thought, where is this coming from? Oh, yes, the Ayatollahs!
Kirby, I'd prefer not to calm down. You continue to paint with a wide brush and still have not retracted your smear, a smear that could likely end me up on some list of the FBI's.
America (that is the Revolution) was clearly the work of Satan -- Paul specifically tells us to respect governments as they are put in place by God, Jesus tells us that God gives governments their power and to give the government their due.
Deciding that you know more than the people in charge is a decidedly Satanic thing to do.
Now, as God is fairly good at turning the work of Satan to better ends, American is the "work" of Satan but not "the Great Satan."
There is a clear and obvious difference.
But promoting "Lockean" ideals of intervention and regime change as if they were somehow Godly is simply a lie.
A stupid lie at that.
No, Locke is the truth and a brilliant truth at that.
Well, I doubt if the FBI has you in their files, GM, for disliking Locke.
It's just that Locke is the key to America, and Locke is the key for any country that would like to be rich and powerful instead of a crummy jailcell to which everybody has forgotten the key.
If you want to unlock Locke, Keynes, some say, is a keen bloke.
I say stick with Locke. A good first step is the Second Treatise on Government. It's not long.
So after Locke knocked the rough edges off of Hobbes, the notion of the social contract was perfected and really couldn't be improved upon, so Rousseau shouldn't have troubled himself to try. And Hegel was just a demented old windbag when he thought he saw a pattern emerging.
True enough.
Kirby,
Jesus is the truth.
Saying Locke is the truth is a deeply evil thing to say.
Do you see how far you've strayed from any notion of Christianity?
No, because Jesus said that kingdom is in another world.
This kingdom requires checks and balances.
Locke is a two kingdom's thinker.
It's deeply evil to imagine that this world is God's kingdom. How could it possibly be? It's almost blasphemy to imagine that this world is God's Kingdom.
What, with ACORN in it?
everyone knows acorns turn into oaks and god loves oaks he must or there wouldn't have been so many of them in the north and south
god i think wants to unlock the doors unlocke the lock with keynsian keys it is true
but if too many people are running free with money god knows they will trample one another sooner or later it always happens street fights wars long grudge matches
curtis faville wrote a lovely little commentary on the poem england by moore people should read it it it is ringingly great
bing bang bong bung beng
i read a great piece yesterday can't remember the title or the name but the guy writes from dallas and he's looking aghast at the conservtives like utter madness has descended over the room and nobody wants to admit it
when people from the center of conservative politics are being startled awake by sounds of insanity i think it is important for everyone to pay attention
doctors and nurses should go back to making housecalls...heal in the homes
wwmmd
she seems like a good christian woman to me almost catholic in her bearing i would say she is catholic i will accept her in to the catholic church welcome marriane moore take your seat in the choir stalls next to cecelia and agatha christie and flannery o'connor and katherine ann mansfield and isabel allende and of course louise bogan all adopted daughters all no matter what
time for me to write of women
goofballs international
a confederacy no less
i think the republicans should just admit that they've really phuqqed everything up and they are continuing to phuq everything up and they should concede to marxism even if it ends up in looking like a zoo
so what
ok everyone is in the cage
much easier to govern don't you think
and when the zooification of society is complete the republicans can re-emerge as roadwarrior like tyrants and put business back in order liek their used to doing
isn't that the scenario isn't that the screenplay
everyone living in communes and sharing gardens and songs and strength and handmade things
farmers are kings
j
katherine anne porter is who i mean
i always get those two girls mixed up
j
Give me Hegel or give me debt.
Tabu La Raza to you too.
Go Dawgs!
Beyond the fact that you are simply wrong, Kirby,
the inherent illogicality of of "checks and balances" is so obvious it beggars belief.
Supreme power is currently held de jure and de facto by the Supreme Court.
Supreme power is held in theory by the military (note, not the CIC, but the military itself). This is kept "in check" because of inter-service rivalries, ergo power being concentrated in the Supreme Court -- which generally behaves like a benevolent dictator.
Anyway, Montesque and Locke were both dipshits and we are morons for continuing to follow their theories of governance.
I like how, every now and again, we finally get to the crux of an argument and it becomes obvious how unrealistic and disconnected-from-the-real-world and perhaps "crazy" G.M.'s core ideas are.
It's like looking over the edge of the flat world and staring into the abyss when we arrive at those moments. Not only is Lincoln a monster, and a war criminal; but now Locke is a monster.
And I shudder to think: does he want the likes of Jefferson Davis back?
Maybe there really is a neo-confederate movement brewing in the south. But then I think: GM's just kidding.
It's nice to know that both Brett and Kirby can engage in the leftist tactic of simply calling their opponent crazy.
I certainly would not want Jeff Davis in charge. He was a politician.
Can we resurrect Octavius?
How about we just give the country to Bill Gates? He seems to do a good job running things.
In fact,
there's a good succession policy for you -- whoever happens to be the most successful living American businessman gets to be president for life.
Maybe we can let the top 10 vote on it.
That's about as far as I'd want to dilute suffrage.
Let's think here,
You guys support a bunch of drunk hooligans who tortured their neighbors because of their beliefs.
And some uptight moralists who brought war on their fellow citizens to solve what was ultimately an economic problem.
I, on the other hand, prefer peace and "loving our neighbors as ourselves."
What if the patriots had loved their Tory neighbors instead of pouring boiling tea down their throats?
What if the abolitionists had loved the slaveowners?
If the abolitionists had 'loved' the slaveowners, we'd still have slavery.
If the patriots had 'loved' their Tory neighbors, we'd have a weak-ass Colony, not AMERICA, and therefore Hitler probably would have won, and freedom would be dead.
And G.M. - the right does similar things in terms of calling lefties crazy.
Let's not pretend these rhetorical tactics are limited to one 'side.'
However, if you see someone pulling out their tongue, slapping themselves in the face with it, and then gurgling the Norwegian national anthem while hopping on one leg.
In the middle of a funeral.
Naked.
You call it crazy.
Crazy is as crazy says.
You talkin' crazy!
Bill Gates may be a good businessman.
Government is not business.
This is a conflation folks often make.
Business and governing are quite different.
Just like business and education.
Or business and racquetball.
Sometimes some analogies can be drawn.
But pretending that all best-practices-and-principles in business automatically apply to every other field...
well, that just don't work, mang. There are salient differences...
And which drunk hooligans are you talkin' 'bout?
The crazy-factor also comes in because you think that calling 'checks and balances' and Locke awful is a direct line from 'Love thy neighbor as thyself.'
And also that America being the work of Satan is derived from the same principle.
You actually believe it's always Satanic to question the man in charge?
That's hard to respond to. It's like someone saying 'it's Godly to burn down orphanages.'
it's just Crazy.
Jesus didn't question the government. Why should you?
Ignore the damned government and live your life and love your neighbors.
Locke, like Satan, thought that it was his job to decide.
Don't be so damned proud.
Try humility on for a while.
Or perhaps the abolitionists could have loved the slaveowners enough that they worked out their differences.
Maybe even ended slavery without murdering half a million people or so.
That would be preferable.
There IS logic to G.M. His church really believes these things. I think it's neat that he really believes them, too.
So we're kind of lucky to be in touch with a member of a church that was once very left-wing in a sense, and is now very right-wing in a sense.
Their church is almost anarchist.
Thank you, Kirby.
Yes, G.M. is part of an interesting church -
It is good to have someone with GM's viewpoint around, as he comes from an interesting church...
A church that is allowed to survive thanks to the fact that the founders and leaders of the country it's in totally disagree with it.
Jesus did a lot of things I won't do, and he didn't do a lot of things I will do.
I will get married and use the internet. I will play sports and gamble a bit.
I won't turn over the tables in ritzy churches, get executed by the government, advise others to abandon their families, or spend a lot of time with prostitutes.
Jesus also didn't condemn homosexuality or slavery.
apologies for the repetitious first few lines...
Actually, Brett, the Church of the Brethren has a presence in several countries.
Moreover, the US can't hate what we do too much, as the Peace Corps is based on the Brethren Volunteer Service. And Heifer International is a pretty well-known charity. And we started the World & National Council of Churches.
Just because you fsckers can't actually read the New Testament doesn't mean we're ignorant or crazy.
And I'm sure Jesus would have used teh internets if they were around back then. And how do you know he didn't play sports? Or gamble?
GM - it's not what you Do that matters, it's what you believe the government and others Shouldn't do...
The Church of the Brethren will never be the basis for a major government's political philosophy, and for that I am thankful.
As a small group of quasi-hippy pseudo-conseratives, it works just fine, and is probably better in that role than most other churches.
It's just the blindness to the necessary differences in approach as one jumps up 'levels' that concerns.
It's like pretending that Newtonian physics works on the smallest and largest levels - it's applicable to a certain level, but move up or down the line and it loses its veracity.
The Peace Corps is great.
But it is acting in a different level than the Marine Corps, and therefore is not a replacement for it.
You seem to only want the Peace Corps, and nothing else.
That'd be like the Marine Corps lovers saying the Peace Corps was 'wrong.'
Not wrong, just serving in a different manner and addressing different problems.
Okay, Brett.
Let's play. Name me one instance since 1814 when we have needed a military for the existential survival of the United States.
It's not the matter of an instance - it's a matter of consistence.
You can count pretty much every year between 1942 and 1990...
Without our vast military, the fascists and/or communists would have taken over, not only our country, but the world.
Our military might has ensured the freedom of good ol' Europe, and in turn ourselves.
Talk softly, carry a big stick, survive.
Talk softly, carry just a flower, and you're done fer.
Also, it pays to be stronger than the bear;-)
Now, I would agree that there were times when our military was used improperly, or unnecessarily (sometimes this is much easier to determine in hindsight)...
But without a military, yes, our country would be no more...
Might does not make right, but it does make survival.
Rightness is based on other terms - mostly Lockean ones;-)
It's not the matter of an instance - it's a matter of consistence.
You can count pretty much every year between 1942 and 1990...
Without our vast military, the fascists and/or communists would have taken over, not only our country, but the world.
Our military might has ensured the freedom of good ol' Europe, and in turn ourselves.
Talk softly, carry a big stick, survive.
Talk softly, carry just a flower, and you're done fer.
Also, it pays to be stronger than the bear;-)
Now, I would agree that there were times when our military was used improperly, or unnecessarily (sometimes this is much easier to determine in hindsight)...
But without a military, yes, our country would be no more...
Might does not make right, but it does make survival.
Rightness is based on other terms - mostly Lockean ones;-)
Yea, 1942. How was Hitler going to get over here?
You think that he would have decided NOT to attack the Russians?
Any time after WWII? You think the Viet Cong really posed a threat?
Moreover, Jesus tells us not to worry about this life -- specifically that "whoever loves his life will lose it and whoever hates his life will exchange it for eternal life."
Or do you just think Jesus was a liar?
Well, without a military, Hitler could've just gotten on a ship, bringing some tanks and maybe a few guys with guns and some bombers with him, and then slaughtered us.
(actually, Hitler himself would've probably stayed in Germany, but he could send some of his peeps).
I mean, we have technology now, so people can move from one part of the world to the other...
If we had no military, and all of these natural and manufacturing resources, I'm pretty certain Hitler'd've been smart enough to come our way and chop off our flowers with his swords instead of going straight for Russia. Then he could've used Our manufacturing strength for his own purposes, and had a much stronger military to take out Russia a few years later.
Or he might've attacked America simultaneously w/Russia(since he was kinda crazy), which would've resulted in him losing Russia but defeating us...
Assuming a direct line from your quote from Jesus to "states should not have militaries" is unreasonable.
You say worry, Jesus says love.... So we're not to worry about this life? Do you go to the doctor? Feed your children? Drive on the correct side of the road? Do you value life at all? I don't understand you (I mean I do, but I don't get how there's no cognitive dissonance)... The implications you find in Jesus' words don't necessarily follow...
I don't think the Viet Cong posed a threat to our own national security - but if we were without a military the Communists in Russia and perhaps China (communism's final aim is always world domination, per Marx) would've attacked us.
Maybe you just wish the military was full of 'The Men Who Stare At Goats.'
http://tinyurl.com/menstaregoats
I'm with Brett here.
The role of the military is crucial to our existence and survival as a nation.
And to the spread of freedom from Bolivar to South Korea.
Sigh.
Why did the Japanese not invade the US mainland?
Hm?
It had exactly nothing to do with the military
and everything to do with our population.
Go ahead, look it up.
Then come back and try to justify the existence of the military.
I'll wait.
*sigh*
Why not send me to a source?
Everything I've read says it had to do with the fact that it was difficult to support such a massive undertaking from so far away, Especially since Japan was already at war on two other fronts.
Also read one thing saying that the fact that American citizens had guns was something of a deterrent, which may be what you're referring to? Which means you think we should all have guns to use to shoot invaders? As a way of loving our neighbor in your extremist onekingdomish fashion?
Still can't see where your center is.
AND, by the way, choosing one specific instance where there may be an indication that it was something other than our military which deterred attack from the outside is in No way a logical argument to dissuade the idea that having a strong military keeps our mainland safe and helps us defend other countries whose freedom is directly linked to ours.
It's both a hasty generalization on the one hand and a false assumption on the other...
Fact is, a large, well-trained, well-organized, technologically advanced, professional military is necessary to defend against other large, well-organized, technologically advanced militaries.
If all the free countries of the world were without a military, what do you think North Korea would be up to right now? What do you think the USSR would've done? How far would the third reich's power have extended, and for how long?
I'm with Brett.
And you're both wrong.
Is Canada going to invade us?
Mexico?
Didn't think so.
Perhaps some other nation might lob ICBMs at us, but it doesn't really seem like that's a possibility, given neither Russia nor China really has much to gain by wrecking our economy.
And yes, Brett, I was referring to the high chance that any invasion of the US would be repelled by the citizenry.
Just because I think the established military is a bad, wasteful, empire-riffic idea doesn't mean I think self-defense is bad.
In fact, I have said on this blog that it is not.
You are imagining a world that does not exist, GM - one in which we have the power and advances and safety that comes from our having had a large military, yet somehow still we don't have a large military...
One in which the Nazis were defeated, yet without any military help from the U.S.
An armed citizenry stands no chance against a technologically advanced, organized military - Think the USSR. They could very easily have hopped on over the pond (folks've been doing that since 1492) to invade (or lobbed a few nukes, without having had the fear of retaliation).
The war was fought in proxy states because the USSR didn't want out-and-out war with the U.S., because of our military might.
If we have no substantial military, well then it's high-ho sailors on we go!
The closest analogy I can think of is to the Native American situation - a land full of citizens with primitive weaponry overtaken by the advance of those with better technology and stronger military might (all from across the ocean, before airplanes or battleships or nukes).
The reason the USSR exists no more is because of our military might -
The reason the war was cold instead of hot and America-destroying was because of our military might.
The reason the Nazis were defeated was, in large part, due to our military might.
Your belief that the oceans will defend us would apply if we were technologically at around 1000 A.D.
Brett -- the Native American tribes did not fail because of weaponry. They failed because of poor organization and the belief that "white men" would be honest and honor their agreements.
Had Montezuma simply slaughtered Cortez instead of trying to use him in a power play everything would be quite different from the way it now is.
And really, where's that Soviet navy you're going on about?
Do you know what happened to the one U-boat that tried to send troops to spy on the Florida coast?
Crazy crackers with guns, sitting on a beach waiting for "the enemy" do not make safe landing zones.
And the reason the Nazis were defeated was because Hitler was an idiot and attacked Russia.
But the Nazis would never have come to power had the Versailles treaty been reasonable or any of its provisions enforced.
military = weaponry + organization.
Which is to say that even if you Do have the weaponry (though without a standing military ours would be quite primitive), you fail without the organization.
Which is what the military, by definition, provides.
except you don't.
no one can effect an invasion of a well-armed populace. both Iraq and Afghanistan clearly demonstrate this.
Wait, I thought the Native Americans DID have the weaponry, but not the organization?
Your words, not mine.
A populace can Not be well-armed relative to a military force...the sorts of weapons advances that we've had could only come via a military, and only a military could train and support an organized group to use those weapons most effectively.
Nor can they have the same sort of intelligence and strategy to actually combat a military force that is bent on destruction/takeover.
The problem with Afghanistan and Iraq is that we're trying to rebuild them and Not destroy/Take 'em over.
Also, we try not to kill civilians...
If we just wanted to wipe ol' AFghanistan and Iraq off the map to take their natural resources, we could easily do so. Or if we wanted to rule them ourselves, that'd be hard, but easier than what we're up to now...
Instead, we're trying to build countries that work. Zat is zee hard part.
Throughout history, the militarily weak countries have been conquered. The great thing about America is that we're a country that has a massive military force And we believe in freedom, so we're not hell-bent on imperialistic domination the way folks used to be.
Thus, no World Wars in a long time (World War is the necessary outcome unless the most powerful nation militarily believes in freedom and the basic sovereignty of other free [and most unfree] nations!)
We've had some ill-and-not-so-ill-advised battles in places where we tried to stop Others from taking over, or for national security reasons, or for selfish economic reasons...but we don't have a desire to rule over all. (which, by the way, is what the Nazis and commies wanted).
Brett --
America* rules the world.
Have you not noticed this? What can countries (with the possible exception of Russia and China) do without our spoken or tacit approval?
What educational system is used throughout the world?
Whose political systems are used throughout the world?
From whence comes the "public opinion" of the world?
And you tell me we're not bent on imperialistic domination -- we've made the entire world our client state.
*I would prefer to say Anglo-Americanism as we are essentially the functional remnant of the British Empire
G.M. -
We have a great Influence around the world, culturally and politically - but there is a salient difference between this and Actually ruling another country or people.
We rule Puerto Rico, but we don't rule France. Finland is free to have a socialist healthcare system. Britain is free to turn itself into an extreme nanny state. Germany can say 'hell no, we won't go' to the war in Iraq. Iceland can go ahead and be cold...
There's a difference between influence and rule...and it's a big difference that matters a lot...
And I will take the fact that you ignored the military question as an indication that you have admitted the necessity of the military for the survival of our nation and other free nations whose freedom is closely entwined with our own.
Post a Comment