This week, Paul Ryan unveiled a new anti-poverty plan in Washington, DC. Here's what U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren had to say about it: "if you look closely, Paul Ryan's new plan is just a shiny repackaging of Paul Ryan's old plan: Keep huge tax breaks and special loopholes open for billionaires and giant corporations, gut the rules on Wall Street, then say there's no money for Social Security, for Medicare, for education, or anything else that will help struggling working families."
Sunday, June 12, 2016
David M. Potter - Lincoln and His Party in the Secession Crisis
David Potter is my favorite historian. He writes so clearly and backs his narratives with impeccable scholarship. He did his homework unless some historians today.
This book was first published in 1942. The author has a preface to that edition and an updated preface published in 1962. The book includes an introduction from Daniel W. Crofts published in 1995.
In the intro Crofts says that Potter was a southerner but he transcended his lost cause upbringing. All of us progressive southerners must follow this path. We southerners genetically need to remember the past, but let's remember it accurately.
One the biggest takeaways from Potter is the fallacy of reading history backwards. Historians must try to view a situation as it was viewed at the time. P. ix
Lincoln view as the country seemed to him at the time he became President was a mere mortal. He was not the transcendent immortal who saved the Union and abolished slavery. I tend to think about Lerone Bennett's point that Lincoln was forced into glory. He was the crucial person who did save the country while slavery was abolished along the way, but it all happened moving forward from 1861. Events could have turned very differently.
In his 1962 preface Potter asked the MAIN question: Could and should have the Civil War been avoided? No doubt it could have prevented, say, if Lincoln had approved of the Crittenden proposals. But SHOULD it have been avoided? That's the question that would likely invite different answers. One conclusion for sure is that the country never should have gotten to the point where this question has to be asked. P. xxxviii
The Crittenden Compromise would not have solved the slavery question. It would have been only a stopgap measure which would have kicked the slavery question down the road. P. xxxvix
Until the very end, Lincoln thought he could settle the secession crisis peacefully.
With the Ft. Sumter crisis did Lincoln act as Potter says in the belief that the matter could still be handled peacefully, or is Stampp correct that Lincoln had decided that violence was inevitable and that therefore he wanted to make the Confederates make the first move?
This book was first published in 1942. The author has a preface to that edition and an updated preface published in 1962. The book includes an introduction from Daniel W. Crofts published in 1995.
In the intro Crofts says that Potter was a southerner but he transcended his lost cause upbringing. All of us progressive southerners must follow this path. We southerners genetically need to remember the past, but let's remember it accurately.
One the biggest takeaways from Potter is the fallacy of reading history backwards. Historians must try to view a situation as it was viewed at the time. P. ix
Lincoln view as the country seemed to him at the time he became President was a mere mortal. He was not the transcendent immortal who saved the Union and abolished slavery. I tend to think about Lerone Bennett's point that Lincoln was forced into glory. He was the crucial person who did save the country while slavery was abolished along the way, but it all happened moving forward from 1861. Events could have turned very differently.
In his 1962 preface Potter asked the MAIN question: Could and should have the Civil War been avoided? No doubt it could have prevented, say, if Lincoln had approved of the Crittenden proposals. But SHOULD it have been avoided? That's the question that would likely invite different answers. One conclusion for sure is that the country never should have gotten to the point where this question has to be asked. P. xxxviii
The Crittenden Compromise would not have solved the slavery question. It would have been only a stopgap measure which would have kicked the slavery question down the road. P. xxxvix
Until the very end, Lincoln thought he could settle the secession crisis peacefully.
With the Ft. Sumter crisis did Lincoln act as Potter says in the belief that the matter could still be handled peacefully, or is Stampp correct that Lincoln had decided that violence was inevitable and that therefore he wanted to make the Confederates make the first move?
Thursday, June 9, 2016
The Shame
Trying to justify anything the man says and does is laughable and reprehensible. Like trying to justify Brock Turner. Same thing. The shame is on those who believe and those who try to justify.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
The Trump Campaign is in Full Nuclear Meltdown Mode
BY Tina Nguyen
Vanity Fair
6 June 2016
For all the noise that Donald Trump makes, and all the amplification that noise gets from the media, it’s hard to see the campaign infrastructure that presumably exists behind it. Perhaps that’s because, as Trump aides and other sources close to the campaign revealed to NBC News, there isn’t any infrastructure. Instead, the Trump campaign is reportedly composed of a skeleton crew of a few backstabbing staffers unable to coordinate a coherent message about the presumptive Republican nominee’s vision for America.
The article, simply titled “Donald Trump does not have a campaign,” details the disarray within the campaign, which is described as “a bare-bones effort debilitated by infighting, a lack of staff to carry out basic functions, minimal coordination with allies and a message that’s prisoner to Trump’s momentary whims.” While the feuding between professional political operative Paul Manafort and neophyte campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is well-known, even more dysfunction exists below them. Hope Hicks, the campaign’s 27-year-old press secretary, reportedly works alone and without any support; a daunting task for a staffer responsible for managing Trump’s juggernaut media presence. A rapid-response team, crucial in traditional campaigns to rebut their opponents’ attacks before they damage the candidate further, does not exist. The Trump campaign struggles to publicize positive news, too: while Manafort corralled a host of local endorsements ahead of the candidate’s California tour last week, no press release ever went out, a source told NBC, because Lewandowski and Hicks vetoed every draft. And when Hillary Clinton delivered a devastating foreign-policy speech criticizing Trump’s temperament and credentials, Republican allies waited in vain to receive instructions on how to coordinate a counterattack. Trump tweeted about Clinton’s use of a teleprompter, but neither Trump nor the R.N.C. ever released an official rebuttal after the speech.
A lack of coordination isn’t the only reason Trump surrogates are in the dark. Trump himself is so mercurial, and his positions so inconsistent (and often at odds with the Republican Party’s own platform), that allies rarely know how to act or what to say. When Trump attacked Gonzalo Curiel, the judge presiding over a Trump University lawsuit, for his Mexican heritage, he refused to listen to the majority of “horrified” supporters and surrogates who urged him to apologize his comments. High-profile supporters like Newt Gingrich, who is widely considered to be a top pick for Trump’s V.P., and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell either repudiated his remarks or remained silent.
But Trump hasn’t backed down. On a conference call Monday, reported by Bloomberg, Trump demanded that his supporters and surrogates ramp up their attacks on Curiel. When former Arizona governor Jan Brewer noted that Trump’s own staffers had previously sent a memo asking his allies to stop referring to the lawsuit, the New Yorker exploded. “ Take that order and throw it the hell out,” he said, according to two people who were on the call. “Are there any other stupid letters that were sent to you folks?” he asked. “That's one of the reasons I want to have this call, because you guys are getting sometimes stupid information from people that aren't so smart.”
For months, Trump’s hot mess of a campaign has taken a backseat to his own cult of personality. He’s his own rapid-response team, refusing to rely on fact-checking and instead using well-crafted tweets and phoned-in interviews on cable news. Trump has also benefited from his ability to distract the media from his gaffes by generating new scandals at such a pace that the old controversies are quickly forgotten. Last week, for instance, allegations of fraud at Trump University were soon drowned out by his criticism of Curiel. Yet it is unclear how much longer the billionaire real estate mogul can continue to count on new troubles to effectively bail him out of older ones. Trump can dismiss some of the criticism of his campaign as media bias, but there’s a growing sense that his improprieties are catching up to him. And without a coherent campaign infrastructure or network of allies to beat back the constant attacks, Trump is in danger of losing his grip on the news cycle, though he certainly continues to hold it:
Even more worrying is what Trump’s inability to run a competent campaign portends for his ability to manage the White House, let alone the country. As Nobel-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz recently wrote for Vanity Fair, there is no larger organization in the United States than the federal government, and Trump has demonstrated little talent for delegation. If elected president, not only would Trump have to staff the 3,000 or so positions that are typically vacated at the end of an administration, but he would have to coordinate and manage a network of more than 2 million federal employees. Forget the belief that Trump can find 3,000 of “the best people” to manage the alphabet soup of federal agencies (many of which he surely hasn’t heard of); if the Trump campaign can’t get its own act together, there will be no amount of televised antics or bluster that could mask a federal government in similar disarray.
Vanity Fair
6 June 2016
For all the noise that Donald Trump makes, and all the amplification that noise gets from the media, it’s hard to see the campaign infrastructure that presumably exists behind it. Perhaps that’s because, as Trump aides and other sources close to the campaign revealed to NBC News, there isn’t any infrastructure. Instead, the Trump campaign is reportedly composed of a skeleton crew of a few backstabbing staffers unable to coordinate a coherent message about the presumptive Republican nominee’s vision for America.
The article, simply titled “Donald Trump does not have a campaign,” details the disarray within the campaign, which is described as “a bare-bones effort debilitated by infighting, a lack of staff to carry out basic functions, minimal coordination with allies and a message that’s prisoner to Trump’s momentary whims.” While the feuding between professional political operative Paul Manafort and neophyte campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is well-known, even more dysfunction exists below them. Hope Hicks, the campaign’s 27-year-old press secretary, reportedly works alone and without any support; a daunting task for a staffer responsible for managing Trump’s juggernaut media presence. A rapid-response team, crucial in traditional campaigns to rebut their opponents’ attacks before they damage the candidate further, does not exist. The Trump campaign struggles to publicize positive news, too: while Manafort corralled a host of local endorsements ahead of the candidate’s California tour last week, no press release ever went out, a source told NBC, because Lewandowski and Hicks vetoed every draft. And when Hillary Clinton delivered a devastating foreign-policy speech criticizing Trump’s temperament and credentials, Republican allies waited in vain to receive instructions on how to coordinate a counterattack. Trump tweeted about Clinton’s use of a teleprompter, but neither Trump nor the R.N.C. ever released an official rebuttal after the speech.
A lack of coordination isn’t the only reason Trump surrogates are in the dark. Trump himself is so mercurial, and his positions so inconsistent (and often at odds with the Republican Party’s own platform), that allies rarely know how to act or what to say. When Trump attacked Gonzalo Curiel, the judge presiding over a Trump University lawsuit, for his Mexican heritage, he refused to listen to the majority of “horrified” supporters and surrogates who urged him to apologize his comments. High-profile supporters like Newt Gingrich, who is widely considered to be a top pick for Trump’s V.P., and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell either repudiated his remarks or remained silent.
But Trump hasn’t backed down. On a conference call Monday, reported by Bloomberg, Trump demanded that his supporters and surrogates ramp up their attacks on Curiel. When former Arizona governor Jan Brewer noted that Trump’s own staffers had previously sent a memo asking his allies to stop referring to the lawsuit, the New Yorker exploded. “ Take that order and throw it the hell out,” he said, according to two people who were on the call. “Are there any other stupid letters that were sent to you folks?” he asked. “That's one of the reasons I want to have this call, because you guys are getting sometimes stupid information from people that aren't so smart.”
For months, Trump’s hot mess of a campaign has taken a backseat to his own cult of personality. He’s his own rapid-response team, refusing to rely on fact-checking and instead using well-crafted tweets and phoned-in interviews on cable news. Trump has also benefited from his ability to distract the media from his gaffes by generating new scandals at such a pace that the old controversies are quickly forgotten. Last week, for instance, allegations of fraud at Trump University were soon drowned out by his criticism of Curiel. Yet it is unclear how much longer the billionaire real estate mogul can continue to count on new troubles to effectively bail him out of older ones. Trump can dismiss some of the criticism of his campaign as media bias, but there’s a growing sense that his improprieties are catching up to him. And without a coherent campaign infrastructure or network of allies to beat back the constant attacks, Trump is in danger of losing his grip on the news cycle, though he certainly continues to hold it:
Even more worrying is what Trump’s inability to run a competent campaign portends for his ability to manage the White House, let alone the country. As Nobel-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz recently wrote for Vanity Fair, there is no larger organization in the United States than the federal government, and Trump has demonstrated little talent for delegation. If elected president, not only would Trump have to staff the 3,000 or so positions that are typically vacated at the end of an administration, but he would have to coordinate and manage a network of more than 2 million federal employees. Forget the belief that Trump can find 3,000 of “the best people” to manage the alphabet soup of federal agencies (many of which he surely hasn’t heard of); if the Trump campaign can’t get its own act together, there will be no amount of televised antics or bluster that could mask a federal government in similar disarray.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
But I like White Male Authors!
Photo Illutration by Brigette Sueprnova/The Daily Beast
LEARNING
06.02.16 12:00 AM ET
Is Yale’s English Course Really Too ‘White’?
A petition from Yale students demands a ‘decolonized’ undergraduate curriculum for English majors, which could mean the chop for Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, and Donne.
Harold Bloom, one of America’s foremost literary scholars and Sterling Professor of the Humanities at Yale, provided a terse response when asked about the latest student protests to grip the university.
“I am too weary to comment again on this nonsense,” he wrote in an email to The Daily Beast.
Capping off a year of political unrest and student protests at Yale University, English department faculty emerged from their final meeting of the semester to a petition from students hoping to return next fall to a refurbished, “decolonized” undergraduate curriculum for English majors.
The petition calls on department faculty to reassess the English major’s core and introductory courses, and demands that the “Major English Poets” survey course—a two-semester prerequisite for the major—be overhauled entirely.
“It is unacceptable that a Yale student considering studying English literature might read only white male authors,” the petition states, referring to the poets studied in the course: Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, and Donne in the fall semester; Milton, Pope, Wordsworth, Eliot, and one other modern poet in the spring semester, according to the course description.
The petition argues that “a year spent around a seminar table where the literary contributions of women, people of color, and queer folk are absent actively harms all students, regardless of their identity.”
It also insists that the introductory course creates “a culture that is especially hostile to students of color,” alienating talented prospective majors and failing to prepare them for “higher-level courses relating to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, ability or even to engage with critical theory or secondary scholarship.
Inspired by the activism that has roiled campus this past year, the petition’s anonymous authors demand that the English department “decolonize—not diversify—its course offerings.”
Similar issues were raised last fall by undergraduate students, according to Jill Richards, Assistant English Professor and Associate Director of Undergraduate Students.
Richards applauded the student activism Yale has seen this past year and is “cheered that the University has responded in part to some of their demands,” she told The Daily Beast, adding that she hopes the English department will do the same when it comes to the latest petition.
“I think it’s time to revisit our understanding of what is foundational to an English major,” Richards said.
When asked what authors she’d include to diversify the Major English Poets prerequisite and other introductory courses in the major, Richards cited 17th century British playwright and poet Aphra Behn; Phillis Wheatley, the first published African-American poet; Victorian poet Christina Rossetti; Gertrude Stein, Langston Hughes, and Derek Walcott.
Richards admitted that she’s relatively new at Yale, where the Major English Poets course is a longstanding tradition within the department. But diversifying the canon is “not really a controversial stance in wider academia,” she said.
While Yale’s introductory survey course is designed to give prospective English majors a set of skills to use in higher-level major courses—providing “a generous introduction to the abiding formal and thematic concerns of the literary tradition,” according to the course description—Richards believes replacing one or two white male poets wouldn’t preclude the development of those skills.
Yet one anonymous student—an English major and rising junior at Yale who helped draft the petition—said its aim was to abolish the introductory survey altogether.
“The survey is discriminatory and not representative of all the people who contributed to English language and literature, so to suggest that is the basis for English language or literature or that these are the most important voices discounts a huge narrative,” she said.
With the exception of a modern poet selected by the professor each semester, the course “mostly avoids queer people or people of color,” she added. “We’re living in a new time in which we’re trying to account for everyone’s perspective. Throughout history a lot of people’s voices were erased, and this course suggests that’s OK.”
In an April op-ed for the Yale Daily News, graduating senior and English major Ariana Miele wrote that the department had “belittled, frustrated, and disappointed me.”
She didn’t single out any faculty members for making her feel this way, but the material she studied and her lack of exposure to “feminist theory or post-structuralism or post-colonial theory.”
Her argument is aligned with that of students at elite schools who have petitioned for trigger warnings in their course syllabi, from Ovid’s Metamorphosis to Antigone.
“We read Chaucer, but we are told to view his misogyny with an ‘objective’ lens,” Miele writes, “a daunting task for the one in three female students who have experienced sexual violence.”
Miele also highlights a discomfiting statistic: of 98 faculty members in Yale’s English Department, only seven identity as nonwhite.
But Richards isn’t the only faculty member in the department who sympathizes with Miele’s concerns.
“I think it’s critically important to teach literature in a way that recognizes the genius, brilliance, virtuosity, and world-transforming power of writers of color and women writers, and doesn’t seem to relegate them to a minor role,” Briallen Hopper, a Lecturer in English at Yale, wrote in an email to The Daily Beast, expressing her gratitude to the students who signed the petition.
“From their first year in the department, English majors need to have a sense of how vast and varied and complicated and contested the world of literature in English is.”
Professor David Bromwich, who has taught the Major Poets course twice during his 28-year tenure in Yale’s English department, quietly defended the curriculum as it stands.
“In my experience, graduates of the English major commonly cite it as their favorite course,” he said, stressing that common choices for modern poets in the course’s second semester include Elizabeth Bishop, Emily Dickinson, and Sylvia Plath.
Leslie Brisman, a professor in the department for more than 45 years, was more forthcoming in his personal rejection of the latest student petition.
“I’ve seen this petition in the ’60s, the ’70s, and many times since then, and we have in fact already responded to petitions like this by creating a Comparative Literature major,” he said, because the department “realized that some students are more interested in studying literature from the perspective of how it influences society as a whole.”
Indeed, the Comparative Literature undergraduate major was established in 1972 with emphasis on cross-cultural course material.
The English major at Yale has since been modified “in more responsible ways,” Brisman said, noting that prospective Comparative Literature Majors are not required to take Major English Poets.
Langdon Hammer, Professor of English & Department Chair, did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Beast, but a source within the department indicated that students and faculty would address the matter in the fall.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
On Reading Huckleberry Finn
One of my literary friends stunned me yesterday when she told me that she had never read Huckleberry Finn. This is a person who reads without ceasing and has graduate training in literature.
As soon as I recovered from my shock and regained my composure, I recommended a three-step program.
1) Admit you have a problem. You haven't read this essential American classic, the book that Hemingway said was the founding document of American literature (next to that bartender's book on mixing drinks). Isn't the first step always to first admit that you have a problem?
2) Clear your reading docket to make room for this classic.
3) Read the darn book. And read the original, not Alan Gribben's expurgated version. You can handle it. The irony of the matter is that if Twain were here he would probably chuckle and say, "You can still be happy without reading it. But I would be pleased if you did."
You'll feel better about yourself afterwards. I promise.
As soon as I recovered from my shock and regained my composure, I recommended a three-step program.
1) Admit you have a problem. You haven't read this essential American classic, the book that Hemingway said was the founding document of American literature (next to that bartender's book on mixing drinks). Isn't the first step always to first admit that you have a problem?
2) Clear your reading docket to make room for this classic.
3) Read the darn book. And read the original, not Alan Gribben's expurgated version. You can handle it. The irony of the matter is that if Twain were here he would probably chuckle and say, "You can still be happy without reading it. But I would be pleased if you did."
You'll feel better about yourself afterwards. I promise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)