NOAM CHOMSKY
FAILED STATES
THE ABUSE OF POWER AND THE ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY
Pusblished under Penguin Books in 2007

Preface:
1. The selection of issues that should rank high on the agenda of concern for human welfare and rights is, naturally, a subjective matter. 2. But, there are a few choices that seem unavoidable, because they bear so directly on the prospects for decent survival. 3. Among them are at least these three: nuclear war, environmental disaster, and the fact that the government of the world’s leading power is acting in ways that increase the likelihood of these catastrophes. 4. It is important to stress the ‘government’, because the population, not surprisingly, does not agree. 5. That brings up a fourth issue that should deeply concern Americans, and the world: the sharp divide between public opinion and public policy, one of the reasons for the fear, which cannot casually be put aside, that “the American ‘system’ as a whole is in real trouble–that it is heading in a direction that spells the end of its historic values [of] equality, liberty, and meaningful democracy.

6. The “system” is coming to have some of the features of failed states, to adopt a currently fashionable notion that is conventionally applied to states regarded as potential threats to our security (like Iraq) or as needing our intervention to rescue the popuilation from severe internal threats (like Haiti). 7. Though the concept is recognized to be “frustratingly imprecise,” some of the primary characteristics of failed states can be identified. 8. One is their inability or unwillingness to protect their citizens from violence and perhaps even destruction. 9. Another is their tendency to regard themselves as beyond the reach of domestic or international law, and hence free to carry out agreession and violence. 10. And if they have democratic forms, they suffer from a serious “democratic deficit” that deprives their formal democratic institutions of real substance.

11. Among the hardest tasks that anyone can undertake, and one of the most important, is to look honestly in the mirror. 12. If we allow ourselves to do so, we should have little difficulty in finding the chahracteristics of “failed states” right at home. 13. That recognition of reality should be deeply troubling to those who care about their countries and future generations. 14. Countries, plural, beause of the enormous reach of US power, but also because the threats are not localized in space or time.

15. The first half of this book is devoted mostly to the increasing threat of destruction caused by US state power, in violation of international low, a topic of particular concern for citizens of the world dominant power, however one assesses the relevant threats. 16. The second half is concerned primarily with democratic institutions, how they are conceived in the elite culture and how they perform in reality, both in “promoting democracy” abroad and shaping it at home.

17. The issues are closely interlinked, and arise in several contexts. 18. In discussing them, to save excessive footnoting I will omit sources when they can easily be found inrecent books of mine.

A. What the most important issues of human rights and welfare [actually] are depends on opinion.
B. But there are a few points that are very important for most people.
C. At least three are Nuclear war, Natural Catastrophe and The U.S. worsening these.
D. “Government” is an important word because the U.S. people disagree with [it] and what [it] is doing.
E. A fourth issue is this very disagreement, which makes people afraid that the American [system] is in trouble, which might lead to the end of its historic values: equality, liberty, and meaningful democracy.
F. The [system] is starting to resemble a “failed state,” a word used for countries that need outside help to rescue their population or that are dangerous to other countries.
G. According to some people, “failed state” is “frustratingly imprise,” though “failed states” do share some common points.
H. One point is the “failed state’s” inability or refusal to protect its population.
I. Another point is the “failed state’s” tendency to ignore world laws and to act violently and agressively.
J. A third point is: if the “failed state’s” population can sometimes elect some of its own government, then their democracy has a lot of problems and is perhaps not a real “democracy.”
K. One of the hardest and most important choices to make is to look at one’s self for what s/he truly is.
L. If the U.S. looked in the mirror, it would see the points in sentences eight to ten, which make it like a “failed state.”
M. This should be very disturbing for people who care about their country and children(s).
N. Everybody, not just Americans, because the U.S. has world power and threatens a lot of the rest of the world, too.
O. Fifty percent of this book is mostly about how the U.S. government threatens parts of the rest of the world and almost or does destroy them, and how it breaks international law, which should matter to Americans, even if the threats seem meaningless.
P. The other half: organizations of democracy and how these structures are understood (by the most powerful people), and what their actual role is overseas and at home.
Q. The subjects are tightly woven and can be looked at in a lot of different ways.
R. When I talk about these subjects, I will not footnote if the references are easily found in my recent books.

——————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————–
——————————————————————————————————–

1. Can you see the difference between his political pretext for complicated language and everyday English?
2. I am disappointed after reading Failed States because of its complicated style.
3. I think Chomsky’s complicated choice of words excludes a lot of the English-speaking world.
4. I once watched a public debate with Alan Dershowitz against Noam Chomsky.
5. At the end of the debate, a student critized Chomsky for not providing any solutions and for only complaining about U.S. foreign policy.
6. Had the Havard student (‘Havard’ suggesting ‘very educated and capable’) understood the debate or any of Chomsky’s writings; or had any of the other Harvard students or Harvard audience understood what they were supposed to understand, the Harvard student and the Harvard audience would not have told Chomsky that he had not provided solutions, nor would they have there applauded.
7. Chomsky replied: “All you have to do is read my books, I have been offering the same solutions since the seventies.”
8. On a Hardtalk epsiode on BBC, Stephen Sackur says to Dr. Chomsky “Your parents…your father was originally Ukrain… your father was from Ukraine, your mom was from what’s now known as Belarus; both were…both were Jews, both arrived in the United States, and it’s perhaps fair to say that had they not made it to the United States…they would have been killed–faced terrible turmoil. Your work for more than forty years has focused on what you call the…terrorism; the criminal acts of the United states… and yet, your parents knew America as a safe haven; as a place of opportunity, of security: how do those two elements of your life fit together?” The response came: “Very simply, the same way they do for my parents. Yes, it’s a land of opportunity and in fact we know why. It’s a land of opportunity because the British colonists came and effectively exterminated the indigenous population…uh…, which is a typical property of settler colonialism–the worst kind of imperialism–conquered half of Mexico, instituted slavery…I mean, committed huge crimes, and created a rich prosperous country from which I benefit, enormously. Uh, well…there’s an elementary moral principle–and since then, have gone on to carry out horrendous crimes everywhere; I mean, the Viatnam war alone is, probably, I think, the worst crime since the second world war, uh… maybe four million people killed, three countries devastated; these are real crimes, and there are many others…”
Steven Sackur: “Uh…I don’t want to get into too much detail, it’s really the style of argument that I’m getting at now… you, you…”
Chomksy, “I think the style of argument should be that we tell the truth. About important things. And, for each of us–and this is an elementary moral principle–the most important thing for each of us is the predictable consequences of our own actions. It’s very easy to condemn the crimes of others. So, you know, Stalinist hacks condemn the crimes of the West–I don’t applaud them for that…I applaud the Soviet dissidents who condemn the crimes of the Soviet Union; and, it’s the same for each of us; individual life or anywhere else.”
Steven Sackur: “But…but, Noam Chomsky’s world is a black and white world when it comes to the United States; you constantly focus upon what you regard as the evils done, the crimes committed by the United States.”
Noam Chomsky, “For a reason.”
Steven Sackur: “What about the good things the United States does, what about the reasons which drive millions of people from the poorest parts of this planet to want to live in the United States…and be American!!?”

Noam Chomsky: “… and, and the richest country in the world and, and I’m glad my parents came here otherwise they would have been in death camps. But…uh, sure, that’s true. And, in fact, what you say is not, and, just consider these last few minutes of discussion, one of the things I did was… PRAIse the United States; praise it for the significant changes that civilize the society…substantially… uh…in the last forty years, coming from popluar activism. Or, take, say, freedom of speech, which I talk about all the time–it’s one of the highest values–it’s protected in the United States beyond any country in the world that I know of; it’s a major achievement; it doesn’t go back to the Bill of Rights, it substantially comes from the civil rights movement. The major Supereme court cases establishing a high standard of speech were in connection with civil rights movement’s actions; so, yes, there are very great things that have happened. I talk about them all the time. They come primarily from popular activism, which is directed against the crimes of the country; in fact I’m struck by the changes in the last forty years which have come from an organized active public, much of it initiated by young people–students and others–and it’s had a huge effect.
Steven Sackur: “Well, it hasn’t affected the basic power structures that you’ve…”
Noam Chomsky: “…No, it’s not affected the institutions but it has affected the way they act, and that’s quite important” Opposition to the Iraq war was FAR higher than the Vietnam war in any comparable stage, and it’s had an impact. Uh…in Iraq, it was bad enough but uh…the U.S. and Britain COULD NOT do what they did in Vietnam, the population would’ve never tolerated it; uh…yes, those are imortant changes.

9. Do not worry about the fact that Steven Sackur asked Noam Chomsky why he focused so much on the crimes and evils of the U.S. (government) when it is a place to which millions of the earth’s poorest people gather to live, nor focus on the fact that Chomsky responded by focusing on the people of the united states rather than the accomplishments of the government (since that is what he attacks and was asked about by Steven Sackur), but focus on the fact that Noam Chomsky disagrees and says that he does not always say bad things about the U.S. (government), and that he does talk about the good ones (as in, it’s people) all the time; even though this is an confused response.

10. Remember that he said ‘I do say good things about the U.S. all the time’ (even though he was supposed to be showing good things about the government and not the people) as we work our way through my simplified version of his 2007 book, ‘Failed States’; this way, everyone can understand the first read through, (the way language is meant to work) and this way we can actually verify in an easy way.

11. Generally, how and why we are supposed to know people like Noam Chomsky and as ‘knowledgeable people’ sit through hours of his speaking or preaching or teaching, knowing that he is a teacher to society and has published half a hundred books for us to read, is by doing this specific exercise: Reading and Understanding his work; Studying it and thinking critically about it.
12. Yet, at Harvard, where the students are supposed to be elite learners, and even on BBC, Steven Sackur apparently could not see these points, which Chomsky says he so often talks about–all these “great things” about the United States and all these “Solutions”, and the Harvard student nor the Harvard audience nor Steven Sackur even realized that they are supposed to say, “excuse us, but we don’t understand about 50% or more of what you are saying when we read your writing, (or listen to some of your debates, like on Iraq) and this is obviously not because we as speakers are supposed to be educated in every domain of knowledge before being able to understand English but because in your work and often when you speak about government problems and those of war, you use unnecessary terms that leave people unsure of your points, except their general tenure being against the U.S. government and war; other than that, we can’t recall the last time you ‘praised’ the U.S. government nor mentioned any intelligible solutions to all its terrorism.”

13. And, if Noam Chomsky does indeed list solutions all the time, then why are so intelligent a people unable to recognize these solutions with even basic understanding, memory, or words?–simple, his style of expression and listing of technical facts intimidates and confuses people.

14. Imagine if 50% of the time speakers used Chinese, (with English) not for translation but because they liked Chinese and English equally.
15. English and or Chinese listeners would not understand most of the essential meaning, let alone the superficial words in the foreign language.
16. Yet, when listeners do not understand 50% of the political complications, they forget that while there are certain parts of the words they do understand (like plurality or whether a word is used in finance or literature, etc.) they do not actually understand the most important part of the used language; and this is the essential point which would allow people to actually THINK about what is being said and come up with their own ideas, or solutions, god forbid.
17. Isn’t THIS what is supposed to happen?

18. Unless experts at politics, and even numerous of these have heavily criticized Chomsky’s corpus-like use of words and facts, a lot of people will not understand a great deal of what he publishes, though they would be keen on saying they do.

19. Beyond his style of expression, his factual message can be unfairly suggestive, irresponsible, and stereotypical, and this unfair suggestiveness and stereotyping and irresponsibility are much easier to see in everyday English; the actual content of the facts being more a matter (and profession) of research than everyday knowledge (debate aside).

20. Obviously, Noam Chomsky has done a lot to advance knowledge in Linguistics and U.S. politics.
21. I applaud his efforts and say easily that he [has done] an excellent job at helping people of our time and future generations.
22. As any of you can check in the first ten sentences of his preface, (by comparing my simplifications) I would bet that you originally missed the fact that sentence eight and nine are repetitions of sentence six; yet if I had asked you whether the language was simple and straight-forward enough, I think the more stubborn of you would have said that the language was simple and not at all difficult: you are wrong–and it does get much worse.
23. So, as you can see, complicated language does indeed absorb a lot of our attention and make basic critical thinking and even understanding very difficult, if at all even possible in a lot of people.

24. I think any of us can understand style and discourse enough to grant a bit of embellishment or extra words; certainly there is no rule that says “use the least possible number of words or base your expression on the minds of ten year olds.”
25. Why, though, should so much understanding be compromised by style and lard language?
26. If you read the original sentences, 123, and then the simplified sentences, ABC, you can see how much you miss in just this basic preface, his entire work and the other fifty books still ahead of us!
27. I wonder, though, how much positivity or how many solutions we saw in the title or his overview of the work ahead.

——————————————————————————————————–
The following ten sentences will be coming in the next couple of days; today is the 13th of February, 2010.
Thank you for reading.

Don’t get me wrong, I think we have all put down our own self-imposing rules. Unfortunately, most of us know, unless we are good rule-makers and followers, that the rules we set for ourselves are not always golden. And so, smokers keep smoking and the ones that managed never to start, go on never starting. I am one of the fortunate people who took it upon himself to quit, and succeeded.

In accordance with the title of this pointless number of paragraphs, I think I should make a point of talking about Ariane Sherine. I myself am a Youtube fan and use it most everyday. Since I quite dislike religion in general, and since I am fond of beautiful women, let it suffice to say that the movement did not go on long without me. Among the many articulate minds there, I found a very beautiful, well-spoken, responsible, moral, educated, friendly, and, I imagine, very loving person, named Cristina. On her latest video, as of today, the 29th of December, 2009 at five fifty-six in the morning, she referred me and any watchers to Ariane Sherine, adding about her a number of the same remarkable qualities I mentioned above.

After I had made my way to her site, looked into her on Youtube and other places on the internet, I found that she was indeed a very pretty lady and interested in some of the same things as me; comedy and atheism, which was excellent.

Why I pay homage to her here, however, is not so much about these personality traits or her musical look-alike (inside joke, follow link below and read her blog), but, because of something that happened when I visited her blog. It was probably pretty early in the morning when I was clicking around and noticed that highlighted on the left in list format were months of the year. I found it rather peculiar that she should only have one blog entry for each month. I felt a sense of discovery because it had dawned on me that for whatever reason, here was a pretty successful, good-looking, orderly, responsible adult…only writing a post a month on her blog. I realized: oh my god! I can do that too!!!!

Now, please do not laugh, if you are even still reading. You see, I consider myself a pretty serious, rigorous person. When I start or stop something, I like to do so one time and have it be that way all the time, every day. Take smoking. A lot of people start smoking in a day, sure; but not a lot of people start smoking a packet of 20 cigarettes daily, do they? Likewise, smokers do not usually stop cold-turkey, and never smoke another fag in their lives but, cut down as much as possible or simply get some help. It takes quite a bit of energy to really make yourself quit something like cigarettes for good, I should know.

When I saw that she was posting an entry every month, it made me believe that I could do the same as a minimal starting point for just such ambitions. As I had just then been reading her entry about ghost blogs across the internet and their being un-harvested crops for journalists, I thought of my blog and how it was this fantom; this closet problem in my life, and it made me feel so good to think that I could do what I had for so long wanted, practically and dependably; confidently. Almost with the same confidence that one has in their going to work tomorrow or eating at some point in the day. If ever they were challenged by unemployment or an eating disorder or perhaps famine, I would not think it so different to be able to eat or work again, practically and dependably and confidently, rather than just once every six months. I would not think it a very different sense of relief to believe that they could build a habit of eating or working by starting on a basic, practical pattern. A basic, practical pattern that does not demand them to exhaust their willpower and, one that does not demand of them their every profundity of attention but, one that they know they could accomplish if they gave themselves a reasonable time frame.

Like I was saying, I consider myself a rigorous personality in a lot of ways and this means to me that I like to start something and, even if it requires my attention every day; even if it asks that I make an effort daily, without exception, then that is what I expect of myself. However, one’s expectations, as I pointed out above, and one’s actual admissions are a very different thing. I had never known that starting something anew and expecting it to be carried out in a daily pattern…might, Justin-forbid, be way too much to ask of myself. I had never realized that so exigent a process might, simply, be unrealistic; regardless of how many hours were in each of those days and regardless of how many minutes were in those days and, regardless of how much free time I had or how great or ambivalent or melancholic my moods were.

So, above and beyond her awesome, very inclusive campaigns for probabilities rather than emotional conveniences, and, above and beyond her very beautiful person, I would like to thank Ariane Sherine for the format of her blog and the topic of her blog, as bizarre as that probably is to any human reader. For all aliens, this is actually a human blog, sorry; you’ll have to navigate elsewhere–plus I don’t speak alien.

I post her link here: http://arianesherine.com/#

There you can also see some great pictures of her and the very commendable Richard Dawkins, much less outspoken than Christopher Hitchens and not nearly as haughty-taughty; though I also like Hitchens a lot, of course.

I have been searching for you. When I was only a sediment embedded in the central strata of the deepest horizon. When I happened to twirl together and then apart with any levanter or other dust-laiden dance.

(My letter addressed to Dr. George follows this article)

I’ve been posting on the ways persons with disturbed characters tend to think. Prior posts have addressed their penchants for egocentric thinking and possessive thinking. (See “Egocentric Thinking Patterns of Disturbed Characters” and “Possessive Thinking and the Disturbed Character”.)

Disordered characters also tend to perceive things in terms of black-and-white or all-or-none. They might take the position that if they can’t have everything they ask for, they won’t accept anything at all. If someone doesn’t agree with everything they say, they will frame it as not being valued or listened to in any way. If they don’t see themselves as completely on top of things and in total control, they will cast their circumstance as being on the bottom and the victim of someone else’s oppression.

This all-or-none and black-and-white type of thinking is what prompts the disordered character’s behavior of carrying things to extremes. In other words, extreme thinking leads to extreme behaviors. Such thinking interferes with a person’s ability to develop any sense of moderation. It also promotes an uncompromising attitude that causes untold problems in relationships.

Dealing with individuals prone to extreme thinking can be truly exasperating. You try to reach some amicable middle ground with them, but it’s next to impossible. Somehow you always end up feeling like “it’s their way or the highway.” There’s no room for negotiation or compromise, and it leaves you feeling like there’s no way to win.

Extreme thinking and the uncompromising attitude promoted by it are at the root of the stubborn and unyielding behaviors disturbed characters display that can easily decimate a relationship. A person who thinks in extremes will not be prone to give ground, and giving some ground is essential to reaching compromises in life’s many conflicts.

——————————————————————-

Dear Dr. George,

My letter here will be a linguistic, philosophical and personal criticism.

First, the unfortunate problem of collocation, connotation and synonymy very much affect readers in their viewing words such as ‘the disturbed’. Your first sentence opens:

“I’ve been posting on the ways persons with disturbed characters tend to think.”

It’s as if we are being introduced to a text about individuals such as Jeffrey Dahmer. Part of the problem here is that the rest of the world is not a collection of psychiatrists or even sophomores on the interface thereof but is a world very much oblivious to what “disturbed” can, might, and does–as you use it–mean. When natives come to this text and read the above opening sentence, its as if they are being introduced to people who are [insane]. [Insane]. [Insane] (Yes, I repeated that word t h r e e times!). This is the idea readers have. And, it is scary! People come and maybe leave here thinking… “oh no, am I a black-and-white thinker? Am I a black-and-white thinker!?”

Can you imagine going into a coffee shop and addressing a bystander as a disturbed invalid? Maybe under your breath to a friend as you pass askance?
As readers of such a comment, we might envisage a bum-like personality in random soliloquy.

That is, using disturbed as an adjective is linguistically lazy. Or, Unfair! Again, this is a highly charged, thought-controlling word that impresses and even imposes upon readers the idea that this person has a Serious problem. They are disturbed!

However, people who think ‘all or nothing’ are sometimes ONLY ‘right’ to think this way and sometimes partially ‘right’ and sometimes ONLY wrong. The context simply determines such. This is plain common sense. Research or not. Regardless, thinking in this way is not necessarily what makes a person ‘disturbed’, the adjective you so openly threw around in the above text.

However, if we confer an unabridged dictionary, say Merriam Webster’s Third New International Unabridged, a bridged dictionary from say Collins, or even go over to Great Britain to look under Oxford’s Unabridged; the word will–I do not need to go check–be defined differently in each and, in the first and last, in numerous ways. So, this is why I say collocation and connotation. This is why I use words like synonymy. If we asked an average person for a synonym of ‘disturbed’, the [first] word
most
of us would say would be crazy. However, it does not take but an iota of time to realize that disturbed and insane alike can mean countless things. Countless. So, why not handle your readers with a bit more diligence? Are we not worthy of understanding what you mean by disturbed? People who are “mis-educated or neglected until extreme thought patterns and conclusion trends develop.” This would not only be more accurate but would appropriate [right responsibility]. However, in your usage of it, a person might both come and leave the text wondering … am I this crazy person? (a question underpinned with fear!). They might very well come to this text, and leave thinking: “Am I this responsible, ‘disturbed’ person?”
But most accurately, they are not. A person who may think from time to time (versus only and all the time–which would be impossible) in ‘black-and-white’ or mono-chromatically, may be a logician. An engineer. A misinformed, attention-divided, or merely erroneous conclusion-maker. (It would seem normal that such should happen, after all… we are only human.–How we understand, believe and know is often by conclusion).

Your first “symptom-offering” takes place under the sentence: “They might take the position that if they can’t have everything they ask for, they won’t accept anything at all”

Yes, they may. And, indeed in many, MANY contexts of human interactivity, this would be the healthiest, fairest, and simply most normal way of going about the situation. It happens all over the world, all the time! Mothers do it to children, managers to maids, lovers to lovers! It could be both generous and selfish depending on what we choose to illustrate. In fact, many psychologists, and psychiatrists (this site not excluded), boldly counsel ‘victims’ in just such a way. Advising, for example, “If he gets angry and yells and shouts, leave him.” “This is a personality disorder.” “A problem personality.”) Any reader delving into this paragraph wont need but a few texts from a practitioner of these types to realize how all-or-nothing psychiatrist’s advice can be. Soon it becomes the paradox in the paradigm. How can you be so all-or-nothing about your all-or-nothing text? A rhetorical question pointing out that your symptom-offering might instead be but a description of every human being in various and certain contexts. Unless you really do propose various human beings as being this way all the time and so excessively that it ruins every human relation they have. Yet, implicit and explicit ultimatums happen in law, in politics, in international affairs, in families, and, such is totally normal! One thing, or no thing! It happens to everyone all over the world, ever day. Its called: making a decision! Proposing a decision. Setting down terms. Communicating wants and limits. “You follow all of your duties or follow another line of work!” “If you do not meet me when you say you are going to meet me, you are not my friend.” etc.

It is wrong in this way to propose such as problematic or sick-related because numerous contexts do not yield emergent factors. There is not always a clean and crisp succession of circumstances layering some divine love. Maybe a person who is argumentative learns in this way? After all, what would forensics be without argument? With out black-and-white exigence?

Who is this sick person of whom you speak who so often controls in this very way or so easily rectifies your article? Who is so… THIS WAY OR NOTHING!? About all things or most things in general? Who is this sick individual? What, the person only emerged in the 21st century and there was identified by psychiatry as a disturbed, egocentric, possessive, singularly tending victim…? People are ambivalent because of complicated livelihoods, because of circumstantial confusion, perhaps as a device or pretext to insinuate false love. Or, how about because they are containers of the most sophisticated machine ever known to man called the human brain?

Your next ‘description’: “If someone doesn’t agree with everything they say, they will frame it as not being valued or listened to in any way.” Perhaps they are irritated? Perhaps they are stressed out? Perhaps it is… true? Could it be that on some levels it is true but not on others? Perhaps they are not being critical of their speech or of logic or perhaps they are just not critical thinkers in general. Sounds quite American to me. Statistics show that the average American does not have a 10th grade reading level! 10TH GRADE! So, of course people of this education are going to act counter-productively in specific situations as a means of satisfying their anger. People do it all the time in discrete, subtle ways. How often have we heard women say to or about their husbands, or children to or about their parents: “you’re not even listening to me”! “It’s like he’s not even listening to me”. How many time have we thought about a friend seeming to sometimes wait for their turn to speak in place of actually analyzing word-by-word every sense-associated aspect of our explication?–At least a few; and again, depending on the circumstances!

Your next comment is about as crass a reference to American identity as they come. I’ll call it [another] observation. “If they don’t see themselves as completely on top of things and in total control, they will cast their circumstance as being on the bottom and the victim of someone else’s oppression.

*Sigh.* Maybe they are pessimistic? Maybe their endeavor is self-challenging? It is possible that they are heading for the roof… is it not? Why can’t it be that the person is concluding or speaking or judging more emotionally than rationally? Maybe a person of this sort is an artist and values details so much so that others define him as perfectionistically rigid and in this way unreal. Maybe the person of whom you so definitively speak is concluding with his attention based on any given information or knowledge but not on the bigger picture. Such impairments happen in youth, as adults and even later in life. It does not mean, though, that the person is then…: “Disturbed!”

Your next explanation of what this person might be: “In other words, extreme thinking leads to extreme behaviors. Such thinking interferes with a person’s ability to develop any sense of moderation.”

I am going to have to ask you for an example here, Dr. George. Unfortunately, I have yet to meet a person without any sense of moderation. And, I can think of countless situations consisting of people acting in an extreme fashion (war, sports, sex, intimacy, love, laughter, etc.—> searching for more and more extreme heights without very much thought at all). As well, what exactly is… “extreme thinking”, sounds like a philosopher to me but, who knows we are in the 21st century and it could be a sport.

Your ‘disorder’ is also mentioned as: “It also promotes an uncompromising attitude that causes untold problems in relationships.” Yes, again I am going to have to ask you for examples if to know of whom you speak. I have met countless people who will not sacrifice their children no matter what. Their jobs before little but their lives. Their values! Their beliefs! Their house! Their terms! And yes, these all persist through most of every aspect of our lives and, are in this way, comprehensively relative and affective. “If you keep looking at other women like that, we are finished!”–This is an uncompromising attitude that could very well be embraced by hundreds and thousands of women all over the world and JUST as easily argued as being but admiration for beauty and best respected if one wishes to be lovingly open-minded. Why should his sublimation be her relief in place of her open-mindedness being his? And, vice versa!

In reference to your developed idiom about power or, if you prefer, control: “it’s their way or the highway”, yes of course people often appeal to devices of ordinance in work places, in the family, and in different ways in love relationships. If it were really like this with everyone, all the time, they would quickly excommunicate themselves from society–love: far, far in advance. It would be like saying someone such as Noam Chomsky is a personality problem because he so often negates foreign policy and has NEVER on public record in any clear way whatsoever yielded against his adversaries. Such is relentless. Such is interactive. Such is real-life. And yet, such is RIGHT! We are here citing someone who is more quoted than the Bible and Shakespeare. Such consists in the very formula that you cast down as being ‘disturbed’. It must be remembered that as much as parrying can be irrational, so a proposal! And with each succession, if not the other, than both.

You conclude by saying that giving grounds is natural and necessary if to be in healthy relationships. Of course, this is my paraphrasing you. And yes, this is true for the most part. We should share. However, on various subjects it is exactly the opposite. Subjects I have already mentioned. “Black-and-white” is not so much a mentality (as easy as that would be) but certain person’s uncritical wording delivered as a kind of rephrasing of “circumstantial frames of mind”. Perspectives at a given sitting.

I critique the idea that these people are ‘problem’ people and propose that instead they, just like the rest of the world, might at a juncture in their life, be misinformed on any given level and in that way acting. Just like the rest of the world, they may in all simplicity, have a problem that [is] difficult for them and the rest of their world to crack. Maybe they are in a recovery state of a past relation, or they lost someone in their lives. So what, break up with them? Do not endure their perfect inability in its ever-unchanging state of disturbed chaos…? Hmm… How about paying attention to the spaces between their words, looking into actually loving (and) under this very inspiration, helping one’s spouse? How about not quitting? Who is it that stays with the relentless person of whom you speak for years and years and years and years and years and years of heart-shattering distraught that is not distraught themselves? And, who is it that throws everything away based on a year or two of learning about a person (in place of a richer, truer and, in that way longer relationship) that is not themselves subject to this all-or-nothing ‘disturbed’ aberrant mentality?

Sincerely,
Justin.

In the opening lines of the reproachful article, English school staff are to monitor and admonish student extremists and fanatics. On how teachers are to go about this, the article reads that teachers are to use a 47 page checklist of helpful measures. Continuing, the article explains where such students would turn if so identified, which would be to their school’s nominated specialist; in which case, “Teachers are also told they should be ready to counter extreme arguments and should encourage debates to challenge such views.”

Core to the article and our attention is whether this caveat applies to universities, primary schools, others or all. And so comes the quote: “They will apply to all state schools from primary to secondary, including special schools and academies.” The basic idea, accordingly, is “to measure what they are doing to improve pupils’ physical, moral and mental health.”

The text goes on to share a few key changes, saying: “in addition to the extensive data… schools will now have to provide information on the percentage of pupils who are ‘persistent absentees’, that is those who have missed more than one lesson in five. They will also have to count: the number of pupils doing at least two hours of PE and sport; the numbers taking school meals; and the numbers staying-on in education after age 16.”

The article completes this by adding that students and parents will be given surveys on how well they think their school is doing over the basic gamut of ‘well-being’. Whether the school promotes healthy eating and lifestyles. Its response and guidance to student sex and drug use. Whether it encourages community involvement.

Students will be asked if they feel safe from bullying, whether they are listened to, if their choices influence larger school decisions and, if they actually enjoy their school.

The article ends by supplying a dangling comparative, in which it likens this new guideline to the use of test results (school grades), as a statement of schools overall efficiency. However, as it labels the long-standing measure “crude” (that is, to evaluate entire schools on the basis of their produced grades), it fails to say whether schools will be so judged when to this new enforcement.

The conclusion comes when the article criticizes the new process as being too mechanistic, and naively asks whether our influences from school come from meals or actual individuals; whether we were inspired by laps ran round our schools or spontaneity and personality.

After summarizing this article, I find that sharpening scrutiny is an enormous leap for the well-known athlete, Education. That while grades can be considered as incomplete tools for fully measuring school efficiency, the more recent measure has of course been a critical augmentation propounded in favor of the students and paying parents. Of the students and absent parents. Not to mention in favor of school reputation–which is of course important.

We must take into consideration that if parents are not doing their jobs, an appropriate administration should be aware and ready to take action. Not in or after or by lack of university but, when the problems confront students as children! I very much applaud this new process and, wonder why it is only today that such is taking place. The author of the article inserted the adjective ‘mechanistic’ against the new check-list system and its surveys. However, the schools will only be trying to objectively identify subtleties which would otherwise be socially stigmatized and of course then, by the very students in need of help, hidden. Schools are not parents, but they need to be able to identify children without parents. If children are habitually absent, cant often afford lunch, or are expressing themselves with poor grades, attention, or radical, aberrant behavior, then such should be identified and evaluated by groups of educated and caring people and, in this way concluded upon. Home-life is key to school-life, and certainly, this new process seeks to observe the former through the later.

If a father or mother are superior to a hundred teachers, then obviously we need to catch children without ‘parents’. And this is exactly what such a process seeks to do. A necessary complement to educating people everywhere! Bravo!

I first highlight :

A necessary condition of friendship, according to just about every view (Telfer 1970–71, Annas 1988; Annas 1977, Annis 1987, Badhwar 1987, Millgram 1987, Sherman 1987, Thomas 1989; Thomas 1993; Thomas 1987, Friedman 1993; Friedman 1989, Whiting 1991, Hoffman 1997, Cocking & Kennett 1998, and White 1999a; White 1999b; White 2001) is that the friends each care about the other, and do so for her sake; in effect, this is to say that the friends must each love the other.

And remark that above, care is logically false as a verb . We, as humans, cannot be said to be without care, or concern. Is the question; “do we not all care about everything to some or other degree if it is or was or ever will be a readily intelligible aspect of our lives” not a debunking device? Or, more appropriately, isn’t that we care about every one thing insofar as we wish to identify it with our senses (regardless of when or how it appears), so as to understand it more convicting a debunking device? I explain. It is, simply, that anything about which we |seem| careless is, in fact, that which is either not readily intelligible |now| or, puny when compared to any product with which we may more often or intensely or at that moment identify. Take for example a plate. If one were to hold in their hand this plate, and then show a friend, saying while holding up in a saucer-supporting gesture: “hey, look at this plate!” If this were to happen and, the friend were unable to see the plate, the friend would of course care about the plate insomuch as to see. The friend would care about the object in that at that time it would apparently be beyond their personal senses and understanding.

Further though somewhat differently, if two hundred people were put into a dome along with someone that had in that dome lived from his or her birth until the present, and they all claimed at that present moment to see a divine being all around all of them, just above each of them, all the time; and the one person having always only known that world could never, of course, see the divine being; the one person would either claim to see it also or, if this were not already a form of insanity then, become insane out of a ‘constant care’ to see this divine ‘thing’. This said, I repeat that we all care about every single object of our immediate senses in that we wish to be able to identify any such entity, given that it is in any way presented to be questioned, with our senses and minds. This, however, should not be a confusion for saying that we do not, then, care about all things. As, obviously we cannot care about that which we have absolutely no knowledge nor any kind of belief, hope or need. Even if we do have knowledge though simply not at present. That is, we all have lovers but do not necessarily consciously care about them every conscious second of our lives. Like this, we cannot consider |all| external distinct entities |all| at |once|. Just like we cannot envisage the numbers one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten at the same time in our imagination.

We cannot say that we are ultimately, and thus thoroughly, and thus perhaps more clearly now, in every way, careless about any one thing. If one were to say that they were in every way careless about any one thing, would this not then signify that they not only did not wish any one thing of it but, this more clearly, that they never would? This might be clearer to the reader if exemplified as: a piece of garbage on the ground seeming to satisfy us when presented as, ‘we do not care about it’. However, if the piece of garbage were in our food, would it not still be the same piece of garbage? And so, let us specify the context of the litter so as to more clearly identify and limit our state of not caring when to it. Let us say that we do not care about |the| piece of garbage |as| it sits on |the| ground |that| we see |now|. Even if this were the specificity, would we not care about it insofar as we wanted to identify it as it were? I elaborate. If we were to see this particular piece of trash on this particular unit of ground, though hear someone call it an elephant, we would correct them in saying that we do not care about the piece of trash, which is clearly not an elephant. We would correct them and no doubt use it as a point of reference. We might say, “THAT is not an elephant but a piece of trash.” It would be our ‘nature’ of logic or language or sense-associated impressions while so related (relating our minds to the world or the world to our minds) that influenced us to process the external referrent with ‘care’, regardless of the kind of care it bore upon us. And thus, we could not say that we would not care about it.

Too, in case this is not enough, might we ask how do or did we not care about it? That is, do we in no way care that it is a product of pollution? The problem in exemplifying carelessness with the “piece of garbage” is that it necessarily occurs within a context. Or if you like, what is not a subordinate of some larger extension? Hence, while we might say that there are certain circumstances that lend to us carelessness, would it not sooner be accurate to say that we are careless about the piece of product to a degree while also caring about it to a degree? That, we are typically careless about it? As, obviously the surroundings in which the piece of garbage exists will influence how we care or, if one were to say, not care about it. Already, I have drawn a difference within what could have easily gone on as merely being “care”. We might say about any one thing that we care, in that we dislike it or, we care, as in, we like it. If a piece of garbage were in our food, we might say: “I care that the garbage is in my food, please remove it.” Or, “I care about my friend.” Certainly, as users of English, we can all agree that both uses of the verb are conventional and yet, different. Hence, I say that if given any example, of anything, it would only require the inquirer but a moment to see that in fact, there is reason and often merely a subconscious care for any given example; whether a piece of garbage or any product of the mind. Most difficult about any one product is that no one thing is itself so singular as to be that which is without context(s) or relations. Take any product of your mind that you readily imagine to be that about which you are careless and ask yourself if it is simply that this entity within your mind is in fact circumstantially apparent and, whether when in another more dangerous or profitable circumstance, it would then change your apparently once careless attitude. It would, by itself, still be the same object, would it not? And thus, what then can be said to be utterly of carelessness when in relation to any of us? Obviously we do not live in a world of which every thing is utterly without relation but, on the contrary, one in which all things are related. With this said, I find that we care for all things as, they are all subject, related to, and variously valuable for any number of externalities or internalities.

Due to the abstract nature of the meaning of care, friendship still lacks a basic component. A subordinate care. Of course, one might choose to entertain a nonce word, such as amicable caring, or the like; however as we are here searching for a semantically appropriate term, obviously then we should be searching for a principle usage. We native English speakers, if asked, could well distinguish between appreciation and admiration. Surely too, if asked, could we grasp the difference between admiration and that which, if being not more abstract than care, would then at least be equally abstract: love. Yes, I say again, we can all make a precise difference between admiration, love, concern, appreciation and on. Like any existing object, should the kind of caring subject to friendship not first satisfy superordinate conditions? Should it not be contingent on something superior or, if observed differently, more elementary. Should the care of which we are speaking not exist because of inextricables?

Certainly, there are conditions which produce care within any and all of us. All of them together are, undoubtedly, numerous. Certainly we might care for a ‘friend’ for a reason of use, or neutral pleasure or, even virtue. Yes, I agree. Though, are these the only types of care that exist? How about socially obliged caring? Or, adjacency pairs that require us to respond or ask questions that would, regardless of whether we then superficially or more profoundly cared or not, signify that we did to any degree and length of time, care. Let us say that to care is the intentional attachment of ourselves (in any distinguished form) to any one thing in any one way for any one reason. We might, of course, see then that there are in fact numerous ways of caring. We might intentionally attach ourselves to any one thing in any one way on account of prediction, fear, love, thoughtlessness, insanity, and on. Some of these would, of course, not be conventional or standard causes of our cares; however, they would nonetheless inspire us at least to some degree to intentionally attach ourselves to any one thing. Out of fear of death, a person may care a great deal. Whether about another person, or not. And, while one may argue of the nature of his care they, cannot in any logical way, say then that such a person would on account of the nature of this caring, not care. And hence yes, even temporal care or egoistic care are easily seen as types of care.

Certainly, we could view any one thing in such a way as to say ‘we do not care’. However, if we did this with all things, obviously we would only be able to say that ‘we do not care’ in a certain way, and that, ‘we also care’ in other ways. And thus, let it be said that we cannot care nor not care purely and only about any one thing but, both care and not care about all things, necessarily simultaneously. Or, we can say that we do care and do not care but, only with the understanding that when saying either, we are in fact only partially stating our relation to it as our conscious minds held at any one time. That, if we say either, we have not fully identified our relation to it, as was held with our conscious minds at any one time. Hence, why I opine the verb to care here, is because it is overly ambiguous and, does not in fact say anything different from our relation to all readily intelligibles. We of course care about all other human beings but, certainly any one of them might be an enemy of ours. And thus, the quantifying or defining phrase ‘in any way’ becomes all the more apparent. A person might say, if one were their enemy (we will say the worst kind of enemy possible), that they would not care but, if they were to change the circumstances of which their enemy occurred, certainly they would oppose their own statement. That is, if an enemy were about them and, they were both put before something which was in every way different and, would, except by their aiding the other, torture both separately and infinitely, both together alongside all living things that ever existed; if this were the condition then, obviously most of us would say in fact we do care to a certain degree. Hence, this might well bring up the question, are we not able to both hate in any way and, at the same time, love or ‘care’ in any way? If, for the sake of the finality of the sentence, we were to say love instead of the verb to care, my argument would be a thousand times thicker and thus that much easier.

So, let’s say that my opponent insisted that care were the necessary component to friendship. Then, the law of identity would say that it were care and not something else. Like, an elephant. This said, the expounder might repeat, one must genuinely care if to be a friend. Whatever the form of the care, it must be care. It cannot be, for example, ‘fake’ care. Like, I care about you (when really it is your money for which I care). The first clause would be seen as false by the philosophy I am here critiquing.

However, what does the criticized philosophy say when we change not the nature of the care but the circumstance. That is, let us say that an employee meets for the first time her boss. His, if you like? His boss. And, in meeting their new boss, they see that the boss’s personality is tacky and crass, something they would in any other circumstance disgard as unacceptable. As crass and tacky as the boss is, they nonetheless find a way to care about their boss. They earn a lot of money by their standards. By their standards, they are rich because of their boss. Healthy, secure, and so fourth. It is a rare job and not at all easy to come by. So, they express care for the boss. In an ultimate sense, should such a sense exist, they are not friends but rather, friendly. For, the working moment or moments. A bystander might then ask, why and how are they friends |in the working moments|? And, the French might say, ‘a friend in need is a friend indeed’ Or myself, because it facilitates the working atmosphere from their view and lends a feeling of comfort when to their financial security. In other words, it is a form of relief for them, that which ‘consolidates’ their job and thus their form of ‘happiness’.
If this were the example, and one again repeated in an ‘ultimate sense’, could it be said that ultimately they did not care about the boss simply because |the| |reason| |for| |caring|? That is, can we not use the context and pre-elements of care to undermine thhe actuality of care itself? Or, though identified as care, IS IT CARE? Much of the world would and much of it, indeed does, |say| that this care is NOT care.

We have all heard “she only loves him for his money.” Nonetheless, in looking at the ‘subject verb object’ agreement, we see that “SHE LOVES HIM” is the said sentence and that, as we state why (or the context of how the love came to be) SHE DOES NOT. If it were not for results produced by their boss, would they care about their boss in the same way? And thus, while they do temporarily care about their boss, do they temporarily care about their boss? Is not what he produces for them, though only stimuli in the human mind, nonetheless property of the boss? Property of and thus sooner the boss himself than any other thing?

Instead of care, I think friendship is defined in a way that any one human wants to define it and, should it include any other human that is ‘normal’ and ‘healthy’ (for certainly dogs are said to be our friends, and like ‘objects’), then as long as that second human accepts, it is according to their standards, friendship. For example, if two people were to hit each other and both were to like the process and, both agreed to it, we could as humans call those: acts of friendship, rather than the otherwise considered acts of agression. If we viewed sadomasochists in such a paradox, we could say that they were both friends and enemies at the same time if we were to use care as the defining property of friendship, as hiting one another would render both damage and happiness (or love).

Or, drug users. If we were to take care as the property of friendship, heroine addicts might be said to be both enemies and friends at the same time. For, how they care would change their quality of care, or perhaps according to some standards, undermine their actual care all together. Yet, regarding ‘want’, they would be friends. Whatever the nature of their relation, they would both be working together to carry out any objective, such that they both understood the nature of what they were doing, regardless of how the rest of the world perceived it. They would both understand consciously and want consciously. And, that process would consist in wanting, together and knowing about it, together. In this way, there is only one friendship. The friendship one wants. The friendship one accepts, in any one way.

Hi, I am responding to a letter posted on your site. I will copy it and reply with [text].

I am a woman and I really believe that a woman’s place is in the home taking care of house work and the children. Since women entered the workplace children have been without parents and love which has led to the society that we live in today.

[ I agree that women have in most societies taken an immediate responsibility for raising children. A physical and emotional or other bond that can be viewed as immediate when in comparison to any given counterparts, i.e. a father figure. I agree, that, it is a vast and 'not at all generally accurate' statement to say that society is a certain way because women started working; and thus that this obversvation is without numerous and relative facts. However, below, I strongly oppose your remark(s). Please, do not be confused in thinking that the paragraph above this is one which I think came from Amy or feminist.com; I know that it was posted as the QUESTION, and thus from the questioner. I merely mean to share my critical observation so that those reading do not feel as though I am being biased. ]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us. I, too, am a woman, however, I believe that every woman has the right to make informed choices about her life—choices about whether to be a doctor or nurse or have two jobs (one inside the home and one outside) or just one (either inside the home or out of it). I support your choice to be “in the home taking care of house work and the children” as much as I would support any woman who chose to work outside of the home. The keyword is “choice.”

[I do not understand why your response started in such a way. You start with the more formally given conjunction, "however" used to contrast or contradict. Your contradiction began with your belief that every woman has the 'right' to make informed choices. First, what right are you talking about? A legal right? A natural right? An apparently 'divine' right? A biological right? A philosophical right? Does right simply mean that in any given situation, women are in no way wrong to make informed choices? Second, when did the enquirer at all even touch on the idea that women are not allowed to make any choices at all, those informed far aside? The purpose of this second rhetorical point is to illustrate that while you have averred an apparently disillusioned obvservation, its application seems far out of place.

Why I do not understand the beginning of your paragraph, and in fact thereafter, is because in the preceding paragraph, it was not suggested that women should be forced into a home or into raising children. Likewise; men, contrary to women, are not to be forced into the workplace. Obviously, you could have responded by saying that you believe no man should be forced into the workplace, in the cold or various earthly conditions; that men as women as all people everywhere are to bear the right of making informed decisions about their life. However, all of these would have equally been inappropriate in application and expression in that the questioner did not imply it right to force people into doing anything. The questioner did not say that women should not bear the 'right' to choose.

Instead, the questioner started with the verb to believe and used this to modify the functional definition of a mother. Obviously women are naturally designed to bear children and are in numerous ways, more effecient at raising them. If not, why would so much of humanity's natural history profess them the functionally appropriate sex for such life-geared responsibilities? Also, women will of course adopt or be asked to take part in housework when it is so relative to their own children. To assert that women are naturally mothers and thus that which functionally defines mother, is not to circumscribe educated choice nor its human distributions. This is what I do not understand in your apparently contradictive response. ]

Let’s face it, even though more women have entered the paid work force, they are still the majority of those who take care of the home and the children. In the words of Gloria Steinem, “have you ever heard a man ask advice on how to combine a career and child rearing”?

[To rhetorically unmask Gloria Steinem's apparent wit, have you ever heard a man say " men first, women and children last"? Of course not, because men do not naturally surpass nor excel at raising nor breeding babies. Of course, in an abstract and distant fashion they contribute to the raising and giving birth of humans, however their natural role is biologically predetermined rather than being legally and tyranically imposed. What woman would have children and then not take care of them? So, if women want to work in a career, yes of course, go ahead and work. However, if you chose to have children, let us not forget that they are then your responsibility. This does not signify that men are exempt and unaccountable; it instead focuses on the above-made statement. That, while many women have entered as proletarians, they are nonetheless still traditionally expected to do their part. Why would they not be? It is not because women want to occupy themselves with law or medicine that they are then not responsible for the children they choose to have? Is it the father that should be breast feeding? If so, then why do women have breasts? In a situation of the mother's not bringing in a high enough salery to pay the bills but, still holding down a job; a situation of a father's accounting for most of their financial base, should the man stay home to raise the children for the sake of the mother's belief that she has the right to make informed decisions and will thus refuse fulfilling her naturally given role as a mother? A clearer rhetoric device exposes Gloria steinem's apparent wit when we propose the conditional circumstance of our elementary ancestors or our HISTORY'S patriots. Can you imagine women going out to hunt and gather food while men stay home to take care of their children? Can you imagine women going out to fight wars for their country while men stay home to raise their children? Can you imagine women and mothers grouping together by the hundreds of thousands to die for their country while men stay at home with plastic bottles to feed their newborns? Can you imagine the words "men first, women and children last?" Of course not, because men and women are both biologically and naturally predisposed and engendered to function a certain way; which of course means that our beings are so made as to, despite our legal and philsophical systems of thought, act or choose regardless of how they have been informed. ]

And let’s face another fact, too, those children who are without parents and love have nothing to do with women in the work place. Every person I know grew up with a mother in the work place—and each of us is loved, supported and nurtured.

[If children's mothers have not died by natural causes, and are instead alive and working somewhere else versus being more physically and in various ways present in their childrens' lives; of course in a great many circumstances this will be directly because of the women who have decided to work in place of be with their children. Instead of this, though, you generalized by saying that children without parents or love have nothing to do with women who are working. This is simply false. I am, of course, not trying to say that the contrary is generally true. No. I am saying, though, that if mothers are by their own informed choices less physically and in various ways present in their childrens' lives, that this certainly has an affect (no, not effect...affect) on their children and is certainly a compounding factor in their childrens' lives in place of being a clean and 'nothing above or beyond' absence. Several studies on children left at home will explicitly state the negative
affects and in no way cater to your comment that there is no relation between "children without love or parents" and "working women." Statistic facts could easily debunk that claim. ]

Additionally, if we are keeping score—who have been the leaders of the children rights movement? Was it men who fought Nestle from forcing their nutrient deficient baby formula on new mothers? Was it a man who marched children to Teddy Roosevelt’s home as a way of exposing and improving on the poor conditions that these children were being subjected to in illegal working conditions? Was it a man who founded and led the Children’s Defense Fund that has continually lobbied Congress on legislation that protects the rights of children? Is it women who are 90% of those who abuse children before the age of 18? There are many more examples if these aren’t enough to prove that women have always been at the forefront of protecting children and their rights–and most of these women have been in “the work place.” Thanks again for sharing —Amy

[Again, while these facts do not at all relate to the inquirers' question, nor to the idea that women are more responsible for the welfare of children then are men, while they are interesting facts and most probably true, I do not understand why you are placing them here. Thanks, Justin. ]

A straggling few got up to go in deep despair.
The rest clung to that hope which springs eternal in the
human breast;
They thought, if only Casey could but get a whack at that–
We’d put up even money now, with Casey at the bat.

But Flynn preceded Casey, as did also Jimmy Blake,
And the former was a pudding, while the latter was
a fake;
So upon that stricken multitude grim melancholy sat,
For there seemed but little chance of Casey’s getting
to the bat.

But Flynn let drive a single, to the wonderment of all,
And Blake, the much despised, tore the cover off the ball;
And when the dust had lifted, and men saw what had occurred,
There was Jimmy safe at second and Flynn a-hugging third.

Then from the gladdened multitude went up a joyous yell;
It bounded from the moutain-top and rattled in the dell;
It struck upon the hillside, and recoiled upon the flat,
For Casey, mighty Casey, was advancing to the bat.

There was ease in Casey’s manner as he stepped into his place,
There was pride in Casey’s bearing, and a smile on Casey’s face.
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly doffed his hat,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt ’twas Casey at the bat.

Ten thousand eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with dirt,
Five thousand tongues applauded when he wiped them on his shirt;
Then while the writhing pitcher ground the ball into his hip,
Defiance gleamed in Casey’s eye, a sneer curled casey’s lip.

And now, the leather-covered sphere came hurtling through the air,
And Casey stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there;
Close by the sturdy batsman the ball unheeded sped.
“That ain’t my style”, said Casey. “Strike one,” the umpire said.

From the benches, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of the storm-waves on a stern and distant shore;
“Kill him! Kill the umpire!” shouted someone in the stand.
And it’s likely they’d have killed him had not Casey raised his hand.

With a smile of Christian charity great Casey’s visage shone;
He stilled the rising tumult; he bade the game go on:
He signalled to the pitcher, and once more the spheroid flew,
But casey still ignored it, and the umpire said, “Strike two.”

“Fraud!” cried the maddened thousands, and the echo answered, “Fraud!”
But a scornful look from Casey, and the audience was awed;
They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that Casey wouldn’t let the ball go by again.

The sneer is gone from Casey’s lip, his teeth are clenched in hate,
He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate;
And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,
And now the air is shattered by the force of Casey’s blow.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light;
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville–might Casey has struck out.

As if birth had been incarnated and for some time alive,
our epicene sat cycled in a glide over an uncurbed stone-stretch.
Itself, white nor yellow-laned but,
grassy-sided in a flat-falling slope;
the lengths of which stretched far out
until mounds met and yellowed green, slender fluff.
In the horizon; crookedly mounted as if by black bowlers,
there, the pink was towered tall tall and filed like dominoes.
Scattered around a selection,
sandstone was stacked together like steps.

Sailing over the empty flat span, her trickling turning whisper sounded song, nor whistle, nor hum.
Distance brought cars nor birds to push the unmoving open air.
Directed from the unending sheet of smoothness on to a charred cement, her tires turned.
Over ashy-clumps and past plastic chunks of hardware chips.
Past shells like clams and the undersides of sinks.
Her posture was steady, not pivoted,
her straight regard not wobbled.
Upwardly, the scattered remnants were facaded by an archway of out-breaking brick,
by scraped and fallen and missing masonry.
Still, she was unmoved; porcelain to the naked novelty of trash.

Under somewhere distant,
a mammoth man sat naked in the corner of a peeling plainness and cement floor,
handing the side of his head.
His scalp and sagging cheeks,
his slanting shoulders and limb-covered chest.
His rotund belly and wide button;
his skull-capped knees.
His jagged, pelvis-like feet
and curling-meat of toes;
his uncircumcised penis.
He was all of whitely white.
No pimples, no freckles, no veins, no tattoos;
like clay, there were no discolorations of any kind.
As though upon something surreal,
his eyes were fixed far and long away;
barrens past anything fragmented or falling or color.

As though in the broken blackness of a bottom water,
before a smoky see-through,
seeing men muttered;
more idle than their cricketing cubism.
In boxy black glasses and a glossy black wig;
fatly tucked into a white, tight collar,
a potato’ed head
was monotonously eee’ing language;
his technical and telling tone,
his bloated cheeks and chin.
Pea-eyed and un-necked,
blank and unblinking;
sporadically leaping into looks that shove-shove-shovelled sharp skepticism
at his turned and turning attentions.
Away, the standing spectacles were facing their celled and slouching sitter; scrutinizing.
The sickness on his forearm: a whiteness of bubbled and blistered grapes.
Over his rubbery wraps of fat, long they looked in wonder.

Postured from beneath and behind,
a camera-like device was being focused
by a kneeling nose and dark helmet of hair;
its front: a flowering of metallic mirrors,
center-stemming a stigma of light.
Its central body black and compartmental,
issuing motors and silent beeps of sound.

Outside the enlightened lab,
the doctor found himself silent between the ceiling and floored florescence;
silent in the warm and humming hall.
Onwards, he gazed.
Onwards at the endless pattern of metal studs lining the left wall,
at the doors numbered and lettered long.
The right, an engine of twisted metal,
of black and chrome and rubber pipes;
a symmetry of plastic panels and faucets and knobs.
Afoot he started, passing sound grains and silent compressions;
his eyes blurred by the concatenation of copper colors,
the grilled lights and bars angled downward into the cement shines;
bars bolted and like the corridor, mustard yellow.

“SECTION 28”, an oncoming overhead read in red.
On the left of the hall, a wide, black space opened as he advanced,
a hugely hollow cavern of walls that fell until a floored, metal mountain was mustard and engine again.
Pear-apparent, he penguined past all the length of it,
swaying and half-stepping until another of his works was chambered black-and-white and dark-away.
Two hundred and fifty-eight,
Letters: CBC.
Open.

Upon her, his wrinkled and welted watchers;
plump-palmed and fatty-fingered,
chromed in hair and chairs.
Amongst them, he stilted himself observer.

The bent body of a sunflower dead,
its head ungolden lay
upon a block, black like char.
Her hairlessness.
Her nakedness.
Her ears protruding.
Her nipples, leather-colored.
Her skin bare and ash-colored.
Her coffee eyes, open over the black crack in her pedestal of soft stone.
Out of her wobbled a spoon-spun sound that shattered into pings and pangs of a filtered misery,
into a harmonica of intricate agonies.

Enhancing her creamy corpse,
four hats of light were lever-lowering upon her;
these, and until her body, a massive machine.
Its black butt of a blacker hundred holes,
its shiny scope of separated lenses, each conically smaller and silver-encircled.
The interconnected apertures shuffling silently,
hovering above her as if without barred ascendancy;
scanning with the fluency of a fan.