Get political? We already are!

[imomus]

Click Opera -- although it does frequently mention issues like sustainability, inequality, and urbanism -- could be reproached for passing without comment over the major "political" developments of our time, as newspapers might define that word. No discussion of the recent Mumbai bombings, no mention of Israel's incursion into Lebanon or the effect of that conflict on the price of oil, no G8 talk, no speculation on when Tony Blair will step down. In newspaper terms, this blog is deep in the culture pages; as far from page one news as from the sports section. Today I want to mount a double-pronged defense of that -- hey, oxymoron! -- non-political policy. I want to argue two things: that it's okay to avoid politics, but also that avoiding politics is simply politics of another kind.

The first thing I'll say is that, as an ex-satirist, I know the danger of satire. Satire ties you in to your enemies, puts you on the same page as them. If I tied my intellectual agenda to the latest bomb explosion or military incursion, even to decry them and call for restraint (as if terrorists and generals would be listening, anyway!), I'd basically let hate and aggression come to dominate my worldview. And it's likely that, subconsciously, whatever my "high moral ground" position on these events would be, a little part of me would be secretly thrilled to be where the action is, and secretly delighted every time some spectacularly violent escalation took place, just as a satirist is when the people he attacks do something which shows them at their most ludicrous, hateful and stereotypical.

Secondly, I think that the object of (the best) politics is the disappearance of (the worst) politics. In classic Marxist theory, for instance, the state is eventually supposed to wither away. Engels wrote: "As soon as there is no longer any class of society to be held in subjection; as soon as, along with class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the former anarchy of production, the collisions and excesses arising from these have also been abolished, there is nothing more to be repressed, and a special repressive force, a state, is no longer necessary." (Lenin, of course, disagreed somewhat.)

But thirdly, I think that the things I talk about are a form of politics. I would never abandon, for instance, communicating the joy I feel visiting a sound installations exhibition, because that would be abandoning a certain vision of an experimental, creative world, a utopian vision. I had a thought the other day: that the "future" has turned out rather disappointing, compared with how I imagined it was going to be, mainly because of the conservatism of people, their refusal to embrace new forms of living. But that the excitement I got from imagining what the future would be like corresponds much better with the excitement I now get from art and culture, where a much more progressive, playful and experimental mindset prevails. And I really do consider what goes on in this zone to be a kind of brainstorming on behalf of the whole world, a "what if?" exercise that's immensely important.

Fourthly, there is a politics of texture, colour and shape. I would, for instance, consider the way I choose to dress or decorate my house much more important than the fact that I get to vote every four or five years in a national election, and get "represented" by one of two politicians with pathetically unimaginative ways of seeing life. The "stateless" way I live is already post-national. I say "already" as if we're all one day going to be post-national. I'm not sure if that's the case, but I know that it's the way I live now, and I'd consider it a good aspiration for the world. (Of course, Al Qaeda could also be said to be "post-national".)

Lastly, I want to talk about Japan. Commentators on Japan often complain about the political apathy of Japanese youth, and it's true that the feel of the country is "post-political" (no wonder it was a Japanese who coined the phrase "the end of history" -- before history, in the form of 9/11, made a mockery of the whole idea). I must say I've been very seduced by the non-contentious nature of life in Japan, but I don't think it's non-political at all. The Japan I know (and I freely admit I don't know any yakuza or politicians or corporate bigwigs) is committed to peace, environmentalism, equality, animal welfare. It's also committed to quality of life issues, textural issues and technological innovation. If politics is more about doing than voting, more about virtuous habitus than hatred and debate, then Japan is politically exemplary.

The photos in this entry are of cafes linked by Tokyo Cafe Mania. The link comes, naturally, via Jean Snow's blog. Now, people who read both Jean Snow and Marxy, asked which is the more politically progressive, might be tempted to say "Marxy, of course! Jean never writes anything about politics! Marxy's always talking about rising nationalism in Japan, analysing the limitations of Japan's likely next prime minister, or tracing the influence of the yakuza." But I'm not so sure it's that clear-cut. Jean Snow not only blogs about Japan in a much more Japanese style than Marxy does (in itself a political gesture), he's even a bit of an organiser and agitator: he's started a series of regular discussions at Cafe Pause. Like keeping a curbside garden, setting up a friendly LOHAS cafe, or caring for an injured cat, this is a political act. Jean's site is also filled to the brim with information about the doings of Japan's most progressive artists, architects and designers -- in other words, he's paying attention to the best elements of Japanese society, not the worst ones. This "textural intelligentsia" -- rather than the fusty political class -- is the likeliest source of progress in Japanese society. Hell, in any society.

Takashi Murakami declared, when he launched his Little Boy exhibition at the Japan Society in New York last year, that Japan had been infantilized by American domination since World War II, stripped of a political role. Whether you agree with that depends, of course, on what you feel about childhood. It's either a form of castrated adulthood -- or it's way ahead, a time when we're at our most free and creative. To act like a child is not to act non-politically.

Tony Blair told his colleagues recently: "If you want to own the next generation of politics, you've got to own the next generation of ideas." I wonder if it's occurred to Blair that the next generation of ideas might not have much use for the definition of politics -- and the political class -- he represents?

Comments

[imomus.livejournal.com]

"You let the things you love get in the way of a clear political perspective. It's deplorable!"

"You base your politics on the things you love, it's admirable!"

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Hmm, slow comments day. If nobody cares about politics, they care even less that I don't care about politics. Nice to see we're all on the same page, and that it's not the front page of the newspaper. Yet.

[fireflesh.livejournal.com]

To be fair, it's still 9:23am EST here in NYC and for anyone in your east coast US audience. Many, such as I, are sobering up after a long night out. I work in the office of a political risk consulting firm, so it was an especially long week.

[aberrantangels]

Of course, Al Qaeda could also be said to be "post-national".

Could be, but not by me. I'd say al-Qaeda aren't post-national so much as trans-national.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Well, okay, but that applies to my lifestyle too, doesn't it? I mean, I value national flavours, but I also like to make a cocktail, combining a few. Gin still has to be gin, but you want to be able to combine it with other stuff.

[(Anonymous)]

I see what you're saying about the future being disappointing, or coming too slowly; but while technology is advancing at an exponential rate, you can't simply cast off all the customs and ways in one generation.

How many generations of man did it take before someone figured out how to use that first tool to smash something?

History has carried out a kind of natural selection on our customs and ideas. Those societies with bad customs either cast off those bad customs or the society itself stagnated. Those customs that helped society advance were held on to, and passed on to posterity. It took tens of thousands of years for society to reach the relative stability and affluence that we take for granted. If man's reason were enough to catapult us into "the future" -- into Utopia -- it would've happened a long time ago.

This is why the conservative is so wary of individuals who think in one generation the world can be saved by inculcation of their pet ideas. Change has to be enacted slowly and naturally.

Man is the only rational creature on this planet. To exalt the ignorance of childhood beyond the reason of adulthood is to deny man's nature and all that the trajectory of history shows us about the destiny of mankind.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I'm learning a great deal about "the world according to conservatives". Except who you are; you lurk nameless in the shadows as anarchists once used to! If what you're advocating is simply moderation, caution and common sense, why the secrecy?

[samuellsamson.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this, it's a really interesting perspective. After a morning spent arguing with an online fascist, I appreciate my mind being taken somewhere more airy and spacious.

End of history

[grzeg.livejournal.com]

You are right that this blog is totally political; politics exist as long as there is some debate occurring, hence staving off the end of history.

However Hegel claimed that end of history happened when he said so. Whether we believe that in the time between his declaration and today that history ceased is rather moot.

However, it has been also stated that the end of History, would also mean the end of discourse. Kojeve’s footnote on the End of History stated that at that point, man would become animal again; his arts, love, play would all become natural (“men would construct their edifices and works of art as birds build their nests and spiders spin their webs…”). which he later rescinded… after a voyage to Japan.

Kojeve observed a one-of-a-kind society, being that it alone existed for almost three centuries of life at the “end of History” – a society in absence of all civil and external war (thanks to the abolition of feudalism by Hideyoshi and isolationism by Yiyeasu). “Post-historical” Japanese society was in everyway diametrically opposed of the “American way”. There were no longer any Religions, Morals, or Politics in the “European” or “historical” sense of the words.

The Japanese may have reached the End of history, but they didn’t revert to being animals. It was the nobilities’ Snobbery that showed otherwise: the nobles ceased to risk their life in war and still not take up work, but their way of life led to the creation of refined disciplines that can be called anything but “animal”: Noh theater, the ceremony of tea, the art of bouquets of flowers. Such a concentration of non-“historical” Action was comparable to no other society.

In spite of economic differences between the Japanese, all Japanese - without exception - are in the position to live “a-historically” - unconcerned with or unrelated to history. And by saying ‘history’, that of course, always implies politics.

Now, that summed up Kojeve back in 1959… he believed that the renewed interaction between Japan and the Western world would not corrupt or “re-barbarize” the Japanese, but would lead to the “Japanization” of Westerners.

Seeing Japan today, he was partially right: Japan resisted any form of re-barbarization in the historical sense (the Japanese constitution and the illegality of aggressive war) and made grand strides in becoming more “Japanized” – see technology, art, architecture, Momus’ comments, etc… (Even today, I believe that Japan is still ichiban in non-“historical” Action).

But the rest of the world? - Have they thrown aside history and all of its implied Actions?

Have we become more “Japanized?”

(momus: your blog peps me up in the morning almost as much as coffee; thanks for the kick in the brain)

Re: End of history

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Now, that summed up Kojeve back in 1959… he believed that the renewed interaction between Japan and the Western world would not corrupt or “re-barbarize” the Japanese, but would lead to the “Japanization” of Westerners.

How terribly interesting! Thanks for telling me about this, I'd never heard of Kojeve (http://www.iep.utm.edu/k/kojeve.htm) before, though I use the idea of "Japanizing" the world all the time.

[akabe.livejournal.com]

this was beautiful.

actually recently being in places like aoyama douri or meiji douri, just north of shinjuku i somewhat profoundly felt the future to be as good as i'd imagined it. the fuzzy summer sun, utopian 70s socially-aware architecture prevented from decay, new sensibly scaled light glass structures, the sense of community etc.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. You know, aged about 17, I used to draw cities -- and women -- on the corners of my school notebooks. The scenes were futuristic, utopian. Now, when I look at them (my father kept them) I recognize that they were pictures of what a contemporary Japanese city looks like. And the women... they look exactly like my girlfriend! Slight, shorthaired brunettes.

[sparkligbeatnic.livejournal.com]

"It is to Berlin that we look for our idea of politics." -- Pangloss

[nina-blomquist.livejournal.com]

"the best of all possible worlds"?
it wouldn't be fair to call momus a leibnizian.

The same could be said about your dear Mr. Snow, I fear.

[(Anonymous)]

As for the much-vaunted NY 'art scene' centred around M. Duchamp and a handful of other refugees from Europe - that was never anything more than the labour of exile of those who averted their gaze from the Medusa of the 20th century, deserting the fields of horror of totalitarianism.

The American writer, S. Bellow, had this to say about this trans-Atlantic retreat: 'I have one regret that I might put very precisely: in all my novels, I avoided talking about the great events of the century. I never tried, even tentatively, to make room in my work for the feelings they gave rise to. In that, yes, I dissappoint myself profoundly.'

At the end of the day, such disappointment is surely symptomatic of a veritable 'avoidance strategy' of which art -- so-called contemporary art and, in particular, the new American art scene -- was cunningly able to profit, leaving pop culture to look 'revolutionary' and paving the way for Andy Warhol...to the detriment of the kernel of cultural resistance of a ravaged Old Word...

Strange duplicity of a rearguard battle which claims to be avant-guard, with the panicky collaboration of those who fled Europe's shores at the very moment when the doors opened to the great slaughterhouses of extermination of the demolishers of History.

'Art is a game. Too bad for the person who turns it into a duty,' wrote Max Jacob.

Re: The same could be said about your dear Mr. Snow, I fear.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I think we have to be clear which arts we're talking about. Literature clearly lends itself to political commentary, since it shares with politics its medium of language. It's already "on the same page". The other arts are much more textural, more abstract, and to use them for moral or political commentary would clearly be, to varying degrees, difficult, even impossible. How do you dance a political protest? How is Dan Flavin to make a fluorescent lighting installation criticizing Nixon, and why is he to do that? Nevertheless, I could imagine someone folding up a newspaper, filled with disgust at Nixon and Kissinger, and seeing this (http://davidbyrne.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/07_06_06_f_flavin.jpg), and being filled with hope, with a vision of a better, cleaner, purer world. And that's political.

Apathy is sexy

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

<< I wonder if it's occurred to Blair that the next generation of ideas might not have much use for the definition of politics -- and the political class -- he represents? >>

I followed http://dailykos.com/ , a democratic political blog, for a while. A frequent refrain there is lament over the apathy of today's youth. "they don't vote" "they don't care" "all they do is play video games" on and on.

I am not young, but I stopped voting ten years ago. (I am American.) I have better things to do with my time. If I want to influence the political process, I'll attempt to do so through writing or art, not through the ballot box.

Voting is a hassle, and is largely ineffective compared to other means of instigating change. The kids have figured this out, and to criticize them for their lack of interest belies a misguided loyalty to values of the past.

Re: Apathy is sexy

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I honestly don't even know which nation-state I'm eligible to vote in, or which one I'd want to vote in. But I think I'm a highly political animal, and I "vote" for stuff every day. Just not politicians.

Fact-checking

[newterritories.livejournal.com]

Just wanted to point out that Francis Fukuyama, author of "The End of History and the Last Man", is not Japanese, but Japanese-American (born and raised in Chicago). More info, including his disturbing neocon leanings:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama

Re: Fact-checking

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Yes, I sort of glossed over that. And, if I were to have written a bit more, I would have stressed that Japan's "end of history" feel and what Fukuyama was writing about in that book are quite, quite different. Interestingly, Fukuyama has gone from a neocon supporter to quite a vocal critic of the current regime.

[pinkfoils.livejournal.com]

A culture that includes café culture [to me] clearly has a whole different set of values than the [American] culture I come from. All of this makes a lot of sense to me.

And now for something completely non-political but lexical...

[nicoladagostino.livejournal.com]

a double-pronged defense of that -- hey, oxymoron! -- non-political policy.

I may be mistaken but that sounds to me a lot like a double oxymoron.


nda

[nato-dakke.livejournal.com]

Yes, caring about politics is bad! Let the disinfranchised and abused spend their winters in Saitama, and come to art shows on the weekends. Let the hungry drink macha lattes.

I'm fully with you on thinking that in a just world we wouldn't have to worry about politics. But ignoring not only the fires burning now, but those eager to start newer deadlier ones as well is a non-sustainable and unhealthy lifestyle, and a luxury that not everyone can afford.
Of course, that is the flip side of being like a child, right? Being utterly selfish, and expecting the world to love you unconditionally.

I worry

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

I am a proud product of the American south public school system.

I believe that by not voting, I reliquish the power of my ballot to those that care more about such issues.

That is fine with me. I like relinquishing my political power to those that are better informed.

But why have I become blase about voting. Why am I apathetic?

I worry that I take for granted the accomplishments of my forebears.

Especially the women that worked their asses off to get me, a woman in 21st c. america, to a place of contented apathy.

If I choose not to be a feminist, will the feminist values that are important to me become jeopardized?

I wish I could write less in the passive tense.

Re: I worry

[stanleylieber.livejournal.com]

Socratic method can be useful.

[dzima.livejournal.com]

This essay echoes what optimistic John Cage and slightly pessimistic chain smoking Morton Feldman were discussing back in '67 here:

http://www.archive.org/details/CageFeldman4

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Very interesting, thanks for the link. I very much agree with Cage when he says (asked about Vietnam protests):

"I think a composing action, not a critical action, needs to take place in order to bring about the world that we would like to see. Buckminster Fuller says that we should apply ourselves to tripling the world's resources, so that the world will not be divided between those that have and those that do not have. When that design problem is solved, we will not need to have these wars. If we simply object to war without removing the cause for it, we can expect it to pop up first here, and then in another place. I know that, as a composer, I don't change what I do because of criticism of the work. I feel that critical action merely accumulates virtue in those who object, builds up their critical sense, but removes the need for them to do anything compositional."

In other words, art needs to take the lead, to be politics, rather than merely to comment on the kind of politics that exists, and will never give us the world we want to see. Art has the choice to be politics or merely to follow it.

[rob.rabiee.myopenid.com (from livejournal.com)]

You know, you mentioned the classic Marxist utopian situation here: the "withering away of the state." I've been thinking about this an awful lot recently, as Michael Harrington's immortal (yes, I'll say that - I'll cop to the "timeless/timely" dichotomy, if ya don't mind!) Socialism: Past and Future has been on my bedstand and in my mind for the past few days.

I think for too long the utopian ideals Marx and Engels hinted at have been shot down as irrelevant or impossible. But living as you do, and as I'm sure many of us aspire to (if we can ever get our student loans in check...goddamn NYU!), seems to be a functional mode of "utopian Marxist survival." We shouldn't be slaves to the Leninist vanguard party or the Stalinist factory state. It didn't work the first time, why should it work now?

I suppose it's hard for socialists to grasp a withered state, as the idea of compromise democratic-socialism has been drilled into our heads for so long, and groups like the Spartacists International are still flogging the Lenin-Trotsky horse.

So basically I'm saying, I agree with you! This post couldn't have come at a better time. I was just dressed-down for a good hour by one of my dearest friends for my dogged ambition never to vote for anything more than city council members again. Le sigh.

[(Anonymous)]

The purpose of socialism is to eliminate disparity of wealth among the population of a nation.

If someone starts a business, then a disparity has been created. The only way to avoid this is to have the state own all industry.

Under this system, however, you cannot voice your opinions because the state owns all the media outlets -- you won't be able to publish anything. You might also lose your job, because the state is your boss. You might even get thrown out on the street because the state owns the building you live in.

Well, if the government is the problem, how about a system without one -- anarchism. Somebody above posted an interview with John Cage. He was an anarchist. Let's see how that system works. The problem here is that without establishing a government with its own set of laws, we can never actually own anything. We might physically possess an object, but we are not protected under law if someone else decides to punch our face in and take it. It also becomes difficult to start a business because, since you do not actually own anything, you have no collateral. And nobody's gonna loan you money without any collateral. You might occupy a house, but you need a government with laws that can validate that piece of paper that says you own that house. The absence of government-backed currency also becomes an issue. You have to barter things. I have 32 nails and you have 8 loaves of bread. Wanna trade? If you want a television, you have to take a shopping cart to Best Buy full of items that you think they might want in exchange for it.

The republic is the only viable system under which human beings can live and thrive. The difficult question is how much democracy is desirable. The United States is pretty democratic and is the most successful country in the world; but there are also certain things about this country that are very alarming.

-henryperri

Nasty. Brutish and Short

[qscrisp.livejournal.com]

Hello Momus.

This link (http://my.opera.com/quentinscrisp/blog/show.dml/354179) is not entirely unrelated to what you're talking about, but that's not why I'm posting it here. It's a blog entry I wrote today, in which I quote you on British culture. I couldn't find the source of the quote - it's somewhere in your blog - and wondered if you could help me, so I can provide a link in the article, and also whether you could point me to similar quotes and so on you have written.

I hope you find the entry itself of interest. The quote I have used (hopefully correctly) is "In Britain, every naked child is a porn star by default".

Re: Nasty. Brutish and Short

[imomus.livejournal.com]

A very interesting -- and terrifically scary -- entry. (I don't recall saying the porn star thing, but you're welcome to quote me as if I did, it's pithy!) When I was in London a couple of weeks ago I photographed this Daily Express cover:



I believe there's an element of self-fulfilling prophecy in British self-loathing, the extreme form of the self-deprecation I've spoken of elsewhere. We imagine ourselves and others to be vile, we project our own imagined vileness onto others (asylum-seekers, paedophiles, etc), we survey and witchhunt and become this other, or merely read about this other in the Daily Express. Moral panics turn into real panics, and the worst possible scenario quickly comes to pass. Rather than prevention, paranoid suspicion about your neighbour leads to curtain-twitching, and to everyone harbouring the darkest possible thoughts... and being excited by the darkest possible thoughts.

A prurient press fosters an atmosphere where the perverse is on everyone's mind all the time. As a result, a dirty, furtive atmosphere prevails. DH Lawrence would undoubtedly concur... and get on the first boat out. But not before being interrogated first, suspected of spying (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=DH+Lawrence+suspicion+of+spying&btnG=Search).

[georgesdelatour.livejournal.com]

Thank you for today's post. I agree about the dangers of letting hate and aggression dominate your world-view. The whole point-scoring set-up of political blog commenting brings this out very quickly. Winning an argument becomes more important than saying something helpful.

Like you I would wish people to be braver in embracing the future. When I was a child I took it for granted we'd have Buckminster Fullerines orbiting Neptune by now, and most artists would be using a scientific version of ESP to transmit their brave imaginings.

Which brings me to a point of contention. You imply that environmentalism is part of this modernity. It often seems to me to be the very antimatter of modernity, opposed to the future. I'm somewhat confused on this myself, since my idea of futurism certainly isn't 6 billion people driving SUVs, and I take seriously the scientific warnings of a runaway greenhouse effect. But I've definitely heard environmentalists talk about people as if they're vile parasites infecting the earth; and I love people too much to agree with that.

[maybeimdead.livejournal.com]

no wonder it was a Japanese who coined the phrase "the end of history"

You mean American-educated American scholar Francis Fukuyama? You don't consider his thesis "pompous universalism"?

[imomus.livejournal.com]

It is exactly that. I don't endorse his philosophy in any way.

[eustaceplimsoll.livejournal.com]

An extremely interesting post. The way you look at the themes you explore (and wonderfully!) is how I see them too, but much as I want to, I can't quite share your optimism about them (that is to say, I doubt they do more than indicate an attractive but blocked path). Herbert Marcuse makes the interesting point in Eros and Civilization that the freedom demonstrated by the Surrealists was tolerated in art but would never have been permitted in the political sphere. Breton's utopianism, if he'd tried to export it beyond the world of intellectuals and artists, would have met with a fate more brutal than internecine squabbles with his fellows.

Your fourth point - if it is politics, then it's politics of a very low level; my lifestyle won't stop my government's military or ecological violence for example (to mention only the worst of its current enthusiasms). It's comfortable to forget that these faceless mechanisms will kill in order to protect their interests. We need to do more than indulge our imaginative and aesthetic sensibilities if we want them to change (or better still, leave things to the likes of us...)

[dignified-devil.livejournal.com]

While I agree with your basic premise that lifestyle and consumption are political acts (especially healing cats... that's a big heroically political act) it seems like this exact post-political idea or political apathty is not exactly a good idea. While you could make an arguement that the logics of politics are skewed to not favor the design friendly, or that it's politics is a dialogue that still has to respond to conversations way outside of it's gamut, ignoring politics has a tendency to empower those who do pay attention to them. Plenty of examples of the pitfalls of the post-political could be the harms done to u.s. elections before Bush even took office etc. The post-political has a tendency to emphaisis the I'm not responsible for my government angle while emphaising the I am responsible for my neighborhood etc. The later is important, but former has to be dealt with too.

[stanleylieber.livejournal.com]

Hello Momus,

I agree with you about Cage. At the same time, I disagree with you about abdicating your voting rights, at least in America. Our system is designed to reward (in every sense of the word) the fullest participation in its government. It only truly works when the majority of people are participating, at all levels. True, it's a lot of work, and fills your life with things most people don't want to think about. But when people do pariticpate, the policies of government reflect just and equitable treatment for (voting) citizens more consistently than I've observed elsewhere. I think your program of moving between pleasurable Temporary Autonomous Zones sounds like fun, but I do think it rather sidesteps the issue of who has to design and maintain the support structure that holds it all in place. Like the Bridge in William Gibson's San Francisco novels, it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

I expect you'll notice I haven't commented on your last several, non-controversial posts. But I am still reading!

calling u out

[zzberlin.livejournal.com]

Dear m lieber

I am fascinated by your writing and hope I don't scare dear imomus away by responding so much!

<< I disagree with you about abdicating your voting rights >>

When's the last time you voted, MR Lieber? If you don't mind my asking, what is your party affiliation? Do you read dailykos. What exactly are you doing, aside from chastising mr momus and me, to affect the system. Or are there no current injustices?

I'm registered republican but haven't voted in too many years. I feel a twinge of guilt every election day but feel those that are better informed can make the decisions for me. And I'm okay with that.

There's no good republicans to vote for anyway.

I like Obama from Illinois, he's a democrat, so now I can't vote for him at least not till he runs for the big office.

appreciation

[(Anonymous)]

As a non tech chap living in Glasgow (the reason I am anon is that I don't understand how to be otherwise) I would like to show my appreciation for what, in my limited blogrange, I consider to be the most engaging and interesting blog I read. You seem to view the world with a wealth of enthusiasm and wonder. Your constituency appears to be truly global. And your voice is inescapably your own.

Your take on being a former satyrist is a perspective that many of us more cynical souls might do well embrace. I for one am trying.

If it means anything, well done!!

All best,

David Mackenzie

Re: appreciation

[(Anonymous)]

israel is being prodded by iran, how little to you read?