The modern president is America’s shrink, a social worker, our very own national talk show host. He’s also the Supreme Warlord of the Earth.

This messianic campaign rhetoric merely reflects what the office has evolved into after decades of public clamoring. … Americans, left, right, and other, think of the “commander in chief” as a superhero, responsible for swooping to the rescue when danger strikes.

Gene Healy in the June 2008 issue of Reason.com.

Right now, Obama is expected to walk out on the waters of the Gulf of Mexico, extract the oil – if a vacuum cleaner can do it, so can the President – and hurl the damned stuff into outer space. (Aliens don’t vote.)

But this is only the first of three disquieting features of the current crisis. Americans ar confronted by a technological problem to which there is no immediate technological solution. This must be somebody’s fault, goddammit. Worse,  the problem is oil, a substance worshipped wherever two or three SUVs are gathered together. It’s as if holy water turned into sulphuric acid.

We know what America does when foreigners  threaten its oil supplies. The question now is what it will do to itself faced with this more intimate threat. Be very glad that Obama is in office. George W. would by now have annexed the Home Counties.

 

So is the US an “aggressive, war-mongering military machine” obsessed with spending on defence and plumping up its armed forces? Perhaps, the numbers say, not.

But you have to follow the charts quite a way down to see why.  Compare this presentation with the one-line statistics in our newspapers – makes you groan.

Other highlights. The North Koreans have 24,728 people per 100,000 in what might be called the aggression business – soldiers, reservists and paramilitary. A 2008 census gave a total population of about 24 million of whom about half are children. It follows that about half the adult population are in the aggression business.

Then there’s Burma, which spends 26% of its GDP on the military.

 

Is it just me? The bien-pensant stuff about Afghanistan keeps reminding me of pollyanna talk during the Cold War. The Russians aren’t so bad, after all those satellite countries, they have elections, a little bit of socialism wouldn’t hurt this country by the way and it’s obvious that we couldn’t possibly agree with anything whatsoever said or done by the Americans, so, so, well anyway, let’s have another drink.

Tariq Ali has decided that the only solution to the situation in Afghanistan is for everyone to pull out. All will be arranged at a conference:

. . . the Pakistani military obviously is a key player, and has to be part of the process of withdrawal, as have the Iranians, as have the Russians, the Chinese. These are the four critical players. The Chinese because they have investments there and their money is needed to rebuild the country; the Pakistanis, Iranians, and the Russians because they need to tell their supporters in this country, “We need a national coalition government in Afghanistan for ten years, we’ll disarm you, no violence will be tolerated, we’re going to rebuild the country.” That is the only way forward. I know it seems utopian at the moment.

No Tariq, what it seems is asinine, disingenuous and menacing.  ‘No violence will be tolerated’. In Afghanistan? Exactly who will police that, and how?  But then, this is the guy who in the same article tells us that the tribes who drove out the British only used their rifles for sport,  if the wicked West had only let well alone, women in Afghanistan would have the vote, and the Russians were good for Afghanistan because they say they were and those neo-liberals won’t put a red cent into the country.  So long as he can continue to hate Americans and anyone allied with them he doesn’t give a brass fuck about, for example, the Afghanis.

In particular, about Afghani women. But perhaps the assembled Chinese, Iranians, Pakistanis and Russians will take care of them.

 


Studying English taught us how to write and think better, and to make articulate many of the inchoate impulses and confusions of our post-adolescent minds. We began to see, as we had not before, how such books could shape and refine our thinking. We began to understand why generations of people coming before us had kept them in libraries and bookstores and in classes such as ours. There was, we got to know, a tradition, a historical culture, that had been assembled around these books. Shakespeare had indeed made a difference—to people before us, now to us, and forever to the language of English-speaking people.

Finding pleasure in such reading, and indeed in majoring in English, was a declaration at the time that education was not at all about getting a job or securing one’s future. In comparison with the pre-professional ambitions that dominate the lives of American undergraduates today, the psychological condition of students of the time was defined by self-reflection, innocence, and a casual irresponsibility about what was coming next.

William M. Chace, ‘The Decline of the English Department’ , The American Scholar online

My stress, my experience. All very well for me, because I went on to teach it.  But for all the others, while there’s no evidence that their degrees in English led to blasted lives, the traditional liberal writ had long ceased to run. English Departments at their height – as Chace points out, a height briefly occupied in the middle years of the 20th century -  were preparing students for a world which no longer existed.

 

ç

 

Amongst the little comparison-cults on YouTube there’s one for Olympia’s aria, as you’d expect, since every coloratura soprano wants to sing it. Sumi Jo is there,  and Sutherland (late performances – don’t go there) and the recent crop of French divas.

Don’t miss Natalie Dessay in rehearsal for her first Olympia, where the voluble director is Roman Polanski.  Dessay marks most of the time, taking instruction from choreographer, director, conductor, but we get a bit of it at pitch when Hugues Cuenod enters. You get to hear the underlay of the voice.

There’s also a brief clip from that performance:

And (unmissable!) Dessay singing the whole piece in a production at Orange.

Finally, a contrasting product from  Patricia Petibon in what must have been a hugely enjoyable recital.

Theme Tweaker by Unreal