Skip to main content

Welcome to the multipolar world

The G8 has done precious little this past week-end to halt, condemn or resolve the current unedifying slaughter of innocents (and, indeed, the guilty) in the Middle East. Nor is the Quartet about to.

Meanwhile, China, Russia, and the USA begin to divide the world's remaining petroleum resources among them, in order to sustain technology and lifestyles which are dismayingly unsustainable.

The French wanted a non-unipolar world to offset the hegemony of the Americans; they may be getting what they ordered, and what once seemed a plausible alternative to the hard-to-construct utopias of the far-flung Left. But it doesn't seem to be the French calling the shots.

The rockets, by the way, being fired at civilians and infrastructure on both sides of the border of this current dispute, are manufactured and sold; who profits from this mayhem?

There will come a time, surely, when stock options are not an option, for those left in the ruined world of the 22nd century.

All these reflections verge on the unsayably trite. But if so trite, why are they still resisted by so many? It seems the women and men of most "democratic nations" prefer their giant screens to the smallest insights - and will not budge to alter the way we live and "do business" in a highly-competitive world - where competition so often masks an utterly degraded view of what the person and the community are meant for and could achieve, in a post-market economy.

Comments

City Slicker said…
Really chuffed I stumbled across your site
Very interesting read
Like yours tyle
Keep typing
Cityslicker
http://www.cityslicker1.blogspot.com/
Unknown said…
Todd Swift said:
"...the women and men of most "democratic nations" prefer their giant screens to the smallest insights - and will not budge to alter the way we live and "do business" in a highly-competitive world."

Sounds like a pretty darn fair assessment, Todd.

Also sounds like a page torn out of many an entry of my own political tirades. Keep up your own hammering away at these points. After all, it seems like repetition and hammering away at conclusions is the only thingt the media and by extension the people (of whatever the heck the masses are, anyway) will listen to.

Ciao.

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".