The River-Merchant’s Wife

After Li Po

While my hair was still cut straight
     across my forehead
I played at the front gate, pulling
     flowers.
You came by on bamboo stilts, playing
     horse,
You walked about my seat, playing with
     blue plums.
And we went on living in the village of
     Chokan:
Two small people, without dislike or
     suspicion.  

At fourteen I married My Lord you.
I never laughed, being bashful.
Lowering my head, I looked at the wall.
Called to, a thousand times, I never
     looked back.

At fifteen I stopped scowling,
I desired my dust to be mingled with
     yours
Forever and forever and forever.
Why should I climb the lookout?

At sixteen you departed,
You went into far Ku-to-en, by the river
     of swirling eddies,
And you have been gone five months.
The monkeys make sorrowful noise
     overhead.

You dragged your feet when you went
     out,
By the gate now, the moss is grown,
     the different mosses,
Too deep to clear them away!
The leaves fall early this autumn, in
     wind.
The paired butterflies are already
     yellow with August
Over the grass in the West garden;
They hurt me.  I grow older.
If you are coming down through the
     narrows of the river Kiang,
Please let me know beforehand,
And I will come out to meet you
          As far as Cho-fu-sa.

this is just the usual thing: the little capi are intriguing against the big boss, the capo di capi, none of them give a damn about the arabs, naturally

helvena:

The strings pulled in U.S. government. The best government money can buy.

Originally posted on Niqnaq:

Capo di tutti capi or capo dei capi is Italian for “boss of all bosses” or “boss of the bosses”. It is a phrase used mainly by the media, public and the law enforcement community to indicate a supremely powerful crime boss in the Sicilian or Usaian Mafia who holds great influence over the whole organization – Wikipedia

Friends of Israel
Connie Bruck, New Yorker, Sep 1 2014

On Jul 23, AIPAC officials gathered in a conference room at the Capitol for a closed meeting with a dozen Democratic senators. The agenda of the meeting, which was attended by other Jewish leaders as well, was the war in the Gaza Strip. In the century-long conflict between the Israelis and the Plastelinans, the previous two weeks had been particularly harrowing. In Israeli towns and cities, families heard sirens warning of incoming rockets and raced to shelters. In Gaza, there were scenes…

View original 11,891 more words

Homosexuality: The Other Side of the Coin

Judge for yourself.  The first hour and a half I find interesting, the last fifteen minutes are preachy and doesn’t add to the videos credibility, but I remind myself a church based group produced it.  Anything that goes against nature isn’t healthy.  If you take the time to look up some of the people who promote homosexuality that are mentioned you will discover some twisted people, Rex King for one.

Money is no Social Construct

helvena:

Let’s Find Out Who The CEOs and Board of Directors Are Of These Companies.

Originally posted on The Kakistocracy:

Would you care for some context into just how fervently corporate America wants to replace you? Well, too bad. Enough that upon hearing the scope of their ambition, even Obama turned a whiter shade of pale. Alas the blanching was brief, and CEO ministrations much comforted the chief.

According to Politico, Obama canoodled with a corporate coterie to get the porridge just right.

Obama was initially expected to focus only on slowing deportations of potentially millions of undocumented immigrants and altering federal enforcement policies. Now top aides are talking with leaders in big companies like Cisco, Intel and Accenture, hoping to add more changes that would get them on board.

For no reason I can articulate, it’s shocking to hear such sadistic collusion. Obama was merely going to amnesty every creature that had ever whimsically considered residing here, and was actually outbid by the CEOs who indignantly howled…

View original 415 more words

Some People Are So Articulate…

http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-would-manning-johnson-have-said.html#comment-form 

Anonymous

August 18, 2014 at 11:15 AM

Good comment.
True definitions of the c word (communist) and the f word (fascist) are hard to agree upon, and their morphing meanings to people over time prove that. Add in the influence of Hollywood crap in helping to ‘define’ those words and you have pure confusion.
The monkey in the circus performing all day, beaten and fed poorly is a fascist, and the monkey in the zoo, deprived of everything but food and water is a communist. Both are a long long way from the jungle and not interested in the semantics of their enslavement.

On that Hegelian dialectic thingy.
Does the march towards a one world order with one world currency, suffer or benefit from the Ukrainian crisis?

If you don’t understand the concept of “order out of chaos,” then you’ll never understand a thing.
Engineered chaos serves several purposes. It provides distraction and cover for the elites to implement other plans that they would rather not have noticed.”

Whenever the media give us two ugly choices and demands us to choose, we should smell rat, every time. The constant media bombardment of Putin vs. NATO stinks of Hegelian manipulation.
The flag waving jingoistic north Americans will choose to stay loyal and view Putin as the new enemy. The crowd who understand the corruption and depravity of western leaders and their false flag crimes will be more receptive to seeing Putin as a tonic…..as long as they don’t look too closely at him.

In Ferguson, there is an effort to demonize both white and black people and to get everybody hating somebody. The agent provocateurs working both camps are scum and we must all resist their efforts to get us divided. Love the good people on both sides, oppose the violence on both sides and realize that both sides are being manipulated by scummy media. Rise above it all!

Katana’s Reply…

katana said…

Iron Felix said… 15 August 2014 00:16

… Where is this outrage, where the Irish spirit? The answer is that it is nowhere; it has never existed; it is a myth, emanating from the late nineteenth century when the Brits suddenly saw the Irish as romantics, happy-go-lucky types, altogether fearfully seltic dontcha know. Fact is, the Irish are apathetic cattle, always have been, though capable of squalid savagery (1798). Without backbone, they stand listlessly aside as their country is taken from them, never having understood that it IS their country. Today 25% of births in Ireland are to non-Irish; this will increase; nothing will change things. The Irish will lose in this as they have always lost, simply because they are losers.

—————–

Iron Felix, of course there is much to be pessimistic about. What can be said about Ireland can also be said about all Western countries.

The current lack of outrage is mostly for these reasons:

White people have been propagandized over generations into being passive consumers as living standards increase as technological advances has enabled less work for more and better consumer goods. People are now better off in terms of creature comforts, paradoxically helping to destroy our societies.

White people have been propagandized over generations into believing that Whites have been guilty of crimes against the Third World requiring unlimited repayment, helping to destroy our societies.

White people have been propagandized over generations into believing that they are uniquely “racist” requiring that true repentance is only shown by allowing darkies to flood our lands without limit, helping to destroy our societies.

White people have been propagandized over generations into believing that they are uniquely “responsible” for environmental problems that they must reduce their population levels to below replacement levels while the dark races multiply at rabbit rates at White expense, helping to destroy our societies.

White people have been propagandized over generations into believing that their men are uniquely “oppressive” towards their women, resulting in a whole raft of anti-male laws that ultimately oppresses females and males, helping to destroy our societies.

White people have been propagandized over generations into believing that we have been “sexually oppressed”, resulting in a wholesale flooding of our media with non stop sex, pornography and sexualization of all aspects of society that destroys female and male relationships and families, helping to destroy our societies.

White people have been propagandized over generations into believing that we have been “oppressing” homosexuals, resulting in a whole raft of homosexual “liberating” laws that ultimately destroy families, helping to destroy our societies.

White people have been propagandized over generations into believing that “Multiculturalism and Multiracialism” represents their interests, helping to destroy our societies.

White people have been propagandized over generations into believing that the “Holocaust” hoax represents not only unspeakable German, but also White evil and consequent guilt, helping to destroy our societies.

White people have been propagandized over generations into believing that their “Democratic Systems” of voting represents their interests, rather than the “elites” chosen by jewish money masters, helping to destroy our societies.

… and so on, ad nausea.

So, Iron Felix, that’s why ordinary Irish people have a hard time rising up.

White people are being subject to a longterm, relentless and massive propaganda machine, lead by organised jewry, and its useful idiots and traitors, that intends to wipe Whites out as a force against jewish tyranny and their New World Order.

What we need is just enough thinking people to wake up and to rise up. The ordinary people can and will follow.

So, don’t focus on ordinary people. They are the very last to wake up.
15 August 2014 15:03

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2147334142609503958&postID=24772106911618612

Steven Salaita Affair (Updated)

http://crookedtimber.org/2014/08/07/shit-and-curses-and-other-updates-on-the-steven-salaita-affair/

 

steven_salaita_resize

Shit and Curses, and Other Updates on the Steven Salaita Affair (Updated)

by Corey Robin on August 7, 2014

1. Yesterday, University of Nevada professor Gautam Premnath called the University of Illinois to protest the hirefire of Steven Salaita. A giggly employee in the Chancellor’s office told Premnath that Salaita was “dehired.”

2.Within 24 hours, nearly 8000 people have signed a petition calling on the University of Illinois to reinstate Salata. You should too. While you’re at it, please make sure to email the chancellor, Phyllis Wise, at at pmwise@illinois.edu. Please cc Robert Warrior of the American Indian Studies department (rwarrior@illinois.edu) and the department itself: ais@illinois.edu.

3. Personally, I disagree with the notion that anti-Semitism can be explained, justified, or understood in light of Israel’s actions. But if you think an academic should be hiredfired for saying something like that, you would have had to have been prepared, back in 2002, to fire Nathan Glazer for saying just that at a conference at NYU:

Nathan Glazer, the well-known Harvard University sociologist sometimes associated with neoconservatism, suggested that whereas historically antisemitism was rooted in “illusionary” beliefs about Jews, today’s antisemitism is often a reaction to Israeli actions. And he said that such “hostility can be reduced and moderated by [Israel’s] policies.”

Glazer, as I recall, said considerably more than that. Among other things he said that since Israel claims to speak in the name of all Jews across the globe, its defenders should not be surprised when its enemies apply that claim to all Jews and begin opposing them as Jews.

4. This morning, the Chronicle of Higher Ed has a fuller report on the Salaita affair. Among the new facts revealed: First, it was a tenured position that Salaita was offered. Second, the offer was made last October by the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. Third, the national AAUP has distanced itself from Cary Nelson, saying he “does not speak for the association.” (In this statement, the AAUP distances itself even further.) And, last, in the faculty’s deliberations on hiring Salaita, his tweets did not come “up as a topic of concern or conversation” on the reasonable ground that they did not deem “social media as being somehow scholarly content.”

5. On December 27, 2013, Chancellor Wise had this to say about academic freedom:

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign opposes the boycott of Israeli academic institutions and endorses the statement made by the AAU. At Illinois, we value academic freedom as one of our core principles and cherish the critical importance of the ability of faculty to pursue learning, discovery and engagement without regard to political considerations.

And just in case anyone was confused about how important the principle was to her, she had this to say on January 30, 2014:

Of all places, a university should be home to diverse ideas and differing perspectives, where robust – and even intense – debate and disagreement are welcomed. How do we foster such an atmosphere? Only through an unwavering and unrelenting commitment to building truly diverse communities of students and scholars.

6. The Illinois AAUP Committee A has a very strong statement on the affair:

The AAUP 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure states in reference to extramural utterances: “When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline.” It affirms that “The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition.” While Professor’s Salaita’s tweets are construed as controversial, the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure affirms the virtue of controversial speech.

Professor Salaita’s words while strident and vulgar were an impassioned plea to end the violence currently taking place in the Middle East. Issues of life and death during bombardment educes significant emotions and expressions of concern that reflect the tragedy that armed conflict confers on its victims. Speech that is deemed controversial should be challenged with further speech that may abhor and challenge a statement. Yet the University of Illinois cannot cancel an appointment based upon Twitter statements that are protected speech in the United States of America.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the Salaita statements about Israel or Zionism that would raise questions about his fitness to teach. These statements were not made in front of students, are not related to a course that is being taught, and do not reflect in any manner his quality of teaching. What one says out of class rarely, in the absence of peer review of teaching, confirms how one teaches. Passion about a topic even if emotionally expressed through social network does not allow one to draw inferences about teaching that could possibly rise to the voiding or reversal of a job appointment.

One must not conjecture about a link between extramural statements and the quality of classroom teaching, absent an unmistakable link that would raise issues of competence. None exist here. Indeed, we affirm that fitness to teach can be enhanced with conviction, commitment and an engagement with the outside world.

7. Our very own Michael Bérubé also has a strong statement:

While I do not share Professor Salaita’s sentiments with regard to content, and find them to be often intemperate expressions of opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict, I urge you to reconsider your decision. Indeed, I urge you to reconsider precisely because I do not share Professor Salaita’s sentiments. It is a truism that academic freedom is meaningless unless it covers unpopular (and even intemperate) speech; and that, finally, is what is at stake here– the question of whether academic freedom at the University of Illinois will be meaningless.

8. It occurs to me that if tweets are now going to be taken into consideration in academic hires, I want my entire social media presence included in all future considerations of my career. I want the number of tweets and FB posts I do per year to be included in my publication count. I want the number of retweets and “likes” that I get to be included in my citation count. And I want my friend Doug Henwood to be considered for an academic appointment. As he says, “With my Klout score, I’m on my way to an endowed chair.”

9. Glenn Greenwald tweets that there’s “lots more coming on this.” If I were Chancellor Wise, I’d be nervous. Very nervous. If Glenn’s on the story, I have little doubt what the ultimate outcome will be.

10. And last, this report, from today’s Guardian, on the most moral army in the world:

When Ahmed Owedat returned to his home 18 days after Israeli soldiers took it over in the middle of the night, he was greeted with an overpowering stench.

He picked through the wreckage of his possessions thrown from upstairs windows to find that the departing troops had left a number of messages. One came from piles of faeces on his tiled floors and in wastepaper baskets, and a plastic water bottle filled with urine.

If that was not clear enough, the words “Fuck Hamas” had been carved into a concrete wall in the staircase. “Burn Gaza down” and “Good Arab = dead Arab” were engraved on a coffee table. The star of David was drawn in blue in a bedroom.

It’s a strange universe we live in, where high-minded professors fret more about the “foul-mouthed” tweets of a scholar than the shit and curses soldiers leave in the destroyed homes of civilians.

Update (3:30 pm)

Just received a copy of a very strongly worded letter from the Center for Constitutional Rights. In addition to making all the right arguments re academic freedom and the First Amendment, it contains three factual statements, which I had not read anywhere else

The first:

As you well know, in October 2013, the University’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences made an offer to Professor Salaita for an appointment, with tenure, in the College’s American Indian Studies program; he soon after accepted your offer (which the University confirmed in writing) and resigned from his tenured position in the English Department at Virginia Tech University. Your offer letter expressly stressed the University’s adherence to the American Association of University Professors’ Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure….His views (which he has long aired passionately and openly in many forums, including social media) are no doubt considered highly controversial by many in this country, but Professor Salaita could rest assured that his tenured position and the foundational principles of academic freedom and expression would permit him to share his views without fear of censure or reprisal.

That express affirmation in the offer letter of the AAUP principles seems like it could pose a potential problem for the University.

The second:

Nevertheless, despite Professor Salaita’s obvious reliance on the terms of the University’s appointment – by resigning from his tenured position at Virginia Tech, renting his Virginia home and preparing his entire family to move – you summarily terminated his appointment to a tenured position, without notice or any opportunity to be heard or to object. Your August 1, 2014 letter references your Office’s failure to seek or obtain final authorization from the Board of Trustees as the reason for the termination of Professor Salaita; yet, leaving aside the procedural irregularities in your rationale,³…

And then, in the footnote, comes this:

Although Professor Salaita’s appointment was effective August 16th, your termination letter stated that his appointment would not be recommended for submission to the Board in September, after his start date.

In other words, even under the best of circumstances, Salaita’s appointment was scheduled to be effective before the Board was scheduled to vote to approve it.

Last, the CCR letter references a letter from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, expressly requesting that the University of Illinois rescind its offer. I wasn’t aware of this letter, but it’s discussed here. The letter states:

We strongly believe that a person… with such aberrational views cannot be trusted to confine his discussions to his area of study. We urge you to reconsider his appointment and look forward to immediately discussing this serious matter with you.

Aberrational views. They used to be the pride and joy of the Jewish people, from Abraham to Kafka and Freud. Now we fire people for having them.