Fecal Matters

In Carson McCullers' novel Clock Without Hands, the racist Southern judge and bourgeois gentilhomme Fox Clane is depicted in one scene sitting upon his toilet as if it were a throne. McCullers indelibly describes his feelings upon the successful completion of an afternoon's evacuation of the bowels: "When the odor in the bathroom rose, he was not annoyed by this; on the contrary, since he was pleased by anything that belonged to him, and his feces were no exception, the smell rather soothed him. So he sat there, relaxed and meditative, pleased with himself."

In the context of the novel, the judge's feelings of self-satisfaction upon the successful voiding of his colon, and the resulting smell, serves as a wonderfully apt symbol of his entire approach to life: the patronizing assumption of superiority with which he lords it over his household, his society, and all who belong to both. Stripped of what we know about this character's individuality, however, Fox Clane's reaction to the aroma of his own dung has a more universal element than that. It is a fact that none of us minds the stench of our own droppings to quite the same extent we mind the smell of others'.

Welcome to the Clone Wars

Within two days of each other, two highly significant events took place: 1) it was confirmed - including by the Senator himself - that Russian intelligence-sponsored troll accounts are interfering in the Democratic primaries to support Sanders; and 2) Sanders won in the Nevada caucus by a landslide. Thus, we are one step closer to a scenario in which the two major party contenders in the 2020 U.S. presidential election are also the two individuals Vladimir Putin's interference campaign has backed since 2016. Sanders v. Trump: the two Putin-approved candidates, going head-to-head.

Of course, there are some crucial moral distinctions between the way Sanders and Trump have responded to this situation. The Senator did not try to deny the truth of reports about Russian interference to bolster his campaign, for one thing, once they became public. He also denounced these efforts to influence the U.S. election and described Putin as an "autocratic thug." He made clear that any "assistance" from troll accounts in the primaries was unwanted and unwelcome.

Preparing

My sister, brother-in-law, and I made a pilgrimage yesterday to the Harry Potter theme area at Orlando's Universal Studios. By the standards of other members of our generation, this was a decidedly belated voyage. The attraction has been open for a good ten years or so now, so we were late to the game. Speaking for myself, however, this did not in any way diminish the sense of wonder.

Harry Potter is a fantasy franchise perfectly suited to the tourist who, like myself, does not want to go on roller coasters. Sure, the place has its rides; but they can be skipped without forfeiting the overall experience. The real purpose is merchandizing, and among fantasy or sci-fi universes, is there any other that can boast so many in-universe stores, shops, and things to buy?

Small differences

The New York Times ran a story yesterday in the run-up to the Nevada caucuses. It seems that the rampaging online Committee of Public Safety known as Bernie Sanders supporters (is there not a reason their flagship publication is dubbed - without apparent self-criticism intended - Jacobin?) have found another victim. In this case, she is the elected head of Nevada's largest union, representing culinary workers in the state's vast apparatus of hotels and casinos. Her crime was to come out in opposition to Sanders' Medicare-for-All plan, due to the union's fears of losing the quality private health insurance plan they won through long and difficult contract negotiations.

Is it ironic to see the self-appointed most-left, most-pro-labor, most-pro-working-class wing of the Democratic Party lining up to denounce a union leader who is trying to do right by her members? And not only denouncing her, but - apparently - sharing her home address online, sending her death threats, calling her home phone to leave threatening messages? (Bernie himself, let it be noted, has not encouraged this behavior; here as elsewhere, the Senator is a far more decent man than his declared admirers; but his response to the incident was decidedly weak.)

Valentine's Day 2020

A friend who is well aware of my intransigent singleness sent a missive today by text with greetings for the holiday. "Thnx!" I replied, with a heart. Then, he asked, "How do you relate to this holiday?" Meaning: what do you make of it, seeing as this day is not particularly set up for people living outside of traditional couple relationships, and that much of our popular culture therefore assumes Valentine's Day must be a period of mourning and repentance for those of us who by choice, inclination, or circumstance find ourselves single.

With a rapier flash, my reply came to me- and it was an accurate and honest one. What do I make of Valentine's Day? "I use it as a chance to advocate for family unity for couples threatened with separation by US immigration policies," I wrote back. For this is the literal truth. I knew it in an instant, as well as all it implied.

Errata and Marginalia 010: Forster

E.M. Forster, Where Angels Fear to Tread (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), originally published 1905.

Forster's first novel—the short, brisk, acidly funny Where Angels Fear to Tread—is, like much of his work, a study in culture-clash. Fussy, conspiring, duplicitous, clever, self-controlled English people mix themselves up with open-hearted, corruptible, generous, brutal Continental Europeans, and disaster inevitably results.

All sides contribute to the debacle, for all are possessed of virtues as well as vices distinctly their own, and these sets of traits are wholly incompatible with one another. One virtue reacts upon another, foreign one, and becomes vice; and so all are guilty, without at any stage meaning each other real harm.

Or, as one character puts it—the English moralizer, Harriet—it all ends up "like one of those horrible modern plays where no one is in the right." As such, the novel manages to veer from the most civilized comedy to the most genuine horror, without ever losing its sincerity or coherence of vision.

Thy tongue hypocrisy

Last week, I attended an event about religious persecution around the world. On the stage were leaders representing the Yazidi, Uighurs, Rohingya, and other groups of people currently experiencing genocide, apartheid, and other systematic violations in their home countries. It was a human rights event, but one tailored to a highly specific audience: namely, evangelical Christians who had flown into town for the National Prayer Breakfast.

One of the speakers who introduced the panel was Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma. He spoke feelingly and well, describing the impact it had on him as a small child to hear Corrie ten Boom speak about her family's role hiding Jewish neighbors from the Nazis. He told us of the need to show moral courage, when it really counted. He asked us to ponder: What would we have done, if we were called upon to stand up for what was right, even at risk to ourselves?

Errata and Marginalia 009: Twain

Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad (New York: Penguin Books, 2002); first published 1869.

Reading the early Twain classic, The Innocents Abroad, it is as if one can feel Samuel Clemens holding a straining Mark Twain by the leash. The sardonic voice of the incipient social critic is there, but it is still being kept in check by the more soothing tone of the mere "humorist"; the writer of palatable pleasantries.

Opening it, and going by reputation and title alone, one is hoping to find a book that makes satirical mincemeat of crass American manners and naivety while traveling overseas. But Clemens/Twain was aiming at a wider public than could withstand such mockery. Thus, most of the book's humor is at the expense of the travelers' hosts, rather than themselves, and it is not the sort of pungent wit to strain a nineteenth century sitting-room's intellect.

Romney's Finest Hour

McCain, thou shouldst be living at this hour! America hath need of thee! And since thou art not, Romney stepped into thy place.

Who could have foreseen it? Who would have predicted we'd have something to thank Romney for? Well, this blog did, although the rest of the soaring optimism of that earlier post does not hold up so well. The Senate did not in the end come through. The system was not redeemed. Trump did not go the way of Nixon.

Kicking away ladders

As confirmed by colleagues who attended the event, it will surprise no one to hear the representatives of our current government acquitted themselves rather poorly at this year's UN Climate Change Conference (COP25). Despite officially planning to withdraw from the global climate accords, the Paris Agreement, U.S. negotiators nonetheless sought to shape the discussions around this agreement to their own advantage, trying to take without giving. They were, in short, freighted with an immense load of self-entitlement.

Reading an older climate change book recently, however, to get some context—that is, Christine Shearer's brief 2011 work Kivalina: A Climate Change Story—I at least had the cold comfort of learning that such behavior on our government's part is not new. The preceding generation of climate negotiators went through something similar in trying to hammer out the Kyoto Protocol. There again, the United States wanted to sacrifice nothing, but receive all.