lloydtown 

A Great New Orleans Novel

Re-reading A Confederacy of Dunces, by John Kennedy Toole.

Much praised, and it has been mentioned recently for the accurate portrayal of one New Orleans accent--"more Sopranos than Gone with the Wind." (See here and here).

An over-educated man of about 30, still living with his mother, has sabotaged his only shot at a teaching job. He's huge and self-indulgent, and he seems to be on his way to some state of complete motionlessness on his bed. Then things happen that get him going--even help him adjust to the modern world, in funny ways.

The idea is that he is trying to be a good Catholic of the Middle Ages. He knows that to the extent he succeeds in this, he won't fit into the world around him at all. He'll hate plastics, the shopping mall, "violations against decency and taste," and getting ahead.

A black character named Jones weaves in and out of the story. Here is an exchange between the two of them.

"'Hey, listen,' Jones said. 'Before you be leavin, tell me somethin. Wha you think a color cat can do to stop bein vagran or employ below the minimal wage?'
'Please.' Ignatius fumbled through his smock to find the curb and raise himself. 'You can't possibly realize how confused you are. Your value judgments are all wrong. When you get to the top or wherever it is that you want to go, you'll have a nervous breakdown or worse. Do you know of any Negroes with ulcers? Of course not. Live contentedly in some hovel. Thank Fortuna that you have no Caucasian parent hounding you. Read Boethius.'
.... [snip]
[Jones, quite reasonably, refuses to accept this.] 'Listen. How you like bein vagran half the time?'
'Wonderful. I myself was a vagrant in happier, better days. If only I were in your shoes. I would stir from my room only once a month to fumble for my relief check in the mailbox. Realize your good fortune.'
The fat mother was really a freak."

What most strikes me now is that Ignatius develops a plan for a kind of movement for world peace. His best hopes for friendship seem to be people who detest the bourgeois life as much as he does--a Marxist woman who favours sexual liberation; or the out gays whom he describes as degenerates.

Our first step will be to elect one of their number to some very high office--the presidency, if Fortuna spins us kindly. Then they will infiltrate the military. As soldiers, they will all be so continually busy in fraternizing with one another, tailoring their uniforms to fit like sausage skins, inventing new and varied battle dress, giving cocktail parties, etc., that they will never have time for battle....In seeing the success of their unified fellows here, perverts around the world will also band together to capture the military in their respective countries. In those reactionary countries in which the deviates seem to be having some trouble in gaining control, we will send aid to them as rebels to help them in toppling their governments.

Almost everyone else has had an opportunity to run the world. I cannot see why these people should not be given their chance. They have certainly been the underdog long enough.

Degeneracy, rather than signaling the downfall of a society, as it once did, will now signal peace for a troubled world. We must have new solutions to new problems.

A debate between Pragmatism and Morality rages in my brain. Is the glorious end, Peace, worth the awesome means, Degeneracy? Like two figures in the medieval MOrality play, Pragmatism and Morality spar in the boxing ring of my brain.

Cure for a Dog's Leg?

More than two years ago our Westie hurt one of his rear legs--wouldn't put any weight on it at all. The vet said it was a ligament, not that different from a human one ("cruciate" because they cross over), and on such a young dog (6 at the time) surgery was recommended. $1500, a very slow recovery during which the dog has to be prevented from over-using the leg. Everything seemed fine.

Six months ago, it seemed to be happening again with the other rear leg--but it was inconsistent; sometimes Hero would put some weight on the leg. One vet said it wasn't the ligament, another said it might be. For a while Hero was on a prescription drug, but then my wife started buying "Nupro Joint Support--All Natural Dog Supplement with Glucosamine Complex."

All I can say is, this stuff seems to have worked. Hero seems fine.

We've also been warned that Hero is certain to end up with arthritis because of the surgery, whereas without the surgery that might only have been fairly likely. Maybe the Nupro will help with that too.

Today is Hank Williams' Birthday

Thanks to Tony Pierce.

Related to one of my bugbears: Hank Sr. learned a lot of music from an African-American named Rufus Payne, who spent many years between age 6 and 30 in New Orleans. As Joseph Laredo says on 20th Century Masters CD: "Strains of these early gospel and blues influences run throughout Williams' recorded work." The same piece says Williams had a big influence on Rockabilly, as is acknowledged now in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

I found this page on Payne through Tony--but now I can't even get Tony's Busblog to open. This piece by Les Cales links to one on The African American Tradition in Country Music. There is a focus on the recording sessions in Bristol, Tennessee in 1927, involving the Carter family among others. The African-American influences there have often not been credited; and Payne's influence on Williams has often not been credited. American folk or roots music seems to have deep roots, combining white and black influences, yet the "genres" of the last 50 years or so come to the ear as either white or black.

UPDATE: From another website: "To the end, [Williams] was unapologetically Southern, unable to make the compromises that Elvis Presley would make just a few years later....Country music was a cottage industry at the time of his arrival, yet, just a few years after his death, it was shaking off its 'hillbilly' image. An artist as unapologetically rural as Hank Williams would have been shown the door."

"Move it On Over" was Williams' first hit, in 1947. (He died on the last day of 1952). To me it sounds like a clear anticipation of rock and roll as well as rockabilly.

I'll link this briefly to Fats Domino--who survived Katrina.

"Fats Domino exploded onto the rock-and-roll scene in 1955 when his song, "Ain't That A Shame," was covered by white recording artist Pat Boone. Boone's version went to number one, and Domino's version on Imperial went to number ten. The song established both artists as stars."

Good for Glenn Reynolds

For disagreeing with the idea of repealing the Posse Comitatus Act, and being ready to disagree with Bush if that's what Bush meant by making sure the military can be deployed on U.S. soil.

Roberts

I guess the only real question about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is: why didn't he recuse himself on the Hamdan case, when he knew he was being considered for an appointment by Gonzales and Bush, both of whom were named parties in the case?

There is a serious argument that Roberts' inaction created the appearance of impropriety, even if he did nothing wrong, and that at minimum he should have informed defence counsel of the situation so as to allow for a recusal motion to be brought forward.

Senators have apparently taken no interest in this question. They'd rather bloviate.

UPDATE: Matt Welch notes that Senator Russ Feingold actually asked Roberts about this, and about whether civil rights have been too little respected by the Bush administration.

Campaigning vs. Governing

A nice observation on Jack Balkin's site by Mark Graber: W, and perhaps all the politicians who have been put under the microscope by Katrina, are much better at campaigning than governing. They like it better, and they admire success in it more. Success in a campaign gives a quick rush, combined with a sense that a lot is happening fast, affecting a lot of people--like an advertising campaign. Governing tends to be slower and more boring, and W notoriously doesn't like being briefed on, doesn't like reading about it, and probably doesn't like talking about it.

In his play The Knights, Aristophanes presents a famous Athenian politician as a shameless demagoge who has made one great discovery: the demos likes a comfortable pair of shoes. He always hastens to make sure the demos gets what it wants. A successful campaign feels like that--you've given the all-powerful people exactly what they want.

As Graber says, whoever you think is most at fault, local/state officials or federal officials, it's the difference between an F and a D-.

Mickey Kaus is a Democrat and Ann Coulter is a Republican

I know, I know. I've discovered the obvious.

But Kaus seems to think Coulter is actually mounting an argument about the most efficient way to help the poor. The federal government, she thinks, is always wasteful and inefficient. Taxpayers hate that, and it isn't even good for the intended beneficiaries of federal programs. Something else must be a lot better--for everyone; "competition," or state and local initiatives, or something.

So Kaus says: in the case of Katrina, the local and state officials were at least roughly as bad as the federal ones. Where is the competition in this situation, and where would it ever be in such a disaster?

Kaus, of course, is really a Democrat. He would like to make sure there is a bureaucracy in place that can actually prepare for a disaster--maybe a big bureaucracy, surely expensive, maybe even wasteful--as long as it can do the job. He thinks it probably has to be "federal" or central, and he now questions whether the states should have any independent authority at all.

It seems clear that Coulter would actually prefer that there be no public sector agency that was truly up to the job. It's just too expensive. She doesn't mind the failure of state and local governments so much, since there is not likely to be a demand for a super agency at the state or local level.

This doesn't mean she feels nothing for the victims of Katrina and other disasters. She probably hopes there are as few victims as possible, and they get as much (private sector/voluntary) help as possible. She may give generously in money or in other ways. She may even wish that disasters never happened (although it is more likely she thinks they teach us a damn good lesson). She just doesn't want expensive wasteful government to deal with it on any big scale. (Bruce Reed remembering Clinton: Compassionate conservativism means "I'd like to do a lot of things for you, but I just can't.") (scroll to Wednesday, Sept. 7).

This still leaves a question: does she want the federal government to be prepared for a terrorist attack on a U.S. city, or not? Wasn't that one of Bush's main mandates after 9/11? Isn't there a lot of overlap between what would be required in that case and what was required on the Gulf Coast? Didn't FEMA demonstrate that it is unprepared after four years, period?

For Coulter, I suspect, as for a lot of people--especially Republicans, the 9/11 images said "that could be me, and my loved ones," whereas the Katrina images did not say that.

Belated Anniversary Memorial

I missed 9/11, but here are the words to "Of Thee I Sing," by George and Ira Gershwin--which was proposed for the U.S. national anthem, obviously not entirely seriously, by Erik Tarloff on Slate:

Besides, if Josh and Alfred want to insist on something sort of popular and sort of contemporary (if we consider the last 100 years or so contemporary), there's a much better choice. It's a song that expresses love of country, it has some of the irreverence we're proud to regard as a vital aspect of our national character, and it has the additional advantage of coming from a show that won a Pulitzer Prize. It's called "Of Thee I Sing," a title which tips its hat to an older patriotic anthem.

Bush's Defenders: In the Foxhole At Last

I'll have to come back and do the links, but I might as well note some of the extreme statements coming from Bush defenders.

1. Even if every one of Bush's appointments to FEMA has turned out to be a complete and utter disgrace, it remains to be seen whether this is worse than Clinton's record. (As long as we're not provably, beyond a shadow of a doubt, worse than Clinton, we're a brilliant success? So we can just keep saying Clinton was worse, whether we have any evidence or not?)

2. It's the fault of Democrats in Congress for confirming the people Bush nominated. (The Corner; link via Julian Sanchez, Hit and Run). (I guess: If they were patriotic Americans, they would fight every Bush nomination with everything they've got, revealing these people to be the hacks they are.)

3. It's probably hundreds of people left to die, and then their bodies left to rot, in a major American city for days on end--not thousands. And this is quite likely a better record than that of the perfidious French in their heat wave a few years ago (Here and here). Besides, it's no worse than Clinton letting people die in a heat wave in Chicago in 1995. (Link via Corner, Instapundit). The article accuses Hillary Clinton of hypocrisy: she has never suggested the feds should have played a role then, when at least 700 people died as a direct result of a natural disaster. I guess in that situation, it is difficult to justify evacuating everyone who doesn't have AC, and it is almost as difficult to provide a cool place and drinking water for everyone who needs them. In 1997 (and 1998?), there was another heatwave, and Texas was heavily affected. Clinton came through with aid for Texas.

4. The only reason the media wants to show bodies is to embarass Bush. Otherwise, they would stick to their position after 9/11, which was that the reminders of bodies might inflame the public. On this one, Julian Sanchez:

Quoting Instapundit:

I can only conclude that this time around, the press thinks it's a good thing to inflame the public. What could the difference be?

PowerLine agrees, which as a rough rule of thumb, should hint there's something wrong with the logic there. Perhaps it's that George Bush, Roy Nagin, and even weather patterns are unlikely to be beaten to death in the streets?

Style by Jury

I watched a bit of this show with my wife after supper this evening. An attractive woman acts and walks as if he is lacking in self-esteem. She admits that this is true, that she feels ugly. A jury pretty much tells her she is ugly.

The experts take over. The glasses are gone, which makes a big difference. Sexy clothes--surprise! she has a nice figure, etc. Some teeth work, and a mole is removed from her face. They try to deliver an upbeat message, as if anybody can look beautify if they have the right attitude. It's not primarily the superficial stuff, or something. Her boyfriend is blown away at the end.

I was reminded of that episode of Cheers in which Cliff (somehow) has a girlfriend. He's very happy with her, but he wishes she would experiment with a bit of makeup. He asks Rebecca for advice. She says: you're a mailman, you must know about those before and after features in the women's magazines. Yeah, he says. She screams: THEN WHAT ARE YOU BUGGING ME FOR?