skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I got a truly lovely YouTube video of an Icelandic hymn from my husband who found it at John Scalzi’s website. Based on information in the comments at Scalzi’s site, the poem is from the 13th Century but the music was written in the 1970s.
At least a couple of the commenters at YouTube gave translations and one also gave some background information:
Hear creator of the heavens
what the poet begs.
Come softly to me
your mercy.
I trust in you,
you have created me.
I am your servant
you are my lord.
God, I trust in you
to heal me.
For the least, my king,
we need you the most.
Take, my God,
so powerful and inquisitive,
the sorrow out of our hearts.
My king, watch over me,
we need you the most.
For every moment
to hold ground.
Set the son of a maiden,
a beautiful matter.
All the help from you
in my heart.
This is written in a very violent time in the Sturlunga-age in Iceland. A few families were having disagreements over power and the man who wrote this poem was a member of one of those families. He was in the Ásbirninga family and his name was Kolbeinn Tumason. It is said that he wrote this just prior to "Víðinesbardagi", a battle in 1208. He said this poem over and over, so often that the people around him memorized it.
I smiled at “He said this poem over and over, so often that the people around him memorized it.” Since the commenter’s name seems to be Scandinavian, I assume he want to be sure non-Scandinavians understand bards and oral traditions. It’s rather sweet of him, I think.
... and the officers of the government are trustees. And both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people. - Henry Clay
Ace is writing on the Park Service shenanigans during the shutdown (emphasis in original):
Obama does not own the military, the government, or the national parks, media. Obama instead is the trustee of these things -- but is required to oversee them for the benefit of their true owners, the American People.
Here are some other things a trustee cannot do: [snip]
And he definitely, definitely may not block the beneficiary from enjoying the property held in his name to coerce the beneficiary to pay him more for his services as trustee, or to give more freely to charities the trustee favors.
Read the whole thing.
Well worth reading especially if, like me, you have only the vaguest idea what fracking is. A nice argument for letting the States do their job, too. The last paragraph is great:
The Truth about Fracking - Kevin D. Williamson in National Review
A few posts on the debt ceiling, cutting spending, and “revenue increases” (which I believe used to be called “tax increases”) that caught my eye.
Mark Steyn: No bargaining with Barack Obluffer (via TigerHawk):
In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one's debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.
’Puter: First Principles and The Debt Ceiling:
Republicans have done a singularly shitty job of identifying the first principle in play here. That principle is: live within your means.
’Puter: Enough (I do love a good rant):
Elites of the liberal and conservative varieties, along with just about everyone living inside the Beltway, just do not get it. Let 'Puter put it simply.
This is not about sticking it to the poor. This is about standing up for the unsung makers in the country.
What do I think about raising the debt ceiling, cutting spending, raising taxes? I think we should all in one bill raise the debt ceiling enough to get us to January 31, 2013; freeze spending wherever it is right now; and not raise taxes. Then both parties should make the 2012 elections about whether we want to keep raising the debt ceiling, spending, and taxes, or whether we want to lower all three.
I doubt that approach will result in anything useful since it looks like most people want to keep the debt ceiling where it is; not raise taxes (except on the rich, a category which is ill-defined to say the least and is, by any definition, not large enough to fund our current level of spending); and cut only the spending from which they themselves do not benefit or about which no sufficiently touching sob-story can be found or created. But living in a democracy means letting voters make stupid decisions. Reality always cleans up the mess eventually.
*****
By the way, The Gormogons in general have been even more readable than usual lately. For example, here’s the Czar explaining how we can tell that Obama Does Not use Chicago-Style Politics:
If President Obama used Chicago-style politics, he would have a much more accomplished track record than he clearly has. Chicago would have won the Olympics. Nearly all of the stimulus package would have wound up here. His wife would be Secretary of something or other. Her brother, Craig Robinson, would be the head of a multi-million-dollar civic improvement commission and also own a concrete company he knew nothing about an hour ago. Windmills in China would mysteriously disappear and wind up in Oregon. Usâma bin-Lâdin would have been found face-down in a river, with a GOP campaign strategy plan stuffed in his pocket. The entire US Army would be spotted in a Florida resort, despite having paychecks that say they are currently in Afghanistan. And for the last four years, all of Iraq would be covered in orange cones and construction horses.
I know nothing about the context of this quote. I know nothing about Bernard Devoto except what I read in his very brief Wikipedia entry. But I really hope he’s right:
Sure the people are stupid: the human race is stupid. Sure Congress is an inefficient instrument of government. But the people are not stupid enough to abandon representative government for any other kind, including government by the guy who knows.
... in Feminist Hell for thinking this is hysterically funny - but it will be worth it.
Through some logical set of steps that I can no longer retrace I found myself reading Dennis the Peasant in the middle of the night last night. As is my wont, I looked back to his September 2008 archives to see what he was saying about Sarah Palin - I find this an interesting way to separate the sheep from the goats, so to speak - and I stumbled upon this post. It’s one in the morning and I'm laughing hysterically and pounding the desk with my fist. Good thing we don’t have downstairs neighbors.
I started laughing with the very first blow of the fisk:
Sentence #1:
What I keep not understanding is how right wingers don’t get this, besides the obvious willful ignorance problem.
18 words. Stating that you "keep not understanding" something seems to suggest that effort is required to prevent understanding of said something. For whatever reason, I'm finding that hard to believe when Amanda's involved. All too often, her not understanding things seems pretty effortless. And for the record, just who has the "willful ignorance problem"?
By the time I got to the dead Republicans I was falling off my (not so imaginary) chair.
Even better I searched DtP’s site and he has more Amanda Marcotte posts. I can’t decide if I should read them all in one orgy of hystericalness, ration myself to one a day, or save them for times when it’s all just too much for me.
Without further ado, the link. Okay, a little further ado. There is some language in here and, as the movie ratings say, simulated sexual activity:
This Week’s Amanda Sentence
I just wish I could remember how I found DtP so I could express my undying gratitude to the director.
I haven’t said anything here about the Whole Foods boycott because it seems so dumb to me. Here’s a company that as far as I can tell is a great place to work and people on the Left are going to stop shopping there because the CEO wrote an op-ed they don’t like. A successful boycott would seem to condemn the employees to unemployment - or at best a job at a grocery chain that almost certainly won’t be as decent to them.
Furthermore, all the Whole Foods’ social conscience stuff - fair trade, organic, local - that Leftists thought was so great hasn’t suddenly disappeared just because the CEO is - OMG - a libertarian. News flash: it took me less than 60 seconds to find a 2005 article in which Mackey is described as “an ardent libertarian”* so it’s not like you wouldn’t already have known about this if you really cared. Before it was, like, you know, fashionable to care.
So now the Left is going to shop at, what, Wal-Mart because even though - according to the liberal party line - they treat their employees like dirt and import poisonous junk from China, their CEO hasn’t written an editorial opposing Obamacare. Oh, yeah, that makes sense.
As dumb as this boycott is, it has had some redeeming social value: Anglachel has come out of retirement - I hope permanently - to blog about it. I disagree with her about almost everything political but she has an incredible ability to cut to the heart of the matter. For the ritual evisceration, read “Whole Foods Nation Betrayed”. For the serious political stuff, read “What do you want?”
Thank goodness for Whole Foods boycotters.
*****
*And read the article if you’re one of the people who decided as a result of his op-ed that Mackey is a soulless capitalist.
Oh, my. Mankiw's first point in this piece is one of the most vicious things I've seen in a long time but he's so incredibly polite it takes a slow 10-count to realize Krugman's been eviscerated.
The Arbiter of Ignorance
Less fun but more interesting are the links in point 2 to information about the Wyden-Bennett bill, an alternative health care proposal of which I have never heard - for reasons explained at the David Brooks link. Just looking at it briefly, Wyden-Bennett seems like it may be almost, oh, I don't know, effective and affordable. If I get a chance, I’ll do some more poking around and see what the bill says about pre-existing conditions and what happens if someone who is covered gets sick - my two big questions about any health care plan.
David Mamet has a wonderful essay in The Village Voice, entitled ”Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal’”. Mamet points out the contradiction in the liberal view of the world - people are basically good at heart yet everything is always wrong; takes a second look at George W. Bush; re-examines corporations and the military; and rethinks the need for and value of government intervention. All in three short pages.
I recommend this essay highly and to whet your appetite here’s one of my favorite lines:
The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches.
I don't have much to say about this post - I just like it. The incident it refers to is the Jessica Lynch rescue so it's practically ancient. I do think Jane's Rule is worth keeping in mind during the elections as are Lileks' musings on the two different attitudes one can take toward one's opponent.
Untitled (From the desk of Jane Galt)
The Lileks post she quotes can be found here:
Untitled (From The Bleat)
Posts
