Why is it difficult for me to write every day herein? I do not only write here or manage this. I have The Falling Leaf Review literary magazine at ISSUCOM; I also have several other website blogs in addition to this one, fallingleafreview.org, the blog for ISSU.COM/thefallingleafreview.
Donald Trump, he who twitters . . . does anyone recall what twittering used to mean? No? Ah! The sparrows twittered under the fire-escape building their nest on top of the cable box. The swallows came to roost twittering. Oh yes, to talk,perhaps, rapidly, and at length in a trivial way . . . this explains Trump. But then Twitter limits speech, does it not? But Trump does twitter away the Presidency on social media, twittering along the old-fashined meaning while limiting himself in the common meaning, yes, twittering on Twitter, double entendres intended. You do know that double entendre is not French, does not exist in French, is an English language pretense of creating meaning out of literally transposed words from one language into meaning something in another. More absurdity I could not find? This of course is not to say that all such occurrences are pretentious…
View original post 1,141 more words
I read an interesting article in The Seattle Times from May 2016, an article discussing Obama’s fight against economic inequality in America, a fight Obama never got as the credit he deserved for it from those who should applaud the appearance of liberal politics being played in any arena. But the author kept talking about taxes redistributed at the top to pay for the bottom, as with Obamacare, but as with Obamacare, people making 15000 a year are helped by people making 45000 dollars a year. These same people making 45K a year, if they are Caucasian, are called today by some people of color White, thus beneficiaries of White Privilege, so yes, lets increase their payments since 2014 by nearly 75%. Of course, doing this must be fair, must be just because it affects a great number of Caucasians, as it also does a great number of African Americans…
View original post 741 more words
The issue of Gay Marriage is not simply a social issue; it is not merely a legal one, nor is it a complex of both. Gay Marriage is a Human Rights issue and therefore is a philosophical issue. The issue of Gay Marriage–what? What about it? As alluded to above, I have reservations about calling Gay Marriage an issue; nonetheless, Gay Marriage does stand at the forefront of what we say about ourselves with relation to a person and his or her personhood. Our socio-political philosophy is fixed, adequately or not, on a philosophy of individualism or individuality. The issue of Gay Marriage thus brings to bear in our discussions or debates whether or not a political philosophy of individualism is viable, or if our way of defining it or explaining it has very much to say on the issue of basic human rights.
Any discussion of Gay Marriage will have to address basic human rights and how these rights are unalienable and universal, and how laws made to oppose them do not void these fundamental human rights. These discussions will also be part of a grander metaphysical discussion concerning the universality of human rights. This universality is something we better readjust ourselves for articulating because without dexterity in metaphysical explication of human rights, all political philosophy, even empirically based, but most specifically the epistemology of human rights ( and there is a philosophy of knowledge and knowing, an inquiry that examines the limits of what is knowable about human rights, for it is not solely an ethical question) suffers. Without the fore mentioned dexterity, we will only continue to fumble our way through support for the rights of gay couples to marry.
Human rights cannot be restricted to political philosophy alone, either. They must be discussed and defined metaphysically so they can keep their valence in all conceptions of a universal and transcendent humanity inclusive of all persons; that is, so they can continue to maintain their social and political relevance for us now and anyone in the future with respect for human rights and civil rights. For if we do not define them within a humanity that is universal irrespective of time and place, then we are subjecting the idea of freedom for all in all matters of sane and rational choice to topicality and subjectivity easily undermined by one or another will to power–the latter being exactly what social ethics becomes when rights are not unilaterally and universally applicable throughout time and in every place. But this cannot be achieved where we no longer maintain an absolute and transcendent capital ‘T’ Truth as a compass heading, where we undermine knowledge and the capacity to search for it and find it, and where because knowledge becomes impossible, we then raise Doubt as the highest form of wisdom, where anyone who does know something immediately becomes suspect.
What is reading? It is not superficially skimming the pages, no; it is not this anymore than a best-seller is literary, irrespective of what it is that makes a best-seller sell best. What am I trying to say? I will just say what is in my mind–I have known too many people who were too reticent to write because they feared their own minds, what was in there,perhaps, what could be lurking there, a premonition of selves hiding from the Self, hiding from other selves, wearing disguises inside; to write is to betray oneself, a friend had said. To translate, is to betray, another had said, reminded me that Italian as a homophonic pun on to translate and to betray. Maybe those who fear writing, becoming naked on the page, I used to like to say, is because they do not read, or cannot read, that is, they do not do what it is they are supposed to be doing while they are reading, and that is not simply to skim the pages that pass before their eyes like so many trees in a changing landscape out the window of the bus they are riding to Boston to visit friends–there are really no landscapes to speak of outside windows passing whatever scene passes them on the Interstate Highways of America’s Interstate Highway System—did you know that you can get on one and travel through all 48 contiguous states without departing the system, begin in Maine and you can travel through every state of the forty-eight. We were in Portsmouth New Hampshire for several days last year and did not once walk on any bridge crossing the Piscataqua River into Maine–interesting that we did not do that.
From November 27, 2016, nowpolitics.wordpress.com
You do know—and I am talking to my blue collar brothers from the past—that our gandfathers were liberal, and that if you supported New Deal programs initiated under Roosevelt and after until the present, if you have supported Social Security, if you have supported Unions, if anyone in your family were ever Teamsters or AFL-CIO or garment workers a hundred years ago in sweat shops in NYC, or supported the Democrats when Unions were their constituents . . . then Liberal is what you are. Clinton/Blair liberalism is neo-conservative liberalism; Bill, Obama and Hilary are all of them moderate Republicans in the 80s, and that’s Regan’s 80s. Please stop confusing and confounding issues and platforms and programs and policies . . . .
To imagine in your vanity that you stand with whom the Republicans really serve is madness. You must know this somewhere in that morass of feelings and…
View original post 190 more words
Source: Closet Conservatives
Source: Where Have You Gone Al Smith?
Poetry. Land’s End is not only the end of land at the edge of the sea, but the brink of everything we stand on. It is a precipice, an opening of the abyss; it is everything primordial in living, thinking, remembering. Land’s End is a first book of poems by Jay Ruvolo.
Source: NOTES OF A NATIVE SON
WRESTLING WITH DEMONS; OR,
PANDEMONIUM IS NOW
A disclaimer. Why should I write one? You ask. My readers, my hypocrites. Here now on the ensuing pages please find a fictional essay; that is, an piece in the form of an essay set in a fictional context? Do I not know? Of a fictional essayer, the Expositor, who will remain unnamed, and unattached to me, the author, just as we are supposed to separate Henry Fielding from his Foundling, Tom Jones. I, the author, convey to you, the reader, the essay of a fictional expositor. That is all. Please understand it as such.
THE FLOWERS OF EVIL
HOW THE JACOBINS WILL RETURN
To understand the grossness of the oppression on the people of France by the Aristocracy, to get just how deep the resentment was felt, to know how profound the contempt for the Aristocrat had become and persisted…
View original post 3,631 more words
Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed. –Herman Melville