{Catherine L. Addington}
Septiembre 16, 2014
"Don’t worry if you have no answer ready
To the last question.
Hold out, meditate, listen.
Explore. Explore. Travel the world over.
Count happiness connatural to the mind
More than truth is, and yet
No happiness to exist without it.
Walk with a cold pride
Utterly ahead
Wild attentive eyes
Head flicked by the rain-wet
Green needles of the pine,
Eyelashes that shine
With tears and thunders.
Love people.
Love entertains its own discrimination.
Have me in mind,
I shall be watching.
You can return to me.
Now go."

Yevgeny Yevtushenko, “Zima Junction”

Rupert Thomson reflects:

There’s so much extraordinary advice here, about happiness, love, travel, people—almost everything you need to think about, and all in the space of a few short lines. I’ve always been struck by the generosity Zima’s personified train station extends towards the poet in wishing him off. As it speaks of the need to leave your origins, your roots, and strike out on your own, the junction assumes the voice of the ideal parent—in the way that the parent who truly loves the child will send the child away, make it possible for the child to leave, whereas the insecure parent will try to make the child stay close for the parent’s own sake. “You can return to me,” it says, imploring him to move outward and explore beyond home’s borders—“Now go.” There’s a maturity, a selflessness about this vision. It’s got the destiny and the heart of the poet in mind, and only cares about what’s good for him. 

But the junction recognizes a push-pull tendency in all of us: the tension between comfort and risk. On the one hand, it’s safer to stay home—where you’re known and loved, where it’s harder to get hurt. Once you got out into the world, anything can happen. But the station is saying, don’t think about that now. Home will always be there; you can always come back. For now, take the risk, take the gamble, and become someone. Yevtushenko uses “explore” twice—as if once isn’t strong enough, as if we need that extra repetition to embolden ourselves to move forward. 

(Fuente: iaminthepause)

Septiembre 16, 2014
shadesofsky:

quietandsarcastic:

Read it again:  EVERY.  SINGLE.  REPUBLICAN.  Yes, that includes women. 

Okay but this is not the full story. What anyone who doesn’t live on Capitol Hill is missing here is that the Democratic Party crafted this bill solely for the ability to say that. The actual changes the bill would have made had nothing to do with equal pay for women. The Republican Party feared that certain parts of this bill would make it less likely for women to be hired in the first place, so they offered amendments. The Democratic Party, on principle, refused to consider all amendments, knowing full well that this would mean the bill would not pass. Again. This is round two of the same dance. The actual part of the bill that deals with equal pay for women is just a restatement of an already passed piece of legislation. The Democratic Party, in this instance, did not want equal pay for women; they wanted to be able to have the presidential twitter account tweet out “every single republican voted against equal pay for women.” It was a smear campaign, not a failed step toward progress. Please keep in mind that this is the American political system. Everything is done with an agenda.

^ Emphasis mine. *snaps for Sadie*

shadesofsky:

quietandsarcastic:

Read it again:  EVERY.  SINGLE.  REPUBLICAN.  Yes, that includes women. 

Okay but this is not the full story. What anyone who doesn’t live on Capitol Hill is missing here is that the Democratic Party crafted this bill solely for the ability to say that. The actual changes the bill would have made had nothing to do with equal pay for women. The Republican Party feared that certain parts of this bill would make it less likely for women to be hired in the first place, so they offered amendments. The Democratic Party, on principle, refused to consider all amendments, knowing full well that this would mean the bill would not pass. Again. This is round two of the same dance. The actual part of the bill that deals with equal pay for women is just a restatement of an already passed piece of legislation. The Democratic Party, in this instance, did not want equal pay for women; they wanted to be able to have the presidential twitter account tweet out “every single republican voted against equal pay for women.”
It was a smear campaign, not a failed step toward progress. Please keep in mind that this is the American political system. Everything is done with an agenda.

^ Emphasis mine. *snaps for Sadie*

Septiembre 16, 2014
South to Freedom

Septiembre 15, 2014
"Many intellectual heroes in the European tradition seem to find the great outdoors a chilling prospect—and its literary analogue, the mythworld, equally chilling. As if a world in which humans have no leverage, and might not be present at all, couldn’t be interesting to humans. We expect something better than this—a bigger perspective—from geologists, biologists, physicists, chemists, and astronomers, but literary scholars and philosophers are allowed to get away with it. If you refuse to take an interest in a world that is larger than the human sphere, all you can do with myth is trivialize it. The result is a culture like ours, which doesn’t know what myths are for and tries to turn them into children’s books."

"Myth Is a Theorem About the Nature of Reality": an interview with Robert Bringhurst, a poet and translator of Native American literature, on Haida poetry and mythology

Septiembre 15, 2014


On July 11, 2012, the 17th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, coffins were carried from a warehouse in Potocari to a nearby cemetery.

Amor Masovic has the gaze and mournful air of a man who never gets enough sleep. For nearly two decades, his job has been to find the mass graves containing thousands who disappeared during the Bosnian war. He is very good at what he does, and he has a mind for numbers. When I first met him in the summer of 2012, Masovic calculated that he and his colleagues at the Bosnian government’s Missing Persons Institute had found more than 700 mass graves, containing the remains of nearly 25,000 people.

-Scott Anderson, “Life in the Valley of Death”

On July 11, 2012, the 17th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, coffins were carried from a warehouse in Potocari to a nearby cemetery.

Amor Masovic has the gaze and mournful air of a man who never gets enough sleep. For nearly two decades, his job has been to find the mass graves containing thousands who disappeared during the Bosnian war. He is very good at what he does, and he has a mind for numbers. When I first met him in the summer of 2012, Masovic calculated that he and his colleagues at the Bosnian government’s Missing Persons Institute had found more than 700 mass graves, containing the remains of nearly 25,000 people.

-Scott Anderson, “Life in the Valley of Death”

Septiembre 15, 2014

My friend calligraphyink shared St. Paul’s words to St. Timothy with me recently — let no one despise you because of your youth — and it made me think of how much my own faith has been sustained by the witness of young saints, and how important it was for me to be surrounded by that growing up. To be told stories of young female sanctity was so crucial to me. Catherine of Alexandria, age twenty-three. Lucy of Syracuse, age twenty-one. The teenage martyrs from Agnes to Joan of Arc.

I want that chapel emblazoned in the gold-leaf witness of Peter the Aleut and Marina the Great-Martyr and George of Lydda and Eulàlia of Barcelona and the Martyrs of the Boxer Rebellion and Edward King of the English and the Theotokos who bore salvation as a teenage girl and the adolescent Jesus in the temple.

It was a bunch of holy adolescents who converted me, really, and we need that witness more than we know.

Septiembre 14, 2014

The Elk is still flowing, joining the Kanawha and then the Ohio, and the coal-processing chemical MCHM is slowly making its way to the Gulf. Taps are running again (though exactly how many people feel safe enough to drink from them is another matter). The governor has reminded us “coal and chemicals inevitably bring risk,” but that “in West Virginia, we’re willing to do the heavy lifting.” When a story grows as old as this one, when you know it by heart, and hear it in your sleep and in your bones, it tells itself. But allow, just for a moment, that this time is different.

-Heather Samples, “In the Land of the Heavy Lifting”

The Elk is still flowing, joining the Kanawha and then the Ohio, and the coal-processing chemical MCHM is slowly making its way to the Gulf. Taps are running again (though exactly how many people feel safe enough to drink from them is another matter). The governor has reminded us “coal and chemicals inevitably bring risk,” but that “in West Virginia, we’re willing to do the heavy lifting.” When a story grows as old as this one, when you know it by heart, and hear it in your sleep and in your bones, it tells itself. But allow, just for a moment, that this time is different.

-Heather Samples, “In the Land of the Heavy Lifting”

Septiembre 14, 2014
War of 1812

alec-bings:

catherineaddington:

Someday I’m going to be hunched over in a library finishing a dissertation somewhere and I want to laugh over its origins. So here, have a little Twitter geek rant on the occasion of the bicentennial of my favorite thing.

I STILL DONT KNOW WHAT THIS WAR WAS ABOUT like we learned US history every goddamn year in elementary school and by the time we got to This Fucking War I had peaced the fuck out

Other things I never learned:

- why I’m supposed to remember the Alamo
- did we go to war with Mexico or something?
- why did no one tell me the Louisiana purchase was like THE ENTIRE MIDWEST
- Wait so Texas was, like, annexed???
- French Indian War wtf
- Most of American history
- holy fuck I hated US history

I learned the Revolutionary War every year for like twelve years. Honestly after that mess it’s kind of a miracle I ended up loving history this much. I feel you.

But in case you actually want to know those things now that you are free of said mess, here are some brief answers. :)

1. The War of 1812 was about different things for different groups.

-Naval conflict: for Britain, the War of 1812 was really just one of the many fronts on which they were fighting the Napoleonic Wars, a series of European conflicts that had expanded Britain’s navy to the point of naval conflict with the U.S. (Essentially, a bunch of sailors deserted Britain to work on private U.S. ships as merchants to escape this military service and make money. Britain was unhappy. War.)

-Land conflict: for American Indian groups, who were largely British allies, the War of 1812 was yet another battle for preserving their territories. (Britain aimed to promote the creation of a “neutral” Indian state as a buffer between the U.S. and British Canada. American settlers were unhappy. War.)

-Political conflict: Britain tried to restrict U.S. trade with France, which was a jerk move. This combined with territorial “infractions” (their “interference” by promoting Indian sovereignty in what is now the Midwest) and trying to essentially draft naturalized U.S. citizens into its navy meant the U.S. felt Britain did not take its national sovereignty seriously, and so for Americans, this was a “second war of independence” of sorts. (National honor and blah blah, but also it’s straight up money: sea trade and Indian land.)

-Oh, and for Canadians, this war was about defending themselves from American annexation. War hawks alongside American settlers who wanted in on that Great Lakes trade were looking to invade Canada after seizing all those Indian lands.

So tl;dr: the War of 1812 was about American expansionism, British imperialism, and all the people that could piss off. The Indians lost and Canada won. It was a total mess and that’s why I am fascinated by it.

2. “Remember the Alamo” because at the Battle of the Alamo (1836), the Mexican army (led by Santa Anna) killed literally all of their opposition — the people fighting for the independence of Texas as its own republic separate from Mexico (to which it belonged at the time). The battle was obviously a terrible loss for the Texan revolutionaries, largely landowners from the U.S., but they ended up winning the war (known either as the Texas Revolution or the Texas War of Independence). ‘Course it got annexed by the U.S. ten years later, so.

3. Which brings us to…yes, we went to war with Mexico or something. The Mexican-American War lasted from 1846 to 1848. The U.S. annexed Texas in 1846, figuring “hey, everybody who lives there is American anyway,” and Texans themselves agreed. But Mexico still considered Texas part of its own territory despite the revolution declaring itself independent ten years earlier. Plus the U.S. was expanding westward, and Mexican California was looking vulnerable, and the Indian raids by Navajo and Comanche groups among others were leaving Mexicans pretty down, so we went to war. But Mexico was a total mess (the aforementioned Santa Anna was a dictator who left the government in shambles) so they lost pretty badly and hence the southwestern United States came to be what it is now. (And now you know why California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas have those Spanish names! Woohoo!)

3. The Louisiana Purchase was a huge deal and if you want to have it blow your mind even more consider that it cost less than 3 cents per acre and it basically happened because Napoleon was pissed off about the slaves winning in Haiti and wanted out. (I’m oversimplifying but I am always looking for a reason to mention Toussaint L’Ouverture.)

4. Yes, Texas, totally annexed. Except the people who lived there were from the U.S. anyway (and by that I mean the white elites, lol), and their economy was rubbish and being a state couldn’t hurt, so they actually agreed to it, not that anyone there admits it now.

5. The French and Indian War is such a wtf. It’s easiest to understand as the North American theatre of a world war called the Seven Years’ War, which was between a lot of different countries. But the ones that took the fight to America were Britain and France, and Spain sorta got hit just standing there. British America (allied with the Iroquois Confederacy, the Catawaba, and the Cherokee) and French Canada (allied with the Wabanaki Confederacy, the Algonquin, the Mohawk, the Lenape, the Ojibwa, the Ottawa, the Shawnee, and the Wyandot) fought each other for territory and, I don’t know, street cred. In the end, Britain grabbed Florida from Spain, France gave the “Louisiana Purchase” territories to Spain in compensation (boy were they annoyed when Napoleon sold it to Jefferson anyway), and Britain got everything France had in America east of the Mississippi. Hence Québéc. (Though France retained these random islands called Saint Pierre and Miquelon.) The name is because from the Anglophone point of view, this war was when we were fighting the French and various Indians were involved. It’s a stupid and unspecific name but that’s what we do in Anglophone conflict-naming. Anyway, the war is important because it established Britain as the North American colonial power.

6. I can’t really teach most of American history in a Tumblr post but if it makes you feel any better, most of it happened before 1492 or whenever and so most of us don’t learn about it at all either wheeee

7. Again I feel you. Hopefully I’ve clarified some of the question marks. :)

Septiembre 14, 2014
When Does Chanting A Soccer Team's Nickname Become A Crime?

Septiembre 13, 2014
And I’m on the homepage. Two hundred years ago tonight, the British bombardment of Fort McHenry inspired “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Learn more about that night and the battle for the nation:

After news of the fall of Washington, Baltimoreans set up a Committee of Vigilance and Safety comprised of the existing Maryland militia as well as civilians who served as volunteers on a rotating night patrol. Besides the night watch, the Committee was also responsible for raising funds for the local war effort, which generally took the form of donating at each prominent community center (usually a local tavern). A prescient Washingtonian wrote to Baltimore’s American and Commercial Daily Advertiser: “If the British visit Baltimore I have no doubt you will receive them in American style—we are disgraced.”

And I’m on the homepage. Two hundred years ago tonight, the British bombardment of Fort McHenry inspired “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Learn more about that night and the battle for the nation:

After news of the fall of Washington, Baltimoreans set up a Committee of Vigilance and Safety comprised of the existing Maryland militia as well as civilians who served as volunteers on a rotating night patrol. Besides the night watch, the Committee was also responsible for raising funds for the local war effort, which generally took the form of donating at each prominent community center (usually a local tavern). A prescient Washingtonian wrote to Baltimore’s American and Commercial Daily Advertiser: “If the British visit Baltimore I have no doubt you will receive them in American style—we are disgraced.”

Septiembre 13, 2014
War of 1812

Someday I’m going to be hunched over in a library finishing a dissertation somewhere and I want to laugh over its origins. So here, have a little Twitter geek rant on the occasion of the bicentennial of my favorite thing.

Septiembre 13, 2014

(Fuente: fcbarcelonadaily, vía fcbarcelonadaily)

Septiembre 13, 2014

"Todos podemos perder el control."
"We all lose control sometimes."
Relatos Salvajes/Wild Tales (dir. Damian Szifron, 2014)

(Fuente: y-eowang)

Septiembre 13, 2014

War annihilates innocence, and no war more than this one. The paradigm of a merry sporting contest utterly failed to capture the barbarism of the fighting, at the cost of God knows how much trauma. Still, innocence is persistent. You can see this in other, later photographs from the conflict, photos in which the play world of the game and the reality of war stand out against one another in nightmare relief. You can find images of men playing soccer in gas masks, looking not-human, looking like science-fiction monsters, mouthless and insect-eyed and still playing. You can find images of soldiers playing soccer on crutches, men with limbs blown off, still chasing after the ball.
Never such innocence again. But we still make the same mistakes, because we still understand war through analogy and our analogies still fail. Now we see it as a video game, or we see it as a component of the NFL’s set of minor paraphernalia, jet flyovers part of the same combo pack that includes beer commercials and classic-rock riffs. We’re still trying to make the metaphor work, only now we’re doing it in reverse, endlessly describing games in terms of who conquered / eviscerated / bombed / slaughtered whom. It’s the same old trick, though. It’s a way to hide the horror under one layer of spectacle and another layer of moral virtue — a way to pretend that war is like a game, that there are rules, that there is safety. A way not to look into oblivion. We missed the cruel irony in all those soccer balls that show up in World War I photos. Nothing is a metaphor for war. War is a metaphor for nothing.

-Brian Phillips, “Soccer in Oblivion”

War annihilates innocence, and no war more than this one. The paradigm of a merry sporting contest utterly failed to capture the barbarism of the fighting, at the cost of God knows how much trauma. Still, innocence is persistent. You can see this in other, later photographs from the conflict, photos in which the play world of the game and the reality of war stand out against one another in nightmare relief. You can find images of men playing soccer in gas masks, looking not-human, looking like science-fiction monsters, mouthless and insect-eyed and still playing. You can find images of soldiers playing soccer on crutches, men with limbs blown off, still chasing after the ball.

Never such innocence again. But we still make the same mistakes, because we still understand war through analogy and our analogies still fail. Now we see it as a video game, or we see it as a component of the NFL’s set of minor paraphernalia, jet flyovers part of the same combo pack that includes beer commercials and classic-rock riffs. We’re still trying to make the metaphor work, only now we’re doing it in reverse, endlessly describing games in terms of who conquered / eviscerated / bombed / slaughtered whom. It’s the same old trick, though. It’s a way to hide the horror under one layer of spectacle and another layer of moral virtue — a way to pretend that war is like a game, that there are rules, that there is safety. A way not to look into oblivion. We missed the cruel irony in all those soccer balls that show up in World War I photos. Nothing is a metaphor for war. War is a metaphor for nothing.

-Brian Phillips, “Soccer in Oblivion”

Septiembre 13, 2014

U.S. forward Abby Wambach tells one from the time she and her now-wife, Sarah Huffman, were backstage in a VIP room in January 2013 before the World Player of the Year awards gala in Zurich, Switzerland. “[FIFA president] Sepp Blatter came into our little area, and he walked straight up to Sarah and thought she was [Brazilian star] Marta,” says Wambach.

“Marta!” Blatter said, hugging a bewildered Huffman, who doesn’t look much like Marta. “You are the best! The very best!”

“He had no idea who Marta was, and she’s won the award five times,” says Wambach. “For me, that’s just a slap in the face because it shows he doesn’t really care about the women’s game.”

(Read More)

images via