James Polchin contemplates the work of British painter L.S. Lowry:
Lowry’s paintings are rarely intimate and instead take a more sociological vision. We encounter his scenes from a distance, perhaps reflecting his own place in these neighborhoods as the weekly rent collector. He composed these landscapes like a stage set, conjuring the reality that working class lives, by the very overcrowded conditions of their domestic worlds, were so often lived in public. This distance compels a sense of mysteriousness about these lives, at the same time as it presents them on the canvas for us to consider. There is no pretense that Lowry or the spectator can really know anything about these scenes beyond our spectator view. …
Amidst this distance is a silence that permeates these canvases. … [E]ven in the street scenes such as “People Going to Work” (1934) or “Returning from Work” (1929) or “Coming from the Mill” (1930), there is an isolating stillness that surrounds so many of those fragile figures bent forward, moving along alone. You begin to wonder about their lives. The more you look at these paintings the more you realize how much they rest on mysteries.
(Image: Coming from the Mill, L.S. Lowry, 1934, courtesy of Flickr user mrrobertwade (wadey))
Michael Malice is the author of the forthcoming book, Dear Reader: The Unauthorized Autobiography of Kim Jong Il, which is “based on what is presented as fact in the DPRK.” In an article about his visit to North Korea, Malice explains why North Koreans tell outlandish tales:
The laws in North Korea are oppressive, but they aren’t completely ambiguous or arbitrary. They generally boiled down to three principles: 1) Don’t denigrate the Leaders, 2) Don’t denigrate the government, and 3) Don’t acknowledge anything is wrong. It’s this last one that explains so much of the apparent insanity behind so much of what North Koreans say.
On the limits of the propaganda:
It may be easy to convince an isolated population that they have “nothing to envy in the world,” as one of their popular songs goes. But it’s practically impossible to convince them that they have more food this year than they did last. Even if that’s the fault of Yankee imperialist bastards, Kim Jong Il either authorized the actions or was powerless to stop them. The famous Kim Jong Il stories (“He has perfect pitch!” “He can shrink time!” “He can change the weather!”) serve a very real function: they’re political ads designed to convince a skeptical, not credulous, populace that the son is the equal to the father.
It was one of those summer days in this charming little ashtray of a town when a break from blogging means a trek through marshlands and dunes to dip and bathe in the outgoing tide of the lagoons at the very end of America. This space never ages – even after twenty consecutive full summers of being here. Then the sweaty bike-ride back home and a stop at the East End coffee shop, Wired Puppy, and a small freddo. If I catch the timing right, the setting sun catches a particular tree up a side-street, and sometimes, it just shimmers. And then, at low tide, freshly caffeinated, I take the dogs out without leashes onto the flats of the bay.
Dusty comes alive again, like a puppy, scampering away from me toward the next smell or fishbone. Eddy lingers behind, sniffing behind boats tilting on their side, like beached toys. The light dims and then, if you’re lucky, the bay suddenly blazes with reflected light from the other side of this little curved peninsula. The boats turn golden.
The most popular post of the day was “Breaking: Man Gets Off Online” about sexting, politics and the future. The second was my post on the nuanced racism of Victor Davis Hanson, given an extra kick by Conor here.
If you’re one of the 33,000 readers who read this blog daily, have used up all your “read-ons”, but have yet to subscribe, [tinypass_offer text=”please do”]. We need you – and it’s only $2 a month or $20 a year. The more of you who subscribe, the more we can give back. If you have subscribed, thanks so much for joining this experiment.
I’ve been reading the suicide thread and I just don’t understand how suicide is selfish. When torture victims break, we don’t call them selfish. People can be tortured by their brain’s messed-up chemistry as brutally as they can be tortured with stress positions and sensory deprivation. People break. That’s not a character flaw. Too much pain and a person will do whatever he or she has to to make it stop.
Another:
What could be more selfish than other people presuming that we should stay alive just to meet their needs? How is that not as, if not more, selfish than the selfishness they associate with individuals who take their own life? It’s my life, not theirs.
More readers share their stories:
I’ve known five people who have committed suicide. I agreed with two of them. The other three were needless tragedies, from what I knew of their lives. The common thing between them all: they were suffering, in one form or the other.
The first ones were early in my life, and they were young as well. Most took their life with a firearm and left their family and friends emotions and well-being as mangled as they had left their corpses. They became unmitigated tragedies akin to murder.
In my 20s, a woman that I had grown up with killed herself. However, in her case, I knew why she had ended her life and I could understand her reasons. She had been fighting serious medical problems her whole life and in final years, the complications were severe. She had a horrible quality of life and she talked about suicide for several months before committing the act. My regret is that she used such a brutal method to end her suffering because she didn’t know any better.
Over the years, I have acted as a hospice caretaker for my late friends and I have witnessed the agony of their last days. Hospice does help, but we as a society are geared to having someone live to the end of their days, regardless of their desires or how bitter and traumatising the outcome and stigmatizing their death if they should choose to end their struggle early.
The one exception to this pattern was a friend who, suffering with late stage colon cancer, chose to stop fighting, live his life as best he could for as long as he could, and when it got bad enough, he committed suicide. The outcome was different. No horror or trauma. His friends and family were deeply sad, but we were glad his suffering had ended. He planned it, he had a farewell party, and he went peacefully. Death was going to have him, but he choose and controlled his terms to meet death. I cannot disagree with him on choosing that path.
The subject of suicide (and euthanasia) is troublesome and complex. We have no cultural framework to deal with them in a constructive manner. We need to talk about end of life issues more and quit shoving the subject to the fringes of society. I suggest that in the course of discussing suicide, we must recognize that it can offer an end to suffering when death truly is the only way out.
Another:
A dear friend of mine from college, an Iraq war veteran, took his life in 2011. His funeral service was the most difficult experience I had ever endured. He was 24 years old and had so many who loved him. We played rugby together and the men’s and women’s teams from our college both attended. We were all so devastated.
The reception was better. We shared funny stories and loving memories. Some of his artwork was on display. There were so many pictures of him laughing and smiling. I don’t know if it was to punish myself or blame myself for not seeing it, but when I got home I looked through every one of the pictures of him on Facebook to see if there was some glimpse of what drove him to suicide. Two years later we all try to remember him and smile, but I find the fact that he would only be 26 now so painful. Suicide leaves wounds.
Then last year my cousin took his own life. I experienced a new level of “difficult.” Sometimes I feel so selfish because he took his life just hours after midnight, hours after my birthday had finished, and I don’t know if I’ll be able to really celebrate again. My birthday is tomorrow. I was in Mexico at the time, got back three days later, and called my mother to say we had landed back in the states. That’s when I heard the news. I was in the middle of the Atlanta airport, sitting across from my fiance, and I have never felt more lost in my life. He was a hero firefighter. He was a devout Christian. He was always donating money and his time to charity. A little over 24 hours before he took his life, he had organized an ran a charity event that raised thousands. Over 900 people came to pay their respects at his wake. 900!
At the funeral our family was there for six hours, as mourners came through non-stop. Didn’t he know that he had this effect on everyone? Is it worse if he didn’t or if he did know and didn’t feel like it had enough meaning to stop him? Nearly one year later the wounds on our family, especially his parents and siblings, are as fresh as ever. I love him so dearly, but sometimes I feel so mad and selfish that he would make us feel this way. If he is at peace, does it make our pain less important? I’m still lost.
Benjamin Wallace-Wells profiles growth skeptic Robert Gordon, who believes the US economy will never regain its 20th century preeminence:
There are many ways in which you can interpret this economic model, but the most lasting—the reason, perhaps, for the public notoriety it has brought its author—has little to do with economics at all. It is the suggestion that we have not understood how lucky we have been. The whole of American cultural memory, the period since World War II, has taken place within the greatest expansion of opportunity in the history of human civilization. Perhaps it isn’t that our success is a product of the way we structured our society. The shape of our society may be far more conditional, a consequence of our success. Embedded in Gordon’s data is an inquiry into entitlement: How much do we owe, culturally and politically, to this singular experience of economic growth, and what will happen if it goes away?
[N]eighborhood watch programs might be good at reducing crime—but only in neighborhoods where there isn’t much crime to begin with. Minor crime reduction in low-crime areas is worth celebrating (really, it is—no one should have to live in fear that their house or car will be broken into, or that they will be mugged during a late-night stroll), but for the neighborhoods where we need additional security and measures of protection the most your local neighborhood watch isn’t going to be able to do much good.
Update from a reader:
The article you linked to was poorly-reasoned. The latter does not follow from the former:
“The primary problem … is that the areas with highest crime rates are the most reluctant to organize…. Many people refuse to host or attend community meetings, in part because they distrust their neighbors,” – National Institute of Justice study.
“So neighborhood watch programs might be good at reducing crime—but only in neighborhoods where there isn’t much crime to begin with… For the neighborhoods where we need additional security and measures of protection the most your local neighborhood watch isn’t going to be able to do much good,” – Daniel Luzer.
The quote says no such thing; the fact that there are less neighborhood watches in areas with high crime rates is discussed, but their effectiveness where they exist is not.
Seems like a minor point, but it matters to me. I live in a high-crime city with horribly low police levels and high levels of citizen distrust of the police that deign to work here. Just Monday my friend called 911 when someone tried to get into her house (behind a closed gate) – after nine rings, she gave up. However, our neighborhood responded immediately. Our ‘hood email is very active, very talkative, and very social. In fact, it’s why I’ve stayed for 12 years. We know 50 of our neighbors very well, 50 more to talk to in the street. We socialize regularly. We garden together, make wine, trade backyard livestock and know-how, and of course, party. We’re not a formal “neighborhood watch,” but we definitely send a “we’re not easy marks” message to criminals – having interrupted a number of crimes in progress.
We’re a mix of medium, low and very low income, and a mix of education levels from no high school graduation to doctorate. We’re a mix of ethnicities and sexualities. When there’s someone we don’t know walking around, an email goes out to the neighborhood list and other eyes give the person a second glance. Is it a scary sort of tribal, us/not-us vibe? It can be, and we actively guard against it. Is there racial hostility? We are very aware of that; an African-American man who has lived in the neighborhood for 30 years was “flagged” on email by a newbie who didn’t recognize him. It’s a great, ah, growing opportunity for us to recognize our own racism, and pull that infection out.
Our frequent face-to-face interaction is the key. It allows us to be idiots and change our ways; it allows us to have fun together; it allows us to be generous and to accept generosity. It’s a pretty great place to live. Our next party is a Blazing Saddles-themed potluck and movie night, a week from Saturday; the Tuesday after that, we’re having a BBQ for National Night Out.
I strongly encourage everyone to meet their neighbors. It takes a critical mass of involvement and good will to have what we have, so it won’t necessarily be easy or immediate – but you never know until you try. The biggest benefit is the love and sense of community we get here, and it is truly awesome.
A masked participant of the first gay pride parade in Montenegro is protected by riot police on July 24, 2013 in the coastal town Budva. More than 100 anti-gay protestors, mostly young hardline football fans, chanted ‘Kill the gays!’ while throwing stones and bottles towards several dozen gay activists secured by a police cordon. By Savo Prelevic/AFP/Getty Images. More on today’s violence here. Earlier Dish on Eastern Europe’s increased intolerance here.
Brent Sasley argues that, despite the current right-wing coalition in government, Israeli politicking may favor some movement on peace negotiations:
In theory, then, Netanyahu, a rightwinger anyway, is constrained by his rightist coalition and so at best will pursue talks as a deception to maintain the occupation. But this glimpse doesn’t tell the whole story of peacemaking politics. … [I]t’s misleading to say that his own Likud party can stop him from engaging in serious talks. It can make things difficult for him, of course; but the rejectionists don’t control the masses of the party. The party has been beset by internal fighting over the distribution of power and personal ambitions that have nothing to do with the peace process. No other leader has the popular familiarity or stature to challenge Netanyahu in the party and carry it to victory in the next election. Even the rejectionists know this, pledging their loyalty to Netanyahu and affirming they will work with him. This would likely be confirmed even more obviously if Netanyahu made negotiations a party referendum on his leadership. …
Also in the government is Yair Lapid, leader of Yesh Atid. His ambition is to become prime minister, and as soon as possible. He’s been quoted as saying that if the party hadn’t joined the government, “in a year-and-a-half, I’ll replace [Netanyahu] as prime minister.” There’s no indication he has given up on his frantic schedule, and being in government gives him the chance to build a policy reputation and new support base. To do this he’ll need a lot more votes than he received in the last election (19 Knesset seats). He’ll certainly play to the right to this end, taking a more hawkish stance on peace process issues. But his party is comprised of several doves and centrists, who — combined with the need to take some votes from the left — will pull him toward a more moderate position.
In short, engaging in a genuine negotiating process is his best chance to build support.
Yossi Beilan, less sanguine, predicts the leaders will need a Plan B – “an interim agreement establishing a Palestinian state on provisional borders”:
Even if Netanyahu’s interest in an interim arrangement stems out of hope that it will become permanent, Abbas should learn an important lesson from history. Begin gave up on the Sinai in order to keep the West Bank and Gaza. Sharon left Gaza to retain the West Bank, and Netanyahu has in principle agreed to a Palestinian state in order to preserve lands that have not yet been transferred to Palestinians. Change may be slow but it is certain. Eventually, a permanent agreement will be reached and a Palestinian state established on 1967 borders with some minor, mutually-agreed-upon adjustments. After all, if an interim agreement is not negotiated, the Oslo accords will prevail. It is better to at least guarantee the Palestinians a state even if its borders are provisional.
I’m sure you’re getting a GIANT deluge of secret wrestling fan e-mails sparked by this post, because there are literally millions of us. It’s a brilliant art form when done right, and Daniel Bryan of the Beard is, in my mind, the best artist it has ever produced. What’s interesting about him is that he is also completely subversive – short, bearded, disheveled, a vegan, and a television star who doesn’t actually own a TV. That he’s as popular as he is right now (poised to dethrone the biggest star in the business) is a reflection of society in a way that pro wrestling has always been. Here’s a nice article that recognizes that.
Welcome to the world of pro wrestling, Andrew. I think you may enjoy yourself.
Muscle, beards, half-naked men and high camp? I think I might. Bonus Bryan beard, at Comic Con, after the jump:
Update from a reader:
I love that you’re covering the WWE. I’ve been reading the Dish for years, and my boyfriend got me into professional wrestling last year. My favorite was immediately Daniel Bryan. So much so, I went to meet him at a Comic Con in Philly last month. He is just as awesome in person. Keep up the wrestling coverage!
Another grants her wish:
Well, at first I was going to write regarding the Daniel Bryan “face of the day” but lost my motivation, but I have found it again with the latest wrestling post. I wanted to make a correction of the original Face of the Day post. “Respect the Beard” is the slogan on Bryan’s (his actual name is Bryan Danielson) newest t-shirt. His catch phrase, however, as you can see in the video you posted, is a simple “Yes!”
While Bryan is currently a face (good guy), this phrase originated while he was working as a heel (bad guy). After winning the World Heavyweight Championship (the #2 title in the promotion behind the WWE Championship), over the weeks that followed his victory (over an already incapacitated opponent, The Big Show) Bryan transitioned from face to egotistical heel. This is when he started pointing and shouting “Yes!” as he made his way to the ring. This caught on to a certain degree, and there were consistent smatterings of “Yes!” chants in the crowd.
Then, at Wrestlemania XXVIII in Florida, he was scheduled to wrestle Sheamus, a big Irishman that WWE was in the middle of pushing as a dominant face character. Smarks (this is essentially the term for wrestling fans who follow it online and discuss the “backstage” news) were looking forward to this match: the two had been scheduled to wrestle over the United States Championship (one of two “mid-card” titles) at Wrestlemania XXVII, but the match was cut from the card to save time.
Bryan versus Sheamus was the first match on the card for Wrestlemania XXVIII. WWE usually tries to have a “hot opener” – a match that is relatively short (10, maybe 15 minutes), but is face-paced and gets the crowd into the show. This is what the crowd was expecting, but not what the crowd got. In an effort to make Sheamus look dominant, WWE had Sheamus defeat Bryan in 18 seconds (this is known as a Squash). The crowd booed this lustily, having been denied a match between two excellent wrestlers. The next night on Raw the crowd, feeling that Bryan had been treated badly by the WWE, went nuts for the guy. Chanting “Yes!” loudly and repeatedly not only for Bryan, but during much of the entire show. This even spilled over into a Miami Heat basketball game the next night.
Being a heel, Bryan folded this into his character, and he eventually decided crowds were “mocking him” with the Yes! chants, which basically led to his character going off his rocker (leading to the non-stop beard growing) and Bryan repeatedly shouting No! as the crowds still chanted Yes! He was then paired up with a wrestler named Kane in an “odd couple” pairing, leading to some incredibly bad and campy, yet simultaneously hilarious, skitsinvolving “Dr. Shelby” and such hilarious lines as “I am the Tag Team Champions! This eventually led to Bryan turning face again, because the team simply got so popular. After the team split up, Bryan’s “Yes!” chants from the crowd kept getting louder, and louder, and louder, and he now consistently gets the biggest cheers from the live crowds – they simply go nuts for the guy. And now he’s getting his chance to wrestle at the very top of the card, facing John Cena for the WWE title at Summerslam (listen to those cheers at the end).
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which grants top-level domain names (e.g. .com, .org, .xxx), is considering 1,410 new domain requests from nearly 2,000 companies. Several nations have raised objections:
Australia was offended by the idea of .wtf (and plenty else besides), the Saudis couldn’t fathom why Vatican should be given .catholic, Brazil argued against granting .amazon to Amazon, and India took issue with Chrysler’s application for .ram. Of these, India has perhaps the strongest case. … The objection arises from an unfortunate homonym: Ram, pronounced with a long “a,” is also the name of one of Hinduism’s chief gods. “What if someone registers a domain name such as http://www.sex.ram? It could create a lot of communal tension in the country,” a government official told the Business Standard newspaper. India has argued that under the nation’s laws, trademarks can be denied if they stand to hurt religious sentiments.
Other contested terms include .africa, .halal, .islam, .army., .basketball, and .wine (which raised the hackles of both the French and the Iranians).
