Former federal reserve chairman Alan Greenspan pointedly announced today that the United States is mired in a "once-in-a-century" financial crisis. If you really want to understand what the hell is happening to our economy, look no further than this recent post by Patrick Deneen. Among the more provocative and unconventional arguments that Deneen advances is that Jimmy Carter's now-famous "malaise speech," with its emphasis on the need for limits, was "the one conservative speech that may have been given in the past 30 years." I think Deneen has a really good point.
An excerpt (from Deneen):
Tonight, as I scan channels and read explanations online, numberless narratives look for someone to blame. George W. Bush. Predatory lenders. A craven government that refused to regulate. Big corporations. Big government. Someone. Anyone.
We refuse to consider our own complicity. We started "paying" for things using credit cards. We demanded everyday low prices, and assented to the American military to secure a firesale on the goods of the earth. We began misusing language, like calling fantasy equity sources our "homes." Lemming-like we threw our children into the maw of a meritocratic meat-grinder, desperately seeking to ensure their successful corporate future by enrolling them in the best pre-schools - convinced that only an entry-level job at Lehman Brothers insured a successful life.
The symptoms were countless. The source was a loss of self-government, lodged most deeply in the fantasy that something could be gotten for nothing. If the fantasy continues to unravel - as every indication now suggests - we may re-enter a reality-based world. We will be poorer, but perhaps not in spirit. We may begin to value well and aright. While the world quakes tonight in the fear of plunging values, in that impending fall I see the inklings of a phoenix in the ashes that may arise and illuminate a fundamental truth: things of actual value - whether crafted by human hand or born of human relationships - are the products of work, memory, care, and fidelity. Dazzled by fantasy, we have been blinded to this truth, but a dimming of New York's neon glare may yet make this reality newly visible and even beautiful to behold.
Painful words. Candid words. Brilliant words.
An excerpt (from Deneen):
Tonight, as I scan channels and read explanations online, numberless narratives look for someone to blame. George W. Bush. Predatory lenders. A craven government that refused to regulate. Big corporations. Big government. Someone. Anyone.
We refuse to consider our own complicity. We started "paying" for things using credit cards. We demanded everyday low prices, and assented to the American military to secure a firesale on the goods of the earth. We began misusing language, like calling fantasy equity sources our "homes." Lemming-like we threw our children into the maw of a meritocratic meat-grinder, desperately seeking to ensure their successful corporate future by enrolling them in the best pre-schools - convinced that only an entry-level job at Lehman Brothers insured a successful life.
The symptoms were countless. The source was a loss of self-government, lodged most deeply in the fantasy that something could be gotten for nothing. If the fantasy continues to unravel - as every indication now suggests - we may re-enter a reality-based world. We will be poorer, but perhaps not in spirit. We may begin to value well and aright. While the world quakes tonight in the fear of plunging values, in that impending fall I see the inklings of a phoenix in the ashes that may arise and illuminate a fundamental truth: things of actual value - whether crafted by human hand or born of human relationships - are the products of work, memory, care, and fidelity. Dazzled by fantasy, we have been blinded to this truth, but a dimming of New York's neon glare may yet make this reality newly visible and even beautiful to behold.
Painful words. Candid words. Brilliant words.
16/09: Sarah Palin's Religion
Sarah Palin is a Christian, baptized Roman Catholic, but has belonged to the Assemblies of God for quite a while. The Assemblies are a pentecostal denomination. Assembly of God website.
The Pew Forum has this biographical overview of Palin, along with links to articles on her religion.
The Pew Forum website also has this essay with statistics on pentecostalism.
So far, I think the most powerful member of the Assembly of God in Washington was Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Brief, preliminary thoughts: On the plus side, if Palin has internalized the Assemblies doctrines and ethos, she will be driven by a concern for right and wrong, not popularity. She will have a source of strength that may enable her to transcend the forces that shape people inside the Beltway. On the negative side, the Assemblies' doctrines and ethos do not lend themselves to compromise. The Assemblies, and pentecostalism in general, do not have the lengthy and sophisticated intellectual tradition regarding political practice that can be found within Roman Catholicism, Reformed thought, or Lutheranism. She will need to reach outside her tradition if she tries to think through to a well-developed Christian political worldview.
Perhaps someone will give her some of Reinhold Niebuhr's books.
The Pew Forum has this biographical overview of Palin, along with links to articles on her religion.
The Pew Forum website also has this essay with statistics on pentecostalism.
So far, I think the most powerful member of the Assembly of God in Washington was Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Brief, preliminary thoughts: On the plus side, if Palin has internalized the Assemblies doctrines and ethos, she will be driven by a concern for right and wrong, not popularity. She will have a source of strength that may enable her to transcend the forces that shape people inside the Beltway. On the negative side, the Assemblies' doctrines and ethos do not lend themselves to compromise. The Assemblies, and pentecostalism in general, do not have the lengthy and sophisticated intellectual tradition regarding political practice that can be found within Roman Catholicism, Reformed thought, or Lutheranism. She will need to reach outside her tradition if she tries to think through to a well-developed Christian political worldview.
Perhaps someone will give her some of Reinhold Niebuhr's books.
14/09: Run This Ad
A lot of talk this week about disingenuous McCain ads. Aside from the fact that the prObama press labels every hard-hitting negative ad against their man misleading and beneath contempt, our recent attacks have lacked punch. Not only are they weak in the veracity department, they are mostly sound and fury.
The McCain team should run this ad:
FADE IN:
Video of an ecstatic Barack crowd (women fainting and men shouting hallelujahs), with Barack chanting something like, "we are the change we seek; we are the change we have been waiting for."
Voice Over: The Change we Need?
Fade to black.
Come back on a headline: Obama Rejects Public Financing.
Voice Over: Barack Obama promised to participate in the public financing system, just as every other presidential candidate has done since its inception in 1976. He kept his promise (a pause) right up until the moment he saw advantage in breaking it.
Cut To: Crowd again. More soaring oratory from Obama. Some platitude about a new post-partisan better way of doing the business of the American people.
Fade to black.
Come back on a headline: Obama: No Townhall Debates
Voice Over: Barack Obama says he wants to concentrate on issues and raise the level of political discourse in this country. But when John McCain invited him to tour the breadth of this nation, debating and discussing the vital challenges confronting America in a series of townhall meetings, traveling together from stop to stop, demonstrating that two patriots from opposite sides of the aisle could disagree without being disagreeable, Barack Obama saw no personal political advantage. So, he never got around to responding to the invitation.
This is a Change We Can Believe In?
Senator Obama talks a good game--but he is not nearly as adept at walking the walk.
John McCain. You may not always agree with him, but you can always count on him to put Country First.
The McCain team should run this ad:
FADE IN:
Video of an ecstatic Barack crowd (women fainting and men shouting hallelujahs), with Barack chanting something like, "we are the change we seek; we are the change we have been waiting for."
Voice Over: The Change we Need?
Fade to black.
Come back on a headline: Obama Rejects Public Financing.
Voice Over: Barack Obama promised to participate in the public financing system, just as every other presidential candidate has done since its inception in 1976. He kept his promise (a pause) right up until the moment he saw advantage in breaking it.
Cut To: Crowd again. More soaring oratory from Obama. Some platitude about a new post-partisan better way of doing the business of the American people.
Fade to black.
Come back on a headline: Obama: No Townhall Debates
Voice Over: Barack Obama says he wants to concentrate on issues and raise the level of political discourse in this country. But when John McCain invited him to tour the breadth of this nation, debating and discussing the vital challenges confronting America in a series of townhall meetings, traveling together from stop to stop, demonstrating that two patriots from opposite sides of the aisle could disagree without being disagreeable, Barack Obama saw no personal political advantage. So, he never got around to responding to the invitation.
This is a Change We Can Believe In?
Senator Obama talks a good game--but he is not nearly as adept at walking the walk.
John McCain. You may not always agree with him, but you can always count on him to put Country First.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
As I write, Texans are being rescued from the high waters caused by Hurricane Ike.
Every one of these people chose to remain behind in spite of orders to evacuate. They made a bad choice.
So, who will pay for their rescue? I suspect you and I and all taxpayers will through Federal disaster relief money.
But, is there not some personal responsibility to cover at least some of the cost on the part of those adults who freely chose to ignore the evacuation order, remained behind, and needed plucked from rooftops?
I think the same thing about people who deliberately build in flood plains and on the coast of Hurricane country. Why should I help pay for people in New Orleans to live below sea level? For people to live in condos on the ocean in Texas or Florida?
Every one of these people chose to remain behind in spite of orders to evacuate. They made a bad choice.
So, who will pay for their rescue? I suspect you and I and all taxpayers will through Federal disaster relief money.
But, is there not some personal responsibility to cover at least some of the cost on the part of those adults who freely chose to ignore the evacuation order, remained behind, and needed plucked from rooftops?
I think the same thing about people who deliberately build in flood plains and on the coast of Hurricane country. Why should I help pay for people in New Orleans to live below sea level? For people to live in condos on the ocean in Texas or Florida?
This week Sarah Palin went head-to-head with the mainstream media for the first time, sitting (and standing and strolling) for a series of interviews with ABC News anchor, Charles Gibson.
An Aside: she is better on the move. Her best exchanges came when she was standing and walking. Coincidence? Her team ought to think about that.
The overall outcome? As I previously confessed, I agree with James Carville, the famous Democratic strategist, who pronounced her performance a C-. She passed (not exactly with flying colors)--but she passed.
We are both disappointed and relieved.
Relief: It could have been worse. You risk almost everything on these engagements. Charlie Gibson was out to end the short but exceptionally dramatic political life of Sarah Palin. He did not accomplish his mission. We made it through the long night alive. The banner of Sarah Palin still waves over the land of the free and the party of brave. We did not give away any of the precious ground recently acquired as a result of her flawless debut. Hopefully, the interview was as bad as it gets.
Disappointment: Most of us were secretly hoping (or maybe not so secretly--maybe some of us were actually starting to believe) that Sarah Palin really was a Republican David. She had appeared from nowhere and offered a confident smile in the face of a deafening roar of ridicule and smug derision. As we trembled at the task confronting us, she stepped forward and slew the terrible behemoth with alacrity and unimaginable skill. Consequently, her great feat energized the previously demoralized children of Reagan, suddenly silencing the over-confident Philistines across the valley, and beginning a panic on that side of the cultural divide that certainly had the potential to end in an unanticipated rout. It naturally followed that our David might lead the charge to complete the campaign and lead us to victory, unity, and a long reign of peace and stability.
The Interview was a warning that victory is within sight (to quote one of her now famous stump speech lines), but the battle remains intense and indeterminate. Even worse, Palin may be something less than a storied champion with perfect political pitch and irresistible charm in every respect, in every venue, for every occasion.
Governor Palin has limits.
If you had watched her gubernatorial debate back in 2006 (archived here on C-SPAN), you were probably not too surprised by the Gibson interview. Palin is good enough meeting the press--but not flawless. From the Alaska debate you get the sense that Palin is not quite comfortable sitting across the desk from hostile reporters (and they are hostile), but she soldiers through it--and, the good news, as indicated by her success at the polls and her astronomical public approval ratings, her wide fan base accepts this less impressive component of her political package and votes for her anyway.
In that vein, it is instructive to remember that our hero, Ronald Reagan, had similar hardships with a disdainful media. If you remember RR as the perennial master of the Washington press corp, refresh your memory with this 1966 clip from Meet the Press.
Like Reagan, Palin faces a press corps that judges itself morally and intellectually superior. At the same time, the mainstream media sees the insurgent new face from the West as dangerous in two respects: a dissenter regarding the enlightened progressive status quo and an appealing fool with the potential to mesmerize the ignorant masses hailing from the backward hamlets of Red State America.
In the end, Reagan triumphed against these forces aligned against him and intent on "exposing him" (an amazing accomplishment when we consider he was virtually on his own--no conservative talk radio, no FOX News, and no conservative blogosphere). We should not forget, however, Reagan occasionally stumbled in his direct engagements with the press, sometimes looking red-faced and confused. Who could blame him? The sincere Westerner faced a relentless and ruthless parade of reporters looking to make a name on the carcass of Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless, he found a way to speak directly to Americans, going over the heads of the antagonistic press.
We have known Palin for a fortnight. She may or may not prove to be a Ronald Reagan in the fullness of time. However, it is unlikely that she will be Reagan, circa 1980, during this election cycle. She is more likely to be Reagan, circa 1966 (although we can certainly hope for Reagan, circa 1976).
Bottom Line: We cannot place our fortunes solely in the hands of Sarah Palin. We need John McCain and, more importantly, the Republican grassroots to bring us home. Sarah Palin got us even. Because of her, we now have a chance. We cannot expect any more than that.
One other specific silver lining: in re the "expectations game," her less than stellar performance in the interview takes some pressure off her head-to-head with Joe Biden on 2 October. Better for the GOP, if she goes into that contest as a slight underdog.
An Aside: she is better on the move. Her best exchanges came when she was standing and walking. Coincidence? Her team ought to think about that.
The overall outcome? As I previously confessed, I agree with James Carville, the famous Democratic strategist, who pronounced her performance a C-. She passed (not exactly with flying colors)--but she passed.
We are both disappointed and relieved.
Relief: It could have been worse. You risk almost everything on these engagements. Charlie Gibson was out to end the short but exceptionally dramatic political life of Sarah Palin. He did not accomplish his mission. We made it through the long night alive. The banner of Sarah Palin still waves over the land of the free and the party of brave. We did not give away any of the precious ground recently acquired as a result of her flawless debut. Hopefully, the interview was as bad as it gets.
Disappointment: Most of us were secretly hoping (or maybe not so secretly--maybe some of us were actually starting to believe) that Sarah Palin really was a Republican David. She had appeared from nowhere and offered a confident smile in the face of a deafening roar of ridicule and smug derision. As we trembled at the task confronting us, she stepped forward and slew the terrible behemoth with alacrity and unimaginable skill. Consequently, her great feat energized the previously demoralized children of Reagan, suddenly silencing the over-confident Philistines across the valley, and beginning a panic on that side of the cultural divide that certainly had the potential to end in an unanticipated rout. It naturally followed that our David might lead the charge to complete the campaign and lead us to victory, unity, and a long reign of peace and stability.
The Interview was a warning that victory is within sight (to quote one of her now famous stump speech lines), but the battle remains intense and indeterminate. Even worse, Palin may be something less than a storied champion with perfect political pitch and irresistible charm in every respect, in every venue, for every occasion.
Governor Palin has limits.
If you had watched her gubernatorial debate back in 2006 (archived here on C-SPAN), you were probably not too surprised by the Gibson interview. Palin is good enough meeting the press--but not flawless. From the Alaska debate you get the sense that Palin is not quite comfortable sitting across the desk from hostile reporters (and they are hostile), but she soldiers through it--and, the good news, as indicated by her success at the polls and her astronomical public approval ratings, her wide fan base accepts this less impressive component of her political package and votes for her anyway.
In that vein, it is instructive to remember that our hero, Ronald Reagan, had similar hardships with a disdainful media. If you remember RR as the perennial master of the Washington press corp, refresh your memory with this 1966 clip from Meet the Press.
Like Reagan, Palin faces a press corps that judges itself morally and intellectually superior. At the same time, the mainstream media sees the insurgent new face from the West as dangerous in two respects: a dissenter regarding the enlightened progressive status quo and an appealing fool with the potential to mesmerize the ignorant masses hailing from the backward hamlets of Red State America.
In the end, Reagan triumphed against these forces aligned against him and intent on "exposing him" (an amazing accomplishment when we consider he was virtually on his own--no conservative talk radio, no FOX News, and no conservative blogosphere). We should not forget, however, Reagan occasionally stumbled in his direct engagements with the press, sometimes looking red-faced and confused. Who could blame him? The sincere Westerner faced a relentless and ruthless parade of reporters looking to make a name on the carcass of Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless, he found a way to speak directly to Americans, going over the heads of the antagonistic press.
We have known Palin for a fortnight. She may or may not prove to be a Ronald Reagan in the fullness of time. However, it is unlikely that she will be Reagan, circa 1980, during this election cycle. She is more likely to be Reagan, circa 1966 (although we can certainly hope for Reagan, circa 1976).
Bottom Line: We cannot place our fortunes solely in the hands of Sarah Palin. We need John McCain and, more importantly, the Republican grassroots to bring us home. Sarah Palin got us even. Because of her, we now have a chance. We cannot expect any more than that.
One other specific silver lining: in re the "expectations game," her less than stellar performance in the interview takes some pressure off her head-to-head with Joe Biden on 2 October. Better for the GOP, if she goes into that contest as a slight underdog.
Category: Our Defining Moment
Posted by: an okie gardener
My computer is just back from the shop so I missed posting on 9/11.
Here is a fitting tribute to a hero on that day, from the Rott.
Here is a fitting tribute to a hero on that day, from the Rott.
The Morning After.
Yesterday evening, in real time, I offered a less than glowing reaction to the big interview. At first blush, I found Governor Palin a bit stiff and nervous. On the other hand, I thought she escaped the ambush without a mortal wound.
A few thoughts twenty-four hours later:
After re-watching and re-hearing the conversation all day, I stand by my sober assessment of Palin. I think James Carville had it just about right on GMA this morning: C-. However, my sense that she escaped unscathed is gaining altitude rapidly. Not that Palin has improved with the parade of "reviewings;" rather, the more one watches, the more Charlie Gibson and ABC go into the tank. Gibson's sloppy research, erroneous quotations, and snarky condescension regarding Palin's view of "God and Country" becomes more embarrassing to ABC News as the day progresses. When we consider the misleading edit and the willful ignorance of history on the part of Gibson, the whole affair begins to smell of dishonesty and blatant partisanship.
Newsflash: Mark Levin is leading his broadcast with a reading of Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural. If you have never paused to consider this seminal treatise on American civil theology, do yourself a favor and read it ASAP.
The other stinking fish from last night's pop quiz seems to be the "Bush Doctrine" question (which I admitted at the time confused me--that's right, even me).
With the passage of time, Gibson looks more and more like the nerdy hall monitor drunk on authority.
What has happened in the last twenty-four hours is the further polarization of this race. Here is the way we see it: the anti-Chritian, anti-Republican, anti-Red State mainstream media is out to humiliate us by any means necessary (obfuscation, intellectual dishonesty, misdirection, etc.).
Add in some Matt Damon, the ladies on The View, Pamela Anderson, and Susan Sarrandon, and this has been a very good day for the GOP.
If this race comes down to Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama, we are well served. If this race boils down to "ignorant, gun-toting, Bible-reading," America versus the axis of elite liberalism (Hollywood, the mainstream media, and academia)--we win.
Yesterday evening, in real time, I offered a less than glowing reaction to the big interview. At first blush, I found Governor Palin a bit stiff and nervous. On the other hand, I thought she escaped the ambush without a mortal wound.
A few thoughts twenty-four hours later:
After re-watching and re-hearing the conversation all day, I stand by my sober assessment of Palin. I think James Carville had it just about right on GMA this morning: C-. However, my sense that she escaped unscathed is gaining altitude rapidly. Not that Palin has improved with the parade of "reviewings;" rather, the more one watches, the more Charlie Gibson and ABC go into the tank. Gibson's sloppy research, erroneous quotations, and snarky condescension regarding Palin's view of "God and Country" becomes more embarrassing to ABC News as the day progresses. When we consider the misleading edit and the willful ignorance of history on the part of Gibson, the whole affair begins to smell of dishonesty and blatant partisanship.
Newsflash: Mark Levin is leading his broadcast with a reading of Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural. If you have never paused to consider this seminal treatise on American civil theology, do yourself a favor and read it ASAP.
The other stinking fish from last night's pop quiz seems to be the "Bush Doctrine" question (which I admitted at the time confused me--that's right, even me).
With the passage of time, Gibson looks more and more like the nerdy hall monitor drunk on authority.
What has happened in the last twenty-four hours is the further polarization of this race. Here is the way we see it: the anti-Chritian, anti-Republican, anti-Red State mainstream media is out to humiliate us by any means necessary (obfuscation, intellectual dishonesty, misdirection, etc.).
Add in some Matt Damon, the ladies on The View, Pamela Anderson, and Susan Sarrandon, and this has been a very good day for the GOP.
If this race comes down to Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama, we are well served. If this race boils down to "ignorant, gun-toting, Bible-reading," America versus the axis of elite liberalism (Hollywood, the mainstream media, and academia)--we win.
11/09: Palin and Charlie Gibson
Just watched the first segment of the Palin-Gibson ABC News interview.
An Aside: I predict it will be the highest rated network news show in ten years.
Quick reaction:
Not very good. Palin struck me as too strident, breathless, and unsteady. She was talking way too fast, which I took as a sign of nervousness. Gibson was smug and patronizing (but understated enough that he will probably get by without too much grief). But all the "are you sure you are ready" questions seemed a bit gratuitous. Asked and answered. Move on counselor.
She was a bit too scattered (sort of a like a shotgun). And a bit too staccato (like an M-16).
Sometimes she was non-responsive and visibly rattled.
However, for a first time out, I am not sure she gave any mortal answers. She was a bit too anxious to give Israel unqualified support (which will not go over well with the MSM--but pro-Israel positions always make sense to the heartland). She was also a bit too ready to court war with Russia over Georgia and/or the Ukraine. Again, this will draw some snickers and gasps from the striped-pants crowd, but potentially okay with hardhats, farmers, and hunters.
She didn't remember the "Bush Doctrine of 2002" (which, honestly, I couldn't quite get my mind around either on the spur of the moment). It was preemption. I am not sure if Gibson made her look bad on that one--or if he just looked like a pompous know-it-all, pulling out obscure questions to trip up the candidate.
But, as I say, if there is nothing there that plays as a lethal YouTube soundbite, she is probably okay. Even if it was highly watched (relative to the normal viewing audience for the evening news), the vast majority of voters did not tune in--and will not really care.
Not good--but, hopefully, not devastating.
But this probably signals the end of our glorious thirteen-day run and the beginning of a rough patch. This campaign is going to be nip and tuck, up and down, and down to the wire.
An Aside: I predict it will be the highest rated network news show in ten years.
Quick reaction:
Not very good. Palin struck me as too strident, breathless, and unsteady. She was talking way too fast, which I took as a sign of nervousness. Gibson was smug and patronizing (but understated enough that he will probably get by without too much grief). But all the "are you sure you are ready" questions seemed a bit gratuitous. Asked and answered. Move on counselor.
She was a bit too scattered (sort of a like a shotgun). And a bit too staccato (like an M-16).
Sometimes she was non-responsive and visibly rattled.
However, for a first time out, I am not sure she gave any mortal answers. She was a bit too anxious to give Israel unqualified support (which will not go over well with the MSM--but pro-Israel positions always make sense to the heartland). She was also a bit too ready to court war with Russia over Georgia and/or the Ukraine. Again, this will draw some snickers and gasps from the striped-pants crowd, but potentially okay with hardhats, farmers, and hunters.
She didn't remember the "Bush Doctrine of 2002" (which, honestly, I couldn't quite get my mind around either on the spur of the moment). It was preemption. I am not sure if Gibson made her look bad on that one--or if he just looked like a pompous know-it-all, pulling out obscure questions to trip up the candidate.
But, as I say, if there is nothing there that plays as a lethal YouTube soundbite, she is probably okay. Even if it was highly watched (relative to the normal viewing audience for the evening news), the vast majority of voters did not tune in--and will not really care.
Not good--but, hopefully, not devastating.
But this probably signals the end of our glorious thirteen-day run and the beginning of a rough patch. This campaign is going to be nip and tuck, up and down, and down to the wire.
I recently read a book, recommended to me by okie gardener, called "Goodby to a River", by John Graves. The river in question is the Brazos, on a stretch northwest of Waco where the land's turning from CenTex farms to West Texas scrub (or vice versa, going downriver.) The author takes a canoe trip downstream while he still can, before more dams went up, as a sort of tribute to a site of his youth. The book reads partly as travel narrative, partly as history and lore, and partly as American philosophy, the good kind (Thoreau is "Saint Henry" to the author.)
The history and lore is small-scale, as history goes, but full of interesting characters. Comanches feature prominently, as do the frontiersmen who tangled with them. The author questions his own scholarship, but I'd say it's decent enough to make this required reading for anyone interested in Texas or frontier history. It was written in the late 1950s, only a couple of generations removed from its rougher days.
Graves really knew the land he was on. Its history was living to him, breathing, still fighting and feuding and moonshining and scalping and farming and alive. Its wildlife fed him, inspired him, called out to him, each in its own voice. The river had moods, changing from day to day or bend to bend, but all adding up to the river's own personality, soul. The land, though not rich, had its own character too: tough like the cedar covering the hills, stable like the limestone outcroppings, transient as the autumn grasses.
I like that. The phrase goes "If something's worth doing, it's worth doing well." True enough, and I'd add another: If somewhere's worth living, it's worth living well. I'm currently living in a town in northern Missouri where I didn't grow up (I call myself a Texas boy, and know a different stretch of the Brazos), but I'm just a county away from where my father grew up, and his father, and his. This land is worth knowing. I have an uncle who's constantly telling me of the history of this area (he's from another county or two over). Chief Big Neck had a "war" with the first white settlers. The Bee trace, a wagon route not a mile from where I now sit, would let a wagon travel from the Missouri river to Iowa without crossing a creek. If the Chariton's low, a steamboat's carcass is visible near Yarrow, just about as far north on that river as they would go.
I don't plan to be here long, but I plan to know the place while I am here. Know its people for how they are now, and how they were a generation or two ago. Recognize the songs of the birds I hear and the shape of the trees I see. Eat food raised in this county, swim in its lakes, bike its backroads, smell its air. My grandfather taught me how to pluck chickens last week. I may never need to use that skill again in my life, but I'm glad I've done it, for it's a part of where I am and who I am.
My life goals will lead me far from this place, in all probability far from any place I've known. (I'm still a young man, and haven't yet cemented my path.) I'll likely be in cities more often than not, in this country and others. I'm blessed enough to have a wife who's keen to visit these places with me. I'll be focusing on big-pictures and global issues, because that's where my intellectual and career ambitions lie, but I hope not to ignore the small-picture and local issues in doing so. Place matters.
The history and lore is small-scale, as history goes, but full of interesting characters. Comanches feature prominently, as do the frontiersmen who tangled with them. The author questions his own scholarship, but I'd say it's decent enough to make this required reading for anyone interested in Texas or frontier history. It was written in the late 1950s, only a couple of generations removed from its rougher days.
Graves really knew the land he was on. Its history was living to him, breathing, still fighting and feuding and moonshining and scalping and farming and alive. Its wildlife fed him, inspired him, called out to him, each in its own voice. The river had moods, changing from day to day or bend to bend, but all adding up to the river's own personality, soul. The land, though not rich, had its own character too: tough like the cedar covering the hills, stable like the limestone outcroppings, transient as the autumn grasses.
I like that. The phrase goes "If something's worth doing, it's worth doing well." True enough, and I'd add another: If somewhere's worth living, it's worth living well. I'm currently living in a town in northern Missouri where I didn't grow up (I call myself a Texas boy, and know a different stretch of the Brazos), but I'm just a county away from where my father grew up, and his father, and his. This land is worth knowing. I have an uncle who's constantly telling me of the history of this area (he's from another county or two over). Chief Big Neck had a "war" with the first white settlers. The Bee trace, a wagon route not a mile from where I now sit, would let a wagon travel from the Missouri river to Iowa without crossing a creek. If the Chariton's low, a steamboat's carcass is visible near Yarrow, just about as far north on that river as they would go.
I don't plan to be here long, but I plan to know the place while I am here. Know its people for how they are now, and how they were a generation or two ago. Recognize the songs of the birds I hear and the shape of the trees I see. Eat food raised in this county, swim in its lakes, bike its backroads, smell its air. My grandfather taught me how to pluck chickens last week. I may never need to use that skill again in my life, but I'm glad I've done it, for it's a part of where I am and who I am.
My life goals will lead me far from this place, in all probability far from any place I've known. (I'm still a young man, and haven't yet cemented my path.) I'll likely be in cities more often than not, in this country and others. I'm blessed enough to have a wife who's keen to visit these places with me. I'll be focusing on big-pictures and global issues, because that's where my intellectual and career ambitions lie, but I hope not to ignore the small-picture and local issues in doing so. Place matters.
