simply a quote

Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.
- G. K. Chesterton

Crisis of Democracy Con't

The world is full of willing people, some willing to work, the rest willing to let them.
- Robert Frost

The quote is unrelated I just laughed when i read it and figured I'd share the humor.

I read the part of Crisis of Democracy written by Samuel P. Huntington on the Crisis as it exists in the United States.

I found myself agreeing with him on a singular point to a degree and the rest is just tragically amusing. He takes the point i agree on WAY past where I'd take it...or at least he quotes Walter Cronkite taking it further than i would, anyway. He says "By its very nature, the media cannot govern and has strong incentives to assume the oppositional role." and in the 1960's "the network organizations, as one analyst put it, became ' a highly creditable never-tiring political opposition, a maverick third party which never need face the sobering experience of governing.'"

And though I am all for free speech and media I am questioning the legitimacy of its message and how it is presented. Currently it is the oppositional party without the need for truth, value, nor accountability. However...

The overstatement comes here "Most newsmen come to feel very little allegiance to the established order. I think they are inclined to side with humanity rather than with authority and institution." I would say "siding with humanity" is probably not an insult to throw around if you actually want to make media look bad.

Anyway, the rest of the article he lists the 4 main causes of democratic destabilization in the US.

1. The democratic challenge to authority i.e the democratic surge in the 1960's and protesting for egalitarian ideals (the horrible bastards) and that it destabilized the American basis of social order: "Authority based on hierarchy, expertise, and wealth all, obviously, ran counter to the democratic and egalitarian temper of the times, and during the 1960's all three came under heavy attack. In the University, students who lacked expertise, came to participate in the decision-making process on many important issues...In politics generally, the authority of wealth was challenged and successful efforts made to introduce reforms toe pose and limit its influence." OH NO! God forbid we have egalitarian principles and allow university students to question authority and participate in government, and certainly we need to maintain the power of money.

2. Decline in Public Confidence and Trust

Which he attributes to the greater participation in earlier elections and then the voters realizing the people they voted in weren't doing what they were supposed to. But his solution isn't having the government do what its supposed to but to try to re-establish social norms and to have people participate less in democracy because "Marginal social groups, as in the case of the blacks, are now becoming full participants in the political system. yet the danger of overloading the political system with demands which extend its functions and undermine its authority still remains. less marginality on the part of some groups thus needs to be replaced by more self-restraint on the part of all groups" so...stop participating you youngins and blacks and women for fuck sake.

3. The decay of the party system

He talks about how people in the congress are no longer voting down party lines, they're actually campaigning as individuals and not a party which costs more money and makes people think rationally about government which we cant have. And, it encourages people to vote for peoples stances and their records and not down party lines so it damages how democracy should be run. He never outright says its terrible but later makes this statement: "the power of both these groups [communists and Congress (imagine the attitude for Communists in the 70's)]and one crucial question for the future--and governability--of democracy...is whether these oppositional bodies can adapt themselves to play responsible governing roles. Professor Crozier appears to be somewhat more optimistic about European communists in this respect than I am about to American Congress at this moment in time."

Literally, Crozier is very anti-communism and Huntington is saying that there is no chance in hell that Congress can succeed ever. They suck. Balls. So stop dividing yourselves side with your party don't think...be your party line.

4. Shifting Balance between Gov't and Opposition

He discusses how congress and the supreme court took power away from the president thus weakening the entire system. I don't have a sarcastic quip for this argument. I'm not sure how i feel about it honestly and don't know what the War Powers Act or the budgetary reform acts did so I'll research and return to it later.

Anyway, i will close up with his closing statement "A value which is normally good in itself is not necessarily optimized when it is maximized. We have come to recognize that there are potentially desirable limits to economic growth [uh, i guess we scrapped that idea] There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy. Democracy will have a longer life it has a more balanced existence."

So, machiavelli wins again, it is not about Democracy, but the appearance of Democracy that matters.

So, what have we learned? Actual democracy is overrated, egalitarian ideals will destroy america, and please for the love of god don't be an individual in government, be your party. If you actually read your voters pamphlet you're an anarchist or worse a commie. So don't!

Troilus and Criseyde Chaucer

This part of the epic Troilus and Criseyde it is famous and is referred to as the Canticus Troili, I really like it, and so must you all! Or suffer through :) (I'm glossing above the few words i think you may not know. I'm assuming you can figure most of them out but ich is just I. Iwis is indeed. If i havent translated enough, Google Middle English Dictionary its free, go to town. Brenne is just burn fyi, possed=tossed)

"If no love is, O God, what fele I so?

And if love is, what thing and which is he?

If love be good, from whennes cometh my woo?

If it be wikke, a wonder thynketh me,

When every torment and adversite

That cometh of hym may to me savory thinke,

For ay thurst I, the more that ich it drink.

And if that at my owen lust I brenne,

From whennes cometh my waillynge and my pleynte?

If harm agree me, wherto pleyne I thenne?

I noot, ne whi unwery that I feynte.

O quike deth, O swete harm so queynte,

How may of the in me swich quantite,

But if that I consente that it be?

And if that I consente, I wrongfully

compleyne, iwis. Thus possed to and fro

Al sterelees withinne a boot am I

Amydde the see, bitween wyndes two,

That in contrarie stonden evere mo.

Allas, what is this wondre maladie?

For hote of cold, for cold of hote, I dye."

So there, its quite a nice song. He borrowed it from Petrarch, but changed a few things. Like Petrarch asked at the beginning "If this is not love" but Chaucer as you see asks "If there is no love what is this?" etc. (I apologize for the awful cartoon but i couldn't resist.)

News: For Dana

The first article I read this morning was in no way newsworthy. Though the BBC felt the need to post it on the front page of their

World Edition. It can be found here. I'm a bit concerned for either a) the writers capacity for thought or b)their assumptions about their readership (silly brits) its clear they're assuming the intellectual prowess of this to reside in the people:

The second article was about green house emissions and how business is responding. I am impressed to find how hard wall-mart is apparently putting forth quite a lot of effort to become sustainable. charming. And its exciting about sustainability a

nd despite the climate bill being "bogged down in the senate" at least its there and hopefully once Health Care is settled it will get through. Either way, its quite good. However, I find it interesting which things people highlight and the things that people ignore about reducing emissions. The article admits that:

"Limiting the growth in greenhouse gas emissions, let alone cutting them, will require a radical transformation of the nation’s energy consumption and fuels that will most likely take decades. It is bound to hurt some energy-intensive businesses, like petroleum refiners and coal-fired power plants, and some manufacturers, while bolstering the development of alternative power industries like solar and wind."

Which is good, less reliance on oil yada yada better. I have been thinking though, and i find it interesting that when people talk about petroleum refineries and making it harder for them to function people talk about the gas and how we need alternate fuels for cars, but what about the other things we rely on just as much every day that people just either a) don't talk about at all or b) offer solutions that are not good long term solutions which I've really only seen in some limited spaces. Even these solutions are solving a different problem. So, after my long preamble what about plastics?

How much of our lives rely heavily on plastic? from my water bottle to the coating on my table (presumably) the handles of my pans, tupperware, food containers, etc etc...and the other one synthetic fabrics. Polyester, acrylic, acetate, nylon, latex, rayon, and spandex, some were made from coal but again not a renewable resource. So what solutions are offered? I mean clearly we can make clothes from nature since it was the original plan though it will make the lives of housewives a bit harder. What about alternate sources for making plastics? So far there's been efforts to make corn into plastic. And its successful. But the 3rd thing I'm listing that is made from oil is corn. Corn, a nitrogen hungry plant fertilized by the converted war machine. What once was an industry of making oil into bombs now makes oil into fertilizer to sustain the american dependance on corn (or some argue the dependance of corn was encouraged by governmental regulations in order to sustain the war machine in times of peace). So...if we were suddenly at a point where we didn't have any oil what would we do? The amount of stuff made from corn in the states alone if lost would cause a great deal of industrial collapse.

So what would we do without oil? At this point, we wouldn't be able to get anywhere, make clothes or plastics, and we'd be forced to redesign american agriculture (except for the organic farms *yay organic!*) And they make synthetics from soy also these days which actually puts nitrogen back into the soil so the farmers that rotate soy and corn seasonally actually can grow it well. (yay organic thinkers) but do we really want to turn farmland into manufacturing plastics? Especially since most of this farmland will probably be outsourced and our plastics will be grown in some third world country and rather than utilizing the earth to feed its people they will use their land to feed our addiction to synthetics? I realize i offer no solutions, because I don't have any, but as i said in the debate on energy and alternate resources are we really making the right choices? Bio-fuels based on corn use just as much oil as gasoline because of how their fertilized. Plastics made from corn, same issue. So, while America does make corn into the right solution (based upon legislation to encourage corn growing, making almost all other agriculture not worth it) even though corn can't be the right solution with farming as it is today.

So. Where is the solution that doesnt take over farm land nor require oil to make alternate fuel sources. (I do like the algae solution for jet fuel.)

Anyway, just a thought. and one more for Dana:

Kant on Politics and Human Nature (Another one, I know)

As I continued to do my homework after my last post I read Immanuel Kant's work "Idea for a Universal history with a Cosmopolitan Purpose" (1784) which is extremely fascinating.

He begins by discussing human nature and positing that man is an animal guided by reason. Man's animal instincts are led towards perfection by our very nature. Because we can reason we will see errors and correct them. One man cannot improve alone, it takes mankind as a whole to find perfection and this can only occur over time. Each generation building onto the reason and innovation of the generations before. "...it will require a long, perhaps incalculable series of generations, each passing on its enlightenment to the next, before the germs implanted by nature in our species can be developed to that degree which corresponds to nature's original intention."

Then he establishes what about human nature allows for such growth and enlightenment. He claims it comes from the inner struggle of man to be both a social animal and independent. Independence leads to wanting to have his own way but he must enter society then expecting confrontation and then is inclined to offer resistance and confrontation himself. "It is this very resistance which awakens all man's powers and induces him to overcome his tendency to laziness. Through the desire for honour, power or property, it drives him to seek status among his fellow, whom he cannot bear yet cannot bear to leave. Then the first true steps are taken from barbarism to culture, which in fact consists in the social worthiness of man." and it is through this confrontation and struggle man finds his true purpose and advances towards the greatness that nature intended.

"Nature should thus be thanked for fostering social incompatibility, enviously competitive vanity, and insatiable desires for possession or even power. Without these desires, all man's excellent natural capacities would never be roused to develop. Man wishes concord, but nature, knowing better what is good for his species, wishes discord."

Here is where it gets really interesting, the above is setting the stage for how man's nature affects politics and what the purpose of politics is to man. He posits that the best that man can be exists when man is in society.

"This purpose can be fulfilled only in a society which has not only the greatest freedom, and therefore a continual antagonism among its members, but also the most precise specification and preservation of the limits of this freedom in order that it can co-exist with the freedom of others. The highest task which nature has set for mankind must therefore be that of establishing a society in which freedom under external laws would be combined to the greatest possible extent with irresistible force, in other words of establishing a perfectly just civil constitution."

This level of restriction is required, for though he is "enamoured with unrestrained freedom" he must sacrifice some of his freedoms for the freedoms of others. Inside a good governmental structure man can interact in such a way as to enhance the purpose of nature. Pure freedom leads to destruction and imperfection but freedom within structure allows for growth.

Government is a form of master over a man, forcing structure into a creature otherwise anarchic in nature. "...man is an animal who needs a master..." for he will be "misled by his self-seeking animal inclinations into exempting himself from the law where he can. He thus requires a master to break his self-will and force him to obey a universally valid will under which everyone can be free."

It is a strange paradox of freedom under a master. What is freedom? I have read several definitions since beginning my degree from medieval and early modern sources but none seem to fit. What is freedom exactly? How is it best preserved?

Anyway, Kant continues and wonders where one may find such a master.

"Nowhere else but in the human species. But this master will also be an animal who needs a master. Thus while man may try as he will, it is hard to see how he can obtain for public justice a supreme authority which would itself be just, whether he seeks this authority in a single person or in a group of many persons selected for this purpose. Each one of them will always misuse his freedom if he does not have anyone above him to apply force to him as the laws should require it. Yet the highest authority has to be just in itself and yet also a man. This is therefore the most difficult of tasks, and a perfect solution is impossible."

True enough. No matter the justice and freedoms allowed from a system of laws there is no perfect leadership of any kind because man is flawed. A perfect solution cannot come from mankind. Yet we are all we have. We seek leadership to lessen our imperfections but no leader is perfect.

Kant continues then to describe nations as if they were individuals. Man as individuals has discovered that there needs to be order and law within a society. Kant says that it is only a matter of time before nations see also that they must have a law and order amongst themselves or chaos and war will reign. It is only through being united under a body of laws that nations will find peace.

"And in the present case, it is especially hard to be indifferent, for it appears that we might by our own rational projects accelerate the coming of this period which will be so welcome to our descendants."

How selfless a concept. It is our duty as rational creatures to do right and lay the groundwork for future generations. He said earlier it was kind of the past generations to build such a cannon of works for us so that we might have such a great civilization even though they did not. Because of the progression of nature Kant seems to argue that it is the duty of man now to utilize his rational mind and to search out solutions so that the future can be good. It is our duty to think ahead and do what we can so that mankind can fulfill the purpose nature has set.

Though what the end will truly look like he doesn't say, but then again, can we really know? Does nature have a goal? Does this view of man answer to reality? I'm not sure, but we in democratic society certainly maintain freedom under a master in a way. Is the master preserving our freedoms? Is the master accountable for its actions? Where is the master's master? Can we as citizens manage our masters? Does the average citizen even bother? Or are we so accustomed to the baser nature of man that we stopped questioning it?

(I hope you all enjoy my political ramblings, I probably should rename my blog since you are learning nothing about Yorkshire nor England)

[Kant, Political Writings, ed. Hans Reiss, (Cambridge 2nd ed. 1991).]

Liebniz on History

I am reading the preface to the Codex Iuris Gentium by Liebniz(1693) and am amused by his ironic tone. (Or, I hope its ironic, and when taken as such, is quite amusing)

He begins by saying "I say therefore willingly that there are two kinds of history, public and secret..." he then discusses the causes of war and claims that there are just wars but there are also wars fought for utility and for sentiment "...for the best advice does not always prevail, [and] more often a king acts as a man than a king, and things of great importance are decided by small causes."

So he describes how history can be written. "There are thus two rules for [writing] history, but which cannot be equally observed in [writing] the one and the other kind of history: the rule of public history is to say nothing which is false, [whereas the rule] of secret history, on the other hand, is to omit nothing which is true; the first [kind of] history thus appears incomplete. But this is called for by the nature of things...many things remain secret in the acts of the powerful and in the causes of treaties, especially because often facts which pass unobserved have a greater effect than is thought."

It is true, leaving out important details does make a difference in how history is perceived. He then discusses what kinds of things are often left out of history:

"Often, too, a night [on which] the prince has slept badly, after which he has made rash decisions, because of an unsuitable mental and physical condition, is soon paid for by many thousands of unfortunates with their blood. Often, the abuse of power by a woman is that which pushes a husband or lover to act; more often the inclinations of ministers are communicated to their sovereigns. And it must be admitted that, just as in the theater it would be unsuitable for stage machinery to be seen, so too history would sometimes lose part of its beauty, if one always observed its real causes; and it appears that heroes have acted on the basis of childish inclinations, or because of a passion for woman, or even because of servile greed. In truth, we are reading about the deeds of men, not of Gods; and it is sufficient for their glory and the records of posterity that there remain many actions carried out with wisdom, courage and circumspection. Bad examples are best ignored from time to time."

Well, it is best to color history to highlight the good and ignore the bad. Continues to be true. If one were to understand the machinations and motivations behind all political choices we might not like what we see. And as he says "bad examples are best ignored from time to time." We wouldn't want to have a discontented populace, especially if they were educated. Then the Crisis of Democracy would be under way again. It would be a tragedy of monumental proportions if "value-oriented" young intellectuals ever learned the truth, they might question authority and then where would government be? One can hardly even imagine a world in which the secret histories were revealed and power of knowledge truly given to the unruly populace.

[quotes from Leibniz, Political Writings ed. Patrick Riley, (Cambridge, 2nd ed. 1988). the parts in square brackets are Riley's additions.]

Political Thought

I realize, my blog has less to do with England and more to do with the things I am thinking about while in England, so forgive me if you are uninterested in these details, but…tough: I am. J

Inadvertently, perhaps, I have discovered that I am very interested in politics. I have been into immediate politics for a while, but I am now studying political history and thought. I discovered a few things from the 70’s recently that are fascinating. Though I have not finished them, I wanted to share what I have read.

I ran across a pamphlet by Noam Chomsky on the role of Intellectuals in the State (from 1970’s). He is a man after my own heart. And he is greatly offended by democracy’s use propaganda. It is clearly not only democracy that uses it, but since fear and physical coercion cannot function within a democracy (not as it can in a dictatorship etc) that propaganda is the key. He discusses several political papers written on the subject of how to ‘maintain social order.’ Robert McNamara said according to Chomsky ‘To under-manage reality is not to keep it free.’

He also quotes Harold Lasswell who remarks that ‘the spread of schooling “did not release the masses from ignorance and superstition but altered the nature of both and compelled the development of a whole new technique of control, largely through propaganda…propaganda attains eminence as the one means of mass mobilization which is cheaper than violence, bribery or other possible control techniques.”

And these ideas of democracy in general were applied quite nicely to US government. In the Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science in 1947 Edward Barnay’s essay on how to engineer consent which “quite simply means the application of scientific principles and tried practices to the task of getting people to support ideas and programs…The engineering of consent is the very essence of democratic process, the freedom to persuade and suggest.” Lovely. Chomsky gives examples of WWI and Vietnam as times when engineered consent worked miracles on calming a discontented populace. (Though in Vietnam it is more an after-the-fact altering of perception making the victims into a people not even worthy of pity and US violence as simply misguided benevolence) Similarly Fortune magazine in 1949 had this quote “Indoctrination is to democracy what coercion is to dictatorship.”

And much of this concept is put forth by high intellectuals. Though there is a study produced by the Trilateral Commission called the “Crisis of Democracy” where issues are discussed on how to maintain control over a chaotic over-educated populace (among other things) with 3 essays one from a Japanese, a French and an American. One of the introductory claims is that one of the grave dangers to democracy is “value-oriented intellectuals who often devote themselves to the derogation of leadership, the challenging of authority and the unmasking and deligitimation of established institutions…” god forbid someone questions authority.

I picked up a copy of this study and am delighting in being offended. I would be more amused if I hadn’t read the bios of the authors (like the American was a consultant to “the Policy Planning Council of the Department of State, the Agency for International Development, the Office of the Secretary of Defense etc…), and if I did not think these precepts were used to govern the roiling masses, but it is fascinating to think of the serious threat that was seen and is seen by dissent. Think Bush, you are with us or against us and if you’re against your unpatriotic. I am currently on the first essay. Not even half way through it by the European thinker Michel Crozier and he is somewhat realistic sometimes but for the most part he is convinced that education and information and communication are destroying the democratic world. I shall give some interesting quotes. “…change produces rising expectations which cannot be met by its necessary limited outcomes. Once people know that things can change, they cannot accept easily anymore the basic features of their condition that were once taken for granted.” (Crozier 22)

He says social control is harder in Europe because it is a “society where social control had traditionally relied on fragmentation, stratification, and social barriers to communication, the disruptive effect of change which tends to destroy these barriers, while forcing people to communicate, makes it more and more difficult to govern.” (Crozier 24)

And the education quote that is shocking but again, if education, change and ‘forced communication’ keep the masses from being controlled god forbid we allow our institutions to be risked so dangerously…like for example in Italy and France where “The influx of [university] students in these two countries has been much higher…than in Britain and Germany, with a concomitant breakdown of social control.” (Crozier 57) because as all well learned individuals know when you educate youth it is naturally accompanied by anarchy and social break down so if you want to control your masses stop educating them well, just stuff their heads with propaganda.

So, I shall finish the Crisis of Democracy and keep you posted. I have more recent Chomsky to digest soon and shall share as I read. Cheers.

Health Care

I am finally able to follow the Health Care debate full swing and I am appalled by some of the crap that I've been hearing from Republicans. Like the following statements in the 17 Nov Blog post to Prescriptions on the NYTimes website:

'“I mean, let the rationing begin,” said Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee. “This is what happens when bureaucrats make your health care decisions.”'

And Insurance companies are what? Philanthropists who never ration health care? Another such statement:

“Agencies will be created that will make decisions just like this, that some lifesaving screening is not worth it.”

And Insurance companies don't decide which procedures are worth paying for and which aren't? What about the HPV vaccine for women that can prevent cervical cancer, how many insurance companies and plans won't cover that?

And further on the paranoia of republicans, or the desperation to derail some actual change in our country, the new medical study that breast exams don't need to occur until 50 is going to ruin a woman's chances of health as this woman says:

'Representative Sue Myrick, a North Carolina Republican and a breast cancer survivor, said she did not think a government commission “should be engaged in decisions like this between a woman and a doctor.”'

And then I wonder how a government agency can be worse than the following study of how insurance companies operate? I mean really?

'An analysis by the National Women’s Law Center in 2008 found that insurers charged 40-year-old women from 4 percent to 48 percent more than they charged men for the same individual insurance plans. The House bill would make such “gender rating” illegal.

The same study also found that in some states, insurance companies can reject applicants for certain “pre-existing conditions” that effectively exclude women, like having had a Caesarean section or being the victim of domestic violence.'

Domestic Violence? That a woman can be charged higher premiums or get refused coverage because she was subjected to the will of a violent husband? Are you serious? On top of getting the shit beat out of you you can't go to the doctor to get treatment? Or see a professional who might help you get out of it? I can see why the republicans are so concerned that the public option will be horrible, god forbid women's rights are extended. And a Caesarean? I'm sorry you've had a not so great pregnancy and an 'unnatural' birth, sorry, you can't get coverage

And living in the UK for only 2 months I've gone to the doctor here. I've gotten prescriptions and I've talked to friends. In the states people complain that they'll have to wait in an emergency for care and there will be long waiting lists to get into the doctor etc. I have never in the states gotten into a doctor next day, rarely even within a week even if its serious but not an emergency. I've not had to wait more than 3 days to get into an appointment here and often same day or next. As for ER trips? How many hours is that? My friend told me that though it was perhaps an off time she spend 30 minutes in the emergency room before someone saw her and for something relatively minor. The people who needed urgent care got it and then then people who needed it less urgently waited a little while. I can't think of a time when I went to an emergency room for anything where I waited less than an hour.

And prescriptions are interesting unless you are receiving benefits from the government you pay around 7 pound whether your prescription is 30 pence or 300 pounds. In the end it evens out. Its not hard. Its not illogical, its not a trap. And more needy people like single moms and elderly, the disabled and low income families don't have to pay for their prescriptions.

And of course if you want you can see a private doctor and get your own insurance if you feel like it but why bother when a plan is willing to cover you so well? Is it perfect? No. But what is perfect? Is having millions of uninsured people and millions poorly insured better? So, I hope the bill goes through the senate and maintaining abortion right and still keeping the improved health care for women removing the bias that insurance companies have created in their corporate capitalistic interest. Is bureaucracy really worse than corporate capitalist ideals? At least bureaucrats have constituents to please while corporations have stock holders, who do you think will take better care of your health?

[Sack, Kevin. "Republicans say Cancer Screening Guidelines Portend Medical Rationing". New York Times 17 November 2009: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/republicans-say-cancer-screening-guidelines-portend-medical-rationing/]

[Seelye, Katharine. "In Congress, a predicament for Abortion Supporters". New York Times 14 November 2009: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/another-standoff-may-be-looming-on-abortion-issue/ ]

Medieval Quotes (Chaucer)

I have some amazing quotes from my literature this week. Some amusing and some not. However, they are all good. Even the semi-offensive Chaucer is not as anti-feminist as it might seem. Or perhaps it is :) Its just resigned to the will of a woman regardless of whether it respects it or not.

This is from The Manciples Tale:

"A good wyf, that is clene of werk and thoght, (A good wife that is clean of work and thought)

Sholde nat been kept in noon awayt, certayn; (Should not be watched suspiciously, certainly)

And trewely the labour is in vayn (And truly the labor is in vain)

To kepe a shrewe, for it wol nat bee. (To keep a shrew for it will not be)

This holde I for a verray nycetee, (This hold I for a true foolishness)

To spille labour for to kepe wyves:" (To waste labor to keep wives)

this comes right before his description of a caged bird and says basically put any bird in a cage and treat is great as you want to and it will prefer to starve outdoors than live well in a cage. I can't say whether Chaucer intends to tell men not to cage wives because it is wrong or as he clearly states, its a waste of time to bother. A cheating wife will cheat and a good wife will be good and you cannot change that. And in conjunction he tells this story of a crow that is white and sings beautifully until the day he sees his master's wife cheating on him and tells the husband. The man kills the wife, and then in a fit of remorse rips off all the feathers of the crow and curses it to black forever and to only cry sorrow, death and etc. And the Manciple says in the end my mother always told me to hold my tongue and "Ne telleth nevere no man in youre lyf/ How that another man hath dight his wyf" (Tell no man in your life/ how that another man had sex with his wife)

But on a darker though more romantic light Chaucer's book of the Duchess is a tract for John of Gaunt on the death of his wife, commemorating her. In the book he tells of a dream vision where he meets a knight weeping in the woods who speaks of the death of his lover.

"This ys my peyne wythoute red (This is my pain without remedy)

Alway deynge and be not ded" (Always dying and being not dead)

and later

"For whoso seeth me first on morwe, (For whoever sees me first in the morning)

May seyn he hath met with sorwe, (May say he has met with sorrow)

For y am sorwe, and sorwe ys y." (For I am sorrow, and sorrow is I.)

These are the medieval quotes that I really like from my Chaucer module this week so I figured I'd share them. I've had a few classics from earlier on but I shan't bore you with too much middle english today. Maybe another day.

Oh one more. There is a dispute solved with wine in the prologue to the Manciples tale and the host says "O Bacus, yblessed be thy name, (Oh Bacchus[God of Wine fyi] blessed is thy name)

That so kanst turnen ernest into game!" (That so can turn seriousness into a game)

[All the quotes come from "The Riverside Chaucer 3rd Edition gen. ed. Larry D. Benson, Oxford University Press, the translations are my own]

Scarborough

I went to Scarborough an age ago but I promised some awesome photos of England. So here they are!

They are in backwards order of what i did but thats okay. The topmost are from the cliffside hike i went on. it was gorgeous! The wind was blowing really hard all day you can kind of see in the bottom photo that the grasses are all pushed over by the wind but the weather was insane, it was cloudy, then the wind took all the cloud cover off then the wind blew more on before we'd left.

The middle is a St Mary's Church I think, it is where Anne Bronte is buried. You can see her gravestone i think in the photo of the graves its the tallest gray one.

The bottom photos are at Scarborough Castle. it was a fortification point in the bronze age, the Romans had a signal tower there, in medieval times it was there. King John did a lot to build it up. It was used in the civil war here, and was also bombarded in the world wars as well. The ruins were incredible and I hope you enjoy all the photos!!