I Became a Blogger Because I Wanted To Write Sentences Like

...like: "I became a critic because I wanted to write sentences like

'This intense conviction of the existence of the self part from culture is, as culture well knows, its noblest and most generous achievement.'"

...That's Louis Menand, offering restrained admiration of Lionel Trilling, in "A Critic At Large: Regrets Only," New Yorker, ept 29, 2008, 80-90, 90.

The Cover: An Inside-the-Bubble Story

I yield to the impulse to weigh in on the New Yorker cover, but my point is purely technical, not political or philosophical. I quote Kevin Drum:

If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones, he would have drawn the same cover but shown it as a gigantic word bubble coming out of John McCain's mouth — implying, you see, that this is how McCain wants the world to view Obama.

Hm, good point. But why stop here? In the Photoshop age, there is really nothing to stop somebody else from creating the bubble and slapping the cover inside it, not so? Web 2.0, baby, we are the world. And if you see one, send me a link.

And About the Etchings...

My friend Bruce (Bruce and Buce, what a combo; no, I prefer Buce and Bruce) points out that the "etchings" epigraph at left is the caption for a James Thurbar cartoon from The New Yorker. He is right. My mother had a copy of The Thurber Carnival in the house and I saw the cartoon at the age of eight or nine at which age I was, of course, entirely uncomprehending.

Bruce also points out that I could by the right to use the cartoon fromt the copyright owners for an attractive price. He's right there, too, but I won't do it. I think it is time to change epigraphs pretty soon anyway-maybe I'll just go back to the one about the Revolution & the Firing Squad.

Could It Be He?

Admit it, now, you haven't any idea whom you want to vote for in 2008. You enjoy Obama, but you know he's an empty suit. You figure you ought to like John Edwards, but you're really not crazy about his shallow populism. You take a deep breath and figure it has to be Hillary, but then she does something tacky and mean-spirited that gives you the hiccups.

The Republicans, oh don't get me started. What a sorry lot of embarrassments they are--even to themselves. I'd still wager a few bucks on the proposition that the frontrunners beat each other to a pulp and they wind up with this guy (and I see I'm in good company).

Admit it also, you weren't all that nuts about Al Gore back in 2000. Remember? You gnashed your teeth a hundred times over the way he ran his campaign (good company again: Bill Clinton felt the same way). And don't get me started on the tangle on Tallahassee.

Okay, that was then. It doesn't say anything to venture that Gore would have done better--who wouldn't have? Six years later and we know that a burnt stump could have done better. But what if it turns out that Gore is not just a default improvement, but actually the kind of guy you might want as President? Jump cut to The New Yorker, and let David Remnick explain.