Eh, maybe.

For me, aloneness is not something you're all alone about--there is a whole brotherhood and sisterhood of aloneness out there -- there's an animal kingdom full of it. I read Darwin's Origin of the Species as but a longer ode to aloneness. Maybe, the entire enterprise of loving and cherishing, broken down to its basic elements, is mostly an act of solitude. Those moments, when we recognize that love is mostly an act solitude, can be the most painful of all.

It's only natural that we sometimes create utopian fictions "as others were" to signify some state of self-less love that others have....or used to have. Something that only Jesus or some other committed social activitist is capable of -- with believers believing and others asking what the prophet/activists was really committed to.

What we miss is being "loved" in/via the same way/measure/mode as if that other person was/is with us to see the world as "loved alone" as we do. We want lovers who can transcend their otherness--to see with us. Sometimes we feel that -- but only briefly since others who have loved us can be 'there', only briefly. I am getting at this line, in particular:

"...I've not seen what others often see."

The use of "often" is relative, fleeting, and is fraught with its own dangers. In love, we are just as capable of being, if not more often, self-deceived.

I love the existential brashness and honesty of this poem. Stripped down, the poem reminds me in glimpses of the man sleeping in the overture of Swann's Way, just as likely to be in love with darkness or with his own inner images: a magic chair or a magic lantern.

But there is more to that and this story...this poem is only the beginning.
Your poems come from somewhere and they tend to grow. I certainly look forward to seeing where you take the next one.

Peace, PLD.

a poem that serves as both a metaphoric tribute to and an activist reaction to the glorification of gore...as in the double entendre of "blowing it up"

it begins to step beyond the Mondo genre motif into something large

I can't help but reflect on the image of the Talking Stick and Circle and how it creates
the image, for me, of a clock where human spirits form the place setting--where numbers
might otherwise be--and giving a certain unspoken rhythm (an illusion of time passing?) to the voices and spiritual content eminating from the circle

a resounding and beautiful finish...i hesitate at blithely filching tho...w/c

This is good.

Francis, it looks like that is as far as the connection goes.

The genetic fingerprint of the attack-strain matched up with 8 different samples which were in the custody of the US Government (not just the Ivins sample) and those 8 samples are located in more than one government location (not just Ft Detrick) AND more than 100 people had access to the samples which match the attack strain. That is Mukasey's DNA evidence: 8 samples, at least 2 locations, 100 plus custodians.

The rest of the evidence against Ivins is purely circumstantial which the media has been touting as if it were eyewitness testimony as AG Mukasey attempts to try his circumstantial case in the press through a series of controlled leaks. Even this controlled presentation has revealed gaping holes. The priority for the Justice Dept. is to close this case and Ivins provides a golden opportunity to do just that. This has been the most expensive investigation in US history and has exposed highly classified bio-weapons programs at Ft. Detrick, Dugaway Utah, and at least on other facility.

It is very fortunate for Mukasey and the FBI that Ivins had succumbbed to the pressure of the investigation. For Hatfill too, the pressure was intolerable--and the taxpayers of America had to pick-up the tab for the FBI mishandling of the case, both in costs of the investigation AND the cost of compensating Hatfield ($5 million) for the abuse he endured.

If the case against Ivins had gone to trial AND there is NO guarantee that it would have. The DOJ had not even received an indictment against Ivins. It would be interesting to see what evidence was presented to the Grand Jury as the FBI even today seems to be 'putting together' a case. The media however has found Ivins guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

To me, the media seems strangely incurious about this matter (Domestic terrorism against political targets with the machinery of the government supplying the material for terror--seems like a hot topic to me--but maybe turtles on wheels sells advertising slots to the Petro-chemical industries). There is very little mention of the exculpatory evidence against Ivins in the press. Evidence that the government would have been required to provide to Defense Counsel.

Do you think Defense Counsel would pursued the fact that the strain matches 7 other samples?

Do you think Defense Counsel would have vigorously pursued the location of the other government facility that had custody of anthrax that matched the genetic fingerprint of the attack samples?

Do you think Defense Counsel would have vigorously pursued the names and backgrounds of the 100 plus people who had access to the 8 matching sample in the custody of U.S. government authorities?

Do you think Defense Counsel would have vigorously pursued the methods used to narrow the search from more than 100 plus with access to just Ivins (the now dead suspect)? With Ivins dead, there is not need to worry that those 100 plus other government works and the programs that they worked on would be exposed during the discovery and trial of Bruce Ivins. His death is Golden. No, trial of Ivins...no trial of ANY suspect that might bring attention to these other programs and facilities.

Do you think the multi-million dollar bribes offered by Justice Department Officials to the children of Bruce Ivins for their testimony against their father would have been relevant to a jury? If Mukasey's agents thought the children had relevant information, couldn't Mukasey's attorneys just subpoena them?

Would the fact that Bruce Ivins passed two lie detector tests with flying colors be relevant? And this is a man, who the government submits, is a nervous wreck who suffers from psychopathology. Yet, lie detectors are no problemo.

Given all of these circumstances, other factors must be used to isolate Bruce Ivins as the perpetrator among 100+ potential suspects with access to the murder weapon:

a. access and opportunity to scene of the crime;
b. motive

Consider carefully the evidence that ties Ivins to the mailbox in NJ. Do you really buy that his fascination with sorority chicks places him at that mailbox?

Next, the problem of finding a motive, which would distinguish Ivins from the other 100+ government workers with access to the 8 matching samples, seems like a (if not THE) salient fact.

As we all know, the motive ought to be tied to the specific targets. Have the media sources that you have reviewed given ANY focus to the targets of the anthrax attacks and what distinguishes those targets from all the other potential targets given the theory posited by AG Mukasey?

So two components to motive really: a. what about Ivins background would indicate that he is motivated to do such a thing; b. what is it abou the targets that Ivins would be interested in. A. Ivins was a dedicated scientists working on anthrax vaccines; B. the targets were senators in leadership positions and members of the media (one network anchor, the other a tabloid photographer).

Have you heard the motives posited by AG Mukasey?

1. Bruce Ivins was looking to make a buck. Under this theory: scaring the right people would guarantee that the government would invest in HIS anthrax vaccine. That theory has all but fallen apart--Ivins was not in a position to redeem much of anything financially and there is nothing to suggest in his history that financial motivations were a priority to him. And even if the financial angle had solid merit (which it doesn't), why choose the particular targets in the Senate and in the media (a tabloid)?

2. Ivins was a Christofascist looking for revenge/or something against pro-choice advocates. Based on what evidence, you might ask? Have a look for yourself at the Greenvale connection and you would think that Christian Fundamentalist would be up in arms that subscription to a Christian Magazine would be enough to make one a suspect in a domestic terrorism case.

Again, there is very little curiosity in most media sources regarding these alleged motives which might narrow the search from more than 100 to just the dead guy. Maybe, Mukasey will put together and release new information prior to the hearings.

But even Republicans are sceptical about the case. Senator Grassley has made clear that the investigators needs to come clean. We shall see how responsive AG Mukasey will be to public hearings in this matter.

Just keep this in mind: with respect to the credibility of ANY evidence offered by the DoJ/FBI (but especially evidence that is HIGHLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL--Greenvale, Sororities, Group Dependency therapists who) shouldn't all of the evidence be received with an eye toward what happened to Stephen Hatfill.

Hatfill was abused by both the DoJ, FBI, and the Media. When reviewing the so-called evidence leaked to the media again Bruce Ivins, remember how these entities treated their other suspect. Don't expect the Media, in this environment, to process the information for you. Most of the journalists are satisfied to mindlessly regugitate Dept. of Justice talking points. That's what got them all in trouble with Hatfill--that's a fact.

this article and many of the comments are greats...thanks dale et al.

sometimes it is the acceptance of the ascent that provides the lucidity that genuine freedom so desperately clings to...something about the truth setting you free.

this resonates with a ring quite distinct from the 'Have fun!' piece,
but then exchanging a heartfelt 'adieu' has a distinct impact on me,
the rest of the poem sets up that last word well.

rebellion and acceptance -- all in the same stroke

there are many interesting ways that the television media and puditry play a role in the political perceptions that Lakoff identifies

I can't help but to think that we never left the bookstore -- that this piece symbolizes the existence of bibliophiles -- for whom textualism and life meet. And the question is whether life goes on outside of the books written by the 'dead' who have exemplified their life through text which never ceases. Or so hopes the bibliophile -- who is either murdered by the authors they idolize or murder others with their living text -- even after death.

Thus, this piece brings to my mind three Pauls.

1. Paul Klee - who is responsible for a quote (which escapes me) and I will horribly paraphrase it as an argument that 'death' is the one word that limits the bounds of deconstruction and textualism. But, again, the phrasing escapes me so I could be completely wrong about his meaning.

2. Paul Auster - who wrote a book, In the Country of Last Things, which also tips the classification of the dead and the living on its head (to an extent) and thus his book fittingly begins with this quote from Nathaniel Hawthorne: "Not a great while ago, passing through the gate of dreams, I visited the region of the earth in which lies the famous City of Destruction."

3. Paul (the Apostle) in 1 Corinthians 15:55 asks, "O death where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory."

The sting, apparently, exists only in logic and memory -- if my reading is fair. If I remember properly, upon tiring of 'esoteric stuff' our narrator is struck with an insight, namely, that there may be no difference between the living and dead world.

To prove this, the narrator conjures a mathematical argument in the form of an indirect proof -- reductio. First the narrator assumes that the living and dead world are equal. But reaches the absurd result that neither exists. Since the original assumption (that the living world is equivalent/equal to the dead world) is absurd, then the narrator concludes that only one world really exists. Fair enough....but then...

The narrator shockingly supposes that we can call it either the living or the dead world. It being 'the one.' Only that's not the implication of the proof -- the proof concludes only that the living and the dead world can not be 'equivalent' -- it does not resolve which is real. The proof does imply that there is a 'real' difference.

Death matters, since X = -X is absurd, the passing from one state (life) to the other (clear) equates to a substantive change nothingwithstanding the narrators experience with the newspaper stand, the CD stall (where artists continue to create within the world of the dead -- making the 'lively' creation on continuum with their eerrrr 'deadly' ones), and the books.

Once we exist the book store, death has a way of being brutally logical -- thus, make the act of creation something to relish...right now.

interesting...i may try this...i have a recipe that results in cake layers that are either soggy or foamy -- this may be a more pleasant alternative