Grand Men . . .

R.I.P Murray Bookchin, 1921-2006.

I read some of his history of the Spanish Anarchists while i was living in Barcelona in 1998. I think i'll pick it up again to toast his memory tonight.

The toxic load really got me down at work this week. After involuntarily sleeping for 14 hours, i took a day off to get diagnosed with prepatellar bursitis and watch Leonard Bernstein's first "Unanswered Question" lecture. That, along with Ibuprofen, made me feel a little better.

In a particularly serendipitous turn of events, i finally got around to sending Noam Chomsky a copy of my book (of poems about him and Jack Spicer) a few weeks ago. His thank-you note arrived on Saturday afternoon, moments before i had to head out the door to work. I had been in a pretty foul mood - having missed a booklaunch, a concert, and a tea party in the preceding 12 hours due to my stress-induced coma, but somehow a few words of thanks from Chomper seemed to outweigh all the bad stuff. I climbed on the bus feeling safe and protected in a happy little golden bubble of satisfaction. Remarkably, no one threw an egg at me.

Today my dad shared a great quote with me: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other [person]'s nose begins." It is attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. I like it as a concise corrective to one of my perennial pet peeves: infantile libertarianism. Yes, Dorothy, there are other people to consider.

It's a little frustrating (to an obsessive citation-monger like me) that - like Freud's famous remark on the Irish - there is no identifiable source for Holmes' gem. However, i'm working to develop appreciation for the uses of such phrases, independent of their dubious authenticity. I can usually resolve the whole wrestling match in my mind by invoking that great scene from Smoke Signals, where Thomas is asked "What do you want, truth or lies?" and he replies "I want both." I found this interesting article on the film today, which reminded me of Ward Churchill's piece from several years ago.

Speaking of Churchill (and footnotes), is anyone else out there feeling the same mix of emotions about the conclusions drawn by the Boulder research misconduct inquiry? What i mean is: i'm deeply troubled by the prospect of specious, cynical dismissals of all of Churchill's work on the basis of its purported flaws, and by the highly suspicious timing of the investigation itself. Ward insists, in his response to the committee, that no serious scholar's work "could withstand the type of scrutiny to which [his] has been subjected".

I'm inclined to believe him, and it seems likely that he is currently facing termination because of the backlash against his statement about September 11th. However (especially after my recent experience as a juror), i couldn't help empathizing with the committee members during their press conference. I've been ambivalent about some of his ideas for a long time, but i have insisted and will continue to insist that - like the authors of The Rebel Sell, elsewhere on the left - Churchill asks difficult and very important questions that deserve to be taken seriously (whether or not "we" like their implications, and certainly whether or not he has always footnoted scrupulously - which is argumentum ad hominem). Simply put, we ought to honour his call for all lefties to operate "on a basis of mutual respect" - which i think might best be accomplished by embracing what has come to be called "diversity of tactics" rather than interminable and self-defeating factionalism (the absurdities of which were hilariously demonstrated in the second half of my favorite scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian - the first half can, i think, be read as both feminist and pro-trans, but i tend to read generously).

Okay, i've got a hike to Berg Lake (and subsequent trip to Worsley, AB) to prepare for.