Need a new breakfast joint

Hello out there!

THE ADVENTURES OF MONTREALMAN

During the period when he was not able to post Montrealman kept busy and encountered adventures far from home. In New York, actually. He had previously scoped out the magazine “City Journal” (city_journal.org) on occasion but this time saw it had a comment section.

City Journal is right-wing conservative – it’s the mouthpiece of the Manhattan Institute – and definitely pro-Jewish. Nothing wrong with the latter, of course, but the former was problematic, particularly in the field of education where many wanted to abolish teacher unions in California which they demonized as the source of all evil.

Several articles atracted Montrealman’s attention and he proceeded to engage their substance as well as other commenters in vigorous debate. The articles are changed periodically but two are still up: Sol Stern’s “Hannah Arendt and The Origins of Israelophobia” is a slanderous attack on Arendt which might seem suprising since she was Jewish but there are those – Sol Stern is one – who will tolerate no criticism of Israel. I just wanted to point out, by direct quotation, the nature of the slander.

The comments on Marcus A. Winter’s “How’s My Teaching?” drew the redneck element who wanted to ban teacher unions which they claimed merely protected “truly bad teachers.” One individual even Googled “Montrealman” back to The Coast, claimed that I was a career troll (where have I heard that before?) and pompously declared that our correspondence was at an end. Gratifyingly, his post, together with a response from me, were both deleted from the thread.

To make a long story short I was – get this! – kicked off the site! Shades of The Coast! I couldn’t post (you’ll note that “How’s My Teaching?” has been “closed” while my further posts on Hannah were simply rejected out of hand). As I say, anyone interested can check them out. It was, however,just another chapter in the saga of …. Montrealman!

RSVPs

: Ivan (Feb. 8, 7:55AM) – I wouldn’t have banned them either. I’ve always enjoyed Seb’s sardonic take on things as well as Donairious’ diatribes against homosexuals which I interpreted as being more humourous than vicious.

: Xenophilia (9:55PM)

“Are you saying that you do not use a keyboard for your comments? Tant pis you missed the dragon bitch.”

Another mysterious post from Xeno. Yes, dear, I use the keyboard – is there any other way? Hand gestures, maybe? And who is the dragon bitch? Not you by any chance? No, I’m sure not. Anyway, my comment in respect to your magnificent labia still stands!

: Dear Robin (8:43PM) – You were banned as well, Dear Robin? Can’t beieve it. But you raise an interesting point: What does it take to be banned from commenting on Bitch? (Any chance of banning Hugo? Just a joke! A joke, I say!)

While were bitching, does anyone else have a problem with the speed of Bitch? I usually put it on the full screen and then go check out other sites on half-screen while Bitch warms up. Eventually, yes eventually, it does and so I return, like a faithful puppy, to Bitch.

Sorry for the length.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Ivan (Feb. 8, 10:27AM)

Why thank you Ivan. I initially thought that your reference to “The Never Ending Story” was a reference to my post “The Adventure of Montrealman” but the light gradually dawned. Also, “Manchild in the Promised Land” was a puzzle. Was the reference (“Manchild”, not “The Promised Land”) to me and, if so, could you clarify?

: Avasto (10:27AM)

“How long does it typically take for the bitch page to load on your computer, Montrealman?”

The bitch page itself loads quite quickly but it is frozen – i.e., I cannot scroll down through the bitches and comments for about 10-15 minutes. I take it that is what you mean by “loading.” For example in the present case, in my usual fashion, after getting the Bitch page loaded I surfed over to “The Spectator Magazine” – one of my favourites – while waiting and then, in about 10 minutes, returned to Bitch and here I am. Your speed would leave me breathless.

Another point: On the present comment thread I see that there are 41 posts while on the main Bitch page there are 43. That was the case before I started the RSVPs so I cannot be cutting them off.

: Xenophilia (11:28AM)

Yes, well it would load fast for you, wouldn’t it. You’re such a charmer and I love you dearly, but you already know that. And a Kindle! What can you get on a Kindle that you can’t get on your laptop? Or am I being stupid to ask? Instruct me Xeno, instruct me! I am putty in your hands. I can’t get you – or a part of you – out of my mind!

: bird (2:38PM)

Thanks for the e-mail and your efforts on my behalf. Fingers crossed and hope the technicians will sort it all out soon. Now, let’s see if this posts.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Xenophilia (Feb. 8, 8:16PM)

Yes, Xeno, I certainly would have emptied my “cache” if I had the faintest idea of what it was (or is). Your suggestion about papyrus is looking better every day. (Your references to kindle, an i-pad, and macbook pro, as you might have guessed, fell on uncomprehending ears – I guess that should read deaf ears and an uncomprehending mind. In any case, do you use any of these gadgets to store your collection of erotica and, if you do, would you mind sharing? Photos of your magnificent labia would be particularly welcome.)

I think your reference to the “City Journal” authors as “pinheads” might be a bit rash if, by “pinheads” you mean those devoid of any thought content whatsoever. Names like Theodore Darymple, Kay Hymowitz come immediately to mind and they are certainly not pinheads. Neither, for that matter, is Sol Stern, the author of the piece on Hannah Arendt.

I came to Arendt by way of her philosophy, particularly her classic, “The Human Condition,” which Stern, in his zeal to smear Hannah, did not even mention. However, I had just finished reading Daniel Meyer-Katkin’s “Strangers from Abroad,” a sympathetic biography of Hannah and the German existentialist Martin Heidegger. Unlike Stern, Hannah was not a Zionist in the sense that she wanted the creation of a state of Israel which she thought, as the result of the suppression of the Palestinians, would ironically recapitulate the Nazi oppression of the Jews. She wanted a “homeland” in which the Jews and Palestinians would live in harmony. For hard-line Zionists like Stern this was just eye-poppingly naive.

A large part of Stern’s venom was reserved for Hannah’s affair with Martin Heidegger who, during the Nazi period, became President of the University of Frieberg. She was his student and eventually his mistress although he remained married to his wife. For Stern this was proof positive of her apostasy from the Jewish faith. However, Hannah separated the man (or philosopher) from his misguided membership in the Nazi Party – mistakenly, he hoped to “correct” it from within. Nothing of this appears in Stern’s account.

I recently read, or more accurately, tried to read Heidegger, particularly his “What is Called Thinking?” Heidegger claimed that modern man has never actually engaged in thinking but, puzzlingly, thinking for Heidegger did not mean thinking about anything in particular, just thinking. Yes, just thinking. Man is called to think by “Being” but what he does after he has been called is not, to me at least, clear. I’m not sure if Heidegger was clear about it either, but Hannah was very impressed.

Anyway, Xeno, don’t forget those photos from your collection of erotica.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Dear Robyn (Feb. 9, 7:44PM)

Yes, Dear Robyn, my computer is now working very well. Your post popped up after my post appeared so I want you to know I wasn’t ignoring you. This morning “Bitch” came up very smoothly without any frozen screen so I was able to go directly to “Breakfast Joint” without “further ado” as they used to say somewhere. And thanks once again for your “work around,” an expresion I had never heard before.

I have been reflecting on “Breakfast Joint” – I really have – and I think the philosophical angle might be that of “change,” a concept central, of course, to those two pre-Socratic giants, Heraclitus and Parmenides. Heraclitus maintained that everything changes, one way or the other. He proclaimed, “You cannot step twice into the same river since new waters are ever flowing in upon you.” So the poster, “Meals,” might be said to be witnessing Heraclitean change in action.

Parmenides, on the other hand, maintained that nothing changes, at least fundamentally. While superficially things might assumne different forms, at base no new substance has been added to the world. So the Breakfast Joint was not changing in any fundamental way, just assuming a new form but its substance would persevere. My advice to “Meals” and his partner, as a consequence, is not to look for another breakfast joint but to engage in a reflective analysis of the Heraclitean/Parmendean concept of change.

: Ivan (8:01PM) – “Garfield & Friends?”

Nothing yet from Xeno. Do you think she has read my post yet? Do you think she is in a snit? And Tommy seems unusually reticent as well. Oh well, wait and see.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!