[lit-ideas] Re: Carry on
- From: "Donal McEvoy" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "donalmcevoyuk" for DMARC)
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 07:38:55 +0000 (UTC)
On the cover is a photo of Fed chairwoman Dr. Janet Yellen (aka “Ms. Yellen”)
talking at a podium, with loads of people listening…behind her. This is
unusual in a photo and in the arrangement of how one addresses an audience.
There’s no reason, of course, in the age of amplification, why the audience
cannot be, as they say in the theater world, “in the round”>
Maybe they weren't in the round. Maybe they were all behind her. In some of
their phases, Miles Davis and Bob Dylan played with their backs to the audience
- when Dylan 'went electric' watching his back famously became part of the
theatre as he turned his back on the hostile crowd. Miles just hated most
people who came to see him. Miles would have played a didgeridoo to annoy them,
except he knew they would just think it cool and boast about being there on
that special night be did 'Blues in Green' on a construction pipe. We don't
know the relationship between Ms. Yellen and her audience but perhaps it had
soured since her appointment. Perhaps some of her press briefings, particularly
the ones about poor tie choices, had enraged them - perhaps she was enraged
when sniffles greeted her announcement she was no longer "Dr." and now just
"Ms.". Perhaps the photographer was enraged and took the shot that way as
revenge, or to try to make a name for themselves, or to get people talking
about the issue of 'speaker-audience' angles, or perhaps he or she started out
confidently "I want an image of you at the podium but where I get all the faces
in" and only later realised the options. We never know. That's history 4 ya.
DHaving a day without sense data
On Thursday, 31 March 2016, 4:41, david ritchie <profdritchie@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I had not expected to write a “carry on.” They are for times when I have time
on my hands or can at least make time to produce what those things are. At
present, I thought, I have enough to do to keep up with pee and pooh and and
“of" the Hamish. Also that thing they call work.
But today’s NYT business section caught my attention. On the cover is a photo
of Fed chairwoman Dr. Janet Yellen (aka “Ms. Yellen”) talking at a podium, with
loads of people listening…behind her. This is unusual in a photo and in the
arrangement of how one addresses an audience. There’s no reason, of course, in
the age of amplification, why the audience cannot be, as they say in the
theater world, “in the round,” but you can see in the expression of the guy
wearing the blue tie that he’s not happy with the seating arrangement. Ties
help me describe what I’m seeing. From right to left: blue tie bored guy who
doesn’t like the fact he didn’t get a “good” seat but isn’t fussing about it,
blue tie disgruntled guy who has some [possibly] different issue, woman
listening attentively, guy with a red tie who isn’t particularly interested in
what’s being said, guy with a red-ish tie who looks interested (perhaps because
he feels he *ought* to look interested), guy with a spotted tie who either
wishes wine had been served or who had enjoyed some from a hip flask, guy with
a yellow tie who is calculating how much money he has made in the past hour,
guy with a red tie who looks benign, and then you get to three women in a row
who are all going, “I am fascinated and I’m going to show it.” It’s an
interesting image. If you’ve heard the speech, the image will be richer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/economy/janet-yellen-speech-fed-interest-rates.html?_r=0
Turning the page, we come upon the headline, “Bank of England to Raise the
Capital Buffer Requirement.” You should know that I have a tendency to read
headline as I wish. Thus yesterday’s BBC headline, “Ritchie Scores for
Scotland...” well it’s hard not to take that personally. Thus, here’s me
thinking, “Surely the capital has enough buffers, a sufficiency?” Buffers
being synonymous with geezers, people who contribute, but whose contribution
is... possibly less than that of Neville Chamberlain.
I’ve been reading John Kelly, “Never Surrender: Wiston Churchill and Britain’s
Decision to Fight Nazi Germany in the Fateful Summer of 1940.” The weakness of
the book is right there in the title, a bit overblown. But there are moments.
“In every office he occupied, including prime minister, Neville Chamberlain
delighted civil servants who admired his competency, his organized, orderly
mind, and his ability to firm up the flaccid machinery of government. Among
political colleagues, he was less popular. Cross the prime minister, they
knew, and he would throw you to his minions in the press for a public savaging.
Remarkably, this dynamic figure is completely absent from the newsreels and
newspapers of the time, which gave us an image that continues to resonate this
day—Chamberlain as the undertaker on holiday: umbrella in hand, homburg on
head, face pale, back slightly bent, eyes anxiously scanning the sky for signs
of rain.”
Good, eh?
And now here on page B3 is another photo of the gathering Yellen adressed, the
Economic Club of New York. A cast of thousands seems to have assembled in a
hell on earth, a convention center dining room, vast, with circular tables too
big to allow conversation across them, circular patterns on the carpet, water,
water everywhere and never a drop to drink.
Carry on,
David Ritchie,
Portland, Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
