9-11          

3/14/02 Cheryl - Malthusians at the Gate

Dear Ashton,

I hope you're enough of an independent thinker to actually read The Skeptical Environmentalist.  I bought the book last year before all the name-calling and pie slinging started and so far (I'm about 1/3 of the way into it) can't find anything so extraordinarily terrible in it.  The reaction from various environmental groups seems to be about the same as certain Christians to Harry Potter:  "I haven't read and I'm not going to read it, but I know it's evil 'cause somebody said so."

Lomborg's basic tenets are fairly straightforward:

• First, that the environment in those countries that have been putting time and $ into it are getting better as measured by objective criteria (particulate levels in the air, waste water levels in rivers, etc.)  It seems rather odd, but a certain number of environmentalist groups have taken umbrage at this.  My response (not Lomborg's) is to say that if 40 years and trillions of dollars in direct and indirect costs haven't produce any benefits at all, it's past time to dismantle the EPA and remove onerous regulations from industry and agriculture.
• Second, that in the rest of the world, poverty is the biggest threat to the environment and if the "west" is truly concerned, we will put more effort into seeing that everyone has clean water, plentiful cheap food, and a chance at the good life. And that for now we should pay less developed countries for their conservation efforts.
• Third, that there's a limited amount of money to spend on the environment and that it makes sense to at least try to objectively quantify environmental problems so as the tackle the most important ones first.  And by extension, not to spend money on dead end pursuits.
• Contrary to what you may have heard, Lomborg doesn't say that deforestation isn't happening, merely that it's happening at a much slower rate than reported, and that conservation efforts are beginning to pay off.  He also doesn't reject global warming, but he does point out that from the time of Malthus on, doomsayers  are doomed to failure if they don't take the rapid rate of technological change into account.  He also says that short term trends aren't good predictors—remember the ten year cooling period of the 70's that sparked numerous books on the coming pollution caused ice age.
• Other than that, Lomborg says that we don't have to worry about food as even the US with the lowest commodity prices in the world, isn't producing at anywhere near top levels.  And that although we should worry about population (he predicts a top population about 5 billion above everyone else) it doesn't represent a global disaster as long as we continue to adapt as well as we have.  (Of course since TSE came out, a new study shows that global birth rates had declined dramatically over the past 5 years, so the whole population problem may not exist at all.)

At any rate, you should read the book and will probably have an easier time with the graphs and other mathematical stuff than I do ... and be able to reach your own conclusions too as Lomborg gives you the data and the provenance for the data (or lack thereof in some cases.  He's found more than one occurrence of the "domestic violence and the Superbowl" fraud.)  What I find most frightening about the entire flap is that certain people who claim to be scientists have stated essentially that the environment is "too important" to worry about whether their science is good, bad, or bogus and that the simple act of questioning makes Lomborg the "enemy".  That's not science, that's religion.
Cheryl

3/14/02 Linda - the Environment

Dear Ash,

you can argue with Cheryl, but I won't.  She makes sense to me, especially when it concerns the guv'ment.
Linda

3/13/02 Linda - Rethinking the Brontes

Dear Voices,

After reading again the Meister's page on "What some women should NOT have said about Jane Austen", I stumbled across this poem by Anne Bronte:

A Word to the Elect
by Anne Bronte
1843

YOU may rejoice to think yourselves secure;
You may be grateful for the gift divine
That grace unsought, which made your black hearts pure,
And fits your earth-born souls in Heaven to shine.

But, is it sweet to look around, and view
Thousands excluded from that happiness
Which they deserved, at least, as much as you,
Their faults not greater, nor their virtues less?

And, wherefore should you love your God the more,
Because to you alone his smiles are given;
Because he chose to pass the many o'er,
And only bring the favoured few to Heaven?

And, wherefore should your hearts more grateful prove,
Because for ALL the Saviour did not die?
Is yours the God of justice and of love?
And are your bosoms warm with charity?

Say, does your heart expand to all mankind?
And, would you ever to your neighbor do
The weak, the strong, the enlightened, and the blind
As you would have your neighbor do to you?

And, when you, looking on your fellow-men,
Behold them doomed to endless misery,
How can you talk of joy and rapture then?
May God withhold such cruel joy from me!

That none deserve eternal bliss I know;
Unmerited the grace in mercy given:
But, none shall sink to everlasting woe,
That have not well deserved the wrath of Heaven.

And, oh! there lives within my heart
A hope, long nursed by me;
(And, should its cheering ray depart,
How dark my soul would be!)

That as in Adam all have died,
In Christ shall all men live;
And ever round his throne abide,
Eternal praise to give.

That even the wicked shall at last
Be fitted for the skies;
And, when their dreadful doom is past,
To life and light arise.

I ask not, how remote the day,
Nor what the sinners' woe,
Before their dross is purged away;
Enough for me, to know

That when the cup of wrath is drained,
The metal purified,
They'll cling to what they once disdained,
And live by Him that died.

The poem can be found here or here.

At the latter site it says that this poem does not appear in most of the anthologies - so I looked, and Lo! it is not in my The New Oxford Book of Christian Verse!

What blew me away is, she is saying and believing something that, only in recent years, I have come to believe.  The material point is, and it is the crux of the matter, since they (and I will include her sisters and Father - a minister, was he?) believed that tenet, WHY did they write such dreary stuff?  It has been ages since I read Jane Eyre, and of course I was not paying attention to any of the 'finer' details.  Now I must read their works with a new perspective.

All that said, how could Charlotte Bronte have said that about Jane Austen?  There is something to be looked into, and I have on hand The Life of Charlotte Bronte by Elizabeth Gaskell to do just that. Heavens to Betsy! I took a peek at the index and in that same odious letter you quote, Charlotte also said:

"If I ever do write another book, I think I will have nothing of what you call 'melodrama;' I think so, but I am not sure.  I think, too, I will endeavour to follow the counsel which shines out of Miss Austen's 'mild eyes,' 'to finish more and be more subdued;' but neither am I sure of that."

Well, well, well, The Meister said: "Just about anything, anybody, anytime: That rule is strictly enforced at this web site."  I am holding him to it!
Love from Linda

P.S.: the reason I even found the time to read the Meister's page again was because it was something to do while I was rocking the baby to sleep.  Being exposed at such an early age, he doesn't stand a chance of not liking Miss Austen.

3/13/02 Ashton - Perhaps, there is no need

Dear Linda,

You have always contributed mightily around here, but you have been especially impressive lately. Your post on the Brontes is another illustration of that - thank you.

Yes, Papa Bronte was a clergyman. I think that their ethnic origin was Irish and not French as we might have guessed. I believe that there were five Bronte sisters originally, but two died in much the same circumstances as the two sisters early in Jayne Eyre. I am not sure about any of that. There was a brother that the sisters doted upon; he was talented much like his sisters but was a stoner - a drug-addict.

I wonder if you and I interpret that excerpt from Charlotte's letter the same way? I sense that we do not. Those quotation remarks in her letter probably refer to things that her correspondent wrote to her and are not terms she would have applied to Jane Austen. If I am right, then that excerpt might read differently to you. What say you?

You mentioned Elizabeth Cleghorn Gaskill (1810-1865) as a biographer of Charlotte Bronte, and I want to conclude with a few unrelated remarks about her. First of all, I found this in The Oxford Companion to English Literature.

"... In 1857 Mrs. Gaskill produced her remarkable 'Life of Charlotte Bronte', some of the statements in which gave rise to complaint and were withdrawn. ..."

Gaskill published Wives and Daughters in 1863-4. That was produced on film recently on BBC-America. Perhaps you saw it there. I mention this for two different reasons. Firstly, the lead actress in that production is Justine Waddell, whom I tirelessly and fruitlessly promote at this web site. If you saw the production, then you are likely impressed with Ms. Waddell to the extent that you will catch her in the film Tess of the D'Urbervilles. If you do, you will see a performance that tops Ehle's Elizabeth Bennet (as you know, that is saying a lot coming from me!) Finally, I want to say that my impression from that film is that Gaskill was a Jane-Austen wanabe. At the time though, she seemed more like a Dickens or a Hardy to folks.

3/13/02 Linda - I see what you mean

Dear Ash,

But, even though the words are those of the correspondent, I have the 'sense' that she almost agrees with him.  She does seem rather uncertain about taking his advice though.  So, you probably have the proper interpretation.

My book of The Life of Charlotte Bronte is the 1970 edition which follows the original, unexpurgated first and second editions of 1857. I managed to read the Introduction by Winifred Gerin who does a lot of explaining about Mrs. Gaskell.  Gerin now has access to other letters, etc. than Gaskell did.  From that and what you write, it seems to be a very interesting life.

I did see most (missed one episode) of Wives and Daughters and it was enjoyable.  I am still trying to get my hands on the Metropolitan and Tess tapes.

I thank you for your kind words, for if time were permitting you would really see some brilliance!  hee, hee
Linda

From the Meister: Does Gerin explain about the parts of Gaskell's biography of C.B. that had to be retracted? If you ever get either of those tapes, you will get all mushy and come back here to thank me; but, that's O.K., I'm accustomed to that sort of thing.

3/14/02 Linda - Addendum: Yes, she did.

Dear Ash,

Oh. You probably want to know what parts of Gaskell's bio had to be retracted.  Here is what Gerin had to say:

"The calling in of the second edition laid the weary obligation on Mrs. Gaskell of deleting every passage relating to Lady Scott and to Branwell's connection with her. By then, other susceptibilities had been offended (the late Carus Wilson's family in particular), and a number of unfounded statements concerning various persons had to be removed."

"Lady Scott" is not Sir Walter's wife; she is some other Scott.  Humph, didn't know there was a brother 'Bronte'.  There was no listing in the index for a "Lady Scott" and there are too many pages of 'Branwell' to explore at the moment.

BTW I found the 1857 Gaskell bio on line here.

Very interesting family, especially in light of Anne's poem.
Linda

3/11/02 Breeb - Forgive my ignorance

Reference: 3/8/02

Dear MAsht,

Who is Sophie Marceau?  I admit, I don't recognize the name (I'm nothing if not humble!)  30 years ago Joan Collins might have made a passable Lady Susan.  I'm sure there is some really good British actress stomping the stage on Shaftsbury Ave. in London, or maybe in Elstree studios? who would be perfect.  Someone has to find her.  How old is Lady Susan supposed to be actually?  I get the impression she is either 39 or 40, or else she is several years older but LOOKS really young.

3/12/02 Ashton - Gasp! Bite your typing finger!

Dear Babree,

Sophie Marceau is a French film actress, modest, and a mere wisp of a girl. Here is a web site dedicated to Sophie. From there you can link to a small handful of other sites dedicated to the same subject - I estimate that there are no more than five to six hundred such sites. I noticed that all those sites have picture galleries - men are pigs!

A mere wisp of a girl

She is tolerable I suppose, but not handsome enough to tempt me

Ms. Marceau was born in Paris. This is weird - she is the same age as Embeth Davidtz, so I was wrong about that. I guess that there is a quality about the woman that made me think that she might be an ancient female spirit, or goddess, or something. She appears primarily in French films, but we do see her in our films on occasion. She played a supporting role in that wonderful, recent version of A Midsummer Night's Dream. Also, she was the villainess in the latest James Bond film, The World Is Not Enough.

Notice her mouth; we often see that in a French woman's countenance - it is the chief reason that France is so densely populated today. For example, compare Sophie's photo with this portrait of a French woman from two-hundred years ago.

I assume you know that this is a very serious web site, so that I post these things merely as a service to you - I find the rewards of reading a book to be much greater.

3/14/02 Linda - To quoth the Learned Meister

Dear Bree,

Re: Sophie - and this is a direct quote, mind you, "Men are pigs!"  Lest I be accused of 'male bashing', he said it, not I.
Linda

Links