Wednesday, 10 September 2014

The Yankee Whaler by Clifford Ashley

One of the best, most colorful and definitive studies of whaling ever revealed. Describes whaling trade, rigging, gear and handicrafts; construction and equipping of ships, with fascinating details and anecdotes regarding whales and whaling waters, whaling men, ways of attack, crafts and routines, much more. 

Clifford Ashley visited ocean on an American whaler at a time once he felt that whaling would presently finish as a viable business. He was right in fact, his trip was one in all the last and that we area unit lucky these days that somebody had the foresight to preserve this data for the history books. The $64000 business of whaling was for the oil taken from the whales blubber. The recently introduced follow of pumping oil from underground quickly created whaling a pricey various rather than the prime supply. This is often the author's 1st hand account of whaling men and ways within the early 1900's. 

This book is stuffed with design that was done by somebody WHO was actually there. the complete method from the hunt to delivering barrels of finished oil is roofed. A lexicon of whaling terms is enclosed. You’ll be able to virtually hear the timbers creaking as you endure a many year enterprise! I simply would like all the paintings wherever in color!

Buy this must read book at Amazon.

Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Michelle Malkin Stupid

Michael Bérubé ain't real fucking happy about the way he got done in Horowitz’s book, and proposes another point of plagiarism to go with Mr. Charley Arthur’s earlier breakdown.

By far the niftiest thing about Horowitz's horseshit is watching a full 100 professors getting a minor taste of what happened here in Colorado.

Hell, one might get the impression that the Ward Churchill witchhunt wasn't nothing more than the opening volley in a fullscale war on academic free speech.
Y'know, just like Churchill told us it was.

Last but not least, the “book” is apparently just a bunch of reprints of David’s “Discover the Networks” pages. You probably remember what mine looks like. It’s pretty feeble stuff, really. Here’s how it works. I write something like this, from an old essay on postmodernism: 

There really are some remarkably salient differences between the prewar and the postwar world, between the financial crash of ‘29 and the computer crash of ‘87, the phonograph and the Internet. Though some critics prefer 1945 and some prefer 1973 as postmodernism’s Year One, there seems to be a fitful consensus that something like postmodernity does indeed exist—and that it involves the incomplete, deeply contested globalization and digitalization of capitalism. 

Postmodernism, in this sense, is based on an electronic global economy and what David Harvey, the geographer and cultural critic, famously calls “the regime of flexible accumulation”—by which he means a world in which part-time labor, adjunct professors, and just-in-time production lines supersede the Fordist logic of modernism, in which laborers were assured wages high enough to allow them to buy the products they made. The important question for cultural critics, then, is also an old question—how to correlate developments in culture and the arts with large-scale economic transformations.

And David summarizes it like so:
Believes in teaching literature so as to bring about “economic transformations."
At least he’s succinct! Or I write something like this, opening a review essay in the journal American Literary History: 

Four new books on the state of the academy, and not one of them elaborates a line of argument that bisects any of the others. One gets the eerie feeling that this kind of intellectual noncoincidence is no coincidence, that one could review 20 new books on the state of the academy (if one could take the necessary time away from one’s “normal” academic work) and discover the same result: the contemporary university is so amorphous that it can be described as the research wing of the corporate economy, the final resting place of the New Left, the last best hope for critical thinking, the engine room of global technological advance, the agent of secularization and the advance of reason, the training ground for the labor force, the conservatives’ strongest bastion of antifeminist education, the progressives’ only bulwark against the New Right, the natural home of intellectual isolates, the natural home of goosestepping groupthinkers, and the locus of postmodern skepticism and fragmentation. Perhaps Clark Kerr, whose influence on David Damrosch and Bill Readings seems to me one of the few common threads in the books under review, put it best when he remarked, in a phrase as felicitous as it is cynical: “I have sometimes thought of [the university] as a series of individual faculty entrepreneurs held together by a common grievance over parking.”

And David summarizes it like so:
In a 1998 essay called “The Abuses of the University,” Professor Berube described the university as “the final resting place of the New Left,” and the “progressives’ only bulwark against the New Right.” Critics of this definition—in particular those who failed to regard “feminist or queer theory as a legitimate area of scholarship”—were only perpetuating “ignorance and injustice,” he wrote.

Now, I could dilate endlessly on the random-access technique by which Horowitz cut and pasted those last two phrases into his account of me (they occur near the end of the essay, and have nothing to do with each other), but I think you get the point by now. Horowitz can be a fairly clever guy when he wants to be, but here he’s not even trying. This is genuinely stupid stuff. I mean, Michelle Malkin quality stupid. Personally, I’m disappointed.


Look Through My Eyes

Look through My Eyes is a song by English singer Phil Collins from the Brother Bear film soundtrack. It was recorded by Ever life for the Brother Bear soundtrack and the Disney mania 4 albums.

Friday, 3 August 2012


A trywork, located aft of the fore-mast, is the most distinguishing feature of a whaling ship.
In two cast-iron trypots set into this furnace of brick, iron and wood, whale oil was rendered from the blubber of whales, much as grease is rendered from frying bacon. The furnace is temporarily affixed to the deck by "iron knees", and a reservoir of water under the bricks keeps the heat from burning the wood of the deck.

In the 18th- and 19th-century New England whaling industry, the use of try-works (two large try pots in a brick furnace) to use on a whaling ship allowed them to stay at sea longer and boil out their oil. The slices of blubber were kept as thin as possible for the process, and on New England whaling ships, these slices were called "bible leaves" by the sailors.

Try-works being used at sea on board a ship was the major technological innovation that enabled the success of the Yankee whaling industry.

Friday, 18 November 2005

Brennan Files Update

As there are only a finite number of these Charlie Brennan emails, we’re gonna slow down on posting them. Besides being the disdainful pox-ridden debauchee you know us as, we are a firm believer in the sucker-punch. We don’t want Brennan to know when one of these motherfuckers is gonna drop. We just want to ensure he’s checking in daily, a sick gutshot feeling washing over him as he wonders what new facet of his Jim Bakker side is about to be exposed.

There will be more, we promise. And as soon as we can pry ourselves away from the fourteen-year-olds and the wine, we will update our sidebar with links to those already posted so you may reread them at your leisure.

God bless you, Mr. Brennan, for all you’ve given us.

Wednesday, 16 November 2005

It’s Like Watching A Car Crash In Very Slow Motion

Jim Paine has penned us another non-reply.

If your reader hasn't found an instance where Williams, Deloria or Laduke cited Churchill, he hasn't looked hard enough.

You can probably guess what our response email said, but just in case . . .

Hello Mr. Paine,


For someone who prides himself on being a straight-shooter, m’man, you’re gonna break your own neck trying to screw out from under the question.

You stated, and I quote, “[t]he work of Vine Deloria, of Bruce Johansen, of Winona LaDuke, of Robert A. Williams, Jr. - activists all, Churchill supporters all - the work of all of these is hopelessly intertwined and interdependent, each providing rationale for the others' theses . . . Churchill cites Deloria, who cites Johansen, who cites Williams.”

What books, what page numbers? You’ve smeared the reputations of several scholars and questioned the validity of an entire academic department based on the above argument. Now that the Associated Press is running your dog-and-pony show along with our own yokels, we’d like to know where your evidence is. It’s not a trick question, it’s not a tough question. If you can’t answer it, cowboy up, make your apologies, and take the essay down.

Otherwise, you’ve got about as much right attacking Churchill’s credibility as the Marquis De Sade has preaching abstinence. And we shall continue to call you on it.


* We just realized the Marquis de Sade thing doesn't really work as he was forcibly abstinent most of his life, being imprisoned. Shit

Our Edward R. Murrow To Jim Paine’s Joseph McCarthy

We emailed our new hero, Professor Bruce Johansen, and asked him if he had anything he'd like to say straight to the horse's ass himself, now that he's been the subject of one of Jim Paine's slimings. He was kind enough break down Mr. Paine's tactics for us, and to give the three members left on the committee some advice.

It's actually quite heartening.

It's good to see that the Caplis/Silvertman/Paine axis is not doing everyone's thinking out there. I have, after all, done OK during almost 24 years in a very "red" state. I have made some good friends during these events our your way.

Since I'm now a private citizen again, and I have the right to express my opinions (hello there, Caplis/Silverman/Paine Axis!) here's my two bits, for what it's worth.

1. My reading of the chatter on is that they're now going after the other three "stooges," and that they may want the emails to link you three to Rob and myself. I see on the website that Paine is attacking you for such outrages as being interviewed on NPR, and for Radelet's public opposition to the death penalty. On Margorie, he can't find anything, but he pledges to keep looking. I can only imagine the file he could have built on me now that association with Churchill is not the only firing offense in his eyes. I am, after all, writing in "Z" Magazine this month and The Progressive next month as a confirmed global warmist. Think of the guilt by association Paine could have whipped up with stuff like that. Google me and this McCarthy clone could keep his mill running for years. I think they want to force the university to appoint a commitee to their liking.

2. At some point, Caplis/Silverman/Paine could get so extreme that their tactics will backfire. Last Friday evening my wife and I celebrated our 17th anniversary with a movie: "Good Night, Good Luck," Edward R. Murrow vs. McCarthy. We found this movie very germane to the last few weeks in Colorado. Of course, Senator McCarthy eventually became so extreme that he became a caricature of himself. Even the U.S. Army turned on him. Caplis/Silverman/Paine, having "gotten" Williams and myself, may now drown in their own excess going after the rest of you. Someday, Paine may ring his little bell and the media dogs may not show up. I was interviewed by several people at every major newspaper on the Front Range, and I sensed that his game is getting a little stale. The C/S/P axis may marginalize itself.

3. Ironically, the longer the right wing obstructs, the longer the investigation takes, and the more time Ward Churchill stays on the job. Maybe they will obstruct it to his retirement age.

Just the observations of a private citizen who didn't at all appreciate this exercise in McCarthyist rhetorical excess. Paine may think I am stooge, but I'm no dummy.