Alphabet City: Susie Ibarra (drums) with Jesse Smith (violin) and Bridgett Kibbey (harp).
The winner of the 2018 Hay(na)ku Poetry Book Prize has been announced: Reporting Live from You Know Where, by Sheila Murphy. I’m honored to have been one of the judges, and enjoyed reading the submissions. For more information, see: https://eileenrtabios.com/haynaku/haynaku-a-poetry-book-opportunity/
The previous issue of Local Nomad dealt with “Truth or Consequences.” We will next address another weighty subject, Falutinism (both High and Low), in our upcoming all-art issue (well, mostly all art; we will also accept reviews, and a limited number of poems that address specific works of Falutinist art). The Call for Submissions has not been posted yet, but I offer a pdf (click on link, then click on image to enlarge) of M. A. Fink’s essay “An Historical Summary of Falutinism” as a preview and excellent overview of this challenging, conflicted, yet undoubtedly important art movement.
Happy to announce that I have a publisher–Black Radish Books–for my poetry manuscript: Corporeal. It’ll be awhile yet, but nice to know the poems will receive some degree of…corporeality, in the form of print!
The Summer 2017 issue has been delayed, as we have had to deal with a couple glitches with the magazine plugin. Hopefully only a day or two more. I am uploading poems this evening.
Hmm, have been receiving spammy–or perhaps I should say viral– messages in email saying I’m locked out of this site. Obviously, I’m not.
Brilliant essay by Bret Stephens in Time on our willingness to discard objectivity and principles once considered sacred (and how we can overcome that tendency), from the full text of his remarks for the Daniel Pearl memorial lecture, UCLA. And after you finish reading this, take a look at Local Nomad’s latest call for submissions.
We are not a nation of logicians.
I think it’s important not to dismiss the president’s reply [to a question from Bill O’Reilly about the validity of a claim by Trump] simply as dumb. We ought to assume that it’s darkly brilliant — if not in intention than certainly in effect. The president is responding to a claim of fact not by denying the fact, but by denying the claim that facts are supposed to have on an argument.
He isn’t telling O’Reilly that he’s got his facts wrong. He’s saying that, as far as he is concerned, facts, as most people understand the term, don’t matter: That they are indistinguishable from, and interchangeable with, opinion; and that statements of fact needn’t have any purchase against a man who is either sufficiently powerful to ignore them or sufficiently shameless to deny them — or, in his case, both.
If some of you in this room are students of political philosophy, you know where this argument originates. This is a version of Thrasymachus’s argument in Plato’s Republic that justice is the advantage of the stronger and that injustice “if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice.” Read more HERE.