Posted on

The take away to the give again

If As nations decide to abandon disaster planning in favor of necessary shodding for war and its maths, a kind inverse calculus comes readable. As previously stipulated, climate change will not stop and governments preparing for war will be even less inclined to worry about floods, droughts, rising seas and disappearing shellfish. It should also be noted that military planners have long-prioritized strategies to ameliorate the effects of climate change on their ability to fight wars – actually not that different from other, widely more useful abilities.

So as Europe spends more on defense, the work they have already accomplished on de-carbonizing their economies becomes even more important, perhaps prominent and easier to understand. Not intended as investment advice or a silver lining, just another way to look at a dreadful and unnecessary shift in priorities. What was already required becomes even more so, maybe even venturing into a dual-use sort of armament, in terms we can understand. Again not, ideal.

And on the subject of less-than-ideal dualities, is destroying a country’s economy ALSO a way to file down its worst tendencies toward planetary harm? You didn’t mean it that way, but the results could point the same way – plus you’re doing it anyway. Just trying to give you credit for being so great and all.

The great environment Preznit.

Now, what makes us reluctant about forced reckonings is people will suffer consequences for no fault of their own. And in this case that is a little of all of us, as clearly always has been. Which is why we are committed to certain values and believe they are worth fighting for rather than simply picking winners. If what is going on right now with all the greatness making works out perfectly, the result will be an authoritarian wasteland of Hobbesian misery – poor, starving, wretched.

There is no possible upside to playing nice.

Posted on

Shades of Violet

image003
The Green Blouse, 1919, Pierre Bonnard
“Vermillion in the orange shadows, on a cold, fine day,” Pierre Bonnard wrote in a sketchbook on one of his daily walks near his home, at Le Cannet, north of Cannes. Born in 1867 in a suburb of Paris, he settled in the South of France in 1926 with his reclusive wife, Marthe, remaining until his death in 1947. Such atmospheric observations infused the paintings that dominated the artist’s last three decades: window-framed landscapes and radiant domestic scenes depicting his wife going about her day. “The late interiors give you an understanding of how truly modernist he was,” says Dita Amory, a curator with theMetropolitan Museum of Art in New York, who has organized the first exhibition devoted to these works, opening January 27. “Shadow is never gray or black. It’s violet or purple.”

Bonnard made his mark early as part of the Nabis (“prophets” in Hebrew), the self-named group, including Maurice Denis, Édouard Vuillard and Paul Sérusier, that met at the Académie Julian, in Paris, in the late 1880s and experimented with suppressing perspective by using decorative pattern and flat areas of color. In the first decade of the 20th century, Bonnard struck out on his own. Dividing his time between the city and the country, he painted active street scenes in Paris and worked with professional models. By 1912 — when he bought a small house in Vernonnet, near Giverny, and his life with Marthe became more secluded — he had forged a distinctive technique, using oppositional hues that vibrated across his spatial fields.