Monday, September 05, 2005
“Some horror is beyond words.” I wrote that sentence in this space last December 31 as the horror of the tsunami in the
But last Sunday, as we got our morning meal in the “breakfast room” of a Comfort Suite in
The Convention Center is a site that has special meaning for me – a significant portion of “Quindecagon,” part of The Alphabet, was written in a hotel directly attached to the center. And I’ve stayed there more than once when traveling to
It is not yet time to put all of this in perspective, or to assign blame for the utter collapse of the governmental infrastructure that made this catastrophe happen. We should focus right now on supporting those who have lost everything, and saving whoever remains to be saved. If you haven’t made a donation yet to the Red Cross, Oxfam or another qualified relief organization, do so now.
Later, when rescue helicopters aren’t still dropping relief workers to chop through roofs in search of survivors in the middle of a flood zone, and when we know whether or not this really is the deadliest natural disaster in American history – my mind keeps turning to the Galveston Flood of 1900, when over 8,000 people died thanks to what we would now call a category five hurricane – there will be plenty of time to assess and assign blame. Right now we are still in the middle of such an event that 200 of the 1,500 members of the
I will say one thing, though, at this early stage. The fault for this disaster doesn’t belong entirely to George W. Bush, even tho he and his thugocracy of a cabinet seem to have blundered for days before they understood that they had a problem. Nor is it entirely those of state and local officials. The levees in
Who in
In the 1970s, a very evil man by the name of Howard Jarvis started the tax revolt that has driven the political right’s economic platform from Ronald Reagan – the president who claimed that government was the problem, not the solution – to George W. In between, more than a few others, such as Bill Clinton, have found it convenient to pander to the same general forces. All governmental institutions in the
The disaster in
It’s not just the politicians here who are to blame. It’s the fearful, greedy, inner tyrant in every one of us. Every politician – and every voter – who ever voted for a tax cut has blood on their hands this week. Those who have built careers on this may have a little more, as do those who have funded them, but it’s a problem for which we all have to take responsibility. The stench of it is the smell of death rising up from southern
comments:
<< Home
Ron-
Welcome back. I have to disagree about when we should begin putting things in perspective, and I believe that the second half of your post indicates that you are on my side in action, if not in thought.
The time to start putting things in perspective is now. This can be done as we make donations, organize volunteers, and make whatever kind of prayers we find appropriate. We must, because there are plenty of people like Chertoff who are invested in proliferating language that twists the truth of this disaster. There are too many people who are interested in defining survival as "looting," and apologizing for incompetence by promising a "nice, new, rebuilt gulf coast for the modern era." If the many of us who perceive this occasion a bit more clearly don't speak now -- as we work -- the false accounts could slip into our history books...again.
-jeremy hawkins
Welcome back. I have to disagree about when we should begin putting things in perspective, and I believe that the second half of your post indicates that you are on my side in action, if not in thought.
The time to start putting things in perspective is now. This can be done as we make donations, organize volunteers, and make whatever kind of prayers we find appropriate. We must, because there are plenty of people like Chertoff who are invested in proliferating language that twists the truth of this disaster. There are too many people who are interested in defining survival as "looting," and apologizing for incompetence by promising a "nice, new, rebuilt gulf coast for the modern era." If the many of us who perceive this occasion a bit more clearly don't speak now -- as we work -- the false accounts could slip into our history books...again.
-jeremy hawkins
Ron: Your blog is an inappropriate forum on which to attempt to adequately discuss the implications and ramifications of the Gulf Coast disaster.
First of all, Katrina, and the damage wrought by her passage, is not the fault of Howard Jarvis, or the homeowners and taxpayers of California. Too suggest that Katrina is the inevitable fulfillment of a trend in the changing burden of state and local taxation, is like saying that the Saudi Royal Family is responsible for global warming. Let's tick off a number of truths, just for starters, without attemtping full documentation:
1) The California school system is beset by a number of problems and conditions, for which the citizen-taxpayers were/are not responsible. These include, for example, unequal tax residuals across counties, the shifting of the overall burden from commercial to residential properties, an unprecedented level of growth in population, especially of foreign, non-English speaking immigrants (esp. Asians, Hispanics, and Eastern Europeans), steep declines in manufacturing and blue-collar employment, urban decay accompanied by rapid suburbanization, increases in crime (esp. among the youth population), widespread corruption at all levels of state government, top-heavy school administration models designed to overpay superindentents, staff and principles at the expense of teacher interface.
2) Throughout the 1960's and early 1970's, California residential tax rates were rising faster than all other forms of taxation. The "tax revolt" of 1978 was the inevitable result of inequitable tax rates and the unbalanced distribution of state tax revenue-sharing policies. Had legislation not been passed to limit it, California homeowners in today's market would be paying ten to thirty thousand dollars a year, or more, on average, to live in a detached residential structure. Clearly, this would have led to widespread hardship.
3) 50 to 100 years ago, American public schools were run and maintained on a fraction of the resources that they now consume; and out of that regime, American children were better educated than the "graduates" of today's vast, burgeoning school bureaucracies. There is NO evidence to suggest that increasing funding to large, or small, school districts has had, or will lead to, a measurable improvement in the quality of public education.
4) Emergency preparedness in the post "9-11" period has been diverted from an emphasis on natural disaster response, to a preoccupation with homeland security (terrorism). A number of arguments have been promulgated to show that our risk from terrorist acts is greater than that from natural disasters. Funding and emergency planning resources, historically devoted to regional disaster preparedness and relief, have been drawn down throughout the country. Our current administration, driven by the desire to justify foreign military adventures, and to bolster its own self-made "war era" image, has sought to control and solidify political sentiment by focusing on terrorism as a propaganda strategy. This has worked. In addition, much of the contingent resource (such as the National Guard) has been cannibalized for military duty overseas, leaving local and regional response capability at low levels.
5) When Bill Clinton left office, there was a huge and growing surplus in the Federal Treasury; there was talk of "paying down the deficit" within the decade, and/or proposals for making surplus revenue grants to poorer state treasuries. The Bush Administration and the Republican controlled Congress set about immediately to eliminate this surplus through enormous tax breaks for the rich and the corporations, while at the same time engaging in costly foreign wars designed to enhance the position of international petroleum interests. The corporate tax rate, between 1960 and the present, fell from a high of about 28% to the current level of about 9%, resulting in an historic shift of tax burden from big business to the individual tax payer(s). Throughout the 1980's and 1990's, state treasures were not only in the best shape they'd been in decades, but were receiving unprecedented levels of income from the Federal Government. Everyone was "rolling in money," including the state school systems. As the economy spun into recession at the end of the 1990's, state treasuries across the country began to collapse. As they did, money for schools, police, services etc., became scarcer. Appeals to the Republican administration in Washington fell on deaf ears; after all, we "had a war to fight," the great, unending "war on terror"! There is no doubt that America had the resources, throughout the 1980's and 1990's, to maintain the best educational system in the world, despite wasteful and corrupt system models. And yet, during that period, despite the growth in educational budgets, California public schools continued to decline, and this was true for many large-state school systems across the country.
6) With the decay of America's Middle Class--through "globalization" of employment, enormous trade imbalances, downward pressure on wages and the decline of organized labor, and the shifting of the tax burden to working people--polarization of interest is creating a new, intense class war. Until Americans realize this, and begin to see how the politics of neo-Conservatism has co-opted our nation's wealth at the expense of every citizen with annual income below $200,000 per annum, we will continue to see an erosion in the quality of American life, including our ability to respond to unforeseen occurrences of Nature.
First of all, Katrina, and the damage wrought by her passage, is not the fault of Howard Jarvis, or the homeowners and taxpayers of California. Too suggest that Katrina is the inevitable fulfillment of a trend in the changing burden of state and local taxation, is like saying that the Saudi Royal Family is responsible for global warming. Let's tick off a number of truths, just for starters, without attemtping full documentation:
1) The California school system is beset by a number of problems and conditions, for which the citizen-taxpayers were/are not responsible. These include, for example, unequal tax residuals across counties, the shifting of the overall burden from commercial to residential properties, an unprecedented level of growth in population, especially of foreign, non-English speaking immigrants (esp. Asians, Hispanics, and Eastern Europeans), steep declines in manufacturing and blue-collar employment, urban decay accompanied by rapid suburbanization, increases in crime (esp. among the youth population), widespread corruption at all levels of state government, top-heavy school administration models designed to overpay superindentents, staff and principles at the expense of teacher interface.
2) Throughout the 1960's and early 1970's, California residential tax rates were rising faster than all other forms of taxation. The "tax revolt" of 1978 was the inevitable result of inequitable tax rates and the unbalanced distribution of state tax revenue-sharing policies. Had legislation not been passed to limit it, California homeowners in today's market would be paying ten to thirty thousand dollars a year, or more, on average, to live in a detached residential structure. Clearly, this would have led to widespread hardship.
3) 50 to 100 years ago, American public schools were run and maintained on a fraction of the resources that they now consume; and out of that regime, American children were better educated than the "graduates" of today's vast, burgeoning school bureaucracies. There is NO evidence to suggest that increasing funding to large, or small, school districts has had, or will lead to, a measurable improvement in the quality of public education.
4) Emergency preparedness in the post "9-11" period has been diverted from an emphasis on natural disaster response, to a preoccupation with homeland security (terrorism). A number of arguments have been promulgated to show that our risk from terrorist acts is greater than that from natural disasters. Funding and emergency planning resources, historically devoted to regional disaster preparedness and relief, have been drawn down throughout the country. Our current administration, driven by the desire to justify foreign military adventures, and to bolster its own self-made "war era" image, has sought to control and solidify political sentiment by focusing on terrorism as a propaganda strategy. This has worked. In addition, much of the contingent resource (such as the National Guard) has been cannibalized for military duty overseas, leaving local and regional response capability at low levels.
5) When Bill Clinton left office, there was a huge and growing surplus in the Federal Treasury; there was talk of "paying down the deficit" within the decade, and/or proposals for making surplus revenue grants to poorer state treasuries. The Bush Administration and the Republican controlled Congress set about immediately to eliminate this surplus through enormous tax breaks for the rich and the corporations, while at the same time engaging in costly foreign wars designed to enhance the position of international petroleum interests. The corporate tax rate, between 1960 and the present, fell from a high of about 28% to the current level of about 9%, resulting in an historic shift of tax burden from big business to the individual tax payer(s). Throughout the 1980's and 1990's, state treasures were not only in the best shape they'd been in decades, but were receiving unprecedented levels of income from the Federal Government. Everyone was "rolling in money," including the state school systems. As the economy spun into recession at the end of the 1990's, state treasuries across the country began to collapse. As they did, money for schools, police, services etc., became scarcer. Appeals to the Republican administration in Washington fell on deaf ears; after all, we "had a war to fight," the great, unending "war on terror"! There is no doubt that America had the resources, throughout the 1980's and 1990's, to maintain the best educational system in the world, despite wasteful and corrupt system models. And yet, during that period, despite the growth in educational budgets, California public schools continued to decline, and this was true for many large-state school systems across the country.
6) With the decay of America's Middle Class--through "globalization" of employment, enormous trade imbalances, downward pressure on wages and the decline of organized labor, and the shifting of the tax burden to working people--polarization of interest is creating a new, intense class war. Until Americans realize this, and begin to see how the politics of neo-Conservatism has co-opted our nation's wealth at the expense of every citizen with annual income below $200,000 per annum, we will continue to see an erosion in the quality of American life, including our ability to respond to unforeseen occurrences of Nature.
Ron,
How did you put that link up on your site to the Red Cross? I'm trying to put one on my page.
I need to look up Oxfam...I'm not familiar...
What about the Salvation Army? They seem to be doing good things down there too...
I live down here in Louisiana (Leesville/Fort Polk area), about 4 hours Northwest of New Orleans and so will have opportunities to assist refugees directley...churches taking them in etc..
( Fort Polk is the BIG Army Post down here, home of the JRTC: Joint Readiness Training Course; however few are mobilized out of here for hurricane relief at this point...Their mission is primarily getting folks ready for deployments to Iraq...so where is the Guard...however they are taking in a few thousand refugees at this point(...)
(...)Backchannel me if you want more info about what I am seeing and hearing down here.
How did you put that link up on your site to the Red Cross? I'm trying to put one on my page.
I need to look up Oxfam...I'm not familiar...
What about the Salvation Army? They seem to be doing good things down there too...
I live down here in Louisiana (Leesville/Fort Polk area), about 4 hours Northwest of New Orleans and so will have opportunities to assist refugees directley...churches taking them in etc..
( Fort Polk is the BIG Army Post down here, home of the JRTC: Joint Readiness Training Course; however few are mobilized out of here for hurricane relief at this point...Their mission is primarily getting folks ready for deployments to Iraq...so where is the Guard...however they are taking in a few thousand refugees at this point(...)
(...)Backchannel me if you want more info about what I am seeing and hearing down here.
Katrina - on one hand - was clearly an 'equal opportunity' employer - a geographically large swathe, consuming city,town and village including folks of diverse origins, races, etc.
In terms of Federal response - particularly in terms of New Orleans - the consequence of not responding is clearly racially defined. Poor and black, primarily. Indeed,in terms of African-Americans, what is happening in New Orleans, will - I fully suspect - is experienced, perceived and will be ultimately re-imagined as one more dramatic verson of Middle Passage. For those who need reminding of the specifics of the first version:
The "Middle Passage" was the journey of slave trading ships from the west coast of Africa, where the slaves were obtained, across the Atlantic, where they were sold or, in some cases, traded for goods such as molasses, which was used in the making of rum. However, this voyage has come to be remembered for much more than simply the transport and sale of slaves. The Middle Passage was the longest, hardest, most dangerous, and also most horrific part of the journey of the slave ships. With extremely tightly packed loads of human cargo that stank and carried both infectious disease and death, the ships would travel east to west across the Atlantic on a miserable voyage lasting at least five weeks, and sometimes as long as three months. Although incredibly profitable for both its participants and their investing backers, the terrible Middle Passage has come to represent the ultimate in human misery and suffering. The abominable and inhuman conditions which the Africans were faced with on their voyage clearly display the great evil of the slave trade... (Thank you Google!)
This version of the Middle Passage, however, is done not to arrive in New Orleans to sell slaves, but to banish them. These are people no longer valued for their labor. They are dispensable, long shut out from public view - considered a nuissance, a welfare expense, etc. I understand this is a broad generalization - one will point to those don't fit the category, cultural assets, etc. The Bush admininstration does not refine categories. I won't furhter belabor the argument
Stephen V
www.stephenvincent.durationpress.com
In terms of Federal response - particularly in terms of New Orleans - the consequence of not responding is clearly racially defined. Poor and black, primarily. Indeed,in terms of African-Americans, what is happening in New Orleans, will - I fully suspect - is experienced, perceived and will be ultimately re-imagined as one more dramatic verson of Middle Passage. For those who need reminding of the specifics of the first version:
The "Middle Passage" was the journey of slave trading ships from the west coast of Africa, where the slaves were obtained, across the Atlantic, where they were sold or, in some cases, traded for goods such as molasses, which was used in the making of rum. However, this voyage has come to be remembered for much more than simply the transport and sale of slaves. The Middle Passage was the longest, hardest, most dangerous, and also most horrific part of the journey of the slave ships. With extremely tightly packed loads of human cargo that stank and carried both infectious disease and death, the ships would travel east to west across the Atlantic on a miserable voyage lasting at least five weeks, and sometimes as long as three months. Although incredibly profitable for both its participants and their investing backers, the terrible Middle Passage has come to represent the ultimate in human misery and suffering. The abominable and inhuman conditions which the Africans were faced with on their voyage clearly display the great evil of the slave trade... (Thank you Google!)
This version of the Middle Passage, however, is done not to arrive in New Orleans to sell slaves, but to banish them. These are people no longer valued for their labor. They are dispensable, long shut out from public view - considered a nuissance, a welfare expense, etc. I understand this is a broad generalization - one will point to those don't fit the category, cultural assets, etc. The Bush admininstration does not refine categories. I won't furhter belabor the argument
Stephen V
www.stephenvincent.durationpress.com
The implication is that an accident of nature somehow brought about the racial persecution of a people. I don't buy that. The truth is that the poor--whatever their race--were driven by economic pressures, to occupy the lower areas of the city, where they lived at greater risk to flooding. No one set out deliberately to persecute anyone by putting them in harm's way--it's just an unfortunate unintended consequence of being poor. Not of being black.
The Bush Administration's response to the crisis, however, demonstrates a completely racial AND economic contempt for those poor, most of whom, as we know, were black. Everyone knows that, had those affected areas been largely populated by the urban well-to-do, with an accompanying political influence, the emergency response would have been much more swift and efficient. One can well imagine Bush discussing the matter with Rove: "Hey, Turd Blossom, what'dya figger's the fall-out from those darkies down in Nahlns? Should we call out the skeleton guard, or just let the locals handle it with row boats? Do I HAVE to leave the barbeque early, today, just to do a fly-by and a photo-op? Shit, man, can't the flunkies over at Homeland handle this stuff?"
The Bush Administration's response to the crisis, however, demonstrates a completely racial AND economic contempt for those poor, most of whom, as we know, were black. Everyone knows that, had those affected areas been largely populated by the urban well-to-do, with an accompanying political influence, the emergency response would have been much more swift and efficient. One can well imagine Bush discussing the matter with Rove: "Hey, Turd Blossom, what'dya figger's the fall-out from those darkies down in Nahlns? Should we call out the skeleton guard, or just let the locals handle it with row boats? Do I HAVE to leave the barbeque early, today, just to do a fly-by and a photo-op? Shit, man, can't the flunkies over at Homeland handle this stuff?"
"Every politician – and every voter – who ever voted for a tax cut has blood on their hands this week"
fema bureaucrats? yea.
assorted white house & state top dogs? yea.
bush? yea.
joes who want to keep a couple extra bucks in their wallets? nah.
small government does not mean bad government, which is what are witnessing down south and in washington.
fema bureaucrats? yea.
assorted white house & state top dogs? yea.
bush? yea.
joes who want to keep a couple extra bucks in their wallets? nah.
small government does not mean bad government, which is what are witnessing down south and in washington.
Arlee,
Go to: http://www.redcross.org/psa/bannerorder/all/ and follow the instructions there.
Oxfam is the charity arm of the Quakers -- good people and the best there is at accountability for $$ spent. I tend to use the Red Cross for disaster relief giving if it's in the US and Oxfam if it's international.
Go to: http://www.redcross.org/psa/bannerorder/all/ and follow the instructions there.
Oxfam is the charity arm of the Quakers -- good people and the best there is at accountability for $$ spent. I tend to use the Red Cross for disaster relief giving if it's in the US and Oxfam if it's international.
Primeau,
Small government in a wealthy society is by definition bad government. It simply means that the corporations are in control,
Ron
Small government in a wealthy society is by definition bad government. It simply means that the corporations are in control,
Ron
What is an appropriate forum? And why isn't this one?
The average Joe who wants a tax cut of course doesn't realize that he will end up paying more -- in all kinds of ways. This is an example.
So much grotesque in all of this but very grotesque the absolute disconnect of the Republicans from any sort of reality-- even that base political reality which should have led them after the fact to do what they don't want to do. They are incapable -- their priorites so basccally inhuman that they behave with a banal monstrousness that I would hope even those previously who, against their own interests, voted for them would see. But maybe there is no limit. If this is NOT a turning point, if things go on, if Democrats can't see what to do then we have reached the abyss of stupidity and venality that confirms that we deserve oblivion.
The average Joe who wants a tax cut of course doesn't realize that he will end up paying more -- in all kinds of ways. This is an example.
So much grotesque in all of this but very grotesque the absolute disconnect of the Republicans from any sort of reality-- even that base political reality which should have led them after the fact to do what they don't want to do. They are incapable -- their priorites so basccally inhuman that they behave with a banal monstrousness that I would hope even those previously who, against their own interests, voted for them would see. But maybe there is no limit. If this is NOT a turning point, if things go on, if Democrats can't see what to do then we have reached the abyss of stupidity and venality that confirms that we deserve oblivion.
To paraphrase Pound, Primeau,
Where in history would you find it?
Tax cuts and farm subsidies can co-exist, maybe, or tax cuts and (some) military spending. But, no, we have a starved infrastructure and have had for 25 years now.
Tax cuts are simply society's way of opting out of its sense of collective behavior and collective responsibility.
Where in history would you find it?
Tax cuts and farm subsidies can co-exist, maybe, or tax cuts and (some) military spending. But, no, we have a starved infrastructure and have had for 25 years now.
Tax cuts are simply society's way of opting out of its sense of collective behavior and collective responsibility.
Thanks for reminding us of other responsibilities and consequences, Ron.
I found Curtis's arguments particularly well-conceived and executed. I take issue with the comments about Prop 13, however. I lived in LA for almost 20 years, including the time of Jarvis's successful initiative. It is true that the CA legislature was letting the rapid rise in house prices (which, in the late 70's was much like today's bubble) increase tax revenues, and their response to a proposition that nobody thought had a chance initially was bungled. There is no question in my mind, however, that Prop 13, aside from its role as propaganda fodder to the right, has radically shifted power from local tax agencies to Sacramento and increased both malfeasance and inequity. It has motivated municipalities to pimp for large retail establishments over manufacturing firms, sales tax being the main source of funding now at the local level - and we all know what the wage disparity is between retail workers and manufacturing workers. Prop 13 has also caused disturbances and externalities to exactly the same "free market, capitalist" principles that the right espouses. Some counties let homeowners "transfer" their property tax exemption and some don't. A large segment of the relatively wealthy elderly don't move to smaller homes because of Prop 13 concerns. State control of much of local education and infrastructure funding centralizes the power of decisions that are often best made at the local level. There is no legitimate principle behind letting one segment of a population be grandfathered into low taxes and another (generally the newly arrived and younger workers) pay another -- particularly when the difference can be a factor of 10.
My two cents.
Thanks, as always, for your thoughts, Ron.
I found Curtis's arguments particularly well-conceived and executed. I take issue with the comments about Prop 13, however. I lived in LA for almost 20 years, including the time of Jarvis's successful initiative. It is true that the CA legislature was letting the rapid rise in house prices (which, in the late 70's was much like today's bubble) increase tax revenues, and their response to a proposition that nobody thought had a chance initially was bungled. There is no question in my mind, however, that Prop 13, aside from its role as propaganda fodder to the right, has radically shifted power from local tax agencies to Sacramento and increased both malfeasance and inequity. It has motivated municipalities to pimp for large retail establishments over manufacturing firms, sales tax being the main source of funding now at the local level - and we all know what the wage disparity is between retail workers and manufacturing workers. Prop 13 has also caused disturbances and externalities to exactly the same "free market, capitalist" principles that the right espouses. Some counties let homeowners "transfer" their property tax exemption and some don't. A large segment of the relatively wealthy elderly don't move to smaller homes because of Prop 13 concerns. State control of much of local education and infrastructure funding centralizes the power of decisions that are often best made at the local level. There is no legitimate principle behind letting one segment of a population be grandfathered into low taxes and another (generally the newly arrived and younger workers) pay another -- particularly when the difference can be a factor of 10.
My two cents.
Thanks, as always, for your thoughts, Ron.
Curtis wrote:
50 to 100 years ago, American public schools were run and maintained on a fraction of the resources that they now consume; and out of that regime, American children were better educated than the "graduates" of today's vast, burgeoning school bureaucracies.
This is bullshit. Which schools and which children are you talking about? Kids living in tenement housing or on farms or attending segregated schools? Do you have statistics for the literacy rate in 1905 or 1955? How many children were actually working in 1905 versus attending school? Were teachers unionized back then? No, they were underpaid, and sometimes had to rely on the community to subsidize them by providing food and lodging such as at the one-room school house my father attended.
Curtis wrote:
There is NO evidence to suggest that increasing funding to large, or small, school districts has had, or will lead to, a measurable improvement in the quality of public education.
I can tell you firsthand that decreasing funding to school districts leads to a decline in the quality of public education. I have witnessed it as a father of two students in the Minneapolis Public Schools (and as an employee). The increased costs for English Language Learners and Special Education costs alone have had an enormous impact on education. When my daughter started first grade five years ago, there were 21 kids in her class. When my son starts first grade tomorrow there will be 28 kids in his class. My son will still have a great teacher, but he will have less direct contact with her than my daughter had with her teacher. Less direct contact means less quality. There are numerous other examples of the detrimental changes brought by decreases in funding.
If you don't spend the money to maintain the levee, sooner or later it is going to break. It is inevitable. Same for schools.
There have been discussions here in Minnesota about how schools were better funded during the Depression -- when band instruments, uniforms, and music lessons in addition to the fundamentals were provided for students without fees -- than they are today. From my point of view, it seems that the public was more committed to fully funding public education in the 30s. Now, there are too many people who don't want to pay to educate poor kids or disabled kids or kids who don't speak English.
peace, love and understanding (never give up!)
Steve Petermeier
no man's land
minneapolis, mn
usa
50 to 100 years ago, American public schools were run and maintained on a fraction of the resources that they now consume; and out of that regime, American children were better educated than the "graduates" of today's vast, burgeoning school bureaucracies.
This is bullshit. Which schools and which children are you talking about? Kids living in tenement housing or on farms or attending segregated schools? Do you have statistics for the literacy rate in 1905 or 1955? How many children were actually working in 1905 versus attending school? Were teachers unionized back then? No, they were underpaid, and sometimes had to rely on the community to subsidize them by providing food and lodging such as at the one-room school house my father attended.
Curtis wrote:
There is NO evidence to suggest that increasing funding to large, or small, school districts has had, or will lead to, a measurable improvement in the quality of public education.
I can tell you firsthand that decreasing funding to school districts leads to a decline in the quality of public education. I have witnessed it as a father of two students in the Minneapolis Public Schools (and as an employee). The increased costs for English Language Learners and Special Education costs alone have had an enormous impact on education. When my daughter started first grade five years ago, there were 21 kids in her class. When my son starts first grade tomorrow there will be 28 kids in his class. My son will still have a great teacher, but he will have less direct contact with her than my daughter had with her teacher. Less direct contact means less quality. There are numerous other examples of the detrimental changes brought by decreases in funding.
If you don't spend the money to maintain the levee, sooner or later it is going to break. It is inevitable. Same for schools.
There have been discussions here in Minnesota about how schools were better funded during the Depression -- when band instruments, uniforms, and music lessons in addition to the fundamentals were provided for students without fees -- than they are today. From my point of view, it seems that the public was more committed to fully funding public education in the 30s. Now, there are too many people who don't want to pay to educate poor kids or disabled kids or kids who don't speak English.
peace, love and understanding (never give up!)
Steve Petermeier
no man's land
minneapolis, mn
usa
Thanks Ron, that got the Red Cross Link on my site.
And to anyone who may have some insight:(Not to sound obtuse amid this more pertinent discussion)
...but is this worth reading: _Charles Olson in Conneticut_ by Charles Boer. I've already read Tom Clark's bio. There's a good price for it on eBay (or was, I thought twice about the purchase). It's still got a good price at abebooks.com.
And to anyone who may have some insight:(Not to sound obtuse amid this more pertinent discussion)
...but is this worth reading: _Charles Olson in Conneticut_ by Charles Boer. I've already read Tom Clark's bio. There's a good price for it on eBay (or was, I thought twice about the purchase). It's still got a good price at abebooks.com.
If the tax rate was 100% and all our money belonged to the state then we'd have a true communist system. And when we think of the infrastructural problems of the communist era -- the disappearance of the Aral Sea (once the world's fourth largest sea and from which a million tons of fish were harvested per annum, it is now dead) and then of course there's Chernobyl, etc. I'm with Primeau.
And anyway, what does the money that we do pay buy us? A third of the police force in New Orleans deserted at the first sign of impending trouble.
And anyway, what does the money that we do pay buy us? A third of the police force in New Orleans deserted at the first sign of impending trouble.
I'm proud to say that I've never voted for a tax cut.
Not once.
You're dead on, Ron. I've already given what I can, and I hope others will do likewise. The only place where we part company is on the question of assignment of blame: I think right now we need to focus on search, rescue, and relief, but also on determining how this could have happened. For two reasons: one, because much of the evidence investigators looking into that topic will ultimately need is being produced right now (e.g., Chertoff's statement about the N.O.C.C.), and two, because the nation's attention is focused on this issue now and might not be when it finally comes time to uncover what went wrong. That might seem counter-intuitive, but it's also patently historical: after all, what did the September 11th commission accomplish with regard to government accountability? Anything? If we're to draw out the villains in this tragedy--human and/or institutional--it's a job better started now than later.
I say this, of course, on the assumption that we can adequately focus our full energies on search, rescue, relief, and investigation all at once.
I believe we can. I know we must.
Having said that, I certainly agree that if it seemed necessary, at any point, to make a choice between priorities, the top priority would be--must always be--the preservation of human lives.
Seth
Not once.
You're dead on, Ron. I've already given what I can, and I hope others will do likewise. The only place where we part company is on the question of assignment of blame: I think right now we need to focus on search, rescue, and relief, but also on determining how this could have happened. For two reasons: one, because much of the evidence investigators looking into that topic will ultimately need is being produced right now (e.g., Chertoff's statement about the N.O.C.C.), and two, because the nation's attention is focused on this issue now and might not be when it finally comes time to uncover what went wrong. That might seem counter-intuitive, but it's also patently historical: after all, what did the September 11th commission accomplish with regard to government accountability? Anything? If we're to draw out the villains in this tragedy--human and/or institutional--it's a job better started now than later.
I say this, of course, on the assumption that we can adequately focus our full energies on search, rescue, relief, and investigation all at once.
I believe we can. I know we must.
Having said that, I certainly agree that if it seemed necessary, at any point, to make a choice between priorities, the top priority would be--must always be--the preservation of human lives.
Seth
Dear Steve: As a student, and a parent, who grew up in California, and stayed, to raise a family, I've seen the school funding problem from both sides of the desk. I grew up in a small, but growing bedroom community in the greater Bay Area. Both the middle school and high school populations I attended were expanding so fast that we had classes in quonset huts, and were bused around to share classes at other locations. Classes were large (as big as 35 students per), teachers were underpaid, and for two years there wasn't even a gym and changing facilities for physical ed. Neveretheless, we got a world class education, because the teachers cared, and worked, and because the students were motivated, well-mannered, and ethnically homogenous.
When our children were ready for high school, we consulted both the nearby campuses, and were told frankly that each was so infested with crime, truancy, drugs, misbehavior, BY THE ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE, that we were encouraged to seek placement in a private, non-denomination college prep. Please understand, this was NOT a poor rural district, or a hardbitten ghetto, but a well-to-do, well-funded, fully-staffed district. The student body was mixed white, black and hispanic, and had become increasingly intractible: Early signs of gang activity, marijuana and "rock" were freely available, shiftless youths paraded around the school grounds and neighborhood at will (despite a full-time uniformed police officer on site). Classes were shouting matches or circuses in which half the students paid attention, while the other half fucked-off. 40% of the graduating seniors couldn't pass equivalency tests. For four years, we paid full residential county taxes--fully supporting that failed system--while paying $3000 a year to fund an exclusive privatized four year high school education.
We allow hundreds of thousands of immigrant children to enter our public schools, for free, we pay scores of administrators and directors and special education people and psychologists and cops in an attempt to control a chaotic pool of angry, disaffected, frustrated, impatient kids, and we end up with unprecedented numbers of uneducated students at the end of K-12. This is why people get frustrated, Steve. We're not talking about "cutting" school funding, but about understanding the true root causes of the failure of public education.
My parents grew up in the Midwest during the 1920's and 1930's. Both were poor, even by the standards of those times. My father attended the classic "one-room schoolhouse" for eight years before going to a regular high school for the last year in Madison, Wisconsin. They were a farm family, and there were always more than enough chores and things to do, but everyone in the family read. They took pride in their knowledge of literature, and the world.
Probably the first requirement to achieving a viable public school is a stable population, in which economic and social continuity has been established. The public schools can't accommodate roaming bands of ethnic ghetto kids and turn them into rocket scientists. Still, we pay $2200 in property taxes each year, and every year the rate goes up. New schools are being built, classes are small, and each year the percentage of "unfunded, ethnic, minority students" increases. Meanwhile, all our cries to get public officials to address jumping population, illegal immigration, uncontrolled suburban growth--and the resulting problems these trends cause--fall on deaf ears.
Regional disaster relief bureacracies are a relatively new phenomenon. Prior to WWII, there were NO organizations mandated to prepare emergency plans and man the barricades during disasters. There is a temptation to believe that we have control over events, that if we plan enough, generate enough computer models, hold enough preparedness seminars, etc., etc., then when dangerous times come, all will be well. This is truly an illusion. As great disasters occur in time, we are reminded over and over again that we can't be totally safe.
Reasonable efforts can be made to avoid obvious hazards, and we should do the sensible things, at reasonable costs.
But to blame the lack of regional emergency response in the Guld Coast of Louisiana and Mississippi on the proposition 13 movement in California 30 years ago is intellectually opportunistic, and simply false.
When our children were ready for high school, we consulted both the nearby campuses, and were told frankly that each was so infested with crime, truancy, drugs, misbehavior, BY THE ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE, that we were encouraged to seek placement in a private, non-denomination college prep. Please understand, this was NOT a poor rural district, or a hardbitten ghetto, but a well-to-do, well-funded, fully-staffed district. The student body was mixed white, black and hispanic, and had become increasingly intractible: Early signs of gang activity, marijuana and "rock" were freely available, shiftless youths paraded around the school grounds and neighborhood at will (despite a full-time uniformed police officer on site). Classes were shouting matches or circuses in which half the students paid attention, while the other half fucked-off. 40% of the graduating seniors couldn't pass equivalency tests. For four years, we paid full residential county taxes--fully supporting that failed system--while paying $3000 a year to fund an exclusive privatized four year high school education.
We allow hundreds of thousands of immigrant children to enter our public schools, for free, we pay scores of administrators and directors and special education people and psychologists and cops in an attempt to control a chaotic pool of angry, disaffected, frustrated, impatient kids, and we end up with unprecedented numbers of uneducated students at the end of K-12. This is why people get frustrated, Steve. We're not talking about "cutting" school funding, but about understanding the true root causes of the failure of public education.
My parents grew up in the Midwest during the 1920's and 1930's. Both were poor, even by the standards of those times. My father attended the classic "one-room schoolhouse" for eight years before going to a regular high school for the last year in Madison, Wisconsin. They were a farm family, and there were always more than enough chores and things to do, but everyone in the family read. They took pride in their knowledge of literature, and the world.
Probably the first requirement to achieving a viable public school is a stable population, in which economic and social continuity has been established. The public schools can't accommodate roaming bands of ethnic ghetto kids and turn them into rocket scientists. Still, we pay $2200 in property taxes each year, and every year the rate goes up. New schools are being built, classes are small, and each year the percentage of "unfunded, ethnic, minority students" increases. Meanwhile, all our cries to get public officials to address jumping population, illegal immigration, uncontrolled suburban growth--and the resulting problems these trends cause--fall on deaf ears.
Regional disaster relief bureacracies are a relatively new phenomenon. Prior to WWII, there were NO organizations mandated to prepare emergency plans and man the barricades during disasters. There is a temptation to believe that we have control over events, that if we plan enough, generate enough computer models, hold enough preparedness seminars, etc., etc., then when dangerous times come, all will be well. This is truly an illusion. As great disasters occur in time, we are reminded over and over again that we can't be totally safe.
Reasonable efforts can be made to avoid obvious hazards, and we should do the sensible things, at reasonable costs.
But to blame the lack of regional emergency response in the Guld Coast of Louisiana and Mississippi on the proposition 13 movement in California 30 years ago is intellectually opportunistic, and simply false.
I did not mean to imply that Jarvis himself intended any ill will toward the people of New Orleans. But the movement that he stood as the figurehead for has seriously - and perhaps permanently - crippled many of our institutions. At its heart is the idea of government as Them, rather than as an expression of Us.
Curtis, who retired from his position as an administrator in health & human services, certainly must have seen the best & worst of what government can be. My argument is that we will adopt a strategy of deferred maintenance to every major potential disaster so long as we believe that we ought to keep the government as small as possible. In fact, we should really want it to be robust & healthy.
For Curtis to characterize the Richmond Unified School District as "a well-to-do, well-funded, fully-staffed district" is, to use his terms, "simply false."
Curtis, who retired from his position as an administrator in health & human services, certainly must have seen the best & worst of what government can be. My argument is that we will adopt a strategy of deferred maintenance to every major potential disaster so long as we believe that we ought to keep the government as small as possible. In fact, we should really want it to be robust & healthy.
For Curtis to characterize the Richmond Unified School District as "a well-to-do, well-funded, fully-staffed district" is, to use his terms, "simply false."
Steve Petermeier
no man's land
minneapolis, mn
Steve is right on but why is "no man's land" in Minneapolis? It's here in St. Paul. Minneapolis takes even this?
Kirby -- can you see how that post makes no sense whatsoever?
Just to focus on the disaster for an instant. It should be a Limit Event. If, after this, many still feel that Bush is taking care of business, then that is the end.
Assertions that back in the day schools were more efficient etc. are made from the kind of nostaligia it is easy to love but these assertions are difficult to prove. Oh, back in the day everyone could quote "The Bells" and give accurate change.
"As great disasters occur in time, we are reminded over and over again that we can't be totally safe."
And really -- who thinks we can be totally safe? Some minumum competence, a plan, some good faith would be nice.
no man's land
minneapolis, mn
Steve is right on but why is "no man's land" in Minneapolis? It's here in St. Paul. Minneapolis takes even this?
Kirby -- can you see how that post makes no sense whatsoever?
Just to focus on the disaster for an instant. It should be a Limit Event. If, after this, many still feel that Bush is taking care of business, then that is the end.
Assertions that back in the day schools were more efficient etc. are made from the kind of nostaligia it is easy to love but these assertions are difficult to prove. Oh, back in the day everyone could quote "The Bells" and give accurate change.
"As great disasters occur in time, we are reminded over and over again that we can't be totally safe."
And really -- who thinks we can be totally safe? Some minumum competence, a plan, some good faith would be nice.
Joe -- I think it's your post that makes no sense. It's not George Bush's job to design disaster evacuation in the state of Louisiana. It is each state's job. Louisiana failed.
It doesn't surprise me. Nor do I think that all the money in the world would have helped them, and I don't think anybody should be so nutty as to assume that it would.
The whole evacuation plan as it was stated was to go to the Superdome. But there were no police officers there, no food, no water. To go to the bathroom you had to go in a group or you would be raped or killed by the thugs who decided to capitalize on this moment instead of helping the community to come together.
Of course it's easy to dump this all on Bush, but it's not accurate or even intelligent to do it. Each state is responsible for making its own evacuation plans, and Louisiana is clearly derelict in its duty both in that regard and in having smooth articulations with the surrounding states.
Also, the mayor of New Orleans took the Lord's name in vain on national television. It gives some sense of the character of the people. Now this same mayor is offering his police officers a five-day vacation in Las Vegas if they stick out their assignment. I feel like throwing up. 5 days in Vegas is all that can motivate these people?
Still -- there are moving moments that do make sense to me. There's a woman whose husband has been dead for some time who stays with the body so that it can be buried in a Christian grave. Finally, a human being with stellar values appears on my TV. And of course I cried. It's like finding a human being in Sodom itself.
But Ron's idea of giving these people more money is really nuts. They would have just partied more furiously and still no adequate plans would have been made for tomorrow. There are probably better contingency plans in Haiti.
It doesn't surprise me. Nor do I think that all the money in the world would have helped them, and I don't think anybody should be so nutty as to assume that it would.
The whole evacuation plan as it was stated was to go to the Superdome. But there were no police officers there, no food, no water. To go to the bathroom you had to go in a group or you would be raped or killed by the thugs who decided to capitalize on this moment instead of helping the community to come together.
Of course it's easy to dump this all on Bush, but it's not accurate or even intelligent to do it. Each state is responsible for making its own evacuation plans, and Louisiana is clearly derelict in its duty both in that regard and in having smooth articulations with the surrounding states.
Also, the mayor of New Orleans took the Lord's name in vain on national television. It gives some sense of the character of the people. Now this same mayor is offering his police officers a five-day vacation in Las Vegas if they stick out their assignment. I feel like throwing up. 5 days in Vegas is all that can motivate these people?
Still -- there are moving moments that do make sense to me. There's a woman whose husband has been dead for some time who stays with the body so that it can be buried in a Christian grave. Finally, a human being with stellar values appears on my TV. And of course I cried. It's like finding a human being in Sodom itself.
But Ron's idea of giving these people more money is really nuts. They would have just partied more furiously and still no adequate plans would have been made for tomorrow. There are probably better contingency plans in Haiti.
ANOTHER POETICS OF REPUDIATION AND SUBMISSION
Once again, as ALWAYS happens in this section of the blogosphere, the discussion becomes:
***a complicated intermeshing of repudiation and submission***
[this time it is a forum for a politics and economics here validated … or rather should I say “as if here” validated in terms of rhetoric, because in this case it a rhetoric of enormous (…no, instead let’s call it recent memory)… human calamity].
And the rhetoric only sub-tends the shit-stain of that recently closed century, a harrowing modernist snake in the grass swallowing its own tail, and we’re the tail-end of it.
Again and again, surely we are, aren’t we? A ‘we’ that is.
But in our submission and repudiation we are something, but only always something-else. Because after-all we aren’t ‘modern’ anymore. Are we?
But then what are we? Where are we?
Post this. Post that. Post Yadda Yadda Yadda.
Post/Post Modern. Yeah that’s the one.
So there continues to be a poetics of repudiation and submission transmitted in every discussion forum or blog commentary, including this one, and the drift of it goes something like this: enormous frustration devolves into an Us vs Them.
What of us?
What happens to them?
Why does it happen to us, not them?
Of what? To What?
[Not to mention the impotence of religious avowals or encomia at moments like this ( ie, that whatever happens to the least of my brethren happens to me; but only apparently. As in, apparently they aren’t aware of the truth of what they are saying)]
But what of those words ‘of’ and ‘to’. These little words, what Oppen and W. C. Williams, in different versions of which I conflate: l those small words upon which so much depends)
Of Us. To Them.
Clouded by that continued bifurcation of the ‘us’ and ‘them’ ( or what Palmer, in a recent poem “Dream of A Language That Speaks”, signals as an ‘us/not us’) we trip and fall over our on-going commitment (as noble as it seems and must be for us) to a poetry and poetics saturated in the shadow-sign of the ‘20th century.
( to a neo-modernist mindset, or what I un-comfortably borrow from Ron Silliman, brutalizing the‘School of Quietude’ perspective: and call in such wasted fashion as the ‘perfect storm’ of the 20th Century.
But a storm is not a storm, it is a metaphoric flourish, like this one made up here: a Katrina of ‘them’ not ‘us’)
… laid waste the deluge, brown river of language, black waste of torment… ‘night is also a sun’ … I repudiate and submit to you in-hospitable century: envelope of context, textual apparatus, home-fires burning, lend me your ovens.
That shit-filled century.
====
Ian Hamilton, in his proposition for an update of Johnson’s _Lives of the Poets_, argues:
[But in my own feathered sense of submission and repudiation, but then as I see it, for the sake of a ‘rhetorical’ extremity or threshold , from which to begin to propose as Oppen recognized ‘argument in order to speak’, a sentient acquisition of argument, a ‘property-ied’ forum, an un-casting of spirit, ‘leave-taking’ the inspiration of our poets, then I am dead-set against only this form or that form, dead set against argument for argument’s sake]
And so it is that Hamilton himself points to the ‘exemplary four’ (Eliot, Yeats, Auden, Hardy)]:
***Almost any poet I have included in my book has been shaped by the need to "settle with" the shades of one or another of the exemplary four.[…] Every Anglo-American poet who postdated Eliot was haunted by _The Waste Land_, and thus felt it a duty to construct large-scale diagnoses of the century's cultural predicament. […] Thus, poets of "inspiration", of melody and magic and the dark unconscious, will look repeatedly to Yeats; poets who saw it as their duty to be "public" or "political" have to imitate Auden and then struggle to be free of him; poets who wish to resist the encroachment of mid-Atlantic modernism, and to connect their own endeavours to some "native" English line, will feel the need to call on Hardy. In other words, it is hard to think of a 20th-century poet who would not have written differently had these great overshadowers not lived.***
===
In this blog remarks section, it once again becomes an argument masking the bitter revenge on us dear poets, for Hubris, for revealing the tom-foolery, derogatory perversions, and phantasms of our most precious selves…and I suppose the insulation we feel most notably at the marginalized reaches of our own endeavors, and the mask which always too soon reveals our bitter place of exemption:
***In other words, poetry in the 20th century did not take over from religion, as Arnold none too persuasively predicted that it might. It did not become the source of that "sweetness and light" which a democratised, industrialised, commercialised society so badly needed in order to counterbalance its own dehumanising drift.***
Not to mention the exemption and state of otherness, the out-casting Hamilton notes in remarks by Donald Justice in his own essay “Oblivion”
***a state of believing himself to have been singled out for creativity***
We are in for a shit-load of trouble. PRIMARY trouble. CON-FOUNDING darkness.
And our own remarks, including mine here, laid waste to much that never did work, never could.
We are trapped in the archaic narrative and the literature never really included Earth.
How can we begin again when soon our Earth (‘round help-less belly) will not beget, much less anything?
What happened to us?
I cannot speak for them now.
======
The *** quotes*** appropriated above are from the essay I just read this morning… "Against Oblivion"(Ian Hamilton (not Finlay), Saturday March 16, 2002 Guardian)… this morning while reading Silliman’s Blog and these comments posted here. I suppose I’ll think further on the issue, and re-vise and post later on my blog.
Once again, as ALWAYS happens in this section of the blogosphere, the discussion becomes:
***a complicated intermeshing of repudiation and submission***
[this time it is a forum for a politics and economics here validated … or rather should I say “as if here” validated in terms of rhetoric, because in this case it a rhetoric of enormous (…no, instead let’s call it recent memory)… human calamity].
And the rhetoric only sub-tends the shit-stain of that recently closed century, a harrowing modernist snake in the grass swallowing its own tail, and we’re the tail-end of it.
Again and again, surely we are, aren’t we? A ‘we’ that is.
But in our submission and repudiation we are something, but only always something-else. Because after-all we aren’t ‘modern’ anymore. Are we?
But then what are we? Where are we?
Post this. Post that. Post Yadda Yadda Yadda.
Post/Post Modern. Yeah that’s the one.
So there continues to be a poetics of repudiation and submission transmitted in every discussion forum or blog commentary, including this one, and the drift of it goes something like this: enormous frustration devolves into an Us vs Them.
What of us?
What happens to them?
Why does it happen to us, not them?
Of what? To What?
[Not to mention the impotence of religious avowals or encomia at moments like this ( ie, that whatever happens to the least of my brethren happens to me; but only apparently. As in, apparently they aren’t aware of the truth of what they are saying)]
But what of those words ‘of’ and ‘to’. These little words, what Oppen and W. C. Williams, in different versions of which I conflate: l those small words upon which so much depends)
Of Us. To Them.
Clouded by that continued bifurcation of the ‘us’ and ‘them’ ( or what Palmer, in a recent poem “Dream of A Language That Speaks”, signals as an ‘us/not us’) we trip and fall over our on-going commitment (as noble as it seems and must be for us) to a poetry and poetics saturated in the shadow-sign of the ‘20th century.
( to a neo-modernist mindset, or what I un-comfortably borrow from Ron Silliman, brutalizing the‘School of Quietude’ perspective: and call in such wasted fashion as the ‘perfect storm’ of the 20th Century.
But a storm is not a storm, it is a metaphoric flourish, like this one made up here: a Katrina of ‘them’ not ‘us’)
… laid waste the deluge, brown river of language, black waste of torment… ‘night is also a sun’ … I repudiate and submit to you in-hospitable century: envelope of context, textual apparatus, home-fires burning, lend me your ovens.
That shit-filled century.
====
Ian Hamilton, in his proposition for an update of Johnson’s _Lives of the Poets_, argues:
[But in my own feathered sense of submission and repudiation, but then as I see it, for the sake of a ‘rhetorical’ extremity or threshold , from which to begin to propose as Oppen recognized ‘argument in order to speak’, a sentient acquisition of argument, a ‘property-ied’ forum, an un-casting of spirit, ‘leave-taking’ the inspiration of our poets, then I am dead-set against only this form or that form, dead set against argument for argument’s sake]
And so it is that Hamilton himself points to the ‘exemplary four’ (Eliot, Yeats, Auden, Hardy)]:
***Almost any poet I have included in my book has been shaped by the need to "settle with" the shades of one or another of the exemplary four.[…] Every Anglo-American poet who postdated Eliot was haunted by _The Waste Land_, and thus felt it a duty to construct large-scale diagnoses of the century's cultural predicament. […] Thus, poets of "inspiration", of melody and magic and the dark unconscious, will look repeatedly to Yeats; poets who saw it as their duty to be "public" or "political" have to imitate Auden and then struggle to be free of him; poets who wish to resist the encroachment of mid-Atlantic modernism, and to connect their own endeavours to some "native" English line, will feel the need to call on Hardy. In other words, it is hard to think of a 20th-century poet who would not have written differently had these great overshadowers not lived.***
===
In this blog remarks section, it once again becomes an argument masking the bitter revenge on us dear poets, for Hubris, for revealing the tom-foolery, derogatory perversions, and phantasms of our most precious selves…and I suppose the insulation we feel most notably at the marginalized reaches of our own endeavors, and the mask which always too soon reveals our bitter place of exemption:
***In other words, poetry in the 20th century did not take over from religion, as Arnold none too persuasively predicted that it might. It did not become the source of that "sweetness and light" which a democratised, industrialised, commercialised society so badly needed in order to counterbalance its own dehumanising drift.***
Not to mention the exemption and state of otherness, the out-casting Hamilton notes in remarks by Donald Justice in his own essay “Oblivion”
***a state of believing himself to have been singled out for creativity***
We are in for a shit-load of trouble. PRIMARY trouble. CON-FOUNDING darkness.
And our own remarks, including mine here, laid waste to much that never did work, never could.
We are trapped in the archaic narrative and the literature never really included Earth.
How can we begin again when soon our Earth (‘round help-less belly) will not beget, much less anything?
What happened to us?
I cannot speak for them now.
======
The *** quotes*** appropriated above are from the essay I just read this morning… "Against Oblivion"(Ian Hamilton (not Finlay), Saturday March 16, 2002 Guardian)… this morning while reading Silliman’s Blog and these comments posted here. I suppose I’ll think further on the issue, and re-vise and post later on my blog.
As a returning student from a year in Japan, our son was eligible to attend either El Cerrito or Albany High Schools. These are not to be confused with the Richmond School District. Ron, you and I attended high school way back in the early 1960's, before the prop 13 thing. My point is not to play one district against another, or imply that teachers should be underpaid, or that students should go to school in tents, etc., but that the overwhelming problems that beset California Public Schools from the 1960's forward were not CAUSED by a weak-kneed, selfish, white middle-class tax-hating public. The State (and the Federal Government) have steadfastly ignored the root causes of the failure of public schools. It has NOT been a story of less and less money, it has been a story of demographics and the breakdown of our culture due to the stresses I outlined. Jarvis merely was the convenient spokesman for a groundswell of public dissatisfaction. If the counties had had their way, everyone who owned a house in the state would have been driven out. Ask yourself what consequences that would have had. Californians are NOT responsible for the corruption in Mexico and the other South American and Asian Third World countries. When our elected representatives fail to show leadership, sometimes the only way to express limits is through a tax revolt. Our ancestors had a phrase for it: "No taxation without representation."
Yet in writing "Against Oblivion" had the author anticipated this?
"Also, the mayor of New Orleans took the Lord's name in vain on national television. It gives some sense of the character of the people."
We go down to the dwimmering dark as Kirby proves our utter inablity to anticipate just how awful it can get.
"Also, the mayor of New Orleans took the Lord's name in vain on national television. It gives some sense of the character of the people."
We go down to the dwimmering dark as Kirby proves our utter inablity to anticipate just how awful it can get.
pardon, sires, but i vote for tax cuts because i want a better car. y'know, so i have a coupla extra bucks for junk. so i can enjoy an extra beer or two. dig?
forget that civic responsibility yackin. it's making my eyes die. you see my fingernails are gone. you see i don't need another lesson.
deporkification. decronyism. wiser spending, more focused fund management.
yknow, guy?
!!!
forget that civic responsibility yackin. it's making my eyes die. you see my fingernails are gone. you see i don't need another lesson.
deporkification. decronyism. wiser spending, more focused fund management.
yknow, guy?
!!!
Arlee,
Charles Boer's _Olson in Connecticut_ is a real treat, I'd say. It's the memoir of a man who was truly captivated by Olson's Thought and Presence, despite O's impositions (a central section is about O. as the houseguest who won't leave) and fumbles (O.'s attempt to discuss agriculture with a cattle farmer ends very comically).
This will at least give you a very different perspective than Tom Clark provides, and perhaps it will ring true to you.
There's also an interesting memoir you can find on the web by Jane Atherton, the sister of Olson's first common-law wife.
Kirby,
Get real!!!!!!!! Your remark about the profanities of a person who has witnessed Hell is godamn f*cking obtuse! Many religious people, from what I understand, feel that when someone's yelling at God they are therefore in an intense relationship with that alleged Entity. But Lutheran Surrealism is more finicky than that?
Ron, thanks for the analysis about taxes.
Charles Boer's _Olson in Connecticut_ is a real treat, I'd say. It's the memoir of a man who was truly captivated by Olson's Thought and Presence, despite O's impositions (a central section is about O. as the houseguest who won't leave) and fumbles (O.'s attempt to discuss agriculture with a cattle farmer ends very comically).
This will at least give you a very different perspective than Tom Clark provides, and perhaps it will ring true to you.
There's also an interesting memoir you can find on the web by Jane Atherton, the sister of Olson's first common-law wife.
Kirby,
Get real!!!!!!!! Your remark about the profanities of a person who has witnessed Hell is godamn f*cking obtuse! Many religious people, from what I understand, feel that when someone's yelling at God they are therefore in an intense relationship with that alleged Entity. But Lutheran Surrealism is more finicky than that?
Ron, thanks for the analysis about taxes.
...and, Ron, shouldn't the bigger picture be "very voter – who ever voted for [current President] has blood on their hands"?
Why is it so obvious to anyone outside the U.S.?
Why is it so obvious to anyone outside the U.S.?
Lutheran Surrealism, c'est moi, n'est-ce pas?
Still, I do think that politicians should watch their language on national TV. This was a disgrace and gives children entirely the wrong impression of how to be an appropriate political figure. W. would never have spoken thus.
We need dignity in speech and dress in order so that faith in the symbolic order can be restored.
Imagine Lincoln fulminating in the manner of the mayor of New Orleans. Only common criminals speak in the way that man speaks.
I felt at the time that that speech was the final nail in the coffin of New Orleans. But I am trying to forgive the fellow, and I do hope for a full resurrection of the city, and redemption for this mayor who saddened me with his shameless vocabulary.
Still, I do think that politicians should watch their language on national TV. This was a disgrace and gives children entirely the wrong impression of how to be an appropriate political figure. W. would never have spoken thus.
We need dignity in speech and dress in order so that faith in the symbolic order can be restored.
Imagine Lincoln fulminating in the manner of the mayor of New Orleans. Only common criminals speak in the way that man speaks.
I felt at the time that that speech was the final nail in the coffin of New Orleans. But I am trying to forgive the fellow, and I do hope for a full resurrection of the city, and redemption for this mayor who saddened me with his shameless vocabulary.
Ernesto,
The reason I'm not focusing on W. & his gang (the top three administrators at FEMA have exactly zero experience coordinating disasters, the head previously ran the International Arabian Horse Association -- but all are major Bush allies from the private sector) is that the problem predates him & ultimately runs deeper than just him. He's too convenient a scapegoat, tho goat he may be.
The reason I'm not focusing on W. & his gang (the top three administrators at FEMA have exactly zero experience coordinating disasters, the head previously ran the International Arabian Horse Association -- but all are major Bush allies from the private sector) is that the problem predates him & ultimately runs deeper than just him. He's too convenient a scapegoat, tho goat he may be.
Kirby,
I have no problems with the choice of words of the mayor of New Orleans. It was quite appropriate to the occasion. Sometimes you are the best argument against the symbolic order one could imagine.
Ron
I have no problems with the choice of words of the mayor of New Orleans. It was quite appropriate to the occasion. Sometimes you are the best argument against the symbolic order one could imagine.
Ron
Ron,
your post was very interesting and thought-provoking. I do agree W. can be seen as a scapegoat in this case, in the sense that it may seem to simplistic to blame him for the whole catastrophe. It is, indeed, necessary for all U.S. citizens to take responsibilities for their actions and inactions.
From some comments here, though, it seems like actual possibilities of dialogue and critique are impossible, because some individuals are so conservative that they are unable to see beyond their own nose. Not very different from the Fundamentalist ideals that have made so much damage to the world of late.
your post was very interesting and thought-provoking. I do agree W. can be seen as a scapegoat in this case, in the sense that it may seem to simplistic to blame him for the whole catastrophe. It is, indeed, necessary for all U.S. citizens to take responsibilities for their actions and inactions.
From some comments here, though, it seems like actual possibilities of dialogue and critique are impossible, because some individuals are so conservative that they are unable to see beyond their own nose. Not very different from the Fundamentalist ideals that have made so much damage to the world of late.
Thank you for reminding me of Howard Jarvis. I have been saying that it started with Newt Gingrich and his "Contract (on) America" and has continued through the evil Grover Norquist. The tax cut mentality has meant that coordinated, focussed services have been cut to the bone. Combine that with the over-extension to the mismanaged "Homeland Security" department, the billion-dollar-a-week war in Iraq, and the laissez-faire attitude of the administration, and it's easy to see why the response was so inadequate.
The conservatives said that "a rising tide floats all boats." That kept coming back to me when I saw the corpses floating in the streets.
The conservatives said that "a rising tide floats all boats." That kept coming back to me when I saw the corpses floating in the streets.
There were over 200 school busses that could have been used to get the people of New Orleans out of the mess. When faced with the question of why he didn't use some common sense and use the busses, the mayor of New Orleans looked embarrassed. So perhaps he does admit some kind of shame, which is the beginning of a reappraisal of blame. Perhaps he's even willing to shoulder some of the blame, which would redeem him greatly in the eyes of many people.
As for whether the left communists or the right fascists have done more damage in the last century or so, it's hard to quantify.
Whether the Democratic mayor of New Orleans or the Democratic governor of Louisiana did as much damage as the Bush administration is probably equally hard to assess at present.
Most of the damage was done by the hurricane itself. How on earth do they name these things? Who names them? Are they always women? There are two more on the way. Why don't they call one of them Fred or Bob?
As for whether the left communists or the right fascists have done more damage in the last century or so, it's hard to quantify.
Whether the Democratic mayor of New Orleans or the Democratic governor of Louisiana did as much damage as the Bush administration is probably equally hard to assess at present.
Most of the damage was done by the hurricane itself. How on earth do they name these things? Who names them? Are they always women? There are two more on the way. Why don't they call one of them Fred or Bob?
Actually, I just looked up the names of hurricanes. They apparently alternate now between men and women's names and they proceed alphabetically. So the next one might be called Kirby although that could be either a man's or a woman's name. No doubt if it is called Kirby it will be a real ankle biter.
Hal Meyerson has always been one of my favorite political analysts, even when he was doing it for an L.A. weekly paper. Now he's the best columnist for the Washington Post and has an excellent piece on this topic today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090601363.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/06/AR2005090601363.html
The full list of hurricane names can be found at:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml
I was disappointed that my name doesn't appear on any of the lists. Ron's doesn't either. Not even Curtis' name.
They used to all be named for women, but in 1979 femninists complained, and now they alternate.
They have the lists already made up for years in advance for every section of the globe.
I suppose I'll be lucky to have a waterspout named after me.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml
I was disappointed that my name doesn't appear on any of the lists. Ron's doesn't either. Not even Curtis' name.
They used to all be named for women, but in 1979 femninists complained, and now they alternate.
They have the lists already made up for years in advance for every section of the globe.
I suppose I'll be lucky to have a waterspout named after me.
Stephen,
Your attention to Charles Olson rings true to me and beneficial both to this and now: searching for a copy.
Subsequent to your response, I just read that:
"_ The Maximus Poems: Volume Three_, appeared posthumously in 1975, reconstructed from among Olson's working drafts by a former student, George F. Butterick, and by Charles Boer, a colleague at the University of Connecticut."
[http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/m_r/olson/life.htm]
Thanks again,
Arlee
Post a Comment
Your attention to Charles Olson rings true to me and beneficial both to this and now: searching for a copy.
Subsequent to your response, I just read that:
"_ The Maximus Poems: Volume Three_, appeared posthumously in 1975, reconstructed from among Olson's working drafts by a former student, George F. Butterick, and by Charles Boer, a colleague at the University of Connecticut."
[http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/m_r/olson/life.htm]
Thanks again,
Arlee
<< Home
