Till now October 2009 you were a picture.
Many pictures sent through cyberspace.
1917 myself at 8 months. Only box cameras.
Go see one in a museum.
You, mommy, daddy, and the car seat bed
Lit up this sleepy old house
With the burning glow of new life.
William Shakespeare 1475. (The Bard)
Soren, there's a name to remember
Long before others.
He defined who we humans are.
He said, “All the men women merely players.”
Like on the stage.
“At first the infant (thats you)
Mewling and puking in the nurses’ arms.”
No nurses. Just Mama Amrita.
Until you visited, all I heard of Soren was “cute.”
Okay, I can give you that, if you want it?
Your wonderment at the unfolding world before your eyes.
This is not cute.
A reminder to look anew at the magic of the world.
A remarkable little rainbow light on the ceiling
Or the pussycat’s ears revealing its veins.
Great-grandpa’s mustache and ah, yes, his guitar.
Little fingers gripped the strings,
As if hearing the songs we sing.
Old childhood memories. Don’t know if they changed?
“Old Bangum” wild boar hunting would go.
You have to guess what they made of his hide?
Yeh, a nice saddle. “How do you think I begin in the world?
Got me a sow and several other things.”
“Go tell Aunt Rhody her old grey goose is dead.
Died standing on her head.”
Honestly now. What’s this supposed to do for your synapses?
And oh, I forgot, the itsey bitsey spider
Went up and down the water spout. You puzzled?
Soren, you and I.
Remember the Bard? Remember you mewling?
Here’s the old man on the stage of life.
“Turning again toward childish treble pipes.”
Me and you could be in the same place.
You in your first childhood, me in my second.
That makes us brothers under the skin. No?
Thanks most thoughtful Soren.
Thanks Mommy and Daddy. Do come again.
Kate N.H.W.Y.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
In 2010 it Will Still be the Economy
I may be over optimistic but I am now assuming that Obama will get some kind of health care reform. That’s good news as it means that Kristol’s admonition to his Republican stalwarts to, “just kill it” will have been roundly beaten. Now for the bigger problem as we look toward the midterm election.
The danger here is that Obama could easily lose the Congress to the Republicans. I believe the major issue will be the economy. More specifically jobs. How will the Republicans attack ? They will play the populist card saying that the administration bailed out Wall Street and left the double digit unemployed flapping in the wind. One reason they may play this card is the failure of Obama Administration to change that cast of characters running the countries economic engine.
In an earlier blog I argued against having the same guys who orchestrated the economic meltdown back in their same old positions. How can Bernanki, Geithner, Summers et.al. do anything different from what they did before? Mr. President that’s all they know. No matter how much great oratory you put out there if the job market doesn’t turn around you are in deep trouble. So what could you do?
Start by letting some of those economic wizards go on long academic assignments. Start with a new team. When this first came up during the campaign I was sure there were knowledgeable economists out there who could help the President Change course. Remember Change? Okay here’s a suggestion.
It turns out that there was someone in Washington, Chairperson of the Commodities Future Trading Commission, CFTC Brooksley Born a Stanford graduate, who guess what? She not only warned about the coming catastrophe based on all the Derivative speculation but she actually moved to do something about it. Imagine who went after her jugular? Of course the same old gang, Greenspan, Summer Rubin et.al. Mr. President there’s your replacement candidate for the job of Secretary of the Treasury.
What is so striking about Brooksley Born was her ability to stand up to all that “old boys” pressure and stick to her guns. She actually began to move in the CFTC to curb the Derivative abuse. One colleague said, “History has already shown that Greenspan was wrong about virtually everything, and Brooksley was right.” The “old Wall Street boys” went nuts getting the Congress to actually shut her down.
Now Mr. President that’s who you need up there in the economic power chair to begin to get these greedy guys under control. Oh, I don’t know if she would even take the job. Wouldn’t blame her if she didn’t. Yet I know from my own Washington experience that it is very hard to resist the siren call from the White House.
Obama, take the economic issue away from the Republicans by showing that you are determined to carry out your campaign pledge of Change. That is long overdue in the “economics department.” Brooksley Born would represent at least a good beginning in curbing the abuses of Wall Street and come up with a real jobs program. The clock is ticking Mr. President 2010 not far away.
Thanks Kate N.H.W.Y.
The danger here is that Obama could easily lose the Congress to the Republicans. I believe the major issue will be the economy. More specifically jobs. How will the Republicans attack ? They will play the populist card saying that the administration bailed out Wall Street and left the double digit unemployed flapping in the wind. One reason they may play this card is the failure of Obama Administration to change that cast of characters running the countries economic engine.
In an earlier blog I argued against having the same guys who orchestrated the economic meltdown back in their same old positions. How can Bernanki, Geithner, Summers et.al. do anything different from what they did before? Mr. President that’s all they know. No matter how much great oratory you put out there if the job market doesn’t turn around you are in deep trouble. So what could you do?
Start by letting some of those economic wizards go on long academic assignments. Start with a new team. When this first came up during the campaign I was sure there were knowledgeable economists out there who could help the President Change course. Remember Change? Okay here’s a suggestion.
It turns out that there was someone in Washington, Chairperson of the Commodities Future Trading Commission, CFTC Brooksley Born a Stanford graduate, who guess what? She not only warned about the coming catastrophe based on all the Derivative speculation but she actually moved to do something about it. Imagine who went after her jugular? Of course the same old gang, Greenspan, Summer Rubin et.al. Mr. President there’s your replacement candidate for the job of Secretary of the Treasury.
What is so striking about Brooksley Born was her ability to stand up to all that “old boys” pressure and stick to her guns. She actually began to move in the CFTC to curb the Derivative abuse. One colleague said, “History has already shown that Greenspan was wrong about virtually everything, and Brooksley was right.” The “old Wall Street boys” went nuts getting the Congress to actually shut her down.
Now Mr. President that’s who you need up there in the economic power chair to begin to get these greedy guys under control. Oh, I don’t know if she would even take the job. Wouldn’t blame her if she didn’t. Yet I know from my own Washington experience that it is very hard to resist the siren call from the White House.
Obama, take the economic issue away from the Republicans by showing that you are determined to carry out your campaign pledge of Change. That is long overdue in the “economics department.” Brooksley Born would represent at least a good beginning in curbing the abuses of Wall Street and come up with a real jobs program. The clock is ticking Mr. President 2010 not far away.
Thanks Kate N.H.W.Y.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Thoughts on Turning 92
There is nothing like spending one’s birthday eve with my dear wife and Shakespeare. Last night we watched Jude Law as Hamlet. I have never quiet understood my attraction to Shakespeare. I have a vague memory of going with my Papa to see Hamlet as a very young child. In the haze of my childhood memories Papa repeatedly would tell me that it was very important to understand what Shakespeare was telling us through his plays. I have been in love with Hamlet ever since. In some weird way I have often thought I was caught in the same kinds of issues that bedeviled Hamlet. No, they were not about my murdered father. They might be about my mother, who at times of great grief, I thought was “murdered” by a back alley abortionist.
I was very young when my mother disappeared. It was in my late teens that I thought about finding that murderer and killing him. I even went to the extent of checking the hospital records where she died to see if there was any identification of the perpetrator. Of course there was none. But what if there was? What then?
As a responsible leader in the Labor Movement of the 40ies and 50ies, there were so many times when I was confronted with decisions that could effect the lives of hundreds of people. So, “what to do” would occur again and again. No, they are not that ultimate question that Hamlet asks, “To be or not to be?” But there’s his genius, presenting us with the ultimate question he asks us to think about our “little lives” in terms of this ultimate question. He goes on to ask us “who would fardels (burdens) bear, to grunt and sweat under a weary life.” He is suggesting we put up with many of the horrors that we now see, in our lives or on the evening news, because we have real trouble finding ways to deal with them. That’s why I love Shakespeare, because he is always challenging me to rethink everything in my everyday routines. Why am I here and what meaningful thing am I doing with the little bit of life that I have left?
Getting back to being 92. Yes it is wonderful to have retained enough of my senses so that I can delight in my grandchildren and great-grandchild who is just a bunch of pictures sent by computer from LA. Luckily I will see him in person next week. Then there’s the magical world of music from Handel through Brahms to Hank Williams. The latter I can still mange on my guitar. I have recently been rediscovering the beauty of religious music. No, I am not going to turn to the Church for last rites before I go. I find in the music a very soothing balm that seems to sit in the melodies. Somehow that’s reassuring. Why, I don’t know. Then there's the wonders of television, where we pretty much watch movies, especially old ones. I am blessed with wonderful friends. Sometimes we manage to get together for conversation. I believe the latter is dying out, but I am fortunate in friends who like me and love to sit around and schmooze. My dear wife, who might be an introvert from Minn., loves to schmooze with me, especially about the theatre.
The down side of 92 is experiencing the loss of so many of my old friends. Recently I said goodbye to the last friend who worked with me at Mobilization For Youth back in the sixties. It brings up a mixed feeling of being just plain lucky when it came to the distribution of the gene pool; and a gnawing feeling that I may be cheating someone else out of their time here on this good earth.
This brings me to my greatest concern. It has to do with how we are using up the planet. Our great industrial revolution created enormous wealth unheard of, unknown at any time in history on this earth. Having been a very full participant in that exploitation of our natural resources, I have a very deep appreciation for the gifts taken. A list of all the various automobiles I have owned in my long life would be a good measure of my benefits from the industrial revolution. Now we are coming upon the time when the “piper must be paid.” That makes me sad for what the grandchildren will be dealing with. Oh I know there are those who say, “don’t worry, technology will figure it out.” Yes and no. Our roof is covered with solar panels that have pretty much made us “power neutral.” Thats fine. But what about the disappearance of the codfish that have fed most of the western civilization since its founding? That’s just the tips of the icebergs that are melting and will substantially raise the sea levels, leaving millions world-wide homeless and landless.
So there you have my thoughts on my 92nd. And for those of you have asked what N.H.W.Y. mean as part of my sign-off: Thanks Kate “Never Happen Without You.”
I was very young when my mother disappeared. It was in my late teens that I thought about finding that murderer and killing him. I even went to the extent of checking the hospital records where she died to see if there was any identification of the perpetrator. Of course there was none. But what if there was? What then?
As a responsible leader in the Labor Movement of the 40ies and 50ies, there were so many times when I was confronted with decisions that could effect the lives of hundreds of people. So, “what to do” would occur again and again. No, they are not that ultimate question that Hamlet asks, “To be or not to be?” But there’s his genius, presenting us with the ultimate question he asks us to think about our “little lives” in terms of this ultimate question. He goes on to ask us “who would fardels (burdens) bear, to grunt and sweat under a weary life.” He is suggesting we put up with many of the horrors that we now see, in our lives or on the evening news, because we have real trouble finding ways to deal with them. That’s why I love Shakespeare, because he is always challenging me to rethink everything in my everyday routines. Why am I here and what meaningful thing am I doing with the little bit of life that I have left?
Getting back to being 92. Yes it is wonderful to have retained enough of my senses so that I can delight in my grandchildren and great-grandchild who is just a bunch of pictures sent by computer from LA. Luckily I will see him in person next week. Then there’s the magical world of music from Handel through Brahms to Hank Williams. The latter I can still mange on my guitar. I have recently been rediscovering the beauty of religious music. No, I am not going to turn to the Church for last rites before I go. I find in the music a very soothing balm that seems to sit in the melodies. Somehow that’s reassuring. Why, I don’t know. Then there's the wonders of television, where we pretty much watch movies, especially old ones. I am blessed with wonderful friends. Sometimes we manage to get together for conversation. I believe the latter is dying out, but I am fortunate in friends who like me and love to sit around and schmooze. My dear wife, who might be an introvert from Minn., loves to schmooze with me, especially about the theatre.
The down side of 92 is experiencing the loss of so many of my old friends. Recently I said goodbye to the last friend who worked with me at Mobilization For Youth back in the sixties. It brings up a mixed feeling of being just plain lucky when it came to the distribution of the gene pool; and a gnawing feeling that I may be cheating someone else out of their time here on this good earth.
This brings me to my greatest concern. It has to do with how we are using up the planet. Our great industrial revolution created enormous wealth unheard of, unknown at any time in history on this earth. Having been a very full participant in that exploitation of our natural resources, I have a very deep appreciation for the gifts taken. A list of all the various automobiles I have owned in my long life would be a good measure of my benefits from the industrial revolution. Now we are coming upon the time when the “piper must be paid.” That makes me sad for what the grandchildren will be dealing with. Oh I know there are those who say, “don’t worry, technology will figure it out.” Yes and no. Our roof is covered with solar panels that have pretty much made us “power neutral.” Thats fine. But what about the disappearance of the codfish that have fed most of the western civilization since its founding? That’s just the tips of the icebergs that are melting and will substantially raise the sea levels, leaving millions world-wide homeless and landless.
So there you have my thoughts on my 92nd. And for those of you have asked what N.H.W.Y. mean as part of my sign-off: Thanks Kate “Never Happen Without You.”
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Cyberspace
Unfortunately there were no takers on my last blog re. the the societal impact of the Internet. I figured if no one out there wants to try their hand explaining at least some of the effects of cyberspace, heck I will. So here goes.
I do not have any recent research in hand that might tell me what has changed as a result of the communication revolution in cyberspace. I am including radio, television, e mail, cell phones, I Pods and all the other gadgets that keep us constantly in touch with one another, as well as advertisers and promoters of all kinds of junk that we don’t really need. The air out there is full of millions of messages floating around. I cannot believe we can still breath without inhaling a commercial. (Now there’s an interesting idea.)
One way for me to approach the impact of the cyberspace revolution is to use my own life experience and look at what has changed. Back in the 20s and 30s even telephones were scarce. As a young child in the 20s my family didn’t have a phone and I don’t remember knowing anyone who did. Contact was primarily through visits or the mail. Sunday afternoon was a time when friends would drop by for a coffee, cake and conversation. The latter was the most critical part of the get together. With some friends there was singing around the piano or a poetry reading. So much of entertainment was self induced.
The first change from what I just described came with the windup Victrola and 78 records. Now we began to be entertained by a machine rather than doing it ourselves. I remember hearing Caruso and Sir Harry Lauder singing. “Bridgett O’Flynn where have you been. This is a nice time for you to come in. You went to see a Big Parade, a Big Parade me eye no big parade would take so long the time just passing by.” And so on. Why do you think I remember stuff like that?
That was the very first breakaway from self entertaining. Next came early radio, It was with the help of a friendly neighbor I built a “Crystal Set.” It was a small unit-- a coil a crystal and a big aerial. It required earphones I remember getting WJZ in the middle of the night and thought I died and went to heaven. Radio had started invading of our lives. After my mother died friends took my father two sisters and me into their home.Evening activity became sitting around the radio listening to Amos &Andy, Jack Burns, Charley McCarthy and on and on. Now we really were entertained and didn’t have to to anything but supply batteries to a radio, And then came the newscasters that would be the beginning of the hyped up news programs.
Before radio our news came primarily from newspapers. There probably was a dozen of them in New York, They went all the way from the sedate NY Times through the Hearst papers ‘The Journal American” to the tabloids The”Daily Mirror” “The News “and oh yes “The Police Gazette.” Reading was then an absolute prerequisite for learning what was in the papers. I believe that reading experience stimulated some thinking. Is that’s why people were motre thoughtful about the news than they are today?
With the coming of television one no longer needed to read anything to learn what was going on in the world. That was the beginning of a fundamental change. I think that something happens when we read about news that disappears when it is spoken to us on television. Why I am not sure but when we read something we have to bring some of our own understanding to the subject matter in order for us to process it. In the case of television we have all these pundits and the viewer has to do nothing but nod in approval. For some reason we think they are smarter than we are because they are on the tube. That’s all that might be to it and that’s what has got us in such deep trouble. We stopped thinking for ourselves because we have all the real smart-alecks on the Sunday morning news programs to think for us.
One of our biggest losers to television was conversation. I grew up in a world of endless conversation. No matter the subject there were always people who could talk about it. In my extended family the conversation was politics, economics, art, music and more politics. There were other people I could converse with about automobiles, radio, and yes plumbing. What is my memory of those endless conversations? They were terrific learning experiences. Even if it started out as a heated argument, “how to organize a factory.” In retrospect,it always turned out to be a way of learning. The learning most often occurred well after the conversation. It was the processing that went on often in the late silence of the night that a ahaa moment that said “maybe this is a new way to think about it?” I believe that with the end of conversation we have also lost an important way to learn. The impact of television spin miesters can be seen as people now tend to make final statements that do not stimulate conversation but in fact end it.
Now the airwaves in addition to radio and television are cluttered with cellphones, IPods, text-messaging and GPS units to tell you when to turn stop and go. So what has all this cyberspace technology done for our quality of life? I do know it sure has speeded things up! In the old days when Air Mail first showed up we were delighted to get a letter across the continent in a day. That gave us some time to think between a reply. Now all replies are instant. Does that make them better? I doubt it. It sure speeds things up and hence we have little or no time to contemplate our thoughts on any given subject.
Maybe it’s just me in my 92nd year, but I have a strong felt sense that we, yes we, are suffering from overload. We need electric circuits that cause breakers to cut out the the line before it sets us on fire. Unfortunately we don’t have built in circuit breakers. In its place we have to find any old way to get some relief from the overload. I experience most people I know or come in contact with as BUSY,BUSY BUSY. Yes there are huge benefits from the age of technology, but at what cost? I do not know the answer to that question. Maybe you do?
Thanks kate N.H.W.Y.
I do not have any recent research in hand that might tell me what has changed as a result of the communication revolution in cyberspace. I am including radio, television, e mail, cell phones, I Pods and all the other gadgets that keep us constantly in touch with one another, as well as advertisers and promoters of all kinds of junk that we don’t really need. The air out there is full of millions of messages floating around. I cannot believe we can still breath without inhaling a commercial. (Now there’s an interesting idea.)
One way for me to approach the impact of the cyberspace revolution is to use my own life experience and look at what has changed. Back in the 20s and 30s even telephones were scarce. As a young child in the 20s my family didn’t have a phone and I don’t remember knowing anyone who did. Contact was primarily through visits or the mail. Sunday afternoon was a time when friends would drop by for a coffee, cake and conversation. The latter was the most critical part of the get together. With some friends there was singing around the piano or a poetry reading. So much of entertainment was self induced.
The first change from what I just described came with the windup Victrola and 78 records. Now we began to be entertained by a machine rather than doing it ourselves. I remember hearing Caruso and Sir Harry Lauder singing. “Bridgett O’Flynn where have you been. This is a nice time for you to come in. You went to see a Big Parade, a Big Parade me eye no big parade would take so long the time just passing by.” And so on. Why do you think I remember stuff like that?
That was the very first breakaway from self entertaining. Next came early radio, It was with the help of a friendly neighbor I built a “Crystal Set.” It was a small unit-- a coil a crystal and a big aerial. It required earphones I remember getting WJZ in the middle of the night and thought I died and went to heaven. Radio had started invading of our lives. After my mother died friends took my father two sisters and me into their home.Evening activity became sitting around the radio listening to Amos &Andy, Jack Burns, Charley McCarthy and on and on. Now we really were entertained and didn’t have to to anything but supply batteries to a radio, And then came the newscasters that would be the beginning of the hyped up news programs.
Before radio our news came primarily from newspapers. There probably was a dozen of them in New York, They went all the way from the sedate NY Times through the Hearst papers ‘The Journal American” to the tabloids The”Daily Mirror” “The News “and oh yes “The Police Gazette.” Reading was then an absolute prerequisite for learning what was in the papers. I believe that reading experience stimulated some thinking. Is that’s why people were motre thoughtful about the news than they are today?
With the coming of television one no longer needed to read anything to learn what was going on in the world. That was the beginning of a fundamental change. I think that something happens when we read about news that disappears when it is spoken to us on television. Why I am not sure but when we read something we have to bring some of our own understanding to the subject matter in order for us to process it. In the case of television we have all these pundits and the viewer has to do nothing but nod in approval. For some reason we think they are smarter than we are because they are on the tube. That’s all that might be to it and that’s what has got us in such deep trouble. We stopped thinking for ourselves because we have all the real smart-alecks on the Sunday morning news programs to think for us.
One of our biggest losers to television was conversation. I grew up in a world of endless conversation. No matter the subject there were always people who could talk about it. In my extended family the conversation was politics, economics, art, music and more politics. There were other people I could converse with about automobiles, radio, and yes plumbing. What is my memory of those endless conversations? They were terrific learning experiences. Even if it started out as a heated argument, “how to organize a factory.” In retrospect,it always turned out to be a way of learning. The learning most often occurred well after the conversation. It was the processing that went on often in the late silence of the night that a ahaa moment that said “maybe this is a new way to think about it?” I believe that with the end of conversation we have also lost an important way to learn. The impact of television spin miesters can be seen as people now tend to make final statements that do not stimulate conversation but in fact end it.
Now the airwaves in addition to radio and television are cluttered with cellphones, IPods, text-messaging and GPS units to tell you when to turn stop and go. So what has all this cyberspace technology done for our quality of life? I do know it sure has speeded things up! In the old days when Air Mail first showed up we were delighted to get a letter across the continent in a day. That gave us some time to think between a reply. Now all replies are instant. Does that make them better? I doubt it. It sure speeds things up and hence we have little or no time to contemplate our thoughts on any given subject.
Maybe it’s just me in my 92nd year, but I have a strong felt sense that we, yes we, are suffering from overload. We need electric circuits that cause breakers to cut out the the line before it sets us on fire. Unfortunately we don’t have built in circuit breakers. In its place we have to find any old way to get some relief from the overload. I experience most people I know or come in contact with as BUSY,BUSY BUSY. Yes there are huge benefits from the age of technology, but at what cost? I do not know the answer to that question. Maybe you do?
Thanks kate N.H.W.Y.
Monday, October 5, 2009
More Thoughts on Fearful Minds
In my last blog comparing the depression of the 1930’s with the present recession, I left out a very important variable that did not exist back then. That of course is the Internet. In the 30’s I was doing my “blog” on a mimeograph machine.
Back then we called them “leaflets.” It required typing out your message on a master gel sheet. It was then wound around a drum of the mimeograph machine where it was also inked. A ream of paper was put in the machine and you cranked away as each sheet was printed. The leaflets were distributed either on the street, in front of a factory gate or in mailboxes by walking around until all the copies were gone. This took hours and hours of work. Even then you hardly ever knew who read them and who dumped them. Wow! How that has changed.
As I sit here at home overlooking the Moriches Bay, I am typing out my blog. Then at the press of a key it goes out to how many people? I really don’t know. Many hundreds, thousands, millions of people are doing the same thing. And then there are the web-sites--The Huffington Post, Slate and on and on. What is the impact of all this, what should I call it--news opinions, thoughts, gossip, information, dribble? I don’t know precisely. I know it is all having an impact, but what that is I don’t know. I need some of my sociology, psychology mavins, or anyone else who has an opinion, to do a guest blog and tell us what is known about the impact of the Internet on our society?
In the meantime I was very much impressed with a David Brooks column in the Times of Oct. 2, 2009. The subject was very similar to my blog re. “Fearful Minds.” Brooks says the following about the right wing nuts on cable--Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. In the last Presidential race they were going after McCain hammer and tongs because he’s not a true conservative. And the result? Comes New Hampshire and McCain wins. Next comes South Carolina and the “jocks” (Brooks’ term, not mine) hammer away at McCain because they want Romney. And Brooks points out again there is no army of followers that these Cable News whackos can produce. McCain wins South Carolina.
Quoting Brooks,”So what is the theme of our history lesson? It is the story of remarkable volume and utter weakness. It is the story of media mavens who claim to represent a hidden majority but who in fact represent a mere niche -- even in the Republican Party. It is a story as old as “The Wizard of Oz,” of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain.” Brooks sights many more examples of how these guys just got it wrong.
This is not to say that we should ignore their message of hate. No, we need to react to it forcefully and fast. That’s what John Kerry failed to do on Swift boat allegations and it well might have cost him the election. Yet I believe he would have lost it anyhow because he, like so many other Democrats, just are not at home in the world of Blue Collar working class folk anymore. They used to be the solid support that the Democrats could always count on. No more. Okay, I just wanted to give a smart Republican, David Brooks, his due. He still knows how to conduct a civil argument about issues we may absolutely disagree about. These days I am grateful for that.
Would love to hear some ideas from you regarding the Internet’s effect on society.
Thanks Kate N.H.W.Y.
Back then we called them “leaflets.” It required typing out your message on a master gel sheet. It was then wound around a drum of the mimeograph machine where it was also inked. A ream of paper was put in the machine and you cranked away as each sheet was printed. The leaflets were distributed either on the street, in front of a factory gate or in mailboxes by walking around until all the copies were gone. This took hours and hours of work. Even then you hardly ever knew who read them and who dumped them. Wow! How that has changed.
As I sit here at home overlooking the Moriches Bay, I am typing out my blog. Then at the press of a key it goes out to how many people? I really don’t know. Many hundreds, thousands, millions of people are doing the same thing. And then there are the web-sites--The Huffington Post, Slate and on and on. What is the impact of all this, what should I call it--news opinions, thoughts, gossip, information, dribble? I don’t know precisely. I know it is all having an impact, but what that is I don’t know. I need some of my sociology, psychology mavins, or anyone else who has an opinion, to do a guest blog and tell us what is known about the impact of the Internet on our society?
In the meantime I was very much impressed with a David Brooks column in the Times of Oct. 2, 2009. The subject was very similar to my blog re. “Fearful Minds.” Brooks says the following about the right wing nuts on cable--Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. In the last Presidential race they were going after McCain hammer and tongs because he’s not a true conservative. And the result? Comes New Hampshire and McCain wins. Next comes South Carolina and the “jocks” (Brooks’ term, not mine) hammer away at McCain because they want Romney. And Brooks points out again there is no army of followers that these Cable News whackos can produce. McCain wins South Carolina.
Quoting Brooks,”So what is the theme of our history lesson? It is the story of remarkable volume and utter weakness. It is the story of media mavens who claim to represent a hidden majority but who in fact represent a mere niche -- even in the Republican Party. It is a story as old as “The Wizard of Oz,” of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain.” Brooks sights many more examples of how these guys just got it wrong.
This is not to say that we should ignore their message of hate. No, we need to react to it forcefully and fast. That’s what John Kerry failed to do on Swift boat allegations and it well might have cost him the election. Yet I believe he would have lost it anyhow because he, like so many other Democrats, just are not at home in the world of Blue Collar working class folk anymore. They used to be the solid support that the Democrats could always count on. No more. Okay, I just wanted to give a smart Republican, David Brooks, his due. He still knows how to conduct a civil argument about issues we may absolutely disagree about. These days I am grateful for that.
Would love to hear some ideas from you regarding the Internet’s effect on society.
Thanks Kate N.H.W.Y.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Changing Fearful Minds
On my last blog, “Departure of Irving Kristol,” there was a comment asking what can we do about “fearful minds” that are being influenced by conservative bigots, falsifiers, and political right wing scoundrels? The hate talk on the televisions right wing-nuts is beginning to take on a far more ominous tone. Open talk about “killing the President” seems to be now acceptable behavior. This is typical example of how “fearful minds” become storm troops against democratic traditions. Having lived through the rise and fall of fascism I wonder if there are lessons that can be useful in the present struggle?
There are some similarities and some important differences between then and now. The present economic crisis, while not as severe, is a similarity. The difference is the present rapid response on the part of the governments to save the economic structure. That saved the banks and Wall Street but has left us with double digit unemployment. This is the root cause of the rising resentment amongst many Blue Collar people who rightly feel that the millionaires have been bailed out but they are the “forgotten.” That feeling is similar to how a much larger population in the 30ies felt about their situation. They were the “fearful minds” the fodder for the legends of fascist organizations that were springing up all over the western world.
Of course the extremes were in Germany and Italy. In the US we had similar but far less successful organizations. Father Couglin in Detroit or Huey long in Louisiana the German American Bund in New Jersey promising the world to the “fearful minds” of those who had lost their livelihoods, their homes and their hope for the future. The Couglin group actually tried to copy the Nazis with their publication of Henry Fords anti semitic diatribe, “The Protocols of Zion.” Did it catch on? Yes with some of the, “fearful minds” who were in dire need of someone to blame for their misfortune. The Jewish Bankers were handy or the Negroes for the Southern “fearful minds.” But as history has shown in didn’t quite catch on her as it did in Europe. The question is why not?
I believe there are a number of factors that played a critical role. First compared to Germany or Italy, there was a far more solid democratic tradition in the US going back to the founding fathers. Second President, F.D.R. was very empathic to those who were suffering the effects of the depression. I strongly believe that empathy grew out of his own struggle with infantile paralysis that left him with two totally useless legs that he needed to hold up with heavy steel braces. Third, he surrounded himself with a group of strong minded people who were determined to make some very critical changes in society. Finally and probably most important was the vibrant and powerful left that literally forced the F.D.R. administration to make serious economic concessions to the working class. The Wagner Act, Home Relief, Unemployment Insurance, Social Security just to name a few created in the 30ies. We now take them for granted. We refer to them as “the safety net.”
What can these lessons of the 30ies teach us for today? First the Obama administration needs to take some real action to help those victims of the recession who are the lowly wage earners down at the bottom of the economic ladder. Second the “new internet left” needs to swing into action to send President Obama a message that he needs to use the same kind of vigorous support he gave the banks to help those folks lower down on the economic scale who are suffering the most. The “fearful mind” folks need to see some leadership that is directing solutions in their direction. The important thing for those of us who believe in equality and fairness is to not cede the political playing fields to the right wing conservatives. They want to take us back to the dark ages of derivative Ponzi schemes that simply put, “make the rich richer at the expense of the working poor.”
Thanks Kate N.H.W.Y.
There are some similarities and some important differences between then and now. The present economic crisis, while not as severe, is a similarity. The difference is the present rapid response on the part of the governments to save the economic structure. That saved the banks and Wall Street but has left us with double digit unemployment. This is the root cause of the rising resentment amongst many Blue Collar people who rightly feel that the millionaires have been bailed out but they are the “forgotten.” That feeling is similar to how a much larger population in the 30ies felt about their situation. They were the “fearful minds” the fodder for the legends of fascist organizations that were springing up all over the western world.
Of course the extremes were in Germany and Italy. In the US we had similar but far less successful organizations. Father Couglin in Detroit or Huey long in Louisiana the German American Bund in New Jersey promising the world to the “fearful minds” of those who had lost their livelihoods, their homes and their hope for the future. The Couglin group actually tried to copy the Nazis with their publication of Henry Fords anti semitic diatribe, “The Protocols of Zion.” Did it catch on? Yes with some of the, “fearful minds” who were in dire need of someone to blame for their misfortune. The Jewish Bankers were handy or the Negroes for the Southern “fearful minds.” But as history has shown in didn’t quite catch on her as it did in Europe. The question is why not?
I believe there are a number of factors that played a critical role. First compared to Germany or Italy, there was a far more solid democratic tradition in the US going back to the founding fathers. Second President, F.D.R. was very empathic to those who were suffering the effects of the depression. I strongly believe that empathy grew out of his own struggle with infantile paralysis that left him with two totally useless legs that he needed to hold up with heavy steel braces. Third, he surrounded himself with a group of strong minded people who were determined to make some very critical changes in society. Finally and probably most important was the vibrant and powerful left that literally forced the F.D.R. administration to make serious economic concessions to the working class. The Wagner Act, Home Relief, Unemployment Insurance, Social Security just to name a few created in the 30ies. We now take them for granted. We refer to them as “the safety net.”
What can these lessons of the 30ies teach us for today? First the Obama administration needs to take some real action to help those victims of the recession who are the lowly wage earners down at the bottom of the economic ladder. Second the “new internet left” needs to swing into action to send President Obama a message that he needs to use the same kind of vigorous support he gave the banks to help those folks lower down on the economic scale who are suffering the most. The “fearful mind” folks need to see some leadership that is directing solutions in their direction. The important thing for those of us who believe in equality and fairness is to not cede the political playing fields to the right wing conservatives. They want to take us back to the dark ages of derivative Ponzi schemes that simply put, “make the rich richer at the expense of the working poor.”
Thanks Kate N.H.W.Y.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Departure of Irving Kristol
The obituary on the death of Irving Kristol reminded me of my experience in the Alcoves at City College (CCNY). In my very radical youth years of the the ‘30s, I was working as a Plumber’s helper and spending my nights as a street corner speaker. One night I was asked to come to one of the Alcoves at CCNY to join the arguments going on between the Stalinists, Trotskyites, DeLeonists and other assorted left wing fervent believers. The Alcoves at CCNY, as I remember it, was part of the College cafeteria, a place where you could get food, but mostly you got hot and heavy arguments. Because plumbing work depended on availability, I did have periodic days off. On one of those days, I was invited to participate in the Alcove arguments. I went off to City College. As a Public School graduate with a few semesters of night High School, I was fearful of a world I knew nothing of.
With much hesitation I got involved in some of the arguments regarding world revolution versus the Russian Revolution. The Trotskyite position was that the Russian Revolution would fail unless there was the same kind of overthrow of all the capitalist systems. Back then I believed, if the Russian model could demonstrate its superiority, that would become a model for workers of the world. My arguments became an oddity as word spread around the Alcove that “there was a real worker here arguing the Stalinist position.” That drew a crowd of curious students who wanted to hear a “real worker.” I didn’t admit it at the time, but man with this crowd, was I ever over my head. They quoted stuff I never even heard of. Though I had been assured by many that I did just fine, I left with an overwhelming feeling that I had an awful lot to learn. I suppose I have had that feeling ever since.
It was there that I encountered many Irving Kristols’, Irving Howes’, and others who in later life would emerge as the new world of neo conservatives. Irving Kristol defined a neo conservative as a liberal who had been “mugged by reality.” Well that depends on how one experiences or views reality. In the CCNY Alcove, it was clear to me that my perception of reality as a plumber’s helper was very different from any of the political positions being argued there.
How one perceives what is going on in society depends on one’s “frame of reference.” For example, in my years of working on employment policy, I was often asked if a particular workplace “was a good place to work?” My standard answer became, “Compared to what?” This grew out of an experience I had touring with a group of economists in Europe. They were looking at unique workplaces where workers were participating in controlling their own work areas. In a truck plant in Sweden an economics Professor said, ‘This place is really noisy and stinks.” In fact it was the Taj Mahal of truck factories. I asked him, “Where have you worked in your life?” He replied, “Columbia University. I started there as a student and now I am a full Professor.” I laughed and he said, So what’s wrong with that?” Of course there was nothing wrong. It was simply that his narrow frame of reference gave him no way to understand what was going on in this truck factory.
One more illustration of this. In the ‘80s there was a television program about the anti-poverty programs. A number of the neo conservatives interviewed said they thought the programs were basically failures because they didn’t in fact end poverty. Needless to say, I was furious. Yes, they didn’t end poverty. I never believed they would. My frame of reference taught me to look beyond the immediate reported results. What I found was the emergence of a whole new group of Black and Latino leaders who came out of those programs. That experience helped them to understand the role of leadership. Their emergence has fundamentally changed the political spectrum in this country.
Irving Kristol, and now his son William, see reality as having been “mugged.” I am sure that being part of the mainstream is far more comfortable than being out there feeling mugged. “Mugged by reality,” there may be the fundamental difference. Being “mugged” infers a fear of reality. Others of us experience reality, but do not fear it. That experience may also make us far more empathic with those out there in the “mugged” world.
Thanks Kate N.H.W.Y.
With much hesitation I got involved in some of the arguments regarding world revolution versus the Russian Revolution. The Trotskyite position was that the Russian Revolution would fail unless there was the same kind of overthrow of all the capitalist systems. Back then I believed, if the Russian model could demonstrate its superiority, that would become a model for workers of the world. My arguments became an oddity as word spread around the Alcove that “there was a real worker here arguing the Stalinist position.” That drew a crowd of curious students who wanted to hear a “real worker.” I didn’t admit it at the time, but man with this crowd, was I ever over my head. They quoted stuff I never even heard of. Though I had been assured by many that I did just fine, I left with an overwhelming feeling that I had an awful lot to learn. I suppose I have had that feeling ever since.
It was there that I encountered many Irving Kristols’, Irving Howes’, and others who in later life would emerge as the new world of neo conservatives. Irving Kristol defined a neo conservative as a liberal who had been “mugged by reality.” Well that depends on how one experiences or views reality. In the CCNY Alcove, it was clear to me that my perception of reality as a plumber’s helper was very different from any of the political positions being argued there.
How one perceives what is going on in society depends on one’s “frame of reference.” For example, in my years of working on employment policy, I was often asked if a particular workplace “was a good place to work?” My standard answer became, “Compared to what?” This grew out of an experience I had touring with a group of economists in Europe. They were looking at unique workplaces where workers were participating in controlling their own work areas. In a truck plant in Sweden an economics Professor said, ‘This place is really noisy and stinks.” In fact it was the Taj Mahal of truck factories. I asked him, “Where have you worked in your life?” He replied, “Columbia University. I started there as a student and now I am a full Professor.” I laughed and he said, So what’s wrong with that?” Of course there was nothing wrong. It was simply that his narrow frame of reference gave him no way to understand what was going on in this truck factory.
One more illustration of this. In the ‘80s there was a television program about the anti-poverty programs. A number of the neo conservatives interviewed said they thought the programs were basically failures because they didn’t in fact end poverty. Needless to say, I was furious. Yes, they didn’t end poverty. I never believed they would. My frame of reference taught me to look beyond the immediate reported results. What I found was the emergence of a whole new group of Black and Latino leaders who came out of those programs. That experience helped them to understand the role of leadership. Their emergence has fundamentally changed the political spectrum in this country.
Irving Kristol, and now his son William, see reality as having been “mugged.” I am sure that being part of the mainstream is far more comfortable than being out there feeling mugged. “Mugged by reality,” there may be the fundamental difference. Being “mugged” infers a fear of reality. Others of us experience reality, but do not fear it. That experience may also make us far more empathic with those out there in the “mugged” world.
Thanks Kate N.H.W.Y.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
