I had discourse
with a plumber
who would euthanize, oh, say,
two billion people and seemed not to care
even know about the pain
his genocidal plans
would cause
And I talked
to a jobless guy
panhandling by
who thought that I
had a great personality
Poor deluded guy
I personally
am one who would
not consider wearing a flag
lapel button But I love these
American guys as fiercely
as they don’t want me
to love them
Go ahead and call me effete
if you must
I’ll be doing my best
to love you
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Bubble Riders Got Richer
Poverty and Policy Problems for the Rest of US
My friend Alex Kotlowitz is nearly done with a magazine piece outlining the many ways the city of Cleveland has been devastated by the collapse of the housing market. Cleveland’s problems are on the devastating side of bad; a rust-belt city built around good union manufacturing jobs, suffering from hundreds of millions of dollars worth of lost wealth, eroding tax base and unmet needs.
The other day, Alex and I vigorously debated the proposition that sub-prime housing problems caused the collapse of the larger housing market. Though it wasn't really Alex's position, I have a hard time with even the suggestion that sub-prime mortgage holders somehow caused anything. But we were engaged in a discussion that could have continued indefinitely.
After all, Cleveland homeowner households had a much higher percentage of sub-prime mortgages than did most urban markets. At ground level in Cleveland the flood of mortgage defaults, abandoned housing, personal bankruptcies and business closings must look like a cataract unleashed when the tailings damn of sub-prime mortgages washed out. Alex ended the discussion, graciously suggesting that it might be fair to say that the housing bubble burst and the sub-prime mortgage market collapsed in some places almost simultaneously.
I pushed hard against the notion that defaults on sub-prime mortgages were a first cause of our current financial problems for a couple of reasons. One, I really do believe I’m correct here. And two, it freaks me out that some conservatives (and large numbers of ordinary folks traumatized by their own growing financial problems) think that the nasty habits of sub-prime mortgage holders are to blame for everything.
If such a perspective were to prevail, it could lead to all sorts of scary policy outcomes. Like bailout programs kinder to bankers than homeowners. Like scapegoating low-income folks because they wanted to be homeowners, too, and because they were innocent grist for the commercial and investment banking mills grinding out securitized mortgages at great profit. Like policies that abandon rather than bail out and invest in hard-hit urban communities.
Anticipating the possibility of bad policy outcomes is time well spent, but not if it molds an argument about facts, however elusive those facts might be. That night I hit the books, scanning Dean Baker’s new book, Plunder and Blunder, The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy, and coming to the conclusion that I had better clarify a few things, particularly as I have no wish to be regarded as a dogmatic idiot.
A decent understanding of Baker’s work (you can see lots of it at www.cepr.net/) might be to say that the collapse of the housing bubble and the subsequent loss of more than $1 trillion in wealth were caused by the inevitable collision of the forces that fueled the bubble in the first place with the forces that would pop it. Those forces included:
• Sustained and artificially low interest rates, primarily the work of the Fed under Greenspan;
• An artificially high dollar, primarily the result of export economies like China investing their cash in US Treasury Bonds in order to maintain American purchasing power and appetite for imported goods;
• Deregulation and bad regulation that allowed major financial actors driven by greed to develop, sell, swap, trade and insure a myriad of dubious services and securities;
• And job loss, especially high-paying manufacturing jobs, in the United States, caused by competition from cheaper imported goods and resulting in significant losses in household income concentrated in urban economies most dependent on manufacturing.
Though these essentially contradictory economic forces could co-exist for a period of time, they could not do so indefinitely. As the deflating of the bubble proceeded, the effects showed first in housing markets with a high percentage of sub-prime mortgages and adjustable rate mortgages (sub-prime or otherwise).
In not a few instances, households with sub-prime mortgages and ARMs had actually been steered into them in spite of the fact that they were qualified for cheaper and more stable conventional mortgages. Some qualified homebuyers simply received mortgages with disastrous terms lurking in escalating interest rates and onerous payoff conditions.
In other instances, borrowers sought and obtained ARMs that deferred principle and, even, interest payments, and created only temporarily affordable monthly mortgage payments. In the rush to securitize and sell mortgages, and collect the fees associated with midwifeing the securitized mortgage packages, lenders barely scrutinized borrowers.
In some cases, refinancing deadlines arrived for households with ARMs at the same time that job losses began increasing and home values in their communities began stagnating. With little or no equity in their homes, these households found new low-interest mortgages increasingly unavailable.
An honest reading of Plunder and Blunder wouldn’t likely lead anyone to the notion that a single first cause for our economic depression is identifiable. But Baker’s last chapter, “Learning from the Bubbles,” is full of quotable indictments of some of the villains, and they aren’t sub-prime mortgage holders.
“The financial industry’s conduct in the housing bubble was even worse,” Baker writes (pg. 141). “housing prices had sharply diverged from a 100-year trend…vacancy rates were at record highs…inflation-adjusted rents were not rising through most of the period of the housing bubble…some owners of rental units [converted] them to ownership units…Decreasing demand and increased supply lowers the price; what part of that reality did the highly compensated analysts fail to understand?”
Elsewhere, Baker neatly excoriates former Fed Board Chair Alan Greenspan. He also takes a swipe at the media, which he amply substantiates elsewhere.
“The leading villain in this story is Alan Greenspan. Greenspan mastered the art of currying the favor of the rich and powerful and held top economic positions under five presidents of both political parties. He also managed to gain a near cult-like following among the media. As a result, most of the public is largely unaware of how disastrous the Fed’s policies under his tenure were for the economy and the country (pg. 140).”
The cascade of terrible economic news that has characterized most of the last two years was almost inevitable. Except, of course, for the mega- and quasi-collapses of so many banking, insurance and brokerage giants that promoted the bubble in the first place.
The much ignored original sin here is the amount of wealth that was privatized in the form of dividends, salaries and bonuses during the bonanza years, leaving the now shaky financial giants without the resources to cover their losses. Almost to a man, or woman, the nouveau rich and richer of the last 15 years will get to keep what they took.
The rest of us will be left with the responsibility for developing, advocating and supporting fair, just and restorative polices, based on a clear understanding of what happened, and focused on communities where people live and work and engage the future.
My friend Alex Kotlowitz is nearly done with a magazine piece outlining the many ways the city of Cleveland has been devastated by the collapse of the housing market. Cleveland’s problems are on the devastating side of bad; a rust-belt city built around good union manufacturing jobs, suffering from hundreds of millions of dollars worth of lost wealth, eroding tax base and unmet needs.
The other day, Alex and I vigorously debated the proposition that sub-prime housing problems caused the collapse of the larger housing market. Though it wasn't really Alex's position, I have a hard time with even the suggestion that sub-prime mortgage holders somehow caused anything. But we were engaged in a discussion that could have continued indefinitely.
After all, Cleveland homeowner households had a much higher percentage of sub-prime mortgages than did most urban markets. At ground level in Cleveland the flood of mortgage defaults, abandoned housing, personal bankruptcies and business closings must look like a cataract unleashed when the tailings damn of sub-prime mortgages washed out. Alex ended the discussion, graciously suggesting that it might be fair to say that the housing bubble burst and the sub-prime mortgage market collapsed in some places almost simultaneously.
I pushed hard against the notion that defaults on sub-prime mortgages were a first cause of our current financial problems for a couple of reasons. One, I really do believe I’m correct here. And two, it freaks me out that some conservatives (and large numbers of ordinary folks traumatized by their own growing financial problems) think that the nasty habits of sub-prime mortgage holders are to blame for everything.
If such a perspective were to prevail, it could lead to all sorts of scary policy outcomes. Like bailout programs kinder to bankers than homeowners. Like scapegoating low-income folks because they wanted to be homeowners, too, and because they were innocent grist for the commercial and investment banking mills grinding out securitized mortgages at great profit. Like policies that abandon rather than bail out and invest in hard-hit urban communities.
Anticipating the possibility of bad policy outcomes is time well spent, but not if it molds an argument about facts, however elusive those facts might be. That night I hit the books, scanning Dean Baker’s new book, Plunder and Blunder, The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy, and coming to the conclusion that I had better clarify a few things, particularly as I have no wish to be regarded as a dogmatic idiot.
A decent understanding of Baker’s work (you can see lots of it at www.cepr.net/) might be to say that the collapse of the housing bubble and the subsequent loss of more than $1 trillion in wealth were caused by the inevitable collision of the forces that fueled the bubble in the first place with the forces that would pop it. Those forces included:
• Sustained and artificially low interest rates, primarily the work of the Fed under Greenspan;
• An artificially high dollar, primarily the result of export economies like China investing their cash in US Treasury Bonds in order to maintain American purchasing power and appetite for imported goods;
• Deregulation and bad regulation that allowed major financial actors driven by greed to develop, sell, swap, trade and insure a myriad of dubious services and securities;
• And job loss, especially high-paying manufacturing jobs, in the United States, caused by competition from cheaper imported goods and resulting in significant losses in household income concentrated in urban economies most dependent on manufacturing.
Though these essentially contradictory economic forces could co-exist for a period of time, they could not do so indefinitely. As the deflating of the bubble proceeded, the effects showed first in housing markets with a high percentage of sub-prime mortgages and adjustable rate mortgages (sub-prime or otherwise).
In not a few instances, households with sub-prime mortgages and ARMs had actually been steered into them in spite of the fact that they were qualified for cheaper and more stable conventional mortgages. Some qualified homebuyers simply received mortgages with disastrous terms lurking in escalating interest rates and onerous payoff conditions.
In other instances, borrowers sought and obtained ARMs that deferred principle and, even, interest payments, and created only temporarily affordable monthly mortgage payments. In the rush to securitize and sell mortgages, and collect the fees associated with midwifeing the securitized mortgage packages, lenders barely scrutinized borrowers.
In some cases, refinancing deadlines arrived for households with ARMs at the same time that job losses began increasing and home values in their communities began stagnating. With little or no equity in their homes, these households found new low-interest mortgages increasingly unavailable.
An honest reading of Plunder and Blunder wouldn’t likely lead anyone to the notion that a single first cause for our economic depression is identifiable. But Baker’s last chapter, “Learning from the Bubbles,” is full of quotable indictments of some of the villains, and they aren’t sub-prime mortgage holders.
“The financial industry’s conduct in the housing bubble was even worse,” Baker writes (pg. 141). “housing prices had sharply diverged from a 100-year trend…vacancy rates were at record highs…inflation-adjusted rents were not rising through most of the period of the housing bubble…some owners of rental units [converted] them to ownership units…Decreasing demand and increased supply lowers the price; what part of that reality did the highly compensated analysts fail to understand?”
Elsewhere, Baker neatly excoriates former Fed Board Chair Alan Greenspan. He also takes a swipe at the media, which he amply substantiates elsewhere.
“The leading villain in this story is Alan Greenspan. Greenspan mastered the art of currying the favor of the rich and powerful and held top economic positions under five presidents of both political parties. He also managed to gain a near cult-like following among the media. As a result, most of the public is largely unaware of how disastrous the Fed’s policies under his tenure were for the economy and the country (pg. 140).”
The cascade of terrible economic news that has characterized most of the last two years was almost inevitable. Except, of course, for the mega- and quasi-collapses of so many banking, insurance and brokerage giants that promoted the bubble in the first place.
The much ignored original sin here is the amount of wealth that was privatized in the form of dividends, salaries and bonuses during the bonanza years, leaving the now shaky financial giants without the resources to cover their losses. Almost to a man, or woman, the nouveau rich and richer of the last 15 years will get to keep what they took.
The rest of us will be left with the responsibility for developing, advocating and supporting fair, just and restorative polices, based on a clear understanding of what happened, and focused on communities where people live and work and engage the future.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Julie Came Around
Stoic endurance is for Julie
not a sign of strength
or weakness
but of missed chances.
In weather Julie senses quakerly
opportunity to see that of god
in every thunderstorm, every
dry spell. Even the lowliest,
fleeting squall reveals
god. Maybe, I
taught her that. Maybe,
it was in me once.
But today in DC, in sunny,
blustery cold, I am undone,
hardly reaching even no account,
unsatisfactory, stoic endurance.
I do not suffer unfairly,
only there does not seem to be
a piece of god in this cold.
It is said that as one
freezes to death,
numb indifference
is the blissful stage
before unconsciousness.
I wouldn’t know.
When Julie at four said,
my toes are frozen, she spoke
as we struggled with slushy sidewalks,
maneuvered between glacial piles
of snow, caught in a condensed,
relentless freeze-thaw-freeze,
I said, eyes to the sun, face to the sun,
body to the sun, do you trust me?
Yes, Julie said, with the fervor
of conversion and a prayer for warm toes.
OK. Good, then. Close your eyes,
feel the heat pulsing gently
Feel through cheeks.
See through eyelids.
Test the air, your nose
knows the way to the beach.
Note the orange glow of the midday sun.
Seen best with closed eyes. Heat
beating warmly. Walk the
beach with me? Savor the sun.
If we were in Ann Arbor now,
we’d be slogging through the snow.
But we’re barefoot on warm sand.
Sand actually hot on our toes.
Exotic, our naked, satisfied feet.
Are we warm yet?
And Julie said, yes, we are warm.
Our toes are so warm.
Our visit rich with our wonder.
Our lives focused this moment.
That message to Julie, coax a little warmth
from always available stock,
came around yesterday.
On the Metro platform, I turned to face the sun.
More brightness than heat, I could still feel it.
I could feel my satisfied feet grabbing sand.
And the cold and bluster drifted off,
leaving Julie and me at the beach,
so long ago, so fresh today, so warm.
not a sign of strength
or weakness
but of missed chances.
In weather Julie senses quakerly
opportunity to see that of god
in every thunderstorm, every
dry spell. Even the lowliest,
fleeting squall reveals
god. Maybe, I
taught her that. Maybe,
it was in me once.
But today in DC, in sunny,
blustery cold, I am undone,
hardly reaching even no account,
unsatisfactory, stoic endurance.
I do not suffer unfairly,
only there does not seem to be
a piece of god in this cold.
It is said that as one
freezes to death,
numb indifference
is the blissful stage
before unconsciousness.
I wouldn’t know.
When Julie at four said,
my toes are frozen, she spoke
as we struggled with slushy sidewalks,
maneuvered between glacial piles
of snow, caught in a condensed,
relentless freeze-thaw-freeze,
I said, eyes to the sun, face to the sun,
body to the sun, do you trust me?
Yes, Julie said, with the fervor
of conversion and a prayer for warm toes.
OK. Good, then. Close your eyes,
feel the heat pulsing gently
Feel through cheeks.
See through eyelids.
Test the air, your nose
knows the way to the beach.
Note the orange glow of the midday sun.
Seen best with closed eyes. Heat
beating warmly. Walk the
beach with me? Savor the sun.
If we were in Ann Arbor now,
we’d be slogging through the snow.
But we’re barefoot on warm sand.
Sand actually hot on our toes.
Exotic, our naked, satisfied feet.
Are we warm yet?
And Julie said, yes, we are warm.
Our toes are so warm.
Our visit rich with our wonder.
Our lives focused this moment.
That message to Julie, coax a little warmth
from always available stock,
came around yesterday.
On the Metro platform, I turned to face the sun.
More brightness than heat, I could still feel it.
I could feel my satisfied feet grabbing sand.
And the cold and bluster drifted off,
leaving Julie and me at the beach,
so long ago, so fresh today, so warm.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The Legendary Underground Feminist Abortion Service
Now fourteen years old, The Story of Jane, The Legendary Underground Feminist Abortion Service begins this way:
“During the four years before the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion, thousands of women called Jane. Jane was the contact name for a group in Chicago officially known as The Abortion Counseling Service of Women’s Liberation. Every week desperate women of every class, race and ethnicity telephoned Jane. They were women whose husbands or boy friends forbade them to use contraceptives; women who had conceived on every method of contraception; women who had not used contraceptives. They were older women who thought they were no longer fertile; young girls who did not understand their reproductive physiology. They were women who could not care for a child and women who did not want a child. Some women agonized over the decision, while others had no doubts. Each one was making the best decision about motherhood that she could make at the time.”
My copy of “Jane,” by Laura Kaplan, is a quality paperback published in 1995 by the University of Chicago Press, which will hopefully overlook this, and any other, uses or misuses I might make of Jane’s contents.
There are any number of stimulating ideas here, beginning with the notion that there actually was an “Abortion Counseling Service of Women’s Liberation.” The phrase has echoes of the Underground Railroad. Of freedom from oppression. Of escape from servitude. Of struggle for human rights and human potential. Of all the uprisings and rebellions and revolutions that human beings must stage in order to get anywhere.
But we are never done. Never done with hoping for better or more, never done with throwing off chains, battering against limits. It’s no surprise, then, that the battle for reproductive rights didn’t end with Roe v. Wade, it moved on, morphing and flowing and raging across the plains of a seemingly endless frontier. Change only a few words in Jane’s opening paragraph and an exciting testimony to feminist struggle for reproductive rights could be a passable reproduction of a pro-life manifesto. And so it goes.
And while it goes, it seems increasingly clear that pro-life activists (to use their term for themselves) fight a fatally flawed war. Their unsuccessful effort to eliminate abortion has certainly reduced abortion availability and abortions, generally. Perhaps not surprisingly, their moral crusade ends up restricting the right to perform abortion to a few doctors, permitting those doctors to set their own, high rates for abortion services.
But in a kind of collateral damage inflicted by pro-life warriors, the near-monopolistic market for abortion services creates profit opportunity for abortion providers. This profit potential guarantees that there will always be clinic operators and doctors who see a commercial opportunity in providing abortion services to the general public. It guarantees that there will always be clinic operators and doctors who privately and quietly provide abortion services at higher prices to well-to-do women. It guarantees that pharmaceutical companies will see plenty of additional profit opportunity in efforts to develop “magic bullets” that will provide safe and hassle-free abortions. And it guarantees that unscrupulous and inadequately trained abortion providers will materialize to perform abortions at exceedingly high prices in places where they are illegal or otherwise difficult to obtain.
But if we want to reduce the number of abortions, reduce government’s role in supporting abortion, and reduce the economic and social cost of abortion, we should end monopolistic control of the existing "right" to perform abortions. We can’t do that by banning abortion. Nor can we do it by further criminalizing abortion providers. But we can begin to do it by teaching abortion techniques to nurses and nurse practitioners as we do with doctors.
Jane did it, teaching abortion techniques, as well as other skills, to women who were not medical professionals at a time when having an abortion was a punishable offense.
“The workers explained to each woman having an abortion that the group trained people the way anyone learns, by practice. Before an apprentice learned something new, she asked the woman having the abortion for permission…Including the woman having the abortion in the actual process added to the political dimension of their work. Not only were they demystifying medical practice for themselves but [also] for every woman who came to them (pg. 128).”
Today, it ought to be a simple task to train already prepared nurses and others to provide abortion services in the interests of improving and expanding medical care and reducing abortion and abortion trauma. And there are far more nurses and far more nursing schools than there are doctors and medical schools. Teaching abortion techniques to nurses and nurse practitioners would require no more than what Jane accomplished outside institutional settings and outside the law.
The obvious payoff would be in increased availability of medically safe abortions. Abortion would become much cheaper. But there is no reason to believe that abortion would become even more frequent.
If pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy didn't have to travel for hundreds of miles to get access to abortion services, parental notification laws would become less onerous. Locally available and safe abortions would mean that young women, living in difficult circumstances, without reasonable parental support and without the resources to travel, would still have time to consider all reasonable alternatives to abortion, including having a child and putting it up for adoption.
Jane's story is a reminder that "we are the ones we've been waiting for." The practical impact of Jane's work, the empowerment that was one of the rewards of being part of Jane, and the organizing skills and political sophistication that members of Jane acquired seem inexhaustible and most available to those who work in direct ways for social change. Jane's history also makes clear why reproductive rights are inseparable from women's rights. And since only a very few people in power gain anything by standing in the way of the empowerment of others, Jane's story also makes clear why men ought to be placing a priority on reproductive rights, too. And in our time, those rights continue to depend significantly on access to safe, affordable abortions.
“During the four years before the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion, thousands of women called Jane. Jane was the contact name for a group in Chicago officially known as The Abortion Counseling Service of Women’s Liberation. Every week desperate women of every class, race and ethnicity telephoned Jane. They were women whose husbands or boy friends forbade them to use contraceptives; women who had conceived on every method of contraception; women who had not used contraceptives. They were older women who thought they were no longer fertile; young girls who did not understand their reproductive physiology. They were women who could not care for a child and women who did not want a child. Some women agonized over the decision, while others had no doubts. Each one was making the best decision about motherhood that she could make at the time.”
My copy of “Jane,” by Laura Kaplan, is a quality paperback published in 1995 by the University of Chicago Press, which will hopefully overlook this, and any other, uses or misuses I might make of Jane’s contents.
There are any number of stimulating ideas here, beginning with the notion that there actually was an “Abortion Counseling Service of Women’s Liberation.” The phrase has echoes of the Underground Railroad. Of freedom from oppression. Of escape from servitude. Of struggle for human rights and human potential. Of all the uprisings and rebellions and revolutions that human beings must stage in order to get anywhere.
But we are never done. Never done with hoping for better or more, never done with throwing off chains, battering against limits. It’s no surprise, then, that the battle for reproductive rights didn’t end with Roe v. Wade, it moved on, morphing and flowing and raging across the plains of a seemingly endless frontier. Change only a few words in Jane’s opening paragraph and an exciting testimony to feminist struggle for reproductive rights could be a passable reproduction of a pro-life manifesto. And so it goes.
And while it goes, it seems increasingly clear that pro-life activists (to use their term for themselves) fight a fatally flawed war. Their unsuccessful effort to eliminate abortion has certainly reduced abortion availability and abortions, generally. Perhaps not surprisingly, their moral crusade ends up restricting the right to perform abortion to a few doctors, permitting those doctors to set their own, high rates for abortion services.
But in a kind of collateral damage inflicted by pro-life warriors, the near-monopolistic market for abortion services creates profit opportunity for abortion providers. This profit potential guarantees that there will always be clinic operators and doctors who see a commercial opportunity in providing abortion services to the general public. It guarantees that there will always be clinic operators and doctors who privately and quietly provide abortion services at higher prices to well-to-do women. It guarantees that pharmaceutical companies will see plenty of additional profit opportunity in efforts to develop “magic bullets” that will provide safe and hassle-free abortions. And it guarantees that unscrupulous and inadequately trained abortion providers will materialize to perform abortions at exceedingly high prices in places where they are illegal or otherwise difficult to obtain.
But if we want to reduce the number of abortions, reduce government’s role in supporting abortion, and reduce the economic and social cost of abortion, we should end monopolistic control of the existing "right" to perform abortions. We can’t do that by banning abortion. Nor can we do it by further criminalizing abortion providers. But we can begin to do it by teaching abortion techniques to nurses and nurse practitioners as we do with doctors.
Jane did it, teaching abortion techniques, as well as other skills, to women who were not medical professionals at a time when having an abortion was a punishable offense.
“The workers explained to each woman having an abortion that the group trained people the way anyone learns, by practice. Before an apprentice learned something new, she asked the woman having the abortion for permission…Including the woman having the abortion in the actual process added to the political dimension of their work. Not only were they demystifying medical practice for themselves but [also] for every woman who came to them (pg. 128).”
Today, it ought to be a simple task to train already prepared nurses and others to provide abortion services in the interests of improving and expanding medical care and reducing abortion and abortion trauma. And there are far more nurses and far more nursing schools than there are doctors and medical schools. Teaching abortion techniques to nurses and nurse practitioners would require no more than what Jane accomplished outside institutional settings and outside the law.
The obvious payoff would be in increased availability of medically safe abortions. Abortion would become much cheaper. But there is no reason to believe that abortion would become even more frequent.
If pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy didn't have to travel for hundreds of miles to get access to abortion services, parental notification laws would become less onerous. Locally available and safe abortions would mean that young women, living in difficult circumstances, without reasonable parental support and without the resources to travel, would still have time to consider all reasonable alternatives to abortion, including having a child and putting it up for adoption.
Jane's story is a reminder that "we are the ones we've been waiting for." The practical impact of Jane's work, the empowerment that was one of the rewards of being part of Jane, and the organizing skills and political sophistication that members of Jane acquired seem inexhaustible and most available to those who work in direct ways for social change. Jane's history also makes clear why reproductive rights are inseparable from women's rights. And since only a very few people in power gain anything by standing in the way of the empowerment of others, Jane's story also makes clear why men ought to be placing a priority on reproductive rights, too. And in our time, those rights continue to depend significantly on access to safe, affordable abortions.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Song of Myself
If in the end,
I were to soar
skyward and still
higher, how would
it matter if none had heard
me shouting, “I am, I am, I am.”
I were to soar
skyward and still
higher, how would
it matter if none had heard
me shouting, “I am, I am, I am.”
A Kiss To Comfort Him (revised)
When I consider how hard Dad worked
on perfection, and I know
with certainty, how clearly he understood all
his achievements fell short,
I think then about the passion
he put into handwriting—with a fountain pen—
and the delight he had in his strokes and curves,
immodestly admiring those graceful loops, those elegant spaces.
In my vision, he sits back,
gazes at his signature complete,
thinks to himself,
“Yes. Almost perfect this time.”
You really should have seen it. Really.
At the bottom of a page, how it soared and glided,
his clear message to the world.
“I am here. I am me.”
Letters precise and self-assured,
the work of a meticulous man.
Today—many years after he died—
I think how that signature began to ail,
that the passion and the pride was gone before he died.
His last few signatures,
quivering, shaky, imprecise,
not his, not grand. I wish I could have given him
some gift to restore his will.
A kiss. A kiss.
The 1983 mayoral campaign in Chicago,
a victory for so many, a triumph
for Southside and Westside,
for Harold Washington,
for African Americans
intolerably shut out,
for neighborhoods
neglected without
ceasing.
But for Bernie—for Bernard E. Epton—
it was defeat, It was dealings with devils,
It was the catastrophe of his life,
the end of celebration.
Angry, hiding the throbbing of wounds,
weepy, listless, brimming with bitterness,
he was fallen, he was doomed,
And it was there, in the way he signed his name.
He was so deadly disappointed by who we would remember.
I wish I could have given him something of mine, anything
to comfort him.
A kiss.
Would he be happy to hear my sometimes delight
in his gifts of love, reliably exciting, rich with our pain and our striving?
Or would he charge me with too much delight
that I am not him?
Oh, but I am here and, sometimes, him.
It’s as if some secret side
of him is awakening
in me. As if
he kissed
me.
on perfection, and I know
with certainty, how clearly he understood all
his achievements fell short,
I think then about the passion
he put into handwriting—with a fountain pen—
and the delight he had in his strokes and curves,
immodestly admiring those graceful loops, those elegant spaces.
In my vision, he sits back,
gazes at his signature complete,
thinks to himself,
“Yes. Almost perfect this time.”
You really should have seen it. Really.
At the bottom of a page, how it soared and glided,
his clear message to the world.
“I am here. I am me.”
Letters precise and self-assured,
the work of a meticulous man.
Today—many years after he died—
I think how that signature began to ail,
that the passion and the pride was gone before he died.
His last few signatures,
quivering, shaky, imprecise,
not his, not grand. I wish I could have given him
some gift to restore his will.
A kiss. A kiss.
The 1983 mayoral campaign in Chicago,
a victory for so many, a triumph
for Southside and Westside,
for Harold Washington,
for African Americans
intolerably shut out,
for neighborhoods
neglected without
ceasing.
But for Bernie—for Bernard E. Epton—
it was defeat, It was dealings with devils,
It was the catastrophe of his life,
the end of celebration.
Angry, hiding the throbbing of wounds,
weepy, listless, brimming with bitterness,
he was fallen, he was doomed,
And it was there, in the way he signed his name.
He was so deadly disappointed by who we would remember.
I wish I could have given him something of mine, anything
to comfort him.
A kiss.
Would he be happy to hear my sometimes delight
in his gifts of love, reliably exciting, rich with our pain and our striving?
Or would he charge me with too much delight
that I am not him?
Oh, but I am here and, sometimes, him.
It’s as if some secret side
of him is awakening
in me. As if
he kissed
me.
You’ll Need My Help
On the Fort Totten Metro platform, transferring from the Red to the Green Line, I heard a conversation behind me.
“Hey, Good Clothes. You got a dollar?”
“Naw, man. I don’t have it.”
Turning, I walked back to a black guy sitting on a bench, the only one in sight who could have asked the question. I gave him a buck.
“Thank you,” he said. “I appreciate this.” As he spoke, he slid over on the bench, clearly inviting me to sit down next to him.
I sat. “Did you just call that guy ‘Good Clothes?’”
“Yeah, I did. He was dressed nice. And who are you, man?”
“My name’s Jeff,” I said, holding out my hand.
“Gray.” And shook my hand. “What’re you doing? Where you going?”
He sounded more than curious, maybe a little stunned that we were fraternizing. I know I was.
“I’m going over to Georgia Ave.”
“Oh, I’m not going that far,” Gray said, as the train pulled in.
We got on together. Gray again asked where I was going and I again told him Georgia Ave. and he again told me that he wasn’t going that far.
He evidently thought I had boarded the DC Metro with the goal of traveling to the state of Georgia, not a stop on the Green Line. “Are you confused, man? Georgia Ave. is the next stop.”
He didn’t answer directly. “What time is it?”
“Almost six,” I estimated.
“OK. OK. I’ll be riding the train for hours.” His voice lowered as he checked to see if anybody else on the train might be listening in. “I live in a shelter.”
I smiled and mumbled affirming sounds. Gray kept talking. “How come you sat down next to me?”
“When you said, ‘Hey, Good Clothes,’ I just liked the feel of that. How it sounded,” but Gray didn’t seem to get what I was saying, so I elaborated. “You know what I heard when you said that?”
“What?”
“I heard you saying something like ‘Hey, man, sometimes you’re up, sometimes you’re down. Right now, you’re looking good, you’re up, and I need your help. Maybe next time …”
Gray finished for me, “you’ll need my help.”
“I’ll be up,” I said. “And You’ll Need My Help.”
Gray laughed. “That’s cool, man. I thank you.”
My stop was coming and I stood up.
“When will I see you, again?” I asked him.
“You and me, we’ll both be around.”
We gestured toward each other. I offered Gray a power shake, he offered me a fist bump. We switched. I offered a fist bump, Gray came back with a power shake. We both laughed. I grabbed his hand, now in a fist, to keep it that way. With my other hand, we finally fist bumped.
Gray smiled one last time. “You don’t wanna shake hands,” he said. “Too many diseases these days.”
“Hey, Good Clothes. You got a dollar?”
“Naw, man. I don’t have it.”
Turning, I walked back to a black guy sitting on a bench, the only one in sight who could have asked the question. I gave him a buck.
“Thank you,” he said. “I appreciate this.” As he spoke, he slid over on the bench, clearly inviting me to sit down next to him.
I sat. “Did you just call that guy ‘Good Clothes?’”
“Yeah, I did. He was dressed nice. And who are you, man?”
“My name’s Jeff,” I said, holding out my hand.
“Gray.” And shook my hand. “What’re you doing? Where you going?”
He sounded more than curious, maybe a little stunned that we were fraternizing. I know I was.
“I’m going over to Georgia Ave.”
“Oh, I’m not going that far,” Gray said, as the train pulled in.
We got on together. Gray again asked where I was going and I again told him Georgia Ave. and he again told me that he wasn’t going that far.
He evidently thought I had boarded the DC Metro with the goal of traveling to the state of Georgia, not a stop on the Green Line. “Are you confused, man? Georgia Ave. is the next stop.”
He didn’t answer directly. “What time is it?”
“Almost six,” I estimated.
“OK. OK. I’ll be riding the train for hours.” His voice lowered as he checked to see if anybody else on the train might be listening in. “I live in a shelter.”
I smiled and mumbled affirming sounds. Gray kept talking. “How come you sat down next to me?”
“When you said, ‘Hey, Good Clothes,’ I just liked the feel of that. How it sounded,” but Gray didn’t seem to get what I was saying, so I elaborated. “You know what I heard when you said that?”
“What?”
“I heard you saying something like ‘Hey, man, sometimes you’re up, sometimes you’re down. Right now, you’re looking good, you’re up, and I need your help. Maybe next time …”
Gray finished for me, “you’ll need my help.”
“I’ll be up,” I said. “And You’ll Need My Help.”
Gray laughed. “That’s cool, man. I thank you.”
My stop was coming and I stood up.
“When will I see you, again?” I asked him.
“You and me, we’ll both be around.”
We gestured toward each other. I offered Gray a power shake, he offered me a fist bump. We switched. I offered a fist bump, Gray came back with a power shake. We both laughed. I grabbed his hand, now in a fist, to keep it that way. With my other hand, we finally fist bumped.
Gray smiled one last time. “You don’t wanna shake hands,” he said. “Too many diseases these days.”
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Letter to the Washington Post, #16
Israeli Aggression
Not unlike the American invasion of Iraq, Israel’s massive strike on Gaza is a disproportionate and inappropriate response to terrorism. And just as critics blasted the rationalizations for the devastating Russian assault against Georgian troops and Ossetian infrastructure in South Ossetia, so should we all repudiate Israeli explanations for its attacks on not only Hamas targets, but the infrastructure of Gaza, as well.
The main features of Israel’s assault, including overwhelming technological superiority, disproportionately high enemy non-combatant casualty rates and low risk to its own soldiers, also bear strong similarities to the wars initiated by Russia and the United States, both of which were strongly condemned internationally.
Over the years, the frequency with which Palestinian civilians have died in Israeli assaults, the widespread expropriation of Palestinian land for Israeli expansionism, and the systematic violation of Palestinian human rights have contributed significantly to the dramatic growth of fundamentalist Islamic groups committed to violence against Israeli and Jewish targets.
Though there is, indeed, an individual and national right to self-defense, Israel should not be allowed to claim such a right as the basis for acts of war.
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
Washington, DC 20017
202 506-7470
Not unlike the American invasion of Iraq, Israel’s massive strike on Gaza is a disproportionate and inappropriate response to terrorism. And just as critics blasted the rationalizations for the devastating Russian assault against Georgian troops and Ossetian infrastructure in South Ossetia, so should we all repudiate Israeli explanations for its attacks on not only Hamas targets, but the infrastructure of Gaza, as well.
The main features of Israel’s assault, including overwhelming technological superiority, disproportionately high enemy non-combatant casualty rates and low risk to its own soldiers, also bear strong similarities to the wars initiated by Russia and the United States, both of which were strongly condemned internationally.
Over the years, the frequency with which Palestinian civilians have died in Israeli assaults, the widespread expropriation of Palestinian land for Israeli expansionism, and the systematic violation of Palestinian human rights have contributed significantly to the dramatic growth of fundamentalist Islamic groups committed to violence against Israeli and Jewish targets.
Though there is, indeed, an individual and national right to self-defense, Israel should not be allowed to claim such a right as the basis for acts of war.
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
Washington, DC 20017
202 506-7470
Friday, December 19, 2008
A Family Correspondence on Israel & Palestine
My nephew Abraham and I recently exchanged a few e-mails about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The subject has gotten very difficult for me to write about during the last few years, but I much enjoyed exchanging thoughts with Abe and have decided that when it comes to writing about Israel and Palestine, the perfect is definitely the enemy of what might be only barely adequate. What follows here is, at least, heartfelt.
Hi guys,
As you know, I'm going to Israel in a little under a week. I'm going to have a ton of time on the plane, and probably on buses and etc., to read; and I'd like to get a better understanding of the place and its history. So I'm asking for suggestions.
I have relatively little knowledge of Israel/Palestine's history, so I don't want anything too specialist/arcane. And it would help if it's well-written and engaging (though I can work around that).
But what I really want is a quality product, an essential book. If one (or both!) of you regard the book and/or author highly, I'll feel pretty confident that I can trust it. I worry, given the subject matter, about being propagandized to (especially since I kind of expect the trip itself to be a 10-day propaganda festival).
So. What would you recommend?
Thanks,
Abraham
Hey, Abe,
Wish you were here. I've got so many books, but you’re going to have to go out on your own, I guess.
First off, for years anything put out by the American Friends Service Committee was about the best resource one could get. "A Compassionate Peace," which is probably out of print, was a great one-stop for the 20th century history of the region. But it wouldn't be enough, anyway.
Anything by Edward Said is a great critical resource, though sometimes a difficult read. A collection of essays by him would be an easy way to go.
Noam Chomsky, who is a friend of Said's, has written extensively about the region. "The Fateful Triangle" is a pretty comprehensive backgrounder. Not incidentally, don't carry a book by either author on your trip. That would invite debates that you can't win and that you will quickly tire of. When it comes to Israel/Palestine, everybody you meet will act like they know better than you, regardless of the facts.
A safer alternative to Chomsky and Said might be David Hirst's "The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East." It first came out in '70s, but it has been released twice in new editions since then. All of these books are, of course, strong dissents from orthodox pro-Israel history.
I know you don't want arcana, but Baruch Kimmerling's "Politicide: Ariel Sharon's War Against the Palestinians" has a lot of good recent history. I think it's a pretty easy read, too, but I don't know how much my off and on immersion in the subject may have prepared me to read it.
Norman Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors. He's got a book called the "The Holocaust Industry" that you might want to read after you get back. Or maybe not.
Jerome Levin of the Jewish Peace Lobby always seemed relevant to me, but it has been a few years since I looked at his stuff. But you might want to check out JPL's website.
Detail matters and, in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, oversimplification is especially dangerous, but I'm gonna oversimplify a little bit here. Remember, at all times while you're thinking about this, that two wrongs don't make a right—meaning that the Nazi war against the Jews cannot justify the expropriation of Palestinians.
A 60-year Arab propaganda war (much diminished, of late) against Israel is reprehensible, certainly. But it does not justify the Occupation. The propaganda campaign the Arab states waged against Israel matters, of course, but citing that as though it is the whole story and defines the Palesintian attitude toward Israel and Jews is wrong. There are plenty of Palestinians of enormous goodwill who believe the whole question of peace is not a moral one, but a political one. In other words, they believe that Israelis and Palestinians are peoples with a common fate who can and must settle their differences with compassion and a willingness to share the loaf.
That said, there are plenty of smart, well-meaning people who think that a two-state compromise can never be a permanent or stable solution. This is chiefly because an Israel that exists as a Jewish state will always be an anachronism, however compelling the arguments for a homeland for the Jews may be. The fact is that a Jewish state is a theocratic state and a fundamentalist one. Democracies cannot thrive, let alone endure, as theocratic states.
Jews won't thrive in a garrison state, either. And there is no argument that can justify forcing Palestinan citizens of Israel to live with fewer rights in what Desmond Tutu and others call an apartheid state.
Despite phrases like "a land without a people for a people without a land," the Palestinians have always existed in Palestine. Any account of the history of the place that does not acknowledge the enduring and productive presence of Palestinians is a colonialist account, as was the description of North America as wilderness when Europeans arrived on the continent.
It is obvious that few who live in or lead this country would suggest that we should return the continent to the descendants of the Native Americans who were here first, but we should never deny their existence in favor of a fairytale that pretends they weren't here (or were savages, or lost their rights to it because they didn't develop it the way Westerners believe[d] was appropriate). Jewish immigrants to Palestine in the 20th century were frequently good neighbors for Palestinians, but the development of the land was very capital intensive, even though the myth is that it was accomplished almost entirely by Jewish labor in the Kibbutzim.
Finally, a one-state solution is not a continuation of the "war against the Jews" by other means. Jews could live as well and probably more sustainably in a Palestine with an Arab majority. By the 22nd century, such a place could develop as a model of peace and tranquility for a world badly in need of such examples.
Jeff
P.S: You're probably sorry you asked about all this, but the damage is done. I would appreciate your feedback--I would like to edit this and put some version on my blog. You will not be included in any version without your review prior to full blogification.
Hi Jeff,
I wish I was there, too :) But this is the next-best thing.
Sometime later today, I'm going to take this email and head over to Moe's, which is an amazing 4-story palace of used books on Telegraph, just a few blocks south of Bancroft, so I might in fact find some of the items you list as being hard to locate.
That said, a few thoughts:
First, thanks for looking out for me re: Said and Chomsky. I can only imagine the shitstorm I would endure if I spent hours on the bus in Israel, surrounded by fellow pilgrims, reading the latter. Said, I think I'd have an easier time defending (and probably wouldn't raise as many eyebrows in the first place, though who knows.) But he seems a bit too academic for my current purposes.
Second, I've thought for a long time that a two-state solution was the way to go. My argument usually makes its way down, at some point, to the "demographic timebomb" and the underlying assumption that Israel can't exist the way it's "supposed to" under an Arab majority. I suppose it's also premised on the idea that a theocracy based on a by-definition racist policy of exclusion of some kind is acceptable, though I'd never condone such a thing for my own country. Characterizing it that way makes it seem too anachronistic to persist for much longer, but after all, even pirates are making a comeback these days...
Anyway, I hereby condone any and all parts of this exchange for blogification. Do with it what you will!
Thanks and love and see you soon,
Abe
Hi guys,
As you know, I'm going to Israel in a little under a week. I'm going to have a ton of time on the plane, and probably on buses and etc., to read; and I'd like to get a better understanding of the place and its history. So I'm asking for suggestions.
I have relatively little knowledge of Israel/Palestine's history, so I don't want anything too specialist/arcane. And it would help if it's well-written and engaging (though I can work around that).
But what I really want is a quality product, an essential book. If one (or both!) of you regard the book and/or author highly, I'll feel pretty confident that I can trust it. I worry, given the subject matter, about being propagandized to (especially since I kind of expect the trip itself to be a 10-day propaganda festival).
So. What would you recommend?
Thanks,
Abraham
Hey, Abe,
Wish you were here. I've got so many books, but you’re going to have to go out on your own, I guess.
First off, for years anything put out by the American Friends Service Committee was about the best resource one could get. "A Compassionate Peace," which is probably out of print, was a great one-stop for the 20th century history of the region. But it wouldn't be enough, anyway.
Anything by Edward Said is a great critical resource, though sometimes a difficult read. A collection of essays by him would be an easy way to go.
Noam Chomsky, who is a friend of Said's, has written extensively about the region. "The Fateful Triangle" is a pretty comprehensive backgrounder. Not incidentally, don't carry a book by either author on your trip. That would invite debates that you can't win and that you will quickly tire of. When it comes to Israel/Palestine, everybody you meet will act like they know better than you, regardless of the facts.
A safer alternative to Chomsky and Said might be David Hirst's "The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East." It first came out in '70s, but it has been released twice in new editions since then. All of these books are, of course, strong dissents from orthodox pro-Israel history.
I know you don't want arcana, but Baruch Kimmerling's "Politicide: Ariel Sharon's War Against the Palestinians" has a lot of good recent history. I think it's a pretty easy read, too, but I don't know how much my off and on immersion in the subject may have prepared me to read it.
Norman Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors. He's got a book called the "The Holocaust Industry" that you might want to read after you get back. Or maybe not.
Jerome Levin of the Jewish Peace Lobby always seemed relevant to me, but it has been a few years since I looked at his stuff. But you might want to check out JPL's website.
Detail matters and, in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, oversimplification is especially dangerous, but I'm gonna oversimplify a little bit here. Remember, at all times while you're thinking about this, that two wrongs don't make a right—meaning that the Nazi war against the Jews cannot justify the expropriation of Palestinians.
A 60-year Arab propaganda war (much diminished, of late) against Israel is reprehensible, certainly. But it does not justify the Occupation. The propaganda campaign the Arab states waged against Israel matters, of course, but citing that as though it is the whole story and defines the Palesintian attitude toward Israel and Jews is wrong. There are plenty of Palestinians of enormous goodwill who believe the whole question of peace is not a moral one, but a political one. In other words, they believe that Israelis and Palestinians are peoples with a common fate who can and must settle their differences with compassion and a willingness to share the loaf.
That said, there are plenty of smart, well-meaning people who think that a two-state compromise can never be a permanent or stable solution. This is chiefly because an Israel that exists as a Jewish state will always be an anachronism, however compelling the arguments for a homeland for the Jews may be. The fact is that a Jewish state is a theocratic state and a fundamentalist one. Democracies cannot thrive, let alone endure, as theocratic states.
Jews won't thrive in a garrison state, either. And there is no argument that can justify forcing Palestinan citizens of Israel to live with fewer rights in what Desmond Tutu and others call an apartheid state.
Despite phrases like "a land without a people for a people without a land," the Palestinians have always existed in Palestine. Any account of the history of the place that does not acknowledge the enduring and productive presence of Palestinians is a colonialist account, as was the description of North America as wilderness when Europeans arrived on the continent.
It is obvious that few who live in or lead this country would suggest that we should return the continent to the descendants of the Native Americans who were here first, but we should never deny their existence in favor of a fairytale that pretends they weren't here (or were savages, or lost their rights to it because they didn't develop it the way Westerners believe[d] was appropriate). Jewish immigrants to Palestine in the 20th century were frequently good neighbors for Palestinians, but the development of the land was very capital intensive, even though the myth is that it was accomplished almost entirely by Jewish labor in the Kibbutzim.
Finally, a one-state solution is not a continuation of the "war against the Jews" by other means. Jews could live as well and probably more sustainably in a Palestine with an Arab majority. By the 22nd century, such a place could develop as a model of peace and tranquility for a world badly in need of such examples.
Jeff
P.S: You're probably sorry you asked about all this, but the damage is done. I would appreciate your feedback--I would like to edit this and put some version on my blog. You will not be included in any version without your review prior to full blogification.
Hi Jeff,
I wish I was there, too :) But this is the next-best thing.
Sometime later today, I'm going to take this email and head over to Moe's, which is an amazing 4-story palace of used books on Telegraph, just a few blocks south of Bancroft, so I might in fact find some of the items you list as being hard to locate.
That said, a few thoughts:
First, thanks for looking out for me re: Said and Chomsky. I can only imagine the shitstorm I would endure if I spent hours on the bus in Israel, surrounded by fellow pilgrims, reading the latter. Said, I think I'd have an easier time defending (and probably wouldn't raise as many eyebrows in the first place, though who knows.) But he seems a bit too academic for my current purposes.
Second, I've thought for a long time that a two-state solution was the way to go. My argument usually makes its way down, at some point, to the "demographic timebomb" and the underlying assumption that Israel can't exist the way it's "supposed to" under an Arab majority. I suppose it's also premised on the idea that a theocracy based on a by-definition racist policy of exclusion of some kind is acceptable, though I'd never condone such a thing for my own country. Characterizing it that way makes it seem too anachronistic to persist for much longer, but after all, even pirates are making a comeback these days...
Anyway, I hereby condone any and all parts of this exchange for blogification. Do with it what you will!
Thanks and love and see you soon,
Abe
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Always Jewish, Lately Palestinian
I am Jewish because the love of others made me so.
I am Jewish because I grew up on the south side of Chicago; there even my public school was Jewish.
I am Jewish because my grandfather was oh, so Jewish, and I felt it then and feel it now.
I am Jewish because angry Irish boys felt my Jewish nose at the end of their Catholic fist.
I am Jewish because we are commanded to remember when we were slaves in Egypt and I do.
I am Jewish because we are commanded to seek justice and because I believed my teachers who said we must do so.
I am Jewish because I have never felt any other way.
I am Jewish because dissent is my faith and my chosen fate.
I am Jewish because I learned Hebrew and then forgot nearly every word of it.
I am Jewish because in my grandmother's kitchen nothing would rise, but of everything there was plenty.
I am Jewish because the South Shore Country Club was founded by people who would not let us in.
I am Jewish because my Dad once slugged a guy at Comiskey Park who cussed a Jewish pitcher for the White Sox.
I am Jewish because the Jewish god is not diminished by my disbelief.
I am Jewish because Dad was thrilled that Grandpa lived to my Bar Mitzvah and a little beyond.
I am Jewish because I wouldn't have it any other way.
I am Jewish because Emma Goldman was Jewish, and so was Karl Marx and so was Groucho Marx and Jesus, too, for that matter.
I am Jewish because of the Maccabees and Masada and crusader violence and Spanish inquisitors and Cossack pogroms and the ghetto and the death camps and because I also planted trees in Israel.
I am Jewish because Jewish workers fight in labor struggles and because Jewish people resist racism and because, like all the world’s poor, poor Jews endure.
I am Jewish because being Jewish means never using violence against another except when life, itself, is directly threatened, and that principle must never be compromised.
I am Jewish because with that claim I also claim my humanity and in my humanity I find this:
I am Palestinian because I, too, have been homeless.
I am Palestinian because Palestinian yearning is so like Jewish yearning.
I am Palestinian because I have been uplifted by the love of Palestinians.
I am Palestinian because peace in Arabic and in Hebrew bestows the same gift.
I am Palestinian because we are all children of Abraham.
I am Palestinian because, although Sarah and Hagar are our separate birth mothers, we all live in the embrace of one mother, and will return to her.
I am Jewish because if you come for the Jews, why not me also?
I am Palestinian because if you come for the Palestinians, why not me also?
I am Jewish because I grew up on the south side of Chicago; there even my public school was Jewish.
I am Jewish because my grandfather was oh, so Jewish, and I felt it then and feel it now.
I am Jewish because angry Irish boys felt my Jewish nose at the end of their Catholic fist.
I am Jewish because we are commanded to remember when we were slaves in Egypt and I do.
I am Jewish because we are commanded to seek justice and because I believed my teachers who said we must do so.
I am Jewish because I have never felt any other way.
I am Jewish because dissent is my faith and my chosen fate.
I am Jewish because I learned Hebrew and then forgot nearly every word of it.
I am Jewish because in my grandmother's kitchen nothing would rise, but of everything there was plenty.
I am Jewish because the South Shore Country Club was founded by people who would not let us in.
I am Jewish because my Dad once slugged a guy at Comiskey Park who cussed a Jewish pitcher for the White Sox.
I am Jewish because the Jewish god is not diminished by my disbelief.
I am Jewish because Dad was thrilled that Grandpa lived to my Bar Mitzvah and a little beyond.
I am Jewish because I wouldn't have it any other way.
I am Jewish because Emma Goldman was Jewish, and so was Karl Marx and so was Groucho Marx and Jesus, too, for that matter.
I am Jewish because of the Maccabees and Masada and crusader violence and Spanish inquisitors and Cossack pogroms and the ghetto and the death camps and because I also planted trees in Israel.
I am Jewish because Jewish workers fight in labor struggles and because Jewish people resist racism and because, like all the world’s poor, poor Jews endure.
I am Jewish because being Jewish means never using violence against another except when life, itself, is directly threatened, and that principle must never be compromised.
I am Jewish because with that claim I also claim my humanity and in my humanity I find this:
I am Palestinian because I, too, have been homeless.
I am Palestinian because Palestinian yearning is so like Jewish yearning.
I am Palestinian because I have been uplifted by the love of Palestinians.
I am Palestinian because peace in Arabic and in Hebrew bestows the same gift.
I am Palestinian because we are all children of Abraham.
I am Palestinian because, although Sarah and Hagar are our separate birth mothers, we all live in the embrace of one mother, and will return to her.
I am Jewish because if you come for the Jews, why not me also?
I am Palestinian because if you come for the Palestinians, why not me also?
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Hey, Dude, You’ve Got Something Stuck In Your Teeth
“Before language, we were critically limited in our ability to represent what wasn’t there,” writes Daniel Levitan in “The World in Six Songs.”
When I reflect on the meaning of this statement, I wonder how exactly it applies in very specific cases. Having no knowledge of linguistics, at all—or perhaps it is my equally limited grasp of anthropology that fails me—I have no idea if language first developed to distinguish you from me; or to help us all to understand that fire is not merely hot, but dangerous; or to share vocally the good feelings generated by touching and rubbing each other.
Regardless, once we had a word for rabbit and one for fire, we certainly needed more words to communicate our delight in the taste of cooked rabbit. I assume that it is at that point that things must have begun to get really complicated.
How do you say to a hungry person holding a dead rabbit and possessing a vocabulary of, say, 40 words, that we should cook the thing before we eat it? And cook it with the skin off because, after all, you want to wear the furry part on your head?
What if “skin,” meaning remove the hide, was the 50th word you learned? That means the dude holding the rabbit is 10 words behind you, not interested in a language lesson, and staring at you as though you, the educated one, are some sort of crazy caveperson.
You, meanwhile, are thinking this guy is an idiot, but he’s also the one holding dinner. Armed with only the rudiments of language, you are probably going to shrug and eat your portion raw, pausing occasionally to pick rabbit hair out of your teeth.
When I reflect on the meaning of this statement, I wonder how exactly it applies in very specific cases. Having no knowledge of linguistics, at all—or perhaps it is my equally limited grasp of anthropology that fails me—I have no idea if language first developed to distinguish you from me; or to help us all to understand that fire is not merely hot, but dangerous; or to share vocally the good feelings generated by touching and rubbing each other.
Regardless, once we had a word for rabbit and one for fire, we certainly needed more words to communicate our delight in the taste of cooked rabbit. I assume that it is at that point that things must have begun to get really complicated.
How do you say to a hungry person holding a dead rabbit and possessing a vocabulary of, say, 40 words, that we should cook the thing before we eat it? And cook it with the skin off because, after all, you want to wear the furry part on your head?
What if “skin,” meaning remove the hide, was the 50th word you learned? That means the dude holding the rabbit is 10 words behind you, not interested in a language lesson, and staring at you as though you, the educated one, are some sort of crazy caveperson.
You, meanwhile, are thinking this guy is an idiot, but he’s also the one holding dinner. Armed with only the rudiments of language, you are probably going to shrug and eat your portion raw, pausing occasionally to pick rabbit hair out of your teeth.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Poem for Language Experts
Poem for Language Experts
You say, ding-dong.
I say, pooh-pooh.
Ta-ta, you shout.
Yo-he-ho, I sing.
Arf, arf, you bark.
And then, bow-wow.
Grrr, I growl.
Cuckoo, you tease.
Stones, I throw.
Down, you fall.
Hop, I dance. Hop hop away.
Sneak and slither, you creep behind.
Then bam and down I fall.
Ouch, I yell.
Ha-ha, you laugh.
Boohoo, I cry.
Blood, I show.
Sorry, you shrug.
Me, too, I mug.
Happy, we hug.
You say, ding-dong.
I say, pooh-pooh.
Ta-ta, you shout.
Yo-he-ho, I sing.
Arf, arf, you bark.
And then, bow-wow.
Grrr, I growl.
Cuckoo, you tease.
Stones, I throw.
Down, you fall.
Hop, I dance. Hop hop away.
Sneak and slither, you creep behind.
Then bam and down I fall.
Ouch, I yell.
Ha-ha, you laugh.
Boohoo, I cry.
Blood, I show.
Sorry, you shrug.
Me, too, I mug.
Happy, we hug.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Letter to the Washington Post, #15
Actually, I never noted on this blog that the Post did publish letter #12. Obviously, I found that apparent success somewhat demoralizing. The evidence for that lies in the fact that I waited so long to write #s 13 & 14. Maybe they'll publish this one. It is, after all, somewhat sycophantic.
What Journalism Should Be
Editor,
Colbert King’s relentless pursuit of the facts in the jailhouse death of Jonathan Magbie (“For Jonathan Magbie, a Catalogue of Injustice," Dec. 6) deserves much praise. In the column, King thanks his editors for allowing him to return to the story 14 times since October 2004. In the process, King and the editors have provided us all with an example of what journalism should be.
This matters as surely as do First Amendment protections. Without such dogged pursuit and publication of stories that illuminate recurring issues in our society newspapers would be unworthy of their constitutional protections.
In Magbie’s case, Judge Judith Retchin so badly failed any reasonable humanitarian standard it is a wonder she remains in office. Likewise, in the Magbie instance and others, the D.C. jail has failed repeatedly to balance its duties to community safety with fairness in its treatment of prisoners. Based on King’s repeated accounts, it seems equally fair to say the hospital, now know as United Medical Center, failed miserably at keeping Magbie alive, clearly UMC’s first responsibility.
And of what was Magbie, a 27-year old, ventilator-dependent, quadriplegic, guilty? A first-time offense against marijuana possession laws.
There is no question in my mind that what happened to Jonathan Magbie shames us all. But as long as journalists and their editors give such stories the attention they deserve, we will have opportunities to fix the institutions and policies that permit such tragedies. And the country will have a journalism that serves our needs.
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
Washington, DC 20017
202 506-7470
What Journalism Should Be
Editor,
Colbert King’s relentless pursuit of the facts in the jailhouse death of Jonathan Magbie (“For Jonathan Magbie, a Catalogue of Injustice," Dec. 6) deserves much praise. In the column, King thanks his editors for allowing him to return to the story 14 times since October 2004. In the process, King and the editors have provided us all with an example of what journalism should be.
This matters as surely as do First Amendment protections. Without such dogged pursuit and publication of stories that illuminate recurring issues in our society newspapers would be unworthy of their constitutional protections.
In Magbie’s case, Judge Judith Retchin so badly failed any reasonable humanitarian standard it is a wonder she remains in office. Likewise, in the Magbie instance and others, the D.C. jail has failed repeatedly to balance its duties to community safety with fairness in its treatment of prisoners. Based on King’s repeated accounts, it seems equally fair to say the hospital, now know as United Medical Center, failed miserably at keeping Magbie alive, clearly UMC’s first responsibility.
And of what was Magbie, a 27-year old, ventilator-dependent, quadriplegic, guilty? A first-time offense against marijuana possession laws.
There is no question in my mind that what happened to Jonathan Magbie shames us all. But as long as journalists and their editors give such stories the attention they deserve, we will have opportunities to fix the institutions and policies that permit such tragedies. And the country will have a journalism that serves our needs.
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
Washington, DC 20017
202 506-7470
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Dean Baker and the Economic Right Stuff
If there is a more delightfully rational and straightforward economist around than Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, somebody needs to tell me. I don’t write much--I wish I could make myself do it more. But reading Baker’s stuff makes me want to package his ideas and analysis and get it out to a wider audience. My reliance on Dean for economic and political truth is so complete, I would be roadkill without him.
“Paulson and Bernanke spread the wealth around” is a recent and useful example of Dean’s thinking. He observes that when Barack told Joe the Plumber that he favored tax increases on incomes over $250,000 in order to spread wealth, the loudest responses were critical and adverse.
But, Dean writes, “fortunes will be made or lost depending on how this bailout money is used. For example, Secretary Paulson just agreed to lend another $20 billion of the Treasury's bailout money to Citigroup.
“In addition, the Federal Reserve Board agreed to guarantee up to $300 billion of presumably bad assets. This is an enormously valuable guarantee. If Citigroup had to arrange a comparable guarantee in the private market, it would almost certainly pay more than $30 billion a year.
“This decision sent Citigroup's stock soaring. In the week since the bailout was announced, Citigroup's stock more than doubled, adding more than $25 billion to the company's capitalization. (The government could have bought the bank outright with the money it lent to Citi.) This is great news for Citigroup's shareholders, who would be holding almost worthless stock if Mr. Paulson had not been so generous.
“Paulson's decision was also good news for Robert Rubin and other top executives at Citigroup. If the government had not stepped in, Citigroup would almost certainly be in bankruptcy and most of its highly paid executives would likely be out on the street.
“Creditors of Citigroup also benefited. If Citigroup went into bankruptcy, their loans would be frozen for a period of time while the court determined what percentage of Citi's debts could be paid. At the end of this process, many creditors would only receive back a fraction of what they are owed.
“The fact that money is being redistributed doesn't make it wrong to bail out Citigroup or any of the other companies now being aided by the various Fed and Treasury funds. We need to keep the financial system functioning. However, there is every reason in the world to be concerned about the extent to which these policies may be enriching the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of the rest of us.
“In the case of the Citi rescue, there was no obvious reason why the shareholders should not be wiped out. They understood (or should have) that when they bought shares of the company that they could lose their whole investment if the company was poorly managed and went bankrupt. Similarly, there is no obvious reason that the management that wrecked Citi should not be thrown out and replaced with a more competent and lower paid team.”
There is more of Dean, lots more at www.cepr.net. Be sure also to check out “Paper wealth and the economic crisis.”
Dean may not have a prime place in the rolodexes of power, but journalists and commentators need to rely on him more often. Ordinary folks already can and do.
“Paulson and Bernanke spread the wealth around” is a recent and useful example of Dean’s thinking. He observes that when Barack told Joe the Plumber that he favored tax increases on incomes over $250,000 in order to spread wealth, the loudest responses were critical and adverse.
But, Dean writes, “fortunes will be made or lost depending on how this bailout money is used. For example, Secretary Paulson just agreed to lend another $20 billion of the Treasury's bailout money to Citigroup.
“In addition, the Federal Reserve Board agreed to guarantee up to $300 billion of presumably bad assets. This is an enormously valuable guarantee. If Citigroup had to arrange a comparable guarantee in the private market, it would almost certainly pay more than $30 billion a year.
“This decision sent Citigroup's stock soaring. In the week since the bailout was announced, Citigroup's stock more than doubled, adding more than $25 billion to the company's capitalization. (The government could have bought the bank outright with the money it lent to Citi.) This is great news for Citigroup's shareholders, who would be holding almost worthless stock if Mr. Paulson had not been so generous.
“Paulson's decision was also good news for Robert Rubin and other top executives at Citigroup. If the government had not stepped in, Citigroup would almost certainly be in bankruptcy and most of its highly paid executives would likely be out on the street.
“Creditors of Citigroup also benefited. If Citigroup went into bankruptcy, their loans would be frozen for a period of time while the court determined what percentage of Citi's debts could be paid. At the end of this process, many creditors would only receive back a fraction of what they are owed.
“The fact that money is being redistributed doesn't make it wrong to bail out Citigroup or any of the other companies now being aided by the various Fed and Treasury funds. We need to keep the financial system functioning. However, there is every reason in the world to be concerned about the extent to which these policies may be enriching the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of the rest of us.
“In the case of the Citi rescue, there was no obvious reason why the shareholders should not be wiped out. They understood (or should have) that when they bought shares of the company that they could lose their whole investment if the company was poorly managed and went bankrupt. Similarly, there is no obvious reason that the management that wrecked Citi should not be thrown out and replaced with a more competent and lower paid team.”
There is more of Dean, lots more at www.cepr.net. Be sure also to check out “Paper wealth and the economic crisis.”
Dean may not have a prime place in the rolodexes of power, but journalists and commentators need to rely on him more often. Ordinary folks already can and do.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Auto execs take the train (and love it)
So, it's been a bad week (month? year? decade? two decades?) for GM, Ford and Chrysler. Depending on the time span in question, they are failing financially and politically, not to mention competitively. Should we add environmentally, morally and millenially? As it turns out, with health care, pensions, housing and employment growing ever more problematic for millions of us, there is still some truth to the notion that as GM goes, so go we all.
This past week, the CEOs of the Shrinking Three got spanked in Washington, but still couldn't get paid. Rebuked for flying their separate corporate jets to town at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, the sound of slamming doors had barely stopped ringing in their ears when the door opened one more time so that the House Democratic majority could kick Rep. John Dingell (D-GM) to the curb. The Dear John message was obvious as the Dems replaced Dingell with Henry Waxman (D-CA) as chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
In a separate press conference, congressional leaders suggested that the auto companies shouldn't bother to return to Washington without a plan we could believe in. A commentator on CNN suggested that the CEOs might have gotten a better response if they'd rode a bus to D.C.
But it's time for a compromise here. How about if they'd taken the train together from Detroit? Would that be better? Imagine all that time together--the ability to both relax and focus, to plan, even.
Cynicism aside, the execs (Richard Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler) are smart and experienced people who lead huge organizations with lots of resources and, even, creativity. Surely, they saw major parts of this crisis coming. And they have groupings within their organizations who have developed and promoted programs and projects that could be part of a creative plan to save the core of the domestic auto industry.
Sixteen hours on a train together discussing the obstacles and challenges might have resulted in the three arriving at Washington's Union Station as something other than puppies due for a whipping. There might have been more "you know, we've been talking," more "we can fix some of this," more "here's an idea I love," more "this is going to be painful, but here's the beginning of a plan for a greener transportation system in the United States and for Detroit manufacturing's role in that system."
Imagine Wagoner, Mulally and Nardelli running off the train yelling excitedly at each other. "You call, Pelosi. Tell her we'll be late, but we'll be there. We gotta find a Kinko's, make 500 copies of this proposal."
"I'll do it," shouts Wagoner. "But make it 1,000 copies. The press will want their own copy."
But the opportunity has passed them by. They came. They saw. They failed. And, anyway, you can't relax on Amtrak. It almost never runs on time or on decent track. Is there even rail service from Detroit to D.C.?
Still, there's always hope. And if they do come up with a plan that Washington can believe in, maybe they'll think to put a better rail system in it.
This past week, the CEOs of the Shrinking Three got spanked in Washington, but still couldn't get paid. Rebuked for flying their separate corporate jets to town at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, the sound of slamming doors had barely stopped ringing in their ears when the door opened one more time so that the House Democratic majority could kick Rep. John Dingell (D-GM) to the curb. The Dear John message was obvious as the Dems replaced Dingell with Henry Waxman (D-CA) as chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
In a separate press conference, congressional leaders suggested that the auto companies shouldn't bother to return to Washington without a plan we could believe in. A commentator on CNN suggested that the CEOs might have gotten a better response if they'd rode a bus to D.C.
But it's time for a compromise here. How about if they'd taken the train together from Detroit? Would that be better? Imagine all that time together--the ability to both relax and focus, to plan, even.
Cynicism aside, the execs (Richard Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler) are smart and experienced people who lead huge organizations with lots of resources and, even, creativity. Surely, they saw major parts of this crisis coming. And they have groupings within their organizations who have developed and promoted programs and projects that could be part of a creative plan to save the core of the domestic auto industry.
Sixteen hours on a train together discussing the obstacles and challenges might have resulted in the three arriving at Washington's Union Station as something other than puppies due for a whipping. There might have been more "you know, we've been talking," more "we can fix some of this," more "here's an idea I love," more "this is going to be painful, but here's the beginning of a plan for a greener transportation system in the United States and for Detroit manufacturing's role in that system."
Imagine Wagoner, Mulally and Nardelli running off the train yelling excitedly at each other. "You call, Pelosi. Tell her we'll be late, but we'll be there. We gotta find a Kinko's, make 500 copies of this proposal."
"I'll do it," shouts Wagoner. "But make it 1,000 copies. The press will want their own copy."
But the opportunity has passed them by. They came. They saw. They failed. And, anyway, you can't relax on Amtrak. It almost never runs on time or on decent track. Is there even rail service from Detroit to D.C.?
Still, there's always hope. And if they do come up with a plan that Washington can believe in, maybe they'll think to put a better rail system in it.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Blaming the sub-prime mortgagees for the sins of bankers
I keep trying to explain the current financial crisis to myself for two reasons. One, I believe there must be simpler explanations than the ones that seem to prevail in media reports and on op-ed pages. And two, I'm discovering that far too many people believe that one of the major causes of our current problems lays with homeowners who took mortgages that they couldn't afford.
There is of course, still a class of pundits who believe that too much regulation is a significant cause of the collapse of the financial markets, the freezing of credit, and the abysmal performance of American auto companies. We are going to have to agree to leave such people out of the conversation--they are market fundamentalists whose cultish practices are no doubt constitutionally protected however much they might frighten children and the simple-minded.
But to apply, at least minimally, the notion that it is markets that decide (rationally or otherwise) who gets what, when, where and why, it seems both wrong-headed and unkind to blame individual homeowners who have fallen behind or defaulted on their mortgages for our current financial difficulties. These homeowners must live with the decisions of markets. They are not the deciders, as our soon to be ex-president might say.
After all, a good many people who received sub-prime mortgages actually qualified for conventional mortgages at more favorable rates. They were channelled into the sub-prime market, which created huge difficulties for them when affordable adjustable rate mortgages suddenly climbed to much higher rates after the housing bubble popped. It is shoeing the wrong horse to ask such people to predict the end of the bubble when bankers themselves believed (or pretended to believe) that we were all going to profit from an endlessly inflating housing market.
Mortgage applicants are consumers, not financial experts. They rely, mistakenly as it happens, on the expertise of others.
It is arguable, of course, that it is the buyer who ought to beware. But historically, it is banks and mortgage companies who have decided who is eligible for their services and who is not. If we are to take reasonable steps toward resurrecting the housing market, it makes far more sense to examine the practices of bankers, mortgage brokers and the buyers and sellers of bundled mortgages than it does to swing away at people who are losing their homes.
There is of course, still a class of pundits who believe that too much regulation is a significant cause of the collapse of the financial markets, the freezing of credit, and the abysmal performance of American auto companies. We are going to have to agree to leave such people out of the conversation--they are market fundamentalists whose cultish practices are no doubt constitutionally protected however much they might frighten children and the simple-minded.
But to apply, at least minimally, the notion that it is markets that decide (rationally or otherwise) who gets what, when, where and why, it seems both wrong-headed and unkind to blame individual homeowners who have fallen behind or defaulted on their mortgages for our current financial difficulties. These homeowners must live with the decisions of markets. They are not the deciders, as our soon to be ex-president might say.
After all, a good many people who received sub-prime mortgages actually qualified for conventional mortgages at more favorable rates. They were channelled into the sub-prime market, which created huge difficulties for them when affordable adjustable rate mortgages suddenly climbed to much higher rates after the housing bubble popped. It is shoeing the wrong horse to ask such people to predict the end of the bubble when bankers themselves believed (or pretended to believe) that we were all going to profit from an endlessly inflating housing market.
Mortgage applicants are consumers, not financial experts. They rely, mistakenly as it happens, on the expertise of others.
It is arguable, of course, that it is the buyer who ought to beware. But historically, it is banks and mortgage companies who have decided who is eligible for their services and who is not. If we are to take reasonable steps toward resurrecting the housing market, it makes far more sense to examine the practices of bankers, mortgage brokers and the buyers and sellers of bundled mortgages than it does to swing away at people who are losing their homes.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Bailout and regulate
Not that Charles Krauthammer needs to acknowledge my existence, but I feel like he's here to nullify mine. I only wish I could swing enough weight to nullify him back. I would regard the fact of his nullification, second only to the existence of my children, as my greatest contribution to life and culture to come.
In "A Lemon of A Bailout," Washington Post, Nov. 14, Krauthammer claims that some sort of rescue of the banking industry makes sense because "...finance is a utility," like "...the electric companies." This observation comes on the way to his larger point that extending the federal bailout to include the auto companies is arbitrary and inefficient. After all, Krauthammer might claim, capitalism can't exist without a financial sector, but we could all muddle through with a shrunken and bankrupt auto industry.
If that were actually true, then exactly what would be the point of having a capitalist system? I mean, if capitalism offers nothing to the many, if jobs and products aren't the principal parts of that commitment, then 90 percent of us (at least) have no use for it, at all. Who agreed to this deal?
And, if Krauthammer's assertion that finance is integral to capitalism, but auto as a dominant industrial presence (at this point in time) is not necessary to capitalism, is not true, then it follows that not only should we rescue, but we should regulate with an eye to maximizing employment and making autos and jobs as people-friendly and earth-friendly as possible.
jde
In "A Lemon of A Bailout," Washington Post, Nov. 14, Krauthammer claims that some sort of rescue of the banking industry makes sense because "...finance is a utility," like "...the electric companies." This observation comes on the way to his larger point that extending the federal bailout to include the auto companies is arbitrary and inefficient. After all, Krauthammer might claim, capitalism can't exist without a financial sector, but we could all muddle through with a shrunken and bankrupt auto industry.
If that were actually true, then exactly what would be the point of having a capitalist system? I mean, if capitalism offers nothing to the many, if jobs and products aren't the principal parts of that commitment, then 90 percent of us (at least) have no use for it, at all. Who agreed to this deal?
And, if Krauthammer's assertion that finance is integral to capitalism, but auto as a dominant industrial presence (at this point in time) is not necessary to capitalism, is not true, then it follows that not only should we rescue, but we should regulate with an eye to maximizing employment and making autos and jobs as people-friendly and earth-friendly as possible.
jde
Monday, November 3, 2008
All I'm Saying Is
-------------------
Brendan said
There’s too much bread
in the butt
And I was like
what
Too much bread in the butt
And I was like
oh
And Marrianne said something
But I was feeling the hurt
And didn’t hear
So I was like
what
And she was like
repeating
The crusts are very thick
The crusts are very thick
And then I was like
oh
That’s why Brendan’s trading
the heel of the bread loaf
to me
for a slice from the center
And I was like
cool
I like a lotta bread
in the butt
Brendan said
There’s too much bread
in the butt
And I was like
what
Too much bread in the butt
And I was like
oh
And Marrianne said something
But I was feeling the hurt
And didn’t hear
So I was like
what
And she was like
repeating
The crusts are very thick
The crusts are very thick
And then I was like
oh
That’s why Brendan’s trading
the heel of the bread loaf
to me
for a slice from the center
And I was like
cool
I like a lotta bread
in the butt
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Letters to the Washington Post, #13 & 14
Two more letters to the Post that never had a fleeting moment of celebrity.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to me that, if I wait a while to actually post the letters myself, I have difficulty remembering why I thought what I was writing about mattered. But it does surprise me.
#13, The Nukes of India, 10/04/08
On balance, Senate approval of the Bush administration's nuclear trade agreement with India is probably a good deal. The Post's story("Senate Backs Far-Reaching Nuclear Trade Deal With India," Oct. 2) provides a decent summary of the details, but fails to follow the big financial interests presumably involved in getting to yes.
As the story notes, India will spend $14 billion next year to buy reactors, equipment and fuel. Total Indian purchases could total hundreds of billions over the next 20 years. Large business interests such as General Electric and Westinghouse, which stand to capture a portion of the sales to India, undoubtedly played a role in passing the bill.
No attentive reader could reach a final conclusion about the agreement without also knowing what such private interests did and how much they spent to secure approval of the trade agreement.
Jeff Epton
Brookland, WDC
202 506-7470
#14, Time-tested Surge?, 10/24/08
The assumption of the success of the surge in Iraq, celebrated everywhere, including the pages of the Post (e.g. Michael Gerson, “Casualty of the Surge” and Charles Krauthammer, “McCain for President,” both Oct. 24), may not stand the test of time. The increased stability of the Iraqi state, if it actually exists, may turn out to be a fleeting thing.
Former Fed chair Alan Greenspan thought he was on a roll, too. But his celebrity bubble burst with the collapse of home values, banks and Wall Street firms.
In Iraq, we are making regular multi-million dollar payments to tribal leaders and their militias to get them on our side, or, at least, to cease fire. When those payments stop, as they will, the surge likely fails. Of course, we could stay in Iraq for 100 years or so, but that’s another story.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to me that, if I wait a while to actually post the letters myself, I have difficulty remembering why I thought what I was writing about mattered. But it does surprise me.
#13, The Nukes of India, 10/04/08
On balance, Senate approval of the Bush administration's nuclear trade agreement with India is probably a good deal. The Post's story("Senate Backs Far-Reaching Nuclear Trade Deal With India," Oct. 2) provides a decent summary of the details, but fails to follow the big financial interests presumably involved in getting to yes.
As the story notes, India will spend $14 billion next year to buy reactors, equipment and fuel. Total Indian purchases could total hundreds of billions over the next 20 years. Large business interests such as General Electric and Westinghouse, which stand to capture a portion of the sales to India, undoubtedly played a role in passing the bill.
No attentive reader could reach a final conclusion about the agreement without also knowing what such private interests did and how much they spent to secure approval of the trade agreement.
Jeff Epton
Brookland, WDC
202 506-7470
#14, Time-tested Surge?, 10/24/08
The assumption of the success of the surge in Iraq, celebrated everywhere, including the pages of the Post (e.g. Michael Gerson, “Casualty of the Surge” and Charles Krauthammer, “McCain for President,” both Oct. 24), may not stand the test of time. The increased stability of the Iraqi state, if it actually exists, may turn out to be a fleeting thing.
Former Fed chair Alan Greenspan thought he was on a roll, too. But his celebrity bubble burst with the collapse of home values, banks and Wall Street firms.
In Iraq, we are making regular multi-million dollar payments to tribal leaders and their militias to get them on our side, or, at least, to cease fire. When those payments stop, as they will, the surge likely fails. Of course, we could stay in Iraq for 100 years or so, but that’s another story.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Working on a poem
I originally posted this poem under the title, Fleeing Before Me. I liked the poem alot, but it needed more work. I took it down and reposted it under the title, Survivor. That title probably isn't permanent, either. And it still needs work. The version below is a rewrite, still known to me as Survivor.
The poem is all metaphor. I love its mood, but I know how difficult it is to hunt for its basic meaning. I am not going to let it go until it is much better than it is now. Still, I'm posting this third version because it provokes me, like a weird but completely lovable child. For me, coping with this poem, raising it up, will be like having multiple embarassing moments in the supermarket with a toddler.
Survivor
Here am I,
both minimal and me,
in this unbounded place,
a point in passing;
a bridge between times,
through darkness, across voids,
around the great signal fires.
It takes an effort of will
to see what I’d missed;
to see god in that space
was god,
was god beside me,
beside our own fire,
inside the intimate infernal dark.
Later, hearing small birds with
perfect pitch and
immaculate messages.
A bumblebee so close god's eyes
cross with wonder and
neglect for appearances.
Separation came at dawn.
The bee has gone this way,
into the future,
precisely the path I follow now
with music by birdsong and
lit by brilliant flowers.
Reflecting,
I stop at this old firepit.
Step carefully around the scattered
bones. Toeing, then picking at them,
the old bones nearby. What beasts were these?
Something immense, I’m sure.
Something fierce, I wonder.
How did this place become
so empty?
What has been driven before me?
Who also wanders here?
Midst birdsong and flowers,
Who will find whom?
This wondering almost consumes me.
I gather a bouquet of thoughts,
consider fragrance, balance of color,
count petals, sing at the silence.
In a fresh effort,
I again hear the small birds
possessing perfect pitch,
singing immaculate messages.
Leaving reason behind,
god, last seen, seemed adrift, remote,
flickered out in the distance,
just before the horizon line.
The bee has gone this way,
into the future and
I have followed.
backed with music by birdsong,
night lit by the scattered
combustible bushes.
Tiring, I stop at the next firepit.
Step carefully around the scattered
bones. Toeing, then picking at them—
the old bones nearby. What beasts were these?
Something immense, I’m sure.
And very old, I imagine.
Hungry, I go.
How will this place become
full of life again?
I pick through the gathering thoughts.
What has fled before me?
Who wanders just ahead?
With what purpose?
With eyes failing like mine?
With strain in the effort
of looking?
Who will find whom
around birdsong and flowers
and scattered bones of long-gone beasts?
What happens then?
This hunt defines me now.
The next thought consumes me.
The poem is all metaphor. I love its mood, but I know how difficult it is to hunt for its basic meaning. I am not going to let it go until it is much better than it is now. Still, I'm posting this third version because it provokes me, like a weird but completely lovable child. For me, coping with this poem, raising it up, will be like having multiple embarassing moments in the supermarket with a toddler.
Survivor
Here am I,
both minimal and me,
in this unbounded place,
a point in passing;
a bridge between times,
through darkness, across voids,
around the great signal fires.
It takes an effort of will
to see what I’d missed;
to see god in that space
was god,
was god beside me,
beside our own fire,
inside the intimate infernal dark.
Later, hearing small birds with
perfect pitch and
immaculate messages.
A bumblebee so close god's eyes
cross with wonder and
neglect for appearances.
Separation came at dawn.
The bee has gone this way,
into the future,
precisely the path I follow now
with music by birdsong and
lit by brilliant flowers.
Reflecting,
I stop at this old firepit.
Step carefully around the scattered
bones. Toeing, then picking at them,
the old bones nearby. What beasts were these?
Something immense, I’m sure.
Something fierce, I wonder.
How did this place become
so empty?
What has been driven before me?
Who also wanders here?
Midst birdsong and flowers,
Who will find whom?
This wondering almost consumes me.
I gather a bouquet of thoughts,
consider fragrance, balance of color,
count petals, sing at the silence.
In a fresh effort,
I again hear the small birds
possessing perfect pitch,
singing immaculate messages.
Leaving reason behind,
god, last seen, seemed adrift, remote,
flickered out in the distance,
just before the horizon line.
The bee has gone this way,
into the future and
I have followed.
backed with music by birdsong,
night lit by the scattered
combustible bushes.
Tiring, I stop at the next firepit.
Step carefully around the scattered
bones. Toeing, then picking at them—
the old bones nearby. What beasts were these?
Something immense, I’m sure.
And very old, I imagine.
Hungry, I go.
How will this place become
full of life again?
I pick through the gathering thoughts.
What has fled before me?
Who wanders just ahead?
With what purpose?
With eyes failing like mine?
With strain in the effort
of looking?
Who will find whom
around birdsong and flowers
and scattered bones of long-gone beasts?
What happens then?
This hunt defines me now.
The next thought consumes me.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Ready
bobbing
weaving
up down staircase like tiny boxer
boy bursts daytime like sunrise
gifts spill skyward like soaring balloons
come on the day
come on glory
come on
weaving
up down staircase like tiny boxer
boy bursts daytime like sunrise
gifts spill skyward like soaring balloons
come on the day
come on glory
come on
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Saving the World, One Writer’s Workshop At A Time
I wish I was prettier, a little younger, a tad smarter,
a bit more charming, the old dude said. But it’s not to be.
So, absent the fairy who gives such gifts,
I’ll earn my weekly bread
with a bit of advice.
Not much is expected of a writer, he said, very little is required.
But if as a writer it comes to writing, you may need a plan.
And, in the passage of time, you might execute your plan.
That’s it. Leave your spare change at the door on your
way out. But there were objections and muttering,
which didn’t seem to bother the old dude much. I paid
for this, grumbled some. I don’t get paid enough,
he said, to listen to you whine. But it pays
the bills, so here’s more. Write to
exercise your demons.
They need the work. Write to recycle your trash.
Write to stir a few inches of soil. Write to
aerate the ground in which you propose
growing roots. Write to flower
for the honeybees around.
Writing is not driving, is not clear-cutting forests, is not beating
dogs or neglecting children. Writing is not gorging on fiberless
snacks. Writing is not salinating the land, is not acidifying
mountain lakes. As a rule, writing is not rudeness.
Writing is not sleeping through armaggedon.
When one writes, one does not go to war, does not arrest potheads,
does not commit hate crimes, does not tap phone lines. Writing is
celebration, is mining deep, is throwing one’s voice, is wandering
far, is back to Africa, is apologies to tribes, is bottomless pools.
While they write, while accepting gifts, writers do not borrow
money. Writing is now. Like all habits, it takes a few months to acquire.
It is almost entirely non-polluting and potentially harmless to all
but the most powerful. That’s it. No questions, please. And, as
I mentioned earlier, leave your change at the door as you
go.
a bit more charming, the old dude said. But it’s not to be.
So, absent the fairy who gives such gifts,
I’ll earn my weekly bread
with a bit of advice.
Not much is expected of a writer, he said, very little is required.
But if as a writer it comes to writing, you may need a plan.
And, in the passage of time, you might execute your plan.
That’s it. Leave your spare change at the door on your
way out. But there were objections and muttering,
which didn’t seem to bother the old dude much. I paid
for this, grumbled some. I don’t get paid enough,
he said, to listen to you whine. But it pays
the bills, so here’s more. Write to
exercise your demons.
They need the work. Write to recycle your trash.
Write to stir a few inches of soil. Write to
aerate the ground in which you propose
growing roots. Write to flower
for the honeybees around.
Writing is not driving, is not clear-cutting forests, is not beating
dogs or neglecting children. Writing is not gorging on fiberless
snacks. Writing is not salinating the land, is not acidifying
mountain lakes. As a rule, writing is not rudeness.
Writing is not sleeping through armaggedon.
When one writes, one does not go to war, does not arrest potheads,
does not commit hate crimes, does not tap phone lines. Writing is
celebration, is mining deep, is throwing one’s voice, is wandering
far, is back to Africa, is apologies to tribes, is bottomless pools.
While they write, while accepting gifts, writers do not borrow
money. Writing is now. Like all habits, it takes a few months to acquire.
It is almost entirely non-polluting and potentially harmless to all
but the most powerful. That’s it. No questions, please. And, as
I mentioned earlier, leave your change at the door as you
go.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Kill, Kill, Kill the Boeing Tanker Project
Letter to the Washington Post, #12
My first letter to the Post in almost three months. Do you think it’ll see print?
Your story, “Pentagon Reopens Tanker Bidding (July 10)” was incomplete. It should have referred to the re-reopening of the bidding for aerial refueling tankers. After all, the first $100 billion award--to Boeing--was cancelled when collusion between a Pentagon purchasing officer and Boeing was exposed. People went to prison for corrupt practices committed during that first bidding process.
The second contract, awarded to a Northrop Grumman/Airbus consortium, was cancelled after a political uproar during which the consortium and Boeing spent millions on dueling ad campaigns, and various elected officials and the General Accounting Office entered the fray.
Now, after hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on engineering, planning, advertising, bidding, administering, collaborating, corrupting, investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating, we’re going to do it all again. And do it for a Pentagon project that is a relic of a Cold War strategy.
We no longer need a whole fleet of aerial refueling tankers because, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we no longer need to keep bombers and fighters airborne 24/7 in order to assure a counter-strike capacity against a massive nuclear first strike.
It therefore seems obvious that ordinary Americans should not be reassured by the notion that the Pentagon will get it right this time. Getting it right would mean not issuing the contract in the first place. $100 billion and change could then be spent on health care, education and mass transit. How much more reassuring would that be?
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
Washington, DC 20017
202 506-7470
My first letter to the Post in almost three months. Do you think it’ll see print?
Your story, “Pentagon Reopens Tanker Bidding (July 10)” was incomplete. It should have referred to the re-reopening of the bidding for aerial refueling tankers. After all, the first $100 billion award--to Boeing--was cancelled when collusion between a Pentagon purchasing officer and Boeing was exposed. People went to prison for corrupt practices committed during that first bidding process.
The second contract, awarded to a Northrop Grumman/Airbus consortium, was cancelled after a political uproar during which the consortium and Boeing spent millions on dueling ad campaigns, and various elected officials and the General Accounting Office entered the fray.
Now, after hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on engineering, planning, advertising, bidding, administering, collaborating, corrupting, investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating, we’re going to do it all again. And do it for a Pentagon project that is a relic of a Cold War strategy.
We no longer need a whole fleet of aerial refueling tankers because, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we no longer need to keep bombers and fighters airborne 24/7 in order to assure a counter-strike capacity against a massive nuclear first strike.
It therefore seems obvious that ordinary Americans should not be reassured by the notion that the Pentagon will get it right this time. Getting it right would mean not issuing the contract in the first place. $100 billion and change could then be spent on health care, education and mass transit. How much more reassuring would that be?
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
Washington, DC 20017
202 506-7470
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Note to Myself: Postless and Bereft
My gosh, it's been more than a month since I posted last and I miss it. I've been traveling, mostly, and managing Brendan's multiple schedule changes, including his traveling, as the school year ended. I was in Dayton, Detroit, Ann Arbor, Chicago, San Juan and, I think, somewhere else that slips my mind. Marrianne has been in even more places. This is fun, I guess, but it also provokes anxieties and a desire to avoid confrontations with oneself, making it more comfortable to displace such confrontations onto others.
I also had a week with actual real live vertigo. Talk about feeling elderly and disabled, I was there. But that, too, has passed.
And I've written some and thought some--no kidding--and should be ready to write, or try, with greater frequency after our family trips (which will include Julie, however briefly, and Nate, unfortunately, not at all) are over and Brendan starts back to school in early, early August.
I also had a week with actual real live vertigo. Talk about feeling elderly and disabled, I was there. But that, too, has passed.
And I've written some and thought some--no kidding--and should be ready to write, or try, with greater frequency after our family trips (which will include Julie, however briefly, and Nate, unfortunately, not at all) are over and Brendan starts back to school in early, early August.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Obama Beats McCain
As the media has helpfully told us, ‘Hillary won West Virginia!’ (The exclamation mark is mine.) And as Clinton herself has helpfully told us “America is worth fighting for!” (The exclamation mark is hers.)
Both these points are worth making, though they barely qualify as news—more as reminders that the media must report many things, newsworthy or otherwise, every day and Hillary must end her speeches on a loud, if not entirely salient, point. Here’s a prediction I will make, complete with another largely irrelevant exclamation point: ‘Obama beats McCain!’
I read somewhere that a really good writer uses one, maybe two, exclamation points in a lifetime. I don’t remember who said that, perhaps George Will or William Safire making the argument that emphasis ought to derive from the use of language, logic and rhetoric in proper context. It is the reader, one or the other might argue, who should suddenly say to her or himself, “My god, George (or Bill) is right!”
In any case, in less than 200 words, I’ve managed to insert four exclamation points. It wouldn’t surprise me if at this stage a George Will or Bill Safire (or, even, crucial portions of my already vanishingly small audience) might say to themselves,
“Four exclamation points! I have had my fill of this writer! I’m done with him!”
So be it, writing is that odd human activity that both requires an audience and can hardly be engaged in public. So I’ll go the rest of this way myself.
Jeff (I tell myself), Barack Obama will beat John McCain in November because Barack will be the Democratic candidate for president, and this year a Democrat is going to beat McCain. It won’t even take a good Democratic candidate, although Obama will be one.
Let me list a few of the reasons why McCain will go down regardless of who the Democratic candidate is.
1. Even if McCain comes up with something better than staying in Iraq for 100 years, it’s too late for him to be a peace candidate in regard to a war that is the most unpopular in American history.
2. Whatever McCain might say in regard to the economy—he will face voters in November saddled with the “Bush economy,” which will almost certainly be worse than it is now.
3. McCain has already proposed measures that will virtually eliminate employer-provided health care. It would give insurance companies an even larger role and freer hand in providing health care and charging for it. The Democratic campaign against him, and the media, will savage McCain and his proposal. After that he will be lucky to get the vote of even a quarter of the elderly and the chronically ill.
4. McCain, i.e., “The Straight Talk Express,” will be exposed again in the fall, when a larger audience is paying attention, for pandering. He will have to defend tax cuts he voted against, nuance his position against torture, and fruitlessly explain how cutting gas taxes will solve energy and transportation problems in the United States.
5. So far this year, Republicans have lost three special Congressional elections filling vacant House seats in districts that have voted Republican for decades. One of the seats belonged to former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. The other two were in Louisiana and Mississippi. McCain has bigger problems than worrying about winning Ohio. With an under funded campaign, he will have to worry about winning states like Virginia, Indiana and New Hampshire.
6. McCain is the presidential candidate Republicans never wanted for a presidential campaign they know they cannot win.
That’s six. I leave it to “Tonstant Weader” (as Gertrude Stein might say), if there is one out there, to add to the list. And notice not one of the six even mentions Barack Obama. Or Hillary Clinton, for that matter. Either one should defeat McCain handily.
But it is Barack who will make the better Democratic candidate in the fall, notwithstanding Hillary’s imitation of the Black Knight from Monty Python’s Holy Grail. Obama, after all, has opposed the Iraq War, with minimal waffling, from the start. He also gave no support to Bush’s saber rattling toward Iran. And he also articulated a no-conditions approach to diplomatic contacts with any and all significant international figures and movements, including the likes of Hamas, North Korea and Iran.
It has been decades since an American president has refrained from demonizing enemies. In response, Clinton has been forced to modify her own pose of toughness, increasing the possibility that diplomacy might once again precede threat and intervention in U.S. international conduct.
Similarly, Obama’s stance on trade agreements suggests that labor conditions and protection for the environment will become more important features of future treaties. In this instance, as well, Barack’s leadership has forced Hillary to reframe her own positions. McCain has almost nothing to offer voters that would inspire confidence in his ability to recast international relations in pursuit of peace, or for the protection of labor rights and the environment.
In the general election campaign that will begin shortly after the Democratic nominating process finally concludes, these issues will become pivotal. At that point, Democrats will be reminded that political unity has the potential to bring enormous benefits, including a possible filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. (Imagine the impact the next president’s appointments might have on the judicial branch and on regulatory agencies.) And it is very likely the awareness of those dramatic opportunities to make change that has motivated Clinton to adopt her never-say-die approach to the primary.
The person who gets to be president in 2009 will have eight years to change how the government of the United States functions. Arguably, Ronald Reagan was the last president to take advantage of that opportunity. But Reagan, counter to his ideology, presided over a vast expansion of government. And that expansion came at the direct expense of working families in the United States. Obama can be the first president since FDR to remake government in a manner consistent with his political values.
By November, many more voters will see the transformative possibilities. In November, Obama beats McCain. Big!
Both these points are worth making, though they barely qualify as news—more as reminders that the media must report many things, newsworthy or otherwise, every day and Hillary must end her speeches on a loud, if not entirely salient, point. Here’s a prediction I will make, complete with another largely irrelevant exclamation point: ‘Obama beats McCain!’
I read somewhere that a really good writer uses one, maybe two, exclamation points in a lifetime. I don’t remember who said that, perhaps George Will or William Safire making the argument that emphasis ought to derive from the use of language, logic and rhetoric in proper context. It is the reader, one or the other might argue, who should suddenly say to her or himself, “My god, George (or Bill) is right!”
In any case, in less than 200 words, I’ve managed to insert four exclamation points. It wouldn’t surprise me if at this stage a George Will or Bill Safire (or, even, crucial portions of my already vanishingly small audience) might say to themselves,
“Four exclamation points! I have had my fill of this writer! I’m done with him!”
So be it, writing is that odd human activity that both requires an audience and can hardly be engaged in public. So I’ll go the rest of this way myself.
Jeff (I tell myself), Barack Obama will beat John McCain in November because Barack will be the Democratic candidate for president, and this year a Democrat is going to beat McCain. It won’t even take a good Democratic candidate, although Obama will be one.
Let me list a few of the reasons why McCain will go down regardless of who the Democratic candidate is.
1. Even if McCain comes up with something better than staying in Iraq for 100 years, it’s too late for him to be a peace candidate in regard to a war that is the most unpopular in American history.
2. Whatever McCain might say in regard to the economy—he will face voters in November saddled with the “Bush economy,” which will almost certainly be worse than it is now.
3. McCain has already proposed measures that will virtually eliminate employer-provided health care. It would give insurance companies an even larger role and freer hand in providing health care and charging for it. The Democratic campaign against him, and the media, will savage McCain and his proposal. After that he will be lucky to get the vote of even a quarter of the elderly and the chronically ill.
4. McCain, i.e., “The Straight Talk Express,” will be exposed again in the fall, when a larger audience is paying attention, for pandering. He will have to defend tax cuts he voted against, nuance his position against torture, and fruitlessly explain how cutting gas taxes will solve energy and transportation problems in the United States.
5. So far this year, Republicans have lost three special Congressional elections filling vacant House seats in districts that have voted Republican for decades. One of the seats belonged to former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. The other two were in Louisiana and Mississippi. McCain has bigger problems than worrying about winning Ohio. With an under funded campaign, he will have to worry about winning states like Virginia, Indiana and New Hampshire.
6. McCain is the presidential candidate Republicans never wanted for a presidential campaign they know they cannot win.
That’s six. I leave it to “Tonstant Weader” (as Gertrude Stein might say), if there is one out there, to add to the list. And notice not one of the six even mentions Barack Obama. Or Hillary Clinton, for that matter. Either one should defeat McCain handily.
But it is Barack who will make the better Democratic candidate in the fall, notwithstanding Hillary’s imitation of the Black Knight from Monty Python’s Holy Grail. Obama, after all, has opposed the Iraq War, with minimal waffling, from the start. He also gave no support to Bush’s saber rattling toward Iran. And he also articulated a no-conditions approach to diplomatic contacts with any and all significant international figures and movements, including the likes of Hamas, North Korea and Iran.
It has been decades since an American president has refrained from demonizing enemies. In response, Clinton has been forced to modify her own pose of toughness, increasing the possibility that diplomacy might once again precede threat and intervention in U.S. international conduct.
Similarly, Obama’s stance on trade agreements suggests that labor conditions and protection for the environment will become more important features of future treaties. In this instance, as well, Barack’s leadership has forced Hillary to reframe her own positions. McCain has almost nothing to offer voters that would inspire confidence in his ability to recast international relations in pursuit of peace, or for the protection of labor rights and the environment.
In the general election campaign that will begin shortly after the Democratic nominating process finally concludes, these issues will become pivotal. At that point, Democrats will be reminded that political unity has the potential to bring enormous benefits, including a possible filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. (Imagine the impact the next president’s appointments might have on the judicial branch and on regulatory agencies.) And it is very likely the awareness of those dramatic opportunities to make change that has motivated Clinton to adopt her never-say-die approach to the primary.
The person who gets to be president in 2009 will have eight years to change how the government of the United States functions. Arguably, Ronald Reagan was the last president to take advantage of that opportunity. But Reagan, counter to his ideology, presided over a vast expansion of government. And that expansion came at the direct expense of working families in the United States. Obama can be the first president since FDR to remake government in a manner consistent with his political values.
By November, many more voters will see the transformative possibilities. In November, Obama beats McCain. Big!
Friday, May 9, 2008
Ol’ Satch Sez
Satchel Paige said
“Don’t look back. Something
may be gaining on you.”
You could look it up.
You should.
But whatever was gaining
on me, caught me,
decades ago.
It’s in me. It’s in questions
I can’t answer. It’s in friends
casually betrayed,
in lovers never loved.
But absorbed, guilty, pleasantly
obsessed belongs to me,
and none to them. And unknown to them
My selfish dread
like cancer clanging in my bones,
like frozen joints
impatiently damning my name,
like anvils I’ve been toting.
Aging, I hallucinate.
Fine, I can imagine
better than I can see.
Grateful, I choose this vision
anvils dropped or left behind,
single moms catch a break,
wars easily averted, and reclaiming us,
making vibrant wishes of ourselves.
“Don’t look back. Something
may be gaining on you.”
You could look it up.
You should.
But whatever was gaining
on me, caught me,
decades ago.
It’s in me. It’s in questions
I can’t answer. It’s in friends
casually betrayed,
in lovers never loved.
But absorbed, guilty, pleasantly
obsessed belongs to me,
and none to them. And unknown to them
My selfish dread
like cancer clanging in my bones,
like frozen joints
impatiently damning my name,
like anvils I’ve been toting.
Aging, I hallucinate.
Fine, I can imagine
better than I can see.
Grateful, I choose this vision
anvils dropped or left behind,
single moms catch a break,
wars easily averted, and reclaiming us,
making vibrant wishes of ourselves.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Prologue
We were possibility.
We were drifting motes
taking shape,
taking new shape,
made whispers and shouts,
made flesh.
We were repetitions of common dreams,
repetitions of common dreams.
First breath following
generations of fruitful labor,
tiring labor and plenty of pain.
No one born to certainties,
but smiled on. And though it now
may feel otherwise,
the smiles never diminish, are
never unsmiled, never frowned away
or cried away. Yes, the laughter of smiles
fades; the imprint endures.
Some plod onward,
some skip lightly,
but we are always loved.
Out of that,
certainty,
or ought to be.
Begin, then,
writing our stories today.
We were drifting motes
taking shape,
taking new shape,
made whispers and shouts,
made flesh.
We were repetitions of common dreams,
repetitions of common dreams.
First breath following
generations of fruitful labor,
tiring labor and plenty of pain.
No one born to certainties,
but smiled on. And though it now
may feel otherwise,
the smiles never diminish, are
never unsmiled, never frowned away
or cried away. Yes, the laughter of smiles
fades; the imprint endures.
Some plod onward,
some skip lightly,
but we are always loved.
Out of that,
certainty,
or ought to be.
Begin, then,
writing our stories today.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Letter to the Washington Post, #3
This one was sent to the Post in February of this year:
So, property owners in New York City are selling land to developers who are demolishing existing supermarkets and building condos (Feb. 19, “Groceries Grow Elusive…”). The losers in such deals are neighborhood residents and users of public transportation who must go further and ride longer to shop for dietary essentials and may not even be able to obtain fresh fruits and vegetables.
This is not only a New York City story, but a story of 21st century urban gentrification everywhere. And omitted in the telling is the way the story fits in the context of the widening wealth gap in this country.
The upper-income residents of the new condos will need groceries, too. But upscale and internet grocers will deliver, and the smaller families of the new residents will shop for food less and eat out more, enjoying the variety of restaurant opportunities that will develop in the new storefronts adjacent.
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
Washington, DC 20017
202 506-7470
So, property owners in New York City are selling land to developers who are demolishing existing supermarkets and building condos (Feb. 19, “Groceries Grow Elusive…”). The losers in such deals are neighborhood residents and users of public transportation who must go further and ride longer to shop for dietary essentials and may not even be able to obtain fresh fruits and vegetables.
This is not only a New York City story, but a story of 21st century urban gentrification everywhere. And omitted in the telling is the way the story fits in the context of the widening wealth gap in this country.
The upper-income residents of the new condos will need groceries, too. But upscale and internet grocers will deliver, and the smaller families of the new residents will shop for food less and eat out more, enjoying the variety of restaurant opportunities that will develop in the new storefronts adjacent.
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
Washington, DC 20017
202 506-7470
Letter to the Washington Post, #2
This one was sent to the Post on 12/24/07
Editor,
Your article, “Jury Convicts Black Man in Shooting Death of White Teen (12/24),” raises numerous difficult questions about race and the role it plays in our culture and history. Reading it, I couldn’t help wondering how differently the story of the incident and trial would have played out if the shooter had been white and the victim had been an aggressive black youth.
The prosecutor’s quoted comments diminished the significance that race played in the incident and minimized the importance of a Ku Klux Klan attack on the shooter’s grandfather that occurred 85 years ago. The last word in the article went to the slain teen’s father, who claimed that the conviction clears his “son’s name [of all accusations of] racism.”
But the story (and the trial’s conclusion) does not settle such questions, only adds to the backlog that we, as a society, have long buried or brushed aside. Race and racism are perhaps the longest running unresolved issue facing the United States. The real, threatened and imagined violence (and sexuality and class questions) that have been entangled with race and racism since the first Europeans arrived on this continent manifest themselves differently in each of our lives and are rarely honestly confronted.
Of course a Klan attack 85 years ago matters today, as do slavery and Jim Crow, just as surely as do the American Revolution and the genocide of Native Americans and the U.S. Constitution and the WWII-era internment of the Japanese and the first Thanksgiving matter. History does not end, but is relived in our individual and social conclusions about its meaning.
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
Washington, DC 20017
202 506-7470
Editor,
Your article, “Jury Convicts Black Man in Shooting Death of White Teen (12/24),” raises numerous difficult questions about race and the role it plays in our culture and history. Reading it, I couldn’t help wondering how differently the story of the incident and trial would have played out if the shooter had been white and the victim had been an aggressive black youth.
The prosecutor’s quoted comments diminished the significance that race played in the incident and minimized the importance of a Ku Klux Klan attack on the shooter’s grandfather that occurred 85 years ago. The last word in the article went to the slain teen’s father, who claimed that the conviction clears his “son’s name [of all accusations of] racism.”
But the story (and the trial’s conclusion) does not settle such questions, only adds to the backlog that we, as a society, have long buried or brushed aside. Race and racism are perhaps the longest running unresolved issue facing the United States. The real, threatened and imagined violence (and sexuality and class questions) that have been entangled with race and racism since the first Europeans arrived on this continent manifest themselves differently in each of our lives and are rarely honestly confronted.
Of course a Klan attack 85 years ago matters today, as do slavery and Jim Crow, just as surely as do the American Revolution and the genocide of Native Americans and the U.S. Constitution and the WWII-era internment of the Japanese and the first Thanksgiving matter. History does not end, but is relived in our individual and social conclusions about its meaning.
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
Washington, DC 20017
202 506-7470
Letter to the Washington Post, #1
This one was sent to the Post on 10/29/07:
I read Sebastian Mallaby’s story, “Foreign Policy Grown-Up,” Oct. 29, with interest. Mallaby’s position that sanctions are preferable to war is inarguable, I believe. But everything else Malaby says seems eminently debatable.
Hilary Clinton is an apparent grown-up because she supports sanctions against Iran, says Mallaby. “Bush hatred,” has driven John Edwards to the point that he sees sanctions as a first-stage war tactic rather than a peaceful alternative. Barack Obama’s critiques of Clinton’s support for sanctions are similarly driven by Bush hatred, Mallaby writes. Further, Clinton was correct in supporting military action against Saddam Hussein because sanctions weren’t working, Saddam was out of “his box” and “it was worth taking the risk of unseating him by force.”
Had Mallaby based his support for Clinton and criticism of Obama and Edwards on a set of uncontested historical facts, perhaps I could agree. But there is ample evidence (including from Iraq) that sanctions can be murderous and affect the innocent most severely, substantial debate about whether Saddam was out of his box or otherwise, and skepticism about virtually all the claims of the Bush administration about the danger presented by pre-war Iraq.
As an Obama supporter, I am disappointed with Barack, too. I want to hear more substantial policy positions. In particular, I want to hear Barack say that no nation, including the United States, can be trusted to unilaterally decide what actions will be in the best interests of all countries. I want to hear that the Iraq War and its consequences are a perfect example of the failures of unilateral policy making and action and that an Obama foreign policy would proceed on the principle that action with global consequences will be based on decision-making that occurs in the most democratic and global forums available. And I want to hear Barack say that his administration will do everything possible to create and strengthen such forums.
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
WDC 20017
202-506-7470
I read Sebastian Mallaby’s story, “Foreign Policy Grown-Up,” Oct. 29, with interest. Mallaby’s position that sanctions are preferable to war is inarguable, I believe. But everything else Malaby says seems eminently debatable.
Hilary Clinton is an apparent grown-up because she supports sanctions against Iran, says Mallaby. “Bush hatred,” has driven John Edwards to the point that he sees sanctions as a first-stage war tactic rather than a peaceful alternative. Barack Obama’s critiques of Clinton’s support for sanctions are similarly driven by Bush hatred, Mallaby writes. Further, Clinton was correct in supporting military action against Saddam Hussein because sanctions weren’t working, Saddam was out of “his box” and “it was worth taking the risk of unseating him by force.”
Had Mallaby based his support for Clinton and criticism of Obama and Edwards on a set of uncontested historical facts, perhaps I could agree. But there is ample evidence (including from Iraq) that sanctions can be murderous and affect the innocent most severely, substantial debate about whether Saddam was out of his box or otherwise, and skepticism about virtually all the claims of the Bush administration about the danger presented by pre-war Iraq.
As an Obama supporter, I am disappointed with Barack, too. I want to hear more substantial policy positions. In particular, I want to hear Barack say that no nation, including the United States, can be trusted to unilaterally decide what actions will be in the best interests of all countries. I want to hear that the Iraq War and its consequences are a perfect example of the failures of unilateral policy making and action and that an Obama foreign policy would proceed on the principle that action with global consequences will be based on decision-making that occurs in the most democratic and global forums available. And I want to hear Barack say that his administration will do everything possible to create and strengthen such forums.
Jeff Epton
807 Taylor St., NE
WDC 20017
202-506-7470
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
