This was a fun list to make while falling asleep last night (I thought of it because at my recent reading in Great Barrington I read from my book OF, which I rarely do because it’s a booklength poem and I always think it needs to be dug in its entirety rather than piecemeal, but it turns out that certain small excerpts work quite well, and one of my best known shorter poems actually comes from OF so…)
For this list I only used collected and selected books if the “of” was part of the title, so for instance Jimmy Schuyler’s COLLECTED POEMS doesn’t use the “of” in the title, but O’Hara’s does, (and I double checked them this morning) thus:
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ALICE B. TOKLAS by Gertrude Stein,
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS,
THE ADVENTURES OF MR. AND MRS. JIM AND RON by Ron Padgett and Jim Dine
AN ADVENTURE OF THE THOUGHT POLICE by Peter Schjeldahl,
THE ART OF THE NOVEL by Milan Kundera,
THE ART OF LEE MILLER
and THE ANCIENT USE OF STONE by Ray DiPalma
BY THE WATERS OF MANHATTAN by Charles Reznikoff (actually two different books, one an early novel from the 1930s, and later he used the same title for his selected poems in the 1960s, both favorites of mine),
BIG SUR AND THE ORANGES OF HIERONYMUS BOSCH by Henry Miller (maybe my favorite book of his),
THE BOOK OF LAUGHTER AND FORGETTING by Milan Kundera,
BORN OF A WOMAN by Etheridge Knight,
BLUES OF THE EGYPTIAN KINGS by Jim Brodey,
BIRTH OF THE COOL by Lewis MacAdams
and THE BOUNDARIES OF BLUR by Nick Piombino
THE COMPLETE POETRY OF JOHN DONNE,
THE COMPLETE POEMS OF JOHN KEATS,
THE COMPLETE POEMS OF STEPHEN CRANE,
CONFESSIONS OF ZENO by Italo Svevo,
THE CANTOS OF EZRA POUND (that’s the full title on my old hardback copy),
CONFESSIONS OF AN IRISH REBEL by Brendan Behan,
THE COLLECTED WORKS OF JANE BOWLES,
THE COLLECTED POEMS OF FRANK O’HARA,
CITY OF GLASS by Paul Auster,
THE CORNERS OF THE MOUTH by Elaine Equi
and THE COLLECT CALL OF THE WILD by Bob Holman
THE DESCENT OF WINTER by William Carlos Williams
and THE DRIFT OF THINGS by Terence Winch
THE EATER OF DARKNESS by Robert M. Coates
and EMPIRE OF SKIN by Tom Clark
THE FACE OF WAR by Martha Gelhorn
and THE FALL OF AMERICA by Allen Ginsberg
GREAT BALLS OF FIRE by Ron Padgett
and THE GREAT BIG BOOK OF TOMORROW by Tom Tomorrow
A HISTORY OF AMERICA by Bill Hutton
THE INVENTION OF SOLITUDE by Paul Auster
THE JOURNAL OF ALBION MOONLIGHT by Kenneth Patchen
and THE JUKEBOX OF MEMNON by Ray DiPalma
K?
LEAVES OF GRASS by Walt Whitman,
THE LIVES OF LEE MILLER by Anthony Penrose (her son),
THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE BOG by John Norton,
THE LONG EXPERIENCE OF LOVE by Jim Moore
and LIFE OF A POET: Rainer Maria Rilke by Ralph Freedman
MOMENTS OF THE ITALIAN SUN by James Wright,
THE MORNING OF THE POEM by James Schuyler,
MOTION OF THE CYPHER by Ray DiPalma
MERCY OF A RUDE STREAM by Henry Roth (the overall title of his last series of autobiographical novels),
THE MEMORY OF ALL THAT by Betsy Blair,
MEMOIRS OF A STREET POET by Frank T. Rios
and THE MOUTH OF JANE by Bobby Miller
THE NOTEBOOKS OF MALTE LAURIDS BRIGGE by Rainer Maria Rilke,
THE NOTEBOOKS OF JOSEPH JOUBERT edited and translated by Paul Auster,
A NEST OF NINNIES by John Ashbery & James Schuyler
and NONE OF THE ABOVE edited by Michael Lally (an anthology of poets in the early ‘70s I dug)
OF MICE AND MEN by John Steinbeck,
ONE DAY IN THE AFTERNOON OF THE WORLD by William Saroyan,
OF BEING NUMEROUS by George Oppen,
ORDERS OF THE RETINA by Thomas M. Disch,
OF by Michael Lally
and OUT OF OUR MINDS by George O’Brien
THE POEMS OF CATULLUS,
THE POEMS OF FRANCOIS VILLON translated by Galway Kinnell,
THE POETRY AND PROSE OF WILLIAM BLAKE (a giant paperback I’ve had for decades),
A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce,
PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG DOG by Dylan Thomas,
THE POEMS OF ALFRED STARR HAMILTON,
POEMS OF A DOGGY by Chris Mason,
A POCKETFUL OF DREAMS: Bing Crosby the Early Years by Gary Giddins,
PURITY OF ABSENCE by Dave Margoshes
and POCKETS OF WHEAT by Geoff Young
Q?
RECOLLECTIONS OF MY LIFE AS A WOMAN: The New York Years by Diane di Prima
and A RUMOR OF INHABITANTS by Robert Slater
STORIES OF GOD by Rainer Maria Rilke,
THE SYSTEM OF DANTE’S HELL by LeRoi Jones (before he was Amira Baraka),
SPRING IN THIS WORLD OF POOR MUTTS by Joe Ceravolo,
SONG OF THE SILENT SNOW by Hubert Selby Jr.
and SELECTED LETTERS OF MARTHA GELHORN
THIS SIDE OF PARADISE by F. Scott Fitzgerald,
TROPIC OF CANCER and TROPIC OF CAPRICORN by Henry Miller,
THE TIME OF YOUR LIFE by William Saroyan,
THE TEMPLE OF GOLD by William Goldman
A TESTAMENT OF HOPE: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King Jr.
THE UFOS OF OCTOBER by Robert Bove
VISONS OF GERARD, VISIONS OF CODY and THE VANITY OF DULOUZ all three by Jack Kerouac
and THE VILLAGE OF LONGING by George O’Brien
THE WINE OF ASTONISHMENT by Martha Gelhorn
and THE WIFE OF WINTER by Michael Dennis Browne
X?
YEARS OF PROTEST edited by Jack Salzman (a terrific anthology of writing from the 1930’s)
Z?
Monday, October 5, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
FOX, THE RIGHT AND POINTING
There was an article in TIME last week, and a related story on NPR's RADIO LAB this weekend about experiments done with foxes in Russia over the last sixty years and more recent studies done with various dogs.
The Russian experiment (originally Soviet) separated foxes into two groups: those that backed off and showed fear or aggression (snapped their teeth etc.) when scientists walked up to their cages and put a hand on the bars and those who approached the scientists.
They bred the ones who didn't slink off and snap. Meanwhile they raised another group of foxes that they let breed randomly. Forty generations of these foxes later the foxes bred specifically for the less fearful and aggressive traits have developed into doglike foxes who will run up to people and wag their tails. The others remain more feral and wild fox like.
Meanwhile studies with dogs seem to prove that they are the only animal other than humans who can follow a pointing finger or even a toe or foot. Even puppies close to newborn can follow where a human's finger is pointing, and now the specifically bred foxes can too, while the regular foxes, like all other animals cannot.
I put that together with some recent studies of the brains of "liberals" and "conservatives" and their "fear" reactions (as you might expect, the thought of global warming had the "liberal" brains lighting up the fear centers of the brain while the conservatives' brains remained unmoved, and vice versa for other expected concepts).
The idea, as some scientists see it, is that humans, like dogs, as they became more domesticated, could more easily cooperate and build communities or relationships based on mutual interests, whereas more primitive humans (as the fossil record show, we once had much bigger sharper teeth etc.) would find females wanting to mate with the biggest and strongest who could secure more food than weaker males, eventually the smaller males could band together and through cooperation and community building create something even more sustaining foodwise and force the bigger aggressive male into exile or capital punishment, so the females started looking for the community builders, etc.
So my thought is, it's no accident FOX news is named that, and the reason so many followers of that network fall for it's outright lies and misdirection and misinformation is because it reinforces their particular set of fears, and when "liberals" try to use logic and POINT OUT or even POINT TO the reasons why these people, especially the working folks among them, have more in common with "liberal" aspirations for government and community and will reap greater benefits from it, they can't follow the pointing finger!
Just a theory, based on some real science that maybe hasn't caught up to my theory yet. But keep watching.
The Russian experiment (originally Soviet) separated foxes into two groups: those that backed off and showed fear or aggression (snapped their teeth etc.) when scientists walked up to their cages and put a hand on the bars and those who approached the scientists.
They bred the ones who didn't slink off and snap. Meanwhile they raised another group of foxes that they let breed randomly. Forty generations of these foxes later the foxes bred specifically for the less fearful and aggressive traits have developed into doglike foxes who will run up to people and wag their tails. The others remain more feral and wild fox like.
Meanwhile studies with dogs seem to prove that they are the only animal other than humans who can follow a pointing finger or even a toe or foot. Even puppies close to newborn can follow where a human's finger is pointing, and now the specifically bred foxes can too, while the regular foxes, like all other animals cannot.
I put that together with some recent studies of the brains of "liberals" and "conservatives" and their "fear" reactions (as you might expect, the thought of global warming had the "liberal" brains lighting up the fear centers of the brain while the conservatives' brains remained unmoved, and vice versa for other expected concepts).
The idea, as some scientists see it, is that humans, like dogs, as they became more domesticated, could more easily cooperate and build communities or relationships based on mutual interests, whereas more primitive humans (as the fossil record show, we once had much bigger sharper teeth etc.) would find females wanting to mate with the biggest and strongest who could secure more food than weaker males, eventually the smaller males could band together and through cooperation and community building create something even more sustaining foodwise and force the bigger aggressive male into exile or capital punishment, so the females started looking for the community builders, etc.
So my thought is, it's no accident FOX news is named that, and the reason so many followers of that network fall for it's outright lies and misdirection and misinformation is because it reinforces their particular set of fears, and when "liberals" try to use logic and POINT OUT or even POINT TO the reasons why these people, especially the working folks among them, have more in common with "liberal" aspirations for government and community and will reap greater benefits from it, they can't follow the pointing finger!
Just a theory, based on some real science that maybe hasn't caught up to my theory yet. But keep watching.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
AUTUMN IN THE 'SHIRE
A glorious day up in the Berkshires and beyond. Traveled forty-five minutes into NY state to spend the afternoon at an old fashioned indoor rollerskating rink, with a fenced in section just for skateboarding with ramps and half pipes etc.
My about-to-be-twelve-year-old youngest son mastered the kick-flip finally (jumping on the board and flipping it in the air so it does an entire 360 degree flip and landing back on top of it as your feet meet the board and the board meets the street etc.), so well that he did four in a row perfectly several times.
My eleven-year-old meanwhile did a 180 off a grind on the edge of a box to turn backwards on a ramp and return the way he came from. Probably there's a skateboard term for that I don't know and you probably wouldn't either. Suffice it to say it was an accomplishment, worked long and hard to achieve, and he did today.
On the way there the sun came out and shone on the blasting reds and yellows of a New England Autumn, exactly what I returned to the East for. I couldn't stop saying "thank you" the whole way, up and down rolling hills through farmlands and woods. Too beautiful to articulate now, tired from a full day (I rollerskated quite a bit while they skateboarded, and my daughter, my oldest, rollerskated with me, though faster and more steady, and longer).
There is suffering everywhere, some places more intense, more widespread and more fateful. A lot of that suffering is manmade. But there are also many working to alleviate that suffering or its causes. Today some of my family and me were fortunate to not be suffering, at least not seriously (my little guy injured his hand just before we were ready to leave, one of many injuries he has sustained from skateboarding. We iced the swollen base joint of his thumb but it's still swollen and some Tylenol is helping with the pain, and my granddaughter—who was also with us and won one of the many little games and contests they had for kids, this one dancing—is suffering from a bad cold that makes her sound like Lauren Bacall at thirty-five rather than the seven-year-old she is, etc.).
For our good fortune I thank God and my ancestors and all who have helped to make our world a little better and continue to work in the helping professions that make life easier than it was for even my parents and even older siblings. There is much more work to be done, especially for those less fortunate than us, to all who contribute to that work I also say thank you and hope I can continue to make my small contributions to your good work.
My about-to-be-twelve-year-old youngest son mastered the kick-flip finally (jumping on the board and flipping it in the air so it does an entire 360 degree flip and landing back on top of it as your feet meet the board and the board meets the street etc.), so well that he did four in a row perfectly several times.
My eleven-year-old meanwhile did a 180 off a grind on the edge of a box to turn backwards on a ramp and return the way he came from. Probably there's a skateboard term for that I don't know and you probably wouldn't either. Suffice it to say it was an accomplishment, worked long and hard to achieve, and he did today.
On the way there the sun came out and shone on the blasting reds and yellows of a New England Autumn, exactly what I returned to the East for. I couldn't stop saying "thank you" the whole way, up and down rolling hills through farmlands and woods. Too beautiful to articulate now, tired from a full day (I rollerskated quite a bit while they skateboarded, and my daughter, my oldest, rollerskated with me, though faster and more steady, and longer).
There is suffering everywhere, some places more intense, more widespread and more fateful. A lot of that suffering is manmade. But there are also many working to alleviate that suffering or its causes. Today some of my family and me were fortunate to not be suffering, at least not seriously (my little guy injured his hand just before we were ready to leave, one of many injuries he has sustained from skateboarding. We iced the swollen base joint of his thumb but it's still swollen and some Tylenol is helping with the pain, and my granddaughter—who was also with us and won one of the many little games and contests they had for kids, this one dancing—is suffering from a bad cold that makes her sound like Lauren Bacall at thirty-five rather than the seven-year-old she is, etc.).
For our good fortune I thank God and my ancestors and all who have helped to make our world a little better and continue to work in the helping professions that make life easier than it was for even my parents and even older siblings. There is much more work to be done, especially for those less fortunate than us, to all who contribute to that work I also say thank you and hope I can continue to make my small contributions to your good work.
Friday, October 2, 2009
PROGRESSIVE?
I had a passionate discussion on the phone this morning with my friend Tom G (in LA). He asked me when I would stop defending the Democrats and admit that they are wrong because they seem incapable of bringing about the kind of healthcare reform he advocates.
I don't think we ever got to exactly what his version of the best way to bring universal healthcare to our fellow citizens would be. But my side of the discussion was that if the kinds of changes that are already in the proposed healthcare reform bill had come about somehow under the previous administration and/or Bush Senior's or Reagan's, Democrats, at least what some still call "liberal" Democrats and what many now call "Progressive" Democrats would have (or at least should have) been dancing in the street.
The idea that no one will be able to have their health insurance cut off if they lose their job or move from one to another or because of a "pre-existing condition" or any of the myriad other ways the insurance companies have found to deny coverage or limit it to the point of uselessness should have all Democrats, and especially the "liberals" and "progressives" very pleased.
But because the terribly labeled "public option" (it sounds like a restroom or worse) may not make it into the final bill, many so-called "liberal" and even more so-called "progressive" Democrats are acting like Hitler just invaded Poland or the details of the Holocaust have just been revealed.
Sorry, but my lifetime's experience coupled with a lifetime of reading and studying history etc. leads me to conclude that progress is progress and if that's what you're for you should rejoice in whatever progress can be made while working for more.
When I was young I wanted change to be instantaneous and I joined movements that pushed for change to come faster and more universally in Civil Rights and later in stopping the clearly senseless (especially in retrospect for those not there at the time or not informed enough to realize) war in Viet Nam, and for equal rights for women and for people not as easily defined in terms of gender and for people whose attractions were for the same gender as their own and etc.
I also fought and worked for more democracy, more equality and more transparency on every level. In some cases those struggles brought about real change that may have come much more slowly or not at all if there hadn't been those of us fighting for those changes.
But, they still didn't come overnight, even if in some cases it seemed like it. The struggle for equal rights for women is formally over a century old and informally it's been going on for far longer. And ditto for many other changes. In some areas, there seems to be no turning back, and then, unfortunately, some segments of humanity do (slavery, racial and gender discrimination and oppression, etc.).
The point is, those who become impatient and leave the fight for change through legal and democratic means—in order to try and force change through violence, or drop out of the struggle entirely because change isn't occurring fast enough—only contribute to the backward trend in whatever areas they were struggling for progress in.
Despite the worst financial crisis in our history, maybe the world's at least in the past few centuries, FDR was not able to push through Social Security as we know it. He was able to initiate the program and establish the justification for it for widows and children and over the next several years was able to expand it. Then over the next several decades it was improved on more and now is where we know it and most of those receiving it are very grateful for the help it provides.
Even LBJ with a much greater majority in Congress than Obama has was only able to get Medicare established so that older people could be guaranteed healthcare, but he was unable to get through universal healthcare. If I had my way, we'd just expand Medicare to cover everyone, and pay for it with tax increases for the rich (taxes were almost twice as much on the wealthiest even after Reagan got through with his tax cuts!) whose portion of the wealth in the USA has grown exponentially since the rightwing Republicans began to have more and more influence not only over our national government but over the media and its discussion of these issues. [And over an economy that they brought to the brink of destruction, and will again if or when they regain power.]
But the reality is I don't get my way. Nor do most of us (and if we did there'd be chaos because we'd all have a different version of what would be best, just read the comments on this blog or any blog that deals with any of these issues). What we get is either gradual change, either progressive or backward, depending on who is controlling the government and the media and therefore the public discussion of what options are even viable.
When there is actual large scale and abrupt change in either direction, it is usually if not always (I'd say always but I don't want an endless comment thread referring to various inaccurate and unreliable Internet sources for wingnut arguments) a result of violence or causes great violence, and if you're pushing for that kind of change then you have to be ready for the violence that ensues.
Our last president wanted to bring about that kind of large scale and abrupt change in the Middle East, so we invaded Iraq. You wanna tell all those who lost loved ones and continue to as a result of that that it's all worth it because Iraq actually had elections? I don't. Nor do I want to see rightwing Republicans regain power as a result of too many voters and activists and bloggers and commenters and etc. losing faith in Obama and his "progressive" credentials because change doesn't happen fast enough or on a large enough scale to satisfy their ideals.
ideals are easy, change is very very difficult. I'm grateful for the changes this administration has already brought about. There are already more people covered by healthcare insurance than were just six months ago, there are less people losing their jobs (though still too many obviously so don't bother to make that comment, but even with the rise in that figure according to the latest data, it is still less than a third of the number who lost their jobs in January just before Obama took office and began to change things), the world financial system is at least for the moment much more stable than it was when Obama took the oath of office and there are more people working in government with progressive ideals than there are those with fundamentalist Christian ideas that demand obedience to their interpretation of the Bible (or their leaders') over the Constitution than there were ten months ago.
And there's much more. That isn't universal healthcare or a total withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan or holding accountable those who caused the financial crisis etc. etc. nor is it creating two million new jobs etc. etc. But if you think that can happen over night or even in one year, then your not a big fan of democracy in action only in theory. Fight for what you believe is best, but expect a long struggle with many setbacks and don't get discouraged. And if you do, shake it off and get back in the struggle, and as Joe Hill once said:
"Don't mourn, organize!"
[PS: It would be so easy to just post a simple statement of what my ideals are and what I'd like to see happen. I'd like, as my friend Sue and others have said, to see either Medicare expanded to include everyone, or everyone to get the same kind of healthcare that those in Congress do. I also believe everyone has the right to food and shelter and education and a job that does no harm but in fact contributes to the community, including the world community. But those are just ideals, something to work toward, which I have done for most of my life. In the meantime, real every day life goes on in which these ideals are mostly meaningless to most people in dire situations regarding all of the above. So any kind of change for the better, no matter how small, I'm for.]
[(from a response to some of the comments on this post—PPS: I would love to see healthcare coverage for everyone. I marched on Washington, and in Washington, many times over the years, and took part in demonstrations and protests around the country many times for many issues and at locations that focused on various branches of the government and their agencies under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Some of these protests had half a million people or more at them, some only a dozen or so. But I did it regularly for years and years and years. Some of it helped change some things, and some didn't. But along with many others, I still did it, and still do it. Where are the protestors marching and demonstrating in DC for "the public option" or whatever version of healthcare reform they champion and feel is not being recognized or enacted? All I see is rightwing protests in which the main focus seems to be denigrating Obama and anything he is trying to do. It's as if the only people protesting and demonstrating in any larrge numbers in the '60s were the so-called "hardhats" (short for the rightwingers of that time) and none or very few against the war. Now's the time for a major march on DC in favor of radical change in healthcare coverage and other more left leaning goals (i.e. not backward to more of the rightwing practices that got us into the mess we're in in the first place), even if all it accomplishes is pushing Obama and this Congress a little bit further in that direction, rather than responding to the pressure from corporate power on one side and rightwing media/misinformed angry crowds on the other. In other words, all the pressure coming from the right. Lefties, get some of your idealist friends together and organize a massive march on DC. We did it. Several times.]
I don't think we ever got to exactly what his version of the best way to bring universal healthcare to our fellow citizens would be. But my side of the discussion was that if the kinds of changes that are already in the proposed healthcare reform bill had come about somehow under the previous administration and/or Bush Senior's or Reagan's, Democrats, at least what some still call "liberal" Democrats and what many now call "Progressive" Democrats would have (or at least should have) been dancing in the street.
The idea that no one will be able to have their health insurance cut off if they lose their job or move from one to another or because of a "pre-existing condition" or any of the myriad other ways the insurance companies have found to deny coverage or limit it to the point of uselessness should have all Democrats, and especially the "liberals" and "progressives" very pleased.
But because the terribly labeled "public option" (it sounds like a restroom or worse) may not make it into the final bill, many so-called "liberal" and even more so-called "progressive" Democrats are acting like Hitler just invaded Poland or the details of the Holocaust have just been revealed.
Sorry, but my lifetime's experience coupled with a lifetime of reading and studying history etc. leads me to conclude that progress is progress and if that's what you're for you should rejoice in whatever progress can be made while working for more.
When I was young I wanted change to be instantaneous and I joined movements that pushed for change to come faster and more universally in Civil Rights and later in stopping the clearly senseless (especially in retrospect for those not there at the time or not informed enough to realize) war in Viet Nam, and for equal rights for women and for people not as easily defined in terms of gender and for people whose attractions were for the same gender as their own and etc.
I also fought and worked for more democracy, more equality and more transparency on every level. In some cases those struggles brought about real change that may have come much more slowly or not at all if there hadn't been those of us fighting for those changes.
But, they still didn't come overnight, even if in some cases it seemed like it. The struggle for equal rights for women is formally over a century old and informally it's been going on for far longer. And ditto for many other changes. In some areas, there seems to be no turning back, and then, unfortunately, some segments of humanity do (slavery, racial and gender discrimination and oppression, etc.).
The point is, those who become impatient and leave the fight for change through legal and democratic means—in order to try and force change through violence, or drop out of the struggle entirely because change isn't occurring fast enough—only contribute to the backward trend in whatever areas they were struggling for progress in.
Despite the worst financial crisis in our history, maybe the world's at least in the past few centuries, FDR was not able to push through Social Security as we know it. He was able to initiate the program and establish the justification for it for widows and children and over the next several years was able to expand it. Then over the next several decades it was improved on more and now is where we know it and most of those receiving it are very grateful for the help it provides.
Even LBJ with a much greater majority in Congress than Obama has was only able to get Medicare established so that older people could be guaranteed healthcare, but he was unable to get through universal healthcare. If I had my way, we'd just expand Medicare to cover everyone, and pay for it with tax increases for the rich (taxes were almost twice as much on the wealthiest even after Reagan got through with his tax cuts!) whose portion of the wealth in the USA has grown exponentially since the rightwing Republicans began to have more and more influence not only over our national government but over the media and its discussion of these issues. [And over an economy that they brought to the brink of destruction, and will again if or when they regain power.]
But the reality is I don't get my way. Nor do most of us (and if we did there'd be chaos because we'd all have a different version of what would be best, just read the comments on this blog or any blog that deals with any of these issues). What we get is either gradual change, either progressive or backward, depending on who is controlling the government and the media and therefore the public discussion of what options are even viable.
When there is actual large scale and abrupt change in either direction, it is usually if not always (I'd say always but I don't want an endless comment thread referring to various inaccurate and unreliable Internet sources for wingnut arguments) a result of violence or causes great violence, and if you're pushing for that kind of change then you have to be ready for the violence that ensues.
Our last president wanted to bring about that kind of large scale and abrupt change in the Middle East, so we invaded Iraq. You wanna tell all those who lost loved ones and continue to as a result of that that it's all worth it because Iraq actually had elections? I don't. Nor do I want to see rightwing Republicans regain power as a result of too many voters and activists and bloggers and commenters and etc. losing faith in Obama and his "progressive" credentials because change doesn't happen fast enough or on a large enough scale to satisfy their ideals.
ideals are easy, change is very very difficult. I'm grateful for the changes this administration has already brought about. There are already more people covered by healthcare insurance than were just six months ago, there are less people losing their jobs (though still too many obviously so don't bother to make that comment, but even with the rise in that figure according to the latest data, it is still less than a third of the number who lost their jobs in January just before Obama took office and began to change things), the world financial system is at least for the moment much more stable than it was when Obama took the oath of office and there are more people working in government with progressive ideals than there are those with fundamentalist Christian ideas that demand obedience to their interpretation of the Bible (or their leaders') over the Constitution than there were ten months ago.
And there's much more. That isn't universal healthcare or a total withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan or holding accountable those who caused the financial crisis etc. etc. nor is it creating two million new jobs etc. etc. But if you think that can happen over night or even in one year, then your not a big fan of democracy in action only in theory. Fight for what you believe is best, but expect a long struggle with many setbacks and don't get discouraged. And if you do, shake it off and get back in the struggle, and as Joe Hill once said:
"Don't mourn, organize!"
[PS: It would be so easy to just post a simple statement of what my ideals are and what I'd like to see happen. I'd like, as my friend Sue and others have said, to see either Medicare expanded to include everyone, or everyone to get the same kind of healthcare that those in Congress do. I also believe everyone has the right to food and shelter and education and a job that does no harm but in fact contributes to the community, including the world community. But those are just ideals, something to work toward, which I have done for most of my life. In the meantime, real every day life goes on in which these ideals are mostly meaningless to most people in dire situations regarding all of the above. So any kind of change for the better, no matter how small, I'm for.]
[(from a response to some of the comments on this post—PPS: I would love to see healthcare coverage for everyone. I marched on Washington, and in Washington, many times over the years, and took part in demonstrations and protests around the country many times for many issues and at locations that focused on various branches of the government and their agencies under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Some of these protests had half a million people or more at them, some only a dozen or so. But I did it regularly for years and years and years. Some of it helped change some things, and some didn't. But along with many others, I still did it, and still do it. Where are the protestors marching and demonstrating in DC for "the public option" or whatever version of healthcare reform they champion and feel is not being recognized or enacted? All I see is rightwing protests in which the main focus seems to be denigrating Obama and anything he is trying to do. It's as if the only people protesting and demonstrating in any larrge numbers in the '60s were the so-called "hardhats" (short for the rightwingers of that time) and none or very few against the war. Now's the time for a major march on DC in favor of radical change in healthcare coverage and other more left leaning goals (i.e. not backward to more of the rightwing practices that got us into the mess we're in in the first place), even if all it accomplishes is pushing Obama and this Congress a little bit further in that direction, rather than responding to the pressure from corporate power on one side and rightwing media/misinformed angry crowds on the other. In other words, all the pressure coming from the right. Lefties, get some of your idealist friends together and organize a massive march on DC. We did it. Several times.]
Thursday, October 1, 2009
"SOCIALIST?"
Here's as good a response to that ridiculous charge the right has been throwing at Obama since before he even got elected. It's also one voice representing a different "Christian" perspective on these issues. And no, I don't agree with everything in this article (I rarely agree with everything in any link I put up, with the exception usually of Jon Stewart!).
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
DON'T TAKE THE RIGHTWING THREATS LIGHTLY
What scares me about this is the infiltration into our armed services of not just fundamentalist so-called "Christian" beliefs and perspectives—where the Bible trumps the Constitution, the exact opposite of what the Founders intended—but also the so-called "Christian" fundamentalist linked rightwing political beliefs and perspectives—where rightwing ideology trumps the Constitution and intent of the Founders, as demonstrated by their refusal to accept that the majority voted in Obama and now it's his turn to try his policies to solve the problems he inherited by the other side's eight years in office.
I'd like to see one of those SEVEN DAYS IN MAY or DR. STRANGELOVE films of the '60s that pinpointed the logical outcome of the rightwing paranoia of those days remade and updated to reflect the current developments on the rightwing paranoia front. I actually have read rightwing commentary that blames Obama for the "too big to fail" bailout policy calling it "socialist" but not acknowledging that the policy was initiated by the Bush Junior rightwing Republican administration and proud defenders of so-called "capitalism" (better called corporate socialism)!
PS: Just watched the evening news, switching around the channels to see what the networks and major cable outlets are saying and can't believe the fuss they're making over a Democratic Congressman from Florida who used the term "Neanderthals" for Republican obstructionists and points out they don't have any healthcare plan beyond "Don't get sick, and if you do die quickly!" Somehow his criticism in this form the newtworks find equal to the rightwing attacks on Obama! On CNN Wolf Blitzer kept ignoring the Congressman's cogent and humorous criticisms of Republicans for their obstructionism to pummel him with confrontational arguments questioning the literalism of the Congressman's criticisms (as if the righwingers don't take all their attacks literally! i.e. Obama's citizenship credentials, accusations of "socialism" for a very mild and moderate form of "capitalism" etc.)!! (Probably ordered by Blitzer's superiors since CNN's attempt to not criticize the right has left them behind FOX in the ratings lately.)
I'd like to see one of those SEVEN DAYS IN MAY or DR. STRANGELOVE films of the '60s that pinpointed the logical outcome of the rightwing paranoia of those days remade and updated to reflect the current developments on the rightwing paranoia front. I actually have read rightwing commentary that blames Obama for the "too big to fail" bailout policy calling it "socialist" but not acknowledging that the policy was initiated by the Bush Junior rightwing Republican administration and proud defenders of so-called "capitalism" (better called corporate socialism)!
PS: Just watched the evening news, switching around the channels to see what the networks and major cable outlets are saying and can't believe the fuss they're making over a Democratic Congressman from Florida who used the term "Neanderthals" for Republican obstructionists and points out they don't have any healthcare plan beyond "Don't get sick, and if you do die quickly!" Somehow his criticism in this form the newtworks find equal to the rightwing attacks on Obama! On CNN Wolf Blitzer kept ignoring the Congressman's cogent and humorous criticisms of Republicans for their obstructionism to pummel him with confrontational arguments questioning the literalism of the Congressman's criticisms (as if the righwingers don't take all their attacks literally! i.e. Obama's citizenship credentials, accusations of "socialism" for a very mild and moderate form of "capitalism" etc.)!! (Probably ordered by Blitzer's superiors since CNN's attempt to not criticize the right has left them behind FOX in the ratings lately.)
WEB SITE
My web site is back up, thanks to the woman who created and designed it, Magdalene Powers. It's got an updated photo, but there's still some changes that have to be made and some additions (hopefully some footage and some audio of poetry readings and/or some acting jobs I dug). But it may be awhile, since my friend Maggie (a writer whose work I've touted on this blog) is in L.A. trying out for Jeopardy! Let's keep our fingers crossed that she not only gets on, but wins big!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
