Little Deaths

It's difficult to believe--never mind, because it's not all that difficult to believe in these times--but The Rocky Mountain News, a landmark American newspaper in Denver that's been publishing for 150 years, since before the start of the Civil War, has folded. Gone kaput, belly up. Gone out of business. Here's a paper that's won four Pulitzer Prizes since 2000. I wonder how many people in Denver are going through the pains of losing one of their most trustworthy friends. It's difficult to put into words the kind of relationship a reader builds up with his newspaper, or with the magazines he habitually reads, for that matter. Something akin to love develops, I believe, especially if it's a relationship of long standing. Now think of all the little deaths that will occur today as regular subscribers experience their first morning without the companion that they've awoken to for all these years.

Sigh: it's a sign of our troubled, wrenching times. I think we're living in a time that's going to change the world's way of living irrevocably. (Maybe it's an arguable point, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.) But, as is only human, as long as our own lives are not being whipsawed, as long as the wrenching things are happening to other people, not us or our families, the monumental changes going on all over the world will pass us by mostly unnoticed.

That's why it's good to notice the death of The Rocky Mountain News. Other papers are sure to follow. We need to be aware of how our neighbors are suffering . . .

To Your Health!

Health note: Hardly audible under the massive amount of chatter about the Obama budget is the news that Eric Holder, the new attorney general of the US, has declared that the justice department will no longer carry out raids against medical marijuana dispensaries. This fulfills an Obama campaign promise to halt the practice. Isn't it refreshing to see how the president is actually keeping campaign promises?

Come Again . . . ?

What? What did you say? Along with Rachel Maddow, I have to wonder how leaving 50,000 so-called residual forces in Iraq after the official withdrawal of troops is "ending the war." Obama's already briefed key members of Congress, and he's going to tell the rest of us about it later today. Powerful voices like speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's have already been heard in opposition. My prediction: nobody is going to fight Obama on this; he'll get what he wants. But people who know about Pentagon deviousness (remember my previous report on this?) and who crave peace--people like me--are going to raise hell. I've already started.

US troops conduct a foot patrol along the Tigris river south of Baghdad, Iraq.

Guess who thinks the 50,000 troops staying in Iraq is just fine? Right! The frigging 4-star generals running the war in Iraq. "General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command, and General Ray Odierno, the top commander in Baghdad, believed the plan presented moderate risk but supported the 50,000 figure." Moderate risk? Risk to what? Risk to not keeping more troops there longer, which all the Pentagon wants to do. The Pentagon loves war. Hasn't anybody figured this out yet? Just wait. They'll be calling for more troops in Afghanistan even after we ratchet up the 30,000 there now with 30,000 more. So let's see. That's 50,000 in Iraq and 60,000 in Afghanistan . . . with no set reduction, only possibility of augmentation, on the horizon. Not what I voted for.

Liberal Arts Redux

Continuing yesterday's theme:

I Tell Them I'm a Liberal Arts Major

And then, of course, they say: how quaint; and what are you
going to do with that?
What am I going to do with it?
As though these four phenomenal years were an object I could cart away from college—
a bachelor's degree across my back like an ermine jacket,
or my education hung from a ceiling on a string.
What am I going to do with it?
Well, I thought perhaps I'd put it in a cage
to see if it multiplies or does tricks or something
so I could enter it in a circus
and realize a sound dollar-for-dollar return
on my investment.
Then, too, I am exploring the possibility of
whipping it out like a folding chair
at V.F.W. parades and Kiwanis picnics.
I might have it shipped and drive through Italy.
Or sand it down and sail it.
What am I going to do with it?
I'll tell you one thing:
I'm probably never going to plant sod around it.
You see, I'm making it a definitive work:
repapering parts of my soul
that can never be toured by my friends;
wine glass balanced in one hand,
warning guests to watch the beam
that hits people on the head
when they go downstairs to see the den.
You don't understand—
I'm using every breath to tread water
in all-night swimming competitions
with Hegel, Marx, and Wittgenstein;
I am a reckless diver fondling the bottom of civilization for ropes of pearls;
I am whispering late into the night on a river bank with Zola;
I am stopping often, soaking wet and exhausted, to weep at the Bastille.
What am I going to do with it?
I'm going to sneak it away from my family
gathered for my commencement
and roam the high desert
making love to it.

—Carol Jin Evans, Metropolitan State College

Published in Keys to Liberal Arts Success, Howard W. Figler, Carol Carter, Joyce Bishop, and Sarah Lyman Kravits. Prentice Hall, 2002, pp. 6-7.

Yes, But What Are You Going to Do with It?

The question in the title is a familiar one to people who are working towards a degree in one of the humanities. I heard it even back in those prehistoric days when I was in college. Apparently, it's being asked today with great frequency.

I personally find the graphic to the right pretty depressing. I'm the product of a liberal education, now in the autumn of life, and I would not have traded my expertise in history; my love for the written word, the arts, fine music; and a fascination with the big questions posed by philosophy and religion for all the tea in China. I've been shaped by my liberal arts education. What sensitivity and tolerance I've been able to cultivate are direct descendants of my education, which began back in my high school days of Latin and Homeric Greek, classes in poetry, and regular written exercises everyone, no exceptions, was required to write. During the course of my schooling, one lesson stood out above all others: Language is important. It is key. How to understand it, interpret it, use it effectively. We were taught that language could be used to deceive as well as to enlighten, uplift, or transport information. And we learned how to spot those deceptions and the faulty logic that underpinned them. It's called critical thinking, and judging by the work I regularly see from college students in my online classes, it's a skill that is simply not being taught to anyone anymore. Apparently, now that we're in tough times, the little remnant of those students who are honing such skills is going to shrink even further.

According to this New York Times article, the humanities are under increasing pressure in colleges and universities to justify their very existence. The traditional reason for studying them--"a traditional liberal arts education is, by definition, not intended to prepare students for a specific vocation. Rather, the critical thinking, civic and historical knowledge and ethical reasoning that the humanities develop have a different purpose: They are prerequisites for personal growth and participation in a free democracy, regardless of career choice."--is simply not good enough anymore. Study of subjects that help you to appreciate what and who you are, to mold you into a more rounded human being, to address questions that lie at the core of what it means to be human does nothing for the almighty, the wretched, the accursed bottom line. Our god, our master, our beloved.

"[T]he humanities are under greater pressure than ever to justify their existence to administrators, policy makers, students and parents. Technology executives, researchers and business leaders argue that producing enough trained engineers and scientists is essential to America’s economic vitality, national defense and health care."

Notice the array of people the humanities have to answer to. I myself don't see any particular compelling reason to regard the pressure from any of these categories of people something I should lose sleep over. All these types, but especially business leaders, technology executives, and policy makers aren't exactly renowned for their humanistic approach to life. In fact, it's these people who have largely brought us to our current nadir. As for students, I've always argued that it was the collective madness of the 1960s that empowered the students to control the curricula in universities. Talk about something illogical and counter-intuitive.

But the decline of the humanities (and the concomitant rise of national brutishness, something that is already widespread and growing) seems to be an irreversible trend. Just in the last three months, over two dozen universities have dropped their searches for teachers of religion and philosophy. And we read that some large state universities "routinely" turn away students looking for courses in the humanities. This country is determined to hasten its demise as a culture that deserves to be remembered by anybody. A thousand years from now, assuming humanity still exists, this country if it's noticed at all will be remembered as nation of soulless consumers who sank out of sight in their own self-created morass of greed, ignorance, violence, short-sighted hedonism, and rapacious acquisitiveness. A forgettable nation of barbarians.

Trillions

So who else watched the Obama speech to Congress tonight? I missed the beginning, but saw most of it. Did anybody else get tired of the standing O's? Was anybody else repulsed by the sight of that weasel Joe Lieberman, whom the cameras drifted to at least a couple of times?

It was a good speech, delivered well and forcefully. And best of all, it was a Democratic speech, that wasn't stingy in its criticism of bankers and banks, the previous administration and all its allies in the Congress (although he didn't say so directly) who preferred short term gains at the expense of long-term stability in the country's financial system. I personally was happy to hear that no-bid contracts like those that fattened defense contractors in Iraq were going to end, as well as all the conspicuous perks for bank and Wall St. CEOs. I was delighted to hear that cuts are coming for defense (scrapping Cold War weapons systems the services are buying, ferreting out fraud and waste). And that subsidies for "giant agri-business that doesn't need them" are also on the block. (I'm going to have to see this to believe it.)

The president reiterated the three main goals for action he's been talking about from the start: alternative energy, health care reform, close attention and improvement in education. Of course, all of this will have to be embodied in legislation that must pass through the sausage grinder in the Congress. And what's being proposed is in addition to the many more hundreds of billions it will require to prop up the damn banks, billions to keep the auto manufacturers afloat, and assist homeowners with mortgage relief. We're talking perhaps a multiple of trillions of dollars before, and if, we get out of this mire. I simply don't understand another thing Obama said tonight: that by the end of his first term, he will have reduced the deficit by half--to about a trillion dollars. The numbers we're talking about here make my head spin.

Update 1: Reactions to Obama's speech from various observers and reactions to the reactions.

Was anyone surprised by the Bobby Jindal response speech? I thought it was terrible. Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana, trotted out the same, tired formula for solving the gigantic problems we face: tax cuts and don't trust government. Lame, lame, lame. Even the Republicans are saying so. Check David Brooks to Jim Lehrer tonight about Jindal's performance.

Update #1: Lots of Republican heartburn with the Jindal response. Fun reading.

In a Nation Starved for Good News . . .

. . . you will be delighted to learn that a San Francisco Democrat has introduced a bill to legalize marijuana. To put it on the same legal par with beer. Plan is to tax it $50 an ounce. They estimate it would bring a cool billion into the state's sorely empty coffers. This ongoing depression is going to spawn creative solutions for money shortages, folks. Hear! Hear! on this one.

Trifecta

Sometimes it does the body good to not think about the state of the world. I'm not going to think about the state of the world again today. Not to worry. I'll be worrying about it again soon enough, and I'm sure it will give me reason enough to. If I were in south Louisiana, for example, I'd be thinking about Mardi Gras tomorrow, and Obama and the miserable Republicans would be far from my mind.

With these thoughts as backdrop, I have three diversionary topics.

• Consider the astounding speculations about the images of the ocean floor off the west coast of Africa that have shown up with the use of the last version of Google Earth (5.0). The image is pictured here, and the questions concern the fabled city of Atlantis, which according to legend more ancient than the Mariner, was swallowed up beneath the waves. What's the meaning of the undeniably geometric pattern down there? I'll vote for Atlantis on the theory that all myth and legend, even of the ancient variety, is based on some reality. So take a look at this piece and this one--it's got a map showing where in the ocean this phenomenon is--and take a gander at the accompanying image. I want some divers or deep sea submersible to get down there and check this out.

Update 1: It ain't so. Google reports "what users are seeing is an artifact of the data collection process," Google said. "Bathymetric (or seafloor terrain) data is often collected from boats using sonar to take measurements of the seafloor. The lines reflect the path of the boat as it gathers the data." Shucks!

• And then there's this story about a concerted move by lawmakers in Oklahoma, of all places, to--get ready for this--pass legislation banning the tatooing of eyeballs in the state. I'm not making this up.
• Some nut case of a teacher asked his class of ten-year-olds in England to write down a list of hurtful, unkind words as an exercise exploring bullying. The kids did not disappoint. "The litany of words ranged from variations on the F-word, crude slang for sex acts, female and male genitalia, and racist and derogatory name-calling." The parents of the kids, however, were disappointed, to say the least. Oh, and did I mention it was a Church of England school?

Be Prepared to Be Motivated

Perhaps it's because I've spent too much time thinking about the nation's woes, or the number of papers I've yet to grade before this batch is done, or the folly of our foreign policy, or some other equally distressing subject . . . perhaps. But this video had me laughing, all by myself, till I cried. I fear I may have finally revealed what a twisted cranium you're dealing with here. Nonetheless! With heartfelt apologies to anyone who may be in the least offended, I simply must share it with you.

The Enemies List

The only way I'm going to get less gloomy is to spend more time with my Boston Terrier Prozac. She's got a great attitude. She lives right in the moment. No past, and the future is just great. She lives simply, plays regularly, eats a healthy diet, all in the company of people she loves more than life itself and can snuggle with. It really can't be bad to live a life like this.

Alas, the no past and no future part doesn't work for me, even if most of the rest does. No, I'm driven to scope out what's going on, what's really going on behind all the chaff, fluff, and falsehood our right-wing media is heaping on our heads daily. I purposely expose myself to articles like this that don't improve my attitude. The thrust of this piece, which would repay your reading if you've got time, is that Obama, in whom we reposed so much hope just a few weeks (seems like years, doesn't it?) is likely to be only a one-term president. He is surrounded by implacable enemies who are going to do everything they can to thwart his agenda. You probably know who these enemies are. You've seen some of them hard at work.

Obama faces near-unanimous Republican opposition to his strategy for salvaging the U.S. economy (and a GOP readiness to use the Senate filibuster at every turn); right-wing talk radio and cable-TV personalities are stoking a populist anger against him; Wall Street executives are miffed at limits on their compensation; and key military commanders are resisting his promised drawdown in Iraq.
In addition, former Bush administration officials are making clear that they will fight any effort to hold them accountable for torture and other war crimes, denouncing it as a “witch-hunt” that will be met with an aggressive counterattack accusing Obama of endangering American security.

Republicans
The most visible. They've become en masse an engine of "no" to everything. Their shamelessness knows no bounds. The idea is to hobble the administration right out of the gate, cripple his agenda by refusing to support anything, even if it means making the country's myriad woes worse. Then, having assisted the country in getting further screwed up, the GOP will be in position to regain power in 2010 and 2012. What a hateful bunch of people!

Media

"[M]ost of the U.S. news media continues to tilt to the Right – from the Washington Post’s neoconservative editorialists and CNBC’s millionaire commentators to the right-wing ideologues of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal." Case in point: the imbecilic performance of CNBC's Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago commodities exchange, frothing about Obama's mortgage relief plan. The Right lapped it up, cheered themselve blue in the face. And let's not forget the slime balls of right-wing talk radio. If anything, they've ratcheted up the spew of bile and venom against Obama and all his works.

The Military

To me, this is the scariest of all. Obama is dissed as a softie who can be manipulated into doing what the Pentagon wants. Can anyone guess what that is? Correct! More war. No withdrawal from Iraq and an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, which has the potential to become a quagmire every bit as destructive and fruitless as Vietnam.
Thomas Ricks, a Pentagon expert who has just written a follow-up to Fiasco, his celebrated expose of our military ineptitude in Iraq reports this disturbing news:

“The widespread expectation inside the U.S. military is that we will have tens of thousands of troops [in Iraq] for years to come. Indeed, in his last interview with me last November, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told me that he would like to see about 30,000 troops still there in 2014 or 2015.”
“I worry now that we are once again failing to imagine what we have gotten ourselves into and how much more we will have to pay in blood, treasure, prestige and credibility. I don't think the Iraq war is over, and I worry that there is more to come than any of us suspect.”

Of course. The Pentagon beast must be fed. It will be fed. It doesn't matter who is president. And its keepers don't care what the diet is, just so long there's enough of it to keep shoveling in there.

Big Money

. . . is going to scream bloody murder if Obama goes ahead with plans to cut Pentagon spending or if he decides to nationalize some banks or otherwise further constrain the malefactors of great wealth. They've shown themselves to be without conscience, compassion, or common sense, but that doesn't stop them even at the juncture where the taxpayers are shoveling hundreds of billions of dollars at them from thumbing their noses at the common good, which by definition is always inimical to their own.
Religious Right
These nut cases haven't gone away. They're already in a lather about Obama's reversals of Bush policies on abortion and stem cell research. They consider our unblinking support of Israel to be something ordained by God. Given their antipathy to the poor in general, people whom God has obviously spurned for their sins, you can bet your Bible these people are going to oppose any safety net programs or social reforms that benefit anyone besides themselves.
It's this array of immovable and ruthless enemies that Obama, the Democratic party, and the people who believe in them confront. I don't mind telling you it makes me crazy. For a couple of reasons. First, because I don't think the chances of Obama's success are very promising in the face of such opposition. Combined, especially with the media continuing its migration to the right, they're practically invincible. Second, because the failure of progressive government will doom this country, eventually the globe, and my children and grandchildren to miseries we have not even imagined.
A dog's life at that point might even be preferable.