Friday, October 17, 2008

Remembering John Ross

Central to the Tennessee River trip we took last week is the history of Cherokee Chief John Ross. Here's a hint of the wealth of accomplishment of this American hero:

Native American IconNATIVE AMERICAN LEGENDS

Chief John Ross of the Cherokee Nation



John Ross, first Chief of the Cherokee Nation


Born on October 3, 1790 at Turkeytown, Alabama

John Ross was the son of Daniel Ross, a Scotsman who had gone to live among the Cherokee during the American Revolution. His mother was also ¾ Scottish and ¼ Cherokee.

John’s father, Daniel, established a store at Chattanooga Creek near the foot of Lookout Mountain, which operated until about 1816. Determined that his children would receive a quality education, Daniel built a small school and hired a teacher. It was here that John Ross received his early education before attending another school in Kingston, Tennessee and later the Maryville, Tennessee Academy.

Ross' Landing in Chatanooga, Tennessee

Ross' Landing, painting by Larry Dodson, courtesy

Larry Dodson Arts


Though only 1/8th Cherokee, Ross was of Indian heritage through and through. Early in his life, he witnessed much brutality on the American frontier as both Indians and settlers alike were constantly raiding the Cherokee villages.

Also an astute businessman, Ross was involved with a number of business ventures, owned a 200 acre farm, and owned a number of slaves.

Over the next ten years, Ross fought the white settlers who were attempting to displace the Cherokee from their lands. Fighting not with weapons, but with words, he turned to the press and the courts to support the Cherokee cause.

When gold was discovered in White County, Georgia in 1828, the state began to push even harder for removal of the Indians. The Georgia legislature soon outlawed the Cherokee government and confiscated tribal lands. When the Cherokee appealed for federal protection, they were rejected by President.

Though winning several court rulings, it would make no difference as Ross’ former comrade, President Andrew Jackson authorized the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

The Jackson Administration began to put pressure on the Cherokees and other tribes to sign treaties of removal but the Cherokees rejected any proposals. However, when Jackson was reelected in 1832, some of the Cherokees believed that removal was inevitable. A Treaty Party, led by Major John Ridge, believed that it was in the best interest of the Cherokee Nation to get the best possible terms from the U.S. government. Cautiously, Ridge began unauthorized talks with the Jackson administration.

However, Chief John Ross and the majority of the Cherokee people remained adamantly opposed to removal. In 1832, Ross cancelled the tribal elections and the Council impeached Ridge, and a member of the Ridge Party was murdered. The "Treaty Party" responded by forming their own council, which represented only a small minority of the Cherokee people. Both the Ross government and the Ridge Party sent independent delegations to Washington.

In the end, 500 of the Cherokees (out of thousands) supported a treaty to cede the Cherokee lands in exchange for $5,700,000 and new lands in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma.) Though the actions was repudiated by more than nine-tenths of the tribe and was not signed by a single elected tribal official, Congress ratified the treaty on May 23, 1836.

Chief Ross and the Cherokee National Council maintained that the document was a fraud and presented a petition with more than 15,000 Cherokee signatures to congress in the spring of 1838. Other white settlers also were outraged by the questionable legality of the treaty. On April 23, 1838, Ralph Waldo Emerson appealed to Jackson's successor, President Martin Van Buren, urging him not to inflict "so vast an outrage upon the Cherokee Nation. But it was not to be.

Soon, the Cherokees were forced to move to Indian Territory on what would become known as the Trail of Tears. Along the 2,200 mile journey, road conditions, illness, cold, and exhaustion took thousands of lives, including Chief John Ross' wife Quatie. Though the federal government officially stated some 424 deaths, an American doctor traveling with one the party estimated that 2,000 people died in the camps and another 2,000 along the trail. Other estimates have been stated that conclude that almost 8,000 of the Cherokee died during the Indian Removal.

Once the tribe was relocated to a site near present day Tahlequah, Oklahoma, John Ross was reelected Principal Chief. Major Ridge was killed the same day for violating the law forbidding unauthorized sale of property. Soon, land was set aside for schools, a newspaper, and a new Cherokee capital.

During the Civil War, the Cherokee aligned themselves with the Confederacy, a declaration that repudiated any treaties that had been formerly signed with the Federal Government.

In September, 1865, Ross attended the Grand Council of Southern Indians at Fort Smith, Arkansas where new treaties between Cherokee and the Federal government were prepared. In July, 1866, though in failing health, he accompanied a delegation to Washington where new the treaties were signed on July 19, 1866. Soon after the treaties were signed, Ross took to his bed at the Medes Hotel in Washington D.C. where he died on August 1, 1866. His body was returned to Indian Territory where he is buried at Ross Cemetery in Park Hill, Oklahoma.

© Kathy Weiser/Legends of America, updated March, 2008


Chief John Ross

Chief John Ross, courtesy the Smithsonian Institution



http://www.legendsofamerica.com/NA-JohnRoss.html

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Krugman Rocks


As an admirer of Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times, I was thrilled to see that he won the Nobel Prize in Economics. We have cited him repeatedly in this blog: Krugman Zone.

Here is a good overview from the Herald Tribune:


International Herald Tribune
Bush critic wins 2008 Nobel for economics
Monday, October 13, 2008

By Anna Ringstrom, Sven Nordenstam and Jon Hurdle

U.S. economist Paul Krugman, a fierce critic of the Bush administration for policies that he argues led to the current financial crisis, won the 2008 Nobel prize for economics on Monday.

The Nobel committee said the award was for Krugman's work that helps explain why some countries dominate international trade, starting with research published nearly 30 years ago.

While the research for which he won the prize was not obviously partisan, Krugman is best known as the author of columns and a blog called "The Conscience of a Liberal" for the New York Times. He has long been tipped as a likely winner.

A professor at Princeton University, the 55-year-old Krugman argues that President George W. Bush's zeal for deregulation and loose fiscal policies helped spark the current banking meltdown.

He said news of the prize took him by surprise. "I took the call stark naked as I was about to step into the shower," he told a news conference at Princeton on Monday afternoon.

Speaking by telephone to a news conference earlier, Krugman offered a snap analysis on the turbulent times.

"We are now witnessing a crisis that is as severe as the crisis that hit Asia in the 90s. This crisis bears some resemblance to the Great Depression."

Praising world leaders' efforts to staunch the financial bleeding, particularly in Europe, he added: "I'm slightly less terrified today than I was on Friday."

World policy makers met at the weekend, after a black week on financial markets, to agree on radical measures to rescue banks, revive liquidity and avert a global recession.

It was the second year in a row that a major Nobel prize was awarded to an American known for his strong criticism of Bush -- last year's peace prize went to former U.S. Vice President Al Gore for his work on climate change.

Asked at the Princeton news conference if he saw a trend of Nobels going to people who were anti-Bush, Krugman said "A lot of intellectuals are anti-Bush."

The prize committee dismissed any suggestion its choice was influenced by the current crisis or political considerations.

"I don't think the committee has ever taken a political stance," committee secretary Peter Englund told Reuters. "The real, dramatic crisis is an event of the last month or so, which is in practice after the committee took its decision."

COMMON SENSE VOICE

Krugman's latest column in the New York Times, published on Monday, praised Britain for thinking clearly and acting quickly to address the crisis, unlike the United States. He mused: Did Prime Minister Gordon Brown just save world markets?

Britain unveiled a plan last week to bolster ailing banks, and on Monday it waded in with 37 billion pounds ($64 billion) of capital, a move that could make the state the banks' main owner.

Readers of Krugman's blog posted hundreds of comments congratulating him as an accessible voice of common sense.

"Sometimes it feels as though you are the only sane person in America," said a writer who identified himself as Martin Gruner Larsen.

Krugman said he was encouraged by recent steps to address the crisis and said it was vital there should be a combination of capital injection and guarantees for banks.

Commenting on policy proposals from the two U.S. presidential candidates, he said: "It would be kind of nice if we did have a sophisticated government, but that may change."

Asked about accountability for the crisis, Krugman said the financial system had outgrown the regulatory system.

"There is a lot of grotesque greed under this crisis but greed isn't illegal," he said.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said the prestigious 10 million crown ($1.4 million) award recognized Krugman's formulation of a new theory that addresses what drives worldwide urbanization.

"He has thereby integrated the previously disparate research fields of international trade and economic geography," the committee said. "Krugman's approach is based on the premise that many goods and services can be produced more cheaply in a long series, a concept generally known as economies of scale."

Krugman's theory clarifies why trade is dominated by countries that not only have similar conditions but also trade in similar products.

(Writing by Anna Ringstrom; Editing by Charles Dick and Philip Barbara)

http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/10/13/europe/OUKWD-UK-NOBEL-ECONOMICS.php

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Tennessee Weekend

Forget Columbus.
We followed the trail of such frontiersmen as Davy Crockett to the Cumberland Plateau.

Tennessee River Gorge, Autumn

We started the weekend at Leas's, on the North Shore, dining on home-made Viet Namese cuisine, wine and champagne, and toasting Sissy's birthday with home-made Manhattans.

Dr. Rick ( of http://www.chattanoogapulse.com/columns/shrink-rap) and Starr made it six for spring rolls.

On Monday, we took the catamaran upriver for a perfect afternoon.

http://www.tnaqua.org/


River Gorge videoRGE video


Check out the NEW River Gorge
Explorer commercial.
Learn more about the special
habitat you'll experience aboard
the River Gorge Explorer.


Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Waiting For...


Waiting For...

As the hour for debating arrives,
As I sit at home on the gray sofa,
I want poetry, as I read Frank
O'Hara. And think about the emptiness
Of so much that occupies life. The
Emptiness of quarreling, of money, of growing old.
The emptiness of death on the beach,
On Fire Island, at night, O'Hara at forty
Killed by a jeep. The plunge
Of the financial world, vast beyond
Understanding. Until the notice comes and
We are all laid off. Depression. Emptiness.
As the debate comes, I think,
I want to be The Obama Poet.
I want to celebrate the Half-black Barack:
President of America. Then, I recall his birthplace,
Recall how joyous spring was there,
So much so, I nearly drowned in its plenitude,
There beneath the fall.


Jack Jameson


Monday, October 06, 2008

Garrison Keillor on the Bailout

They're Stealing from You and Me -- Where's the Outrage?

By Garrison Keillor, International Herald Tribune

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace: It wasn't their money Wall Street was playing with. It was ours.


By Garrison Keillor, International Herald Tribune
Posted on October 6, 2008, Printed on October 6, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/101694/

Where were the cops?

It's just human nature that some calamities register in the brain and others don't. The train engineer texting at the throttle ("HOW R U? C U L8R") and missing the red light and 25 people die in the crash -- oh God, that is way too real -- everyone has had a moment of supreme stupidity that came close to killing somebody. Even atheists say a little prayer now and then: Dear God, I am an idiot, thank you for protecting my children.

On the other hand, the America's federal bailout of the financial market (yawn) is a calamity that people accept as if it were just one more hurricane. An air of crisis, the secretary of the Treasury striding down a hall at the Capitol with minions in his wake, solemn-faced congressmen at the microphones. Something must be done, harrumph harrumph.

The Current Occupant pops out of the cuckoo clock and reads a few lines off a piece of paper, pronouncing all the words correctly. And the newscaster looks into the camera and says, "Etaoin shrdlu qwertyuiop."

Where is the outrage?

Poor Senator Larry Craig got a truckload of moral condemnation for tapping his wingtips in the men's john, but his party proposes to spend 5 percent of the GDP to buy up bad loans made by men who walk away with their fortunes intact while retirees see their 401(k) go pffffffff like a defunct air mattress, and it's business as usual.

John McCain is a lifelong deregulator and believer in letting brokers and bankers do as they please -- remember Lincoln Savings and Loan and his intervention with federal regulators in behalf of his friend Charles Keating, who then went to prison? Remember Neil Bush, the brother of the C.O., who, as a director of Silverado S&L, bestowed enormous loans on his friends without telling fellow directors that the friends were friends and who, when the loans failed, paid a small fine and went skipping off to other things?

McCain now decries greed on Wall Street and suggests a commission be formed to look into the problem. This is like Casanova coming out for chastity.

Confident men took leave of common sense and bet on the idea of perpetual profit in the real estate market and crashed. But it wasn't their money. It was your money they were messing with. And that's why we need government regulators. Gimlet-eyed men with steel-rim glasses and crepe-soled shoes who check the numbers and have the power to say, "This is a scam and a hustle and either you cease and desist or you spend a few years in a minimum-security federal facility playing backgammon."

The Republican Party used to specialize in gimlet-eyed, steel-rim, crepe-soled common sense and then it was taken over by crooked preachers who demand Americans trust them because they're packing a Bible and God sent them on a mission to enact lower taxes, less government. Except when things crash, and then government has to pick up the pieces.

Some say the tab might come to a trillion dollars. Nobody knows. And McCain has not one moment of doubt or regret. He switches from First Deregulation Church to Our Lady of Strict Vigilance like you might go from decaf to latte. Where is the straight talk? Does the man have no conscience?

It wasn't their money they were playing with. It was yours. Where were the cops?

What we are seeing is the stuff of a novel, the public corruption of an American war hero. It is painful.

First, there was McCain's exploitation of a symbolic woman, an eager zealot who is so far out of her depth that it isn't funny anymore. Anyone with a heart has to hurt for how McCain has made a fool of her. Never mind the persistent cheesiness of his attack ads. And now this chasm of debt and loss and the gentleman pretends to be shocked. He was there. He turned out the lights. He sent the regulators home.

McCain seems willing to say anything, do anything, to get to the White House so he can go to war with Iran. If he needs to recline naked in a department store window, he would do that, or eat live chickens, or claim to be a reformer. Obviously you can fool a lot of people for a while and maybe he can stretch it out until mid-November. But the truth is marching on. A few true conservatives led the charge against the bailout. Good for them. But how about admitting that their cowboy economic philosophy was at fault here?

Garrison Keillor is the author of a new Lake Wobegon novel, "Liberty."

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/101694

Sunday, October 05, 2008

Sunday: A Day for Poetry

Listen: Poem (Lana Turner has collapsed!)


NYRB took me to Frank O'Hara, today. How could I have gone so long without knowing his voice? Now his is a life I could fancy, the art, the friends, the writing, even the love. Just not being run over on a beach. Death at 40 at dawn by the sea. Alas.

Here is the poem for today:

SLEEPING ON THE WING


Perhaps it is to avoid some great sadness,
as in a Restoration tragedy the hero cries "Sleep!
O for a long sound sleep and so forget it!"
that one flies, soaring above the shoreless city,
veering upward from the pavement as a pigeon
does when a car honks or a door slams, the door
of dreams, life perpetuated in parti-colored loves
and beautiful lies all in different languages.

Fear drops away too, like the cement, and you
are over the Atlantic. Where is Spain? where is
who? The Civil War was fought to free the slaves,
was it? A sudden down-draught reminds you of gravity
and your position in respect to human love. But
here is where the gods are, speculating, bemused.
Once you are helpless, you are free, can you believe
that? Never to waken to the sad struggle of a face?
to travel always over some impersonal vastness,
to be out of, forever, neither in nor for!

The eyes roll asleep as if turned by the wind
and the lids flutter open slightly like a wing.
The world is an iceberg, so much is invisible!
and was and is, and yet the form, it may be sleeping
too. Those features etched in the ice of someone
loved who died, you are a sculptor dreaming of space
and speed, your hand alone could have done this.
Curiosity, the passionate hand of desire. Dead,
or sleeping? Is there speed enough? And, swooping,
you relinquish all that you have made your own,
the kingdom of your self sailing, for you must awake
and breathe your warmth in this beloved image
whether it's dead or merely disappearing,
as space is disappearing and your singularity.

By Frank O'Hara
http://www.frankohara.org/poems.html#today

From NYRB:

Volume 55, Number 14 · September 25, 2008

'What We Love, Not Are'

By Edward Mendelson
Frank O'Hara: Selected Poems
by Frank O'hara

'What We Love, Not Are"
A Review by Edward Mendelson

Frank O'Hara was the most sociable of poets, always happy to read aloud at parties, always praising friends or lovers or anyone else who got his attention, almost always portraying his inner life as if it existed only so that it could savor his outer one. O'Hara loved writers, artists, poems, paintings, bars, cafés, food, sex, film stars, buildings, and much else, and he seemed to toss them all into the mixed salads of his poetry with the same indifference to form and logic, the same domesticated surrealism, that characterized much of the American avant-garde of the period. Almost everyone who remembers O'Hara from his heady days in bohemian New York in the 1950s and 1960s remembers him as the liveliest guest at any party in Greenwich Village or the Hamptons where the artistic and literary avant-garde gathered to celebrate itself.

But O'Hara was trying to find something different from what most of the other party guests were looking for, something far more sober, lonely, and serious. The best of the hundreds of poems that he wrote from around the age of twenty-three, in 1949, until his death at forty, in 1966, after a Jeep accident on a Fire Island beach, were private conversations with individual readers, too quiet to be heard in a crowded room. O'Hara wrote a seriously joking prose piece, "Personism: A Manifesto," that pretended to treat his poetic manner as an exciting avant-garde movement "which will undoubtedly have lots of adherents." Thanks to this new movement, "the poem is at last between two persons instead of two pages." For a while, O'Hara also enjoyed writing showy, extravagant party pieces -- long poems filled with miscellaneous names, places, and events -- but his career began and ended with his shorter, deeper, more finely crafted lyrics, and the word "love" occurs more often in his shorter poems than in his longer ones.

Few who enjoyed O'Hara's presence in the avant-garde scene seem to have noticed that his jokes, gossip, and wild associative leaps tended to culminate in sermons about the ultimate value of one-to-one relations. "The only truth is face to face," he wrote in "Ode: Salute to the French Negro Poets," a poem partly about the prejudicial falsehoods that blur individual faces. The closing couplet reads:

the only truth is face to face, the poem whose words become your mouth
and dying in black and white we fight for what we love, not are

For O'Hara a poem was truthful when it was personal, not in the self-regarding "confessional" style of Robert Lowell's poems, which O'Hara called "just plain bad," but in the way in which one person attends to another. What was worth fighting for was "what we love," not identity, essence, principles, blackness, whiteness, or anything else we might think we are.

O'Hara made his living as a curator at the Museum of Modern Art and as a reviewer for art magazines. The artworks he most admired were pictures of individual persons painted with the uniquely personal brushstrokes of painters such as Willem de Kooning and Larry Rivers. He disliked the flat, impersonal, mechanical images silkscreened by Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein. But he was too generous-minded to persist in his distaste for Warhol, and eventually wrote of one of his portraits that it was "not sarcastic," as he had expected, but "moving and beautiful."

1.

O'Hara rushed into print with reviews and essays about the painters he admired, but he resisted most opportunities to publish his poems. Aside from a few pamphlets printed by art galleries in tiny editions, he allowed only two collections to appear in his lifetime,Meditations in an Emergency(1957) and Lunch Poems(1964). Both had to be dragged out of him by their publishers; the second required six years of persuasion by Lawrence Ferlinghetti before O'Hara supplied the contents.

All posthumous editions of O'Hara's work, including Mark Ford's sensitively chosen and intelligently introduced Selected Poems, are compiled mostly from poems that O'Hara never hoped to publish. Donald Allen, the ener getic anthologist of the avant-garde who had helped get Lunch Poemsinto print, put everything he could find into the thick Collected Poemsthat appeared in 1971, five years after O'Hara's death; a revised edition appeared in 1995. Allen also published a few further volumes of poems that had eluded him in 1971, and edited aSelected Poemsin 1974.

Mark Ford's selection presents a different O'Hara from the one portrayed by Donald Allen's 1974 volume. The differences begin on the front covers. The older book displays Larry Rivers's nude portrait of O'Hara, with the genitals in brighter light and sharper focus than the face. The newer book displays a friend's photograph of O'Hara's face in profile, its expression contemplative and alert. Ford's selection makes it possible to see more clearly how inward O'Hara's poetry was at its best, and his version of O'Hara is more celebratory than Allen's, less eager to shock. Among O'Hara's longer poems, both Allen and Ford include the later "Ode to Michael Goldberg ('s Birth and Other Births)" and "Biotherm (for Bill Berkson)," which have much to say about hope, liberty, wine, and dessert. But Allen includes, and Ford omits, the early long poems "Hatred" and "Easter," which have much to say about excrement and pain.

The best books about O'Hara are Marjorie Perloff's critical study, Frank O'Hara: Poet Among Painters(1977, revised 1998), and Brad Gooch's biography, City Poet: The Life and Times of Frank O'Hara(1993). Both have titles that locate O'Hara in a group or a scene -- in much the same way that the nude portrait on the old Selected Poemslocates him in a sexual category -- although both books are sensitive to the privacy and inwardness of O'Hara's best work. Gooch repeatedly observes that O'Hara wrote most fluently when he was alone, and that the densely populated world of his most public poems was his defense against an emptiness that both tempted and terrified him.

O'Hara is explicit about this temptation, and about the failure of his usual defenses against it, in a poem called "Anxiety":

I'm having a real day of it.
There was
something I had to do. But what?
There are no alternatives, just
the one something.
I have a drink,
it doesn't help -- far from it!

A few lines later he wishes he could become "really dark, richly dark, like/being drunk," but even that would be second-best to the suicidal relief that a total dissolution into emptiness could bring:

the impossible
pure light, to be as if above a vast
prairie, rushing and pausing over
the tiny golden heads in deep grass.

Among O'Hara's contemporaries, few poets seem less like him than the repressed, unsociable, provincial English librarian Philip Larkin. But O'Hara's "Anxiety" has the same tone, mood, and plot of Larkin's "High Windows," in which all comforts seem impossible, and Larkin's anxiety issues finally in

the thought of high windows:
The sun-comprehending glass,
And beyond it, the deep blue air, that shows
Nothing, and is nowhere, and is endless.

When O'Hara compared himself with writers and artists among his friends, he insisted that he was attempting less than they did, and tried to suppress his sense that he was achieving more. In one typically self-denigrating letter he wrote: "Where Kenneth [Koch] and Jimmy [James Schuyler] produce art, for instance, I often feel I just produce the by-product of exhibitionism." In the same letter, however, he pointed toward a deeper motive than exhibitionism: "Sometimes I think that writing a poem is such a moral crisis I get completely sick of the whole situation." O'Hara was too modest to admit that he believed his friends' desire to "produce art" -- to confront an aesthetic crisis instead of a moral one -- was their limitation.

Even his most comic and arbitrary-sounding poems tend to be essays on moral crises. The point of the comedy was not to dismiss the issues, but to disclaim any importance for himself in comparison with the issues. O'Hara's characteristic tone in his love poetry was that of unrequited passion, as in an early poem, "Poetry," where his desire to be forever with his art is indistinguishable from his desire to be forever with a person:

All this I desire. To
deepen you by my quickness
and delight as if you
were logical and proven,
but still be quiet as if
I were used to you; as if
you would never leave me
and were the inexorable
product of my own time.

And in one of his last poems, "Cantata," the closing lines about his orange cat are equally about someone human:

...he looks like my best friend my constant lover
hopelessly loyal tawny and apt and whom I hopelessly love

W.H. Auden famously warned O'Hara against the arbitrary, surrealistic shifts of tone and subject in the poems that he and his friend John Ashbery were writing in the 1950s:

I think you (and John, too, for that matter) must watch what is always the great danger with any "surrealistic" style, namely of confusing authentic non-logical relations which arouse wonder with accidental ones which arouse mere surprise and in the end fatigue.

Auden had not detected the almost opposite motivations behind the "non-logical relations" in O'Hara's and Ashbery's poetry. Ashbery's work, O'Hara said, "is full of dreams and a kind of moral excellence and kind sentiments," while his own "is full of objects for their own sake" that he treats with "ironically intimate observation." But Ashbery's dreamlike sentiments link together whatever happens to be in his mind while he is writing a poem, while O'Hara's "objects for their own sake" are linked together by his sense that, as in Dante's Paradise, everything that has profound value in itself is obscurely but profoundly connected to everything that has similar value.

In fact, in O'Hara's best poems, the relations that Auden called non-logical had a logic of their own. O'Hara was a lapsed Roman Catholic who detached himself cleanly and almost guiltlessly from his religious past. He lost all interest in Catholic theology and morals, but retained an aesthetic sensibility in which saints, shrines, relics, and rituals from wildly different centuries and cultures exist in a single harmonious texture of mutual adoration and love. The abrupt leaps from one object or person to another may look like the arbitrary leaps in Ashbery's poetry, but they have a logic founded in a Catholic sensibility that persisted after O'Hara discarded Catholicism.

When O'Hara links together a film star, a ballerina, a poet, and a half-dozen friends, he is being less surrealistic than Dantesque. In Canto II of the Inferno, when Virgil tells Dante they will voyage together through Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise, Dante asks why someone as unheroic as he should be chosen. But heroism is irrelevant; what matters is that others care about Dante. Virgil explains that Mary (from first-century Nazareth) asked Lucia (from third-century Syracuse) to ask Beatrice (from thirteenth-century Florence) to ask Virgil (from first-century BC Rome) to come to his aid. They all exist for each other and for Dante, in more or less the same way that the friends, singers, and actors in O'Hara's poems exist for him and for each other.

O'Hara's most memorable poems are his elegies -- "To My Dead Father," "To an Actor Who Died," "Thinking of James Dean," "The Day Lady Died" -- and memorial poems such as "Ode on Causality," titled in an early draft "Ode at the Grave of Jackson Pollock." Modern elegies tend to be unconvincing because the poet so clearly disbelieves in the immortality that an elegy traditionally claims for its subject. But O'Hara's elegies succeed because long after he discarded any religious belief in immortality, he retained the aesthetic sensibility that took it seriously. His best-known poem, "Lana Turner Has Collapsed!" (the tabloid headline that prompted the poem), is no less an elegy because its subject remained alive. The snowstorm in its opening lines is the sign of nature's grief. And its closing line offers the same collective praise -- "Who would not sing for Lycidas?" -- and evokes the same resurrection and ascent -- "So Lycidas sunk low, but mounted high" -- that marks the climax of all great elegies:

oh Lana Turner we love you get up

O'Hara's friends were dismayed by the camp sentimentality of his lesser elegies for James Dean, but these too recalled the fellowship of saints that presided over his childhood:

This is
James Dean, Carole Lombard. I hope
you will be good to him up there.

In "Biotherm (for Bill Berkson)," O'Hara honored the "poète américain/ lyrique et profond, Wallace Stevens," the source of Ashbery's aesthetic, the great poet who made connections among things because they were all present in his own imagination. But O'Hara wanted more than Stevens could give him. "I don't get any love from Wallace Stevens no I don't," he continued in the same poem, and then imagined Stevens isolated even in a crowd as he

strolled on
an ordinary evening alone
with a lot of people

Politics, for most of O'Hara's avant-garde friends, was at best a target for dismissive satire, but O'Hara took politics seriously as a means to achieve social justice. Amiri Baraka recalled that he "had a real feeling for the human element in politics." As Brad Gooch reports in his biography, O'Hara got his news from the Daily Workerwhen he was young, and later puzzled his New York friends by taking the trouble to campaign for liberal candidates. (He also puzzled his fellow guests at artistic house parties in the Hamptons by spending hours on the beach playing with his hosts' children, whom everyone else ignored.)

2.

O'Hara was born in 1926 to observant Roman Catholic parents from small-town Massachusetts who never told him he had been conceived three months before they married. He hated his Catholic schools but brought away from them his special sensitivity to rhetoric and language. "To the Film Industry in Crisis" is a hagiography of film stars written in vaguely hexameter verse that opens, like Horace'sCarminaI.7, by listing the things he is not going to sing about:

Not you, lean quarterlies and swarthy periodicals
with your studious incursions toward the pomposity of ants,
nor you, experimental theatre in which Emotive Fruition
is wedding Poetic Insight perpetually, nor you,
promenading Grand Opera, obvious as an ear (though you
are close to my heart), but you, Motion Picture Industry,
it's you I love!

Marjorie Perloff and others have catalogued O'Hara's debts to the avant-garde of early-twentieth-century Europe, but O'Hara's avant-garde credentials tend to obscure his uniqueness. Everyone in the midcentury American avant-garde knew how to copy Parisian experiments made forty years earlier, and the results were usually trivial and derivative. What made O'Hara's avant-garde-sounding poems different, and almost always rescued them from triviality and pretentiousness, was the classical and formal sensibility with which he held together all his avant-garde effects. In the same way, O'Hara was happy to imitate William Carlos Williams's long lines broken into three or four steps extending across the page, or Charles Olson's phrases scattered on an open "field," but his tone and language remained unmistakably his own.

After three years in the Pacific as a sonar operator for the navy during World War II, O'Hara went to Harvard on the GI Bill, found his personal voice as a poet, and discovered the excitement of working among an avant-garde coterie of poets, playwrights, and musicians. Until his Harvard years he expected to have a career as a concert pianist, and much of his verse has the kind of metrical dexterity found only among poets with a strong musical sense. "October" is an early display of the subtle variations he could make on a trimeter line:

If I turn down my sheets
children start screaming through
the windows. My glasses
are broken on the coffee table.
And at night a truce
with Iran or Korea seems certain
while I am beaten to death
by a thug in a back bedroom.

"Cohasset" (not in Ford's selection) is a later instance of his control over meter, as in the spondees that end the lines about stasis, followed by the trochee and dactyl in the closing lines about change:

the huge rocks
are like twin beds
and the cove tide
is a rug slipping
out from under us

Even when he is most intent on saying something about personal relations, his verse seems motivated partly by his love of language and form. "Aus einem April" is a variation on Rilke's poem with the same title. The shape of O'Hara's poem on the page is an exact match for the irregular shape of Rilke's poem, and O'Hara's opening line, "We dust the walls," is a joke rendering of Rilke's opening line, "Wieder duftet der Wald[the forest is fragrant again]," as it might look to an English-speaker who knew no German. But the overall argument of O'Hara's poem seems to be that Rilke was interested only in the aesthetic sensations he got from a budding tree while O'Hara sees it as a sign of sympathy and feeling:

Haven't you ever fallen down at
Christmas
and didn't it move everyone
who saw you?
isn't that what the tree
means? the pure pleasure
of making weep those whom you cannot move by your flights!

O'Hara tended to write two kinds of poem: short poems of about twenty to forty lines, with beginnings, middles, and ends, and longer poems that continued until he stopped. The shorter poems tend to be reticent, psychologically acute love poems about the shifting inequalities of love:

out and out meanness, too, lets love breathe
you don't have to fight off getting in too deep
you can always get out if you're not too scared
an ounce of prevention's
enough to poison the heart
don't think of others
until you have thought of yourself, are true

all of these things, if you feel them
will be graced by a certain reluctance
and turn into gold

if felt by me, will be smilingly deflected
by your mysterious concern

("Poem: Hate is only one of many responses")

The longer poems tend to be performance pieces, in which O'Hara writes as a poetic one-man band, shifting rapidly among his roles as party-goer, art critic, movie fan, amateur chef, balletomane, raconteur, sexual adventurer, European traveler, always rushing someplace else, quick to shed his past, "capitalizing on a few memories/from childhood by forgetting them." O'Hara's most frequent and most ostentatiously avant-garde effects occur in these longer poems:

whither Lumumba whither oh whither Gauguin
I have often tried to say goodbye to strange fantoms I
read about in the newspapers and have always succeeded
though the ones at "home" are dependent on Dependable
Laboratory and Sales Company on Pulaski Street strange
("For the Chinese New Year & for Bill Berkson")

In a talk he gave to a gathering of artists, O'Hara justified this style of poetry as a liberation of language:

Poetry which liberates certain forces in language, permits them to emerge upon the void of silence, not poetry which seeks merely to express most effectively or most beautifully or most musically some preconceived idea or perception.

For O'Hara this was an untypically conventional burst of avant-garde apologetics. He generally cared more about the liberation of human beings than of artistic media, and he knew perfectly well that no poetry worth reading "seeks merely" to express a preconceived idea. What O'Hara did in his longer poems under the banner of language liberation extended the techniques of earlier poets such as Milton and Blake, who were equally willful in using names and images with resonant meanings for the poets themselves, meanings at which a reader could marvel without fully comprehending them:

Besides what the grim wolf with privy paw
Daily devours apace, and nothing said;
But that two-handed engine at the door
Stands ready to smite once, and smite no more.

(Milton, "Lycidas")

For Golgonooza cannot be seen till having pass'd the Polypus
It is viewed on all sides round by a Four-fold Vision.

(Blake, "Milton")

O'Hara's obvious pleasure in writing these longer poems is mixed with a sense of strain at keeping the kaleidoscopic spectacle moving over hundreds of lines of verse. Public performance, no matter how much of his time he spent doing it, was not his natural medium -- as he seems to have suggested in Meditations in an Emergency:

It is easy to be beautiful; it is difficult to appear so.
3.

One crucial difference between O'Hara and his great predecessors was that they wrote their most willfully arbitrary verse in response to their own private visions, while O'Hara seems to have written the willfully arbitrary verse of his longer poems partly to entertain his avant-garde circle of friends. Verse written to entertain a public -- Byron's Don Juan, for example -- can be very great poetry, but it succeeds only when its inner logic is shared by the poet and the audience.

A comic motif in Brad Gooch's biography of O'Hara is the eagerness with which members of the New York avant-garde endured the pretentious tedium of so many performances, readings, and exhibitions, so that they could feel (as one participant remembered) "proud to have been part of what we all thought was a deeply avant-garde production." When O'Hara wrote to entertain his avant-garde circle, he was not so much sharing with them an inner artistic logic as giving them the means to congratulate themselves for being avant-garde.

He joked in public about their conviction that anything avant-garde was inherently praiseworthy. When two of his friends decided to get married, he wrote a poem that praised them for doing something excellent -- which must surely be avant-garde because whatever is avant-garde is also excellent:

It's so
original, hydrogenic, anthropomorphic, fiscal, post-anti-esthetic, bland, unpicturesque and WilliamCarlosWilliamsian!
it's definitely not 19th Century, it's not even Partisan Review, it's new, it must be vanguard!

("Poem Read at Joan Mitchell's")

Avant-gardes claim to create the art of the future. But the "art of the future" generally proves wrong about the real future of art in the same way that the "city of the future" on display at a world's fair proves wrong about the future of cities. O'Hara's praise of some experimental poems by John Ashbery has a sharp double edge: "I might have known as I sink into the mush of love you would be foraging ahead into the 21st century."

Baudelaire dismissed the avant-garde as a "military metaphor"; until the mid-nineteenth century the word meant only the front ranks of an army. The avant-garde idea was suitable only to those "who can only think collectively" ("qui ne peuvent penser qu'en société"), not to those for whom, like O'Hara at his best, the only truth is face to face. An avant-garde coterie always prefers a revolution in language and technique to a revelation of thought and feeling. O'Hara recognized this preference as a sign of insecurity, a failure of nerve:

it is the great period of Italian art when everyone imitates Picasso
afraid to mean anything

Membership in a coterie, school, or group produces different effects on major and minor writers. For minor writers, a group provides a repertory of styles and themes and gives them confidence to work at the height of their powers. They return the favor by compiling group anthologies and writing manifestos, but when the group disintegrates, they may have nothing more to say. For major writers, a group tends to provide themes and publicity in the first few years of their career, when they are already looking elsewhere, and their mature work has nothing in common with the later work of the rest of the group. The members left behind, now famous mostly because they had once been associated with the major writer, mutter resentfully that he betrayed them.

O'Hara was a major writer who tried to convince himself he was a minor one. His best work either ignored or teased the coterie he partied with, but as he grew older he found it easier to fight off loneliness by immersing himself in an always-welcoming group than by opening himself to the risks of any intimacy that might relieve it.

In the last years of his life, his closest friends found it difficult to break through the wall of young acolytes that closed around him at bars and parties, deepening his unhappiness. Their youth and beauty promised him long-awaited satisfactions, while their emotional and intellectual inequality made satisfaction impossible. Liquor masked the resulting frustration and pain. The more time O'Hara spent barhopping with his coterie, the fewer poems he wrote, and the more convinced he became that he had nothing more to say.

The last poem he wrote, four months before he died, proves that he was mistaken. "Little Elegy for Antonio Machado" -- the twentieth-century Spanish poet whose early avant-garde affinities and later political and moral passions were not unlike O'Hara's -- is not little at all, but compressed, dark, and magnificent, with a depth and directness that fulfill the promise of O'Hara's earlier lyrics. He devised for it a regular form that looks like a Horatian stanza that someone broke and put together again without quite restoring the original. The poem is another of O'Hara's elegies in which both mourner and mourned are glorified by their recognition of the darknesses they share and the light they aspire to:

your water air and earth
insist on our joining you
in recognition of colder prides and less negotiable ambitions

As the elegy ends, he imagines Machado reviving, like the heroes of other elegies, but also "improving" O'Hara and ourselves in the physically direct way that salt improves a meal:

improving your soul's expansion
in the night and developing our own in salt-like praise

By chance or by luck, the last word of O'Hara's last poem names the action that drove his whole career.

Edward Mendelson is the literary executor of the Estate of W.H. Auden and professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University. He is the author of Early Auden, Later Auden, and many essays on (and editions of) nineteenth- and twentieth-century writers, including George Meredith, Thomas Hardy, H.G. Wells, Arnold Bennett, Virginia Woolf, Samuel Beckett, and Thomas Pynchon.



Saturday, October 04, 2008

Time for Music: Lucinda Williams

Lucinda has a brand new album:
(Scroll down for videos of "My Joy" and "Drunken Angel")

Photo

Lucinda Williams

Little Honey

RS: 4of 5 Stars Average User Rating: 4.5of 5 Stars

2008

Play View Lucinda Williams's page on Rhapsody

"Is your death wish stronger than you are?" Lucinda Williams asks in "Little Rock Star," a cautionary song swathed in guitar noise that someone should instant-message to Pete Doherty, Ryan Adams and Amy Winehouse. While it shows that the 55-year-old barbed-wire country singer is wary of rock's trappings, Little Honey proves she's still crushed out on the music. On "Real Love," amid boogie-rock riffing, she alternately pledges her heart to a guy, a girl and an electric guitar. And "Honey Bee" ranks with Joe Liggins' 1945 hit "The Honeydripper" as one of the nastiest apiological jams ever ("Now I got your honey," she hollers, "all over my tummy!"). There are some throwaways: "Jailhouse Tears," a honky-tonk trailer-trash bitchfest, is playacted too hard by Williams and guest Elvis Costello. But it's useful comic relief between the downtempo numbers that — for all the rock thrills here — remain Williams' most potent showcases. "If wishes were horses," she moans on the sublime song of the same name, "I'd have a ranch." Ride 'em, sister

WILL HERMES

(Posted: Oct 16, 2008)

And:

Jim Farber

Lucinda Williams finds a 'Little Honey'

Friday, October 3rd 2008, 4:00 AM

What's this? A happy Lucinda Williams album?

For her latest work, "Little Honey," the woman best known for her wrenching ruminations on unreturned phone calls, cheating lovers and screwed-up relationships sings about a love so good it makes her cry with joy, having great sex, and achieving a sense of peace and calm.

"This is the most positive place I've been in in my whole adult life," the 55-year-old singer says. "It just took me that long to find the right person. What can I say? I'm a late bloomer."

RELATED: THE NEWS' FALL MUSIC PREVIEW

Actually, Williams met her lover and now co-producer Tom Overby back when she was toiling on her last CD, 2007's "West." But only on "Little Honey," out Oct. 14, does Williams capture the full change in her life. The joy shows not only in the lyrics but in the music. "Little Honey" roils with the hardest-rocking, fastest-paced music of Williams' long career. That augurs well for her show tonight at the WaMu Theater in the Garden, giving her more songs ripe for her ripping live band.

Williams credits Overby with encourging the alterna-country/blues/folk singer to tip toward her rock side. The switch comes as some relief. One drawback to Williams' otherwise riveting recent work was its slackening pace. "It's always been harder for me to write rock songs," Williams admits. "The slower ballads of pining are just easier to write for anyone who comes out of the singer-songwriter genre."

Williams first made tentative steps in that genre nearly 30 years ago with her 1979 album "Ramblin'." Her later CDs, for Rough Trade Records in 1988 and 1992, made her a critics' favorite, as well as a forerunner of the so-called alterna-country movement. But she didn't break through to larger recognition until 1998's "Car Wheels on a Gravel Road," a work that wound up intimidating her. "I didn't know what to do after that," she says. "I didn't know if I could write songs like those gems."

Williams reveals that uber-producer Rick Rubin approached her about working together at the time, but his suggestion that she work with musicians outside her band made her shy away. "I was so naive at the time," she says. "Maybe I could have been farther along in my career faster if I went with him."

It took Williams four years to fashion a followup to "Car Wheels," but in recent times she has become more prolific, batting out work nearly every year. "It's maturity and becoming a better songwriter," she says.

There's plenty of ace songwriting on "Little Honey," especially the rip-roaring "Honey Bee," the wise "Plan to Marry" and the country duet with Elvis Costello "Jailhouse Tears." There's even a hot cover song - AC/DC's "Long Way to the Top," though hers sounds more like it was done by Keith Richards' solo band.

Just one song mines the old pining, "If Wishes Were Horses." Tellingly, it was written in the '80s. But even the happiest songs gain depth through the sense of residual pain in Williams' voice. The nuanced result offers a swift rebuke to anyone who thinks you have to suffer to write well. "No matter what," she says, "there will always be plenty to write about."


And here are two of our faves from the past:









Jameson





Friday, October 03, 2008

The Real Mortgage Crisis

While the banks rake in their billions from the Bailout, Real homeowners get no relief at all. Here is one story that embodies the plight:

Ohio woman, 90, attempts suicide after foreclosure

Fri Oct 3, 2008 5:19pm EDT

CINCINNATI (Reuters) - A 90-year-old Ohio woman, facing eviction from the home she has lived in for 38 years, shot and wounded herself this week, becoming a grim symbol of the U.S. home mortgage crisis.

Addie Polk was found lying on the floor of her home with what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound to her shoulder when police came to the home on Wednesday to serve an eviction notice, Akron police spokesman Lt. Rick Edwards said on Friday.

Polk survived the shooting and is being treated in a hospital.

It was the latest attempt by sheriff's deputies to evict Polk from her modest single-family home because she could not keep up with her mortgage.

"It appears they're evicting her over her mortgage. She's lived in the house, the neighbors said, something like 38 years and in the last couple of years fell prey to some predatory lending company or financial institution," Edwards said.

Local news reports said deputies had tried to serve Polk's eviction notice more than 30 times before Wednesday's shooting.

Home foreclosure rates are at record highs in the United States, in many cases because buyers with adjustable interest rates could not keep up with sharp increases in monthly payments. The foreclosure crisis has sparked a wider housing market downturn and is at the heart of the U.S. financial crisis.

(Reporting by Andrea Hopkins; Editing by Peter Cooney)

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4928IS20081003


Sad.

Jack



Just say "No" to the Bailout

Another Democrat shared my take on the Bailout:

That is until today's vote in the House. Here's what he said when voting FOR the Bailout:

Among the 21 converts was Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Illinois, his chief of staff, Kenneth Edmonds, said.

Edmonds said Jackson was changing his vote because "he received assurances from (Sen. Barack Obama) that, if elected, his administration will aggressively use authority in the bill to prevent foreclosures and stabilize the housing market."

Rep. Howard Coble, R-North Carolina, said he plans to switch his vote because constituents began urging him to do so. He said the people he represents initially urged him to oppose the plan.

"By having waited, I think we did improve the bill," he said. "Inaction is not an option.'

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/house.bailout/index.html


Commentary: Bailout should treat the root cause, not the symptoms


By U.S. Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr.
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Jesse L. Jackson Jr., a Democrat, has represented the second district of Illinois since 1995. He is a national co-chairman of Barack Obama's campaign. Jackson voted against the bailout plan presented in the House on Monday. For a different view, read this commentary.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. says the bailout plan is "Robin Hood in reverse."

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. says the bailout plan is "Robin Hood in reverse."

(CNN) -- To borrow the title of a classic modern novel, "Things Fall Apart." In just decades, Americans have gone from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal to George W. Bush's Rash Deal.

During the last few days, my office has been flooded with phone calls from citizens throughout the country, expressing outrage and indignation.

To many, there's something awry, perhaps even unseemly, about this hasty plan. It requires the government -- which is running up huge deficits and record-breaking debt -- to borrow and spend the funds of ordinary Americans -- who are falling further behind and into poverty -- to rescue superrich bankers and barons -- whose obscene excess and avarice have helped to create the financial mess.

It's Robin Hood in reverse, taking from the needy to give to the greedy.

In one colorful description, the Bush administration's unprecedented $700 billion bailout plan was characterized as "cash for trash." It takes private industries' troubled assets off their books and dumps them into the public's lap, further privatizing profits and socializing losses. In doing so, the plan's proponents argued, cash and credit would once again flow, with benefits trickling down and the economy turning up.

But, from the outset, the proposal was seriously flawed. iReport.com: Do you support a bailout?

Fortunately, Democratic leaders, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank and Sen. Christopher Dodd, made substantive improvements to the original, flimsy three-page plan.

As a result of their hard work, the bailout package created a strong, independent board to oversee the plan; limited the pay and severance packages of executives in participating firms; and gave the Treasury the option to take equity in companies from which it buys securities, so that taxpayers can participate in potential profits.

Certainly, the around-the-clock negotiations resulted in a better, fairer and more transparent plan.

However, the revised bailout bill provided only a Band-Aid to the failing financial system. What's required is a rescue -- primarily of homeowners, who are the victims of this crisis.

Fundamentally, this financial crisis has been caused by falling house prices and defaulting homeowners. Yet the bill does nothing to rescue millions of families facing foreclosure. The financial bailout package should not only purchase the mortgage-backed securities of Wall Street, but also secure the backs of those carrying mortgages on Main Street.

A more effective, appropriate and responsible bailout bill should allow homeowners at risk of foreclosure to restructure their loans and stay in their homes. That's a bottom-up approach that protects homeowners, stabilizes financial markets and benefits taxpayers. It would treat the root cause, not just the symptoms of the crisis.

In fact, 770,000 families entered foreclosure in the past year, and 6 million people are expected to default on their mortgages this year and next. A recent report by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress anticipates that more than $100 billion in housing wealth will be lost through 2009 foreclosures and their effects on neighboring properties.

First and foremost, this financial crisis is about people who are struggling in communities across the country. It's about people who are hardest hit by this financial downturn and sputtering economy. It's about people who look to and depend on their government in a time of crisis.

It's about people who are the faces of foreclosure, such as Mildred Howell of Illinois, a 69-year-old widow and mother of three. Mildred and her husband worked all of their lives and nearly paid off the modest home they purchased in 1969. But then, in 2003, tragedy struck: Her husband, a retired police officer, was robbed and beaten to death.

Needing money to meet expenses, she sought a reverse mortgage. Instead, a mortgage company steered her into refinancing her home with an adjustable-rate loan that quickly ballooned and left her broke and nearly homeless. Mildred was able to save her home only after going back to work and finding a "moral Realtor" who is helping to refinance her home at a fixed, affordable rate.

Indeed, the financial institutions need help. But so does Mildred Howell and the millions of other Mildred Howells throughout the country -- the real victims of this financial crisis. This bailout must not leave them in financial straits. Therefore, the rescue plan should provide direct safeguards and assistance to homeowners, by doing the following:

• Imposing a national, short-term freeze or moratorium on all foreclosures of owner-occupied primary residences

• Granting bankruptcy judges authority to modify mortgages on primary residences

• Establishing a program and procedures allowing restructuring of sub-prime loans under affordable, fixed-rate terms

These fair and modest steps will protect middle-class homeowners and stabilize the housing industry. The housing market must be secured if we expect to resolve the crisis and strengthen the economy. Mildred Howell and millions of others are counting on the "People's House" so they can stay in theirs.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.


Palin Delivers: Dear in the Floodlights.

Yes, Palin repeated the McCain mantra in her folksy, "Ain't I sweet?" manner. She ignored questions and spun out her web of half-truths which she had clearly memorized. She avoided being the deer in the headlights and remained the dear in the flood lights. Darn right.

Fortunately, it didn't work. While Republicans sighed in relief, the rest of the country saw and heard a command performance from Joe Biden, a leader who understood the problems confronting the nation and the world. His mastery showed that he knew what he was talking about rather than merely repeating learned talking points. Polls have shown that most of those who watched, found Biden to be the clear winner- the one who is far more ready to assume the mantle of President should the time come.

Here is Salon's assessment of the debate:

Sarah Palin exceeds expectations -- and still loses

Debating Joe Biden, Palin avoids another train wreck, delivering Republican talking points with robotic determination. But she also fails to convince undecided voters to stop their movement toward Obama.

By Mike Madden

News

Reuters/Rick Wilking

Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin appear onstage during the vice-presidential debate in St. Louis Oct. 2, 2008.

Oct. 03, 2008 | There were two debates going on in St. Louis Thursday night. Joe Biden was debating John McCain. And Sarah Palin was debating Sarah Palin -- at least the version of her that most of America has seen on TV for the last few weeks.

As far as those particular battles went, they both might have won. Biden was ruthless in going after McCain on the economy and on foreign policy, all but ignoring Palin to focus on the top of the ticket and present contrast after contrast between McCain and Barack Obama. (And a few between Obama and George W. Bush for good measure.) It may have been the most disciplined performance of Biden's political career -- though given his proclivity for embarrassing gaffes, that's admittedly a low bar. And speaking of low bars, Palin cleared hers. This was not the Sarah Palin who was stumped when asked, just a few days ago, to name a single Supreme Court case she disagreed with or to list a newspaper she read. Yes, she got a little shaky when the questions strayed too far into the details of foreign policy, and she frequently seemed to be pushing the "play" button on preprogrammed talking points. Still, the meltdown even some Republicans feared ahead of the debate didn't materialize.

But overall, that probably adds up to a win for Biden -- or rather, for Obama. (Undecided voters insta-polled by various networks thought Biden won, by pretty hefty margins.) Palin had so much work to do convincing voters she belonged on the stage that she wasn't able to be as effective a messenger for McCain as Biden was for his ticket. She might have met a basic standard of competence, but only a cynic (or a McCain aide) would say that gave her the edge. With Obama building on his lead in national and battleground state polls every day, another debate -- like the first presidential encounter last week -- that did little to change the overall dynamic of the race wasn't what McCain needed.

From the moment Palin walked onstage and asked Biden, "Hey, can I call you Joe?" she projected a folksiness that constantly threatened to tip over from "authentic" to "a little overdone," all delivered in the kind of nasal snow-belt honk that won Frances McDormand an Oscar in "Fargo." (For instance, immediately after greeting Biden, she blew a kiss at someone -- either moderator Gwen Ifill, which seems implausible, or more likely, Alaska's "First Dude" in the front row.) That tipping point probably came around the time she spouted this line, which sounded like something out of "Leave it to Beaver" meets "Hardball": "Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You [prefaced] your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now, doggone it, let's look ahead." Sometimes her folksy language got a little garbled -- like when she used what is evidently a favorite phrase and said mortgage lenders were "rearing that head of abuse."

She might have undone whatever good will she earned with her "aw, shucks" Wasilla hockey mom ways, though, when she utterly failed to react after Biden choked up while discussing the death of his first wife and their daughter. "The notion that somehow, because I'm a man, I don't know what it's like to raise two kids alone, I don't know what it's like to have a child you're not sure is going to -- is going to make it -- I understand," he said, after Palin said her experience "as a mom" helped persuade McCain to pick her for the ticket. "I understand, as well as, with all due respect, the governor or anybody else, what it's like for those people sitting around that kitchen table. And guess what? They're looking for help. They're looking for help. They're not looking for more of the same." Palin's response was ice cold: "People aren't looking for more of the same. They are looking for change. And John McCain has been the consummate maverick in the Senate over all these years." For that matter, so was the way she brought up, apropos of not very much, Biden's remark in July that offshore oil drilling was an attempt to "rape the continental shelf." And the way she -- not Biden -- brought up his wife, Jill. "I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and God bless her," Palin said. "Her reward is in heaven, right?" (That was followed immediately by Palin giving "a shout out" to her brother's elementary school students.)

Clearly, Palin came prepared with little time-bomb attack lines from McCain strategist Steve Schmidt, set to detonate at specific cues. When Biden blasted the Bush administration's Middle East policy -- "It has been an abject failure" -- Palin had a line ready that had absolutely nothing to do with the region. "When we talk about the Bush administration, there's a time, too, when Americans are going to say, 'Enough is enough with your ticket,' on constantly looking backwards, and pointing fingers, and doing the blame game," she said. "For a ticket that wants to talk about change and looking into the future, there's just too much finger-pointing backwards to ever make us believe that that's where you're going." When Biden promised to end the war, Palin had another zinger ready: "Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure."

She had apparently been coached to head back to a few safe topics whenever she could, regardless of what the question was. So when Ifill asked her about what promises she and McCain had made that the $700 billion Wall Street bailout might crimp, her answer was all about how she broke up oil monopolies in Alaska. A few minutes later, she started talking about energy again, in response to a question about bankruptcy laws.

But there was no real standout moment headed for the already large YouTube archive of Palin pratfalls. The closest she came to really floundering was when she answered a question about when nuclear weapons should be used. "Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period," she said. "Our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that's a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry." Of course, when you sound a little unsteady talking about nuclear war, it might matter more to the average undecided voter than if you sound unsteady talking about, say, the details of the foreign aid budget. (She pronounces it, à la Bush, as "nucular," but that might just be more folksy charm.)

Nor was there another clip for Biden's long gaffe file -- especially nothing to suggest sexism or condescension. In Biden's answers, Palin was always "Governor," while McCain was "John" and Obama was "Barack." (Biden was, on a few unfortunate occasions, "Joe Biden" instead of "I.") He was clearly more comfortable throughout, dropping facts and statistics into every answer without showing the prep work that helped put them at his fingertips on command. All of them were aimed at McCain. Biden hammered him on alternative energy -- "John McCain has voted 20 times in the last decade-and-a-half against funding alternative energy sources, clean energy sources, wind, solar, biofuels," he said, repeating the "20 times" twice more. All those facts did put Biden on the edge of too much Senate wonkiness here and there -- he raised, and then dismissed, the difference between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy at one point, and he completely garbled an explanation of how much McCain's healthcare plan would cost taxpayers. Later, he proudly boasted, "That's why I led the fight against Judge Bork." Someone should have reminded him that his ticket is trying to reach younger voters, not the ones who are nearly McCain's age.

But he had some of his own attack lines filed away, too, and he deployed them a little less clumsily than Palin had. He called Dick Cheney "the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history," after Palin said she agreed with Cheney that "we have a lot of flexibility" in how the office's powers are defined. When Ifill asked how a Biden administration, if it came to pass, would differ from an Obama administration, Biden first said it would be tragic if he reached the Oval Office, then saw the question for what it was: an opportunity to tell viewers how great they'd have it in an Obama administration. "I would carry out Barack Obama's policy, his policies of reinstating the middle class, making sure they get a fair break," he said, ticking off 10 areas where the Democrats would end Bush policies.

And after Palin kept referring to McCain as "the maverick," Biden really put the dagger in. "Let's talk about the maverick John McCain is," Biden said. "And, again, I love him. He's been a maverick on some issues, but he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people's lives ... He's not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table."

Ah yes, the kitchen table issues. The economy was what put Obama ahead in the polls at one point this summer, though it feels like decades ago in this campaign's hyperactive timeline, before talk of celebrities and pregnant teenagers and pit bulls steered the election onto more favorable turf for McCain -- which is to say, any turf except how badly screwed-up most voters think the country is these days, after eight years of a Republican in the White House. And with the meltdown on Wall Street in September, it's what put Obama ahead again now, almost exactly a month before Election Day. Really, all Biden had to do Thursday night was stay out of the way. Palin may have met the low expectations for her, but she didn't do much to distract voters from pocketbook anxieties, and she didn't do much to make them believe Obama won't try to help. And time is starting to run out for her side.

-- By Mike Madden

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/03/palin_biden/index.html?source=rss&aim=/news/feature



Thursday, October 02, 2008

Why I Love Vermont

From Vermont's Senator, the best view I've read about why the Bail Out sucks:

This country faces many serious problems in the financial market, in the stock market, in our economy. We must act, but we must act in a way that improves the situation. We can do better than the legislation now before Congress.

This bill does not effectively address the issue of what the taxpayers of our country will actually own after they invest hundreds of billions of dollars in toxic assets. This bill does not effectively address the issue of oversight because the oversight board members have all been hand picked by the Bush administration. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of foreclosures and addressing that very serious issue, which is impacting millions of low- and moderate-income Americans in the aggressive, effective way that we should be. This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of executive compensation and golden parachutes. Under this bill, the CEOs and the Wall Street insiders will still, with a little bit of imagination, continue to make out like bandits.

This bill does not deal at all with how we got into this crisis in the first place and the need to undo the deregulatory fervor which created trillions of dollars in complicated and unregulated financial instruments such as credit default swaps and hedge funds. This bill does not address the issue that has taken us to where we are today, the concept of too big to fail. In fact, within the last several weeks we have sat idly by and watched gigantic financial institutions like the Bank of America swallow up other gigantic financial institutions like Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. Well, who is going to bail out the Bank of America if it begins to fail? There is not one word about the issue of too big to fail in this legislation at a time when that problem is in fact becoming even more serious.

This bill does not deal with the absurdity of having the fox guarding the hen house. Maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks so, but I have a hard time understanding why we are giving $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who along with other financial institutions, actually got us into this problem. Now, maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks that's a little bit weird, but that is what I think.

This bill does not address the major economic crisis we face: growing unemployment, low wages, the need to create decent-paying jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure and moving us to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

There is one issue that is even more profound and more basic than everything else that I have mentioned, and that is if a bailout is needed, if taxpayer money must be placed at risk, whose money should it be? In other words, who should be paying for this bailout which has been caused by the greed and recklessness of Wall Street operatives who have made billions in recent years?

The American people are bitter. They are angry, and they are confused. Over the last seven and a half year, since George W. Bush has been President, 6 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and are in poverty, and today working families are lining up at emergency food shelves in order to get the food they need to feed their families. Since President Bush has been in office, median family income for working-age families has declined by over $2,000. More than seven million Americans have lost their health insurance. Over four million have lost their pensions. Consumer debt has more than doubled. And foreclosures are the highest on record. Meanwhile, the cost of energy, food, health care, college and other basic necessities has soared.

While the middle class has declined under President Bush's reckless economic policies, the people on top have never had it so good. For the first seven years of Bush's tenure, the wealthiest 400 individuals in our country saw a $670 billion increase in their wealth, and at the end of 2007 owned over $1.5 trillion in wealth. That is just 400 families, a $670 billion increase in wealth since Bush has been in office.

In our country today, we have the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on earth, with the top 1 percent earning more income than the bottom 50 percent and the top 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. We are living at a time when we have seen a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthiest people in this country, when, among others, CEOs of Wall Street firms received unbelievable amounts in bonuses, including $39 billion in bonuses in the year 2007 alone for just the five major investment houses. We have seen the incredible greed of the financial services industry manifested in the hundreds of millions of dollars they have spent on campaign contributions and lobbyists in order to deregulate their industry so that hedge funds and other unregulated financial institutions could flourish. We have seen them play with trillions and trillions dollars in esoteric financial instruments, in unregulated industries which no more than a handful of people even understand. We have seen the financial services industry charge 30 percent interest rates on credit card loans and tack on outrageous late fees and other costs to unsuspecting customers. We have seen them engaged in despicable predatory lending practices, taking advantage of the vulnerable and the uneducated. We have seen them send out billions of deceptive solicitations to almost every mailbox in America.

Most importantly, we have seen the financial services industry lure people into mortgages they could not afford to pay, which is one of the basic reasons why we are here tonight.

In the midst of all of this, we have a bailout package which says to the middle class that you are being asked to place at risk $700 billion, which is $2,200 for every man, woman, and child in this country. You're being asked to do that in order to undo the damage caused by this excessive Wall Street greed. In other words, the "Masters of the Universe," those brilliant Wall Street insiders who have made more money than the average American can even dream of, have brought our financial system to the brink of collapse. Now, as the American and world financial systems teeter on the edge of a meltdown, these multimillionaires are demanding that the middle class, which has already suffered under Bush's disastrous economic policies, pick up the pieces that they broke. That is wrong, and that is something that I will not support.

If we are going to bail out Wall Street, it should be those people who have caused the problem, those people who have benefited from Bush's tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, those people who have taken advantage of deregulation, those people are the people who should pick up the tab, and not ordinary working people. I introduced an amendment which gave the Senate a very clear choice. We can pay for this bailout of Wall Street by asking people all across this country, small businesses on Main Street, homeowners on Maple Street, elderly couples on Oak Street, college students on Campus Avenue, working families on Sunrise Lane, we can ask them to pay for this bailout. That is one way we can go. Or, we can ask the people who have gained the most from the spasm of greed, the people whose incomes have been soaring under president bush, to pick up the tab.

I proposed to raise the tax rate on any individual earning $500,000 a year or more or any family earning $1 million a year or more by 10 percent. That increase in the tax rate, from 35 percent to 45 percent, would raise more than $300 billion in the next five years, almost half the cost of the bailout. If what all the supporters of this legislation say is correct, that the government will get back some of its money when the market calms down and the government sells some of the assets it has purchased, then $300 billion should be sufficient to make sure that 99.7 percent of taxpayers do not have to pay one nickel for this bailout.

Most of my constituents did not earn a $38 million bonus in 2005 or make over $100 million in total compensation in three years, as did Henry Paulson, the current secretary of the Treasury, and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Most of my constituents did not make $354 million in total compensation over the past five years as did Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers. Most of my constituents did not cash out $60 million in stock after a $29 billion bailout for Bear Stearns after that failing company was bought out by J.P. Morgan Chase. Most of my constituents did not get a $161 million severance package as E. Stanley O'Neill, former CEO Merrill Lynch did.

Last week I placed on my Web site, www.sanders.senate.gov, a letter to Secretary Paulson in support of my amendment. It said that it should be those people best able to pay for this bailout, those people who have made out like bandits in recent years, they should be asked to pay for this bailout. It should not be the middle class. To my amazement, some 48,000 people cosigned this petition, and the names keep coming in. The message is very simple: "We had nothing to do with causing this bailout. We are already under economic duress. Go to those people who have made out like bandits. Go to those people who have caused this crisis and ask them to pay for the bailout."

The time has come to assure our constituents in Vermont and all over this country that we are listening and understand their anger and their frustration. The time has come to say that we have the courage to stand up to all of the powerful financial institution lobbyists who are running amok all over the Capitol building, from the Chamber of Commerce to the American Bankers Association, to the Business Roundtable, all of these groups who make huge campaign contributions, spend all kinds of money on lobbyists, they're here loud and clear. They don't want to pay for this bailout, they want middle America to pay for it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/dont-make-working-