We will not accept Lord of the Flies as a defense against 1984. Nor will we accept 1984 as a defense against Lord of the Flies. It doesn't matter whether oppression comes from something that calls itself a government.

The only defense against both Lord of the Flies *and* 1984 is a government strong and active enough to prevent oppression by others, but restrained by custom and law and committed to serving the people who grant it sovereignty. That includes mitigating the effects of oppressive power imbalances that are intrinsic to any complex society.

We have a government that has done a somewhat decent job of that at times, and was getting steadily better through much of the last century. That time ended about when I became an adult, and before many of you have first-hand political memories, so it may seem like a fairy tale. But it happened, and people's lives are vastly better and longer because of it. And there remain many ways the government still acts as a real check on the abuse by the powerful.

When all we focus on is the shortcomings of the government--when we take for granted and do not praise its successes, we undermine the political viability of the very notion of a government that is an agent of the people. We let its political profile be defined by those who want to get it out of the way, so they can increase their exploitation. That is the great mistake of the left.

The single most critical factor that will decide whether power grows more fair or less is whether people feel that of course it should grow better and it is some sort of offense against what we should expect that it is not. On the other hand, if you teach people that abuse is just the way things are and maybe some day we'll have a revolution to fix it, you will get Russia.


Oct. 2nd, 2016 10:57 pm
Bullying affects people you know, even if you don't know it.
I was bullied throughout my time in public school. It was worst in 2nd grade, but even as it got better, it never stopped.

The most physically damaging incidents came as I got older.

  • I have hearing loss from a firecracker (M80, probably) thrown into an enclosed stairwell I was in.

  • The cartilage damage in my knee dates from when I was skinny, but I don't know if it was caused by the time someone jammed by lower leg between the wheel well and seat of a school bus and tried to break my leg.

  • One that was younger: the ventral hernia that has dogged me including 3 operations, one preceded by excruciating pain of intestine nearly dying due scar tissue adhesions from a previous operation--the first time I felt that was when I got punched the last day of second grade--by a guy who likes a lot of what I post here and probably doesn't remember the incident. Again, I'd bet against him having caused the hernia, but I don't know.

But even worse than the physical effects is the psychological trauma of living in fear all the time. And knowing that if I show I'm afraid, that will only bring on much more bullying. If I seem well put together, needing to put on that front is why. I have done some damned good things in my life, but I could also fairly be called an underachiever, with PTSD and an anxiety disorder. My experiences at school account for half of that, if not more.
Let's put that question I asked in May in plain language.

I have a bag of unfair coins. Some will come up heads half the time, some less, some more. I don't know if they're wildly spread out, usually stay between, say, 45% and 55%, or what.

I take a good handful of the coins and I flip each of them several times. I'm not systematic, though. So coins don't all have the same number of flips. But at least for each coin I flipped, I know how many heads and how many tails I got.

I want to know just how bad the whole bunch of coins are. Or at least, the best guess I can make from the data I have. If I took the whole bag and flipped every coins millions of times, I could easily calculate the standard deviation of heads probability among the coins. But what's the best I can do from the limited information I actually have?
When I was young, I gave serious thought to the morality and technique of overthrowing the government. I came to realize that a literally revolutionary movement here could not destabilize the government, could not win a civil war even if it did destabilize the government, and had no way to avoid becoming even worse than the status quo as it would change in any serious attempt to win such a civil war.

Still, those destabilizing techniques remained interesting to me, even if only to monitor others' behavior. And for the first time, since the 1970s, I'm seeing them used on the left side of electoral politics, by a minority of Sanders supporters. That's interesting, but by itself wouldn't be alarming, as there aren't enough of them that they should be effective. There have long been a scattering dispirited revolutionaries on the left, who never did the soul searching I did as a teenager and it's interesting to see how similar they are from one generation to the next.

What I find much much more troubling than the revolutionaries themselves is how credulously many other Sanders supporters lap up their propaganda.

This nomination is not being stolen. Clinton could have won it more easily (though it would have greatly harmed her general election chances) by doing the kind of red-baiting that the Republicans would if Sanders were nominated. But she figured she'd win the nomination anyway, so she didn't go negative in that way.

The nomination process is arcane and prone to minor controversies along the way. That should change. The revolutionaries have mischaracterized those speed bumps and sometimes intentionally caused them in order to attack the legitimacy of the nomination.

That kind of disinformation should not work. I think in most past years, it would not have worked on the left. But along with the actual revolutionaries, there is a mood among many other Sanders supporters to believe any charge against the system, no matter how bogus. That will not serve us.

The Sanders campaign has presented the actual left in this country a wonderful opportunity, both to change the terms of debate (outside leftist circles) on basic economic issues and to energize people who have previously been apathetic. We should continue moving the movement forward through Sanders' candidacy to the convention and his probable speech there.

But we should not kid ourselves about where we stand. With a center-left candidate against a Democratic Socialist, both of whom have serious flaws along with real assets as personalities, we will probably fail to nominate our candidate--not because the nomination process itself is rigged, but because in a coalition of interests that form the more leftward half of the electorate, we comprise slightly less than half of that coalition.

That says we have work to do, but also says we have considerable strength. We won't further our cause by turning people away from electoral politics by fanciful charges of rigging. And we won't further our cause by adopting the revolutionary tenet that things have to get worse (Trump) before they can get better.
I have a class C of objects. I have a sample of objects of the class. And each object O has its own sample with a number of trials NO. NO has a range of 1 to several hundred.

Each object O has a parameter PO. What I want is the variance of PO in the class C.

The true values of PO are not known. But from each object's sample, I have XO, which is an estimate of PO. And I have VO, which is the variance of XO as an estimate of PO, given NO. (I don't know if XO is an unbiased estimator, but if need be, I can use a function f where f(XO) is very close to an unbiased estimator of f(PO).)

I think this is something I ought to know how to do. Or at least be able to find the answer via Google. But so far, no such luck. And it's not just curiosity this time, but a business need.

Note that I can't just take the variance of XO, because the limited sample size NO means that each XO contains variability both from the variance of PO (which is what I'm looking for) and from the variance of XO as an estimate. If I already knew the class variance of PO, I could use that to refine my estimate of PO for each object. But I'm trying to do more or less the reverse of that.
So John Oliver does a great, well-deserved take-down of Donald Trump. In which, he includes reference to in indirect accusation that Trump has a small dick. (Are you really going to say you didn't understand than when watching Oliver?) Oliver says there's really nothing wrong with Trump's fingers (and indirectly his dick) but he uses the reference again later in the piece.

Shortly thereafter, Trump responds to the same crap somewhat more explicitly, but still in a safe-for-work-and-maybe-children way.

And you're all on Trump for being so immature, but fine with what he was responding to. Because Oliver did it with humor aimed at your education level. And you wonder why so many people are so pissed off at political niceties that they end up supporting Trump's dick.
The Industrial Revolution never stopped. It is a rolling wave that occasionally gains a new beachhead on a distant shore, but mostly moves gradually fro where it is. People in one locale move off their subsistence farms (which are in truth inadequate for assured subsistence and survival) into the new factories, where their lives are in some ways even worse, but on balance just enough better to they go.

These first-generation workers have limited literacy and no experience living by an artificial clock. They do basic assembly, because that's all they can do. Those who can't resist germs, a surfeit of alcohol and other drugs, or who can't live by a clock and get along with others in close quarters, die. In the mean time, their willingness to work in poor conditions for low pay keeps the pay for simple assembly at a low level everywhere. Well, everywhere that doesn't have high tariffs, anyway.

What propels the Industrial Revolution forward are the second and third generations of workers and the capitalists who have invested in their regions. Those workers can follow a clock and can read and therefore learn new complex techniques rather quickly. Their bosses have established markets to sell their produce, so their factories stay open, but they outsource the simplest parts of production to new first-generation workers, usually not very far away.

And so it goes. Marx observed Western Europe running out of subsistence farming regions, and predicted the collapse of this system. 200 or years so too early. His prediction for what happens after a revolution was meshugenah. But his description of what happens when there is nowhere left to absorb into the modern economy is interesting and yet to be tested.

In any case, in any generation, the 'natural' result of capitalism is to concentrate economic power and for that economic power to seize political power, which leads to even greater concentration of economic power, and so on.

Seeing how that played out in Europe, with breakdowns in civil order that were bad for all economic classes, this country in the middle third of last century intentionally tilted the system, both to lessen the concentration of economic power and to hinder the application of economic power in the acquisition of political power.

Later, as the upheavals in Europe became a more distant memory and as social programs greatly reduced the number of very poor who literally had almost nothing to lose by sacrificing their lives in revolution, the wealthy in this country decided they wanted their power back. The convinced the lower middle class to back policies that helped the global poor economically, helped the global elite economically, helped the US elite politically, were initially neutral toward the rest of the US middle class, and directly hurt themselves economically. The US wealthy did this by completely misrepresenting the nature of what had been done in the previous two generations here and by playing on racial resentment (of which there was tangible cause in many cases, no matter how much African-Americans have been the ones taken advantage of throughout our history).

Now, with political power being ever more concentrated by wealth, the economic level below which the rich won't pillage is rising. The use of disingenuous metrics to demonize and pauperize teachers is but one example of this.

Trump mostly represents a continuation of the scam that has gotten the lower-middle to work against themselves. His proposal is that the beatings continue until morale improves.

Sanders mostly represents the middle-middle saying enough of this. Politely telling the lower-middle they've been acting like fools hasn't worked, because from the listener's point of view, there's no polite way to tell someone they've been acting like a fool. So we're going to stop being polite. We'll tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may.
This is from a conversation elsewhere, that started in this direction when someone objected to the notion of college education as a right (even if it's a good idea) because others would have participate by paying for it. He wanted to substitute the word "privilege" for anything that requires others' participation. It went back and forth several time, with me referring to a moral right and him prodding on what that meant, too.

I hate going back right after I write something that takes real thought to edit it. So I'm just going to copy it here. I'd organize it differently if it had been meant to stand on its own, but I think it's comprehensible enough to be of interest to some.

First, way up-thread, I wrote: Easier to define by its opposite. Immorality is that which is wrong because it undermines standards of behavior that we accept as good. If the only reason something is wrong (unethical) is because of its direct affect, morality is beside the point. If all things considered, an act is ethical, it is not immoral. But when the breaking of standards is critical to determining an act is wring, the act is immoral.


Breaking promises is immoral, absent overwhelming need. That's why I mentioned a moral right. Freeing the slaves was imperative. Even at the cost of breaking the promise that came from the legal recognition of ownership. But that was a cost.

Morality is the upholding of standards of behavior, so that in future situations, people will behave in ways you deem consistent with the well-being of society and therefore its people.

If you believe that pre-marital sex is wrong because it offends God, then engaging in it might only be bad for yourself and your partner--if you are 100% confident no one else will ever know, consciously or otherwise, and there will be no earthly consequences. But if it will be recognized and not punished, it (from this perspective) sets a bad example and is immoral. It breaks a societal compact not to act in such a way.

Morality, as I said, is subject to the opinions of which standards exist (which is somewhat testable) and which of those standards are worth caring about preserving (less testable, closer to pure opinion). The majority is sometimes wrong. So majority opinions on morality is sometimes wrong. Slavery was not moral, as far as I'm concerned. There was a standard, but it was an evil one.

The concept of morality has been poisoned in American debate, because it has been used almost exclusively by religious conservatives, referring to standards that the rest of us do not accept. Therefore many people reject the notion of morality itself. Rather, we should talk about things we consider morally necessary, such as treating each other decently. Not merely because being a jerk is harmful to the person you're being a jerk to, but because when they learn that being a jerk is how people are, they do it themselves, to others. The standard of acting decently gets broken.

Back to your question: I used the term "legal right," which I think is sufficient. It points out by the egregiousness of the system that not all legal rights are morally or ethically proper, but within the framework that existed, it was recognized as legal.

I think that any definition of privilege that goes against distinction made by the old saw "driving is a privilege, not a right" is swimming against too great a tide, at least in my generation (Born 1960). The distinction is that privileges are revocable and may be given to some but not others.

Which bring me back to the discussion of property. We have a right not to have our economic system suddenly changed beneath our feet--not to have private property suddenly abolished, to take an extreme example. But we do not have a fundamental right to keeping the details of how our economy works stay just the same, in perpetuity. Land is granted by governments and title is enforced by governments. Everything we use ultimately derives from the fruits of that land. Those fruits are not yours, without the constant maintenance of force by the government, or by other forces in situations where governments disintegrate. So to say that you're participating in the payment of someone else's college because your income is taxed to pay for it, is no more true than to say that I'm participating in in your home ownership because societal resources are used for police and deeds registrars.

You would be mistaken if you take that to mean I'm challenging private property. But I do challenge the assumption that the right to such property is more fundamental than the right to any other long-established parcel of our economic system. The question at hand is whether tuition-free higher education should be added to the list of such parcels.
On the Republican side, the caucuses are good at selecting the candidate who to represent one faction of the party. The faction whose reason for being politically involved is to assuage their existential fears by attempting to impose their religion on everyone else. The faction that loses the nomination to another faction, whose reason for being in politics is to exploit those fears for profit.

On the Democratic side, the caucuses choose a regional candidate, if there is one. Otherwise, it gives a reasonable indication of who has party support, but it skews White.
I think so long as there's a GOP House majority that depends on the Freedom Caucus, Congressional obstruction will look much as it does now, whether the President is Clinton, Sanders, Bloomberg, Kasich, or whomever. But the Sanders campaign talking point of breaking the deadlock by sweeping in a new Congress *in 2016* is at least as unrealistic as the Clinton campaign's that somehow they'll be more responsible with her in the White House.

The only two way it changes is if someone like Cruz gets elected (I much prefer deadlock) or if a Democratic President runs hard in 2018 against Congress, being willing to lose a big battle or two where the public is on her/his side leading up to the election.
It's imperative to do that, even if the Democrats hold a nominal majority, but not a solid enough majority to prevent obstruction.

Bill Clinton should have done that, but didn't. He was too much of a people-pleaser to not take whatever the best deal he could get at the time, because he'd be litting people down (as he saw it) if he didn't. So we got things like DADT.

Obama didn't, I think because the economic conditions left him very little latitude in public opinion. When the public is already scared but not angry, it's dangerous to challenge them too much.

Who'll be more likely to take that aggressive approach, should they get in? I think Sanders. But I'm not sure he'd be effective at it. That's why I support Sanders, but I can't yet promise to keep supporting him. The primary season is an audition. And despite how long some of us have been following it, it's all Spring Training until Monday. I want to see how both Sanders and Clinton handle the ups and downs of a real campaign with real voter feedback.
As correctly noted by people NPR interviews, it's counterproductive when the FBI monitors mosques and discussions in the mosques about terrorism. Even when tweens express sympathy for violent and/or extreme positions, it's much better for the adults to explain why that's wrong in a calm manner, safe from surveillance, so everyone is speaking authentically.

Trump is a pernicious troll, and deserves the criticism he gets. But we create opportunities for him and those like him when we shut down discussions where people honestly try to reconcile their prejudiced perceptions of the world with what the rest of us have realized.

It's easy to get tired of teaching the basics of seeing through the news' oppressive tropes over and over again. It's easy to assume that everyone who doesn't already know better is actively trying not to know better. But sometimes, they aren't. In those cases, when we shout at them and tell them to shut up, we push them more firmly into the bigots' camp. It is better to teach, patiently--being wary of trolls, but not being too quick to conclude someone is one.
"Political 'pragmatism' may require accepting 'half loaves' – but the full loaf has to be large and bold enough in the first place to make the half loaf meaningful. That’s why the movement must aim high – toward a single-payer universal health, free public higher education, and busting up the biggest banks, for example."
I wonder if Trump is too much of an egotist to realize he's better off not winning Iowa by too much, if at all. He needs Cruz to be a strong factor in the race going forward, or the winner of the Bush/Christie/Kasich/Rubio fight will surely beat him over time.


Dec. 14th, 2015 12:46 pm
Fascism grew out of far worse political conditions than we have. With far more fear of non-fascist revolution, and so less willingness on the part of the body politic to defend the status quo.

We here live in a society where the status quo is considered by most to be virtually unchangeable. There is no *immediate* danger of fascism here, for that reason. Trump's campaign does undermine that certainty, just as economic stagnation of the middle class has. But overreacting to Trump's campaign, proclaiming our system is far more fragile than it actually is, does every bit as much to undermine the confidence in the current system.

Hyperventilating about Trump is the political equivalent of calling for a run on the bank by shouting we must protect the bank from everyone who's about to make a run on it. It is related to how professional activists always try to raise money from you by talking of immediate dangers (which are often exaggerated) rather than long-term goals.
For folks who don't know what it actually takes to get into the US as a refugee. It's not the same as entering as an immigrant or as an asylum seeker. It's a lot harder. The folks saying the system should be revised probably don't know it already looks like what they want it to.

Quoting a friend who has long worked resettling refugees from many parts of the world:

...the average Syrian refugee goes through a vetting process that is 2 years long, and involves multiple agents at multiple agencies. They end up being more heavily scrutinized than a prospective CIA or secret service agent.

Of course, this level of scrutiny can be increased, if we're willing to pay for it. But to call on the vetting process to be even more 'updated' and intense is pretty absurd.

Especially when there are a number of rather easy ways to legally enter the country.

The US has resettled 750,000 refugees since 9/11 without any of them being linked to a domestic terrorist incident.

None of this means nothing will ever happen with a refugee. It does mean people should direct their worry elsewhere long before focusing on refugees.

The US refugee program is something Americans should be proud of. Millions of people have fled from terror and found safe haven in the US.

It would be really nice if in this present culture of fear and hatred, it remained that way. But it's up to us, as Americans, to remain sensible.
I am very sad. Sanders is effective at convincing people of truths. But unless tonight was a fluke, he is uninterested or clueless about to convince people to positively imagine him as president. He can keep doing fine among people who are highly motivated by issues, but he's almost certain to lose the nomination and if he were nominated, he would lose to Rubio and probably to Bush.

Clinton was competent, I guess a little better than that. But she also reminded us that she's wrong about important stuff more often than we should expect, even taking electability fully into account. Yet if she can keep up tonight's level of performance, she will be nominated and that's probably for the best.

O'Malley started out every bit as badly as those who've seen him in person over the years told me he was. But he got better as the debate got toward the middle. And then he kept getting better--he was really good in the final half hour. I have real doubts that he will keep it up, but if he does, he becomes a possible vice-president and may even make the nomination interesting. He may also keep Biden out, if Biden would otherwise be in.

The other two are not factors at all.
When Dennis Hastert made a policy of not bringing to a vote any measure that did not have the support of a majority of Republicans, that was novel. It was an increase in partisanship in the mechanics of how the House was run.

But how the GOP caucus now runs is far beyond that. By the Hastert rule, the Speaker could bring to the floor any measure that was supported by 124 Republicans, because the number of Republicans opposing it would be fewer than that.

Now it is considered a grievous breech of protocol to bring forward a measure unless it has the support of 218 Republicans. A measure could win a straw poll in the GOP caucus 217-30 and it would be out of bounds because it could not pass a full House vote without some Democratic support.

If the responsible Republicans want to take back power, they must insist on going back to the Hastert-era protocol. The nutters say that they would not vote for any speaker who does that. Those interested in governing must call the nutters' bluff, even if it means making a few deals with conservative Democrats to elect a Speaker. It probably wouldn't come to that, but the threat must be made if the bulk of the caucus wants to be more than bystanders.

Charlie Dent (R-PA) brought up the possibility today. Not so far as an intent or a prediction of what will come to pass, but as a prediction of what will happen if the caucus otherwise fails to agree on a Speaker. That is a necessary step in the GOP resuming its role as a serious party.
Both parties have weak fields (from a non-ideological perspective, just in electoral ability) for very different reasons.

The Republicans have spent decades developing a culture where nobody can remain relevant inside the tent while calling out the bullshit that people who are passionate but don't think very hard can be led to believe. The Democrats have just as big a proportion of passionate people who don't think very hard. But if you pander to them more than just a little bit, there's no state in the country where a Democrat can expect to be nominated for governor or senator.

The Republicans, though, insist on candidates who believe, or give a very convincing show of believing nine impossible things before every spaghetti breakfast, Rotary Lunch, and rubber-chicken dinner. And at those functions, no one will question the nonsense. So the candidates are all either dumb enough to actually believe the bullshit or are habitual liars who are unpracticed at selling the lies before skeptical audiences.

Well, there are a few exceptions. There are the Stepford Candidates, like Romney, with no there there at all. And there are the grifters, who only pretend to be candidates and make a lot more money on FOX than they could running anything and who care a lot more about money than they do about running anything.

The Democratic problem is not quite as systemic. Hillary Clinton is as good at insider politics as Bill is at retail politics. She cultivates opinion makers--the leaders of organizations, prominent media people, and anyone else she can sit down with for more than 90 seconds. By doing that, she convinced almost everyone that it was her turn and that her nomination was inevitable. So the kind of candidates one would normally consider strongly electable didn't run.

The problem, HRC is as bad at talking to voters en masse as WJC is good at it. The skills she does have can make her be taken seriously by the punditocracy. But they can't get people to actually vote for her. Sure, she does have some genuine support. And in this field, it may well get her both nominated and elected. But in a strong field, she'd fall flatter than she did lat time, and she may yet.

(In case anyone's wondering, I support Bernie Sanders. My first campaign was 1972, with McGovern at the top of the ticket. I'm well aware of the danger of candidates too far from the center. Both for themselves and in negative coattails. But Sanders seems a more capable campaigner than McGovern. If Clinton shows that she can relate to people more like her husband or Reagan or Obama than like Romney or Dukakis, I may reconsider. If Sanders shows that he is personally unappealing to typical swing voters, I will reconsider. But so far, neither of those things are true and I support Sanders. In this weak field, he might just win both the nomination and the general election, and that would be unimaginably good.)

When I said the Democrat's problem is less systemic, that doesn't make it 100% unsystemic. There is a cozy feeling among those who wield power and think they do it responsibly, for the general good. The mainstream media, people who work in non-profits, and sincere politicians have respect for each other in ways they don't respect the general public. That's not evil, the general public is often generally stupid. It's not surprising that they want to let their hair down only among those who 'get it.'

But that gives them a very skewed perception of who's in the world. The people they talk to are White, upper middle class, generally over 40, and have a history of career success. (And on the conservative side, but not the liberal side, overwhelmingly male.) It makes them assume that anyone who shares their values also shares their experience. It is because of such an insular community of people out int he world making a difference that they think they have both more control over and a better read on what the electorate will do. That was the precondition for Clinton being assumed to be inevitable.
You may have read pieces of this on Facebook, either a few months ago or today. This is the most complete version to date, and probably the most complete version I will write.

It was my second day back at work after taking a 3 month leave of absence when I had decided to quit but was talked into waiting and seeing if I wanted to come back. They asked me to come back and manage a transition from someone who was leaving to someone who wasn't hired yet. 9/11 was my welcome back.

I was a few minutes late getting out of the subway, because voting in the primary election that day took longer than I expected. It was probably just about 9:00. As I walked up the stairs to the street, there was an odd smell and a few pieces of charred paper blowing in the wind. I asked someone on the sidewalk what was up and he said a twin-engine plane had hit one of the towers.
When I got to my floor at NYSE, everyone was asking what the shaking was. It turns out the second plane had hit when I was in the elevator and because of the cushioning of the elevator, I was one of the few people in the neighborhood who didn't feel it.

CNN reported quickly after that that it had been another plane. That was the point that we knew (rather than speculated) that it was terrorism. There was confusion from on high over the next several minutes as to whether NYSE would evacuate. Eventually, they did. The Gemini employees there found each other in front of the building. Most went home, but Claire, the top Gemini person said she'd be going over to the office on Broadway in a bit and I said I'd go over now and see if there was anything I could do. At the time, I had no idea the buildings would come down, and I don't think those I was talking with did, either.

At Gemini, reached my family telling them I was OK and reported to those taking calls from others' families that I had seen them after the crashes.

When the first tower came down, it made a terrible, long roar, and I thought it was another building being hit. The room where we had been had a large window and we all evacuated our offices into the building's elevator lobby for the floor we were on. When the tower was coming down was the only time I was scared of immediate harm, and not as scared as one might think.

Eventually, the building came speakers on and told us we had to leave. I don't remember whether we had already walked down to the 2nd or 3rd storey before then; I think we had. The first floor was blocked by the awful smoke and ash. The building kept telling us we had to leave, and eventually we did. I was much more scared of what the neighborhood would be like outside the building, but not because of immediate death or external injury. At least someone had thought to get wet paper towl before we left and I was one a few people who asked if he could get me some, too.

Once outside, the only way to face and be able to breathe was south, so I found myself in Battery Park. I went to the Staten Island Ferry, but they were closed. I could see people on the walking over the Brooklyn Bridge--somehow the smoke didn't go that far north and the sightline to them wasn't obscured, I guess because they were high up. But I couldn't get there because you couldn't walk into the smoke for that far. I tried a few times, though. I also helped a vendor struggling with his cart. I gave some of my wet towels to someone who didn't seem to be doing well. I ran across some tourists with a baby who were facing away from the smoke but had the baby on a shoulder, facing into the smoke. I pointed out the problem and gave them half my remaining towels.

When I tried the ferry for the third time, a boat was just arriving with firemen from other boroughs. The ferry folks said the boat would return to Staten Island and we could get on. As we passed the firemen, they looked in worse shock than the rest of us. I didn't learn until later that many firemen had died, undoubtedly including their friends and family. As the passengers went into a long, wide, tunnel-like passageway onto the boat and the firemen came into view from the other end, one of the passengers started clapping, which we quickly all took up. I remember one of the large, stunned firemen drawing up his hips and back, putting on a show, still stunned but seemingly glad for even the distraction of feeling he had to put on a public face.

When I got to Staten Island, I walked a mile and a half in shoes that really weren't meant for that to get to an intentional community I had lived in for several months a few years before. From there, I didn't get in the first set of cars that went to give blood, but I did go somewhat later when a new group left in another car. When we got to the center, they were clearly overwhelmed and it was apparent my blood would not immediately help anyone. I went to a bus stop and after another couple of hours, I got a bus that took me home to Brooklyn.

Gemini had people at WTC, but they were all on lower floors and got out. Several NYSE colleagues knew someone who had died on one of the planes, but interestingly nobody knew anyone who had died in the tower. Until I learned that on old friend from my high school chess team had been a new father and that was his first day at Cantor Fitzgerald and the last of his life.

Two weeks later, when they re-ran the primary election, my day started the same way. I was even the same few minutes late. On the way from the polls to the subway, I had an overwhelming sense of wrongness of continuing that path. It was the only mental health day I took. I quit shortly after, but that was because I wasn't working up to my (or eventually, I imagine) the company's standards. 9/11 was at most a minor contributing factor to that.
10 years ago, we (that is, the US, the world, and specifically the Gulf Coast and especially New Orleans) suffered a great tragedy. But it also marked a low point in our political culture.

Since 1980, for a quarter century, we had been giving government power to those who claimed government was the problem, that whatever it did, didn't work. And those politicians who claimed that had been doing their best to see that it was true. By cutting budgets. By promoting those who were cynical like themselves. By demoralizing their workforce in countless ways.

I think Katrina was a major turning point. Where we as a country realized that we do need the government to do things well, and we therefore need it to be led by people committed to that notion.
Page generated Oct. 18th, 2017 01:57 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios