Tuesday, April 27, 2021

Ingenuity

 


It was a little more than a week ago, very early in the morning on the East Coast and even earlier here in the Western US, and not many people were watching.  The eyes of the news were on mass shootings, police killings of black Americans and the Chauvin trial.  But I happened across a link just as the NASA live feed was starting, so I got to see evidence of the first successful flight of a powered vehicle on another planet (or at least the first initiated by humans, that we know of) at the same time the people at NASA did.

 They were a dozen or so people around hotel convention tables arranged in a horseshow, all of them masked up, most of them wearing NASA orange smocks or golf shirts, peering at their own laptops and glancing up at the big screen at the end of the room.  Many of them had been working on this specific project for 6 years or more. 

 They were waiting to learn whether the flight of Ingenuity, a tiny Kleenix box of instruments attached to very long and ungainly shaped rotors, had actually flown a little earlier, since it takes hours for signals to traverse the distance between Mars and Earth.  Nobody really knew if flying would work in an atmosphere less than a percent of Earth's.

 The NASA channel—which, when I had it on our cable TV system and the Shuttles and Space Station had cameras always pointed towards Earth, I sometimes let just run with this portrait of our planet in real time, in the background—did a fine job of covering this Ingenuity flight story.  A brightly smiling interviewer elicited the pertinent information from various participants in the room, though the answers got less and less coherent as the big moment got closer and closer. 

 Then she did something pretty striking: she shut up, so we could just witness what went on in that room. As I watched the screen full of people watching their screens, I reflected on the deceptive amount of computer power in those laptops and inside that interplanetary tissue box on Mars, and the fact that the Apollo missions that landed humans on the moon had at their disposal much less computer power than a smartphone.      

 We who were watching (and some were: they had sent in questions through various social media) were primed on what to watch for.  So we got the quiet excitement when the initial data package came in, and it looked “nominal” (NASAspeak for A-OK.) The data went from one analyst to another, each adding more information until we all together got the first visual confirmation: a simple diagram, sent by Ingenuity via several links, that mapped its flight: it went straight up, flew sideways, stopped and came straight down, and landed.  That diagram was as exciting as HD video.  It meant it happened.  The first cheer went up in the room.

 A few seconds later we saw the first photo: a black and white snapshot taken by Ingenuity’s camera pointed straight down from the air, looking like a film photography negative, in which the shadow is Ingenuity itself.  There would be other photos and other flights this week, but this will remain the historic one. More cheers in the room, though social distancing meant no hugs.  But the project manager did jump up and down, in place.

 So it meant something to me to be watching this in real time, a memory to set beside seeing in real time the first human step onto the surface of another world When Neil Armstrong touched the Moon, we all did, in a way.  It was the same with Ingenuity’s flight.

 Ingenuity has flown farther and for a longer time, and will probably be pushed beyond its limits.  It’s a proof of concept device, and is unlikely to have a life even as long as the Martian rovers.  None of them are coming back.  It won’t be resting in the Smithsonian—at least, not anytime soon.

 This event, set against the others making news, like those irrational killings, and the raging flames of white supremacy, and within the complicated context of the pandemic, all the madness about masks and vaccines, reminded me again of a conversation I had several Christmases ago with young tech people in Menlo Park, about prospects for the future.  Though we had different intuitions of the outcome, we shared the basic idea of it being like a race—that is, a foot race or vehicle race—between the positive and negative, the creative and the destructive.

 Because it seems clear that as a society we are rushing furiously in two opposite directions at once (with many wiggling lines within the main ones going off slightly in other directions.)  Moreover, the race is timed.  Though we don’t know exactly when the game will be over, there may come such a moment that if destruction is winning, then self-destruction it will be.  And in terms of Earth as environment, that time is fast approaching.

 Who knows if flying a helicopter on Mars is going to contribute to saving the Earth.  (Not if it encourages the Elon Musks of this world to believe they can just leave this planet behind and start this madness all over again elsewhere.)  But those nerdy people in the orange shirts—Asian, black, and immigrant prominently among them—worked hard on this one problem for a long time, and they did something wonderful.  And they know it—they attached a shred of the first manned aircraft from Kitty Hawk to Ingenuity for its first flight.  Maybe future generations won’t care, but seeing something like this we call historic is at least a special experience for the now living.

Monday, April 26, 2021

For All Threatened Beings


Gatha for All Threatened Beings

 Ah Power that swirls us together
 Grant us bliss
 Grant us the great release
 And to all beings
 Vanishing, wounded,
 In trouble on earth, 
We pass on this love
 May their numbers increase 

 Gary Snyder 

 Gāthā is a Sanskrit term for "song" or "verse." I’m posting this in honor of the Humboldt Interfaith Fellowship event I witnessed online Sunday night, a Zoomed evening on the theme of hope and healing. It was a lovely experience. Although it was presented live on Zoom, you can see the recording of it through the HIF Facebook page.

Thursday, April 22, 2021

Two Poems for Earth Day


Earth Dweller 

It was all the clods at once become
 precious; it was the barn, and the shed,
 and the windmill, my hands, the crack
 Arlie made in the ax handle: oh, let me stay
 here humbly, forgotten, to rejoice in it all;
 let the sun casually rise and set.
 If I have not found the right place,
 teach me; for, somewhere inside, the clods are
 vaulted mansions, lines through the barn sing
 for the saints forever, the shed and windmill
 rear so glorious the sun shudders like a gong.

 Now I know why people worship, carry around
 magic emblems, wake up talking dreams
 they teach to their children: the world speaks.
 The world speaks everything to us.
 It is our only friend.

 --William Stafford



The Epitaph Ending in And

 In the last storm, when hawks
 blast upward and a dove is
 driven into the grass, its broken wings
 a delicate design, the air between
 wracked thin where it stretched before,
 a clear spring bent close too often
 (that Earth should ever have such wings
 burnt on in blind color!), this will be
 good as an epitaph:

 Doves did not know where to fly, and

--William Stafford

Earth Day: The Dream Team at the Last Chance Saloon


Michael Grunwald’s Politico piece begins with Jigar Shah, a “green finance legend” who created Generate Capital, overseeing over 2,000 sustainable energy projects and co-hosts the top-rated iTunes climate podcast, but who nevertheless took a relatively obscure job doling out government energy loans because he wanted to be part of the Biden effort to confront the climate emergency which requires an “all-hands-on-deck” response.The piece continues: 

 “We’re in a unique time,” Shah said. “There’s a power of now, a real sense we need to get to work on the big things we haven’t done since FDR. And there’s a new sheriff in town.” 

 The sheriff has recruited a Who’s Who of veteran climate leaders along with a mission-driven posse of outspoken younger climate wonks and activists to help him take on global warming. Biden’s climate all-stars will help him as well as pressure him to keep his climate pledges, including a zero-emissions electric grid by 2035, a carbon-neutral nation by 2050 and the 2030 goals he plans to announce this week at his Earth Day climate summit.”

 Grunwald describes the team that Biden has assembled, including his most senior White House climate aides:”all former managers of large agencies who are now content just to have the president’s ear.” This team also includes the Cabinet, selected with the climate in mind:

 “And while it’s not surprising that a Democratic Cabinet would include committed climate officials like Michael Regan at EPA, Deb Haaland at Interior and Jennifer Granholm at Energy, Biden’s transportation, commerce and labor secretaries, Pete Buttigieg, Gina Raimondo and Marty Walsh, sound just as climate-forward. Buttigieg ran for president as a climate champion; Raimondo pushed America’s first offshore wind farm as governor of Rhode Island, and Walsh, the former Boston mayor, took over the Climate Mayors coalition in November before he was tapped to join the new administration. Even Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who took a mostly traditional approach to the same job under Obama, keeps saying that climate will be one of his top priorities this time around.”

 Even Biden’s chief of staff has climate credentials. “And a diverse array of next-generation voices from the worlds of advocacy, philanthropy, think tanks and government have moved from Climate Twitter to powerful roles throughout the Biden Administration.”

 Grunwald sums up the import of all this: 

It’s often said in Washington that personnel is policy, and it would be hard for the president not to push the climate envelope after hiring so many envelope-pushers. If Biden has recruited the climate equivalent of America’s 1992 Olympic “Dream Team” — as Ali Zaidi, McCarthy’s deputy, describes it — his Michael Jordans and Charles Barkleys will all expect to hoop." 

The team leaves behind the slog of disputes that have kept meaningful efforts from being made. For example, as one participant said: “The assumption is that climate isn’t just aligned with the economic agenda, it is the economic agenda.” 

Not everyone sees such clarity in the Biden team—at the Atlantic, Robinson Meyer worries that progress can’t get past contradictory analyses. But in concentrating on the people involved, Grunwald makes a good case that this is the make-it-or-break it team we’ve been waiting for, and building towards.

 It may be too late, and they may end up accomplishing too little, too slowly. Events may well overtake these efforts, and other factors—such as the continuing power of such reactionary responses as white supremacy to weaken the kind of societal cohesion that may well be necessary to face both the causes and consequences of the climate emergency—may end up being fatal. 

But fighting the good fight at the very least ennobles the present, and without these efforts, the future of the Earth is all but guaranteed to be tragic for life as we know it, and certainly for humanity. For those who love the Earth and will continue to participate in this society, this should be an exciting time.

Sunday, April 18, 2021

The Trip


The Trip

 Our car was fierce enough;
 no one could tell we were only ourselves;
 so we drove, equals of the car,
 and ate at a drive-in where Citizens were dining. 
A waitress with eyes made up to be Eyes
 brought food spiced by the neon light. 

 Watching, we saw the manager greet people—
 hollow on the outside, some kind of solid veneer. 
When we got back on the road we welcomed
 it as a fierce thing welcomes the cold.
 Some people are so dull
 that you always remember their names.

William Stafford

Wednesday, April 14, 2021

News News: The Faked and the Baked

 


There’s the faked news.  And there’s the baked news.

 The plethora of fake news and the abundance of misinformation as a primary problem in this society are well known phenomena.  Much of it is dispatched through social media, but web sites and publications masquerading as news outlets contribute mightily.

 Aspects of the Internet make these easier to promulgate, and more seductive, as mentioned here before. But the fundamental reason misinformation and fake news exist is that people believe it.  Why do they believe it? Partly because they want to or need to (and their social relationships and identities depend on them believing it.)  And then there’s the basic formula described generations ago that enables all kinds of scams: there’s a sucker born every minute. 

 It’s an education problem, too.  Too many people don’t know how to judge the information flooding into their phones and their online lives.  They aren’t educated in how to judge credibility, and they don’t know enough about the subject matter to spot inaccuracies.  As Katherine Hall Jamison points out, with civics no longer taught in many schools, people don’t understand the roles or functions of the branches of government.  There’s also a kind of automatic dismissing of any authority that’s part of the anger and resentment.  Add to that a lack of awareness of the power of algorithms in creating the appearance of massive agreement and therefore credibility, creating an emotional tide that breaks through ordinary skepticism and creates cults of mutually reinforcing true believers in outlandishly false narratives. 

 Additionally however, the current media environment has been partly prepared by changes over recent decades in how news is reported in traditional news outlets. 


 Around seventh grade I learned the fundamentals of news writing: the inverted pyramid of who, what, when and where, with the basic story in the first paragraph and contributing detail in order of importance in the paragraphs after it.  And the front page news stories I was reading in the Greensburg Evening Tribune pretty much adhered to that formula.  The bad old days of biased news dictated by political interests and ownership were supposedly over, because there were now Standards.

 That was in the mid 1950s.  But by the early 1990s, when I was trying—unsuccessfully as it turned out—to teach a course in news writing, I had problems finding real world news stories that matched the standards I was teaching.  And it wasn’t just Richard Scaife’s right wing 1980s fake news pioneer, that same Greensburg Tribune-Review.  I noted in particular coverage of a speech by then President Clinton in the New York Times.  There was a front page news story, and a piece labeled as news commentary also on the front page.  Their first paragraphs were nearly identical.  As wholes, the pieces were very similar.

 The news story judged the speech, and by 1950s standards, failed to report it.  A story that adhered to the once-professional and now academic guidelines would have selected the most important statements to quote in the first paragraph, while including the who, when and where. The next paragraphs would have quoted more from the speech, and eventually maybe quoted reactions of prominent people to the speech.

 But the 1990s story quoted very little, and pontificated on the meaning and the failure of the speech.  As did the commentary.  It was quite an eye-opening combination.  In this case the news wasn’t exactly faked, but it was baked. 

 I can just about date the dwindling of the old standards, when the inertia and laziness that accompanied them became more obvious. Cognitive dissonance arose in the 1960s, when, as usual, the official pronouncements concerning the Vietnam war were dutifully reported as news.  Unfortunately, as news providers slowly accepted, these statements clashed with the realities that on-the-ground reporters saw. Others pointed as well to historical distortions and buried ideological assumptions.

  Newspapers were just about dumbfounded for awhile.  They were used to treating official pronouncements, not only as news, but as the only news. They really could not figure out what to do when officials, including President Johnson, regularly lied.  (The media was a little quicker to adjust to Trump but it did take awhile.  Still, I marveled at the reporting in his last year, when stories were very blunt about this President of the United States being a serial liar.)

 The flummoxed—and fearful—established press was slow to adapt.  That provided the space for a new type of newspaper, known today as the alternative press.  These newspapers—usually weeklies, tabloid format, often given away—combined the countercultural spirit of the underground press with the journalistic standards of the established press but adapted to this new situation as well as a younger readership..  (It was for this reason that an early article on alternative newspapers in the New Yorker --I’m pretty sure it was by Calvin Trillin-- referred to them as “sea-level” publications.)

 I was a writer and editor for several of them, beginning with the Boston Phoenix.  We adopted aspects of another trend of the time, the so-called New Journalism that used storytelling techniques borrowed from literary forms, to our reporting as well.  Apart from our cultural criticism, we published news according to those established standard.  Our tone could be excessive, but basically we just included more facts, more voices, and a broader area of subject matter than simply quoting officials and the official line.  Apart from doing stories the established papers were afraid of, or didn’t know anything about.  At best, these papers were true alternatives: adding other voices, more information, because while the official pronouncements were news, they were not the only news. 

 By the mid-1970s the sea-level papers nudged the dailies to more contemporary cultural coverage (often hiring our critics) and a bit more skepticism in news coverage, although it was the Pentagon Papers and Watergate that really institutionalized the change.

 But if the 60s and 70s saw point of view, analysis and opinion creeping into news, all of that became turbocharged by the nearly simultaneous rise of cable TV news and social media.  The news was already starting to become pastries; sweet TV soundbites led easily to bite-sized stories in USA Today and People magazine.  As news media were absorbed into cost-conscious conglomerates, the number of reporters began to dwindle, a trend that turned into a stampede when the Internet hit.  The news bureaus and reporters that TV networks and newspapers used to have all over the country and in at least the western world are mostly gone.  Local news reporting barely exists.  The vacuum of reporting has to be filled with something, and that’s usually the hot air of patter and opinion.

So today the news that isn’t faked is usually baked.  It is formed into little cakes for us to consume.  Just about every headline these days includes the words “here’s why,” or “here’s how.”  We’re told what the five or seven or three “takeaways” are.  We’re told what stuff means rather than presented with the stuff itself.

 Then there are the stories that purport to tell us “why we like X” or “why we can’t stop watching Y.”  But this is not the old-fashioned editorial we, meaning the writer representing the publication.  No—it is “we” the readers, presumed to be one with the writer’s tastes and opinions.  Just one big happy social media mob (or perhaps the demographic group the outlet lusts to capture.)

 Network television news reflects the changes.  Networks evening news probably does more stories that it used to, but in briefer and more superficial form.  When they saw themselves as a public service, they risked boring visuals to detail, for example, a presidential proposal, at least in bullet points.  Now its quick visuals and blather.  On the day President Biden proposed his jobs bill, the infrastructure package, the story ran just about last on one evening broadcast, as repetitive generic visuals accompanied by lots of puns on the “road” to passage, or “building bridges” in Congress.   The Sunday interview shows used to be commentary on the news reported during the week.   Now every day is Sunday, with its panels of pundits shaking and baking, bloviating on what was never actually reported.

 As for political point of view in reporting, I make no false equivalence.  The so-called left wing media can be excessive and downright hysterical, but by and large, the hosts for, say, MSNBC, do not distort facts or lie.  Right wing media, including FOX, lies and distorts all the time.  It’s their main business.

 While faked news is a serious problem, baked news is at least annoying, and potentially a problem.  When news media report at least some of what official say (before rushing to the reactions), this reporting requires the same skills to evaluate as it as it used to: you have to know who is talking, how credible they are, what their self-interest is.  That’s our job as readers, our part of this relationship, and it means we are the arbiters of the news.  Baked news takes over that role, and I tend to resent it.  Moreover, it confuses things.  I may read opinions, marked as such. They can be valuable if I am also presented with what they are opining about.  A cacophony of nothing but opinions makes it easier for distortions to take hold, and easier for readers to give up trying to figure out the truth.

In the real world, how straight news was reported had its weaknesses.  In The Boys on the Bus, his brilliant book on the national press covering the 1972 McGovern campaign, Timothy Crouse described how reporters, terrified that they would miss the story other newspapers got out of the day's events, would see what the lead AP reporter filed and then write their stories to match.  If they all selected the same story to write, nobody would get in trouble with their editors for missing what other papers published.  He called it Pack Journalism.  This conformity is dangerous enough in reporting.  But these days, spin and opinions travel like wildfires through the day's news cycle, so there is a conventional wisdom based mostly on repeating what everyone else is saying.  Each cable channel has already arrived at its position by afternoon, and there's little unbaked information left for the citizen--sorry, the consumer-- to assess.    

 For though the cake may be delicious it may also be poisonous.  And don’t let all those links in Internet stories fool you into thinking it must be credible.  I read a piece recently in which the writer summarized an article in support of his position and helpfully provided the link. When I followed that link I found that, lo and behold, the article did not say what he said it said.  But at least I had the information to check.

 Part of baked news is the rise of pundits, the yeast in the mix.  Apparently since officials are either cynical hypocrites or merely mouthing soundbites they pay others to write for them (or both), the real news comes from pundits.  That’s becoming excessive.  Apart from their often inflated professional credentials, there’s too much we don’t know about where their opinions and analysis is coming from.  There are likely all kinds of conflicts of interest we don’t know about.  We have to judge what they say with the same standards as we should judge pronouncements by officials and other anointed authorities.

 Some baked news is better than others.  Rachel Maddow does what alternative press or magazines used to: provide a narrative framework, often historical, and link things into a pattern.  Sure, she repeats the same point about five times in a row, but she’s doing more than offering an opinion—she’s laying out a pattern for us to judge, or just enjoy.

  And that’s part of what’s going on with news: more than ever, it’s become entertainment.  That cannot at this point be called news to anybody, but it’s worth remembering.  They don’t call them shows for nothing.  Even newspapers don’t compete for readers primarily by obtaining “scoops” or ferreting out news nobody else gets.  They get you to eat their pastries.  And they are so addictive. 

Monday, April 12, 2021

The Morning Hills


The Morning Hills

As those who are gone now
 keep wandering through our words
 sounds of paper following them
 at untold distances
 so I wake again in the old house
 where at times I have believed
 that I was waiting for myself
 and many years have gone
 taking with them the semblance of youth
 reason after reason ranges of blue hills 
who did I think was missing
 those days neither here nor there
 my own dog waiting 
to be known 

-- W.S. Merwin

Friday, April 09, 2021

Manchinations

West Virginia is America writ small.  In a remarkably short and easily verified time, European transplants felled the great forests of the East, moved on to tear up the Midwestern prairie, over-grazed the grasslands of the great wild West and otherwise dug up, poisoned and destroyed the land, air and water to the point where it's increasingly difficult for them to replenish themselves and sustain the life that had previous proliferated on this continent.  While of course wiping out the civilizations that preceded them.  All of that contributes mightily to the global climate and environmental crises.

It's the same and mostly ongoing story in every state, but it remains a particularly obvious feature of West Virginia, where in the process of demolishing the natural environment, to the point of blowing the tops off huge mountains, industries owned by the rich enriched themselves, while exploiting, deforming and impoverishing not only the land but the rest of the people, yet convincing them that it's for their own good.  

Most other states show conspicuous signs of change, for good or ill, and often dramatic and dynamic tensions.  But West Virginia seems determined to double down on what is destroying it, namely the coal industry.  Population is steadily dropping, the economy is in free fall, but the legislature maintains its fealty to the coal barons.

Meanwhile, its Democratic Senator Joe Manchin is lapping up his fame as the deciding vote in the Senate, making demands and pronouncements, notably on the filibuster.  He is unshakably opposed to changing it because, he says, the filibuster promotes bi-partisanship.

The only possibly true thing in that statement is that he opposes ending or apparently even modifying the filibuster, by which every significant piece of legislation requires 60 votes, not just a majority 51.  For nearly the full 8 years of the Obama administration, the Republicans used the filibuster to obstruct every piece of legislation proposed by a Democrat, regardless of its content.  They never compromised, only obstructed.  That's only one of the factual arguments that makes Manchin's argument absurd.

So what is really going on?  I propose two related possibilities.  First, Manchin doesn't want to be the deciding vote, because he wants to be able to vote against anything which threatens to threaten the coal barons of his state, without offending his party leadership.  If he's the swing vote, he can't get away with that--he'll have to make enemies of somebody.  So he needs the filibuster to provide him cover by requiring 60 votes instead of 51.

More specifically, I wonder if this isn't aimed at the infrastructure bill.  Manchin wants an infrastructure bill--he wants the money for West Virginia's crumbling roads and bridges, etc. that it can't even afford to repair.  But his coal baron overlords don't want all the green energy stuff currently in the bill.

The outcome he may be looking for is that the Biden administration jobs/infrastructure bill gets split into several bills, one of which is a roads and bridges infrastructure bill that Republicans can vote for--which means all that green energy and climate crisis stuff will be stripped out of it.  Then when the green stuff gets into another bill, Manchin can vote against it and still get the big highway bucks for West Virginia.  

If that's what he's doing--and I have no idea if it is, this is just my suspicion--it's a very dangerous game, not only for him, but for the country and its future.  

Wednesday, April 07, 2021

The Archer City Kid

On the last Friday night of March, when I got up from my computer my glance fell on a bookshelf as I passed, and fixed for a moment on one slim book: Walter Benjamin at the Dairy Queen by Larry McMurtry.  I reflected for a second that it was the book that got me started on my “History of My Reading” series here, the only successful format I’ve found for any sort of autobiographical exploration.  I’ve been researching and writing it for several years now, with 45 entries, and I haven’t gotten past 1969.

 Then I took the ipad off the kitchen counter and into my den/library/mancave to do the New York Times Spelling Bee.  Scrolling down to it I saw Larry McMurtry’s obituary.  He’d died the day before.

 McMurtry had been publishing novels for a decade before I was aware of his work.  But he certainly started with a bang—his first novel Horseman, Pass By was immediately made into Hud, a classic Paul Newman movie.  His next two novels were also made into movies, though The Last Picture Show didn’t hit screens until 1971.

 I probably was first aware of his name in connection with that film, though I have no memory of either reading the novel or seeing the entire movie.. But I probably did, at the Orson Welles Cinema in Cambridge, MA. when its director and co-star came to town a few years later.  McMurtry’s luck with selling stories to the movies had its downside, not so much from the flops as from the successes, particularly the iconic Lonesome Dove miniseries and the Terms of Endearment feature, which will overshadow the books at least until they become more readily available than the movies, and people who remember the movies die out. 

My first clear memory of his name is also from the early 70s, when I saw it on the cover of a novel titled All My Friends Are Going To Be Strangers.  The title pissed me off, because it was too close to a title I’d intended to use: Friends And Other Strangers, which admittedly I’d stolen from a Bob Dylan song (and who knows who that famous packrat stole it from.)  I think I was mostly pissed off because I hadn’t written the book yet that the title would go on, and this guy McMurtry had.

  I was resentful enough that I refused to read the book.  Then one subsequent Sunday afternoon, visiting a young woman I’d recently met, I saw the paperback of this novel lying on a coffee table, at almost the precise moment that I realized I was never going to see this woman again.  Somehow I took that as a sign that the whole point of this non-relationship was to point me back to this book.

 So I bought it, I read it, I loved it, and read it again. I liked the character of young Danny Deck and the laconic yet precise, sometimes passionate and often bewildered first person voice of the narrative.  It was a book of its time and a book of my 20s. 

 Then shortly after his novel Terms of Endearment was published, I met McMurtry in Washington.  By then I was editing an alternative weekly, Washington Newsworks, and our publisher was the sister of a McMurtry lady friend, and possibly a partner in his Washington bookstore.  So when I went to a public talk McMurtry gave, I had an introduction.

 I don’t remember anything about meeting him after the talk, except that it was brief.  I was mostly interested in getting him to write something for the paper.  What I chiefly remember is my impression of his talk.  I was astounded at his voice: indolent, insolent and insinuating, or in a word, Texan.  Of course I knew he was Texan, and that the Danny Deck novel was set in contemporary Texas.  But when I read that dialogue, I didn’t hear Texas voices in my head.  That remained true for his novels set in contemporary times that I read later.  Some essays published after his death fixated on the resonance of Texas cities and scenes in his novels.  To me all of that was irrelevant.  (In my own defense, I’ll point out that none of the major characters in the movie version of Terms of Endearment sound particularly Texan, and the words sound just fine.)

 Probably my period of sustained attention to McMurtry’s novels was in the late 70s and early 1980s—the pre-Lonesome Dove 80s.  This was the period of Somebody’s Darling (a novel about Hollywood he later denigrated), Cadillac Jack and The Desert Rose (the novel set in Las Vegas that years later he called his favorite.)  I read these, while re-reading All My Friends... and Terms of Endearment, which by then was a hit movie with Jack Nicholson and Shirley McLaine in great late performances, and Debra Winger in one of the best performances ever.

 It was around then that I had my first and only conversation with Larry McMurtry.  (It hadn’t even occurred to me when I was in Washington that I could have walked into his Georgetown bookstore and chatted many times.  Sometimes my cluelessness astonishes me. Though I recall this was also an occasional quality of Danny Deck.) 

 My Washington paper was no more, and I was back in my Pennsylvania home town when I tried to contact McMurtry for some freelance story I was working on—I don’t remember how or what the story was.  But one day the phone rang and it was him.  He didn’t have much to say about whatever it was I called him about—it must have had something to do with movies because when he demurred, he noted that he enjoyed the people he worked with there and wanted to continue. 

 So instead we talked about his books.  I proposed my theory that he’d written a kind of trilogy that included All My Friends and Terms of Endearment.  He agreed—he’d deliberately written that trilogy including those two books, but I’d gotten the third book wrong.  I thought the third was Somebody’s Darling, which does center on a character known to the main characters of the other two.  But even then, he downplayed that book.  No—I had missed the first of the trilogy, a novel called Moving On.  I hadn’t even heard of it, which seemed to delight him—he recommended it.  It was one of his books that, at least at the time, he liked. 

Nowadays, this trilogy is considered part of McMurtry’s “Houston Series” of six novels, which also includes Somebody’s Darling.  The next to last in the cycle is Some Can Whistle, which works out the final fate of Danny Deck.  I so disliked this novel that it put me off reading McMurtry for awhile. 

But on his advice I had read and liked Moving On.  Bill Holland, a musician and songwriter friend in Washington who was becoming a book scout, sent me a copy. He had a spare because it turned out to be a book club edition.  McMurtry always considered his work as a book scout and bookstore owner at least as significant in his life as being a novelist.  I wonder what he’d think about the fact that I’d sold the few first editions of his novels I owned to help finance my move to California.  He’d probably approve. 

 McMurtry subsequently won the Pulitzer Prize for Lonesome Dove, and became a Lonesome Dove and Old West industry with novels begetting mini-series after mini-series.  The books had a lot of charm, owing perhaps to his belief that the 19th century western figures were basically English Victorian in speech and otherwise.  He later won an Academy Award for the script to Brokeback Mountain, from a story by Annie Proulx that he admits he should have written.

 In the week or so since I read of his death, I’ve re-read Walter Benjamin at the Dairy Queen, which has to be a unique book in his writing career.  I noted first that his comments on the dearth of books to read in his youth was a very small part of it.  He did mention a cache of boys books that got him started, and the My Book House volumes, both of which were part of my childhood.  These are the element that got me started exploring the history of my reading. But most of the book is not about all that, exactly.  Although it is a brilliant, fertile book, it's hard to say what it is about.  The autobiographical underpinnings are obvious, but maybe it's more an autobiography of the West.

  It started out to address the assertion made by Walter Benjamin in his essay “The Storyteller,” that storytelling in the classic sense has gone from the world.  McMurtry notes that this kind of storytelling—ordinary people telling stories to each other—was something he experienced in his childhood, before he’d read a single book.  But the places where these stories were told had largely disappeared.  In his hometown of Archer City, the natural gathering place was now the town’s Dairy Queen, which is where he read that essay.  He wondered if even there he could discern if stories were still being told.

 He wanders away from this promising beginning pretty quickly, though he makes gestures of returning to the topic now and again, and maybe in a subtle way he does.  Some of this book is very carefully written, deliberately so.  McMurtry’s lifelong habit was to toss off five pages at the typewriter every morning, as quickly as he could.  For at least parts of this book he wrote slowly, with a pen. 

But other parts of this short book contain repetitions that suggest chapters were cobbled together from other sources—prefaces to other writers’ books, etc.  However, in several places particularly, this book is uncharacteristically reflective.  He expresses his ambivalence at writing so much about the old West, when he knew that the Old West was basically a Hollywood myth, and that the actual era of the big cattle drives and the open range was the blip of perhaps 20 or 30 years total.  He set out to de-mythologize the West, and admits that instead he created a new myth, beginning with a Quixote story called Lonesome Dove that got out of hand.

 On the other hand, he was in his youth an actual cowboy on an actual ranch outside Archer City, and his grandparents—who lived with him as he grew up—were authentic pioneers in that part of Texas.  He was in that sense writing out of his own life and experiences.  He was especially conscious that his father maintained a lifelong commitment to ranching even though he knew it was a lost cause (he admitted to being in debt for 55 straight years.)  Here McMurtry suggests the Old West was a way for him to understand his father’s “essentially tragic” take on his otherwise happy life.

 The Walter Benjamin book’s subtitle is “Reflections At Sixty And Beyond” (He was 63 when it was published) and McMurtry becomes especially reflective in the final pages.  He writes that his major achievement may turn out to be the same as his father’s: he kept his good name and passed it on to his “gifted and responsible” son.  He considers that maybe two or three of his books are “good,” (without saying which ones.) “I would have liked my fiction to have a little more poise, a little more tact—but those are qualities that seem to have found their way into my son’s songs, and that is satisfaction enough.”  His son, James McMurtry, is a singer-songwriter, as now is his grandson, Curtis McMurtry.

 McMurtry made lit biz news in recent years when he moved back to his hometown and amassed a mammoth number of books in his Archer City bookstores, filling several buildings on its decaying main street.  The town where in his youth the only books sold were drugstore paperbacks now had more books for sale that any other town in America. When some of those buildings started falling apart, he had a huge book sale, but still retained more books than the few surviving used and antiquarian bookstores of big cities possess.  (The decline of bookstores in his lifetime is a theme he sets besides the melancholy self-defeat of the cowboy and the Old West.)

 Unlike some book scouts and bookstore owners, he loved reading the books he acquired.  He seemed to retain an enormous amount from his wide-ranging reading.  (The daughter of his close friend and writing partner Diana Ossana described him as “a data base with opinions.”)  The worst moments after his major heart surgery in the early 90s, he wrote, was when he was unable to read.  

 “In my seventh decade,” he concludes, “I feel a new haste, not to write but to read.”  It does seem that he’d stopped writing largely for love some time ago.  But he didn’t lose his pure love for reading.  He was eighty-four when he stopped, the last Thursday in March 2021.  May he rest in peace.  His work lives on. 

Monday, April 05, 2021

Poetry Monday: From The Porch


The stores were bright, and not too far from home.
 The school was only half a mile from downtown,
 A few blocks from the Oldsmobile dealer. In the sky, 
The airplanes came in low towards Lindbergh Field,
 Passing overhead with a roar that shook the windows.
 How inert the earth must look from far away. 
The morning mail, the fantasies, the individual days
 Too intimate to see, no matter how you tried. 
Yet there was always time to visit them again
 In a roundabout way, like the figures in the stars,
 Or a life traced back to its imaginary source
 In an adolescent reverie, a forgotten book— 
As though one’s childhood were a small midwest town
 Some forty years ago, before the elm trees died.
 September was a modern classroom and the latest cars,
 That made a sort of futuristic dream, circa 1955. 
The earth was still uncircled. You could set your course
 On the day after tomorrow. And children fell asleep
 To the lullaby of people murmuring softly in the kitchen,
 While a breeze rustled the pages of Life magazine, 
And the wicker chairs stood empty on the screened-in porch.

-- John Koethe


 John L. Koethe is an American poet and essayist who was born in 1945 and grew up in San Diego. He teaches philosophy at the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee. One of his literary models is William Wordsworth.

Thursday, April 01, 2021

Unity


Congressional Republicans, when they aren’t touting authoritarian proposals or spouting QAnon nonsense, complain that President Biden isn’t honoring his pledge to work together when he doesn’t listen to their deeply unserious ideas. 

 Signing on to Republican unreality is not unity. What is unity is the response of Americans who overwhelmingly support President Biden’s efforts to address the Covid crisis, and in particular the American Rescue Plan, which became law without a single Republican vote, despite its provisions being supported by anywhere from two-thirds to three-fourths of American surveyed. 

 A similar pattern is now developing in response to President Biden’s infrastructure package. Republican leadership has denounced it in its entirety, the day it was proposed. Yet according to public polling cited by the White House, “between 74% and 87% support among Americans for seven elements: new job training for coal miners, highway and bridge work, increasing affordable childcare, expanding broadband access, expanding family and medical leave, upgrading public transportation, and investing in clean energy.” 

 Reported in Axios, this was repeated on the Political Wire which added this quote from Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post: “The media, it seems, are caught in a Republican framing of policy that does not match reality. There is not a hue and cry over a mammoth infrastructure bill. To the contrary, it is super popular. And Republicans might want to stop harping on the tax increases: Those make the bill even more popular.” 

 And what is likely to be even more popular among non-rich voters are two little publicized pledge Biden made in his Pittsburgh speech: first, “I start with one rule: No one — let me say it again — no one making under $400,000 will see their federal taxes go up. Period.” And second: “When we make all these investments, we’re going to make sure, as the executive order I signed early on, that we buy American. That means investing in American-based companies and American workers. Not a contract will go out, that I control, that will not go to a company that is an American company with American products, all the way down the line, and American workers.” 

 Moreover, as political scientist Jonathan Bernstein notes, even though passing this package without Republican votes will require near total (in the House) or total (in the Senate) Democratic support, Biden has a very good chance of getting that unified support, if for no other reason than the popularity of its provisions and the behavior of voters who reward congressional candidates for the success of their party’s President.

 What is crystal clear is the need for this country to rebuild its decaying infrastructure, and to build the infrastructure of the information age. This benefits everybody—every corporation, every small business, every Republican, every American, period. We all depend on the same roads and bridges, the same Internet, the same power plants, and by the way, the same planet. 

 No corporation, no matter how many tax cuts it is provided, ever builds a public bridge. (In fact, they usually demand private bridges and roads be built for them, or they won’t come into your city or township.) It is ridiculous to be arguing about some socialist conspiracy when this is the work government—and only government—has always done.

 And in today’s world only government has the muscle to see it’s done fairly. No corporation is ever going to guarantee that only American materials will be used for anything. They don’t use American materials or manufacturing for shoe laces, why would they do it for roads?

 So why does the media insist on parroting Republican talking points? Mostly because they’re out of office and the media doesn’t have the imagination to come up with their own critical questions. It might require them to, for instance, actually listen to the Biden speeches they report on. 

 President Biden has said it clearly a number of times: his call for unity doesn’t mean unanimity, and it sure doesn’t mean giving into congressional Republicans. In his March 25 press conference he also said, very clearly: And here’s the deal: I think my Republican colleagues are going to have to determine whether or not we want to work together, or they decide that the way in which they want to proceed is to — is to just decide to divide the country, continue the politics of division. But I’m not going to do that; I’m just going to move forward and take these things as they come... All I know, I’ve been hired to solve problems — to solve problems, not create division." 

 “There is nothing we can’t do when we do it together.” President Biden has repeated this mantra time and again. When are we going to take it seriously? It doesn’t mean total agreement. It means once the commitment is made, we make it work. That’s how it worked in the 1930s, which was at least as contentious as now.

Monday, March 29, 2021

Poetry Monday: Spring


To My Sister

 It is the first mild day of March:
 Each minute sweeter than before 
The redbreast sings from the tall larch
 That stands beside our door.

 There is a blessing in the air,
 Which seems a sense of joy to yield
 To the bare trees, and mountains bare, 
And grass in the green field.

 My sister! ('tis a wish of mine)
 Now that our morning meal is done,
 Make haste, your morning task resign;
 Come forth and feel the sun.

 Edward will come with you, -- and, pray,
 Put on with speed your woodland dress;
 And bring no book: for this one day
 We 'll give to idleness. 

No joyless forms shall regulate
 Our living calendar:
 We from to-day, my Friend, will date
 The opening of the year.

 Love, now an universal birth,
 From heart to heart is stealing,
 From earth to man, from man to earth:
 --It is the hour of feeling.

 One moment now may give us more 
Than years of toiling reason:
 Our minds shall drink at every pore 
The spirit of the season. 

Some silent laws our hearts will make,
 Which they shall long obey: 
We for the year to come may take
 Our temper from to-day. 

And from the blessed power that rolls
 About, below, above,
 We 'll frame the measure of our souls:
 They shall be tuned to love. 

Then come, my Sister! come, I pray, 
With speed put on your woodland dress;
 And bring no book: for this one day
 We 'll give to idleness.

 --William Wordsworth
This poem was written in 1798, when William Wordsworth was 27 and his sister Dorothy was 26.  They are portrayed by Felicity Kendall and David Warner in the 1978 TV film Clouds of Glory, directed by Ken Russell.  This early Wordsworth poem was written in Somerset, England, in a house near woods and the sea.  I took the top photo here in Arcata in March 2019.

Thursday, March 25, 2021

The Perkins New Deal

 Somebody probably not associated with the greeting card industry has designated March as Women’s History Month.  It so happens that this month I’ve been reading about the 1930s, a decade in which several of the women in American history I most admire were prominent, including Jane Addams, Dorothy Day, Eleanor Roosevelt and Halle Flanagan (who ran the Federal Theatre Project.)  But the woman I’ve been reading most about is Frances Perkins.

 Maybe it’s an oxymoron by now that this incredibly important woman in history is not very well known. But as FDR’s first and only Secretary of Labor, she was not just the first woman to run that department—she was the first female Cabinet officer in US history.  She was also one of the longest serving cabinet heads in history: all 12-plus years of FDR’s presidency. 

 She was among the most consequential cabinet heads in American history as well, mostly for the innovations during the New Deal that she advocated and worked to achieve, some of which she designed.

  And she knew what she wanted when she took the job at the crucial moment of the Great Depression in early 1933, and told FDR so: immediate federal aid to states and local governments to support relief for the unemployed; a large scale public works program; federal minimum wage and maximum hours laws; a ban on child labor; unemployment insurance and old-age insurance we now know as Social Security.  Eventually she got them all. 

 She was also an effective advocate for unions’ right to organize, and for workplace health and safety, with particular attention to the needs of women in the workplace.  All of these were new, and most were controversial and opposed by vested interests and reactionaries.  She was the model for effective compassion, for the practical heart.

 When she left office a little known and apparently unpopular figure, Collier’s magazine boldly suggested that “when the definitive history of this Administration is written, it is quite likely that [Secretary] Perkins will be hailed as the most successful of the New Dealers, for the Roosevelt pattern of government contains more of her ideas than any other of the President’s followers...What this country has been operating under for the past twelve years is not so much the Roosevelt New Deal as the Perkins New Deal.”

 But what she began did not end with the New Deal.  Consider the provisions of the new Covid Rescue Act that echo her innovations, as well as proposals for the infrastructure package.  Plus the safety net that so many of us depend on, and the further innovations that structures like Social Security have made possible, like the Affordable Care Act. 

 Nor was her contribution only in the ideas.  She knew how to get things done, to bring people and ideas together, to solve problems, gather support—and convince an often reluctant FDR.  She dealt with determined and underhanded opposition, including out-maneuvering FDR’s devious budget director.  She was an able administrator, who helped turn FDR’s idea for a Civil Conservation Corps into a reality that saved young lives and supported entire families, including my father’s.  She transformed the Labor Department from a clubhouse for cronies into a large and effective administrative arm.

 Though she also had to deal with family tragedies, she managed to survive the Roosevelt years and beyond (as FDR and Harry Hopkins did not).  She met President Kennedy, taught and lectured, describing her political experiences in a speech, part of which Laurence O’Donnell played on his MSNBC hour in 2014 or so, all when she was in her eighties.

 She taught at Cornell in her final years, and was so beloved that the male students of Telluride House, a residence for high-achievers, invited her to move in.  She did.  Secretary Frances Perkins remained at Cornell until her death at the age of 85.

Monday, March 22, 2021

Poetry Monday: The Frog After Dark


The Frogs After Dark

I am so much in love with mournful music
 That I don't bother to look for violinists. 
The aging peepers satisfy me for hours. 

 The ant moves on his tiny Sephardic feet. 
The flute is always glad to repeat the same note.
 The ocean rejoices in its dusky mansion. 

 Bears are often piled up close to each other.
 In caves of bears, it's just one hump
 After another, and there is no one to sort it out.

 You and I have spent so many hours working. 
We have paid dearly for the life we have. 
It's all right if we do nothing tonight.

 We've heard the fiddlers tuning their old fiddles,
 And the singer urging the low notes to come. 
We've heard her trying to keep the dawn from breaking. 

 There is some slowness in life that is right for us.
 But we love to remember the way the soul leaps 
Over and over into the lonely heavens.

 --Robert Bly 

 Bly apparently started this poem with the last three stanzas, which he read to interviewer Chard DeNiord for the September/October 2011 issue of The American Poetry Review. Those are the verses that attracted me, when I found this issue in a basket of old newsprint.

  He must have added the first three stanzas later, when the poem was published in his 2011 collection Talking Into The Ear Of A Donkey and then in the 2013 Stealing Sugar From The Castle, Selected and New Poems 1950-2013. Like this one, almost all of Bly’s late poems have six stanzas of three lines each. These represent—or are at least influenced by—a version of the Persian form called the Ghazal, which Bly knew through his reading of the Sufi poets such as Rumi and Hafiz. Other American poets like Jim Harrison and W.S. Merwin adopted and adapted it as well.

 In that 2011 interview, Bly talked about the ghazal form as handling several thoughts, and balancing different subject matter. He said it preserves some wildness, and the playfulness that energized American poetry in the 1950s and 1960s, through the infusion of European poets (including Surrealists but also Lorca and Rilke) and South American poets like Neruda.

 Sound is very important in Bly’s writing and reading. He loved the playfulness with sound in Wallace Stevens’ Harmonium for example. In this poem, one way the imagery is linked is by music and musical instruments (though I'm still puzzled by the bears, and the absent frogs.) To some extent Bly organizes his poems by sound (he liked those last three stanzas because of the “o” sounds, especially in the last line), and sometimes seems surprised at the meaning that emerges, especially when other people find it first.

Friday, March 19, 2021

Adjustments (And a Thank You)

 Margaret and I just got our second Covid vaccine shot (Pfzer.)  Our thanks go out to Humboldt County Public Health and to the volunteers who organized and administered the jabs.  Compared to what we're hearing from other parts of the country, it was a painless process, even if it seemed slow at times.  All we did was fill out one form--an "interest" form, as in interested in getting the vaccine--with just basic information, especially age.  The county methodically followed the state guidance, so there was a 75 and over beginning, followed by a 70 and over, etc.  Medicare cleared the need for insurance information.  After we completed the form online, we simply waited.  As soon as enough vaccine was available, we got emails inviting us to a clinic on a specific day.  We then made an appointment on that day.  That was it. We got another invitation for our second shot, which we got three weeks and one day after the first.  No running after rumors of who had the vaccine, constantly refreshing sites for an appointment, etc.  So we are very grateful for the County's efforts.  Public Health here has been great throughout this Covid crisis. 

Now we have a couple of weeks to adjust to the end of what has effectively been a year-long quarantine.  The mental adjustment for me will begin with activity.  My car doesn't start, my phone is obsolete, I've needed a new prescription for glasses this entire year, and a haircut would be nice.  Those items are where the list begins.

I also find myself adjusting slowly to the fact that we have an actual President of the United States.  I've felt resistance to fully accepting it, having been thoroughly traumatized by the past four years.  Washington politics is as fucked up as ever, etc. but Joe Biden is more than I could have expected.  He's putting together a potentially effective government in new ways--new especially since the 1930s.  His first address to the nation on Covid was just about perfect.  The covid Rescue law is a wonder.  So if any reader has noted an absence of commentary here that might suggest a lack of enthusiasm, that's not the case.  I've just having a hard time trusting this is really happening, and may not be reversed in a minute from now.

At the moment our weather is reflecting this transitional feeling.  The winter rains have not quite ended, but the flowers are blooming.

Sunday, March 14, 2021

Poetry Monday: Pennies From Heaven


A long time ago, a million years B.C. 
The best things in life were absolutely free
 But no one appreciated a sky that was always blue 
And no one congratulated a moon that was always new...
 So it was planned that they would vanish now and then
 And you must pay before you get them back again 
That’s what storms were made for
 And you shouldn’t be afraid for

 Every time it rains it rains pennies from heaven
 Don’t you know each cloud contains pennies from heaven
 You’ll find your fortune falling all over town
 Be sure that your umbrella is upside down 

 Trade them for a package of sunshine and flowers
 If you want the things you love you must have showers
 So when you hear it thunder don’t run under a tree 
There’ll be pennies from heaven for you and me.

 --lyrics by Johnny Burke to music by Arthur Johnston
top photo by Cartier-Bresson

 Popular songs have a lot in common with formal poetry, apart from their shared origins in chant and song. The best song lyrics have qualities found in poems. This lyric by Johnny Burke for instance has an initial argument or premise, and the rest of the song follows from it, until, like a Shakespearian sonnet, it is recapitulated in the final couplets.

There isn't a wasted syllable in this lyric.  The echo of the "und" sound in "thunder" and "under" is a skillful and effective internal rhyme, but more subtle is the corresponding echo of the "a" sound in "planned" and "vanish."  There are literary poems that are less adept. 

 Though this song has been recorded and performed a vast number of times, it seldom has included more than the chorus: the last eight lines. So the song really doesn’t make sense until you get to those late lines, and “If you want the things you love you must have showers...” But with the initial verse, the point is very clear, and much more powerful.

 I could find only three recordings of the entire song, beginning with the first, by Bing Crosby in 1936 and ending (for now) with James Taylor’s version in his 2020 American Standard album. Arthur Johnston and Johnny Burke wrote the song and several others for Crosby’s movie titled Pennies From Heaven. His version was a hit record in 1936. These lyrics as a whole are both sobering and hopeful.

 And that’s perhaps why the version using the entire song released in 1937 by singer Arthur Tracy is the one selected for the Dennis Potter BBC 1978 miniseries and the subsequent 1981 movie, starring Steve Martin and Bernadette Peters. Both productions used vintage recordings while contemporary actors lip-synched to them. New Yorker film reviewer Pauline Kael put her finger on why Tracy’s version is so memorable and appropriate—he sings an upbeat song while sounding like he’s on the verge of crying.

 Potter’s teleplay and screenplay were set in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the song itself was written then. It’s subject is the Depression, as its first audience would have understood. The line “you’ll find your fortune falling all over town” is a succinct description of how the Depression’s effects quickly accumulated, as people lost their savings, a major part of their income or their jobs, perhaps even their homes. Middle class people—teachers, nurses, mid-level executives—found themselves on the street. Desperation looking for solace was a natural condition. 

Within the song however, those lines function in the opposite way.  Future fortune is literally falling all over town from the sky, collected by that upturned umbrella.  This is a conceit Shakespeare might have written, if he'd been a 1930s songwriter.

  Whether Dennis Potter’s series or movie caught the more characteristic and complex moods of the Depression beyond desperation and denial is debatable. However, this lyric and its premise as metaphor stand on their own, transcending their original time. Today, as the slow end of the Covid crisis looks to be in sight, the idea of better times as a payoff for enduring hard times resonates again.

 Johnny Burke wrote lyrics for other popular songs such as “Imagination” (a hit for the Glenn Miller band), “Moonlight Becomes You,” “Misty” and a staple of my childhood, “Swinging on a Star.” (“Would you like to swing on a star/carry moonbeams home in a jar...”) 

 Thanks to the Dennis Potter films, 1930s singer Arthur Tracy came out of retirement in the 1980s for one last series of engagements at New York’s The Cookery, which also revived the careers of cherished musical elders Eubie Blake and Alberta Hunter.  Here's a link to the 1981 movie scene with his rendition of “Pennies From Heaven.” (For some reason I'm unable to embed it here.)  Although the British miniseries used the entire original recording, the MGM movie substituted a new instrumental bridge by Marvin Hamlisch. The dance sequence featuring Vernal Bagneris is itself worth seeing.