H2O Man's Journal
Member since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 07:49 PM
Number of posts: 50,695
Number of posts: 50,695
- 2014 (117)
- 2013 (71)
- 2012 (90)
- Older Archives
“Sitting at the table doesn’t make you a diner, unless you eat some of what’s on that plate.”
-- Malcolm X
“If we can’t sit at that table, let’s knock the fucking legs off!”
-- James Forman
Within days of republican victories in the House and Senate election contests, the possibility of “compromise” on the proposed Keystone Pipeline was being floated in the media. This is, of course, a fiction -- there is no “compromise” -- either there is a Keystone Pipeline, or there is not. The only things that would be compromised by building the pipeline would be the environment, and any sense of ethics that our democratic representatives claim to have.
Throughout my adult life, I have advocated an informal coalition of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Left to confront the republican machine. There are numerous areas where we share common interests, and can find common ground. Indeed, there are a substantial number of registered democrats who identify with the Democratic Left. I am one of them.
In my experience, the combined efforts of the Democratic Party and Democratic Left have been able to defeat republican candidates in local elections. This has been true, despite the fact that there are more registered republicans in this region of upstate New York, than there are democrats, third parties, or independents. That same combination was able to elect (and re-elect) Maurice Hinchey to the House of Representatives for years.
Yet, after Hinchey’s retirement, the democratic candidate failed to reach out to the Democrat Left, in the mistaken belief that he could take their support for granted. This same tactic was tried by other democratic candidates for state office this year, resulting in defeat. Only the governor was able to safely write off the left’s support.
The Democratic Left wants a seat at the table. Likewise, the left-wing of the Democratic Party does. We are sophisticated enough to know that “politics is the art of compromise.” We’re not demanding our way or the highway on the majority of issues. People can agree in general on issues such as the value of public education, yet have different opinions on how to best achieve the best results. Certainly, not everything has a “one size fits all” solution.
But there are a few issues where compromise is not an option. We shouldn’t be willing to compromise our ethics. We should never be willing to compromise on issues that present extreme dangers to human health and the living environment.
When democrats in Washington, DC, talk about “compromise” in the context of ethical issues, that’s fancy language for selling out. It means that they have more loyalty to energy corporations, than to human beings. With the 2016 elections looming less than two years away, “compromising” on the Keystone Pipeline would be as damaging to the Democratic Party, as the pipeline would be to the environment.
I am a loyal member of the Democratic Party. I’ve volunteered lots of hours in campaign headquarters, donated money. and gone door-to-door for numerous candidates over the decades. But I won’t donate a penny or vote for any candidate who I consider to be wrong on ethical issues. I won’t support a neoconservative, nor an energy industry lap dog. And I damn sure won’t ask anyone -- be they a member of the Democratic Party or the Democratic Left -- to do so, either.
At the same time, I will definitely remain as active a participant in politics as I have been. My efforts will include trying to reform the Democratic Party from the grass roots up. It will also include working with the Democratic Left. I think that is the best way to let those at the state and national level know that they cannot take people like myself for granted. If enough people do something similar, it will communicate clearly that their old “they have no where else to go” is simple not true.
Posted by H2O Man | Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:12 PM (3 replies)
“If something is yours by right, then fight for it or shut up. If you can’t fight for it, then forget it.”
-- Malcolm X; London School of Economics; February, 1965.
Reading through DU:GD last night, I realized that I had not really made much comment on last week’s elections. In a nut-shell, I view events such as these as temporary set-backs, rather than utter defeats, so long as one learns a lesson from it. Thus, I began considering what quote to use at the top of an essay, to introduce that general theme.
Initially, I thought about Jim Morrison’s infamous rant while on stage in Miami. The old, “What are you gonna do about it?” rallying cry might well be as appropriate today, as Jim’s presentation was deemed inappropriate by the Miami police and court, way back when. But I didn’t want to risk offending DU’s community standards, so I kept my trousers zipped, and thought some more.
The Declaration of Independence came to mind. It is a power document, one that I think that liberals and progressives should read from time to time. In fact, it reminds me of the type of statement of purpose that Malcolm X might have made in his final year of life.
In the two short sentences quoted above, Malcolm says “fight for it” twice. That suggests it is a key point. He doesn’t say that the fight will be easy. Nor does he hint that if you do fight, you will achieve a clear victory. But he makes very clear the reality that if you don’t fight, there is zero chance of making progress, much less winning.
I am confident that very few, if any, members of this forum view last Tuesday as a good day for the Democratic Party. It definitely wasn’t. Some of the democrats who ran for office did not appear to be willing to fight. Rather, they seemed to be running from the fight. But the responsibility for the election outcome does not rest entirely upon the candidates.
Certainly, the cycle of “off year” elections came into play. Equally important is the tension between the progressive/ liberal wing, and the moderate/ conservative wing of the party.The dynamics being what they are, the vast majority of democratic candidates for governor and for the House and Senate were moderate/ conservative. As a result, we didn’t have “dynamic” candidates capable of creating enough “tension” to convince enough potential voters that these contests were important enough -- in the context of their lives -- to vote.
So, if one wants to, they could engage in finger-pointing at a wide range of people who likely bear some portion of the responsibility for the election of so many republicans. “If you didn’t vote, don’t complain” seems a fair statement. But it does not provide the entire answer to the problem, and thus offers no promise of resolving the problem in the future.
I believe it is equally fair to say that too many democratic candidates ran weak campaigns. More, I think the party’s “leaders” promoted too many weak candidates. And that there were too few serious primary challenges, giving voters a real choice. And on and on.
I do think it is important to study other people’s roles in campaigns and elections. And to evaluate how well they accomplish their tasks. Yet at the same time, “democracy” is something that belongs to us as individuals. It’s being stolen, of course, by powerful forces on the national level. And that theft trickles down to the local level, where all too often, jackasses who really aren’t very powerful at all are confident that they have license to steal what belongs to you and I. Now, that annoys me.
I’ve said -- probably several hundred times here on this forum -- that real change can only be accomplished from the grass roots up. But I know that my saying it doesn’t accomplish things. And that I have to fight for what is mine. So there is now two years before the next election cycle allows me to vote.
Between now and then, I’m not going to shut up, nor will I forget about it. I won’t put it on a back-burner, either, allowing it to cool until the next cycle comes around. Instead, I will be active at the grass roots level. I’ll work to register others to vote. Two groups that I will focus on are college students, and the poor. I will work to educate them, on how elections impact their day-to-day lives. And how their becoming active participants in the process translates to power.
I will also be in communication with those who are in positions that allow them to influence which candidates end up running on the democratic ticket -- from the local level right on up.
I want what is mine. And I think that you want what is your’s. So I am asking you to be active in the weeks and months ahead.
Posted by H2O Man | Mon Nov 10, 2014, 04:26 PM (21 replies)
On November 8, Bernard Hopkins will meet Sergey Kovalev in a light heavyweight title unification bout. HBO will be televising the fight, which is being held in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Although the true light heavyweight champion is Adonis Stevenson, this fight -- which is for the IBF, WBA, and WBO titles -- is not only the best match-up in the division, it promises to be one of the most important in boxing this year.
Hopkins is, of course, one of the sport’s legendary figures. He secured his place high on the list of the greatest middleweight champions years ago, with a long and dominant reign. When it seemed that his age was finally catching up to him, and lost a pair of decisions to Jermain Taylor in 2005, he stunned the boxing community by moving up to light heavyweight, and beating Antonio Tarver for the title.
Over the next few years, Hopkins would continue to compete with some of the elite fighters at the higher weights. Although he would lose a couple of decisions, his fights were always close, and he continued to pull off upsets against much younger, less experienced top fighters. Although his fights were rarely exciting, it was impressive to watch this well-conditioned, supremely self-confident veteran use every trick in the book to defeat opponents at the top of their division.
This second half of his career is, as much as his middleweight reign, good reason to secure his ranking high among boxing’s all time greats. Yet, one could not help but wonder when he might be pushing it too far, and become old in the ring? As Bernard approaches the age of 50, the fight against Kovalev would be the most dangerous to have that happen.
Kovalev is 25-0-1, with 23 knockouts. Although Bernard is slightly taller, and has a reach advantage, Sergey is the naturally bigger man (he’s been a light heavyweight throughout his careeer, while Bernard has moved up to the division). He appears physically the stronger of the two, and definitely hits much harder. Indeed, one opponent died a few days after fighting Sergey, from injuries sustained in the bout. And he reportedly fractured his last opponent’s ribs with a stiff right to the body.
Kovalev’s path to victory seems rather obvious. He needs to dictate the pace in every round against his 49-year old opponent. He can’t allow Bernard to frustrate him on the inside, where Hopkins uses his head, shoulders, forearms, and elbows as weapons. Bernard’s best punch, at this point in his long career, is the right hand: he bends at the knees, ducks his head, and leaps at his opponent. No matter if the blow lands cleanly or not, he follows it with the top of his head. If the opponent is upright, Bernard pushes them back; if they’ve ducked, he pushes down on them. Both tactics are effective in tiring his opponent.
Sergey has to respond to these tactics by punishing Hopkins. This includes discouraging Bernard with a stiff jab. Then, when Hopkins lunges forward, he needs to respond by both landing hard punches, and also by using his greater strength inside. Hopkins does have two “no contests” -- both coming early in bouts where he was not ahead on the score cards. The first came as a result of wrestling while clinching. The second, which is more important, came when Chad Dawson responding to the lead right-lunge by tossing Bernard to the canvas. It was ironic that a master of “dirty tactics” howled when Dawson turned the tables on him, then refused to continue. Dawson beat Hopkins in their rematch more convincingly than did Joe Calzaghe (in a close bout that I though Hopkins won).
Kovalev does not seem intimidated by Hopkins’ pre-fight behavior. While he definitely respects his older foe, he seems amused by Bernard’s antics. Sergey has said that he is approaching this as a “street fight,” and is not looking for a knockout. If he maintains this mindset, he not only has a good chance of winning, but may very well be the first to stop Bernard.
Hopkins has had important experience in beating champions who stand straight up, and who flattened most challengers with straight punches. They include Felix Trinidad and Kelly Pavlik, both of whom had devastating power. In fact, a year ago, Hopkins said that Sergey is another Pavlik; he also said that Kovalev would be the easiest of the top three light heavyweights for him to defeat.
However, it is important to note that both Trinidad and Pavlik were smaller than Hopkins. Neither was nearly as strong as Sergey, nor was their punching power in the same league. (This is no knock on them; both were solid fighters in their prime, and Trinidad was among the great champions of his era.) Thus, Hopkins has to adopt a somewhat different approach in this fight.
The model for this slightly different approach can be found in two victories of one of the unlikeliest of boxers to illustrate this technique: former heavyweight contender Jerry Quarry. In June of 1970, he faced undefeated Mac Foster at Madison Square Garden. Foster, who had served as a US Marine in Vietnam, had won all 24 of his fights by knockout. Besides having extreme punching power, Foster had impressive ring skills. Quarry was considered to be a step towards his eventually challenging for the heavyweight title.
However, Mac stood straight up, and was most effective when he measured his opponent with straight punches. Once he had the correct distance, he unloaded a vicious left hook, capable of taking out any opponent. Quarry fought Foster in much the same manner that Bernard fought Tito and Kelly: frequently changing the distance between them, stepping out to the sides, getting off punches first and last in exchanges, and punishing Foster for every missed punch and error. Foster became anxious, and fell apart when Quarry stepped up the pace.
Quarry faced the undefeated Ron Lyle in February of 1973. Lyle was 19-0, with 17 knockouts. The fight was also at Madison Square Garden, and was intended as a step-up for Lyle, who had the potential to become champion. Ron was bigger than Foster; his build was more solid, and he was among the strongest heavyweights from any era. More, having literally died on an operating table after being stabbed in prison, Lyle was without fear in the ring.
Quarry had faster hands, and was quicker with upper-body movement. And he was a talented counter-puncher. Early in the 12 round bout, he found that while he could outland Ron in exchanges, Lyle was not being seriously hurt by his punches. Also, Lyle remained calm and stuck with his plan to wear Quarry out. Because of Ron’s enormous strength, and ability to land punches when Quarry was moving backwards, Jerry made the adjustments needed to be able to last the 12 rounds. Rather than creating big differences in the space between them, he stayed close to Lyle, and focused more on creating angles, constantly turning his opponent -- and winning 7, 9, and 10 of the rounds on the score cards (Lyle won 4, 1, and 2 respectively).
Kovalev is bigger, stronger, and hits significantly harder than Trinidad or Pavlik. But he is slower. Hence, Bernard’s best bet will be to make the same general adjustment as did Quarry, which has to do with ring geography. It means staying relatively close to Sergey, yet not allowing him to get set to fire punches. Making use of angles, and spinning the slower man. Not allowing Kovalev to use his physical strength -- including punching power -- to tire Bernard.
Kovalev has the slight edge in physical gifts, Bernard has the slight edge in mental strength. It’s about as an even a fight on paper as can be. May the best man win.
Enjoy the fight!
Posted by H2O Man | Sat Nov 8, 2014, 08:16 AM (8 replies)
I just came back from my mail box. There was a nice card from a man I know casually, sending kind words of support regarding last week’s “road rage” shooting that seriously wounded my cousin, and killed his son. I’ve been acquainted with this fellow for over twenty years; we share an interest in local railroad history. His father used to work with my father.
His father had died as a result of choking on food. I went to the funeral, and found my general belief that American society has great difficulty in dealing with death reinforced -- though death, of course, is always difficult under any circumstances. I remember the pastor leading the ceremony, saying that she knew the deceased “always loved dessert,” and that in heaven, God provides a never-ending variety of sweet desserts which grow as fruit on a tree. Perhaps it’s just me, but that seemed a tad too close to Santa God for me.
I remember when my friend Lee died. It was unexpected. Several people said to his brother, Onondaga Chief Oren Lyons, that Lee had “died too young.” I remember Oren saying that Lee had died on exactly the day he was supposed to. It was still equally sad, of course, but in my mind, Oren was correct.
My childhood “best friend” stopped by the other day. We remain very close friends, now that we have become the Elders of our valley neighborhood. My friend said that when the gunman got into his vehicle that day, he was going to kill someone; it was my cousins’ bad luck to be the first people he encountered. I’d have to agree that a man who flew into a homicidal rage and shoot two human beings, because the vehicle ahead of him was going the speed limit, could just as easily killed someone else.
My cousin was released from the hospital. Physically, he has aged at least 20 years in a week’s time. I visit him for short periods of time, usually twice a day. In between, we talk on the phone, or by e-mail, to discuss thoughts that come to him when he attempts to rest. I take care of business with the insurance and the bank. On Tuesday, my cousin was upset that, if he didn’t get to the poll, it would be the first time in 48 years that he hasn’t voted. I assured him that he has a valid excuse.
I voted, of course. And I attempt to take care of other business. My youngest daughter, for example, had basketball practice yesterday afternoon, followed by the area’s “senior” soccer game. Earlier in the day, I went to a medical appointment. It was re-scheduled, as I forgot it last week; the doctor said I had a valid excuse.
I’m more tired, sore, and worn-out than I can ever remember being. Even though I was awake in time, I didn’t get the trash and recyclables down the driveway this morning for pick-up. I’m finding it difficult to keep up on “housework.” A couple nights ago, when I went grocery shopping, a republican official from my town keep approaching me, asking questions about possible support for her “economic development plan.” I couldn’t follow what she was saying the first time she cornered me; I didn’t bother to try the second and third time. It was like she spoke a foreign language. I was just too tired.
But the vast majority of people I encounter -- in person, on the internet, or on the telephone -- are good and decent folk, who are horrified by what happened. Senseless violent outbursts such as this not only damage the families involved, these events damage the community. I often speak about systems -- family, workplace, community, etc -- being like a mobile that hangs over an infant’s crib. When the worst of human potential is inflicted upon one family piece, the others shift in response, in a manner that truly shows the best in humanity.
In our way, when a young person loses their life in such a tragic way, we recognize them as messengers to the larger community. Their lives had a special meaning. At the same time that it causes an almost unbearable pain of separation for the family and friends, and shifts them into the suffering described as the wilderness, identifying that lesson is essential. It is as opposite to the “life is cheap” message of that thug, as that higher potential that the community displays.
It’s interesting to me, to consider the very different manner that people tend to behave in the contexts of dealing with tragedy versus “politics.” One unites people, and the other divides us into opposing groups. One recognizes that we are each part of a connected whole, while the other creates divisions. This isn’t to suggest that there shouldn’t be different opinions in things political -- surely, there should be -- but just as we benefit from having mutual respect in the realm of the socio-political debates, our society is being harmed by the harshness of the culture wars.
It’s that harshness that creates the atmosphere of anger, anxiety, fear, and hatred that saturates our nation. It builds a momentum that vicious thugs, such as the one who shot my family, mistake for license to unleash violence on an unsuspecting public.
It shouldn’t be this way. And it doesn’t have to be this way. With conscious effort, we can change the direction our culture is moving in.
Posted by H2O Man | Thu Nov 6, 2014, 03:24 PM (13 replies)
This is the 4th in a series on the shootings in Bainbridge, NY, that seriously wounded my cousin, and killed his son. The gunman was a retired NYC cop, recently hired as a part-time deputy-guard at the county jail. It was an extreme case of “road rage” -- this chap was enraged because a 26-year old slowed to 51 mph to round a curve -- that has left our communities reeling.
On Friday, there was a hearing in town court, to determine if the District Attorney had enough evidence to hold the “suspect” in jail, until a grand jury meets in late November to decide if he is to be charged with felony counts. The hearing, which lasted about an hour, was attended by a large crowd. Besides police and lawyers, there were family and friends of the victims, as well as concerned community members.
I had arranged a meeting between the DA and our family before the hearing. My aunt and uncle are in their mid-80s; they do not need the added stress of worrying about a potential injustice at this time. I think the meeting with the DA, along with conversations with state police after the hearing, has eased their minds. And the same goes with their three daughters.
After attempting to dispose of his handgun and other material, the thug had gone to the NYS Police and attempted to file charges on his victims. Police reports show that he reeked of alcohol. After the police read him his rights, and placed him under arrest, he asked to be allowed to go on his way. When they made it clear he was not free to go, he became hostile.
The local justice of the peace, of course, ruled that there is sufficient reason to hold him in jail, pending the grand jury hearing.
A BCI investigator told me that the gunman’s family has had a series of harassing and threatening phone calls. Thus, when I spoke with the assembled media, I made it clear that we hold no feelings of ill will towards them. He devastated their lives, too. (His three children are young adults. Should they have children, “grandpa” will be a figure held in a distant prison, playing no meaningful role in their lives.)
I had coffee with my family afterwards. The outpouring of support from people, in the diner and on the street, was impressive. One of the nice things in these small communities is that most people know everyone else. Might not be friends, but people are friendly. Good people.. And there really are a heck of a lot of good people.
Saturday was the funeral and burial. Both my aunt and uncle were pleased to see so many young adults there -- people who had known their grandson from school and the local towns. They were particularly happy to see a group of youth who had their hair dyed in bright colors, dressed like their generation’s gypsies. “I like people who make statements about their beliefs and values,” my aunt told me. My uncle recalled when his son was among the first, in the mid-1960s, to grow long hair and dress “like a hippie.”
Our extended family ended up at my aunt and uncle’s house. Three of my four children were there (the oldest daughter is studying abroad). My sons spent time near the wood stove with my uncle. He mentions how cutting and splitting his firewood tires him out these days; he’s “only” two year’s ahead. I doubt that many 43-year olds could keep up with this 86-year old man.
Neighbors and town’s folks continue to deliver generous amounts of the best foods. You could easily have fed 300 people. And you could tell that the people who had prepared the food had taken the time and effort to make something special. For that is the way Good People are.
I was aware that, somewhere in the next town, another family was grieving. I understand that people try to make sense out of the senseless; hence, some of his family and friends are saying that “there’s more to the story,” that the victims were attempting to rob the gunman, that they had weapons, that they stabbed him several times, and on and on. Next they’ll say that Faye Resnick holds the key to this mystery.
It is human nature to try to make sense of these things, in the context of our experiences and level of understanding. I do not begrudge them for believing falsehoods, for the truth is too painful right now. I will speculate that at least some family members have know the murderer to have a terrible temper, and to have engaged in violent behaviors in the past. I have heard that he was very controlling, with his wife and kids.
As a human being, I am also attempting to make sense of this. And, of course, that is in the context of my life experiences, and my limited level of understanding. In terms of this forum, some of you may remember that I’ve always tried to advocate non-violence. I’ve used quotes from my two mentors -- Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman and Rubin “Hurricane” Carter -- and others -- Gandhi and King -- to express the view that there’s too much fear, anger, and hatred in our culture. That we must counter these negative forces with compassion, understanding, and love. Those are the markers along the pathways to Higher Ground. These are the same guidelines I use when things are tough.
Later this week, I’ll post more on “why” I think this tragic event took place, and on what meaning I believe it has for me, and the community. Until then, you can be sure that old H2O Man will be busy, taking care of some business on this end.
Posted by H2O Man | Mon Nov 3, 2014, 11:22 AM (58 replies)
“God, whose law it is that he who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.”
This morning at 11, there is a second town court hearing, to establish if the District Attorney has enough evidence to hold the man who shot my cousin and his son on felony charges. Four generations (possibly five) of my family will be at the court today, in silent witness to these events. Some had been concerned about justice -- for this is the very same court where, in 1998, the racist hate gang that attempted to kill my nephew got off with less than a slap on the wrist.
A lot can change in 16 years. For example, there is a new DA, who represents a younger generation’s awareness of the relationship between ethnic/racial identity and justice. I’ve known this man for many years, both through work and family friendships. I spoke to him on the telephone yesterday, and arranged for him to meet with our family a half-hour before the court hearing. I believe that my family will be as impressed with him as I am. Relieving concerns about potential systematic injustice is an important step in allowing my family to grieve.
As I was writing this, my younger son called. He reminded me that I, too, have changed. I need not play the role that I did in my nephew’s case. There is already enough anger and outrage, he said, and what the community -- and especially our family -- needs right now is for a calm, reasoned focus on justice. Not revenge, although numerous people wish that were possible. But the type of justice that allows healing. Drop by drop.
I’ll be picking up my youngest daughter from high school for the meeting and court hearing. She and I now live alone in our big house, where there was once the six of us, and usually at least one foreign exchange student or other friend of my children. She’s assisted me in planning out my strategy for contact with the police, the DA, and the media. She’s also been with me when we have visited my cousin’s daughter, and his parents.
My aunt and uncle are in their mid-80s, and have endured so many tragedies in their lives. It is difficult to see these good people in such awful pain. At one point, my uncle lightened the situation by asking my daughter, “Have I ever told you how I met your great aunt?” He went into a hilarious story about the mutual attraction that remains strong more than sixty years later.
Those family members that are my age or older talk about how violence has caused tragedies in our extended family over the generations. Old wounds resurface. Some types of pain never really go away. I feel honored, in what may sound strange, to be able to model the best ways to deal with these situations. I have a lot of hope -- and pride -- in the younger generation of this family. It hurts to have had one that I was so close to taken away at such a young age.
Posted by H2O Man | Fri Oct 31, 2014, 09:48 AM (16 replies)
"I can't believe the news today;
I can't close my eyes
and make it go away."
My youngest daughter contacted me from school this afternoon; the buildings were on "lock-down," because there had been a shooting nearby.
I checked the news: a man had shot a father and son, after an incident of road rage.
Within a few minutes, I was on the phone with my Aunt. My cousin and his son had pulled over to let the guy by. But he stopped, walked over to their car, and spit on my cousin. My cousin asked what his problem was? The guy pulled out a hand gun, and open-fired.
My cousin is in surgery as I write this. His son is dead.
They are on the maternal side of my family. In our way, male cousins are known by the same word as "brother" (females as "sister"). I had been at my cousin/brother's home last week. He's a retired carpenter; his son was employed as a carpenter. Both are laid-back, gentle people.
I just can't believe it.
Posted by H2O Man | Mon Oct 27, 2014, 05:42 PM (182 replies)
…..bliss the moment arrived
Apparition, four brown English
Jacket christhair boys
Goofed Ringo battling bright
Silent George hair patient
Short black-skulled Paul
wit thin guitar
Lennon the captain, his mouth
a triangular smile,
all jump together to End
some tearful memory song
-- Allen Ginsberg
It’s been said that enough has been written about The Beatles to fill a book. (Maybe two.) I’d like to take a minute to add four paragraphs to that inventory. In the Liverpool of the late 1950s, each of the four young musicians were practicing, learning, and experimenting with sound for entertainment, and song for communication. Across the ocean, the Eisenhower America was the traditional dysfunctional family: layers of discontent, malcontent, and a search for meaning, all covered with an impenetrable icing of Father Knows Best, with Ike playing golf.
A generational shift in 19sixty brought a promise of fresh air children, with JFK and the best and brightest versus the five-sided beast. The Bay of Nixon, the Berlin Wall, and even the Cuban Missile Crisis were scary, indeed, but the Life Force was bringing collections of college students out of packed phone booths, and making statements at Point Huron. But Dallas turned out the light, and another darkness shined on America.
“Like a good little news organization, we sent three cameramen out to Kennedy airport today to cover the arrival of a group from England known as the Beatles. However, after surveying the film our men returned with, and the subject of that film, I feel there is absolutely no need to show any of that film.”
-- Chey Huntly; NBC Evening News; 2-7-64
Hindsight is 20/20, it is said -- but! 50 years later, I think that Mr. Huntly was wrong. You simply can’t believe everything you hear on the news.
Lennon & McCartney had a shared song-writing genius. With the synergy of the group’s music, they took over the American airwaves. Their manager, Brian Epstein, would make them more presentable, with suits, to the older generation. But within a year’s time, a growing number of American youth recognized them as coming from the wrong side of the tracks, with a more serious edge beneath the bright, cheery songs of puppy love and heartache.
While our corporations were thinking of “New!” Beatles paraphernalia to sell, an updated witch hunt took place.(Much of it as the result of but one of Lennon’s answers to a reporter.)
“Psycho-politicians are using the
Beatle music to hypnotize American
youth and prepare them for future
submission to subversive to
subversive control --
A systematic plan geared to
making a generation of American
youth mentally ill and emotionally
-- Rev. David A. Nobel; Communism, Hypnotism, and the Beatles
Hindsight, I know, but again: you can’t believe everything that religious “leaders” try to sell you. By the mid-60s, capitalism had rewarded the Beatles to an extent that they were in control of their careers, and living how they wanted to. And they were changing the ways in which young people thought. And the Power of Ideas is always more of a threat to a system of subversive control than are clothing, hair, and music styles -- unless those clothing, hair, and music styles speak to the Power of Ideas, of course.
In 1967, they released the album “Sgt. Peppers” and the single “Hey, Jude/ Revolution.” In ‘68, the Beatles released “The Beatles,” a double-LP known ever since as the “White Album.” These were two intense years in American history. Any serious student of that era has to take the Beatles’ influence on our society and culture seriously.
Rev. Noble was so moved as to publish a book titles “The Beatles: A Study in Drugs, Sex, and Revolution.” In my opinion, while his description of the group was a bit more accurate than the “communist threat” bit, he might have benefited from dropping acid and listening to their new releases while wearing headphones. Then he might have appreciated “Back in the USSR.”
“The Beatles are Divine Messiahs,
The wisest, holiest, most effective
Avatars (Divine Incarnate, God Agents)
that the human race has yet produced ….
I declare that John Lennon, George Harrison,
Paul McCartney, and Ringo Starr are mutants.
Prototypes of a new race of laughing freemen.
Evolutionary agents sent by God, endowed
with a mysterious power to create a new
-- Timothy Leary
It’s hard for a historian to fully appreciate an era that she or he did not live through. And that holds true for the influence of the Beatles. Their music has held up remarkably well, and for those of us on this forum of a certain age, individual songs bring back associated memories. I am hoping that some of our DU tribal elders will take a moment to remember, and then share with us how some of that era’s changes in thinking became manifest in their lives.
Thank you (you have a nice face),
Posted by H2O Man | Sun Oct 26, 2014, 02:21 PM (1 replies)
Get up, stand up, stand up for your right
Get up, stand up, don't give up the fight
Get up, stand up. Life is your right
So we can't give up the fight
-- Peter Tosh
In the 1980s, there was a general depression among members of the Democratic Left. Despite the advances that appeared to have been achieved in the late 1960s and ‘70s -- which included Richard Nixon’s being forced to resign the presidency -- the election of Ronald Reagan marked a low point in American society. Image became more influential than substance. And so while the Reagan administration was as corrupt as any in our nation’s history, the public -- hypnotized by fireworks, flags, and red, white and blue balloons -- would re-elect the Gipper in 1984.
I was one of those “Mourning in America” ….working to prevent the tides of reaganomics and the immoral majority. There were, not surprisingly, a large number of people who had become convinced that their votes were meaningless. Indeed, they had concluded that participating in electoral politics was worse than simply wasting the time taken by entering the voting booth: it was investing in a scam that created the image of democracy, while robbing it of substance.
I respectfully disagreed then, just as I do today.
I’ve always believed the old saying that “all politics are local.” Grass roots activism is the surest place to find democracy. Real change can only be instituted from the bottom up. More, “democracy” isn’t a goal to be achieved, and then enjoyed. Rather, it is constant struggle, a mind-set that translates into on-going action.
My friends and I started with school board elections. A couple of local women, both registered democrats, were running for seats on a board in an overwhelmingly republican town. At the time, people did not have to be registered voters to cast a ballot in a school board election. They merely had to be at least 18, and a resident of the town for at least ninety days. This meant that there was a reservoir of potential voters that normally did not partyicipate in the school board elections.
We focused on getting two general groups to vote: the town’s young adults, and the inhabitants of low-income neighborhoods. To be sure people actually voted, we set up car pools. By the third time we brought a large group into the school to vote, the powers-that-be began to panic. They knew that our two candidates would win. And even though they would maintain a 5 to 2 majority to control the board, the following year could very well mean we would take a 4 to 3 lead.
When people get anxious that way, they often do stupid things. So it was in this case. School officials began “campaigning” in front of the desk, near the voting booth. Then, they attempted -- without success -- to prevent our people from voting. A few days later, the Center for Constitutional Rights put them on notice that they had violated the law. But, because both of our candidates won, we did not need to take it further.
When any group, especially a “minority,” decides an election, others take notice. This was the case when our group began registering both young adults and those from low-income neighborhoods. In one of the three area counties, the board of elections attempted to discourage our efforts. We did not become discouraged -- quite the opposite. As Minister Malcolm X often said, when you make your opposition squeal, you know that you are doing the right thing. Soon, they began to ignore the completed forms we were mailing in. A letter from the ACLU proved useful in encouraging them to do their jobs correctly.
The effort to discourage people from participating in election contests has a long history in our country. Neither of these cases that I spoke of were big, in terms of state or national influence. Yet they were important in the context of the struggle to vote. They are part of the program, currently headed by republicans at state levels, to deny basic rights to those they believe should not have a say in government. And it’s not just non-white people, or females. It’s young people, especially college students, and poor people, no matter what color or sex they happen to be.
These two cases also illustrate a few very important factors when it comes to elections. First, it is essential that changes begin at that grass roots level. That’s the only foundation upon which to build a real movement. And real movements produce real leadership from within their ranks -- something that the state and national committees cannot currently do, even if they wanted to.
Second, a real movement to bring about change -- to institute social justice -- has to include both young adults and the poor. These are human resources that corporate partiers purposefully marginalize. It’s not a coincidence that, in general, it has been only the black community that has invested in organizing and registering the young and the poor. The Hispanic community appears to be prepared to do much the same. This dynamic alone makes the Washington elite take notice of them.
In closing, I’ll advocate that everyone vote in this election. I’m not concerned if you vote for only democratic candidates, or if you vote what some might consider a protest ballot. Just vote as your conscience dictates. Vote knowing that there are forces at play that would deny you the right to vote, if they can. Vote as a citizen who takes the responsibilities of citizenship seriously.
And then, in 2015, let’s work together, to organize and register those on society’s margins. It’s taken a long time for our country to become as dysfunctional as it currently is; it will take a long time, and a lot of hard work, to turn things around. But we can, and must, do so. Voting in November is just a first step.
Posted by H2O Man | Tue Oct 21, 2014, 06:42 PM (49 replies)
Tomorrow night, HBO will present Gennady Golovkin vs. Marco Antonio Rubio at 10 pm/est. The bout is being held in Carson, CA, and is for Golovkin’s middleweight “title.” The real middleweight champion is Miguel Cotto; however, most of the boxing community recognizes Golovkin as the best fighter in the division. Should he win, it seems likely that he will be able to secure a bout with one of the bigger names in either the middleweight or super middleweight division.
Going into the bout, it seems probable that the hard-punching Golovkin will win. He was a top amateur, and has won all 30 of his professional bouts -- including 27 by knockout. While he has been ready to fight any middleweight, those who have been ranked higher have thus far refused to step into the ring with him. He is currently the “most avoided” person in the sport.
As a result, Golovkin has been fighting the best of the division who are willing to face him. It came as no surprise that Rubio eagerly agreed to fight Golovkin, who will be making his west coast debut. Rubio, 34, made his pro debut in 2000, and has faced many of the best fighters of his era. While some boxing journalists refer to him as a “journeyman,” it is more accurate to view him as a gate-keeper in the division. Although he has come up short when fighting the very best, he has won 15 of his last 16 bouts -- losing only a 12-round decision to the much larger Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr., who entered the ring as a cruiserweight.
Rubio’s record stands at 59-6-1, with 51 knockout victories (and 3 knockout loses). Three of those recent victories came against undefeated young contenders, looking to reach the top of the division. Each of the three ended in a knockout. If you consider him in the context of those last 16 bouts -- the only defeat coming against an opponent who literally was three weight classes higher -- you have a top contender, not a journeyman.
Rubio not only hits hard enough to knock out anyone he hits cleanly, but he has a solid delivery system. More, if he hurts an opponent, he knows how to keep them in serious trouble, until the referee saves his victim from more punishment. That is, of course, the result of having so much high-quality experience.
In the professional ranks, Golovkin has really only been fighting near that top level for about two years. I had the pleasure of watching his American debut from ringside in September of 2012. He was as impressive as advertised. The feature that makes him arguably the most exciting fighter today is his extreme punching power. He can end any fight at any time with a single blow -- and this includes by way of his awesome body blows.
Golovkin is not a physically intimidating fighter, such as a Rubin “Hurricane” Carter. Nor does he seek to mentally destroy his opposition before a bout, as does Bernard Hopkins. Part of the attraction is that, outside the ring, Golovkin is an upbeat, polite, and respectful individual, with a happy, somewhat toothy grin. If you saw him in a public setting, he hardly resembles what might be expected of the most feared man in the sport.
Indeed, even while engaged in a fight, Golovkin never appears to be loading up on a punch. Thus, the punches that can end a bout seem almost effortless. Watching him perform from a ringside seat provides for a much better opportunity to gauge his power. When I saw him hitting tough Gregorz Proksa (who was 28-1, with 21 knockouts), he was raising welts with his body attack. He scored knockdowns in rounds 1, 4, and 5. Proksa was brave indeed, and was absorbing brutal punishment before the fight was stopped in round five. I remember very well how the crowd gave out collective groans as Golovkin was landing vicious punches in rounds four and five.
The crowds attending boxing cards do not, as a general rule, strike me as a compassionate lot. Too often, those who purchase tickets believe that they are entitled to bloodshed. However, when the referee ended the assault on a bloodied, dazed Proksa, everyone had seen enough. And those who truly understand the sport knew that they had just watched a special talent.
Golovkin is heavily favored to win tomorrow night’s fight. And most likely, he will not only win, but accomplish that victory by way of knockout. Here’s why I think that:
First, throughout his career, Rubio has been a slow-starter. He rarely enters the ring fully warmed-up. There is always a risk of being “caught cold” when you haven’t properly warmed-up. Rubio’s first two loses (against opponents who’s combined records were 35-1) came within two rounds. And, in other bouts, he has been hurt -- though he stayed on his feet -- in the first round. Clearly, Golovkin is the wrong guy to fight if not fully prepared. (The three minutes that constitute a round in boxing are far, far longer if you are the fellow being hurt inside that ring!)
Assuming Rubio goes a few rounds, viewers will notice that Gennady Golovkin is a very patient fighter. He has a very high level of “ring intelligence.” Thus, he pursues an opponent like a predator, aware of their every move, seeking to force them into making a mistake. The pressure he puts on forces an opponent to try to keep him at a safe distance, although there is no safety zone inside that ring. Perhaps most impressively, Golovkin has the ability to punch “between” his opponent’s punches with great accuracy. This includes the ability to place his punches (which is distinct from, for example, James Kirkland, the other guy about the same size with extreme power).
I think that it is most likely to end with Golovkin’s superior hand-speed, allowing him to counter Rubio during an exchange somewhere between 4 and 6 rounds. At this point, I’d favor Golovkin over any middleweight. The only two fighters that I think could beat him in 2015 would be Andre Ward at super middleweight, and Floyd Mayweather, Jr., at a “catch weight” between junior middleweight and middleweight. However, in a year’s time, he will be reaching his peak, and potential fights with those two would need to be re-evaluated.
This doesn’t mean that Golovkin is flawless. He is not. And, just as Rubion can’t afford to make any mistake in the ring, neither can Golovkin. Rubio’s best chance will be to try to move Gennady backwards. If he can do this -- even part of the time -- he will be looking to land a hard shot at the end of an exchange -- especially if Golovkin steps straight back. If that happens, look for the boxing journalists to call it “the upset of the year.”
Enjoy the fight!
Posted by H2O Man | Fri Oct 17, 2014, 02:21 PM (6 replies)