I recently got a keyless lock on my front door, and I’ll tell you, it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread.
For the longest time, I wished I could have some kind of automatic door - something like the remote control unit that I was given in college to open the door to my dorm and hall. After I got out of school, my father made a key holder with a small piece of wood. I could handle it well enough, but it was always a challenge, a test, to get the key into the keyhole, especially if I was cold. Yes, it always felt good, like a victory, when I got the door open, but it was a pain, and that it took a few minutes or sometimes more pissed me off.
I kept thinking of those keypads where you punch in a code to open a door. Wouldn’t something like that work? But then all of my attendants would need to know the code, and maybe one of them might let it slip out to someone they knew.... More to the point, though, didn’t something like that cost thousands of dollars? I always thought there was no way to afford what I wanted.
This became an actual problem when I got my Vmax speech device a couple years ago. With it mounted on my wheelchair, unlocking my front door was all but impossible. Soon, I left the door unlocked when I went out on my own with the Vmax. Although my neighborhood is relatively quite quiet and safe, I knew this was unwise, if not asking for trouble. It only got worse when, because it was just easier, I began leaving the door unlocked - just this one time - when I left on my own without the Vmax. An occupational therapy appointment last year was no help at all. (I suspect I’m far more independent than any of the other patients seen.)
So, last month, when I complained about this after I returned home to find that an attendant had inadvertently locked the door, it was suggested I look on-line for a keyless door lock. Well, it turned out - hello! - that there were plenty of them, and I found one that, like many, was under $100, probably because it wasn’t marketed to the disabled (the picture in the ad and on the box when I got it showed a woman at a door with her hands full with a baby and a shopping bag). I ordered it on a Wednesday and, with standard postage, got it on Friday.
One of my attendants, who happens to be quite handy with such things, installed it easily that evening (I had also been worried that installation would be another big cost), and my life changed. The unit works on the dead bolt (I no longer use the door knob lock) and works just like a remote car key, with the fob taped onto the armrest of my wheelchair. There is a satisfying buzz and click when it works, and it even works when I’m in my van in the driveway.
I have to say that, for a day or two, I felt sad and even guilty about not experiencing the thrill of victory in unlocking the door with the key, like I was being lazy and giving up, but I’ve been much more thrilled with it now being so much easier to unlock the door. Like I said, the best thing since sliced bread!
But what about my attendants? How do they get in when I’m not here or when I’m in bed? Do they each need a fob, which I have to order at extra cost? No. As I was reminded, there is a back door that they can use and for which I got them keys. Hello!
Unfortunately, I have been unable to use the Vmax, to have it on my wheelchair - the reason I got the keyless lock - for nearly three months. Unlike sliced bread or the best thing since, this is the pits, and the reason is even more so.
My wheelchair broke down when I was out on January 6. Yes, Happy New Year and Happy Epiphany! Having witnessed my doctor signing a prescription for the new chair, which I can tilt back with the push of a button, back in October and having been told that I should get it in January, I called the vendor to see if I would be getting it soon and was told that my doctor’s prescription hadn’t been received. Why didn’t I know about this?... After making a scene (and later finding out that my doctor had signed the wrong form when I saw him in October), it was straightened out, and we are now waiting for Medi-Cal’s approval.
Meanwhile, I couldn’t get my chair fixed, because Medi-Cal is (hopefully) funding the new one. I have been using a wheelchair which I’m very grateful I have access to, but not only is it not the best for my legs and back, its frame is different and can’t accommodate the mount (which costs hundreds of dollars, being, unlike with the keyless lock, marketed for the disabled) I had for the Vmax. I had been told that the new mount for my new chair could fit on the chair I’m using, but when I received it last month, it turned out that it couldn’t.
So I’m enjoying some good sliced bread - or the best thing since - but I’m also having my share of pits.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
The homeless with us
The following is my column which appeared in Wednesday’s Claremont Courier. I will add that the memorial walk and service on Sunday for the five (known) homeless men who have died in Claremont was one of the most remarkable and powerful gatherings I’ve been to in Claremont. There were about 50 people there, and, while that may not be many, there was strikingly clear, passionate and eloquent talk about the shame of what this community has done and not done with the homeless.
SEEING CLAREMONT AS A SAFE HAVEN
Gregory Tolliver says he won’t rest until he doesn’t have to keep an eye out for the Phil Greenes in Claremont. He says he will keep speaking up until he knows for sure that no more Phil Greenes show up dead in front of City Hall.
That’s the thing. There are a bunch of Phil Greenes here in Claremont. And Mr. Tolliver and the other Occupy Claremont activists say that we are fools not to acknowledge this.
Phil Greene was the homeless man who was found dead at the doorstep of the City Council chamber one morning in January. He was found dead by Mr. Tolliver, who had spoken with Mr. Greene the night before and had, as he had for the previous month and a half, slept in a tent in front of the chamber. Although his and the other tents are no longer there, Mr. Tolliver and the other Occupy Claremont activists are still making noise and working on behalf of the homeless and others in Claremont struggling with poverty and losing homes.
The activists point out that, while they share the name of the national Occupy movement, their focus is very much on Claremont, and homelessness in Claremont is a primary concern.
Homelessness in Claremont. The fact is that Phil Greene wasn’t the only homeless person living on the streets of Claremont. Not only that - he wasn’t the only homeless person to be found dead on the streets of Claremont.
This past Sunday, in the afternoon, a community-wide service was scheduled at the Claremont United Congregational Church, preceded by a procession through the Village. It was a memorial service for Phil Greene and four other homeless people who died in Claremont over the last four years. That’s five people who died, homeless, on the streets of Claremont in the last four years.
It just so happened that Phil Greene died right at the door of City Hall and right when the Occupy Claremont activists were there. This is probably the only reason why we knew about him. This is no doubt why his death was front-page news.
There were four other homeless people who died in Claremont during the last four years that we didn’t know about, that didn’t hit the front page. But these four deaths shouldn’t really be a surprise, because, as Mr. Tolliver and the other activists have discovered and have reported, there are about 28 homeless people living just in the Village area, within two or three blocks of City Hall.
This is only about a six or eight-block area - a very small, tiny area. It doesn’t include all of the rest of Claremont. There may well be at least a few other homeless people living in Claremont.
But, as with the three others who died, we don’t know about these 28 homeless people living in the Village and the others who are probably living in the rest of Claremont. Most of us don’t see them.
Why don’t we see them? Why are Claremont’s homeless people invisible?
The primary and most simple reason is they clear out during the day. They get up early in the morning and head towards Pomona where they can get services - food, healthcare, perhaps a shower. They return here at night to sleep.
Part of the reason for this is Claremont’s anti-camping ordinance. They don’t want it obvious that they are “camping” here, that they are breaking the law.
Even so, they feel safe here. Claremont is no Pomona, no big city. Claremont is known as a safe, quiet place.
For a homeless person, being safe is what it is all about. A homeless person is constantly on the lookout for a safe, out-of-the-way, “invisible” place. For someone who is so vulnerable and who has nowhere to put clothes, blankets, medicine, cash and, yes, cellphones and watches (after all, homeless people do have lives and the things that that requires), finding a place where they won’t be bothered, where they won’t be hurt and robbed, is critical.
There were those killings of homeless men in Orange County earlier this winter. It is easy to see this as a case of easy pickings, with the men literally being stalked. But, as has been pointed out by the Occupy Claremont activists, it is also the fact that two dozen - that’s 24 - homeless people have been assaulted just in the Village during the last year.
What can we do about this? How can we make these people here, many of whom are mentally ill and need medical help, safer? How can we be sure that there are no more Phil Greenes in our midst who end up dead on our doorstep?
Or do we want to do anything about it? Would we rather just ask how we can make them go away, like with a no-camping ordinance, so that they are someplace else and not here?
These are some tough questions, and it appears that the answers are at least as tough. Nearly ten years ago, the Los Angeles County supervisors came up with the idea of having five regional centers throughout the county where the homeless could go for shelter, food and services instead of ending up on L.A’s notoriously crowded and dangerous skid row. However, there was such an outcry from those who didn’t want the homeless in their area, who said that the services would attract the homeless, that the idea was quietly shelved.
At about the same time, which was also when the City established its original camping ban, a group of Claremonters met a number of times to see what could be done for the homeless here. They eventually came up with a monthly meal program, done in rotation at several Claremont churches. I haven’t heard of these meals being stopped, but neither have I heard much about them going on.
The message is that Claremont shouldn’t attract the homeless. At least, not too much.
And, other than monthly meals, it appears that, in a painful irony, there is, as with Jesus, no room at churches. Several Claremont churches have been asked to open their facilities - rooms, restrooms, even showers in one or two cases - for the homeless to use. But something always comes up about liability. Or something.
SEEING CLAREMONT AS A SAFE HAVEN
Gregory Tolliver says he won’t rest until he doesn’t have to keep an eye out for the Phil Greenes in Claremont. He says he will keep speaking up until he knows for sure that no more Phil Greenes show up dead in front of City Hall.
That’s the thing. There are a bunch of Phil Greenes here in Claremont. And Mr. Tolliver and the other Occupy Claremont activists say that we are fools not to acknowledge this.
Phil Greene was the homeless man who was found dead at the doorstep of the City Council chamber one morning in January. He was found dead by Mr. Tolliver, who had spoken with Mr. Greene the night before and had, as he had for the previous month and a half, slept in a tent in front of the chamber. Although his and the other tents are no longer there, Mr. Tolliver and the other Occupy Claremont activists are still making noise and working on behalf of the homeless and others in Claremont struggling with poverty and losing homes.
The activists point out that, while they share the name of the national Occupy movement, their focus is very much on Claremont, and homelessness in Claremont is a primary concern.
Homelessness in Claremont. The fact is that Phil Greene wasn’t the only homeless person living on the streets of Claremont. Not only that - he wasn’t the only homeless person to be found dead on the streets of Claremont.
This past Sunday, in the afternoon, a community-wide service was scheduled at the Claremont United Congregational Church, preceded by a procession through the Village. It was a memorial service for Phil Greene and four other homeless people who died in Claremont over the last four years. That’s five people who died, homeless, on the streets of Claremont in the last four years.
It just so happened that Phil Greene died right at the door of City Hall and right when the Occupy Claremont activists were there. This is probably the only reason why we knew about him. This is no doubt why his death was front-page news.
There were four other homeless people who died in Claremont during the last four years that we didn’t know about, that didn’t hit the front page. But these four deaths shouldn’t really be a surprise, because, as Mr. Tolliver and the other activists have discovered and have reported, there are about 28 homeless people living just in the Village area, within two or three blocks of City Hall.
This is only about a six or eight-block area - a very small, tiny area. It doesn’t include all of the rest of Claremont. There may well be at least a few other homeless people living in Claremont.
But, as with the three others who died, we don’t know about these 28 homeless people living in the Village and the others who are probably living in the rest of Claremont. Most of us don’t see them.
Why don’t we see them? Why are Claremont’s homeless people invisible?
The primary and most simple reason is they clear out during the day. They get up early in the morning and head towards Pomona where they can get services - food, healthcare, perhaps a shower. They return here at night to sleep.
Part of the reason for this is Claremont’s anti-camping ordinance. They don’t want it obvious that they are “camping” here, that they are breaking the law.
Even so, they feel safe here. Claremont is no Pomona, no big city. Claremont is known as a safe, quiet place.
For a homeless person, being safe is what it is all about. A homeless person is constantly on the lookout for a safe, out-of-the-way, “invisible” place. For someone who is so vulnerable and who has nowhere to put clothes, blankets, medicine, cash and, yes, cellphones and watches (after all, homeless people do have lives and the things that that requires), finding a place where they won’t be bothered, where they won’t be hurt and robbed, is critical.
There were those killings of homeless men in Orange County earlier this winter. It is easy to see this as a case of easy pickings, with the men literally being stalked. But, as has been pointed out by the Occupy Claremont activists, it is also the fact that two dozen - that’s 24 - homeless people have been assaulted just in the Village during the last year.
What can we do about this? How can we make these people here, many of whom are mentally ill and need medical help, safer? How can we be sure that there are no more Phil Greenes in our midst who end up dead on our doorstep?
Or do we want to do anything about it? Would we rather just ask how we can make them go away, like with a no-camping ordinance, so that they are someplace else and not here?
These are some tough questions, and it appears that the answers are at least as tough. Nearly ten years ago, the Los Angeles County supervisors came up with the idea of having five regional centers throughout the county where the homeless could go for shelter, food and services instead of ending up on L.A’s notoriously crowded and dangerous skid row. However, there was such an outcry from those who didn’t want the homeless in their area, who said that the services would attract the homeless, that the idea was quietly shelved.
At about the same time, which was also when the City established its original camping ban, a group of Claremonters met a number of times to see what could be done for the homeless here. They eventually came up with a monthly meal program, done in rotation at several Claremont churches. I haven’t heard of these meals being stopped, but neither have I heard much about them going on.
The message is that Claremont shouldn’t attract the homeless. At least, not too much.
And, other than monthly meals, it appears that, in a painful irony, there is, as with Jesus, no room at churches. Several Claremont churches have been asked to open their facilities - rooms, restrooms, even showers in one or two cases - for the homeless to use. But something always comes up about liability. Or something.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
It gets around
A very long time ago - when I was in high school, I think - I went to a small film festival here in Claremont and saw a short documentary called “The More They Know.” I remember it featured a man of small stature - a dwarf, as we used to say - who was a ranger in Yosemite National Park talking about how, after their initial shock and amused or bemused puzzlement, people quickly came to respect and admire him in his job. I don’t recall other people in the film, but the point was that when people get to know disabled people, the more comfortable they are with them.
I thought of this when I read an article in the Los Angeles Times about how it is turning out to be easier for people to accept and perhaps support same-sex marriage when it is presented as a matter of love, family and commitment rather than a matter of equal rights. Not only did the article point out that it is harder for people to say no to people that they know in their families or among their friends or even from T.V shows as more and more come out, it cited the recent case of Wade Kach, a Republican lawmaker in Maryland, where same-sex marriage was approved, having a change of heart when he happened to sit by the witness table during a packed committee hearing on the issue.
“I saw with so many of the gay couples, they were so devoted to each other. I saw so much love,” said the House of Delegates member, who is one brave Republican. “When this hearing was over, I was a changed person in regards to this issue.”
(It occurred to me in reading this article that the rebuttal to the inane argument that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy and people marrying children and even animals - hey, I’ve seen such an argument being made - is to simply have marriage laws state that “marriage shall be between one man and one woman, one man and one man or one woman and one woman.”)
The message was essentially the same when I saw Dan Savage, who started the “It gets better” video project, speak last week at Claremont McKenna College. (I had a ticket to see the wonderful actress and documentary-playwright Anna Deveare Smith speak at Pomona College, but I’m glad I went to see Mr. Savage instead.) Mr. Savage, a gay man who writes a very popular sex column from an alternative paper in Seattle, spoke with much passion (and more than a little humor) about how many queer youth are rejected by their families and churches, sometimes resulting in suicides, and how the “It gets better” videos, now numbering in the thousands and easily accessible on-line, offer them encouraging role models when they otherwise don’t or can’t, often literally not being allowed to, have access to them.
I have mentioned before how Claremont McKenna College is known as the conservative college in Claremont yet, at its Miriam Miner Cook Atheneum where Savage spoke, has done a remarkable job in hosting diverse speakers (I have written about RuPaul speaking there). When a young woman asked how heterosexuals can have healthier, safer sexual encounters, Savage, who strongly echoed my long-held belief that the anti-gay crusade is really a crusade against having fun and pleasure with sex, advised couples to ask each other the simple, magic question, “What are you into?” Think of all the trouble that would end.
Yes, the more they know....
I thought of this when I read an article in the Los Angeles Times about how it is turning out to be easier for people to accept and perhaps support same-sex marriage when it is presented as a matter of love, family and commitment rather than a matter of equal rights. Not only did the article point out that it is harder for people to say no to people that they know in their families or among their friends or even from T.V shows as more and more come out, it cited the recent case of Wade Kach, a Republican lawmaker in Maryland, where same-sex marriage was approved, having a change of heart when he happened to sit by the witness table during a packed committee hearing on the issue.
“I saw with so many of the gay couples, they were so devoted to each other. I saw so much love,” said the House of Delegates member, who is one brave Republican. “When this hearing was over, I was a changed person in regards to this issue.”
(It occurred to me in reading this article that the rebuttal to the inane argument that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy and people marrying children and even animals - hey, I’ve seen such an argument being made - is to simply have marriage laws state that “marriage shall be between one man and one woman, one man and one man or one woman and one woman.”)
The message was essentially the same when I saw Dan Savage, who started the “It gets better” video project, speak last week at Claremont McKenna College. (I had a ticket to see the wonderful actress and documentary-playwright Anna Deveare Smith speak at Pomona College, but I’m glad I went to see Mr. Savage instead.) Mr. Savage, a gay man who writes a very popular sex column from an alternative paper in Seattle, spoke with much passion (and more than a little humor) about how many queer youth are rejected by their families and churches, sometimes resulting in suicides, and how the “It gets better” videos, now numbering in the thousands and easily accessible on-line, offer them encouraging role models when they otherwise don’t or can’t, often literally not being allowed to, have access to them.
I have mentioned before how Claremont McKenna College is known as the conservative college in Claremont yet, at its Miriam Miner Cook Atheneum where Savage spoke, has done a remarkable job in hosting diverse speakers (I have written about RuPaul speaking there). When a young woman asked how heterosexuals can have healthier, safer sexual encounters, Savage, who strongly echoed my long-held belief that the anti-gay crusade is really a crusade against having fun and pleasure with sex, advised couples to ask each other the simple, magic question, “What are you into?” Think of all the trouble that would end.
Yes, the more they know....
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Just a game?
Yes, Whitney Houston died, and Rick Santorum is the latest hot thing who isn’t Mitt Romney. The man who will likely be the next premier in China has been here touring the U.S. But the big news this month, really, has been a football game. The fact is that the Super Bowl on February 5 was the most-watched T.V program. Ever, that is.
This really isn’t a surprise. For the last two or three years, the Super Bowl has been the most-watched television show in history. It’s just that more people watch each year, and this year was no exception.
For as long as I can remember, the Super Bowl has been more than a big deal, all but a national holiday, with millions and millions of people going nuts and looking forward to and watching the game. Even those who aren’t football fans - although not all of us - tune in, and even the commercials are a big deal, not to be missed.
No doubt this is exactly the way the National Football League want it. No doubt it set it up this way. As millions and millions buy into this big show, the NFL rakes in millions and millions of bucks.
But as the NFL loads up with cash, from not only the Super Bowl but also its other games, there are NFL players who are hurting. Seriously.
Two Los Angeles Times sports columnists wrote about this a day or two before the big game. One, Bill Plaschke, wrote about the very serious problem of concussions and head and skull injuries suffered by the players and how the NFL has been awfully slow in doing anything about it. The other, Bill Dwyre, wrote about the NFL leaving retired players out to dry, often in crushing poverty (partly because of lots of medical bills, including for head injuries?).
As Plaschke pointed out, players are no longer allowed to return to a game after their heads have been knocked. No more slap on the back and running back onto the field, dizzy, after having their “bell rung” - a change that came only much pressure, including from a former player committing suicide last year by shooting himself in the chest so that his brain could be examined, and isn’t much talked about. Plaschke wrote about how, at a pre-Super Bowl conference put on by the NFL, hundreds packed a large ballroom to hear what was more or less a pep talk by Commissioner Roger Goodell while just a handful of reporters were in a small meeting room for a panel of physicians talking about head injuries.
Dwyre wrote about how retired NFL players, who attracted all those millions of fans reaping all those millions of dollars for the league, have had to fight, often unsuccessfully, for some sort of pension and healthcare, with the league seeming to have the motto of “Delay, Deny and Hope They Die.” He mentioned one retiree, Jungle Jim Martin, who another retiree found living in a trailer in a field and with a large sore on his face and a hole cut in his tennis shoe so that his foot could fit. Martin’s daughter said that he needed a better place but couldn’t afford the first and last month’s rent. The retiree who found Martin wrote a check on the spot to cover the payment. Martin died in 2002, but things are barely better now, with the NFL having started to pay its former players $124 a month.
This is a very important - indeed, tragic - matter that demands attention. But it doesn’t sell big-screen televisions or go well with Bud Lights and Doritos. And it takes rather than makes money.
This really isn’t a surprise. For the last two or three years, the Super Bowl has been the most-watched television show in history. It’s just that more people watch each year, and this year was no exception.
For as long as I can remember, the Super Bowl has been more than a big deal, all but a national holiday, with millions and millions of people going nuts and looking forward to and watching the game. Even those who aren’t football fans - although not all of us - tune in, and even the commercials are a big deal, not to be missed.
No doubt this is exactly the way the National Football League want it. No doubt it set it up this way. As millions and millions buy into this big show, the NFL rakes in millions and millions of bucks.
But as the NFL loads up with cash, from not only the Super Bowl but also its other games, there are NFL players who are hurting. Seriously.
Two Los Angeles Times sports columnists wrote about this a day or two before the big game. One, Bill Plaschke, wrote about the very serious problem of concussions and head and skull injuries suffered by the players and how the NFL has been awfully slow in doing anything about it. The other, Bill Dwyre, wrote about the NFL leaving retired players out to dry, often in crushing poverty (partly because of lots of medical bills, including for head injuries?).
As Plaschke pointed out, players are no longer allowed to return to a game after their heads have been knocked. No more slap on the back and running back onto the field, dizzy, after having their “bell rung” - a change that came only much pressure, including from a former player committing suicide last year by shooting himself in the chest so that his brain could be examined, and isn’t much talked about. Plaschke wrote about how, at a pre-Super Bowl conference put on by the NFL, hundreds packed a large ballroom to hear what was more or less a pep talk by Commissioner Roger Goodell while just a handful of reporters were in a small meeting room for a panel of physicians talking about head injuries.
Dwyre wrote about how retired NFL players, who attracted all those millions of fans reaping all those millions of dollars for the league, have had to fight, often unsuccessfully, for some sort of pension and healthcare, with the league seeming to have the motto of “Delay, Deny and Hope They Die.” He mentioned one retiree, Jungle Jim Martin, who another retiree found living in a trailer in a field and with a large sore on his face and a hole cut in his tennis shoe so that his foot could fit. Martin’s daughter said that he needed a better place but couldn’t afford the first and last month’s rent. The retiree who found Martin wrote a check on the spot to cover the payment. Martin died in 2002, but things are barely better now, with the NFL having started to pay its former players $124 a month.
This is a very important - indeed, tragic - matter that demands attention. But it doesn’t sell big-screen televisions or go well with Bud Lights and Doritos. And it takes rather than makes money.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Further occupied
The following is my column coming out in today’s Claremont Courier. I will add just that, based on what was said by all of those who addressed this issue during the public comment period at last night’s City Council meeting, I don’t see how the Council could not decide to reverse its decision to shut down Occupy Claremont. (It did appear that it would move in this direction - “these things take time” - although a new site may be suggested.)
THINGS THAT SHOULD OCCUPY US - EXPRESSION, AWARENESS
Last Fall, I was on a roll. I wrote two columns in November on the Occupy movement protesting economic inequality and other injustices. The first was about my visit to Occupy L.A, and the second had to do with how the issues brought up by the nationwide protests, which origintated in the Wall Street financial district in New York City, might be dealt with in Claremont. Obviously, I was very excited and moved and thought that this grass-roots, hands-on movement was the real deal, history being made.
I still think that.
But when the real deal became the real thing here, when Occupy Claremont started not long before Thanksgiving, I didn’t write about it. I may have written a few lines about finding it amusing that the occupiers camped out in front of the City Council chambers, mostly Pitzer College students, packed it in and went home for Thanksgiving, but I otherwise dropped the subject.
Probably because I was more amused than moved.
I have to confess that, with the critical exception of the Sunday afternoon general assemblies, I was thinking of Occupy Claremont as a joke. And not just because of the all-too-literal Thanksgiving break.
Much of this had to do with Occupy Claremont starting when most of the other occupy protests were (forcibly) closing down. Appropriately enough for the time of year, it was like Christmas decorations left up in January and February. Dude, it’s so yesterday, as my teenaged nephew would say. Take a clue from a fellow movement and move on.
Moreover, I kept thinking - yes, cynically and perhaps not getting all the information that I should have - that a few students thought, awfully late in the game, it would be cool to do Occupy Claremont. It was like they were playing Occupy.
I didn’t want to write this. I didn’t want to write that Occupy Claremont is a joke.
But, really, I didn’t have to write this.
For one thing, there were, as I said, the general assemblies on Sunday afternoons. With these sessions, the students made a real effort to make something happen, to at least raise awareness and create a truly open dialogue on economic and other concerns. They made it clear that this was/is more than a camp-out.
Also, even if it has been just a camp-out, it has been there for nearly three months (a month more than Occupy L.A). This is a long time to camp, especially on a cold, hard cement patio (even if this winter has been remarkably mild and dry). This is considerably more of an effort than spray-painting the wall of a bank (how much more constructive and productive the general assemblies are!) or attending an afternoon rally. This is not a joke.
No, when it comes to jokes, what was really a joke was when a man wrote in a letter in these pages that he didn’t feel safe doing his Christmas shopping in the Village with Occupy Claremont there. Really? A man - or a woman or even a child - being afraid of a few scruffy students from an expensive college?
This sounds like an argument from someone desperate for an excuse. A more cogent, more truthful, if no less ridiculous argument is the one in several letters in these pages saying that Occupy Claremont not only takes up public space but, most importantly, does so in an unattractive manner. One recent letter-writer stated that the encampment was “gross” to walk through when attending a city council or commission meeting.
Well, isn’t that the point?
I can’t help but recall that I started out writing about the Occupy movement by mentioning that some people probably were not amused when the Hot Pecans kept saying “Welcome to Occupy Claremont!” during their Friday Night Live performance in early October right where Occupy Claremont has been. Who would have thought there would be an Occupy encampment not only in Claremont, safely away from the big city, but in this very spot? But I did think that these people were uncomfortable and unhappy with such an idea.
This isn’t a surprise. Occupy Claremont isn’t supposed to make us comfortable and happy. Occupy Claremont is supposed to make us uncomfortable and unhappy. It is supposed even to be gross.
Keep in mind that “gross” isn’t the same as messy. It has been noted many times that Occupy Claremont is, in addition to not blocking anyone’s way, notably neat and tidy (not to mention safe and crime-free). But, as it is supposed to and as with all the other Occupy protests, Occupy Claremont makes us think about messy, uncomfortable, unhappy, gross issues. It makes us face homelessness, poverty, inequality and other unpleasant things.
These people would rather not see and deal with these ugly things and are cheering the City Council’s decision to include Occupy Claremont in the city’s camping ban - a decision that is not only a joke but a bad one. Saying that Occupy Claremont is a camp and thus has to be cleared is most unreasonable, because, as has been made clear, it is, as a mode of expression raising awareness, so much more than a camp.
A popular argument with those who are against Occupy Claremont is that the City wouldn’t have let the encampment stay up so long if it was done by Tea Party folks. I have to say that, putting aside the Tea Party message not really fitting with the camping mode as with the Occupy protests, they have a point and the City should let the Tea Partiers protest in this manner, as long as, like with Occupy Claremont, it is neat and tidy and doesn’t pose a threat or danger (as with, say, a white power group).
So, now, Occupy Claremont is due to clear out or be cleared out later this month. This is, unfortunately, no joke at all. It will be even less so if force and violence are involved.
THINGS THAT SHOULD OCCUPY US - EXPRESSION, AWARENESS
Last Fall, I was on a roll. I wrote two columns in November on the Occupy movement protesting economic inequality and other injustices. The first was about my visit to Occupy L.A, and the second had to do with how the issues brought up by the nationwide protests, which origintated in the Wall Street financial district in New York City, might be dealt with in Claremont. Obviously, I was very excited and moved and thought that this grass-roots, hands-on movement was the real deal, history being made.
I still think that.
But when the real deal became the real thing here, when Occupy Claremont started not long before Thanksgiving, I didn’t write about it. I may have written a few lines about finding it amusing that the occupiers camped out in front of the City Council chambers, mostly Pitzer College students, packed it in and went home for Thanksgiving, but I otherwise dropped the subject.
Probably because I was more amused than moved.
I have to confess that, with the critical exception of the Sunday afternoon general assemblies, I was thinking of Occupy Claremont as a joke. And not just because of the all-too-literal Thanksgiving break.
Much of this had to do with Occupy Claremont starting when most of the other occupy protests were (forcibly) closing down. Appropriately enough for the time of year, it was like Christmas decorations left up in January and February. Dude, it’s so yesterday, as my teenaged nephew would say. Take a clue from a fellow movement and move on.
Moreover, I kept thinking - yes, cynically and perhaps not getting all the information that I should have - that a few students thought, awfully late in the game, it would be cool to do Occupy Claremont. It was like they were playing Occupy.
I didn’t want to write this. I didn’t want to write that Occupy Claremont is a joke.
But, really, I didn’t have to write this.
For one thing, there were, as I said, the general assemblies on Sunday afternoons. With these sessions, the students made a real effort to make something happen, to at least raise awareness and create a truly open dialogue on economic and other concerns. They made it clear that this was/is more than a camp-out.
Also, even if it has been just a camp-out, it has been there for nearly three months (a month more than Occupy L.A). This is a long time to camp, especially on a cold, hard cement patio (even if this winter has been remarkably mild and dry). This is considerably more of an effort than spray-painting the wall of a bank (how much more constructive and productive the general assemblies are!) or attending an afternoon rally. This is not a joke.
No, when it comes to jokes, what was really a joke was when a man wrote in a letter in these pages that he didn’t feel safe doing his Christmas shopping in the Village with Occupy Claremont there. Really? A man - or a woman or even a child - being afraid of a few scruffy students from an expensive college?
This sounds like an argument from someone desperate for an excuse. A more cogent, more truthful, if no less ridiculous argument is the one in several letters in these pages saying that Occupy Claremont not only takes up public space but, most importantly, does so in an unattractive manner. One recent letter-writer stated that the encampment was “gross” to walk through when attending a city council or commission meeting.
Well, isn’t that the point?
I can’t help but recall that I started out writing about the Occupy movement by mentioning that some people probably were not amused when the Hot Pecans kept saying “Welcome to Occupy Claremont!” during their Friday Night Live performance in early October right where Occupy Claremont has been. Who would have thought there would be an Occupy encampment not only in Claremont, safely away from the big city, but in this very spot? But I did think that these people were uncomfortable and unhappy with such an idea.
This isn’t a surprise. Occupy Claremont isn’t supposed to make us comfortable and happy. Occupy Claremont is supposed to make us uncomfortable and unhappy. It is supposed even to be gross.
Keep in mind that “gross” isn’t the same as messy. It has been noted many times that Occupy Claremont is, in addition to not blocking anyone’s way, notably neat and tidy (not to mention safe and crime-free). But, as it is supposed to and as with all the other Occupy protests, Occupy Claremont makes us think about messy, uncomfortable, unhappy, gross issues. It makes us face homelessness, poverty, inequality and other unpleasant things.
These people would rather not see and deal with these ugly things and are cheering the City Council’s decision to include Occupy Claremont in the city’s camping ban - a decision that is not only a joke but a bad one. Saying that Occupy Claremont is a camp and thus has to be cleared is most unreasonable, because, as has been made clear, it is, as a mode of expression raising awareness, so much more than a camp.
A popular argument with those who are against Occupy Claremont is that the City wouldn’t have let the encampment stay up so long if it was done by Tea Party folks. I have to say that, putting aside the Tea Party message not really fitting with the camping mode as with the Occupy protests, they have a point and the City should let the Tea Partiers protest in this manner, as long as, like with Occupy Claremont, it is neat and tidy and doesn’t pose a threat or danger (as with, say, a white power group).
So, now, Occupy Claremont is due to clear out or be cleared out later this month. This is, unfortunately, no joke at all. It will be even less so if force and violence are involved.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Civil conversation in a time of incivility
Bill Moyers is back. After retiring for the second or third time, this ever-thoughtful journalist, who served as President Johnson’s press secretary, has returned - for the election year? - with a new weekly, hour-long program on PBS called “Moyers & Company.” It features Moyers’ usual long, deep conversations with guests and impassioned yet measured commentary. There is also a website - www.billmoyers.com/.
I have to admit that I found the first two episodes, starting in mid-January, which focused laser-like on what Moyers calls “crony capitalism,” wearying, although I totally share his concern with the power of money and moneyed interests in this country. My curiosity and excitement were much more piqued by a guest on the third program, Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist who teaches at the University of Virginia and who has a book coming out next month called “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.”
What I found fascinating was Haidt’s premise that liberals and conservatives literally can’t talk to each other because they literally can’t compromise. This is because they literally see each other as evil and, therefore, compromising - or “being compromised” - with each other as evil.
Evil is an awfully strong word, but, disturbingly, it fits pretty well here. Take welfare, for instance. Conservatives are actually offended by welfare, because it violates their genuine belief in the Protestant work ethic, in earning what one has through hard, honest work. Someone getting something, especially something like a living, for nothing messes this up in an intolerable way. In addition, they see it as terribly unfair, especially when they are working hard and honestly.
On the other hand, liberals take offense at the denial of welfare, which they see as cold and heartless.
This - taking offense and seeing evil in each other - makes it all but impossible for the two sides to come together. Again, compromise is a dirty word, seen as selling out, a bad thing. (During the interview, Moyers showed a clip from a 60 Minutes interview with House speaker John Boehner shortly after the debt ceiling crisis, in which Leslie Stahl could barely get Boehner to utter the word.) It is Haidt’s hope and purpose in his new book that understanding this will lead to breaking the gridlock.
Even more striking, if not all the more disturbing, is Haidt’s notion or finding that, politics aside, a sizable majority of Americans agree with the conservative viewpoint and values. It’s not that they are stern and without compassion, but they do strongly believe in such things as authority, dedication (as in loyalty, hard work, etc.) and fairness. It is when these are taken to extremes that things get so tough.
I have to admit that I found the first two episodes, starting in mid-January, which focused laser-like on what Moyers calls “crony capitalism,” wearying, although I totally share his concern with the power of money and moneyed interests in this country. My curiosity and excitement were much more piqued by a guest on the third program, Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist who teaches at the University of Virginia and who has a book coming out next month called “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion.”
What I found fascinating was Haidt’s premise that liberals and conservatives literally can’t talk to each other because they literally can’t compromise. This is because they literally see each other as evil and, therefore, compromising - or “being compromised” - with each other as evil.
Evil is an awfully strong word, but, disturbingly, it fits pretty well here. Take welfare, for instance. Conservatives are actually offended by welfare, because it violates their genuine belief in the Protestant work ethic, in earning what one has through hard, honest work. Someone getting something, especially something like a living, for nothing messes this up in an intolerable way. In addition, they see it as terribly unfair, especially when they are working hard and honestly.
On the other hand, liberals take offense at the denial of welfare, which they see as cold and heartless.
This - taking offense and seeing evil in each other - makes it all but impossible for the two sides to come together. Again, compromise is a dirty word, seen as selling out, a bad thing. (During the interview, Moyers showed a clip from a 60 Minutes interview with House speaker John Boehner shortly after the debt ceiling crisis, in which Leslie Stahl could barely get Boehner to utter the word.) It is Haidt’s hope and purpose in his new book that understanding this will lead to breaking the gridlock.
Even more striking, if not all the more disturbing, is Haidt’s notion or finding that, politics aside, a sizable majority of Americans agree with the conservative viewpoint and values. It’s not that they are stern and without compassion, but they do strongly believe in such things as authority, dedication (as in loyalty, hard work, etc.) and fairness. It is when these are taken to extremes that things get so tough.
Friday, February 3, 2012
No-fault war
America has been at war in the Middle East for over a decade. That’s a long time. If I’m not mistaken, it’s longer than any war the U.S has been in. Yes, we are out of Iraq, more or less, but we’re still in Afghanistan, and I’m not seeing any quick, easy exit coming up.
I think a big part of why this war has dragged on is that it’s not real. That’s right - not real. For many of us, it is a video game. There is no draft, and most people don’t know anyone fighting. I don’t. This is in contrast to the Vietnam War, when everyone knew someone who was fighting - and probably dying - and was protesting.
What’s more, we now have drones. These unmanned planes, which drop bombs in Afghanistan, are controlled by a guy working a shift in a room somewhere in America. Talk about a video game!
And now there’s a plane coming out, the X-47B, which can not only land itself on an aircraft carrier but also will know what kind of weapons it’s carrying, when and where it needs to refuel with an aerial tanker and whether there’s a nearby threat. As Carl Johnson, Northrop’s X-47B program manager, was recently quoted in the Los Angeles Times, “It will do its own math and decide what to do next.”
So, as the Times article brings up, who is responsible for the bombs dropped and the deaths they cause? The commander who used the plane? The politician who authorized it? The military’s acquisition process? The programmer? The manufacturer?
And what if, dear God, there’s a glitch?
I think a big part of why this war has dragged on is that it’s not real. That’s right - not real. For many of us, it is a video game. There is no draft, and most people don’t know anyone fighting. I don’t. This is in contrast to the Vietnam War, when everyone knew someone who was fighting - and probably dying - and was protesting.
What’s more, we now have drones. These unmanned planes, which drop bombs in Afghanistan, are controlled by a guy working a shift in a room somewhere in America. Talk about a video game!
And now there’s a plane coming out, the X-47B, which can not only land itself on an aircraft carrier but also will know what kind of weapons it’s carrying, when and where it needs to refuel with an aerial tanker and whether there’s a nearby threat. As Carl Johnson, Northrop’s X-47B program manager, was recently quoted in the Los Angeles Times, “It will do its own math and decide what to do next.”
So, as the Times article brings up, who is responsible for the bombs dropped and the deaths they cause? The commander who used the plane? The politician who authorized it? The military’s acquisition process? The programmer? The manufacturer?
And what if, dear God, there’s a glitch?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)