Did You Miss Me?

Well, it's been a while since I've posted anything. Not because I haven't had anything to say . . . quite the contrary. I am so overwhelmed by all the things rattling around in my brain that I am having trouble sorting them out to make a sensible, readable post. Nevertheless, I will now attempt to clear out the clutter and comment on Life, the Universe, and Everything . . . or at least, the NCAA, the hurricane aftermath, and the nature of history.

But first, an aside: I believe there is a great cosmic significance in the close time proximity of the deaths of Bob Denver and William Rehnquist. What that significance is, however, I do not want to know.

On the NCAA

The NCAA, in its non-infinite wisdom, recently issued an edict forbidding schools in any NCAA playoffs to use mascots or nicknames that are stereotypes or otherwise offensive. Read: you can't use any Native American symbols/names/themes.

Several schools, most prominently among them Florida State, protested. After all, Florida State's nickname, the Seminoles, and its mascot, Osceola, have been carefully constructed with the help of Florida's Seminole population not to be stereotypical, but to be accurate and positive images. Since Florida's Seminole population largely agreed with Florida State, the NCAA relented and gave Florida State a waiver from its new policy.

And that is as it should be. If we are outlawing stereotypes, accurate and positive portrayals are by definition exempt. Besides, what's the point of banning the use of such stereotypes only during NCAA playoffs? If the stereotype is offensive, it's offensive 100% of the time. [You want to get rid of an offensive nickname? Make the Washington DC NFL team change its name. "Redskins" is offensive, period. After all, you wouldn't call a team the N*****s, now would you?--Ed.]

I, for one, might be happy to see the NCAA ban the use of the "Fighting Irish" leprechaun at Notre Dame. The belligerent little fellow w/ his fists and his shillelagh is not my idea of an accurate and positive image at all. On the other hand, I feel about it not unlike how Whoopi Goldberg feels about bad ethnic stereotypes in old advertising and the like. She collects examples of such stereotyping to keep everyone's memories alive as to how bad it was, to show how far we've come, and to acknowledge that history cannot be changed to make it pretty. It is what it is.

The Hurricane Aftermath

First, let me say I am glad to see that the vaunted generosity of the American public deserves its reputation. The outpouring of help and support so far has been enormous, as it should be. And it extends not just to the people devastated by Katrina, but also to their pets. The Humane Society is making huge efforts to find and rescue pets lost to their families because of the storm, and to give them necessary medical treatment and to try to reunite them with their humans.

I am particularly pleased about that because I believe that since pets cannot speak for themselves, if we do not care for them, we reveal ourselves as lesser beings by our indifference.

I guess it's part and parcel of the notion that how great a society is becomes plain when examining how that society treates the least of its members. By that standard, the federal government has failed miserably along the Gulf Coast.

A right-wing friend (yes, I have them; it is important to keep the lines of communication open. Besides, we all have more in common than some of us might be willing to admit) sent me a email positing that the reason for all the looting and violence in New Orleans was because the welfare state has created a permanent underclass that acts and reacts more like Iraqi insurgents than like human beings trying to cope with a crisis.

I knew at some fundamental level that that was just wrong. It not only blames the victim, it smacks of racism. But not until this morning did I realize WHY that reasoning was wrong: the looting and violence did not start until AFTER it was clear that the federal government and just about everyone else was blowing off helping these people. It is akin to the news photos of white people and black people in the aftermath of the storm: white people were said to be finding food; blacks, on the other hand, were said to be looting.

Do not get me wrong. I know there is truth to the looting reports. But it started only after several days of federal inaction had passed. If the National Guard had been put in place right away, as it would have been had, say, Kennebunkport been devastated by a hurricane, the total breakdown of the social compact that we saw would not have happened.

And why weren't National Guard troops put in place right away? Because most of them were off fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why did the flooding happen in the first place? Because the budget for levee maintenance had been siphoned off to finance the so-called war on terror.

I heard in an NPR report this morning that Republicans are saying that there was more than enough money given to infrastructure maintenance in Louisiana even though the money spent was less than 1/3 of what the Army Corps of Engineers said it needed. Why was it more than enough money? According to one of the Republican Congressmen who made the decision, Louisiana got $.4 billion more than California, and "California has 7 times the population."

What's wrong with this picture? You don't base infrastructure spending on the size of the population most immediately affected. You base it on the need. I daresay that Louisiana has at least 7 times the risk of flooding from hurricanes as does California.

The congressman in question also implied that the money that WAS given was not all spent where it was supposed to be used (remember, Louisiana still has a lot of Democrats in official positions in high places, like the governorship).

But there's no sense in finger-pointing and making accusations against the Bush administration's inadequacies, because we have a job to do, and we cannot afford to be divisive when there is so much work to be done.

Talk about "Things That Make You Go Wha?!?!?!"

We are not all incapable of multitasking. Furthermore, we need to assess what went wrong, why, and who is responsible, so that we can keep it from happening again. If we wait until the clean-up is done and everything is back to normal, two things will happen: (1) no one will care any longer. Americans do have notoriously short attention spans; and (2) those who should be held accountable will get off scotfree.

And that tain't right, Magee.

It is not impossible to examine what happened and make corrections and assign blame where needed while at the same time working to help those whose lives have been demolished by the storm. And I don't mean poor Trent Lott and his "beautiful house" that was destroyed by the storm--you know, the one Dubya is going to help him rebuild so that he and Lott can sit on the porch together. It's not exactly as if Lott has no other home to go to, and no job because the storm wiped out his place of employment, and no other income or resources on which to draw.

The Emperor is still naked. It's long, long past the time we faced up to that and dealt with it.

The Nature of History

I've been discussing with a friend what is the nature of history. Humans have an inborn need to organize and categorize things, and the way we choose to organize our history reveals much about ourselves.

(OK, I should say most humans have a need to organize. One of my best friends rightly says his desk is "The Black Hole of Calcutta." I cannot work in such clutter and chaos; it seems to short-circuit my brain cells, and I literally cannot think amongst such a mess. He, on the other hand, thrives on it. Chacun a son gout.)

The Victorians gave us the notion of history as inevitable progress. This notion was majorly discredited in the wake of things like the sinking of the HMS Titanic and the publishing of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but its echoes can still be heard, especially in elementary and high school history textbooks.

Some believe that history is a cyclical thing: "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." Just compare the attitude of those in power in the federal government now with that of those in power in the 1890s if you doubt it. Others think history moves like a pendulum: every generation reacts against its parents, so the 60s begat the 80s, 90s, and 00s (think "Family Ties" and Alex P. Keaton), and with any luck, the 80s, 90s, and 00s will beget a revival of the best attitudes of the 60s somehere down the road. (And I'm not talking Lava Lamps, people.)

My own take is that aspects of all these things are true, as long as one is able to add a pinch of irony. Lincoln wanted a "soft" Reconstruction of the Union, but his assassination made that impossible-yet his assassin's goal and aim (pun intended) in killing Lincoln was to help and protect the South. JFK wanted civil rights legislation, but didn't push hard for it, and it wasn't going to pass even if he had--until he was assassinated, that is.

I don't know. Maybe history is on an ever-downward spiral. (I cite the existence of Gangsta Rap in support.) No, I don't seriously believe that. But I do believe (as the two examples in the previous paragraph attest) that history has a large measure of "be careful what you ask for, for you just might get it" kind of a "gotcha" karma to it. Part of me wonders why we have to put any characterizations on history at all, but the better part of me knows that human nature makes it inevitable that we do so.

Here endeth the lesson.