Saturday, October 01, 2005
Ypsilanti 1971
Whilst in junior high, the author of CC had the nickname, Moose.
Moose was fond of reading, thus visited the Ypsilanti public library often. He rode his bicycle there, leaving it unlocked at the bike rack behind the building. Nobody ever bothered it.
In 1971, the library got its first coin-operated Xerox machine. Moose made a copy of a picture of a Nike missile, from a book about military history. It cost 10 cents: real money, back then. It took about thirty seconds to make one copy, then the paper had to be left in the rack while hot air dried the toner. Truly, a marvel of modern technology.
In
1971, no one could have imagined how many trees ultimately would be
felled, to satiate the hunger of the Xerox machines churned out by
American industry. We did know, however, that American
industry knew no bounds. We'd gone to the moon, and back,
several times. The National Aeronautics and Space Act had
been passed in 1958, the year Moose was born. By 1969, the
astronauts of Apollo 11 bounded upon the Moon. In 1971, the
Apollo program was winding down, but teenage boys were chattering
excitedly about the plans for a space station.
Every teenage boy wanted to be an astronaut. Moose had wispy stands of facial hair on his chin. He could not wait to get old enough to be an astronaut. By then, surely, we would be building cities on Mars.
James Taylor's song, You've Got a Friend, won a Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Performance. The song had captured the preeminent emotion of the Nation, for that period of time. An upstart pizza chain, Dominoes, was flourishing after having been started in Ypsilanti. The explosive growth of Dominoes was due to a simple innovation: quick home delivery, using -- of course -- the automobile.
In 1973, there was a little group of upstarts, known mostly to policy wonks. They went by the acronym OPEC. The Average Citizen of our Great Nation had little reason to know about OPEC, much less worry about them. On so they thought. From Wikipedia:
During
the middle third of the twentieth century, the I-94 corridor, running
west from Detroit, had been populated with factories serving the
automobile industry. Ypsilanti was no exception. If
I recall correctly, about one-third of economic activity in Ypsilanti
was related directly to the automobile industry. OPEC changed
that. By the end of 1973, auto plants and storefronts were
closing, as unemployment lines were growing.
Moose and his family moved out of Ypsilanti. It was no longer possible to leave a bicycle unlocked downtown. The nickname Moose was nearly forgotten. In fact, it was no longer appropriate. Moose was shaving pretty much daily by then.
Ypsilanti did recover, eventually. EMU built a business school in the downtown area, boosting the revitalization efforts. Later, they erected a fountain on their central campus: a memorial to the influential labor leader, Cesar Chavez.
New Dominoes pizzerias sprouted like mushrooms, each one standing as a
memorial to American ingenuity and the centrality of the automobile in
American life.
Fast forward to 2005. The Nike missile on the old Xerox copy has long since faded, having been printed on flimsy facsimile paper with first-generation toner. And the headlines tell us that the Visteon plant in Ypsilanti is closing. The article answers some of our questions. The good news is that the employees will be transferred to the Rawsonville plant, so the impact on the city will not be so great as what was seen in 1973. The bad news is that the tax base in the city will shrink, and the businesses that provided goods and services to the plant and its employees will be affected.
The unanswered question: is this when the dominoes start to fall?
(Note: The Rest of the Story/Corpus Callosum has moved. Visit the new site here.)
E-mail a link that points to this post:
Comments (0)
Moose was fond of reading, thus visited the Ypsilanti public library often. He rode his bicycle there, leaving it unlocked at the bike rack behind the building. Nobody ever bothered it.
In 1971, the library got its first coin-operated Xerox machine. Moose made a copy of a picture of a Nike missile, from a book about military history. It cost 10 cents: real money, back then. It took about thirty seconds to make one copy, then the paper had to be left in the rack while hot air dried the toner. Truly, a marvel of modern technology.
In
1971, no one could have imagined how many trees ultimately would be
felled, to satiate the hunger of the Xerox machines churned out by
American industry. We did know, however, that American
industry knew no bounds. We'd gone to the moon, and back,
several times. The National Aeronautics and Space Act had
been passed in 1958, the year Moose was born. By 1969, the
astronauts of Apollo 11 bounded upon the Moon. In 1971, the
Apollo program was winding down, but teenage boys were chattering
excitedly about the plans for a space station. Every teenage boy wanted to be an astronaut. Moose had wispy stands of facial hair on his chin. He could not wait to get old enough to be an astronaut. By then, surely, we would be building cities on Mars.
James Taylor's song, You've Got a Friend, won a Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Performance. The song had captured the preeminent emotion of the Nation, for that period of time. An upstart pizza chain, Dominoes, was flourishing after having been started in Ypsilanti. The explosive growth of Dominoes was due to a simple innovation: quick home delivery, using -- of course -- the automobile.
In 1973, there was a little group of upstarts, known mostly to policy wonks. They went by the acronym OPEC. The Average Citizen of our Great Nation had little reason to know about OPEC, much less worry about them. On so they thought. From Wikipedia:
The 1973 oil crisis began in earnest on October 17, 1973, when Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), during the Yom Kippur War, announced that they would no longer ship petroleum to nations that had supported Israel in its conflict with Egypt—that is, to the United States and its allies in Western Europe.
At around the same time, OPEC members agreed to use their leverage over the world price-setting mechanism for oil in order to quadruple world oil prices. The complete dependence of the industrialized world on oil, much of which was produced by Middle Eastern countries, became painfully clear to the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan, requiring Western policymakers to respond to international economic constraints that were qualitatively different from those faced by their predecessors.
During
the middle third of the twentieth century, the I-94 corridor, running
west from Detroit, had been populated with factories serving the
automobile industry. Ypsilanti was no exception. If
I recall correctly, about one-third of economic activity in Ypsilanti
was related directly to the automobile industry. OPEC changed
that. By the end of 1973, auto plants and storefronts were
closing, as unemployment lines were growing.Moose and his family moved out of Ypsilanti. It was no longer possible to leave a bicycle unlocked downtown. The nickname Moose was nearly forgotten. In fact, it was no longer appropriate. Moose was shaving pretty much daily by then.
Ypsilanti did recover, eventually. EMU built a business school in the downtown area, boosting the revitalization efforts. Later, they erected a fountain on their central campus: a memorial to the influential labor leader, Cesar Chavez.
Fast forward to 2005. The Nike missile on the old Xerox copy has long since faded, having been printed on flimsy facsimile paper with first-generation toner. And the headlines tell us that the Visteon plant in Ypsilanti is closing. The article answers some of our questions. The good news is that the employees will be transferred to the Rawsonville plant, so the impact on the city will not be so great as what was seen in 1973. The bad news is that the tax base in the city will shrink, and the businesses that provided goods and services to the plant and its employees will be affected.
The unanswered question: is this when the dominoes start to fall?
(Note: The Rest of the Story/Corpus Callosum has moved. Visit the new site here.)
E-mail a link that points to this post:
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
More Protest Notes
I haven't yet uploaded the pictures I took at the rally, but I have
collected some from around the 'net. John
Conyer's blog pointed to this
collection. Other Flickr collections are here
and here.
Another collection is here.
The C-Span
video is here: ANSWER
Coalition Rally Against War in Iraq
(09/24/2005)
-- but it would not work for me, giving a page not found
error.
Some pro-war sites have pictures as well: here, here, and here. Global Cop has more here; Global Cop was liveblogging, so you have to go to his several posts from 9/25/2005 to find the pictures. There are photos from the LA protest here.
Naturally, I cannot merely find, organize, and post links. My right hemisphere demands equal time. Accordingly, I am going to respond to a comment left here, by Callimachus (Done With Mirrors, The Sciolist)...
From my perspective, the problem is not how do we avoid alienating moderates? Rather, the problem is, how do political moderates find a way to make their voices heard? One way is to latch on to people who know how to get their message across. Perhaps it is not ideal, but it one way to address the problem. Moreover, and again speaking purely from my own perspective, the fact that a quiet moderate type of guy would go so far as to associate with radicals, is a way of showing the people I know, personally, that I am serious about my antiwar sentiment. I would not put myself in that position unless I felt strongly about it.
In that way, the street theater put on by others is something that accentuates the message I sent to my friends and coworkers by attending the rally. My decision to go to the rally had nothing to do with the national media. I was not trying to change the world by going to Washington. Instead, it was a way for me to influence the small groups of people that I realistically can influence: those who know me personally. Perhaps there will be a bit of influence on those who read this blog, and who know that I am a pretty serious guy, not prone to extravagant display of emotion. But that really is not high on my agenda.
The reason that I emphasized, in my previous post, the small-group interactions that took place at the rally, is that I believe that it is personal influence in small groups that is the most powerful agent of change. In fact, there is reason to believe that it is persons who have loose ties, with multiple small groups, who have the greatest social impact. Such persons act as channels through which ideas can flow from one group to another. See The Strength Of Loose Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. Granovetter, Mark S. (1982). It is not in the public domain, but you can find out about the concept by Googling "The strength of loose ties" with the quotes. (I have a PDF copy of the paper somewhere, and it probably would fall into a "fair use" category for me to share it with a small number of interested individuals.)
Will there be some people who are put off by the street theater? Sure, but they will forget about it after a short while. In contrast, the persons whom I can influence will not forget quickly, because one does not readily forget the actions taken by those whom they know personally. I cannot prove that the latter affect outweighs the former, but I tend to think it does.
Some pro-war sites have pictures as well: here, here, and here. Global Cop has more here; Global Cop was liveblogging, so you have to go to his several posts from 9/25/2005 to find the pictures. There are photos from the LA protest here.
Naturally, I cannot merely find, organize, and post links. My right hemisphere demands equal time. Accordingly, I am going to respond to a comment left here, by Callimachus (Done With Mirrors, The Sciolist)...
That's a thoughtful post. But as one who is not convinced by the anti-war rhetoric, but is open to a reasonable discussion about it, I find the presence of so many "radicals" at the microphone and the bullhorn off-putting.The fact is, I am close to the last person on the planet who would engage in any kind of "street theater," and I knew perfectly well who was sponsoring the event. I do not agree with much of what they had to say. So why go? The reason is that quiet moderate types do not seem to have any inclination to organize this kind of thing. When they do, I'll go to their rallies instead.
Even if I know most of the people there were not as fierce as the leaders and speakers, I'd be concerned about a movement that lets the fringe rush the stage and hold it all day.
You might want to consider the ultimate goal of the rally: Was it to expose the already-converted to even more radical agendas? Then why make a media spectacle of it?
Or was it to convince the not-yet convinced that there's a good case to be made for -- immediate withdrawal from Iraq, impeachment, whatever it is that the rally is addressing.
It's an age-old problem for groups in this situation. Back in the '60s, was middle America turned against the Vietnam War by the antics of Abbie Hoffman, or by its own reflection on the casualty list and by institutions like Life magazine and Walter Cronkite?
If what I suspect is correct, and the hippie street theater made it more difficult, not easier, for straight-laced America to turn against its government, then why repeat the mistake?
From my perspective, the problem is not how do we avoid alienating moderates? Rather, the problem is, how do political moderates find a way to make their voices heard? One way is to latch on to people who know how to get their message across. Perhaps it is not ideal, but it one way to address the problem. Moreover, and again speaking purely from my own perspective, the fact that a quiet moderate type of guy would go so far as to associate with radicals, is a way of showing the people I know, personally, that I am serious about my antiwar sentiment. I would not put myself in that position unless I felt strongly about it.
In that way, the street theater put on by others is something that accentuates the message I sent to my friends and coworkers by attending the rally. My decision to go to the rally had nothing to do with the national media. I was not trying to change the world by going to Washington. Instead, it was a way for me to influence the small groups of people that I realistically can influence: those who know me personally. Perhaps there will be a bit of influence on those who read this blog, and who know that I am a pretty serious guy, not prone to extravagant display of emotion. But that really is not high on my agenda.
The reason that I emphasized, in my previous post, the small-group interactions that took place at the rally, is that I believe that it is personal influence in small groups that is the most powerful agent of change. In fact, there is reason to believe that it is persons who have loose ties, with multiple small groups, who have the greatest social impact. Such persons act as channels through which ideas can flow from one group to another. See The Strength Of Loose Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380. Granovetter, Mark S. (1982). It is not in the public domain, but you can find out about the concept by Googling "The strength of loose ties" with the quotes. (I have a PDF copy of the paper somewhere, and it probably would fall into a "fair use" category for me to share it with a small number of interested individuals.)
Will there be some people who are put off by the street theater? Sure, but they will forget about it after a short while. In contrast, the persons whom I can influence will not forget quickly, because one does not readily forget the actions taken by those whom they know personally. I cannot prove that the latter affect outweighs the former, but I tend to think it does.
(Note: The Rest of the Story/Corpus Callosum has moved. Visit the new site here.)
E-mail a link that points to this post:
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Corrective Emotional Experience
Looking through the photos that are available, so far, from the 9/24/2005
peace rally in Washington DC, it appears that three basic
themes predominate. One is the size of the crowd; another,
the intensity of expressed emotion; the third, the incidence of people
who dressed funny. The problem is, those three categories of
photo do not convey the core of the experience of being there; nor do
they capture what, to me, is the area of greatest human interest.
The crowd was massive. But early in the morning, the crowd was not so dense as to preclude freedom of movement. It even was possible for individuals and small groups to have moments of relative privacy. I noticed that people in general were aware when others were having an emotional moment, and respected the appropriateness of privacy and boundaries.
There were a lot of individuals who ended up having moments of intense feelings. I did not photograph any of those. Even if I had, I would not post them.
Those of you who have had emotional reactions, based upon the photos posted online so far, may be in need of a corrective emotional experience. Actually, come to think of it, that is not exactly the correct term to convey what I am trying to convey. It is not a formal term (yet), but I guess what I am thinking is that people may need a supplementary emotional experience. So here are three pictures to supplement what has been posted elsewhere.
One of the most important aspects of the experience of being at the rally, was the sharing that occurred in small groups. The photo above was taken while I was sitting on the ground, and I did not hold the camera up to my eye, so it is not framed very well. Even so, it captures a moment in the experience of a small group of young women....girls, I guess, if that term is still politically acceptable.
Another small group: these people were, I think, associated with Camp Casey. They made a lengthy chain with pictures of the troops who have died in combat. They later carried it along the march route. I'm reasonably sure that the experience of doing that was emotionally evocative for those who participated.
These are people ambulating among the crosses. Notice the couple holding hands. I'm sure they have a story to tell, although I have no idea what it is. Notice how the rest of the crowd was giving them some space. There must have been a reason for that.
I was not close enough to see the expressions on their faces, and did not want to be intrusive by waiting until I could get a good telephoto shot.
I did see a lot of individuals crying. One in particular, whom I would have liked to have photographed, was a youngish woman sitting on the ground, by a display of empty military footwear: boots on the ground. She was weeping quietly. People gave her the physical space to do so, granting that particular kind of privacy that one can sometimes get, even in the midst of a couple hundred thousand people.
My moment came when I happened to see a picture of a woman receiving a flag from an Army officer, during the course of a military funeral.
When I was 17, I was a bit of a jock, a teenage boy, not yet very aware of my own emotional states. My uncle, who had been in the Coast Guard during WWII, died. I was in a speech class at the time, and my family came to get me. They must have called the college to find out where I was. A couple of days later, I went to the funeral. I still remember the feeling of the cold steel of the coffin handle, having been one of the pallbearers.
Despite being an active participant in the ritual, I did not experience much emotion. Not much, that is, until the officer handed the flag to my aunt. She burst into tears. At that moment, I became a little bit more of an adult.
In my first post about the rally, I emphasized the need for people to get the pertinent information, and evaluate it individually, critically. Naturally, the raw data present only half the story. The emotional experience of being at the rally is the other half. Some of those emotions were shared among the crowd. But some were entirely private. Some had nothing to do with the stated purpose of the rally, or were related only peripherally.
In order to grow into adulthood, or to continue one's growth as an adult, we need to use our intuition to seek out those experiences that generate resonance in our emotional lives. Shielding yourself from such experiences is maladaptive. Dismissing the experiences of others is mean-spirited and unhelpful.
The crowd was massive. But early in the morning, the crowd was not so dense as to preclude freedom of movement. It even was possible for individuals and small groups to have moments of relative privacy. I noticed that people in general were aware when others were having an emotional moment, and respected the appropriateness of privacy and boundaries.
There were a lot of individuals who ended up having moments of intense feelings. I did not photograph any of those. Even if I had, I would not post them.
Those of you who have had emotional reactions, based upon the photos posted online so far, may be in need of a corrective emotional experience. Actually, come to think of it, that is not exactly the correct term to convey what I am trying to convey. It is not a formal term (yet), but I guess what I am thinking is that people may need a supplementary emotional experience. So here are three pictures to supplement what has been posted elsewhere.
One of the most important aspects of the experience of being at the rally, was the sharing that occurred in small groups. The photo above was taken while I was sitting on the ground, and I did not hold the camera up to my eye, so it is not framed very well. Even so, it captures a moment in the experience of a small group of young women....girls, I guess, if that term is still politically acceptable.
Another small group: these people were, I think, associated with Camp Casey. They made a lengthy chain with pictures of the troops who have died in combat. They later carried it along the march route. I'm reasonably sure that the experience of doing that was emotionally evocative for those who participated.
These are people ambulating among the crosses. Notice the couple holding hands. I'm sure they have a story to tell, although I have no idea what it is. Notice how the rest of the crowd was giving them some space. There must have been a reason for that.
I was not close enough to see the expressions on their faces, and did not want to be intrusive by waiting until I could get a good telephoto shot.
I did see a lot of individuals crying. One in particular, whom I would have liked to have photographed, was a youngish woman sitting on the ground, by a display of empty military footwear: boots on the ground. She was weeping quietly. People gave her the physical space to do so, granting that particular kind of privacy that one can sometimes get, even in the midst of a couple hundred thousand people.
My moment came when I happened to see a picture of a woman receiving a flag from an Army officer, during the course of a military funeral.
When I was 17, I was a bit of a jock, a teenage boy, not yet very aware of my own emotional states. My uncle, who had been in the Coast Guard during WWII, died. I was in a speech class at the time, and my family came to get me. They must have called the college to find out where I was. A couple of days later, I went to the funeral. I still remember the feeling of the cold steel of the coffin handle, having been one of the pallbearers.
Despite being an active participant in the ritual, I did not experience much emotion. Not much, that is, until the officer handed the flag to my aunt. She burst into tears. At that moment, I became a little bit more of an adult.
In my first post about the rally, I emphasized the need for people to get the pertinent information, and evaluate it individually, critically. Naturally, the raw data present only half the story. The emotional experience of being at the rally is the other half. Some of those emotions were shared among the crowd. But some were entirely private. Some had nothing to do with the stated purpose of the rally, or were related only peripherally.
In order to grow into adulthood, or to continue one's growth as an adult, we need to use our intuition to seek out those experiences that generate resonance in our emotional lives. Shielding yourself from such experiences is maladaptive. Dismissing the experiences of others is mean-spirited and unhelpful.
(Note: The Rest of the Story/Corpus Callosum has moved. Visit the new site here.)
E-mail a link that points to this post:
Corrective Emotional Experience
Looking through the photos that are available, so far, from the 9/24/2005
peace rally in Washington DC, it appears that three basic
themes predominate. One is the size of the crowd; another,
the intensity of expressed emotion; the third, the incidence of people
who dressed funny. The problem is, those three categories of
photo do not convey the core of the experience of being there; nor do
they capture what, to me, is the area of greatest human interest.
The crowd was massive. But early in the morning, the crowd was not so dense as to preclude freedom of movement. It even was possible for individuals and small groups to have moments of relative privacy. I noticed that people in general were aware when others were having an emotional moment, and respected the appropriateness of privacy and boundaries.
There were a lot of individuals who ended up having moments of intense feelings. I did not photograph any of those. Even if I had, I would not post them.
Those of you who have had emotional reactions, based upon the photos posted online so far, may be in need of a corrective emotional experience. Actually, come to think of it, that is not exactly the correct term to convey what I am trying to convey. It is not a formal term (yet), but I guess what I am thinking is that people may need a supplementary emotional experience. So here are three pictures to supplement what has been posted elsewhere.
One of the most important aspects of the experience of being at the rally, was the sharing that occurred in small groups. The photo above was taken while I was sitting on the ground, and I did not hold the camera up to my eye, so it is not framed very well. Even so, it captures a moment in the experience of a small group of young women....girls, I guess, if that term is still politically acceptable.
Another small group: these people were, I think, associated with Camp Casey. They made a lengthy chain with pictures of the troops who have died in combat. They later carried it along the march route. I'm reasonably sure that the experience of doing that was emotionally evocative for those who participated.
These are people ambulating among the crosses. Notice the couple holding hands. I'm sure they have a story to tell, although I have no idea what it is. Notice how the rest of the crowd was giving them some space. There must have been a reason for that.
I was not close enough to see the expressions on their faces, and did not want to be intrusive by waiting until I could get a good telephoto shot.
I did see a lot of individuals crying. One in particular, whom I would have liked to have photographed, was a youngish woman sitting on the ground, by a display of empty military footwear: boots on the ground. She was weeping quietly. People gave her the physical space to do so, granting that particular kind of privacy that one can sometimes get, even in the midst of a couple hundred thousand people.
My moment came when I happened to see a picture of a woman receiving a flag from an Army officer, during the course of a military funeral.
When I was 17, I was a bit of a jock, a teenage boy, not yet very aware of my own emotional states. My uncle, who had been in the Coast Guard during WWII, died. I was in a speech class at the time, and my family came to get me. They must have called the college to find out where I was. A couple of days later, I went to the funeral. I still remember the feeling of the cold steel of the coffin handle, having been one of the pallbearers.
Despite being an active participant in the ritual, I did not experience much emotion. Not much, that is, until the officer handed the flag to my aunt. She burst into tears. At that moment, I became a little bit more of an adult.
In my first post about the rally, I emphasized the need for people to get the pertinent information, and evaluate it individually, critically. Naturally, the raw data present only half the story. The emotional experience of being at the rally is the other half. Some of those emotions were shared among the crowd. But some were entirely private. Some had nothing to do with the stated purpose of the rally, or were related only peripherally.
In order to grow into adulthood, or to continue one's growth as an adult, we need to use our intuition to seek out those experiences that generate resonance in our emotional lives. Shielding yourself from such experiences is maladaptive. Dismissing the experiences of others is mean-spirited and unhelpful.
The crowd was massive. But early in the morning, the crowd was not so dense as to preclude freedom of movement. It even was possible for individuals and small groups to have moments of relative privacy. I noticed that people in general were aware when others were having an emotional moment, and respected the appropriateness of privacy and boundaries.
There were a lot of individuals who ended up having moments of intense feelings. I did not photograph any of those. Even if I had, I would not post them.
Those of you who have had emotional reactions, based upon the photos posted online so far, may be in need of a corrective emotional experience. Actually, come to think of it, that is not exactly the correct term to convey what I am trying to convey. It is not a formal term (yet), but I guess what I am thinking is that people may need a supplementary emotional experience. So here are three pictures to supplement what has been posted elsewhere.
One of the most important aspects of the experience of being at the rally, was the sharing that occurred in small groups. The photo above was taken while I was sitting on the ground, and I did not hold the camera up to my eye, so it is not framed very well. Even so, it captures a moment in the experience of a small group of young women....girls, I guess, if that term is still politically acceptable.
Another small group: these people were, I think, associated with Camp Casey. They made a lengthy chain with pictures of the troops who have died in combat. They later carried it along the march route. I'm reasonably sure that the experience of doing that was emotionally evocative for those who participated.
These are people ambulating among the crosses. Notice the couple holding hands. I'm sure they have a story to tell, although I have no idea what it is. Notice how the rest of the crowd was giving them some space. There must have been a reason for that.
I was not close enough to see the expressions on their faces, and did not want to be intrusive by waiting until I could get a good telephoto shot.
I did see a lot of individuals crying. One in particular, whom I would have liked to have photographed, was a youngish woman sitting on the ground, by a display of empty military footwear: boots on the ground. She was weeping quietly. People gave her the physical space to do so, granting that particular kind of privacy that one can sometimes get, even in the midst of a couple hundred thousand people.
My moment came when I happened to see a picture of a woman receiving a flag from an Army officer, during the course of a military funeral.
When I was 17, I was a bit of a jock, a teenage boy, not yet very aware of my own emotional states. My uncle, who had been in the Coast Guard during WWII, died. I was in a speech class at the time, and my family came to get me. They must have called the college to find out where I was. A couple of days later, I went to the funeral. I still remember the feeling of the cold steel of the coffin handle, having been one of the pallbearers.
Despite being an active participant in the ritual, I did not experience much emotion. Not much, that is, until the officer handed the flag to my aunt. She burst into tears. At that moment, I became a little bit more of an adult.
In my first post about the rally, I emphasized the need for people to get the pertinent information, and evaluate it individually, critically. Naturally, the raw data present only half the story. The emotional experience of being at the rally is the other half. Some of those emotions were shared among the crowd. But some were entirely private. Some had nothing to do with the stated purpose of the rally, or were related only peripherally.
In order to grow into adulthood, or to continue one's growth as an adult, we need to use our intuition to seek out those experiences that generate resonance in our emotional lives. Shielding yourself from such experiences is maladaptive. Dismissing the experiences of others is mean-spirited and unhelpful.
(Note: The Rest of the Story/Corpus Callosum has moved. Visit the new site here.)
E-mail a link that points to this post:
Initial Responses to Antiwar Rally in D.C.
First, the observations, then the hypotheses; the conclusions follow.
The rally/march/concert/speeches were mainly sponsored and organized by radical groups. However most of the attendees were not radicals. The antiwar aspect of the rally was merely the focal point, since the Iraq war was the most egregious of the alleged offenses perpetrated by the Administration.
Several speakers at the rally before the march commented specifically on the diversity of the crowd, and made the explicit point that people do not all need to have the same slogan in order to get together for a common cause. Several attendees made it clear that they had agendas of their own.
One of the most frequent chants, and the one that energized the crowd most effectively, was "IMPEACH BUSH NOW;" nobody chanted, "CONVICT BUSH NOW." Many of the people there dressed funny.
Most of the people there looked pretty normal. Most had a protest t-shirt, or something like that, but otherwise looked like any pedestrian.
All of the events held so far (more events are taking place as this is being written), have been complex interactions between thousands of people. I think that any generalizations that could be drawn would necessarily be rather limited in their utility.
Different news organizations have reported on the events in various ways, covering some events but not others Some were presented with a slant or a spin; others objectively.
What conclusions can be drawn from those observations? A few hypotheses have been advanced in the Blogosphere (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ). Let us examine some of the hypotheses and see what conclusions can be drawn.
Does it "taint" the reputation of, or the points made by, the nonradicals, since the activities were organized by radicals? (If a conservative student speaks up on a liberal campus, are her points less valid because the campus is liberal? If liberals attend a conservative University, does that make the entire University more credible? Less? )
Does the diversity of those participating in the events mean anything? {If you need to move a sofa to a new house, is it necessary that all the people who help, be members of the same political party? If they all have a common purpose, why can't they get together and cooperate for a little while? The sofa still gets moved, even if Jane Fonda is carrying one end, while Donald Rumsfeld carries the other. (Stranger things have happened.)}
Does the variability in news coverage mean anything?
Does the fact that reporters sometimes do some of their writing before the event diminish the credibility of the reporting?
From my standpoint, the main general conclusions are these:
1. A bunch of people are pissed off at the Administration, and want the President and vice-President to be impeached and convicted, for a variety of reasons. (But even the President and vice-President are entitled to due process under the law.)
2. Some people enjoy wearing funny clothes and getting their picture taken. (But the messenger is not the message. Everyone knows that already.)
3. The media choose to cover (or not) various events in various ways. Liberals think the media are too conservative; conservatives think they are too liberal. I think the media outlets each have a little bit of their own agenda, and the rest of the variation is due to factors that are either random or trivial. (One such factor is the fact that reporters have deadlines, as a result, they may do some of the writing before the event; each instance of this should be judged separately.) Trying to draw meaningful conclusions based upon random or trivial factors can be fun for bloggers, but it is not particularly meaningful. If there is a general conclusion to be drawn about this, it is that the media are not very reliable.
People cannot sit back and expect information that is spoon-fed to them to be objective; they need to do their own research and their own analysis. Hey, maybe we should try listening to what people actually said. Or reading the text of Cindy Sheehan's speech.
Start with the observations.
It turns out that there are few if any useful generalizations that can be made concerning the rally, or those who were at the rally, or those who have reported on the rally. However, there was a lot of information presented at the rally; that is where are attention should be.
The rally/march/concert/speeches were mainly sponsored and organized by radical groups. However most of the attendees were not radicals. The antiwar aspect of the rally was merely the focal point, since the Iraq war was the most egregious of the alleged offenses perpetrated by the Administration.
Several speakers at the rally before the march commented specifically on the diversity of the crowd, and made the explicit point that people do not all need to have the same slogan in order to get together for a common cause. Several attendees made it clear that they had agendas of their own.
One of the most frequent chants, and the one that energized the crowd most effectively, was "IMPEACH BUSH NOW;" nobody chanted, "CONVICT BUSH NOW." Many of the people there dressed funny.
Most of the people there looked pretty normal. Most had a protest t-shirt, or something like that, but otherwise looked like any pedestrian.
All of the events held so far (more events are taking place as this is being written), have been complex interactions between thousands of people. I think that any generalizations that could be drawn would necessarily be rather limited in their utility.
Different news organizations have reported on the events in various ways, covering some events but not others Some were presented with a slant or a spin; others objectively.
What conclusions can be drawn from those observations? A few hypotheses have been advanced in the Blogosphere (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ). Let us examine some of the hypotheses and see what conclusions can be drawn.
Does it "taint" the reputation of, or the points made by, the nonradicals, since the activities were organized by radicals? (If a conservative student speaks up on a liberal campus, are her points less valid because the campus is liberal? If liberals attend a conservative University, does that make the entire University more credible? Less? )
Does the diversity of those participating in the events mean anything? {If you need to move a sofa to a new house, is it necessary that all the people who help, be members of the same political party? If they all have a common purpose, why can't they get together and cooperate for a little while? The sofa still gets moved, even if Jane Fonda is carrying one end, while Donald Rumsfeld carries the other. (Stranger things have happened.)}
Does the variability in news coverage mean anything?
Does the fact that reporters sometimes do some of their writing before the event diminish the credibility of the reporting?
From my standpoint, the main general conclusions are these:
1. A bunch of people are pissed off at the Administration, and want the President and vice-President to be impeached and convicted, for a variety of reasons. (But even the President and vice-President are entitled to due process under the law.)
2. Some people enjoy wearing funny clothes and getting their picture taken. (But the messenger is not the message. Everyone knows that already.)
3. The media choose to cover (or not) various events in various ways. Liberals think the media are too conservative; conservatives think they are too liberal. I think the media outlets each have a little bit of their own agenda, and the rest of the variation is due to factors that are either random or trivial. (One such factor is the fact that reporters have deadlines, as a result, they may do some of the writing before the event; each instance of this should be judged separately.) Trying to draw meaningful conclusions based upon random or trivial factors can be fun for bloggers, but it is not particularly meaningful. If there is a general conclusion to be drawn about this, it is that the media are not very reliable.
People cannot sit back and expect information that is spoon-fed to them to be objective; they need to do their own research and their own analysis. Hey, maybe we should try listening to what people actually said. Or reading the text of Cindy Sheehan's speech.
Start with the observations.
It turns out that there are few if any useful generalizations that can be made concerning the rally, or those who were at the rally, or those who have reported on the rally. However, there was a lot of information presented at the rally; that is where are attention should be.
(Note: The Rest of the Story/Corpus Callosum has moved. Visit the new site here.)
E-mail a link that points to this post:
