Vancouver Reflections

While waiting for my food in a Gastown restaurant, I wrote the following impressions of Vancouver:

1. It's true. Canadians are nice. They even use "Sorry , Out of Service" signs on their buses (emphasis added).
2. Very few black or brown people.
3. Not many homeless people downtown. My cab driver said the Eastside "is famous for homelessness." I assume the police have expedited that phenomenon.
4. Most women wear no makeup.
5. The beach is fantastic, unlike any in San Francisco.
6. Stanley Park is more beautiful than Golden Gate Park.
7. I've seen few BMWs and no Lamborginis.

Noticing three articulate women at a nearby table, I asked them if I could share my notes so they could correct any incorrect statements of fact. They consented and we had a spirited conversation. It turns they work for a charitable foundation and had lots of opinions on my comments.

They agreed that Canadians are nice, but when I read my observation about not seeing many black or brown people, they curiously told me that 52% of Vancouverites do not have English as their first language.  When I restated that I had not seen many black or brown people downtown, they said Vancouver is a collection of neighborhoods, which include some with substantial black and brown populations. But when I consulted the Wikipedia, I learned that black and brown people constitute only 1% of Vancouver's population. Strange. Why did they not simply acknowledge that reality?

Concerning homeless people, their comments were extensive, for they work with a charitable foundation. They said the reasons include a commitment to provide sufficient shelters, income support, and social services. They insisted the police do not tell panhandlers to leave the downtown area.

I explored the Eastside, which is about a mile from downtown, and did see considerable visible poverty. I talked with people in that neighborhood about why there are so few panhandlers in affluent downtown Vancouver. Most people said it was because so few are desperately poor. But one individual said private security guards encourage panhandlers to go elsewhere. And one legal aid group is suing the city on behalf of a homeless man who kept getting arrested for sleeping outdoors because he considered the shelters too dangerous.

But the fact remains: I saw few panhandlers anywhere and little visible severe poverty, in a city roughly the same size as San Francisco. So I assume the social welfare policies of British Columbia and Vancouver are very supportive, which minimizes visible poverty.

This foundation of economic security likely contributes to the general cultural atmosphere. The town is remarkably peaceful, quiet, and low stress. San Francisco is mellow for the United States, but Vancouver is in another league.

My three consultants agreed most Vancouver women don't wear makeup. The one who was somewhat defensively said, "I didn't used to." Another commented, "We're granola."

Concerning the lack of fancy cars, they assured me I could find them in certain neighborhoods and I'm sure they were right. But I suspect less so than in the Bay Area.

Other observations:

1. A t-shirt that read, "Keep calm and carry on."
2. Many bus passengers would say thank you to the driver even when exiting the rear door.
3. Rapid transit trains have signs announcing the next station.
4. The buses post "Transit Rules" and "Transit Offences" and are very quiet.

One of my informants asked me if I would like to live in Vancouver. My immediate response was yes. But that night I saw "20 Feet from Stardom" about the history of black backup singers in popular music and realized that in fact I would choose San Francisco, for I value the direct and indirect exposure to and interaction with black and brown culture and people. Even though I get irritated by the noisy buses, the depth of passion I encounter is enriching. Vancouver is simply too homogeneous for my taste. The richness and diversity of the Bay Area deepens my experience and enhances my learning. It's home, sweet home.

My Travelogue on Facebook

FYI, as I travel, I am posting photos and captions on Facebook as Wade Hudson.
Wade

Stressed-out America
By Wade Lee Hudson

Shortly before leaving on my expedition to Alaska, I wake up with a dream that is so vivid, I write it down and interpret it. It goes:

I am arrested for criticizing an elected official I formerly supported. While detained I am questioned and brutally beaten. I refuse to answer their questions. Eventually a well-connected female Catholic co-worker bails me out. I go to a meeting of my cohort to discuss next steps. A large contingent is critical of me. It is unclear who is going to facilitate the meeting. I consider whether I should do so myself. I think about the speech I want to make. But I remain silent, calm and relaxed, waiting to see what will happen.

As I learned from the Gestalt method of dream interpretation, I ask myself if the various elements of the dream represent various aspects of myself. I quickly answer that the dream is about my tendency to beat myself up with harsh judgments prompted by concerns about what others think about me. But as the dream suggests, I'm learning to worry less about what others think, forgive myself and accept myself for who I am, and stop trying to make things happen.

Rather, I've decided to actively wait and prepare myself to better respond in the future when opportunities for action emerge, without assuming that I will play a leadership role. For one thing, given the fact that Americans are so biased against old people, co-equal collaboration with younger people is difficult.

So, for now, I’ll learn as much as I can by reading and observing, engaging in authentic dialog whenever I can, ask questions, try to better understand the people I encounter, spend more time enjoying myself, be available to talk about myself if and when others express interest, and accept it when others are not interested in anything other than superficial conversation.

My experience on the Amtrak train suggests that Americans may be even more self-obsessed – for understandable reasons – than they were 20 years ago, the last time I rode the train a considerable distance.

When one goes to the dining car, one is assigned a seat at a table with strangers. Not once did I have a  meaningful, mutual conversation. The most memorable meal included a recently laid off woman, another woman who had to sell her house and cars when her husband suddenly died and take a job as a Walgreen's manager, and a young male child care worker who talked about his troubles at work. I asked them questions to probe a bit deeper and they seemed to welcome the chance to talk. But other than one superficial question, they never asked me anything. Par for the course. But this time I shook it off quickly and moved on.

My take is that they, like many Americans, are understandably worried about their own situation and feel they don't have energy for others. I'm not sure they are right. Being more present to others might help them as a by-product. But that's not for me to judge. I certainly have often been very self-centered myself.

The Vancouver Folk Festival was incredibly soulful, with musicians from 18 countries. Sharing it with Brandon, Kristen, Azure, and Theo was a wonderful experience. I hope to write about it more here later. Music transports me into a meditative state. I need to listen to music more. Maybe this event will prompt me to do so.

But the best moment was when The Family said goodbye. Kristen told the boys, "Tell Wade bye." And Theo ran up to me, jumped on my leg, and wrapped his arms around my leg.

I may never forget that moment!

Zimmerman, Celebrities, Heroes, and Villains

Zimmerman, Celebrities, Heroes, and Villains

By Wade Lee Hudson

The prosecution blew it. The police and their associates united behind the “blue wall of silence.” The jury will go home welcomed by their own tribe in a racially divided community. And, as I discussed last week in “America’s Celebrity Complex,” George Zimmerman, a victim of our ego-driven society, will bask for years in the glory of celebrity (and no doubt cash in).

Rather than presenting a rational step-by-by step narrative based on the facts of the case and honestly analyzing when it is justified to use deadly force, the prosecution relied on an emotional attack on Zimmerman’s character. They didn’t even emphasize that when Zimmerman shot Martin they were on grass far from the concrete that the defense claimed was Martin’s weapon. They didn’t emphasize that Zimmerman could have driven to the back gate where recent burglars had escaped. They didn’t emphasize how few minutes remained before the police arrived after receiving Zimmerman’s phone call. They didn’t discuss whether, if he feared for his life, Zimmerman could have shot Martin elsewhere than in the heart.

Chris Serino, the chief investigating detective, recommended a manslaughter charge shortly after the incident. But the police chief overruled him, and then removed him from the detective squad and forced him to work the graveyard shift in uniform. Message received. After being forced into a trial by the state’s special prosecutor, Serino and most of his associates in the system protected the Chief and offered testimony helpful to the defense while testifying for the prosecution. Whether consciously or not, they protected their colleagues, apparently hiding behind the “blue wall of silence.”

Zimmerman wanted to “hunt fugitives” but couldn’t get a job in law enforcement. He wanted to be honored by his neighbors. Like Nora in Claire Messud’s novel, The Woman Upstairs, Zimmerman could have said “There’s no telling what I might do…. I could become the best-known fucking [crime watch volunteer) in America, out of sheer spite…. I’m angry enough to set fire to a house just by looking at it....” By becoming a vigilante, he succeeded.

But most of us, I suspect, are afflicted with similar anger-driven passion to defeat “the enemy” and motivated by wanting to be widely praised for being the hero in a white hat. But as Michael Shaughnessy commented in response to “America’s Celebrity Complex,” heroes and celebrities are two different creatures.

Four individuals responded to last week’s “America’s Celebrity Complex,” One commented, “Thank you Wade,” and another said she looked forward to discussing the following passage, which I briefly addressed earlier in “The Pursuit of Beauty,” when we visit soon:

…the pursuit of Truth, Justice, and Beauty – three sides of the same Reality. The experience of one leads to the experience of the other two. In my case, I hope that by finding more Beauty, I will better understand Truth and Justice, moment by moment.

“America’s Celebrity Complex,” opened with “The glorification of celebrities disempowers ordinary people. We learn to believe that success requires being widely recognized for some remarkable achievement.” On Facebook, Linda Lorah responded, "Now Wade, most of us are not that dumb - we know that just isn't so. Give ordinary people some credit.”

I replied, “May be. I certainly am that dumb myself. After a brief search I found no good data. So I am not sure if the problem applies to most or only to many. Thanks for the feedback.”

In “The Revolt of the Invisible Woman,” which prompted my reflections, Claire Messud stated, “Perhaps as a result of all this, today more and more of us seem to be afflicted by a kind of celebrity complex.” Her qualified formulation may be more accurate. And Lorah may be right: “most of us” may not be caught up in the egocentric celebrity culture.

I’d be interested in your thoughts. Are most of us disempowered because we place others on a pedestal or try to be placed there ourselves, resulting in grandiose fantasies that undermine our ability to have a positive impact?

All I know is that I believe that I have been.

The fourth response to “America’s Celebrity Complex” was Shaughnessy, a high school teacher, who wrote:

Thanks for the thoughtful reflection and the reference to the book review. Working with adolescents for so long has made me notice that many of them cannot distinguish heroism from celebrity. While I wonder whether the concept of heroism might conflict with your "self-less" focus, I believe (young) people do need to pay attention to what kind of person they want to become, and looking at people who have stood up for truth, beauty and justice can be an important part of that.
A second reflection that came to me as I was reading the book review segment is the incidence of eating disorders among "successful" young women. In my experience, many/most are high-achieving, affluent young women. I'm not sure how this connects with your premise, but thought I would share the proposition.
You can identify me, but I don't need to be named.
peace,
shag

When I replied, “Good to hear. Thanks much. How do you define ‘hero’?” Shaugnessy said, “People who have stood up for truth, beauty and justice. I also use the term ‘Upstander’ (from Facing History) as opposed to the ‘Bystanders’ who didn't stand up in the face of slavery, the Holocaust...”

Is it heroic to kill someone who is 40 pounds lighter, while fighting on grass knowing the police are on their way? I think not. But it certainly has made Zimmerman a celebrity. And I sense each of us should ask ourselves if we have some Zimmerman inside us.

America’s Celebrity Complex

The glorification of celebrities disempowers ordinary people. We learn to believe that success requires being widely recognized for some remarkable achievement.

Children are told, “You can be anything you want to be.” The latest trend in schooling is to give all students a “You Are a Winner” badge regardless of their performance – because if one is not a “winner” one is a “loser.” And losing is terrible (supposedly).
.
My grandfather raised me to be a professional baseball player. I was not only convinced I would play in the big leagues. Until I was thirteen, I was certain I would be first string shortstop for the New York Yankees. Once that dream was shattered, my mother repeatedly told me, “You’re going to be a great man,” which I took to mean that I would be so acknowledged by others.

As a young adult, I agreed with The Doors: “We want it all and we want it now.” During my 45 years of community organizing, most of my projects focused on unrealistic goals. these grandiose efforts did bear some fruit, often as unexpected byproducts. We shot for the moon and hit some stars. But like Don Quixote I tilted at windmills and fought unwinnable battles (though my opponents were real).

In retrospect, I feel this work was too ego-driven. Down deep, I really wanted others to consider me to be “a great man.” I was seduced by the dominant culture. In this regard, I am far from alone.

In “The Revolt of the Invisible Woman,” a New York Review of Books commentary on Claire Messud’s novel, The Woman Upstairs, Alison Lurie writes:

“The celebrity culture” now separates us into a privileged minority who are recognized as fully and triumphantly human, and a majority who are not.... The very title of the popular journal People implies that only those featured in it are real; the rest of us, by definition, are lesser, more shadowy beings.... 

Perhaps as a result of all this, today more and more of us seem to be afflicted by a kind of celebrity complex.... In advanced cases of celebrity complex, the afflicted persons feel that fame is necessary to self-esteem; if they cannot achieve it themselves, they may define and value themselves most importantly as fans.... 

In the past it was usually enough to be capable in your own life.... 

People with a celebrity complex...call attention to themselves through eccentric behavior, or volunteer to be humiliated on reality TV shows. Sometimes they manage to shove their way into the company of a celebrity.... Even apparently successful people can suffer from a lethal celebrity complex. 

When The Woman Upstairs begins, Nora has become convinced that she is a nonperson. She is not only oppressed by her own insignificance, but scornful of everyone who is equally cut off from fame.... In fact she is acknowledged and admired and thanked by her students and their parents, but somehow that doesn’t count.... 

For her, Real Life means being a successful, famous, and glamorous artist. Anything else, by implication, is unreal.... 

Without success and fame one is a nonperson.... 

At the top of the imaginary pyramid they all hope to scale are a lot of rich, ambitious, successful people whose dominant quality seems to be selfishness.... 

To fail and fall back into ordinary “mediocre” life seems a terrible fate.... 

He is also occasionally haunted by his provincial middle-class origins, and by fears that his beautiful only daughter, Marina, may not be “entirely out of the ordinary.”... 

Nora Eldridge is a kind of Madame Bovary for our time, someone who dreams not of romantic passion but of personal fame, in which the envy of the less fortunate figures importantly. ... 

Nora is like Emma Bovary…in the conviction that she needs the love of glamorous and important individuals to give her life meaning. In her world, … there are a few thoroughly nice people, but they are not famous, and thus not interesting or useful to her.... 

Only famous and special people are fully visible and human, and…the world naturally revolves around these persons.... 

She [Nora] still believes in and longs for fame, only now she is looking for another path to it, through rage:

You don’t want to know how angry I am. Nobody wants to know about that. I am furious at both of them—at the lie of their friendship, their false promises of the world and of art and of love…. No longer young, no longer pretty, no longer loved, or sweet, or lovable,…There’s no telling what I might do…. I could become the best-known fucking artist in America, out of sheer spite…. I’m angry enough to set fire to a house just by looking at it....

There have been many cases of friends of the famous who have turned into enemies, of fans who have turned into stalkers. Like deranged, disappointed lovers, these people have attacked those by whom they felt, perhaps justifiably, slighted or betrayed. They have invaded their former idols’ homes, stolen and destroyed their work, and sometimes done worse. As a result they too have achieved a kind of horrible notoriety. 

It is possible that Nora Eldridge will follow this downward path. After all, her last words in the book are a scary distillation of the plea, or demand, that anyone who desperately wants to become famous always makes to the world: “Just watch me.”

How many recent incidents of mass murder have been motivated by this kind of rage?

To let go of my desire to be acknowledged as a great person, I remind myself that there is no Savior. Neither I nor anyone else is the point. The point is the person or issue I face. That should be my focus: How can I serve others?

Our first question often is: Does this relationship meet my needs?

But when that question is the starting point, true love evaporates.

Being “selfless” does not require self-sacrifice. It merely requires less self -- being less self-centered than is the norm.

Everyone is both special and ordinary. All of us are like leaves on an enormous tree. If we stay humble, remember that no one really knows for sure how we should proceed, and trust the wisdom of crowds, we can accept ourselves for who we are and be satisfied with whatever contribution we can make. Fortunately the universe will take care of herself.

Then we can accept compliments like icing on a cake, rather than being addicted to the sugar.

In the meantime, I plan to listen more. When I travel, I may video interviews with folks and share links to edited versions on Wade’s Weekly and Reform-Wall-Street.org. Maybe we can gain some insights about how best to proceed by being better observers.

After a long sabbatical from organizing, I may become inspired to initiate another project and try to help attract participation in that project. Or, better yet, I’ll be invited to participate in a truly holistic community.

Or I may just focus on writing, photography, and video as ways to connect, inform, enrich, and inspire. Regardless, my driving force shall continue to be the pursuit of Truth, Justice, and Beauty – three sides of the same Reality. The experience of one leads to the experience of the other two. In my case, I hope that by finding more Beauty, I will better understand Truth and Justice, moment by moment.

Kuttner on Debt

CONTENTS:
--Kuttner on Debt
--A Warm Response from Australia

Kuttner on Debt

In his illuminating “The Debt We Shouldn’t Pay,” a review of David Graeber’s Debt: The First 5,000 Years, Robert Kuttner offers some highly relevant insights. He states:

In Graeber’s exhaustive, engaging, and occasionally exasperating book, three themes stand out. One is the “profound moral confusion” in our understanding of debt. A second is the perennial struggle over debt forgiveness, and who receives it. A third is the function of debt in the politics of social class and social control.

In his book, Graeber concludes:

The struggle between rich and poor has largely taken the form of conflicts between creditors and debtors—of arguments about the rights and wrongs of interest payments, debt peonage, amnesty, repossession, restitution, the sequestering of sheep, the seizing of vineyards, and the selling of debtors’ children into slavery.

According to the classical historian Moses Finley, in the ancient world all revolutionary efforts had a single demand: “Cancel the debts and redistribute the land.”

Kuttner reports, “Two thousand years before kings began minting coins, there was credit.” Workers were loaned the means to survive and then worked to pay back their debts. When these obligations became too oppressive, the indebted often revolted.

To discourage revolt, societies made debt repayment a moral issue. “One should pay one’s debts” became a deeply embedded maxim. But according to Graeber, “A lender is supposed to accept a certain degree of risk.”

Economic imperatives have often prompted governing elites to set aside moral concerns. Kuttner writes:

There are times when sound economics requires debt forgiveness....  In a general collapse, debt forgiveness may become necessary if the economy is not to sink further…. 

Before 1706, bankruptcy simply meant insolvency, and the bankrupt was packed off to debtors’ prison.... Once behind bars, a debtor had no means of resuming productive economic life, much less satisfying his debts. In this insight was the germ of Chapter 11 of the modern US bankruptcy code, the provision that allows an insolvent corporation to write off old debts and have a fresh start as a going concern…. 

But when the law was finally enacted, allowing a magistrate to settle debts with partial repayment, only substantial merchants could qualify for relief. Common debtors still languished in jail, since their penury had scant wider consequences. 

The struggles over what was called “the money issue” in nineteenth-century America were also about the terms of credit and debt.... Debt politics as applied to common people usually favored creditors.

The New Deal proved to be an exception (and remains so):

Not until the Great Depression and the Franklin Roosevelt era did the US government become serious about debt relief, with a series of policies that refinanced distressed home mortgages, reformed and recapitalized banks, extended relief to bankrupt consumers, financed a huge war debt at below-market interest rates, and wrote off some of the international debts of allies and enemies alike. (Britain, America’s closest ally, received near-total forgiveness of wartime Lend-Lease debt.)

The treatment of Germany after World War Two is also instructive.

In the 1940s, after a brief flirtation with World War I–style reparations, the occupying powers agreed to behave differently: they wrote off 93 percent of the Nazi-era debt and postponed collection of other debts for nearly half a century. So Germany, whose debt-to-GDP ratio in 1939 was 675 percent, had a debt load of about 12 percent in the early 1950s—far less than that of the victorious Allies—helping to produce postwar Germany’s economic miracle.

The current relevance of this history is clear. Despite the widespread preoccupation with government debt, Kuttner points out:

Public debt was not implicated in the collapse of 2008, nor is it retarding the recovery today. Enlarged government deficits were the consequence of the financial crash, not the cause…. It was private speculative debts—exotic mortgage bonds financed by short-term borrowing at very high costs—that produced the crisis of 2008. The burden of private debts continues to hobble the economy’s potential…. We should be discussing how to relieve the burdens of private debts and prevent future abuses of the power of the financial industry to create debt and engage in speculation. 

The double standard in debt relief that favored large merchants, present at the creation of bankruptcy law in 1706, persists today in many different forms.... Corporate executives routinely walk away from their debts via Chapter 11.... Even more galling is the fact that the executives who drove the company into the ground often keep control by means of a doctrine known as debtor-in- possession.... US Airways has gone in and out of Chapter 11 twice. In this process, all creditors are not created equal. Since banks typically have liens on the aircraft, bankers get paid ahead of others. Major losers are employees and retirees, since Chapter 11 allows a corporation to break a labor contact or reduce pension debts.

The so-called “private equity” industry uses tax-deductible private debt to shut down businesses and lay off workers.

In one arena after another, creditors have the upper hand. Kuttner writes:

Homeowners, however, are explicitly prohibited from using the bankruptcy code to reduce their outstanding mortgage debt.... A revision of the law signed by President Bush in 2005 subjects most bankrupt consumers to partial repayment requirements, while bankrupt corporations get a general discharge from their debts. Thanks to the influence of the same financial lobby, the rules of student debt provide that the obligations of a college loan follow a borrower to the grave…. 

The European authorities used a similar double standard in the case of Cyprus, condemning ordinary savers to lose up to 60 percent of their assets, in order to pay for the speculative sins of financiers…. 

Large banks, meanwhile, have benefited from extensive debt forgiveness thanks to governments.... Government simply made the banks whole....  

The earlier emphasis on sin lingers when it comes to common debtors....cloaked in the language of moral opprobrium and “moral hazard,”...

The privatization of Fannie Mae opened the door to more exploitation:

The original Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), nicknamed Fannie Mae, was a public entity.... Public FNMA had no scandals, and when it was working effectively, from its founding in 1938 to its privatization in 1969, the US rate of home ownership rose from about 40 percent to over 64 percent. The trouble began when Wall Street invented complex, exotic, and easily corrupted mortgage bonds, and private Fannie began purchasing high-risk mortgages in order to protect its market share. The remedy is to restore Fannie to a public institution with high lending standards, not to kill it.

“Trickle-down economics” is the justification for this bias in favor of creditors. As Kuttner acknowledges, “The entire economy gains from the stimulus to demand” when banks are rescued. But little of value actually trickles down. Current public policy primarily distributes wealth upward. The postwar era, in contrast, with much different policies in place, witnessed “trickle up” economic growth.

Broad prosperity could be enhanced with less hypocrisy. Kuttner refers, for example, to a former IMF official, Anne O. Krueger, an appointee of George W. Bush, who “recently reiterated her call for Chapter 11 bankruptcy for indebted countries.”

Kuttner insists, “These debt traps are not immutable.” But for the near term, he’s not optimistic and concludes his review, “The sheer political power of creditors and the momentum of the austerity campaign suggest that more damage to the economy may be done before any large change takes place.” Regrettably the Obama Administration decided not to make homeowner relief a priority following the 2008 crisis.

It seems that, given so many uncertainties, most elites have decided to take the money and run. To hell with the future.

With less moralizing and more commitment to everyone’s long-term enlightened self-interest, we might shift this nation’s priorities and overcome the current obsession with short-term profits. To achieve that goal, however, we need massive grassroots pressure. And so far all we have are rumblings. Let’s pray those murmurs multiply soon.

+++++

A Warm Message from Australia

Still reading your posts, somewhat irregularly and often belatedly, as time and my other commitments permit.  I can't always answer them as fully as I'd wish, but still: Every one of your messages has something to teach me!

Today, for example, I found your extracts about Camus'  "Algerian Chronicles". Surely that would be worth reading; I'll look it up.  Though if I can find the French original at a reasonable price, I'd prefer that, since it may have nuances one might miss in translation.

About "Transform America":  You're doing good work with that.  From my perspective as a citizen of an American client state, I'd perhaps change the emphasis slightly ... to something like "Transform America - and how she deals with the rest of the planet".

About you - I'm glad you've decided to devote some of your resources to your own needs.  Do please commit to that plan, because:

(a) you're worth it! (which I shouldn't have to remind you, eh?) 

and

(b) selfishly, I know that I - and the rest of the world influenced by the pebbles you cast into the pond - will benefit even more from a refreshed, reinvigorated and more purposeful Wade Lee Hudson. ;-)

Besides, I don't see why an activist, too, can't be happy?