Ray Jones and Joe Lubow, Disasters and Heroic Rescues: true stories of tragedy and survival in California, Globe Pequot Press, 2006
Not my usual sort of reading, but one of the authors is the partner of a friend and, last time they were visiting, he gave me an autographed copy. It is a series of 19 short essays on essentially man-made disasters dating from the 1840s to the year 2000. There are a few shipwrecks and plane crashes, but for me these were not the most interesting since, while they are about human error, there is nothing systematic about the causes of the error. A naval captain miscalculates his route in thick fog, a pilot flies into the wrong space or forgets to look out the window. The earthquake, fire and flood ones were a step up: although the mistakes seem to become a bit more systematic in these cases, people generally learn from experience and build better next time. Still, you start to see what the authors are really on about - Californians constantly trying to defy the laws of physics and biology.
A few stories stood out in the collection. The story of the bombing of the LA Times building in 1910, set in the context of union busting and the extension of the franchise to women, was fascinating. The stories about Southern California and its quest for water were also really interesting - the failure of Mulholland's St Francis Dam (1928) and the extraordinary tale of diverting the Colorado river to irrigate Imperial Valley in 1905. In the latter case the Salton Sea was created by overly ambitious engineering gone wrong. Other stories of plain carelessness of human life include the Argonaut mine disaster (1922), the Port Chicago explosion (1944) and the Dunsmuir chemical spill (1991). I made the mistake of reading some of the stories late at night and then being unable to sleep!
Not my usual sort of reading, but one of the authors is the partner of a friend and, last time they were visiting, he gave me an autographed copy. It is a series of 19 short essays on essentially man-made disasters dating from the 1840s to the year 2000. There are a few shipwrecks and plane crashes, but for me these were not the most interesting since, while they are about human error, there is nothing systematic about the causes of the error. A naval captain miscalculates his route in thick fog, a pilot flies into the wrong space or forgets to look out the window. The earthquake, fire and flood ones were a step up: although the mistakes seem to become a bit more systematic in these cases, people generally learn from experience and build better next time. Still, you start to see what the authors are really on about - Californians constantly trying to defy the laws of physics and biology.
A few stories stood out in the collection. The story of the bombing of the LA Times building in 1910, set in the context of union busting and the extension of the franchise to women, was fascinating. The stories about Southern California and its quest for water were also really interesting - the failure of Mulholland's St Francis Dam (1928) and the extraordinary tale of diverting the Colorado river to irrigate Imperial Valley in 1905. In the latter case the Salton Sea was created by overly ambitious engineering gone wrong. Other stories of plain carelessness of human life include the Argonaut mine disaster (1922), the Port Chicago explosion (1944) and the Dunsmuir chemical spill (1991). I made the mistake of reading some of the stories late at night and then being unable to sleep!
People on the current affairs programs really know how to make people sputter over their morning coffee. Today I was listening to Radio Netherlands' program on 'human rights'. They asked a struggling American woman (choosing between buying diapers or petrol with her last dollars before payday) if she thought she had a right to cheap petrol. She thought for a moment and said 'Yes I do'. But it was the next bit that started me sputtering: "As an American I think I do."
What on earth did she mean by that curious addition? Outside of the US a statement like that is a red rag to a bull - at least to anyone who understands how much the rest of the world pays so that Americans can have affordable gas (Iraqis, to name one of the latest and more glaring examples). My guess is that she wasn't thinking of that at all, but maybe she was thinking that the price of petrol is something that could be controlled by her government, or is a question entirely internal to the US.
Of course the whole point of the program was not to ask her what she meant, it was to have her say something controversial and then bring in an expert to tell us if she was right or wrong. The expert, by the way, stated the obvious, that the US environment has been built around the car and she really needs to use one. (So much for consumer sovereignty!) Therefore, says he, while she doesn't have an absolute right to cheap petrol, she certainly has a right to demand that the US government give it to her.
Actually her petrol is pretty cheap. The Dutch are apparently paying $9 a gallon. Here we are paying $6.50-7.00 a gallon. I gather that the US price has hit $4.00. Another way of putting it therefore, is to say that she needs a higher income (or a more fuel efficient car!).
What on earth did she mean by that curious addition? Outside of the US a statement like that is a red rag to a bull - at least to anyone who understands how much the rest of the world pays so that Americans can have affordable gas (Iraqis, to name one of the latest and more glaring examples). My guess is that she wasn't thinking of that at all, but maybe she was thinking that the price of petrol is something that could be controlled by her government, or is a question entirely internal to the US.
Of course the whole point of the program was not to ask her what she meant, it was to have her say something controversial and then bring in an expert to tell us if she was right or wrong. The expert, by the way, stated the obvious, that the US environment has been built around the car and she really needs to use one. (So much for consumer sovereignty!) Therefore, says he, while she doesn't have an absolute right to cheap petrol, she certainly has a right to demand that the US government give it to her.
Actually her petrol is pretty cheap. The Dutch are apparently paying $9 a gallon. Here we are paying $6.50-7.00 a gallon. I gather that the US price has hit $4.00. Another way of putting it therefore, is to say that she needs a higher income (or a more fuel efficient car!).
At dinner last night with friends, we discussed it. My friends have been there a few times because they're conference junkies. The conferences are always in the French Quarter which they didn't particularly like. It was all tarted up and touristy, like a theme park and, although they went out to listen to a fair bit of music and enjoyed it, they also said it was too polished and showbiz. Not really like live music. Better to listen to jazz in Chicago basically. They also like exploring on their own. On one visit they walked to the levee and along a bit and found themselves in a slum (euphemistically known as 'the projects'). A woman they met said they really shouldn't be there at night and showed them the way out - back to the safety of the tourist drag.
I concur with all those on my flist who said nobody should be surprised by what has happened. And those who pointed out that there's no such thing as a natural disaster. Still, it barely relieves the shock of seeing in such sharp focus how American society really works. (and not just the South - they took a wrong turn off the freeway between San Ysidro and San Diego once and found themselves in a shanty town made of old boxes etc.) Not that it doesn't happen here - it's just the scale of the American phenomenon that hits you, as well as the complete failure of those in power to even speak as if they give a damn.
I'm betting that the port will be up and running again before the body count is finished.
I concur with all those on my flist who said nobody should be surprised by what has happened. And those who pointed out that there's no such thing as a natural disaster. Still, it barely relieves the shock of seeing in such sharp focus how American society really works. (and not just the South - they took a wrong turn off the freeway between San Ysidro and San Diego once and found themselves in a shanty town made of old boxes etc.) Not that it doesn't happen here - it's just the scale of the American phenomenon that hits you, as well as the complete failure of those in power to even speak as if they give a damn.
I'm betting that the port will be up and running again before the body count is finished.
... has been here for the Sydney Writers' Festival. I heard a long interview with him on the radio last night.
Philip Adams (the pundit who wrote about his dogs last weekend) began by raising the issue of how warlike is America. Lapham had said something in an inter alia fashion about Americans being a tranquil people, so Adams produced a long list of wars - from Indian conquest to the current ones and added, for good measure, the toting of guns, the proportion of the population in prison, the assassination of presidents and several other things that I can't remember. He also mentioned the warlike language - as in War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Poverty. Why do even progressive things have to be portrayed as wars? As he pointed out, the residents of tranquil Sydney usually find the US to be a very violent sort of place.
Lapham's response was interesting. He conceded that in certain American circles, war is idealised as the ultimate manly activity, as a means of restoring discipline and order to a society plagued by liberal immorality. [Sounded like a good description of fascism to me.] But then he produced a long catalogue of wars for which various US governments had been unable to find volunteers - starting with the war of independence and Washington's difficulties with raising troops to fight the British. Given modern American pride in things revolutionary and constitutional I found this somewhat surprising. He talked about how the North in the Civil War had failed to raise the 90,000 volunteers it required, getting only 6,000 instead and had to start bribing people with large sums of money to join up. The system of paying people large amounts to join up persists to this day.
The current US armed forces provide an enlistment bonus of $90,000 to attract recruits. The US army also runs the largest day care centre in the world - since 45% of US troops are married to each other, daycare is an important service provided by the US Army. He called it a 'socialist state within a state' (appreciative giggles from the Writers' Week audience).
Other topics discussed were the probability that not only the 2000 election was rigged, but the 2004 election as well. A man called Blackwell, Republican election commissioner for Ohio continues to refuse to release the ballots - a criminal act about which the mainstream press remains silent. See the August issue of Harpers Magazine for the full story.
The supine nature of, e.g. the NYT and W Post, not to mention the rest, came up several times during the hour. They are so good, he pointed out, at discovering things way too late.
They moved on to the role of writers. Fifty years ago, writers were celebrities, but there hasn't been a writer on the cover of Time for 30 years. Segue to Marshall McLuhan, a 'prescient' writer who pointed out that 'we shape our tools and then our tools shape us'. We are now in an era where the Medium truly is the Message, that is, something devoid of content and, in particular, devoid of thought. The appeal is to the emotions and not to thought.
Adams introduced another comparison, between secular Australia and religious America. Are there any liberal christians in America? Oh yes, says Lapham. They are actually the real Christians. The fundies, whose influence has become so virulent in the last two decades, are not actually Christians at all. Their god comes from a reading of pre-Christian texts - namely the Old Testament - in which god is a violent, vengeful character and the world is full of magic. Fear among the people is the key.
Catalogue of the born-again crowd who currently dominate the Administration. There followed an unintentionally hilarious description of the annointing with oil of the ex-Attorney General by a Supreme Court judge and the daily singing of hymns in the said AG's office. Often the hymns were composed by Ashcroft himself. So much for the separation of church and state!
On Israel and Palestine: these people (the fundies) believe that the second coming will not happen until the Jewish people have repopulated the Holy Land. Apparently Jesus cannot find his way back without the full blaze of landing lights provided by the state of Israel.
On the President himself. Does he, asked Adams, really believe in the War on Terror or is it just a means of manipulation? Both, replies Lapham. Bush is a man who can convince himself to believe in anything, including a "War on an unknown enemy and an abstract noun."
Back to the media and magic. The President, says Lapham, is a magical figure, a celebrity on a par with Brad Pitt. He is a magical figure who speaks through a mask of power and when confronted with magic the assembled press find an irresistible urge to write down what he says. [Once could also mention here the irresistability of such magic to members of Congress.] This trend was started by Henry Kissinger, but we can also see this magic at work in Colin Powell's address to the UN. Even though he spoke absolute twaddle, the power of magic or the magic of power, led to uncritical acceptance of his words.
Lapham has half given up on the power of the written word to influence in this McLuhanesque age. He has written a film script called The American Ruling Class - part documentary, part fiction, part musical. I hope he manages to get it produced.
Philip Adams (the pundit who wrote about his dogs last weekend) began by raising the issue of how warlike is America. Lapham had said something in an inter alia fashion about Americans being a tranquil people, so Adams produced a long list of wars - from Indian conquest to the current ones and added, for good measure, the toting of guns, the proportion of the population in prison, the assassination of presidents and several other things that I can't remember. He also mentioned the warlike language - as in War on Terror, War on Drugs, War on Poverty. Why do even progressive things have to be portrayed as wars? As he pointed out, the residents of tranquil Sydney usually find the US to be a very violent sort of place.
Lapham's response was interesting. He conceded that in certain American circles, war is idealised as the ultimate manly activity, as a means of restoring discipline and order to a society plagued by liberal immorality. [Sounded like a good description of fascism to me.] But then he produced a long catalogue of wars for which various US governments had been unable to find volunteers - starting with the war of independence and Washington's difficulties with raising troops to fight the British. Given modern American pride in things revolutionary and constitutional I found this somewhat surprising. He talked about how the North in the Civil War had failed to raise the 90,000 volunteers it required, getting only 6,000 instead and had to start bribing people with large sums of money to join up. The system of paying people large amounts to join up persists to this day.
The current US armed forces provide an enlistment bonus of $90,000 to attract recruits. The US army also runs the largest day care centre in the world - since 45% of US troops are married to each other, daycare is an important service provided by the US Army. He called it a 'socialist state within a state' (appreciative giggles from the Writers' Week audience).
Other topics discussed were the probability that not only the 2000 election was rigged, but the 2004 election as well. A man called Blackwell, Republican election commissioner for Ohio continues to refuse to release the ballots - a criminal act about which the mainstream press remains silent. See the August issue of Harpers Magazine for the full story.
The supine nature of, e.g. the NYT and W Post, not to mention the rest, came up several times during the hour. They are so good, he pointed out, at discovering things way too late.
They moved on to the role of writers. Fifty years ago, writers were celebrities, but there hasn't been a writer on the cover of Time for 30 years. Segue to Marshall McLuhan, a 'prescient' writer who pointed out that 'we shape our tools and then our tools shape us'. We are now in an era where the Medium truly is the Message, that is, something devoid of content and, in particular, devoid of thought. The appeal is to the emotions and not to thought.
Adams introduced another comparison, between secular Australia and religious America. Are there any liberal christians in America? Oh yes, says Lapham. They are actually the real Christians. The fundies, whose influence has become so virulent in the last two decades, are not actually Christians at all. Their god comes from a reading of pre-Christian texts - namely the Old Testament - in which god is a violent, vengeful character and the world is full of magic. Fear among the people is the key.
Catalogue of the born-again crowd who currently dominate the Administration. There followed an unintentionally hilarious description of the annointing with oil of the ex-Attorney General by a Supreme Court judge and the daily singing of hymns in the said AG's office. Often the hymns were composed by Ashcroft himself. So much for the separation of church and state!
On Israel and Palestine: these people (the fundies) believe that the second coming will not happen until the Jewish people have repopulated the Holy Land. Apparently Jesus cannot find his way back without the full blaze of landing lights provided by the state of Israel.
On the President himself. Does he, asked Adams, really believe in the War on Terror or is it just a means of manipulation? Both, replies Lapham. Bush is a man who can convince himself to believe in anything, including a "War on an unknown enemy and an abstract noun."
Back to the media and magic. The President, says Lapham, is a magical figure, a celebrity on a par with Brad Pitt. He is a magical figure who speaks through a mask of power and when confronted with magic the assembled press find an irresistible urge to write down what he says. [Once could also mention here the irresistability of such magic to members of Congress.] This trend was started by Henry Kissinger, but we can also see this magic at work in Colin Powell's address to the UN. Even though he spoke absolute twaddle, the power of magic or the magic of power, led to uncritical acceptance of his words.
Lapham has half given up on the power of the written word to influence in this McLuhanesque age. He has written a film script called The American Ruling Class - part documentary, part fiction, part musical. I hope he manages to get it produced.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
