« A mighty wind is blowin’ across the land and ‘cross the sea | Main | the love in »
I could feel the protection, possession and anger
by anna at 08:22 PM on December 17, 2003
100 years ago today, Wilbur and Orville Wright flew a makeshift airplane for about 100 feet at Kitty Hawk NC. Their contraption was cobbled together with whatever parts they could scrounge up. They assembled it themselves in a modest workshop with whatever crude implements were available. Few witnessed man's historic first flight, which was powered by a stiff northerly breeze.
In 1903, the world seemed on the brink of a glorious transformation. America was swiftly changing from a a rural agrarian outpost to a major industrial power. Wondrous new inventions were popping up everywhere you looked. Standards of living skyrocketed. Everything brimmed with promise.
Today a throng of gawkers descended on Kitty Hawk to hear George W. Bush drone on about something or other. This stilted happening was staged to commemorate the Wright brothers' feat. Part of it was a re-enactment of the brief foray into the sky. Presumably all of today's modern technology, engineers and gizmos were available to ensure that it would work even if a steady drizzle enveloped the North Carolina coastline.
Of course the damn thing never got off the ground. They could barely even get the engines to start. Do we see a metaphor here? The 1903 flight signified a society spreading its wings, poised to take off. The sky was literally the limit. Although few persons actually saw it, word spread quickly by word of mouth. It was a miracle of American can-do spirit.
The 2003 non-flight signified a society in decline. Everything is limited by ineptitude, apathy and false security/safety concerns. The pall of Sept 11 hangs over all endeavor. Hundreds of people saw the failure but the TV news and Internet cheerily reported on it as if it weren't such an abject failure after all. "Sometimes history repeats itself, sometimes it doesn't," one ABC reported wryly noted. It was just another omen of how resigned and defeated we've grown, and all of our own making. Promise isn't a word that comes to mind these days.
At the risk of raising the already high "holiday season" suicide rate, here's what I am getting at: This decade, and by extension this highly ballyhooed new millenium, have both sucked homeless ass thus far. The news has been relentlessly bad. And even when it's good, no one seems to care. After they caught Saddam, the stock market caught fire for about five minutes after the opening bell and then fizzled out. These so-called "investors" fretted that it really wouldn't make much difference in the overall bleak picture over in American Iraq. Which itself has become a fixture of this surreal millennium in which friendless America routinely occupies two or three countries at a time as we shrug and await the Trials of the Month to come: Robert Blake, Phil Spector, Michael Jackson, Enron execs, Kobe Bryant etc etc.
Q: How many decades get three years in without earning even a name let alone a label like the Gay Nineties, Roaring Twenties, Me Decade or Go-go Eighties? A: None until this desultory piece of shit. What is wrong? Why can't this decade emerge with an identity all its own? Has John Ass Croft/corporate America/ the so-called "global village" stifled us to such a degree that we might as well be a bunch of lemmings on Zoloft marching in lockstep off of a Disneyfied replica of a cliff?
Might we begin by at least agreeing on a name (Zeros?) and start date? Don't forget that there are still eggheads out there who insist out 3rd and final millennium didn't even commence until 1/1/01. And technically, they're right.
Not that it matters.
comments (19)
I just got done watching American Pie, released in 1999. What a great coming-of-age movie that was. I haven't seen the perfunctory, money-grubbing sequels but I've heard they don't measure up. Cut to the news, where they've got Nancy Reagan's reaction to John Hinckley being turned loose. I want to hear Ronald's but I guess that won't be happening either. Bah humbug.
by anna at December 17, 2003 10:45 PM
i call these the oh-oh's. & all that that entails. what a mess we are. look at the masses swarming around what they call their leader, it's like he captured the addled old WMD having evil force of doom all by himself. he will get four more years & the masses will get what they/we deserve. god help us all, every one.
save us from ourselves, is my prayer. however i have no higher power to which to pray this. still, i pray.
by lizard at December 18, 2003 3:50 AM
What were the Nineties called? I don't think they gathered any identity until '97, at least. And no calling it the dot-com Nineties, because the dot-com thing didn't hit until '96 or so. We can't just ignore the first six years.
I don't think the Eighties really got a name until '86 or '88 or so. Then people called it the Me decade because they were sick of all the Me-ism. But before that, everyone was happily wallowing in neon-colored yuppie dreams.
While I'm talking about the Eighties, let me say that any decade counts as a success if it does not repeat the Eighties. Our worst recession ever (not counting the Depression-- that was a different time: no Social Security or really government as we currently know it) and the horrible, misogynistic movies, "art" (remember Nagel?), and fashion are what I remember.
Anyways, this decade so far has the Lord of the Rings trilogy, kids willingly reading 700-page long Harry Potter books, Black Eye Peas, and the fact that we learned after September 11th that Americans can rise to the occasion and act decent in a time of crisis, after all.
by jean at December 18, 2003 6:03 AM
I'll pray too, right now that this doesn't turn into another double-comment. I swear I only clicked once. May DSL be my savior.
My theory is that decades refuse to conform to rigid time strictures. The 90s ended 9/10/01. The idealism of the 60s was snuffed out when ML King and Robert Kennedy were gunned down. The placid 50s stretched well into the actual 60s and so on.
by anna at December 18, 2003 7:57 AM
I hope the "zeros" will be known as the decade we allowed a man to cow his way into the white house then kicked his ass out of there after one term. I don't believe that will happen though, especially if Dean wins his party's nomination. Is it just me or does anyone else not trust that manic grimace he calls a smile?
I do believe 9/11, as terrible as it was, brought out the best in all of us. The funny thing about Americans, that I have noticed, is that we will fight and quarrel amongst ourselves until you give us a common enemy. Then, for about a month, we're gracious, courteous, and downright good to each other. After that we realize that we're Americans again and return to our usual shitty selves. It's sad really. I don't understand why we can't act that way all the time. I guess nobody would make the news if we were nice to each other every day. What would they report if they didn't have all the robberies, murders, rapes, and abductions to fall back on? Someone actually doing something nice for another person? That would never sell.
by Ezy at December 18, 2003 8:33 AM
Damn, and I thought I was the pessimistic one.
by MrBlank at December 18, 2003 9:31 AM
You're not alone MrB.
by Ezy at December 18, 2003 9:36 AM
It's true, the 00s may not seem to be "about" much yet, but can you tell me what the 90s were about? As a non-participant in such movements, it is easy to describe the Roaring 20s (which lasted till about 38), the 60s (which last from about 68-73), and the disco 70s (which lasted from around 74-82) with trite epithets. I'm sure if you asked the people at the time to describe the spirit of the moment (zeitgeist) they'd have trouble doing so in less than a 1000 words. Today that spirit is contained in a zippy title.
Also, it is tough to gain perspective without any, you know?
by mg at December 18, 2003 10:06 AM
Love that term zeitgeist. I think it's of German origian, to mean the prevailing spirit characterstic of an era or generation. There's another German word for secretly reveling in the misery of others, but I can't remember it. The week after 9/11 was unforgettable: no planes overhead, no sitcoms, no commercials, strangers commiserating, America: A Tribute to Heroes. As for my pessimism, I've had some trifling problems recently and I guesss it's bled into my worldview.
by anna at December 18, 2003 7:57 PM
Love that term zeitgeist. I think it's of German origian, to mean the prevailing spirit characterstic of an era or generation. There's another German word for secretly reveling in the misery of others, but I can't remember it. The week after 9/11 was unforgettable: no planes overhead, no sitcoms, no commercials, strangers commiserating, America: A Tribute to Heroes. As for my pessimism, I've had some trifling problems recently and I guesss it's bled into my worldview.
by anna at December 18, 2003 7:58 PM
That term is schadenfreude ("SHAH-den-FROY-deh"). It roughly translates as "bad pleasure". German's a funny language. Did you know that if you attract bad luck you're a pechsvogel-- a bad-luck bird.
MG and Anna, you're right on that these time periods people are always referring to aren't even really what everyone thinks. Goshdarn the common mind once again.
And Ezy, I am in complete agreement with you that Dean is completely untrustworthy. I don't have faith in politicians generally, but I will not vote for a person who can't even APPEAR like he believes what he's saying. I saw him at the CNN Rock the Vote debate, and every sentence out of his mouth was a jingo or sounded convictionless, like it was read straight off a cue card.
I think if Dean got into office he'd just go along with whatever the Republicans want. After all, he has said that he wants the vote of "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." How else would he get their support if not by joining the Republicans? Anyways, if he gets the nomination there's no way I'm voting Democratic.
by jean at December 19, 2003 12:39 PM
I must say I agree with you Jean. If Dean wins the nomination I'll probably be forced to a) vote for Bush or b) not vote for the first time in my life. It just makes me sick thinking about how long it will take the environment to recover from four more years of Bush, not to mention our status with the rest of the world. If Bush continues his foreign policy, as it is now, America won't have any allies left and I have the feeling we're really going to need them soon. Also, what he has done to the Clean Air Act is atrocious. He's been softening emission and dumping regulations on special interest groups since he took office and we're ultimately going to end up paying a steep price for it. Hell, the mercury level in tuna alone should be some kind of warning sign.
I read an interview with John Kerry, in Rolling Stone, and liked a lot of his ideas and policies. He would a good choice because I think he can go head to head with Bush on all of the issues from environmental concerns to foreign policy. He, unlike Bush, served in the military and has been to war where he won three purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star. He would be a little more careful of just putting troops out there to die because he has been there. Wesley Clark seems to have a good plan too. One of those two I think could give Bush a run.
by Ezy at December 19, 2003 1:23 PM
What about John Edwards? Anyone who can speak with the dead has got my vote for President.
When I saw that democratic debate last week (the one that tweaked my "ABC - Vote 2004" rage) I actually really liked Kucinich. He was the only candidate who would answer questions with anything other than what seemed like well rehearsed stock phrases crafted by a team of political marketers. He seemed like a person with real ideas, which automatically precludes him from getting elected. That and the fact he was anti-charismatic.
by mg at December 19, 2003 2:01 PM
unfortunately kucinich might be what some people call "unelectable". but he's the only candidate with a heart (unlike dean), or at least a pulse (dick gephardt? check for breathing), or issues he sticks to like they were guns (two faced john kerry?), or the fact that he's still a democrat (leiberman might actually be a republican spy).
some of kucinich's ideas? new green deal (environmental take on the 'new deal'), or how about a department of peace and non-violence? that may sound hippie-ish to some people, but who can't admit that they'd be excited about that?
by lajo at December 19, 2003 2:17 PM
Thanks Jean. This time I'll write it down.
For all his glaring faults, I dig Rev Al Sharpton. He's got pizzazz, something sorely lacking among today's bland political class.
by anna at December 20, 2003 10:20 AM
Ezy, I was about to put that in my post but couldn't without including a huge rant, so I cut it out. If Dean gets the nomination I'll be strongly tempted to vote for Bush. Americans are trying to get away without caring too much about Bush's rampage through foreign policy, the environment, and domestic policy (PATRIOT Act I and II, anyone? It makes my blood boil just typing down the names). Maybe we should let them sit in their own mess for a while so they know what they're bringing upon themselves. Then maybe they'll learn. Or maybe not-- if so, I'll see you guys in Vancouver ;) I hear the dim sum there is so good it's ridiculous.
Here's a link with just a smidgeon of the ridiculous things that are going on now: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16174
by jean at December 20, 2003 5:49 PM
Jean, isn't it a shame when voting for the devil you know, and Bush is the devil, is preferred to voting for the one you don't? Vancouver huh? Do I have to say "eh" after every sentence?
by Ezy at December 22, 2003 10:03 AM
Absolutely. I'm not sure what my high school government teacher would say. Up north, you may have to say "aboot" in addition to "eh" ;)
by jean at December 30, 2003 4:09 AM
Well, then I might be aboot to move, eh. That'll probably sound pretty funny with a southern accent ;-)
by Ezy at December 30, 2003 10:13 AM