He Done It For Duh-mocracy: Tour the G. Dubya Bush Lie-Bury


Dubya---oh, the facts

“Y’all can have yer focus groups!”

As we say in Maine, Howdy Y’All! Hope you enjoy your guided tour of the G. Dubya Bush Memorial Lie-Bury. No refunds.

The Bush Lie Bury presents a ekkle-lectic collection. You are now passing between replicas of the great grinning skulls of Prescott and George H.W. Bush mounted here in the Hall of Ancestors (Barb still sleeps with the originals to keep warm).

First to greet you among our photos in honey-sepia is a young Barb Bush (old even then, but fresh from the gargoyle-facade of Notre Dame) emparting her beautiful mind to Lil Dubya by teaching him to hate to read. Here with these decorated documents you can admire the future Decider’s “C with Highest Honors” academic records. Laid out here are Dubya’s original silver coke-spoon, and his military service sheet on the head of a golden pin.

Karl Rove and Shit For BrainsThis is some bubble-gum he spat out crossing Harvard Yard for the limo outa fuckin’ Cambridge. Here’s a tiny Texas Rangers jockstrap and (drinking) cup, a gift from all the good fine taxpayers, and a miniature oil-rig clock that stops dead at random but spits gold coins. Here with a film-clip are some of the hanging chads rescued from election-recount by loyal GOP thugs in Florida: watch them smash the place up for Duhmocracy.

Here are the “three Shakespeares” Dubya sort of read, and the crotch-stuffing from his “Mission Accomplished” flight suit. For the right price or a fat donation, historians can browse a priceless trove: the collected memoranda of Dubya conferences to restore chaos in the Middle East. And this mannequin stands bedecked in the original design Dubya chose (shackles, black hood and orange prison-garb) for his Gitmo guests. Pull the figure’s chains to hear his prejudicial preen at a press conference: “They’re vicious killers, and they’ll git a fair trial.” 

fuck all a ya!

Here’s My Pet Goat upside-down on a WTC pedestal (it’s still smoking!). This is a travel-vial of the triple-strength Prozac that sustained years of Laura’s purty vapid grin. As you see from Laura’s own awards, when she wasn’t working tirelessly to stop the revisions of schoolbooks, she was allowed to talk beside the White House Christmas Tree. (Press to hear her annual drool: “Evera year Ah thank it’s the purtiest Christmas Tree, but this year, Ah thank it’s the purtiest Christmas Tree”).

Take a turn on the toilet-seat where Dubya thinkified a plan to privatize Social Security, and wipe with the original memo stained with his tears and spit. Next, recovered from the White House lawn is the red-bank-oyster Dubya spat for the national camera. Watch this looped tape of the 15 times that Poppy Bush smacked Shit-for-Brains upside the head. In this shot at left, Dubya swears that Osama will be hunted down, and here at right he shrugs it off, while at center is the FBI poster not charging OBL with 9/11.

Here’s the world’s shortest film clip as Dubya visits veterans maimed in his needless wars. Press this button to hear his visionary explanation of “an Iran without Iranian influence. I mean Iraq.” Here’s the spit-up pretzel that almost choked Fearless Leader, with ol’ Barney stuffed on point beside it. This is either Dubya preparing to speak or a deer in Texas headlights. Mounted in a rococo silver frame is Take-Charger hacking down some o’ them ol’ Texas mesquite bushes, spreading civilization as he goes.

Karl Rove salutes America

This is a wax diorama with figures of the entire Bush Administration thanking Dubya for not letting them be “drug into” the World Court. This scrotum-curdling display of lead busts—from right to right, Condi (Vader) Rice, Growlin’ Big Dick Cheney, Don “Ate The Canary” Rumsfeld and Mike “Skeletor” Chertoff—portrays how they taught Dubya their world-capturing smiles.

Here’s a scale model of Dubya pissin’ on a lamp-post marked “Bourbon Street,” but it’s not in New Orleans (caption: “Heckuva Job!”). Don’t miss the bandage from Dubya’s cheek when he fell down on an election-night bender. Here’s the gallery of Dubya’s paintin’s, featuring his everyday Happy Time Tubby, and half a nude self-portrait through bathroom fog. Here’s the fifth of Jack from Dubya’s Oval Office desk, and the golf club he swung while telling terrorized America to go shopping.

Yep—He done us proud. All in all, what you’ve seen is a true national suppository: a gatherin’ to testifah to a mendacious murderin’ moron whose life and consequences prove to the world how much you can mis-accomplish with so little. May it increasify as compost for The U.S. Constitution.

Dubya Bush Library Book Drop, by Mike LuckovichDubya Bush, 'I Paint What I See,' by Steve Sack

Y’All run ‘long, now. Take yer pitchers (we sure will) ‘longside the main entrance Welcome sign:

IT’S ALL TRUE. No laughing. No crying. No reading. No thinking. No questions. No conscience. No problems. Y’all can have yer focus groups! Fool me once, shame on—whatever! Have your money ready.

Is our children learning?

Aside | Posted on by | Leave a comment

College Adjunct Professors & Minimum Wage: You Be The Judge


Wall Street soars---How about a living wage job

Is your college or university educating students with less-than-minimum-wage Adjunct Professors? Here is a measure by which to judge, as they are now at least 50% of American college faculty.

By the way, professors paid on the cheap do not equal cheapened education; not at least in the classroom. There certainly are consequences, for students and families who pay ever-higher tuition. But Adjuncts bring doctoral depth to their classes. I for one, with four published books/two documentary-films in my field and awards for articles and teaching, am only typical of Adjuncts with qualifications as good as those of full-time tenured faculty.

But we are not there to teach from our core expertise; rather, it’s to turn the great central wheel of low-level courses that only (ahem) enable college students to function. Even so, knowing how crucial that is, we embrace it with heart con gusto. So excuse this work’s approach to teaching which I myself dislike—reducing this vocation to units of time and money. I have to find a way to see past the people for a moment, and into the skeletal economic structure by which I work. It seems to be a broken system that keeps an Adjunct broke.

One other note of crazy context. I write from the Massachusetts cradle of American learning, in a New England as rife as it gets with college rivalry for reputation and real-world achievement. Graduate schools just keep turning out first-rate teachers (because they just keep wanting to use them in the process). And yet a few years ago, we had a “teacher shortage.” So the Commonwealth somehow imported ambitious young teachers from the Philippines and splashed their pluck all over the media. It was much more quiet when they all went home. They’d found that they couldn’t afford to live here. At the time I was passing through post-grad bankruptcy.

So—You be the judge of the facts of an Adjunct Professor’s circumstances.

What if a school paid an Adjunct Professor the minimum wage of $7.75/hour per student? If you will imagine that rate rounded up to $8.00/hour per student, I’ll forget that each class is actually 1¼ hours. But let’s put every bit of this on the classroom clock: no paid prep-time or student meetings. If I’m not directly teaching a class, I’m not paid.

I teach 40 students in 1-hour classes, twice a week. Let’s say that each student pays me $8.00 for each 1-hour class. Each week of the course, then, each student pays $16.00 for our 2 classes.

A full-semester course totals 15 weeks. So each student pays $240.00 for the course (15 weeks x $16.00). This (40 students x $240) leads to a grand total of $9,600 before taxes.

Now, double that total (because I teach 2 semesters per year), and my annual income before taxes would be $19,200.

Hold those figures. Now the reality check.

In 2012, Bentley University paid me $4600 per course. Double that—as we did with the 2-course total just above—to $9200. And we see that this is $400 less than what I’d make at .25 cents above minimum wage per student.

With the same numbers laid out above in 4 courses per year, my actual last year’s pay totaled $18,400 before taxes. So for last year, I received $800 less than what I’d make at .25 cents above minimum wage per student.

How about one more approach? In 2012 I was paid $4600 per course. Divide that by 20 students per course ($230 per student, before taxes); and then, divide again by 30 classes per course-semester (that is, 29 classes plus the required Exam Period). The result is: just over $7.00 per student per hour, before taxes. So we’re back more or less to the American minimum wage.

None of these figures include course design or class planning; regular detailed student feedback, grading, student meetings or mentoring; course improvements based on semester evaluations; recommendation letters that launch students forward into careers or graduate programs; teaching-skills development, course-related research, or faculty contributions.

Much less do they value my education, training, or experience. My employer and I rightly agree that a professor who does not do all those things shouldn’t last one year. And yet, like the bi-annual contract that on my end is meaningless if they cancel it, those pillars of teaching count for zero, while schools increase tuition and self-promotion every year. The only field of education jobs growing faster than the haggard but profitable hordes of Adjuncts is—administration.

I can’t explain how frustration and anger turn into even more dedication to my students, but they do. If I can’t be on campus every day for them because I have survival-bills to pay, they have my cell-phone number and email. I do hours of meetings before and after classes, and they never wait long for help. The truth is, I’m hooked on pushing them forward to success, but something is picking my pocket and theirs too while we work.

Now this is irony. If our schools paid Adjuncts a living wage, we’d be there on the weekends building with our own hammers and nails.

Bentley University is considered part of the “higher end” of Adjunct compensation. So most Adjunct Professors at American schools are paid and supported in their work far less.

This is why, to me, Adjunct Action—a New England regional effort to create a union, working with the SEIU—means something new is in the air.

We are not our employers’ foes or service-workers’ rivals: we are enabling partners to both, and to full-time faculty alike. Yet, clearly, we cannot hope even for enforcement of existing Labor Relations laws. Resolutions from the MLA and sympathies from AAUP have cut no ice for decades. And it’s Adjunct Professors who are out in the cold on every level of American higher education. Our only choice is to cooperate on a regional, mutually-supportive scale, to re-establish rightful control on the value of our labor.

Our struggle must come to the same realm of hard-ball economics that we have faced. Our strength is a choice for self-respect over the fear of speaking and moving to help ourselves. In that, we’re going to find many allies unlooked-for, and students have come forward as the first.

Just as strong are the demonstrable facts of how much core value we contribute to the schools we want to build. But you can’t build lasting value on short-term poverty and long-term invisible hopelessness.

Enough? The power we truly possess, as more than 50% of college faculty, has got to act. And because it’s real, it can be clearly demonstrated. Maybe we’ve had enough serfdom, and fear. Maybe it’s time for a different kind of Parents Day on every campus. We are our schools, and we can prove it.

Here (from our Adjunct Action/SEIU symposium last weekend) is the activizing question: Do you want things to change or remain the same?

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Bungled Diplomacy, Murder, & Healing: A New American Day at Wessagussett


Chief One Bear and 'English' speaker at Wessagussett 2004

Chief One Bear and ‘English’ representative at Wessagusset ceremonies 2004

On Saturday, April 6th, 2013, the town of Weymouth—only the second permanent English settlement in Massachusetts, and a founding-place of the public town meeting—held a gathering of Native and other American citizens determined to listen to each other.

This “little salt water cove,” called Wessagussett in Eastern Algonquian, was the place where, 390 years ago in the Spring of 1623, the “Pilgrims” of Plimoth Plantation sent their man at arms Captain Myles Standish, to ambush and kill several outspoken Massachusett leaders under the guise of a diplomatic council and feast.

After centuries of controversy and blame—ironically, over a place thoroughly neglected through those times—in 1999 the site of Wessagussett was cleaned up and re-opened as a Memorial Park and Nature Walk, followed by dedication-ceremonies in 2001. (Take a beautiful walk through in this short video at YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EZ5BOQYvPk .)

Then in Spring 2004, here at the meeting of Sea Street and Willow Avenue, came the first ceremonial “Laying Down of Arms” between Native people and representatives of the Pilgrims’ first English neighbors. (You can see more about that day with the Ancient Lights link just below.)

So, this 2013 gathering was a next step forward: a “Day of Recognition” that brought about 100 people of many backgrounds to the site. Quietly a Native man walked circles around the great circle, “smudging” everybody with smoke from sweetgrass burning in a shell. A ceremonial fire burned close by the drum of the Quabbin Lake Singers, and their voices and drumming honored everybody’s ancestors, to open the bright afternoon of open-minded listening and talk.

Before long, a dignified group of about 25 local men came marching down the street opposite, and joined into the gathering as  the presence of the first Wessagussett company. One big burly gentleman in olive overalls with a great gray beard seemed to have stepped from a history book. And through all the Native and other guests’ turns at speaking, there was a powerful meditative silence.

It was Thomas B. Adams who, as President of Massachusetts Historical Society, observed in 1970 that “the world cannot afford to bungle its diplomacy.” Adams spoke back in time to his family forebear, Charles Francis Jr., whose 1892 Three Episodes of Massachusetts History had studied the slaughter at Wessagussett, only to find it merely typical of American frontier necessity. So this day’s recognized Native and academic historians came together determined to follow Thomas, rather than Charles, into the future—with a common ground of new understandings to refute the claim of inevitable violence.

Below is the 20-minute talk I had the privilege to deliver as one of many voices. I had first studied Plimoth (1620) and Wessagussett (1621) as part of graduate studies at Brown University, creating a new edition of New English Canaan (1637/2000) and the biography of its author Thomas Morton—both of which involved Wessagussett history. The link and the contrast was that Morton’s infamous Merrymount (1624) used different older methods to establish successful relations with the same Massachusetts people whose families had been injured at Wessagussett. So I’d gone back into events from 1621-23, whose historiography underwrote the national frontier story, and published Good News from New England and Other Writings on the Killings at Weymouth Colony (2001). You can see a full time-line and web-page about these events at http://ancientlights.org/tl3.html .

Finally—because these “Crazy Pages” are to really speak my mind—I offer these frank observations. The original “Pilgrims” of Plimoth (and the secular “Strangers” with them alike) wished very much that “rude” and “uncouth” Wessagussett would just go away. It was after all an economic rival (like Merrymount), and most of its mainstream-English people made a laughing-stock of Plimoth’s frontier-evangelical fantasies—their dreams of “reforming” New England’s “howling wilderness” and “savages” which, in fact, for a century had carried on a cautious imperfect transatlantic coexistence.

Unfortunately and incomprehensibly likewise, today’s “living museum” of first-rate professional scholars and “interpreters” at Plimoth Plantation continue to ignore the increasing tide of informed dialogue, real understanding and civic recognition at Wessagussett. Take your education-starved family to Plimoth for a day and there’ll be worlds to learn about, from the church and fort and Main Street to the Wampanoag Village.

But you won’t see, on the palisade of Plimoth where “It’s Always 1627,” the piked-up head of the Native spokesman who was “pre-emptively” assassinated, in the midst of both sides’ terrified misunderstandings and mistakes. And you won’t see the linen cloth that Captain Standish dipped in the blood of his victims and posted like a first flag on top of those fortifications. You won’t hear either about the seasoned man who laughed and called them altogether “needless,” or about his 1627 May Day Revels, or his ongoing transatlantic trust and toleration. (Come to Maypole Hill in Quincy on May 11th, and you will!) (NOTE: Due to “rain” forecast, the date of Revels 386 is changed to SATURDAY MAY 18th, 2013, from 12 noon to 3pm.)

Morton invited Plimoth folk along with “all comers” to his feast. If they showed up, they remembered a dancing chorus of decadent furies and fairies too naive to know that their unlikely frontier success had doomed them. Plimoth since and to this day has ignored all like invitations to both plantation-sites, and even the skilled interpreter who handles the role of Myles Standish decided, after all, not to attend this Day of Recognition.

Why? It was Charles Francis Adams Jr. who wrote that “there is something appalling in the consciousness of utter isolation”; and, that in such a needlessly mistaken mental state, “it was impossible that [the 'Pilgrims'] should not exaggerate the danger.” As my local fellow citizen-scholar Chet Austin observes, the news of massive Native attacks on Englishmen in Virginia (1621) must have understandably terrified Plimoth’s people, and only one thing could have saved them from the error of assuming all “savages” alike—authentic  relationships with Native New Englanders.

Back then, it seemed to be Plimoth families at stake. But history, public teaching, and public presentation have to know and go forward on the fact that that danger is over.

What is it, then? We know what it meant for the tame-as-custard Boston Globe when it declared itself “a family newspaper”: is Plimoth Plantation a “family history” site whose profession is to keep everybody smiling? It’s an odd new mission for the neighbors of a Renaissance man who was doing that. Wessagussett seems to be something that not even PBS, not even the BBC, not even The History Channel will touch (all of whom have filmed on location at Plimoth, with full casts of interpreters)—not with more than superficial and “tragically necessary” moments in familiar stories. It’s not as if these putative public teachers don’t love a good safely-dead political intrigue and murder. Maybe they too see something alive at Wessagussett.

Wessagussett was the first to teach, through its exculpatory histories, what became the full-blown Puritan approach to Native America; and that was the ground floor of national policy assumptions. Myles Standish, “Injun Expert,” and the stern bungler of Salem, John Endecott, became the ham-handed teachers of the next English comers’ men-at-arms. (Watch a 1992 interview-excerpt with Myles Standish at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHkM9faOH4w .) Ten years to the month after Morton’s 1627 May Day, those greenhorns made a fiasco of their extermination-war against the Pequots, and you can see this for yourself at http://ancientlights.org/mysticfiasco.html .

Their ministers, governors and gentles were the authors of the histories soon to be read in schools for three centuries after them. So, to see how deeply Wessagussett lives on in our national psyche, make a list of the crucial errors in its story: ignorance of the land, short-sighted priorities, uninformed plans, neglect of Native languages, inability to tell “them” apart, one-sided diplomacy with a tin ear, little idea of Native social structure or warfare, and fear-based actions that kept on needlessly creating new enemies. (All of this in tandem with multi-media reports of “progress” and “success,” and followed by shelf-feet of sad haunted imperial hagiography.)

If you sense familiar contemporary patterns in that list, they are the legacy of 1623. If education can’t or won’t find ways to address the whole story, we will keep on bleeding others and ourselves for the sake of an icon.

It’s silly, because the full facts are out there now: the first shock is that all these people were flawed, and not, in C.F. Adams words, either culture-bearers or “partially developed, savage human beings.” It’s strange, because people where you talk with them are starved for complex history, and what else can feed our genuine growth? It’s needless, because all but a few on any side have already given up their “Saints”: to smoothly sidestep the less-than-ideal is to weaken oneself by weakening one’s inheritance, validating willful ignorance and hypocrisy. And, it’s insulting, to Native and other citizens alike—as if, once again, this is all just too uncomfortable and painful for the children.

2020 is coming—the “Pilgrims’” 400th anniversary. Who’s going to tell it in the round? So far the wall around agents, studios, and accepted insiders (i.e., “ball carriers” who take a project to the right desk) stands impermeable, but maybe we shouldn’t expect this to come from inside anyhow. Want to make it happen? Let’s talk.

Liam (Thomas Morton) Neeson, are you out there? One day years ago, HBO’s Jeremy Sisto called by satellite-via-L.A.-agent from Malta about all this (he sounded cool and wired, filming Julius Caesar), and then he vanished with $200 in books/materials and the Merrymount script that gets it done, from Wessagussett to the Maypole and the Pequot War Fiasco. Tantoo Cardinal, why don’t you answer? Can we get more than a good local burger from Mark Wahlberg? Roger Deakins hails from Morton’s wild Devonshire: end of message. Oliver Stone‘s new American histories could use a foundation. Several years back, questing for a man who values our past, I left some Oscar-seeds at Ben Affleck‘s house in Cambridge, but his mother was busy ironing his super-hero leotards and flags. Howard Zinn (God bless him) told me personally that this story knocked his socks off. I wish he’d told Matt Damon.

Well, this is the kind of thing we do—and we hope, someday, you’ll join us.

Wessagussett Memorial Garden 2

*******

Good afternoon. Weeg-Waman: Welcome. First, it is meet to thank our friend Jodi Purdy Quinlan, who brought this Memorial Garden into being 12 years ago. Welcome back, to those who remember the first memorial gathering here, 9 years ago, with our dear late friend Chief One Bear. We welcome and appreciate, too, the descendants of Massachusetts and other tribes-people who honor this place with their presence. And, Welcome all who come to share this Day Of Recognition.

The end of all our wandering, said the poet T.S. Eliot, is to come home and know the place for the first time. So, in these 20 minutes, let’s open our eyes—to Weechagaskas, Wessaguscus, or Wessagussett, the “little salt water cove” in Algonquian. A good place to live, to sit, to listen and ponder, with fresh water, deep soil, easy access to the blessings of the sea and three rivers: the Fore, the Back, and the Monatiquot.

This day, we look at Wessagussett in time. It’s a beautiful, peaceful garden, set aside for the purpose of remembering where the peoples of two continents met, and began to try to live together. And, this is a garden that has bloomed from a place of murder.

This is the site of a fatal misunderstanding at the root of our story. So, while this day in civic terms goes to recognize all our forebears and ancestors, it is also an act, toward all our elders, very much like what students do in the highest honor of their teachers.

We, like time and life, are going beyond them. We cannot undo the past. We can do better. It is what our best teachers want from us, and for us. It’s part of what makes each one of us American.

The soil of Wessagussett tells about extraordinary people: very different people, on the front line of a human frontier that was new to all of them. They had extraordinary strengths, courage, and freedom, and they were under extraordinary pressures, in the midst of their meeting.

The curtain really rises with a melting Wisconsin Ice Sheet, about 13,000 years ago. We still dredge up mastodon-teeth off Martha’s Vineyard, and Native stories tell of walking to visit relatives in Nantucket. We have finds of artifacts like old family-heirloom-collections, including every period of their life here—the oldest “Paleo” points, the brilliant “Archaic” tools from the Blue Hills to Quincy’s Caddy Park, and the beautiful things created in the “Woodland” days—which brought on the great gardens of Massachusetts Fields, and the times we now call history.

This goes to the long memory behind Massachusetts peoples and their neighbors. By the age of their settled-in villages, most of them called the Great Spirit Kiehtan. They understood the world of nature as a balance of differences, wholly alive: infused, to the waters and stones, with spirit.

They knew their lands and kinsmen through their mothers—including the Massachusetts’ Great Squa of Mystic, who outlived the Sachem Nanepashemet; and her sister of the Neponset band, named Passonagessit. Economically, Native New England lived by a barter system, with local and region-wide trails and waterways. And their family groups appointed Sachems, who spoke for them in matters of diplomacy, justice, trade—and sometimes like the rest of the world, in conflict. We know there were bad-blood rivalries among the Wampanoags, Narragansetts and Massachusetts. But, as in Europe of the time, that was the exception, not the rule, among peoples who were closely intermarried.

By the 1600s, at least 5,000 Massachusetts people were living in 5 main bands from the North to South Shores: the Saugus, the Mystic, the Neponset, the Ponkapoag and the Cohanit. From north to south, this coast is covered with the shell-heaps that mark the places of their seasonal feasts and festivals. And by that time, about 250 European ships were visiting these shores each year to fish and trade for furs where they could.

The Massachusetts’ close connections, though, also carried European diseases, and after 1618 there were only about 1,000 Massachusetts left. It was Plimoth’s great scholar Nanepashemet who compared this to the nightmare-impact of a nuclear weapon. Suddenly, generations were gone, and the region’s tribal relationships were thrown into new imbalance.

Among the survivors was Passonagessit’s son, the many-named Chikatawbak, or “House Afire.” By the 1620s his people had moved down the Neponset River from Unquity to seaside Moswetusett. At his sides were at least two very capable men, called Pecksuot and Wituwamat: they were pneise, or in Winslow’s words, men “of great stature and strength, but discreet, courteous and humane, who scorned theft, lying, and all manner of base dealings.” Their abilities combined the political roles of Sagamore or sub-chief with the healing and visions of the Powah, along with leadership where conflict called for diplomacy.

DeRasieres described such men as “eager and free in speech, fierce in countenance, but tempered with courage and wisdom.” Such was Plimoth’s Wampanoag friend Hobbamok. As will appear, it may have been a status also hoped-for by his fellow Tisquantum. And within those roles was a tactic called brinksmanship—a daring use of language and threat as the left hand of conflict resolution.

Consider that, if men like Pecksuot and Wituwamat reached their 30s by the 1620s, they were shaped by decades that brought more French and English strangers to these shores, along with “plague” and encounters that turned increasingly bad. It seemed that a century of older transatlantic ways—called “fair means” in English, and described by Chikatawbak as reciprocal gifting, socializing, and trade—was breaking down, under European pressures and Native New England’s new imbalances.

The young Pecksuot and Wituwamat could have met Gosnold, and Martin Pring, Champlain and Challons: Captains Argall, and Harlow, and John Smith himself, around 1614, who skirmished and killed people at Cohasset and Patuxet, future Plimoth. When the infamous Captain Hunt kidnapped at least 19 people, including Tisquantum, these two Massachusetts pneise knew about it.

Pecksuot himself, talking with a French crew shipwrecked on Cape Cod, was told by one what his holy book saw: Native peoples soon being driven from their lands. Was that why Pecksuot and others, soon after, attacked and burned another French ship in Boston Bay, upon “some distaste” given them? Now, all-told, we have an idea of why Pecksuot and Wituwamat were so out in front of encounters with the newest strangers. These English made it clear that, this time, they meant to stay.

Good News from New England

The great majority of these colonists were varying degrees of Christian: underground Catholics, mainstream Anglicans, or outright Protestants against their government and church. From sailors to soldiers and gentleman-investors, in their cosmos the Creation had “fallen” into sin, and in consequence, their religion focused around The Bible’s Old Testament, and an ancient Middle Eastern rabbi named Jesus, whom they believed would return one day to separate good from evil forever. In William Bradford’s words, “both reason and nature” excluded women from leadership. Meanwhile, these English family groups, centered around fathers and patriarchs, were going through different kinds of separation: leaving behind the medieval manor-farm with its common dining halls, living on lands and in households increasingly subdivided by social class, by economics, and by political and religious ideologies.

Economically, as Early Modern capitalism emerged from medieval ways, England was closing off more and more common lands for a new class of investors in the wool industry. While many protested, thousands of people roamed the land “penniless, naked and starving.” Thousands of hardened English soldiers were back from the wars against Spain, such as Humphrey Gilbert, John Smith, Myles Standish, and possibly Phinehas Pratt of the first Wessagussett men. Altogether, the stresses on England were making it too easy to run over any Native American rights in their ancient land. After all, they had no cattle. The first corporate ventures’ profits were meager, but the rivaling powers of states, aristocracies, and investments kept finding new means for them. America was already becoming a kind of safety valve for European problems.

At the bottom were the parish boys, youths without other hopes who answered calls from King James’ Council For New England for sailors and settlers, and signed themselves into years of indentured servitude. By Plimoth’s time, more than half these youths were dying each year in the malarial tobacco farms of Virginia.

There were still more distinct English groups: the mostly-secular families like the “Strangers” who came with Mayflower, interested only in a homestead-share of a colonial enterprise. That was also one goal of the evangelicals known as Separatists or Puritans. Such were Plimoth’s William Bradford and Edward Winslow, whose family groups, dedicated to dissent from state and church, left their first exile in The Netherlands to avoid fitting into an insufficiently-Biblical Dutch culture. If they could not endure the Dutch, the choice of a “wilderness,” filled with ideas of “savages,” tells us about their will to isolate themselves, if that was what it took to live their uncorrupted values.

Finally, at the top were the investors—-aristocrats on, or close to, The Council for New England. Their capital interest was profit, even by way of illicit gun-trade, with the best American pelts and furs. Such were the men who scolded the decimated Pilgrims for not returning Mayflower packed with commodities; and “middling” gentlemen like Thomas Weston, who was working for his and the Council’s interests.

And so let’s turn to the key moments on the way to what happened here. It may surprise you, that the most decisive error was at the very start. When Plimoth rose from the ashes to a major agreement with Wampanoag and Massachusett groups in September 1621, what did it stipulate? One thing—that all of them were subjects of King James. For this to have any meaning for Native people, it could only mean they were allies, expected to turn to each other in matters of conflict and justice.

However, the paper bore no Narragansett marks. They did not appreciate their old rival Wampanoags and Massachusetts seeming to have a new upper hand in European trade. It’s a tribute to Tisquantum’s help in all this, that the Narragansetts blamed him. So, they got their cousins at Nemasket to kidnap and shake up Tisquantum. Had they wanted him dead, they’d have killed him. But out marched Captain Standish to the needless rescue, wounding several Native people.

And still, the peace held around that year’s Thanksgiving. Now came the Fortune, with the first 35 of Weston’s men, and “scarce a bisket-cake amongst them.” The central mistake was soon to come, from a no-doubt shaken Tisquantum, and from Captain Standish.

You see, into that winter of 1621, the Narragansetts tried diplomacy again. But the men they entrusted made it a fiasco of bitter words, and in came the famous bundle of arrows wrapped in snakeskin.

bundle of arrows wrapped in snakeskin, by historical artist Michael F. McWade

Read Winslow’s first pages carefully. He says, that warning was for Tisquantum. But he, perhaps to protect himself, turned the warning into a threat to the whole plantation. So, first thing, Plimoth sent out Hobbamock’s wife. She found no bad feeling or intent in local villages. Yet, from late November into February, Plimoth fortified. They built a palisade in fear of the Narragansetts and, we can only suppose, of their local Native kind.

This meant that most manpower would not be planting food, and it forced more desperate encounters in the coming months. Fortification also alienated Plimoth’s own chief ally Wampanoags. “Many insulting speeches” started to hamper the older transatlantic ways of dealing with trouble—which we’ll hear from Chikatawbak himself.

In Charles Francis Adams’ view, it was impossible for Plimoth, in such self-isolation, not to magnify the danger beyond the facts.

Early that Spring 1622, Tisquantum was close again to being killed, when straight in came the Sparrow, full of more Weston men for Wessagussett. Governor Bradford turns his story to the English, for now he had his hands full of more men with no supplies. But he did see, right there, Native men turning away “in a great rage.” To them, it must have seemed clear that there was no real idea of shared justice. Soon, events would unfold to show them this again, and again.

A few weeks of bad blood passed. June 22 brought 60-70 more of Weston’s men on the Charity and Swan. Somehow out of their scant provisions, they did gift Chikatawbak for permission to live on this chosen ground. But by all accounts, they had few applicable skills. They built no storehouse, because they planted no crops. According to the outsider Captain Levett, they spent most of their time building “castles in air.”

Survival meant that they could not help but intrude into Native food sources, from shellfish to ground nuts and game. Now imagine the impact of summer’s news that, far south in Virginia, the Powhatan had risen up against the English, and slain about 400 people. Standish increased Plimoth’s “training days,” with booming shows of arms. And the tinder just kept building in everybody’s midst.

Wessagussett’s first leader Richard Greene died. His successor John Saunders soon sailed for supplies from Maine’s fishermen, but he never came back. The trajectory was more and more desperation in young men all but abandoned by their superiors’ incompetence and negligence.

Some tore into late summer’s Native corn harvest, and more did so through Autumn. Who would deny that most merely wanted some kind of new home and life here? Yet, where they tried to adapt, they were foiled. Some drowned in the salt flats, exhausted by digging shellfish. Some collected firewood for local village food. Three put their boat-wrights’ skills to work, and one found a Massachusett wife. But these men in the middle were scorned by their fellows as quasi-traitors, and by Native people as scapegoats for their ongoing, unanswered grievances.

So began that desperate winter of 1622, as Bradford, Winslow and Standish made astonishing voyages round the region, doing their best to barter food from Native villages. But, in their own reports, at every stop, there were Native people to be heard about wrongs committed, crucial food-stores stolen, and hunger of their own. What we find is Captain Standish threatening violence over a missing string of beads. Englishmen laughing in the face of Native peoples’ best diplomatic gestures.

No surprise that Wituwamat and Pecksuot gave Standish an earful of feedback, more than once. These words, half-understood by ears that were willfully closed, became a “threat.” On both sides, and between, was what the Nigerian-American writer Teju Cole recently called the empathy gap: the failure to imagine how another party might react to something that would drive oneself to rage and maybe violence. 

Could things get worse without exploding? That December, an English ship, half-foundered off Cape Cod, decided to make the best of it by stealing furs, food, and people from the Nausets. If we know this only from minutes of a Council For New England meeting—through a report, relayed from Natives, by a Mass. Bay trader named Leo Peddock—we may be surprised if, by now, there was no “Native conspiracy” to end both colonies altogether. You be the judge, with the last indications we have.

Make a list of the months of rumors and alarms from Tisquantum and Hobbamock, and you can feel every Plimother’s head swimming with worry for their families. A court today would dismiss both players for their obvious failures to keep track of self-serving lies. Then, Tisquantum died suddenly that winter, and Plimoth lost another central help. Every avenue of diplomacy was either closing, cursed by luck, or bungled in anger.

That’s why we need to hear the most grounded and reasonable voice that spoke straight into these troubles. Somebody had to step forward, and try old means, to give resolution its fighting chance. Here came Sachem Chikatawbak, with a skillfully oblique show of strong, armed braves to Wessagussett: angry, but ready to talk.  “Well, Pecksuot—Tell him, if he be angry with us, we are angry with him.”

Not the right response.

“Englishmen,” Chikatawbak said. “When you came into the country, we gave you gifts, and you gave us gifts. We bought and sold with you, and we were friends. And now, tell me, if I, or any of my men, have done you wrong. Some of you steal our corn. And I have sent you word, times without number. And yet, our corn is stolen. I come to see what you will do. All Sachems do justice by their own men. If not, we say, ‘They are all in together.’ And then, we fight. I say, you all steal my corn.”

The English “stirred their arms.” Chikatawbak “went away in a great rage.” And then—Listen. “At this time, we strengthened our watch, until we had no food left.” It was Wessagusett now in the Plimoth boat.

 Honorably, Governor Bradford stopped a desperate Wessagusset proposal to take more food outright from Native families’ stores. Winslow’s diplomacy and doctoring for Massasoit brought a new “conspiracy” charge out of Hobbamock, whose list turned every ally on Plimoth paper into an enemy: including Nemasket, where Winslow stayed pleasantly on his way home.

The final choice—for a “pre-emptive strike” led by Standish, who was boiling in his brain against Wituwamat and Pecksuot—was sealed with the arrival of so-called intelligence from Wessagussett’s Phinehas Pratt. And not one historian, from Bradford to Philbrick, has scrutinized this final spark, even as they cite it.

Pratt was writing decades later to get a kind of “retirement” from Mass Bay, and long after all the other eyewitnesses were gone or dead. He proudly recounts his assault on a merely-saucy Massachusett woman for no apparent reason. When she cursed him out with a threat that braves would repay her bruises, Pratt struck off for Plimoth with her words.

Oh, yes—just before Pratt left, Pecksuot offered Pratt his own son, Nahamit, as a guide; for which, read “hostage.” Pecksuot wanted this naked “lie” of conspiracy exposed. Pratt refused, and slipped away.

Clearly, parlay was still possible, because that was the stated purpose of this Wessagussett meeting. Pratt says that 10 or 11 armed English arrived here with Captain Standish, and Hobbamok: the day was our April 5th. The next day came Wituwamat, with a brother of 18 “following in his steps,” and Pecksuot, with “another” man, maybe his son.

Philbrick at least brings out the assassination-mission on which Standish carried himself. He was determined to kill and terrify as many Massachusetts as possible, at the dawn of the English tradition called “one bloody good lesson.” Tellingly, he was shocked that Wessagussett’s own men seemed to feel no danger around them. But, Wituwamat saw the rage in Standish’s eyes, and told him to “begin whenever he liked.”

Where Standish “liked” was not in the open, toe-to-toe, but seated, at a closed-in feast of pork—offering, perhaps, some soothing liquids. The Captain seized Pecksuot’s own knife hung at his neck, and witnesses found it “incredible how many wounds these two pneises received before they died.” When Wituwamat and his brother were dead at other hands, Standish cut off his capital enemy’s head. Outside, they hanged “another,” and sent orders for killing two more by “another Company.” Then Standish, “to make spoil of them and theirs,” killed one more, and one fellow escaped him. A running skirmish, round a hill near here, came to one man wounded and a torrent of mutual rage. When Standish, back at Plimoth, showed the head around, a number of terrified “confessions” came forth. But it was too late to save the 2 or 3 Wessagussett men who were killed in the villages, where they had tried to do their best.

Pratt, by that summer, took part in more assaults and abductions at Cape Ann and Dorchester. A visiting Captain Emmanuel Altham saw Wituwamat’s head piked on Plimoth’s fortifications. Beside it hung a cloth dipped in his blood as an “ancient,” or flag. And Altham heard people wonder what had happened to their trade. Winslow knew.

“This sudden and unexpected execution…so terrified and amazed them, that they forsook their houses, running to and fro, living like men distracted, living in swamps, and so brought manifold diseases amongst themselves. Very many are dead; as Canacum, the Sachem of Manomet; Aspinet, the Sachem of Nauset; and Ianow, Sachem of Mattakiest. Certainly many of late have died, and still daily die. Nor will it easily cease, because through fear, they set little or no corn.”

Soon, three more Massachusetts people drowned, just trying to bring peace-presents to Plimoth. So the count went to at least 10 Native people dead, and 2 or 3 English.

Together now, we look. What we see is as much as historians can ask for by way of an experiment. First we have an imperfect but working set of methods in the first transatlantic century of contact. Then, the Plimoth approach. But what happened, the very next year, with the same Native people? They met some new English, men with a mind for those old ways. And together they made it work. Better than ever, until Boston arrived.

It wasn’t Utopia. Just mutual respect. Come see for yourself, because you are invited to Maypole Hill in Quincy on Saturday May 11th, 11am to 2, where Merrymount became the most notoriously “wrong” example on the books. True, it only worked for six years—but the cause of its end was not within itself. Maybe this year, the Maypole’s 389th, we’ll get the Plimoth folks to come and let their hair down.

And now, having looked with all our courage, this is a place to be proud of the town that rose from the first. A town whose town meetings built the foundation of democracy. A town that faced the fines and whips and exiles that punished their religious independence. And a town with the strength to comprehend its ambiguities and teach them to the public, rather than hope, as of old, that Wessagussett will go away. We are the unafraid proof that it will not. We want sophisticated children.

Sisters and brothers, here today, where all of us have lost our “saints,” we are come home, with new eyes. This is Recognition Day. The walls are down. See the garden again. This beauty is inside us, and around us. This is what goes on. Not fear. Not the lack of understanding.

What can close this better than the prayer of our great late friend, Chief One Bear, Raymond Tremblay, who grew up in this area, and helped the healing here in 2004: a man whose “merry jests and squibs” sustained his relentless dedication to cultural memory, and new learning.

“Great Spirit, whose voice I hear in the winds, and whose breath gives life to all the world, hear me! I am small and weak. I need your strength and wisdom. Let me walk in beauty, and make my eyes ever behold the red and purple sunset. Make my hands respect the things you have made, and my ears sharp to hear your voice. Make me wise, so that I may understand the things you have taught my people. Let me learn the lessons you have hidden in every leaf and rock. I seek strength—not be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy: myself. Make me always ready to come to you with clean hands, and straight eyes; so that when life fades, as the fading sunset, my spirit may come to you without shame.”

This garden blooms from our learning, from this frontier-American place that made us, and makes us. The garden is living the recognition that, together and always, we are in it.

Wessagussett ceremonies Spring 2004

*******

Head of Myles Standish State Park statue blasted off by lightning, Spring 1923In Spring 1623, the diminutive and fiery Captain Myles Standish piked the severed head of Massachusett spokesman Wituwamat on the palisade at Plimoth. In Spring 1923, a bolt of lightning blasted the head off his statue high atop the “world’s tallest historical monument” (to “Captain Shrimp”) at Myles Standish State Park in Duxbury. Photo courtesy of Weymouth’s most indefatigable native, Jodi Purdy Quinlan.

*******

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Martin Luther King Jr.’s Last Vision—A People’s Occupation of Washington DC


Image

     Yes indeed—Occupy began to change the national conversation. And now? I wonder where the vast majority of American citizens can, perhaps, agree.

     It seems unlikely the Pentagon is going to stop such profitable daily business until American citizens surround it and block that flow of counterproductive waste and needless blood.

     The private corporation that sells money to The United States, the so-called Federal Reserve, is not going to let go of all its golden sinecures until American citizens bodily interrupt its generations of economic manipulation, fraud and crime.

     Wherever we listen, we hear Americans say that the U.S. Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court are not going to resume and fulfill their representative and Constitutional functions until they all stand face to face with citizens who are demanding—unconditionally, now—that they do so.

     One further observation you may share. Surely the childishly limited, corporation-rigged national discussion on display in these 2012 debates between Robamney and Robamney is not the discussion we desperately need to be having. The most practical and coherent vision of where we need to go—as a species hoping to survive, not just as Americans—spent the 2nd debate evening shackled to a chair with her Green Party VP.

     Flash: Out of the ashes of a Depression caused by unregulated speculation, it was FDR’s New Deal and the GI Bill that built the world we enjoy—from the weekend to health care and the minimum wage. The Green New Deal’s strength is its simplicity. Cut the war budget and actively invest in peace. Invest in education (which generates more return than any other venture), create a green economy and a 21st-century civilization—which will begin to end the age of oil and resource wars, and so begin to address climate change. Those are interconnected solutions that make practical sense. If Robamney, Robamney and the criminally corrupt DNC/GOP duopoly had any better ideas, you’d know it by now.

     ”Gentlemen, nobody wants to cut the defense budget!” gushed the distinguished clown Martha Raddatz—doing her patriotic part to confine the discussion to nonsense.

     Given how long these problems have been worsening through the criminal neglect of our “leaders,” consider afresh the voice of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. from 1968, in the year of his assassination. King’s plan was for a direct democratic nonviolent people’s march on Washington DC—the beginning of a global struggle for economic and other kinds of justice. Only a carefully homegrown but global movement could possibly deal with the global-scale assaults on workers, rights and nature by the Profit machine. And so King’s words are more relevant than ever.

     I hope that a generation who knew King’s life and felt his loss will recover all his inspirational power toward a direct and determined revival of his plan—a peaceful, positive, practical plan from a vision that will not and cannot be turned away.

From Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s last book of essays,

“The Trumpet of Conscience,” 1968:

This from “Nonviolence and Social Change”:

 

     …Of course, by now it is obvious that new laws are not enough. The emergency we now face is economic, and it is a desperate and worsening situation. For the 35 million poor people in America—not even to mention, just yet, the poor in other nations—there is a kind of strangulation in the air. In our society it is murder, psychologically, to deprive a man of a job or an income. You are in substance saying to that man that he has no right to exist. You are in a real way depriving him of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, denying in his case the very creed of his society. Now, millions of people are being strangled that way. The problem is international in scope. And it is getting worse, as the gap between the poor and the ‘affluent society’ increases.

     The question that now divides the people who want radically to change that situation is: can a program of nonviolence—even if it envisions massive civil disobedience—realistically expect to deal with such an enormous, entrenched evil?

     …I intend to show that nonviolence will be effective, but not until it has achieved the massive dimensions, the disciplined planning, and the intense commitment of a sustained, direct-action movement of civil disobedience on the national scale….

     …The only real revolutionary, people say, is a man who has nothing to lose. There are millions of poor people in this country who have very little, or even nothing, to lose. If they can be helped to take action together, they will do so with a freedom and a power that will be a new and unsettling force in our complacent national life.

      Beginning in the New Year, we will be recruiting three thousand of the poorest citizens from ten different urban and rural areas to initiate and lead a sustained, massive, direct-action movement in Washington, D.C. Those who choose to join this initial three thousand, this nonviolent army, this ‘freedom church’ of the poor, will work with us for three months to develop nonviolent action skills. Then we will move on Washington, determined to stay there until the legislative and executive branches of the government take serious and adequate action on jobs and income.

     A delegation of poor people can walk into a high official’s office with a carefully, collectively prepared list of demands. (If you’re poor, if you’re unemployed anyway, you can choose to stay in Washington as long as the struggle needs you.) And if that official says, ‘But Congress would have to approve this,’ or, ‘But the President would have to be consulted on that,’ you can say, ‘All right, we’ll wait.’ And you can settle down in his office for as long a stay as necessary.

     If you are, let’s say, from rural Mississippi, and have never had medical attention, and your children are undernourished and unhealthy, you can take those little children into the Washington hospitals and stay with them there until the medical workers cope with their needs, and in showing it your children, you will have shown this country a sight that will make it stop in its busy tracks and think hard about what it has done.

     The many people who will come and join this three thousand, from all groups in the country’s life, will play a supportive role, deciding to be poor for a time along with the dispossessed who are asking for their right to jobs or income—jobs, income, the demolition of slums, and the rebuilding by the people who live there of new communities in their place; in fact, a new economic deal for the poor.

     …I have said that the problem, the crisis we face, is international in scope. In fact, it is inseparable from an international emergency that involves the poor, the dispossessed, and the exploited of the whole world.

      Can a nonviolent, direct-action movement find application on the international level, to confront economic and political problems? I believe it can. It is clear to me that the next stage of the movement is to become international.

     National movements within the developed countries—forces that focus on London, or Paris, or Washington, or Ottawa—must help to make it politically feasible for their governments to undertake the kind of massive aid that the developing countries need if they are to break the chains of poverty. We in the West must bear in mind that the poor countries are poor primarily because we have exploited them through political or economic colonialism. Americans in particular must help their nation repent of her modern economic imperialism.

     But movements in our countries alone will not be enough….So many of Latin America’s problems have roots in the United States of America that we need to form a solid, united movement, nonviolently conceived and carried through, so that pressure can be brought to bear on the capital and government power structures concerned, from both sides of the problem at once. I think that may be the only hope for a nonviolent solution in Latin America today; and one of the most powerful expressions of nonviolence may come out of that international coalition of socially aware forces, operating outside governmental frameworks.

     …In practice, such a decision would represent such a major reordering of priorities that we should not expect that any movement could bring it about in one year or two. Indeed, although it is obvious that nonviolent movements for social change must internationalize, because of the interlocking nature of the problems they all face, and because otherwise those problems will breed war, we have hardly begun to build the skills and the strategy, or even the commitment, to planetize our movement for social justice.

     …In this world, nonviolence is no longer an option for intellectual analysis: it is an imperative for action.

Aside | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Eve, Spring, Flowers: Notes on a Murder 32 Years Unsolved


Eve Helene Wilkowitz, 1959-1980

     In the spring of 1980 I’d just begun to live as a writer (age 25) in New York City. “Up until that age, I had no development at all,” said Herman Melville: “I date the beginning of my life from that year.” In central ways over three decades since that spring, I have felt the same thing.

New York! The breathing howling dynamo of American literary tradition, grimy, grand and alive to the last hidden street-corner. You stepped out your door every morning and swam out into living, and if one sense was shocked by some revolting daily revelation of human being, the other four senses didn’t care—they were drunks getting drunker by the breath on every sight, smell and sound, all of it reverberating intensified off the city’s endless canyon walls. Every mile each day was different, every person seemed to belong in a movie, and sometimes the whole packed-in human river flowed along almost in silence—until the next few minutes of utter pandemonium exploded into any hour, a convincing reminder of the madhouse under the imperial city of the world.

Drop something while you walk to your first freelance-writing job, it’s gone. Leave a door open, a key unaccounted for—forget it. Miss those signs that you’re starting to stick out like a mark and you’ll become one. And that’s the way it is: New York as usual the most intense example of whatever you want to talk about.

So here’s the mystery posed to me one Spring Friday night in 1980:

Having dinner with Eve Helene Wilkowitz, then a near-21-year-old publishing secretary working through school toward social work—a vibrant, charming, warm-hearted woman with dark eyes and long strong legs who loved her younger sister and was helping her to survive the recent death of their mother at a young age.

We eat, see a movie, walk the midtown city night holding hands and talking, talking. There’s no doubt we’re in love for the six electric weeks behind us. In fact we’ve just said it aloud to each other for the first time, and already talked some plans about moving in together. Under that, there’s more, and a ringing in my ears: The One. The One.

So there we are back at my midtown mouse-hole of a place, late, the city thrumming and quiet all around while those first exquisite deep kisses of a new beginning married us to Spring. In fact, I wanted Eve to stay the night with me instead of her usual—a ride on the night’s last Long Island Railroad train, back out to her then unhappily-shared apartment in Bay Shore.

I made it gently truly clear that I meant Sleep, and Eve believed me. So, she told me her real reason for why she had to go. She was not feeling well at all, with her ongoing period just then—she needed rest before she had to face some Saturday responsibilities. Then, she smiled, she’d be back to spend the rest of Saturday with me. Very promising, that smile.

So there we were, still making out as the near-midnight time for that last train kept approaching. I could not kiss Eve enough, and the funny thing from there is that while I did so, she proved so needful of real sleep that she was starting to nod off right there in my arms. Completely vulnerable, warm, tender, breathing deeply, resting. Safe.

I could respect her wishes, and wake Eve up in good time to take her across town in a taxi to Penn Station. She had never allowed me to ride the train all the way home with her—it was a beastly journey and Eve the work-commuter and NY native felt absolutely in command of it: there was “no need. I know everybody.” Still I always pressed to go till I nearly made her mad.

On the other hand, counseled my amorous 25-year-old New York writer’s intensified brain, I could pretend to fall asleep too. Just until the last train was sure-gone. Then she’d discover what a paragon of loving patience I could often pretend to be.

I woke Eve up and took her to the train. She slept with her head on my shoulder while the taxi tossed and rattled both of us, driving insanely down empty late-night Thirty-Fourth Street for the Station’s West Side.

The little argument about riding out with her erupted again right on the platform, and that was that. There were, after all, people around—a minor flood in the Station basement was tangling up a home-bound crowd from some Madison Square Garden sport event. I let her go.

Down the stairway Eve stepped, and she disappeared.

So have I wondered these 32 years: what was right? If I had not done as Eve had asked, not awakened her to take that train, she would be alive. I respected her wishes, and she isn’t.

No hope of anybody knowing where she was all that following weekend. No hope of filing a Missing Persons for at least 24 hours and till all known contacts were exhausted. So, I waited and chewed myself to pieces, until the following Tuesday morning.

“Mr. Dempsey, this is Detective Palumbo with Suffolk County Police Department out on Long Island. We’d like you to jump on the train and come out here today, while we work on this Missing Persons.”

So, I went, afraid as I was to leave the phone. And after a whole day of dark faces and riding-around’s to many locations never seen before, nor understanding why I was seeing them, they sat me down where I looked at Eve’s own chaotic kitchen for the first time, and told me she was dead. They watched the blood fall out of my face.

Eve “went missing” somewhere along her long route—from Pennsylvania Station, through Babylon and out to Bay Shore, Long Island, where at the station she always counted on a local taxi for the last leg of dark streets home. She was held alive for three days, and then murdered early that next Tuesday morning—and her body, her killer(s) dumped in the backyard of a suburban-style family home not three blocks from the place where Eve had lived.

When I got back to my room that evening I sat still in the dark all night. When the sun came up I started writing out every breath of our six weeks. In two days it was 86 long-hand pages.

As the last friendly face Eve probably saw, I was in the prime suspect category for awhile. By chance, a medical student who’d sold me his used stereo showed up to deliver it, with his father, early that Saturday morning of Eve’s disappearance, and they described my disheveled crawl out of bed to meet them. Later, a lie detector test wrapped in cables and mirror-windows—and years later in the 90s, two further New York detectives simply appeared one afternoon in the driveway of my home north of Boston. We talked the case all over again, which is to say they helped me talk and gave out nothing, and they swabbed my mouth for a DNA sample. I was amazed and grateful that they were still in action about this.

And yet—nothing. Except everything. It’s good to observe how their science and these humanities converge: upon the value of a single human life. Eve made me a man. And a writer.

I’m now—or rather, for 15 years I’ve been writing—a second novel that takes my old Minoan Cretan tribespeople of Ariadne’s Brother into the larger ancient world, where as we now know, they came face to face with the Israelites in the days of their emergence into history—the time of Samuel, Saul and David. Not one single agent or publisher will so much as go near this, the story still bleeding in the lines of our daily news. And yet this thing day and night will not let me go, undone.

For all the guidance Eve has given me these years since that broken Spring, I feel her with me now like a protectress—because from having loved her as I have, the world will know there is not one single bone of anti-Semitism in my being. I am going to interrogate my tradition, fact with fiction, fiction with fact. And where have you been, O my fathers, my tradition, to say or do one thing for this your daughter? What honors were bestowed on woman in her name? What tigers walk our nights born and growing from your insane imaginations against Life?

Here is something “final” I know. For all the walls I’ve walked and worked through in this life of mine now doubled, It—the matter of Eve—stands. A cosmic iron wall. It will never be gone. It will never be comprehended, and never be rectified. As Oliver LaFarge’s Laughing Boy sang out to the canyons of his grief: Time will not change it.

When I breathe it’s a spear in my chest that makes shattering music. When I walk, I drag it with me. When I talk it is listening. When I walk it’s behind, ahead and around. When I read it offers footnotes. When I stumble and fall it’s the laugh while I get up.

Because, you see, I remember that I cried every day for about two years, and one day I just seemed to crack open completely. It was the highest joy you can imagine with a kind of deep rolling ocean of sorrow underneath it. It was the furthest reach I had ever experienced of my capacity to care about another person. I remember sheer amazement, a sense of infinite connection, with every luminous speck of dust precisely in place, and most of all gratitude. Seems that I’ve measured “eve”-rything else in life by that time and moment.

Is poetry defiance of death? So are flowers. The first below (al qui quiere!) came out of living alone in Crete in the 1990s. As I took off from home and family to write again my loving father smiled as if I cut the throat of his happiness in going, and I went. A harrowing time, first affiance and book-contract likewise in wreckage, and absolutely on track still through 15 years/2,000 crazy pages of Minoan manuscript. The second—and, such as they are—what I still feel every Spring with these flowers at my feet.

To Life! I hope they help put murderers in jail.

***

She Is [circa 1991]

The name by which I reach toward Forever,

the Earth beneath me and the Star above,

the strength I find still there through every weather,

the memory that we are born to love.

I died with her. We were reborn together,

she within my heart, and we live on.

This must be why so sweet, and bitter

it is to burn like sun and moon in one.

Eve means Life; and now I cannot lose,

because to feel this fire is to have won.

She’s past them: I, not yet; but O my Rose,

You will prevail by what our lives have done.

***

Equinox ‘04

Three days through an underworld of rape,

this was the blue dawn hour

when my Evie left the world,

twenty-four years

this morning.

I have curled my strength

around her sleep,

I will kiss her

hands and eyes

until they trust the world again.

*

Royal-purple crocus breaking

tender through the snow.

This morning we found

Eve Helene lying on the ground.

No thought,

no word

is adequate for either.

But

gentle things will rise,

however hard the vernal day,

however cold the sun.

 

***

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Stronger Speaking: Simple Seasoned Steps


Stronger Speaking: Simple Seasoned Steps

to Fundamental Confidence

         Pure exhilaration—More than a decade of it now as I’ve been teaching effective public and professional speaking to college students and clients. Every time I start afresh, it’s back to square one with a new group or person whose minor and sometimes-major habits of speech are disempowering them—usually and first of all, with those too-universal killers of attention and meaning: like, um, ya know, and up-talk (or, the constant question-tone?).

Call and leave yourself a 2-minute message about your day.

At the start of it, state your full name.

Then, next day, call back and listen to it.

Did you state your name in a “question?”-tone of voice?

Reverse that to a downward-ending tone, and hear the difference.  

If you have 250 words with which to move your life forward,

and 146 of them are blank noise, what are your chances?

           If I see transformations in these people all the time (and I do), it’s because of each “generation’s” frank feedback. What worked and what didn’t on the way to these new powers in your speech? So this is a short sharing of the most basic, key changes most people made, and some of the simple techniques that got them there.

          For the record, the age of The Dale Carnegie Speak Like An Authoritative White Man Program is bygone. The central point is to clean up and to keep refining how you play your own unique instrument of expression: your voice and language. Together they vibrate who you are and what you intend out into the world.

        A recent student with a beautifully musical full name asked whether she should introduce herself, in interviews and first-meetings, without the music. Somewhere in there is the secret of all speaking. For if she wants to trade her music for that killer job, that will describe what she’s signing up for in the chilled-down saying of her name. I told her to keep the music—Like a true charm, it will guide and guard her against any job that kills it.

       I observe that every person who makes even basic changes begins to express something powerfully their own and no one else’s. Some of them shake the room like inspired evangelicals, and others speak the meanings of half a novel in the lifting of one hand or just an eyebrow at the right times. What amazes is the endless variety of real expressive power—so I hope this offering helps to liberate yours.

       If we don’t get to work together, you’ll find more advanced ways to do that in 21st Century Speaking: Power Toward Every Goal, which is available at my professional website Ancientlights.org.

Let’s go!

***

     Performance Anchors are basic elements of excellence that every public speaker must have. Starting right here, you must deal for real with each basic aspect. One point at a time, be 100% sure you have conquered this first Chapter each time you speak. Do that, and right away you stand out from the herd, without seeming to try: the world’s first clues of your first-rate standards in all things.

      Basics first. This offering from is a primary check-list to apply every time you get ready to speak. Conquer a few basics, and then your brain and your style are 10 times more free of the petty obstacles and worries that hold back your real powers.

***

Your New Motto, the Bottom Line of Confidence:

ANYTHING BUT HOMEWORK CAN GO WRONG.

         

      You’re in the audience as a speaker falls right on his face before the first word. But he gets up and delivers a talk that changes the world before your eyes. There’s no doubt of the substance in the style. You take it home because it gives you more real command of the subject. So, what do you remember of the evening? The power of the talk.

       It’s the same each time you speak. Above is your new motto and new first assumption as a speaker. Let’s explore why. First:

Nothing changes about the world when you get up to speak.

      You feel safe when you’re in the audience. You’re with, and hidden by, a group. Its eyes are fixed on someone else. You sit in the chair of a judge, with (of course) your own perfect calm mixture of wide-awake open mind and intelligent skepticism.

       You pity and admire a speaker just for being up there, so exposed, but going for it. Most people in an audience are more or less like this.

       They do not disappear or turn vicious when you get up there.

       Remember that “you” are still in the audience—all those curious and mostly-supportive people as real as yourself. If you A) know what you’re talking about, and B) work with all your best practice behind you to communicate, nothing that matters can detract from your effectiveness.

     From now on, speak with this first fact in your bones.

     From hecklers to bomb-scares, Anything can go wrong and do you no harm as a speaker—if you meet the essentials for which you are responsible in a first-rate speaking event.

      What are those responsibilities?

***

HOMEWORK, & PRACTICE ALOUD

         

     Homework and Practice Aloud work together in a circular process that grows more powerful each time you come through it.

     Homework is the process by which you discover (and learn how to demonstrate) answers to questions that people can judge for themselves. It’s all to your confidence and power that most people work the opposite way—starting with an opinion built from unexamined assumptions, and shoring it up with a few select authorities.

          There are criteria for demonstrating Homework (to come). Here, understand that Homework enables you to demonstrate substance—a reasoned and real contribution to your subject. All the tricks of language go to hide this when it’s lacking. When substance is there, you can’t lose.

          Homework answers three questions in clear solid terms:

A) What facts, and varying views of them, do people need to grasp this subject?

B) What must they have learned when they forget 85% of what you’ve said and shown? And,

C) How does each part of the content drive that home?

          Practice Aloud brings the physical body to bear on the brain-work above. Half of a powerful speaking experience is a physical event. So you absolutely must include Practice Aloud to make the most of its benefits.

          How can you claim them?

          You can think all day and write all night. Words will go round and round and convince each other (and finally, you) of their deep sense. Then, when you speak them aloud—especially to someone else—you instantly know what’s good, and what has to be far better.

          Ernest Hemingway called the human ear “a one hundred percent foolproof shit detector.” When you sit in an audience, you instinctively know fluff from substance. So, stop letting go of that skill just because it’s now you who is speaking. When you know that a sentence or point isn’t good enough, face the message and take real action.

          Your ear is not only your best merciless editor. It’s part of your body, which—as the complement of your scientist’s brain—is the artist in your speaking style, who brings every perfect nuance into the event.

          Much more to come on how that works and happens and grows. First, recognize another way that Practice Aloud empowers you.

          The human brain in some conceptions has two sides—again, the cool rational scientist and the emotional, intuitive artist. So, at any given time along your day and preparation process, you’re in one mode or the other. (Sleep is a third mode, too: go over a talk just before your day’s rest, and next morning you bring a sharp editor to work.)

          Make an ally of this by doing your Homework and Practice Aloud at different times, in different moods, and in different environments. (You can call it Mood Editing.) It seasons your speaking with all the different aspects of yourself. Some sessions improve content, and some improve strategies, rhythm and style.

          Each Homework/Practice cycle tells you how to grow more powerful. The main points here:

*Anything but homework can go wrong.

*The audience is as ready for me as I was for other speakers.

*I’ve done my absolute best homework. I have diligently practiced aloud again and again.

*On these grounds, I have earned an expectation that I can trust: Whatever happens, it’s going to be my best.

***

Basic Performance Anchors: Next Steps

 

Switch On

          You don’t have to be a perfect speaking being. Half of language is about the pleasures of bonding. We go crazy unless we have places to talk without rules and high-end standards.

     The point is to know the difference that most people don’t. There are times for pure play, and times when you speak to advance your life—to land a business loan, to meet the dean, or deliver substance to your peers. Not to mention interpersonal affairs.

     From now on—in Practice Aloud, and before you aim to speak with power—raise a hand to your temple, and turn on a Switch there.

When the Switch is on, we speak only our best.

          Your Switch puts an end to habits that rob you of power:

     Most of all, waste in our words. If you have 250 words to impress the world, but 170 are “Like,” “Um,” and/or “You know,” it’s over. These dead-air sounds have other guises, too—for example, “Well,” “So,” “Then,” and “And” itself.

       Dead-air noise is a plea, the crudest of place-holders in a talk. What it speaks is lack of real confidence. Does blank meaningless noise between words and sentences keep people listening? In fact, the opposite is true (more on this). 

          Difficult, but crucial—The Switch also means no more of the “Question Tone?” Some call this “Up-Talk?”—when the tone or arc of every phrase? and sentence? seems to be posing a question? Worse, it sounds timid? Tentative, and immature?

         “They say it’s going to rain today?” “I think you’re on fire?” “You make a brilliant point?”

         See Middle Voice below for more on getting rid of Up-Talk. First, here’s how to create a Switch that’s strong and reliable:

        Pause More, with a Breath; Work in Shorter Sentences; and, Slow It Down. Start “high” in your voice-range, and end each sentence low. The richer style you want will return (or grow), but without these killers.

       Accomplish one “clean” sentence at a time. Start from the higher “bright” end of your range, and you have nowhere to go (short of comedy or hysterics) except down in tone to the finish. It gets easier fast, and the differences make you want more.

      Deal with these small problems, and you stand out in every group in both diction and rhythm. You draw the world in without seeming to try.

      Start from where you are. A dictaphone or recorder will not lie about where you need work in the basics. Put your Switch on—and leave yourself some long phone messages. Talk about your day or a movie, tell a story or a joke. Then call back a day later—and be honest about how clean or “noisy” your best speaking presently is.

      Two very important tips about your Switch:

A) Your Switch goes on just before you start speaking, and stays on until after you sit down again—especially through deceptively-informal Q&A, Discussions or Interviews!  

B) If you tell a story that includes dialogue, be sure to use “He/She said”—or better, action verbs (for examples, “yelled,” “whispered,” “announced”). Never use “He/She was like…” or “He/She goes….”

     These Anchors work together to root your performances in confidence. The Switch is a commitment to speaking powerfully or not at all. With groups, I interrupt a speaker when their Switch quits, and ask them to pause and start again. I wish you could hear their peers’ applause when they clear a problem. And I know they’d clap the same for you.

     Alas, I’m not there to annoy you directly till you change. So these next Anchors of equal import show you more of how to install, maintain and strengthen a Switch of your own.

Breathe!

          When early humans hid from predators, they held their breath. We became hard-wired to stop breathing when afraid. So it’s easy to see why people “go blank” just before or during a talk.

          If you cut off oxygen to your body and brain, they interrupt whatever you’re doing to demand more. If your mind goes blank before or during a talk (in spite of your best homework and practice), check this first. You likely need deeper, more sustained, rhythmic breathing.

          In starting practice (with Switch on), take at least 10 long deep breaths (part of Grounding, next section). You’ll feel your nervous system calm down, flush with a fresh oxygen supply. Then, after each sentence, take another deep breath to fuel the next.

          Meet this constant need, and you free up brain-cells to help with what matters. Like a poet, you gain a natural (breath-based) rhythm in the way your sentences unfold. And, you demonstrate (without seeming to try) the confidence to take your time. Plus, a slower pace lets your listeners savor every word and inflection of your talk—the mark of a person sure of the value of their talk.

Grounding

          Life animates us with wild (hard to control) electro-chemical energies. Speaking makes bio-energies surge. Ignore or deny them and they cause (at least) a stiff locked-down posture, that fails anyway to control them. They create nervous “tics” that disconnect the body from a talk’s intended messages (rocking in place, tapping a pen, fishing in pockets, toying with hair, crossing feet). These distract your audience and yourself. There’s a better way.

      The point of Grounding is to find your own physical, bodily ways to rise to and integrate life’s crazy energies into your performance.

          It’s time to speak. You’ve done the Homework and Practice. Your Switch goes on. Your Breathing is deep and rhythmic. And still you feel over-charged with abundant but uncontrollable nervous energy.

      Imagine those forces as a magnificent horse that nothing in the world can tame or hold back. This horse is coming your way, right past you—or, over you if you block its path. What do you do?

      Start running in the same direction—and jump on! You don’t stop it, or miss it. You rise to it, match its pace and power, become one with it. From there, it carries you like pure inexhaustible energy toward your goals.

      How? You must physically explore, identify and do what works for you: your own best bodily ways to rise to and integrate (rather than resist or hide) this source of power.

       With decades of classes and public talks, I still need that Switch and deep Breathing. And, I ground: clap my hands and/or slap them to my sides, or shake fists on the air. When I can, I sing out, or strut a few measures of music that I call kick-ass. Waiting visibly on a stage, I gently wring my hands, or open and close them from tight to loose and stretched. I breathe even more, police my best posture—and see myself still sitting in that audience.

       Yet, there’s always more crazy energy left over. To that I give myself in getting up to speak (what choice is there?), and it fills the first minutes with a Let’s Go enthusiasm.

       Life’s energies enable and empower you. So, welcome them in. Get Playful. You’ve got it when you “shake it off” like an athlete, and no longer feel divided between a top-form speaker and a nervous animal.

      There is only you, “psyched” up into a full-alert state with a calm, poised, ideally-playful center. You’re good, you have earned the right to know it, and you’re ready for the room, whatever the outcome.

      What physical acts lift you up and keep you in that state? Athletes smack and smash into each other. In their state, it feels good.

      Find your own private experimental space, and:

      Imagine—You’re on in less than 5 minutes. You need that high-alert state with a calm core, now. You want to be the center of a storm.

      Let your body do what it needs to do—until you and that nervous body are one being. Clap. Jog in place. Trust the level where this feels good, and learn to go there by refining what worked.

      Each time you hit this state, claim the reward: consummate it with a smashing delivery of (for example) a song, a poem or some magnificent language that makes you feel alive.

      There are more ways to know when your Grounding rituals work. Nothing improves your speech more than experience and experiment.

      Create a question that needs answering where you are. Do the homework and offer your peers a talk about the findings. Afterward, invite tough feedback on two fronts: How well did your message itself get through? And what were the strong and weak aspects?

      Experiment with these Anchors in all your different speaking situations: dinner table,  workplace and with peers.

      Observe—and each time, connect the Grounding-actions used with your best results. What worked for you: slapping hands to your sides? A few jumping-jacks? The whole process guides you to the best few.

      Above all, welcome that wild horse. Rise to the riding of it. Summon and deliberately match (release and allow) its powers—It’s You. Jump on, hang on and let it carry you through that talk. You mean business.

***

      Homework. Practice Aloud. Switch On. Breathe. Ground. With these first 5 Performance Anchors, we move toward guiding our raw living powers to our goals.

      Let’s backtrack for one moment. If you take the floor as a jumpy and unsettled presence, work again through the first Anchors to avoid this first impression. Deal for real with them, or they sap away power.

     If you settle down into your best style after the first few minutes—having realized that nobody threw anything at your head—realize that A) There’s a need for more Breathing and Grounding beforehand; and, B) You want to know more about what creates your best.

      What are you feeling by the time you hit your best? Consider yourself lead singer in a band: it’s got to be your best from the first. From here on, that is the level where you need to start speaking every time.

      Identify what kinds of Grounding bring you to that state, and apply them. The reward for all this “pre-game” is that in every different speaking circumstance, you have your own sure Anchors for success.

***

Middle Stance, Middle Voice, Middle Face

          These Anchors are three simple norms—of body, sound, and demeanor—which you establish in your own way, and then from which you depart and return throughout a talk. Begin from these basics, and then the ways you play upon them become the basis of your art and style.

      Middle Stance is a strong relaxed posture with feet slightly apart, arms still and loose at your sides. Begin from here, and you wipe the whole expressive slate clean for yourself and the audience.

      It only takes a moment if you wish. Then, if you have Grounded yourself properly, every change of footing and gesture that you make, to vary this “blank slate” of a norm, is one of two things.

      It’s either A) natural and unconscious to you, but still appropriate to what you mean; or, B) a deliberate and artful element of meaning, emphasis and expression.

      Plato and Cicero created catalogues of moves and gestures that evoke certain meanings or emotions with the body. “Hands out on the air” often amplifies a question or a plea. A few strides toward one part of the audience add drama (if appropriate to meaning) on all sides. Arms akimbo can declare a decisive point: a look up, exasperation.

      Start to notice and keep a list of moves and gestures you find especially effective—in dance and sculpture, painting, film and theatre, performance, talks and more.

      Try them where they might match your meanings. For example, in the margin of your outline for a talk’s points, make a note to try one deliberate gesture with each main point. All that’s unique to you will make them yours. At the same time, you raise the odds of connecting with different people in an audience who know a like physical language, and with those who key most on visual messages.

      Middle Voice is your own comfortable middle range or normal tone of voice—loud and clear enough to be heard by every person where you speak. Push it out from your lower diaphragm, with purpose-anew, for each new sentence. Soon, it’s second nature.

      In formal circumstances, this means a volume like a lawyer’s in a court. In closer settings, it means a bit louder than normal, too. The common-sense standard is that everyone can hear each confident word.

      Middle Voice works in the same way as Middle Stance. You establish a “normal” basic tone, and then depart and return to create effects that enrich your talk with levels of meaning.

      By all means (again)—Breathe, and Begin each sentence “high” in your range, to end it “low.” Make each new sentence flow gently downward in tone, like a waterfall with three levels. Start high to add energy: it refreshes a listener’s attention. Along the middle, take your time and unfold those first-rate details. Finally, descend in tone and bring the whole meaning home—as if you’ve arrived at the waterfall’s deep pool.

      Higher tones conjure suspense, or signal a key question. Descending tones create momentum, authority, gravity: they guide us along a process or to a solid conclusion. They can also set up irony and anti-climax.

      Middle Voice reveals how many voices you have, and can acquire. We’ll see more of how these three Anchors take great speaking toward music, and more—toward a 3-dimensional symphony.

          Middle Face links you powerfully to the Neutrals. Never forget: the Neutrals are watching. Neutrals are the major share of almost every audience. (We’ll see why.) Neutrals as such are the people most free to decide where truth is among many speakers.

      If your face shows a sour, snide look of ridicule as you listen to others or invite them to speak, you tell the Neutrals that you aren’t one. If you quote from or talk to others with mockery, the Neutrals see and resent your attempt to bias them with your face, tone and treatment. What you try to inflict on someone else tells about you.

      Whatever happens in a talk, discussion, debate or argument, your face and demeanor express the same equanimity. You present your best self: a person calm and balanced, seasoned, wide-awake, feeling good—pleasantly professional. Focused for work, and flustered by nothing.

          We’ll return (Chapters 2 & 4) to the Neutrals as powerful speaking guides. Henceforth: Always present allies, opponents and the audience with the same Middle Face and demeanor—and most of all, if someone attacks you on personal grounds.

      Breeze past it (and see Combat Skills in Chapter 5). Return to the point that matters to the Neutrals. You never go wrong that way, because it’s public service. It also drops the indignity back onto its speaker, without your lifting a finger.

***

Eye Contact for Everyone

        

      This Performance Anchor is as crucial as the others. It helps you every time you apply a simple principle, based (like those above) in a kind of golden mean.

          Too much or too little Eye Contact disturbs your connection with listeners. The golden mean is the same if you have one listener or millions. The easy, reliable and effective approach is to make Eye Contact a constant cycle through your speaking event.

          First, one-on-one talks and interviews. Begin each sentence with eyes (in your Middle Face) connected. Toward the middle of each (or, every other) sentence, as your voice descends, let your eyes blink and roam downward, rather than up or “around”—as if working through a rich reflection. At last with your conclusion, re-establish eye contact: it adds confident emphasis. It says you’re ready to go on and open right there to a question or response.

          Walk into a larger speaking situation, and you have one goal for Eye Contact: Start to finish, let not one single person be left out of the event. Again, the Neutrals are watching.

      Locate the person at each extreme position of the audience. Create a visual cycle or sweep that includes every single person present: side to side, and front to back. Each repeated connection sustains their attention and interest, and links you to the Neutrals.

     Henceforth, you sweep every point (each pair of eyes) between those extremes. Connect your Middle Face as you can with each person for about 2 seconds: then move smoothly to the next through your cycle. Whether this means moving just your eyes, your head and/or your whole body, do what it takes to sustain this rhythm all the way.

      We need to work flexibly with the fact that some peoples and cultures prefer less direct Eye Contact in speaking. Yet in most cases, the world expects it—clear and bold. Rise to it.

      Can you show what you’re talking about, so others can judge it for themselves? If so, you’ve earned the right to look people first and often in the eye and deliver. Do not be afraid to “scare” them just a little, with the confidence you earned by your Homework and Practice.

      After all, they’re doing it to you! It’s your invitation forward.

***

          Let’s see how well you command getting ready for your best. What are the 9 Basic Performance Anchors you just read about?

          See how well (in every sense) you can explain each Anchor—aloud, and/or with a listener or recorder.

          Each time you get ready to speak, check in with and apply these 9 Performance Anchors in the order shown. And you will stand out with the best in every group without seeming to try.

          If you need a bit of fear, consider: These are “only” the speaking standards of tough competitors and would-be peers ahead of you.

          We close with the Basic Anchor that enables the most progress with them all, in the least time—if you invest some.

***

The Power(s) of The Pause

         

      We learn to drive slowly. First we earn real command over each element: then we bring them together to produce a smooth ride, neither timid nor reckless. With experience, the basics become second nature. We grow seasoned, and then cruise at our own speed to our destinations.

          Slow, It, Down.  

          Keep Your Lips Together till you’re truly ready to go on. Pause. Breathe, Ground, and ponder in silence. Then resume.

          Yes, our world hates to wait. But when you pause, and then deliver exactly the right words, people are grateful for the substance. They appreciate the very rare speaker who shows trust in their patience and respect for their attention-span.

      When substance arrives, people forget the wait. Indeed, they come to enjoy the next interval of suspense before something worthwhile.

          A Silent Pause is A) Safety from careless errors; B) Time to breathe and gather what’s next; C) a subtle confident challenge to your listeners; and, D) a part of 3-dimensional rhythm and impact (Chapter 3).

          Slow, It, Down. When you Practice Aloud, add in Silent Pauses (and Breaths). At first, you may sound stiff or pompous. That will change for the better. The point is to regain control—until you command each word, phrase and nuance along the downward tone of each sentence.

      Silent Pauses help the most with all these anchors and improvements. Pauses grace and enrich speech. Dead-air noise and pure speed never will.

      But people speak fast! If you pause, they think you’ve stopped, or they just interrupt. Yes—and so we return to the core of speaking issues, as exampled at the beginning by the student with the musical name. For you have to stand in the shoes of your own speaking-space and style. Let no one move you from your best. When they interrupt, let them—and then, carefully (without notice of interruption, not even with “as I was saying…”) return to your last full sentence. Because you paused, listened and then still got it right, they’ll remember it—and get the hint that talking with you is worth waiting for.

       Or, they won’t. And that’s where speaking well may start to separate you. You’ll look for the pleasures and results of new levels of speaking and listening, and leave old dead-ends behind.

          With a Check-List of these essentials for every speaking-situation coming your way, you gain in the confidence that unlocks your real powers. This is what you must conquer just to cut it in this never-fiercer world of job-competition. And I wish the poet well who is also in you.

http://ancientlights.org/

http://writeandspeakpowerfulenglish.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Repent, You Sinners! Occupation Is Class Envy!


On Jeff Jacoby’s “A Sinful ‘Occupation’”

in The Boston Globe, November 2, 2011

 

As a former longtime subscriber to The Boston Globe—which ended when it became a self-styled “family newspaper,” and forfeited whatever teeth and backbone it ever had—I learned early-on to stop reading the opinion-pieces by Mr. Jeff Jacoby.

They were sure to do nothing but darken my day in response to Jacoby’s usual half-baked amalgam of right-wing boilerplate and Bible-based claptrap. In America, that of course is the basis for a distinguished career in “journalism,” which is also why I avoid our “mainstream” media the way I walk around fetid puddles of standing water.

This is a guy who once argued that America owes no “reparations” to either Native Americans or the children of African slaves because, while one group can be safely ignored by the American juggernaut, the other group already got their reparations when the American Civil War set them free. Astonishing—If I hurt you, and then stop hurting you (more or less), we’re even, and no harm done. That’s what The Bible’s “landmark morality” has done for Jeff Jacoby and the American Empire.

Well, I stepped in it today—I just had to read Jacoby’s latest (November 2, 2011) in The Boastin’ Glob, because of its astonishing title—“A Sinful ‘Occupation.’” Oh, shit, I thought. Oh, no. Jeff, like a deacon out of Puritan (fascist) Boston, is going to show us why the worldwide “Occupy” movement is an offense against his fondest fictions—something called “God” and “His Commandments.” Both of which for Jacoby dovetail neatly, of course (as they did in Boston), with wonder-working American capitalism and its noble plans for you and our planet.

For Jacoby, as for the sterling lover of democracy we knew in George H.W. “Poppy” Bush, the “sin” at the heart of the Occupy Movement is nothing less than—yep—“class envy.” Isn’t it clear that if these millions of pauperized working people went out and (somewhere, somehow) got themselves “real lives”—meaning lucrative business-careers which, like those of our rightful masters, raked in profits at any cost—they’d all be peacefully at home watching TV and reading The Bible, like most good docile Americans?

“Class envy is not benign,” writeth Jeff. “At its most extreme…it unleashed the bloodiest genocides of the 20th century.” So the Occupy movement is well on its way toward “Lenin and Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.”

Got that? If we let Occupy continue, it’s only a matter of time before they open extermination-camps for the rich. They’re going to keep instigating bad, bad things as well against those politically-neutral, friendly Finest of our communities’ protectors and servants, the police. According to Jacoby (and the highly professional New York Post), “from Boston to Berkeley, Occupy encampments have coincided with surges in vandalism, assault and theft,” not to mention sexual assault and rape—or at least this is “allegedly” so, according to Jacoby’s idea of an authority in the Post.

Does Jeff happen to mention that in New York, for example, it’s the police who are deliberately “dumping” homeless persons, drunks and mentally-disturbed people into the Occupy crowds? (The answer is no—which shows how much his Glob editors with their “family values” care about Jeff’s own fairness in getting his facts right.)

“All-night drumming”! “Public urination”! And, genocide! That’s what you get when people who actually want to be millionaires gather together and whine that they’re not fellow heirs to the fortunes of The Bush Crime Family. For Jacoby, they’re acting in defiance of the mighty 10th Commandment: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.” And you know from your wonderful, uplifting Old Testament what happens to people who do that, and to nations who allow it.

And yet, I thought George Carlin had clarified that America thrives on breaking the mighty 10th—for where is consumerism without covetousness and envy?

You betcha! Why, for righteous comparison, Jacoby suggests, just look at those deeply dignified and articulate Tea Party rallies, whose goals were “limited government, personal responsibility, lower taxes, and economic freedom.” Nevermind the Jehovan fits of imbecilic rage. Nevermind the assault-rifles, the swastikas and “socialist!” screams aimed at people who couldn’t qualify as “commies” if their lives depended on it.

Nevermind those bankers destroying the working world’s economy with their bundles of shaky sharky loans and mortgages, their easy-credit paths to slavery (as in Greece), their outright corruption of every democratic government and problem-solving public initiative. They handed out candy-credit with a promise of growth in jobs to pay for it and then moved every job into slave-labor countries. 

Every meeting that matters now is held behind more closed doors and burly boys with bludgeons than ever before. Spinoza observed that when the people’s business is carried on that way, you can be sure it is not the people’s business getting done. And here’s what’s wrong for trusting Jeff: “What the Occupiers appear to want above all is to punish the wealthy, to demonize corporations, and to wallow in their own victimhood and sense of entitlement.”

After all, “limited government” means clearing the way for our job-creators and world-builders, who suffer so much “uncertainty” and needless interference from entities such as the EPA and OSHA—to name only two real reasons that America remains livable at all. “Uncertainty” is no longer tolerable to the addict called Profit inside business. Neither are wages, for that matter. “Personal responsibility” means that you, you peasant, will answer for your debts and crimes while banks, corporations and executives (those vanguards of anti-socialism except when they’re collecting bailouts or bonuses) operate with wholesale impunity.

“Lower taxes” means the high ideal of giving back as little as you can possibly get away with, for all your own gains based in the exploitation of public infrastructure, wealth and labor. And “economic freedom” means of course what Orwell rephrased as “the right to exploit others for profit.” It is absurd to pretend that our lives are truly decided by anything else. And that is the sickness against which we Occupy The World.

Jeff didn’t read my analysis and plan-proposal in WOOP. Hey, Jeff. Let’s make a list of the Top World Catastrophes during just the last 30 years, and see if the entity at fault in each was mainly Business or Government. When you consider also that the Public Relations industry and business-press have been explicitly inciting anti-government rage through all that time, you can see why Americans are so turned-around on the subject of what’s eating them alive. As Noam Chomsky has remarked, “The problem with government is that it’s potentially democratic.”

If you argue that a naïve fantasy called “the free market” and business (meaning, Profit) should decide all things in human life, you need to say openly that you’re in favor of being governed, from your workplace to your bedroom, by a self-sanctified private elite, who account to nobody (or what’s money for?). Them is ya choices. Poppy can’t save us anymore by waving the flag in bold psychosis and shouting “I don’t care what the facts are!”

So for cozy, pious Jeff, if you call the wealthy on their documented behavior—those who’ve done worse than nothing for America for decades as a means of enriching themselves—you want to “punish” them. After all they’ve done for you! You just forget about Jesus whipping the shit out of money-changers in the temple, you sinner there!

If you, your community and economy identify the parasite of Profit as the cause of your real and increasing suffering, you are “demonizing.” And if you say or try to do anything about the increasingly hopeless pit into which ever-wealthier and more powerful corporations are casting the vast majority of working people, you simply need to “get over it” and stop wallowing.

After all, speaketh Jacoby, nobody owes you anything—except the (unmentioned) bill that must come due for needless but profitable wars, for more tax-breaks at the high end, and for every hare-brained destructive cast of the dice in the planetary elite casino called capitalism.

Elite contempt for the very working people who feed their wealth is not, for Jeff, “class hostility.” For Jeff, a common-sense analysis of how we all get rich through each other’s contributions can come only from “class war fanatics” such as Elizabeth Warren. Jeff must have missed the Wall Street heels who took time to sip some champagne through their glib smirks as they gazed down from their balcony-eyrie over the New York Occupiers’ march.

Check me out on these documents. When I began working in the 1970s, the IRS tax-table said that if you made less than $1,050 in a year, you owed zero taxes. Since the “Reagan Revolution” de-regulated and downsized every living thing, you may notice that the IRS tax table has been quietly expanded downward to mine more wealth out of the poorest end and hand it directly to the elite.

For now, if you make five dollars in a year, you owe tax on it. There’s a real touch of national class. No “class hostility” there, no “radical redistribution of wealth”! Heavens, no! To Jacoby, the more you work and the poorer you get for it, the more you should feel inspired to work even more and thereby (somehow, someday) make America even greater!

 The Occupy movement, for Jacoby, stands in plain and doomed defiance of The Tenth Commandment’s “moral and social hygiene.” It protects us, that is, like a political and economic condom, from “innumerable other evils”—whilst in the midst of a “norm” called fucking our neighbors for a buck.

“It shouldn’t be surprising,” quoth Jacoby, “when a movement that obsesses with what rich capitalists earn, rather than with what they produce, starts treating other people’s property and persons with contempt.”

See? The man can’t help but get it backwards: after all, he follows and prays to a model of the world that’s uniquely backwards too. The Occupy movement is precisely concerned with what rich capitalists “earn and produce”—the answers being Much For Very Little, and Worse Than Nothing. Where is Jeff’s troubled spiritual conscience about that other Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal?”

Get backwards behind me, Satan! You should be “obsessed” with celebrating all that rich capitalists “produce” for everybody’s benefit. If those businessmen didn’t organize our world for us, where would we be! Answer honestly now, for Jeff’s sake: Ask yourself, Have they treated your “property and persons with contempt”?

If not, stay low. They just haven’t gotten to you yet.

Jeff say, You should be grateful, and learn from the fates of many peoples who were not—for example those unhygienic Canaanites and Philistines, who failed to recognize God’s people and his mighty-mysterious hand when good ol’ Israel came down from the Near East’s highlands to somehow, in miraculously peaceful fashion, become the lords of their already-inhabited coastal country.

No cultural or literal “genocide” about that—even if scientific archaeology is still thrashing to otherwise explain this extraordinarily-sudden transformation of that landscape. The Old Testament itself spells out what happened in copious blood. Now we’re told that while The Bible is all true, this part somehow isn’t—or, it’s like, sort of kind of, symbolical-allegorical, like. Even by that so-called argument, the “conquest of the Promised Land” is at the very least one of the ugliest wishes ever written out.

Be grateful, saith Jeff, to your masters—whose ethics, honor and industry “God” has clearly rewarded with dominion over all the Earth, and over your never-sufficient and ever-more-fruitless work-day and future. This, you understand, is a “spiritual” and “moral” argument that just happens to line a few elite pockets with cash, and your conscience with blinders, sound-proofing, and a numb-numb drug of choice.

If you can’t be grateful, at least be quiet, and invisible! For Jeff Jacoby, in his preposterous wisdom, has a Biblical dream for you. And if you don’t appreciate that, the blood-caked jowls of his Lord of Ethical History will soon be teaching you a sore lesson.

Go home, Occupiers, before you destroy us all! “With the help of God and a few policemen,” as James Joyce’s father might have said to Jeff, there’s still time to save American Profit from the wages of sin.

“If ye do not well, sin lieth at the door,” quoth Ye Scripture. You’ve got to realize that you saw Virtue itself sipping that champagne and gazing down on you, with the pleasure of a heavenly Saint Thomas Aquinas gazing into Hell.

Go home, Occupiers, be normal! Above all, watch TV! Who wants to be a millionaire? You do, if you’d just be honest with yourself. You can trust Jeff, he knows, it’s in The Bible! If you don’t know how to be normal anymore, read more Jeff Jacoby, and absorb the moral methodology by which he shamelessly shills for good ol’ American greed. You’ll find it as rigorous and uplifting as that of the Boston Puritans—whose “city on a hill” divided its time between exterminating “savages” and banishing anybody without the proper, docile, hard-working, never-covetous JudeoChristian attitude.

As a matter of fact, within a generation of those first Puritan church-communities in America, the vast majority of the population found itself “outside of the communion”—which most of all enabled your getting any share of the (colonial) wealth surrounding everybody.

Thanks, Jeff! Good job, Boastin’ Glob! And God, I hope I’ve learned my lesson.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments