YERTLE THE TURTLE by Dr. Seuss

Dr. Seuss wrote this in 1950, but it is a vivid description of
our current situation. It also indicates the absurdity of the
obedience of all the other turtles doing the bidding of 
Yertle (the 1%). Fortunately, some of the turtles on whom
the 1% rely are beginning to burp.

On the far-away island of Sala-ma-Sond, Yertle the Turtle was king of the pond. A nice little pond. It was clean. It was neat. The water was warm. There was plenty to eat. 

The turtles had everything turtles might need. And they were all happy. Quite happy indeed. They were... until Yertle, the king of them all, 
Decided the kingdom he ruled was too small. 

"I'm ruler", said Yertle, "of all that I see. But I don't see enough. That's the trouble with me. With this stone for a throne, I look down on my pond 
But I cannot look down on the places beyond.

This throne that I sit on is too, too low down. It ought to be higher!" he said with a frown. "If I could sit high, how much greater I'd be! What a king! I'd be ruler of all that I see!" 

So Yertle, the Turtle King, lifted his hand And Yertle, the Turtle King, gave a command.

He ordered nine turtles to swim to his stone And, using these turtles, he built a new throne. 

He made each turtle stand on another one's back And he piled them all up in a nine-turtle stack. And then Yertle climbed up. He sat down on the pile. What a wonderful view! He could see 'most a mile!

"All mine!" Yertle cried. "Oh, the things I now rule! I'm the king of a cow! And I'm the king of a mule! I'm the king of a house! And, what's more, beyond that I'm the king of a blueberry bush and a cat!

"I'm Yertle the Turtle! Oh, marvelous me! For I am the ruler of all that I see!" And all through the morning, he sat up there high Saying over and over, "A great king am I!" 

Until 'long about noon. Then he heard a faint sigh. "What's that?" snapped the king And he looked down the stack. And he saw, at the bottom, a turtle named Mack. Just a part of his throne. And this plain little turtle Looked up and he said,

"Beg your pardon, King Yertle. I've pains in my back and my shoulders and knees. How long must we stand here, Your Majesty, please?" 

"SILENCE!" the King of the Turtles barked back. "I'm king, and you're only a turtle named Mack." "You stay in your place while I sit here and rule. 

"I'm the king of a cow! And I'm the king of a mule! I'm the king of a house! And a bush! And a cat! But that isn't all. I'll do better than that! My throne shall be higher!" his royal voice thundered, "So pile up more turtles! I want 'bout two hundred!" 

"Turtles! More turtles!" he bellowed and brayed. And the turtles 'way down in the pond were afraid. They trembled. They shook. But they came. They obeyed.

From all over the pond, they came swimming by dozens. Whole families of turtles, with uncles and cousins. And all of them stepped on the head of poor Mack. One after another, they climbed up the stack. Then Yertle the Turtle was perched up so high, He could see forty miles from his throne in the sky!

"Hooray!" shouted Yertle. "I'm the king of the trees! I'm king of the birds! And I'm king of the bees! I'm king of the butterflies! King of the air! Ah, me! What a throne! What a wonderful chair! I'm Yertle the Turtle! Oh, marvelous me! For I am the ruler of all that I see!" 

Then again, from below, in the great heavy stack, Came a groan from that plain little turtle named Mack. "Your Majesty, please... I don't like to complain, But down here below, we are feeling great pain. 

"I know, up on top you are seeing great sights, But down here at the bottom we, too, should have rights. We turtles can't stand it. Our shells will all crack! Besides, we need food. We are starving!" groaned Mack. 

"You hush up your mouth!" howled the mighty King Yertle. "You've no right to talk to the world's highest turtle. I rule from the clouds! Over land! Over sea! There's nothing, no, NOTHING, that's higher than me!" But, while he was shouting, he saw with surprise That the moon of the evening was starting to rise Up over his head in the darkening skies. 

"What's THAT?" snorted Yertle. "Say, what IS that thing That dares to be higher than Yertle the King? I shall not allow it! I'll go higher still! I'll build my throne higher! I can and I will! I'll call some more turtles. I'll stack 'em to heaven! I need 'bout five thousand, six hundred and seven!" 

But, as Yertle, the Turtle King, lifted his hand And started to order and give the command, 

That plain little turtle below in the stack, That plain little turtle whose name was just Mack, Decided he'd taken enough. And he had. And that plain little lad got a bit mad. And that plain little Mack did a plain little thing. 

He burped! And his burp shook the throne of the king! And Yertle the Turtle, the king of the trees, The king of the air and the birds and the bees, The king of a house and a cow and a mule... Well, that was the end of the Turtle King's rule!

For Yertle, the King of all Sala-ma-Sond, Fell off his high throne and fell Plunk! in the pond! And to say the great Yertle, that Marvelous he, Is King of the Mud. That is all he can see. And the turtles, of course... all the turtles are free 

As turtles and, maybe, all creatures should be.

TWO MOVIES ABOUT SLAVERY: LINCOLN and DJANGO UNCHAINED

When I was a child, my mother told me the only reason my brother kept calling me names was because he could get a rise out of me. “If you ignore him,” she said, “he’ll stop.” She was right. So I learned it’s what I answer to that matters more than what you call me.

            I may not have seen Django Unchained if the movie had not generated such controversy. There was angry talk about the number of times “nigger” was used--somebody counted and said it was more than a hundred. Spike Lee said he wouldn’t see it because it would offend his ancestors. Others were outraged that Brunhilde (Kerry Washington’s character) was a “helpless female” needing rescue. (If she had been the proverbial “strong black woman” fighting to get her husband back, we would have complained about that as well.)

            I thought Django Unchained  was fun and funny.

            When I heard the contemporary music playing, I knew it was not a serious movie, so I relaxed. I’ve seen a couple of Quentin Tarantino movies and I was more disturbed by the prospect of his signature mayhem than I was about how many times “nigger” would be uttered.

            This movie is an ironic spoof of slavery. Beloved (1998) was a serious film treatment of slavery and nobody saw it. Tarantino knows what kind of movie puts butts in the seats: lots of big blasting guns, explosions, blood flowing freely, a damsel in distress, an invincible hero who has close calls, but whom we know will triumph in the end; and, with tongue firmly in cheek, anachronisms all over the place. In other words, Tarantino made a typical Hollywood adventure film. What was atypical is that it was set within slavery and the last man standing was black.              

          Yes, Tarantino mocked the travesty that was slavery, but he also showed the cruelty and absurdity of it. I much prefer that to having slavery being denied or lied about. And there were several moments of hilarity. The night riders who couldn’t see through their ineptly made hoods was a scream. The sadistic slaver who “owned” Brunhilde called his plantation “Candyland;” a silly parody of the pastoral names given to the estates of traders in human flesh. I hooted when, after all the whites around him were dead, Samuel Jackson’s character dropped his cane, straightened his back and stopped acting servile. I also laughed when Tarantino’s own character wound up as a hole in the ground, victim of one of the explosions. It was escapist, cathartic entertainment.

            The film Lincoln, on the other hand, is serious and can be faulted for ignoring important aspects of history pertinent to the story. I believe the movie has resonated with so many, as it did with me, because nearly 150 years ago the U.S. Congress was as sharply polarized as it is today, and along nearly the same lines. This is a movie for those who love the gamesmanship of politics. Unfortunately, by focusing solely on the white male elected officials who finally managed to make traffic in human lives illegal in the United States, Spielberg has denied agency to the many others who forced this political battle. This is particularly obvious and painful because those who are ignored, not even given the courtesy of a line of conversation, are those who are historically marginalized in this society that reserves power for wealthy white males.

            Briefly, these people are Quakers who were resisting slavery in the seventeenth century; abolitionists who labored for decades to change public opinion from acceptance of slavery to abhorrence for it. One of the most eloquent abolitionists, Frederick Douglass, met with President Lincoln to convince him to allow blacks to fight in the Union Army. Eric Foner, professor of history at Columbia University, said, “The 13th Amendment originated not with Lincoln but with a petition campaign early in 1864 organized by the Women’s National Loyal League, an organization of abolitionist feminists headed by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.” To not even mention Douglass or the Women’s National Loyal League in this movie is inexcusable.

            However, I am pleased to see a serious, major American movie admit that the Civil War, this country’s most pivotal event, was fought over whether or not the U.S. would continue to hold other humans in bondage. For a very long time the country has been in denial about that.

           The capture, enslavement of, and commerce in the bodies of people of African descent went on for hundreds of years, and the fallout from that trauma continues to the present day. It will hound us and haunt us until we face it, talk about it and accept it as a tragic part of our history. Despite their flaws, these two popular movies, the latest of several Hollywood attempts to present that brutal experience on film, at least have the country talking about an enormous and critical subject that we usually avoid.

WHICH DO WE PREFER: GUNS OR VOTES?

In several states in this country, the question posed above has been answered. In those states, it is easier to purchase and use a gun than it is to exercise your right to vote. In these states, guns may be purchased WITHOUT government-issued photo identification. In some places no identification of any kind is required to purchase a gun. In addition, it is lawful to carry these guns anywhere you go, including schools and movie theaters.

However, in many states, if you want to vote, you must have a copy of your birth certificate, social security card, marriage license and whatever other items the state requires to issue you a photo ID. In other words, obtaining a voter ID is inconvenient, costly and time consuming, but buying a gun is simple and easy. That includes assault rifles with clips carrying multiple rounds so you can kill and maim lots of people quickly without having to re-load.

What do such laws say about the "land of the free and the home of the brave"?

WANTED: A National Referendum on the U.S. Congress

This is taken and modified from one of those emails that periodically gets circulated on the Internet. Since it is a great idea, I'm sharing it. Perhaps we can get a critical mass to actually implement this.

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits of twelve years only, in one of the options below.

• Two Six-year Senate terms

• Six Two-year House terms

• One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
  

2. No Tenure / No Pension.

Members of Congress will collect a salary while in office and receive no pay when they are out of office.

3. Members of Congress (past, present & future) will participate in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund will be moved to the Social Security system immediately. All future congressional retirement funds flow into the Social Security system, and members of Congress will participate along with their constituents, the American people.

4. Members of Congress can choose to purchase a retirement plan or not, just as all Americans do.

5. Members of Congress may no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of the Consumer Price Index or 3%.

6. Members of Congress will no longer have their current health care system, but will participate in the same health care system as their constituents, the American people.

7. Members of Congress will be equally subject to all laws they impose on the American people.

8. Effective January 1, 2011, all contracts with past and present members of Congress are voided.

The American people did not make or approve the rules by which the U.S. Congress operates; members of Congress created these rules for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators that served their term(s), then returned to home and work.

The Iranian Election

What short memories we have, or is it that protested elections in the U.S. are somehow different than such protests elsewhere? Remember our 2000 presidential election? It was disputed and people took to the streets to vociferously express their disagreement with what many still consider a rigged outcome. Did we call on the leaders of other democratic countries to express their opinions of our electoral process? And when they did weigh in on our messy election, we paid no attention at all to what they had to say.

Here in the U.S. we have become so full of ourselves that we feel obligated to tell other countries (particularly non European countries) how we feel about what they do. Many politicians and elected officials are vigorously urging President Obama to be more forcefully involved in Iran's disputed election. So far the president has correctly preferred a muted response. I hope he continues to emphasize that this is a matter strictly for the Iranians. It is not our concern. Haven't we learned anything from our precipitous invasion of Iraq? Obviously, our new president has, but congress is apparently a slow learner.

The Pragmatic Obama

A NY Times column says we haven't been paying attention; that Barack has not moved to the middle; he's never been an ideologue.

And you know, she's right. We are so desperate for something new and better, we heard what we wanted to hear. But that's fine with me. All along I've observed that Obama actually wants to bring people together. Lots of politicians say that, but it's only rhetoric. Barack means it. And the older I get the more I understand that extreme positions, although absolutely essential, don't ordinarily get the job done because people are inherently resistant to 180 degree change, preferring things to change incrementally, if at all.

The best example of this occurred during the Civil Rights Movement. Malcolm and the Muslims, the Black Panthers, and SNCC made King's "radical" nonviolent demonstrations acceptable. And in turn all kinds of other things were accomplished. So, we extremists definitely have to keep Barack's feet to the fire, but I believe that with the support of the people his campaign is organizing, he will get some necessary things done--like universal health care, improving the economy and bringing troops back from Iraq.

Of course, we mustn't forget the importance of Bush's contribution. His extreme bad judgment like tax cuts and no-bid contracts for his wealthy friends (Halliburton, oil barons, etc.) have made things SO BAD that the country is seriously considering electing a black man president.

and, there are other indications

Jack Bass writes in the N.Y. Times that even in the South blacks and whites are cooperating--witness the congressional seats in Louisana and Mississippi that had been Republican for 30 years that were recently taken by Democrats.

Nothing More Powerful

I read a Newsweek article today contrasting the boomers, who were activists in the 60s, to the millennials, young people who are now active in the presidential campaign. According to this article, boomers are more combative and confrontational, while millennials are more consensus oriented and practical; preferring to effect change from the inside. Barack Obama, despite his age, embodies the qualities millennials admire, and therefore represents them.

Chronologically, I'm pre-boomer, but if this article is correct, my sentiments are distinctly millennial. I was certainly combative when I was younger, but assumed I had mellowed with age. Perhaps that's not it at all.

Upon further thought, I believe we're in an epoch where a critical mass understands that this is not the time for confrontation. Life, history, world development is cyclical and evolutionary. There are many indicators that we are in a new cycle. We are moving rather quickly toward a global economy. Despite the technological and economic superiority of the United States, this country is no longer able to exercise its will over other nations, beginning with the debacle in Vietnam and currently evident in Iraq. Additionally, we are seeing increased philanthropic activity by the wealthy and celebrated--Bono, Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney. And technological innovations on the Internet--MySpace, FaceBook, YouTube--allow and encourage increased expression of ideas and participation in the political process.

Of course, there are always those who resist change of any kind who will continue to rail at the disintegration of "values." And they will continue to scream and protest while adapting to inevitable changes. (Like, for example, the vociferous, independent women who make a living insisting that women should be wives and mothers who submit to their husbands and don't work outside the home.)

Visionaries, like Barack Obama, are in touch with this seismic shift in our world and have surrendered to it. Now is our time for a new way of operating the government and the country.

And there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.

Bending towards justice

In this Martin Luther King Jr. season, I want to share my favorite quotation of his.

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

If, in fact, the people of the United States elect another business-as-usual politician, then that is what we deserve.

But my intuiton tells me that the time is ripe for a new idea. And there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.

We shall see.