So…Margaret Thatcher. RIP. And Such.

Margaret Thatcher, former British prime minister, passed away yesterday.

You might have heard.

Prepare yourself and go seek a legitimate obit, if that's what you're after.

I am not about to get into a discussion of the late, great Iron Lady's legacy. I am not going to rehash the things she did or did not do, the things one might have wished she did or didn't do. Others have done and will continue to do that, with facts and thought and perspective.

That's just not where I'm going to go with that.

Here is what I'm going to say (you will not have seen it coming unless you also were in Mr. F.'s history class sometime in the '80's. And also, you would have to be similarly pseudo-philosophically inclined and prone to nostalgia, sentiment, and peculiar twists of mind.)

As an unabashed child of the eighties, I will say: nothing, nothing, has made so plain that childhood is dead and said childhood is basically thirty years gone, like the prime of Ms. Margaret Thatcher, the passing of Margaret Thatcher.

(This is not to say we, or anyone like us, is stuck in childhood– just that we, or I, perpetually drop a decade and the fact that our childhood is not twenty but thirty years passed is a constant surprise. Because we– I– still feel somewhere in the neighborhood of 13 to 25. Anywhere between 13-25; they share such bizarre similarities and we– I– have not managed to become somehow fully formed and complete in said thirty [30!] years.)

The 80's have lost their names: Michael Jackson and Whitney have gone. The Iron Curtain crumbled so long ago that teenagers now are shocked it ever existed. Reagan's been gone forever, gone before he was actually gone. Culture has changed so much that the neon and the fashions have come completely back in style. Tiffany went so far out of style she became a reality TV thing– or so I hear from friends and family who ritually enjoy such things. And maybe that is also so far ago that it classifies as “Past.”

But Maggie. Margaret Thatcher. That's the one that seals the deal: the eighties, the innocence of children of the eighties is irrevocably gone.

The eighties to me were many things. And a surprisingly large chunk of them consists of the non-stop doodles of Chris P. If you're in the year 1987, and you are me or someone like me, your days begin with history (social studies) class with Mr. F. Mr. F. has a perpetual white crust around his mouth that you long to remind him of (seriously, Mr. F., check your face before you stand in front of 7th graders: We are very unforgiving and judgmental). Mr. F. will be one of the first and only teachers you encounter before high school to suggest in red-state, Bible Belt Indiana that alternative religions to Christianity have rich and storied histories and equal validity in the world to the stories of and beliefs about Jesus. Mr. F. served in the military but he was never able to be very specific about it, in class and all, and you (the seventh grader) remember that he served and are ashamed you noticed the inevitable white crust and nicotine fumes.

But your days begin with Mr. F. He tells you about Korea (we had a war there, in the fifties), and Hinduism (more people in India believe in it than Christianity and that's really okay). He mentions the Treaty of Verdun and he doesn't make students spit out their gum. He speaks for 55 minutes exactly every morning, 5 days per week, and seldom gives quizzes. He just talks and waves unconcernedly at the chalkboard he would never dream of getting up from his seat and writing on.

And you, you are sitting there in 1987, and you are taking copious, precise notes in pink, purple, or turquoise ink. Occasionally you will check out the megaphone on your Coke watch, the coral reef on your Swatch. Occasionally you will draw a damn good version of Mr. F.'s head on your notes, which are more complete than could be expected from the Lisa Frank notebook (bubble gum machine, very perky, further festooned with Lisa Frank stickers of teddy bears, unicorns, dewy-bubble-eyed and 80's-fantastic.)

But sometimes, you will look over at Chris' messy, paper-everywhere, helter-skelter desk. You will watch him doodling on loose-leaf paper (can't even pull the Trapper Keeper out of his bag and put it on the desk, nope. Too much to ask). You will notice he never– never– takes notes. What he does, all 55 minutes of first period long, is draw.

He draws boxing gloves (Rocky V!). But mostly he draws weaponry. And there's my complete (your complete, if you're like me) pre-90's introduction to foreign policy, on a Mead loose-leaf, wide-rule sheet of ridiculously cheap paper: bomber airplanes, U.S.S.R. sickle-and-hammers, more bombers. The occasional mushroom cloud.

And in a weird way, retrospectively, you've got to hand it to Chris P: the news I saw scattered in the evening between Kate and Allie and My Two Dads was actually very much a story of bombers, the U.S.S.R., and…

Margaret Thatcher.

Not that Chris P. ever once drew Maggie– he wasn't prone to drawing humans.

But still, she was there, like the (threat of the) mushroom cloud, the boxing glove, Red Dawn, and the Wall-pre-torn-down.

There was anxiety, hidden well by Alf, Rainbow Brite, Coke jerseys, and Guess jeans.

There were evenings of news reports that, weirdly and yet again in retrospect, probably really did come down to Chris P.'s drawings of boxing gloves and Gorbachev's birthmarks.

News reports in which Margaret Thatcher's name was a chronic inclusion.

So, on Monday, it was announced she is gone. She has passed: she was sick and now, she has gone. Stealthily, quietly, in 2013.

And that's when it occurs to you– to me– that time has passed faster than you know. I mean, in your head you're fully aware that it's 2013. You don't generally think of the eighties that much, except in your nostalgia fits, nor the '90's or the aughts. You know it's the day that it is. You go to work. You do the laundry. You read the paper. You worry about the future.

But a lot of the time, you feel uncertain.

Like a 12 year old.

And it occasionally dawns on you that the uncertainty you're feeling is the same uncertainty you've had since the beginning, and that you were really aware of, back in the day of Bonne Bell lipgloss and used clothes you hoped would be disguised by Palmetto jeans miraculously passing as your best and only Christmas Guess (by Georges Marciano) pants.

And then–then– it will dawn on you: my god. That was thirty years ago.

Margaret Thatcher is dead.

About these ads

Mad World

Whence Comes This Rush of Wings?

The year began strangely. Remember? Mass animal die-offs in the ocean, in the sky, around the world.

The year continues strangely.

When the world shook in New Zealand, my mental eye saw birds falling from the sky. Each uprising in the Middle East, for good or for ill, the birds kept raining down. The earthquake and tsunami in Japan and its ongoing nuclear crisis, I still see birds falling, or worse, on the ground.

I don’t believe in augury. The birds (and the fish) were not omens, no matter how unsettling the feeling at the news of their sudden collective passing. But what they’ve become to me is the perfect, inescapable companion image, the essential visual metaphor for things that I can’t quite understand.

And today, with things ratcheting up in Libya, with bad news from the Ivory Coast, with more casualties in Pakistan from drone attacks…

More birds.

Before There Was Blog, October 2009

Pakistan. A rough estimate of “about half” of the top twenty Qaeda operatives taken out by drones. A rough estimate of “750 to 1000”* (funny how financial accounting would never accept such a wide margin of error but counting lives does) civilians lost to same. I have never understood the calculation that says even one “bad guy” is worth one “good guy.” How does that square with our general assumption that good is more valuable than bad? Further, if the point of the drone assassinations is to save innocent lives, how do we excuse, explain or justify the loss of innocent lives? (Because they are not American innocent lives?) And, while I am appalled at NATO/UN assessments which accept 3.5 civilian casualties in exchange for a “target,” I understand that with war, with military action, it is better that such things are thought about, however horrifying and desensitizing as that may be. That said, 75 to 100 civilians lost for every suspected bad actor: this nine-fold increase of the acceptable collateral damage (what a deplorable euphemism) is a whole new level of paramilitary calculus that I find inconceivable.

I believe in our country. I love my country. I love the men and women who protect us and support them. Civilian casualties are inevitable, but at what point do we lose the ability to distinguish good from bad when we’re willing to destroy them both as if they were the same? At what point do we admit that, frankly, we’ve lost our mind? At what point do we at least just ask: what are we doing? What have we become?

I don’t have the answer. I will never know the answer. But how can good come from the mass destruction of the good?

*Mayer, Jane. “The Predator War.” The New Yorker, October 26, 2009.

Monday: Morning Edition

Healthy Self-Image in Alaskan Maternal Grizzly Bears (A Moment of Snark)

While it can be difficult to assess the mental health and self-image of maternal grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the wild, the rare specimens of a vocal, media-savvy, domesticated sub-group have recently given indications that concerns about positive self-image in maternal grizzlies may be unfounded. In a study to be released in December, scientist Barbara Walters interviewed one member of this sub-group known as “Sarah” or “Mama Grizzly.” Sarah exhibited a very solid sense of self and an extremely high rate of self-confidence, even responding in the affirmative to the question “Can you beat Barack Obama for the presidency in 2012?” While it is believed that Sarah’s response may be due to her fame as a celebrity and ability to increase ratings for the American television program Dancing with the Stars, it is unknown if these are reasonable criteria for confidence in the ability to become president. Further study will be required to determine the connection between reality and self-image and whether such high levels of confidence are actually beneficial.

See Something, Say Something

Last week, Janet Napolitano announced that the Department of Homeland Security would be starting a poster campaign called “See Something, Say Something,” encouraging the public to be afraid, be very afraid be watchful of one another in gas stations, train stations, airports, hospitals, etc. and to report suspicious activity. (Which I thought was common sense and already what people were doing, thus not requiring millions of big-print paper reminders that we should spy on each other.)  Maybe this is all necessary now. Maybe this makes us more secure. Between posters, body scans and full-body contact frisking, the DHS is making us safer one degrading, paranoia-inducing, creepy-titled measure at a time, increasing a general sense of suspicion and distrust of both government and one another (which is helpful since there probably wasn’t enough of that to go around). Thank you, printer-cartridge people. Thanks, plastic-explosives in underwear guy. Now, everybody remain calm. And make sure the guy next to you is doing the same.

Monday’s Factoid

Global Download Speeds (in MBps): Korea 33.5, Japan 23.8, Sweden 16.5, Finland 15.8, Netherlands 14.9, Romania 13.9, Hong Kong 12.9, Germany 11.6, Portugal 11.5, Switzerland 10.2, Iceland 9.8, US 9.6*

Hey! We’re Number 12! In the world! Go, Superpower, Go!

(I think I just rolled my eyes in that charmingly insolent way of adolescent girls. Lack of attention to infrastructure will do that. Pavlov, bell, dog.)

*Rounded numbers; Sources: Oxford University, CISCO, Newsweek

Best Quote of Last Week

“…because, you know, often soldiers and the symbols or representations of soldiers are claimed by the far left or the far right to mean a certain thing. And we do the young men an injustice in not digesting fully their reality.” Tim Hetherington, interview, PBS NewsHour, November 16, 2010

Manifest Destiny: 51 and 52

A Modest Proposal?

State 51, formerly known as Mexico:

So much violence, such great beaches. So close to home, it may as well be. Solve the immigration problem, the semi-failed state problem. All at once. Welcome to Statehood, Mexico. Borders a problem? Just remove the border. No problem! Yes, yes, we’ve both tried variations on this theme before, but mistakes are made for repeating. (see State 52)

State 52, formerly known as Afghanistan:

Okay, so we were planning on giving you a “government in a box.” We had big plans to Build Your Nation. But despite a constitution and a president, it seems you still insist on carrying on with your centuries-old (oops, sorry, that’s us), your millenia-old loyalties to local clans and ethnic identities. It’s peskily unhelpful that your paradigm won’t semi-immediately shift to identify with Country First. So, since you have no cohesive national identity or economy for us to hang an appropriately US-approved democratic government stable nation on, well, we’ll just share ours! Look at it this way, we’re already bankrolling the army and training them too. If we just take all of you, then we don’t have to worry about where the loyalties of the military really lie or will lie when paychecks stop coming or come from another hand. Plus, you’ve got a lot (a lot) of us already there! Besides, if you don’t join us, then when we eventually leave, we believe Al Qaeda will just come back. (Even though reason says that it’s really more a philosophy than an organization at this point, that it could re-form in any old failed state, and that terrorist threats come from non-Al Qaeda, too, we’re sticking with the whole “existential threat” thing). Anyway, we can’t leave unless we’re sure they won’t come back, so we’re gonna be there for awhile anyway. May as well build a statehouse. (State flower: poppy. State bird: drone.)

Manifest Destiny: expansion defended on the premise of necessity or benevolence. Welcome, states 51 and 52! Welcome back, absurd and aged, megalomaniacal, self-centered and misguided ideological rationale for sloppy behavior with tragic consequences! Tonight we’re gonna party like it’s 1839!

For Esme, With Love and Squalor

“Goodbye,” said Esmé. I hope you come back from the war with all your faculties intact.”

Frontline’s program “The Wounded Platoon” has haunted me for two weeks now. Disturbing, haunting, horrifying. Complete with the hopelessness that comes from knowing that, like the Gulf oil spill, nothing truly good can come of all this. We stay, we go: it will end badly and the question is “which badly is a better badly?” The devil you choose…

For the US generally, there are the usual issues: how does this make us safer, how does this address the threats here, in Yemen, Somalia, Eritrea, North Korea, everywhere; how do we humanely clean up the messes we have made (surely we will be responsible enough to pay for the all we have broken in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past decade, won’t we?); how do we cope with the fact that we’ve paid for our very real fear in equally very real human currency, some of it ours, too much of it taken from others, and all of it valuable. But there are the questions about Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom that this civilian idiot can’t stop struggling with: Just who are we? What are we? Noble monsters? What is right? And is it worth doing what we think (sort of) is right for us, if it’s not right for everyone, if it’s devastating to everyone, everyone else? Is it really “damn them all if they’re not us?” “You’re either with us or against us:” (the most self-interested, arrogant, hateful phrase ever uttered; a phrase to damn ourselves better than anything or anyone else ever could) and, at any rate, the “with us” portion of the world is dwindling daily. Rightfully? Who knows anymore? Who ever did?

“Brave but lethal,” the Frontline narrator called the platoon. I extend it to our soldiers, whom I support, respect, admire, and worry for. Unbelievably brave, noble—but lethal. Estimates range from 96,381 to 105, 117 documented civilian deaths in Iraq alone. Some estimates go above one million just for Iraq. Google the civilian casualties for Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan sometime. It’s not pretty. Neither is it accurate because apparently it’s more difficult to count non-Americans. I try very, very hard to dismiss the cynical thought that, in our terror, out of some desensitized necessity we haven’t decided that these dead are not worth counting. (Surely my America wouldn’t believe that?) But when I heard a brave and damaged soldier on Frontline speaking about shooting civilians, about losing the ability to see them as human, about equating people with animals, or “they were nothing to me…”

And how could he have helped it? We train them to kill, hopefully for the right reasons, but we train them to kill. They go over there, willing to die for all of us, in the worst cases seeing the unimaginable. Losing their mates, losing their options, and (temporarily?) losing the luxuries of mind and morality. If someone shoots at you, shoot back. But how many times does it take before you learn that they might all shoot at you, if not today, then tomorrow? And how do you not break apart under that? And what happens when we “take a broken soldier, and then we send him back?” What happens after?

The American casualty rates as of 5/28/2010 are 4,404 (Iraq) and 1,076 (Afghanistan). The wounded: 31,827 (Iraq) and 6,038 (Afghanistan). The casualty rates do not include the troop and veteran suicides. The wounded rates do not include the unreported or undiagnosed cases of PTSD or other mental health conditions.

As Frontline brilliantly illustrated, some of our soldiers come back and don’t come back intact. They are protecting us, but who’s protecting them? And what kind of sick, tragic unintended consequence sees situations where occasionally people here need protection from them? Not enough heroes are coming home, but too many heroes are coming home broken. Too many heroes are ending up in hospitals and prisons (but oh, dear god, how can we not feel that we’re betraying them when they end up there? How are we not betraying them utterly when they end up anywhere but in the vicinity of okay?).

“You take a really sleepy man, Esmé, and he always stands a chance of again becoming a man with all his fac—with all his f-a-c-u-l-t-i-e-s intact.”  A story that’s too simple: A twelve year old girl somehow knowing the right words to heal a shattered man. Frontline brought it to mind. And I keep thinking of it still. I want America to come back with its faculties intact (ethically, too, loving my country too much to see it behave badly, even in the name of the abstract good). I want all of our soldiers to come back with their faculties intact.

We’re going to need a lot more Esmés.

* Salinger, J.D: “For Esme, With Love and Squalor,”  Nine Stories.