Democrat or Republican this is SO SO SO SO SO true. Please read. David Letterman wrote this; it's the David we don't often see...
'As most of you know I am not a President Bush fan, nor have I ever been, but this is not about Bush, it is about us, as Americans, and it seems to hit the mark.
'The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some Poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans=2 0are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the resident. In essence 2/3 of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, 'What are we so unhappy about?''
A. Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 0D Days a week?
B.. Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?
C.. Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
D.. Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
E.. Maybe it is the ability to drive our cars and trucks from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?
F.. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
G.. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough either.
H. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
I.. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home.
J.. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you, your family, and your belongings.
K.. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.
L.. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
M... How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?
Maybe that is what has 67% of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?
Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it......are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day Make no mistake about it.
The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an 'other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable' ' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans?
Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by 'justifying ' them in one way or another Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way......Insane!
Turn off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.' 'With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, 'Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?'
David Letterman
Please keep this in circulation. There are so many people who need to read this and grasp the truth of it all.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Thoughts...
The day has two tones: first quiet, then outgoing. As the moon moves from Virgo to Libra, a humble, reflective day spent working alone in our cubicle corner of the world shifts when someone walks right in, sits down and starts chatting up a storm. This renewed focus on companionship feels natural and welcome.
LIBRA (Sept. 23-Oct. 23). Your faith leads you to more daring and wild places than you dared traverse only a few days ago. And so you step off of the safe path into the waiting arms of your inner guide.
Libra got cold feet. Why? Libra, skilled in the art of persuasion, is rarely ambivalent about encouraging a relationship, but deciding how far to take any relationship is a personal one, a decision made in the privacy of her own mind. I'm thinking she reached her comfort threshold when you made your affections clearer — she hadn't counted on this relationship going any farther than shared secrets and laughter. If you're interested in preserving the friendship, you might try letting it cool on the back burner. If she knows where you stand, being less obvious about your feelings gives her space to figure out her own. Her curiosity might get the better of her, and she'll call. Give her time. She has two tones...
LIBRA (Sept. 23-Oct. 23). Your faith leads you to more daring and wild places than you dared traverse only a few days ago. And so you step off of the safe path into the waiting arms of your inner guide.
Libra got cold feet. Why? Libra, skilled in the art of persuasion, is rarely ambivalent about encouraging a relationship, but deciding how far to take any relationship is a personal one, a decision made in the privacy of her own mind. I'm thinking she reached her comfort threshold when you made your affections clearer — she hadn't counted on this relationship going any farther than shared secrets and laughter. If you're interested in preserving the friendship, you might try letting it cool on the back burner. If she knows where you stand, being less obvious about your feelings gives her space to figure out her own. Her curiosity might get the better of her, and she'll call. Give her time. She has two tones...
Saturday, May 31, 2008
YOU KNOW YOU ARE OLD WHEN---
- In a hostage situation you are likely to be released first.
- It's harder and harder for sexual harassment charges to stick.
- Kidnappers are not very interested in you.
- No one expects you to run into a burning building.
- People call at 9 p.m. and ask, "Did I wake you?"
- People no longer view you as a hypochondriac.
- There's nothing left to learn the hard way.
- Things you buy now won't wear out.
- You buy a compass for the dash of your car.
- You can eat dinner at 4:00- You can live without sex but not without glasses.
- You can't remember the last time you laid on the floor to watch television.
- You consider coffee one of the most important things in life.
- You constantly talk about the price of gasoline.
- You enjoy hearing about other people's operations.
- You get into a heated argument about pension plans.
- You got cable for the weather channel.
- You have a party and the neighbors don't even realize it.
- You no longer think of speed limits as a challenge.
- You quit trying to hold your stomach in, no matter who walks into the room.
- You send money to PBS.- You sing along with the elevator music.
- You talk about "good grass" and you're referring to someone's lawn.
- Your arms are almost too short to read the newspaper.
- Your back goes out more than you do.
- Your ears are hairier than your head.
- Your eyes won't get much worse.
- Your investment in health insurance is finally beginning to pay off.
- Your joints are more accurate than the National Weather Service.
- Your secrets are safe with your friends because they can't remember them either.
- Your supply of brain cells is finally down to a manageable size
- In a hostage situation you are likely to be released first.
- It's harder and harder for sexual harassment charges to stick.
- Kidnappers are not very interested in you.
- No one expects you to run into a burning building.
- People call at 9 p.m. and ask, "Did I wake you?"
- People no longer view you as a hypochondriac.
- There's nothing left to learn the hard way.
- Things you buy now won't wear out.
- You buy a compass for the dash of your car.
- You can eat dinner at 4:00- You can live without sex but not without glasses.
- You can't remember the last time you laid on the floor to watch television.
- You consider coffee one of the most important things in life.
- You constantly talk about the price of gasoline.
- You enjoy hearing about other people's operations.
- You get into a heated argument about pension plans.
- You got cable for the weather channel.
- You have a party and the neighbors don't even realize it.
- You no longer think of speed limits as a challenge.
- You quit trying to hold your stomach in, no matter who walks into the room.
- You send money to PBS.- You sing along with the elevator music.
- You talk about "good grass" and you're referring to someone's lawn.
- Your arms are almost too short to read the newspaper.
- Your back goes out more than you do.
- Your ears are hairier than your head.
- Your eyes won't get much worse.
- Your investment in health insurance is finally beginning to pay off.
- Your joints are more accurate than the National Weather Service.
- Your secrets are safe with your friends because they can't remember them either.
- Your supply of brain cells is finally down to a manageable size
Thursday, May 29, 2008
On the June 3, 2008 ballot in California, voters will have their choice between Proposition 98 and Proposition 99.
Both ballot propositions are about eminent domain reform. However, each measure approaches the issue quite differently.[1],[2]
Dueling trojan horses?
Supporters of Proposition 98 say that Proposition 99 is a trojan horse initiative intended to fool voters into thinking they are voting for real eminent domain reform, when in fact Prop. 99 does little to inhibit California cities and counties from seizing property from one private owner and giving it to another private owner. Prop 99 forbids state and local government from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence and then turn it over to a private person or business. However, Prop. 99 allows apartments, commercial property or rental homes to be taken by government entities from private owners and given to other private owners. This leaves open most of the state's current eminent-domain options. Property rights analyst Timothy Sandefur says, "The fact is that Prop. 99 would not protect anyone in California from eminent domain abuse. It would not apply at all to small businesses, which are the most common victims of eminent domain. It would not protect people living in apartments at all. It would not protect farms, or churches. It would only protect 'owner occupied residences.' And in fact, it would not even protect them, because the small print in the initiative eliminates such protections in almost every case of eminent domain abuse."[3],[4]
Supporters of Proposition 99 respond that Proposition 98 is a Trojan horse of a different color, intended to fool voters into ending government-imposed rent control in the approximately 100 California cities that impose rent control, under the guise of reforming eminent domain land seizures in the state. What Prop 98 says about rent control is that existing rent controls would stay in force until a tenant moved out. The owner of thait property would then (if Prop 98 passes) be able to set a market-based rent for the property whereas, under current law in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Cotati and Santa Monica, the property's rental price would once again be set by a government agency under their rent control provisions once a new tenant moved in.[5],[6]
If both measures win more than 50 percent at the ballot box, the provisions of Prop. 99 go into effect, invalidating Prop. 98--only "In the event that this measure recieves a greater number of affirmative votes" (quote from the official voter information guide). This is due to a provision SECTION 9 written into the language of Prop. 99, known as a "poison pill" provision. Prop. 98 has no similar provision in its language.
Campaign tactics, analyses and claims
Does the fine print in Prop. 99 undermine protections?
Property rights analyst Timothy Sandefur, who works for the Pacific Legal Foundation, writes that a little-noticed section of Proposition 99 undermines what he regards as the already-minimal protections it provides against city and county governments taking private property from one owner and giving it to another private owner. He writes, "Although the initiative declares that government would not be allowed to 'acquire by eminent domain an owner occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person,' another section undoes this protection for almost every conceivable case." The other section says that a city can condemn land that includes owner-occupied housing as long as the private owners it conveys the condemned land to includes some government facilities, however minimal. Sanderfur writes, "For example, the Victoria Gardens shopping complex in southern California includes a branch of the local library and a community center next to a multimillion dollar collection of stores. If a city decided to construct such a mall, and to seize owner-occupied homes to do so, Prop. 99 would not apply and the homeowners would not be protected. It would therefore be extremely easy for government officials to organize projects to avoid even the small protections provided by this initiative."[7]
Proposition 98 supporters file complaint
Join Ballotpediathe night of June 3for constantly updatedCalifornia election results
In early April, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission against three major donors to Proposition 99, the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties and the California Redevelopment Association. The complaint accuses the organizations of "laundering campaign money, failing to disclose the identity of donors and illegally tapping into taxpayer funds."[8]
Jon Coupal, a leader in the pro-Prop 98 campaign, told a newspaper reporter, "We suspect, and have some evidence to support it, that a major developer wants to defeat our measure (Proposition 98) but doesn't want his fingerprints on it, so he's given money to the league under some pretense or another for use in the campaign."
Chris McKenzie, director of the League of Cities, has denied this charge, saying it is "a scurrilous dirty trick intended to discredit the coalition".
The League of California Cities, which so far is the largest financial supporter of Prop 99, is composed primarily of elected officials who make land-use decisions.
Are taxpayers the ultimate source of League of Cities money?
Coupal decries the possibility that the League of Cities and the other two organizations may be taking money they have in their coffers from membership dues paid by cities and counties, and putting that money into the political campaign to defeat Prop 98. This practice is known as taxpayer-funded lobbying. The League denies that any of the money they are putting into political campaigns comes from membership dues saying that, rather, it comes from advertising revenues in their publications and attendance fees at events they hold.
Coupal says, "It's implausible that their rent and advertising revenue could produce $4 million."
It will be up to the California Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate and render a verdict.
Proposition 99 supporters file unsuccessful lawsuit
To hammer home the messaging strategy they feel will be most effective with California voters, Proposition 99 supporters filed a lawsuit in February against the California Attorney General alleging that his ballot title for Proposition 98 is in error, because it doesn't mention the impact that Proposition 98 will have on rent control. A California judge threw out this lawsuit.
Making a campaign issue out of donors
Just as Proposition 98 supporters are making an issue out of the fact that the majority of pro-Prop 99 funds come from organizations peopled by municipal elected officials who (opponents say) would prefer the freedom to exercise their current lenient eminent domain perogatives, Proposition 98 opponents have made an issue out of the fact that many donors to Proposition 98 are apartment owners and mobile home part owners, who could benefit from Prop. 98's phase-out of rent control.[9].
A Los Angeles Times story highlighted this aspect of Prop. 98, and interviewed several people who could potentially be affected if Prop. 98 were to pass and rent control is phased out. [10]
What impact will Prop 98 have on tenants?
The Western Center on Law and Poverty has published an analysis which says that language in Proposition 98 could jeopardize renter protections, including:
The fair return of rental deposits
Laws that protect seniors and the disabled from drastic rent increases;
Laws requring that landlords give tenants ample notice before evictions.
Prevalence of rent control in California
There are 12 cities statewide that have rent control ordinances, and about 110 mobile home communities which have rent controls in place on their parks. Overall, there are about 1.2 million people statewide who live in rent-controlled housing. Their rent-controlled rents stay in effect under Proposition 98, until such time as they vacate a rent-controlled unit. At that time, the rent on the vacated unit would move to a market-based rent; whereas, under current rent control laws in many areas, the apartment stays under rent control when current tenants vacate it.
350,000 people in San Francisco live in housing affected by rent control.
Will the National Football League ever return to Los Angeles?
According to one newspaper columnist, that is what is at stake in the battle between Prop 98 and Prop 99.[11]
"But many cities also use their confiscatory powers to take land from one owner and then resell it to another. Without such takings, there would be no Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles (home to the basketball Lakers and Clippers plus the hockey Kings), nor would there be an AT&T Park in San Francisco's China Basin (home of the baseball Giants). Many shopping malls would not exist, nor would some big-box stores."
Disputed impact of Prop 98 on water regulations
Some opponents of Prop 98 have maintained that the initiative could conceivably have the unforeseen result of prohibiting transfers of property under eminent domain or threat of eminent domain that a government agency views as needed for water projects.
Some environment groups, while entertaining concerns about Proposition 98, have said that if it passes they would use it to block water projects they dislike.[12]
Will hurting economy hurt Prop 98?
John Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College, speculates that the mortgage meltdown in California could hurt Prop. 98's chances of passing. Pitney told the Los Angeles Times, "Some former homeowners are joining the ranks of renters, and they might think twice about a proposal that would end rent control."[13]
Poll results
The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll in April 2008[14] with these results:
71% of California's likely voters believes that California's current eminent domain laws need major or minor changes.
53% of likely voters believe rent control is a good thing (39% think it is bad).
37% of likely voters are currently planning to vote for Prop 98, and 41% are planning to vote against it, with 22% undecided.
Whereas, 53% of likely voters plan to vote for Prop. 99.
Supporters and opponents
Lists of supporters/opponents
List of groups opposing Proposition 98
List of California Proposition 98 supporters
Schwarzenegger announces opposition to 98
In late April, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his opposition to Prop. 98, saying, "Eminent domain is an issue worth addressing. However, Proposition 98 would undermine California's ability to improve our infrastructure, including our water delivery and storage." Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association says that Schwarzenegger's concern that Prop. 98 will impact public infrastructure is based on a flawed legal analysis, because Prop. 98 doesn't prevent units of government from seizing private property when the property will be used for public projects. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, and former Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, have also announced their opposition to Prop. 98. The California Republican Party has endorsed Prop. 98.[15],[16],[17]
[edit] Farm Bureau, others respond to Schwarzenegger
The California Farm Bureau, a 91,000 member farm organization, issued a statement objecting to Schwarzenegger's comments about the impact Prop 98 could have on water projects, saying, "Farm Bureau strongly favors protecting water rights and strongly favors water development, and our support of Proposition 98 fits with both. Proposition 98 was written with a lot of thought and the best legal advice. It will protect property and water rights, while allowing government agencies to use eminent domain for legitimate public works such as water projects, roads and schools."[18],[19]
Barbara Boxer controversy
Writing for the Huffington Post, Stephen Elliott criticized U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer for failing to speak out against Prop. 98. Later, he learned that the "No on Prop 98" campaign has a signed statement from Boxer in opposition to 98. However, when he called her office to confirm her position, he was told that she has not taken a position because it falls out of her jurisdiction.
Eventually, it was clarified that Boxer does oppose 98.[20],[21]
Newspaper endorsements
In favor of 98 and against 99
The Ventura Daily Press on April 22 editorialized in favor of Prop 98 saying it is "the real deal" and "Prop. 99 is backed by the government groups who abuse eminent domain and want to continue the practice".[22] The Record Searchlight in Redding editorialized in favor of 98 and against 99 on May 4, saying, "Two measures on the June 3 ballot deal with eminent domain. One is real reform; the other is a fraud."[23]
Against 98 and for 99
The San Francisco Chronicle on May 4 editorialized against Prop 98, saying it is "disingenuous and dangerous", objecting to the phase-out of rent control and saying 98 could "be used to attack myriad laws that restrict land use or protect land, air and water resources".[24] The Santa Cruz Sentinel also came out against Prop 98 on May 4, focusing on rent control. "If opponents of rent control want to bring an end to the process, then present the issue openly and fairly and let the debate begin," they write, urging readers to instead vote for Prop. 99.[25] On May 12, the Los Angeles Times urged a "no" vote on 98, saying that Prop 98 "masquerades as a simple correction to the notorious Kelo ruling, but really carries the long-standing agenda of interests that want to extinguish rent control and block water and air quality laws." The Times encourages its readers to vote "yes" on 99, but they say that it does not go far enough and that further action in the state legislature is needed to prevent Kelo-style private-to-private land transfers.[26] The Sacramento News & Review editorialized against 98 and for 99 on May 15, calling 98's TV ads "imaginatively deceptive".
Against both 98 and 99 The Contra Costa Times on May 3 urged its readers to vote against both initiatives, arguing that eminent domain is complex and the state legislature should create a reform package. They write, "Instead of informed debate by lawmakers on the issue of property rights and the many implications of eminent domain reform, we have a few political campaigns that employ hyperbole, questionable assertions and uncertain conclusions."[27]
Both ballot propositions are about eminent domain reform. However, each measure approaches the issue quite differently.[1],[2]
Dueling trojan horses?
Supporters of Proposition 98 say that Proposition 99 is a trojan horse initiative intended to fool voters into thinking they are voting for real eminent domain reform, when in fact Prop. 99 does little to inhibit California cities and counties from seizing property from one private owner and giving it to another private owner. Prop 99 forbids state and local government from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence and then turn it over to a private person or business. However, Prop. 99 allows apartments, commercial property or rental homes to be taken by government entities from private owners and given to other private owners. This leaves open most of the state's current eminent-domain options. Property rights analyst Timothy Sandefur says, "The fact is that Prop. 99 would not protect anyone in California from eminent domain abuse. It would not apply at all to small businesses, which are the most common victims of eminent domain. It would not protect people living in apartments at all. It would not protect farms, or churches. It would only protect 'owner occupied residences.' And in fact, it would not even protect them, because the small print in the initiative eliminates such protections in almost every case of eminent domain abuse."[3],[4]
Supporters of Proposition 99 respond that Proposition 98 is a Trojan horse of a different color, intended to fool voters into ending government-imposed rent control in the approximately 100 California cities that impose rent control, under the guise of reforming eminent domain land seizures in the state. What Prop 98 says about rent control is that existing rent controls would stay in force until a tenant moved out. The owner of thait property would then (if Prop 98 passes) be able to set a market-based rent for the property whereas, under current law in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Cotati and Santa Monica, the property's rental price would once again be set by a government agency under their rent control provisions once a new tenant moved in.[5],[6]
If both measures win more than 50 percent at the ballot box, the provisions of Prop. 99 go into effect, invalidating Prop. 98--only "In the event that this measure recieves a greater number of affirmative votes" (quote from the official voter information guide). This is due to a provision SECTION 9 written into the language of Prop. 99, known as a "poison pill" provision. Prop. 98 has no similar provision in its language.
Campaign tactics, analyses and claims
Does the fine print in Prop. 99 undermine protections?
Property rights analyst Timothy Sandefur, who works for the Pacific Legal Foundation, writes that a little-noticed section of Proposition 99 undermines what he regards as the already-minimal protections it provides against city and county governments taking private property from one owner and giving it to another private owner. He writes, "Although the initiative declares that government would not be allowed to 'acquire by eminent domain an owner occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person,' another section undoes this protection for almost every conceivable case." The other section says that a city can condemn land that includes owner-occupied housing as long as the private owners it conveys the condemned land to includes some government facilities, however minimal. Sanderfur writes, "For example, the Victoria Gardens shopping complex in southern California includes a branch of the local library and a community center next to a multimillion dollar collection of stores. If a city decided to construct such a mall, and to seize owner-occupied homes to do so, Prop. 99 would not apply and the homeowners would not be protected. It would therefore be extremely easy for government officials to organize projects to avoid even the small protections provided by this initiative."[7]
Proposition 98 supporters file complaint
Join Ballotpediathe night of June 3for constantly updatedCalifornia election results
In early April, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission against three major donors to Proposition 99, the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties and the California Redevelopment Association. The complaint accuses the organizations of "laundering campaign money, failing to disclose the identity of donors and illegally tapping into taxpayer funds."[8]
Jon Coupal, a leader in the pro-Prop 98 campaign, told a newspaper reporter, "We suspect, and have some evidence to support it, that a major developer wants to defeat our measure (Proposition 98) but doesn't want his fingerprints on it, so he's given money to the league under some pretense or another for use in the campaign."
Chris McKenzie, director of the League of Cities, has denied this charge, saying it is "a scurrilous dirty trick intended to discredit the coalition".
The League of California Cities, which so far is the largest financial supporter of Prop 99, is composed primarily of elected officials who make land-use decisions.
Are taxpayers the ultimate source of League of Cities money?
Coupal decries the possibility that the League of Cities and the other two organizations may be taking money they have in their coffers from membership dues paid by cities and counties, and putting that money into the political campaign to defeat Prop 98. This practice is known as taxpayer-funded lobbying. The League denies that any of the money they are putting into political campaigns comes from membership dues saying that, rather, it comes from advertising revenues in their publications and attendance fees at events they hold.
Coupal says, "It's implausible that their rent and advertising revenue could produce $4 million."
It will be up to the California Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate and render a verdict.
Proposition 99 supporters file unsuccessful lawsuit
To hammer home the messaging strategy they feel will be most effective with California voters, Proposition 99 supporters filed a lawsuit in February against the California Attorney General alleging that his ballot title for Proposition 98 is in error, because it doesn't mention the impact that Proposition 98 will have on rent control. A California judge threw out this lawsuit.
Making a campaign issue out of donors
Just as Proposition 98 supporters are making an issue out of the fact that the majority of pro-Prop 99 funds come from organizations peopled by municipal elected officials who (opponents say) would prefer the freedom to exercise their current lenient eminent domain perogatives, Proposition 98 opponents have made an issue out of the fact that many donors to Proposition 98 are apartment owners and mobile home part owners, who could benefit from Prop. 98's phase-out of rent control.[9].
A Los Angeles Times story highlighted this aspect of Prop. 98, and interviewed several people who could potentially be affected if Prop. 98 were to pass and rent control is phased out. [10]
What impact will Prop 98 have on tenants?
The Western Center on Law and Poverty has published an analysis which says that language in Proposition 98 could jeopardize renter protections, including:
The fair return of rental deposits
Laws that protect seniors and the disabled from drastic rent increases;
Laws requring that landlords give tenants ample notice before evictions.
Prevalence of rent control in California
There are 12 cities statewide that have rent control ordinances, and about 110 mobile home communities which have rent controls in place on their parks. Overall, there are about 1.2 million people statewide who live in rent-controlled housing. Their rent-controlled rents stay in effect under Proposition 98, until such time as they vacate a rent-controlled unit. At that time, the rent on the vacated unit would move to a market-based rent; whereas, under current rent control laws in many areas, the apartment stays under rent control when current tenants vacate it.
350,000 people in San Francisco live in housing affected by rent control.
Will the National Football League ever return to Los Angeles?
According to one newspaper columnist, that is what is at stake in the battle between Prop 98 and Prop 99.[11]
"But many cities also use their confiscatory powers to take land from one owner and then resell it to another. Without such takings, there would be no Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles (home to the basketball Lakers and Clippers plus the hockey Kings), nor would there be an AT&T Park in San Francisco's China Basin (home of the baseball Giants). Many shopping malls would not exist, nor would some big-box stores."
Disputed impact of Prop 98 on water regulations
Some opponents of Prop 98 have maintained that the initiative could conceivably have the unforeseen result of prohibiting transfers of property under eminent domain or threat of eminent domain that a government agency views as needed for water projects.
Some environment groups, while entertaining concerns about Proposition 98, have said that if it passes they would use it to block water projects they dislike.[12]
Will hurting economy hurt Prop 98?
John Pitney, a professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College, speculates that the mortgage meltdown in California could hurt Prop. 98's chances of passing. Pitney told the Los Angeles Times, "Some former homeowners are joining the ranks of renters, and they might think twice about a proposal that would end rent control."[13]
Poll results
The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll in April 2008[14] with these results:
71% of California's likely voters believes that California's current eminent domain laws need major or minor changes.
53% of likely voters believe rent control is a good thing (39% think it is bad).
37% of likely voters are currently planning to vote for Prop 98, and 41% are planning to vote against it, with 22% undecided.
Whereas, 53% of likely voters plan to vote for Prop. 99.
Supporters and opponents
Lists of supporters/opponents
List of groups opposing Proposition 98
List of California Proposition 98 supporters
Schwarzenegger announces opposition to 98
In late April, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his opposition to Prop. 98, saying, "Eminent domain is an issue worth addressing. However, Proposition 98 would undermine California's ability to improve our infrastructure, including our water delivery and storage." Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association says that Schwarzenegger's concern that Prop. 98 will impact public infrastructure is based on a flawed legal analysis, because Prop. 98 doesn't prevent units of government from seizing private property when the property will be used for public projects. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, and former Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, have also announced their opposition to Prop. 98. The California Republican Party has endorsed Prop. 98.[15],[16],[17]
[edit] Farm Bureau, others respond to Schwarzenegger
The California Farm Bureau, a 91,000 member farm organization, issued a statement objecting to Schwarzenegger's comments about the impact Prop 98 could have on water projects, saying, "Farm Bureau strongly favors protecting water rights and strongly favors water development, and our support of Proposition 98 fits with both. Proposition 98 was written with a lot of thought and the best legal advice. It will protect property and water rights, while allowing government agencies to use eminent domain for legitimate public works such as water projects, roads and schools."[18],[19]
Barbara Boxer controversy
Writing for the Huffington Post, Stephen Elliott criticized U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer for failing to speak out against Prop. 98. Later, he learned that the "No on Prop 98" campaign has a signed statement from Boxer in opposition to 98. However, when he called her office to confirm her position, he was told that she has not taken a position because it falls out of her jurisdiction.
Eventually, it was clarified that Boxer does oppose 98.[20],[21]
Newspaper endorsements
In favor of 98 and against 99
The Ventura Daily Press on April 22 editorialized in favor of Prop 98 saying it is "the real deal" and "Prop. 99 is backed by the government groups who abuse eminent domain and want to continue the practice".[22] The Record Searchlight in Redding editorialized in favor of 98 and against 99 on May 4, saying, "Two measures on the June 3 ballot deal with eminent domain. One is real reform; the other is a fraud."[23]
Against 98 and for 99
The San Francisco Chronicle on May 4 editorialized against Prop 98, saying it is "disingenuous and dangerous", objecting to the phase-out of rent control and saying 98 could "be used to attack myriad laws that restrict land use or protect land, air and water resources".[24] The Santa Cruz Sentinel also came out against Prop 98 on May 4, focusing on rent control. "If opponents of rent control want to bring an end to the process, then present the issue openly and fairly and let the debate begin," they write, urging readers to instead vote for Prop. 99.[25] On May 12, the Los Angeles Times urged a "no" vote on 98, saying that Prop 98 "masquerades as a simple correction to the notorious Kelo ruling, but really carries the long-standing agenda of interests that want to extinguish rent control and block water and air quality laws." The Times encourages its readers to vote "yes" on 99, but they say that it does not go far enough and that further action in the state legislature is needed to prevent Kelo-style private-to-private land transfers.[26] The Sacramento News & Review editorialized against 98 and for 99 on May 15, calling 98's TV ads "imaginatively deceptive".
Against both 98 and 99 The Contra Costa Times on May 3 urged its readers to vote against both initiatives, arguing that eminent domain is complex and the state legislature should create a reform package. They write, "Instead of informed debate by lawmakers on the issue of property rights and the many implications of eminent domain reform, we have a few political campaigns that employ hyperbole, questionable assertions and uncertain conclusions."[27]
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Over 500 Dead, $200,000,000 Lost in San Francisco Earthquake
Nearly Half the City Is in Ruins and 50,000 Are Homeless
WATER SUPPLY FAILS AND DYNAMITE IS USED IN VAIN
Great Buildings Consumed Before Helpless Firemen - Federal Troops and Militia Guard the City, With Orders to Shoot Down Thieves - Citizens Roused in Early Morning by Great Convulsion and Hundreds Caught by Falling Walls
RELATED HEADLINES
All San Francisco May Burn; Cliff House Resort in Sea
Flames Carried From the Business Quarter to Residences
Palace Hotel and Mint Go; Big Buildings Blown Up
Other Shocks Felt During the Afternoon
Insane Asylum Is Wrecked and Hundreds of Former Inmates Are Roaming About the Country
Reports of Heavy Loss of Life at San Jose
San Francisco, April 18, 1907 -- Earthquake and fire to-day have put nearly half of San Francisco in ruins. About 500 persons have been killed, a thousand injured, and the property loss will exceed $200,000,000.
Fifty thousand people are homeless and destitute, and all day long streams of people have been fleeing from the stricken districts to places of safety.
It was 5:13 this morning when a terrific earthquake shock shook the whole city and surrounding country. One shock apparently lasted two minutes, and there was almost immediate collapse of flimsy structures all over the city.
The water supply was cut off, and when fires started in various sections there was nothing to do but let the buildings burn. Telegraph and telephone communication was cut off for a time.
The Western Union was put completely out of business and the Postal Company was the only one that managed to get a wire out of the city. About 10 o'clock even the Postal was forced to suspend.
Electric power was stopped and street cars did not run, railroads and ferry-boats also ceased operations. The various fires raged all day and the fire department has been powerless to do anything except dynamite buildings threatened. All day long explosions have shaken the city and added to the terror of inhabitants.
Following the first shock there was another within five minutes, but not nearly so severe. Three hours later there was another slight quake.
First Warning at 5:13 A.M.
Most of the people of San Francisco were asleep at 5:13 o'clock this morning when the terrible earthquake came without warning.
The motion of the disturbance apparently was from east to west. At first the upheaval of the earth was gradual, but in a few seconds it increased in intensity. Chimneys began to fall and buildings to crack, tottering on their foundations.
The people became panic-stricken, and rushed into the streets, most of them in their night attire. They were met by showers of falling bricks, cornices, and walls of buildings.
Many were crushed to death, while others were badly mangled. Those who remained indoors generally escaped with their lives, though scores were hit by detached plaster, pictures, and articles thrown to the floor by the shock. It is believed that more or less loss was sustained by nearly every family in the city.
Steel Frame Buildings Stand: The tall, steel-frame structures stood the strain better than brick buildings, few of them being badly damaged. The big eleven-story Monadnock office building, in course of construction, adjoining the Palace Hotel, was an exception, however, its rear wall collapsing and many cracks being made across its front.
Some of the docks and freight sheds along the water front slid into the bay. Deep fissures opened in the filled-in ground near the shore, and the Union Ferry Station was badly injured. Its high tower still stands, but will have to be torn down.
A portion of the new City Hall, which cost more than $7,000,000, collapsed, the roof sliding into the courtyard, and the smaller towers tumbling down. The great dome was moved, but did not fall.
The new Post Office, one of the finest in the United States, was badly shattered.
The Valencia Hotel, a four-story wooden building, sank into the basement, a pile of splintered timbers, under which were pinned many dead and dying occupants of the house. The basement was full of water, and some of the helpless victims were drowned.
Fires Start in Many Places.
Scarcely had the earth ceased to shake when fires started simultaneously in many places. The Fire Department promptly responded to the first calls for aid, but it was found that the water mains had been rendered useless by the underground movement.
Fanned by a light breeze, the flames quickly spread, and soon many blocks were seen to be doomed. Then dynamite was resorted to, and the sound of frequent explosions added to the terror of the people. These efforts to stay the progress of the fire, however, proved futile.
The south side of Market Street, from Ninth Street to the bay, was soon ablaze, the fire covering a belt two blocks wide. On this, the main thoroughfare, were many of the finest edifices in the city, including the Grant, Parrott, Flood, Call, Examiner, and Monadnock Buildings, and the Palace and Grand Hotels.
At the same time commercial establishments and banks north of Market Street were burning. The burning district in this section of the city extended from Sansome Street to the water front, and from Market Street to Broadway.
Fires also started in the Mission, and the entire city seemed to be in flames.
Long Detours Around Fires
The flames, fanned by the rising breeze, swept down the main streets until within a few hundred feet of the ferry station, the high tower of which stood at a dangerous angle.
The big wholesale grocery establishment of Weelman, Peck & amp; Co. was on fire from cellar to roof, and the heat was so oppressive that passengers from the ferry boats were obliged to keep close to the water's edge, in order to get past the burning structure.
It was impossible to reach the centre of the city from the bay without skirting the shore for along distance so as to get entirely around the burning district.
About 8 o'clock the Southern Pacific officials refused to allow any more passengers from trans-bay points to land, and sent back those already on the boats. The ferry and train service of the Key Route was entirely abandoned owing to damage done to the power house by the earthquake at Emeryville.
Lack of Dynamite Felt: There was little dynamite available in the city. The Southern Pacific soon brought some in. At 9 o'clock Mayor Schmitz sent a tug to Pinola for several cases of explosives. He sent also a telegram to Mayor Mott of Oakland. At 10:30 he received this reply to his Oakland message: "Three engines and hose companies leave here immediately. Will forward dynamite as soon as obtainable."
The town of San Rafael, despite its own needs, sent fire fighting apparatus here.
Mayor Schmitz gave orders to use dynamite wherever necessary, and the firemen and United States soldiers, who assisted them, blew down building after building. Their efforts, however, were useless, so far as checking the headway of the flames was concerned.
The shortage of water was due to the breaking of the mains of the Spring Valley Water Company at San Mateo. The water needed so badly in the city ran in a flood over San Mateo.
Burning of the Opera House: The fire swept down the streets so rapidly that it was practically impossible to save anything in its way. It reached the Grand Opera House on Mission Street, and in a moment had burned through the roof. The Metropolitan Opera Company from New York had just opened its season there, and all the expensive scenery and costumes were soon reduced to ashes.
From the opera house the fire leaped from building to building, leveling them almost to the ground in quick succession.
The Call editorial and mechanical departments, in the handsome building at Third and Market Streets, were totally destroyed in a few minutes, and the flames leaped across Stevenson Street toward the fine fifteen-story stone and iron building of Claus Spreckels, which, with its lofty dome, was the most notable structure in San Francisco. Two small wooden buildings furnished fuel to ignite the splendid pile.
Thousands of people watched the hungry tongues of flames licking the stone walls. At first no impression was made, but suddenly there was a cracking of glass and an entrance was effected. The inner furnishings of the fourth floor were the first to go. Then, as if by magic, smoke issued from the top of the dome.
This was followed by a most spectacular illumination. The round windows of the dome shone like so many full moons; they burst and gave vent to long, waving streamers of flames. The crowd watched the spectacle with bated breath. One woman wrung her hands and burst into a torrent of tears. "It is so terrible," she said.
The tall and slender structure which had withstood the forces of the earth appeared doomed to fall a prey to fire. After a while, however, the light grew less intense, and the flames, finding nothing to consume, gradually went out, leaving the building standing, but completely gutted.
At California and Sansome Streets stood the Mutual Life Building, a modern structure of architectural beauty, to which the flames were soon communicated. An attempt was made to save it, but the fire was irrepressible. The flames gained, and in a few moments the big building was beyond hope. The Anglo California Bank was swept by the flames and came down in a rush.
Time and again attempts were made with dynamite to clear a space which should prevent the flames from spreading to other buildings, but freely as the explosive was used the fire crept and climbed from one structure to another.
An unusually loud report showed that a gas house at Eighteenth and Market Streets had blown up. The fire caused by the explosion quickly communicated in various directions. As the gas house exploded a feeling of despair overcame the men who were performing the rescue work.
Scare at Palace Hotel: The Palace Hotel, the rear of which was constantly threatened, was the scene of much excitement, the guests leaving in haste, many with only the clothing they wore. Finding that the hotel was surrounded on all sides by streets, and was likely to remain immune, many returned and made arrangements for the removal of their belongings, though little could be taken away owing to the utter absence of transportation facilities.
The Parrott Building, in which was located the chambers of the State Supreme Court, the lower floors being devoted to an immense department store, was ruined, though its massive walls were not all destroyed.
A little further down Market Street, the Academy of Sciences and the Jennie Flood Building and the History Building kindled and burned like so much tinder. Sparks carried across the wide street, ignited the Phelan Building, and the army headquarters of California, Gen. Funston commanding, were burned.
Thousands Watch the Flame: Banks and commercial houses, supposed to be fireproof, though not of modern build, burned quickly, and the roar of the flames could be heard even on the hills, which were out of the danger zone. Here many thousands of people congregated and viewed the awful scene.
Great sheets of flame rose high in the heavens, or rushed down some narrow street, joining midway between the sidewalks, making a horizontal chimney of the former passageway.
The dense smoke that arose from the entire business district spread out like an immense funnel and could have been seen miles out at sea. Occasionally as some drug house or place stored with chemicals was reached, most fantastic effects were produced by the centred flames and smoke which rolled out against the darker background.
One of the first orders issued by the Chief of Police Dinan this morning was for the closing of every session in the city. This step is taken to prevent drink-crazed men from rioting in the streets.
Mayor Schmitz sent out word to the bakeries and milk stations throughout the city that their food supplies must be harbored for the homeless. Provisions were made to place tents in every park in the city, and those who have lost all will be given food and shelter.
Early in the morning the prisoners confined in the city prison on the fifth floor of the Hall of Justice were transferred in irons to the basement of the structure. Later they were removed to the Broadway Jail, and if necessity arises they will be taken to a branch county jail on the Mission Road.
The Mayor also established a base of rescue, and soon had forces out where they could accomplish most. Many men were sent down to the lodging house district near Market Street. There it was found that many frame buildings, packed with people, had collapsed, burying their occupants in the ruins.
The recuers jumped in to the wrecks and pulled out the dead, the dying, and the injured. Practically every physician in the city immediately volunteered his assistance, and soon there was a well-equipped medical corps organized which began ministering to the injured.
For hours bodies were taken out from the lodging house district, and hundreds of men volunteered to go into the ruins to get more.
The pretentious City Hall, bounded by Larkin and McAllister Streets and City Hall Avenue, was badly shattered by the earth quake, and the ruins later were burned. It took twenty years to build the City Hall, the pride of the coast. When the first shock was felt the building rocked and swayed until it cracked. Part of the interior fell and the ruins caught fire. An alarm was turned on and the firemen responded. Chief Sullivan, awakened by the shock at his quarters in a firehouse, hastened to put on his clothes. As he reached for them the tower of the California Hotel dropped upon his building and crushing through the roof killed him.
The firemen arrived at the City Hall, but were helpless. They hitched their hose to the fire plugs, but there was no water supply.
Every possible precaution has been taken to guard property. Immediately after the destructive shocks the police turned out on guard, and the Governor and Gen. Funston commanding the Pacific Division of the United States Army, were asked to send troops.
A thousand men from the Presidio, sent by Gen. Funston, arrived downtown at 9 o'clock to patrol the streets. The Thirteenth Infantry, 1,000 strong, arrived from Angel Island a little later and went on patrol duty at once.
The soldiers were ordered to shoot down vandals caught robbing the dead and to guard with their lives the millions of dollars' worth of property placed in the streets to escape the flames.
The First California Artillery, 200 strong, two companies, was detailed to patrol duty on Ellis Street. Two more companies patrolled Broadway in the Italian section. The Ellis Street contingent of guardsmen were under the command of Capt. G. A. Grattan. Capt. William A. Miller commanded the forces on Broadway.
The city is under martial law, and all the downtown streets are patrolled by cavalry and infantry. Details of troops are also guarding the banks.
Nearly Half the City Is in Ruins and 50,000 Are Homeless
WATER SUPPLY FAILS AND DYNAMITE IS USED IN VAIN
Great Buildings Consumed Before Helpless Firemen - Federal Troops and Militia Guard the City, With Orders to Shoot Down Thieves - Citizens Roused in Early Morning by Great Convulsion and Hundreds Caught by Falling Walls
RELATED HEADLINES
All San Francisco May Burn; Cliff House Resort in Sea
Flames Carried From the Business Quarter to Residences
Palace Hotel and Mint Go; Big Buildings Blown Up
Other Shocks Felt During the Afternoon
Insane Asylum Is Wrecked and Hundreds of Former Inmates Are Roaming About the Country
Reports of Heavy Loss of Life at San Jose
San Francisco, April 18, 1907 -- Earthquake and fire to-day have put nearly half of San Francisco in ruins. About 500 persons have been killed, a thousand injured, and the property loss will exceed $200,000,000.
Fifty thousand people are homeless and destitute, and all day long streams of people have been fleeing from the stricken districts to places of safety.
It was 5:13 this morning when a terrific earthquake shock shook the whole city and surrounding country. One shock apparently lasted two minutes, and there was almost immediate collapse of flimsy structures all over the city.
The water supply was cut off, and when fires started in various sections there was nothing to do but let the buildings burn. Telegraph and telephone communication was cut off for a time.
The Western Union was put completely out of business and the Postal Company was the only one that managed to get a wire out of the city. About 10 o'clock even the Postal was forced to suspend.
Electric power was stopped and street cars did not run, railroads and ferry-boats also ceased operations. The various fires raged all day and the fire department has been powerless to do anything except dynamite buildings threatened. All day long explosions have shaken the city and added to the terror of inhabitants.
Following the first shock there was another within five minutes, but not nearly so severe. Three hours later there was another slight quake.
First Warning at 5:13 A.M.
Most of the people of San Francisco were asleep at 5:13 o'clock this morning when the terrible earthquake came without warning.
The motion of the disturbance apparently was from east to west. At first the upheaval of the earth was gradual, but in a few seconds it increased in intensity. Chimneys began to fall and buildings to crack, tottering on their foundations.
The people became panic-stricken, and rushed into the streets, most of them in their night attire. They were met by showers of falling bricks, cornices, and walls of buildings.
Many were crushed to death, while others were badly mangled. Those who remained indoors generally escaped with their lives, though scores were hit by detached plaster, pictures, and articles thrown to the floor by the shock. It is believed that more or less loss was sustained by nearly every family in the city.
Steel Frame Buildings Stand: The tall, steel-frame structures stood the strain better than brick buildings, few of them being badly damaged. The big eleven-story Monadnock office building, in course of construction, adjoining the Palace Hotel, was an exception, however, its rear wall collapsing and many cracks being made across its front.
Some of the docks and freight sheds along the water front slid into the bay. Deep fissures opened in the filled-in ground near the shore, and the Union Ferry Station was badly injured. Its high tower still stands, but will have to be torn down.
A portion of the new City Hall, which cost more than $7,000,000, collapsed, the roof sliding into the courtyard, and the smaller towers tumbling down. The great dome was moved, but did not fall.
The new Post Office, one of the finest in the United States, was badly shattered.
The Valencia Hotel, a four-story wooden building, sank into the basement, a pile of splintered timbers, under which were pinned many dead and dying occupants of the house. The basement was full of water, and some of the helpless victims were drowned.
Fires Start in Many Places.
Scarcely had the earth ceased to shake when fires started simultaneously in many places. The Fire Department promptly responded to the first calls for aid, but it was found that the water mains had been rendered useless by the underground movement.
Fanned by a light breeze, the flames quickly spread, and soon many blocks were seen to be doomed. Then dynamite was resorted to, and the sound of frequent explosions added to the terror of the people. These efforts to stay the progress of the fire, however, proved futile.
The south side of Market Street, from Ninth Street to the bay, was soon ablaze, the fire covering a belt two blocks wide. On this, the main thoroughfare, were many of the finest edifices in the city, including the Grant, Parrott, Flood, Call, Examiner, and Monadnock Buildings, and the Palace and Grand Hotels.
At the same time commercial establishments and banks north of Market Street were burning. The burning district in this section of the city extended from Sansome Street to the water front, and from Market Street to Broadway.
Fires also started in the Mission, and the entire city seemed to be in flames.
Long Detours Around Fires
The flames, fanned by the rising breeze, swept down the main streets until within a few hundred feet of the ferry station, the high tower of which stood at a dangerous angle.
The big wholesale grocery establishment of Weelman, Peck & amp; Co. was on fire from cellar to roof, and the heat was so oppressive that passengers from the ferry boats were obliged to keep close to the water's edge, in order to get past the burning structure.
It was impossible to reach the centre of the city from the bay without skirting the shore for along distance so as to get entirely around the burning district.
About 8 o'clock the Southern Pacific officials refused to allow any more passengers from trans-bay points to land, and sent back those already on the boats. The ferry and train service of the Key Route was entirely abandoned owing to damage done to the power house by the earthquake at Emeryville.
Lack of Dynamite Felt: There was little dynamite available in the city. The Southern Pacific soon brought some in. At 9 o'clock Mayor Schmitz sent a tug to Pinola for several cases of explosives. He sent also a telegram to Mayor Mott of Oakland. At 10:30 he received this reply to his Oakland message: "Three engines and hose companies leave here immediately. Will forward dynamite as soon as obtainable."
The town of San Rafael, despite its own needs, sent fire fighting apparatus here.
Mayor Schmitz gave orders to use dynamite wherever necessary, and the firemen and United States soldiers, who assisted them, blew down building after building. Their efforts, however, were useless, so far as checking the headway of the flames was concerned.
The shortage of water was due to the breaking of the mains of the Spring Valley Water Company at San Mateo. The water needed so badly in the city ran in a flood over San Mateo.
Burning of the Opera House: The fire swept down the streets so rapidly that it was practically impossible to save anything in its way. It reached the Grand Opera House on Mission Street, and in a moment had burned through the roof. The Metropolitan Opera Company from New York had just opened its season there, and all the expensive scenery and costumes were soon reduced to ashes.
From the opera house the fire leaped from building to building, leveling them almost to the ground in quick succession.
The Call editorial and mechanical departments, in the handsome building at Third and Market Streets, were totally destroyed in a few minutes, and the flames leaped across Stevenson Street toward the fine fifteen-story stone and iron building of Claus Spreckels, which, with its lofty dome, was the most notable structure in San Francisco. Two small wooden buildings furnished fuel to ignite the splendid pile.
Thousands of people watched the hungry tongues of flames licking the stone walls. At first no impression was made, but suddenly there was a cracking of glass and an entrance was effected. The inner furnishings of the fourth floor were the first to go. Then, as if by magic, smoke issued from the top of the dome.
This was followed by a most spectacular illumination. The round windows of the dome shone like so many full moons; they burst and gave vent to long, waving streamers of flames. The crowd watched the spectacle with bated breath. One woman wrung her hands and burst into a torrent of tears. "It is so terrible," she said.
The tall and slender structure which had withstood the forces of the earth appeared doomed to fall a prey to fire. After a while, however, the light grew less intense, and the flames, finding nothing to consume, gradually went out, leaving the building standing, but completely gutted.
At California and Sansome Streets stood the Mutual Life Building, a modern structure of architectural beauty, to which the flames were soon communicated. An attempt was made to save it, but the fire was irrepressible. The flames gained, and in a few moments the big building was beyond hope. The Anglo California Bank was swept by the flames and came down in a rush.
Time and again attempts were made with dynamite to clear a space which should prevent the flames from spreading to other buildings, but freely as the explosive was used the fire crept and climbed from one structure to another.
An unusually loud report showed that a gas house at Eighteenth and Market Streets had blown up. The fire caused by the explosion quickly communicated in various directions. As the gas house exploded a feeling of despair overcame the men who were performing the rescue work.
Scare at Palace Hotel: The Palace Hotel, the rear of which was constantly threatened, was the scene of much excitement, the guests leaving in haste, many with only the clothing they wore. Finding that the hotel was surrounded on all sides by streets, and was likely to remain immune, many returned and made arrangements for the removal of their belongings, though little could be taken away owing to the utter absence of transportation facilities.
The Parrott Building, in which was located the chambers of the State Supreme Court, the lower floors being devoted to an immense department store, was ruined, though its massive walls were not all destroyed.
A little further down Market Street, the Academy of Sciences and the Jennie Flood Building and the History Building kindled and burned like so much tinder. Sparks carried across the wide street, ignited the Phelan Building, and the army headquarters of California, Gen. Funston commanding, were burned.
Thousands Watch the Flame: Banks and commercial houses, supposed to be fireproof, though not of modern build, burned quickly, and the roar of the flames could be heard even on the hills, which were out of the danger zone. Here many thousands of people congregated and viewed the awful scene.
Great sheets of flame rose high in the heavens, or rushed down some narrow street, joining midway between the sidewalks, making a horizontal chimney of the former passageway.
The dense smoke that arose from the entire business district spread out like an immense funnel and could have been seen miles out at sea. Occasionally as some drug house or place stored with chemicals was reached, most fantastic effects were produced by the centred flames and smoke which rolled out against the darker background.
One of the first orders issued by the Chief of Police Dinan this morning was for the closing of every session in the city. This step is taken to prevent drink-crazed men from rioting in the streets.
Mayor Schmitz sent out word to the bakeries and milk stations throughout the city that their food supplies must be harbored for the homeless. Provisions were made to place tents in every park in the city, and those who have lost all will be given food and shelter.
Early in the morning the prisoners confined in the city prison on the fifth floor of the Hall of Justice were transferred in irons to the basement of the structure. Later they were removed to the Broadway Jail, and if necessity arises they will be taken to a branch county jail on the Mission Road.
The Mayor also established a base of rescue, and soon had forces out where they could accomplish most. Many men were sent down to the lodging house district near Market Street. There it was found that many frame buildings, packed with people, had collapsed, burying their occupants in the ruins.
The recuers jumped in to the wrecks and pulled out the dead, the dying, and the injured. Practically every physician in the city immediately volunteered his assistance, and soon there was a well-equipped medical corps organized which began ministering to the injured.
For hours bodies were taken out from the lodging house district, and hundreds of men volunteered to go into the ruins to get more.
The pretentious City Hall, bounded by Larkin and McAllister Streets and City Hall Avenue, was badly shattered by the earth quake, and the ruins later were burned. It took twenty years to build the City Hall, the pride of the coast. When the first shock was felt the building rocked and swayed until it cracked. Part of the interior fell and the ruins caught fire. An alarm was turned on and the firemen responded. Chief Sullivan, awakened by the shock at his quarters in a firehouse, hastened to put on his clothes. As he reached for them the tower of the California Hotel dropped upon his building and crushing through the roof killed him.
The firemen arrived at the City Hall, but were helpless. They hitched their hose to the fire plugs, but there was no water supply.
Every possible precaution has been taken to guard property. Immediately after the destructive shocks the police turned out on guard, and the Governor and Gen. Funston commanding the Pacific Division of the United States Army, were asked to send troops.
A thousand men from the Presidio, sent by Gen. Funston, arrived downtown at 9 o'clock to patrol the streets. The Thirteenth Infantry, 1,000 strong, arrived from Angel Island a little later and went on patrol duty at once.
The soldiers were ordered to shoot down vandals caught robbing the dead and to guard with their lives the millions of dollars' worth of property placed in the streets to escape the flames.
The First California Artillery, 200 strong, two companies, was detailed to patrol duty on Ellis Street. Two more companies patrolled Broadway in the Italian section. The Ellis Street contingent of guardsmen were under the command of Capt. G. A. Grattan. Capt. William A. Miller commanded the forces on Broadway.
The city is under martial law, and all the downtown streets are patrolled by cavalry and infantry. Details of troops are also guarding the banks.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
January 30, 1963: OBITUARY - Robert Frost Dies at 88; Kennedy Leads in Tribute
Special to The New York Times
NEW YORK. A private funeral service, to be attended by members of the family, will be held for Mr. Frost tomorrow. Burial will be in the family plot in Old Bennington, Vt. On Sunday, Feb. 17, at 2 P.M. a public memorial service will be held at Amherst College, Amherst, Mass.
The Frost family suggested that instead of flowers contributions may be made to a Robert Frost fund to establish special chairs for high school teachers. A number of such chairs have already been created in the poet's name, and the project was one in which he was deeply interested. Contributions should be sent to Mr. Frost's publisher, A. C. Edwards of Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 383 Madison Avenue, New York 17, N.Y.
Remarkable In Many Ways Robert Frost was beyond doubt the only American poet to play a touching personal role at a Presidential inauguration; to report a casual remark of a Soviet dictator that stung officials in Washington, and to twit the Russians about the barrier to Berlin by reading to them, on their own ground, his celebrated poem about another kind of wall.
But it would be much more to the point to say he was also without question the only poet to win four Pulitzer Prizes and, in his ninth decade, to symbolize the rough-hewn individuality of the American creative spirit more than any other man.
Finally, it might have been even more appropriate to link his uniqueness to his breathtaking sense of exactitude in the use of metaphors based on direct observations. "I don't like to write anything I don't see," he told an interviewer in Cambridge, Mass., two days before his 88th birthday.
Thus he recorded timelessly (by matching the sharpest observation with the most exact word) how the swimming buck pushed the "crumpled" water; how the wagon's wheels "freshly sliced" the April mire; how the ice crystals from the frozen birch snapped off and went "avalanching" on the snowy crust.
And to show that this phase of his gift did not blur with age, there was in his last book, published in 1962 by Holt, Rinehart & Winston, a piece called "Pod of the Milkweed." It told of the butterflies clustered on the blossoms so avidly that "They knocked the dyestuff off each others' wings."
He had seen the particular butterflies, most of them Monarchs, just outside his "boating" home at Ripton, Vt., a few years before.
Inauguration Incident: The incident of Jan. 20, 1961--when John F. Kennedy took the oath as President--was perhaps the most dramatic of Mr. Frost's "public" life.
Invited to write a poem for the occasion, he rose to read it. But the blur of the sun and the edge of the wind hampered him; his brief plight was so moving that a photograph of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Lyndon Johnson watching him won a prize because of the deep apprehension in their faces.
But Frost was not daunted. Aware of the problem, he simply put aside the new poem and recited from memory an old favorite, "The Gift Outright," dating to the nineteen-thirties. It fit the circumstances as snugly as a glove.
Later he took the unread "new" poem, which had been called "The Preface," expanded it from 42 to 77 lines, retitled it "For John F. Kennedy: His Inaugural"--and presented it to the President in March, 1962.
Later that year, Mr. Frost accompanied Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, on a visit to Moscow.
A first encounter with Soviet children, studying English, did not encourage the poet. He recognized the problem posed by the language; it was painfully ironic, because he had said years before that poetry was what was "lost in translation." And in Moscow, his first hearers clearly did not understand well in English.
But a few days later, he read "Mending Wall" at a Moscow literary evening. "Something there is that doesn't love a wall," the poem begins. The Russians may not have got the subsequent nuances. But the idea quickly spread that the choice of the poem was not unrelated to the wall partitioning Berlin.
On Sept. 7, the poet had a long talk with Premier Khrushchev. He described the Soviet leader as "no fathead"; as smart, big and "not a coward."
"He's not afraid of us and we're not afraid of him," he added.
Subsequently, Frost reported that Mr. Khrushchev had said the United States was "too liberal to fight." It was this remark that caused a considerable stir in Washington.
Thus in the late years of his life, Frost moved among the mighty. He was a public personage to thousands of persons who had never read his works. But to countless others, loyal and loving to the point of idolatry, he remained not only a poet but the poet of his day.
During the first years of the Kennedy Administration, Frost was unquestionably a kind of celebrity- poet around Washington. His face was seen smiling in the background--and frequently the foreground--of news photographs from the Capitol, and quite often he appeared in public with Democratic politicians.
President Kennedy, when asked why he had requested that Frost speak at the inauguration, praised the "courage, the towering skill and daring" of his fellow New Englander.
Among the many things that both shared was the high esteem of a poet's place in American society.
"There is a story that some years ago an interested mother wrote to a principal of a school, 'Don't teach my boy poetry, he's going to run for Congress,'" President Kennedy said. "I've never taken the view that the world of politics and the world of poetry are so far apart. I think politicians and poets share at least one thing, and that is their greatness depends upon the courage with which they face the challenges of life."
Echoes the Poet's Cry: He was echoing a cry that Frost had long made--the higher role of the poet in business society. In fact, in 1960, Mr. Frost had urged Congress to declare poets the equal of big business, and received a standing ovation from spectators when he supported a bill to create a National Academy of Culture.
"I have long thought of something like this," Mr. Frost told a Senate education subcommittee.
"Everyone comes down to Washington to get equal with someone else. I want our poets to be declared equal to--what shall I say?--the scientists. No, to big business."
Many years before, but several years after he had achieved recognition for his work, Frost had slouched characteristically before an audience of young writers gathered under Bread Loaf Mountains at Middlebury, Vt. He said: "Every artist must have two fears--the fear of God and the fear of man--fear of God that his creation will ultimately be found unworthy and the fear of man that he will be misunderstood by his fellows."
These two fears were ever present in Robert Frost, with the result that his published verses were of the highest order and completely understood by thousands of Americans in whom they struck a ready response. To countless persons who had never seen New Hampshire birches in the snow or caressed a perfect ax he exemplified a great American tradition with his superb, almost angular verses written out of the New England scene.
Not since Whittier in "Snowbound" had captured the penetrating chill of New England's brief December day had any American poet more exactly caught the atmosphere north of Boston or the thin philosophy of its fence-mending inhabitants.
His pictures of an abandoned cord of wood warming "the frozen swamp as best it could with the slow smokeless burning of decay" or of how "two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference," with their Yankee economy of words, moved his readers nostalgically and filled the back pastures of their mind with memories of a shrewd and quiet way of life.
20 Years of Rejection: Strangely enough, Frost spent 20 years writing his verses on stone walls and brown earth, blue butterflies and tall, slim trees without winning any recognition in America. When he sent them to The Atlantic Monthly they were returned with this note:
"We regret that The Atlantic has no place for your vigorous verse."
It was not until "A Boy's Will" was published in England and Ezra Pound publicized it that Robert
Frost was recognized as the indigenous American poet that he was.
After that, the way was not so hard, and in the years that followed he was to win the Pulitzer Prize four times, be honored by many institutions of higher learning and find it possible for a poet, who would write of things that were "common in experience, uncommon in writing," to earn enough money so that he would not have to teach or farm or make shoes or write for newspapers--all things he had done in his early days.
Raymond Holden, poet and critic, pointed out in a "profile" in The New Yorker magazine that there was more than the ordinary amount of paradox in the personality and career of Frost. Essentially a New England poet in a day when there were few poets in that region, he was born in San Francisco; fundamentally a Yankee, he was the son of an ardent Democrat whose belief in the Confederacy led him to name his son Robert Lee; a farmer in New Hampshire, he preferred to sit on a fence and watch others work; a teacher, he despised the rigors of the educational process as practiced in the institutions where he taught.
Like many another Yankee individualist, Robert Frost was a rebel. So was his father, William Frost, who had run away from Amherst, Mass., to go West. His mother, born in Edinburgh, Scotland, emigrated to Philadelphia when she was a girl.
His father died when Robert, who was born March 26, 1874, was about 11. The boy and his mother, the former Isabelle Moody, went to live at Lawrence, Mass., with William Prescott Frost, Robert's grandfather, who gave the boy a good schooling. Influenced by the poems of Edgar Allan Poe, Robert wanted to be a poet before he went to Dartmouth College, where he stayed only through the year 1892.
In the next several years he worked as a bobbin boy in the Lawrence mills, was a shoemaker and for a short while a reporter for The Lawrence Sentinel. He attended Harvard in 1897-98, then became a farmer at Derry, N.H., and taught there. In 1905 he married Elinor White, also a teacher, by whom he had five children. In 1912 Mr. Frost sold the farm and the family went to England.
He came home to find the editor of The Atlantic Monthly asking for poems. He sent along the very ones that had previously been rejected, and they were published. The Frosts went to Franconia, N.H., to live in a farm house Mr. Frost had bought for $1,000. His poetry brought him some money, and in 1916 he again became a teacher. He was a professor of English, then "poet in residence" for more than 20 years at Amherst College and he spent two years in a similar capacity at the University of Michigan. Later Frost lectured and taught at The New School in New York.
In 1938 he retired temporarily as a teacher. Mrs. Frost died that year in Florida. Afterward, he taught intermittently at Harvard, Amherst and Dartmouth.
Won Many Honors: In 1916 Frost, who had then been a poet for 20 years, was made a member of the National Institute of Arts and Letters; in 1930, of the American Academy. His books, "New Hampshire: A Poem With Notes And Gracenotes," won him the Pulitzer Prize in 1924. When his "Corrected Poems" were published in 1931, he again won that prize. The Pulitzer committee honored him a third time in 1937 for his book, "A Further Range," and again in 1943 for "A Witness Tree."
Frost won many honorary degrees, from master of arts at Amherst in 1917 to doctor of humane letters at the University of Vermont in 1923, and others followed from Harvard, Yale and other institutions.
The issuing in 1949 of "The Complete Poems of Robert Frost," a 642-page volume, was the signal for another series of broad critical appraisals studded with phrases like "lasting significance."
The Limited Editions Club awarded Frost its Gold Medal, and in the following October poets, scholars and editors gathered to do him honor at the Kenyon College Conference. In Washington the Senate adopted a resolution to send him greetings on his 75th birthday.
On that occasion he said that 20 acres of land for every man "would be the answer to all the world's problems" noting that life on the farm would show men "their burdens as well as their privileges."
The only existing copy of Frost's first book, "Twilight and Other Poems," was auctioned here that December for $3,000, a price thought to be the highest paid for a work by a contemporary American author. "It had no success and deserved none," the poet commented.
In later years, Frost, who once wrote: I bid you to a one-man revolution.--The only revolution that is coming, became interested in politics, and some of his later verses were on this theme. His lectures, at Harvard, where he was Charles Eliot Norton lecturer in 1936 and 1939, and elsewhere, were less about poetry and more about the moral values of life. But it was less to these than to his earlier works that readers turned for satisfaction; to such lines as these on the "Hired Man":
Nothing to look backward to with pride
Nothing to look forward to with hope . . .
While critics heaped belated praise on his earthy, Yankee, birchbark-clear poems, there were also finely fashioned lyrics in which the man of the soil flashed fire with intellect. Such a poem was "Reluctance" with its nostalgic ending:
Ah, when to the heart of man was it ever less than treason
To go with the drift of things, to yield with a grace to reason,
And bow and accept the end of a love or a season?
Or:
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if I had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Even critics who found a harshness sometimes in his work credited Mr. Frost with being a great poet. They appreciated his philosophy of simplicity, perhaps more in later years than during the "renaissance" of American poetry in the nineteen-twenties. For they knew it was a part of Robert Frost, whose innate philosophy of unchangeableness he once expressed when he wrote:
They would not find me changed from him they knew
Only more sure of all I thought was true . . . .
At an annual joint ceremonial in May 1950, of the American Academy and the National Institute, he read a poem entitled "How Hard It Is to Keep From Being King, When It's in You and in the Situation."
Asked about his method of writing a poem, Frost said: "I have worried quite a number of them into existence, but any sneaking preference [I have had] remains for the ones I have carried through like the stroke of a racquet, club or headsman's ax."
In an interview with Harvey Breit of The New York Times Book Review, he observed:
"If poetry isn't understanding all, the whole word, then it isn't worth anything. Young poets forget that poetry must include the mind as well as the emotions. Too many poets delude themselves by thinking the mind is dangerous and must be left out. Well, the mind is dangerous and must be left in."
Special to The New York Times
NEW YORK. A private funeral service, to be attended by members of the family, will be held for Mr. Frost tomorrow. Burial will be in the family plot in Old Bennington, Vt. On Sunday, Feb. 17, at 2 P.M. a public memorial service will be held at Amherst College, Amherst, Mass.
The Frost family suggested that instead of flowers contributions may be made to a Robert Frost fund to establish special chairs for high school teachers. A number of such chairs have already been created in the poet's name, and the project was one in which he was deeply interested. Contributions should be sent to Mr. Frost's publisher, A. C. Edwards of Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 383 Madison Avenue, New York 17, N.Y.
Remarkable In Many Ways Robert Frost was beyond doubt the only American poet to play a touching personal role at a Presidential inauguration; to report a casual remark of a Soviet dictator that stung officials in Washington, and to twit the Russians about the barrier to Berlin by reading to them, on their own ground, his celebrated poem about another kind of wall.
But it would be much more to the point to say he was also without question the only poet to win four Pulitzer Prizes and, in his ninth decade, to symbolize the rough-hewn individuality of the American creative spirit more than any other man.
Finally, it might have been even more appropriate to link his uniqueness to his breathtaking sense of exactitude in the use of metaphors based on direct observations. "I don't like to write anything I don't see," he told an interviewer in Cambridge, Mass., two days before his 88th birthday.
Thus he recorded timelessly (by matching the sharpest observation with the most exact word) how the swimming buck pushed the "crumpled" water; how the wagon's wheels "freshly sliced" the April mire; how the ice crystals from the frozen birch snapped off and went "avalanching" on the snowy crust.
And to show that this phase of his gift did not blur with age, there was in his last book, published in 1962 by Holt, Rinehart & Winston, a piece called "Pod of the Milkweed." It told of the butterflies clustered on the blossoms so avidly that "They knocked the dyestuff off each others' wings."
He had seen the particular butterflies, most of them Monarchs, just outside his "boating" home at Ripton, Vt., a few years before.
Inauguration Incident: The incident of Jan. 20, 1961--when John F. Kennedy took the oath as President--was perhaps the most dramatic of Mr. Frost's "public" life.
Invited to write a poem for the occasion, he rose to read it. But the blur of the sun and the edge of the wind hampered him; his brief plight was so moving that a photograph of former President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Lyndon Johnson watching him won a prize because of the deep apprehension in their faces.
But Frost was not daunted. Aware of the problem, he simply put aside the new poem and recited from memory an old favorite, "The Gift Outright," dating to the nineteen-thirties. It fit the circumstances as snugly as a glove.
Later he took the unread "new" poem, which had been called "The Preface," expanded it from 42 to 77 lines, retitled it "For John F. Kennedy: His Inaugural"--and presented it to the President in March, 1962.
Later that year, Mr. Frost accompanied Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, on a visit to Moscow.
A first encounter with Soviet children, studying English, did not encourage the poet. He recognized the problem posed by the language; it was painfully ironic, because he had said years before that poetry was what was "lost in translation." And in Moscow, his first hearers clearly did not understand well in English.
But a few days later, he read "Mending Wall" at a Moscow literary evening. "Something there is that doesn't love a wall," the poem begins. The Russians may not have got the subsequent nuances. But the idea quickly spread that the choice of the poem was not unrelated to the wall partitioning Berlin.
On Sept. 7, the poet had a long talk with Premier Khrushchev. He described the Soviet leader as "no fathead"; as smart, big and "not a coward."
"He's not afraid of us and we're not afraid of him," he added.
Subsequently, Frost reported that Mr. Khrushchev had said the United States was "too liberal to fight." It was this remark that caused a considerable stir in Washington.
Thus in the late years of his life, Frost moved among the mighty. He was a public personage to thousands of persons who had never read his works. But to countless others, loyal and loving to the point of idolatry, he remained not only a poet but the poet of his day.
During the first years of the Kennedy Administration, Frost was unquestionably a kind of celebrity- poet around Washington. His face was seen smiling in the background--and frequently the foreground--of news photographs from the Capitol, and quite often he appeared in public with Democratic politicians.
President Kennedy, when asked why he had requested that Frost speak at the inauguration, praised the "courage, the towering skill and daring" of his fellow New Englander.
Among the many things that both shared was the high esteem of a poet's place in American society.
"There is a story that some years ago an interested mother wrote to a principal of a school, 'Don't teach my boy poetry, he's going to run for Congress,'" President Kennedy said. "I've never taken the view that the world of politics and the world of poetry are so far apart. I think politicians and poets share at least one thing, and that is their greatness depends upon the courage with which they face the challenges of life."
Echoes the Poet's Cry: He was echoing a cry that Frost had long made--the higher role of the poet in business society. In fact, in 1960, Mr. Frost had urged Congress to declare poets the equal of big business, and received a standing ovation from spectators when he supported a bill to create a National Academy of Culture.
"I have long thought of something like this," Mr. Frost told a Senate education subcommittee.
"Everyone comes down to Washington to get equal with someone else. I want our poets to be declared equal to--what shall I say?--the scientists. No, to big business."
Many years before, but several years after he had achieved recognition for his work, Frost had slouched characteristically before an audience of young writers gathered under Bread Loaf Mountains at Middlebury, Vt. He said: "Every artist must have two fears--the fear of God and the fear of man--fear of God that his creation will ultimately be found unworthy and the fear of man that he will be misunderstood by his fellows."
These two fears were ever present in Robert Frost, with the result that his published verses were of the highest order and completely understood by thousands of Americans in whom they struck a ready response. To countless persons who had never seen New Hampshire birches in the snow or caressed a perfect ax he exemplified a great American tradition with his superb, almost angular verses written out of the New England scene.
Not since Whittier in "Snowbound" had captured the penetrating chill of New England's brief December day had any American poet more exactly caught the atmosphere north of Boston or the thin philosophy of its fence-mending inhabitants.
His pictures of an abandoned cord of wood warming "the frozen swamp as best it could with the slow smokeless burning of decay" or of how "two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference," with their Yankee economy of words, moved his readers nostalgically and filled the back pastures of their mind with memories of a shrewd and quiet way of life.
20 Years of Rejection: Strangely enough, Frost spent 20 years writing his verses on stone walls and brown earth, blue butterflies and tall, slim trees without winning any recognition in America. When he sent them to The Atlantic Monthly they were returned with this note:
"We regret that The Atlantic has no place for your vigorous verse."
It was not until "A Boy's Will" was published in England and Ezra Pound publicized it that Robert
Frost was recognized as the indigenous American poet that he was.
After that, the way was not so hard, and in the years that followed he was to win the Pulitzer Prize four times, be honored by many institutions of higher learning and find it possible for a poet, who would write of things that were "common in experience, uncommon in writing," to earn enough money so that he would not have to teach or farm or make shoes or write for newspapers--all things he had done in his early days.
Raymond Holden, poet and critic, pointed out in a "profile" in The New Yorker magazine that there was more than the ordinary amount of paradox in the personality and career of Frost. Essentially a New England poet in a day when there were few poets in that region, he was born in San Francisco; fundamentally a Yankee, he was the son of an ardent Democrat whose belief in the Confederacy led him to name his son Robert Lee; a farmer in New Hampshire, he preferred to sit on a fence and watch others work; a teacher, he despised the rigors of the educational process as practiced in the institutions where he taught.
Like many another Yankee individualist, Robert Frost was a rebel. So was his father, William Frost, who had run away from Amherst, Mass., to go West. His mother, born in Edinburgh, Scotland, emigrated to Philadelphia when she was a girl.
His father died when Robert, who was born March 26, 1874, was about 11. The boy and his mother, the former Isabelle Moody, went to live at Lawrence, Mass., with William Prescott Frost, Robert's grandfather, who gave the boy a good schooling. Influenced by the poems of Edgar Allan Poe, Robert wanted to be a poet before he went to Dartmouth College, where he stayed only through the year 1892.
In the next several years he worked as a bobbin boy in the Lawrence mills, was a shoemaker and for a short while a reporter for The Lawrence Sentinel. He attended Harvard in 1897-98, then became a farmer at Derry, N.H., and taught there. In 1905 he married Elinor White, also a teacher, by whom he had five children. In 1912 Mr. Frost sold the farm and the family went to England.
He came home to find the editor of The Atlantic Monthly asking for poems. He sent along the very ones that had previously been rejected, and they were published. The Frosts went to Franconia, N.H., to live in a farm house Mr. Frost had bought for $1,000. His poetry brought him some money, and in 1916 he again became a teacher. He was a professor of English, then "poet in residence" for more than 20 years at Amherst College and he spent two years in a similar capacity at the University of Michigan. Later Frost lectured and taught at The New School in New York.
In 1938 he retired temporarily as a teacher. Mrs. Frost died that year in Florida. Afterward, he taught intermittently at Harvard, Amherst and Dartmouth.
Won Many Honors: In 1916 Frost, who had then been a poet for 20 years, was made a member of the National Institute of Arts and Letters; in 1930, of the American Academy. His books, "New Hampshire: A Poem With Notes And Gracenotes," won him the Pulitzer Prize in 1924. When his "Corrected Poems" were published in 1931, he again won that prize. The Pulitzer committee honored him a third time in 1937 for his book, "A Further Range," and again in 1943 for "A Witness Tree."
Frost won many honorary degrees, from master of arts at Amherst in 1917 to doctor of humane letters at the University of Vermont in 1923, and others followed from Harvard, Yale and other institutions.
The issuing in 1949 of "The Complete Poems of Robert Frost," a 642-page volume, was the signal for another series of broad critical appraisals studded with phrases like "lasting significance."
The Limited Editions Club awarded Frost its Gold Medal, and in the following October poets, scholars and editors gathered to do him honor at the Kenyon College Conference. In Washington the Senate adopted a resolution to send him greetings on his 75th birthday.
On that occasion he said that 20 acres of land for every man "would be the answer to all the world's problems" noting that life on the farm would show men "their burdens as well as their privileges."
The only existing copy of Frost's first book, "Twilight and Other Poems," was auctioned here that December for $3,000, a price thought to be the highest paid for a work by a contemporary American author. "It had no success and deserved none," the poet commented.
In later years, Frost, who once wrote: I bid you to a one-man revolution.--The only revolution that is coming, became interested in politics, and some of his later verses were on this theme. His lectures, at Harvard, where he was Charles Eliot Norton lecturer in 1936 and 1939, and elsewhere, were less about poetry and more about the moral values of life. But it was less to these than to his earlier works that readers turned for satisfaction; to such lines as these on the "Hired Man":
Nothing to look backward to with pride
Nothing to look forward to with hope . . .
While critics heaped belated praise on his earthy, Yankee, birchbark-clear poems, there were also finely fashioned lyrics in which the man of the soil flashed fire with intellect. Such a poem was "Reluctance" with its nostalgic ending:
Ah, when to the heart of man was it ever less than treason
To go with the drift of things, to yield with a grace to reason,
And bow and accept the end of a love or a season?
Or:
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if I had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Even critics who found a harshness sometimes in his work credited Mr. Frost with being a great poet. They appreciated his philosophy of simplicity, perhaps more in later years than during the "renaissance" of American poetry in the nineteen-twenties. For they knew it was a part of Robert Frost, whose innate philosophy of unchangeableness he once expressed when he wrote:
They would not find me changed from him they knew
Only more sure of all I thought was true . . . .
At an annual joint ceremonial in May 1950, of the American Academy and the National Institute, he read a poem entitled "How Hard It Is to Keep From Being King, When It's in You and in the Situation."
Asked about his method of writing a poem, Frost said: "I have worried quite a number of them into existence, but any sneaking preference [I have had] remains for the ones I have carried through like the stroke of a racquet, club or headsman's ax."
In an interview with Harvey Breit of The New York Times Book Review, he observed:
"If poetry isn't understanding all, the whole word, then it isn't worth anything. Young poets forget that poetry must include the mind as well as the emotions. Too many poets delude themselves by thinking the mind is dangerous and must be left out. Well, the mind is dangerous and must be left in."
Monday, February 18, 2008
Algorithms of Love
NEW YORK TIMES January 29, 2008 Findings
Hitting It Off, Thanks to Algorithms of Love By JOHN TIERNEY: PASADENA, Calif. — The two students in Southern California had just been introduced during an experiment to test their “interpersonal chemistry.”
The man, a graduate student, dutifully asked the undergraduate woman what her major was. “Spanish and sociology,” she said.
“Interesting,” he said. ‘‘I was a sociology major. What are you going to do with that?”
“You are just full of questions.”
“It’s true.”
“My passion has always been Spanish, the language, the culture. I love traveling and knowing new cultures and places.”
Bogart and Bacall it was not. But Gian Gonzaga, a social psychologist, could see possibilities for this couple as he watched their recorded chat on a television screen.
They were nodding and smiling in unison, and the woman stroked her hair and briefly licked her lips — positive signs of chemistry that would be duly recorded in this experiment at the new eHarmony Labs here. By comparing these results with the couple’s answers to hundreds of other questions, the researchers hoped to draw closer to a new and extremely lucrative grail — making the right match.
Once upon a time, finding a mate was considered too important to be entrusted to people under the influence of raging hormones. Their parents, sometimes assisted by astrologers and matchmakers, supervised courtship until customs changed in the West because of what was called the Romeo and Juliet revolution. Grown-ups, leave the kids alone.
But now some social scientists have rediscovered the appeal of adult supervision — provided the adults have doctorates and vast caches of psychometric data. Online matchmaking has become a boom industry as rival scientists test their algorithms for finding love.
The leading yenta is eHarmony, which pioneered the don’t-try-this-yourself approach eight years ago by refusing to let its online customers browse for their own dates. It requires them to answer a 258-question personality test and then picks potential partners. The company estimates, based on a national Harris survey it commissioned, that its matchmaking was responsible for about 2 percent of the marriages in America last year, nearly 120 weddings a day.
Another company, Perfectmatch.com, is using an algorithm designed by Pepper Schwartz, a sociologist at the University of Washington at Seattle. Match.com, which became the largest online dating service by letting people find their own partners, set up a new matchmaking service, Chemistry.com, using an algorithm created by Helen E. Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers who has studied the neural chemistry of people in love.
As the matchmakers compete for customers — and denigrate each other’s methodology — the battle has intrigued academic researchers who study the mating game. On the one hand, they are skeptical, because the algorithms and the results have not been published for peer review. But they also realize that these online companies give scientists a remarkable opportunity to gather enormous amounts of data and test their theories in the field. EHarmony says more than 19 million people have filled out its questionnaire.
Its algorithm was developed a decade ago by Galen Buckwalter, a psychologist who had previously been a research professor at the University of Southern California. Drawing on previous evidence that personality similarities predict happiness in a relationship, he administered hundreds of personality questions to 5,000 married couples and correlated the answers with the couples’ marital happiness, as measured by an existing instrument called the dyadic adjustment scale.
The result was an algorithm that is supposed to match people on 29 “core traits,” like social style or emotional temperament, and “vital attributes” like relationship skills. (For details: nytimes.com/tierneylab.)
“We’re not looking for clones, but our models emphasize similarities in personality and in values,” Dr. Buckwalter said. “It’s fairly common that differences can initially be appealing, but they’re not so cute after two years. If you have someone who’s Type A and real hard charging, put them with someone else like that. It’s just much easier for people to relate if they don’t have to negotiate all these differences.”
Does this method actually work? In theory, thanks to its millions of customers and their fees (up to $60 a month), eHarmony has the data and resources to conduct cutting-edge research. It has an advisory board of prominent social scientists and a new laboratory with researchers lured from academia like Dr. Gonzaga, who previously worked at a marriage-research lab at U.C.L.A.
So far, except for a presentation at a psychologists’ conference, the company has not produced much scientific evidence that its system works. It has started a longitudinal study comparing eHarmony couples with a control group, and Dr. Buckwalter says it is committed to publishing peer-reviewed research, but not the details of its algorithm. That secrecy may be a smart business move, but it makes eHarmony a target for scientific critics, not to mention its rivals.
In the battle of the matchmakers, Chemistry.com has been running commercials faulting eHarmony for refusing to match gay couples (eHarmony says it can’t because its algorithm is based on data from heterosexuals), and eHarmony asked the Better Business Bureau to stop Chemistry.com from claiming its algorithm had been scientifically validated. The bureau concurred that there was not enough evidence, and Chemistry.com agreed to stop advertising that Dr. Fisher’s method was based on “the latest science of attraction.”
Dr. Fisher now says the ruling against her last year made sense because her algorithm at that time was still a work in progress as she correlated sociological and psychological measures, as well as indicators linked to chemical systems in the brain. But now, she said, she has the evidence from Chemistry.com users to validate the method, and she plans to publish it along with the details of the algorithm.
“I believe in transparency,” she said, taking a dig at eHarmony. “I want to share my data so that I will get peer review.”
Until outside scientists have a good look at the numbers, no one can know how effective any of these algorithms are, but one thing is already clear. People aren’t so good at picking their own mates online. Researchers who studied online dating found that the customers typically ended up going out with fewer than 1 percent of the people whose profiles they studied, and that those dates often ended up being huge letdowns. The people make up impossible shopping lists for what they want in a partner, says Eli Finkel, a psychologist who studies dating at Northwestern University’s Relationships Lab.
“They think they know what they want,” Dr. Finkel said. “But meeting somebody who possesses the characteristics they claim are so important is much less inspiring than they would have predicted.”
The new matchmakers may or may not have the right formula. But their computers at least know better than to give you what you want.
Hitting It Off, Thanks to Algorithms of Love By JOHN TIERNEY: PASADENA, Calif. — The two students in Southern California had just been introduced during an experiment to test their “interpersonal chemistry.”
The man, a graduate student, dutifully asked the undergraduate woman what her major was. “Spanish and sociology,” she said.
“Interesting,” he said. ‘‘I was a sociology major. What are you going to do with that?”
“You are just full of questions.”
“It’s true.”
“My passion has always been Spanish, the language, the culture. I love traveling and knowing new cultures and places.”
Bogart and Bacall it was not. But Gian Gonzaga, a social psychologist, could see possibilities for this couple as he watched their recorded chat on a television screen.
They were nodding and smiling in unison, and the woman stroked her hair and briefly licked her lips — positive signs of chemistry that would be duly recorded in this experiment at the new eHarmony Labs here. By comparing these results with the couple’s answers to hundreds of other questions, the researchers hoped to draw closer to a new and extremely lucrative grail — making the right match.
Once upon a time, finding a mate was considered too important to be entrusted to people under the influence of raging hormones. Their parents, sometimes assisted by astrologers and matchmakers, supervised courtship until customs changed in the West because of what was called the Romeo and Juliet revolution. Grown-ups, leave the kids alone.
But now some social scientists have rediscovered the appeal of adult supervision — provided the adults have doctorates and vast caches of psychometric data. Online matchmaking has become a boom industry as rival scientists test their algorithms for finding love.
The leading yenta is eHarmony, which pioneered the don’t-try-this-yourself approach eight years ago by refusing to let its online customers browse for their own dates. It requires them to answer a 258-question personality test and then picks potential partners. The company estimates, based on a national Harris survey it commissioned, that its matchmaking was responsible for about 2 percent of the marriages in America last year, nearly 120 weddings a day.
Another company, Perfectmatch.com, is using an algorithm designed by Pepper Schwartz, a sociologist at the University of Washington at Seattle. Match.com, which became the largest online dating service by letting people find their own partners, set up a new matchmaking service, Chemistry.com, using an algorithm created by Helen E. Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers who has studied the neural chemistry of people in love.
As the matchmakers compete for customers — and denigrate each other’s methodology — the battle has intrigued academic researchers who study the mating game. On the one hand, they are skeptical, because the algorithms and the results have not been published for peer review. But they also realize that these online companies give scientists a remarkable opportunity to gather enormous amounts of data and test their theories in the field. EHarmony says more than 19 million people have filled out its questionnaire.
Its algorithm was developed a decade ago by Galen Buckwalter, a psychologist who had previously been a research professor at the University of Southern California. Drawing on previous evidence that personality similarities predict happiness in a relationship, he administered hundreds of personality questions to 5,000 married couples and correlated the answers with the couples’ marital happiness, as measured by an existing instrument called the dyadic adjustment scale.
The result was an algorithm that is supposed to match people on 29 “core traits,” like social style or emotional temperament, and “vital attributes” like relationship skills. (For details: nytimes.com/tierneylab.)
“We’re not looking for clones, but our models emphasize similarities in personality and in values,” Dr. Buckwalter said. “It’s fairly common that differences can initially be appealing, but they’re not so cute after two years. If you have someone who’s Type A and real hard charging, put them with someone else like that. It’s just much easier for people to relate if they don’t have to negotiate all these differences.”
Does this method actually work? In theory, thanks to its millions of customers and their fees (up to $60 a month), eHarmony has the data and resources to conduct cutting-edge research. It has an advisory board of prominent social scientists and a new laboratory with researchers lured from academia like Dr. Gonzaga, who previously worked at a marriage-research lab at U.C.L.A.
So far, except for a presentation at a psychologists’ conference, the company has not produced much scientific evidence that its system works. It has started a longitudinal study comparing eHarmony couples with a control group, and Dr. Buckwalter says it is committed to publishing peer-reviewed research, but not the details of its algorithm. That secrecy may be a smart business move, but it makes eHarmony a target for scientific critics, not to mention its rivals.
In the battle of the matchmakers, Chemistry.com has been running commercials faulting eHarmony for refusing to match gay couples (eHarmony says it can’t because its algorithm is based on data from heterosexuals), and eHarmony asked the Better Business Bureau to stop Chemistry.com from claiming its algorithm had been scientifically validated. The bureau concurred that there was not enough evidence, and Chemistry.com agreed to stop advertising that Dr. Fisher’s method was based on “the latest science of attraction.”
Dr. Fisher now says the ruling against her last year made sense because her algorithm at that time was still a work in progress as she correlated sociological and psychological measures, as well as indicators linked to chemical systems in the brain. But now, she said, she has the evidence from Chemistry.com users to validate the method, and she plans to publish it along with the details of the algorithm.
“I believe in transparency,” she said, taking a dig at eHarmony. “I want to share my data so that I will get peer review.”
Until outside scientists have a good look at the numbers, no one can know how effective any of these algorithms are, but one thing is already clear. People aren’t so good at picking their own mates online. Researchers who studied online dating found that the customers typically ended up going out with fewer than 1 percent of the people whose profiles they studied, and that those dates often ended up being huge letdowns. The people make up impossible shopping lists for what they want in a partner, says Eli Finkel, a psychologist who studies dating at Northwestern University’s Relationships Lab.
“They think they know what they want,” Dr. Finkel said. “But meeting somebody who possesses the characteristics they claim are so important is much less inspiring than they would have predicted.”
The new matchmakers may or may not have the right formula. But their computers at least know better than to give you what you want.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Creation
In the numerous online writing classes I've taken I've met so many interesting people but rules prevented actual exchange of interests outside of the classroom. In the process of personal reinvention, I've learned to take risks one of which is the creation of this blog which is dedicated to my writing friends around the world...
Creation myth, or origin belief, stories of how the world or a culture began (Wikipedia).
I'd like to hear from any interested friends how they arrived at their writing doorstep and if they have stepped throught the mirror to the published side please share your experiences.
For me, the adventure began in Kindergarten when I began to learn to print letters. I had memorized many of the stories read and re-read to me. I understood the words in the book were the story. I set up a little table and chair with a portable screen around them in the corner. I toiled with pencil and paper over the formation of letters into words, mostly rearranged renditions of Dick and Jane. But some Uncle Remus got into the act and Dick or Jane fell into the prickly bushes. Mysteries were born in my mind. What if Dick... Or what if Jane went up the hill with Jack and Jill. Well, you get it... I was off to a good start and ever encouraged by my parents, I received "A" on every essay throughout my scholastic career.
Somewhere writing became sidetracked when living life seemed more exciting than reading about life. Years, decades, eras came and went. And, here I am again... just me (and my life partner I refer to as the Viking) with my words locked up inside me. It's taken a year of "finger babbling" to get on track. I did a lot of "living" and have a lot of writing to vent.
I'm hopeful some of my online friends will find me and join in on this journaling adventure. First names or nicknames will be all that is necessary. Please bring along any other interested potential writers, poets, journalists or any artists/musicians/crafters who find a need to track the meanderings of their personal muses. I found the comradarie of the online class intoxicating and would like that energy to continue flowing as freely as it can generate. Perhaps monthly writing exercises would be an interesting way to keep the spirit alive and jumping.
Happy New Year and hope to hear from you.
Creation myth, or origin belief, stories of how the world or a culture began (Wikipedia).
I'd like to hear from any interested friends how they arrived at their writing doorstep and if they have stepped throught the mirror to the published side please share your experiences.
For me, the adventure began in Kindergarten when I began to learn to print letters. I had memorized many of the stories read and re-read to me. I understood the words in the book were the story. I set up a little table and chair with a portable screen around them in the corner. I toiled with pencil and paper over the formation of letters into words, mostly rearranged renditions of Dick and Jane. But some Uncle Remus got into the act and Dick or Jane fell into the prickly bushes. Mysteries were born in my mind. What if Dick... Or what if Jane went up the hill with Jack and Jill. Well, you get it... I was off to a good start and ever encouraged by my parents, I received "A" on every essay throughout my scholastic career.
Somewhere writing became sidetracked when living life seemed more exciting than reading about life. Years, decades, eras came and went. And, here I am again... just me (and my life partner I refer to as the Viking) with my words locked up inside me. It's taken a year of "finger babbling" to get on track. I did a lot of "living" and have a lot of writing to vent.
I'm hopeful some of my online friends will find me and join in on this journaling adventure. First names or nicknames will be all that is necessary. Please bring along any other interested potential writers, poets, journalists or any artists/musicians/crafters who find a need to track the meanderings of their personal muses. I found the comradarie of the online class intoxicating and would like that energy to continue flowing as freely as it can generate. Perhaps monthly writing exercises would be an interesting way to keep the spirit alive and jumping.
Happy New Year and hope to hear from you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)