Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Wild and Strange Language: can a word do more than carry meaning?

A panel discussion with Lyn Hejinian, Ron Padgett, Carl Phillips, and Kay Ryan.



This is only a small part of the discussion, but it seems to get right to the heart of the subject at hand: is experimentation with language (as a multi-faceted object of sound, emotion and meaning) justified as a poetic end in and of itself; does it need to be contextualized within a more conventional sense of poetics; or are conventional semantics more important (and, hence, vital to poetry) because words, first and foremost, are units of meaning?

On a fairly regular basis, I run into people who criticize poems they don't understand or comprehend, and frequently this criticism seems to stem more from an unwillingness to appreciate a use of language that moves outside a restrictive, traditionally meaningful norm. Such an opinion might assert that poems of this sort are incapable of being understood, and that they violate the norms of language in a way that diminishes, rather than expands, the potential of poetry, i.e. they don't mean anything so they are of considerably less value as a poem.

But, on the other hand, meaning can also be said to derive from experience, and the meaning of sound is not restricted to lexical potential alone. For instance, instrumental music can be very meaningful in the complete absence of vocal language. The cry of an eagle, or the sound of trickling water, or wind through the trees, can be equally powerful. In fact, onomatopoetic language has a long history of suggesting sense to the human mind rather than reason.

So, if a poem can be created that avoids lexical meaning yet manages to overflow with a sense of non-rational experiential meaning (at least for those who are open to this potential) wouldn't that be quite an accomplishment? And wouldn't it be worth noting that not only has it been done before, but it is also a practice worth continuing? Or that 'quality' in poetry is not necessarily limited to the accomplished use of rhetoric, narrative, or lyrical imagery?

It's something to think about.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Who's stealing your money? (short thoughts on two different approaches to healthcare reform)

















I know there are more pressing political issues going on right now than healthcare reform (i.e. the debt ceiling crisis created by House Republicans), but I think it's interesting to consider a major (and rarely discussed) difference between Democratic initiatives in the Affordable Care Act and Republican initiatives as exemplified by Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare reform, aka privatization via a direct voucher system.

In the case of the ACA, Democrats are seeking (among other things) to bring a large pool of relatively healthy people (i.e. those who are between the ages of 18 and 30) into the private health insurance system via a mandate for individual coverage. Conceivably, this brings more revenue into the private healthcare system while at the same time creating public subsidies for those who (due to our wonderful free enterprise system) cannot afford insurance.

Conversely, in the case of Ryan's plan for Medicare, Republicans are seeking to dismantle a popular government-run single payer system and transfer the entire population of elderly Americans onto the private health insurance system while, over time, decreasing the size of vouchers relative to actual premium costs, thus pushing more of the premium onto "medicare" recipients. But only for those who are currently under 55. (Disclaimer: I'm 51 years old and this bothers me to a fairly extreme degree.)

Now, I realize that these are essentially two different issues, but think about it: if your private insurance company begins to insure a portion of the costliest demographic (i.e. those who are between the ages of 65 and, um, death) and you pay premiums into this privatized pool, do you think your rates will go up or down? Conversely, if a private insurance company begins receiving premiums from a considerably healthier segment of the population (i.e. the young, many of whom are currently holding out for a job that might provide health insurance), how do you think that would effect your premiums?

Now, think a little further: the highest paid CEO in Minnesota (my home state) is Stephen Hemsley - top executive at UnitedHealth Group Inc. In the last two years (2009, 2010), his total compensation exceeded $150 million. If total costs for UnitedHealth go up (due to providing coverage for a pool of seniors who had previously been covered under Medicare), do you think he (or his well-paid board) will let executive compensation from salary, bonus, and stock options decline? Or do you think (just maybe) that UnitedHealth would be more inclined to raise premiums for all their customers? Granted, they would still have to be "competitive," but presumably most private insurers will be subject to the same pressure: covering medical bills for seniors who had previously been covered by Medicare.

Incidentally, beginning in 2013, the Affordable Care Act will limit the deductibility of remuneration paid to officers, directors, and employees of health insurance issuers to $500,000 -- which sounds pretty reasonable to me. Why? Maybe because I have a high deductible plan (Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota) that runs nearly $300 a month and I'm currently selling plasma to help pay for a $1200 medical bill that the plan did not cover. Do you think I think compensation for Stephen Hemsley should be considered a deductible expense for doing business? Of course not. I resent my own bills, and I resent Hemsley's salary - even if I'm not a customer of UnitedHealth.

So, I might also add that Patrick Geraghty, the CEO at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, was paid more than $1.5 million in 2009. That's certainly not high by UnitedHealth standards, but still: wouldn't 500 grand be plenty? After all, I'm paying $300 a month for an insurance plan administered by Geraghty that sticks me with a $1200 medical bill. Further, everyone is accustomed to this: it's "normal." And I hate this concept of normal. I think we need a new normal.

Single-payer Medicare-for-all would have been a good option, don't you think? Well, maybe you don't -- and, unfortunately, it's never been seriously considered. But, for the sake of comparison, how much do you think Donald Berwick -- Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid -- gets paid every year? After doing a little research, it appears he's paid at Level 1 of Salary Table No. 2011-Ex (Salary and Wages, U.S. Office of Personnel Management), or $199,700. That's a healthy salary, to be sure, but by UnitedHealth standards? I don't think he'd even be allowed into the executive washroom. And he certainly doesn't get any stock options.

Of course, this is an over-simplified analysis on my part. But when it comes to healthcare reform, I think I'm more inclined to trust the Democrats than the Republicans. And, if you consider the current insanity over the deficit ceiling, I really don't think the GOP can be trusted at all. Especially when they want to overturn the ACA first and then follow up by dismantling Medicare. So, think about this additional tidbit: if the ACA does away with the practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, how many seniors under Ryan's "medicare" plan would struggle to even find coverage? How many would even be able to afford it? Do you think Republicans will seriously address that problem? [Hint: they haven't yet.]

The bottom line is that we should all be thinking about this stuff. And you know $tephen Hem$ley is.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Strange Things Begin to Happen when a Meteor Crashes in the Arizona Desert



Music by Mark Engebretson
Words by Michael Basinski
Images by Wendy Collin Sorin

Recording from a live performance by Janice Misurell-Mitchell
at the 2010 UNCG New Music Festival.

Plus, here's a link to an interesting review of Basinski's book by Tom Hibbard in Jacket Magazine.