Maybe nobody should take what North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue said seriously.
I admit, it's very hard to believe she could have meant what she said.
For those of you who might have missed it, the honorable Democratic governor of North Carolina addressed a recent Rotary Club in Cary, N.C. and, when asked about fixing the economy, said: "You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It's a little bit more contentious now but it's not impossible to try to do what's right in this state. You want people who don't worry about the next election."
Perdue said she was joking, and I believe her. After all, it's such an outrageous statment that it's almost impossible to take seriously - although I'm also sure a lot of politicians (Democrats AND Republicans) who would actually be happy to go along with the idea if they were really being honest. Staying elected has become as important as getting elected to these people.
Generally speaking (and I say "generally" because the last statistics I saw were from the 1990s), something like 90 percent of all incumbents get re-elected. After the first re-election (meaning after being sent to Congress for a second time), about the only way an incumbent, regardless of party, failed to return to office again was if either he or she decided to retire or decided to take a chance on running for a different office or got caught with their pants down.
Literally.
That's the kind of congressional consistency and solidarity that has gotten this country into the mess we're in, and Gov. Perdue's point - even if made jokingly, the point is the same - is that we should leave Congress alone to let them "work out the problem?"
Preposterous. Ridiculous. Outrageous.
It's almost like taxation without representation, because the people who have been up there "representing'' us for so long use the power of their office to overwhelm opposition and do whatever it takes to stay in office.
Now, I am fully aware that politicians would say they have term limits; that they face the possibility of an imposed term limit in every election; that if the people want them out of office, they can vote them out.
But when the point of reaching Congress is to stay in Congress, politicians build alliances and do things to keep their 'base' of voters in line.
The truth is, we need term limits. If politicians go into office knowing they only have a set amount of time to get things done and then they go home, back to business, they can actually be "citizen statesmen."
Most governorships are limited to two terms. The presidency is limited to two terms. In essence, every four-to-eight years we have peaceful revolutions in this country as the power transfers from one "head of state" to another. And it's been a pretty successful system.
So why shouldn't it work in Congress?
Here is what I propose, and I admit this idea is hardly original with me: 12 year term limits. That's three elections for Senators (four year terms) and six elections for Representatives (two year terms). It gives them enough time to understand the way the system works, to get things done, and it also keeps their time in office relatively balanced. It allows them to go beyond one presidents' potential maximum time in office so they can continue to operate outside that presidents' influence (they'll either be in office before the president takes office or stay in office beyond the presidents' term).
Anything shorter and what you'd have is a string of elected officials who arrive in Washington, DC, and have to rely on pre-existing staffers and bureaucrats who, even now, tend to remain while politicians come and go.
Twelve year terms allows for new blood to be constantly introduced into the system, yet keeps the institutional knowledge that is necessary to keep the government being ground to a halt.
Gov. Perdue was dead wrong. We don't need to suddenly trust our elected officials to fix the problem. After all, our whole system of government was built on a sense of mistrust - checks and balances, Congress making laws, Presidents signing or vetoing, Supreme Court Justices ruling on the Constitutionality of those laws.
Our founding fathers recognized the old Calvinistic concept of the basic depravity of man, that power corrupts, and everyone entrusted with the public trust needs careful watching.
Calvin - and the founders - understood it's a lot easier for an honorable man to do the right thing when he knows he's being watched.
Suspend elections?
Perdue is fortunate we're not like some countries that have elections whenever there is a loss of confidence in what the ruling party has done. If that were the case, I have a feeling we wouldn't be waiting until Nov. 2012 for a national referendum
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Celebrating groups while encouraging individuality
The whole issue of immigration is difficult.
Even illegal immigration (which I attempt to address "here." )
I say that, because we're in the midst of something called National Hispanic Heritage Month, which runs from Sept. 15-Oct 15 - not a true "month,'' which makes me wonder if the creators of this celebration refused to stay within the accepted definition of what a "month'' is and had to create their own.
I'm not against this. I celebrate my own heritage of being white trash. After all, I'm from Georgia, founded as refuge for people who were headed toward debtors prison; and one side of my family goes by the name "Smith."
Heritage is interesting. It's not hard, even today, to go to neighborhoods in the northeast that are still identified by their cultural background - the Irish neighborhood, the German neighborhood, the Jewish neighborhood, the Italian neighborhood, etc.
But in the South, you didn't really find that. At least not as commonly as you did in the north. I think that's because when people came off the boat in the heavily populated north, they went to stay with people who spoke their language and prepared their foods and understood their culture. But when you moved to the more rural South, you mixed out of survival and your non-American background wasn't nearly as what you could bring to the community at large.
Today almost every community has its Hispanic neighborhood. In fact, according to some stats I read recently, something like 40 percent of the children in this country are Hispanic.
But if the theory of the melting pot holds true, eventually - within a generation or two - the Hispanic influence should lessen and these children should become "American."
I mean, if people want to remain completely surrounded by their old culture, they could have stayed where they were and not come to America. The whole point of immigrating, it seems to me, is to pursue something better for yourself than what you have; to seek better opportunity and a better life.
And they have kept coming, despite the hardships they have always faced - from the early settlers at Jamestown right on through today. They come because this is still seen as "the land of opportunity,'' a phrase that might seem out-dated to people who are struggling right now to find jobs, keep homes, get medical care, and so on.
But people do keep coming. Because this is still the most likely place in the world for people to come with nothing and be able to leave something to their children, and their children's children.
Because every wave of immigration is really two parts: the immigrants - the people who cross the borders (legally or otherwise); and their children who are born in this country.
The key to being "American" is not trying to impose the values of the old country on the new, but rather in celebrating the culture of the old country while embracing the opportunity of the new.
And again, if you say "what opportunity," I say, "if there isn't opportunity, why do they keep coming?"
But America is not made up of "groups." At least, it's not supposed to be.
The basis of this country, if I read history correctly, is individualism. The whole "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," which means rights that belong not to groups but to individuals.
The concept of looking after the right of the "group'' is basically un-American. In fact, I'd say groups tend to look backwards - where are you from? Who are your grandparents? What language do you speak? - while individual rights look forward - where do you want to go? What kind of life do you want for your children? What do you need to learn to get there?
Looking after "groups'' means the need to figure out how to carefully allocate limited resources to cover the most people, a job that winds up being left to the government.
Looking after the "individual'' means adapting, developing resources, thinking outside the box, being free to try and fail and suffer the consequences while learning the lesson. It's like Thomas Edison who, when someone asked him about all the failures he endured while trying to invent the light bulb, replied with something like, "those weren't failures. Each was a lesson that brought me closer to the idea that worked!"
Here's the really crazy thing that just doesn't make sense: the more peple see themselves as individuals, the more they appear to be willing to help other individuals, regardless of what "group'' they came out of!
Dr. Martin Luther King's best known speech includes a line where he dreamed of a world where people could be measured by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
That sums up the historical essence of America, and what seperates the idea of America from just about every other country in the world.
Not that it's easy or clean and neat. It's not.
It is important to remember and celebrate the past. And those of us without a clearly defined past love to take part of Greek food festivals and Italian weddings and Hispanic celebrations and German beer fests!
But it is also important to remember that those things are "in the past."
And as long as we do that, the idea of America remains strong.
Even illegal immigration (which I attempt to address "here." )
I say that, because we're in the midst of something called National Hispanic Heritage Month, which runs from Sept. 15-Oct 15 - not a true "month,'' which makes me wonder if the creators of this celebration refused to stay within the accepted definition of what a "month'' is and had to create their own.
I'm not against this. I celebrate my own heritage of being white trash. After all, I'm from Georgia, founded as refuge for people who were headed toward debtors prison; and one side of my family goes by the name "Smith."
Heritage is interesting. It's not hard, even today, to go to neighborhoods in the northeast that are still identified by their cultural background - the Irish neighborhood, the German neighborhood, the Jewish neighborhood, the Italian neighborhood, etc.
But in the South, you didn't really find that. At least not as commonly as you did in the north. I think that's because when people came off the boat in the heavily populated north, they went to stay with people who spoke their language and prepared their foods and understood their culture. But when you moved to the more rural South, you mixed out of survival and your non-American background wasn't nearly as what you could bring to the community at large.
Today almost every community has its Hispanic neighborhood. In fact, according to some stats I read recently, something like 40 percent of the children in this country are Hispanic.
But if the theory of the melting pot holds true, eventually - within a generation or two - the Hispanic influence should lessen and these children should become "American."
I mean, if people want to remain completely surrounded by their old culture, they could have stayed where they were and not come to America. The whole point of immigrating, it seems to me, is to pursue something better for yourself than what you have; to seek better opportunity and a better life.
And they have kept coming, despite the hardships they have always faced - from the early settlers at Jamestown right on through today. They come because this is still seen as "the land of opportunity,'' a phrase that might seem out-dated to people who are struggling right now to find jobs, keep homes, get medical care, and so on.
But people do keep coming. Because this is still the most likely place in the world for people to come with nothing and be able to leave something to their children, and their children's children.
Because every wave of immigration is really two parts: the immigrants - the people who cross the borders (legally or otherwise); and their children who are born in this country.
The key to being "American" is not trying to impose the values of the old country on the new, but rather in celebrating the culture of the old country while embracing the opportunity of the new.
And again, if you say "what opportunity," I say, "if there isn't opportunity, why do they keep coming?"
But America is not made up of "groups." At least, it's not supposed to be.
The basis of this country, if I read history correctly, is individualism. The whole "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," which means rights that belong not to groups but to individuals.
The concept of looking after the right of the "group'' is basically un-American. In fact, I'd say groups tend to look backwards - where are you from? Who are your grandparents? What language do you speak? - while individual rights look forward - where do you want to go? What kind of life do you want for your children? What do you need to learn to get there?
Looking after "groups'' means the need to figure out how to carefully allocate limited resources to cover the most people, a job that winds up being left to the government.
Looking after the "individual'' means adapting, developing resources, thinking outside the box, being free to try and fail and suffer the consequences while learning the lesson. It's like Thomas Edison who, when someone asked him about all the failures he endured while trying to invent the light bulb, replied with something like, "those weren't failures. Each was a lesson that brought me closer to the idea that worked!"
Here's the really crazy thing that just doesn't make sense: the more peple see themselves as individuals, the more they appear to be willing to help other individuals, regardless of what "group'' they came out of!
Dr. Martin Luther King's best known speech includes a line where he dreamed of a world where people could be measured by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
That sums up the historical essence of America, and what seperates the idea of America from just about every other country in the world.
Not that it's easy or clean and neat. It's not.
It is important to remember and celebrate the past. And those of us without a clearly defined past love to take part of Greek food festivals and Italian weddings and Hispanic celebrations and German beer fests!
But it is also important to remember that those things are "in the past."
And as long as we do that, the idea of America remains strong.
When does "accepted" no longer mean "acceptable?"
We all understand that words have meanings.
But what those words mean often depend on the context in which they are heard or read.
I thought of that as I thought through a phrase that came to me one day, a phrase that - at the time - I really liked: "We don't go to church to be accepted; we go to church to be changed."
A few Sundays ago, in Sunday School (or Community Group as we call it, even though it will always remain "Sunday School'' to me), we were having a spirited discussion (which we often do in this class, one of the aspects of it I really enjoy) over how the church can overcome certain perceptions that exist out there.
Mostly, the perceptions lead people to feel they won't be accepted in "the church;" and that leads a lot of those people to not even want to be accepted by "church" people.
As the discussion ensued, it was easy to come up with people who had something about their lives that made them, in their day, feel like they wouldn't be accepted. Maybe they were the wrong color back in the day, or maybe they were divorced, or maybe they were known as the town drunk, or maybe they were gay.
Without question the feeling in this room was that everyone is welcome in our church, and we have to go out of our way to make everyone feel welcomed and, if not loved, then certainly liked with the potential of moving toward being loved.
At the same time, as the discussion ensued, their was the underlying, barely spoken, but very real concern that acceptance could also lead to acceptance of the actions that, in some cases, we'd describe with that out-of-date word "sin."
(Let me back up here and state unequivocally that being "black'' is not a sin. But the reality is people of color - any color - are often not welcome in churches made up of people of another color. And that works all ways: white to black, black to white, Latino to Asian ...)
This is obviously a subject with a lot of levels, and there is no way to do it justice here (anymore than we did it justice in one Sunday Scho .. er, Community Group class).
Yes, anyone and everyone should be welcomed into a church. After all, all of us that go to church have our own sins that we deal with. It's just not all are as obvious as others. Why, I myself struggle with ...
Nah. We don't know each other that well.
That led me to that statement about acceptance. Because while we should all be "accepted'' in the church, if we're just "accepted'' and allowed to stay the same, we might as well have skipped church and gone to play golf or play poker with the guys.
And there are other issues at play besides just "sin." There are cultural issues.
For example, there was a time when people who were divorced felt unacceptable to the local church. And that was clearly, unequivocally wrong. So it was good that the church started reaching out to make people who'd gone through the pain of divorce feel welcome ... except.
Except that now the divorce rate within the church is the same as those outside the church, if not higher.
Are the two related? I don't know. Just wondering.
Again, that's a whole 'nother issue that might be about people in the church becoming "real" and not as afraid of exposing their issues and - hopefully - trying to work through them together, supporting each other while still attempting to hold each other accountable to become the people faith - God - intends us to be; in other words if faith is real, we should expect to "change."
The more I thought about it, however, the more I realized that we do come to church to be accepted, and we should. Our theology is based on "whosoever will may come'' and "just as I am" and ''come to me, all who are heavy-laden ..."
Thankfully, God doesn't expect us to do anything to be accepted by Him. Christian theology says we there is nothing we can do to make ourselves more acceptable to God. We don't have to pray a certain number of times a day, we don't have to adhere to strict rules of conduct. We come just as we are.
Yet we also know that while God accepts us just as we are, He won't let us remain that way.
Likewise, we are to encourage each other to change. Whatever baggage we walked into church with, God promises not to leave us holding those bags.
Because, as Paul wrote in Galatians (4:9-11), "But now that you know God - or rather are known by God - how it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? ... I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you."
If we concentrate only on accepting people in the church, but not changing them (including ourselves!), then what's the point?
We should come to the church to be accepted.
However, we need to be prepared to accept that God doesn't want us to stay the way we are when we find Him. He wants us to be so much better than we are, to be the people He created us to be.
Maybe that's what makes going to church so uncomfortable.
Now, even as I finish writing this, I can think of arguments against what I'm saying. And while I understand -and hopefully practice -- the concept of "hating the sin but loving the sinner,'' there is no question that it is a lot easier to be influenced by sin than influence the sinner.
It doesn't mean we don't try.
And I'm open to whatever comments/arguments/considerations you might have.
After all, it works better when we're all working on this together.
But what those words mean often depend on the context in which they are heard or read.
I thought of that as I thought through a phrase that came to me one day, a phrase that - at the time - I really liked: "We don't go to church to be accepted; we go to church to be changed."
A few Sundays ago, in Sunday School (or Community Group as we call it, even though it will always remain "Sunday School'' to me), we were having a spirited discussion (which we often do in this class, one of the aspects of it I really enjoy) over how the church can overcome certain perceptions that exist out there.
Mostly, the perceptions lead people to feel they won't be accepted in "the church;" and that leads a lot of those people to not even want to be accepted by "church" people.
As the discussion ensued, it was easy to come up with people who had something about their lives that made them, in their day, feel like they wouldn't be accepted. Maybe they were the wrong color back in the day, or maybe they were divorced, or maybe they were known as the town drunk, or maybe they were gay.
Without question the feeling in this room was that everyone is welcome in our church, and we have to go out of our way to make everyone feel welcomed and, if not loved, then certainly liked with the potential of moving toward being loved.
At the same time, as the discussion ensued, their was the underlying, barely spoken, but very real concern that acceptance could also lead to acceptance of the actions that, in some cases, we'd describe with that out-of-date word "sin."
(Let me back up here and state unequivocally that being "black'' is not a sin. But the reality is people of color - any color - are often not welcome in churches made up of people of another color. And that works all ways: white to black, black to white, Latino to Asian ...)
This is obviously a subject with a lot of levels, and there is no way to do it justice here (anymore than we did it justice in one Sunday Scho .. er, Community Group class).
Yes, anyone and everyone should be welcomed into a church. After all, all of us that go to church have our own sins that we deal with. It's just not all are as obvious as others. Why, I myself struggle with ...
Nah. We don't know each other that well.
That led me to that statement about acceptance. Because while we should all be "accepted'' in the church, if we're just "accepted'' and allowed to stay the same, we might as well have skipped church and gone to play golf or play poker with the guys.
And there are other issues at play besides just "sin." There are cultural issues.
For example, there was a time when people who were divorced felt unacceptable to the local church. And that was clearly, unequivocally wrong. So it was good that the church started reaching out to make people who'd gone through the pain of divorce feel welcome ... except.
Except that now the divorce rate within the church is the same as those outside the church, if not higher.
Are the two related? I don't know. Just wondering.
Again, that's a whole 'nother issue that might be about people in the church becoming "real" and not as afraid of exposing their issues and - hopefully - trying to work through them together, supporting each other while still attempting to hold each other accountable to become the people faith - God - intends us to be; in other words if faith is real, we should expect to "change."
The more I thought about it, however, the more I realized that we do come to church to be accepted, and we should. Our theology is based on "whosoever will may come'' and "just as I am" and ''come to me, all who are heavy-laden ..."
Thankfully, God doesn't expect us to do anything to be accepted by Him. Christian theology says we there is nothing we can do to make ourselves more acceptable to God. We don't have to pray a certain number of times a day, we don't have to adhere to strict rules of conduct. We come just as we are.
Yet we also know that while God accepts us just as we are, He won't let us remain that way.
Likewise, we are to encourage each other to change. Whatever baggage we walked into church with, God promises not to leave us holding those bags.
Because, as Paul wrote in Galatians (4:9-11), "But now that you know God - or rather are known by God - how it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? ... I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you."
If we concentrate only on accepting people in the church, but not changing them (including ourselves!), then what's the point?
We should come to the church to be accepted.
However, we need to be prepared to accept that God doesn't want us to stay the way we are when we find Him. He wants us to be so much better than we are, to be the people He created us to be.
Maybe that's what makes going to church so uncomfortable.
Now, even as I finish writing this, I can think of arguments against what I'm saying. And while I understand -and hopefully practice -- the concept of "hating the sin but loving the sinner,'' there is no question that it is a lot easier to be influenced by sin than influence the sinner.
It doesn't mean we don't try.
And I'm open to whatever comments/arguments/considerations you might have.
After all, it works better when we're all working on this together.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Leader in a haunted house
It's almost October, the month that ends in Halloween, and it got me to thinking.
Back when we were in high school, we used to go to these so-called Haunted Houses. And truth be told, I was always terrified.
Nothing scares me more than not knowing what is coming around the next corner - unless it's knowing that whatever is around the next corner is something that was carefully designed to terrify me!
But I've also always been that guy that, when people are standing around doing the old, "I'll go if you go" routine, I'd end up saying, "let's go" and jump in first.
That's gotten me in trouble, needless to say.
Anyway, I remember this one time we were at some haunted house that began by everyone getting down on their hands and knees and crawling through this seemingly endlessly long, winding tunnel. It was completely dark. You couldn't see the person in front of you, or the one behind.
I was in front. I vaguely remember it was a girl that was right behind me, and she was holding on to the back of my belt. Because she was so close, my heels kept getting tangled up in her arm or torso and I'd lose my shoe.
So there I was, leading the way through this dark tunnel, crawling along, aware that a girl (that I probably liked!) was hanging on to me expecting me to be brave, scared to death of what was ahead and also afraid of something as inconsequential (in the big scheme of things) as losing my shoe, all the while trying to maintain my composure and - of course - maintaining my "cool."
I can remember my pulse racing. And when I got nervous, my voice would get just a little higher, and I'd talk a little faster, and sometimes I'd giggle uncontrollably. My actions were all a little exaggerated as I struggled with the sense of panic.
Here's the thing, too: once you commit, there's no turning back. Not only because you don't want to admit you're too scared to go on, but also because you just can't; there are too many people coming behind you, following your lead, confident that if anything bad happens it will happen to you before it happens to them so they'll get a warning.
I remember, as I crawled through this thing heading toward I didn't know what, comforting myself by saying, "Whatever is ahead, they can't kill me. Management won't let that happen."
There is a lot of truth in that.
See, leaders are the ones who are willing to go first. And they go not because they aren't scared - sometimes, because they are first, they're way more scared than the people following them. But they go because someone has to go first, and they're confident that nothing bad will happen because "management won't let that happen.''
Now, of course, in real life sometimes bad things do happen. But those of us with faith realize that "management'' - God - is on our side. Whatever happens, happens only because management meant for it to, and whatever it is it will work out for the ultimate good.
Even if we die, it's just our earthly bodies. "Management'' has already promised us we will never die, that we'll live forever.
So we crawl through the tunnel, unsure where it's taking us; what crazed, masked men with chain saws await just ahead; what hairy fanged monster with fake blood dripping from its mouth lurks; whether that light ahead is the exit or just a new form of nightmare.
Back in my science-fiction reading days, I read this book called "Dune,'' in which the central figure faced scary situations by saying to himself, "Fear is the mind-killer. I will turn and face my fear and let it pass over me. And when it is gone, only I will remain."
I hadn't read that book back on that night in the tunnel.
The only thing that was certain to me was that I would come out the other side. And that girl would come out right behind me, the back of my belt a mangled, sweat-soaked twist of leather. And behind her, someone else followed by someone else followed by someone else.
And once we all got out, every second of the journey was hashed and re-hashed on the bus ride home.
The only thing that ultimately mattered was how we handled what happened to us in the haunted house. Did we handle it bravely, holding on to our "cool?"
Or did we scream like little girls?
I will tell you this: I didn't scream, but it wasn't because I didn't think about it.
I knew that at the end of the night, I'd have to answer for my actions.
That's life.
Back when we were in high school, we used to go to these so-called Haunted Houses. And truth be told, I was always terrified.
Nothing scares me more than not knowing what is coming around the next corner - unless it's knowing that whatever is around the next corner is something that was carefully designed to terrify me!
But I've also always been that guy that, when people are standing around doing the old, "I'll go if you go" routine, I'd end up saying, "let's go" and jump in first.
That's gotten me in trouble, needless to say.
Anyway, I remember this one time we were at some haunted house that began by everyone getting down on their hands and knees and crawling through this seemingly endlessly long, winding tunnel. It was completely dark. You couldn't see the person in front of you, or the one behind.
I was in front. I vaguely remember it was a girl that was right behind me, and she was holding on to the back of my belt. Because she was so close, my heels kept getting tangled up in her arm or torso and I'd lose my shoe.
So there I was, leading the way through this dark tunnel, crawling along, aware that a girl (that I probably liked!) was hanging on to me expecting me to be brave, scared to death of what was ahead and also afraid of something as inconsequential (in the big scheme of things) as losing my shoe, all the while trying to maintain my composure and - of course - maintaining my "cool."
I can remember my pulse racing. And when I got nervous, my voice would get just a little higher, and I'd talk a little faster, and sometimes I'd giggle uncontrollably. My actions were all a little exaggerated as I struggled with the sense of panic.
Here's the thing, too: once you commit, there's no turning back. Not only because you don't want to admit you're too scared to go on, but also because you just can't; there are too many people coming behind you, following your lead, confident that if anything bad happens it will happen to you before it happens to them so they'll get a warning.
I remember, as I crawled through this thing heading toward I didn't know what, comforting myself by saying, "Whatever is ahead, they can't kill me. Management won't let that happen."
There is a lot of truth in that.
See, leaders are the ones who are willing to go first. And they go not because they aren't scared - sometimes, because they are first, they're way more scared than the people following them. But they go because someone has to go first, and they're confident that nothing bad will happen because "management won't let that happen.''
Now, of course, in real life sometimes bad things do happen. But those of us with faith realize that "management'' - God - is on our side. Whatever happens, happens only because management meant for it to, and whatever it is it will work out for the ultimate good.
Even if we die, it's just our earthly bodies. "Management'' has already promised us we will never die, that we'll live forever.
So we crawl through the tunnel, unsure where it's taking us; what crazed, masked men with chain saws await just ahead; what hairy fanged monster with fake blood dripping from its mouth lurks; whether that light ahead is the exit or just a new form of nightmare.
Back in my science-fiction reading days, I read this book called "Dune,'' in which the central figure faced scary situations by saying to himself, "Fear is the mind-killer. I will turn and face my fear and let it pass over me. And when it is gone, only I will remain."
I hadn't read that book back on that night in the tunnel.
The only thing that was certain to me was that I would come out the other side. And that girl would come out right behind me, the back of my belt a mangled, sweat-soaked twist of leather. And behind her, someone else followed by someone else followed by someone else.
And once we all got out, every second of the journey was hashed and re-hashed on the bus ride home.
The only thing that ultimately mattered was how we handled what happened to us in the haunted house. Did we handle it bravely, holding on to our "cool?"
Or did we scream like little girls?
I will tell you this: I didn't scream, but it wasn't because I didn't think about it.
I knew that at the end of the night, I'd have to answer for my actions.
That's life.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Losing focus, losing ground
Let's be honest: this whole political season has become little more than a reality TV show, the top candidates determined by who creates the best drama, not who presents the best ideas.
I'm not even sure how many people are running for president on the Republican side, but I do know that most of what we hear comes from Govs. Romney and Perry, and Sen. Bachman.
Why? Because they go after each other. Those three have been deemed the front-runners, and they're fighting for that spot at the front of the pack.
But are those the top three because they really have the best ideas? Or because they provide the best TV, which gets them the most attention, so when people are polled over who they like those seem to be the only three choices?
Let's detour for a minute. The Democrats would seem to have a simpler process, but even on that side there is talk that President Obama should step down after one term so the party can push Hilary Clinton. It's drama, and good talk/tv.
Still, clearly the real drama is on the Republican side.
I'm tired of hearing Romney-Perry-Bachman. And I fear the Republicans are allowing themselves to get caught up in tearing each other down rather than, as Newt Gingrich has tried to do, focus on presenting ideas and concentrating on defeating the current president.
Yes, I like Gingrich's ideas. I know he's got more baggage than Michelle Obama's 40-person entourage had on its return from that shopping trip to France.
But I also want the American public to hear more from Herman Cain. And former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. And new-comer to the mix, New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.
Utah Gov. Huntsman doesn't interest me, but sure - he is entitled to express his ideas, too. I want to hear them.
Oh, and Sarah Palin is still out there, lurking.
Instead, we've seen Romney-Perry-Bachman become interchangeable candidates, accusing each other and back-tracking and trying their best to trip each othe rup while scrambling for the most memorable line of the night that will get talked about the most the next day.
It's not supposed to be a Hollywood show, but it is.
It's disappointing. And it will take a lot of effort if Americans do indeed choose to see through the drama and choose what they honestly believe is best for the country.
And the real victory will be if we the people somehow manage to refuse to be suckered in by the media drama, listen, consider them all, and choose not on who gets the most headlines but who reaches the most minds and hearts.
Otherwise, we might as well hope that Snooki enters the race.
I'm not even sure how many people are running for president on the Republican side, but I do know that most of what we hear comes from Govs. Romney and Perry, and Sen. Bachman.
Why? Because they go after each other. Those three have been deemed the front-runners, and they're fighting for that spot at the front of the pack.
But are those the top three because they really have the best ideas? Or because they provide the best TV, which gets them the most attention, so when people are polled over who they like those seem to be the only three choices?
Let's detour for a minute. The Democrats would seem to have a simpler process, but even on that side there is talk that President Obama should step down after one term so the party can push Hilary Clinton. It's drama, and good talk/tv.
Still, clearly the real drama is on the Republican side.
I'm tired of hearing Romney-Perry-Bachman. And I fear the Republicans are allowing themselves to get caught up in tearing each other down rather than, as Newt Gingrich has tried to do, focus on presenting ideas and concentrating on defeating the current president.
Yes, I like Gingrich's ideas. I know he's got more baggage than Michelle Obama's 40-person entourage had on its return from that shopping trip to France.
But I also want the American public to hear more from Herman Cain. And former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. And new-comer to the mix, New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.
Utah Gov. Huntsman doesn't interest me, but sure - he is entitled to express his ideas, too. I want to hear them.
Oh, and Sarah Palin is still out there, lurking.
Instead, we've seen Romney-Perry-Bachman become interchangeable candidates, accusing each other and back-tracking and trying their best to trip each othe rup while scrambling for the most memorable line of the night that will get talked about the most the next day.
It's not supposed to be a Hollywood show, but it is.
It's disappointing. And it will take a lot of effort if Americans do indeed choose to see through the drama and choose what they honestly believe is best for the country.
And the real victory will be if we the people somehow manage to refuse to be suckered in by the media drama, listen, consider them all, and choose not on who gets the most headlines but who reaches the most minds and hearts.
Otherwise, we might as well hope that Snooki enters the race.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Country song - if I could only remember the tune
I can't remember when I wrote this, if I wrote it alone, and if it ever had a tune. But I know it reflected the way a lot of broke-down wannabe musicians feel when performing for people who aren't all facing in the same direction (meaning they're at the bar or at tables and not necessarily there to see you).
Maybe it's not too late if you've got a melody!
Bawdy Ballad
Bring me some gin, and I'll try to grin
Let's sing one for mama tonight
Well it's Sunday afternoon ... and I've got the blues
Sitting in a bar by myself,
Singing a worn-out tune
There's nobody here but me
Singing this sad melody
I was here all last night, and it don't seem right
That I should be here on Sunday by three
But when I'm working I sing all the standards
Like "Help Me Make It Through The Night"
Then I throw in a bawdy ballad
Just to get their attention, once or twice
Sometimes I try to sing something I've written
A love song, from out of my past
And if she were here, I know she'd cry a tear
And hold on to each word til' the last
But they're too wrapped up in their own lives
To take a piece of my heart home tonight
So bring me my gin, and I'll try to grin
And sing the song halfway all right.
Maybe it's not too late if you've got a melody!
Bawdy Ballad
Bring me some gin, and I'll try to grin
Let's sing one for mama tonight
Well it's Sunday afternoon ... and I've got the blues
Sitting in a bar by myself,
Singing a worn-out tune
There's nobody here but me
Singing this sad melody
I was here all last night, and it don't seem right
That I should be here on Sunday by three
But when I'm working I sing all the standards
Like "Help Me Make It Through The Night"
Then I throw in a bawdy ballad
Just to get their attention, once or twice
Sometimes I try to sing something I've written
A love song, from out of my past
And if she were here, I know she'd cry a tear
And hold on to each word til' the last
But they're too wrapped up in their own lives
To take a piece of my heart home tonight
So bring me my gin, and I'll try to grin
And sing the song halfway all right.
Circles (More Pathetic Poetry)
Yes, from that time long, long ago when I was the tortured, college cliche ...
Circles
You're not here now --
And yet you are.
You're gone --
But I can't get rid of you.
There's nothing here to remind me of you --
Yet I can't get you out of my mind.
I go places you've never been
Do things you've never done
See people you've never seen
And somehow I find you there.
Please come back -
If only to take yourself away.
Circles
You're not here now --
And yet you are.
You're gone --
But I can't get rid of you.
There's nothing here to remind me of you --
Yet I can't get you out of my mind.
I go places you've never been
Do things you've never done
See people you've never seen
And somehow I find you there.
Please come back -
If only to take yourself away.
George Washington and Benedict Arnold and qualities that feel just too familiar
It's funny, sometimes, how you come across a really good book.
With all this current free time I have in the evenings, I've become a regular at the Pass Christian library - not in the evenings, because it closes at 5:30; but sometimes I stop by on the way in to work (it opens at 8), or get by with a few minutes left before closing. Neither of those options gives me much time to really look around, so the first few times I went I'd go straight to authors I knew I wanted to read.
But then I began to branch out and just grab stuff at random, based on titles, because what the heck? If I don't like the book, I don't have to read it. I'm not buying it. And nobody will care if I don't read it and simply return it unread.
So while wandering through the history section (because I love history), I stumbled across a book called "George Washington and Benedict Arnold: A Tale of Two Patriots."
Catchy title, right? Because we all know of Washington as the greatest of patriots. But Arnold, whose name is synonymous with being a traitor?
Yet Arnold had been a great general in the Revolutionary War before changing sides. And this book is written by a former superintendent of West Point, which is interesting because West Point also happened to be the point of Arnold's treachery. He was going to arrange the capture of West Point, of which he was commander, by the British, in exchange for money.
As many great battles as Arnold won leading American forces against the British - and he was arguably a far more successful general and American hero early in the war than Washington - Arnold also felt betrayed by the Continental Congress, by rivals within the Army, and cheated by the amount of his personal fortune he spent on the cause that Congress delayed and then refused to reimburse.
Still, at one point there was talk of Arnold replacing Washington as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army - that's how highly he was thought of and how frustrated Congress got at times with Washington.
But you can read the book.
It's an interesting study in character.
The ancient Greeks defined character as the sum of four virtues: Fortitude (strength of mind and the courage to persevere in the face of adversity); Temperance (self-discipline to control emotions and appetites); Prudence (making the right choices); and Justice (fairness, honesty, keeping your word).
Major General Joshua Chamberlain, a hero of the War of Northern Aggression (even though he was a Union officer), told a group of war veterans his definition of character: "I do not mean bravery. Many a man has that. What I mean by character is a firm and seasoned substance of the soul. I mean such qualities as intelligence, thoughtfulness, conscientiousness, right-mindedness, patience, fortitude, long-suffering and unconquerable resolve."
I like the phrase "A firm and seasoned substance of the soul."
And Ronald Reagan said that character takes command in moments of crucial choices. I really like that, because "crucial choices'' are often not just what we consider "big" moments of decision, but very often "small" decisions that we make, decisions that no one will ever know about or that seem to affect no one else. You know, the old "what you do when nobody is looking'' idea.
One historian described Washington's character as "an absolute unwillingness to be led astray by personal gain or ideological distractions."
I like the use of the word "absolute'' there. Absolute unwillingness to be led astray ... that's powerful, because it enforces the idea that character is a choice.
The book ends with the words of Len Marella in a book on ethical leadership, "In Search of Ethics:"
Your thoughts become your words.
Your words become you actions.
Your actions become your habits.
Your habits become your character.
Your character becomes your destiny.
I know that reads like wall-poster philosophy. But I think it says it all.
As we enter this coming election year, I find myself comparing all these candidates to Washington and Arnold --
And find way too many leaning toward the attributes of the latter than the former.
Much to this country's chagrin.
With all this current free time I have in the evenings, I've become a regular at the Pass Christian library - not in the evenings, because it closes at 5:30; but sometimes I stop by on the way in to work (it opens at 8), or get by with a few minutes left before closing. Neither of those options gives me much time to really look around, so the first few times I went I'd go straight to authors I knew I wanted to read.
But then I began to branch out and just grab stuff at random, based on titles, because what the heck? If I don't like the book, I don't have to read it. I'm not buying it. And nobody will care if I don't read it and simply return it unread.
So while wandering through the history section (because I love history), I stumbled across a book called "George Washington and Benedict Arnold: A Tale of Two Patriots."
Catchy title, right? Because we all know of Washington as the greatest of patriots. But Arnold, whose name is synonymous with being a traitor?
Yet Arnold had been a great general in the Revolutionary War before changing sides. And this book is written by a former superintendent of West Point, which is interesting because West Point also happened to be the point of Arnold's treachery. He was going to arrange the capture of West Point, of which he was commander, by the British, in exchange for money.
As many great battles as Arnold won leading American forces against the British - and he was arguably a far more successful general and American hero early in the war than Washington - Arnold also felt betrayed by the Continental Congress, by rivals within the Army, and cheated by the amount of his personal fortune he spent on the cause that Congress delayed and then refused to reimburse.
Still, at one point there was talk of Arnold replacing Washington as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army - that's how highly he was thought of and how frustrated Congress got at times with Washington.
But you can read the book.
It's an interesting study in character.
The ancient Greeks defined character as the sum of four virtues: Fortitude (strength of mind and the courage to persevere in the face of adversity); Temperance (self-discipline to control emotions and appetites); Prudence (making the right choices); and Justice (fairness, honesty, keeping your word).
Major General Joshua Chamberlain, a hero of the War of Northern Aggression (even though he was a Union officer), told a group of war veterans his definition of character: "I do not mean bravery. Many a man has that. What I mean by character is a firm and seasoned substance of the soul. I mean such qualities as intelligence, thoughtfulness, conscientiousness, right-mindedness, patience, fortitude, long-suffering and unconquerable resolve."
I like the phrase "A firm and seasoned substance of the soul."
And Ronald Reagan said that character takes command in moments of crucial choices. I really like that, because "crucial choices'' are often not just what we consider "big" moments of decision, but very often "small" decisions that we make, decisions that no one will ever know about or that seem to affect no one else. You know, the old "what you do when nobody is looking'' idea.
One historian described Washington's character as "an absolute unwillingness to be led astray by personal gain or ideological distractions."
I like the use of the word "absolute'' there. Absolute unwillingness to be led astray ... that's powerful, because it enforces the idea that character is a choice.
The book ends with the words of Len Marella in a book on ethical leadership, "In Search of Ethics:"
Your thoughts become your words.
Your words become you actions.
Your actions become your habits.
Your habits become your character.
Your character becomes your destiny.
I know that reads like wall-poster philosophy. But I think it says it all.
As we enter this coming election year, I find myself comparing all these candidates to Washington and Arnold --
And find way too many leaning toward the attributes of the latter than the former.
Much to this country's chagrin.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Some things are just not open to debate ... unfortunately
Within the great "open-minded" world that we live in, here are two non-negotiables.
You can't question global warming or Darwinian evolution.
I thought of the former when I read about Nobel prize-winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, abruptly resigned from the premier physics society - the American Physical Society - in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."
Dr. Giaever, who won the Prize in 1973, disagreed with the APS' official position on global warming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."
Giaever said in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the society, that "In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."
Which, interestingly enough, forced the APS to admit, "The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."
Now, I'm no scientist. I'll also admit I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other on the whole issue of global warming. Certainly I have my doubts, because I remember when scientists were predicting the next Ice Age in the last 1970s.
But because "global warming'' has become such a lucrative business - particularly for people like former Vice-president Al Gore - there is a huge financial incentive for the warming theorists to be right.
And even more (because I do believe such things are not always about money), people like Mr. Gore and many others have staked their reputation on this.
Maybe their goal is to move the world to some form of renewable energy source. But the ends do not justify the means.
And the fact that such "warmists'' never seem willing to engage in debate but rather simply laugh derisively at those who question them makes me very suspicious.
Kind of like Darwinians.
It's pretty much accepted that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an ignorant boob. I heard that noted brainiac Chris Mathews on MSNBC attempt to use evolution as a way to discredit former Pennsylvania Senator and current (weak) presidential candidate Rick Santorum, trying to force Santorum into a statement on evolution with his usual smirk.
Do I believe in evolution?
Depends. I absolutely believe that species have evolved. Heck, I've evolved. But evolution within species is not questionable.
However, Darwin's version has species evolving from one species into a new species. And there is no evidence; at least none scientifically accepted except by evolutionists themselves.
Even Darwin's famous finches evolved back-and-forth depending on the weather, but never evolved into a monkey or whatever the next higher form of life is above finch.
Here's the thing: the evolutionist' answer to anyone questioning Darwin's "theory" is faith. Evolutionists absolutely stake their reputation on the belief that one day they'll be proven right.
Which is very similar to the religious whose beliefs they ridicule.
I can respect a person of faith. I'm a person of faith.
But I admit the core of what I believe takes a measure of faith.
Why won't evolutionists and global warmists be intellectually honest enough to do the same?
You can't question global warming or Darwinian evolution.
I thought of the former when I read about Nobel prize-winning physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, abruptly resigned from the premier physics society - the American Physical Society - in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."
Dr. Giaever, who won the Prize in 1973, disagreed with the APS' official position on global warming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."
Giaever said in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the society, that "In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."
Which, interestingly enough, forced the APS to admit, "The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."
Now, I'm no scientist. I'll also admit I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other on the whole issue of global warming. Certainly I have my doubts, because I remember when scientists were predicting the next Ice Age in the last 1970s.
But because "global warming'' has become such a lucrative business - particularly for people like former Vice-president Al Gore - there is a huge financial incentive for the warming theorists to be right.
And even more (because I do believe such things are not always about money), people like Mr. Gore and many others have staked their reputation on this.
Maybe their goal is to move the world to some form of renewable energy source. But the ends do not justify the means.
And the fact that such "warmists'' never seem willing to engage in debate but rather simply laugh derisively at those who question them makes me very suspicious.
Kind of like Darwinians.
It's pretty much accepted that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is an ignorant boob. I heard that noted brainiac Chris Mathews on MSNBC attempt to use evolution as a way to discredit former Pennsylvania Senator and current (weak) presidential candidate Rick Santorum, trying to force Santorum into a statement on evolution with his usual smirk.
Do I believe in evolution?
Depends. I absolutely believe that species have evolved. Heck, I've evolved. But evolution within species is not questionable.
However, Darwin's version has species evolving from one species into a new species. And there is no evidence; at least none scientifically accepted except by evolutionists themselves.
Even Darwin's famous finches evolved back-and-forth depending on the weather, but never evolved into a monkey or whatever the next higher form of life is above finch.
Here's the thing: the evolutionist' answer to anyone questioning Darwin's "theory" is faith. Evolutionists absolutely stake their reputation on the belief that one day they'll be proven right.
Which is very similar to the religious whose beliefs they ridicule.
I can respect a person of faith. I'm a person of faith.
But I admit the core of what I believe takes a measure of faith.
Why won't evolutionists and global warmists be intellectually honest enough to do the same?
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
The real PC - Patriotic Concessions
This is about Americans, and the "War on Terror."
We all know what it is. We all know what started it. We all know what kind of people are behind it, because there is a common thread.
Yet, somehow, we're not supposed to say who they are.
When you think about it, it's one of the things that really makes this country amazing. We have to all be treated as potential terrorists because to single out any one particular group or a particular look or a particular religious group would be "profiling" or "racism" or just plan old fashioned "hate."
So grandma from Alabama gets patted down before she gets on a plane just like the farmer from Iowa or the barber from Los Angeles or the little girl from Albany. All of us have to be treated as suspects because, well, you never know.
Even if you have a pretty good idea.
I think it says something good about Americans that most of us are so willing to give up personal freedom and accept further government intrusion into our every day lives because it might be unfair to simply single out a "type" of person most like the ones who commit most of the acts of terror against free countries of the world.
That's an amazing amount of tolerance that goes on with comparatively little real protest.
We've made mistakes before. In World War II, nobody likes to talk about our country rounding up Japanese Americans on the west coast and putting them into isolation because the people who bombed Pearl Harbor, the people we were at war with all over the Pacific, just happened to be, well, Japanese.
In World War I, we started calling German Shepherds "Police Dogs'' and Hamburgers "Liberty Steaks" and change the names of so many German-sounding everyday items because, well, the people that were at the heart of World War I just happened to be, uh, German.
I realize I'm treading dangerously close to political incorrectness here, and I'm trying not to cross that line. I don't want to say that we should just admit that most of the terrorists we are fighting right now happen to be followers of Islam - which is true - and justify what they do because of how they interpret their Islamic teaching.
But just like members of the Ku Klux Klan claim to be Christians but certainly not all Christians are members of the Ku Klux Klan (and most Christians condemn the KKK), I know that while it seems the vast majority of international terrorism seems rooted in Islamic beliefs, not everyone who follows the teaching of Islam is a terrorists.
I would feel better if we had some more followers of Islam who took a louder, more active stance against Islamic extremists. I mean, as much as you don't want people to look at follower of Islam as potential terrorists, surely the followers of Islam have to understand why that might possibly happen. Would it be so terrible for an Islamic protest march against Islamic extremists; for Imams to come out and publicly denounce Al Qaeda (actually they have: see here and here --
we just don't hear nearly enough about it).
Still, it says something about us as a nation that we're willing to inconvenience ourselves to the extreme in the aftermath of 9-11 to try to keep people of Islamic faith from feeling singled out in this War on Terror.
Say what you want. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what the most out-spoken and active enemies of this country have in common.
Yet as crazy and divided as this country seems at times, when I turn on the TV before an NFL football game and hear the cheers as a huge American flag is unfurled on the football field and hear an entire stadium singing along on the national anthem, followed in some cases of chants of "U-S-A! U-S-A!" I am reminded that for all the fighting we do among ourselves, when the time comes, Americans come together pretty well to stick up for each other.
Including Arab-Americans (staying in line with the practice of hyphenated Americans).
Even if it hurts us.
We all know what it is. We all know what started it. We all know what kind of people are behind it, because there is a common thread.
Yet, somehow, we're not supposed to say who they are.
When you think about it, it's one of the things that really makes this country amazing. We have to all be treated as potential terrorists because to single out any one particular group or a particular look or a particular religious group would be "profiling" or "racism" or just plan old fashioned "hate."
So grandma from Alabama gets patted down before she gets on a plane just like the farmer from Iowa or the barber from Los Angeles or the little girl from Albany. All of us have to be treated as suspects because, well, you never know.
Even if you have a pretty good idea.
I think it says something good about Americans that most of us are so willing to give up personal freedom and accept further government intrusion into our every day lives because it might be unfair to simply single out a "type" of person most like the ones who commit most of the acts of terror against free countries of the world.
That's an amazing amount of tolerance that goes on with comparatively little real protest.
We've made mistakes before. In World War II, nobody likes to talk about our country rounding up Japanese Americans on the west coast and putting them into isolation because the people who bombed Pearl Harbor, the people we were at war with all over the Pacific, just happened to be, well, Japanese.
In World War I, we started calling German Shepherds "Police Dogs'' and Hamburgers "Liberty Steaks" and change the names of so many German-sounding everyday items because, well, the people that were at the heart of World War I just happened to be, uh, German.
I realize I'm treading dangerously close to political incorrectness here, and I'm trying not to cross that line. I don't want to say that we should just admit that most of the terrorists we are fighting right now happen to be followers of Islam - which is true - and justify what they do because of how they interpret their Islamic teaching.
But just like members of the Ku Klux Klan claim to be Christians but certainly not all Christians are members of the Ku Klux Klan (and most Christians condemn the KKK), I know that while it seems the vast majority of international terrorism seems rooted in Islamic beliefs, not everyone who follows the teaching of Islam is a terrorists.
I would feel better if we had some more followers of Islam who took a louder, more active stance against Islamic extremists. I mean, as much as you don't want people to look at follower of Islam as potential terrorists, surely the followers of Islam have to understand why that might possibly happen. Would it be so terrible for an Islamic protest march against Islamic extremists; for Imams to come out and publicly denounce Al Qaeda (actually they have: see here and here --
we just don't hear nearly enough about it).
Still, it says something about us as a nation that we're willing to inconvenience ourselves to the extreme in the aftermath of 9-11 to try to keep people of Islamic faith from feeling singled out in this War on Terror.
Say what you want. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what the most out-spoken and active enemies of this country have in common.
Yet as crazy and divided as this country seems at times, when I turn on the TV before an NFL football game and hear the cheers as a huge American flag is unfurled on the football field and hear an entire stadium singing along on the national anthem, followed in some cases of chants of "U-S-A! U-S-A!" I am reminded that for all the fighting we do among ourselves, when the time comes, Americans come together pretty well to stick up for each other.
Including Arab-Americans (staying in line with the practice of hyphenated Americans).
Even if it hurts us.
Friday, September 9, 2011
The Priesthood of the Teacher
Oh, one other thing that really, really bothered me out of President Obama's speech Thursday night.
(For my initial reaction - if you care - check here ).
He really reached out to his strongest constituency, unions and public school teachers.
Which, unfortunately, are one in the same.
The NEA (National Education Association) is the largest labor union in the country. So when the head of the Teamsters Union, Jim Hoffa, told President Obama that the President had an Army of willing followers in Union members, that included the 3.2 million members who are organized in every state of the union.
So no wonder President Obama made a point of talking about teachers in his speech - the usual claptrap of "putting teachers back to work" and how our kids need teachers for a quality education and the usual drivel we hear when it comes to teachers.
Oh, I know - criticising teachers is dangerous ground. We're supposed to believe they are the most unappreciated, underpaid, self-less and self-sacrificing people in the world, "America's Heroes," the embodiment of Mother Teresa and Saint Francis.
The truth is, teachers are well paid, safer in their jobs than almost any other profession, and basically above criticism.
The average salary of primary and secondary school teachers in the United States is $50,479 a year - and that's the average. Teachers make more based on years in the profession.
I come from a family of teachers. I have some friends who are teachers that are phenomenal teachers, that embody the best of the profession.
But I also have friends who embody the worst of the profession, teachers who have come to hate the students they teach, but who love the benefits and know they can't be fired.
As for trust?
If you looked at the number of public school teachers who have abused their students, I'm willing to bet it would make the number of Catholic priests who have abused kids pale in comparison.
We all know about the lawsuits filed against the Catholic church, the millions paid out by the Catholic church, the damaged reputation of the thousands, if not millions, of good, decent, committed Priests.
Why haven't there been just as many lawsuits against public school systems, against teachers' unions? Why don't we hear the same "jokes'' made about teachers and the public school system that we hear about priests and the Catholic Church?
Oh, you might say it's because we expect more from so-called "men of God," and I wouldn't disagree at all.
But what - we don't expect high standards from our teachers?
More teachers won't improve our public school system. But competition might. It's worth a try.
You know this big push that says getting our kids in an educational system earlier and earlier - mandatory pre-K programs - will help our students become competitive in the world again?
I don't believe it. I've read studies that say in the earliest testing done that compares students world-wide (apparently about the fourth grade), American students blow the doors off other students, particularly in reading, writing, and comprehension (however they do rank behind Koreans and Japanese in math and science even at that young age).
So what happens between fourth grade and senior year in high school?
Our once world-class students are exposed to less than world-class teachers and a less than world class teaching system that spends outrageous sums of money every year with worse and worse results.
I'm sure this study has been done, but I'd like to see it: compare the graduation rates from high school among the last class before all these mandatory Pre-K programs began to the current graduation rates. I've had professionals tell me there is really very little difference. And yet we keep hearing if we just added more years of Pre-K, what a difference it would make!
Stick with me on this for a minute. I recently read where the coastal Southern States, if taken together as their own country, would rank No. 7 in the world in GDP. You want to know why I think the economies of the Southern states have done so much better, why Mercedes and Honda and Hyundai and Toyota and so many other car companies are building their cars in the South now?
Could it be because so many Southern states are 'right to work' states? And the workers in the South seem to be just fine with that?
Couldn't the same thing be true for public education?
Instead, the teachers union has become so powerful, because when attacked, it becomes "all about the kids!"
Again, I had some great teachers. I wanted, at one time, to be a teacher. We need good teachers.
But simply being a 'teacher' doesn't mean you might not be incompetent - or worse - and if that's the case, then teachers should be held accountable, just like people in any other profession (like priests!).
I want good teachers. I want schools to be held accountable for the way they spend tax money. And I want bad teachers fired, and kids allowed to cross school districts to enroll in better schools if there is room in those schools.
But, hey, that's just me. What do I know? I am a product of the public school system, from kindergarten to state university.
(For my initial reaction - if you care - check here ).
He really reached out to his strongest constituency, unions and public school teachers.
Which, unfortunately, are one in the same.
The NEA (National Education Association) is the largest labor union in the country. So when the head of the Teamsters Union, Jim Hoffa, told President Obama that the President had an Army of willing followers in Union members, that included the 3.2 million members who are organized in every state of the union.
So no wonder President Obama made a point of talking about teachers in his speech - the usual claptrap of "putting teachers back to work" and how our kids need teachers for a quality education and the usual drivel we hear when it comes to teachers.
Oh, I know - criticising teachers is dangerous ground. We're supposed to believe they are the most unappreciated, underpaid, self-less and self-sacrificing people in the world, "America's Heroes," the embodiment of Mother Teresa and Saint Francis.
The truth is, teachers are well paid, safer in their jobs than almost any other profession, and basically above criticism.
The average salary of primary and secondary school teachers in the United States is $50,479 a year - and that's the average. Teachers make more based on years in the profession.
I come from a family of teachers. I have some friends who are teachers that are phenomenal teachers, that embody the best of the profession.
But I also have friends who embody the worst of the profession, teachers who have come to hate the students they teach, but who love the benefits and know they can't be fired.
As for trust?
If you looked at the number of public school teachers who have abused their students, I'm willing to bet it would make the number of Catholic priests who have abused kids pale in comparison.
We all know about the lawsuits filed against the Catholic church, the millions paid out by the Catholic church, the damaged reputation of the thousands, if not millions, of good, decent, committed Priests.
Why haven't there been just as many lawsuits against public school systems, against teachers' unions? Why don't we hear the same "jokes'' made about teachers and the public school system that we hear about priests and the Catholic Church?
Oh, you might say it's because we expect more from so-called "men of God," and I wouldn't disagree at all.
But what - we don't expect high standards from our teachers?
More teachers won't improve our public school system. But competition might. It's worth a try.
You know this big push that says getting our kids in an educational system earlier and earlier - mandatory pre-K programs - will help our students become competitive in the world again?
I don't believe it. I've read studies that say in the earliest testing done that compares students world-wide (apparently about the fourth grade), American students blow the doors off other students, particularly in reading, writing, and comprehension (however they do rank behind Koreans and Japanese in math and science even at that young age).
So what happens between fourth grade and senior year in high school?
Our once world-class students are exposed to less than world-class teachers and a less than world class teaching system that spends outrageous sums of money every year with worse and worse results.
I'm sure this study has been done, but I'd like to see it: compare the graduation rates from high school among the last class before all these mandatory Pre-K programs began to the current graduation rates. I've had professionals tell me there is really very little difference. And yet we keep hearing if we just added more years of Pre-K, what a difference it would make!
Stick with me on this for a minute. I recently read where the coastal Southern States, if taken together as their own country, would rank No. 7 in the world in GDP. You want to know why I think the economies of the Southern states have done so much better, why Mercedes and Honda and Hyundai and Toyota and so many other car companies are building their cars in the South now?
Could it be because so many Southern states are 'right to work' states? And the workers in the South seem to be just fine with that?
Couldn't the same thing be true for public education?
Instead, the teachers union has become so powerful, because when attacked, it becomes "all about the kids!"
Again, I had some great teachers. I wanted, at one time, to be a teacher. We need good teachers.
But simply being a 'teacher' doesn't mean you might not be incompetent - or worse - and if that's the case, then teachers should be held accountable, just like people in any other profession (like priests!).
I want good teachers. I want schools to be held accountable for the way they spend tax money. And I want bad teachers fired, and kids allowed to cross school districts to enroll in better schools if there is room in those schools.
But, hey, that's just me. What do I know? I am a product of the public school system, from kindergarten to state university.
Cheering for - if not believing in - POTUS
I want the President of the United States to be right, to succeed.
I don't care what name follows the title "President" - whether it's Obama or Bush or Clinton or Bush or Reagan or Carter or ... what matters to me, and my guess is thousands of other average Americans, is not what party that president belongs to; it doesn't even matter to me whether I voted for that particular president or not. I always want whoever is the President of the United States to be successful.
It just makes sense. It's good for the country, for all of us.
Even today, while my beliefs might align more with the Republican way of thinking (even though, as a Southerner, for years even as I might have been voting Republican I identified myself as a Democrat), I want what works for the country to thrive and prosper.
So yes, I heard a lot of good ideas in President Obama's "jobs'' speech Thursday night. And if his jobs bill gets passed, I hope it works.
But here's what bothered me about it.
Why did it take so long for him to make this speech? Why did it take three years into his administration for him to do the research he apparently did to come up with this plan?
Why do I have this nagging suspicion that this speech was so good, so impassioned, because it's 14 months until the President faces the electorate for re-election, and while there are questions about what skills he demonstrated prior to being elected president, what is known is that President Obama is a magnificent campaigner; and the timing of this just screams of President Obama being in his element, which is running for office.
I won't even try to figure out why we should believe that, after spending trillions on failed bail-outs that were supposed to save and create jobs over the last three years, now he realizes that less is more; spending half a trillion will do the trick where spending a full trillion didn't.
Better late than never, I guess.
But it just seems to terribly convenient - which, come to think of it, is what politics seems to have become. I mean, it's not about doing what's best for the country, it's about staying in office. Getting re-elected.
And it's not just this President; it's also Senators and Congressmen and right on down the line.
Which is why more and more I am an advocate for term limits.
Oh, I know. It means when you do get a good representative in, you lose him too soon. But I'd rather risk that over the current situation, where we have career politicians who gather power to themselves. And you know what they say about power: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I believe that if people went to Washington, D.C., knowing they only had so many years to be there and then they were going home, several things would happen: they'd remember to care about whatever business they were in before being elected; they'd do things that would help their business when they return (I know, I know - that could be bad); and they'd be more willing to make tough decisions that might not be popular because they don't have to worry about being re-elected.
I don't like not being able to trust the President of the United States.
But I don't think that's my fault.
It doesn't mean I don't want the President to be right, whoever is in the office.
But I do wish I could believe.
I don't care what name follows the title "President" - whether it's Obama or Bush or Clinton or Bush or Reagan or Carter or ... what matters to me, and my guess is thousands of other average Americans, is not what party that president belongs to; it doesn't even matter to me whether I voted for that particular president or not. I always want whoever is the President of the United States to be successful.
It just makes sense. It's good for the country, for all of us.
Even today, while my beliefs might align more with the Republican way of thinking (even though, as a Southerner, for years even as I might have been voting Republican I identified myself as a Democrat), I want what works for the country to thrive and prosper.
So yes, I heard a lot of good ideas in President Obama's "jobs'' speech Thursday night. And if his jobs bill gets passed, I hope it works.
But here's what bothered me about it.
Why did it take so long for him to make this speech? Why did it take three years into his administration for him to do the research he apparently did to come up with this plan?
Why do I have this nagging suspicion that this speech was so good, so impassioned, because it's 14 months until the President faces the electorate for re-election, and while there are questions about what skills he demonstrated prior to being elected president, what is known is that President Obama is a magnificent campaigner; and the timing of this just screams of President Obama being in his element, which is running for office.
I won't even try to figure out why we should believe that, after spending trillions on failed bail-outs that were supposed to save and create jobs over the last three years, now he realizes that less is more; spending half a trillion will do the trick where spending a full trillion didn't.
Better late than never, I guess.
But it just seems to terribly convenient - which, come to think of it, is what politics seems to have become. I mean, it's not about doing what's best for the country, it's about staying in office. Getting re-elected.
And it's not just this President; it's also Senators and Congressmen and right on down the line.
Which is why more and more I am an advocate for term limits.
Oh, I know. It means when you do get a good representative in, you lose him too soon. But I'd rather risk that over the current situation, where we have career politicians who gather power to themselves. And you know what they say about power: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I believe that if people went to Washington, D.C., knowing they only had so many years to be there and then they were going home, several things would happen: they'd remember to care about whatever business they were in before being elected; they'd do things that would help their business when they return (I know, I know - that could be bad); and they'd be more willing to make tough decisions that might not be popular because they don't have to worry about being re-elected.
I don't like not being able to trust the President of the United States.
But I don't think that's my fault.
It doesn't mean I don't want the President to be right, whoever is in the office.
But I do wish I could believe.
Monday, September 5, 2011
For what it's worth ... a few sports-related opinions
Call it a Sports Roundtable:
- The University of Tennessee is hiring Dave Hart as its new Director of Athletics. Hart comes to Knoxville from the University of Alabama, where he was essentially running the day-to-day operations of the Crimson Tide athletic department for the last few years as Athletic Director Mal Moore's right-hand man.
I've known Dave Hart for years. An Alabama grad, he was the athletic director at East Carolina for 12 years before becoming the athletic director at Florida State for 12 years. Forced out at FSU during an internal power struggle, Hart landed back in Tuscaloosa where he was considered 'heir apparent' to Moore.
Obviously, at 62 years old, Hart isn't going to Knoxville to bide his time waiting on Moore to retire.
It's a great hire for Tennessee. Hart is well-respected within NCAA circles, a very good administrator, and a professional.
It is that last word that is most important here. Because there are those vocal, whacked-out Tennessee fans who are already complaining about Tennessee hiring an "Alabama man'' as its athletic director. They see it as one more piece of the grand conspiracy to bring down the Vols, started by the hire of Jimmy Cheek from the University of Florida to be the new school president.
According to a certain mindset among college fans, you can't trust anybody that didn't come from your school, and certainly not anyone who comes from a rival school.
The belief - and I certainly faced it in Alabama - is that where you went to school determined your loyalty and agenda for the rest of your life.
I know it's a minority. But it's a loud minority, and quite frankly such thinking has become incredibly tiresome - and probably some of the reason you see so many 'fans' getting their beloved schools being put on probation.
Good news is, Dave Hart knows what he's getting into. The culture he steps into is not that different from the one he steps out of, or the one he left at Florida State before that.
Great hire by Tennessee, and good luck to Dave.
-- Remember the movie "Any Given Sunday?" Remember how whacked out those uniforms looked, particularly the Dallas Knights?
Given what we're seeing in college football this season - particularly Georgia Saturday and Maryland on Monday night, I'm thinking the Dallas Knights' unis are not looking so futuristic anymore.
I'm not a traditionalist (when it comes to uniforms). I admit I love the fact that Alabama and Auburn and Penn State and Michigan - among others - have classic looks that the schools don't mess with (although all have made minor changes over the years).
But if you can come up with a better looking uniform, do it.
Operative words: "Better looking."
-- If I were still a Harris voter (and I was from its inception until I left sports), I'd have to vote LSU No. 1 this week. In a clash between the two highest-rated teams on the first weekend, LSU - with its back-up quarterback - dominated.
LSU might not be the best team in college football over the long haul, but for this week, they deserve that designation.
-- Despite Ole Miss' loss to BYU, it was kind of cool to see Zach Stoudt play and play well (except that fumble at the end that turned into the winning points for BYU).
Zach's dad is Cliff Stoudt, former Pittsburgh Steelers, Birmingham Stallions, and St. Louis/Arizona Cardinals quarterback, and friend from my early days in Birmingham. He was never anything but a class act to me, and I always considered him a friend.
Who replaced Terry Bradshaw as the Steeler's quarterback? Stoudt. He was never forgiven for that by some Steeler fans, even though he guided Pittsburgh to the playoffs.
Happy for him that Zach has been named starter for Ole Miss. Zach throws the deep ball like his Daddy did - and that's a compliment.
-- It appears it's all but done that Texas A&M will join the SEC. As the old saying goes, nobody leaves without some place to go.
I'm surprised, because the SEC understood that the point was to split the greatest amount of money the fewest possible ways, which is what the SEC was doing with a 12-team conference. Clearly, if the SEC is adding A&M, they have to add a 14th team. I have no insight (that's not my job anymore).
But if they're going to get anybody from the ACC, it should be FSU. If Florida has to play FSU every year anyway, why not make it count? Plus, Miami is now an embarrassment to the ACC (as well as college football). FSU could use that as an excuse to distance itself from that program.
I'm sorry, I just don't think Virginia Tech brings enough to the table. FSU gives you great baseball tradition as well, plus an emerging basketball program.
And as Roy Kramer would tell you, geography is what has kept the SEC so profitable, filling stadiums every Saturday. Fans can drive from school to school. FSU fits that.
A&M is a stretch, but it allows LSU to renew a old, long-standing rivalry (the two used to play every year), and gives Arkansas another team closer to its history as well.
--- Now that Boise State beat Georgia, the Boise in Blue will be favored in every game from here on out; should win every game from here on out; and will be the one that causes all the controversy when the final BCS championship match-up is ready to be determined.
But Boise doesn't deserve it. I know - the point of college football these days is to be undefeated at the end. But how you go undefeated should matter. And Boise doesn't play anybody.
You can say it's not their fault, but they also shouldn't be rewarded for being in the situation they're in. Would Boise be this good playing in a big-time conference?
We don't know. But I don't think so.
- The University of Tennessee is hiring Dave Hart as its new Director of Athletics. Hart comes to Knoxville from the University of Alabama, where he was essentially running the day-to-day operations of the Crimson Tide athletic department for the last few years as Athletic Director Mal Moore's right-hand man.
I've known Dave Hart for years. An Alabama grad, he was the athletic director at East Carolina for 12 years before becoming the athletic director at Florida State for 12 years. Forced out at FSU during an internal power struggle, Hart landed back in Tuscaloosa where he was considered 'heir apparent' to Moore.
Obviously, at 62 years old, Hart isn't going to Knoxville to bide his time waiting on Moore to retire.
It's a great hire for Tennessee. Hart is well-respected within NCAA circles, a very good administrator, and a professional.
It is that last word that is most important here. Because there are those vocal, whacked-out Tennessee fans who are already complaining about Tennessee hiring an "Alabama man'' as its athletic director. They see it as one more piece of the grand conspiracy to bring down the Vols, started by the hire of Jimmy Cheek from the University of Florida to be the new school president.
According to a certain mindset among college fans, you can't trust anybody that didn't come from your school, and certainly not anyone who comes from a rival school.
The belief - and I certainly faced it in Alabama - is that where you went to school determined your loyalty and agenda for the rest of your life.
I know it's a minority. But it's a loud minority, and quite frankly such thinking has become incredibly tiresome - and probably some of the reason you see so many 'fans' getting their beloved schools being put on probation.
Good news is, Dave Hart knows what he's getting into. The culture he steps into is not that different from the one he steps out of, or the one he left at Florida State before that.
Great hire by Tennessee, and good luck to Dave.
-- Remember the movie "Any Given Sunday?" Remember how whacked out those uniforms looked, particularly the Dallas Knights?
I'm not a traditionalist (when it comes to uniforms). I admit I love the fact that Alabama and Auburn and Penn State and Michigan - among others - have classic looks that the schools don't mess with (although all have made minor changes over the years).
But if you can come up with a better looking uniform, do it.
Operative words: "Better looking."
-- If I were still a Harris voter (and I was from its inception until I left sports), I'd have to vote LSU No. 1 this week. In a clash between the two highest-rated teams on the first weekend, LSU - with its back-up quarterback - dominated.
LSU might not be the best team in college football over the long haul, but for this week, they deserve that designation.
-- Despite Ole Miss' loss to BYU, it was kind of cool to see Zach Stoudt play and play well (except that fumble at the end that turned into the winning points for BYU).
Zach's dad is Cliff Stoudt, former Pittsburgh Steelers, Birmingham Stallions, and St. Louis/Arizona Cardinals quarterback, and friend from my early days in Birmingham. He was never anything but a class act to me, and I always considered him a friend.
Who replaced Terry Bradshaw as the Steeler's quarterback? Stoudt. He was never forgiven for that by some Steeler fans, even though he guided Pittsburgh to the playoffs.
Happy for him that Zach has been named starter for Ole Miss. Zach throws the deep ball like his Daddy did - and that's a compliment.
-- It appears it's all but done that Texas A&M will join the SEC. As the old saying goes, nobody leaves without some place to go.
I'm surprised, because the SEC understood that the point was to split the greatest amount of money the fewest possible ways, which is what the SEC was doing with a 12-team conference. Clearly, if the SEC is adding A&M, they have to add a 14th team. I have no insight (that's not my job anymore).
But if they're going to get anybody from the ACC, it should be FSU. If Florida has to play FSU every year anyway, why not make it count? Plus, Miami is now an embarrassment to the ACC (as well as college football). FSU could use that as an excuse to distance itself from that program.
I'm sorry, I just don't think Virginia Tech brings enough to the table. FSU gives you great baseball tradition as well, plus an emerging basketball program.
And as Roy Kramer would tell you, geography is what has kept the SEC so profitable, filling stadiums every Saturday. Fans can drive from school to school. FSU fits that.
A&M is a stretch, but it allows LSU to renew a old, long-standing rivalry (the two used to play every year), and gives Arkansas another team closer to its history as well.
--- Now that Boise State beat Georgia, the Boise in Blue will be favored in every game from here on out; should win every game from here on out; and will be the one that causes all the controversy when the final BCS championship match-up is ready to be determined.
But Boise doesn't deserve it. I know - the point of college football these days is to be undefeated at the end. But how you go undefeated should matter. And Boise doesn't play anybody.
You can say it's not their fault, but they also shouldn't be rewarded for being in the situation they're in. Would Boise be this good playing in a big-time conference?
We don't know. But I don't think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)