This past year’s flu season has not been terribly severe but in 1918, that was not the case. If you are the type of person who feels the flu is not a big deal, you are horribly mistaken. What happened in 1918 is proof of the seriousness of influenza. If you have never heard of the 1918 influenza epidemic, you are not alone. Few know much about it and the danger it posed. Part of the reason is that it happened in the waning days of World War I (by the way, the more important world conflict of the 20th-century). However, the epidemic would destroy communities, crush people’s faith in the nascent science of medicine and force the survivors to drive it from their conscience.
Known, erroneously, as the Spanish Flu, the influenza outbreak of 1918 killed more people over the course of a single year than the Plague did over a four year period. It began as a bad string of illness in western Kansas but it was not until it hit Fort Riley, an Army base in central Kansas that it claimed its first fatalities. Yet, while dangerous and potentially deadly, it was still just a bad strain and kept among soldiers. The spread of the disease and its deadly mutation did not occur until soldiers from Kansas and throughout the country jammed into ships to sail across the Atlantic for the war effort. On the battlefields, the flu spread, mutated and impacted Allied and Central Power forces. As wounded and returning soldiers reached the United States, the disease began ripping through Army hospitals. It would not remain contained. Soon, it spilled out into Boston, New York and other eastern cities. The shocking thing about the 1918 influenza strain was that a healthy person could fall ill and die within a day. As the disease spread, doctors were simply not able to catch up. It was happening too fast.
As the disease entered the civilian world, it tore through communities at an astonishing speed and ferocity. An amazing characteristic of the influenza was that it seemed to target the healthiest and the strongest. Typically, a disease will feed off the weak, the very old and the very young. While they suffered, the influenza strain also struck down the hale and hearty. In Philadelphia, one day in early October saw the death of 700 and over the course of the month, 11,000 perished. A week after Minnesota recorded its first case, Minneapolis alone saw more than 1,000 cases. The spread of the disease was intensified by public gatherings for draft summons, war bonds rallies, patriotic speeches and in November 1918, the celebration of the end of the war. Over the course of the disease, it would take more than 675,000 lives – far surpassing what the U.S. loss in the combined efforts in World War I, II, Korea and Viet Nam. Worldwide, it led to the death of 25 million people.
At the onset of the epidemic, doctors were not aware of what was killing people. The first recorded deaths back in Kansas were listed as pneumonia. Once it was identified as influenza, doctors set out to find some way to cure the disease. However, in those days, doctors thought the cause of the disease was a bacterium and sought to create a vaccine. From time to time, doctors claimed to find a possible solution but nothing ever materialized or proved effective. People continued to die at an alarming rate. The end of the influenza strain was a bit of luck as the weather turned cold. November saw a huge drop in the number of deaths. Secondly, the disease simply ran through all those who were susceptible.
It is a shocking period of history but people sought to put it out of their mind as quickly as possible. Other things over the subsequent decades would occupy our time – runaway prosperity, economic depression, another war, a cold war. As an historian, I find the topic intensely interesting and does it not stoke a curiosity? There are some resources out there if one wants to delve deeper. Use it to better understand what was not presented to you, likely, in your education. Today, news media love to play up the possibility of rampant spreading diseases but seldom does the impact match their prognostications. It is to a point where we don’t take the news seriously. Yet, there was a time when the flu killed at a horrifying rate. It could happen again. It is worth your time to study.
For more information on the influenza epidemic, check out the following sources:
John M. Barry’s The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History. What is so great about this source is that it also provides a history of medical research in the U.S. It was the source of much of the information in this article.
Alfred W. Crosby’s America’s Forgotten Pandemic: The Influenza of 1918.
The PBS American Experience documentary, Influenza, 1918.
Friday, December 30, 2011
What I Wish We Had
Between my years in the military and my time schlepping students about Europe and Asia, I’ve experienced a great deal and seen many things. Some things I treasure and I think about often. When people ask me what I liked the most about a trip, it is a question like this that draws my mind back to unique cultural traits that, at the time, left me thinking, I wish we had this back home.
I sometimes experience different faiths and from time to time, I wonder why we don’t have certain things in my faith. One, how much better would my faith be if I could have the temples with mountains as a backdrop like the open spaced Shinto ones I’ve seen in Japan. When I visit these temples, I pray to my own God but what a beautiful way to experience him (or her). While serving in the Middle East, there was no more wonderful and sublime experience than greeting the day with the call to prayer (adhan) by the nearby muezzin. I can’t quite explain the experience but it filled me with a peace and a calmness that is not inherent in my typical mornings. I visited a Hindu temple once in Dallas and the smells and sights of the place beat the sterilized and carpeted suburbia of typical churches. Have you ever noticed that most churches, especially the Protestant ones, smell the same?
I wish Vietnamese restaurants were more ubiquitous than they are now. There is no more perfect food than a large, steaming bowl of pho. The combination of a perfectly constructed broth, noodles, greens and meat, with some bean sprouts and cilantro sprinkled on top is the kind of food that has brought people together in peace. I wish the most fervent wish that our Congress had a “president’s questions” time the way the British House of Commons have with their prime minister. Many of Britain’s former colonies have the same set up in their lower House but for some reason, we decided to be a bit more “civilized.” Can you imagine Presidents Obama or Bush having to rationalize their policies to a jeering, doubtful and questioning opposition? It would, overnight, restore interest in our political system. If you are not familiar with this, check out CSPAN on Sunday night and watch with rapt interest in Prime Minister David Cameron and his opposition parry and thrust. The most positive consequence is that it would foster a political class more capable of explaining themselves.
To round out my recollections, there is a set of peculiarities I’ve seen in other countries I’d like to see more of in the U.S. In Japan, they have holes in the streets that shoot up hot water when the streets are covered by snow. I also like the Japanese stores with parking on the roof. In an attempt to save space, Japanese businesses (like a grocery store) take advantage of all the space atop the building. Genius. I once visited a roof top bar and pool in Manama in Bahrain. We have these spotted throughout the U.S. but not nearly enough. I love the bakery specific shops in Germany and France that allows one to grab fresh bread without going through a massive Target or Wal-Mart to get to it. The only bakeries we have are the doughnut and kolaches places which, though fine food, are not the same. Additionally in Germany, they have figured out a way to limit urban sprawl. Their communities are tightly packed and complete with the various services needed without pointlessly tearing up landscape.
It should be said that I love the United States. I feel it is the greatest country in the world and certainly, the most beautiful. However, my travels have allowed me to experience how other cultures have attempted to solve common problems. Some things I like and would love to see in the U.S. and other things the Americans do better. I have more exploring to do. I want to visit India, Mongolia, Ethiopia, Peru and Iceland, among others. I have so many places I want to visit, I may not have time for a future family. That said, I might not have time for a job.
I sometimes experience different faiths and from time to time, I wonder why we don’t have certain things in my faith. One, how much better would my faith be if I could have the temples with mountains as a backdrop like the open spaced Shinto ones I’ve seen in Japan. When I visit these temples, I pray to my own God but what a beautiful way to experience him (or her). While serving in the Middle East, there was no more wonderful and sublime experience than greeting the day with the call to prayer (adhan) by the nearby muezzin. I can’t quite explain the experience but it filled me with a peace and a calmness that is not inherent in my typical mornings. I visited a Hindu temple once in Dallas and the smells and sights of the place beat the sterilized and carpeted suburbia of typical churches. Have you ever noticed that most churches, especially the Protestant ones, smell the same?
I wish Vietnamese restaurants were more ubiquitous than they are now. There is no more perfect food than a large, steaming bowl of pho. The combination of a perfectly constructed broth, noodles, greens and meat, with some bean sprouts and cilantro sprinkled on top is the kind of food that has brought people together in peace. I wish the most fervent wish that our Congress had a “president’s questions” time the way the British House of Commons have with their prime minister. Many of Britain’s former colonies have the same set up in their lower House but for some reason, we decided to be a bit more “civilized.” Can you imagine Presidents Obama or Bush having to rationalize their policies to a jeering, doubtful and questioning opposition? It would, overnight, restore interest in our political system. If you are not familiar with this, check out CSPAN on Sunday night and watch with rapt interest in Prime Minister David Cameron and his opposition parry and thrust. The most positive consequence is that it would foster a political class more capable of explaining themselves.
To round out my recollections, there is a set of peculiarities I’ve seen in other countries I’d like to see more of in the U.S. In Japan, they have holes in the streets that shoot up hot water when the streets are covered by snow. I also like the Japanese stores with parking on the roof. In an attempt to save space, Japanese businesses (like a grocery store) take advantage of all the space atop the building. Genius. I once visited a roof top bar and pool in Manama in Bahrain. We have these spotted throughout the U.S. but not nearly enough. I love the bakery specific shops in Germany and France that allows one to grab fresh bread without going through a massive Target or Wal-Mart to get to it. The only bakeries we have are the doughnut and kolaches places which, though fine food, are not the same. Additionally in Germany, they have figured out a way to limit urban sprawl. Their communities are tightly packed and complete with the various services needed without pointlessly tearing up landscape.
It should be said that I love the United States. I feel it is the greatest country in the world and certainly, the most beautiful. However, my travels have allowed me to experience how other cultures have attempted to solve common problems. Some things I like and would love to see in the U.S. and other things the Americans do better. I have more exploring to do. I want to visit India, Mongolia, Ethiopia, Peru and Iceland, among others. I have so many places I want to visit, I may not have time for a future family. That said, I might not have time for a job.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Not Your Father's Protest
One of the lasting impressions of the Occupy Wall Street movement that swept the country is the rather vapid nature of the protestors’ arguments and their inability to express their point beyond the slogans they yell at the top of their lungs. The Egyptian revolution that booted Hosni Mubarak from power have replaced his autocratic rule with two parties who have not shown the capacity or the ideological wherewithal to implement the democracy so craved by those in the streets. What is the reasoning for these two scenarios? It might have much to do with social networking.
The counter-culture movement of the late 1960s can be described in many ways, and has. However, the essence of the movement was a set of literature, discussions and an evangelist’s zeal to recruit and spread the message. Authors like Hermann Hesse, Jack Kerouac and Henry David Thoreau heavily influenced the movement, as did the eastern philosophies; each used to reject the predominant culture of the country. The movement also depended on group discussions to work through their philosophy. Whether gathered in salons or bars, the movement was dependent upon the person’s ability to express and explain his or her ideas. Lastly, the leaders of the movement were able to go throughout a campus or an area and make their point, argue against those who disagreed with them and string together cogent arguments. Personally, I think the counter-culture movement was filled with naïve and spoiled children whose arguments were Pollyanna but they studied, they read and had the capacity to make their point. Today’s social networking undermines what used to be necessary for protests.
Let’s take the example of Egypt. What best explains a movement to get rid of one dictatorship in lieu of two; two political parties that do not treasure or purport democracy or participatory government? Social networking and media are not a medium for an exchange of ideas but of slogans and chants. Yet, when one is speaking of ideas as complex and potentially dangerous as the protest against government, it would behoove activists to have a clearer idea and goal in mind than just removing a leader. I sincerely believe the reason for the elections of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi, if I’m to believe the rationale for the jettison of Mr. Mubarak, is due to a lack of a discussion and lack of consensus on what type of government they wished. While it may be true that the two groups are more connected to Egyptian values and culture, they do not express what the protestors said they wanted – a greater political voice, more say in the running of the government. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi do not represent a possible government that would tolerate too much opposition. Recent further unrest, I’m afraid, are a sign of things to come for the mis-represented Egyptian people.
In the United States, the voice of the 99% is as incoherent and divergent as one would expect from 99% of anything. They speak in slogans that are material for their posterboards. The vast majority of people at some of the larger protests do not seek the betterment of society but the destruction of the same. Indeed, their numbers suggest they are actually the 1%, if that. There is no literature or search for truth in these protestors. The fact that they are content with the slogans and mantras and signs suggest that the truth holds no interest. The protests and the gatherings are spontaneous in the worst sense of the word. They exist without an examination of the facts of their case. They exist without an examination of possible solutions. Indeed, these protests exist without much thinking at all. They were the product of “meet here” and “click like” if you embraced the idea of muddling up the works.
It is not that things are perfect or that a people do not have the right to want a better government. However, the organization of these movements lacks the information and forethought about what to do once they have grabbed the world’s attention. Social critic Neil Postman said, “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.” The egoism to demand change but the passivity that prevents study. Sound familiar?
The counter-culture movement of the late 1960s can be described in many ways, and has. However, the essence of the movement was a set of literature, discussions and an evangelist’s zeal to recruit and spread the message. Authors like Hermann Hesse, Jack Kerouac and Henry David Thoreau heavily influenced the movement, as did the eastern philosophies; each used to reject the predominant culture of the country. The movement also depended on group discussions to work through their philosophy. Whether gathered in salons or bars, the movement was dependent upon the person’s ability to express and explain his or her ideas. Lastly, the leaders of the movement were able to go throughout a campus or an area and make their point, argue against those who disagreed with them and string together cogent arguments. Personally, I think the counter-culture movement was filled with naïve and spoiled children whose arguments were Pollyanna but they studied, they read and had the capacity to make their point. Today’s social networking undermines what used to be necessary for protests.
Let’s take the example of Egypt. What best explains a movement to get rid of one dictatorship in lieu of two; two political parties that do not treasure or purport democracy or participatory government? Social networking and media are not a medium for an exchange of ideas but of slogans and chants. Yet, when one is speaking of ideas as complex and potentially dangerous as the protest against government, it would behoove activists to have a clearer idea and goal in mind than just removing a leader. I sincerely believe the reason for the elections of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi, if I’m to believe the rationale for the jettison of Mr. Mubarak, is due to a lack of a discussion and lack of consensus on what type of government they wished. While it may be true that the two groups are more connected to Egyptian values and culture, they do not express what the protestors said they wanted – a greater political voice, more say in the running of the government. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi do not represent a possible government that would tolerate too much opposition. Recent further unrest, I’m afraid, are a sign of things to come for the mis-represented Egyptian people.
In the United States, the voice of the 99% is as incoherent and divergent as one would expect from 99% of anything. They speak in slogans that are material for their posterboards. The vast majority of people at some of the larger protests do not seek the betterment of society but the destruction of the same. Indeed, their numbers suggest they are actually the 1%, if that. There is no literature or search for truth in these protestors. The fact that they are content with the slogans and mantras and signs suggest that the truth holds no interest. The protests and the gatherings are spontaneous in the worst sense of the word. They exist without an examination of the facts of their case. They exist without an examination of possible solutions. Indeed, these protests exist without much thinking at all. They were the product of “meet here” and “click like” if you embraced the idea of muddling up the works.
It is not that things are perfect or that a people do not have the right to want a better government. However, the organization of these movements lacks the information and forethought about what to do once they have grabbed the world’s attention. Social critic Neil Postman said, “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.” The egoism to demand change but the passivity that prevents study. Sound familiar?
Monday, December 19, 2011
The Death of Kim Jong Il
“For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings…
…for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp…”
Richard II, William Shakespeare
Over the weekend, Americans heard the first word of the death of North Korea’s Kim Jong Il; the enigmatic, irrational, dangerous and bizarre leader of the “hermit” country. In his place, an even more mysterious figure, Kim Jong Un, to take the mantle of dictatorship. However, dictatorship does not begin to explain the depth of control exercised by the North Korean government. It is the level of control and the near brainwashed-like level of devotion that makes Kim Jong Il’s death so disturbing and so potentially dangerous.
Immediately, markets dropped throughout Asia, with South Korea’s market dropping the most as they stand in the shadow of the mysterious country. South Korea’s military, understandably, went on high alert. Japan and China must also be wary of what the death of Kim Jong Il must mean to the region, in particular and the world, in general. Increasing the concern is the size and devotion of the North Korean military – a million-strong force said to be the fifth largest in the world. While China has some influence on the country, it might not be able to control the series of events that could impact its neighbor.
There are two major areas of concern that many analysts are highlighting. The first deals the unpreparedness of Kim Jong Un. While in his late twenties or early thirties, there is not much thought that he is in a position to run the country without being some type of puppet. Who would be pulling the strings of the young marionette? There are rivalries that exist within the family, with the eldest son, Kim Jung Nam, safely in China, criticizing the order of succession. What makes him all the more intriguing is that he is a “reformer.” Would it be enough to bring North Korea from the cold should Kim Jong Un prove not ready for the bright lights?
The other area of concern lies with the three organizations within the government constantly fighting for influence and power – the party, the military and the Cabinet. According to the BBC, the military has seen a large increase of power and influence in the term of Kim Jong Il but each group has its hopes.
So, what do the surrounding countries and the U.S. do? First, I’m not sure how many messages of condolences will be forthcoming. Hard to express sympathy for one who is responsible for the utter destruction of the country’s agricultural sector, that has led to widespread starvation and poverty and ultimately, countless deaths. South Korea obviously has the most to worry about. However, its military might will not be enough in the event of a young ruler looking to display his feathers. This will bring the U.S. and its allies into the mix. To make matters worse, there is not a great deal that President Obama can do but to react best to a quickly developing situation. For Japan, its relatively small military will place it at risk should Pyongyang decide to instigate conflict. Russia has lost contact with North Korea, cutting off annual funds since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And so, if there is to be one country who stands at the greatest position of influence, it is China.
China has always viewed North Korea as the “crazy little brother” that they must protect. However, North Korea is already showing a troubling tendency. Shortly before the announcement of the death of Kim Jong Il, reports suggested several test rockets were fired along the east coast of the country. The biggest thing that the Americans, Koreans and the Japanese can do is to prepare militarily. Former ambassador to China under Barack Obama, John Huntsman, who is also a Republican candidate for president, has suggested the possibility for hope but the U.S. and the world community cannot count on that. There is simply not enough information to know for sure. Shakespeare’s Richard II was a character whose actions led to his destruction. Kim Jong Il’s actions destroyed a country and killed, potentially, millions. History abhors a vacuum and the united nations can only hope that what comes next is better than before. Hopefully.
And tell sad stories of the death of kings…
…for within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp…”
Richard II, William Shakespeare
Over the weekend, Americans heard the first word of the death of North Korea’s Kim Jong Il; the enigmatic, irrational, dangerous and bizarre leader of the “hermit” country. In his place, an even more mysterious figure, Kim Jong Un, to take the mantle of dictatorship. However, dictatorship does not begin to explain the depth of control exercised by the North Korean government. It is the level of control and the near brainwashed-like level of devotion that makes Kim Jong Il’s death so disturbing and so potentially dangerous.
Immediately, markets dropped throughout Asia, with South Korea’s market dropping the most as they stand in the shadow of the mysterious country. South Korea’s military, understandably, went on high alert. Japan and China must also be wary of what the death of Kim Jong Il must mean to the region, in particular and the world, in general. Increasing the concern is the size and devotion of the North Korean military – a million-strong force said to be the fifth largest in the world. While China has some influence on the country, it might not be able to control the series of events that could impact its neighbor.
There are two major areas of concern that many analysts are highlighting. The first deals the unpreparedness of Kim Jong Un. While in his late twenties or early thirties, there is not much thought that he is in a position to run the country without being some type of puppet. Who would be pulling the strings of the young marionette? There are rivalries that exist within the family, with the eldest son, Kim Jung Nam, safely in China, criticizing the order of succession. What makes him all the more intriguing is that he is a “reformer.” Would it be enough to bring North Korea from the cold should Kim Jong Un prove not ready for the bright lights?
The other area of concern lies with the three organizations within the government constantly fighting for influence and power – the party, the military and the Cabinet. According to the BBC, the military has seen a large increase of power and influence in the term of Kim Jong Il but each group has its hopes.
So, what do the surrounding countries and the U.S. do? First, I’m not sure how many messages of condolences will be forthcoming. Hard to express sympathy for one who is responsible for the utter destruction of the country’s agricultural sector, that has led to widespread starvation and poverty and ultimately, countless deaths. South Korea obviously has the most to worry about. However, its military might will not be enough in the event of a young ruler looking to display his feathers. This will bring the U.S. and its allies into the mix. To make matters worse, there is not a great deal that President Obama can do but to react best to a quickly developing situation. For Japan, its relatively small military will place it at risk should Pyongyang decide to instigate conflict. Russia has lost contact with North Korea, cutting off annual funds since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And so, if there is to be one country who stands at the greatest position of influence, it is China.
China has always viewed North Korea as the “crazy little brother” that they must protect. However, North Korea is already showing a troubling tendency. Shortly before the announcement of the death of Kim Jong Il, reports suggested several test rockets were fired along the east coast of the country. The biggest thing that the Americans, Koreans and the Japanese can do is to prepare militarily. Former ambassador to China under Barack Obama, John Huntsman, who is also a Republican candidate for president, has suggested the possibility for hope but the U.S. and the world community cannot count on that. There is simply not enough information to know for sure. Shakespeare’s Richard II was a character whose actions led to his destruction. Kim Jong Il’s actions destroyed a country and killed, potentially, millions. History abhors a vacuum and the united nations can only hope that what comes next is better than before. Hopefully.
Friday, December 16, 2011
No Virginia, the Government Does Not Have All the Answers
I was watching the news the other day and a story was being run on the state of the economy in Iowa. In an interview with a woman, she mentioned that she can no longer depend on the government because she no longer trusts the politicians. The reporter speculated that the sentiment was a dangerous sign for the future of effective government and suggested the anecdote represented a divide that must be bridged in government’s effort to fix the economy.
Yet, that was not the impression from which I walked away. During the 1992 presidential election campaign, President George H.W. Bush was debating Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and Texas businessman Ross Perot and the three were engaged in a town-hall style debate – the first of its kind. During audience questioning, a young man posed a challenge in which he suggested that the government and the future president is like a parent and the American citizens were his children. The man asked what each candidate would do for his children. In the scope of presidential debate highlights, this does not get a great deal of play. However, it was a question that was and is symptomatic of some thinking today. From where does this attitude originate?
The short and easy answer is the New Deal. President Franklin D. Roosevelt put in place a series of programs that set up the government as instrumental in caring or providing for those who are in need. However, as transformative as the New Deal was to the power of the president in particular and of government in general, people throughout the 1940s and 1950s did not change greatly compared to those of the 1910s and 1920s. At the height of progressive and liberal governance, people were not swayed to surrender their notions completely. It was not until the 1960s, when arose a group of people mostly from affluent and comfortable families who crowded the streets and complained about the system that provided an unprecedented standard of living. The hippies were not just complaining about the war but rejecting the values that provided for their college tuition and allowed them the flexibility to protest rather than work for a living. A generation of spoiled brats began to radically change how government should operate.
President Theodore Roosevelt, in explaining his Square Deal three decades prior to his cousin’s presidency, suggested the goal was not to ensure success. How each man played the cards dealt to him was his affair. However, the government should ensure there is “no crookedness in the dealing.” The difference between equality of opportunity and the equality of success is dangerous to democracy. The government who looks upon the people as children is one that operates under a mindset of paternalism and superiority. By surrendering one’s own ability to care for themselves, as the questioner in the 1992 presidential debate was willing to do, we give the government way more power that it was ever intended and created to hold.
In the 1960s, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater suggested that a government big enough to give a citizen all he or she needs, is big enough to take it all away. So, perhaps the Iowa woman is right and historically more aligned with her predecessors a century or two ago. Why wait for the government? Why wait for people who are not directly connected to you and your family? Why wait for a monolithic institution that was never meant to answer the individual’s needs, only the country’s needs? The sooner Americans break their addiction and dependence upon the government and begin to depend upon their own talent and abilities, perhaps the better off we will be.
Yet, that was not the impression from which I walked away. During the 1992 presidential election campaign, President George H.W. Bush was debating Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and Texas businessman Ross Perot and the three were engaged in a town-hall style debate – the first of its kind. During audience questioning, a young man posed a challenge in which he suggested that the government and the future president is like a parent and the American citizens were his children. The man asked what each candidate would do for his children. In the scope of presidential debate highlights, this does not get a great deal of play. However, it was a question that was and is symptomatic of some thinking today. From where does this attitude originate?
The short and easy answer is the New Deal. President Franklin D. Roosevelt put in place a series of programs that set up the government as instrumental in caring or providing for those who are in need. However, as transformative as the New Deal was to the power of the president in particular and of government in general, people throughout the 1940s and 1950s did not change greatly compared to those of the 1910s and 1920s. At the height of progressive and liberal governance, people were not swayed to surrender their notions completely. It was not until the 1960s, when arose a group of people mostly from affluent and comfortable families who crowded the streets and complained about the system that provided an unprecedented standard of living. The hippies were not just complaining about the war but rejecting the values that provided for their college tuition and allowed them the flexibility to protest rather than work for a living. A generation of spoiled brats began to radically change how government should operate.
President Theodore Roosevelt, in explaining his Square Deal three decades prior to his cousin’s presidency, suggested the goal was not to ensure success. How each man played the cards dealt to him was his affair. However, the government should ensure there is “no crookedness in the dealing.” The difference between equality of opportunity and the equality of success is dangerous to democracy. The government who looks upon the people as children is one that operates under a mindset of paternalism and superiority. By surrendering one’s own ability to care for themselves, as the questioner in the 1992 presidential debate was willing to do, we give the government way more power that it was ever intended and created to hold.
In the 1960s, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater suggested that a government big enough to give a citizen all he or she needs, is big enough to take it all away. So, perhaps the Iowa woman is right and historically more aligned with her predecessors a century or two ago. Why wait for the government? Why wait for people who are not directly connected to you and your family? Why wait for a monolithic institution that was never meant to answer the individual’s needs, only the country’s needs? The sooner Americans break their addiction and dependence upon the government and begin to depend upon their own talent and abilities, perhaps the better off we will be.
Friday, December 9, 2011
A Little Revolution Now and Again…
Egyptians have shaken off the dictatorship they long resented and have the political power they have long craved. Given the history of autocrats that have ruled the country since the Nasser-led coup in 1952, it is surprising that the Egyptians would vote for groups without much connection to and respect for democratic rule. The military has stepped in and commandeered the election process by suggesting that the elections were not valid given the unstable conditions of the country and the fact that not all members of Egyptian society are represented in the proportional parliament.
This is an interesting dilemma for the Obama administration. It abdicated responsibility when the Egyptian uprising began, content to lob condemnation of Mr. Mubarak from afar. Worse, after the uprising was complete, it did not see a role in helping Egyptians prepare for and conduct a proper election. Furthermore, with “Islamists” taking some two-thirds of the Egyptian parliament, the government could be in the hands of an organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, that many Western powers fear and do not trust.
The current military rulers, making up the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), is likely equally unsure about the Muslim Brotherhood and what its leadership would mean to the rule of the country, the upholding of its treaties and the threat it would pose to other countries. These threats would have to be defended by the military. Increasing the military’s unease with the recent election results is the connection between it and Western advisors over the decades.
What makes matters worse, if the West believes that the winning parties (the Muslim Brotherhood and the more conservative Nour Party) are ultimately dangerous to Egypt’s neighbors and the West’s allies, they have lost the opportunity to do anything about it. To some degree, when one pushes for democracy, you have to accept and deal with the results. Are these organizations good for Egypt? It is difficult to think so from afar but for ordinary Egyptians, they apparently think so.
The Muslim Brotherhood has had its collective noses pressed against the division between it and the power structure for decades. It has clamored for recognition and political power and now, it is on the cusp of having it. Yet, the military will not let it come easily. Will the measures of the SCAF turn the populace against the military? Will more protests and perhaps, riots, take place? If so, what role does the West play? If the U.S. and Europe come in on the side of the military, it will further ensconce our image as anti-Arab and pro-anything-that-favors-the-west.
From afar, it is difficult to trust the Muslim Brotherhood. Its intentions and its stance on Egypt’s long held treaties (more importantly with Israel) cannot be trusted. It has a record of speeches and declarations that stretches for the better part of a century that defines the organization. The Brotherhood will likely have its chance to rule and do so responsibly. I hope it rises to the challenge.
This is an interesting dilemma for the Obama administration. It abdicated responsibility when the Egyptian uprising began, content to lob condemnation of Mr. Mubarak from afar. Worse, after the uprising was complete, it did not see a role in helping Egyptians prepare for and conduct a proper election. Furthermore, with “Islamists” taking some two-thirds of the Egyptian parliament, the government could be in the hands of an organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, that many Western powers fear and do not trust.
The current military rulers, making up the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), is likely equally unsure about the Muslim Brotherhood and what its leadership would mean to the rule of the country, the upholding of its treaties and the threat it would pose to other countries. These threats would have to be defended by the military. Increasing the military’s unease with the recent election results is the connection between it and Western advisors over the decades.
What makes matters worse, if the West believes that the winning parties (the Muslim Brotherhood and the more conservative Nour Party) are ultimately dangerous to Egypt’s neighbors and the West’s allies, they have lost the opportunity to do anything about it. To some degree, when one pushes for democracy, you have to accept and deal with the results. Are these organizations good for Egypt? It is difficult to think so from afar but for ordinary Egyptians, they apparently think so.
The Muslim Brotherhood has had its collective noses pressed against the division between it and the power structure for decades. It has clamored for recognition and political power and now, it is on the cusp of having it. Yet, the military will not let it come easily. Will the measures of the SCAF turn the populace against the military? Will more protests and perhaps, riots, take place? If so, what role does the West play? If the U.S. and Europe come in on the side of the military, it will further ensconce our image as anti-Arab and pro-anything-that-favors-the-west.
From afar, it is difficult to trust the Muslim Brotherhood. Its intentions and its stance on Egypt’s long held treaties (more importantly with Israel) cannot be trusted. It has a record of speeches and declarations that stretches for the better part of a century that defines the organization. The Brotherhood will likely have its chance to rule and do so responsibly. I hope it rises to the challenge.
Friday, December 2, 2011
What’s in a Grade?
Since the time I began teaching, I was told of the wonders of the highly motivated student – the one who constantly strives to get the best grade. This is the student that knows the most and wants to know more. This is the student that offsets the ambivalent, disengaged one who clutters up the roll sheet and drags down the class as a whole. This is the student who will go on to achieve the greatest of all of his or her peers. As a teacher, I have many students who could be classified as highly motivated. However, the extent to which I treasure these students has waned over the years.
My attitude towards these students is never personal – it is professional. However, I have taught these students for sixteen years in high school, including three years at a local community college. In that time, I’ve come to understand the danger of these students. In Matthew 6:24, it reads that, “No man can serve two masters…Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” So it is with students. One can either achieve for knowledge or achieve for an “A” but one cannot do both.
The pursuit of knowledge is compromised by the government officials that seek test scores as affirmations of success. It is undermined by the school officials who stress that all of their children are headed to college – and certainly should be. It is undermined by parents who stress a letter as the highest level of achievement of their child. It is undermined by the teacher who constantly re-affirms that the grade is the most important goal. Lastly, it is undermined by the student who places their effort to achieve a letter over their effort to better understand something.
I teach Advanced Placement World and U.S. History classes. I have the grade-mongering students who will pore over the terms for each unit in preparation for a unit exam. In the interim, they will read and I will discuss the context – the history – of which the terms are a part. When I write up a test, I pose questions based on the terms but occasionally, as an experiment, I will ask questions based on the terms within the context. Because the grade-mongers see only the terms as the path to success on the unit exam, that is all they study and they will not go beyond. Therefore, they will nail the fact-based questions using information of the terms but to talk about the terms in context, they fail and are frustrated every time. The goal is not to completely understand the information but to learn what is needed to make a passing grade. The gaps in their knowledge are even more evident when I hold conversations for a test grade. My feeling is if they can carry on a five- to ten-minute conversation with me on a particular subject, then they know the information. They seldom show such knowledge. It is not a pursuit of knowledge these kids are concerned with; it is the perversion of the pursuit of knowledge of which they are guilty.
A colleague of mine and I have given much thought to what should be in place of grades. It is not enough to say, “We are not going to hand out grades.” At the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, they have a place called the “sweat room.” It is here that students await for their time in front of a panel where they will justify their earning credit for a particular field of study. Likewise, we would like to create a school where a student earns a “passing” or “failing” grade by speaking with a panel of three teachers and having to defend their knowledge. It is much more challenging and more comprehensive a process than the current grading system. On a practical level, this type of model is not conducive to the school system in its current form. Changes would have to be made. At present, as my colleague and good friend is fond of saying, high schools today are simply tools for universities and businesses – we help them by categorizing and labeling students to their benefit.
To some extent, it is not the kids’ fault. The blame lies with the government officials, the school leaders, the teachers and the parents. We are raising a generation of people chasing success and not chasing knowledge. There are those, both in and out of education, who have boiled the pursuit of knowledge down to future occupation or wage-earnings and I can’t think of a more depressing thought. The more we come up with fancy computer programs or various initiatives to find a way to motivate our kids to embrace the cult of success, the less knowledgeable they will become. Socrates worried about the student who depended upon outside sources as a means of knowledge and complained about those who, “will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.”
My attitude towards these students is never personal – it is professional. However, I have taught these students for sixteen years in high school, including three years at a local community college. In that time, I’ve come to understand the danger of these students. In Matthew 6:24, it reads that, “No man can serve two masters…Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” So it is with students. One can either achieve for knowledge or achieve for an “A” but one cannot do both.
The pursuit of knowledge is compromised by the government officials that seek test scores as affirmations of success. It is undermined by the school officials who stress that all of their children are headed to college – and certainly should be. It is undermined by parents who stress a letter as the highest level of achievement of their child. It is undermined by the teacher who constantly re-affirms that the grade is the most important goal. Lastly, it is undermined by the student who places their effort to achieve a letter over their effort to better understand something.
I teach Advanced Placement World and U.S. History classes. I have the grade-mongering students who will pore over the terms for each unit in preparation for a unit exam. In the interim, they will read and I will discuss the context – the history – of which the terms are a part. When I write up a test, I pose questions based on the terms but occasionally, as an experiment, I will ask questions based on the terms within the context. Because the grade-mongers see only the terms as the path to success on the unit exam, that is all they study and they will not go beyond. Therefore, they will nail the fact-based questions using information of the terms but to talk about the terms in context, they fail and are frustrated every time. The goal is not to completely understand the information but to learn what is needed to make a passing grade. The gaps in their knowledge are even more evident when I hold conversations for a test grade. My feeling is if they can carry on a five- to ten-minute conversation with me on a particular subject, then they know the information. They seldom show such knowledge. It is not a pursuit of knowledge these kids are concerned with; it is the perversion of the pursuit of knowledge of which they are guilty.
A colleague of mine and I have given much thought to what should be in place of grades. It is not enough to say, “We are not going to hand out grades.” At the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, they have a place called the “sweat room.” It is here that students await for their time in front of a panel where they will justify their earning credit for a particular field of study. Likewise, we would like to create a school where a student earns a “passing” or “failing” grade by speaking with a panel of three teachers and having to defend their knowledge. It is much more challenging and more comprehensive a process than the current grading system. On a practical level, this type of model is not conducive to the school system in its current form. Changes would have to be made. At present, as my colleague and good friend is fond of saying, high schools today are simply tools for universities and businesses – we help them by categorizing and labeling students to their benefit.
To some extent, it is not the kids’ fault. The blame lies with the government officials, the school leaders, the teachers and the parents. We are raising a generation of people chasing success and not chasing knowledge. There are those, both in and out of education, who have boiled the pursuit of knowledge down to future occupation or wage-earnings and I can’t think of a more depressing thought. The more we come up with fancy computer programs or various initiatives to find a way to motivate our kids to embrace the cult of success, the less knowledgeable they will become. Socrates worried about the student who depended upon outside sources as a means of knowledge and complained about those who, “will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.”
Friday, November 25, 2011
The Meaning of Bikkurim
When I hear people thank others, it can be automatic and without emotion or sincerity. For sure, others say it with a great deal of honesty and feeling; however, the expression of thanks is teetering on the meaninglessness of “how are you.” When we ask people this, we are often not really asking but using it as an expression of greeting. Similarly, the expression of “thanks” is done absent of the emotion and simply as a way to end a conversation or to transition.
In Deuteronomy, bikkurim was an expression of thanks by farmers providing a sample of the first crops to the local temple. This concept is not foreign to Christians as they are asked to tithe 10% of their income. In Islam, one of the five pillars of the faith is the responsibility of charity, zakat. By giving to those less fortunate or to those in need (or to God), we are showing thankfulness for that which we have been given. Additionally, this is not just an expression of thanks; it is the action of thanks. We thank God for a great many things – that the car started this morning, that our children are somewhat normal, that Baltimore defeated Pittsburgh. Most are likely things God could not care less about. For Jews, they gave thanks for every aspect of their lives. However, what makes the concept of bikkurim different is that it requires something more than an utterance. It requires action or sacrifice to show one’s gratitude.
This is not a unique aspect of Jewishness. The observance of Yom Kippur demands of its adherents to not only apologize but to make right a past wrong. So, with bikkurim, it is not enough to give thanks, but we must show it as well. These lessons extend beyond the dictates of the Jewish faith and serve as a challenge for all of us. I do not hold myself as an example of showing thanks. Like nearly everyone else, I fall short often in doing what I should but it does not make the lesson or its implications any less important or relevant.
During the Civil War and unimaginable suffering, Abraham Lincoln called for a national day of thanksgiving. At a time when many are economically suffering, I give thanks for my wife, my family and friends, the ability to do things that I enjoy and the job which provides the resources that make that life possible. I try and show thanks by honoring my wife and my friends, as well as putting my best foot forward at work and for my students every day. It does not matter that the things in my life that I’m most thankful for are also points of stress and frustration; so it is with the things we care about the most. So, show your thanks and revel in the annoyances of life. They reaffirm our priorities.
In Deuteronomy, bikkurim was an expression of thanks by farmers providing a sample of the first crops to the local temple. This concept is not foreign to Christians as they are asked to tithe 10% of their income. In Islam, one of the five pillars of the faith is the responsibility of charity, zakat. By giving to those less fortunate or to those in need (or to God), we are showing thankfulness for that which we have been given. Additionally, this is not just an expression of thanks; it is the action of thanks. We thank God for a great many things – that the car started this morning, that our children are somewhat normal, that Baltimore defeated Pittsburgh. Most are likely things God could not care less about. For Jews, they gave thanks for every aspect of their lives. However, what makes the concept of bikkurim different is that it requires something more than an utterance. It requires action or sacrifice to show one’s gratitude.
This is not a unique aspect of Jewishness. The observance of Yom Kippur demands of its adherents to not only apologize but to make right a past wrong. So, with bikkurim, it is not enough to give thanks, but we must show it as well. These lessons extend beyond the dictates of the Jewish faith and serve as a challenge for all of us. I do not hold myself as an example of showing thanks. Like nearly everyone else, I fall short often in doing what I should but it does not make the lesson or its implications any less important or relevant.
During the Civil War and unimaginable suffering, Abraham Lincoln called for a national day of thanksgiving. At a time when many are economically suffering, I give thanks for my wife, my family and friends, the ability to do things that I enjoy and the job which provides the resources that make that life possible. I try and show thanks by honoring my wife and my friends, as well as putting my best foot forward at work and for my students every day. It does not matter that the things in my life that I’m most thankful for are also points of stress and frustration; so it is with the things we care about the most. So, show your thanks and revel in the annoyances of life. They reaffirm our priorities.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Et tu, Silvio
An end of an era has hit the Italian Peninsula. The continent-wide movement began with Greece when the American-born Greek prime minister, George Papandreou, paid for the sins of institutional corruption and tax evasions and was forced out of office. The former vice president of the European Central Bank, Lucas Papademos now has the happy pleasure of piloting a nation that does not seem to understand its culpability in the current financial crisis. The next ax fell upon longtime and beleaguered Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi. Unlike Mr. Papandreou, who was given only two years to fix an unholy mess whose origins date back to the beginning of the modern country, Mr. Berlusconi has been a part of a system that encourages the type of reckless spending and irresponsible fiscal policies that has brought Italy to the brink.
For most of the last decade, il Cavaliere has ruled Italy like his own fiefdom and has weathered enough political scandals to knock nearly any other world leader from power. In 1998, he was sentenced to two years in prison for bribing tax inspectors; he was acquitted (several times) of falsifying accounts; he named a topless model to a ministerial position in 2008; the next year, he was charged with cavorting with minors and a prostitute; in 2010, his “bunga bunga” parties that amounted to orgies came to light; earlier this year, he combined his 2009 troubles and was put on trial for supposedly paying for an underage prostitute. The most amazing thing about all of these allegations and crimes? They were not what drove him from power. It was the world markets.
For Mr. Berlusconi, it is not surprising how the last ten years unfolded for the man who began his career singing on cruise ships and specializing in television programming reminiscent of Telemundo, complete with dancing, half-naked girls. It is a question of dazzle to obscure the mess. The “dazzle” is numbers that seem, on the surface, to be adequate, including a paltry (by European standards) 8% unemployment rate. However, the devil is in the details, which include structural issues that have been worsening for decades and a government that is failing in providing basic services and creating a competitive atmosphere for businesses. Italy’s GDP in 2010 outgrew only Zimbabwe and Haiti. The country’s public debt is 120% of its GDP – as a comparison, the U.S. public debt is 62% of GDP.
This stands as fuel to a fire that Italy is experiencing with the rest of Europe – a growing jobless rate, particularly in the hard hit Mezzogiorno region. And conditions in the southern part of Italy are not even a new development, with the region in general and Naples in particular always the subject of castigation and dismay. The young people of Italy are fed up with a government that cannot get a handle on its own affairs or those of organized crime and are fleeing to greener pastures in the EU or elsewhere. As the young professionals leave, it exacerbates the already graying population that produces less and takes more. The government refuses to provide an atmosphere where businesses can thrive and unions will not allow for longer work weeks to increase production so as to offset higher wages.
Italy, in short, is a mess and like Greece, it is an institutional, historical mess. Mr. Berlusconi is one of the richest men in Italy and no doubt, will ensure that his fortunes and security remain intact. But the country he “led” over the last decade will suffer the consequence. The new prime minister, Mario Monti, can expect a great deal of support from a populace tired of his megalomaniacal predecessor. But with yields on Italian bond rates climbing to nearly 7%, it will not be easy to put together a government that can keep the Italian economy from going into the ditch. Mr. Monti will need to move quickly and ensure parliamentary support if he hopes to make long-lasting and beneficial changes. The continent and the world await news.
For most of the last decade, il Cavaliere has ruled Italy like his own fiefdom and has weathered enough political scandals to knock nearly any other world leader from power. In 1998, he was sentenced to two years in prison for bribing tax inspectors; he was acquitted (several times) of falsifying accounts; he named a topless model to a ministerial position in 2008; the next year, he was charged with cavorting with minors and a prostitute; in 2010, his “bunga bunga” parties that amounted to orgies came to light; earlier this year, he combined his 2009 troubles and was put on trial for supposedly paying for an underage prostitute. The most amazing thing about all of these allegations and crimes? They were not what drove him from power. It was the world markets.
For Mr. Berlusconi, it is not surprising how the last ten years unfolded for the man who began his career singing on cruise ships and specializing in television programming reminiscent of Telemundo, complete with dancing, half-naked girls. It is a question of dazzle to obscure the mess. The “dazzle” is numbers that seem, on the surface, to be adequate, including a paltry (by European standards) 8% unemployment rate. However, the devil is in the details, which include structural issues that have been worsening for decades and a government that is failing in providing basic services and creating a competitive atmosphere for businesses. Italy’s GDP in 2010 outgrew only Zimbabwe and Haiti. The country’s public debt is 120% of its GDP – as a comparison, the U.S. public debt is 62% of GDP.
This stands as fuel to a fire that Italy is experiencing with the rest of Europe – a growing jobless rate, particularly in the hard hit Mezzogiorno region. And conditions in the southern part of Italy are not even a new development, with the region in general and Naples in particular always the subject of castigation and dismay. The young people of Italy are fed up with a government that cannot get a handle on its own affairs or those of organized crime and are fleeing to greener pastures in the EU or elsewhere. As the young professionals leave, it exacerbates the already graying population that produces less and takes more. The government refuses to provide an atmosphere where businesses can thrive and unions will not allow for longer work weeks to increase production so as to offset higher wages.
Italy, in short, is a mess and like Greece, it is an institutional, historical mess. Mr. Berlusconi is one of the richest men in Italy and no doubt, will ensure that his fortunes and security remain intact. But the country he “led” over the last decade will suffer the consequence. The new prime minister, Mario Monti, can expect a great deal of support from a populace tired of his megalomaniacal predecessor. But with yields on Italian bond rates climbing to nearly 7%, it will not be easy to put together a government that can keep the Italian economy from going into the ditch. Mr. Monti will need to move quickly and ensure parliamentary support if he hopes to make long-lasting and beneficial changes. The continent and the world await news.
Friday, November 11, 2011
OWS, the election and Sesame Street
The Occupy Wall Street movement seems more a call for chaos than substantive change. I don’t mind a protest per se but please, have a point and a solution. The people who are protesting throughout the country range from the sincere (a seeming minority) to the absurd and dangerous. The trashing of buildings and public grounds to the destruction of private businesses are not messages against the bankers and those who supposedly have fleeced the American public. This is about the opportunity to act outside the bounds of common decency and the democratic spirit. So the bankers and the businessmen are the reason they are out in the street, destroying, trashing and complaining? A student of mine, during a class conversation, compared the movement to those who blamed Jews in Germany for the economic troubles of the 1920s on the anniversary of Kristallnacht. While not the same in spirit, it is in intent. Who will be the next target of this rabble? I’m a teacher and not a member of the “1%.” However, there is not a single banker or Wall Street employee responsible for any American without a job. These protests, far and gone from the Tea Party group despite some attempts at comparison, are the end result of “class warfare” demagoguery. Did people think that months of blaming a particular group for all the ills in society would not have an impact?
On to the election front. Not to toot my own horn, but I ask the reader to revisit my assessment of the 2012 Republican candidates for president. Governor Perry has certainly lived up to the idea that he is not quite ready for “prime time.” He will not be the nominee but it will not be because of his inability to articulate his message. We’ve had presidents before of who it can be said were not well-spoken. Herman Cain has shown the weakness of a man with no experience. Some of the “intelligentsia” have used the opportunity of Mr. Cain’s ascendency to throw out terms like “Uncle Tom” and the like, but the candidate is merely showing the signs of one not use to the intensity of the spot light and sadly, we will see an apparently decent man cast aside. However, if the charges against him are true, it will not be the reason he does not get the nomination. We’ve had presidents before with a proclivity towards illicit or illegal behavior towards women. On one observation, I might be wrong and I hope I am. I wrote earlier that Newt Gingrich was likely the smartest one in the room – the one adult in the room, but would not win the nomination. He is climbing in the polls and he could be poised to make a move. His comment to the moderator of a recent debate that it was ridiculous to sum up what to do with health care in thirty seconds shows both his seriousness and experience with complicated issues. It might be enough.
On the other side of the political aisle, I would like to consider the candidacy of President Barack Obama. Not since Franklin Roosevelt has a president been re-elected with such an abysmal economy. However, I have a solution that might ignite more interest in his bid for re-election. I’m betting there are those in President Obama’s campaign who have already considered this idea. Vice President Joe Biden should step down for the good of the party. While no one should question his commitment to his country and the service he has rendered, he has been so marginalized over the last couple of years, it is a wonder he still wants the job. Yet, he still manages to take the limelight with his ill-advised remarks. The administration will likely say it has something to do with his wanting to spend more time with his family or perhaps, health issues. Either way, it would open the door to one the president and his staff would have more confidence in and be able to use more often and effectively. Just a thought.
Lastly, this past week was the anniversary of the debut of PBS’ “Sesame Street.” I’m like many who grew up on its lessons and its characters. However, as a teacher, I see the program in a different way. I challenge the reader to search the teachings and philosophies of the great educators of world history – Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, the Stoics, the Jesuits – and one would never come across the need for or importance of “fun.” However, what “Sesame Street” did was integrate the necessity and appropriateness of entertainment with education. The two have nothing to do with one another but often, I’m asked by my superiors or “experts” in the field to be as much an entertainer as a teacher. Perhaps, more so. Generations of children have incorporated the frivolous and superfluous nature of “fun” with the pursuit of knowledge. When these children arrive at elementary school, they are embraced by and surrounded with an extension of that form of education. However, when they enter middle and high school and the need for education to take a more serious approach is presented, they rebel and they lose interest. That is because they have not been trained to see the pursuit of knowledge as an intrinsic thing. Instead, the entertainment element of education, as typified by “Sesame Street,” promotes extrinsic motivation to the pursuit of knowledge. When a three year old is in the back yard inspecting a blade of grass, it is an intrinsic drive that pushes them onward. The “fun” is in discovery and curiosity – not something contrived from without.
On to the election front. Not to toot my own horn, but I ask the reader to revisit my assessment of the 2012 Republican candidates for president. Governor Perry has certainly lived up to the idea that he is not quite ready for “prime time.” He will not be the nominee but it will not be because of his inability to articulate his message. We’ve had presidents before of who it can be said were not well-spoken. Herman Cain has shown the weakness of a man with no experience. Some of the “intelligentsia” have used the opportunity of Mr. Cain’s ascendency to throw out terms like “Uncle Tom” and the like, but the candidate is merely showing the signs of one not use to the intensity of the spot light and sadly, we will see an apparently decent man cast aside. However, if the charges against him are true, it will not be the reason he does not get the nomination. We’ve had presidents before with a proclivity towards illicit or illegal behavior towards women. On one observation, I might be wrong and I hope I am. I wrote earlier that Newt Gingrich was likely the smartest one in the room – the one adult in the room, but would not win the nomination. He is climbing in the polls and he could be poised to make a move. His comment to the moderator of a recent debate that it was ridiculous to sum up what to do with health care in thirty seconds shows both his seriousness and experience with complicated issues. It might be enough.
On the other side of the political aisle, I would like to consider the candidacy of President Barack Obama. Not since Franklin Roosevelt has a president been re-elected with such an abysmal economy. However, I have a solution that might ignite more interest in his bid for re-election. I’m betting there are those in President Obama’s campaign who have already considered this idea. Vice President Joe Biden should step down for the good of the party. While no one should question his commitment to his country and the service he has rendered, he has been so marginalized over the last couple of years, it is a wonder he still wants the job. Yet, he still manages to take the limelight with his ill-advised remarks. The administration will likely say it has something to do with his wanting to spend more time with his family or perhaps, health issues. Either way, it would open the door to one the president and his staff would have more confidence in and be able to use more often and effectively. Just a thought.
Lastly, this past week was the anniversary of the debut of PBS’ “Sesame Street.” I’m like many who grew up on its lessons and its characters. However, as a teacher, I see the program in a different way. I challenge the reader to search the teachings and philosophies of the great educators of world history – Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, the Stoics, the Jesuits – and one would never come across the need for or importance of “fun.” However, what “Sesame Street” did was integrate the necessity and appropriateness of entertainment with education. The two have nothing to do with one another but often, I’m asked by my superiors or “experts” in the field to be as much an entertainer as a teacher. Perhaps, more so. Generations of children have incorporated the frivolous and superfluous nature of “fun” with the pursuit of knowledge. When these children arrive at elementary school, they are embraced by and surrounded with an extension of that form of education. However, when they enter middle and high school and the need for education to take a more serious approach is presented, they rebel and they lose interest. That is because they have not been trained to see the pursuit of knowledge as an intrinsic thing. Instead, the entertainment element of education, as typified by “Sesame Street,” promotes extrinsic motivation to the pursuit of knowledge. When a three year old is in the back yard inspecting a blade of grass, it is an intrinsic drive that pushes them onward. The “fun” is in discovery and curiosity – not something contrived from without.
Friday, November 4, 2011
The Blues
When I wore “a younger man’s clothes,” I was introduced to the blues by some guys with whom I served in the military. I grew up with jazz and country music in the house. Blues took a bit long to enter my life. Lately, I’ve reacquainted myself with the musical musings that, in some way, connect with me. Certainly most of the blues musicians I admire had it much worse than me; still, my first exposure to the blues was eye opening and life changing.
When I mention the blues, I prefer listening to some of the older guys – artists such as Robert Johnson, Son House, Big Bill Broonzy, Mississippi John Hurt and Skip James. In their lyrics and in their voices, one can feel pain. It is this quality that impacted me more than anything else. I appreciate some of the newer guys (with blues, newer means the 1960s and 1970s). Guys like Albert King and bar rocker Hounddog Taylor play a style of blues more analogous to the classic rock music with which I grew up. However, for all their bravado, there is something more authentic to be gleaned from the powerful voices, deft guitar playing and frightening wails of the older men who lived through the worse of racial hatred and economic depression.
The jazz movement was a natural extension of the blues and big band music of the 1920s and 1930s. Blues and country have so much in common – particularly some of the classic country music and not the over-stylized and over-produced mess that exists today. The same pain seen in blues musicians can also be heard in the tales of woe from early country stars. Yet, I still come back to the blues. The expression of life’s turmoil and difficulty is so real in their voices and lyrics and in the quality of their playing, it puts into perspective some of the new crop of singers attempting the same sound. What makes the newer music incompatible with the classic blues musicians are that the voice rings hollow…false. They have not lived it and so they are left to mimic it.
I encourage you to gravitate towards the sound of lost or spurned love as heard in Broonzy’s “Frankie and Johnny” or James' "Devil Got My Woman." Listen to a mixture of the old style religion and blues of Delta Blues legend, Son House, in “John the Revelator.” I dare you to listen to Robert Johnson and not think of the legend that suggests he sold his soul to the Devil for a chance at fame and fortune. He died so young, it seems to validate the story or at the least, give weight to the emotions he conveyed. These men (and women) who played the notes and belted out the songs represented the voice of generations and decades of misery, marginal living and hopes unrealized. Music was one of their joys and they used the medium to tell their story.
American music means a great many things to a great many people today. Each style claims an authenticity. However, if I may be a bit of a music snob, the blues represent the first true American music. Its devotees are spread throughout the world but we can visit the regions and hear the sounds and see the settings for ourselves. There is something timeless about their stories and I’ve been enthralled since my first exposure. If the blues ever became chic again, I would bemoan the Johnny-come-latelys but I implore more to venture into a record store (if you can find one) and connect. If you are open to it, it will change your life and your perspective.
When I mention the blues, I prefer listening to some of the older guys – artists such as Robert Johnson, Son House, Big Bill Broonzy, Mississippi John Hurt and Skip James. In their lyrics and in their voices, one can feel pain. It is this quality that impacted me more than anything else. I appreciate some of the newer guys (with blues, newer means the 1960s and 1970s). Guys like Albert King and bar rocker Hounddog Taylor play a style of blues more analogous to the classic rock music with which I grew up. However, for all their bravado, there is something more authentic to be gleaned from the powerful voices, deft guitar playing and frightening wails of the older men who lived through the worse of racial hatred and economic depression.
The jazz movement was a natural extension of the blues and big band music of the 1920s and 1930s. Blues and country have so much in common – particularly some of the classic country music and not the over-stylized and over-produced mess that exists today. The same pain seen in blues musicians can also be heard in the tales of woe from early country stars. Yet, I still come back to the blues. The expression of life’s turmoil and difficulty is so real in their voices and lyrics and in the quality of their playing, it puts into perspective some of the new crop of singers attempting the same sound. What makes the newer music incompatible with the classic blues musicians are that the voice rings hollow…false. They have not lived it and so they are left to mimic it.
I encourage you to gravitate towards the sound of lost or spurned love as heard in Broonzy’s “Frankie and Johnny” or James' "Devil Got My Woman." Listen to a mixture of the old style religion and blues of Delta Blues legend, Son House, in “John the Revelator.” I dare you to listen to Robert Johnson and not think of the legend that suggests he sold his soul to the Devil for a chance at fame and fortune. He died so young, it seems to validate the story or at the least, give weight to the emotions he conveyed. These men (and women) who played the notes and belted out the songs represented the voice of generations and decades of misery, marginal living and hopes unrealized. Music was one of their joys and they used the medium to tell their story.
American music means a great many things to a great many people today. Each style claims an authenticity. However, if I may be a bit of a music snob, the blues represent the first true American music. Its devotees are spread throughout the world but we can visit the regions and hear the sounds and see the settings for ourselves. There is something timeless about their stories and I’ve been enthralled since my first exposure. If the blues ever became chic again, I would bemoan the Johnny-come-latelys but I implore more to venture into a record store (if you can find one) and connect. If you are open to it, it will change your life and your perspective.
Friday, October 28, 2011
The Importance of Suffering
You want, if possible – and there is no more insane “if possible” – to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it – that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible – that makes his destruction desirable. The discipline of suffering, of great suffering – do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far? - Friedrich Nietzsche
I was watching the World Series tonight and thinking on the concept of suffering. In the 7th inning, as the Texas Rangers jumped out to a 7:4 lead, the camera panned to shots of the Cardinal faithful. They were hanging on to the last vestiges of hope – a fervent wish that their team would somehow, someway triumph. Afterwards, I saw the Rangers’ fans, with the look of utter shock and dismay, desperately seeking an answer to two blown leads and ultimately, a loss. I asked myself, where is the constructive benefit of that suffering to those fans?
As a teacher, I’m in a strange position. My job is to push my students beyond their preconceived limits to reach new heights. In order to do this, there is a certain amount of suffering that comes into play. Every year, I have those students who relish in the suffering and come through at the end. Then, I have those students who are repelled by any difficulty in their studies, but search it constantly, even contrive it, in their daily lives. I’m left with a group of students who live on drama and suffering, not as a tool to overcome it but as a way of wallowing in it. Seldom is the suffering over anything of importance, certainly not in the long run.
I’m charged with trying to teach the importance of suffering as a way of enduring, as Nietzsche would later explain. My subject is history and its greatest value is placing our lives in context. However, if I cannot convince students to endure a bit of suffering that some perceive in studying history, they can never appreciate nor fully understand what could exist on the other side of effort and stress. Without going through the distress of pushing through a difficult historical or mathematical concept, they will never truly value its importance. For Nietzsche, the suffering creates a moment of clarity and one that defines character.
Suffering and its importance is seen beyond Western ideals and more than the musings of controversial German philosophers. The humanity of Jesus was tied to his suffering – his time spent in the desert was meant to be a trial, a test. His ability to endure the suffering, the temptation was a part of his identity and his connection to man. Suffering also connects us to our fellow man. Can we truly be a sympathetic people without having a frame of reference with regard to other’s tribulations? To the Buddhists, there is a belief that the idea of suffering is one to overcome in order to achieve happiness. The ability to endure and to overcome suffering is the path towards enlightenment.
And so, my thoughts return to those fans. If they are true fans and not bandwagoners, they know the history of their team. The Cardinal fan understands what it means to see their team struggle, scrimp and scratch their way to a World Series – the ultimate baseball prize. For the Ranger fan, they know the decades of futility and unfulfilled hope. They know their history and they know suffering. For the Cardinal fan, they know the reward such suffering can bring. The Ranger fan is yet to know but is there not a lesson from which everyone can learn? Tomorrow, my students will talk about it but will they truly understand it? We, as adults, have an obligation to impress upon our young the lesson of Nietzsche – the notion of suffering and the character it creates.
I was watching the World Series tonight and thinking on the concept of suffering. In the 7th inning, as the Texas Rangers jumped out to a 7:4 lead, the camera panned to shots of the Cardinal faithful. They were hanging on to the last vestiges of hope – a fervent wish that their team would somehow, someway triumph. Afterwards, I saw the Rangers’ fans, with the look of utter shock and dismay, desperately seeking an answer to two blown leads and ultimately, a loss. I asked myself, where is the constructive benefit of that suffering to those fans?
As a teacher, I’m in a strange position. My job is to push my students beyond their preconceived limits to reach new heights. In order to do this, there is a certain amount of suffering that comes into play. Every year, I have those students who relish in the suffering and come through at the end. Then, I have those students who are repelled by any difficulty in their studies, but search it constantly, even contrive it, in their daily lives. I’m left with a group of students who live on drama and suffering, not as a tool to overcome it but as a way of wallowing in it. Seldom is the suffering over anything of importance, certainly not in the long run.
I’m charged with trying to teach the importance of suffering as a way of enduring, as Nietzsche would later explain. My subject is history and its greatest value is placing our lives in context. However, if I cannot convince students to endure a bit of suffering that some perceive in studying history, they can never appreciate nor fully understand what could exist on the other side of effort and stress. Without going through the distress of pushing through a difficult historical or mathematical concept, they will never truly value its importance. For Nietzsche, the suffering creates a moment of clarity and one that defines character.
Suffering and its importance is seen beyond Western ideals and more than the musings of controversial German philosophers. The humanity of Jesus was tied to his suffering – his time spent in the desert was meant to be a trial, a test. His ability to endure the suffering, the temptation was a part of his identity and his connection to man. Suffering also connects us to our fellow man. Can we truly be a sympathetic people without having a frame of reference with regard to other’s tribulations? To the Buddhists, there is a belief that the idea of suffering is one to overcome in order to achieve happiness. The ability to endure and to overcome suffering is the path towards enlightenment.
And so, my thoughts return to those fans. If they are true fans and not bandwagoners, they know the history of their team. The Cardinal fan understands what it means to see their team struggle, scrimp and scratch their way to a World Series – the ultimate baseball prize. For the Ranger fan, they know the decades of futility and unfulfilled hope. They know their history and they know suffering. For the Cardinal fan, they know the reward such suffering can bring. The Ranger fan is yet to know but is there not a lesson from which everyone can learn? Tomorrow, my students will talk about it but will they truly understand it? We, as adults, have an obligation to impress upon our young the lesson of Nietzsche – the notion of suffering and the character it creates.
Friday, October 21, 2011
The Need for a New (Albeit Modified) Ataturk
In the wake of World War I, the Ottoman Empire was wiped from the pages of history for its supporting role of the Central Powers. As a result, the Allies sought their own piece of the Turkish dinosaur. France and Great Britain carved up the old Fertile Crescent along the lines of the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916), with the British overseeing much of Iraq, Jordan and Palestine and the French overseeing Syria and Lebanon, as well as portions of modern-day Turkey. Meanwhile, the Italians and Greeks made a grab for land around Constantinople. However, from the Turkish military sector emerged a skilled commander named Mustafa Kemal, known in history as Ataturk.
Throughout the early 1920s, Ataturk pushed back the Greek forces, including ethnic Greeks who had settled in Turkish territories. He then pushed through a series of reforms that were considered fairly radical. He implemented a new Latin alphabet and allowed women to have the right to vote. But, his most daring set of reforms was the secularization of Turkey. He went after religious orders and nationalized property held by religious organizations. In the schools of the new country, a secular curriculum was put in place and Sharia law was replaced with one modeled after Western Europe. Islam was delegitimized as a governing force and symbols of the faith, notably the veil, were outlawed. In his efforts, Ataturk was brutal and unrelenting, particularly towards the Kurds, but he was able to reverse centuries of historical precedent to bring stability and democracy to a country possessing little experience with either. In the aftermath, Ataturk, who died in 1938, became a national hero.
Today, Turkey has Recep Tayyip Erdogan. A far cry from Ataturk (except, sadly, his attitude towards the Kurds), he has recently brought Turkey to the point of conflict at various levels. He seems to be going out of his way to destabilize the region. First, he is operating under the false impression that he does not need Europe – saying the continent needs him more. This is seen in the widening gulf between the European Union and Turkey over admission of the latter into the former. Turkey’s economy is extraordinary but I wonder what would happen if some European countries revoked the guest worker program and forced hundreds of thousands of unemployed Turkish nationals to their native land (there are two million in Germany alone)? I don’t foresee countries doing that but I can see an end to the program. This would be a new weight on the Turkish economy that could undermine Mr. Erdogan’s policies.
Second, Mr. Erdogan is pursuing policies that could endanger the fragile stability in the entire region with two cases in particular – Cyprus and Israel. Of concern to the EU is his refusal of any Greek-Cypriot ships to enter Turkish waters or ports. Perhaps, Mr. Erdogan feels his country’s economy does not need their products but the actions seem to be based more on purposefully antagonizing Greek Cyprus on simply historical grounds. The resulting increase in tensions is avoidable. Yet, as problematic as the Cyprus situation is, it does not measure up to his stance on Israel.
The prime minister was the former mayor of Istanbul and is the head of the Justice and Development Party (AK), an Islamist party that has led some to fear, particularly when he came to power in 2003, of an ebbing of Turkey’s secular traditions. While his rule has not suggested an obliteration of said traditions, his stance with Israel seems a ploy to cater to his base. Israel has the right to protect its borders and inspect anything coming into its territorial waters. The fact that the flotilla advocates, a group attempting to run the blockade Israel has on shipments to Gaza, refuse to have their cargo inspected suggests the worst and has nothing to do with the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. They are the ploy and the flotilla, a Trojan horse. While the U.S. has encouraged Mr. Erdogan to ease back on the stance with regards to Israel, he has escalated by suggesting the next flotilla attempt would be protected by Turkish ships. Whether or not this is bluster, (the New York Times once referred to him as a “hothead,”) the implications are the same.
Ataturk, while progressive at home, was aware of the importance of good relations with his neighbors. His active role within the League of Nations (a precursor to the United Nations), his partnership within the Balkan Entente (1934) and his non-aggression agreement with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan in the Saadabad Pact (1937) shows his understanding of the importance of regional stability. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has shown the opposite. While conditions within the country have ameliorated since his ascension to the prime ministership, the same cannot be said beyond. Let us hope he is a student of history. If not, I fear for the region.
Throughout the early 1920s, Ataturk pushed back the Greek forces, including ethnic Greeks who had settled in Turkish territories. He then pushed through a series of reforms that were considered fairly radical. He implemented a new Latin alphabet and allowed women to have the right to vote. But, his most daring set of reforms was the secularization of Turkey. He went after religious orders and nationalized property held by religious organizations. In the schools of the new country, a secular curriculum was put in place and Sharia law was replaced with one modeled after Western Europe. Islam was delegitimized as a governing force and symbols of the faith, notably the veil, were outlawed. In his efforts, Ataturk was brutal and unrelenting, particularly towards the Kurds, but he was able to reverse centuries of historical precedent to bring stability and democracy to a country possessing little experience with either. In the aftermath, Ataturk, who died in 1938, became a national hero.
Today, Turkey has Recep Tayyip Erdogan. A far cry from Ataturk (except, sadly, his attitude towards the Kurds), he has recently brought Turkey to the point of conflict at various levels. He seems to be going out of his way to destabilize the region. First, he is operating under the false impression that he does not need Europe – saying the continent needs him more. This is seen in the widening gulf between the European Union and Turkey over admission of the latter into the former. Turkey’s economy is extraordinary but I wonder what would happen if some European countries revoked the guest worker program and forced hundreds of thousands of unemployed Turkish nationals to their native land (there are two million in Germany alone)? I don’t foresee countries doing that but I can see an end to the program. This would be a new weight on the Turkish economy that could undermine Mr. Erdogan’s policies.
Second, Mr. Erdogan is pursuing policies that could endanger the fragile stability in the entire region with two cases in particular – Cyprus and Israel. Of concern to the EU is his refusal of any Greek-Cypriot ships to enter Turkish waters or ports. Perhaps, Mr. Erdogan feels his country’s economy does not need their products but the actions seem to be based more on purposefully antagonizing Greek Cyprus on simply historical grounds. The resulting increase in tensions is avoidable. Yet, as problematic as the Cyprus situation is, it does not measure up to his stance on Israel.
The prime minister was the former mayor of Istanbul and is the head of the Justice and Development Party (AK), an Islamist party that has led some to fear, particularly when he came to power in 2003, of an ebbing of Turkey’s secular traditions. While his rule has not suggested an obliteration of said traditions, his stance with Israel seems a ploy to cater to his base. Israel has the right to protect its borders and inspect anything coming into its territorial waters. The fact that the flotilla advocates, a group attempting to run the blockade Israel has on shipments to Gaza, refuse to have their cargo inspected suggests the worst and has nothing to do with the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians. They are the ploy and the flotilla, a Trojan horse. While the U.S. has encouraged Mr. Erdogan to ease back on the stance with regards to Israel, he has escalated by suggesting the next flotilla attempt would be protected by Turkish ships. Whether or not this is bluster, (the New York Times once referred to him as a “hothead,”) the implications are the same.
Ataturk, while progressive at home, was aware of the importance of good relations with his neighbors. His active role within the League of Nations (a precursor to the United Nations), his partnership within the Balkan Entente (1934) and his non-aggression agreement with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan in the Saadabad Pact (1937) shows his understanding of the importance of regional stability. Recep Tayyip Erdogan has shown the opposite. While conditions within the country have ameliorated since his ascension to the prime ministership, the same cannot be said beyond. Let us hope he is a student of history. If not, I fear for the region.
A Love Letter to Baltimore
I’m from Baltimore, Maryland. The city and its history and quirky nature shaped and formed my development. I’ve lived in the city and I’ve lived in the suburbs. I’ve eaten the coddies and I’ve devoured the crab cakes. I swam the waters and walked the trails. I’ve celebrated the ecstasy of the Orioles winning the World Series in 1983 and suffered the depression of my beloved Colts leaving for Indianapolis the next year. I’ve suffered the comments about Homicide and the characterizations of a city on decline – an antiquated member of the Rust Belt. I’ve heard it all but I know the truth. Baltimore is a great city and I’d like to tell a few of the reasons why the city stays with me to this day.
I’m in love with the neighborhoods and indeed, it is the soul of the city. I think of the Greektown where my parents took me to the shops and little eateries and they bought me my first komboloi or worry beads. As a kid, I was mesmerized by the different accents, different looks, different smells and different items for sale. Since those days as a small boy, even though I’m not Greek or particularly worrisome, I’ve always had my komboloi. It was the nature of these neighborhoods that have shaped my life – one in constant search for new ways, new ideas and new cultures to explore. To this day, accents fire my imagination and it was my upbringing in Baltimore that instilled that in me.
The fact that I’m a history teacher cannot be separated from my hometown. Likely the most important historical point of the city is Fort McHenry – the place bombarded by the British in the War of 1812 and the scene of the writing of the Star Spangled Banner. Fells Point is a neighborhood more known today as a chic hang out but this was once an area for the working man and the history surrounding the shipping industry in the city was based here. Even today, the area’s buildings and small alleyways are a reminder that this was once a residential area with a handful of bars and a multitude of dock workers. The first monument to the country’s first president is not in the capital but in Baltimore, in the historic Mount Vernon neighborhood. These places and others were the destination of many a field trip and in part, shaped my life and career.
And, I remember the food. I remember my father taking me to the Lexington Market – the largest indoor market in the United States. He would take me to a greasy spoon café near the back to get breakfast on Saturdays. It was fattening and, to the uninitiated, a bit gross but it was delicious – scrambled eggs and corn beef hash were the food of the gods. There was a great German restaurant called Hausner’s, known as much for its incredible art collection than its great food. I treasured the times in Little Italy eating at Chiapparelli’s or Mug's but always ending at the famous and wonderful bakery – Vacarro’s. Whatever you wanted, whatever cuisine you craved, it could be found in Baltimore.
To many, Baltimore is beleaguered by crime (though, what major city isn’t), overshadowed by sexier nearby destinations (Washington or Philadelphia) and home to a struggling baseball team. However, it is the city that molded me and a city that stays with me. It always will.
I’m in love with the neighborhoods and indeed, it is the soul of the city. I think of the Greektown where my parents took me to the shops and little eateries and they bought me my first komboloi or worry beads. As a kid, I was mesmerized by the different accents, different looks, different smells and different items for sale. Since those days as a small boy, even though I’m not Greek or particularly worrisome, I’ve always had my komboloi. It was the nature of these neighborhoods that have shaped my life – one in constant search for new ways, new ideas and new cultures to explore. To this day, accents fire my imagination and it was my upbringing in Baltimore that instilled that in me.
The fact that I’m a history teacher cannot be separated from my hometown. Likely the most important historical point of the city is Fort McHenry – the place bombarded by the British in the War of 1812 and the scene of the writing of the Star Spangled Banner. Fells Point is a neighborhood more known today as a chic hang out but this was once an area for the working man and the history surrounding the shipping industry in the city was based here. Even today, the area’s buildings and small alleyways are a reminder that this was once a residential area with a handful of bars and a multitude of dock workers. The first monument to the country’s first president is not in the capital but in Baltimore, in the historic Mount Vernon neighborhood. These places and others were the destination of many a field trip and in part, shaped my life and career.
And, I remember the food. I remember my father taking me to the Lexington Market – the largest indoor market in the United States. He would take me to a greasy spoon café near the back to get breakfast on Saturdays. It was fattening and, to the uninitiated, a bit gross but it was delicious – scrambled eggs and corn beef hash were the food of the gods. There was a great German restaurant called Hausner’s, known as much for its incredible art collection than its great food. I treasured the times in Little Italy eating at Chiapparelli’s or Mug's but always ending at the famous and wonderful bakery – Vacarro’s. Whatever you wanted, whatever cuisine you craved, it could be found in Baltimore.
To many, Baltimore is beleaguered by crime (though, what major city isn’t), overshadowed by sexier nearby destinations (Washington or Philadelphia) and home to a struggling baseball team. However, it is the city that molded me and a city that stays with me. It always will.
Friday, October 14, 2011
From Russia with Confusion?
I’m a bit surprised at how little Americans are aware of Russian politics. Much of my surprise is based on growing up during the Cold War. More so than any other country, I knew who the Soviet premier was, I was aware of what the Soviet Union was doing and in general, the happenings within Russia were more top of mind to the average American. Other countries and other peoples have now pre-occupied the American attention span. While Russia has escaped our consideration over the last decade or so, it has not stepped away from the international stage and therefore, still worthy of our time to read about and keep track of.
Russia is mired in various things at the moment. A Ukrainian court has jailed its former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, for the crimes of overstepping her authority. Her crime was an oil pipeline deal with Russia that decidedly favored Moscow. Her prison sentence has been criticized by nearly everyone who has a stake in the oil supply, from the Americans to the Swedes, and Russia has declared the verdict “anti-Russian.” It can certainly be argued that the verdict has as much to do with Ms. Tymoshenko’s abrasive and combative personality, particularly with her political opponents. However, whether this deal goes through or not, the U.S. and its Western European allies will be greatly affected. The European Union has stepped up the pressure by suggesting the Ukraine is jeopardizing its potential candidacy into the EU. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich will have the chance to make amends when he meets Russian President Dmitry Medvedev next week.
However, the biggest upcoming story out of Russia is the election in March 2012 that will, if reports are to be believed, return to the position of president, Vladimir Putin. The reason why this story should be of interest to the United States is what the move means for Russian democracy. As it is, Russia has proven quite obdurate over the last decade in actions against North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya. Worse, its rationale seems more to do with gumming up the works on the international scene than being based on any core beliefs or national interest. Now, the fear that international observers had with the presidency of Mr. Medvedev, a puppet that was keeping the seat of power warm until Mr. Putin could work around the Russian constitution, seem validated. What must the Russian people think? The Economist calls the situation farcical and it is hard to disagree with the assessment. This comes at a time when investors are leaving the country, government spending is up to make up the difference and oil revenue could certainly use the boost the Ukrainian deal would provide.
The Putin/Medvedev deal is not democracy – not even potential democracy. Granted, the U.S. took a while to improve their process but Russia seems headed in the opposite direction. What will the Russian people do when their frustrations with the economy are compounded by a shaky and disingenuous democratic system? Will they turn to something more radical and potentially dangerous or will they rise up to reiterate their demand for true democratic reforms? Whatever happens, it will be interesting and worthy of American attention.
Russia is mired in various things at the moment. A Ukrainian court has jailed its former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, for the crimes of overstepping her authority. Her crime was an oil pipeline deal with Russia that decidedly favored Moscow. Her prison sentence has been criticized by nearly everyone who has a stake in the oil supply, from the Americans to the Swedes, and Russia has declared the verdict “anti-Russian.” It can certainly be argued that the verdict has as much to do with Ms. Tymoshenko’s abrasive and combative personality, particularly with her political opponents. However, whether this deal goes through or not, the U.S. and its Western European allies will be greatly affected. The European Union has stepped up the pressure by suggesting the Ukraine is jeopardizing its potential candidacy into the EU. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich will have the chance to make amends when he meets Russian President Dmitry Medvedev next week.
However, the biggest upcoming story out of Russia is the election in March 2012 that will, if reports are to be believed, return to the position of president, Vladimir Putin. The reason why this story should be of interest to the United States is what the move means for Russian democracy. As it is, Russia has proven quite obdurate over the last decade in actions against North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya. Worse, its rationale seems more to do with gumming up the works on the international scene than being based on any core beliefs or national interest. Now, the fear that international observers had with the presidency of Mr. Medvedev, a puppet that was keeping the seat of power warm until Mr. Putin could work around the Russian constitution, seem validated. What must the Russian people think? The Economist calls the situation farcical and it is hard to disagree with the assessment. This comes at a time when investors are leaving the country, government spending is up to make up the difference and oil revenue could certainly use the boost the Ukrainian deal would provide.
The Putin/Medvedev deal is not democracy – not even potential democracy. Granted, the U.S. took a while to improve their process but Russia seems headed in the opposite direction. What will the Russian people do when their frustrations with the economy are compounded by a shaky and disingenuous democratic system? Will they turn to something more radical and potentially dangerous or will they rise up to reiterate their demand for true democratic reforms? Whatever happens, it will be interesting and worthy of American attention.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC
When is the melding of church and state ok? It could be decided soon by the Supreme Court. The Court, recently reconvening, is considering the case of Cheryl Perich, a former teacher at the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Michigan. She began her “official” capacity in the church as a lay person and later, as a faculty member of both secular and religious instruction. She even conducted chapel for the students from time to time. She fell ill in 2004 and was diagnosed as having narcolepsy, a condition that impacts sleep patterns and can caused involuntary sleeping during the day or at normal times of alertness. When she returned to the church, they had hired another to take her place. When she threatened to sue, the church stated that the potential litigation violated church beliefs that issues should be settled within, not from without, the church. If she pursued such action, she would be fired. She did and she was. Ms. Perich is declaring she was fired for threatening to “blow the whistle” by suing and she is being supported by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Most forceful in his initial impression of the case was the most senior member of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, who declared that the government had no business in determining the interest of the church. There is quite a bit of evidence to support this. Many court decisions have stated that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and an exemption in the EEOC regulations does not apply to church matters. For instance, the Catholic Church’s position of not allowing women as priests has never been challenged, a point that Justice Samuel Alito brought out in opening arguments.
As recently as 1993, the Court has ruled on the nature of government interference in church practices. In Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), the Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida was conducting animal sacrifices. The city, in an attempt to convince the newcomers they were not welcomed, passed several ordinances limiting to practice of animal sacrifice. The Court ruled in favor of the church, 9:0 with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority. In his decision, Justice Kennedy said the ordinances were unconstitutional because they singled out the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye. Justice Kennedy weighed in also on Ms. Perich’s case, saying he doubted the success of the claim. The argument could be made that, absent of other instances of government involvement of church affairs, the Lutheran church is also being singled out.
There is also judicial precedent on the idea that religious ideas can conflict with civil law. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the Court ruled 5:4 that a former scout leader, who was dismissed because he was gay, could not sue the Boy Scouts. As a private organization, if it were forced to accept James Dale as a leader, its first amendment rights would be violated. The organization would be forced to send a message to its members of acceptance that goes against its core beliefs and values. For the Court to recognize Ms. Perich’s lawsuit would be to violate the core beliefs of the Lutheran Church.
This case is not about wrongful firing but whether the state can dictate who serves in a religious capacity. What is the proper course of action? As much as it is not the purview of the church to interject itself in the business of governance, so it should not be the purview of the government to interpret, rule on or interfere with the business of the church. The dictates of the faith are paramount and must be protected in a country that purports freedom of religion.
Most forceful in his initial impression of the case was the most senior member of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, who declared that the government had no business in determining the interest of the church. There is quite a bit of evidence to support this. Many court decisions have stated that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and an exemption in the EEOC regulations does not apply to church matters. For instance, the Catholic Church’s position of not allowing women as priests has never been challenged, a point that Justice Samuel Alito brought out in opening arguments.
As recently as 1993, the Court has ruled on the nature of government interference in church practices. In Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), the Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida was conducting animal sacrifices. The city, in an attempt to convince the newcomers they were not welcomed, passed several ordinances limiting to practice of animal sacrifice. The Court ruled in favor of the church, 9:0 with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the majority. In his decision, Justice Kennedy said the ordinances were unconstitutional because they singled out the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye. Justice Kennedy weighed in also on Ms. Perich’s case, saying he doubted the success of the claim. The argument could be made that, absent of other instances of government involvement of church affairs, the Lutheran church is also being singled out.
There is also judicial precedent on the idea that religious ideas can conflict with civil law. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the Court ruled 5:4 that a former scout leader, who was dismissed because he was gay, could not sue the Boy Scouts. As a private organization, if it were forced to accept James Dale as a leader, its first amendment rights would be violated. The organization would be forced to send a message to its members of acceptance that goes against its core beliefs and values. For the Court to recognize Ms. Perich’s lawsuit would be to violate the core beliefs of the Lutheran Church.
This case is not about wrongful firing but whether the state can dictate who serves in a religious capacity. What is the proper course of action? As much as it is not the purview of the church to interject itself in the business of governance, so it should not be the purview of the government to interpret, rule on or interfere with the business of the church. The dictates of the faith are paramount and must be protected in a country that purports freedom of religion.
Friday, September 30, 2011
The Historical Case for Henry Clay
Over the last couple of weeks, CSPAN has been showing a series of broadcasts called “The Contenders.” The purpose of the program is to highlight some of the more notable presidential election losers whose contributions extend far beyond their failed presidential run. For those not entirely into history, there is also a comedic element, as callers trying to pose serious queries get turned around on the quality over quantity element to questions. Secondly, CSPAN does a great job finding historians who are experts on the person of the night, if not entirely comfortable in front of the camera. It makes for great television. However, watching the program, I was struck as to why Henry Clay has not received more attention in many history classes.
Henry Clay is often mentioned in conjunction with Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun as one of the “great compromisers.” He first rose to prominence in the debate over the admission of Missouri into the Union. Missouri represented the first state culled out of the old Louisiana territory and it wanted to join the Union as a slave state. At the time, the congressmen from the free northern states and the slave southern states wanted to maintain a balance of delegates in Congress to maintain the status quo. Missouri threatened that but with the admission of Maine as a free state, the efforts of Henry Clay, among others, a national crisis was diverted.
Over the next couple of decades, much of it as Speaker of the House, he worked to implement his “American System” – an improvement plan for the country that included protective tariffs, a stronger banking system and government paid-for infrastructure improvements. He also voraciously challenged President Andrew Jackson on the existence of a national bank. However, for all of his work, he was not terribly successful on the big moments. His American System fell to southern states suspicious of the federal government’s paying of projects within their states. That same group was also adamantly against tariffs, which traditionally, in U.S. history, favored New England industries and punished farmers. President Jackson was able to outmaneuver Speaker Clay and his congressional ally, John Quincy Adams. While impressive as the Speaker, the aforementioned incidents, not to mention his failed presidential run in 1824, kept him from the top echelon of American politicians.
His biggest moment, his biggest achievement was to happen towards the end of his life. California wanted to be a state but a free state. Southern congressmen were outraged and again, for the second time in forty years, the country was on the verge of devolution, possibly war. However, the now senator from Kentucky and two of his colleagues, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, rose to the occasion. Most of them near death, literally, they worked together to produce one bill after another to bring the two sides together.
The Compromise of 1850 is one of the most important pre-Civil War congressional measures. Senator Calhoun died shortly after its passage and the other two senators died a mere two years later. Henry Clay played a large role but beyond this compromise, little is spoken about in “regular” U.S. history classes. It makes one wonder who else is being overlooked in U.S. or world history.
Henry Clay's service to his country deserves greater recognition. I’m doing my part as a historical votary and teacher (and occasional blogger), CSPAN is doing theirs with this amazing collection of features (every Friday night at 8:00ET). If you are interested, Robert V. Ramini’s At the Edge of the Precipice is a great study on the 1850 compromise and worth your time.
Henry Clay is often mentioned in conjunction with Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun as one of the “great compromisers.” He first rose to prominence in the debate over the admission of Missouri into the Union. Missouri represented the first state culled out of the old Louisiana territory and it wanted to join the Union as a slave state. At the time, the congressmen from the free northern states and the slave southern states wanted to maintain a balance of delegates in Congress to maintain the status quo. Missouri threatened that but with the admission of Maine as a free state, the efforts of Henry Clay, among others, a national crisis was diverted.
Over the next couple of decades, much of it as Speaker of the House, he worked to implement his “American System” – an improvement plan for the country that included protective tariffs, a stronger banking system and government paid-for infrastructure improvements. He also voraciously challenged President Andrew Jackson on the existence of a national bank. However, for all of his work, he was not terribly successful on the big moments. His American System fell to southern states suspicious of the federal government’s paying of projects within their states. That same group was also adamantly against tariffs, which traditionally, in U.S. history, favored New England industries and punished farmers. President Jackson was able to outmaneuver Speaker Clay and his congressional ally, John Quincy Adams. While impressive as the Speaker, the aforementioned incidents, not to mention his failed presidential run in 1824, kept him from the top echelon of American politicians.
His biggest moment, his biggest achievement was to happen towards the end of his life. California wanted to be a state but a free state. Southern congressmen were outraged and again, for the second time in forty years, the country was on the verge of devolution, possibly war. However, the now senator from Kentucky and two of his colleagues, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, rose to the occasion. Most of them near death, literally, they worked together to produce one bill after another to bring the two sides together.
The Compromise of 1850 is one of the most important pre-Civil War congressional measures. Senator Calhoun died shortly after its passage and the other two senators died a mere two years later. Henry Clay played a large role but beyond this compromise, little is spoken about in “regular” U.S. history classes. It makes one wonder who else is being overlooked in U.S. or world history.
Henry Clay's service to his country deserves greater recognition. I’m doing my part as a historical votary and teacher (and occasional blogger), CSPAN is doing theirs with this amazing collection of features (every Friday night at 8:00ET). If you are interested, Robert V. Ramini’s At the Edge of the Precipice is a great study on the 1850 compromise and worth your time.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The Conscience of Daniel Ellsberg
In 2010, POV, a popular PBS program, produced a documentary on the reasons for and the impact of Daniel Ellsberg’s leaking of the Pentagon Papers – a thirty year study on U.S. involvement in Viet Nam. As published by The New York Times, it would prove a damning indictment of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson on the grounds of the justification and progress of the war. Depending largely on interviews with Mr. Ellsberg himself, as well as many of his former colleagues and supporters, it tells of the transformation of the former foreign policy maker and colors the event through that paradigm.
As a historian, I’m left to wonder how to classify Mr. Ellsberg. From a purely objective point of view, he belongs in the category of Benedict Arnold, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Klaus Fuch. However, Mr. Ellsberg's crime cannot, in the strictest sense, be placed with those mentioned. The former Pentagon advisor revealed secret documents as an act of conscience and willing to deal with the consequences of his actions. On a certain level, he is nothing else if not admirable. However, as I hear the elderly man speak of his actions as a young man, I’m left with two overriding impressions.
One, he seems to suffer from an overactive sense of hubris. The notion that his ideas, in a democracy, should override the decision of an entire country is perplexing. He felt that his documentation as to the lies of past presidents with regards to Viet Nam invalidated them as leaders and should force the American people to rethink all future decisions. He placed himself as judge, juror and executor, as it were, in releasing the papers.
However, what strikes me most about his story is the sheer amount of naiveté that colors his rationale. Since the time of James Madison, who argued the necessity for governments to have secrets, there has been subterfuge and misdirection in the course of foreign policy. Such policy making cannot be made out in the open with the questionable characters that exist in the world today. Even more surprisingly naïve was Mr. Ellsberg's assertion that his turn in thinking during the mid-1960s occurred when he spent time in Viet Nam and saw the horrors of war itself. I’m left wondering how the former foreign policy advisor and Marine did not know what war was like and how horribly simple was his world view?
William F. Buckley challenged Mr. Ellsberg once on the idea that the pursuit of diplomacy and foreign policy was inherently in need of lies and by drawing out the latter’s sense of what is right or wrong with regards to lying, displayed the former policy advisor of having the moral view of a child and one incongruent with the more devious designs of dictators and strongmen around the world. Mr. Ellsberg is the standard bearer for the infantile belief that if we are just nice and transparent to the world powers, everyone else will follow suit. How can someone like him with his experience hold such an idea?
As an historian, how do I classify Mr. Ellsberg? He is a person whose actions went against the opinion of a majority of Americans at the time. It is easy to assume that the vast majority of Americans were against the war because those who opposed the conflict were also the loudest. He violated the trust that many people had in him to hold up his word, to perform his duty. The release of secret documents has consequences, not only for the goals of a country but for those who are tasked with carrying it out. Let’s hope that too many did not suffer for the vainglorious and naïve Mr. Ellsberg.
As a historian, I’m left to wonder how to classify Mr. Ellsberg. From a purely objective point of view, he belongs in the category of Benedict Arnold, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Klaus Fuch. However, Mr. Ellsberg's crime cannot, in the strictest sense, be placed with those mentioned. The former Pentagon advisor revealed secret documents as an act of conscience and willing to deal with the consequences of his actions. On a certain level, he is nothing else if not admirable. However, as I hear the elderly man speak of his actions as a young man, I’m left with two overriding impressions.
One, he seems to suffer from an overactive sense of hubris. The notion that his ideas, in a democracy, should override the decision of an entire country is perplexing. He felt that his documentation as to the lies of past presidents with regards to Viet Nam invalidated them as leaders and should force the American people to rethink all future decisions. He placed himself as judge, juror and executor, as it were, in releasing the papers.
However, what strikes me most about his story is the sheer amount of naiveté that colors his rationale. Since the time of James Madison, who argued the necessity for governments to have secrets, there has been subterfuge and misdirection in the course of foreign policy. Such policy making cannot be made out in the open with the questionable characters that exist in the world today. Even more surprisingly naïve was Mr. Ellsberg's assertion that his turn in thinking during the mid-1960s occurred when he spent time in Viet Nam and saw the horrors of war itself. I’m left wondering how the former foreign policy advisor and Marine did not know what war was like and how horribly simple was his world view?
William F. Buckley challenged Mr. Ellsberg once on the idea that the pursuit of diplomacy and foreign policy was inherently in need of lies and by drawing out the latter’s sense of what is right or wrong with regards to lying, displayed the former policy advisor of having the moral view of a child and one incongruent with the more devious designs of dictators and strongmen around the world. Mr. Ellsberg is the standard bearer for the infantile belief that if we are just nice and transparent to the world powers, everyone else will follow suit. How can someone like him with his experience hold such an idea?
As an historian, how do I classify Mr. Ellsberg? He is a person whose actions went against the opinion of a majority of Americans at the time. It is easy to assume that the vast majority of Americans were against the war because those who opposed the conflict were also the loudest. He violated the trust that many people had in him to hold up his word, to perform his duty. The release of secret documents has consequences, not only for the goals of a country but for those who are tasked with carrying it out. Let’s hope that too many did not suffer for the vainglorious and naïve Mr. Ellsberg.
The Showdown at the United Nations
There is movement in the United Nations to unilaterally grant statehood to Palestine without the territory accepting or respecting the right of Israel to exist. In a statement, former British prime minister, Tony Blair, stated that the process for statehood has been extremely slow, virtually non-existent lately and ultimately, not productive. Therefore, this is the best course of action. Mr. Blair has further encouraged Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, to present his application for statehood to the United Nations today. By all accounts, that will happen.
This is not just an argument against Palestinian statehood for the sake of arguing. The Montevideo Conference of 1933 laid out quite clearly what constituted a state, such as a defined territory and a government – some of which the Palestinians do not meet. However, my biggest concern is for Israel.
In 1979, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat signed the Camp David Accords in part to help guarantee some type of security for Israel, who had been on constant guard and under frequent attack since their independence in 1948. Since that time, the Israeli state has fought constantly for their right to exist and the agreement in 1977 was the first step towards normalizing relations with an Arab neighbor who foresaw the fruitless and expensive road towards perpetual war. Since that historic agreement, Israel has dealt with a new, less defined enemy that will not be satisfied until the Jewish state is driven into the sea.
In the years following the Camp David Accords, Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have entered into one agreement after another and ultimately, it has failed because of the PA's inability to control the individual and organized terrorists from launching frequent attacks upon their neighbor. Time after time, the guarantee of Israeli security has compelled the Palestinian government to back away from promises. Throughout it all, an influential U.S. and its allies have said that Israeli security must be guaranteed before a Palestinian state can be established. These latest moves would undermine all of that and put a weakened Israel once more under the threat of its Arab neighbors. In short, such a unilateral move is a prelude to war.
As I said, my concern lies with Israel. President Obama seems increasingly incapable of projecting an American presence on the situation, overturning decades of influence. Worse yet, Arab countries are talking more provocatively about their long-hated neighbor. It is only a matter of time before this situation grows untenable. Mr. Abbas’ application for statehood is not destined for quick passage. In the interim, let’s hope that other countries are intelligent enough to avoid the abyss.
This is not just an argument against Palestinian statehood for the sake of arguing. The Montevideo Conference of 1933 laid out quite clearly what constituted a state, such as a defined territory and a government – some of which the Palestinians do not meet. However, my biggest concern is for Israel.
In 1979, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat signed the Camp David Accords in part to help guarantee some type of security for Israel, who had been on constant guard and under frequent attack since their independence in 1948. Since that time, the Israeli state has fought constantly for their right to exist and the agreement in 1977 was the first step towards normalizing relations with an Arab neighbor who foresaw the fruitless and expensive road towards perpetual war. Since that historic agreement, Israel has dealt with a new, less defined enemy that will not be satisfied until the Jewish state is driven into the sea.
In the years following the Camp David Accords, Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have entered into one agreement after another and ultimately, it has failed because of the PA's inability to control the individual and organized terrorists from launching frequent attacks upon their neighbor. Time after time, the guarantee of Israeli security has compelled the Palestinian government to back away from promises. Throughout it all, an influential U.S. and its allies have said that Israeli security must be guaranteed before a Palestinian state can be established. These latest moves would undermine all of that and put a weakened Israel once more under the threat of its Arab neighbors. In short, such a unilateral move is a prelude to war.
As I said, my concern lies with Israel. President Obama seems increasingly incapable of projecting an American presence on the situation, overturning decades of influence. Worse yet, Arab countries are talking more provocatively about their long-hated neighbor. It is only a matter of time before this situation grows untenable. Mr. Abbas’ application for statehood is not destined for quick passage. In the interim, let’s hope that other countries are intelligent enough to avoid the abyss.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Tidbits
I don’t believe that Governor Perry is as dumb as others portray. In the debates, he seems quite nimble on his feet at times and while he stammers and seems unsure at other times, my overall impression is that his mental acuity is not as limited as others might hope…
Did I hear that Barry Manilow has endorsed Rep. Ron Paul of Texas? (Insert your own witty response to that one)…
I know that a couple of years ago, Don Imus was persona non grata for most and even today, some people continue to declare an innate racism with the septuagenarian former shock jock. However, being from the northeast, I’ve listened to him for some twenty plus years. I’ve not known him to be a racist – as much as one can know anyone through the medium of radio. Today, his audiences seem bigger than ever and his ability to interview political pundits and officials is as smooth as anyone else in the business…
I wish I could remember the source, but I read a commentator’s thoughts about the blown opportunity that MSNBC had in their broadcast of the Republican primary debate at the Ronald Reagan Library. Say what you want about Fox News, it is what it is. However, MSNBC comes from a fine journalistic tradition with NBC and to think that the memory and tradition of Huntley and Brinkley, John Chancellor, Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert are in the hands of Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews is a head-shaking thought. They could have righted that ship but when post-debate banter included a call for civility by the aforementioned Mr. Sharpton, I’m not sure how serious to take them…
I saw a video recently of Oscar Peterson and Andre Previn playing together and it was a magical experience. While Previn was a bit removed from his piano playing days, the little number between the two was quite something. Along the same line, I seemed to recall in the deeper part of my mind a drumming dual between Buddy Rich and Ed Shaughnessy of the Doc Severinsen Band. I remember as a child being mesmerized by their playing. If you can find that video and have any appreciation for drumming, or want an appreciation for drumming, you will find your satisfaction…
How old do I sound if I say that we recently had new, energy efficient windows put in and I’m so excited about it…
A group of Columbia University students have accepted a private dinner invitation from Iranian “president” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and are quite excited about the opportunity. Is this a part of a series of intimate meetings with those who routinely murder and oppress their own people? I wonder who is next in the dinner series. Not exactly My Dinner with Andre…
Education Secretary Arne Duncan is pushing the “Digital Promise” of President Obama, to ensure a push for more technology in the classroom. This is designed to help students improve testable academic success. Technology is not the answer. A commitment to the importance and value of education outside extrinsic incentives is the answer.
Did I hear that Barry Manilow has endorsed Rep. Ron Paul of Texas? (Insert your own witty response to that one)…
I know that a couple of years ago, Don Imus was persona non grata for most and even today, some people continue to declare an innate racism with the septuagenarian former shock jock. However, being from the northeast, I’ve listened to him for some twenty plus years. I’ve not known him to be a racist – as much as one can know anyone through the medium of radio. Today, his audiences seem bigger than ever and his ability to interview political pundits and officials is as smooth as anyone else in the business…
I wish I could remember the source, but I read a commentator’s thoughts about the blown opportunity that MSNBC had in their broadcast of the Republican primary debate at the Ronald Reagan Library. Say what you want about Fox News, it is what it is. However, MSNBC comes from a fine journalistic tradition with NBC and to think that the memory and tradition of Huntley and Brinkley, John Chancellor, Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert are in the hands of Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews is a head-shaking thought. They could have righted that ship but when post-debate banter included a call for civility by the aforementioned Mr. Sharpton, I’m not sure how serious to take them…
I saw a video recently of Oscar Peterson and Andre Previn playing together and it was a magical experience. While Previn was a bit removed from his piano playing days, the little number between the two was quite something. Along the same line, I seemed to recall in the deeper part of my mind a drumming dual between Buddy Rich and Ed Shaughnessy of the Doc Severinsen Band. I remember as a child being mesmerized by their playing. If you can find that video and have any appreciation for drumming, or want an appreciation for drumming, you will find your satisfaction…
How old do I sound if I say that we recently had new, energy efficient windows put in and I’m so excited about it…
A group of Columbia University students have accepted a private dinner invitation from Iranian “president” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and are quite excited about the opportunity. Is this a part of a series of intimate meetings with those who routinely murder and oppress their own people? I wonder who is next in the dinner series. Not exactly My Dinner with Andre…
Education Secretary Arne Duncan is pushing the “Digital Promise” of President Obama, to ensure a push for more technology in the classroom. This is designed to help students improve testable academic success. Technology is not the answer. A commitment to the importance and value of education outside extrinsic incentives is the answer.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
In Memoriam
Forgive me if this seems trite, but I would like to share a couple of thoughts on September 11, 2001. With the 10th year anniversary upon us, I’m taken back to the emotions that never fail, even ten years later, to bring on tears. I’m not a very emotional man and I guess, like many men, I was taught to keep those feelings in check. However, this weekend, I’m once more confronted with what that day meant.
I was teaching my first class of the day when a late arriving student told me, upon entering the class, that a plane flew into one of the World Trade Center towers. I seemed to recall a story of small planes flying into buildings before, causing minimal damage so my immediate reaction was, “Wow, that is horrible. The pilot must have had a heart attack or something.” The class continued as normal. After that first class, a teacher approached me and said that a second plane had hit the other tower and like most people, it dawned on me that we were under attack. Over the course of the next couple of classes, students were hearing one story after another – most of them false. However, at that time, we did not know what was true or not. I heard that the Pentagon and the White House had been hit. I heard other places were on lock down and that more planes were heading to various locations.
At some point in the morning, a local news broadcast suggested that parents take their children out of the school. To this day, I’m not sure of the reason for this but for the next couple of hours, parents flocked to our school and signed them out. Students, not fully understanding the event, began to see it has a way of leaving school and some expressed dismay as to why their parents did not check them out. Meanwhile, I struggled with my feelings. However, I pushed forward to hold class as usual, with no particular insight on what was happening. Yet, it is my experience that work can pre-occupy the mind and perhaps, that is what we needed. Upon the day's final school bell, I still had not seen any coverage of the event. By the time I made it home, the coverage would consume me. My then-girlfriend (now-wife) was in Germany at the time and with all air traffic shut down in the U.S., she would be there another week and a half. It seemed to me she was safer there than here.
To this day, rebroadcasts or documentaries of the attacks bring up strong emotions. It was an unprovoked attack and I’m grateful for Presidents Bush and Obama for keeping our country safe and free of additional attacks in the years following. I have little patience for conspiracy theories. As a historian, if you do not have facts, and very few of the conspiracy propagators do, then I can give no weight to the speculation that seems to excite the darker recesses of their minds. As with the Kennedy assassination, people cannot handle a lack of information and in the absence of understanding, others fill in whatever fits their preconceptions.
As a historian, it is understandable that our world is rapidly filling with people who have no concept of the attacks and therefore, no appreciation of the event. For those of us who remember that Tuesday, we might dismay at the lack of connection but that is the way of the world and we cannot take that personally. Still, we have a role to play in helping them understand what happened, why it happened and to remember the thousands that died. We can never forget and we cannot fail to pass along what is now a part of our national heritage.
I was teaching my first class of the day when a late arriving student told me, upon entering the class, that a plane flew into one of the World Trade Center towers. I seemed to recall a story of small planes flying into buildings before, causing minimal damage so my immediate reaction was, “Wow, that is horrible. The pilot must have had a heart attack or something.” The class continued as normal. After that first class, a teacher approached me and said that a second plane had hit the other tower and like most people, it dawned on me that we were under attack. Over the course of the next couple of classes, students were hearing one story after another – most of them false. However, at that time, we did not know what was true or not. I heard that the Pentagon and the White House had been hit. I heard other places were on lock down and that more planes were heading to various locations.
At some point in the morning, a local news broadcast suggested that parents take their children out of the school. To this day, I’m not sure of the reason for this but for the next couple of hours, parents flocked to our school and signed them out. Students, not fully understanding the event, began to see it has a way of leaving school and some expressed dismay as to why their parents did not check them out. Meanwhile, I struggled with my feelings. However, I pushed forward to hold class as usual, with no particular insight on what was happening. Yet, it is my experience that work can pre-occupy the mind and perhaps, that is what we needed. Upon the day's final school bell, I still had not seen any coverage of the event. By the time I made it home, the coverage would consume me. My then-girlfriend (now-wife) was in Germany at the time and with all air traffic shut down in the U.S., she would be there another week and a half. It seemed to me she was safer there than here.
To this day, rebroadcasts or documentaries of the attacks bring up strong emotions. It was an unprovoked attack and I’m grateful for Presidents Bush and Obama for keeping our country safe and free of additional attacks in the years following. I have little patience for conspiracy theories. As a historian, if you do not have facts, and very few of the conspiracy propagators do, then I can give no weight to the speculation that seems to excite the darker recesses of their minds. As with the Kennedy assassination, people cannot handle a lack of information and in the absence of understanding, others fill in whatever fits their preconceptions.
As a historian, it is understandable that our world is rapidly filling with people who have no concept of the attacks and therefore, no appreciation of the event. For those of us who remember that Tuesday, we might dismay at the lack of connection but that is the way of the world and we cannot take that personally. Still, we have a role to play in helping them understand what happened, why it happened and to remember the thousands that died. We can never forget and we cannot fail to pass along what is now a part of our national heritage.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
And In This Corner...
As summer folds into fall, our thoughts turn towards football, playoff baseball, cooler temperatures and occasionally, primary elections. The 2012 general election promises to be an interesting one. It is unlikely that someone within the Democrat Party will challenge President Obama as happened to President Jimmy Carter in 1980 when the late Senator Ted Kennedy entered the primary fray. So, in the interest of drama and a competition of ideas prior to the main event, let’s consider the men and women who seek the Republican nomination for the highest office in the land. Not mentioned will include the fringe candidates, exemplified by the likes of Jimmy McMillan representing the Rent Is Too Damn High Party – but, we appreciate the interjection of character into the mix.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) – George Will of the Washington Post said that the biggest question to be directed towards Ms. Bachmann is, if one of her advisors has not been fired for giving her false information that she then uttered throughout the campaign trail, why not? It is difficult to see her regaining any momentum now that Governor Perry, her ideological though more polished doppelganger, is in the race.
Herman Cain – He seems like a nice guy and with regards to the economy, he makes a great deal of sense but I imagine that many offices have pools as to when exactly he is exiting the race.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich – Easily one of the more articulate and informative people in the race but after so long away from the political scene and with enough personal issues to stun a mastodon, it is difficult seeing him stick around through the fall.
Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman – It has been said that former ambassador Huntsman is the Republican for self-hating Republicans. And, it is mentioned by the media, typically the left-leaning media that a centrist is what the Republicans need if they want to be elected. Personally, I find him quite engaging but the GOP tried a centrist with Senator John McCain and it did not work. Therefore, Mr. Huntsman will likely be gone by the end of the fall if not sooner.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) – No matter the level of commitment Rep. Paul’s followers have, his appeal is too limited to move beyond. He complains often about the lack of media coverage. While that may not help, neither will more television time. He has a long history of saying some rather peculiar things. He has suggested he might not be that interested in the job but he will stick around to drive the debate.
Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) – No one candidate has entered the race with such anticipation and impact as Governor Perry. However, the national stage might, ultimately, prove too bright for him. Despite his record in Texas, a state where the governor does not have much power, it will not be enough to win the nomination.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney – It will be Mr. Romney that will emerge as the Republican candidate for 2012 general election. I’m not sure if he is the right choice for the Republicans to win. He is milquetoast and is as likely to fill people with ennui than political inspiration. He does not approach the medical care program in Massachusetts the right way. He should embrace it as an example of states being the laboratories of democracy and this was an example of something that did not work. He should simply say that and move on. Other Republicans will not let it go, however, which could doom his run.
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum – If you know that he is running for president, it is a minor victory for his campaign. If he is not in the middle of a concession speech as I write this, I will be surprised.
And what about the 500 pound, albeit beautiful, gorilla in the room? Being president might be a pay cut for Sarah Palin. As it is, her ship may have sailed as she likely knows it.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) – George Will of the Washington Post said that the biggest question to be directed towards Ms. Bachmann is, if one of her advisors has not been fired for giving her false information that she then uttered throughout the campaign trail, why not? It is difficult to see her regaining any momentum now that Governor Perry, her ideological though more polished doppelganger, is in the race.
Herman Cain – He seems like a nice guy and with regards to the economy, he makes a great deal of sense but I imagine that many offices have pools as to when exactly he is exiting the race.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich – Easily one of the more articulate and informative people in the race but after so long away from the political scene and with enough personal issues to stun a mastodon, it is difficult seeing him stick around through the fall.
Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman – It has been said that former ambassador Huntsman is the Republican for self-hating Republicans. And, it is mentioned by the media, typically the left-leaning media that a centrist is what the Republicans need if they want to be elected. Personally, I find him quite engaging but the GOP tried a centrist with Senator John McCain and it did not work. Therefore, Mr. Huntsman will likely be gone by the end of the fall if not sooner.
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) – No matter the level of commitment Rep. Paul’s followers have, his appeal is too limited to move beyond. He complains often about the lack of media coverage. While that may not help, neither will more television time. He has a long history of saying some rather peculiar things. He has suggested he might not be that interested in the job but he will stick around to drive the debate.
Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) – No one candidate has entered the race with such anticipation and impact as Governor Perry. However, the national stage might, ultimately, prove too bright for him. Despite his record in Texas, a state where the governor does not have much power, it will not be enough to win the nomination.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney – It will be Mr. Romney that will emerge as the Republican candidate for 2012 general election. I’m not sure if he is the right choice for the Republicans to win. He is milquetoast and is as likely to fill people with ennui than political inspiration. He does not approach the medical care program in Massachusetts the right way. He should embrace it as an example of states being the laboratories of democracy and this was an example of something that did not work. He should simply say that and move on. Other Republicans will not let it go, however, which could doom his run.
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum – If you know that he is running for president, it is a minor victory for his campaign. If he is not in the middle of a concession speech as I write this, I will be surprised.
And what about the 500 pound, albeit beautiful, gorilla in the room? Being president might be a pay cut for Sarah Palin. As it is, her ship may have sailed as she likely knows it.
Where is Mr. Blackwell When We Need Him?
I’m an avid sports fan – not of all sports but certainly enough to make my wife roll her eyes from time to time. Like many sports fans, I love the tradition and history in which many of the storied franchises are wrapped. However, there is one element that drives me a little crazy in the following of my favorite sports – uniforms. This might be an odd thing to get on one’s horse over but there are some offensive expressions of sports fashion out there that needs to be called out. We fans have to wear these colors and designs to support our team – how about some consideration? Here are a few of the worst – broken down by the sport.
Baseball – The Toronto Blue Jays used to have a great uniform (click here) but in the pursuit of trendy, edgy and new age, their look (particularly the dark colored ones seen here) are just wrong. The Diamondbacks/Marlins/Rays – any team whose years of existence are outnumbered by uniform varieties they’ve worn need to be disbanded at once. I know that the San Diego Padres wear the camouflage uniforms in honor of nearby stationed troops, but they look hideous – and I’ve worn camouflage utilities.
Football – I cannot stand the New England Patriots, whose uniform (here) looks like a holdover from the old USFL. What makes it worse; they used to have the best. The Atlanta Falcons have had a horrible uniform since the decided to go all black back in the 1990s (whoop, there it is). Why oh why won’t they return to the red and white? The Carolina Panthers must include the most awkwardly benign caricature of an otherwise fierce creature in sports (throw in Jacksonville Jaguars for much the same reason). Lastly, the Philadelphia Eagles color scheme is all wrong – their uniform is so monochromatic, I expect the helmet design to disappear soon (here).
Hockey – There are a group of teams with the most ridiculous mascot designs for their attire, including the Florida Panthers, the Columbus Blue Jackets (though, to be fair, the name of the team hampers the pursuit of good ideas), the Nashville Predators, the Phoenix Coyotes, the Pittsburg Penguins (here) and the Tampa Bay Lightning. You might say that the Penguins get a pass as an older team. No. I’m from the Baltimore/Washington area, I cannot stand the Penguins, and so they stay on the list out of principle.
College football – The reason for this article was a string of criminal uniform designs in the opening weekend of the 2011 season. The worst, and that is saying something, belongs to the Georgia Bulldogs who always sported a classic look. But the icing on the cake are my beloved Maryland Terrapins (here). What in the name of God was that they wore against Miami? A local radio personality brought up a good point – that uniform went through the approval of a host of board of directors, university officials, coaches and players. Not one of them, apparently, protested. What about the Oregon Ducks, you might ask? I’m sure others have said more eloquently than I could how hideous their various incarnations appear. How one university could screw up so often on something so simple is beyond me (here).
Baseball – The Toronto Blue Jays used to have a great uniform (click here) but in the pursuit of trendy, edgy and new age, their look (particularly the dark colored ones seen here) are just wrong. The Diamondbacks/Marlins/Rays – any team whose years of existence are outnumbered by uniform varieties they’ve worn need to be disbanded at once. I know that the San Diego Padres wear the camouflage uniforms in honor of nearby stationed troops, but they look hideous – and I’ve worn camouflage utilities.
Football – I cannot stand the New England Patriots, whose uniform (here) looks like a holdover from the old USFL. What makes it worse; they used to have the best. The Atlanta Falcons have had a horrible uniform since the decided to go all black back in the 1990s (whoop, there it is). Why oh why won’t they return to the red and white? The Carolina Panthers must include the most awkwardly benign caricature of an otherwise fierce creature in sports (throw in Jacksonville Jaguars for much the same reason). Lastly, the Philadelphia Eagles color scheme is all wrong – their uniform is so monochromatic, I expect the helmet design to disappear soon (here).
Hockey – There are a group of teams with the most ridiculous mascot designs for their attire, including the Florida Panthers, the Columbus Blue Jackets (though, to be fair, the name of the team hampers the pursuit of good ideas), the Nashville Predators, the Phoenix Coyotes, the Pittsburg Penguins (here) and the Tampa Bay Lightning. You might say that the Penguins get a pass as an older team. No. I’m from the Baltimore/Washington area, I cannot stand the Penguins, and so they stay on the list out of principle.
College football – The reason for this article was a string of criminal uniform designs in the opening weekend of the 2011 season. The worst, and that is saying something, belongs to the Georgia Bulldogs who always sported a classic look. But the icing on the cake are my beloved Maryland Terrapins (here). What in the name of God was that they wore against Miami? A local radio personality brought up a good point – that uniform went through the approval of a host of board of directors, university officials, coaches and players. Not one of them, apparently, protested. What about the Oregon Ducks, you might ask? I’m sure others have said more eloquently than I could how hideous their various incarnations appear. How one university could screw up so often on something so simple is beyond me (here).
Friday, September 2, 2011
The Specious Case of John Lewis
For those who do not know, Representative John Lewis (D-GA) is a walking history book. While most people talk about ideals, Representative Lewis threw his hat into the ring and suffered unimaginable abuse and repeated imprisonment. As a young man growing up in Alabama, he had a front row seat to segregation and terrorism and endured through personal moxie and courage. He joined the ranks of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, heading up the organization in the early 1960s. He stood toe to toe against the forces of hate and rose to the highest levels of American society as a U.S. congressman. There is much to respect about Mr. Lewis.
For those sensing a “but” coming, here it is. As much as I respect Mr. Lewis, I am mystified and saddened by his current behavior. Following in the footsteps of hyperbole and race baiting so treasured by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the congressman has thrown out the charge of racism on items he simply disagrees with politically as a cheap shot and in the process, cheapened his life’s work. In doing so, he has diminished the attention on real cases of racism.
A year ago, Representative Lewis and others levied the charge of racism at a Tea Party rally at the steps of the Capitol. He and others claimed the activists shouted the word “nigger” as well as other racial slurs. The problem was that, in all likelihood, no one said anything of the sort but the story was misrepresented or fabricated to marginalize and radicalize a group that represents, whether one likes it or not, the concerns of a significant portion of the country. With so many cameras and iPhones about, the fact that not one camera or microphone picked up such slurs makes the charge all the more unlikely. However, Mr. Lewis and his supporters have won because the charges of racism with regards to the Tea Party have been proliferated and repeated so often, the group and charge are synonymous. It is a shame because there are a great deal of decent Americans who want to affect change but they are labeled racists by people with more microphones and TV time. Mr. Lewis did a similar character assassination with the McCain/Palin ticket, declaring the two and their audiences similar to that of famed segregationist, Alabama Governor George Wallace.
Now, Mr. Lewis has targeted the Voter ID bill. Throughout the world and in most functioning democracies, it is common that some form of a national photo identification is required, among other reasons, for voting. With stories of voting fraud that Mr. Lewis attempted to dismiss as miniscule in a recent speech, there is a need for more secure voting procedures. And, as much as a photo identification is required on a daily basis, any complaints seem to teeter on the edge of contrarianism. Rep. Lewis took it one step further by suggesting that such a law would unfairly target African-Americans. This is where I feel the congressman drifts from reality. Why would he assume that any sizable portion of America’s black population would not have a photo id? Is it me or does that not sound a bit racist?
Representative Lewis is an American hero and I have a great deal of respect for his accomplishments both in the fight for civil rights and his service in the House. However, I would implore him to not use race in the debate against political opponents. Not only does it cheapen the true cases of racism but it also suggests he has nothing to argue, indeed, nothing to say.
For those sensing a “but” coming, here it is. As much as I respect Mr. Lewis, I am mystified and saddened by his current behavior. Following in the footsteps of hyperbole and race baiting so treasured by Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the congressman has thrown out the charge of racism on items he simply disagrees with politically as a cheap shot and in the process, cheapened his life’s work. In doing so, he has diminished the attention on real cases of racism.
A year ago, Representative Lewis and others levied the charge of racism at a Tea Party rally at the steps of the Capitol. He and others claimed the activists shouted the word “nigger” as well as other racial slurs. The problem was that, in all likelihood, no one said anything of the sort but the story was misrepresented or fabricated to marginalize and radicalize a group that represents, whether one likes it or not, the concerns of a significant portion of the country. With so many cameras and iPhones about, the fact that not one camera or microphone picked up such slurs makes the charge all the more unlikely. However, Mr. Lewis and his supporters have won because the charges of racism with regards to the Tea Party have been proliferated and repeated so often, the group and charge are synonymous. It is a shame because there are a great deal of decent Americans who want to affect change but they are labeled racists by people with more microphones and TV time. Mr. Lewis did a similar character assassination with the McCain/Palin ticket, declaring the two and their audiences similar to that of famed segregationist, Alabama Governor George Wallace.
Now, Mr. Lewis has targeted the Voter ID bill. Throughout the world and in most functioning democracies, it is common that some form of a national photo identification is required, among other reasons, for voting. With stories of voting fraud that Mr. Lewis attempted to dismiss as miniscule in a recent speech, there is a need for more secure voting procedures. And, as much as a photo identification is required on a daily basis, any complaints seem to teeter on the edge of contrarianism. Rep. Lewis took it one step further by suggesting that such a law would unfairly target African-Americans. This is where I feel the congressman drifts from reality. Why would he assume that any sizable portion of America’s black population would not have a photo id? Is it me or does that not sound a bit racist?
Representative Lewis is an American hero and I have a great deal of respect for his accomplishments both in the fight for civil rights and his service in the House. However, I would implore him to not use race in the debate against political opponents. Not only does it cheapen the true cases of racism but it also suggests he has nothing to argue, indeed, nothing to say.
Friday, August 26, 2011
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Libya?
In a perfect world, as a historian extraordinaire, the president of the United States would call me up and ask, “So… this whole Libya thing. What should I do next?” Not that he needs my help per se. He has plenty of smart people around him and he is no slouch in the brains department either. However, President Obama would be served well to consider the lessons of the past, if not the sage-like advice of a blogger with about 4 people on a regular reading list – one of them being my mother.
And so, we turn a hopeful eye towards North Africa. Libya has been a center of civilization in the region since antiquity. It could prove to be so again in the 21st-century but a great deal of things would need to fall into place – a confluence of events that only seems to happen in the history of countries. When considering how best to help the country and its nascent governmental structure, there are three main things it desperately needs from those claiming friendship and one thing it could certainly do without. The president has made comments to suggest the role of the U.S. will be limited because of our standing in the region. That would be a huge mistake – the kind that one term presidents with a penchant for making nationally televised speeches about malaise make.
Step one, send in a slew of politicos including campaign managers, strategists, voting experts and observers to bring the country more quickly to free elections. The United States did this with the countries of Eastern Europe when the Soviet Union lost influence and ultimately, collapsed. The Libyan people and the transitional government will need all the help they can receive from the world’s democracies to create one of their very own. Such experts can organize the process of the selection of candidates for office and the standardization of voting places and procedures. We have a great opportunity to influence the course of events in Libya, a course of events that would serve the Libyan people well.
Step two, there needs to be economists and business people to advise and invest in the country. One thing that makes the Libyan economy so shaky and fragile is its lack of diversity. Oil revenue makes up about 95% of its total export revenue and a whopping 25% of GDP. Economists and investors could change that. There are needs that, if paid for by the oil revenue, could do much to increase the standard of living. Perhaps, such assistance might also turn around the fact that it imports roughly 75% of its food. Additionally, economists could help shape domestic and international fiscal policy as well as set up new trade agreements and steps to increase foreign investment.
Lastly, there needs to be people who provide infrastructure construction and advice. With the various improvements that need to occur within the economy, a major dose of infrastructure projects would secure new foreign business and investment. It is likely that much of the port and pipeline facilities could use updating or repair but so too is there a need for additional road construction. Much of the country is desolate but increase road construction throughout the northern part of the country, which has only 35,000 miles of paved roads, might increase a variety of other industries.
One thing that would not serve the country well would be the appearance of United Nations peacekeepers. First of all, it sends the wrong message to the people of Libya – “we don’t trust you guys to put together a government without killing one another so we are going to send a bunch of soldiers in little blue helmets.” Second, the United Nations do not have a great track record for this kind of action and ultimately, a mismanaged and ineffective outside force could do much to ruin what other measures might be able to create.
As Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard mentioned on one of the Sunday shows this past week, we cannot control what is going on but we have it within our power to influence. Perhaps, a democratic country seeking to help out a budding democracy in accordance with our principles might do much to change our image in the region – surely, it will do more than refusing to do nothing because we fear people not liking us.
And so, we turn a hopeful eye towards North Africa. Libya has been a center of civilization in the region since antiquity. It could prove to be so again in the 21st-century but a great deal of things would need to fall into place – a confluence of events that only seems to happen in the history of countries. When considering how best to help the country and its nascent governmental structure, there are three main things it desperately needs from those claiming friendship and one thing it could certainly do without. The president has made comments to suggest the role of the U.S. will be limited because of our standing in the region. That would be a huge mistake – the kind that one term presidents with a penchant for making nationally televised speeches about malaise make.
Step one, send in a slew of politicos including campaign managers, strategists, voting experts and observers to bring the country more quickly to free elections. The United States did this with the countries of Eastern Europe when the Soviet Union lost influence and ultimately, collapsed. The Libyan people and the transitional government will need all the help they can receive from the world’s democracies to create one of their very own. Such experts can organize the process of the selection of candidates for office and the standardization of voting places and procedures. We have a great opportunity to influence the course of events in Libya, a course of events that would serve the Libyan people well.
Step two, there needs to be economists and business people to advise and invest in the country. One thing that makes the Libyan economy so shaky and fragile is its lack of diversity. Oil revenue makes up about 95% of its total export revenue and a whopping 25% of GDP. Economists and investors could change that. There are needs that, if paid for by the oil revenue, could do much to increase the standard of living. Perhaps, such assistance might also turn around the fact that it imports roughly 75% of its food. Additionally, economists could help shape domestic and international fiscal policy as well as set up new trade agreements and steps to increase foreign investment.
Lastly, there needs to be people who provide infrastructure construction and advice. With the various improvements that need to occur within the economy, a major dose of infrastructure projects would secure new foreign business and investment. It is likely that much of the port and pipeline facilities could use updating or repair but so too is there a need for additional road construction. Much of the country is desolate but increase road construction throughout the northern part of the country, which has only 35,000 miles of paved roads, might increase a variety of other industries.
One thing that would not serve the country well would be the appearance of United Nations peacekeepers. First of all, it sends the wrong message to the people of Libya – “we don’t trust you guys to put together a government without killing one another so we are going to send a bunch of soldiers in little blue helmets.” Second, the United Nations do not have a great track record for this kind of action and ultimately, a mismanaged and ineffective outside force could do much to ruin what other measures might be able to create.
As Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard mentioned on one of the Sunday shows this past week, we cannot control what is going on but we have it within our power to influence. Perhaps, a democratic country seeking to help out a budding democracy in accordance with our principles might do much to change our image in the region – surely, it will do more than refusing to do nothing because we fear people not liking us.
Friday, August 19, 2011
What Baseball Means to Me
There is a legion of people out there who think baseball is boring. I know because every time I run into them and they find out of my obsession with baseball, they never hesitate to tell me and tell me often. This must be what soccer fans feel like. However, like soccer fans, I don’t consider the sport boring. Like most young boys of my generation, my experience with baseball began with time spent with my father. The most beautiful green grass was offset by the brown base path. The warm summer evening was accented with the smell of hot dogs and other baseball culinary accoutrements. My father taught me to score the games, likely to keep me engaged than anything else but it is a tradition I do to this day. Above all, the game allowed for conversation.
As an adult, I appreciate the sport for different reasons, while fondly recalling my times as a young boy. As an historian, there is something about an annual event that, for the most part, has not changed in the near century and a half baseball has been around. Technology has changed the sport and the environs have grown fancier but the product on the field as not changed. My score card and that of one from the 1940s will look roughly the same. To know that I’m connected to generations dating back to the late 1800s holds a continuity over me that, as an historian, gives me a chill. If I could somehow speak with someone from 1910 about baseball and our favorite teams and players, the conversation would flow because the subject is the same. How many things in the modern world can one say that about?
Second, it allows for an escape from modern society. While technology has seeped in and taken over the game production value, one can simply focus on the game and escape the hectic and artificial world that technology can create. The game moves at its own pace and not at the frenetic and bizarre one that inhabits much of our world today. There is no clock and no set time it must end. The game unfolds organically. In a world where we are rushing to get nowhere, here is a slice of what our country and our culture used to value. From this, I began to develop my values accordingly. When one attends a place like Wrigley Field in Chicago or Fenway Park in Boston, it heightens the experience but these ballparks come to us from an earlier age. I’ve been fortunate enough to visit these parks and it is a magical feel. Many who are not as enamored with baseball as I am find the romanticizing of the sport a bit too much. However, I would submit the reason for this approach is a call for, not so much an earlier time but an earlier approach to life.
Third, it is a combination of two sports mindsets – the importance and value of team but also the drama of a one-on-one face off. In baseball, each individual achievement is the product, not so much of the player but of the team. Every baseball player who ever pitched a no-hitter or reached a hitting record, did so because of the efforts of their teammates. A pitcher benefits from the defensive work of his teammates. The hitter benefits from the strategy forced upon the pitcher by the batter before or after in the lineup. Yet, when one pitcher squares off against one batter, it can be a marvelous thing. It is not always dramatic but the finality of the encounter is wonderful. At the end of an at-bat, one will walk off his spot either victorious or a little ashamed. In particular, I love the deadly pitcher refusing to walk or pitch around the great hitter. The pitcher is saying, “Yes, you are good but I’m better and I’m going to show you and the world.” And with the action on the field, come the statistician-fan who, through their scorebook and their knowledge of the game, rise and fall with the ebb and flow and continue to make that connection with an earlier time.
Finally, more so than any sport, baseball represents renewal. No other sport has fans that deal with defeat and loss with the level of optimism for the next year like in baseball. Spring is a rebirth and no matter the product on the field the year before, spring training represents another chance to prosper. Across the spectrum, baseball gives us what we lack in life. Perhaps, baseball does not mean that much to you, if at all. However, I’m often asked to describe why this sport wraps me up and draws me in. This is the best I can do.
As an adult, I appreciate the sport for different reasons, while fondly recalling my times as a young boy. As an historian, there is something about an annual event that, for the most part, has not changed in the near century and a half baseball has been around. Technology has changed the sport and the environs have grown fancier but the product on the field as not changed. My score card and that of one from the 1940s will look roughly the same. To know that I’m connected to generations dating back to the late 1800s holds a continuity over me that, as an historian, gives me a chill. If I could somehow speak with someone from 1910 about baseball and our favorite teams and players, the conversation would flow because the subject is the same. How many things in the modern world can one say that about?
Second, it allows for an escape from modern society. While technology has seeped in and taken over the game production value, one can simply focus on the game and escape the hectic and artificial world that technology can create. The game moves at its own pace and not at the frenetic and bizarre one that inhabits much of our world today. There is no clock and no set time it must end. The game unfolds organically. In a world where we are rushing to get nowhere, here is a slice of what our country and our culture used to value. From this, I began to develop my values accordingly. When one attends a place like Wrigley Field in Chicago or Fenway Park in Boston, it heightens the experience but these ballparks come to us from an earlier age. I’ve been fortunate enough to visit these parks and it is a magical feel. Many who are not as enamored with baseball as I am find the romanticizing of the sport a bit too much. However, I would submit the reason for this approach is a call for, not so much an earlier time but an earlier approach to life.
Third, it is a combination of two sports mindsets – the importance and value of team but also the drama of a one-on-one face off. In baseball, each individual achievement is the product, not so much of the player but of the team. Every baseball player who ever pitched a no-hitter or reached a hitting record, did so because of the efforts of their teammates. A pitcher benefits from the defensive work of his teammates. The hitter benefits from the strategy forced upon the pitcher by the batter before or after in the lineup. Yet, when one pitcher squares off against one batter, it can be a marvelous thing. It is not always dramatic but the finality of the encounter is wonderful. At the end of an at-bat, one will walk off his spot either victorious or a little ashamed. In particular, I love the deadly pitcher refusing to walk or pitch around the great hitter. The pitcher is saying, “Yes, you are good but I’m better and I’m going to show you and the world.” And with the action on the field, come the statistician-fan who, through their scorebook and their knowledge of the game, rise and fall with the ebb and flow and continue to make that connection with an earlier time.
Finally, more so than any sport, baseball represents renewal. No other sport has fans that deal with defeat and loss with the level of optimism for the next year like in baseball. Spring is a rebirth and no matter the product on the field the year before, spring training represents another chance to prosper. Across the spectrum, baseball gives us what we lack in life. Perhaps, baseball does not mean that much to you, if at all. However, I’m often asked to describe why this sport wraps me up and draws me in. This is the best I can do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)