Looking for Answers Amidst the Din

There has been a great deal of talk in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.  I’ve been reluctant to chime in sooner because I think people have been too quick to do so and in the process, some pretty illogical utterances have been broadcast over the airwaves.  Worse are those who are taking the tragedy to advance a political cause which is as specious as it is manipulative and opportunistic.  I am speaking of guns and the laws which seek to limit the same.  As a teacher, my friends have asked me my thoughts on how to stop further school shootings.  I’m quick to admit that my current profession provides no insights.  While I have some thoughts on the issue, I’m at a loss to explain the unexplainable or to propose a strategy of defense against the indefensible.     

One of the first and most often attacked targets is, of course, guns.  In the interest of full disclosure, I am a gun owner and therefore, what I say on the subject should be understood in that light.  New gun laws and gun restrictions would not have prevented the events in Sandy Hook Elementary (the shooter stole the weapons he used) and so should not be considered as some special elixir for gun violence in schools.  The only thing such measures do is prevent law-abiding citizens from getting guns and making it a one-sided fight.  Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and the cities with equally strong anti-gun measures are some of the most violent.   

However, there is one proposed suggestion about which I’m not sure – arming teachers.  I would feel comfortable carrying or using a gun should I be unfortunate enough to need to do so.  Yet, I’ve been teaching for eighteen years and there are a great many former colleagues that I would not want anywhere near a gun.  Moreover, one or two teachers or a principal with a gun cannot possibly cover the size and scale of many public schools today.  One would have to arm a certain percentage of the staff relevant to where their classes are to make it effective.  Additionally, it is not practical or economically viable for school districts to initiate such a program and the pre-requisite training and screening that would almost certainly go along with such a policy.   

Others have pointed to a culture of violence and that is certainly something that should be examined; however, it is beyond the scope of government – or should be.  Comedian George Carlin once said that he would rather his kids watch two people make love than kill each other but the way our culture has developed is to put greater restrictions on sexual content in programs and video games than that of violence.  Rabid anti-gun advocates are quick to move away from this conversation because it has the potential of derailing their attempts to take advantage of this situation.  However, the cultural elements must be considered.  To that end, consider this.  In a country with a long and uninterrupted history of gun ownership, such incidents are new – in the last 15 years.  Therefore, guns cannot be a major cause of this but something that has changed over the same time period.  To answer this concern, one must turn towards our culture and the traits that have altered and changed over this period. 

I do not profess to have all the answers though I am aware enough to know, based on past experiences and experiments, what will not work.  The anti-gun crowd is hoping that a wave of emotionalism will do where logic and evidence failed in the past.  Meanwhile, a handful of people are looking at what types of entertainment we are viewing and enjoying.  In the end, twenty-six people are dead and nothing we do will change that.  How we respond could prevent the next occasion but that is not guaranteed.  The level of anguish stems partly from our inability to answer questions.  Our answers lie within a disturbed young man who decided to end it all after his rampage.  Perhaps, our future lies in psychology and a better treatment and understanding of those in need.  It is a good place to start.

To Pose or Not to Pose...A Protest

Yoga teaches us to cure what need not be endured and endure what cannot be cured. 

               B.K.S. Iyengar

It might not be too surprising that a school district in California is one of the first ones to implement yoga as a form of exercise and physical education as a part of its curriculum.  There are other school districts around the country that hold yoga classes as part of their extracurricular activities.  However, it is the school district in Encinitas, California that is coming under fire for its program.  While the school district maintains that the yoga classes are part of a general wellness program, critics (including some parents) see it as an interjection of religion into schools. 

In the interest of disclosure, I am a fan of yoga and on occasion, have participated in Bikram Yoga – the variety done in a very hot room.  I’m familiar, if not competent, with the moves and poses done in a typical yoga class and, insofar as my experiences are normal, know the extent to which such a class would be or could be construed as religious.  Yoga originated as part of a spiritual exercise designed to highlight the importance of aligning the mind, body and spirit towards a unified purpose and transcend what the person, alone, can achieve.  It stems from Hinduism and emerged a couple of hundred years prior to the life of Jesus.  While the practice arose out of a spiritual context, the modern “wellness” movement does not play that angle up too much as its participants vary in their religious affiliation.  However, one could say that the particular religion is not important because yoga can be used to highlight any religious training that seeks to unite the earthly with the divine.  In short, in my limited experience, there does not seem to be a concerted effort to push one faith over another in the course of a typical yoga class. 

With that said, our attention returns to California.  The Encinitas United School District Superintendent Timothy Baird answered charges of the appropriateness of yoga, saying, “It’s physical.  It’s strength-building.  It increases flexibility but also deals with stress reduction and focusing.”  In short, the school district is seeing the practice more from a point of physical and mental amelioration.  One of the district’s yoga teachers emphasized that her and others like her work hard to keep the language and the direction of the class ecumenical.  However, some parents are not convinced and have pulled their students out of the class.  They object to certain postures and phrasing that would elicit questions that run contrary to their faith. 

Based on my previous experiences, classes such as these cater their presentation of yoga to be applicable to any personal conviction.  Indeed, all faiths have, as a component of its practice, a meditation-like function and insofar as that is true, students and adults of all faiths can apply the meaning they wish.  Parents should see this not as indoctrination, which is not the intention of the class but rather a search for well-being and right mindfulness on the part of the student.  Some school officials are seeing some benefit from students able to work stress out of the goal-oriented and success-oriented model of public schools.   

On the whole, if we can encourage greater physical fitness and a greater mental awareness, away from the hectic, pell-mell environment that competitive education can sometimes engender, I say let’s have it.  The religious concerns and the threats of lawsuits based on the establishment clause of the First Amendment are capricious.  I understand the concerns of interjecting religion into a school curriculum and the dangers it poses.  While there are many who practice the art of yoga as a religious devotion throughout the world, many more do so simply as a way to better tap into what they are capable of if they venture beyond themselves.   

 

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

…let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy…but rather because only a more civil and honest discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation, in a way that would make (the victims) proud.
            President Barack Obama at a speech in Tucson, Arizona, 12 January 2011

Last year, Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa, during an address to union members declared, “President Obama, this is your army.  We are ready to march.  Let’s take these sons of bitches out.”  The “sons of bitches” in question were Republicans.  It appears that various union supporters in Michigan have taken this order to heart as it fights (literally) against the recently passed “right-to-work” legislation, which was signed into law by Governor Richard Snyder.  In the aftermath, the Republicans and other right-to-work supporters have been subjected to violence and the threat of more violence.    

As I come from a “union” state, I’m familiar with the rather heavy-handed approach they often use to make their points.  However, in the aftermath of the Michigan legislature’s actions over the last week, the unions in that bastion of unionism have ratcheted it up a notch in their protest.  At the head of this charge was Democratic State Representative Douglas Geiss, who declared that, “there will be blood.  There will be repercussions.”  It is difficult to know where to go from there when the opposition is actually declaring the need for bloodshed.  The hyperbole of the arguments used by union mouthpieces suggests a complete lack of logic and reason and the death throes of an institution.  The fact is, as columnist Charles Krauthammer made perfectly clear, the idea of “right-to-work” is a choice between high wages and high unemployment verses lower unemployment and a wider tax base – the latter something Michigan desperately needs. 

Outside the capital, union mobs increased the tension and the violence against anyone who dares propose a different course than the engrained path of unionism seen and upheld in Michigan for over a century.  The organization, Americans for Progress, attempted to put up a tent as part of a demonstration in favor of the legislation.  As they were nearly finished, a union mob descended upon them.  As the crowd worked themselves up, they began cursing and screaming at the people within and around the tent.  Soon, pushing and shoving ensued as AFP advocates were punched and knocked down while the union mob tore down the tent.  Various threats are easily heard on the tape.  It is not clear where the police were during the incident. 

It is easy to characterize these actions and words as those from a desperate and baseless group.  However, in Michigan, unions have wielded considerable power and enjoy unbridled support from the likes of no less than the president of the United States.  Mr. Obama’s support of these crowds, who in the last two years have perpetrated one violent encounter after another against their opponents, is particularly perplexing when one considers his own words.  After the attacks in Arizona that killed and maimed, most notably Rep. Gabby Giffords, the president was quick to suggest that there must be more civil discourse without the inflammatory and provocative.  He has as often chastised Republicans for their “rancor” but has uttered no condemnation of union aggressiveness.   

One of the things that supposedly holds our democracy apart from the squalors of dictatorship and totalitarianism is the rule of law and the belief in the democratic process.  Whatever is passed and not approved of by the people can be addressed in the following elections.  The tactics of mob violence and intimidation are the tools of bullies and fanatics.   President Obama said our discourse should provide a better place for our children.  Surely, he and the Democratic leadership can begin the process by disowning the methods of their own supporters.

The One Truly Philosophical Problem

There are some topics that are hard to discuss – not so much because the topic is difficult but the readers have no frame of reference.  For example, how can an American audience relate to the selling of children into prostitution because it brings money in for the family?  How can an American audience relate to the killing of government opposition in order to quell dissatisfaction?  Even more difficult is suicide as protest.  Sadly, Americans have plenty experience with suicide but only as it relates to mental illness – not as a form of protest from one of “sound mind and body.”  There was an interesting article in Foreign Policy on the psychological components of a suicide protestor, highlighting differences between sanguinary and communicative objectives but it is fair to also consider the effectiveness of the tactic.

My article is not a moral argument but more a practical one.  The two main types of suicide as protest (as also highlighted in the article) are suicide bombers (sanguinary) and suicide by self-immolation (communicative).  While both profess to do the same thing (attempt to alter a present condition through self-sacrifice), they are radically different in their approaches and in how others perceive the acts. 

The suicide bomber is largely seen negatively from a western mind-set because the protest involves the death of others (typically, innocents) and the motives are not always pure.  Studies done on the subject show that seldom are these “martyrs” ideologues.  Though these acts are not approved of, they are effective.  Suicide bombings have changed the course of European governments and have compelled them to accept what was generally considered antithetical to their beliefs.  Examples include Spain’s quick withdrawal from Iraq after the Madrid bombings and the condemnation over cartoons depicting Muhammad negatively instead of defense of free speech.  It would be one thing if these governments presented an argument that defined their policies separate from the bombings, especially in the case of Spain, but more typically, the hope is that by deferring they can avoid the possibility of bombings in their country. 

Never mind that we are talking about European countries and other western democracies responding to the actions and beliefs of a few, but ultimately, it might not matter.  Consider the recent violence between Israelis and Hamas.  The Palestinians fire rockets from schools, hospitals and other civilian centers.  They admit this in press conferences.  When Israel responds, world news outlets characterize the measure as brutal and criminal.  When Palestinian and Hamas leadership say they “must” fire from these locations, no one challenges their near-complete lack of rationale nor challenges their assertion that in the same breath, they blame the Israelis for killing their civilians.  This is in conjunction with suicide bombers sent into Israel but the actions are the same.  The use of sacrifice to make and implement a point but on a much larger scale than an individual bomber.  The sacrifices are working as Palestinians are gaining in international support. 

On the other hand, we see a recent uptick in self-immolation by Buddhist priests, a resurgence of an old tactic from the Viet Nam War era.  The most famous of these suicide protests was done by Vietnamese monk Thích Quẚng Dức in protest of the Ngo Dinh Diem government in the South in 1963.  These measures, most recently seen in Burma and Tibet, are universally admired and register with people because of the self-sacrifice, without other casualties, against a repressive regime.  There is also something to the pain and suffering that goes into the sacrifice, separate from the instantaneous and otherwise painless sacrifice of suicide bombers.  There is also a widely held belief that the sacrifice is being done by one much more aware and dedicated to their cause.  However, they are the least effective.  Neither the South Vietnamese government nor the more modern Burmese government was shaken by the protests and it was not what brought down these regimes.  Tibet activists have made little headway against China though they have gained world-wide support. 

What we hate, we respond to and what we appreciate, we ignore.  Part of this is due to China’s prominence in world affairs, as opposed to many Middle Eastern countries who largely play little economic role internationally.  With each suicide bomber, we witness the death and destruction and, for some, there is a permanent change in the perception of Islam as a faith of extremism.  To make matters worse, we validate and value that perception by how we respond.  We back away from time-honored liberties and rights while twisting our world view to accept the paradigm of terrorists.  In doing so, we also give no help to those who seek to right the ship and take back the core of Arab and Islamic values. 

Valhalla, I'm Coming...Maybe

The United Nations, based on a series of economic indicators from 2007, has recently released the list of the top countries to live in for 2012.  The top twenty countries are: 

1.      Norway

2.      Australia

3.      Iceland

4.      Canada

5.      Ireland

6.      Netherlands

7.      Sweden

8.      France

9.      Switzerland

10.  Japan

11.  Luxembourg

12.  Finland

13.  United States

14.  Austria

15.  Spain

16.  Denmark

17.  Belgium

18.  Italy

19.  Liechtenstein

20.  New Zealand 

I must admit to being intrigued by Scandinavia in general and Norway in particular.  Add to that Iceland and Sweden, also in the top ten, and it would make one heck of a road trip.  I think the United States deserve to be higher on the list (surely we can do better than France) but the list does highlight what many people believe to be true – the great white North is an attractive place.   

So, what draws me to the region?   A couple of things actually and at the top of the list are the history, mythology and culture.  Since I was a boy, I’ve been fascinated by the Vikings and their story of how they shaped the people, food and culture of the region is appealing.  For example, did you know that the Icelandic parliament, the Althing, is the oldest parliament in the world?  It was established in 930 and its sits outside the national capital, Reykjavik, which has geothermal heated sidewalks.  Norway was the birthplace of skiing – a sport that I’ve managed to do as worse as any other human being alive.  I was in the country as part of a military exercise and we had to be on skis.  This had to provide our Norwegian compatriots hours of fun.  On a side note, have you ever wondered who the first guy was that thought it was a good idea to put sticks of wood under his feet and go flying down a slick, snow-covered mountain side?  I bet he was made fun of for years.   

In Finland, they are known as the birthplace of saunas and its world championship of wife carrying.  I’m a bit more accustomed to saunas and thank God for them.  As for the wife-carrying, I’m not sure about that one but I’m not going to let it dampen my enthusiasm for Scandinavia.  Denmark is the home of Legos but I never played with those as a child (or as an adult) so I can’t say that is an attraction but there is a great crime show out of Denmark called The Eagle.  It is also the home of philosopher Soren Kierkegaard who influenced so many others and to walk in his steps would be wonderful.  Also as a child, I just assume that every woman in Sweden looked like Ingrid Bergman who transfixed me when I watched Casablanca.  As an adult, I know that is not possibly true but if it is only 50% true, it would be worth the visit.   

Of all these interesting and enticing facts, it can be blistering cold, the sun remains in the sky all day long during the summer (and not at all in the winter), the governments are wont to dabble in anti-Semitism and their taxes are extraordinary high.  Still, I am beginning to create an itinerary in my head.  Will I ever live there?  I checked with my aforementioned wonderful wife, who shook her head “no” without verbalizing her disinterest.  I can still dream, can’t I? 

The Dangers of Childhood

A happy childhood is poor preparation for human contacts.
            Colette, 19th-century French writer

A happy childhood has spoiled many a promising life.

            Robertson Davies, 20th-century Canadian writer

About seven years ago, I worked with my mentor and friend at my previous school to learn more about the history of the community.  To do so, we flipped through and studied past senior yearbooks, which thankfully stretched back to the 1910s.  For anyone who has done so, one is struck by a single observation – the fact that the teenagers appear to be adults.  I think, in comparison and by every definition, students today appear and act younger.  Over the last five years, I’ve assisted a good friend and colleague in taking students to Germany and hosting German students in the U.S.  Once more, I’m struck by the maturity (both in appearance and actions) of the Germans.  Between these two experiences and over an 18-year teaching career, it is apparent that the way we treat and handle children and teenagers is ultimately doing them a disservice.   

One of the refrains I hear the most, particularly within my capacity as a teacher, is the concern that issue “A” is too much stress and responsibility upon younger people.  I have heard administrators and teachers alike mention high school students as children.  It is the culmination of our attitude towards them and what we expect from them.  We see them as helpless, as someone to be coddled and protected.  Therefore, we protect them from bad grades, failing grades and being held back a year.  The infantilization of our students is realized in the students’ perception of their own abilities.   

As has often been cited in international studies, American students have high opinions of themselves and their potential but produce very little.  It is the end result of our coddling.  We pump students up with praise at the drop of a hat, take away all possibility of failure and in the end, we get a gaggle of cocky ne’er-do-wells.  Everything the education system does is designed to create immediate results and little to no thought is given to the long-range impact of these decisions.   

The second feature of this condition is the child-centric approach to parenting, marketing and the like.  Modern family psychologists talk of the importance of praise and finding worth in everything the child says and does.  The fear of damaging self-esteem has created, in some cases, some intolerable people to be around.  It is not the students’ fault but it is a problem that we adults have created.  The question is what should be done?  Unfortunately, many people don’t see the problem.  If we cannot show people the problem, there is no hope of reaching a better path.   

Compounding the problem of officials, teachers and parents not recognizing the problem is the fact that they try to demonize those who object to their education philosophy.  Over my career, I and others like me have tried to make the point that we need to take a different approach to students.  What we receive is the criticism that we don’t like children, we want them to fail, etc.  They have no argument to back up their philosophy so the only thing left is to create a moral argument with reformers playing the role of the boogeyman.  They attempt to invalidate our position, not with a cogent argument of their own but with demagoguery.  It is frustrating and irritating.  It is one thing to have a discussion or debate and to fail to convince or convert others.  It is another thing to be discounted altogether and to be characterized as antithetical to your true beliefs.  I care for my students and want what is best for them.  The current environment is not it.   

Martin Buber, the German philosopher and writer, once said that teachers must focus on teaching the adult the child will become.  Even pop-psychologists like the late Steven Covey preached the idea of keeping the end in mind.  We as teachers and administrators cannot make decisions with regards to students based on what is best for them now.  Rather, we must consider the impact on the adult they will become.  The more we infantilize our students/children, the greater challenges we place before them as adults.

 

A Constitutional Viewpoint

Now the Senate is looking for “moderate” judges, “mainstream” judges.  What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text?  Halfway between what is says and what we’d like it to say?
            Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, address to Chapman University, 2005

Much talk has been given to the appointment of judges upon the Supreme Court of the United States.  For those not familiar, such judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.  They have life-time tenure.  The thought was that such a tenure would allow judges to exist and to issue verdicts above and removed from political pressures.  For many Americans, legal studies and the inner workings of our court system might come across as rather esoteric but within the wranglings and debates, arguments and dissenting opinions lies a committed guarding of the U.S. Constitution.  The justices who seem to have the right answer are called originalists.

There is an older judicial term called strict or loose constructionism.  It was designed to interpret the extent to which one stays connected to the U.S. Constitution.  Today, a more proper term is originalism.  Originalism or textualism is the concept of judges making a decision on the basis of the exact words of the Founders and the context in which they wrote.  Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Court’s most brilliant and controversial judges, has often used the death penalty to explain.  Some activists suggest that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution and its warning against “cruel and unusual” punishment, in essence, invalidates the authority behind capital punishment.  Justice Scalia said that the Eighth Amendment obviously does not suggest that since all the states had capital punishment as a possible consequence to criminal behavior.  How could the Founding Fathers ban something on one hand and allow for it on the other unless they considered the death penalty neither cruel nor unusual?

If we as a society purport to hold valuable the words and intent of the Founding Fathers, why do we try so hard to perform logical gymnastics in order to justify various unfounded political opinions?  The whole purpose of the Constitution is to provide a guideline that brings us through temporary controversies and debates – a calming voice that strongly rejects legal contradiction and moves us away from our worst vices.  To further highlight the importance of an originalist’s point of view, let us take a view at another social dilemma.  Anti-gun advocates suggest that the Second Amendment’s wording suggest the Founding Fathers wanted only those in a militia to have weapons.  However, that was not the context within which they were writing.  In their days, many families, many of them not in a militia, had weapons.  If it was acceptable in 1789, why would the Founding Fathers suggest, reaching through time, that it is not acceptable? 

Behind the power of the point of view of the originalist is a belief in the power of the words of the U.S. Constitution.  If, indeed, these words serve only as a guideline and not irrefutable demands from those who constructed the country, then what is the purpose of the document?  Justice Scalia once said, “Robert F. Kennedy used to say, ‘Some men see things as they are and ask why.  Others dream things that never were and ask why not?’  That outlook has become a far too common and destructive approach to interpreting the law.”  If the United States, its citizens, its lawmakers and its judges cannot agree in the inviolable character of the U.S. Constitution, we could cease to exist as what we were once envisioned. 

 

The Importance and Misunderstanding of Voting

Over 120 million people voted last Tuesday as President Barack Obama won his second term.  I have had a great deal of fun speaking with my students on the election and from time to time, my status as a government teacher has also elicited questions from my friends.  Of all the questions and all the remarks I hear from others, two are brought up most often and need to be addressed. 

Remark one – I don’t understand the need for this “electoral college”; we need to get rid of it.  The Electoral College was initially devised as a check on an unpredictable and emotional electorate.  As a way of preventing the people from electing someone horribly unqualified or unsuitable for the position, the Electoral College was created by our Founding Fathers.  Today, it is has developed to serve another purpose.  If the election was strictly one based on population, candidates would focus their efforts in the major population centers only.  Places like Wyoming, Alaska or Nevada, states with low population and/or low population densities, would be ignored.  However, with a race to 270, the three to five electoral votes of some of the smaller states have a greater percentage of voice and influence on an upcoming election. 

Remark two – My single vote does not count/I live in a predominantly blue/red state and I’m of an opposite opinion....There are many types of comments like this that downplays the individual relevance of one’s vote.  This is the completely wrong way to look at voting.  The importance of voting is not based on whether you get what you want or whether your guy wins or not.  It is about having your voice heard.  In a world that increasingly frames things based on the individual, people have developed the wrong idea about the power of voting.  The importance of voting is that you have the right and responsibility to cast your ballot.  Governor Romney lost the election but by voting, I let the Obama administration know that one more person does not agree with his policies and must be considered when setting new policy.  Assuming he truly believes that he is president of “all Americans.” 

The United States and other democracies around the world share the responsibility to vote in a world where this right and duty largely does not exist.  Throughout the world, people struggle to have their voice heard and taken under consideration and increasingly, insecure dictators or quasi-leaders suppress or pervert the will of the people.  At the core of the power to vote is the people’s power to control their government.  That is why some “leaders” subvert the power to vote because they do not recognize the power of the people.  People who refuse to vote or don’t because they feel it does not count must keep this in mind.

 

A Tragic, Chinese Summer

It was a sweltering summer in Beijing, China in 1900.  Not only were the temperatures at record levels, but so were the political tensions.  The previous December, two missionaries were hacked to death in a rural area outside of the Chinese capital.  The culprits were labeled as members of a secret organization called the Boxers.  It was an organization that had begun as an anti-dynastic group but over the last couple of decades, it shifted its focus against the presence of Europeans and other outsiders in China.  

In late June of that year, the Boxers surrounded the foreign legation quarters in the capital and began a siege that would last until August.  The British, a leading power in the world, represented the main leadership of the foreign powers and organized their defense.  The French, the Americans and the Japanese also served in a leadership capacity in their attempts to defend the foreigners in the legations.  In addition to the foreigners in danger, the legation quarters were also sheltering a slew of Chinese converts to Christianity who arrived from various beleaguered missions in the surrounding mountains and fields.   

Through those summer months, a waiting game ensued as the legation defenders and their Chinese “guests” attempted to hold out against an increasingly hostile, emboldened and imperial-sponsored rag-tag group of fanatics while at the same time, waiting for a relief force made up of the world powers coming from Tianjin, a port city to the southeast.  As the allied forces made their way to the capital, the defenders fought day and night, they ate increasingly inedible food and slept very little.  Among the military and diplomatic officials who helped in the defense, missionaries also helped in the fight while the wives of missionaries served as nurses to the injured.  In mid-August, the legations were finally saved, the Boxers were defeated and the Qing Dynasty given a fatal blow. 

Over the course of the siege, westerners were already speaking of the legacy of the event.  Missionary William Martin melodramatically suggested, “this siege in Peking (Beijing) will undoubtedly take rank as one of the most notable in the annals of history.”  Sarah Conger, the wife of the U.S. minister to China, had a more level headed assessment.  In a letter to her nephew, she wrote, “What do you think of the history that is being made?  Only a small portion of it will ever be handed down for future generations to ponder.”  Sadly, history has fallen into favor of the minister’s wife.  There was one film made on the subject called 55 Days in Peking back in the 1950s but in the last decade, new scholarship has been conducted on this forgotten period of Chinese and U.S. history.   

I was first drawn to the uprising because so many knew so little about that Chinese summer.  That is actually what motivates my current research interest.  I hope that my article has stoked a level of interest within the reader – perhaps, one might even do a little research themselves.  History is replete with these types of struggles; the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya, the Biafra revolt in Nigeria, the Kampuchean revolution in Cambodia or the Zapatista Revolution in Mexico.  The researcher will learn two things – one, there is much more to history than previously thought and two, history is much more interesting than the same stories told every year.

 

This Story Shall the Good Man Teach His Son

I have this morning witnessed one of the most interesting scenes a free people can ever witness.  The changes of administration, which in every government and in every age have most generally been epochs of confusion, villainy and bloodshed, in this our happy country take place without any species of distraction, or disorder. 

            A Philadelphia woman in a letter to her sister on the occasion of Thomas

            Jefferson’s inauguration, 1801

It was March 4, 1801 and Thomas Jefferson, the tall and distinguished gentleman from Virginia left his residency of the last few months, a boarding house in Washington, D.C., to make his way to the Senate chamber.  The election he had only recently survived was a tumultuous and dirty campaign; one that would make modern-day campaigns seem quaint and genteel in comparison.  Jefferson’s followers had called his opponent, President John Adams, an atheist and suggested that he sought a re-uniting with England.  The Federalists were worse.  They called the Virginia politician “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father…”  On top of it all, the actual election was only recently resolved the month before after a contentious fight between Jefferson and Aaron Burr.  Yet, despite the hatred and the vitriolic nature of the debate, a country came together to honor a new president.  Not just a new president, but a new political philosophy – different from the two previous Federalist presidents. 

In accordance with congressional law, which states that a general election will be held every four years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, Americans will gather to vote for president.  The amazing part of the whole process is that on November 7 (hopefully), we will usher in either a new term or a new presidency.  Despite our convictions, our beliefs, we will accept the will of the people, as expressed in the vote cast next Tuesday.  For the last four years, President Obama has been my president and I have taken umbrage to those who disrespect the man.  No one, and that includes people like me and others who have criticized him over the years, has any idea what it is like to be president or the pressures that fall on that person.  Still, I hope that in a week’s time, we will have a new president.  I trust Mr. Romney’s vision for the future more than the president’s.  However, if the president is re-elected, my responsibility as an American is to accept him and respect him.   

There are those around the country who allow their viewpoints and paradigm to cloud their responsibility.  However, for the most part, I believe people do respect the office of the presidency and in that regard, we are unique.  It is not to say that other nations do not respect their leaders but they are seen in many places as more interchangeable.  Still, it is strange.  As a whole, we are a people who are known for its respect of its political leaders, its law enforcement agencies and as kids, we are told early and often to respect our elders.  Yet, we are a nation of individualists, who tend to be anti-authoritarian.  I’m fond of the scene in The Great Escape when the German commandant asks Steve McQueen’s character, “Are all American pilots so ill-mannered?”  McQueen responds, “Yep, about 99% of us.”  That is the United States but we still see our leaders and our president as different.  We don’t put him on a pedestal, or we shouldn’t…the president is not better than us but he can be the best of us.   

So, I anxiously await Tuesday.  I’m pulling with much enthusiasm for Governor Romney and think he has a good chance of winning.  His economic approach is more sound and more friendly for people like us trying to pull ourselves out of our economic blight.  His understanding of the U.S. position and role in the world is also more historically sound and ultimately, will make my country and the world safer.  And no matter what happens, my politically contradictory spouse and I will still be able to deal with one another (what to do with her yard sign though...hmm).  So will the United States.  It has been that way since the first men ascended to the position of president.

The Honeymooners, Revisited?

I want to preface this article by saying that my wife is a wonderful woman.  The very fact she has remained with me is nothing short of a miracle.  I’m an idiot – an erudite and charming, not to mention handsome idiot but one nevertheless.  However, I think I’m standing on some firm ground when I say that there are some issues I must point out about my wife in particular.  Let me be clear, there are plenty of silly things about men but this is about my lovely bride.  I don’t understand her.   

First of all, she is very busy.  I’m not speaking of work.  I’m speaking of time at the casa.  She is buzzing around the house like a Messerschmitt and she makes me nervous.  I try and tell her to sit down and relax but she continues.  She does it so much, she makes me self-conscious about sitting down.  Now, I will ask her if I can help and she will clearly and succinctly say “no.”  However, the way she says it suggests that “no” is not an acceptable answer for me to take at face value.  I try to help despite her initial answer and we begin snipping at one another like we are kids.  What began the tiff?  Me feeling guilty, her not alleviating my guilt and ultimately, the two of us getting into one another’s way.  To make it worst, we are intelligent individuals.  We are both college educated.  We both have masters (though, to be fair, mine was more challenging).  Still, we end up acting like children.   

Secondly, the way we process information is so different, it is amazing we are able to make any decision.  Our current decision we are wrangling with is whether I should pursue a doctorate degree.  I want to pursue the doctorate for purely altruistic reasons however, I’m not so dense as not to see that more was needed in my argument.  Therefore, I brought up the increase in salary (sadly, a doctorate does not earn one that much more in the teaching profession).  I brought up the increase in prestige.  I also mentioned that the jobs I could qualify to do would increase exponentially.  Sure there is a cost but more education is never a bad thing, right?  The major complication is our consideration of starting a family in the not-too-distant future.   

My wife began her side of the discussion by saying that she did not want to stand in the way of my dreams and she wanted to support me as much as possible.  At this point of the argument, somewhere in the deepest recesses of my mind, there is another shoe to drop but I brush it aside and think, “Hey, she is with me on this one.”  However, the “but” does arrive with concerns of dealing with a new-born child alone and the amount of work that would fall upon her.  She is worried that she might resent me and my jaunting off to college to learn the intricacies of 20^th-century nationalistic movements in Asia and Africa.  Despite the worthiness of my pursuits, I’m flummoxed as to what to do.  My wife has brilliantly spelled out her wishes for me and her reservations.  Yet, her well-balanced argument has left me wondering what I’ve been allowed to do.   

Lastly, beyond the use of guilt and the circuitous thinking, she has a knack of removing an argument from my concerns to that of others.  A couple of years ago, I caved and bought a cell phone.  I did not want to do it but there you go.  I now feel empowered to get rid of mine once and for all – in a ceremony, officiated by a priest, complete with a hammer and then some fire.  For a little irony, we will record it and put it on YouTube.  I never wanted a phone and have no use for it now but my wife suggests that to do so would be a large imposition on my friends and her.  What I thought was a stance of self-determination and self-actualization on my part has turned into a thoughtless and selfish gesture after speaking to my wife.  She is so adamant, I’m starting to doubt myself but wait…I’m a grown man.  I was making my own decisions for years before I met her.  Surely I can do this on my own.  Yet, in one conversation after another, I’m beginning to wonder. 

Above it all is the creeping thought that she might be right after all, I just don’t understand why.  It is like being at a party and hearing people talk and laugh about something of which you have no idea.  We’ve been married for nearly a decade now.  People at the wedding probably thought it would never last.  However, despite the fact that she’s from Venus and I’m from Mars, or whatever, we make it work.  So, in the confusion of our conversations and discussions sometimes, perhaps it does not matter because we are so good together.  However, I’m still pretty sure I’m right.  I just have to figure out how.

As Naismith Turns in his Grave...

Last week, I wrote an article on the benefits of hosting exchange students, or teachers.  Indeed, the joys of such an experience will far outweigh any negatives that can be conceived.  However, earlier this week, we took our German guests to a pre-season basketball game.  What I witnessed by the presentation of a modern-day NBA game is likely one of the worst experiences I have ever endured – certainly at a sporting event.  In the two or so hours that comprised the game, I was inundated with a cacophony of noise and nonsense, the likes to which I have seldom been subjected.  Admittedly not a basketball fan, as a sports fan, it is nearly impossible to enjoy a modern basketball game. 

As it was a pre-season game, the amount of people who arrived early to check out the ambiance was few and scattered.  This makes the first annoyance I felt all the more perplexing.  Microphone in hand, a loud local radio personality nearly screamed, wondering if people were ready for some basketball.  Before I had time to overcome the audio assault and compose an answer in my head, he proceeded with a litany of announcements, each of which required more “energy” and “enthusiasm.”    In the minutes leading up to the game, the handful of fans were given a club volume level of the latest popular songs.  Part of me felt that, “surely, the noise will go away during the actual game and I need to endure it a tad bit more.”  Don’t get me wrong, I like new popular music as much as the next person (“I just met you, this is crazy…”).  Yet, at this point, I just wanted to get to the game.

Once the game began, the loud speakers shoe-horned in the latest, greatest club music around every millisecond it could.  During the game, an unceasing amount of demands (pleas?) for participatory chants from the fans prevented the slightest chance of hearing the actual game taking place before me.  While I’m not a fan of the sport, like my good friend and sport aficionado is wont to say, I like to hear the squeaking of the shoes and the calling and maneuvering of the players.  Yet, the production value was relentless.  Topping the shrill of the music was the arena announcer who screamed at us to do this or that.  I work for a living and my whole life, I’ve never met a more demanding, demonstrative and screaming task master.  Every time the sparse crowd attempted to recover and enjoy some peace and quiet, the amps would pulsate with more “requests” to cheer or stomp our feet and the fans, in a near Pavlovian reaction, responded.

Now, I’m more than willing to admit that my reaction is due simply to the fact that I’m getting old.  However, I walked away from the arena slightly deaf, fighting through some ringing in the ears and wondering what it all meant.  What does it mean that people seem to need or find enjoyment in this constant level of stimulation?  What is this the result of?  Computers and various hand held devices have rendered people so incapable to maintain any focus or interest that it has turned basketball into an orgy of sound, chaos and frenetic energy.  The game is not enough and it made me wonder what the fans were valuing. 

Sadly, it is even seen in churches.  My wife and I have visited so many and I get an immediate urge to flee when I see screens over the pulpit.  I have images of PowerPoint presentations on the Gospels or the Prophets, complete with music and video.  Again, I’m drawn to the question, is the core product no longer enough?  I’m often told, and it is not totally without merit, that we must appeal to a new demographic who require new things in the presentation of education, faith or something as unimportant but fun like sports.  However, the church and the school have traditionally served as a warning or barrier to the trends in society.  It might not be a bad idea for sports

I left the arena that evening tired and disturbed.  I worry what the impact is on my students and their ability to learn.  We are turning our people into Pavlov’s warning and with the exception of some of my colleagues, I worry that we are spitting into the wind.  I worry that, ultimately, we will go so far that it will be difficult to reverse the effects.  Why can’t people just agree with me? 

Opening Doors and Eyes

When I was young, foreign cultures were all around.  In the city of Baltimore, there are various groups in their own neighborhoods, complete with their own shops, hawked in their own languages and offering items that were unique to their culture.  As a child, my parents took me to Greektown, Little Italy, the remnants of Corned Beef Row and Little Bohemia.  As an adult, I have been fortunate enough to travel throughout the world and see amazing things.  However, there has been one experience that has topped them all – being hosted by and hosting someone from another country. 

In 2000, my now-wife worked for a non-profit that sponsored and organized student exchanges.  It is here I met her as a teacher tapped to take students to western Germany.  I was placed in the home of a teacher and experienced a “different” culture in a way that no other can.  No matter how many cultural trappings might be found at the nearby Marriott, it is nothing compared to the immersion of staying and living with a family.  I’ve also stayed with two families on two separate occasions in Japan.  Yet, as special as that was, it was also wonderful to share my culture with someone else.   

We have hosted teachers from Germany or Japan and taken them to visit historical sights within my own city and area but also have exposed them to some of the hidden treasures of my country’s culture.  For example, it is interesting to visit a cemetery to experience one of the most intimate of one’s culture – how we experience and express death.  I take them to worn down, partially torn down areas to show what used to be – in our rush to always create something new, it is important to take some time and enjoy and understand what once stood in its place.  Just as important is to visit those places that represent where we, as a culture, hang out – every place from the local watering hole, to the nearby park, the neighborhood movie house or any place that represents what we do when simply living.  We might find it difficult to see the specialness in the mundane or ordinary, but it is not that way for the visitor. 

As much as I’ve enjoyed the food of a culture, it can make for memorable and enjoyable moments when showing a foreigner the intricacies of our cuisine.  The experience that a traveler has with another’s food culture in their home country can be underrepresented or misrepresented.  Therefore, to show the “real thing”, as it were, is rewarding.  I think of how amazing local seafood or Mexican food, Jewish cuisine or something simple as ballpark food can be an eye-opener.  Think of your favorite local food or favorite place to visit and then imagine what it would be like to experience it for the first time again.  To see a guest do just that fills one with a mixture of delight and envy. 

There are many groups that sponsor foreign exchanges.  Sister Cities International is probably one of the largest, though not every city is as active in exchanges as might be seen in another city.  Many foreign language departments at local high schools or colleges often sponsor such exchanges and it might be worth your time to explore those options.  Some families I’ve spoken with have expressed reservations – we have a small house, we don’t have the money to do something every day for the student, what if they don’t like their stay, etc.  There are many reasons why someone might divert themselves from the opportunity to host.  However, these travelers have accepted this opportunity to stay with a family because they want to move beyond the obvious and see something that few explorers can.  You can be a part of that. 

 

A Civics Lesson Takes Center Stage

This past Wednesday evening, in Denver, Colorado, President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney met for the first of three presidential debates.  Over the course of an hour and a half, the two men, rather cordially, discussed and debated the important issues of the day.  Viewers, and by all accounts they were plentiful, saw a public discussion to a degree and depth for which typical news coverage does not allow.  For my students, who were tasked with watching the debate, they were able to see a bit of how their government works.  Of course, what I will not mention to my students was my belief that Mr. Romney was outstanding and convincing. 

As pre-arranged, the debate centered on domestic issues, in particular taxes, health care, social security and the national debt.  As likely most would concede, Mr. Romney was persuasive and in control during that exchange.  Conversely, President Obama was hesitant and unsure, too quick to be conciliatory and too willing to accept aspects of his opponent’s points.  My students picked up on this and were quick to point it out.  We discussed at length over the course of the week the different characteristics of the exchange between the two presidential candidates.   

One, my students felt that the exchange was, at times, rude on the part of both men.  However, I was quick to point out that during a debate, it is the moderator’s job to ensure that each man can speak at equal lengths.  The debater must attempt to speak as long as he can and to pontificate and elaborate as much as he can.  His concern cannot be for the other man (or woman).  In this role, Jim Lehrer, an otherwise masterful master of ceremonies for such events since 1976, was off his game.  He decided, at some point, that he preferred the give-and-take the two candidates were engaged in than structure and discipline.  I don’t have a problem with it per se, but many of my students misconstrued that as rudeness.  In explaining the purpose of a debate and the responsibility of a debater, the students felt that it allowed for a great direct conversation between the two with plenty of information enumerated and philosophies explained. 

The students also admitted to be a bit confused over the constant haggling over numbers.  I have to admit, though I’m an intelligent, educated (some would say erudite) man, numbers make me a little tired myself.  My approach is to focus on the philosophies rather than the statistics.  The old adage of there being “lies, damned lies and statistics” cannot be more spot on.  Therefore, I prefer to listen to the paradigm with which the candidates operate under than the numbers they manipulate for their own purposes.   

It is my firm belief that President Obama will come out swinging during the debate on 16 October at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.  It will be moderated by CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley and will feature a town hall format over a slew of issues.  It is doubtful that the president will concede as much and many of the issues he has been focused on with regards to his opponent over the last month will resurface – items such as the 47% comment and Mr. Romney’s lack of “economic patriotism.”  However, for one night, Mr. Romney displayed a mastery of the topic (it is within his wheelhouse, so to speak) and joyous attitude (“It’s fun, isn’t it?”).  I hope he can maintain his confidence and control but he will need to show, within the context of a “town hall” debate, that he can connect with the audience.  If he can do that, the campaign could begin to turn permanently.