Pax Cubanus?

In 1959, the United States supported Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista.  The U.S. did not particularly like him but he was not a communist and as for the qualities that made him a horrible leader, the U.S. had to accept it until something better came along.  Fidel Castro, a lawyer who had taken to the mountains and demanded equality and freedom for the Cuban people, stoked that hope.  Once in power, he proved to be as morally bankrupt and murderous as his predecessor.  The U.S. responded by cutting off diplomatic ties to the island and this past week, with no visible change in the government’s behavior, President Barack Obama has ventured into yet another ill-conceived major endeavor – normalizing relations with Cuba. 

Given the way some people lionize Sr. Castro and his number one henchman, Che Guevara, one can be forgiven for thinking that these two men were misunderstood humanitarians, seeking only the improvement of their people.  However, it was the oppressive, police state that Sr. Castro established and its growing relationship with another brutal dictatorship, the Soviet Union, which led to American concerns.  The attacks on his own population led to people pouring into the Caribbean on rafts that ranged from make-shift to sea-worthy, in an effort to reach the U.S.  Still today, thousands languish in prisons simply for their opinions while others walk free, but fear to speak honestly about the world around them. 

What makes this so frustrating as an observer of President Obama is the rashness in which he throws out shockingly dramatic proposals with little to no discussion nor, in hindsight, little to no follow through.  The lack of immediate plans of what to do about one thing or another is the product of the measures not fully planned out.  President Obama rushed to open Burma which is ruled by a military junta, complete with economic initiatives and an embassy proposal.  Today, it can be said that the military rulers have rolled back some openness and Burma’s future is no longer bright – despite the president’s “beneficent” moves.  The U.S. relaxed restrictions upon North Korea and Iran and even the most bright-eyed optimist would have to say that there are reservations about the success of either move. 

Burma is the most analogous example of the danger of what the president is trying to do with Cuba.  The president says that economic engagement and increase exposure to the rest of the world will make a difference in Cuba.  The fact is, only the U.S. has placed this economic sanction on Cuba – the rest of the world still trades with the island nation but where is the improvement?  Presidential supporters say the Castro brothers have no choice as their people are suffering.  They’ve been suffering since the early 20^th-century.  Still, President Obama has taken the paradigm that if only Cuba had the internet and access to American dollars, change would occur.  In doing so, he did not make any demands of the island for democratic reform, the release of political prisoners which has quadrupled in the last four years, or any other multiple measures that would warrant diplomatic engagement.   

This article is not to criticize the idea of possibly engaging Cuba but two important considerations make the president’s move suspect – one, the lack of forethought as to how to do it and two, the lack of demands of the Castro regime to help their own people.  When Cuba opens up, I will be first in line to visit and spend my dollars.  It has been on my bucket list for some time.  However, unless we can make some significant dents into the Cuban police state and its impact on the Cuban people, it should be caveat emptor.  Until our rhetoric matches our philosophy, a government empowered by the will of the govern, nothing will change in Cuba.

Two Deaths, Two Lessons

In the last couple of weeks, there have been two significant deaths in the world of sports.  First, 25-year-old Australian cricketer Phillip Hughes was killed when a ball struck him behind the ear where his helmet did not protect.  Second, famed Montreal Canadien hockey player Jean Beliveau died after a long and impactful life at the age of 83.  Mr. Hughes’ death and M. Beliveau’s life have raised questions about modern sports and the athletes that play them. 

Phillip Hughes was a rising star in the world of cricket, scoring 198 in his very first test match when Australia played Sri Lanka.  He was setting records and turning heads as a potential superstar in the field of cricket.  Mr. Hughes was batting in a match against a rival team in Australia when a bowler’s bouncer struck just below the ear.  He was placed in a medically induced coma before finally losing his life.  It has engendered a discussion on the safety of sports.  The sport most analogous to cricket in the U.S., baseball, is going through a similar soul-searching phase.  The question is whether such a campaign necessary? 

When you consider the benefit of sport, many will bring up the challenge it poses for its athletes, the spirit of competition, the development or revelation of character and teaching the importance of endurance.  The possibility of injury also teaches the importance of preparation and playing the game correctly.  So, to what extent should we make the game safe?  Certainly, there should be some efforts to prevent obvious possible injuries.  However, sports cannot be made safe-proof.  Whether talking about cricket, football, hockey or whatever, we can do many things but if the changes alter the nature of the sport, I’m not sure I’m in favor of it.  We cannot regulate against the rare, freak injuries.  While the world mourns the death of Phillip Hughes, cricket associations should not over-react to something that has happened twice in a hundred years.   

On another issue, there is a concern on the kind of athlete we are creating.  Jean Beliveau began his career with the Montreal Canadiens in 1950 and retired from the team and hockey in 1971.  Not only was he a prolific player, earning Hall of Fame honors in 1972 and having his name adorning the Stanley Cup 17 times, he is known equally and to many, more so, as a great human being.  At the end of his career, he set up a foundation that later morphed into the Society for Disabled Children, working his entire life for the betterment of such children.  He rejected two Canadian prime ministers who offered him prestigious government positions to be with his family and saying such positions should be elected, not appointed.  He was made a knight of the National Order of Quebec and has been awarded several honorary doctorates.  He spent his life in service to others. 

What type of athletes do we create today?  We are creating single-minded individuals who are taught that their way through this world is athletics – indeed, they are taught it is what makes them special.  So, there efforts go to that and nothing else – they are willing to do anything to strive and succeed to win.  However, in doing whatever it takes to win, some athletes not only misunderstand what it means to participate in sports but they misunderstand the value of winning.  One certainly would be hard-pressed to find the like of Jean Beliveau.  In short, most of today’s athletes are not impressive partly because we don’t expect them to be anything else. 

Over the last few weeks, two deaths have taught two lessons.  One is how fleeting life is and the importance of embracing what we have and the experiences we seek.  Mr. Hughes’ death does not speak to sports and its dangers, it speaks to the frailty of life.  Mr. Beliveau’s passing speaks to the potential of a man committed and compassionate.  Sports can teach what it means to live a full life and to live a purposeful life.  Both of these men were widely followed and adored by their respective countries.  Let’s hope their deaths prove as meaningful and impactful as their lives.

 

The Republican To-Do List

The Republicans did quite well during the mid-term elections last month.  Large scale gains in the House, a Senate majority and a growing state governorship majority were just some of the gains struck by the GOP.  The Democrats’ fabricated “war on women” proved to be just that as two states elected their first female governor – both Republicans.  The party that does not care about black people elected three in various congressional elections (still others in state elections).  In short, for all the demagoguery and predictions of demise for the Republicans pontificated by Democrats and their like-minded talking heads in the media, conservative Americans proved as resilient and diverse as their party.  So, what should be the Republican strategy in 2015?

First, the Republican Party should busy itself on focusing on those issues where there is bi-partisan support.  Contrary to most people’s perceptions, there are issues upon which Democrats and Republicans can create a consensus.  First, despite the lame-duck Congress’ failed attempt the other week, the new Congress should focus on the passage of the pipeline that would connect Canada and the Gulf Coast.  The creation of jobs and growing energy sources would be a consistent source of employment and low energy costs.  

Additionally, both Republican and Democrat officials face the same pressure on the immigration issue.  Despite the president’s recent unilateral attempt at solving the problem, the Congress is in a strong position to one, enforce current immigration laws or force the president to do the same and two, take steps to greatly bolster the defense of the border.  The president thinks he can fix a home flood without first cutting off the water.  Congress can do much to fix that.  This is not a punitive measure against immigration and great pains must be made to ensure the move is not characterized as such.  We are a nation of immigrants and any attempts to discourage it would be, at the least, un-American.  However, the Congress could make significant steps to make our policies better, more streamlined and more humane.

Second, the Republicans need to make the argument that a dismissal of the U.S. Congress by the president is a dismissal of the American people.  Congressmen and women were designed to be the most responsive and accountable to the American people.  The president can say that he has no qualms about going over the heads of the Congress but in doing so, he is also going over the head of the American people.  The president’s attempt to act unilateral with executive orders is a tricky business.  In the past, some executive orders were a matter of procedure and protocol.  President Obama is making it a point of avoiding the legislative process, to avoid the judgment of the American people.  The Congress has power and authority and must fight to maintain it.

Third, the Republicans need to switch the conversation away from the president and towards a plan after 2016.  Beyond the aforementioned steps, the Republicans need to address a political reality that does not include Barack Obama.  In political terms, the president is a lame duck leader – one with no more elections to contest.  If he thought he was ignored by Democrats during the mid-terms last month, it will be worse in 2016.  Therefore, the Republicans have to address what lies ahead and in the interim, show that they can lead, they have ideas – and not ones that divide people as Hispanic or women or blacks but ones that unites us as Americans.  Such fragmentation is how the Democrats operate but conservatives and Republicans do not have to follow suit.  

In the past, national conservative ideas have seen us through economic turmoil (Ronald Reagan) and terrorism (George W. Bush).  On the state level, conservative governors have ushered in prosperous state economies that stands in stark contrast to the one directed by the president on a national level.  Conservative economic, foreign and social policies have appeals across the gender and racial divide.  Indeed, the core of conservatism is the champion of the individual – no matter who you are.  That would not be a bad message for a potential candidate in 2016. 

As Ferguson Burns...

This past week, the city of Ferguson erupted in violence, soon splashed upon television screens, the main pages of websites and the front pages of newspapers.  The police officer accused of wrongly shooting and killing a young man coming from a robbery escaped indictment.  The grand jury failed to find evidence enough to warrant such an action.  The district attorney, in a rather long-winded and ultimately ineffective statement, suggested that the piles of contradictory statements from “eyewitnesses” left the grand jury to consider only the physical evidence and in that light, there was insufficient evidence to move forward.  It was ineffective in that it did little to quell the chaos that ensued. 

First, it is important to understand and as a history teacher I feel qualified to explain that there are historical issues at play from within the black community about the behavior of the police.  While most Americans might have the highest regard for the police, there is an institutional memory among the black community – one in which the police was generally the armed wing of racist town governments and organizations that provided no protection.  While there have been great advancements thus far regarding race relations, it cannot totally wipe out the events of the past.  While some suggest it is time to move on, that is easier to say from the outside than to do from within.   

With that said, there are other issues exacerbating the problems.  First, you have people joining the fray and in the process, undermining the peaceful protestors by destroying local businesses and police vehicles.  While some protestors tried to discourage the damage, others were not to be deterred, calling into question their presence and their motives.  Secondly, activists who profess to speak on behalf of the community in Ferguson are doing more to stoke the flames than calm the passions.  Their power and status depends on a continued rage.  Instead of leaders who would try to disseminate the verdict of the grand jury and consider whether they had a point, we have instigators who seek only to keep the anger and hatred burning as bright as the fires in Ferguson. 

There are other side issues in need of discussion.  The “leaders” have a large role to play in what happens next.  Additionally, there is a greater outrage than what happened in Ferguson.  The vast majority of young black people killed are struck down by other black people.  However, no activist leader will pick up that banner.  That requires introspection on the part of leadership and the community and there does not appear to be the stomach for that type of discussion.  The activists are making their name by fingering the outsider “boogeyman” and keeping the spotlight away from the community.  That is an easier pill to swallow and one that most are willing to do.  However, ignoring the problem does not change the community’s reality.   

How do we proceed from here?  First of all, leadership across the board needs to explain the reasons why no indictment happened.  Sadly, it will not change many minds but it has to be on record to show the lack of racist intent.  Black leaders need to examine soberly the facts and ask if this is a true case of racism or the fact that the young man was out of line.  Second, some protestors have asked for body cameras on the police.  That might not be an altogether bad idea – what better way to quell such a debate again if there is video evidence pointing in one direction or another.  Again, some will still not be satisfied with video evidence suggesting their paradigm is wrong, but it is one more effort towards trying to get things right. 

As mentioned before, the vast majority of blacks killed in this country are killed by other blacks.  Very seldom are blacks killed wrongly by white police officers.  It does not jive with historical truths but today represents new realities.  Some of the racial ambulance chasers are not ready to give up the past, though they know better.  It makes the protests seem cynical and ultimately, a disgrace to the movement that first led them towards equality.  This takes no responsibility away from the police, who should always strive to be equal in its protection and its law enforcement.  Yet, the black community also has a responsibility.  Until they do that, things will not improve. 

Sugar and Spice and...

I’ve not been as prolific in my writing as I’ve been in the past.  A couple of months ago, my wife had a baby – a girl.  I once did not understand people’s compulsion to stay home, quit work and devote one’s time completely to the child.  I’m still not sure I completely understand but I’ve gained over the last couple of months a new appreciation.  Now, my life will center on following Shakespeare’s words – “It is a wise father that knows his own child.”  However, there have been many decisions to make and no doubt, many more to come.

Even before she was born, my wife and I wrestled with a name to give her.  We had so many criteria that the process was a bit mindboggling.  We did not want a name that was too cute – she was sure to grow into an adult embarrassed by a cute-sounding name.  We did not want a name too popular – my wife’s experiences growing up with one of the most common names of her day served as a cautionary tale.  We wanted a name that flowed – a name that rolled off the tongue.  We liked various French names but did not want something with diacritical marks – lest she be condemned to a life of mispronunciations.  At the very least, we did not want a child who would end up in therapy years later because of the name we bestowed upon her.  

Now that she is among us, a new world has opened, filled with responsibilities and decisions to make regarding her upbringing.  I do not say anything in this blog as a criticism to what other people are doing but simply an explanation of what we would like to do.  One of the first bits of advice that we received from doctors and nurses was, “You cannot spoil a baby.”  I reject that out of hand because of the assumption being made.  To say that a baby cannot be spoiled suggests that a baby cannot learn, that cognitively nothing is going on within our daughter.  I believe our daughter, all babies in fact, are born as rational creatures that do nothing for whimsical reasons – all that they do is the product of and is influenced by their environment.  I choose to believe that our daughter is constantly thinking and learning – for better or worse.

Likely the biggest thing I wonder is the degree to which I can foster the maturation of a young woman who is confident, intelligent and tough.  I imagine parents would like their children to be like them so that life is not disrupted too much with extemporaneous events that must be attended, interesting no one but the child.  Still, I have aspirations.  I hope she is a baseball fan, who becomes a prodigious reader and enjoys the great outdoors.  I hope she enjoys history, following the words of Tacitus and thinking of her “forefathers and posterity.”  Of course, I’m not so naïve as to think she will be like me.  However, I can try and then understand if she tells me fill-in-the-blank is not her cup of tea.  

There are so many other ideas that have run through my mind regarding my daughter.  However, this would be at least a ten page blog entry so I’ll stick with the big concepts.  When she was first born, I was not sure what to think of this beautiful child and the fact that I was her father.  Now, I find myself fascinated with and enthralled by her each day.  When I look at her, I wonder about everything, including what she will become.  So, if she does not take to her Tacitus or does not find joy in the Orioles, I will work hard to ensure that she is a thinker, she is a doer, that she will go into this world mentally tough, intellectually formidable and realistically confident.  More importantly, I hope she is a good person.   

The Rightness of a Right?

In recent weeks, a great row has exploded over an opera being performed at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York.  The play, The Death of Klinghoffer, loosely portrays the events surrounding the 1985 Palestinian terrorist takeover the Achille Lauro in the Mediterranean.  The event led to the execution of a disabled American Jew who was subsequently dumped into the waters in his wheelchair.  The children of the late Mr. Klinghoffer, and many others, are outraged while First Amendment advocates say that it is an acceptable form of protected speech.

The question with a situation like this opera, which I have not seen and my memory of the actual event only cursory, is a little different for me than it might be for others.  In a country where we have free speech the legality of such an opera is not in question.  Of course, the makers of this opera and the Met are certainly within their rights to put it on.  The real question with things like this is often, is it right to do it?  When one questions the correctness of doing something, and not the legality of it, such arguments are often the target of general mocking as an example of provincial values.  There is also decency and awareness that seems to be lacking. 

I should say that, from time to time, a society should be shocked and outraged.  It serves as a reboot to our obligations to our fellow man and a renewed sensitivity toward how others perceive things.  When American artist Robert Mapplethorpe produced an image of a crucifixion within a jar of urine, it ignited a conversation that was ultimately, one could say, good for our society.  Yet, advocates for such actions miss the point when they bring up freedom, artistic or otherwise.  Freedom is not some exercise of one’s id – free of judgment and consequences.  This is what makes the opera’s advocates’ objection to the criticism a bit strange. 

I recall the fiasco of the Dixie Chicks and their criticism of the president of the United States during the onset of the Iraqi War.  Similar to the recent opera incident, Natalie Maines flew off the handle at the president in a foreign country and bemoaned those who fired back.  The incident effectively ended a great career of talented musicians.  Once more, there is a disconnect between the right to do something and its correctness.  The other point missed was the argument about the values that surround our rights.  With each of our rights is an underlying principle of a humane society.  Because Ms. Maines chose to take a rather one-dimensional look to the reaction of her pablum, she failed to understand the issue.  What will become of this new manifestation of the same problem? 

At the risk of being melodramatic, I think our society is in trouble because of our unwillingness to stand up to certain things.  Again, I’m not speaking to the legality of the Met (who cancelled the televised broadcast of the opera for fear of it coming across offensive) to put on such an opera but whether it is a good idea.  So much of the typical offenses committed throughout a typical day are not a question of the law but one of taste and decorum.  This can range from profane music being played loudly to questionable outfits worn by high school students to a parent yelling and screaming at their child in public.  None of these actions would get someone arrested but it goes to our understanding of our situation and respect for others. 

As for the opera, I get that art is designed by its very nature to be controversial and thought-provoking.  However, offensive art is no different from offensive voices or actions in the political arena.  Mr. Klinghoffer’s children rail against, in their opinion, the minimization of their father to a simple tool for terrorists.  Others, like lawyer Alan Dershowitz and First Amendment expert Floyd Adams are horrified at the moral equivalency drawn by the opera between the Palestinian diaspora and the Holocaust.  No matter the arguments, there are some obvious issues with the production that should have led people to ask some obvious questions.  It is a pity that never happened.

Eat Your Vegetables...Or Else

For many liberal policies, its greatest force field is, “Who would object to this?”  Such ideologues focus on agendas they proclaim in need of improvement and whose impact, if successful, would help said group/issue/policy.  With this in mind, the First Lady set out on an agenda to ameliorate the lunch programs in public schools.  To her dismay (as well as her supporters), there is a large push back from Democrats, Republicans, state governments, school districts and parents.

As with many government programs based on good intentions, little to no thought is given to how much it will cost and, more importantly, who is going to pay for it.  Republicans have been lambasted by some activists for daring to bring up such a fundamental question.  Once more, people on the right have been the target of some high-handed demagoguery, accused of not caring about children and, worse yet, wanting to hurt their nutritional well-being. 

At the core of this is an old, liberal argument – one, government can solve all of our problems because, two, we as ordinary citizens cannot.  Concerned citizens, like Americans throughout our history, measure our freedom by the choices we have.  Education institutions are the most cash-strapped organizations on the local level – most federal funding is dependent upon local schools adopting and implementing federal mandates.  With the ongoing recession that the president cannot seem to rectify, schools are being asked to shoulder burdens with which their constituents do not agree.  It is not surprising that Mrs. Obama is getting such resistance. 

On another issue, there is the question of the food itself.  Federal mandates on daily caloric requirements, salt content and other considerations have left cafeterias serving increasingly “bland” food in the words of students.  The students are seeking other options and typically, it does not include the “mandated” food.  An increase in home lunches (not an altogether bad idea) has cut into the funds that schools typically get from providing lunches and, in some cases, breakfast meals.  Caloric mandates seem a bit silly as well as if to say that all high school students should be at the same level.  Common sense would suggest that is not possible or advisable.  Parents are at the gates with some of these concerns and they are not happy.

In addition to the direct impacts on what cafeterias do or do not offer, the policies set forth by the First Lady are causing collateral damage.  Things such as bake sales of are being eliminated in favor of healthier options – strangely enough, these options are not quite the sellers as their predecessors.  As usual with top-down “solutions” to problems, Mrs. Obama’s directives are having unforeseen (to the architects of these polices) consequences but the First Lady is not backing down.  As Republican and Democratic policy makers are trying to find a way out of the restrictive and expensive program, Mrs. Obama has reasserted that change is sometimes painful but necessary.  An easy sentiment to throw out when one is not confronted with the reality of their actions.

I can appreciate the concerns that led Mrs. Obama to put forth these policies but ultimately, they come from a paternalistic mindset.  Ronald Reagan said that government was not the answer, it was the problem and in this case, a haughty attitude has turned what could have a great initiative and educational program at the local levels into a mandatory dictate that riles our evolutionary-engrained suspicion of government solutions.  One could hope the push-back might be a cautionary tale for such only-government-is-the-answer advocates but I doubt it.

Spanking and Abuse

There are few topics that will set people off like corporal punishment.  Commenting on how a parent raises their child never ends well.  Football player Adrian Peterson of the Minnesota Vikings was indicted for whipping his child with a switch, causing bleeding and scarring.  And once more, the practice is front and center of the public’s awareness.  Various experts pontificate on the practice of spanking but make no attempt at an honest discourse.  It is exactly what is needed. 

First of all, Mr. Peterson’s actions needs to be clearly labeled as abuse.  Any time a parent hits a child to the point where there is bleeding or long-lasting scarring or welting, a line has been crossed.  Even when people speak of the good-ole days, seldom did responsible adults carry out discipline like Mr. Peterson.  He will have his day in court and he will have to answer for his actions.  He said that he was disciplined in this way but only an isolated intellect could have matured over the last twenty years without some basic understanding that certain things are no longer tolerated. 

At the same time, discipline of this nature is not always abuse and spanking cannot always be labeled as such.  In my time as a rather rowdy, hyperactive child, I was spanked with a hand, belt, brush and a switch.  However, there were components that separate it from the type of abuse making headlines.  First, my father waited between the offenses and the meting out of punishments.  This takes any anger out of the equation.  Second, he spanked not to punish but to teach.  This approach further prevented going too far with the belt, hand or whatever.  Third, he always explained afterwards why the spanking was done and what lessons needed to be taken from it.  Lastly, it was not done often.  For spanking, like most disciplinary efforts, too much desensitizes the child to the method.   

People who are against corporal punishment never mention – or don’t recognize or understand – the nuances that make up the range of spanking.  To suggest that all spanking is abuse is the height of intellectual laziness.  It is pronounced by people more interested in making a point than defending it with logic and context.  They don’t want the argument so they avoid it by labeling all spanking as abuse.  Who is going to speak on behalf of abuse?  No sensible adult would ergo it robs people of an honest debate.   

To make matters worse are the blubbering talking heads on networks like ESPN.  This past Sunday, Chris Carter, a former NFL player who now serves the network as a football analyst, nearly broke down, yelling that the NFL is being overtaken by spousal abusers and child abusers.  He too clearly is not interested in having debate, hoping his melodramatic, teary diatribe will prevent anyone from responding.  Not to be out done, fellow ESPN anchor Hannah Storm went on a similar emotional rant.  How is an honest conversation to take place when people are interjecting such irrational emotions – an emotional appeal designed to convince people not to respond?  I don’t care what type of opinion people have but be adult enough to have a conversation about it and not an emotional lamentation.   

Mr. Peterson’s actions are abusive but the practice is not necessarily so.  Responsible corporal punishment is just as effective as other forms of discipline – in my opinion and in some cases, more so.  I’m the product of corporal punishment – from my parents, grandparents, neighbors, teachers and principals.  In some people’s effort to denigrate the practice as the last vestiges of a barbarous culture, good and responsible parents are written off as criminal.  I would love to see the debate if those opposed to corporal punishment were interested in having such a conversation.

Why We Need Radio

When I was young, I had a radio on my bed side table.  At night, I would turn it on and listen.  Sometimes, I would tune in to local DJs in the Baltimore area but on some magical nights, my little bed side radio could pull in voices from Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and New York.  I fell asleep to voices reading the news or sports, talking to strange callers or playing music but I had to have a radio on – still do.  Predictions about the end of radio have been constant but radio persists and thrives. 

There were several things that drew me to radio.  One was the power of the voice.  The right voice can draw you in and spin a web you don’t want to leave.  I’m fascinated with voices and there are some I can listen to all day.  Dick Cavett has one of those voices.  He could be reading the ingredients from a milk carton and I would be riveted.  The voice can be a powerful tool and as a teacher, I’m conscious of my voice and how I come across to my students.   

When I worked in radio years ago, I wanted to have a signature voice – something people listened to just because it was me.  At the same time, it couldn’t be fake.  I’m speaking of both the voice and the meaning behind it.  That is what makes the Morning Zoo format that became so popular in the 1980s so appalling.  The fake congeniality and laughter distorted the most honest thing about radio – the voice.  It wasn’t just its fabrication but also the perversion of its honesty. 

The second thing that drew me to the radio was the feeling that the personalities were free – they could do as they pleased and seemed to be having a great deal of fun.  Growing up in Baltimore, I had a plethora of people I gravitated towards in the city.  WIYY or 98 Rock was a mainstay for young people, envious of the DJs who played music all day and goofed off in the process.  Chuck Thompson was the great voice of the Baltimore Orioles and he was, like Dick Cavett, possessing of a voice that could draw my hyperactive self to a stand-still.  His successor, Jon Miller, was just as magical and both projected the sense they had the perfect life and job.    

However, in something only radio can do, I could pull in stations beyond my burgh.  My immature teenage mind was taken by the Greaseman in Washington, D.C.  In other locales, Scott Ferrall in Pittsburgh and Don Imus in New York came through my radio and drew me in.  Ferrall on the Bench is and was one of the more pioneering baffling radio shows because certainly his voice had to be faked but it wasn’t.  Don Imus was the anti-Stern – irreverent but smarter.  Stern never fascinated me like the curmudgeon Imus.  As Mr. Imus’ show changed from “shock jock” antics to a more political and social satire, it fell in line with my political maturation and I was hooked.  When he landed on television, I watched but it was not the same as radio.  Of course, one of my other political teachers was the irreverent conservative radio giant, Rush Limbaugh.   

When one combines the radio qualities of the voice and the freedom of the medium, one comes to the third reason I was always drawn to radio – the use of my imagination.  As a teacher, I see that our students are not nearly as imaginative as they once were because they are not asked to be.  With radio, in trying to visualize the DJ’s antics and the broadcast of sports, imagination is key to truly understanding what is happening.  I still prefer baseball on the radio.  When they say the voice paints the picture, that picture develops in your mind.  Oriole broadcaster Chuck Thompson helped me “see” what was happening on the field.   

 

The point is that radio, often declared dead, has maintained a force in modern media and there is a reason for that tenacity.  My hope is that it is not just older people like me keeping radio alive.  It is a medium of the spoken word – not the image.  That alone places it in stark contrast with most modern media.  The spoken word requires thought – if not from the people on the radio then those listening.  It is the most intimate form of media and requires the most from the receiver.  That alone makes radio deserving of a future.

Question of Scottish Independence

In 1995, the Canadian province of Quebec and the political party Bloc Québécois put on a referendum to separate from Canada.  This was in the aftermath of the Bloc Québécois’ electoral success in parliamentary elections a couple of years earlier.  It was a mixture of indignation and unrealistic thinking that pushed the party toward independence and when the vote was tallied, they lost by less than one percent.  A month from now, following success in recent parliamentary elections, the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) seeks to separate from the United Kingdom.  Once more, a mixture of historical indignation and blinding optimism is powering this move. 

Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond leads a raucous but determined effort to revive the efforts of old that played out under the guidance of Robert the Bruce and was fertilized by Scottish blood on the fields in Bannockburn.  However, things are different and the issues are not quite about idealistic notions of independence and the green glens of Scotland but rather the sides are splitting over mundane economic issues such as oil and currency.  Mr. Salmond extolls the vitality of the Scottish economy but fails to paint the picture of the context of the British economy.

Oil from the North Sea is at the heart of Scottish vitality and could make the difference between Scottish success and failure.  British Prime Minister David Cameron says that the success of oil and gas from the North Sea has been bolstered by the weight of the kingdom as a whole.  Meanwhile, opponents to the SNP question the wisdom of putting all your eggs in a basket that will no longer be viable in the not-so-distant future.  Mr. Cameron has taken the fight to Mr. Salmond’s territory with recent cabinet meetings in Scotland (something about which the SNP mocked) and a reinvigorated attack by unionists in the Scottish parliament.  The opponents may be on to something but what is Mr. Salmond’s plan if London plays hardball regarding access to North Sea resources? 

On another front, the question of currency has emerged.  Mr. Salmond has said that the Scots would remain on the pound but British political parties predict that such a move will never happen and the Treasury has warned of such a scenario.  Unionists in the Scottish parliament and British observers have asked what Mr. Salmond’s pound-less plan is.  He has not been able to provide an answer but the movement soldiers on.  Much like experts on the Bible, you have various opinions and depending on what side you are on, you can find an expert that validates your approach.  However, without the pound, where does that leave Scotland?  It seems unlikely that the Scottish economy, absent of the economic support from the rest of the kingdom and the international security of the pound, would be able to maintain its current vibrancy.   

The Scottish independence referendum also calls in many other questions ranging from immigration to the European Union to its relationship with London going forward.  Quebec realized it did not have a viable chance outside the Canadian confederation.  Other movements such as Flanders’ attempt to separate from Belgium or Catalonia’s desire to separate from Spain suffer from the same issue.  Of recent attempts, only the Kurds have a decent chance to exist and prosper outside its current geopolitical status.  For Scotland, it has enjoyed increased autonomy as part of a devolutionary movement over the last decades.  At the moment, it has the best of both worlds.  It would be a shame if a “yes” vote ruined each of them.      

 

 

War on Intellectualism?

As a country, we’ve always had difficulties with those who profess to know more than us.  It began with the British and to be frank, the British have been holding it over us for centuries.  What we did, collectively in the late 18^th and 19^th centuries, we took pride in the opposite.  We were a bit crude, we were loud and we thumbed our noses at the pretensions held by others.  Yet, there was still value on necessary knowledge – skills that could create or build.  It would seem we are hitting new lows and it will be difficult to re-emerge from our self-induced stupor.   

Probably the most obvious, lowest hanging fruit that I can bang away at is television and advertisement.  This time of year is always distressing for me.  It is not that I’m returning to work soon but I’m bombarded with commercials that tell kids that the most important part of returning to school is that they have the right clothes, the right technology and in general, appear the coolest.  On one hand, what else are they going to say but the emphasis is all consuming and teachers know that of which I speak – the first days of school and the first days after Christmas vacation are de facto fashion shows.  “Books?  Don’t sweat it, kid.  You’ll get further by looking better.” 

Of course, television programs consistently set new lows in depravity and stupidity.  It might be strange to hear but in other countries, as we once did, they have programs where people calmly discuss important political and social issues.  It is mature discussions on the events of the day or with the guest for the evening.  Today, the last refuge for such programming is PBS and even there, such discussion-oriented programming is rather thin on the ground.  The programs you would normally expect the most of but get the least from are news shows.  As I’ve mentioned before, I often watch the news wondering where the adults are.  Screaming and emotionalism are a far cry from what once watched even a decade ago.  As for reality programming, I don’t have enough space to address that issue.

 

Speaking of the aforementioned arena of education, we have the prominence of standardize testing.  Today, it is more important that you know an increasingly narrowed field of information – only what will be on the test.  From an early age, our students are taught that a large swath of information is not important because it will not be assessed.  From the earliest grades, we are teaching our students that the curiosity with which they entered school does not serve them well.  Only a passing test grade will land you into a good school and ergo a good career.  Yet, school officials on the national and state levels scratch their heads and profess dismay at increasingly worsening scores on international testing.  They’ve drunk the Kool-Aid and cannot think beyond their boxes.   

Lastly (only for the sake of this article), technology has emphasized that convenience is valued over substance.  Technology today, despite its proponents who champion educational apps and computer programs as its benefits, has done more to shorten our attention span and gnaw away at our intellectual stamina.  Additionally, for all the “enriching” aspects of technology, I don’t see people using it.  I see people pre-occupied with Twitter, Facebook and other social media outlets.  As a teacher, I’ve seen the degradation and it is disheartening and baffling.  Over the last couple of decades, we have treasured our students’ ability to emote and not think and we are paying for that misdirection. 

I hope the state of things is not as bad as I’m portraying.  I’ve come across students from time to time who buck the trend.  What makes it seem so dire is the prevalence of mass media and popular culture.  I find myself wondering if there is some network or programmer who would be willing to buck the trend and appeal to the country’s intellect.  Is there a celebrity who will do more for intellectual pursuits that posing for the “Read” posters found in libraries throughout the country?  It is fine to not put on airs or to lampoon pretentiousness but we must still value the mind and intellect.  If not, the great experiment might not last much longer. 

Hamas' Cynical Plan

Israel was not created in order to disappear – Israel will endure and flourish.  It is the child of hope and the home of the brave.  It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success.  It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.

            President John F. Kennedy 

This past week, Permanent Observer of Palestine to the U.N. Riyad Mansour spoke of the recent troubles between his state and Israel.  He spoke of Israel breaking the recently agreed upon cease-fire and castigated the Jewish state for the massacre of Palestinians.  Interviewer Charlie Rose asked about the actions of Hamas, breaking the truce with thousands of rockets leading to the Israeli response.  Mr. Mansour, speaking with either shocking naïveté or willful obliviousness, said that Hamas does not represent the Abbas government and therefore, does not represent a violation of the cease-fire.  The U.N. Observer’s verbiage is characteristic of an unbalanced and cynical approach in the worsening climate of the Middle East. 

Since the Oslo Accord in 1993, Israel has been pushed into one agreement after another in which it sacrifices and Palestine does not.  Israel has ceded territory, has agreed to a needed two-state solution and nine years ago, it demolished a slew of Israeli settlements throughout Gaza and the West Bank to secure a possible peace.  It has entered into negotiations with the Abbas government who has shown, at times in the recent crisis, remarkable courage in speaking out against Hamas and those who support the terrorist group.  Yet, Hamas lies just outside the light of diplomacy and refuses to budge.  

Hamas has pursued a policy that calls for the destruction of Israel by inviting its fire and using ordinary Palestinians as shields.  Despite Mr. Mansour’s blithe understanding and acceptance of Hamas, the terrorist group has fired its many rockets out of homes, schools, mosques and areas that would ensure, in the retaliation, what Charles Krauthammer called the telegenic death of hundreds of innocent civilians.  The deaths of innocents televised are callously used as part of a public relations campaign that has won support throughout the world.  Morality does not matter, only the end result.  Hamas fires away at Israel while some throughout the world justify the means used.  I guess terrorism works.  

For all those who chastise and criticize Israel for its actions, it fails to offer an alternative.  Some have suggested at other times that Israel needs to negotiate.  To what end?  To lose more land or invite more rockets?  Other observers have correctly assessed that since Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank ended nearly a decade ago and Palestine has been able to pave its own path, vital economic and political institutions, needed infrastructure and stability has been absent.  Despite the fact that Israel gives the Palestinian state millions of dollars a year in aid and supplies, a periodically well-intentioned Mahmoud Abbas and the powerless Palestinian civilians have been in the grips of Hamas.  The terrorist organization has repeatedly sought to undermine any efforts of peace.  They want the destruction of Israel and if it can’t happen militarily, they will do so by cynically placing its own “constituents” in the line of fire to convince the world that Israel is in the wrong. 

Israel, to its credit, has failed to dove-tail into the culture of death and martyrdom that is being embraced in Gaza.  Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, referring to the words of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has come out to say that Israel will not glorify the Jews responsible for the reaction to the death of three Israeli teenagers.  Those who killed that young Palestinian man will not be hailed as heroes, will not have public squares named after them and will not be taught to young Israeli children.  All of which has happened in Palestine.   

It is difficult to say how Palestine and the ordinary citizen will be able to take control again of its future and its faith.  Thankfully, if recent international news coverage holds true, there has been a more even-handed reporting of the recent violence with a hard look being cast upon Hamas.  Israel has little open to them in the way of options.  Hamas is counting on that and hoping that the old formula will work once more.  Perhaps, people are starting to see the position with which Israel has wrestled over the last couple of decades.  If Hamas can be shown for what it is, it might bring the region closer to peace.  Sadly, I don’t expect to see it any time soon.

An Eagle Rising?

In 2000, there was much excitement in Mexico over the election of the first non-PRI candidate in nearly a century with the inauguration of Vincente Fox.  Mr. Fox came into office promising sweeping reforms and an attempt to roll back institutional corruption and graft that had held the Mexican economy and people back.  Felipe Caldorón, the former mayor of Mexico City, said many of the same things.  In 2012, PRI candidate Enrique Peña Nieto was swept into office with again, promises of reform.  However, with Mr. Peña, the world press has focused and sees a bright future for Mexico.  The question is whether Mr. Peña can succeed where his well-meaning predecessors failed. 

Several fronts need to be tackled, simultaneously, if Mexico hopes to realize its potential as a society and as an economy.  Mr. Peña has help that can prove instrumental.  One, he is the head of the leading party in the country but also enjoys support for his reforms from the party of his two predecessors, the Reform Party or PAN.  However, not all of his fellow PRI compadres will go along because some of Mr. Peña’s efforts and plans include checking the influence of the powerful unions.  Some PRI politicians are not going to take on that battle.  Still, Mr. Peña has the chance to make some changes by addressing three key areas – the economy, corruption and migration.   

Economically, while there are some parts of Mexico that are doing well, others are lagging dramatically behind.  No one party can lay claim to an economic plan that will save Mexico therefore, a new approach will need to be developed nationally, if not locally.  Nationally, the north is developing at a nice pace with GDP per person at some of the highest levels in the country (Nuevo León, $16,000; Coahuila, $11,100).  Outliers to this statistic include Quintana Roo on the Yucatán at $10,600 and the hub of money in the Federal District ($19,200).  Most of the country, including the bone-crushing poverty in the south in states like Chiapas ($3,600) and Oaxaca ($4,100) and those hovering around mediocrity such as Tabasco ($5,900) and Michoacán ($5,500), are in desperate need of increase investment and more business-friendly measures.  The only way this can happen is to loosen the power of the unions. 

The unions, along with politicians and the police, is a source of corruption and graft.  There can be no “business-friendly” atmosphere unless the level of crookedness and red tape can somehow be reduced.  It is not just the big corruption but the everyday, almost mundane levels of graft that is crippling Mexico.  In a study reported by Economist, Mexican households spend approximately $2.5b (32b pesos) annually on bribes for things ranging from “public” services to primary school.  For many international businesses, to go into Mexico is to accept a level of corruption that is seldom seen.  Of course, the same Mexicans who are paying these bribes cannot or will not express their outrage – many feeling that the problem is too big.   

Only by increasing the economy throughout the country, only by reducing corruption from the highest levels to that directly impacting each Mexican family, can there be any hope of curbing or regulating more effectively the migration issue.  It is true that recent emigration levels have dropped significantly but only because the economy of the U.S. is so uncertain.  The most recent Pew Research study show there are roughly 12m people in the U.S. who were born in Mexico.  Consider the talent and the intellect that is leaving the country - and in many cases, not returning.  Additionally, the cavalcade of children making their way into the U.S. highlights Mexico’s issue with immigration across its southern border.  Included in this tale are those who are entering the U.S. under the orders and threats of drug cartels.  The Mexican government, in recent years, has made progress against such forces but to suggest that the threat has reduced would be a fallacy. 

Several years ago, I visited Mexico City.  What I saw is a hard working population that is fighting uphill to make it to the end of the day.  Regularly, they see a government that does not seem to work while they pay their Danegeld each day with little to no long-term benefit.  Mr. Peña has a tough road to travel but he has the resources, both in the land and the people, to make Mexico the envy of the developing world.  A great many things need to fall in place but if political courage can rise with public outrage and indignation, the major problems of Mexico today could well be studied in the history books tomorrow.

Fear and Anxiety in the U.S.

If anyone on the verge of action should judge himself according to the outcome, he would never begin.
            Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling

Recently, I was thinking of the role that fear plays in our society.  When you ask people why they do what they do, eventually, fear creeps into the conversation.  Given how often people speak of fear, my next thought was what were the consequences of this thinking and obsessing about fear.  For millennium, philosophers and writers have considered this point.  Even though we live in one of the safest periods in U.S. history, our fear has inversely grown to absurd and mystifying proportions.  Its consequences to us and our way of life could be damaging and irreversible.  

When I speak of fear, I don’t speak of the fear of things from without.  We have traditionally been an isolationist country (some say we are returning to that) but such fears have tangible qualities that make the fear more understandable, more concrete.  When I speak of fear, I mean to say the fear around us.  I speak of the fear to act, the fear to explore, the fear implanted into us by politicians and the media.  What does this dread do to us?  How does our society change with consistent, pervasive fear?  More interestingly, why are we so fearful? 

A friend once told me that when a worrier has nothing to worry about, they turn on themselves.  We are a people who have vanquished our enemies and cured our diseases.  While terrorism lurks in the distance, it has not taken the place of the threat of the Soviet Union and communist world domination.  So, with the fears from without shrinking, we have decided that the real threat lies in our neighbors and our environment.  Lurking gunmen or pedophiles or the threat of being alone has spurred our fears.  To make matters worse, politicians make hay of these fears and industries sell our fear back to us.  Consequently, we are prodded and prompted to continually look around us and our anxiety grows and we became more irrational.   

So, how does it change our society?  It first makes us wary of the mundane and the innocent.  I want to go on a hike without my cell phone.  My wife, as sold to her by cell phone companies who extolled its products based on emergencies, tells me I must bring it because what if something happens and I’m trapped.  Parents worry about having their kids walk to school or down to the corner for some groceries because of lurking molesters waiting for the careless parent who sent their innocent child in harm’s way.  Obsessive-compulsive mothers follow their children around with anti-bacterial lotion, bathing them in it every five minutes or so.  A potential entrepreneur is scared to take the leap to own her own business because of regular news reports saying small businesses are collapsing each day.   

The fear makes us timid, it turns us inward and eventually, it could impact our way of life.  The more frighten we become, the less choices we make – the more we depend on the government to make those decisions.  The more we empower government, the more we lose our voice.  In general, we pass on our fears to our children and the cycle continues.  As an expectant parent, I worry about the parts of me that are not good and passing it on to our future daughter.  She should be aware but not scared.  Yet, our children are.  When we find ourselves surrendering to our fear, we have to ask what it is doing to us.  We have to ask questions about the decisions we make and whether there is truly anything about which to be concern.   

The Danish existentialist Søren Kierkegaard once said, “Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced.”  Our fear is robbing us of a chance to experience.  Yes, bad things happen but living in constant vigilance against the worst case scenarios is no protection.  We each have a fate and it makes little difference if we spend our lives worrying about it.  Instead, as Kierkegaard said, we have to spend our lives embracing and soaking in that which is around us.  Perhaps, we will be happier.  It might be enough to not be so miserable and anxious.

 

The Devil in the Details

When Richard Nixon was out of office and dealing with the aftermath of Watergate, he was interviewed by British talk-show host, David Frost.  The Englishman pressed Mr. Nixon on the issues and legalities pertaining to the scandal.  In a particularly tense moment, the president, out of frustration said, “When the president does it, it means it is not illegal.”  I was reminded of this quote when listening to Obama administration officials and other supporters of the president’s swap of a soldier for five terrorists.  President Obama’s actions seem either the personification of President Nixon’s hubris or naïveté. 

This is not a rejection of Bowe Bergdahl’s parents or even his home town.  They have one of their own back after five years and their happiness needs no explanation or excuse.  My concerns are with the administration, which at present is under attack by Republicans, Democrats and foreign heads of state over this trade.  I’m taken aback by the fact the administration seems surprised at the response.  This suggests one of two approaches to this trade.  Either the administration never fully thought it out and its consequences, assuming that rescuing a soldier five years in the enemy’s hands would be a no-brainer for public support or they did think it through and did not feel objections or the law were important.  So, we have either an incompetent government (suggested by many) or a corrupt one (also, suggested by many). 

First, there are legal and security concerns.  To my knowledge, there are no military or security experts suggesting this trade is without some possibly dangerous repercussions.  We have done what we have always said we would not do – negotiate with terrorists.  In the past, the trading of prisoners is done after the war, after a victor is declared and the defeated is cowed.  We have ended the war but the Taliban and their allies have not.  We are still targets and still the face on their wall with darts protruding from it.  This coterie of terrorists taken from Guantanamo have not given up the struggle and as soon as they can, will be back in the field with increased knowledge of the U.S. and increased anger.   

Additionally and according to the law, the Congress was to be informed of such dealings a month before it took place.  The administration said there was not enough time to inform the Congress.  If the Congress allows this violation to go unanswered, it is not just an institution that loses prestige, power and a voice.  It is us as citizens who lose prestige, power and a voice.  The Congress is our voice as the most representative body in the government.  A rejection of Congressional oversight and authority is a rejection of the public’s.  This is one reason why there is such bipartisan congressional anger against the deal.   

On the other hand, there is the question of Sergeant Bergdahl himself.  This man is not the bastion of fealty and honor that the administration has portrayed him to be.  According to his fellow soldiers, this man quit on his platoon, placed them in danger and is responsible for the men who died searching for him.  There is little sympathy for Sgt. Bergdahl.  While some say he should be court-martialed and perhaps jailed, I think he has suffered enough for his actions assuming he was just a prisoner and not a collaborator.  However, that will be of little comfort to the families of those who died.  I do not begrudge the Bergdahl family’s joy but that joy came at a cost.  Are we, as a country, willing to pay that? 

President Obama cannot be as toned deaf as he appears to be with these various scandals that have rocked his administration but with which he claims little connection, knowledge or culpability.  However, we have history and it teaches us what happens to people who claim to be above the law.  Some in Congress have uttered the “impeachment” word but that is ridiculous.  He is only doing what his supporters and allies in Congress are allowing him to do.  Yet, the consequences of these actions could be an emasculated legislature and endangered Americans overseas.