In Defense of Expression

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent.  Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers.  The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

            Louis B. Brandeis, 1928

When the Anti-Federalists grudgingly accepted the U.S. Constitution in 1789, they did so with the caveat that certain liberties be included in the document.  These would be liberties that were not susceptible to the whims of the government or other forces.  One of those liberties was the freedom of speech.  I’ve written often about the subject, both its importance and its limitation.  It is a passion of mine and one that is increasingly under attack.  It is, at present, our most endangered right.

In 1644, writer John Milton addressed the Parliament to oppose a bill that would heavily restrict what the country’s authors could and could not write about.  The speech, detailed in Milton’s Areopagitica, is considered one of the finest defense of expression.  It is a damning account of the writer’s belief that any “standardization” placed on writers could create consensus and intellectual laziness because faith and knowledge will not have the opportunity to “exercise itself.”  What Milton is talking about is that any limit to expression, be it written or oral, is a two-way bondage.  On one hand, it prevents from one the chance to express themselves but, on the other hand, it prevents the majority the chance to strengthen their own position by listening to others.  Knowledge cannot be improved upon unless it is challenged and forced to defend itself.

The Founding Fathers understood the importance of the freedom of speech, given its prominence within the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Economist and philosopher Rosa Luxemburg referred to such a freedom as the right of the dissenters.  Freedom of speech only for the loudest or the most powerful is no freedom at all but a tyranny.  People who exist in such bubbles are at risk, as Christopher Hitchens once said, of taking “refuge in the false security of consensus.”  Individuals who only listen to like minds, who only watch like presentation of news or information, who refuse to hear or attempt to shout down any contrary point of view are ultimately dooming themselves. 

Such people are being witnessed throughout our country, on campuses from Yale to the University of Missouri to many others.  The situation at Yale University has been most publicized because of a viral video showing one out of control student yelling and cursing at a university administrator who had sent an email to consider others before deciding on a Halloween costume.  To some students, it was not enough to “encourage” others but to demand that no one wear a costume that could potentially offend someone or violate someone’s “safe space.” 

When you hear stories about this, it is enough to shake one’s head.  What many of these students are going on about when talking about “safe spaces” and the like is a demand to go through life un-offended.  In their young lives, they have either never been told or have chosen to forget completely the lesson about other ideas or words, particularly if they don’t like them.  What is offense taken?  In my twenty years as a teacher, as a former Marine, as a Jew, as a guy of size, I’ve heard many things in my life that would be deemed offensive.  However, I learned quite early that it does not matter what is said.  Unless it is true, what do I care?  It is not surprising that many have characterized these “crybullies” (not my word) as entitled and spoiled. 

A person should have the right to wear whatever they want as a costume or in an arena of ideas, be able to say what they would like.  Does such a right protect one from criticism or counter-ideas?  Unequivocally, the answer is no.  However, to stage protests that prevent the free expression of ideas is a dangerous trend.  Such rights have emboldened oppressed people for centuries in this country.  As many of these protesters are people of various races, it is even more perplexing because a commitment to freedom of expression has allowed one civil rights’ movement after another to be born, prosper and ultimately, succeed in this country.

I have strong opinions about freedom of speech.  There are limits however, outside of those very few exceptions, the right to express oneself in either offensive or banal terms is unassailable.  The Constitution says that the government was created to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.”  Secure, not bestow or create but secure.  That means the rights pre-date the government.  These are rights with which we are born and cannot be taken from us by government.  Let’s hope mob rule does not do the job.  

In Search for Spirituality

I was born to a Jewish father and a Christian mother.  I’m the child of two faiths, two cultures.  Growing up Christian, I remember moments of crisis.  I remember as a small child questioning the notion of God and being quite upset about it.  My father said my fears and angst were a sign of my faith – without it, my questions would not bother me.  In short, it is appropriate to question.  Today, I question again. 

I’m a Christian but I find no comfort in the faith, no spirituality.  Going to church today is to be subjected to a cacophony of noise.  There is no silence or time for reflection and contemplation.  Most churches are saddled with bands and speakers, ministers who are over-demonstrative and emotional, standing amidst screens with rolling graphics and words.  Through the din, it is impossible to connect with God.  It is likely churches have never been this way (it is a “service” after all) but certainly, the capacity for spirituality and connection has grown dimmer in recent decades.  In the noise, there is also desperation as the faith seeks to find members from an increasingly distracted generation.  

It has been said and practiced by many, across cultures and faiths, that reflection and quiet contemplation leads to strength.  The more one studies and the more one reflects, the stronger one grows.  In this practice, there is an activism toward empowerment.  However, some of today’s Christians seem to have gone in a different direction.  Many churches do not encourage the bringing of the Bible – the written explanation of the faith.  Some Christians sing overly emotive songs and look pleadingly to the heavens, in some cases with tears in their eyes and hands in the air.  Adherents to this practice might call this a sort of spirituality but it is only a passive attempt to search for it.  In doing so, I’ve always looked upon this as weak.

In my study, I see something strong in my faith, something empowering.  However, the way some practices are done seem to truncate that trait.  I’ve wondered what a church service would look like were we able to actively and spiritually approach our faith.  I’ve imagined a church with two rooms.  One room is for quiet prayer and meditation.  Buddhists say that only this can strengthen and correct the mind.  The other room is for reading and studying, discussion and debate.  In one room, one actively strengthens their faith through a pursuit of connectedness.  In the other room, it is done through a pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.  Unrealistically, it would do away with the “service” as we know it today.

The problem for me is that my type of church doesn't exist.  Historically, Christians have never done this.  Perhaps, my troubles are only my own but I don’t think so.  I would love to feel comfortable in a church however, in recent decades, the outside world and the things from which the church is to help us find solace now rests within the walls.  It says in Romans, Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.  Yet, I cannot find a church that has not been unalterably transformed by the world around them and the so-called necessities of reaching modern audiences.  Instead of showing these Christians the way to connect with God, these churches have conformed to the demands of how the congregants want to worship.  Sadly, it is not worship at all, certainly nothing with spirituality in accompaniment. 

Perhaps, I’m destined to seek my own path.  I don’t mind that and often, I prefer it.  However, it would also be nice to find those of similar disposition. 

Forbidden Games?

In a New York court, the state is seeking to ban fantasy league companies like FanDuel and DraftKings because they are a form of gambling.  Other states are lining up to do the same.  The industry is trying to make the argument that the fantasy sport leagues are games of skill while the states attempt to argue it is a game of chance and therefore, gambling.  Such companies have the approval of most major sports leagues and with an ever growing customer base, the industry represents billions of dollars in annual revenue.  Outcomes are hard to predict but what is certain is that the case will not end in New York.

In full disclosure and as a sports fan, I have an issue with companies like FanDuel and DraftKings because it has nothing to do with fandom.  One could say it is the anti-thesis of fandom so I’m working up a feeling of schadenfreude on the hopes that such companies are indeed banned.  These leagues are creating followers who are adherents not to a particular team or sport but to players and outcomes for the purpose of making money.  All of the noble qualities that sport possesses and the life lessons it teaches are thrown out the window with fantasy sports.  But, I digress. 

I heard a story on National Public Radio about the case and heard from one of the more successful fantasy sports players – he was able to quit his job as an accountant to do fantasy sports full time.  He said his job has nothing to do with gambling because of the skill involved.  He mentioned that about 90% of all earnings on FanDuel are earned by just over 1% of the players.  The fact that skill weighs so heavily in who wins and who loses makes it an “obvious game of skill by any definition” and therefore, not gambling.

First, it would seem that there is a distinction in some minds, partly in how the New York Attorney General’s office has defined it, between games of chance and games of skill.  This distinction, to some, seems to define what is and what is not gambling.  Gambling can certainly be both.  Take poker for instance.  A reasonable person would agree that there are good poker players and bad ones.  That same person would also agree that poker, while chances of winning can be enhanced by the skill of the player, is also a game that depends on how the cards fall.  No matter how good you are, if you get bad cards, you are not going to win.  Both of these scenarios make poker both a game of chance and a game of skill.  However, nearly all people would see poker for money as gambling. 

Secondly, each person who plays with FanDuel or DraftKings pays money up front to take part in the fantasy leagues.  The industry says that the money paid out initially by participants is simply money paid to play.  As DraftKings lawyer John Kiernan said, it is not a wager or bet and the participants are not risking anything of any real value.  If money paid to participate is not anything of “true value”, I’m not sure what is.  It certainly seems like a wager to me.  Commercials for such companies promise the chance of winning hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Is that not the whole idea of a wager – money paid in hopes of winning more? 

When you take part in a fantasy league, you are betting that the players you have chosen will play well enough for you to “win” your league – and by doing so, you will also win money.  Such endeavors are both games of skill and games of chance: much like poker.  And by any definition, the fantasy sports players are gambling.  Now, this is not an article damning gambling.  I don’t like it and don’t partake but it is a person’s choice to lose all that money.  However, I also find the practice of fantasy sports a little annoying so if the law can come down on the corporations earning billions off of this, I would not be devastated.  

Terrorism and Indecisiveness

Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, France, Mali.  Terrorists like the Islamic State have been busy over the last weeks and months.  In their wake is a string of shattered cities and devastated lives.  For the western democracies, it needs to be a time to not just hunker down or lash out but to re-evaluate.  France’s intelligence network’s failure to pick up on the events that shattered its capital is more than that – it is a sign that things are evolving and adapting.  The West must do the same.

Gandhi was once asked whether his approach to conflict resolution would have adequately dealt with Hitler.  He said yes but it would have taken much longer.  Europe and the United States do not have time if recent attacks across three continents in the last month or so are any indication.  French President Francois Holland is increasing the militarily targeting of the Islamic State but he is also seeking to change how the French do business in-country by changing police procedures and tactics against suspected terrorists. 

M. Holland’s attempt to change the constitution to meet new security needs have faced opposition from both sides of the political spectrum.  However, he clearly sees the need for a change and he is trying to adapt to a new reality.  By all accounts, French intelligence was taken off guard by the events of 13 November.  Whether the French leader will be able to impose his will or not remains to be seen but a requirement to be on the qui vive has gripped parts of the French population. 

Regarding President Obama, he presented the most confounding reaction to the events of the last month or so.  My observations are not unique.  Many have been dismayed over the near blasé approach to the events and how the United States should respond.  The president, who days before Beirut and Paris, said that the Islamic State was contained, maintained that a change in philosophy or approach to the terrorists is not required.  The present modus operandi was sufficient and it was important not to over-react.  Yes, an over-reaction would not be prudent but certainly a re-evaluation is necessary because American intelligence proved to be as unaware as its French counterparts.  His comments from Ankara would suggest that is also not necessary.  However, there is push back. 

Former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency Michael Morell suggested with Charlie Rose that the president’s response needs to be on the same level as if the target was not Paris but New York City.  Combat veteran and Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HA) has criticized the president for failing to grasp the core element of dealing with the terrorists by refusing to use the word.  Last week, when a bi-partisan measure in Congress sought to make a seemingly common sense improvement in the screening process for incoming Syrians, the president responded by mocking Congressional Republicans as being scared of little old ladies and orphans.  This was in the face of reports suggesting that at least one of the Paris attackers entered Europe posing as a refugee. 

It is a nasty world out there and it will not improve any time soon.  It is not just international groups like al-Qaeda or ISIS but also regional groups like the Mourabitounes, the West African terrorist group that attacked the Radisson hotel in Bamako, Mali.  The rise of these groups would be a difficult challenge for any president but our commander in chief needs get into a locked room with military and terrorist experts and consider a new way of doing things.  The West was surprised by the Parisian attacks.  We need to find out why and contemplate a new approach.  The enemy already has.

The (Lost) Art of Compromise

All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.

            Edmund Burke, Irish-born English philosopher and political theorist

This past weekend, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced he was retiring from the Speakership and leaving a congressional career that spans a quarter of a century.  Members of Congress in general and the Republican Party specifically greeted the news with a certain amount of enthusiasm.  Mr. Boehner was seen as an obstacle to the absolutism that is championed by some politicians – mainly from the Tea Party wing.  Their lack of political maturity and understanding of their profession has caused undue stress among conservatives and in the process, has damaged the philosophy’s perception. 

This is not an article about Mr. Boehner or his legacy.  This is about the job of a representative.  This has more to do with a key ingredient to democracy.  Since the early days, the country has been a philosophical battleground of differing ideas based on differing perceptions and understandings of the Constitution.  As these groups have circled one another, trying to get one piece of legislation passed after another, they have accepted the notion that it is impractical and potentially destructive to try and get everything one wants. 

As George Will once said, democracy is the government of persuasion and insofar as that is true, it requires patience and compromise.  The absolutists in Congress today, with whom I largely agree, are following a policy of brinkmanship.  An all or nothing approach is rarely the right way to go about it.  There are only a few times in U.S. history where that was the case.  Mostly, representatives are tasked with struggling to create something out of the half-loaf. 

Whether the Congress and the Republican Party are any better off with the retirement of the Speaker is one for statesmen to argue.  Whether the country is better off with a contingent demanding that everything go their way simply because they are in a majority, I would say that is an unequivocal “no.”  Republican supporters throughout the country have seen various attempts by the party to muscle through legislation and fail miserably.  They have seen party attempts at forcing “doomsday” choices on the other party blow back in their face.  The reason it happens is because, in part, a failure to compromise. 

Compromise can be an ugly word.  Some seem to confuse it with appeasement.  These attitudes are heightened by people looking at Democrats – in Congress and in the White House – as a personal affront.  Democrats simply represent another, if not mistaken, view point.  To attempt to roll over them, thinking the most decisive victory is the best victory, is political immaturity. 

The American people can understand the notion of give and take as in the course of their relationships – at work, at school, at home.  What they do not understand, because few experience it, is steamrolling others with little to no regard.  With the art of compromise, one puts more pressure on the other side.  The attempt at rationality puts greater focus and more heat on the other side for an equal measure.  Additionally, compromise prevents the other side from a knee-jerk response.  Greater bipartisan support is possible for conservative ideas.

Discourse can be polemic and debates can be vigorous.  However, in the process of making laws and setting policy, the smarter play is compromise.  It is an art that is reserved for adults, reasonable and logical who understand the nature of man.  The art of persuasion requires one to understand others.  An all-or-nothing approach requires nothing but obdurateness.  It requires no thought, interaction, cooperation and, ultimately, no talent or intelligence.  It simply requires a disregard of all others who are not like you.  Conservatism is not like that and nor should politics.  It is not personal.  It is not about the individual but about the whole.

The Fight for 2016

As I watch Donald Trump in the news, this modern-day incarnation of Narcissus travels the country seemingly trying to derail his own campaign with one ridiculous statement after another.  And indicative of an age of runaway Ritalin prescriptions, some angry and misguided people are popping Mr. Trump’s missives like pills.  From a political party that can call its own the likes of Lincoln and Reagan, this vaudeville barker is muddling the message of real conservatives who could make a serious and honorable run for the Oval Office. 

A good friend, and a very intelligent one, refers to Mr. Trump as revolutionary.  I disagree.  There is nothing revolutionary, new or extraordinary about the businessman-turned-demagogue.  History is replete with fringe characters (some good, others not) aspiring for the White House – Aaron Burr in 1800, Hugh White in 1836, Henry Wallace in 1948, George Wallace in 1968 and Ross Perot in 1992.  Beyond U.S. history, a string of such people have sought power and had their supporters and popularity.  Mr. Trump does not represent anything new but he is a new incarnation of an old idea.  Appealing to our baser instincts elevates nothing and will ultimately produce nothing but more acrimony. 

For all the talk from Democrats regarding the homogeneity of conservatism, there are some varied and powerful ideas coming from the candidates who, sadly, are not being heard or so we thought.  In the last few weeks, some of the Republican candidates are making progress in the polls.  For the most part, they are also seen as outsiders without the toxic, ad hominem nature of the front runner.  As we are still nearly a half a year out of Iowa, it is hoped that some of these candidates will be able to dispatch Mr. Trump and allow him to return to whatever he was doing a year ago.

Recently surging in the polls is retired surgeon Ben Carson.  In debates and in conversations, he has shown a serious, quietly humorous and mature voice on the campaign trail.  As the head of the Republican National Convention said, I’m not sure about one who has no political experience gaining the nomination but he stands as a respectful and thoughtful voice.  His measured and articulate position on why the Affordable Care Act is not workable and his support for a guest worker program has earned him some attention.

Carly Fiorina is another polished and thoughtful voice in the Republican race.  The former CEO of Hewlett Packard earned rave reviews after her appearance in the matinee debate a few weeks back.  There is a bevy of videos that show Ms. Fiorina being harangued by one reporter after another on various issues but she has shown poise, what the French call sangfroid.  Her position on a simplified tax code has drawn some interest as well as her criticism of President Obama’s net neutrality policy. 

He is not an outsider but I’ve been a fan of Florida Senator Marco Rubio for a while now.  As a junior senator, he has shown a great deal of political courage for putting out on record his plan to deal with issues such as immigration and budgetary concerns.  Given his background as the son of Cuban refugees, it is not surprising Senator Rubio has steadfastly opposed the president’s moves to normalize relations with Cuba.  It might have been a losing position but his willingness to put himself out there and support his constituents is admirable.  He is young, passionate and articulate.  He represents the potential future of the conservative movement.

There is so much substance among some of the candidates in this Republican preliminary fight that it makes it all the more puzzling that Mr. Trump continues to dominate the political scene.  Some pundits believe that there is no way he will still be around come January but they are likely the same bunch who said the same things months before.  In some ways, Mr. Trump is the realization of the worst fears of cultural critics.  In other ways, he is simply the latest in a long line of societal agitators.  Let us hope that another can appeal to the “better angels of our nature.”

A Questionable Legacy

There has been so much going on in the news lately and no shortage of topics to discuss.  However, having a baby in the house has had a rather predictable impact on my writing.  That said, I would like to address the retirement of Jon Stewart.  All sorts of luminaries and dignitaries have spoken of his talent and ability to make others laugh and that cannot be denied.  They have talked about the groundbreaking nature of his program – The Daily Show.  That also cannot be denied.  However, what does his success mean?  That is my concern.

Jon Stewart once explained to Fox News that he is not to be taken seriously – he is a comic on the Comedy Central telling jokes about news-worthy events.  I could not agree more.  My concern is that his audience does not take the same view.  Recent polls suggest that a large number of viewers, mostly younger folks, used his show as their only source of news and information.  This is the first major concern I have about Mr. Stewart’s legacy and those who seek to continue the same.  He made no attempt at being comprehensive or objective; he made no attempt at providing context, historical or otherwise.  Yet, there are many Americans who were armed only with the information that Mr. Stewart and his crack team performed.  One might say that being mal-informed is better than being uninformed.  I would hate to live off the difference.

Second, much of what Mr. Stewart did was satire at various politicians, pundits and personalities.  An old tradition and one that he did quite well, this is not an attack on such tactics.  It is at times necessary to take pot shots at the popolo grasso in our nation’s capital.  However, with no other news digested by the viewer, one gets a horribly skewed view of our politicians, the jobs they are elected to do and the institutions in which they serve.  What is the cumulative effect of such slanted exposure?  When one considers that the growing number of young people who do not vote (yes, I know many other age groups don’t vote either) and their lack of engagement, what are the consequences for our Republic?  It is nothing good and such a thought should frighten those who care.

More than anything else, I’ve seen a growing number of people who cannot take the serious without the frivolous.  I’ve seen it with my students the most.  I assign them a serious topic to research and present to class and I have to make the caveat that they are not allowed to make light of the subject or goof off.  My students complain saying that the “fun” will make it interesting without considering that the inherent interest of a subject is interesting enough.  I’ve written before about the phenomena of education that must be “fun” or news presented as “entertainment.”  The question that I pose is – what is the impact of this approach?

This cultural trait is not to be laid at the feet of Jon Stewart.  He is a comedian doing his job and he did it quite well.  What is troubling is the importance that people placed in him – an importance he rejected often.  These people range from his viewers who used him as their sole source of news to those who sing his praises as something greater than he thought he should be considered.  As Neil Postman once said, the idea of being well-informed is not changing but what it means to be well-informed is.  I sometimes wonder if this is what it looked like when the Roman Empire began to collapse.

A Battle over History

Over the last several weeks, since the shooting in South Carolina, there has been increasing cries for the taking down of the Confederate battle flag.  This past week, members of both parties in the South Carolina legislature with support from people across racial and political lines lowered the Confederate battle flag for the last time.  One can argue for the meaning of the symbol and there are certainly different interpretations, but what must be agreed upon is that it was time.  Yet, this does not allow for a blanket Confederate application.   

Throughout American history, South Carolina has stood as one of the most obdurate states in the Union.  In 1828, it threatened to succeed over the issue of a tariff passed by the John Quincy Adams administration.  First in 1856 and then in 1860, it threatened to succeed over a possible election of a Republican.  When Abraham Lincoln won in 1860, South Carolina carried out its threat in the following month.  For over a century, the state has been defiant over federal encroachment.  So, it is fitting that it is only South Carolina that should determine when to lower the flag. 

However, my stance on the flag does not extend to all things Confederate.  Recently, Baltimore officials and those throughout the state are having a conversation about removing all symbols and references to the Confederacy, including statues and other memorials dedicated to Confederate soldiers and leaders.  As a history teacher, I have a particular problem with this for a couple of reasons.

One, the monuments are to the fallen; those considered by the U.S. government as veterans.  The idea that some officials, including the embattled mayor of Baltimore, would do away with the dedication to those who fell during the Civil War is shocking and an affront.  Our monuments do not take into account the personal beliefs of those honored – merely considering their dedication and willingness to sacrifice for their country.  Such measures are unacceptable and should outrage Americans. People want to get rid of a statue of Robert E. Lee – why?  Because he fought with a belief in slavery?  So did some in the North.  The North was not a paragon of racial equality and harmony.  Should we get rid of those statues and monuments as well?

Two, this is an attack on history.  One cannot wipe away the history of an era simply because one does not like it.  History is replete with those who seek to alter or abolish history and typically, such people are numbered as some of the worst dictators and tyrants.  What is being considered here sets an abhorrent precedent that leaves history to the whims of fancy.  In their minds, Baltimore officials may think they are striking a blow against prejudice and hatred but what they are actually doing is robbing a people of a history that is never perfect and never pure.  History’s “humanness” is in its imperfection, its constant struggle to get things right.  To judge the past by the standards of the present is to write off much of our past.

The battle flag is a symbol resurrected during the mid-20^th century to represent not the South but the worst of its character.  The abolition of the flag from public buildings and events is right.  The wish to alter or wipe out the past by taking down statues and monuments to those who served and died for the South is ridiculous.  Once a group of people take it upon themselves to edit that history which they find objectionable, we are indeed in dangerous territory.  We risk losing ourselves when we lose our history.

A Fight for Knowledge

In all the talk about the Muslim world and the tacit approval by some of more extremist elements, there is something missing – the intellectual and educational past of its decedents. When one considers the achievements made by Muslims, it is a shocking concept that one group proclaiming the tenets of Islam, the Shabab militants in Kenya, should target teachers and children to shut down schools. Yet, this is what the people of Kenya are facing. Sadly, and not just Kenya, centers of education are being attacked under the unfounded idea that somehow such things are against God.

Muhammad, he who founded the Islamic faith, was a worldly man. He had traveled throughout the region with his uncle, a merchant. He knew of other people and indeed, his knowledge of other people and their culture helped in the spread of his nascent faith. From the very beginning, a practical and worldly education propelled Islam forward, into the world of the peripatetic arena of the Bedouin, into the ancient lands of the Fertile Crescent to the dusty lands of North Africa and into the Iberian Peninsula. It latched on to other, older cultures, absorbing its history and knowledge and in doing so, spreading the faith and expanding its borders into Persia and India.

Early Muslim scholars rescued the works of the Romans and Greeks, preserving them for generations to come at a time when the Europeans had denigrated into barbarism. Such intellectual achievements were also seen with early mathematicians such as Muhammad ibn Musa Al-Khwarizmi, scientists such as Abu Nasr al-Farabi and Thabit ibn Qurra, historians like Ibn Battuta and Ibn Khaldun, philosophers such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and physicians like Ibn Al-Baitar and Ibn Zuhr.

We now move forward nearly millennia, where thugs in the name of Allah are attacking schools and killing teachers and students.  It is a level and focus of violence that can only be described as a type of mass psychosis.  Those who encourage and facilitate education in the Muslim world or Dar al-Salam are fighting an uphill battle.  On some level, this has to be a low point from which Muslim culture must rebound and take, once more, its place among the world’s great intellectual centers.  It has universities and scholars but few whose voice extends throughout the region and beyond.

As for Kenyan schoolchildren and teachers, Shabab is wreaking havoc as teachers are fearful to resume their duties and soon-to-be graduating students have little to no instruction for their preparation with exams.  These exams are vital for their placement in universities.  Especially in the northeast, with its proximity to Somalia (the home territory of the Shabab), officials in Nairobi are concerned for the future of the region.  The terrorist attack at the university in Garissa last year as well as the attack on a bus load of mostly teachers heading home for Christmas has brought the idea of education to the fore. 

County governments have little desirable options in trying to answer the needs of their students and Nairobi searches for answers that are more affordable than placing armed units of soldiers at every school and school function.  Of course, other countries could offer help but the African Union has a role to play here if it can agree to a course of action.  Nairobi might say that it is unwilling to have outsiders play the role of driving out other outsiders but if it cannot come up with its own answers, what is the alternative?    

Addressing Baltimore

I’ve been debating how and in what vein to write about my hometown of Baltimore.  The fact that the city I love now belongs to a rather nefarious alumni of cities with civil and social unrest surrounding the death of a black man in police custody is enough to make me shake my head.  As I watched the events of a week ago today, I felt sick to my stomach.  I felt for the family of the young man who died and felt angry at the people who took it as a moment of opportunism.  There is much that needs to be addressed in Baltimore and there is plenty of blame to go around.

Issue 1 – Jurisprudence.  The six police officers who have been charged in the death of Freddy Gray need a fair trial.  I understand the demands of justice but what will happen if justice as the protestors sees it is not realized?  If, in their hearts, the protestors are demanding a conviction, that is not justice but a railroading the likes of which the black community have dealt with throughout their history.  In order for justice to be served, the police officers need a fair hearing, a legitimate legal counsel and an honest deliberation by the jury – and the Baltimore community must accept it. 

Issue 2 – The race paradigm.  If the six police officers’ indicted are indeed found to be responsible, protestors need to rethink how this issue is being characterized.  The recent incidents of police officers and young black men have been found to have as much to do with idiocy and incompetence as racism.  Yet, the death of Mr. Gray was initially framed as a race issue.  How will it be portrayed now that half of the accused officers are black?  The race issue was used to inflame the situation into the inferno of Monday and if racism is not a part of it, it needs to be removed from the dialogue so that a more productive, less toxic conversation can be held. 

Issue 3 – The faults.  Various black community leaders in Baltimore and interested observers have suggested that this incident needs to be a catalyst towards permanent change and reform.  I whole heartedly agree.  However, changes are required all around.  The police department certainly needs to get its house in order if the charges prove to be accurate.  City officials need to be more consistent in how it helps those in need and how it provides the means of citizens to help themselves.  The black community also needs to change what it is doing in the name of civil rights.  One can’t look at the last forty years and declare it is entirely the government’s problem.  The black community has soul searching to do in addressing problems surrounding the family, community and personal responsibility. 

Issue 4 – The perception problem.  In recent days, there has been a conversation (more a diatribe) on the characterization of the looters and rioters.  Some officials and community leaders have lashed out over the term “thugs” being used about those in question.  I’ve mentioned in other forums that those who cannot even honestly discuss an issue are not likely to solve it.  One could call it ballet but it comes down to the same thing – there needs to be a blunt and direct conversation over what happened and how to move on from here.  The word thug is no more racist than door but has only taken on those dimensions because of the characterization of young black men and women taking part in destroying their own block, neighborhood and city.  Stop trying to find ways of being offended and start helping the situation.  I said start because this tactic is helping no one. 

I know the city of Baltimore will rebound from this.  Our city is more than what one sees on The Wire or on the evening news.  There are beautiful neighborhoods, communities, culture, food, history and heritage.  The city is filled with good people, many of whom were out the day after the riots cleaning up and reclaiming.  However, remarks that much is left be done are absolutely right.  There must be honest efforts to ensure everyone has the chance to do well.  Baltimore has had rough periods in its history before.  It will need to rise again as worthy of the anguish that has poured out of people the last week.  Still, to paraphrase a famous line, there is nothing wrong with Baltimore that cannot be fixed with what is right about Baltimore.      

The Democratic Albatross

I teach a group of young people who are a mixed bag of intentions.  Some are really nice but there is another group who pretend to be nice or more accurately, are nice because of the social advantages it heaps on them.  They are ticking boxes that will ensure their success – good grades, positive relationships with teachers and a healthy amount of extracurricular activities and volunteerism.  I’m reminded of those students when I see and hear Hillary Rodham Clinton.  She is one of the most well-known and visible Democratic and ipso facto the favorite for the Democratic nominee.  It is just one of the many reasons why she should not occupy the White House.

Her popularity, to be frank, has always been a bit puzzling to me.  Every time I see her interacting with the hoi polloi, it always seems contrived and forced.  There are certainly politicians who have a genuine connection with those they represent but not Hillary Rodham Clinton.  With the former secretary, perception does not match up with reality.  She is a feminist poster child who nevertheless stood by a serial Lothario.  She is a self-proclaimed and noted hawk whose time as Secretary of State was marked by inaction and the proliferation of terrorism and territorial ambitions.  She has blasted Republicans in the past for improprieties while she is currently embroiled in a series of illegalities that would derail most candidacies. 

In launching her 2016 bid, her campaign began with a video that included every ethnic group and disadvantaged persona that one could incorporate.  So blatant was her attempt at inclusiveness, it came across has calculated and cynical.  Then, there is the baggage of the name.  Had her husband not been an unabashed cavorter, Bill Clinton’s time in office would have been seen as the most successful Democratic presidential term since Franklin D. Roosevelt.  As it is, the former president has been marginalized and pushed to the peripheral by every significant Democrat (read, candidate) since 2000.  Ms. Clinton now stands as a continuation of that legacy and Democrats must be scratching their heads, wishing for someone else.

Are there other Democrats out there that could legitimately challenge Ms. Clinton?  The former Maryland governor Martin O’Mally has expressed interest in the brass ring.  The hunky former governor certainly looks like presidential material but he’s received very little attention.  There is always Vice President Biden but there cannot be anyone in the Democratic Party that takes that candidacy seriously.  A serious candidate could be former Virginia Senator Jim Webb who has the backstory (former Marine officer turned politician and diplomat) and the toughness that could challenge Ms. Clinton.  However, in the end, only the former First Lady is being discussed and covered…ad nauseam. 

So, as she sets out on her “common folks” tour, her lack of the common touch grows daily.  Yet, she is still the presumptive favorite and will be talked about and exalted on a daily basis in the press.  In short, she is not going anywhere – hopefully, that prediction extends to the White House.  The Republicans have a great chance to make a powerful case against the former First Lady.  I hope they are disciplined enough to make it.

The Return of the Boys of Summer

With the advent of the 2015 baseball season at hand, I would like to share a quote by the baseball philosopher George Will on the position of baseball as a true democracy's sport.

Baseball suits the character of this democratic nation. Democracy is government by persuasion. That means it requires patience. That means it involves a lot of compromise. Democracy is the slow politics of the half-loaf. Baseball is the game of the long season, where small, incremental differences decide who wins and who loses particular games, series, seasons. In baseball, you know going to the ballpark that the chances are you may win, but you also may lose; there's no certainty, no given. You know when a season starts that the best team is going to get beaten a third of the time, the worst team's gonna win a third of the time. The argument over 162 games: that middle third. So it's a game that you can't like if winning's everything. And democracy's that way too.

My friends may disagree but as a wise man once said, "Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas."

The New Chamberlain

At the onset of President Obama’s term in office, there seemed a desire to deal with Iran.  Throughout his presidency, Mr. Obama has sought a deal with the totalitarian state to inhibit through diplomacy its nuclear ambitions.  This might be seen as a continuation of the type of diplomacy that began under President Nixon to limit our adversaries’ nuclear capabilities.  However, previous agreements have been done from a position of strength.  The president, so anxious to get any deal done, has created the opposite and the Iranians are better for it.

For the Iranians, the biggest hurdle to overcome is the elimination of international sanctions that have been in place for so long that the Iranian economy’s decline is in an inverse relationship with civil unrest.  The Iranian leadership, exhibiting a dictatorial nature that they once bemoaned personified in the Shah, is cracking down on dissent while trying to turn the corner on their own Great Depression. 

Just as the Iranian government was left grasping for answers, they received a bit of salvation in a rather obliging deal with the U.S.  The fact that the Iranians are praising the deal while threatening to build nuclear weapons if anyone backs out should give the powers that be pause.  The Israelis are particular concern because their relationship with Iran is not diplomatic but pragmatic.  It is they who stand to face obliteration at the hands of a nuclear Iran.  While the president opines rhetorically, the Israelis are faced with a very real problem.  For Prime Minister Netanyahu, it is not a personal ambition but a national one given the results of recent elections that returned him to power.

The blithe sanguinity with which the president sees Iran’s compliance is thankfully not shared by the Congress.  The ball is now in their court to put some teeth back into this deal or nix it altogether.  Still, while Congress can frame the approach, it still lies with the president to act on it and Mr. Obama does not seem keen to do so.  With a naïveté reminiscent of President Jimmy Carter with the Russians and President Woodrow Wilson with the European Powers, President Obama is banking his entire approach on the “will of good men” in Iran.  Never mind that Iran has done nothing to give the impression that such men exist within its government, the president’s approach continues to hold the faith. 

I must admit that I admired initially the president’s willingness to speak to Iran.  He is right that nothing can be achieved without communication.  However, cock-eyed optimism is no way to deal with such an adversary.  There must be iron in our words and a willingness to lower the hammer if our interests are ignored.  We have taken on the responsibility to negotiate and the worst thing that we can do is to disregard our commitment to friends and regional peace by settling for anything at any price.  The president, in a way not unlike pre-World War II British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, has done just that.

Wrestling with Demons

In 1991, I was a slow boat back to the United States from the Persian Gulf.  Having dispatched Saddam Hussein and his army, the Allied forces were going home and without much to show for it, so were I and my unit.  Still, what little we did do, we were offered counseling on the transport back but being young, in our early 20s, we had little use for a shrink.  So, I and many of my cohorts said no and went about our business.  Steven Watkins, a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq has figured out his own way of coping.   

The trained engineer has seen some harrowing things while serving in Afghanistan and working in Iraq.  I’ve done nothing compared to this man.  However, Mr. Watkins was a man in search of a mission and a purpose.  He signed up for everything he could and though not actually needed, he would join patrols and the like.  He saw the worse of war and then sought more.  When he left the military, he signed up as a civilian engineer in Iraq.  In short, Mr. Watkins was trying to scratch an itch and burned himself out and was injured in the process.  Upon returning home, he attended counseling and group therapy but in his words, it had little effect.   

Then, he had an epiphany.  Challenges are what drove him and made him the happiest prior to his injuries.  Challenges could also be his salvation.  He contacted the son of the man who began the famed Iditarod race between Fairbanks and Nome, Alaska to be trained for the challenge.  He is currently in the beginning stages of his first Iditarod and is seeking to finish.  Upon completion of that race, he will fly to Nepal and a week later, climb Mount Everest.  He is healthier than he has been since returning from Iraq.  He is emboldened with a spirit to push himself physically and mentally.   

In a video published by The Washington Post, Mr. Watkins said he felt that treatment for soldiers are too soft and not challenging enough.  Given that we are talking about men and women who chose as their profession a challenging and arduous path, having them sit and share their feelings is a limited but not useless strategy.  I can appreciate, in a Nietzschean way, the concept of pushing recovering soldiers to tap into what drove them into the military initially.  However, Mr. Watkins is flirting with a fine line.   

Mr. Watkins will finish a difficult race and climb a previously-thought insurmountable peak.  Yet, what happens when these challenges are not enough?  Soon, he will traverse the gap between doing something for the purpose of self-growth and actualization to doing something just because it is dangerous and potentially, suicidal.  For him, the challenges are a verification of life.  I can understand this.  What I did in the military put me in such a rarefied air of existence, my life since has been, while good and rewarding, not “challenging.”  It is hard to feel as alive as moments when your life is in danger and therein lays the difficulty for Mr. Watkins. 

I do not profess to know an answer on how to treat veterans suffering the effects of war.  I do not think that counseling should be ruled out but it is not enough.  There must be something more, something harder, something more challenging.  I wish Mr. Watkins luck in his endeavors to complete the Iditarod and to climb Mount Everest.  However, at some point it will not be enough and I hope he is able to find a more permanent answer.  If he cannot, I fear he will only finish what someone started in Iraq.    

 

Chewing Gum for the Eyes

I do not mean to imply that television news deliberately aims to deprive Americans of a coherent, contextual understanding of their world. I mean to say that when news is packaged as entertainment, that is the inevitable result. And in saying that the television news show entertains but does not inform, I am saying something far more serious than that we are being deprived of authentic information. I am saying we are losing our sense of what it means to be well informed.
             Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

Brian Williams, formally the anchor of NBC Nightly News, was suspended this past week for six months.  His crime was in telling people that he was on a helicopter that was shot down in Afghanistan.  Now, as it was, he was nearby but in an effort at self-aggrandizement and to establish his bonafide as a reporter who reports from the front lines, he felt the need to lie.  In some ways, Mr. Williams’ actions were predictable and indicative of a general decline in the professional standard that has clearly lost its way in the last several decades. 

Watching television news broadcasts from the 1960s is jarring in its approach, what defined news and what was expected from its presenters.  Taking its cue from the growing professionalism of newspaper reporting, television news saw its duty as telling viewers what was happening around the world.  National broadcasts were filled with news, compared to modern broadcast that have fifteen minutes of “hard” news and the other half filled with fluff material.  Suit-wearing talking heads played it as straight as possible.  There was not emotiveness or gesticulation.  Instead, the more controlled the presenter was, the more trusted and respected they were.   

The 24-hour news development, first seen with CNN, changed radically the role of the presenter.  Entertainment was always an element of news presentation but with CNN and other subsequent news networks and programs, entertainment took on a whole new dimension.  In doing so, it changed how the news would be delivered and what would be presented.  It was an extension of the programming dilemma – directors trying to figure out how to fill large swaths of segments and soon, the idea of opinion news materialized and took off.   

Over the last few decades, the line between news and entertainment have systematically disappeared.  Furthermore, the Internet has eroded the once-proud professional guidelines, eradicating the neutral tone, the formality and the gravitas required.  The shrill of newscasters smacks of desperation, not trusting their role or their purpose to the American people.  This is typified with the disaster theme music which is widely mocked but never corrected.   

The lack of formality is yet another frantic attempt to appeal to people based on false assumptions of what is required to obtain and keep an audience.  It is seen in the dressing-down of presenters and the informality of language such as calling the president simply “Obama” or the usage of slang or trendy phrases.  It trivializes and minimizes the importance of the news, smacking of the transient nature of Twitter or any other social media site. 

And then, there is the nature and legitimacy of the presenters of themselves.  Do a Google search of Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, Bob Schieffer or Frank Reynolds – just to name a few.  They treated the news seriously and therefore, so did those watching.  The demeanor and professionalism of news anchors led people to trust and believe in what was being reported.  That kind of faith does not exist today.  Modern presenters have acted so silly over the last few decades, they have to affect a "serious" tone to present serious information.  This has impacted how Americans respond to the news.  Our current generation considers a serious treatment of the news made up of taking a picture of themselves, holding a placard that says #fillinyourtritepoliticalstatementhere.  The news is no longer treated important so why should our response to it be so?   

With the rampant rise of news as entertainment and the opinionated pablum that fills out the network days, why are we surprised or outraged that Brain Williams fudged on the details.  The idea that NBC, the purveyors of MSNBC, should be shocked and appalled by Mr. Williams’ actions is disingenuous at best.  It is easy to see that if news continues on this path, incidents like Mr. Williams’ will be considered quaint in comparison.  NBC and other networks can pat themselves on the back for putting their foot down on like incidents but it does nothing to reverse television news’ downward trend.

The Disappearance of Curiosity and Questioning

Considering the state of things, one could devote a lot of time trying to find a reason and ultimately, a solution.  Is it our education system or parenting?  Is it our indulgent and self-congratulating culture that revels in the importance of the inane or worse, the repugnant?  Where does our mental acuity begin to erode?  All the aforementioned conditions can hasten the erosion and the fact that we champion it does not help.  However, the breaking down begins with something basic – something we are naturally inclined to do but are incessantly taught, explicitly and implicitly, not to do.  We may be living at a time when we are losing our curiosity and questioning spirit.

Like most things that get me thinking, my original observations begin with my students.  They are nice enough, many with a helpful spirit.  However, I’m also faced with the problem that some of the students are not interesting.  They get good grades and have a way of engaging adults.  However, over the last fifteen years, they’ve been instructed by parents to focus only on grades and they’ve learned from schools that nothing is important unless it will be on a test or can be used toward their future monetary success.  Ergo, I have a classroom full of well-manicured receptacles. 

So, what is the ramification of this phenomenon?  There is a general lack of curiosity to ask questions and a willingness to endure questions.  Here is how it manifest itself:

Teacher:  How did we get involve in the Spanish-Cuban conflict?
Student:  We sent the USS Maine to Cuba to protect American interests (almost verbatim from the textbook).
Teacher:  True but why were we there?
Student:  To protect American interests.
Teacher:  From whom?  Who was provoking the U.S.?
Student:  Spanish?
Teacher:  Why would the Spanish antagonize the Americans?  They don’t want us involved.
Student:  Cubans? 
Teacher:  Why would the Cubans provoke the Americans?
Student:  So that we would join them?
Teacher:  Why would we join those who just attacked us?
Student:  (Shrugged shoulders) I don’t know. 
 

That would be an exchange from a more diligent student.  Most students would have folded like a cheap lawn chair not long after the second question.  As the student was reading at home, he or she read it without consideration for what they were reading.  They do not ask questions or otherwise, they would have come to those questions themselves.  Current high schoolers (it does go well beyond them, however) are not trying to obtain knowledge, they are trying to retain information until the test.  They are searching for grades (something that does not extend beyond the class or subject) and not enlightenment or understanding.

Where previous generations embraced questions as the pathway to knowledge, students today see it as badgering.  They haven’t considered the questions themselves and would not have the confidence in their thought processes if they had.  So, when confronted with a series of questions, they shut down and realize that what is being pushed for might not be that “important” long term (meaning, tests).   

Education is inundated with buzz words like “21^st century skills” to ready our students for jobs that “we are not even aware of yet” – certain they will help to reach our hidden destination?  Neil Postman suggested that our intellectual future lies in leaning on the best of our past.  If students can develop some intellectual stamina, treasure knowledge over information, if they know how to think, if they know how to problem solve (which requires a great deal of curiosity and questioning), it does not matter what appears in the future.  These are skills that can transcend all future obstacles.  Instead, we prep them for tests that indicate nothing of substance and suggest that everything not on the test is not important.  

Socrates once wrote about those who “will be of tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.”  We cannot accept the emphasis on information which does nothing to enhance knowledge and thinking.  We can’t abide with the emphasis on the need for “critical thinking skills” without a consideration for or appreciation of the process required to get there.  The more we dumb things down, the more precipitous the decline in curiosity or questioning.  It is a trend in desperate need for a reversal.      

 

The Beginning of an Uncertain Era

Greece is a wonderful country.  We visited a couple of summers ago and we met helpful and generous men and women who were happy to show off their country and culture.  However, in a crisis not seen since the collapse of the military junta in 1974, Greece has lived on a tipping point and today, they went to the polls where if public opinion is to be believed, the radical leftist party Syriza will win a convincing victory.  Dangers lie on what such a victory would mean for Greece, austerity measures and Europe as a whole.  

Throughout European capitals, there are concerns about Syriza and its charismatic leader, Alexis Tsipras.  He is seeking to unseat Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, he who seeks to continue the austerity measures placed upon Greece to pay back its debt.  Greece’s public debt is 176% of the gross domestic product.  This is a shocking number but in recent months, Greece has slowly climbed out of its recession, unemployment is down and by most measures, the birthplace of democracy is on the rise.  However, it will take years to fully recover and Mr. Tsipras and his populist rhetoric is called for a massive restructuring of the European binds.   

When speaking of the Europeans in the aftermath of World War One, who sought a way out of war debt, U.S. President Calvin Coolidge said, “Well, they hired the money, didn’t they?”  With the shoe on the other foot, European leaders must be asking themselves the same thing because Mr. Tsipras has declared that Greece will not continue the austerity measures and does not feel beholden to Europe’s demand.  Strangely, at the same time, he also declares that Greece will not leave the euro.  Well, Greeks might want to dust off their old collection of drachmas because that will not be Greece’s decision.  Mr. Tsipras might also be threatening the much-needed $7b in aid they are set to receive from the money lenders. 

As I’ve written before, Greece has institutionalized and entrenched traits of corruption and incompetent economic policies.  The corruption spans the spectrum from the highest Greek politician to the average citizen who does not trust their government; therefore they don’t pay their taxes.  This is a nation in the throes of withdrawal symptoms from previous, reckless behavior.  Mr. Tsipras has promised to tone down his earlier rhetoric which railed against the International Monetary Fund, the European Union and its central bank who has demanded Greece’s recent economic policy.  However, words said or not said mean nothing if actions remain true to his nature.   

Alexis Tsipras assured victory leaves only the question as to whether Syriza will win and outright majority or not.  If not, Mr. Tsipras will have to figure out a coalition that will cross the Rubicon with him.  That may not be that easy.  European leaders, primarily German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Holland are gearing for a confrontation that could greatly compromise the euro and the current European economic structure.  Much like Greece, Europe and the EU are on the verge of dealing with the consequences of its past actions.  On a euro high, the EU were quick to draw in the Mediterranean states over a decade ago.   

As I finish this article, it appears that indeed the Syriza has won its expectant victory and the Greek people have turned their back on the success of the Samaras government.  Mr. Tsipras is about to confront the reality of Greece’s situation.  If he can look into the abyss and still pick a fight with the continent, the next few years could have a reverberation that will shake Europe and the world.  Many in the U.S. may not have Greece atop of mind but the governmental actions on that beautiful peninsula will make an impact.  One can only hope that no matter what happens, lessons are learned and mistakes are not repeated.