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.