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.