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.