The Honeymooners, Revisited?

I want to preface this article by saying that my wife is a wonderful woman.  The very fact she has remained with me is nothing short of a miracle.  I’m an idiot – an erudite and charming, not to mention handsome idiot but one nevertheless.  However, I think I’m standing on some firm ground when I say that there are some issues I must point out about my wife in particular.  Let me be clear, there are plenty of silly things about men but this is about my lovely bride.  I don’t understand her.   

First of all, she is very busy.  I’m not speaking of work.  I’m speaking of time at the casa.  She is buzzing around the house like a Messerschmitt and she makes me nervous.  I try and tell her to sit down and relax but she continues.  She does it so much, she makes me self-conscious about sitting down.  Now, I will ask her if I can help and she will clearly and succinctly say “no.”  However, the way she says it suggests that “no” is not an acceptable answer for me to take at face value.  I try to help despite her initial answer and we begin snipping at one another like we are kids.  What began the tiff?  Me feeling guilty, her not alleviating my guilt and ultimately, the two of us getting into one another’s way.  To make it worst, we are intelligent individuals.  We are both college educated.  We both have masters (though, to be fair, mine was more challenging).  Still, we end up acting like children.   

Secondly, the way we process information is so different, it is amazing we are able to make any decision.  Our current decision we are wrangling with is whether I should pursue a doctorate degree.  I want to pursue the doctorate for purely altruistic reasons however, I’m not so dense as not to see that more was needed in my argument.  Therefore, I brought up the increase in salary (sadly, a doctorate does not earn one that much more in the teaching profession).  I brought up the increase in prestige.  I also mentioned that the jobs I could qualify to do would increase exponentially.  Sure there is a cost but more education is never a bad thing, right?  The major complication is our consideration of starting a family in the not-too-distant future.   

My wife began her side of the discussion by saying that she did not want to stand in the way of my dreams and she wanted to support me as much as possible.  At this point of the argument, somewhere in the deepest recesses of my mind, there is another shoe to drop but I brush it aside and think, “Hey, she is with me on this one.”  However, the “but” does arrive with concerns of dealing with a new-born child alone and the amount of work that would fall upon her.  She is worried that she might resent me and my jaunting off to college to learn the intricacies of 20^th-century nationalistic movements in Asia and Africa.  Despite the worthiness of my pursuits, I’m flummoxed as to what to do.  My wife has brilliantly spelled out her wishes for me and her reservations.  Yet, her well-balanced argument has left me wondering what I’ve been allowed to do.   

Lastly, beyond the use of guilt and the circuitous thinking, she has a knack of removing an argument from my concerns to that of others.  A couple of years ago, I caved and bought a cell phone.  I did not want to do it but there you go.  I now feel empowered to get rid of mine once and for all – in a ceremony, officiated by a priest, complete with a hammer and then some fire.  For a little irony, we will record it and put it on YouTube.  I never wanted a phone and have no use for it now but my wife suggests that to do so would be a large imposition on my friends and her.  What I thought was a stance of self-determination and self-actualization on my part has turned into a thoughtless and selfish gesture after speaking to my wife.  She is so adamant, I’m starting to doubt myself but wait…I’m a grown man.  I was making my own decisions for years before I met her.  Surely I can do this on my own.  Yet, in one conversation after another, I’m beginning to wonder. 

Above it all is the creeping thought that she might be right after all, I just don’t understand why.  It is like being at a party and hearing people talk and laugh about something of which you have no idea.  We’ve been married for nearly a decade now.  People at the wedding probably thought it would never last.  However, despite the fact that she’s from Venus and I’m from Mars, or whatever, we make it work.  So, in the confusion of our conversations and discussions sometimes, perhaps it does not matter because we are so good together.  However, I’m still pretty sure I’m right.  I just have to figure out how.

As Naismith Turns in his Grave...

Last week, I wrote an article on the benefits of hosting exchange students, or teachers.  Indeed, the joys of such an experience will far outweigh any negatives that can be conceived.  However, earlier this week, we took our German guests to a pre-season basketball game.  What I witnessed by the presentation of a modern-day NBA game is likely one of the worst experiences I have ever endured – certainly at a sporting event.  In the two or so hours that comprised the game, I was inundated with a cacophony of noise and nonsense, the likes to which I have seldom been subjected.  Admittedly not a basketball fan, as a sports fan, it is nearly impossible to enjoy a modern basketball game. 

As it was a pre-season game, the amount of people who arrived early to check out the ambiance was few and scattered.  This makes the first annoyance I felt all the more perplexing.  Microphone in hand, a loud local radio personality nearly screamed, wondering if people were ready for some basketball.  Before I had time to overcome the audio assault and compose an answer in my head, he proceeded with a litany of announcements, each of which required more “energy” and “enthusiasm.”    In the minutes leading up to the game, the handful of fans were given a club volume level of the latest popular songs.  Part of me felt that, “surely, the noise will go away during the actual game and I need to endure it a tad bit more.”  Don’t get me wrong, I like new popular music as much as the next person (“I just met you, this is crazy…”).  Yet, at this point, I just wanted to get to the game.

Once the game began, the loud speakers shoe-horned in the latest, greatest club music around every millisecond it could.  During the game, an unceasing amount of demands (pleas?) for participatory chants from the fans prevented the slightest chance of hearing the actual game taking place before me.  While I’m not a fan of the sport, like my good friend and sport aficionado is wont to say, I like to hear the squeaking of the shoes and the calling and maneuvering of the players.  Yet, the production value was relentless.  Topping the shrill of the music was the arena announcer who screamed at us to do this or that.  I work for a living and my whole life, I’ve never met a more demanding, demonstrative and screaming task master.  Every time the sparse crowd attempted to recover and enjoy some peace and quiet, the amps would pulsate with more “requests” to cheer or stomp our feet and the fans, in a near Pavlovian reaction, responded.

Now, I’m more than willing to admit that my reaction is due simply to the fact that I’m getting old.  However, I walked away from the arena slightly deaf, fighting through some ringing in the ears and wondering what it all meant.  What does it mean that people seem to need or find enjoyment in this constant level of stimulation?  What is this the result of?  Computers and various hand held devices have rendered people so incapable to maintain any focus or interest that it has turned basketball into an orgy of sound, chaos and frenetic energy.  The game is not enough and it made me wonder what the fans were valuing. 

Sadly, it is even seen in churches.  My wife and I have visited so many and I get an immediate urge to flee when I see screens over the pulpit.  I have images of PowerPoint presentations on the Gospels or the Prophets, complete with music and video.  Again, I’m drawn to the question, is the core product no longer enough?  I’m often told, and it is not totally without merit, that we must appeal to a new demographic who require new things in the presentation of education, faith or something as unimportant but fun like sports.  However, the church and the school have traditionally served as a warning or barrier to the trends in society.  It might not be a bad idea for sports

I left the arena that evening tired and disturbed.  I worry what the impact is on my students and their ability to learn.  We are turning our people into Pavlov’s warning and with the exception of some of my colleagues, I worry that we are spitting into the wind.  I worry that, ultimately, we will go so far that it will be difficult to reverse the effects.  Why can’t people just agree with me? 

Opening Doors and Eyes

When I was young, foreign cultures were all around.  In the city of Baltimore, there are various groups in their own neighborhoods, complete with their own shops, hawked in their own languages and offering items that were unique to their culture.  As a child, my parents took me to Greektown, Little Italy, the remnants of Corned Beef Row and Little Bohemia.  As an adult, I have been fortunate enough to travel throughout the world and see amazing things.  However, there has been one experience that has topped them all – being hosted by and hosting someone from another country. 

In 2000, my now-wife worked for a non-profit that sponsored and organized student exchanges.  It is here I met her as a teacher tapped to take students to western Germany.  I was placed in the home of a teacher and experienced a “different” culture in a way that no other can.  No matter how many cultural trappings might be found at the nearby Marriott, it is nothing compared to the immersion of staying and living with a family.  I’ve also stayed with two families on two separate occasions in Japan.  Yet, as special as that was, it was also wonderful to share my culture with someone else.   

We have hosted teachers from Germany or Japan and taken them to visit historical sights within my own city and area but also have exposed them to some of the hidden treasures of my country’s culture.  For example, it is interesting to visit a cemetery to experience one of the most intimate of one’s culture – how we experience and express death.  I take them to worn down, partially torn down areas to show what used to be – in our rush to always create something new, it is important to take some time and enjoy and understand what once stood in its place.  Just as important is to visit those places that represent where we, as a culture, hang out – every place from the local watering hole, to the nearby park, the neighborhood movie house or any place that represents what we do when simply living.  We might find it difficult to see the specialness in the mundane or ordinary, but it is not that way for the visitor. 

As much as I’ve enjoyed the food of a culture, it can make for memorable and enjoyable moments when showing a foreigner the intricacies of our cuisine.  The experience that a traveler has with another’s food culture in their home country can be underrepresented or misrepresented.  Therefore, to show the “real thing”, as it were, is rewarding.  I think of how amazing local seafood or Mexican food, Jewish cuisine or something simple as ballpark food can be an eye-opener.  Think of your favorite local food or favorite place to visit and then imagine what it would be like to experience it for the first time again.  To see a guest do just that fills one with a mixture of delight and envy. 

There are many groups that sponsor foreign exchanges.  Sister Cities International is probably one of the largest, though not every city is as active in exchanges as might be seen in another city.  Many foreign language departments at local high schools or colleges often sponsor such exchanges and it might be worth your time to explore those options.  Some families I’ve spoken with have expressed reservations – we have a small house, we don’t have the money to do something every day for the student, what if they don’t like their stay, etc.  There are many reasons why someone might divert themselves from the opportunity to host.  However, these travelers have accepted this opportunity to stay with a family because they want to move beyond the obvious and see something that few explorers can.  You can be a part of that. 

 

A Civics Lesson Takes Center Stage

This past Wednesday evening, in Denver, Colorado, President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney met for the first of three presidential debates.  Over the course of an hour and a half, the two men, rather cordially, discussed and debated the important issues of the day.  Viewers, and by all accounts they were plentiful, saw a public discussion to a degree and depth for which typical news coverage does not allow.  For my students, who were tasked with watching the debate, they were able to see a bit of how their government works.  Of course, what I will not mention to my students was my belief that Mr. Romney was outstanding and convincing. 

As pre-arranged, the debate centered on domestic issues, in particular taxes, health care, social security and the national debt.  As likely most would concede, Mr. Romney was persuasive and in control during that exchange.  Conversely, President Obama was hesitant and unsure, too quick to be conciliatory and too willing to accept aspects of his opponent’s points.  My students picked up on this and were quick to point it out.  We discussed at length over the course of the week the different characteristics of the exchange between the two presidential candidates.   

One, my students felt that the exchange was, at times, rude on the part of both men.  However, I was quick to point out that during a debate, it is the moderator’s job to ensure that each man can speak at equal lengths.  The debater must attempt to speak as long as he can and to pontificate and elaborate as much as he can.  His concern cannot be for the other man (or woman).  In this role, Jim Lehrer, an otherwise masterful master of ceremonies for such events since 1976, was off his game.  He decided, at some point, that he preferred the give-and-take the two candidates were engaged in than structure and discipline.  I don’t have a problem with it per se, but many of my students misconstrued that as rudeness.  In explaining the purpose of a debate and the responsibility of a debater, the students felt that it allowed for a great direct conversation between the two with plenty of information enumerated and philosophies explained. 

The students also admitted to be a bit confused over the constant haggling over numbers.  I have to admit, though I’m an intelligent, educated (some would say erudite) man, numbers make me a little tired myself.  My approach is to focus on the philosophies rather than the statistics.  The old adage of there being “lies, damned lies and statistics” cannot be more spot on.  Therefore, I prefer to listen to the paradigm with which the candidates operate under than the numbers they manipulate for their own purposes.   

It is my firm belief that President Obama will come out swinging during the debate on 16 October at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.  It will be moderated by CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley and will feature a town hall format over a slew of issues.  It is doubtful that the president will concede as much and many of the issues he has been focused on with regards to his opponent over the last month will resurface – items such as the 47% comment and Mr. Romney’s lack of “economic patriotism.”  However, for one night, Mr. Romney displayed a mastery of the topic (it is within his wheelhouse, so to speak) and joyous attitude (“It’s fun, isn’t it?”).  I hope he can maintain his confidence and control but he will need to show, within the context of a “town hall” debate, that he can connect with the audience.  If he can do that, the campaign could begin to turn permanently. 

Revisiting the First Amendment

The First Amendment is often inconvenient.  But that is beside the point.  Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.
            Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

Have you ever read the Bill of Rights?  These are the first ten amendments to the Constitution that were intended to mollify the Anti-Federalists who opposed a government with a stronger federal authority.  It is an amazing experience to read what our Founding Fathers considered important and a necessity to include in our founding document.  Almost as amazing as what is said is what is not enumerated within the Constitution.  I’ve written on the topic of free speech in the past but never have the times called for an explanation of what was not said in the First Amendment. 

Recently, in the National Review, editorialist Jim Geraghty reminded readers of the first time some folks around the world threw their hands up in outrage over “blasphemous” language in the form of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses.  He posted within his article a video of a Saturday Night Live skit where Phil Hartman and Glenn Close play Barnes and Noble employees fighting off an angry mob with machine guns and evasive maneuvers to continue selling books.  A “dying” Hartman declared that perhaps they should only sale Muslim literature or have “Ayatollah birthday sales.”  Among the laughs and the wincing, it occurs to the viewer that there was a time where we answered this kind of outrage with a reaffirmation of our belief in freedom of speech or expression. 

However, the intended limitation to freedom of speech is not limited to a handful of extremists.  Some Americans have wondered about the protection of speech when it comes to a group of horrid people, members of a “church” out of Topeka, Kansas who protest the funerals of soldiers with the most despicable slogans aimed at the military and homosexuals.  In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the racist rant of a KKK leader was protected because it was not designed to call for immediate violence.  In 1995, the Court ruled that the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council were not required to allow the Irish American Gay Group of Boston to march with them in a private parade because doing so would violated the veterans’ freedom of speech by forcing them to espouse something with which they disagreed.  In 1989, the Court ruled that a Texan named Gregory Johnson was within his constitutional rights to burn the American flag.  Two decades earlier, the Court protected students protesting the Viet Nam War with a black arm band in school. 

Throughout our history, we’ve struggled with the consequences of our national convictions and we’ve struggled to live up to the best intentions of our forefathers.  We’ve been tasked with, as Americans, to accept the notion that freedom of speech must apply to those things we don’t like more than anything else.  Indeed, we have no such freedom if it only applies to that speech we find acceptable.  When we stand against someone like the Phelps family in Topeka, we worry about the soldiers, their families and gay men and women who serve as a foil for twisted minds and blackened hearts.  Therefore, we say to ourselves, there must be something that we can do to prevent such speech.  We see violence throughout the world over movies or cartoons and we worry about the American families who have lost loved ones or the Muslim families who huddle in the dark, hoping for the light of tolerance and rationality – for themselves and the ignorance of others who seek to besmirch them.

Roman senator and historian Tacitus said, “The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.”  From the past, comes a warning.  We, as a nation, must have the security in our own beliefs and our own ideas to not only tolerate the repugnant but to explain our ideas in the spirit it was intended and not shrink from them.  When some might say, “this should not be allowed,” we must make the case that a freedom for our friends only is no freedom at all.  The more conditions we place on such an inalienable right, the more the government legislates and decides for us what is and is not acceptable.  We will continue to surrender our rights until one day, no one may speak and the tyranny that Americans have feared since the days of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton will ultimately destroy us. 

 

The Law and the Munchies

Colorado is the newest state to consider the notion of legalized marijuana.  Oregon and Washington, the last bulwark of old hippies and new wannabes, are also set to vote on legalization.  Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan suggested that policy with regards to pot should be a state decision.  California has been on personal crusade to legalize the drug in one form or another, though the federal government and the Supreme Court has stood in its way.  It is a popular cause for the Libertarians who feel that any substance that does not harm others should be left alone by Washington.  However, legalizing a problem does not erase the problem.

In a recent Rasmussen poll, 56% favor marijuana joining such drugs as alcohol and cigarettes and being legal and regulated.  Advocates for the measure suggest that the money spent to combat it and the crowded jails, not to mention the seemingly relentless battle the U.S. must fight to address the drug, are just some of the reasons for their call for legalization.  The notion of marijuana as a “victimless” crime, emphasizing the ill effects of the drug as nominal, is echoed throughout.  Furthermore, they mock and ridicule attempts and the philosophy behind the “war on drugs,” first popularized under the Reagan administration. 

However, according to a recent editorial in the Christian Science Monitor, marijuana use in the United States has dropped 50% since the 1980s.  It would seem the efforts are more productive than some would characterize.  Any high school teacher can debate against the assertion that marijuana has little to no effect on the user.  As one joked, the worst thing that pot does to a person is to condition them to accept boredom and wallow in it.  That alone and the intellectual void it leaves in its wake is enough to keep this drug on the permanent “do-not-legalize” list. 

Some are quick to point out that tobacco and alcohol are just as bad and therefore, we should be more open with marijuana use.  One cannot compare the latter to the former.  For alcohol and tobacco, that horse left the barn a long time ago and there is little to no point discussing or bemoaning that they are legal.  The fact that they are legal is not a reason why marijuana should follow suit. 

Lastly, there is something about the importance of the need of a standard.  The search for more money in the form of taxation and regulation of a possible legitimate marijuana trade is a shallow, rather cynical argument on the legalization of a drug that has hurt many people since its explosion in use in the 1960s and 1970s.  The fight has been tough to reduce the usage and those efforts have paid off.  There should also be some consideration as to the message sent by an approving nod in the Pacific Northwest to marijuana’s legalization.  Imagine the battle that parents fight on a regular basis to explain to their kids why they fear for them under the effects of pot, only to have the government say it is not that big of a deal.   

So that some may live as they want, indulging immoderately in a substance that has no positive aftereffects, we as a culture struggle with explaining to our students and children that the anti-drug message is still valid and that consequences are still potentially damaging.  I don’t need the government working with me but sure don’t expect it to work against me.  John Cardinal O’Connor, the late archbishop in New York City, mentioned it was not the responsibility of the church to succumb to the sins of the congregation.  It was the congregation’s job to rise to the standards of the church.  We are a better society than one who would surrender the ghost and the argument against drugs.  The impact that legalization efforts would have on society could be devastating and should be avoided.

Many Faces and Many Challenges

For moderate and modern Muslims, it must be a tiring thing to watch, once more, as clerics stoke highly impressionable and easily angered radicals to rise up and destroy and kill over something as insignificant as a low-budget movie that, were it not for the violence, no one would have heard of or thought much about.  Yet, we see the hostility from various countries around the world.  Worse, we see governments, namely Egypt, who provides the most ineffectual of rebukes on the riots and attacks on foreign embassies.  It is with Egypt that the U.S. is most concern but the crisis is twofold – religious and political. 

From a religious point of view, where do the renewed attacks, protests and riots leave Islam?  I don’t suspect that Muslims do or should care of how they are perceived outside their mosques and homes but it must have occurred to some regarding the level of insecurity in faith the actions of a few represent.  In Islam’s early days, the religion was a vibrant and progressive faith whose focus on education and exploration, of the world and of ideas.  Indeed, the Muslims were responsible for the preservation of Greek and Roman knowledge and philosophies.  However, as the faith grew and the empires it counseled grew larger and more suspicious, Muslim clerics forbade outside or new ideas that could not be validated by the Qur’an.  In doing so, the Muslims turned their backs on their own greatness and turned inwards, fearful of those from without who sought to pollute their faith.  Today, if Islam is characterized by anything, it is those whose anti-modernity pervert the faith and its tenets.  Meanwhile, Muslims who do not share such sentiments are overshadowed, outshouted and ignored. 

Politically, this can only worsen relations between the Arab nations and the West.  The United States has supported, albeit weakly, the movements that have sought a greater voice throughout the Middle East.  However, as has been mentioned before, the Arab Spring has become more a hopeful description rather than an accurate one.  Indeed, some of the same corrupt powers are being wielded by new faces that previously represented the voices of the oppressed.  Though the U.S. did not do as much as many would have preferred, the actions of rioters are mystifying given that which the Americans have done.  To Americans, the blame we “share” for the making of this film is telling in two ways.  To citizens where the government approves or disapproves of any form of expression, there is a lack of understanding of how things work in a free society, where most have little knowledge of such a film.  Second, the clerics and leaders whipping people into a frenzy couldn’t care less about Mohammad or his teachings; the film is simply an excuse to strike against those they hate.

Protestors destroyed our embassies and killed our representatives.  Meanwhile, what does the U.S. do?  The general consensus is that Libya has shown more stability and more outrage to the actions of a few than seen elsewhere.  In Egypt, we give nearly $2b in foreign aid and President Obama has extended his greatest amount of support to President Morsi and recognition of the elected government.  The lack of support and weakness of the response to the rioters suggest that the current Egyptian government will prove trouble for the Americans.  Perhaps, our displeasure with the Egyptian response should culminate in a withdrawal of some or all foreign aid and a pulling back of our support of the government.  Egypt’s actions deserve no less.  Meanwhile, the unrest throughout the region needs to be countered by those Muslims with a greater world view.  If not, Islam will be relegated to the extremists and the worst of stereotypes.  We are already moving towards that.