Do You Believe In Santa?

My kids have been asking some sly questions about Santa this year. I'm not sure I like the line of these questions. One thing I do know is that I believe in Santa. And that's what I tell them even when that's not exactly what they ask. It's true though. I do believe. How could I not? I'm a terminal optimist so I don't really have a choice. I look at it like this:

I believe there's a guy out there who loves children for the future they represent, or that it doesn't even have to be as heavy as that... he just loves children, and not in a way that will land him on the evening news either. (Remember when you could say that without having to qualify it like that?) What's not to love? The innocence, the unfiltered perspective on the world, the fascination with the everyday observations most of us fail to notice anymore? The unlimited and uninhibited enthusiasm. The capacity for hope. The boundless energy? How can there not be lots of people who love children that much? I believe there's a guy like that.

I believe there's a guy who loves to bring joy to children or even people who are kids at heart just for the sake of bringing joy. I know people like that in my own neighborhood so why is it so hard to believe there's a guy out there like that? I remember people like that from when I was growing up and recently, having moved back to my hometown, I've had my heart warmed by the fact that most of them haven't changed. Some have grown up, some have grown out, some have grown gray, but they still seem to live to make others smile. So yeah, I believe there's a guy like that. Lots of them in fact.

I believe there's a guy who takes the time to remind us all that life can be that simple. That going to bed early and getting up early 'cuz you can't wait for that big day to start is more than just a childish dream. That knowing people love you is all the gift you need. That having a house full of people, even for no good reason, can do as much to bring peace to the world as any political posturing ever might. That for one day it won't hurt you, hell it might even help you, to be nice to someone, even if you won't bother doing it for the rest of the year.

I believe there's a guy who keeps track of who is naughty and who is nice. I believe he tends to forget the naughty marks on the list quite a bit, but never forgets the nice. That we could all use someone to do that for us and to remind us of it in an encouraging way like Santa does. That we could all stand to remember the nice things we've done for others and how it made us feel. That we could do better to remember that others have done nice things too, especially when we're not real happy with them. That making the nice list doesn't rest on what country you're from or what kind of clothes you wear or what you call God or even if you believe in God.

I believe there's a guy out there who believes in me. Who knows I try my best even when I fail miserably. Who makes sure there's always someone there to share my successes and encourage me to keep trying. Someone I can count on and who loves me even when my tie doesn't match my pants or I'm wearing one blue sock and one black one. Or when I forgot to bring what I was supposed to and thus wasted the trip. There's a guy who reminds me that wasted trips can be turned into opportunities to bond and strengthen and grow.

I believe there's a guy who can pull off incredibly difficult feats that most people would say are logistically, even physically impossible. Heck, I know people who have done it. I've even tried to help. If people like that exist in my little part of the world, If I've been able to contribute to things like that, I'm sure there's someone out there who can do it on a much larger scale. I know that guy exists.

I believe there's a guy out there without ulterior motives. A guy who is just nice. Who does the right thing even when no one's watching. Who is consistent and fair and who is a role model to young and old alike. Who always makes us stand just a little straighter, speak a little more softly, and open our hearts a little more than we're used to doing when he's not around.

I believe that we all know this guy and whenever he's around, we're reminded of what we told ourselves the last time we saw him: that we'd do better, be nicer, try harder. That some of the things we've worried about turned out to be not that important and that we'd promise to try to keep that in mind the next time we lost perspective. And then he goes away again and we slip right back into our routine and forget our promises to ourselves and to him, but then he comes back and doesn't say a word about the slip, just asks how we're doing and we're reminded again and we wish
he could just be around all the time so maybe we won't slip again.

I believe there's a guy out there who lives in a place we only dream about. A guy who decided to move there because he believed he could make it. He believed in himself and knew that's where he wanted to be and so he just made it happen. And it's not always easy there, but he never tells us about the hard parts, just keeps on making it look easy. A guy who still writes, still visits, still calls, still maintains relationships and never forgets names and faces and amazes us wherever he goes because he knows someone and the people he knows smile as bright as the sun when they see him. They roll out the red carpet for him and serve items not even on the menu and have his favorite beverage waiting before he even orders it.

I believe in that guy. I believe in lots of guys like that. Girls too. I know if I'm lucky enough to have real people like that in my life, with the little good I've brought to the world, then the combined good of others means there's someone out there, someone real, someone even bigger and better for all of us. I wouldn't be able to provide a social security number or tax records for him, but I know he exists. That stuff wouldn't matter anyway. This guy's bigger than all of that. His existence can't be proven in court but that's hardly the point. Objective evidence, hard data doesn't come into play when this guy's in the room. Life is much richer, fuller than those petty affairs of lesser men as long as this guy is around. He settles lawsuits before they become legal matters. He mends fences, drops off homemade pies, shovels walks and gets kittens out of trees. He lets the dog out while you're on vacation and returns found wallets and the law and physical evidence don't have anything to do with any of it. He lets you pull out in front of him or stops when you're stuck on the side of the road. Or maybe just smiles when you pass rather than averting his eyes and pretending to be focused on something more important just ahead.

I know that guy and I know he's real. So do you.

Yeah, I believe in Santa. I don't even have to think about it. People have told me that this is just more proof that I haven't grown up, won't face reality, I'm still naive, an idealist. Perhaps they're right, but I still believe in Santa.

Merry Christmas.

Luth

Horse Poup advocates violence

The Holocaust convention recently held in Paris is a lost opportunity for weapons testing. Anytime you get that many people together in one place... people who even remotely question the horror that was the holocaust, in spite of the evidence of the evil of mankind that still remains to confirm it as unrevisable (I just made that word up) history, you also have the opportunity to do the world a favor by eliminating them.

Yeah, I know, that sounds pretty harsh, but denying the holocaust is like denying evolution in spite of the fossil evidence, the rocks that fail to knock sense into even harder skulls. I’ll never argue that anyone or anything other than God set evolution into motion, but evolution happened. It’s how we “got here” even if God is how we got here.

Speaking of the scientific evidence of evolution being as sound as the need to eliminate anyone from a position of national (or even PTA) leadership who doesn’t recognize the fact of the holocaust... strike that, eliminate them from Earth, not just from positions of leadership. After all if insanity or incompetence or just plain ignorance were a deal breaker in that respect, well, you know where I’m going with that. As I was saying, speaking of evidence, though not scientific...

I heard the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens on the radio this afternoon. His name’s Yusuf Islam now. You can’t listen to that guy’s music, past or present (he’s got a new record out after a 30-year sabbatical) and believe for a second that Islam is a violent faith. I know that’s not the kind of evidence that would hold up in court or a tribunal. On the new record, he covered the Animals’ “Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood” because he thinks his faith often is. He said the song’s a great jumping off point for his explanation of how a westerner decided to convert to Islam after growing up western. He went on to explain what most sane people already know: That his faith, when practiced by reasonable people has more in common with other faiths than it has in contrast. He specifically mentioned silly little things about Islam that drew him to it like beliefs about the good in humankind, how it incorporates all people under one God, and how it preaches peace and acknowledges the books of all other faiths as well. Which is to say, his religion both provides him with and preaches peace.

So anyway, yeah, nuke the holocaust deniers. Quick, while it’ll only take one bomb!

And speaking of those who ignore the obvious, (Yo, Browns, draft an offensive line this year) I read a cool article about a woman who, after time at Harvard and the U of Chicago and loads of research in Africa, told Esquire (in last month’s Best and Brightest Issue) that AIDS in Africa won’t go away until poverty does.

I’m not knocking her for this so simple it just might work ovservation, really. As you may have guessed, I’m knocking Bush policy. I'll explain... Ya see, desperation and poverty go hand in hand and while curing poverty doesn’t always cure desperation (see “John Belushi” or “Chris Farley”) it does go a long way to provide opportunities for people who might otherwise be drawn to martyrdom, or lesser terrorism. I didn’t go to Harvard (even to get the t-shirt) but I have been to Chicago (wasn’t allowed on the U campus cuz they’d seen my transcripts and my alma mater) and I have spent a night at a Holiday Inn Express and I’m telling you that I couldn’t agree more with this brainiac woman who has spent her life studying AIDS and economics. (I'm really not making fun of her... it was a cool article about the economics of AIDS in Africa, namely, how much the disease will cost all of us if we continue to believe that terrorists present more of a threat to us than AIDS)

What I don’t understand is why doesn’t Bush get it? The only successful campaign against terrorism is one that declares poverty as its enemy. Does it appear to anyone that poverty is what we invaded Iraq to stop? Yeeaahh. That’s not gonna work. All right, that’s about enough for now.

No wait. We gotta send all the troops to Iraq now. Seriously. Remember back when John Kerry said that crazy shit about “who wants to be the last guy to die in Vietnam?” Ditto for Iraq, but before we leave the mess we created to the Iraqis now that we’ve liberated them, we owe it to them to at least make the place safe enough for our troops to get out. In order to do that we’ll have to do what Colin Powell suggested before he was axed: send in overwhelming force. That’ll calm everyone down for a while, then, while they’re sleeping, we can all crawl back into the big wooden horse and come home safely. After that, those folks can go back to their old methods of finding a way to peacefully coexist. They were doing just fine without us.

On that note...

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Luth

The Soul - Making Life Beautiful

Well what can be said about the elections? The President finally got the mandate he’s claimed all along and there was no help needed from the courts this time around. What will they all do with it? No one can say firing Rumsfeld was the wrong thing to do, but it's the ultimate example of too little too late. Other personnel changes in the administration suggest we're in for more of the same. I’m not holding my breath for any big changes.

In fact, I suspect that bitterness over the defeat may lead to gridlock. However, I’d rather have gridlock than unchecked attacks on civil liberties and foreign countries. If only the two parties could politely keep each other in check while at the same time doing the work they were elected to do… but again, I’m not holding my breath. For now I'll be content with leadership that does nothing. At least that will cause less harm for a little while.

Now, on to more important issues. Go Bucks! (I have to admit, that team from up north hung in there better than I expected them to. Seriously though, that game was never really that close if you think about it! I was pretty confident all season long back in 02, but this year's team doesn't strike me a beatable in the college realm. Mrs. Horsepoup and I shared a lovely vision during yesterday's game when she dreamed out loud, "what if the Browns could just draft the entire senior class?")

Which brings me to Go Browns! Beat those Steelers. Who cares if it's only the battle for the basement. What a weekend for football fans in the midwest, eh?!

And finally, Happy Thanksgiving to all in case I don’t talk to you before. Until next time, here’s some light-hearted reading to keep you occupied:

In a paper prepared for a presentation titled, The Art of Making Life Beautiful, Catherine Michaud makes a sound theological, or Christian argument for the importance of beauty in the world, in our lives, in every individual’s life. I think I must have run across this for a project in my Rhetoric class last Spring, but I saved it on my thumb drive because I firmly believe in its premise, especially as it relates to our modern problems in general, and the state of education in particular. It struck me as good ‘blog fodder because in this argument, I see a wonderful meeting place for the religious and non-religious. A common ground. The paper is available at http://minerva.stkate.edu/offices/academic/theology.nsf/pages/michaud/. She's also a senior research associate at Harvard's Center for Population and Development Studies. (I don't just make this stuff up!)

What caused the article to invade my consciousness again is the fact that Michaud refers to Thomas Moore whose book, DARK NIGHTS OF THE SOUL, has been occupying my night stand and brief case (and my conscious and subconscious? thought) for quite a while now. As I continue to make my way through DARK NIGHTS, it amazes me in its uncanny ability to provide common sense insight to issues that all humans face without actually claiming to solve a problem or provide an answer. What DARK NIGHTS does is help one with a little introspection. It helps provide a person with a perspective they may never have considered regarding their own lives, and thus in turn, a new perspective from which to view the world.

As it relates to Michaud’s argument, and I should point out that while her presentation was to a conference called Theological Insights and was thus religious in nature, she, like Moore, cites philosophers, rhetoricians and other language folk both religious and non-religious in support of her claims. As I was saying… as DARK NIGHTS relates to Michaud’s argument, there is more to life than can be studied objectively. Where DARK NIGHTS places primary emphasis on the soul’s journey through its varying states of emotion and feeling and the importance of allowing and thus understanding that journey, Michaud also argues that beauty, or Beauty, serves as a necessary medium or tool in maintaining that understanding. In her argument, Beauty is food, or perhaps even oxygen for the soul. Her focus is on just how necessary beauty is to understanding, and fulfilling the needs of a person’s soul. In her argument, she relies heavily on beauty’s relationship to God. She, like some of the ancients she cites, implies a connection between beauty and God in the sense that beauty may even be God’s form on Earth. I mentioned that her explanation was religious in nature, but I recommend you check it out for yourself before you dismiss it for that reason. It is precisely what led me to the idea that her concept, like Moore's is bigger than religion. It's human.

So what’s this got to do with anything relevant to anyone’s real life? I’ll use Michaud’s transition: During travels in Europe, she recalled the grandeur of European architecture, dedication to the arts, and the ready availability of soul-nourishing materials, sights and sounds surrounding her in every big city and small village. Upon her return, she was struck by the emptiness of our architectural counterparts. Perhaps it's our lack of history, or lack of a value of history. In our quest for pure utility and efficiency, strip malls and barren highways are robbing our souls by removing all things beautiful from our physical environment. It occurred to me that Vegas is a microcosmic example of this emptiness – while its buildings are sights to behold for sure, the fact that they get torn down long before a normal building’s life expectancy is exceeded (rather than being preserved like centuries-old buildings in Europe) seems adequate proof that their designs, while immediately gratifying, lack soul or anything other than superficial, shallow, soulless charm.

The bigger part of the point is that our souls will pay for this. Our souls ARE paying for this and our world is demonstrating the ill effects of the price. It’s just that there’s no PROOF.

No one likes to discuss matters of the soul because the soul can’t be documented, charted, graphed and presented neatly in a data-backed PowerPoint presentation. It can’t be tested in classrooms across the country with repeated results. The soul is one of those gray areas that we tend to cast aside because it can’t be quantified, but, like the similarly abstract concept, love, few would really argue its existence or its importance if given a safe place in which to speak.
And though it is difficult to come up with any hard evidence proving that our collective movement away from soulful activity may be to blame for the mess that is politics, higher divorce rates, failing economy, lower test scores, rising crime rates and the general state of despair the world sometimes seems to be, I have a hard time believing there’s no connection.
When we ignore the needs of the soul, which is the source of an individual’s knowledge, their essence and basis upon which their lives are shaped, we pay the price. Of course, another reason people don’t like to discuss the soul is that it might imply religion, and we’ve all been taught to never argue poliltics or religion, but you don’t have to be religious to be spiritual. Both sides of that fight can, and usually do acknowledge the soul.

Likewise, both the sectarian and the non-sectarian world are guilty of soul-robbing activity. Many religious beliefs serve to strangle the needs of the soul below the surface while claiming to save it on the surface. Strict rules regarding marriage, sex, divorce and even finances are often pushed upon religious believers in times or places during their lives when the result is soul-crushing rather than enabling or nurturing. Sometimes there are hidden agendas behind the soul-crushing force of religion and other times it’s simply the result of misunderstood or misinterpreted beliefs.

The sectarian world, with its seeming desire for rationality can also be soul-crushing, as previously demonstrated by the Vegas example, or, to stay with the architectural theme, in Ayn Rand’s THE FOUNTAINHEAD, where conformity, parading as rationality or efficiency crushes the soul of an artist who remains true to his dream of bringing beauty (and utility) to his work. While there are times and places for the pure application of logic or utility without regard for art, the soul needs to find its own logic in the world, not have the world force a version upon it either through systematic efficiency in the use of tax dollars, or by the occasionally misguided leader of a religious group.

But alas, all is not lost. Religion’s aim is to save a soul and thus belief in the importance of the soul is inherent in religious ideals even if it is occasionally crushed by a dogmatic following of moralistic doctrine. And the quest for individuality in the sectarian world and the importance of the arts and culture as a means of expressing that individuality often rise to the top of priorities among those who occasionally rail against religion. What this means is that the goals of these seemingly opposed sides are actually very similar. Whether you believe in saving souls or simply feeding souls, you can work side by side with your religious or anti-religious counterpart.

If, in the end, the soul is to be the beneficiary, it shouldn’t matter whether that soul, in its Earthly form, is being cultivated in service to God, to be delivered to God, or whether it’s simply that of a human trying to be the best human they can be while on Earth. The fact is, both purposes can be served. More importantly, neither will ever be served if more emphasis isn’t placed on the importance of the soul by society in general - both religious and non-religious.

As I said before, talk of the soul causes most people to leave the room. Non-religious folk assume it will entail being coerced into faith. The faithful assume their beliefs will be assaulted. The analytical feel it’s a worthless discussion since no data can be gathered and no evidence compiled. Similarly, public education has turned its back on soul-enhancing activities. As Michaud points out, economically challenged school districts will cut the arts and cultural programs, even core-curriculum supporting programs like speech and debate, drama, and other language enhancing programs long before considering cuts to math or science, and sometimes even before cutting athletic programs.

Math and science are directly related to vocation, employability, and testable results. The importance of arts, culture and language, while vital to the soul, are tougher to prove a need for. (There are those whose approach to math and science are artistic, and thus, soulful, to be sure, but that's rarely the way these subjects are presented in school.) In the past I’ve argued against the modern trend away from real education toward training… purely vocational training, and that’s certainly at issue here, but now I’ve realized that it goes much deeper than the typical basic education argument. Teachers have often claimed that the arts are just as important as technical subjects because they complement each other. Surely arts and culture enhance learning in those technical areas, but their importance is much deeper than that. There is direct, repeated, proven correlation between the absence of arts and culture coursework and diminishing skills in technical areas, but who cares? Even discussing it from that perspective is admitting that the primary concern is vocation… training rather than education... training the hands, maybe even the head, but not the heart or the soul. One’s soul should be a higher priority than one’s vocation. Anyone can learn or teach a trade, only dedicated artists (whether they be Math teachers or Auto Tech teachers or Humanities teachers, or your first boss at the hardware store or bakery) can feed the soul. But unless we turn schools and entry level positions and all training environments into situations that feed the soul, we can just expect more of the decline. Our emphasis has to be on educating a whole person, not just providing job training.

What’s really at stake here is whether we nurture or abandon the souls of those graduates we send off into vocations. How prepared are their souls? We can teach all the citizenship facts we want and we can test them as often as we want, but memorizing facts about when one’s state was founded only helps create better citizens if it is presented as development of the soul. The goal must be in developing a person, not just a recorder of facts who can repeat them on test day. Education only helps society and the individual student if the goal is to make that student richer, to provide them a perspective from which to build experience. Our emphasis has to go back to learning for the sake of learning. Learning how to learn not just the subject content, but learning about ourselves.

Mandatory, nationwide testing has guaranteed that this is no longer an emphasis. The goal of training to pass a test relies purely on memorization, not growth. Memorizing facts teaches little about one's self. It does offer some insight, but it's the same insight as the first time you learn it, so the first grader who memorizes basic vocab skills learns the same thing about himself as the tenth grader who memorizes when Ohio became a state or as the medical student who memorizes which proteins turn into mutants. Education shouldn't ever end there. On the contrary, when the goal of education is to nourish a soul, it doesn’t even have to involve a test. The memorization of terms necessary in the beginning phases is self motivated. Only the latter, soul-nourishing form of education provides fresh crops of good students and good citizens. The trend toward the former has only resulted in colleges dropping their standards and putting more money into rec centers and remodeled luxury dorms instead of attracting accomplished faculty and upholding standards. A high school graduate with a soul can handle flunking a class, knows that a “C” means they’d better buckle down, and doesn’t really vest much in an “A” because they know the heart and effort they poured into getting it mean much more than the letter on the report card. Soulless high school graduates sue the college when they flunk a class even if they never attended the Monday morning lectures.

Another way the importance of the soul relates to education is in the necessity of parents or guardians in the development of the soul. While NCLB claims to make teachers more responsible and accountable, it further downplays the parental role in the development of a child’s soul. This has obvious implications for teachers who spend more and more time on discipline (parenting) and less and less on subject matter, but that sounds too much like a teacher whining about the difficulties of his job. How about the need for schools to provide breakfast for a growing number of their students? There’s plenty of proof that hungry kids don’t learn as well and so again, we’re relying on schools to fill needs that are a parent's responsibility. The bigger issue is that teachers and schools simply can’t substitute for the role a parent plays (or fails to play) in a child’s life. A teacher and a school, try as they might, accountable as they are being held, can’t fill in the missing elements of soul development when a parent doesn’t provide them. They play a part in the development of their students' souls, certainly, but it's not the part that parents must play. To further demonstrate that I’m not just a whining teacher blaming parents, parents aren’t entirely to blame. Ok, maybe they should be for the breakfast thing but…

One thing I know from my teaching experience is that parents are not experts in education or child psychology. Contrary to popular belief, education isn’t something just anyone can do. And for as much fighting with schools as parents may do, they still rely pretty heavily on the advice of schools and school personnel. Since much of the expertise in a school building is now forced into compliance with soul-sucking federal initiatives, the appearance is that the local education experts (teachers and administrators) believe in those programs. Thus parents believe that those programs must have some inherent good in them. How could they believe otherwise with the attention given to “State Report Cards” for school districts. What teachers have given up on and parents don’t understand is that these report cards have as much to do with attendance, and in turn, money as they do with anything that might nurture a student’s soul, or make them a better citizen and more productive member of society. Here again, the need for data, even when it supports nothing, has changed the environment. In the old days, teachers were a little freer to be true to their own souls... to teach the way they knew how and to correct their course as it applied in their classrooms with their students. The need for nationwide data has crippled that soul-enhancing ability to respond.

This emphasis away from the soul isn’t limited to primary and secondary education though. In fact, I occasionally see encouraging signs in my children’s assignments for primary school, but the creeping death of the soul is heading higher before it dares go after our younger students – where good campaign commercials might be shot.

As a teacher, with several years of hands-on experience managing classrooms and putting educational theory into practice, I felt I could serve my own soul as well as my students’ needs better by studying my subject matter rather than educational theory. I was comfortable with my knowledge of the mechanics of English study – grammar, writing basics, literary interpretation and analysis, even reading instruction. What I knew I needed further study in was the writing process. I knew there had been massive changes in the study and teaching of this area since I’d graduated and I knew I was not just personally interested in this area, but that I’d be more able to meet the rapidly changing demands of my students if I were more knowledgeable in teaching writing and in mastering my own ability to put together the many elements of the writing process. By becoming a better writer through my own study and practice, I hoped to become a better teacher of this illusive, necessary subject.

Initially, I was thrilled with my coursework in a master of arts program majoring in Composition and Rhetoric. The program allowed enough flexibility that I could incorporate writing instruction theory into the larger-picture study of composition in which I was the writer/student, not a teacher. The Rhetoric side of it allowed me to continue my study of the history of writing and selected literary study as well. Finally, I thought, I’ve found a program that encompasses training for a teacher even as its bigger goal is to make me a better person (feed my soul) through the study of my chosen subject. In that bigger picture realm, I’m still pretty confident in the program and would recommend it, the university, and most of the instructors to any English teacher, but I was disappointed by the need for “data” that snuck into many of the class discussions. It’s not that I don’t believe there are areas where data can support, and effectively guide a student or a teacher toward improvement. (duh) It’s more that the subjects of most of those classes, like the soul, aren’t things best served through that kind of study. Data rarely accounts for epiphany. It records growth, or lack of it, but it rarely creates it. As a teacher, it may steer me toward a better way of encouraging student growth, but that data should be my concern, guiding my lesson planning, not something held over my student. But what disappointed me most about this quest for data was the artificiality in how it was applied, as though by simply having it present, regardless of its relevance to a paper or a project’s intentions, it somehow made the project or paper more valid.

One case I remember involved studying revision methods and how writers went about revising. What they spent time on, how it affected the finished product. It stands out because most of it made sense, and admittedly, the data here even works for some of the more particular aspects of the study, but the overall idea of studying something as human and illusory as the revision process, and forcing measurable data into the picture struck me as odd. In fact, some of the objects of the data gathering seemed odd too. One measure taken was keystrokes on the keyboard and the time between them. That sounds great when measuring someone's typing speed, but what does it really tell us, collectively, about the very personal, varied creative process of revising one's own written work? To be fair, whenever a pause was noted in this data, the student/subject was questioned as to what they were doing or thinking about during the pause, and thus some insight was provided. But if you ask say Steven King, Ghandi, and one of my former students about their revision processes, you'll get three answers so different, they won't support any theories with which that data might correlate. It's simply not very useful in understanding such individual, human, soulful practices. For this particular phase of the writing process, no data can be applied to every writer, rather a teacher must be armed with a variety of methods to offer the student and then let the student decide which methods work best for her.

The flip side of this quest came in a discussion during a rhetoric class of a particular rhetorician... it might have even been an ancient Roman rhetorician. The professor was explaining this rhetorician's theory, how it differed from previous theory, and how it led to subsequent theory. Of course, some subsequent theory disputed the validity of the theory in question. As we all argued about that, one student asked how the rhetorician in question proved the validity on his own... where's the data to support it. Why are we even studying this guy? The professor pointed out that the data, though not neatly collected into columns or spreadsheets, did in fact exist in the shared human experience. What that rhetorician theorized was something we'd all experienced in our real lives. No statistics were necessary. The power of observation provided all the data needed.

Which brings us back to religion. There are no statistics for the proof of God, but believers know that the belief nurtures their souls. That their souls aren't complete without it. It can't be quanitified. It can't be proven. There's no data to support it. In fact, if you approach faith objectively, it sounds a little crazy, but the faithful know how important it is to their souls. They may not always follow it in ways that help their souls, but they at least acknowledge the importance of the soul in their quest.

The non-religious face similar challenges to soul development. They are often sidetracked or distracted by matters that not only don't serve the soul, but draw their full energy away from soul-serving activity. Money, status, politics, clothing, cars, winning the argument rather than getting to the bottom of something... (oh yeah, religious folks fall into these traps too). In the end, the traps are truly non-discriminatory. They prevent everyone, regardless of religious or political affiliation from nurturing their souls. But there's plenty of common ground where we can all get along and all serve our own individual efforts while allowing for the other side's goals to be served as well. In that middle ground, we can actually serve each other and be the team that “accomplishes more.” Thus, if we would focus on the task at hand and how it fits into the bigger human picture, we might realize we're all on a pretty similar page. Instead, we focus on details from another page which convert the common ground into the arena of battle. When we choose to devalue our souls in favor of irrelevant measurable details for the context at hand, we create adversarial relationships that don't necessarily exist in any real sense. Not only do we fail as a group to enrich the soul, we draw artificial lines and create conflicts that further distract all participants from tending to their souls individually.

Serving one's soul is a win-win whether it involves faith, vocation, or simple peace of mind. Serving only one's career or training or immediate material needs generally turns out to be a lose lose for the individual and the society robbed of that individual's full contributions. Given the short span of time we have as humans on Earth, theres no point in spinning our wheels arguing about whose spiritual inclinations best serve that end.

Luth,
Out.

Vote your conscience on the Ohio Issues

It's way too late, but here's the horsepoup take on Ohio Issues 1-5. I don't care how you vote, but I do want you to vote. And here's my thinking....

Issue 1 - Approving Changes in Worker's Comp Laws

Supporters say this bill preserves the right of workers and speeds up their claims while adding some "commom sense" reforms to the program. I'll come right out with this: when Republican led lawmaking bodies imply or suggest they'll help workers and add common sense to anything, what they mean is employERS will benefit, employEES won't.

I only mention that because other critics of this issue will list the same doubts I have without mentioning their anti-big business/anti-Republican bias. I'll lay it on the table. I'll also take this opportunity to remind my fans that I'm not really anti-Republican. I'm just anti-everything that's happened in the last 5 or 6 years and it just so happens that it's all happened under thorough Republican majority... house, senate, White House, local, state, all Republican leadership. If the same crap had occurred under Democratic majority, I'd be anti-Democrat for this mid-term election. Moving on.

So back to Issue 1. By "speed up" the claims process, what the lawmakers mean is limiting claim life to 5 years. Not only is that not speeding anything up, it's not helpful to anyone. For instance, Joe Bricklayer files a claim against Mega Contractor, Inc. Mega Contractor's lawyers drag the claim out for 5 years. Joe's done. End of story. Whether Mega Corp is a winner or a loser, whether Joe is a winner or a loser, nothing is solved. Why are these guys so opposed to a time table for getting out of Iraq, but so willing to put a finite time table on ALL individual worker's comp claims? How does that help anyone involved - employer or employee. How doees that reform the system?

In fact, the stated goal of a similar bill a few years back was "to save corporations $200,000,000.00 per year." Are reforms necessary? Sure. Should the goal of reforms be saving corporations money? Well... it would be nice, but NO. The goal of reforms to worker's comp laws should be to create a better system of worker's comp. Ideally this would protect workers AND reduce both cost and headache for employers. That can be done if our leaders act like leaders and work on it rather than rushing to put something up with their name on it, that saves their contributors money, before an election.

I have some other issues with the bill, like the fact that personal information of all claimants must be made available to journalists throughout the claims process (social security numbers, addresses..??!!) but to keep it short, erring on the side of caution means a NO vote on Issue 1.

Issue 2 - Raise the minimum wage in Ohio

Here's another case where I'll jump the liberal ship. Should the minumum wage go up? Yeah. Will this particular attempt to boost it help anyone? Probably not. Look, the fact that a law is needed in order to establish a living wage is pretty sad to begin with. If I thought a law would fix that, I'd be all for it. But who pays for this raise? Like many proposals before this one, the workers who, on the surface, the raise would help, are the ones who will end up paying for it. Most employers would gladly pay good workers if they could find them. Bring in the government to "help" and people will likely LOSE jobs... even low paying ones. In addition to the obvious problems with forced pay raises, this particular law would also call for employers to maintain and for the public to have access to way too much personal information in order for the employer to prove compliance with what is basically a nuisance law to begin with.

You won't often hear me argue against anything just because it causes pain for business, but it should be fair and reasonable to all concerned. This law is neither to either.

Issue 3 – legalizing slot machines at select Ohio locations – NOPE! Many of the same people who have ignored Ohio’s education funding issues for years by saying throwing money at schools won’t solve anything are now claiming that money from gambling will solve everything. Once again, sounds a little ridiculous, eh? In fact that same candidate who says it’s a good idea mentions that in his experience as an Ohio congressman, he’s noticed an anti-Cuyahoga County/anti-northeast Ohio bias in the legislature. He believes Issue 3 is a reverse to this trend, but like most Ohioans, the Not in My Backyard syndrome leads me to believe that putting those casinos in Cleveland is just more of the same. The casinos aren’t going there to give Clevelanders more money for college, they’re going there because no one else in Ohio (who's not a casino owner) wants them in their backyard.

The only people who will realize any significant benefit from legalized gambling in Ohio are the casino owners (big business) and the politicians whose wheels they’re greasing. So unless you’re one of them, vote no on 3.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no prude when it comes to legalizing vice. I just don’t want its legalization destroying my property values, increasing the bankruptcy, divorce and crime rates in my community like in Vegas, Atlantic City, and just about every other community that’s legalized gambling recently. In other words, NOT IN MY BACK YARD! But unlike the politicians who support Issue 3, I believe in the golden rule and if it's not good enough for my back yard, then it's probably not a good thing for anyone's backyard.

Issues 4 and 5 - We have to treat these as one package. Since issue 4 is an amendment to the Ohio Constitution, it trumps 5. In other words, if they both pass, 5 actually fails and 4 takes over. Here's the problem with 4: It's a smoking ban that doesn't ban smoking. Don't believe me? Take a closer look. Not only does it allow smoking in just about every place where it is allowed right now, it's also supported by tobacco companies!

There was a long ranting paragraph in here about why those minimum wage workers who deserve better but won't get it from Issue 2 deserve a smoke free workplace, but regardless of how you feel about smoking personally, you need to really understand these two issues and here's the long and short: if you want a smoking ban, then you vote no on 4 and yes on 5 because 4 isn't even really a ban, 5 is and 5 only works if it wins and 4 loses. If you don't want a smoking ban, vote no on both.

I spent way too long getting this post up so I'll finish with one last thing and hurrying up and post it...
Get off John Kerry's back. For one thing, he's not running for office so who cares what lines he screws up in his speech. The only reason this issue gained any traction is because what he said is true on so many levels. Though his mistaken wording, when taken out of the context of the rest of his speech suggested the military is made up only of college dropouts, the rest of his speech clearly shows that he meant something similar, but subtly different, and sadly true. Even the lines directly surrounding the botched line indicate that he meant that the middle class is not only fighting the war in Iraq, but is paying for Bush's tax cuts back home. In other words, the middle class is doing the work of making the rich richer. So if, as Kerry suggested, you don't find a way in college to jump from the middle class into the Rockefeller/Big Oil/Pharmaceutical class, you'll end up in Iraq either literally or figuratively.

I'd like to talke more about this here, and plan to, but I should have had this posted a week before the election instead of a day before it so I'm rushing to press now and we'll pick it up later.

OH, yeah, and remember the horsepoup take on your state and federal candidates: if they're in office now, use your vote to get them out. I know it's juvenile and silly, but so is modern politics!

EXCLUSIVE: Horsepoup is fair and BALANCED

EXCLUSIVE!!!

Before I begin this post, let me just point out that this is truly an EXCLUSIVE!!! No other ‘blog out there will have this exact combination of words, express it the way I express it, deal with this particular issue in my way than Horsepoup. Horsepoup was first! First on the scene, first to report, first with this coverage, these images, etc. In fact, even if someone were to copy this Word document from my hard drive and post it before me, I’m still posting it for the first time right here on Horsepoup at this exact moment, exclusively.

Nevermind that I’ve told you more about me being exclusive than I have about anything else... or that I really don’t have anything to report at all other than my usual ramblings that we’ve all heard before by others so eloquent they actually get paid to write it or say it in syndicated columns or network news stations, I’ve got the exclusive on this one! Horsepoup was the first. Horsepoup brought it to you. Horsepoup has the exclusive. Oh, and did I mention that Horsepoup was first?

Doesn’t that annoy the shit out of you?

I try to watch the news every now and again just to keep The Daily Show honest. I read the Akron Beacon Journal quite a bit, The Plain Dealer occasionally, USA Today and the WSJ a little less frequently, but at least once a month, and I check out a variety of magazines pretty regularly too just to try to keep up with and make my own sense of the world around me, but exclusivity rarely helps in that effort. It’s never something I look for. In fact, if the stations I watch, the locals and the cable giants, spent more time coming up with useful news and less telling me how exclusive their report is, I might watch more of them as well. I don’t give a rat’s ass about exclusivity, what I care about is news I can use. I’m guessing I’m not the only one out there who thinks this.

It’s no wonder more people get their news from The Daily Show. (and I purposely did NOT use quotes around “news” because their approach is no more comical than the others.

OK, now that we’ve established Horsepoup’s EXCLUSIVE coverage let’s move on to what we’re covering exclusively:

Human Nature.

Specifically the balance that must exist in human nature that Republicans like to pretend doesn’t until one of their own gets caught displaying it.

About 6 months ago I began reading a book by Thomas Moore called THE DARK NIGHT OF THE SOUL. I suppose you’d call it a self-help book, but it’s more like a philosophy book. It examines the importance of mourning or “dark nights” to the development of a person. I’ve been carrying it in my briefcase for 6 months not because it isn’t interesting to read, but because, to me, it’s just not a page-turner kind of book. I’ve heard of people who read it in one or two sittings and couldn’t put it down, but it’s just not that kind of book to me. Instead, I read a section or two at a time and let it sink in a little. If not, I find it a bit repetitive because it deals in such broad strokes that it all comes back to the same ideas. This, however; doesn’t make it any less meaningful. That’s why I’m still carrying it around. Books that don’t strike me don’t last that long in my possession, but this one has.

Lately what’s struck me about it is what it, like most philosophy, has to say about the way the Bush administration and the Republicans who attach themselves to it conduct themselves – namely, in a short-sighted, superficial, anti-human manner.

Before I explain that, let me point out that another reason I’ve enjoyed reading the book this long is because of its worldly approach to its topic. It incorporates elements of Christian faith in all shapes and styles, other faiths, Zen Buddhism, atheism, agnosticism, philosophers from all over the world and various time periods... you get the idea. It doesn’t tell you that any one of these sources is right or wrong, but simply that each offers amazingly similar and similarly helpful advice when it comes to the importance and methods of dealing with the darker moments in every human’s life. I like that approach because it doesn’t rely on any sort of EXCLUSIVITY. There are no contradictory moments due to strict adherence to any one source of knowledge or rules for living. Instead, it asks you to recognize what you’re going through, how it’s affecting you, how you can be better on the other end of it and, most importantly, to know that what you’re experiencing is every bit as much a part of your life as the good times are.

It is that sort of balance that, I suppose, fascinates me the most. The concept of yin and yan has always held water for me. Usually it manifests itself in something much more inane, like my love of weather... all weather, not just warm, sunny days, but all four seasons in Northern Ohio, or summer rains and hot summer days. I always thought it was strange that people act like those sunny days are the norm and thunderstorms are some kind of aberration or punishment from the gods. Weather is weather. It takes all kinds!

Similarly with bees or mosquitoes. As a kid I wondered about the possibility of simply doing away with these annoying creatures. Why couldn’t we just spray the world and kill them off. I suppose it was around third grade or so that I learned about ecosystems and the role that each part plays. No bees, no honey. No mosquitoes, no bass fishing or bird watching... you know. (I’m not a biologist, but I’m a student of life with a grasp of the basic concept.)

So this idea of balance as it applies to humans is all the more fascinating to me. The fact that humans are a balance of black and white, good and evil, happy and sad has just always made perfect sense to me. The notion that a fever is the body’s way of dealing with an infection is simply amazing.

What DARK NIGHT points out is that, these days, we’re a little too quick to reach for the ibuprofen or acetaminophen or whatever fever reducing medication Madison Avenue has convinced us is the safest, healthiest choice. That fever, to a degree beyond what most of us are comfortable with these days, is the body’s way of handling a problem it has recognized long before the conscious mind came in to mess with what is really a pretty well-balanced system. We do the same with therapy and counseling these days, trying to “fix” sadness or mourning rather than letting it run its course, learning and gaining what we can from it and thus benefiting from the experience. We don’t allow ourselves to become fully human.

So yeah, human mental states can be pretty well-balanced also, when we let them. Humans have dark thoughts and light thoughts. Left alone, we all hear the devil on one shoulder and the angel on the other. I won’t go so far as to suggest that all of us listen to the right one, but I will agree with the book in suggesting that we’d all be a lot healthier, mentally and physically, we'd make better decisions if we let the amazing machine that is the human body, run its course a little longer than we do before intervening.

So what does this have to do with Republicans? Well, nothing, exclusively, but as long as the righteous right continues to tell everyone that they know what’s better for us, and, in the course of doing so, creates some unbalanced ideal that completely contradicts human nature, then they continue to ignore the most basic ideas about what it means to be human. The result is that any positive outcome based on their “perfect human” philosophy is so artificial, so impossible for humans to maintain that it is, at best, extremely short-lived and, at worst, a provocation of the dark side such efforts seek to repress, virtually guaranteeing that that dark side will eventually return to the surface, probably in a manner much more disturbing than if said righteousness were simply accepted as HALF the balance in the first place.

Case in point: Mark Foley. Look, I don’t know what he was thinking or what he actually did, but when his party puts themselves above everyone else by pretending that human desire doesn’t exist, anyone who shows any outward sign of that desire has to fall hard. I’m not going to say that I approve of his instant messages or pretend that even if those messages were the sum-total of the whole situation that that’s ok, but pretending that such desires are not part of human nature is simply lying and contradictory to what we all know about ourselves. It’s begging for some big outpouring, some catastrophic event in which that balance is finally struck. Because that balance WILL be struck. The human machine, nature, biology WILL run its course. The problem is, when you establish a platform that pretends this balance of human nature is NOT part of human nature, then when said nature shows itself, you prove yourself to be a fraud.

Another case in point: Bill Clinton. Look, I’m not going to say that cheating on your wife and then lying about it to the public is ok, but what he did, like what Mark Foley did, is something we’ve all experienced. Using either of them as cathartic elements, sacrifices to purge our own guilt isn’t fair to them or helpful to us.

Caution – liberal rant inserted here: nevermind that Clinton and Lewinsky were consenting adults whose acts took place in the privacy of the most secure office in the world and, as such, their acts were nobody’s business but Bill, Hillary, and Monica’s. And don’t even start with that crap about how “if I had sex in my office, I’d be fired,” cuz you know it’s not true and you know someone who has done it. If you really believe the bigwigs in corporate American have never had sex in their offices, and you really believe that whether they did or not is any of you're business, then you’re not reading this anyway.

The much more important point is that what Clinton and Foley were truly guilty of is something we’re all guilty of: being human. What’s more, the tendency for these desires to manifest themselves in a way that will get you caught is actually pretty common among people whose desire and motivation propel them to the top – athletes, politicians, CEOs, power players on all sides of all aisles are prone to acts like this. Those of us who settle for less power, prestige and pay seem to be less likely to act on these desires... our balance is of a different nature, but the same elements are there even if the proportions are different.

This doesn’t mean their behavior is excusable – don’t confuse what I’m saying with some stereotypically “liberal” idea, but rather that the impetus for their behavior is something we all share. This is the concept the righteous right pretends doesn’t exist. So when one of their own “falls victim” to these facts of life, there’s no way to explain it away. It’s inconsistent with their professed beliefs. That humans have these “flaws” doesn’t fit into the picture of the world they paint. Therein lies the danger, the contradiction, the problem with such beliefs.

If Jesus had to die for our sins, then we are sinners, all motivated, to lesser or greater degrees by the same balance or lack thereof. If you’re going to claim to live by Jesus’s teachings, then you have to admit we ALL need him and you can’t claim that Clinton or Foley are truly exceptions to the rule. Their balance may have been a little more skewed than most of ours, but they are, in more ways than not, just like the rest of us.

So instead of pretending that Foley or Clinton is the devil, that all Muslims are terrorists, that terrorism isn’t a natural result of this balance of nature, that “evil” will ever be wiped out... or that terrorism will ever be wiped out... or that terrorism is some “thing....” some enemy that can be identified and defeated, we’d all be a lot better off if we’d admit that we all have some issues.

We’d be a lot farther down the road to encouraging a peaceful balance if our issues weren’t exacerbated by conditions like those the people in Iraq are facing right now or if the people of North Korea weren’t having their balance affected by the poverty and oppression they face. The people among us who are having the most difficulty maintaining their balance are being pushed to the edge by the actions of the Bush administration in their effort to promote this lie and in their blindness to this balance of human nature that we all must accept.

The balance of human nature is a law like gravity. It works whether you believe in it or not. Mess with it... step off a building or a cliff, and your beliefs won’t help you. Messing with it for too long, refusing to believe it, is like hitting that hornet’s nest with a broomstick – you might get away with a couple of swats and you might convince people, who because of their circumstances, are ready to be convinced, that hitting it is the right thing to do since you didn’t actually get stung yet, but thousands of people have been stung, fatally, as a result of that ill-advised action. Hundreds of thousands have been stung non-fatally. For them, that ill-advised action, that sting, has dangerously affected the balance of their human nature. The imbalance is making itself known already. It will continue to do so, in ways fewer and fewer of us will be willing to accept and ways that are harder and harder to ignore, until it restores itself.

We can be part of restoring the balance, taking into account the needs of all who fall under its influence, or we can refuse to acknowledge it in favor of the short-term interests of a few. But the balance will be restored.

Remember, you heard it here first – this has been a Horsepoup exclusive!

Venting the Spleen, Ch 847

I know I promised to try to avoid these political rants, but I can’t lay off this. Someone please tell me how a guy like Richard Clark can serve Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton AND Bush 43 and when he finally gets so fed up with it that he quits, everyone just ignores his side of the story.

How about Colin Powell? A guy many thought might be our nation’s first black president. Gone without a trace. Here’s a guy who flushes more integrity, patriotism and public service every time he visits the men’s room than our current president will ever have, and he’s dismissed under less than favorable conditions and no one bothers to listen to his side of the story.

And how about ignoring John McCain’s input on treatment of prisoners of war... or whatever they’re called by the Bush administration. It can’t be a war on terror if the prisoners aren’t prisoners of war!? AGGHHHHH!

Add to that former President Clinton’s discussion with Chris Wallace and a number of things seem so crystal clear, so diamond bullet to the forehead obvious, that I simply am at a loss to guess how anyone can still claim that Bush will ever be remembered for anything other than stealing the title from Warren Harding as the nation’s worst president.

One thing that this whole Bush 43 mess should clear up once and for all is the myth of a liberal bias by the news media. As if it weren’t obvious before, now every station has made Clinton out to be some crazed lunatic through careful editing of his passionate, but measured, appropriate and long overdue response to Chris Wallace’s loose play of the Fox party line. (don’t bother commenting on it if you haven’t watched the entire interview... catch it on YouTube before Fox files their copyright suits-they sure as hell don’t want anyone forming their own opinions on this thing before they’ve edited it) Ha! but they already DID edit it and Clinton still appears to have done nothing more than call Wallace for strutting a little too boldly with his radical right rhetoric. All Clinton did was ask Wallace why he didn’t ask the same questions of the Bush administration... the very same question I’ve been asking about this so-called liberal media since the Bush-Gore campaign started.

And now the Prez is up to his old tricks... tricks he continues to use because no one in the press calls him on them... because Chris Wallace doesn’t ask him questions like he asked Clinton. In refuting claims in a US intelligence report that the GWOT makes America less safe AND diverts resources from initiatives that would make the world a better place, the president says, “to say that mounting an offensive against them over there before they get us over here makes America less safe is a mistake.”

But the real mistake is in never defining who “them” are and never explaining where the “there” is. OK, the “there” is Iraq for now, but why?

That’s the president’s mistake. Our mistake, and the mistake of the media is in never forcing the Prez to answer that question. It’s gotten to the point where Jon Stewart and Bill Clinton on Fox are the only people on TV willing to actually get beyond the sound bites which don’t ever actually answer the question.

The media has gotten so bold in their pro-right stance that Chris Wallace nearly tripped himself with his strut in trying to put Clinton on the spot. I don’t know who Wallace thought he was interviewing... maybe some Democratic pawn like Allan Colmes? but the look on his face when Clinton actually answered the question was precious. The smirk that Clinton referred to quickly turned into one of those smiles that fails to hide the fear behind it. There was no easy way for Wallace to stop Clinton from answering the sandbag of a question Wallace dumped in his lap. When the answer didn’t turn out like Wallace had hoped, Wallace appeared to have wet himself. Wallace then tried to pretend he actually wanted to talk about Clinton’s Global Initiative but he’d already opened the can and the worms were a spillin’.

I thought it would be cool to see Clinton in the news again talking about something other than Monica, but did the news stations report anything at all that Wallace brought up? No, instead they all put together clips of the meanest looking faces Clinton made and ran that as though the big story was that he got upset... no handshake at the end, no mention of Clinton’s support for Bush’s goals, just sensationalist footage of an appropriate reaction dramatized for better ratings and right-wing favor.

So my question, and it’s the same one I’ve been asking since the Gore Bush campaigns, and the same one Clinton asked Wallace, is when will the rest of the world start asking the same questions of Bush that they’ve asked of his opponents and critics? When will following Teddy Roosevelt’s definition of patriotism become patriotic again instead of being twisted into being anti-American? When will the public and the press demand of Bush and his war the same level of scrutiny that Clinton faced about an affair that he had? When will Bush be called on the carpet for releasing prisoners to terrorist states, but keeping others in our custody without charges? When will someone force him to explain how ignoring the Geneva Convention demonstrates our commitment to humane treatment or how it endangers our soldiers? When will he actually be forced to make the connection between Cheney’s assertions that Iraq was the place to stop the 911 terrorists and his more recent statements denying such a connection was ever made? We’ve got the footage of it... the Daily Show plays it pretty frequently!! There's no spin necessary. Why is Comedy Central the only station where such blatant flip-floppery gets aired?

This isn’t about who had sex with who in an office, it’s about billions of US dollars and thousands of peoples’ lives. Why was Clinton hounded by congress for 6 months but Bush gets off with a couple shallow questions that he doesn’t even answer? It’s about squandered budgets and the complete loss of integrity as a nation. It’s about lies and flip-flopping on issues that really matter to national security (blowjobs in the oval office were only a matter of national security when the right needed something against the left).

Why is it when Bush is accused, the questions go away, but Clinton can still do no right? I really feel let down by the partisan blindness that has allowed Bush to squander so much of what was great about this country. The country is stronger than that. It will outlive him, but the damage has been done. When will someone start asking about it in a larger forum than a blog?

I know of a guy who swore he was leaving the country if Bush was elected. He now lives in Japan. I thought that was childish...irresponsible... overreacting... ok, maybe I was a little jealous of the freedom to do something like that. The guy is a Navy vet. An officer. He’s seen the world and knows that in a big picture sense, there’s no place better than here, but the level of frustration that led him to finally do it is finally settling in with me. Not to that extent, but I can understand it better now. What I now know is that, in spite of the right wing swill about how great the economy is doing, I make the same money that I have for the past 10 years but everything costs more. It's the same for everyone I know. I spent a year away from my family while the guy who sent me away never left under similar circumstances when his country asked him to do so. Not only do people like me bear the brunt of what Bush is doing to this country, but we’re making him and his buddies richer in the process. I’m disgusted with it and all the idiots who believe it’s what this nation is about or that it's somehow healthy for us. I hope the middle and lower classes can stay afloat until 2008. When we go, the country will go with us.

Oh, and while I’m at it, I followed a guy home from my National Guard weekend two weeks ago who was driving a 1 ton Chevy truck with stickers on the back that said something like: “Buy Domestic Dumbass” and “It really does make a difference, buy American, Asshole.”

I’m not kidding... it was about as intelligent as that. Public vulgarity and all. So I made a point of riding his bumper until our paths diverted. The whole time I was thinking about how Toyota, the maker of my truck, has reinvested in the US by building a new truck plant in Texas (my truck was built at their new plant in Indiana) while GM has invested in China... billions of dollars in China and closed down plants here. And it occurred to me that his stickers were right. It really does make a difference. If you want to support US autoworkers, you’d better buy a Honda or a Toyota or a Nissan, cuz they’re the only companies investing any money in the US auto industry these days. The newest GM plant is in China and while Daimler-Chrysler moved their Jeep production into a new plant in Toledo, it only employs about a tenth of what the old plant did in its best days. The robots that build the Jeeps there now came from...??? hmmm, any guesses?

OK, that’s out of my system for a while. I have to get to bed.

Survivor racist?!

So Survivor is splitting up tribes based on race, eh? I don’t watch a lot of reality TV, but my family watches Survivor so this one I’ve seen. Once I figured out that it was about surviving socially rather than the elements or the physical challenges, it made a lot more sense. That’s about as close to a fan of any “reality” show as I’ll probably ever get. Especially since the writers from one of the “reality” shows went on strike!! THE WRITERS went on strike... for a REALITY show. There’s one situation where management should have just caved. Their secret’s definitely out.

Anyhoo, back to this splitting up by race thing. Since I don’t watch much, I don’t know what the verdict is yet regarding this afterthought of an idea Survivor’s writers came up with now that they’ve done everything else, but it seemed like there was a lot of concern about it and most of what I accidentally caught in the news seemed to indicate a collective conclusion that this was somehow a bad idea.

I don’t get it. It’s ok to discriminate by race when it comes to distributing public money for public education or when offering abatements and other subsidies to industry or big business, or in housing and healthcare and about a million other places where racism is the institutionalized, de facto practice, but when it comes to a game show we’re up in arms?! What’s up with that?

Besides, this show just might force folks to realize what a little common sense, open-mindedness, and careful thought after careful observation should teach people in the first place: that the differences within any group are far greater than the collective differences between the groups. It’s possible that this show will demonstrate to an audience the opposite of what their daddy and their daddy’s daddy have been telling them all along. It might even cast doubt on the anecdotal evidence they’ve used to maintain the stereotypes this teaching has solidified in their minds. It’s just possible that we will see a lazy guy in the Asian tribe or a conniving and deceitful guy in the white tribe or a lying, stealing cheat in the black tribe... or any other negative stereotype commonly associated with a particular race or culture in EVERY tribe!

We will also likely see strong, intelligent leaders in each tribe or caring, nurturing followers who help hold the team together in each tribe.

I don’t know that I’ll set time aside to watch each show, but I’m actually curious about this one. I don’t really believe that a tv show can undo years of brainwashing, the likes of which actually has some so-called Christians thinking, for instance, that the Moslem faith is a violent one (hello, can you say “Crusades” or Koresh or Jones... didn’t Hitler claim to be a Christian paying back the Jews for killing Christ?!) Yeah, but somebody else’s wackos claiming they do what they do in the name of their faith is just inexcusable!

So no, I don’t expect the racists, haters, whatever they’re called these days to suddenly see the light as a result of watching Survivor, in fact, those kinds of people tend to see what they want even if the rest of us don’t, but I might actually have to watch and see how this one goes. In the meantime, get off Survivor’s back. If you want to complain or rise up against racism, do it where it really matters, not on some tv show!

Later dudes.

Life's good

I don’t have a lot to report this evening, but I figured I’d try to put something up here that’s a little more upbeat since I’ve been slacking off in general, and complaining in particular. So in spite of having to switch to cable before I puked while the president spoke of national security during the 9/11 tele-blitz, life’s good.

Now that my wife has settled down a little, and joined me in my embrace of temporary (?) unemployment, life really is good. Thanks to overprogramming, my kids have pretty much settled in officially in our new home. They’ve escorted us to about 15 soccer games and half as many football games in the last three weeks, one has joined band (in 5th grade!! – sorry Ray, she chose percussion... plans for the family blues band are coming together) and we’ve all joined the homework hotline in our house and refreshed some fundamental academic skills we thought we’d never use again.

I’ve actually turned a job down while my wife accepted one, even though she swore she’d never work in the auto industry again. I’ve got an offer on the hook now, and hope to have another after an interview in a week or so, and I continue to find opportunities where I thought there were none. I’ve spent a day substitute teaching, and a week as a substitute custodian (I figure getting my face known in a district comes in many forms).

The “extra house” I left behind in this complex transaction had a couple of bites the first week it was listed and I’m really, really enjoying being back in the hometown I thought I’d never leave. So if you don’t count the fact that I’m paying more per month for temporary health insurance than I paid for my first two cars, and that I’ve been unemployed now longer than I ever have been since high school - and really, those are minor issues in the grand scheme - life really is good.

It’s funny that I recall so vividly my high school chums lamenting that they couldn’t wait to get out of this town. I never thought that. It always seemed like a pretty good place to hang out. But then I left for college and never quite made it back. I never really realized how much I missed it. What’s really funny is how many of those chums never left. Maybe they wised up... maybe their complaints were just teen angst. I had plenty of that, and I may have even uttered those words at some point, but I never pictured myself anywhere else. Some of those guys have moved on to bigger and better and I miss them now that I’m back, but the ones who stayed fill me in on their stories and even that’s been fun.

So here I am, picking up where I left off. At times I feel like I’m finally in control of something. Other times it feels like my life is spinning out of control... which is actually more comfortable and familiar for me. My biggest anxiety remains the comfort and happiness of my family and I know that wouldn’t be any different no matter where we lived. Here though, I feel like I know where I’m going, what I’m doing and though I’m sure it’s a deceivingly false sense of security, I have a confidence in my ability to promote that comfort and happiness that I never really felt anywhere else. It’s as though when the spinning stops momentarily, at least I land in familiar territory... and can get everyone home safely.

It’s good to be back. Life’s good... did I already mention that?

Anti-incumbent plan proves tricky

I heard about half of the Ohio governor candidates’ first debate on the radio last night. I was hoping to really hear the difference between Democrat (and current U.S. Representative) Ted Strickland and Republican (and current Ohio Secretary of State) Kenneth Blackwell.

You’ll never guess my overall response:

Disappointment.

Half was all I could stand. No matter who asked what question, Blackwell’s response was consistent: “Strickland will raise taxes.”

And while I have to give Strickland some credit for trying (key word: “trying”... perhaps I should add “trying lamely”) to address issues, he asked the wrong questions of Blackwell, particularly regarding Blackwell’s plan to privatize the Ohio Turnpike in order to make an estimated $4 billion for the state’s collapsing budget. AND he failed to adequately address his rating of 450 (or something like that) out of 435 representatives by some group that Blackwell has on his commercials.

There are a lot of groups out there who rate politicians. Some rate them by the number of votes they miss (without ever explaining that most votes are foregone conclusions long before the vote is actually held) and others rate them by what kind of music they say they like. I found one rating system on an angelfire server that rated congressmen by how they replied to letters from constituents. It sounds kind of silly, but it was probably the most legitimate system I saw in my brief search. It was pretty entertaining.

Anyway, back to the debate.

Here’s what I wanted to ask Blackwell: If this turnpike plan will generate so much money, then why can’t the state keep the middleman out and generate it themselves? After all, he’s the business manager for the state. If the plan would be that lucrative, then why bring in a private contractor to do it? And if there are contractors out there willing to pay that much to lease the turnpike, doesn’t that suggest that the state has been mismanaging it by not generating that much revenue from it?

I’m sure the response would be something like: well, yeah, but as a government entity we’re limited to keeping it non-profit and blah blah blah. OR Government isn’t as efficient as private industry.

To which I might then ask, why? Ohio’s Republicans have been in charge for 16 years with promises of reducing the size (but not the cost) and increasing the efficiency of government and all they really have to show for it is a squandered budget surplus, a convicted governor, and $25 million in lost state funds that was last seen in the hands of the governor’s golf buddy.

And as far as making a profit, if a private contractor isn’t limited like the state in its operation of the turnpike, does that mean it would then cost $75 to drive on it? Isn’t that sort of the same thing as raising taxes?

The turnpike is a ROAD... it’s part of Ohio’s infrastructure! If there’s one thing liberals and conservatives ever agree on, it’s that this is a function of government. It’s not welfare or public funding for abortion or prayer in schools. It’s a fricking public highway built by the state! Isn’t that what states are supposed to do?!

Proposing leasing the turnpike to a private organization is an admission that Ohio’s leaders have failed to do their job. Of course, the Derolph decision has already told us that, but no one pays any attention to that anymore, especially not Ohio legislators.

Claiming that privatizing the turnpike will generate revenue not only confirms what we heard initially (that Ohio’s leaders failed us) but also demonstrates the unproven, pie in the sky dreams that these folks live on. The turnpike is THE east-west route across northern Ohio. Many commercial vehicles already avoid the tolls by taking smaller, local routes, especially route 30. With only about 45 more miles left of the route 30 upgrade, just how viable as a revenue generator will the turnpike continue to be once 30 is complete?

Claiming that privatizing the Ohio Turnpike will generate revenue without raising taxes sounds like it will work the same as President Bush’s promise to lower taxes – the only thing missing is a way to balance the budget while doing it. (Oh, and tax cuts for the 95% of us who remain unaffected by the tax cuts Bush has put in place) Both plans pass the debt along to the public eventually. We’ll either pay for it in the future through tax increases that someone will eventually be forced to create, or, in the case of the turnpike, we’ll pay for it in either increased tolls, or in shouldering the cost of maintaining the road some other way. In the end, taxpayers will pay whether it’s called a tax or not.

But none of this addresses the real problem. In my last post, I vowed to vote anti-incumbent. The governor’s race is just one example of why this will be difficult. Strickland is an incumbent U.S. representative with a less than stellar record. Record notwithstanding, he is an incumbent. Does a vote for him for governor serve my goal of changing up the House?

Blackwell is a former Treasurer and the incumbent Ohio Secretary of State. He invested in Diebold, golfed with and managed the business affairs of the Taft administration. I imagine he even had to testify against Governor Taft?? Yet his campaign seems to be built on two main ideas: 1) Strickland will raise taxes, and 2) Ohio’s Republican leadership is doing a great job that he’ll continue.

Does voting for him for governor serve the goal of changing up the open corruption in Ohio’s Executive Branch? Oh wait, I think I just answered my own question. OK, so this one’s easy, but how do I handle the Ohio senate race between incumbent Representative and former Secretary of State Sherrod Brown and incumbent Senator Mike DeWine?!

Perhaps Steven Colbert’s anti-voting argument is starting to make more sense.

Frustrated Teacher

Warning - the contents of this post are primarily a vent of my frustration. (Like you need to be warned about that if you're reading this!)

Whenever I tell people I’ve grown frustrated with teaching, they instantly assume it’s because of the students. And while they can be frustrating at times, that would be like a banker saying he’s frustrated with banking because of the money. It’s not the students that frustrate me enough to consider other professions. In fact, it’s the students who make such a consideration so difficult. But there’s another consideration that makes it difficult for me and that’s the importance of public service or social responsibility.

It’s no secret to anyone who reads this that I lean to the left. I’m not a party member and I’m not even much of a fan of the two-party system, but it has served its purpose and will likely continue to do so, so there’s not much point in fighting about that. My own left leaning stems from my belief that people should be considered a higher priority than property. I believe that government exists to provide a service to its populace, not to its corporations (but note that a solid infrastructure and a peaceful population serve them as well!). Like many who lean to the right, I believe that service only includes some basic functions like law creation and law enforcement and maybe infrastructure creation and maintenance. Fire protection falls in there too. Where my left-leaning pulls me away from those on the right is that I believe a certain amount of re-distribution of wealth is inherent in this process. I don’t mean everyone’s earnings should all go into a big pot and be shared equally, but rather that police and fire protection and infrastructure maintenance should be enjoyed and accessed equally by all. Along those same lines, our government, that of the largest, richest nation in the world, should also see to it that no one in our country suffers for lack of the basic necessities.

It is this last point that generally puts me into that “liberal” category, but the founders of our nation, and of my state in particular must have seen it that way too. Ohio became a state under the Northwest Ordinance. One of the terms of that statehood was that Ohio (and other states who joined the union at the time) must provide public education to all of its citizens. That’s a public service that many these days seem to argue exceeds the category of basic necessity. For the last twenty years, the state of Ohio’s own Supreme Court has declared that Ohio fails to meet that requirement. This leaves public schools to fend for themselves but with no other means of doing so than going to the public in the form of levies for support. The Northwest Ordinance said that OHIO would fund public schools, NOT leave it up to local taxpayers. If there’s a rich public school in Ohio, then there shouldn’t be a poor public school in Ohio. That’s what the conditions of statehood said.

So here’s how this leads to my frustration as a teacher. For the past eight years, I’ve found teaching to be one of the most rewarding, conscience-soothing professions I’ve ever encountered in my working life. Sure teenagers are sometimes a wily, thankless bunch, but as an adult, I have no problem with that. My biggest fear has always been failing to meet their needs from year to year. As a new teacher I felt unprepared and had a horrible time controlling my conscience because I knew I would be shortchanging that first group of students I taught. I finally decided that I was as prepared as anyone, maybe more than some, and we’d just have to get through my first year as best we could. It turned out that my first year wasn’t as bad – I wasn’t as ineffective – as I thought I would be. In fact, by most accounts, I was actually pretty good at it and those students who, by no choice of their own, participated in my “first year experiment” actually learned something and moved on to their next year fairly prepared.

Other than the occasional one-period evaluation from a principal who was no better trained as a teacher, let alone as an evaluator of other teachers, I received NO professional feedback and had to rely on my own sense of how my students were doing in order to continuously improve my skills and the service I provided. I got used to that too, though I apologize to the few adult friends who stuck with me through that time and on whom I unloaded all of the anxiety that the circumstances created.

Eight years later, that anxiety hasn’t left me. I’ve simply learned how to manage it. In the course of those years, I learned that that’s just how it works for teachers. They’re on their own. No one provides them with any meaningful feedback until they screw up. There’s no “corporate training program” to help them continue to develop. Because of that, they have to be some of the most accountable professionals I’ve ever been a part of. So when No Child Left Behind stated as its main goal to hold teachers accountable, I had to laugh. Now that I’ve moved to a new part of the state and am looking for a job, it’s no longer funny. NCLB and funding issues have made it nearly impossible for a proven teacher to move laterally. I learned this summer that the only schools interested in interviewing someone who relocated in order to be nearer his widowed mother are those so desperately in need of funding that the rest of their teachers have jumped ship. In addition, my experience renders me too expensive to work in those districts. The $35-40,000 a year that my proven performance demands is just too rich for the districts with openings. For all they know, they might not even exist as a district next year, so why spend money on an experienced teacher? OK, now I’m just whining about the fact that I didn’t find a job this summer, but it’s relevant!! Indulge me a little.

So here’s where the frustration really comes to a point. I believe in public schools. I believe our state’s founders believed in them too and that’s why they agreed to provide them to Ohio students. As a graduate of, and veteran staffer in public schools, I know first hand that students there get things that most alternatives simply don’t provide. As such, I don’t believe that public funds should ever be diverted from those coffers to be applied to private programs. But as a student advocate – and no teacher can rightfully claim that title without being a student advocate – I believe the needs of the students, this year, right now, must come first. Johnny Doe will never get the chance to re-live his junior year. He deserves the best we can give him right now.

So I’m considering employment with a charter program that actually diverts funding from the struggling local public school system. I hate that, but I also hate the dire need of the students for whom this particular school may be a last chance. Those on the right may be content to build prisons to deal with these students after giving up on them, but I’d rather deal with them before the prison becomes the final option. I don’t want my paycheck to be taking funds out of Ohio’s public schools, but I don’t have many options on the table right now and the needs of these students are no less important than the general population of Ohio’s public school students. I’m learning that moving across the state puts already underpaid and underappreciated veteran teachers back at the bottom of the totem pole, so I’m running out of options quickly. I don’t mind working my way in, but after almost ten years in the classroom, how much proving do I have to do? (OK, I’m whining again)

Then there are the needs of my own family and my own selfish concerns. This other little “distraction” has me considering leaving teaching altogether in favor of a more lucrative profession. I’m considering some options that weigh far less on the social responsibility scale, but that may make it much easier to pay for my own kids’ college. Tough choice, eh? Here again, I’m limited because I feel that profit and social responsibility must be weighed out carefully, but I’m discovering that there are companies out there who believe that social responsibility, community involvement, philanthropy – treating others as you would want to be treated – are as important as their bottom line. Now what do I do?

So there’s the summary. I’ve left a lot of details and smaller issues out because they’d sound like whining. (too late?) When I say I’m frustrated with teaching as a profession, please don’t make the mistake of assuming it has anything to do with students. My frustration is only related to students in the sense that the way the system works right now, it’s getting harder and harder for a reasonable person to stay concerned about the needs of students. Rather than being the reason I would leave teaching, students are the only reason I’d stay. I’m just having more and more trouble remembering that the state and the nation used to be on my side in that concern. I’m convinced they’re as close as they’ve ever been to giving up. Would that mean that Ohio has to relinquish its statehood?

And back to party politics. I’m joining a new party this year: the anti-incumbent party. I’m voting for anyone who didn’t hold the seat in the prior term. Dems, Reps, liberals, conservatives, none of that means anything to me this time around. If you held the seat, and this (look around) is what you’ve done with it, you’re giving it up. Don’t waste your money on your negative ads. You’re not getting my vote!

Later dudes.

Fine Distinction

It’s been one year and two weeks since I got home from Iraq. I wanted to make a point of posting something on that anniversary, but I was on an annual training deployment to Virginia Beach. The 203rd RED HORSE Squadron is on their way to Iraq so we visited their station at the Camp Pendleton Military Reservation to do some concrete and asphalt paving for them while they were gone. This trip was supposed to be one of those cushy deployments where our teams showed off and practiced our skills, did good work for another organization, and still had some time to enjoy the location while we were there – sort of a “remember what it was like before Iraq” deployment. That’s pretty much how it worked too, except, just like Iraq, and most deployments I’ve been on, what we found when we got there was nothing like what we’d been expecting. The crew ahead of us apparently focused more on enjoying the location than on showing off and practicing paving skills or prep work. As I mentioned, I’m used to that, but not from members of my own unit! In the end, though, it didn’t matter. Our crew made up for the lost time and lack of adequate prep work and finished the slated jobs. We even did it on budget and we did manage to enjoy the location a little in the evenings. It turned out to be a satisfying deployment on most accounts. We left something we can be proud of and we practiced exactly the kind of work a RED HORSE unit does whether it’s two miles south of the strip in Virginia Beach or two miles outside of Baghdad. Paving is paving and with the jets flying training missions from nearby Oceana Naval Air Station, the sky often reminded one of a war zone – a nice added effect.

Now back to the one-year anniversary of my Iraq experience. As I mentioned, we were proud of our efforts in Virginia Beach. I’d been doing quite a bit of manual labor this summer (for an English teacher) but to jump onto a full-time concrete crew during one of the hottest weeks of the summer was a shock to my system. I have aches and pains I forgot were possible in a human body, but that’s not a bad thing. Manual labor is good for a person. It’s good for the soul. It was also very cool to see the immediate results of my efforts. In two weeks time, there was an obvious difference that my efforts made. I did construction work during summers while I was an undergrad, and that immediate gratification is something that I’ve missed ever since. Especially since becoming a teacher. Don’t get me wrong, teaching is one of the most satisfying jobs I’ve ever done, but it’s a wholly different kind of satisfaction. It’s based a lot more on faith than on any big results. But back to the point. Everyone on my deployment worked hard. Most did so in jobs they don’t normally do. For instance, four of my fellow mechanics went on the trip with me, but we all worked on paving crews and did very little vehicle maintenance. One of our admin managers was on the asphalt crew. There was a plumber from the 201st RED HORSE unit in Pennsylvania on my concrete crew... you get the idea. And we pulled it off! We did some good work. We left something that we can show our families the next time we’re in Virginia Beach.

After telling this story, there are probably a handful of people out there thinking, “ yeah,whatever, sounds like a bunch of guardsmen got paid for a two-week vacation in Virginia Beach.” And there’s a shred of truth in that as well. Similarly, my “vacation” in Iraq had some of that element also. It’s actually kind of interesting to think about it that way. My time in Iraq really did have a lot in common with my time in Virginia Beach. For one, I was away from my family. I didn’t think I’d miss them as much as I did in just two weeks. Another similarity is finding yourself in a strange situation that’s nothing like what you’ve been prepared to expect. Guardsmen routinely adapt to this kind of thing. Granted, in Iraq, this involved weekly mortar attacks and incredibly complicated logistics nightmares far beyond anything you’d find in the states, but a degree of adapting was necessary in both places. I think this is one attribute of guardsmen (and women) that the enlisted association undersells when convincing employers to hire guardsmen. The sense of duty and loyalty is obvious, but the ability to think on your feet and adapt to some pretty crazy circumstances is something invaluable that gets programmed into military members, especially guardsmen and reservists who routinely go back and forth from a civilian occupation to contingency operations.

But my real point is: we got a lot of work done in a short amount of time under some trying circumstances. Though the circumstances were far preferable to those in Iraq, people in both situations can be proud of their ability to do that. I met and worked with an Army maintenance manager in Iraq who was extremely good at what he did and continued to be good at it under nightmarish conditions in Iraq. I met and worked with an Army logistics officer who did the impossible getting parts and supplies where they needed to be in places where there was no AutoZone and very few UPS offices. I occasionally ate meals with an Army truck driver who delivered those supplies over roads littered with IED craters and car bombers almost every day. And I worked with hundreds of people in my unit, the 201st from Pennsylvania, and a handful of active duty engineers who all faced similar challenges, but worked their butts off day in and day out in order to do the job our unit was sent to do.

Like all members of the military, these folks should be proud of the job they did in Iraq. BUT as we’re often told, there’s no I in TEAM, and what I saw in Iraq convinced me that these people are all great players, but that the team they’re on still has no objective.

I’m happy to see the American public, according to recent polls, is finally starting to recognize that subtle distinction. It really is ok to support the troops but not the war and this is why. Our troops should be proud of the work they do. They don’t choose where they get to do that work, but the public that supports those troops should question where they’re doing it and why. How proud are you of the paving 15 members of the 200th and 201st did in Virginia Beach last week? How necessary was that mission to the safety of Americans? How much safer do you feel as a result?

One year after my return, the primary changes are that Iraq is now engaged in civil war and air travel is even more complicated and frightening than it ever was due to continued terrorist activity. While I was in Iraq, an election was held, a parliament of sorts was established, and the seeds of what might pass for a democracy were sown, but these steps have all proven to be gild one year later. While the individual and even unit level efforts of troops there is truly something to be proud of, to what do those efforts contribute? How does it add up to stability in Southwest Asia? That’s right, it doesn’t, any more than those troops’ efforts elsewhere.

Would it have been so bad to continue to surround Iraq with allies we’ve now alienated, keep a careful watch over Saddam Hussein, and allow the people of Iraq to mount their own revolution? Would it have been so bad to keep UN and international support in the region and save thousands of lives and billions of dollars? Would it have been so bad to sow the seeds we’ve sown through those channels rather than an invasion? Has the removal of Saddam been a contributing factor to any kind of success in Iraq? We’ve created a mess in Iraq now and the only beneficiary seems to be Iran – a country who freely admits to having or at least working on weapons of mass destruction. If the logic that took us into Iraq is applied, we need to invade Iran, and North Korea and Syria and a number of African nations soon. How do you feel about that?

The fact that we haven’t done so is as close to an admission that the Iraqi invasion was a bad idea that we’ll get from this administration. The tough talk and the exercise of might felt good in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but “feeling good” falls a little short of the standard in the war clause. “Making Americans safer” and “getting them over there so they don’t get us over here” is empty rhetoric. I’m happy to see that the American public has finally sobered up enough to realize this. That’s about the only positive outcome I’ve seen so far.

Terrorism is a tactic, a concept, not an enemy, and the only way to fight it is to provide terrorist recruits with better options. As long as there are hungry people, desperate people, anywhere in the world, there will be terrorists. The Iraqi invasion, far from alleviating the circumstances that led people to become terrorists, added to them and came with the added bonus of making the U.S. a singular target for their efforts. I’m not convinced that the American public has completely arrived at this realization, but the growing dissent for the occupation of Iraq is at least an encouraging sign even if it came a good two years too late.

Americans can and should be proud of the members of their military. Given the bureaucratic hoops this giant organization must constantly jump through, it is an amazingly effective team, but don’t confuse this overall ability with success in a given operation. There is a difference between being proud of your troops and supporting every mission on which they’re sent. A few hundred yards of paving material successfully placed in Virginia Beach or in Iraq have about the same effect on terrorism. Although Joe Lieberman might not agree, it’s good to see the American public finally making this distinction.