Look it up!

In the age of the internet, or maybe, more specifically, search engines, there's simply no reason to argue over the kinds of things that people used to argue over in bars, at parties, or even at the water cooler at work. Very few of these arguments exist these days that can't be solved in the two minutes it takes to Google the issue at hand. That's kind of sad really. It means that the basis of some of the more entertaining conversations in life has been removed. Unless, of course, you enjoy arguing simply for argument's sake. Which I do. After all, sometimes it's not about the answer, but what you learn in getting to it.

One perspective on this is something I used to share with my high school students during the course of our conversations about research. They would complain about the number of sources I required on a given project. I would counter the complaint with something that's eternally effective along the lines of, "WHEN I WAS A KID we had to schedule our research activities around the times when the library was actually open. We had to use actual books, magazines, journals and we had to lug them around with us because we had to actually read them to find what we wanted. All YOU have to do these days is plug something into Google, anytime, anywhere there's a computer! So quit your whining!"

The goal of the research project from the teacher's perspective was to create a situation wherein the student found a topic so interesting that they forgot about getting the project done and actually wanted to learn something about the topic. In purist terms, that's the goal of any real research... learning about the topic as opposed to proving your thesis. That makes the internet a double-edged sword. While it's true that we can find everything about a topic much easier these days, that means it's also easier to zero in on the information that suits our purpose while ignoring all information to the contrary. Because of the ease of access to lots of information, we're more tempted to believe that our research is actually thorough and conclusive simply by the sheer volume of information we can easily find that proves our thesis, even if we found it by ignoring all the other information out there. That's not a new issue, it's just that this new method of information gathering makes it easier to accept our thesis by making it easier to grab a lot of info and easier to ignore info that doesn't suit our purpose.

It's kind of the same thing with arguing in bars, parties or at the watercooler these days. There's really no point in doing it. Instead of arguing over whether or not Kevin Bacon was really in that movie with that girl from another movie, we can just call up the Internet Movie Database and look it up. Of course, by doing that, we eliminate the conversation about every other movie we liked and disliked. We eliminate the, "Oh yeah, I almost forgot about that one... that was a GREAT movie! I'm going to have to rent that one again this weekend." We also eliminate the chances of learning more about our co-workers involved with us in the discussion.

It's in the argument that the real learning takes place. When we skip straight to the answer, we lose a lot of valuable information. My daughter had a math problem the other night that illustrates the point beautifully. She had to arrange five eights in a way that gave her nine. (not the fraction, five over eight, but five separate eights) She couldn't use plus or minus signs. That's the kind of problem where the typical rules of math must be remembered and suspended at the same time and actual thinking must occur. It's tempting to just find an answer key and look it up, but that's not nearly as satisfying as figuring it out. We probably could have Googled the problem and found the solution, but instead, I gave her a large blank sheet of paper and a calculator and told her to try as many options as she could think of. In essence, I told her to argue the point. She proposed thesis after thesis all leading her down the "wrong path," but getting her closer each time because each attempt furthered her understanding. She finally settled on a fraction using decimals that resulted in an answer like 9.0909 or something like that and she left it at that. The next night she came home with the preferred, and now obvious answer. She knew a lot more about that answer because of all the "wrong" answers she came up with on her own the night before. I could have made her continue until she got even more frustrated than she was that previous night, but we both knew this problem was one of those bonus problems given during the week before a long holiday break that didn't really count for a grade. It counted for something much more important than a grade and she'd already accomplished that goal. She discovered something she didn't know before she entered the argument. Only by arguing, even if her premises were "wrong" did that discovery come about. The exercise wouldn't have worked, the discovery process would never have happened, if she'd gone straight for the answer.

Socrates knew the value of argument. He understood how, if done well, the discovery process was a guaranteed by-product. He even created a teaching method based on this. Both he and his method have been tarnished over time in our rush to find answers. The Socratic method of teaching is a brilliant method to encourage real discovery in students, but not when students are conditioned only to give right answers. Our fragile egos don't allow real discussion, aka argument, anymore. The movie Legally Blond even goes so far as to paint The Socratic Method as little more than a ruthless way of attacking students. Unfortunately, these days, that's all people think arguing is - attacking. We've forgotten that in a real argument, learning takes place. We visit areas of knowledge that have either been mothballed, or perhaps are actually new. We create the conditions required for seeing things from different perspectives. We learn about the topic, about each other, about ourselves.

Folks don't seem as comfortable learning things these days, especially if we don't like what we're learning. In his book, Punk Rock, Monster Movies and the Truth about Reality Zen Master, Brad Warner, notes that meditation isn't easy and you might not like what you discover. He claims that the goal of doing it is self awareness and he jokes that most people abandon the mission as soon as any real awareness begins because we don't like what we become aware of.

I wonder if this same fear of awareness is at the root of the old rule, "never argue politics or religion." After all, in this age of the internet, there's really no need to argue anything. We can just look it up anytime, anywhere. Unless, of course, the purpose of the arguing isn't really to find THE answer, but rather to discover something... to gain more awareness, to learn, whether what we learn is about ourselves or the others in the argument.

Could it be that this rule protects us from ever discovering anything? After all, if we can just look up any information we want, then why bother discussing anything with anyone, ever? We can just go with the answers we know are out there and never have to worry about how others see it. For that matter, these answers existed long before the internet made them more readily available to us. With a little effort, we could have found them before computers ever existed. So why argue anything? Why discuss anything? Why have a conversation with other humans, ever?

Wow, that's a pretty bleak existence.

It's also the kind of existence created by the "tolerance" of things we're too polite to discuss. When we move anything off the table of discussion, as we have the topic of religious beliefs in this country under the guise of tolerance, we create a dead zone of discussion where no further discovery can take place. By agreeing to disagree about an issue and agreeing to never discuss it, we shut ourselves off to ever discovering any more about it. By claiming we know the answers, whether because we've looked them up in a book, or in a search engine, or whatever the source, we shut ourselves off from ever discovering any more about that topic - whether that discovery leads to moving others in our direction, or us moving in their direction, or - in my naive mind still blissfully tied to the idea of way too much faith in my fellow man - a mutual discovery in both parties.

Just as with my students and their research project, finding the answers isn't ever really the goal. Discovery is. These days, I'd like to discover a formula for existence on this Earth that leads to world peace. (I admit I'm naive and have way too much faith in my fellow man, but why not... I'm here, I might as well forward this arrogant agenda of mine) When I discuss this crazy idea with a lot people, they tell me it's not worth talking about. I'm used to that and I've discussed things that truly weren't worth talking about, at length, just to kill time, so I don't let that stop me. But what really frightens me is when people tell me, "it doesn't matter anyway because the world will end in apocalypse no matter what we do."

That bothers me because it's a cop out. In a world where we can "know" everything just by looking it up, it really burns me up when someone uses that "knowledge" as an excuse to do nothing. Maybe I'm way wrong about this and maybe the world really will end in an apocalypse over which we humans have no control whatsoever, but as long as the possibility of grandkids is a twinkle in my brain, I'm going to bring it up over and over and over. I may not be able to stave off this apocalypse (although I have a suspicion that we can) but I can at least push it back until my grandkids are out of the picture. I'd like to push it back until their grandkids are out of the picture. I'd like to think this crazy idea of humans living peacefully together is one of those things that all humans agree is worth arguing about even if the argument is, at times, uncomfortable.

I don't know much for sure about this world, but I know I want it to be a peaceful place for my kids to grow up, get old, and have these same kinds of amazingly satisfying discussions with their friends, enemies, and even their own kids. And I know that the answer to how this might happen isn't in a book or on the internet. The answer, if there is one, isn't something anyone can look up. It will only ever exist in the discussions and interactions among people. While there may be predictions in books about how our world will end, one way to guarantee such an end lies firmly in the refusal to discuss it.

I don't consider that refusal polite nor tolerant.

Happy Holidays,
Luth


Oh, and congrats on the rock, Laurie Doll!

I think I could vote for Dr. Paul

If you haven't watched the You Tube/CNN debates, you've missed out. Unlike most debates, the questions come from folks like me and you. No softballs, no audience plants. In fact, the last question asked was to Rudy Giuliani about how, as a Yankees fan, he could root for the Red Sox in the Series. (His answer satisfied me - he rooted for the American League, as I did, after the Yankees were disqualified) While we're on that topic, let me get this out of my system: The curse is over and so is my empathy for Red Sox fans. The Red Sox now occupy the bottom spot on my list, forcing the Yankees up one notch.

But on to more pressing issues. Tonight's debate cleared some things up for me. Namely, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate the Republicans could field that I'd even think about voting for. They won't field him, and, so, I won't vote Republican. Glad that's cleared up. I didn't know much about Romney or Hunter and I was curious to learn about them. I did. They're dead to me now.

Giuliani was on my list until tonight. And to his credit, he stayed there for most of the night, until he answered two questions. One was about why blacks and latinos don't vote for Republicans. Giuliani's answer indicated that they should because of what Republicans want to do with education in America. I always knew there was something I didn't like about this guy, and his answer clarified it for me. I agreed with his stance on most issues up to that point. I like reasonable gun laws. I like the fact that he doesn't really see abortion as a presidential issue, but still feels there are circumstances under which it should be legal. I like his focus on the issues at hand - crime when he was mayor, long term investments in infrastructure, and getting things done. I like a lot of things about POLITICAL (not religious) conservativism. He's a pretty good guy among his group.

But when he forced the issue of school vouchers and the non-existent alternatives to public education for the vast majority of Americans, thus pulling even more money out of an already bankrupt public education system, he lost me. This is one issue that not only affects the daily lives of many innocent Americans, but also dramatically affects our future. Public education is the best thing there is for 5-18 year olds in this country. In spite of the whining we hear from Republican candidates about how businesses have had to do more with less and therefore, government should too, both big business and government have gotten richer and richer while public schools, and the Americans who have depended on them have gotten poorer and poorer. Not only have schools still managed to gather intelligent, dedicated, creative and caring professionals at embarrassing wages to teach our kids, there is still simply no better alternative out there. Charter schools routinely close after a few years either because of corruption or because they simply can't provide the services that public schools provide for the money. Private schools exist in such small numbers that they're not even a consideration for even 10% of today's students. Even the handful of minorly successful charter ventures out there exist only for specific audiences by offering one-size-fits-all programs for narrowly targeted groups. There's just nothing better out there for the masses than public schools. And that's not because it's impossible to do, it's because public schools, by and large, are that good. No one can do what public schools do for the money. Teachers already work for embarrassing wages with embarrassing support and the Republican answer is to pull another $5000 per student OUT of that system for vouchers?! To subsidize religious schools or charter programs that haven't kept up?! It's simply not the answer. If, for one minute, America considered putting their money where their mouth is on education in this country, we'd realize that government really is good at some things. Public schools are a good example of that in education just as the Veterans Health Administration is a good example of that in health care. (In spite of CNN's week long attack on VA, it remains the best plan in America... for the record, it was even better before Bush repealed Clinton's Veteran's Healthcare Reform Act forcing VA to bring back the old WWII priority system for who received care - but that's another post) Ask Harvard... ask the NIH... nobody beats VHA health care. When we put some faith, some community involvement, and some money back into public education, no one will beat them. Few do now. Public schools are the living breathing example of doing more with less and all they have to show for it is more and more of the blame when every bit of accountability from parenting to counseling to babysitting is pushed onto them and more and more money is taken away. Never mind the fact that kids with special needs are simply not profitable to teach and so would become impossible to find a place for in the "open education market." Never mind the fact that while most of a student's money is pulled out of public education via vouchers, the public school district where that student resides is still strapped with providing that kid's transportation, books, and any costs arising from those special needs mentioned above. I'll end with some more public scrutiny on education, but let's move on.

The other nail in Giuliani's coffin was the great opportunity he had when a YouTuber asked all the candidates if they believed every word of the bible he held up in his video clip. Giuliani skirted the issue, as did Romney and Hunter (no one else answered) by saying he felt there was a lot allegory and metaphor in the book. He also added that the book contained a lot of wisdom that got him through 9/11 - a point on which I won't disagree, but that brings me to what I feel is the biggest non-issue in any election, except maybe for Pope, and that's religion.

There's simply no place for it, and thus no place for religious-based views on abortion or any other religious (non-presidential) issues in a presidential campaign. Period.

We're electing a man (or maybe a woman) to execute laws made by men, on behalf of a citizenry of men, alive on this earth. That man (or woman) has to sell himself (or herself) on the merits of qualifications for that job, not for his thoughts on the afterlife. In fact, I'm starting to be convinced that a belief in an afterlife should disqualify anyone from being a leader anywhere but in a church. And moderate religious beliefs like Giuliani's are the worst kind.

Yep. That's what I said. Let it sink in for a minute. Go ahead and go back to some old posts where I referred to God... call up the seeming contradiction... It's not seeming, it's a contradiction, although I will hedge a little here and claim that even that God I referred to in previous posts probably wasn't the one you think it is, but that's not the point here.

Religious moderation is what allows tolerance for other religions, which means those religions continue to fly under the radar of rational thought and discussion. Pick one. Let's use Islam for now. Moderate Christians who interpret their faith as tolerant of other faiths help perpetuate the divide between Christians and Muslims. There are a number of problems with this, not the least of which is 9/11... or that the bible allows very little tolerance of other faiths. Four of the ten commandments are about intolerance of other faiths... five if you count keeping the Sabbath holy (after all, it's a pretty specific Sabbath in mind there). Even the new testament calls for stoning heretics to death (and so you'll all have to line up at my door in order to follow Christian beliefs to the letter as a result of this post). Lucky for me, most Christians these days consider themselves moderate and will tolerate my opinions. Which is to say, most Christians are that only in name, not in practice. Those same people often claim that suicide bombers don't really represent the ideals of the faith they claim drove them to their acts. But it's precisely a belief in their faith that allows them to do what they do... because they believe in an afterlife at the expense of those in their current life. In other words, moderates aren't really religious; only fundamentalists are. Fundamentalists are pretty extreme and thus are seen by most moderate members of their own faith as irrational. I'm saying that moderates perpetuate that irrationality and what we need in the next elections is rationality. Back to the real point here, Giuliani, a seemingly rational guy for a Republican, had the chance to run away on this point, and he blew it. Nothing he mentioned until this question was asked had any connection whatsoever to any kind of faith, and yet, when faced with a question about it, rather than pointing out it had little to do with what any of them were talking about thus far tonight, he went with the status quo and lumped himself in with the rest of the candidates (except Paul) who said what they thought the conservative Christian right wanted to hear. Not because of any rational basis for it, unless you count belief rational, but because it polled well.

It's time to get over it. It's time we looked more at experience than religion in a candidate. The time to elect actors with minimal experience and all the right religious answers has come and gone. Sorry Senator Thompson.

Still don't buy my implication that religious faith requires irrational thought and requires the absence of rational discussion of more important actually relevant issues? Consider the British teacher in the Sudan who was arrested for allowing her students to name their class mascot, a teddy bear, Muhammad (peace be unto him)(I'm not making the same "mistakes" she did!)

As part of a lesson on animals, the class adopted the bear as a mascot. Students took turns taking the bear home overnight. They wrote a diary entry addressed to the bear by a name that they chose. Once all the diary entries were done, the teacher surveyed them and chose the most popular choice. The class named the bear and the teacher was arrested. Under the local law, she faces up to a year in prison and/or 40 lashes, from what I've read... FOR ALLOWING HER CLASS TO NAME A BEAR. That's what happens when religion influences the laws of men.

Apparently some parent complaints AFTER the naming of the bear brought attention to the crime. Where were those parents during the weeks of overnight diary entries? Why is it ok that that particular name is the most popular name for male babies in the world but not for a bear? Why was the teacher arrested?

Simple. Two reasons: 1) No rational discussion is permitted when faith enters the conversation. 2) Teachers, worldwide apparently, though I thought ours was alone in this, are at fault when anything goes wrong at any point in anyone's life.

Giuliani lost my support by perpetuating those two simple rules. Dr. Paul gained my support by effectively leaving them out of the conversation when his fellow candidates could not. I'm really starting to think I could vote for this guy... and that there's no way in hell I could vote for any of the other Republican candidates. Once again, none of my favorites will likely end up on a ballot.

I hope, for the sake of my grandchildren, there will one day be a presidential debate where these issues don't factor in. I'm reading a book about Da Vinci right now that puts human understanding into stark perspective. Poor old Leonardo was born at a time when it was believed that everything we ever needed to know had already been discovered. Five hundred years later a vast majority of Americans still operate under this belief. In spite of the gains we've made in physics, chemistry and biology, we remain frighteningly outdated in spiritual and emotional knowledge. Until we come up with a rational way to discuss these issues, we won't rationally discuss anything.

Instead, we'll tiptoe around for fear of offending anyone's religious ideas and we'll watch as religiously motivated violence continues now like it always has. 9-11, the Crusades, Israel-Palestine, India-Pakistan... on it goes until one of two solutions arise. 1) India-Pakistan (or any of the others) erupts into a nuclear apocalypse or 2) Rational discussion replaces the faith-based dance.

I'm pretty sure I'll love my grandchildren if or when I finally have a chance to meet them. I'm sorry for the world I fear we'll leave them. I'm glad I won't be here to see the end they'll inherit. I don't think I could face that.

In the meantime, my kids and I put up our holiday decorations tonight. That's right, we too will celebrate Sol Invictus on December 25! (By now everyone who admits evidence into the discussion knows that Jesus was born in the spring... or January, or November, right?)

At least we can all agree on Santa.

Luth,
Out.

How Much Is A Billion Dollars?

When referring to the idea that no one seems to care how much money is, in my humble opinion, being wasted in Iraq, I've alluded to the idea that few of us have a concept of what a billion dollars really is. I know I don't. I've only recently wrapped my brain about what a million dollars is, and that, largely because it ain't what it used to be. But I ran across this in the National Guard Enlisted Association newsletter in an article about the Congress's fight over the war spending supplement and thought it might be cool to pass along.

How Much Is A Billion Dollars?

---A billion hours ago, humans were making their first tools in the Stone Age.(of course, if you're a creationist, this one makes no sense)
---A billion minutes ago, it was 104 A.D. and the Chinese first invented paper.
---A billion seconds ago, it was 1975 and the last American troops had pulled out of Vietnam.
---A billion dollars ago, it was only 3 HOURS and 32 MINUTES at the rate our government spends money.

On another note, Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. I have to go now. If my wife catches me 'blogging while we're supposed to be getting ready to head over the river and through the woods, I'm as cooked as that turkey soon will be.

Luth
Out

Coming Soon

No, I'm serious. I'll get back to this thing eventually. I've been kicking around a bunch of great 'blog ideas including the latest rant on left lane losers, but the two things that have been bugging me the most and that will appear here before 2008 for sure are:

1. Public Healthcare - Why even Republicans will eventually come around

To put it simply, big business will fail if it doesn't offer health plans to get and keep good workers. GM's latest union contracts are proving that even the biggest businesses can no longer afford it. When it becomes a problem for big business, even the Republicans will begin to question why we're the only developed country in the world without public health care. Nevermind the fact that my new employer, Veterans Health Administration, has proven that a government sponsored and administered health care plan can be one of the best systems around. (That's kind of a different topic, but there are some connections)(Oh and another related but different topic has to do with free markets and the lack thereof in health care.)

2. Is there a god? I'm beginning to wonder, but in my quest I've become convinced that organized religion does way more harm than good. (You can't argue with the history!)

Those two topics should put everyone's mind at rest until I get some time to write enough to put you to sleep, eh?

Smell ya later,
Luth.

Mandatory Public Service

I work with a guy who is in his second attempt at college. He's paying his own way this time, living on his own, and from the time I met him, struck me as one of the more mature twenty-something's I'd ever met. Instead of blaming anyone or making excuses about his first attempt at college (in-residence at an Ohio university famous for its rabble-rousing) he readily admits to, as he puts it, "lighting $20,000.00 of my dad's money on fire." I only mention this to establish him as a fairly normal young adult who has reached one of those maturity epiphanies, therefore placing him above average on the "insight" scale among the twenty-something's I've dealt with.

The other day we were talking about the state of the world when he asked me how I felt, as a former teacher, about the people you see on things like "Jay Walking" who have absolutely no clue about the world around them. I told him I didn't put much stock in those isolated, perhaps, staged "interviews," but he said that's not really what he meant. I don't remember his exact wording, but it was something along the lines of, "I can't believe how much stuff we sweep under the rug in this country... how much people don't learn in school."

When I asked him to clarify, he rattled off a few events like Japanese interment or McCarthyism or Watergate and I interrupted with "the rationale for the war in Iraq." He agreed, but then stipulated that that particular event is the result of what he's talking about, but not necessarily a direct example of what he's talking about.

I told him that I thought one of the reasons for that was the growing emphasis of public education on VOcation over EDUcation. I went on to add that it's one of the reasons I use to rationalize leaving a profession that I, for the most part, loved. I then added that I figured I gravitated toward English in college for some very related reasons because, as I saw it, Literature was one of the few areas where real issues, including bad things good people have actually done, still get debated and discussed thoroughly. That just doesn't happen anymore in the world of Fox vs. CNN. Thanks to that kind of polarization, it doesn't happen in bars or at sporting events and it surely doesn't happen in schools anymore because standardized test prep doesn't leave any time for actual debate or learning how to learn, or formulating arguments and consider those of others

Shortly after that, I was talking with another co-worker about the lack of commitment of younger folks these days. We cited specific examples of people we'd known who promised to do something that affected many other people, events, schedules, etc. and the then just flaked out and didn't deliver but didn't show any sign whatsoever of any remorse or even acknowledgment of having even remotely inconvenienced anyone. Now I won't ever go so far as to say this never happens among older folks, but they, more times than not, at least pretend to feel guilty about it.

As we discussed it, I recalled that last few times I'd taught Romeo and Juliet. One of my favorite lessons involved the responsibility that Friar Laurence gave to Friar John to take the news of the plan to the banished Romeo. (Juliet would fake her own death in order to get out of marrying Paris). Friar Laurence knew that if the message didn't get through, and the "news"of Juliet's "death" made it to Romeo, our young lover would probably rather take his own life than live without his Juliet. Friar Laurence told Friar John how important this mission was and assumed John would take care of it.

The lesson I taught ended in debating, writing about, etc. the degree to which Friar John contributed to the deaths of the main characters. I was increasingly surprised each year as more and more students argued that John bore little responsibility in the situation. "He was quarantined in that house, he couldn't leave. It wasn't HIS fault he didn't get the message to Romeo." they would argue. And that's true. It wasn't his fault that he couldn't leave the quarantined house, but it was HIS responsibility to get the message delivered and in spite of the obstacles that prevented HIM from leaving that house, HE still accepted the responsibility freely, thus leading others to depend on him making good on those expectations.

So let's call the two perspectives on this situation the Responsibility perspective that older folks generally levitate toward, and the Obstacles perspective that younger folks cling to. The Responsibility argument follows the "Letter to Garcia" story by Elbert Hubbard, wherein a sailor accepts an order to deliver a letter without question and makes good on the order in spite of the incredible efforts it requires. He doesn't ask where to find Garcia. He doesn't balk when he learns that Garcia is deep in a dangerous jungle, he just delivers. Because he said he would. And that's great.

The Obstacle perspective relies on the idea that when obstacles beyond one's control get in the way, then one is absolved of previous responsibilities directly prevented by those obstacles.

The truth is, both are reasonable perspectives. Certainly we must apply degrees of reasonableness to each situation, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up situations in which both can be understood. If the Letter to Garcia carried news along the lines of "I changed the kitty litter," then the messenger's efforts seem a little extreme. If the obstacles that get in the way of, say, picking up a quart of Ben and Jerry's involve events that may trigger one's life insurance policy, then one would likely be absolved of the responsibility of delivering said ice cream. No problem.

What's sad is that the best explanation I can come up with for the differing perspectives and the divergent views on reliability as a hiring trait completely shoot down my underlying theory on education. The quickest argument older folks in the Responsibility perspective group will likely make is that no one would want to hire anyone who gave up as easily as Friar John, or, conversely, that employers would pay good money to keep someone like the guy who delivered the Letter to Garcia. So the common argument is based on VOcation, not education.

On the other hand, younger folks, or anyone who favors the reasonable application of the Obstacles argument might point out that a person of even a little intelligence, perhaps the product of a good EDucation, might be able to better discern what point at which to give up on a mission plagued by obstacles... and that Friar John, not adequately apprised of the Romeo/Juliet tension, figured if this message were that important, it would have been FedExed.

Believe me, I've made every argument in class about why that last excuse won't fly... it's not up to John to decide that... he made a deal... no one is ever aware of every detail of every situation so he should have just focused on what he promised to do and make damn sure it gets done, but that's not the point.

The point is, this little conflict between the old and the young is kind of our (the olds') fault. The products of a solid EDucation will eventually try to think for themselves, even if they don't quite have the worldly wisdom to do so the way we want them to in a given situation. And though we may not agree with their explanations or their application of the new-found knowledge, we have to accept it sometimes. If we don't, we may well close the door on any innovative, creative solutions to problems we old folks haven't been able to solve yet. And that doesn't take into account new problems that are bound to crop up that we're too antiquated to deal with.

So why bother discussing all of this, you ask? This very conflict, boiled down to such simple terms, represents the larger issues we seem to have with teens and early 20-somethings these days. First we expect them to pour themselves into their studies and become mature independent young adults through almost complete self-motivation, but then we hamstring them to practically useless roles in society until they're at least 21 or 22, when most of them will graduate from college and join "the real workforce." Then when they join the real workforce, we're surprised to find out some of them don't take their responsibilities as seriously as we do, or require a little extra reinforcement. We don't want them taking jobs away from "real" adults and yet we don't provide them with many readily available opportunities to do much else. Then we criticize them for skateboarding, hanging out, or playing video games. Only the most bored or industrious among them find meaningful uses for their time because they must go out of their way, above and beyond their normal, expected routines to do it.

This is one of many arguments I would make for a public service program that offers alternatives to the skateboarding, hanging out and game playing. There's nothing wrong with those activities, I just think the kids who do them would appreciate them more, and pick up some useful life lessons as well as employability and responsibility skills if they had something better to do with their time. Rather than condemning these kids, criticizing them, and then laughing at them and blaming them for the fruits of where we keep them, we need to offer them some better options than the ones that are currently in front of them. Whether it's military service, local, state or national civilian service, doesn't matter, but we should offer it. Will it be complicated? Sure, and while that has stopped us from instituting a national health plan, we shouldn't let it stop us from providing our kids with better opportunities to become better citizens.

OK, that's out of my system now. If anyone out there knows about existing programs with web pages, send them to me and I'll put the links up. I bet we'd be surprised by the number of average and even under-achieving teenagers who would jump at the chance to do something like this if only the opportunity were easier to find. We basically tell young people indirectly that they don't have a place in the adult world so we can't really criticize them for not going out of there way to find a chance to do so. Let's do it for them.
-----------------------------------
And just for the record, this post started out, based on that same conversation with a remarkably mature 20-something, about the importance of learning from and not repeating the lessons of history. That post is still incubating.

Luth
Out

The Address

Now I've heard it all. First there was a connection between the events of 9-11 and Saddam Hussein. Then there were WMD. Then we had to topple an evil dictator who, in spite of relative powerlessness and being surrounded by us and our allies - many of whom can no longer be counted as allies - somehow represented a threat to us. And now... now we were asked by an ally for our help.

An ally? Our help!?

That's what we're now calling invading a nation and leaving a vacuum that quickly filled with violence. Hmmm.

Perhaps I misunderstood or, as usual, am fuzzy on the timing. I've always had trouble keeping major world events in perspective. Maybe the president meant we're NOW being asked for help by our allies. But that doesn't hold up well either in light of a recent, and fairly vigorously conducted ABC News poll of Iraqis that says they (the ally, I presume) disagree. The percentage of Iraqis who feel the U.S. should leave now, in spite of what it might mean for the their future has increased by more than 10% since last winter to 47%. Not a majority yet, but then again, neither was the number of Americans who voted for our current president. (I know, I know the electoral college doesn't work like that... don't bother commenting to that effect)

More tidbits from the ally:

65-70% of Iraqis polled believe the surge has made things worse, not better, but, to be fair, they were only responding in terms of peace, political stability, and security. ABC should have asked them about something more substantive... like shopping.

60% of Iraqis say their own lives are going badly and 78% say things are going badly for the nation. So much for winning hearts and minds and offering a better alternative to sectarian gang membership.

There's plenty more where that came from. Check it out for yourself at ABCNews.com. They've now interviewed over 4,000 Iraqi citizens since the start of the war under some pretty rigorous surveying standards. They even managed to dig up some statistics that might be considered positive. Those are rare, and clearly not the point of this post, so you'll have to find them on your own.

As for the cheap trick of reading a letter from a fallen soldier's parents, no one can say what Army Specialist Brandon Stout's parents think or feel. No on can say they're wrong.

I'm in the first part of a book about how humans perceive happiness, or anything for that matter. The overriding theme thus far is that no two humans can perceive any significant reality the same way. In fact, even individual humans can't usually perceive something subjective and emotional, and then accurately recall it with any great success. An interesting side note in the book mentions that what makes optical illusions so interesting is that not only does everyone see something other than what their eyes initially tell them, but that they all see the same illusions and then revert back to what they originally saw. Only in those cases do humans ever reach agreement on perceived reality.

Our president continues to perceive the reality of the war in Iraq differently than most of the people I've talked to who have been a part of it, and many of the people I've talked to who haven't. I suppose there's just no point in arguing it anymore. I will agree that we'll never make up for what we did to the innocent Iraqis whose relative stability we shattered when we invaded their sovereign nation. For that, we should be ashamed and we owe it to them to try to sort out some of the mess we've made. We created chaos for them, in spite of tonight's address's call to combat chaos. That's the way I perceive the reality I saw with my own eyes. This book tells me that's not very reliable, and I probably have to agree, but what I see on TV and read in the papers each night seems to refresh my foggy memory.

I doubt it's my place to call for the withdrawal that I wish would never have been a consideration and I doubt that it would make things better or worse. But backing down troop levels now seems like the only worse option. It feels childish to even type this next line given the weight of the matter, but we either need to go big or come home. Since I can't even begin to wrap my brain around what $2.5 billion per week even means, I suppose I shouldn't care that we still can't provide basic medical coverage for a huge portion of American citizens. Instead, we'll give the Iraqis a better life. Now there's a reality I'd like to perceive.

If we can't put enough troops on the ground to overwhelmingly control every major city, then maybe we should listen to our customers and leave them alone. The fact that we can't possibly do either one with a good conscience right now is nothing more than the result of a poorly thought out plan being drug through its paces by a stubborn mule as if continuing to drag it will make it right. Or perhaps it's an optical illusion that we'll all stare at long enough to make it real. Tonight's address sounded as much like an admission of that (you pick one) as we're ever likely to hear.

For everything that remains great about our nation, to have it tainted by this is just plain sad. Is this what it felt like during Vietnam? At least we have the sense to not blame the troops this time around. Perhaps not all of history's lessons have been ignored.

Luth,
disgustedly,
Out.

No gnus is good gnus

Hi kids,

Not much to report here, unless you count moving into a new house as news. We're back up and on the net again, catching up on a lot of old email and trying to figure out where to put all the furniture that was purchased for the last two houses. I'm happy to report the new place won't need a lot of work (although it came with a lot of "want to" work) but I had forgotten how much setting up is involved when moving into a new place. What's really sad is that we've probably only moved about 2/3 of our junk from the old place and I'm ready to watch the old place burn, remaining contents and all. We'd thought about keeping it as a rental, but I can't get it on the market fast enough. Only problem with the plan is, it will probably take a good year to make it ready for anyone but a demolition crew.

Anyhoo, I've had some fun post ideas lately, but haven't had the time to write them up. One involves exploring the phenomena of having a car so cool that the driver doesn't need to be... and all the ways to make a car cool, you know, like having one of the "piss on ______" stickers in the back window, or a spoiler to keep the ass end on the ground at high speeds even though the vehicle in question doesn't even have half the power to achieve those speeds... or playing music so loud with the windows down that everyone gets to hear just how crappy the speakers really are... vanity plates with spellings so clever no one knows what they're supposed to say but you and your idiot friends... you know, COOL stuff like that.

I'm also ready to just vent violently about the dropping of the concept of the left lane being the passing lane from driver's ed programs. I am quickly understanding how road rage develops. I followed a fella doing 60 in the left lane for about 15 miles the other day. He was pulling a large boat with a small truck. The combination probably shouldn't even have been on a highway, let alone in the left lane. When I, and the other 40 cars behind him finally passed him on the right, I pulled back into the left lane and just coasted uphill until I slowed down to about 30. I had hoped he might get the idea of what it's like to be stuck in the PASSING lane behind someone going way too slow. Instead, he began flashing his lights and honking at me. It apparently never occurred to him to cruise on over into the CRUISING lane. Since my message was clearly not received, I drove off at the posted speed limit and pulled well away from him as I moved back into the right lane. You'd think with all the idiots from the right who continue to pretend Bush is worthy of leading this once great nation, more people would want to drive on the right as is the custom in this country, but alas, it's just one more contradiction I'll never understand.

OK, enough for now. I REALLY don't have time for this.

Luth,
Out.

Satire in a Post-911 World, or How the GWOT Ruined My Favorite Source of Entertainment

Satire, my beloved subgenre, seems to have gone the way of the rest of the grown up world. It has succumbed to realism at the expense of idealism. Perhaps I’m just fearful of my own fall from a similar grace. After all, long before Gary Shteyngart’s ABSURDISTAN, Lucilius, Pope, Rabelais, Swift, Twain, Parker and (insert favorite satirist here) had all used the form to belie horrible truths about mankind that plagued them in their respective days. Maybe it’s not the subgenre that has fallen, maybe it’s mankind. Or maybe it’s just me.

In my more hopeful and naive youth, (and by that I mean sometime last week, when my kids were still babies and I was only 150 pounds) I saw satire as the happy, nurturing, altruistic way of changing the world. Guiding mankind, criticizing each other with humor and gentle linguistic skills rather than barroom brawling or nation invasion. It was humorous. It made us laugh while it reminded us of just how flawed we all truly were. Satire didn’t bother with some silly “born of sin” flaw, but actual, of this Earth, human flaws that we all, all religions, nationalities, races, creeds, colors, all of us, hold in common. Those beautiful distinguishing flaws or rather features that connect us all, that make us all brothers, that create the stories that we tell in bars and back rooms in bad translations and broken accents. The flaws that indisputably, irrevocably tie us to our common origins. The flaws that raise common features to stunning beauty. Like the crooked mouth of that girl in WITHOUT A TRACE, or the droopy eyelid of that guy you shared a cab with. The flaws that make me just like you and you just like that guy you can’t stand from college. Satire pointed out those flaws only by forcing us to confront the fact that it is these very flaws that make us all of the family homonid, and thus we all have stuff in common that goes waaayyyy back.

Satire did this in fun ways, like teaching lessons through fairy tales or by telling jokes. Or, sometimes, it did it in scary ways that shed light on things we really didn’t like to talk about. Satire, in any language, made us think at best and smile, at the very least. From any culture, we recognize the joke. We understand that commonality. We get that we all have so much more in common than we do in contrast. It might take a little more work, a little more humility to rely on a translator in order to become part of the “in crowd” to get the joke, but that’s what satire gave us all a membership card to. It gave us entry into that exclusive fraternity. Once in, we were all friends, remarkably capable of overlooking minor, or even major differences in order to bond and revel in camaraderie that no minor flaws could ever sunder. Satire was the glue. It was it. It was the shizzle.

At least it was for me. I’ll admit that my attraction to it was partially intellectual. Or maybe it was hesitant intellectualism. Satire was the gift my studies offered up that I could accept and share, at least in movies and cartoons, with all of my friends without my having to apologize for my education... or more specifically, my commitment to the study of our language. Satire was that rare place where my obsessive interests crossed the more common thoroughfare of my diaspora of friends. The lawyers, the bricklayers, the doctors, the mechanics, the engineers and the musicians all found something we could laugh about together in one form or another of this maligned subgenre.

But now it’s different. In the post-911 world or maybe the post-modern world, or maybe in whatever derogatory label someone decides to hang on us, it’s just not funny anymore. It’s not that satire isn’t good anymore. It’s not that it doesn’t bring us common ground anymore. It’s not that it doesn’t uncover truths in non-judgmental, but diamond-sharp accuracy anymore. It’s just not as much fun.

OK, that’s not entirely true either. There’s still fun to be had, but only by the most hardened among us. Satire is still fun, it’s just not as funny to me. The reason for this is a loss of innocence. I don’t mind turning 40, but to enjoy today’s satire, I have to accept that I’ve truly lost my innocence and I don’t want to. I still want to see the world through hopeful, faithful, sure, even idealistic eyes. But in the age of the GWOT, laughing at modern satire doesn’t allow for that. I’ve got two choices - pretend that I don’t know the real meaning behind Alexander Pope’s “The Rape of the Lock” in order to continue being entertained by it upon learning the surprising real truth, or grow calloused and hard in order to pave the way for new satirical creations that chronicle more modern events.

SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT

OK, I’m new to the whole spoiler alert thing and I don’t really know where it belongs, so I’m throwing it in now for those of you interested in, but not yet around to reading the aforementioned ABSURDISTAN by Gary Shteyngart.

It’s a great book. It’s great because it feels very real. The characters, their flaws, their super-humanness, their pathetic situations are so much like a big warm hug from mom, who then kicks your ass for screwing up, that you can’t help but love it just like you love mom. Reading it is like stepping into your happy place, no matter where that is, only to be reminded that your memory of that place is selective and, therefore, there are dark secrets there too that you don’t necessarily want dredged up along with those happy warm memories. That’s frickin reality, bud. Inescapable, irrefutable reality. Not necessarily cold or hard reality, as it is so often described, just real reality. Shteyngart may take some egotistical liberties creating this reality, but his brilliance as a writer lies in his ability to do it regardless. And he does, as well as any writer I’ve read from Tolstoy to King to Ovid. But damn him for doing it so well.

Satire used to make me believe that this reality was a cool place to live. Not overly happy. Not without some problems, just real, real multifarious, and therefore real cool. Satire used to make me think this reality was worth working to save. I used to think satire was the way we could make the world a better place. I used to think people like Shteyngart were the writers who propelled us forth in our idealistic naivete.

ABSURDISTAN, I guess, does that, but without further ado, here’s the scene that led me to this precipice of prescience. But first, 150 pages of background in two paragraphs:

While temporarily detained in his semi-native, “Norway of the Caspian” aka Absurdistan, our hero, Mikhail “Misha” Vainberg, an old-school Russian Jew visiting in order to pick up a black market Belgian Passport so he can get back to the U.S. and steal his girl back from a literature professor/former classmate now professor (Professor Shteyngart by the way) at “Accidental College” (Misha’s been blacklisted by the INS in Russia because his late, mob boss/philanthropist dad is accused of killing an Oklahoman) a coup erupts between the Absurdsvani Svani and Sevo tribes which creates only a minor inconvenience for Misha. The coup is as artificial as it can be since both majority Svanis and minority Sevos have somewhat willingly intermingled for years and agree that only those in power keep track of their differences in order to oppress both and maintain said power. Their primary difference, by the way, is that the “footrests” at the bottom of their orthodox crosses tilt in opposite directions.

Anyhoo, in the course of the coup, Misha is faced with, and rises to the opportunity to save the life of his Sevo driver when they are confronted by a drunken Svani soldier on their way back from the McDonald’s parking lot where Misha received his faux passport. Moments later, back in the relative safety of the Hyatt parking lot, Misha makes a run for the (slightly less relative) safety of the hotel lobby, his 325 pounds dashing among armored personnel carriers that remind him of his youth in communist Russia. Upon reaching the safety (and air conditioned comfort) of the Hyatt lobby, he realizes his driver, Sakha, has been detained along with a dozen other Sevos by the Svani soldiers “guarding” the Hyatt. (The Svanis take great care to ensure the safety of Halliburton employees working on the Figa 6 oil rigs for BP/Chevron) In spite of his foolish attempt to intervene, which requires him to leave both the safety and the air conditioning, Misha returns to the street to narrate the following scene:

The men, some of them heavy, the others bestowed with an academic’s lack of physical grace, found it difficult to arrange themselves in this tenuous position. (an execution-style kneel) Several were tipping over and had to be dragged up by their collars. The soldiers had fallen in line behind them, one soldier to a man, a ratio that did not bode well.

Sakha’s eyes fixed on me. There were tears on his face; I couldn’t see them, but I knew they were there.

“Misha”, he shouted to me. “Mishenk’a, tell them to stop. They will listen to a man like you. Please. Say something.”

The soldiers looked to Colonel Svyolka, who nodded. They shot the men through the back of the head, the bodies of their victims jerking up in unison with the discharge, then hitting the driveway with tremendous speed, a cloud of loose gravel swirling around them.

The spent bullet casings rolled down the driveway to my feet. A dozen bodies lay on the ground.

What follows is the start of the next chapter wherein, 40 stories above the coup in progress, Misha contacts his NY therapist who, “with great patience and analytic equipoise, beseeched me to calm the fuck down.” The conversations with his therapist, sad as they are, remind us that Misha represents modern man through is need for external affirmation, his gluttony, etc. The conversations remind us that ABSURDISTAN really is a comedy.

It’s satire to be certain, but it’s only funny if you have a world-weary, war generation sensibility. It’s the kind of humor that to me represents real vulgarity. Not an artificial vulgarity linked to proper behavior or manners or not embarrassing your friends, or some twisted version of biblical advice not actually found in the bible, but truly vulgar, basal human instincts - laughing at truths we all recognize, but like to believe we’re beyond. You can only believe that if you still have hope.

Perhaps if you haven’t seen poverty or the devastation of war first hand, this is still funny in an entertaining way - the way I used to enjoy satire. Perhaps if you can ignore the reality that we pulled our best resources out of Afghanistan only to wreak havoc on innocent Iraqis and in the process let a pinned down Al Qaeda go free only to use our troops as live training aids in Iraq, it’s still funny. Perhaps it’s only offensive to me now in the way seeing the word “fuck” in print was always hilarious to me but offensive to my friends who didn’t study language like I did and were thus never as tickled by deft use of it. Perhaps those of us who manage to ignore CNN, Fox, and USA Today can still laugh guilt-free at Sheyngart’s masterfully crafted prose, but I feel all grown up reading it now and I don’t like that one bit.

Let me clarify that the event included in the above quote is only a spoiler in the sense of that particular chapter. Let me also add that I, through sheer addiction to the story thus far, have no intention of stopping reading at what is only about the halfway point of the novel. It really is that good and I really do still live on the sustenance of satire. It’s just that this scene has moved satire from an intellectual to a guilty pleasure. Perhaps this is yet another step in my developing snobbery. Perhaps I now join literary critics who claim that satire is merely derivative at best, flat out plagiarism at worst.

I doubt it. I think I’ll still like it, but I read on a changed man. Less of a man in my former self’s opinion. I will continue to read the way a group of boys “reads” a stolen Playboy or the way a tough guy reads THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY, which is to say, I’ll hide it from anyone curious enough to try to sneak a glimpse of that which so enthralls me.

So I’m growing up. That sucks.

Luth,
Out.

By the way, for a great example of satire that I’d almost forgotten about, but which the Global War On Terror reminds me of more and more as it goes on, check out T.C. Boyle’s “The Top of the Food Chain,” it always cracks me up and it looks uncannily like modern congressional testimony.

A month?! Holy crap.

I can't believe it's been that long since I've last posted. Sorry fans. I've really let you down. Part of the deal is I'm a federal employee again... and not just the part-time, paid vacation in Iraq kind, but the kind whose paycheck comes from the gov, so I have to be much more careful about how I criticize the current administration's utter ineptitude. No longer will you read here about how Dick Cheney speaks from at least three sides of his many faces or how, no wait, I wasn't going to say those things.

So yeah, what else is there to talk about? Oh, the other excuse for not posting. I'm moving again. I'm staying in my hometown, but buying a place for the entire Clan Luther to live in. A place that doesn't require constant, heavy upkeep. The move does come at a time when I'm in the midst of a massive project at the old place (when am I not?), the busiest time of year at the new job, and a sprinkling of inspections and field exercise at guard... so it's not like I have an excuse not to blog. I'm just lazy, that's all.

Speaking of that, I have to get some sleep. I'll type at y'all later. By the way, the new job is the coolest job I've ever had. (I'll probably get RIF'd next month!)

Later dudes,
Luth,
Out.

Obese, undisciplined, video-game-playing slackers!!

Last Thursday was a crazy one indeed, but the things that stand out from it warrant a post, I do believe.

My day began in Orlando, FL. It was my third day on the new job and I sat in a meeting in the hotel meeting room for four hours. (the hotel, the cab, a restaurant and the airport are all I saw of Orlando) Then I raced to the airport and managed to catch an earlier flight than we’d originally scheduled. Then I sat in my truck for an hour. Then I ran into the intermediate school’s auditorium to catch my oldest daughter’s last band and choir concert of the year. This was an added bonus because my original flight from Orlando wasn’t due home until 8 and the concert started at 6:30. However, soon after I settled into my auditorium seat I realized I’d been stuffed into seats like that for most of the day and I wondered if rushing into this one was really a good idea. A decade of school bell schedules punctuating my life has taken its toll on my ability to sit captive for more than about 54 minutes at a time without a break. I was never a “sitter” to begin with, but programmed conditioning over that long could alter a Zen master’s ability to sit.

Anyhoo, the principal at my daughter’s school always manages to say something crazy (and something very heartfelt that shows how much she loves her job and her students) as she introduces these things and she didn’t disappoint. So the concert started without a hitch. I was prepared for another fumbling assortment of easy pieces that only parents could love based on our previous experiences. In that I was disappointed. I was absolutely blown away by these 177 fifth graders who had given up their lunch recesses all year to put on this fourth and final show. Their performance was perhaps the most astonishing display of progress that I’ve ever witnessed in anything my offspring have ever undertaken.

Instead of the fumbling, bumbling preteen awkwardness that makes non-parents run away from such events, these kids laid out four songs so well you might have guessed they were the honors band members culled from the entire county’s schools. It was truly incredible.

The fifth grade choir was just as good, but they always are. They finished their portion of the show with a song written specifically for them by the choir director’s boyfriend. She and the boyfriend wrote it together for the school’s 100th birthday celebration last month. It made the principal cry the first time they performed. It did it again Thursday night.

The school’s auditorium, which was the high school’s auditorium when my parents attended (and the junior high auditorium when I attended) is too small for this year’s fifth and sixth graders and their parents and grandparents, so the concerts are now scheduled so the fifth graders go first, then leave, then the sixth graders do their bit. In between, the crazy principal wiped away tears as she reminded the audience of this arrangement.

We met D1 (oldest daughter) in the band room once the fifth grade half was finished. I’m starting to dig this part of the routine because it reminds of watching college performances – both school sanctioned drama and non-school sanctioned bands in bars – in which friends were performing and then hanging out with them in the “green room” after the show. This is definitely a matter of perspective, because my initial feelings about these post-fifth-grade-show meetings were more along the lines of: oh great, fight the crowd, find the kid, then get the hell out of here. But now it feels more like those privileged invites of the past.

So anyway, we meet D1 in the green room (band room storage area) and she begs us to stay for the sixth grade show cuz she wants to see the jazz band’s performance. Now, I love jazz, but sixth grade jazz??? AFTER the day I’d already had?? Ahh what the heck. So we stayed.

And everything that I said about the fifth grade band goes double for the sixth grade band. It was their last performance in this school before they head up to the new junior high school. They nailed it. And it wasn’t even the band we’d stayed to see. By that point I had given up on the jazz band being able to live up to the expectations that their warm up acts had created, but they were only playing four songs, so even though I was kind of tired of the seating arrangement by now, I still figured it would be tolerable, and I was still, I thought, optimistic that it might even be fun to watch.

They were freaking incredible. These kids weren’t just plodding through four numbers they’d rehearsed over and over in order to get this requirement over with; they PLAYED! It didn’t hurt that the songs were all familiar movie tunes or that they included a version of Louie Louie that featured something like 12 different solos – yeah, solos, improvised jazz solos played by shy little sixth graders just learning their way into adolescence! I was absolutely blown away. When the principal came on stage after the show, asked for an encore (they played Louie Louie again with the solos!) and then started crying while saying how much she’d miss these kids when they left for good at the end of the year, I joined her. I know... I’m a complete sap caught up in the situation, but I couldn’t help it.

Anyone who collectively writes off today’s kids as obese, undisciplined, video-game-playing slackers has been hanging around with the wrong crowds. Those folks need to skip a golf game or bar trivia contest and attend a school function or two. Likewise, anyone who condemns public schools (not that they don’t deserve some criticism) should add a little variety to their routines as well – especially before they offer up an automatic “no” vote on the next school funding initiative. I know an event like last Thursday’s doesn’t always come off as well as this particular one did. Sometimes, they truly do take on a face that only a parent or grandparent could love, but if you don’t check them out, you’re missing out on something very special. The scratchy home videos of it will never recapture what we witnessed that night. But the real point is, if you missed out on this, then you missed out on something that these kids, the band directors, the choir coaches, the teachers, the parents, the principals and everyone else who helped make it happen have done and done extremely well.

But hey, this ‘blog is all about me! The fact that I caught this concert by chance is further proof to me that my new job was meant to be. Granted, I’ve only been there for 4 days, but so far the future’s so bright...

Luth,
Out

A different kind of stress, gone!

Having been a mechanic in an ideal setting with the Air National Guard for 20 years, I know the value of sharing your thoughts, working with partners, and having that constant feedback. My current boss there is fond of saying, “it never hurts to get a second pair of eyes on something.” The availability of a second opinion does wonders for your confidence, growth and learning curve. When it comes to a safety issue like brakes or steering, a second opinion should be required.

Having spent the last month and a half as a mechanic at a commercial dealership with a very similarly effective atmosphere, I wonder how typical that is. I know that in many dealerships where flat rate is the norm, a mechanic is almost encouraged to look out for himself, perhaps even at the expense of the dealership, the other mechanics, and the customer. I was thinking about this on the way home from work the other night. I was thinking how lucky I was to have learned what I have as a mechanic in a far more nurturing, tolerable, even fun environment.

For some reason this got me thinking about my most recent job interview where I got this same feeling from my future co-workers. It’s one of the things that impressed me about the position. What I thought most about was how being a teacher had prepared me for every situation they asked about in their “performance based interview.” Every situation they asked me to relate to them led to a time in a classroom or an extracurricular activity. Management decisions were made. Budgets were balanced. Funds were raised. Tough choices, difficult customers or colleagues... you name it, I dealt with it as a teacher. But what really stood out among this new position, my positions as a mechanic and what separated them from teaching was the availability of that second opinion – some informed feedback.

This, for me, is what explained the constant stress I felt, even in the summer, as a teacher. I mentioned previously that on the weekend before my first day as an official mechanic, I felt like a weight had been lifted off of me. Instead of the routine Sunday night dread that used to set in, I was actually excited about going to work. It has remained that way for six weeks now. At first I thought this was because I just didn’t care about my job, but I do care about it. It may not be what I intend to do for the rest of my life, but I enjoy it, want to do well at it, respect my bosses and co-workers and just plain do care. Our customers could get hurt if I didn’t. And I enjoy seeing them get excited about what we do for them. Our products help people retain their independence and mobility. It’s a good feeling and I do care about it.

Then I thought the stress was gone because I’d only been doing the job for 6 weeks, but the guys I work with have all been there at least six years, some for 26 years. They don’t seem to show the signs of the kind of stress I felt as a teacher. So I felt like I’d really zeroed in on why teaching took so much out of me. When I first started teaching, I thought this stress came with the job simply because it was the first job I really cared about enough to be stressed. I figured it was the same way for everybody who had a job they cared about. I thought it was just part of the deal of “getting a haircut and getting a real job” if you will. But now I’m starting to question that. I mean, after a week at my current job I began questioning whether I’d ever go back to the stress of teaching for the money it paid when I could make that same money without the stress. I wondered if any other teachers knew that was possible. It’s not like teaching was going to send my kids to Harvard any more than being a mechanic would. I began to seriously question whether it was worth it to live under that pressure and I used to constantly wonder what was wrong with me that I couldn’t manage it better. After all, I used to think, everyone feels stress at work, right? I should just suck it up and deal with it.

But between the interview, my current job, and these strange thoughts that pop into my head during the evening commute, I’ve realized it’s that stress of not knowing how you’re doing that is so inherent to teaching. That’s what eats teachers up. Not having another adult around to run something by. Not having some informed feedback. Always having to guess whether or not this will work and then only hearing about it when it doesn’t. That’s the weight I felt being lifted. I now work with adults who tell me if I’m screwing up before it becomes an issue. In fact, I’ve been luckier than just that. I’ve worked with adults who actually take the time to help me out, who don’t mind if I ask lots of questions, and who kind of expect that it will work like that because that’s the kind of team we try to make it.

I’d experienced this in the guard for so long I suppose I took it for granted. It never occurred to me that work should be like this outside of the guard. Until that interview and a subsequent drive home from work one night, it never occurred to me just how opposed to this concept teaching can be. One adult is alone during the planning stage, during the execution stage and during the evaluation and revisions stage. The only real time feedback comes from teenagers who don’t want to be there in the first place and so it is almost exclusively negative no matter how well planned, creative or innovative the project. Sure, you hear from a principal once or twice a year during formal evaluation times in order to see if your contract will be renewed, but even that provides little in the way of useful input. Evaluations are kind of like extreme sports – there’s no in between, no margin of error. You’re either successful and you live, or you’re unsuccessful and you die.

Where I work now, I can always get someone to take a look at what I’m doing, ask about a better way to solve a problem, or ask if they’ve ever done this before. As a teacher, you can never leave a classroom full of kids to do that. You can never go across the hall and say, “hey Jim, can you abandon your class to come over and watch me teach this unit on revising for clarification and tell me what you think... it should only take three days for me to present all of the material.” One of the reasons I’m so excited about my new job is that this is the very impression they gave me about it. Collaboration is how they do their work. It’s expected. As a teacher not only was that not expected, it was nearly impossible.

Now don’t take this the wrong way – I loved teaching. I just can’t get over the weight of that stress and how little of it I feel now. I guess I just assumed that it worked that way for everyone. I thought it must just be part of growing up. Whenever I’d think about that expression, “find a job you love and you’ll never work a day in your life,” I figured it was just more idealistic crap that could never really happen, but I’m starting to change my mind now.

Between realizing that one’s job is not necessarily one’s identity and this startling realization about different kinds of stress, I’m starting to think maybe that adage is true... or at least that there is some truth to it. There are certainly different kinds of stress in the world. Getting used to weekly rocket attacks is one kind. (turned out to be easier than I ever thought) Doing hard, physical labor is another. Having no adult interaction in a job that you feel really should have some is one that snuck up on me and became heavier than I ever realized until now.

I guess what I’m really trying to say is, be nice to your kids’ teachers. You may be the first adult they’ve been able to talk to in a while. Start with acknowledging that 90% of what they do is probably pretty good, then go into the one thing that bothered you enough to take the time to approach them. (cuz you know that's the only reason you've bothered approaching them)

OK, enough preaching for now. I’ve got a week off before the new job starts and I’ve got at least 6 weeks worth of projects planned for that week. Can you tell I'm stalling?

Later dudes.
Luth

Hi Kendra

At guard duty this weekend, I was informed that a friend's wife informed him that I got a new job. She'd read it here in this very forum. (thanks for reading, Kendra) So I figured I'd better update those of you keeping score. I got another new job.

What's really fun about the whole thing is, while I was telling my wife how fun my semi-old job was, what with the no homework, no grad classes, no plans to write, about 3% of the stress and all for about the same money, she'd say, "yeah, but you're still going to apply for teaching jobs, right?"

In the short run I thought Hell No! Not for a while anyway. It was a futile effort anyway. Besides, why would anyone in their right mind go back to that punishment for that money. But in the long run, I suspected I would if only because it was where my training and experience led me. (that sense of obligation and pride in the service I provided faded much more quickly than I would have guessed - apparently the zen thing about not "being" your job works in many ways)

So where was I? Oh yeah, another job. It's one that came about largely because of my education and experience, but it's with a federal agency instead of a school district. The federal agency, oddly enough, felt that my education and experience were worth about twice what public schools thought. My future co-workers interviewed me and they and the description of their mission got me even more excited about this opportunity. Not only will the work be challenging, suited to my strengths, but it will also fill the public service hole I know is developing as I ponder retiring from the Air National Guard. At this job, I can do the public service and make a living helping serve fellow veterans all while I'm at work. I'll no longer have to give up weekends to fill that requirement!

After the interview I convinced myself it was all too good to be true and that the rejection letter would soon follow. I'd been through this before. I told myself the worst case scenario would be that I continue to enjoy my current job, friendly co-workers, and little money. Then I'd eventually head back to grad school for my principal license and wander back into a school somewhere where I could then weasel my way back into a classroom. I could handle it. I'd been doing it for years. Then they called back in two days to offer me the spot.

My first week as a mechanic at the begining of April was like a re-birth. Rather than dread what lay waiting for me, I was excited about going to work on Monday mornings for the first time in about 10 years. I truly felt like a weight had been lifted from my shoulders. I enjoyed helping out at my daughter's soccer practice rather than worrying about the work I had waiting for me when we got home at 8. I tackled more of the Spring cleaning and yard work even after doing physical work all day than I've had the energy for in a long time. It was great even if I knew it wouldn't satisfy me forever. Then they called back to offer me the spot. I've been floating ever since. April was great. May is looking even better.

My wife doesn't ask if I'll apply for teaching jobs anymore.

In addition to this happy news, we closed on the old house and got the check in the mail. I sold my old mower on ebay and got the check in the mail. My buddy Bob found a tractor to replace the mower for a lot less than I was prepared to spend on a new one. My oldest daughter's soccer team remains undefeated and the youngest has scored her second goal this season (after six scoreless SEASONS!) And even my wife seems a little more cheerful.

For a while I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. Then I remembered that sort of attitude can be a self fulfilling prophecy, and that perhaps the last ten years had been the other shoe. It was time for this one.

So I start the new job around Memorial Day. That'll give me some time to make my current co-workers, whom I will truly miss, hate me so the goodbye won't be so difficult. If anyone out there is looking for a job as a mechanic/fabricator/installer in a very friendly, laid back, teamwork environment for very decent pay (in that field), let me know. It's really a great place to work in a rapidly expanding but thoroughly established business. In fact, I turned down a comparable position with the FBI (another government agency) because I liked it there so much. The pay and bennies were actually pretty close.

OK, I must get some sleep tonight. I've been so energized for the past month that I've kind of been avoiding sleep, but I know that will catch up with me soon.

Tell the folks I said hello. I'll type at ya'll later.

Luth.

Lessons in Diplomacy, Professor: Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney says Nancy Pelosi shouldn't be out playing the diplomat with foreign heads of state whom the Bush administration has cut off.

Maybe he's got a point. After all, when Clinton struck a multi-lateral, internationally recognized deal with North Korea, the Bush administration cut them off rather than touch anything with Clinton's name on it that may eventually become a peaceful, successful legacy. Kim Jong Il, then, desperate for any attention from the U.S. violated the terms of the internationally sanctioned deal he'd made, and proceeded with his nuclear ambition until Bush finally had no choice but to acknowledge North Korea's existence. Guess he showed them! I suppose our success with North Korea should have been a sign that Bush knew what he was doing, but my Republican friends tell me I'm not always quick to pick up signs of success like that.

Then there's the diplomacy Cheney himself has sown. I recall seeing pictures of Dick Cheney and Saddam Hussein back in the good old days when we armed the dictator who eventually became so dangerous we had to invade his country to stop him. Cheney the diplomat must've really straightened that guy out. His diplomatic efforts there were such that three years after the capture of Hussein, we still need to win this war in his country in order to... to uh... well, anyway, Cheney proved his diplomatic prowess there by ensuring we'd always be partners with the Iraqis.

Did you know, that as Secretary of Defense, Cheney sent the first U.S. troops to Somalia? And Colonel Buzz Patterson said that was all Clinton's fault! How about Noriega? Cheney always had his eyes on that guy. So during a coup aftermath, just short of civil war, Cheney's attention led us to invade that country too and bring back Manuel Noriega to face racketeering and drug charges in Miami. (We convicted the bastard, by the way, thus ending the influx of illegal narcotics to the U.S. and ending forever the "War on Drugs!") Cheney's diplomacy there, as you may recall, involved blaring rock music from loud speakers toward Noriega's hideout/mansion. The guy's a freaking genius! Then there's Bosnia... but that's an ugly civil war that resulted from a vacuum of leadership. Cheney was smart there - he didn't touch that one. Wanted the U.S. to just stay out of other nation's affairs. Well, that and he wasn't re-elected. Or should I say the puppet he mastered wasn't re-elected.

Speaking of pictures, there are a whole bunch of pictures with Cheney and various Saudi Arabian diplomats from the same time period. He must have made some great progress with those guys. After all, they kicked us out of the air base we built for them just prior to Operation Enduring Freedom. Now, keep in mind, the whole reason to build that air base was to maintain a stabilizing presence in the middle east while making friends and spreading democracy after Desert Storm. Protecting U.S. interests and all, y'know. Of course, having a base from which to stage operations in the area never hurt, but we'd only ever use that to spread peace (ie Operation Enduring Freedom). Anyhoo, the base thing didn't work out too well while we tried to spread peace prior to 2001, so we had to perform the rest of Operation Enduring Freedom from other countries where we hadn't been building air bases and spreading democracy. Now initially, I figured this might be the result of Cheney's efforts all going for naught, but then 15 or so Saudi Arabian nationals were directly involved in flying planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11, so I guess I just misunderstood Cheney's diplomatic intentions there in the first place. Most of my Republican friends point out this flaw in my judgement to me all the time anyway. I just don't understand how real diplomacy works.

So the point is, when Cheney tells Pelosi she should stop messing with U.S. diplomatic efforts by trying her own hand in the diplomatic arena, maybe he's right. After all, we wouldn't want her screwing up everything he's been able to accomplish.

Luth,
Out

Career Track

I officially accepted a position as a mechanic last week and gave my notice to the school where I've been working. I was only a substitute at the school, so the giving of notice was either a) overly-dramatic, or b) a little too formal, or maybe 3)both, but since I have a conscience and they treated me nicely, I felt sort of obligated to give them a heads up. The decision was made all the more complex by purely practical, financial reasons because on Friday I had passed the step that put me at regular teacher pay on their pay schedule. (I'm speaking only in terms that business folk will understand here - viewing my profession as an industry and focusing on the bottom line has greatly helped me ignore any sense of obligation to my students)

In most districts, if you teach in the same position for 20 straight school days, you jump up to first-year teacher pay, which is somewhere around $90-120 per day. I made $120. And, like most districts, if you end up in a long-term substitute spot for 60 straight days, you actually get paid for your experience. In my case that meant on day 61, as long as I didn't have a break in service, I jumped to $220 per day.

That was Friday for me. That's what a 9-year veteran teacher (actually 8.7 years according to the State Teacher's Retirement System) who doesn't pay for any benefits, and who doesn't spread their pay out over 12 months makes per day. (That's just under 40k annually for those of you following the math) I never actually grossed that much in my last permanent job even though I was a coach and an advisor of a year long activity, but that's how the numbers shake out when you're a temp who doesn't pay for anything else.

So anyway, my point was that just as I start earning the pay I was earning before I moved back home, I'm faced with the decision of permanent employment for a little less money, or temporary employment for a little more. The difference in money, sadly, isn't that much. As a mechanic for this particular company I'd start at about a grand less per year than I made as an 8-year veteran teacher with 8 lesson plans to write and 120 students to chase around. This particular company, for whom I would be converting regular vans into handicap accessible and controllable vans, has a 401k plan that rivals the current teacher retirement system in Ohio. Benefits for me are comparable, and only a little more pricey for my family, but the real clincher is, this company values my experience.

I've been told, explicitly by some administrators, implicitly by most in their refusal to even interview me, that traditional public schools can't afford to value experience. They have little interest in filling vacancies with experienced teachers. Strike that. It's not that they aren't interested, it's that they can't afford it. In some places the unspoken cutoff is 3 years. In others, where budgets are tighter, it's rookies only, with a few exceptions for those who will coach the sport in need. The official line is usually around 7 years, but that's only to hire coaches who have had 5-7 winning years at a previous school. The unfunded mandates of NCLB have forced schools to meet the standards that "hold teachers accountable" by doing away with experienced staff and replacing them with rookies, who then become somewhat indentured to the districts where they start because once they rack up 3 or 4 years of experience and get the state mandated master's degree, they're absolutely too expensive to get a job in any other school district.

To be clear, it's a budget issue, not a conspiracy. It's not like the schools have much choice. That's just how it is these days in most places, but especially in Ohio where the state legislature has refused to solve the funding issue at the state level in spite of being ordered to do so by the Ohio Supreme Court almost 20 years ago. Ohio has chosen to revert back to the method of funding used in the early ages of Christianity wherein the rich hired tutors for their children and if their servants' children had time, they could sit in on the lessons - as long as the servants didn't interfere with the rich kid's lessons. So too it goes in Ohio now. If you live by rich kids, your schools are well funded by local investment. And that's not so bad really. I'm all for a free market and am confident enough in my experience that I'd fair well enough were that the case, but education isn't a free market. And this method of funding it violates the very principles of law and the conditions under which Ohio was granted statehood. As a State, not as a collection of little towns, Ohio agreed to fund public education as part of the Northwest Ordnance which granted us statehood. It was one of several conditions the founders of the nation required and the founders of the state agreed to. For all the talk our modern day leaders have wasted about education, their actions tell us that's no longer a priority. Instead, they've pawned this responsibility off on local school districts, and because the citizens in those districts still do value public education, they've hesitantly coughed up levy after levy to cover the state's irresponsibility. But that well's running dry. At some point Ohio's legislators will be forced to act and to show whether or not they really value education. For those watching, either because they believe in education, or like me, have a direct financial stake in the outcome, their opinions are already too clear.

Just as financing is purely a practical matter for school districts, so too is it for the Luther family.

Banks won't write mortgages to substitute teachers even if the teacher has been working consistently for almost 10 years in the profession. I guess the level of pay and the inconsistency of it frighten banks away?! So if all goes well, and we close a deal on our old house in early April (knock on wood and cross fingers) I'll need something more "permanent" before we find our new house and try to finance its purchase. (It probably comes as a shock that I wasn't able to bank enough cash to buy a home on my salary)

So I'm not choosing to leave education out of bitterness or frustration or because I believe I'll be more satisfied working with my hands again, and seeing the concrete results of my efforts at the end of each day. I'm not leaving because I'll be able to sit with my family without a stack of papers to grade every night, or because this particular job actually pays for any training it requires. I'm not leaving because I get burned out at being a parent to parentless kids all day then neglect my duties to my own kids most nights. I'm not leaving because I'm embarassed by the massive outpouring of respect offered to teachers. I'm leaving because I need a full-time job and I need it soon.

Likewise, I didn't even actively pursue this particular opportunity. I simply updated by resume on a couple of online career places. I had hoped to not even have to consider what I'd do next until closer to June, when my current employer officially has no further use for me. But suddenly I have two offers in my lap - the second came right after I accepted the first, and I'm still struggling with that one, but it's a good struggle to have at this point.

So anyway, now that I downloaded all of that from my system, I suppose it's time for the 9-girl slumber party to once again lay waste to the short-lived peace in this household. I'd better do some pre-emptive cleaning before I start the countdown to taking this group home again. As with all of life's trials, we are on the brink of surviving this one. Having done so makes us richer, stronger.

Fight the power!... and in so doing, usurp it.
Luth

New Links - Religious discussion

I forgot to mention, there's some interesting dialogue, or would it be polylogue? going on a few posts prior to this one. WCharles offered up some links to previous posts on his own 'blog providing some background on his take on what it means to be a Christian today. He did so at Ray's urging to join this conversation. I'm glad he's back.

Bill and I thought this might a fun forum for the discussion and I don't think either of us has been dissappointed thus far. Join in. The original question was: Has religion outlived its usefulness?

Luth's not up to the fight right now

Lt. Commander Charles Swift was a model officer in the US Navy. Self-motivated, always taking the initiative to exceed expectations, proud of his country, his branch of the service, and loyal. Because he successfully did the job he was assigned, he was informed that not only would he not be promoted, but that, as such, his services were no longer needed by the Navy. To some it matters that Lt. Commander Swift's JOB was to defend Gitmo detainee Salim Hamdan against terrorist charges. Well, technically that's not entirely accurate. No charges had actually been filed against Hamdan. He'd just been held at Gitmo for almost 5 years with no explanation. Swift simply tried to gain for Hamdan the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention. Swift felt that the way we treat others is how we might expect others to treat us. He figured out laws mattered. That the world might remember why they respected the U.S. if we could return to the nation of laws we were prior to this administration's spiral away from those principles. In order to check his beliefs and demonstrate our principles to the rest of the world, Swift had to sue his Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense. He won. He was fired. The world can now make its decision.

Will that make us look bad? Do ya think it might make us and our troops a target?

In a similar move in the civilian world, where more people seem to notice and care, even though everyone these days claims to support the troops, the Bush administration is now being investigated for misusing the Patriot Act to fire U.S. Attorneys, whose political independence is the backbone of our freedom, the very basis upon which this country was founded. At least we're a nation that acts on our beliefs, eh?

2 million Iraqis have fled their homeland because of the destruction our actions have caused there and to this day neither they, nor the American citizens who will eventually pay $1 trillion for this effort, have been given an explanation of why we invaded the country in the first place.

The vice president criticized the democractic spending debate for Iraq saying it's what al qaeda and bin Laden would want. That strikes me as a little odd since bin Laden never had any significant ties to Iraq. Isn't Cheney admitting that Iraq was a mistake by invoking his name now... in favor of continued war in Iraq???

Long time Republican loyalist, conservative, Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel has indicated that the only way Bush will face any accountability is via impeachment. Hagel's words: "The president says, 'I don't care,' he's not accountable anymore. Which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment." Thank God someone with the power to do something is at least considering this.

I was pretty excited about a month ago when the loyalists to this page agreed to engage in a civil debate about religion's role and importance in our modern world, but between being busy at my temp job, and looking for less temporary employment, keeping my family sane in our temporary living arrangment and searching for more permanent living arrangements, and watching the world around me that's well beyond my control continue its downward trend, I just can't get into it.

I've often been heard arguing that the old adage about never arguing politics and religion is the most ridiculous piece of advice humans on this earth could ever agree to follow. What could possible be more important? What issues could be more worth overcoming some discomfort in or order to reach some agreement? I still think that way, I'm just not up to the argument right now.

With us or against us?

While reading Richard A Clark’s description of what al Qaeda is I couldn’t help but think back to a previous post in which Ray and I debated the perceived connection between the Muslim faith and terrorism. I argued that Muslims have no greater link to terrorism than Christians, or any other religion for that matter, but that Muslims, especially in American news, just happen to get mentioned more often these days. The reason for that, I argued, was because the faith is most prevalent in third world countries where the population has no representation, but rather, the leadership decides on the country’s agenda. If a radical leader favors the al Qaeda version of Islam (which is like Hitler’s version of Christianity), then that’s what gets established in the country.

Clark’s detailed history of al Qaeda as far back as the Reagan era helps explain why terrorist acts all over the world always end up being traced back to a group that claims to be Muslim. In AGAINST ALL ENEMIES Clark spells out just how extensive and radical al Qaeda really is. From the Middle East, to Eastern Europe, to the Phillipines and Africa, al Qaeda, led by a handful of key, so-called Muslim leaders including Osama bin Laden, seizes every power vacuum as an opportunity to expand their hatred. Sudan’s Hasan al-Turabi, a religious scholar, leader of the National Islamic Front, is one of bin Laden’s co-conspirators. There are a handful of others at that high a level, all with the power and funding of nations. They made sure desperate Muslims in Chechnya were armed, fed, and paid after Russia’s fall. bin Laden made sure help was there when Christian Serbs oppressed Bosnian Muslims, when war lords left power vacuums in Mogadishu, when Christians sought to eliminate Muslims in the Phillipines. When the opportunity arose and the potential for a new Taliban popped up, al Qaeda was there. Their leaders are master strategists who have been planning for years and patiently waiting to set into motion the chain of events ultimately resulting in a Caliphate, or “Muslim Empire.”

But the empire they seek is Muslim only in name. It is their version of Islam, and theirs alone. They prey on poor, desperate Muslims and convince them that their radical version is only a return to the “fundamentals” of their faith, that it can’t coexist with any other faiths, including other Muslims who favor treating others with respect and tolerance. Once recruited, the converts are trained, fed, paid better than they ever have been. It doesn’t take much to convince someone under those circumstances that whatever their bosses are doing must be something good to provide them with a way of life like they’d never known. And when the great white satan invades a Muslim country, it only reinforces their leaders’ call for jihad.

The point is, al Turabi and bin Laden’s version of Islam isn’t the rest of the world’s version of Islam. Sure, they want to create a world based on their version. That’s what megalomaniacs do. That’s what Hitler did. Their goal is the creation of Talibans all over the world and while THEY claim it is in the name of their God, true Muslims don’t accept it any more than true Christians would.

Just as Clark notes that we won’t be effective in our fight against terrorism until we accept al Qaeda’s role, prominence, and vastness and stop chasing false leads and debunked conspiracy theories (like Iraqi Intelligence’s role in 911), so too is it imperative that Christians accept that Muslims have more in common with us than in conflict. Until we can get over that hump and focus on what truly matters, we will likely only continue to play into al Qaeda’s hands by perpetuating the lies that bin Laden uses about Americans when he recruits. If we acted more like Christians, Muslims might stop being so afraid of us that they’re willing to join terrorist organizations. If we made the American way of life more appealing by using our power and wealth to help eliminate some of the desperation that drives people to al Qaeda, we’d have to fight far fewer of those converts. Then maybe when our president announces that “you’re either with us or against us” being with us might seem like a better option. But to those who watched the “us” invade their country, that decision was already made.