I don’t have a lot to report this evening, but I figured I’d try to put something up here that’s a little more upbeat since I’ve been slacking off in general, and complaining in particular. So in spite of having to switch to cable before I puked while the president spoke of national security during the 9/11 tele-blitz, life’s good.
Now that my wife has settled down a little, and joined me in my embrace of temporary (?) unemployment, life really is good. Thanks to overprogramming, my kids have pretty much settled in officially in our new home. They’ve escorted us to about 15 soccer games and half as many football games in the last three weeks, one has joined band (in 5th grade!! – sorry Ray, she chose percussion... plans for the family blues band are coming together) and we’ve all joined the homework hotline in our house and refreshed some fundamental academic skills we thought we’d never use again.
I’ve actually turned a job down while my wife accepted one, even though she swore she’d never work in the auto industry again. I’ve got an offer on the hook now, and hope to have another after an interview in a week or so, and I continue to find opportunities where I thought there were none. I’ve spent a day substitute teaching, and a week as a substitute custodian (I figure getting my face known in a district comes in many forms).
The “extra house” I left behind in this complex transaction had a couple of bites the first week it was listed and I’m really, really enjoying being back in the hometown I thought I’d never leave. So if you don’t count the fact that I’m paying more per month for temporary health insurance than I paid for my first two cars, and that I’ve been unemployed now longer than I ever have been since high school - and really, those are minor issues in the grand scheme - life really is good.
It’s funny that I recall so vividly my high school chums lamenting that they couldn’t wait to get out of this town. I never thought that. It always seemed like a pretty good place to hang out. But then I left for college and never quite made it back. I never really realized how much I missed it. What’s really funny is how many of those chums never left. Maybe they wised up... maybe their complaints were just teen angst. I had plenty of that, and I may have even uttered those words at some point, but I never pictured myself anywhere else. Some of those guys have moved on to bigger and better and I miss them now that I’m back, but the ones who stayed fill me in on their stories and even that’s been fun.
So here I am, picking up where I left off. At times I feel like I’m finally in control of something. Other times it feels like my life is spinning out of control... which is actually more comfortable and familiar for me. My biggest anxiety remains the comfort and happiness of my family and I know that wouldn’t be any different no matter where we lived. Here though, I feel like I know where I’m going, what I’m doing and though I’m sure it’s a deceivingly false sense of security, I have a confidence in my ability to promote that comfort and happiness that I never really felt anywhere else. It’s as though when the spinning stops momentarily, at least I land in familiar territory... and can get everyone home safely.
It’s good to be back. Life’s good... did I already mention that?
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Anti-incumbent plan proves tricky
I heard about half of the Ohio governor candidates’ first debate on the radio last night. I was hoping to really hear the difference between Democrat (and current U.S. Representative) Ted Strickland and Republican (and current Ohio Secretary of State) Kenneth Blackwell.
You’ll never guess my overall response:
Disappointment.
Half was all I could stand. No matter who asked what question, Blackwell’s response was consistent: “Strickland will raise taxes.”
And while I have to give Strickland some credit for trying (key word: “trying”... perhaps I should add “trying lamely”) to address issues, he asked the wrong questions of Blackwell, particularly regarding Blackwell’s plan to privatize the Ohio Turnpike in order to make an estimated $4 billion for the state’s collapsing budget. AND he failed to adequately address his rating of 450 (or something like that) out of 435 representatives by some group that Blackwell has on his commercials.
There are a lot of groups out there who rate politicians. Some rate them by the number of votes they miss (without ever explaining that most votes are foregone conclusions long before the vote is actually held) and others rate them by what kind of music they say they like. I found one rating system on an angelfire server that rated congressmen by how they replied to letters from constituents. It sounds kind of silly, but it was probably the most legitimate system I saw in my brief search. It was pretty entertaining.
Anyway, back to the debate.
Here’s what I wanted to ask Blackwell: If this turnpike plan will generate so much money, then why can’t the state keep the middleman out and generate it themselves? After all, he’s the business manager for the state. If the plan would be that lucrative, then why bring in a private contractor to do it? And if there are contractors out there willing to pay that much to lease the turnpike, doesn’t that suggest that the state has been mismanaging it by not generating that much revenue from it?
I’m sure the response would be something like: well, yeah, but as a government entity we’re limited to keeping it non-profit and blah blah blah. OR Government isn’t as efficient as private industry.
To which I might then ask, why? Ohio’s Republicans have been in charge for 16 years with promises of reducing the size (but not the cost) and increasing the efficiency of government and all they really have to show for it is a squandered budget surplus, a convicted governor, and $25 million in lost state funds that was last seen in the hands of the governor’s golf buddy.
And as far as making a profit, if a private contractor isn’t limited like the state in its operation of the turnpike, does that mean it would then cost $75 to drive on it? Isn’t that sort of the same thing as raising taxes?
The turnpike is a ROAD... it’s part of Ohio’s infrastructure! If there’s one thing liberals and conservatives ever agree on, it’s that this is a function of government. It’s not welfare or public funding for abortion or prayer in schools. It’s a fricking public highway built by the state! Isn’t that what states are supposed to do?!
Proposing leasing the turnpike to a private organization is an admission that Ohio’s leaders have failed to do their job. Of course, the Derolph decision has already told us that, but no one pays any attention to that anymore, especially not Ohio legislators.
Claiming that privatizing the turnpike will generate revenue not only confirms what we heard initially (that Ohio’s leaders failed us) but also demonstrates the unproven, pie in the sky dreams that these folks live on. The turnpike is THE east-west route across northern Ohio. Many commercial vehicles already avoid the tolls by taking smaller, local routes, especially route 30. With only about 45 more miles left of the route 30 upgrade, just how viable as a revenue generator will the turnpike continue to be once 30 is complete?
Claiming that privatizing the Ohio Turnpike will generate revenue without raising taxes sounds like it will work the same as President Bush’s promise to lower taxes – the only thing missing is a way to balance the budget while doing it. (Oh, and tax cuts for the 95% of us who remain unaffected by the tax cuts Bush has put in place) Both plans pass the debt along to the public eventually. We’ll either pay for it in the future through tax increases that someone will eventually be forced to create, or, in the case of the turnpike, we’ll pay for it in either increased tolls, or in shouldering the cost of maintaining the road some other way. In the end, taxpayers will pay whether it’s called a tax or not.
But none of this addresses the real problem. In my last post, I vowed to vote anti-incumbent. The governor’s race is just one example of why this will be difficult. Strickland is an incumbent U.S. representative with a less than stellar record. Record notwithstanding, he is an incumbent. Does a vote for him for governor serve my goal of changing up the House?
Blackwell is a former Treasurer and the incumbent Ohio Secretary of State. He invested in Diebold, golfed with and managed the business affairs of the Taft administration. I imagine he even had to testify against Governor Taft?? Yet his campaign seems to be built on two main ideas: 1) Strickland will raise taxes, and 2) Ohio’s Republican leadership is doing a great job that he’ll continue.
Does voting for him for governor serve the goal of changing up the open corruption in Ohio’s Executive Branch? Oh wait, I think I just answered my own question. OK, so this one’s easy, but how do I handle the Ohio senate race between incumbent Representative and former Secretary of State Sherrod Brown and incumbent Senator Mike DeWine?!
Perhaps Steven Colbert’s anti-voting argument is starting to make more sense.
You’ll never guess my overall response:
Disappointment.
Half was all I could stand. No matter who asked what question, Blackwell’s response was consistent: “Strickland will raise taxes.”
And while I have to give Strickland some credit for trying (key word: “trying”... perhaps I should add “trying lamely”) to address issues, he asked the wrong questions of Blackwell, particularly regarding Blackwell’s plan to privatize the Ohio Turnpike in order to make an estimated $4 billion for the state’s collapsing budget. AND he failed to adequately address his rating of 450 (or something like that) out of 435 representatives by some group that Blackwell has on his commercials.
There are a lot of groups out there who rate politicians. Some rate them by the number of votes they miss (without ever explaining that most votes are foregone conclusions long before the vote is actually held) and others rate them by what kind of music they say they like. I found one rating system on an angelfire server that rated congressmen by how they replied to letters from constituents. It sounds kind of silly, but it was probably the most legitimate system I saw in my brief search. It was pretty entertaining.
Anyway, back to the debate.
Here’s what I wanted to ask Blackwell: If this turnpike plan will generate so much money, then why can’t the state keep the middleman out and generate it themselves? After all, he’s the business manager for the state. If the plan would be that lucrative, then why bring in a private contractor to do it? And if there are contractors out there willing to pay that much to lease the turnpike, doesn’t that suggest that the state has been mismanaging it by not generating that much revenue from it?
I’m sure the response would be something like: well, yeah, but as a government entity we’re limited to keeping it non-profit and blah blah blah. OR Government isn’t as efficient as private industry.
To which I might then ask, why? Ohio’s Republicans have been in charge for 16 years with promises of reducing the size (but not the cost) and increasing the efficiency of government and all they really have to show for it is a squandered budget surplus, a convicted governor, and $25 million in lost state funds that was last seen in the hands of the governor’s golf buddy.
And as far as making a profit, if a private contractor isn’t limited like the state in its operation of the turnpike, does that mean it would then cost $75 to drive on it? Isn’t that sort of the same thing as raising taxes?
The turnpike is a ROAD... it’s part of Ohio’s infrastructure! If there’s one thing liberals and conservatives ever agree on, it’s that this is a function of government. It’s not welfare or public funding for abortion or prayer in schools. It’s a fricking public highway built by the state! Isn’t that what states are supposed to do?!
Proposing leasing the turnpike to a private organization is an admission that Ohio’s leaders have failed to do their job. Of course, the Derolph decision has already told us that, but no one pays any attention to that anymore, especially not Ohio legislators.
Claiming that privatizing the turnpike will generate revenue not only confirms what we heard initially (that Ohio’s leaders failed us) but also demonstrates the unproven, pie in the sky dreams that these folks live on. The turnpike is THE east-west route across northern Ohio. Many commercial vehicles already avoid the tolls by taking smaller, local routes, especially route 30. With only about 45 more miles left of the route 30 upgrade, just how viable as a revenue generator will the turnpike continue to be once 30 is complete?
Claiming that privatizing the Ohio Turnpike will generate revenue without raising taxes sounds like it will work the same as President Bush’s promise to lower taxes – the only thing missing is a way to balance the budget while doing it. (Oh, and tax cuts for the 95% of us who remain unaffected by the tax cuts Bush has put in place) Both plans pass the debt along to the public eventually. We’ll either pay for it in the future through tax increases that someone will eventually be forced to create, or, in the case of the turnpike, we’ll pay for it in either increased tolls, or in shouldering the cost of maintaining the road some other way. In the end, taxpayers will pay whether it’s called a tax or not.
But none of this addresses the real problem. In my last post, I vowed to vote anti-incumbent. The governor’s race is just one example of why this will be difficult. Strickland is an incumbent U.S. representative with a less than stellar record. Record notwithstanding, he is an incumbent. Does a vote for him for governor serve my goal of changing up the House?
Blackwell is a former Treasurer and the incumbent Ohio Secretary of State. He invested in Diebold, golfed with and managed the business affairs of the Taft administration. I imagine he even had to testify against Governor Taft?? Yet his campaign seems to be built on two main ideas: 1) Strickland will raise taxes, and 2) Ohio’s Republican leadership is doing a great job that he’ll continue.
Does voting for him for governor serve the goal of changing up the open corruption in Ohio’s Executive Branch? Oh wait, I think I just answered my own question. OK, so this one’s easy, but how do I handle the Ohio senate race between incumbent Representative and former Secretary of State Sherrod Brown and incumbent Senator Mike DeWine?!
Perhaps Steven Colbert’s anti-voting argument is starting to make more sense.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Frustrated Teacher
Warning - the contents of this post are primarily a vent of my frustration. (Like you need to be warned about that if you're reading this!)
Whenever I tell people I’ve grown frustrated with teaching, they instantly assume it’s because of the students. And while they can be frustrating at times, that would be like a banker saying he’s frustrated with banking because of the money. It’s not the students that frustrate me enough to consider other professions. In fact, it’s the students who make such a consideration so difficult. But there’s another consideration that makes it difficult for me and that’s the importance of public service or social responsibility.
It’s no secret to anyone who reads this that I lean to the left. I’m not a party member and I’m not even much of a fan of the two-party system, but it has served its purpose and will likely continue to do so, so there’s not much point in fighting about that. My own left leaning stems from my belief that people should be considered a higher priority than property. I believe that government exists to provide a service to its populace, not to its corporations (but note that a solid infrastructure and a peaceful population serve them as well!). Like many who lean to the right, I believe that service only includes some basic functions like law creation and law enforcement and maybe infrastructure creation and maintenance. Fire protection falls in there too. Where my left-leaning pulls me away from those on the right is that I believe a certain amount of re-distribution of wealth is inherent in this process. I don’t mean everyone’s earnings should all go into a big pot and be shared equally, but rather that police and fire protection and infrastructure maintenance should be enjoyed and accessed equally by all. Along those same lines, our government, that of the largest, richest nation in the world, should also see to it that no one in our country suffers for lack of the basic necessities.
It is this last point that generally puts me into that “liberal” category, but the founders of our nation, and of my state in particular must have seen it that way too. Ohio became a state under the Northwest Ordinance. One of the terms of that statehood was that Ohio (and other states who joined the union at the time) must provide public education to all of its citizens. That’s a public service that many these days seem to argue exceeds the category of basic necessity. For the last twenty years, the state of Ohio’s own Supreme Court has declared that Ohio fails to meet that requirement. This leaves public schools to fend for themselves but with no other means of doing so than going to the public in the form of levies for support. The Northwest Ordinance said that OHIO would fund public schools, NOT leave it up to local taxpayers. If there’s a rich public school in Ohio, then there shouldn’t be a poor public school in Ohio. That’s what the conditions of statehood said.
So here’s how this leads to my frustration as a teacher. For the past eight years, I’ve found teaching to be one of the most rewarding, conscience-soothing professions I’ve ever encountered in my working life. Sure teenagers are sometimes a wily, thankless bunch, but as an adult, I have no problem with that. My biggest fear has always been failing to meet their needs from year to year. As a new teacher I felt unprepared and had a horrible time controlling my conscience because I knew I would be shortchanging that first group of students I taught. I finally decided that I was as prepared as anyone, maybe more than some, and we’d just have to get through my first year as best we could. It turned out that my first year wasn’t as bad – I wasn’t as ineffective – as I thought I would be. In fact, by most accounts, I was actually pretty good at it and those students who, by no choice of their own, participated in my “first year experiment” actually learned something and moved on to their next year fairly prepared.
Other than the occasional one-period evaluation from a principal who was no better trained as a teacher, let alone as an evaluator of other teachers, I received NO professional feedback and had to rely on my own sense of how my students were doing in order to continuously improve my skills and the service I provided. I got used to that too, though I apologize to the few adult friends who stuck with me through that time and on whom I unloaded all of the anxiety that the circumstances created.
Eight years later, that anxiety hasn’t left me. I’ve simply learned how to manage it. In the course of those years, I learned that that’s just how it works for teachers. They’re on their own. No one provides them with any meaningful feedback until they screw up. There’s no “corporate training program” to help them continue to develop. Because of that, they have to be some of the most accountable professionals I’ve ever been a part of. So when No Child Left Behind stated as its main goal to hold teachers accountable, I had to laugh. Now that I’ve moved to a new part of the state and am looking for a job, it’s no longer funny. NCLB and funding issues have made it nearly impossible for a proven teacher to move laterally. I learned this summer that the only schools interested in interviewing someone who relocated in order to be nearer his widowed mother are those so desperately in need of funding that the rest of their teachers have jumped ship. In addition, my experience renders me too expensive to work in those districts. The $35-40,000 a year that my proven performance demands is just too rich for the districts with openings. For all they know, they might not even exist as a district next year, so why spend money on an experienced teacher? OK, now I’m just whining about the fact that I didn’t find a job this summer, but it’s relevant!! Indulge me a little.
So here’s where the frustration really comes to a point. I believe in public schools. I believe our state’s founders believed in them too and that’s why they agreed to provide them to Ohio students. As a graduate of, and veteran staffer in public schools, I know first hand that students there get things that most alternatives simply don’t provide. As such, I don’t believe that public funds should ever be diverted from those coffers to be applied to private programs. But as a student advocate – and no teacher can rightfully claim that title without being a student advocate – I believe the needs of the students, this year, right now, must come first. Johnny Doe will never get the chance to re-live his junior year. He deserves the best we can give him right now.
So I’m considering employment with a charter program that actually diverts funding from the struggling local public school system. I hate that, but I also hate the dire need of the students for whom this particular school may be a last chance. Those on the right may be content to build prisons to deal with these students after giving up on them, but I’d rather deal with them before the prison becomes the final option. I don’t want my paycheck to be taking funds out of Ohio’s public schools, but I don’t have many options on the table right now and the needs of these students are no less important than the general population of Ohio’s public school students. I’m learning that moving across the state puts already underpaid and underappreciated veteran teachers back at the bottom of the totem pole, so I’m running out of options quickly. I don’t mind working my way in, but after almost ten years in the classroom, how much proving do I have to do? (OK, I’m whining again)
Then there are the needs of my own family and my own selfish concerns. This other little “distraction” has me considering leaving teaching altogether in favor of a more lucrative profession. I’m considering some options that weigh far less on the social responsibility scale, but that may make it much easier to pay for my own kids’ college. Tough choice, eh? Here again, I’m limited because I feel that profit and social responsibility must be weighed out carefully, but I’m discovering that there are companies out there who believe that social responsibility, community involvement, philanthropy – treating others as you would want to be treated – are as important as their bottom line. Now what do I do?
So there’s the summary. I’ve left a lot of details and smaller issues out because they’d sound like whining. (too late?) When I say I’m frustrated with teaching as a profession, please don’t make the mistake of assuming it has anything to do with students. My frustration is only related to students in the sense that the way the system works right now, it’s getting harder and harder for a reasonable person to stay concerned about the needs of students. Rather than being the reason I would leave teaching, students are the only reason I’d stay. I’m just having more and more trouble remembering that the state and the nation used to be on my side in that concern. I’m convinced they’re as close as they’ve ever been to giving up. Would that mean that Ohio has to relinquish its statehood?
And back to party politics. I’m joining a new party this year: the anti-incumbent party. I’m voting for anyone who didn’t hold the seat in the prior term. Dems, Reps, liberals, conservatives, none of that means anything to me this time around. If you held the seat, and this (look around) is what you’ve done with it, you’re giving it up. Don’t waste your money on your negative ads. You’re not getting my vote!
Later dudes.
Whenever I tell people I’ve grown frustrated with teaching, they instantly assume it’s because of the students. And while they can be frustrating at times, that would be like a banker saying he’s frustrated with banking because of the money. It’s not the students that frustrate me enough to consider other professions. In fact, it’s the students who make such a consideration so difficult. But there’s another consideration that makes it difficult for me and that’s the importance of public service or social responsibility.
It’s no secret to anyone who reads this that I lean to the left. I’m not a party member and I’m not even much of a fan of the two-party system, but it has served its purpose and will likely continue to do so, so there’s not much point in fighting about that. My own left leaning stems from my belief that people should be considered a higher priority than property. I believe that government exists to provide a service to its populace, not to its corporations (but note that a solid infrastructure and a peaceful population serve them as well!). Like many who lean to the right, I believe that service only includes some basic functions like law creation and law enforcement and maybe infrastructure creation and maintenance. Fire protection falls in there too. Where my left-leaning pulls me away from those on the right is that I believe a certain amount of re-distribution of wealth is inherent in this process. I don’t mean everyone’s earnings should all go into a big pot and be shared equally, but rather that police and fire protection and infrastructure maintenance should be enjoyed and accessed equally by all. Along those same lines, our government, that of the largest, richest nation in the world, should also see to it that no one in our country suffers for lack of the basic necessities.
It is this last point that generally puts me into that “liberal” category, but the founders of our nation, and of my state in particular must have seen it that way too. Ohio became a state under the Northwest Ordinance. One of the terms of that statehood was that Ohio (and other states who joined the union at the time) must provide public education to all of its citizens. That’s a public service that many these days seem to argue exceeds the category of basic necessity. For the last twenty years, the state of Ohio’s own Supreme Court has declared that Ohio fails to meet that requirement. This leaves public schools to fend for themselves but with no other means of doing so than going to the public in the form of levies for support. The Northwest Ordinance said that OHIO would fund public schools, NOT leave it up to local taxpayers. If there’s a rich public school in Ohio, then there shouldn’t be a poor public school in Ohio. That’s what the conditions of statehood said.
So here’s how this leads to my frustration as a teacher. For the past eight years, I’ve found teaching to be one of the most rewarding, conscience-soothing professions I’ve ever encountered in my working life. Sure teenagers are sometimes a wily, thankless bunch, but as an adult, I have no problem with that. My biggest fear has always been failing to meet their needs from year to year. As a new teacher I felt unprepared and had a horrible time controlling my conscience because I knew I would be shortchanging that first group of students I taught. I finally decided that I was as prepared as anyone, maybe more than some, and we’d just have to get through my first year as best we could. It turned out that my first year wasn’t as bad – I wasn’t as ineffective – as I thought I would be. In fact, by most accounts, I was actually pretty good at it and those students who, by no choice of their own, participated in my “first year experiment” actually learned something and moved on to their next year fairly prepared.
Other than the occasional one-period evaluation from a principal who was no better trained as a teacher, let alone as an evaluator of other teachers, I received NO professional feedback and had to rely on my own sense of how my students were doing in order to continuously improve my skills and the service I provided. I got used to that too, though I apologize to the few adult friends who stuck with me through that time and on whom I unloaded all of the anxiety that the circumstances created.
Eight years later, that anxiety hasn’t left me. I’ve simply learned how to manage it. In the course of those years, I learned that that’s just how it works for teachers. They’re on their own. No one provides them with any meaningful feedback until they screw up. There’s no “corporate training program” to help them continue to develop. Because of that, they have to be some of the most accountable professionals I’ve ever been a part of. So when No Child Left Behind stated as its main goal to hold teachers accountable, I had to laugh. Now that I’ve moved to a new part of the state and am looking for a job, it’s no longer funny. NCLB and funding issues have made it nearly impossible for a proven teacher to move laterally. I learned this summer that the only schools interested in interviewing someone who relocated in order to be nearer his widowed mother are those so desperately in need of funding that the rest of their teachers have jumped ship. In addition, my experience renders me too expensive to work in those districts. The $35-40,000 a year that my proven performance demands is just too rich for the districts with openings. For all they know, they might not even exist as a district next year, so why spend money on an experienced teacher? OK, now I’m just whining about the fact that I didn’t find a job this summer, but it’s relevant!! Indulge me a little.
So here’s where the frustration really comes to a point. I believe in public schools. I believe our state’s founders believed in them too and that’s why they agreed to provide them to Ohio students. As a graduate of, and veteran staffer in public schools, I know first hand that students there get things that most alternatives simply don’t provide. As such, I don’t believe that public funds should ever be diverted from those coffers to be applied to private programs. But as a student advocate – and no teacher can rightfully claim that title without being a student advocate – I believe the needs of the students, this year, right now, must come first. Johnny Doe will never get the chance to re-live his junior year. He deserves the best we can give him right now.
So I’m considering employment with a charter program that actually diverts funding from the struggling local public school system. I hate that, but I also hate the dire need of the students for whom this particular school may be a last chance. Those on the right may be content to build prisons to deal with these students after giving up on them, but I’d rather deal with them before the prison becomes the final option. I don’t want my paycheck to be taking funds out of Ohio’s public schools, but I don’t have many options on the table right now and the needs of these students are no less important than the general population of Ohio’s public school students. I’m learning that moving across the state puts already underpaid and underappreciated veteran teachers back at the bottom of the totem pole, so I’m running out of options quickly. I don’t mind working my way in, but after almost ten years in the classroom, how much proving do I have to do? (OK, I’m whining again)
Then there are the needs of my own family and my own selfish concerns. This other little “distraction” has me considering leaving teaching altogether in favor of a more lucrative profession. I’m considering some options that weigh far less on the social responsibility scale, but that may make it much easier to pay for my own kids’ college. Tough choice, eh? Here again, I’m limited because I feel that profit and social responsibility must be weighed out carefully, but I’m discovering that there are companies out there who believe that social responsibility, community involvement, philanthropy – treating others as you would want to be treated – are as important as their bottom line. Now what do I do?
So there’s the summary. I’ve left a lot of details and smaller issues out because they’d sound like whining. (too late?) When I say I’m frustrated with teaching as a profession, please don’t make the mistake of assuming it has anything to do with students. My frustration is only related to students in the sense that the way the system works right now, it’s getting harder and harder for a reasonable person to stay concerned about the needs of students. Rather than being the reason I would leave teaching, students are the only reason I’d stay. I’m just having more and more trouble remembering that the state and the nation used to be on my side in that concern. I’m convinced they’re as close as they’ve ever been to giving up. Would that mean that Ohio has to relinquish its statehood?
And back to party politics. I’m joining a new party this year: the anti-incumbent party. I’m voting for anyone who didn’t hold the seat in the prior term. Dems, Reps, liberals, conservatives, none of that means anything to me this time around. If you held the seat, and this (look around) is what you’ve done with it, you’re giving it up. Don’t waste your money on your negative ads. You’re not getting my vote!
Later dudes.
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Fine Distinction
It’s been one year and two weeks since I got home from Iraq. I wanted to make a point of posting something on that anniversary, but I was on an annual training deployment to Virginia Beach. The 203rd RED HORSE Squadron is on their way to Iraq so we visited their station at the Camp Pendleton Military Reservation to do some concrete and asphalt paving for them while they were gone. This trip was supposed to be one of those cushy deployments where our teams showed off and practiced our skills, did good work for another organization, and still had some time to enjoy the location while we were there – sort of a “remember what it was like before Iraq” deployment. That’s pretty much how it worked too, except, just like Iraq, and most deployments I’ve been on, what we found when we got there was nothing like what we’d been expecting. The crew ahead of us apparently focused more on enjoying the location than on showing off and practicing paving skills or prep work. As I mentioned, I’m used to that, but not from members of my own unit! In the end, though, it didn’t matter. Our crew made up for the lost time and lack of adequate prep work and finished the slated jobs. We even did it on budget and we did manage to enjoy the location a little in the evenings. It turned out to be a satisfying deployment on most accounts. We left something we can be proud of and we practiced exactly the kind of work a RED HORSE unit does whether it’s two miles south of the strip in Virginia Beach or two miles outside of Baghdad. Paving is paving and with the jets flying training missions from nearby Oceana Naval Air Station, the sky often reminded one of a war zone – a nice added effect.
Now back to the one-year anniversary of my Iraq experience. As I mentioned, we were proud of our efforts in Virginia Beach. I’d been doing quite a bit of manual labor this summer (for an English teacher) but to jump onto a full-time concrete crew during one of the hottest weeks of the summer was a shock to my system. I have aches and pains I forgot were possible in a human body, but that’s not a bad thing. Manual labor is good for a person. It’s good for the soul. It was also very cool to see the immediate results of my efforts. In two weeks time, there was an obvious difference that my efforts made. I did construction work during summers while I was an undergrad, and that immediate gratification is something that I’ve missed ever since. Especially since becoming a teacher. Don’t get me wrong, teaching is one of the most satisfying jobs I’ve ever done, but it’s a wholly different kind of satisfaction. It’s based a lot more on faith than on any big results. But back to the point. Everyone on my deployment worked hard. Most did so in jobs they don’t normally do. For instance, four of my fellow mechanics went on the trip with me, but we all worked on paving crews and did very little vehicle maintenance. One of our admin managers was on the asphalt crew. There was a plumber from the 201st RED HORSE unit in Pennsylvania on my concrete crew... you get the idea. And we pulled it off! We did some good work. We left something that we can show our families the next time we’re in Virginia Beach.
After telling this story, there are probably a handful of people out there thinking, “ yeah,whatever, sounds like a bunch of guardsmen got paid for a two-week vacation in Virginia Beach.” And there’s a shred of truth in that as well. Similarly, my “vacation” in Iraq had some of that element also. It’s actually kind of interesting to think about it that way. My time in Iraq really did have a lot in common with my time in Virginia Beach. For one, I was away from my family. I didn’t think I’d miss them as much as I did in just two weeks. Another similarity is finding yourself in a strange situation that’s nothing like what you’ve been prepared to expect. Guardsmen routinely adapt to this kind of thing. Granted, in Iraq, this involved weekly mortar attacks and incredibly complicated logistics nightmares far beyond anything you’d find in the states, but a degree of adapting was necessary in both places. I think this is one attribute of guardsmen (and women) that the enlisted association undersells when convincing employers to hire guardsmen. The sense of duty and loyalty is obvious, but the ability to think on your feet and adapt to some pretty crazy circumstances is something invaluable that gets programmed into military members, especially guardsmen and reservists who routinely go back and forth from a civilian occupation to contingency operations.
But my real point is: we got a lot of work done in a short amount of time under some trying circumstances. Though the circumstances were far preferable to those in Iraq, people in both situations can be proud of their ability to do that. I met and worked with an Army maintenance manager in Iraq who was extremely good at what he did and continued to be good at it under nightmarish conditions in Iraq. I met and worked with an Army logistics officer who did the impossible getting parts and supplies where they needed to be in places where there was no AutoZone and very few UPS offices. I occasionally ate meals with an Army truck driver who delivered those supplies over roads littered with IED craters and car bombers almost every day. And I worked with hundreds of people in my unit, the 201st from Pennsylvania, and a handful of active duty engineers who all faced similar challenges, but worked their butts off day in and day out in order to do the job our unit was sent to do.
Like all members of the military, these folks should be proud of the job they did in Iraq. BUT as we’re often told, there’s no I in TEAM, and what I saw in Iraq convinced me that these people are all great players, but that the team they’re on still has no objective.
I’m happy to see the American public, according to recent polls, is finally starting to recognize that subtle distinction. It really is ok to support the troops but not the war and this is why. Our troops should be proud of the work they do. They don’t choose where they get to do that work, but the public that supports those troops should question where they’re doing it and why. How proud are you of the paving 15 members of the 200th and 201st did in Virginia Beach last week? How necessary was that mission to the safety of Americans? How much safer do you feel as a result?
One year after my return, the primary changes are that Iraq is now engaged in civil war and air travel is even more complicated and frightening than it ever was due to continued terrorist activity. While I was in Iraq, an election was held, a parliament of sorts was established, and the seeds of what might pass for a democracy were sown, but these steps have all proven to be gild one year later. While the individual and even unit level efforts of troops there is truly something to be proud of, to what do those efforts contribute? How does it add up to stability in Southwest Asia? That’s right, it doesn’t, any more than those troops’ efforts elsewhere.
Would it have been so bad to continue to surround Iraq with allies we’ve now alienated, keep a careful watch over Saddam Hussein, and allow the people of Iraq to mount their own revolution? Would it have been so bad to keep UN and international support in the region and save thousands of lives and billions of dollars? Would it have been so bad to sow the seeds we’ve sown through those channels rather than an invasion? Has the removal of Saddam been a contributing factor to any kind of success in Iraq? We’ve created a mess in Iraq now and the only beneficiary seems to be Iran – a country who freely admits to having or at least working on weapons of mass destruction. If the logic that took us into Iraq is applied, we need to invade Iran, and North Korea and Syria and a number of African nations soon. How do you feel about that?
The fact that we haven’t done so is as close to an admission that the Iraqi invasion was a bad idea that we’ll get from this administration. The tough talk and the exercise of might felt good in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but “feeling good” falls a little short of the standard in the war clause. “Making Americans safer” and “getting them over there so they don’t get us over here” is empty rhetoric. I’m happy to see that the American public has finally sobered up enough to realize this. That’s about the only positive outcome I’ve seen so far.
Terrorism is a tactic, a concept, not an enemy, and the only way to fight it is to provide terrorist recruits with better options. As long as there are hungry people, desperate people, anywhere in the world, there will be terrorists. The Iraqi invasion, far from alleviating the circumstances that led people to become terrorists, added to them and came with the added bonus of making the U.S. a singular target for their efforts. I’m not convinced that the American public has completely arrived at this realization, but the growing dissent for the occupation of Iraq is at least an encouraging sign even if it came a good two years too late.
Americans can and should be proud of the members of their military. Given the bureaucratic hoops this giant organization must constantly jump through, it is an amazingly effective team, but don’t confuse this overall ability with success in a given operation. There is a difference between being proud of your troops and supporting every mission on which they’re sent. A few hundred yards of paving material successfully placed in Virginia Beach or in Iraq have about the same effect on terrorism. Although Joe Lieberman might not agree, it’s good to see the American public finally making this distinction.
Now back to the one-year anniversary of my Iraq experience. As I mentioned, we were proud of our efforts in Virginia Beach. I’d been doing quite a bit of manual labor this summer (for an English teacher) but to jump onto a full-time concrete crew during one of the hottest weeks of the summer was a shock to my system. I have aches and pains I forgot were possible in a human body, but that’s not a bad thing. Manual labor is good for a person. It’s good for the soul. It was also very cool to see the immediate results of my efforts. In two weeks time, there was an obvious difference that my efforts made. I did construction work during summers while I was an undergrad, and that immediate gratification is something that I’ve missed ever since. Especially since becoming a teacher. Don’t get me wrong, teaching is one of the most satisfying jobs I’ve ever done, but it’s a wholly different kind of satisfaction. It’s based a lot more on faith than on any big results. But back to the point. Everyone on my deployment worked hard. Most did so in jobs they don’t normally do. For instance, four of my fellow mechanics went on the trip with me, but we all worked on paving crews and did very little vehicle maintenance. One of our admin managers was on the asphalt crew. There was a plumber from the 201st RED HORSE unit in Pennsylvania on my concrete crew... you get the idea. And we pulled it off! We did some good work. We left something that we can show our families the next time we’re in Virginia Beach.
After telling this story, there are probably a handful of people out there thinking, “ yeah,whatever, sounds like a bunch of guardsmen got paid for a two-week vacation in Virginia Beach.” And there’s a shred of truth in that as well. Similarly, my “vacation” in Iraq had some of that element also. It’s actually kind of interesting to think about it that way. My time in Iraq really did have a lot in common with my time in Virginia Beach. For one, I was away from my family. I didn’t think I’d miss them as much as I did in just two weeks. Another similarity is finding yourself in a strange situation that’s nothing like what you’ve been prepared to expect. Guardsmen routinely adapt to this kind of thing. Granted, in Iraq, this involved weekly mortar attacks and incredibly complicated logistics nightmares far beyond anything you’d find in the states, but a degree of adapting was necessary in both places. I think this is one attribute of guardsmen (and women) that the enlisted association undersells when convincing employers to hire guardsmen. The sense of duty and loyalty is obvious, but the ability to think on your feet and adapt to some pretty crazy circumstances is something invaluable that gets programmed into military members, especially guardsmen and reservists who routinely go back and forth from a civilian occupation to contingency operations.
But my real point is: we got a lot of work done in a short amount of time under some trying circumstances. Though the circumstances were far preferable to those in Iraq, people in both situations can be proud of their ability to do that. I met and worked with an Army maintenance manager in Iraq who was extremely good at what he did and continued to be good at it under nightmarish conditions in Iraq. I met and worked with an Army logistics officer who did the impossible getting parts and supplies where they needed to be in places where there was no AutoZone and very few UPS offices. I occasionally ate meals with an Army truck driver who delivered those supplies over roads littered with IED craters and car bombers almost every day. And I worked with hundreds of people in my unit, the 201st from Pennsylvania, and a handful of active duty engineers who all faced similar challenges, but worked their butts off day in and day out in order to do the job our unit was sent to do.
Like all members of the military, these folks should be proud of the job they did in Iraq. BUT as we’re often told, there’s no I in TEAM, and what I saw in Iraq convinced me that these people are all great players, but that the team they’re on still has no objective.
I’m happy to see the American public, according to recent polls, is finally starting to recognize that subtle distinction. It really is ok to support the troops but not the war and this is why. Our troops should be proud of the work they do. They don’t choose where they get to do that work, but the public that supports those troops should question where they’re doing it and why. How proud are you of the paving 15 members of the 200th and 201st did in Virginia Beach last week? How necessary was that mission to the safety of Americans? How much safer do you feel as a result?
One year after my return, the primary changes are that Iraq is now engaged in civil war and air travel is even more complicated and frightening than it ever was due to continued terrorist activity. While I was in Iraq, an election was held, a parliament of sorts was established, and the seeds of what might pass for a democracy were sown, but these steps have all proven to be gild one year later. While the individual and even unit level efforts of troops there is truly something to be proud of, to what do those efforts contribute? How does it add up to stability in Southwest Asia? That’s right, it doesn’t, any more than those troops’ efforts elsewhere.
Would it have been so bad to continue to surround Iraq with allies we’ve now alienated, keep a careful watch over Saddam Hussein, and allow the people of Iraq to mount their own revolution? Would it have been so bad to keep UN and international support in the region and save thousands of lives and billions of dollars? Would it have been so bad to sow the seeds we’ve sown through those channels rather than an invasion? Has the removal of Saddam been a contributing factor to any kind of success in Iraq? We’ve created a mess in Iraq now and the only beneficiary seems to be Iran – a country who freely admits to having or at least working on weapons of mass destruction. If the logic that took us into Iraq is applied, we need to invade Iran, and North Korea and Syria and a number of African nations soon. How do you feel about that?
The fact that we haven’t done so is as close to an admission that the Iraqi invasion was a bad idea that we’ll get from this administration. The tough talk and the exercise of might felt good in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but “feeling good” falls a little short of the standard in the war clause. “Making Americans safer” and “getting them over there so they don’t get us over here” is empty rhetoric. I’m happy to see that the American public has finally sobered up enough to realize this. That’s about the only positive outcome I’ve seen so far.
Terrorism is a tactic, a concept, not an enemy, and the only way to fight it is to provide terrorist recruits with better options. As long as there are hungry people, desperate people, anywhere in the world, there will be terrorists. The Iraqi invasion, far from alleviating the circumstances that led people to become terrorists, added to them and came with the added bonus of making the U.S. a singular target for their efforts. I’m not convinced that the American public has completely arrived at this realization, but the growing dissent for the occupation of Iraq is at least an encouraging sign even if it came a good two years too late.
Americans can and should be proud of the members of their military. Given the bureaucratic hoops this giant organization must constantly jump through, it is an amazingly effective team, but don’t confuse this overall ability with success in a given operation. There is a difference between being proud of your troops and supporting every mission on which they’re sent. A few hundred yards of paving material successfully placed in Virginia Beach or in Iraq have about the same effect on terrorism. Although Joe Lieberman might not agree, it’s good to see the American public finally making this distinction.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Monthly Column?
Wow, while procrastinating the long, slow process of sorting through what to pack up, I realized this blog has really slipped! Thanks, Ray, for sticking with it. The post previous to this one is for you. What it lacks in quality, it makes up for in frustration AND volume (two posts in a week to balance out a long month of nothing).
With the mid-term elections coming up, and too much going on in my life, I don't know how much of that I'll be doing in the next few months, but I'll have to strike some kind of balance because I realized I'm not ready to give up on this thing just yet.
I'm sure when my wife reads these posts, she'll remind me that I have more important things to do with my time, but I was really losing focus on those things and performance was suffering. I was losing ground. I'm hoping this will put a little balance back into things... sort of straigten out the old feng shui or whatever the hell that is.
Anyhoo. It's nice to be here again. Say hello to the family for me and take care.
Luth.
With the mid-term elections coming up, and too much going on in my life, I don't know how much of that I'll be doing in the next few months, but I'll have to strike some kind of balance because I realized I'm not ready to give up on this thing just yet.
I'm sure when my wife reads these posts, she'll remind me that I have more important things to do with my time, but I was really losing focus on those things and performance was suffering. I was losing ground. I'm hoping this will put a little balance back into things... sort of straigten out the old feng shui or whatever the hell that is.
Anyhoo. It's nice to be here again. Say hello to the family for me and take care.
Luth.
Paying the price for defying the world.
Defying the Word
President Bush announced that Kim Jong Il will find out what happens when he ignores the rest of the world by conducting missile tests. He specifically mentioned that North Korea had "defied China, South Korea, Japan and Russia. Later in his press conference, he accused Kim Jong Il of "trying to force us to do something by ignoring the world." Bush even specifically mentioned going to the UN Security Council to establish "some red lines" that Kim Jong Il shouldn't cross.
Hmmm. Interestingly enough, China, Russia, and North Korea officially called for UN sanctions against the US for invading Iraq and defying the world.
It seems that had Bush followed his own advice on not defying the world back before he chose to invade Iraq, we'd be 2500 troops stronger, and billions of dollars richer right now. Who knows, maybe we'd even have made some progress in solving the issues we face here at home.
Check out the map. The "blue countries" are those that opposed the invasion of Iraq. The political leaders in those countries knew that Saddam Hussein was surrounded by the US and our allies. That he was powerless and that sanctions against him would eventually force a change at the hands of Iraqi citizens with UN, not US support, NOT at the hands of American troops. Those leaders probably even suspected that Iraq posed little or no threat to the US and that there was little or no connection between the 9/11 and Iraq. The leaders of those "blue nations" knew that Saddam presented no threat to anyone outside of his own country and that the best way to deal with him was to present (to use Bush's words from his Chicago press conference) one voice of the world to force him to comply with the world's demands. The UN security council agreed with the "blue nations" and felt that diplomacy had not, in fact, been exhausted in dealing with Saddam. THE WORLD felt we had plenty of time and that an invasion wasn't necessary.
Far be it from me to suggest that we shouldn't learn from our mistakes. In fact, I see that as a fairly admirable trait. One we should expect of our leaders for sure. When John Kerry went to Vietnam, (did I mention Bush didn't?) he was a proud, young, idealistic US Naval officer with the same romantic notion of war that most armchair soldiers and politicians safely home in the US have today. He learned first-hand how wrong that notion was. He acted appropriately given the new information he acquired and came home to tell everyone what he saw, how unorganized it was, and how the lack of any clear, specific US objective rendered the war a waste of resources at best, a dangerous diversion and blunder that hurt the US reputation at home and abroad at worst. So Kerry learned to correct his youthful foolishness. But the Bush administration hasn't made any mistakes, so how can they learn from them.
Now I'm not saying that no one in Vietnam or Iraq acted heroically or made sacrifices they felt were in the interest of the nation. That's a whole other argument. Soldiers on the ground then, like today, don't get to choose the wars they fight. They do their jobs. They do them well, and for that, they should be recognized, but the people who send them there should have a better understanding of what that means and rather than spinning their sacrifices into some kind of twisted jusification for the war, they should deal with those two separate issues as just that: separate issues. They should face the questions on the justification for the war BEFORE putting troops in harm's way, not put them there and then use their dedication as justification.
The point is, however, that the Bush administration used Kerry's experience and spun it as flip-flopping.
Perhaps that's why Bush can't admit mistakes even when he blatantly reverses his position on issues like defying the world to invade Iraq (actual use of military might, not just a test of a weapons system) or using strategic oil reserves to moderate gas prices or... I could go on, but what's the point.
I'm not saying Kerry is my hero, as has often been suggested here. I'm simply using him as a comparison since this administration has so often criticized him for doing exactly what they've done since the first campaign. Why are so many Americans so unwilling to apply this administration's own rules to this administration? Why do so many only criticize people like Kerry for doing things this administration does while letting the administration get away with it? Why now is Bush getting away with criticizing Kim Jong Il for doing what Bush himself did in invading Iraq?
In his press conference, Bush suggested that Kim Jong Il should pay a price for defying the world's opinion on his missile tests. It's pretty obvious that the US has already paid a price for defying the world's position on invading Iraq. How much longer will we pay such a price without asking Bush to pay a part of it as well?
Map source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governments%27_positions_pre-2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Speech transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07text-bush.html?pagewanted=1
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Sure, just call the guy!
Sure... just call the guy.
Hey dudes. How's things. It's been pretty nuts here. We've got movers coming in three weeks, but each time I say, "OK, I'm not doing anything but packing for the rest of the week," something else gets in the way. Last week it was the well. Ours was apparently struck by lightning causing the well casing and the pump to fail all at once.
Four days and $4,000.00 later, we've got water again. They say timing is everything. I replaced my well pump and discovered the evidence of the damaged casing the day before I signed the contract to sell the place. That's the kind of luck I have.
I called my buddy, Todd, when I discovered the pump wasn't working because I knew he'd dealt with this before. He suggested I just "call the guy." In my head I agreed, but my heart didn't want to give in that quickly. Hearing this dose of reality from Todd was wierd because he's always been a fiercely independent do-it-yourselfer. He's a "guard buddy" and like my other guard buddies, that independence is probably one of the things that drew us to the military and kept us in the national guard as long as we've stayed. Our experience in a highly mobile (meaning: sent to the ends of the Earth) civil engineering unit has given us the opportunity to do and learn a lot of skills that you need when constructing a small city in the middle of nowhere. In addition to on-the-job training, you also learn things through necessity when there is no "guy" to call. Bob and Greg, the other two guard buddies who've been with me since the beginning, are just like that. In and out of the guard, we've developed skills and an attitude that always makes us lean toward doing it ourselves before even considering "calling the guy." (Our wives aren't always impressed with this.)
Greg and Bob repaired parts on a generator that powered our little "village" in Iraq once because not repairing it meant no power for an indeterminate amount of weeks. The contractor who was supposed to be there for and who made way too much money for his knowledge of generator repair and maintenance had ordered replacement parts and was content to wait. His village had power. Greg and Bob diagnosed the real problem, fixed the parts in question, and we had power that day. That's just one example of many, many, many situations where you either fix it yourself, or go without, so you can understand how this attitude developed.
So when Todd told me to call the guy, I was a little hurt. I think that must be what Michael Jordan felt when he realized his body just wouldn't do what his mind remembered anymore. Granted, he was still competitive among professional players half his age - I'm not talking that kind of performance, but still. That must be what it's like. On the other hand, this realization or plateau is also the result of realizing that our time is worth something too. It's part of maturing I guess. That it's just more efficient to pay someone even though it would be cool to have the time to do it ourselves. I'm busy with the move, Todd's busy running a company, Greg's busy remodeling his first house, Bob's busy working and finishing up a degree, and we all have families with whom we'd like to spend more time. I guess it really is a sort of longing for one's youth. For a time when life was less complicated.
My former roommate in Iraq, John, another one of those guard buddies, emailed me on the 4th of July to tell me he'd gotten up before anyone else in his house and in that quiet, was thinking back one year to the strange routine we'd developed in order to survive that experience. He said he'd caught himself actually missing aspects of the deployment. And then he said he called himself nuts for doing so, but there was a simplicity to the routine over there and there was a necessity of taking care of things on your own... and there was definitely a lot of time to do so without the needs of work and family and home and on and on. It was just the guys. It was like being back in that first bachelor apartment. Back when you were too dumb to know what you had. And there was no guy to call.
There was an episode of Two And A Half Men where their satellite TV goes fuzzy and the Charlie Sheen character wants to just call the guy. His brother tells him they simply need to aim the dish. The brother goes so far as telling him, "that's your problem in life... you think you can solve everything by just calling the guy." So he crawls up a ladder onto the roof, aims the dish, and falls when climbing back down. He breaks both wrists and sprains his neck. In succession, each character he encounters and who inquires about his injuries responds with, "why didn't you just call the guy?" for the rest of the episode.
With that image in the back of my head, I gave in to Todd's advice as much as it pained me. The guy turned out to be 26, but had been working for the well-drilling company for ten years. His "helper" was the actual owner of the company. It was pretty cool to watch these two guys at such different places in their careers, work their magic. Both were knowledgeable and efficient and both seemed to really enjoy what they did. Once we determined that not just the pump, but the well casing too was shot, we scheduled the crew to come back the next day and begin drilling the new well. The owner didn't come back. In his place, the first guy and two more, another expert, and a "new guy" showed up with the well rig and the truck that carried the rest of what they'd need.
It wasn't hard to call them when it came to drilling a new well. That's not something I could pull off on my own even with all of my guard connections, but watching the efficiency, the expertise that came only from working with that rig and doing their job, amazed me. And then even they called a guy to dig a trench from the new well to the basement wall where their work would meet up with my new plumbing. (I couldn't just let them have all the fun.)
My dad always used to tell me, "You do a job your'e good at and that you like doing so you can pay someone to do the other things for you. You earn your living, and they earn theirs." Of course, we were usually fixing a car, or building on to the house while he (a salesman most of the time) was telling me this, so it was kind of a mixed message.
As I prepare to buy that house where I got that advice, I look forward to doing a lot of the repairs and remodeling it will need, but I am also at a point in my life where I have fewer and fewer reservations about "calling the guy" to do the jobs I either don't want to do or don't know how. I guess that means I'm growing up. That's not so bad, is it?
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Same Sex Marriage Ban again? Must be election time.
Hey dudes,
Thanks for indulging my little mental break. Thanks for checking back, to those of you who are still here. I wrote a draft of this post last weekend and after watching the Daily Show last night, almost scrapped the whole thing. In addition to covering the questions I have here, and discussing them with William Bennett, Jon Stewart also pointed out that the proposed same sex marriage ban constitutional amendment has no chance of passing... which makes the whole idea of dragging the issue out around election time again even more ridiculous, but I've got to get this off my chest and I've been gone for so long that I figured I owed my fans (or, at least those who tolerate me) a real rambler like this one. So here goes...
A friend of mine, an old college roommate, sent me a picture of an unmarked grave. At the top of the forwarded message was this comment: "Luth, don't even try to spin this one." In the message it said that this grave was that of Casey Sheehan. It went on to say that in three years since Casey's death in Iraq, his mom, Cindy Sheehan, "hadn't bothered" to get a stone, even the free one the Deptartment of Defense provides, to mark her son's grave. As proof that this was out of pure neglect, the message contained another picture of Cindy Sheehan hugging the reverend Jesse Jackson, and smiling.
I suggested that the opportunistic photos, and the assumption that Mrs. Sheehan had simply neglected her son's grave might be a little off base and required no further spin on my part. I congratulated my friend on successfully exploiting this mother's loss to his own political purposes (the definition of "spin") and hoped, for his sake, that he never run out of moms who have lost their sons to use for his purposes.
I can't imagine what it would be like to lose a child, but I suspect Mrs. Sheehan simply wants answers. Like, why did her son have to die in Iraq? How has his death there made life in America any better for anyone? What threat from Iraq is now alleviated because of her son's, and her own sacrifice? I don't want to speak for her (as the message from my friend claimed to) but I suspect these are the questions to which she hasn't received a satisfactory answer. In reply to this suggestion my friend responded:
"Freedom."
My friend (And I'm not being facetious or sarcastic when I call him that, he has, or had, a heart of gold. I can't explain his heartless politics!) explained that Casey Sheehan was free to join the military or not. I didn't quite follow the logic of this answer and so asked my friend to explain, specifically, what he meant by "freedom." Was it the freedom Mrs. Sheehan had to ask about her son's death? The freedom, and even the responsibility as citizens, that Teddy Roosevelt suggested we use to question our leadership? I'm just not making the connection. What does Iraq have to do with Americans' freedom? Is it the freedom to have our Google searches or our phone calls monitored? As I suspect about Cindy Sheehan, I'm just not satisfied that these abstract answers like "mission accomplished" or "fighting terror" or "defending freedom" have sufficient connections to specific questions to justify the loss of a son's life, let alone 2,000 American lives and 30,000 other lives.
And now, with the mid-term elections bringing out the issues that only come out for campaigns, we are reminded that we have lost more freedom than we've gained since this war, and this presidential administration have begun.
In his weekly radio address President Bush said, “In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives.” That, apparently, is what people mean when they believe Bush supports freedom, but, of course, there’s more.
“And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people, not by the courts.”
Strange language from a guy whose election, his “mandate from the people,” was decided by the courts, but that’s another story. On the surface, Bush’s comments sound freedom-friendly. Sure, the people should have the right to choose how to live their lives, but that’s clearly not what Bush has in mind with these comments. Considering the constitutional amendment Bush supports through these comments, the comments themselves are beyond hypocritical, they’re flat our oxymoronic.
Let me explain: You see, if people truly had a choice in the matter to which these comments apply, they could marry whomever they choose. Bush, however, is arguing for a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AGAINST such freedom. Instead, he wants to limit the choice people have in who they marry. In fact, in supporting a constitutional amendment, he wants to take away state's rights in determining their own marriage laws. So how, exactly, does taking away individual and state's rights translate into freedom?!
The president's own language begs to be defined as oxymoronic. “Decisions should be made by the people, not by the courts,” Bush says, but what he really means is, decisions should be made by Congress, not the people. He refers to marriage as a “fundamental social institution,” but then intends to “socialize” only his definition of marriage by having congress codify his narrow view of what this “social” institution is. He apparently thinks “social” means “that which I favor.” To me, this sounds more dictatorial than freedom-friendly.
Now, before you go crying that your religion says this or that regarding this particular “social issue,” keep in mind that no one’s trying to tell you what your church can or can’t do. No one’s trying to take away your religious definition of marriage. Bush is only trying to take away someone else’s definition of marriage. We’re talking a constitutional amendment here. It has nothing to do with any church. It only has to do with a LEGAL definition of marriage. If you keep church out of it, marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two individuals. It’s even taxed! Some have called it the “marriage penalty,” which is another Republican definition – the idea that tax = penalty. Republicans, with this definition, seem to suggest that the public infrastructure built and maintained with tax funds, that allows business to operate, is somehow free… that paying taxes to support that is somehow a penalty. They seem to forget that the roads, power grids, sanitation systems and services upon which businesses rely, must be paid for and are one the core functions of government. I guess Republicans believe only Democrats should pay for that stuff?! But I digress…
Back to the legal contract status of marriage and the FACT that that’s all marriage means outside of a church. Would you seek a constitutional amendment to prevent gay interior decorators from opening a business together? How about gay fashion designers? (pardon the stereotypes, but I hope they point out just how ridiculous this argument really is) Seeking to ban gay marriage, in pure legal terms, is just as discriminatory. It has nothing to do with “the backbone of the country.” It has nothing to do with “moral values” or “the institution of family.”
The only connection between those issues and this amendment is the usurping of the national dialogue by the conservative right and Bush’s desire to please them around election time regardless of what society actually wants, regardless of what’s fair, and regardless of the true values on which this nation was founded. (Hint: you won’t find those values on the 700 Club)
Churches are still free to marry or deny marriage to whomever they choose. All Americans are free to NOT marry someone of the same sex if they desire. This amendment isn’t about protecting any freedom. It’s plainly and simply about limiting freedom. Banning gay marriages won’t reduce the 50% failure rate of straight marriages – a shadowy number lying beneath the silly notion that straight marriage is some grand institution. In fact, in his radio address, Bush seemed to indicate the connection between “family values” and this grand institution.
Considering the fairly recent public acceptance of homosexuality in our society, I'd say being a little more lenient in terms of what constitutes a family is worth a shot. Between the 50% divorce rate and the rapid decline, as conservatives constantly remind us during campaigns, of our values, it appears as though the traditional definition of family, at least to the extent that it is the backbone of our society, isn't working! Where we are, in terms of moral values, is the result of the traditional, heterosexual family type being accepted as the standard for the last 150 years. As Dr. Phil says, "how's that workin' for ya?"
So how is this latest attempt at denying yet another freedom supposed to help us? What is it we're gaining by giving up yet another individual right and having bigger government forced upon us by special interest groups who form the moral minority? And how, exactly, does the party of smaller government reconcile this blatant effort toward bigger government? I need some help with this one.
Forgive me, and forgive Cindy Sheehan for having some pretty high expectations for the answers to our questions. No, strike that. I make no apologies. We should have high expectations for the answers to questions that justify the loss of human life and huge non-human resources. When it comes to altering the oldest living, and by that I mean, most effective government document in existence, simply to appease either the tiny fraction of people who feel threatened by gay marriage, or the even tinier fraction of people who might be allowed to get married if the ban fails, we should have better answers.
PS - the Rob Cordry sketch comparing gay marriage to prohibition is something to think about. Nothing makes an issue more attractive than banning it. Perhaps those who seek to ban gay marriage secretly would like to see it become more attractive??
Thanks for indulging my little mental break. Thanks for checking back, to those of you who are still here. I wrote a draft of this post last weekend and after watching the Daily Show last night, almost scrapped the whole thing. In addition to covering the questions I have here, and discussing them with William Bennett, Jon Stewart also pointed out that the proposed same sex marriage ban constitutional amendment has no chance of passing... which makes the whole idea of dragging the issue out around election time again even more ridiculous, but I've got to get this off my chest and I've been gone for so long that I figured I owed my fans (or, at least those who tolerate me) a real rambler like this one. So here goes...
A friend of mine, an old college roommate, sent me a picture of an unmarked grave. At the top of the forwarded message was this comment: "Luth, don't even try to spin this one." In the message it said that this grave was that of Casey Sheehan. It went on to say that in three years since Casey's death in Iraq, his mom, Cindy Sheehan, "hadn't bothered" to get a stone, even the free one the Deptartment of Defense provides, to mark her son's grave. As proof that this was out of pure neglect, the message contained another picture of Cindy Sheehan hugging the reverend Jesse Jackson, and smiling.
I suggested that the opportunistic photos, and the assumption that Mrs. Sheehan had simply neglected her son's grave might be a little off base and required no further spin on my part. I congratulated my friend on successfully exploiting this mother's loss to his own political purposes (the definition of "spin") and hoped, for his sake, that he never run out of moms who have lost their sons to use for his purposes.
I can't imagine what it would be like to lose a child, but I suspect Mrs. Sheehan simply wants answers. Like, why did her son have to die in Iraq? How has his death there made life in America any better for anyone? What threat from Iraq is now alleviated because of her son's, and her own sacrifice? I don't want to speak for her (as the message from my friend claimed to) but I suspect these are the questions to which she hasn't received a satisfactory answer. In reply to this suggestion my friend responded:
"Freedom."
My friend (And I'm not being facetious or sarcastic when I call him that, he has, or had, a heart of gold. I can't explain his heartless politics!) explained that Casey Sheehan was free to join the military or not. I didn't quite follow the logic of this answer and so asked my friend to explain, specifically, what he meant by "freedom." Was it the freedom Mrs. Sheehan had to ask about her son's death? The freedom, and even the responsibility as citizens, that Teddy Roosevelt suggested we use to question our leadership? I'm just not making the connection. What does Iraq have to do with Americans' freedom? Is it the freedom to have our Google searches or our phone calls monitored? As I suspect about Cindy Sheehan, I'm just not satisfied that these abstract answers like "mission accomplished" or "fighting terror" or "defending freedom" have sufficient connections to specific questions to justify the loss of a son's life, let alone 2,000 American lives and 30,000 other lives.
And now, with the mid-term elections bringing out the issues that only come out for campaigns, we are reminded that we have lost more freedom than we've gained since this war, and this presidential administration have begun.
In his weekly radio address President Bush said, “In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives.” That, apparently, is what people mean when they believe Bush supports freedom, but, of course, there’s more.
“And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people, not by the courts.”
Strange language from a guy whose election, his “mandate from the people,” was decided by the courts, but that’s another story. On the surface, Bush’s comments sound freedom-friendly. Sure, the people should have the right to choose how to live their lives, but that’s clearly not what Bush has in mind with these comments. Considering the constitutional amendment Bush supports through these comments, the comments themselves are beyond hypocritical, they’re flat our oxymoronic.
Let me explain: You see, if people truly had a choice in the matter to which these comments apply, they could marry whomever they choose. Bush, however, is arguing for a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AGAINST such freedom. Instead, he wants to limit the choice people have in who they marry. In fact, in supporting a constitutional amendment, he wants to take away state's rights in determining their own marriage laws. So how, exactly, does taking away individual and state's rights translate into freedom?!
The president's own language begs to be defined as oxymoronic. “Decisions should be made by the people, not by the courts,” Bush says, but what he really means is, decisions should be made by Congress, not the people. He refers to marriage as a “fundamental social institution,” but then intends to “socialize” only his definition of marriage by having congress codify his narrow view of what this “social” institution is. He apparently thinks “social” means “that which I favor.” To me, this sounds more dictatorial than freedom-friendly.
Now, before you go crying that your religion says this or that regarding this particular “social issue,” keep in mind that no one’s trying to tell you what your church can or can’t do. No one’s trying to take away your religious definition of marriage. Bush is only trying to take away someone else’s definition of marriage. We’re talking a constitutional amendment here. It has nothing to do with any church. It only has to do with a LEGAL definition of marriage. If you keep church out of it, marriage is nothing more than a legal contract between two individuals. It’s even taxed! Some have called it the “marriage penalty,” which is another Republican definition – the idea that tax = penalty. Republicans, with this definition, seem to suggest that the public infrastructure built and maintained with tax funds, that allows business to operate, is somehow free… that paying taxes to support that is somehow a penalty. They seem to forget that the roads, power grids, sanitation systems and services upon which businesses rely, must be paid for and are one the core functions of government. I guess Republicans believe only Democrats should pay for that stuff?! But I digress…
Back to the legal contract status of marriage and the FACT that that’s all marriage means outside of a church. Would you seek a constitutional amendment to prevent gay interior decorators from opening a business together? How about gay fashion designers? (pardon the stereotypes, but I hope they point out just how ridiculous this argument really is) Seeking to ban gay marriage, in pure legal terms, is just as discriminatory. It has nothing to do with “the backbone of the country.” It has nothing to do with “moral values” or “the institution of family.”
The only connection between those issues and this amendment is the usurping of the national dialogue by the conservative right and Bush’s desire to please them around election time regardless of what society actually wants, regardless of what’s fair, and regardless of the true values on which this nation was founded. (Hint: you won’t find those values on the 700 Club)
Churches are still free to marry or deny marriage to whomever they choose. All Americans are free to NOT marry someone of the same sex if they desire. This amendment isn’t about protecting any freedom. It’s plainly and simply about limiting freedom. Banning gay marriages won’t reduce the 50% failure rate of straight marriages – a shadowy number lying beneath the silly notion that straight marriage is some grand institution. In fact, in his radio address, Bush seemed to indicate the connection between “family values” and this grand institution.
Considering the fairly recent public acceptance of homosexuality in our society, I'd say being a little more lenient in terms of what constitutes a family is worth a shot. Between the 50% divorce rate and the rapid decline, as conservatives constantly remind us during campaigns, of our values, it appears as though the traditional definition of family, at least to the extent that it is the backbone of our society, isn't working! Where we are, in terms of moral values, is the result of the traditional, heterosexual family type being accepted as the standard for the last 150 years. As Dr. Phil says, "how's that workin' for ya?"
So how is this latest attempt at denying yet another freedom supposed to help us? What is it we're gaining by giving up yet another individual right and having bigger government forced upon us by special interest groups who form the moral minority? And how, exactly, does the party of smaller government reconcile this blatant effort toward bigger government? I need some help with this one.
Forgive me, and forgive Cindy Sheehan for having some pretty high expectations for the answers to our questions. No, strike that. I make no apologies. We should have high expectations for the answers to questions that justify the loss of human life and huge non-human resources. When it comes to altering the oldest living, and by that I mean, most effective government document in existence, simply to appease either the tiny fraction of people who feel threatened by gay marriage, or the even tinier fraction of people who might be allowed to get married if the ban fails, we should have better answers.
PS - the Rob Cordry sketch comparing gay marriage to prohibition is something to think about. Nothing makes an issue more attractive than banning it. Perhaps those who seek to ban gay marriage secretly would like to see it become more attractive??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)