Thursday, October 3, 2013

WWLD?..."Sometimes Nothin' Can Be a Real Cool Hand"

Perhaps my favorite movie of all time is "Cool Hand Luke"...this is a little surprising considering the fact that I really don't like watching old movies much at all...I don't know why, but I just love it...on the one hand, Luke, a decorated veteran, was anything but a heroic figure in post-war freedom, yet he had some innate admirable and endearing qualities that revealed themselves in incarceration (he was sent to prison for cutting the heads off of parking meters in a drunken fit of exasperation and boredom with life)...I don't know, the story just struck a chord in me...

If you know the movie, the early turning point occurs when Luke, refusing to take his place at the bottom of the established prison pecking order, chooses to fight the top dog, Dragline, rather than to submit and conform...though he knew the fight was unwinnable, he had to try because his pride and stubbornness were really all that he had left...his refusal to stay down and to concede, despite the pummeling that he was receiving, earned him the respect of his peers and helped him to salvage his own self-respect...

If anybody has read my thoughts about the political standoff that has evolved over the last couple of weeks into the current partial government shutdown, you know that I did not think that tactically it was the right fight at the right time, though the enemy, the ACA, certainly merited the opposition...despite my disagreement with the tactical decisions made by some Republicans, however, I refused to criticize them and applauded their conviction and efforts...

When the efforts to avoid shutdown failed, at first I thought that it was best to pass a clean CR, having gone on record for all to see that we oppose not only the ACA but its illegal, inequitable implementation by this President...after mulling it over throughout the week, I have had a change of heart...I thought about Luke and the many instances throughout history in which Americans stood and fought for causes that they believed in and against injustices they perceived, even when the odds were stacked against them, as they were against Luke...

While I believe that the ACA is both flawed and dangerous legislation that will ultimately implode under the weight of its own expense and ineffectiveness, as well as from the deleterious effects of the concomitant unintended consequences, I think that it is time to make a stand against the liberalism of this President and his Democrat supporters...

Unless a satisfactory agreement can be reached (and despite the spin from the President and the Democrats, the Republicans have offered to agree to several concessions short of defunding or repeal of ACA), then we need to stick to our guns and ride this thing out into the debt ceiling negotiations and deadlines of mid-month...as I posted last night, the notion that NOT raising the debt ceiling automatically means default is just not true...would it result in some difficult choices and bring some real frugality to bear in government?...certainly...but maybe that's what's needed to derail this runaway train of liberalism and to keep the nation as a whole on the tracks...

As a conservative, what would an acceptable agreement look like to me? I would think that re-opening the government (resolving budgetary disagreements and all parties agreeing to pass a budget according to the prescriptions of law next year) and agreeing to raise the debt ceiling for a year (perhaps two) in return for a) delaying the individual mandate for a year (enrollment in and implementation of ACA could move forward, but it would be voluntary for a one-year period), b) repealing the medical devices tax, which actually makes healthcare less affordable and stifles the development of new medical technology, c) elimination of all waivers and exemptions from the ACA, applying it equitably to everyone, d) new spending cuts to reduce future deficits (we are almost $17 trillion in the red, for God's sake), e) a blueprint for tax reform, and f) approval of the Keystone X Pipeline project...

So, after processing all of this, I have clarified my own views and position by asking this question: WWLD?...What would Luke do?...sometimes, you just have to fight...bring it on, Dragline..."You're gonna' hafta kill me"...

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Politics or Pragmatism: "The wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy"…


“As a preemptive action today, however well-justified, may come back with unwelcome consequences in the future...I don't care how precise your bombs and your weapons are, when you set them off, innocent people will die. "
I ran across this quote recently, and for obvious reasons, both timely and topical, it caught my attention. Who said it? These words were spoken by former president, William Jefferson Clinton.
Was this a recent comment that Clinton made while alluding to the dangers of a potential limited strike in Syria?...No...these were Clinton's words of warning, given in October 2002, regarding looming military action in Iraq...the situations?...somewhat similar in many respects, yet different in others...the words?...hauntingly prophetic, then and perhaps now?...

Over the past three weeks, I have listened to and read about loyal supporters of the President, irritated by opposition to this "limited" action that the President is currently contemplating in response to President Assad's (authoritarian ruler of Syria) alleged use of chemical weapons against his own people, wondering aloud what is the difference between Bush in Iraq and  Obama in Syria, once again rationalizing this Administration's policies and actions by comparing (ad nauseam) them to those of his predecessor...they intimate that the only reason that those who oppose action against Syria do so is because President Obama is proposing it…on a variety of levels, I find such reasoning to be both specious and disingenuous…
At the time and in retrospect as well, I unabashedly, and without regret, supported action against Iraq…when launched on March 19, 2003, Operation Iraqi Freedom was initiated just over 18 months (554 days to be precise) after the most deadly attack on American soil in our history, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001...against this backdrop of national mourning, anger, paranoia, confusion, wounded pride and a desire for vengeance, America, seeking to right a wrong that had been done to it and to punish those responsible for the death of almost three thousand Americans in a single day, struck out against a dictator with whom it had a past, a past in which he had purposefully and willfully sought to establish himself as an enemy of and threat to these United States...

A dictator who, IN POINT OF FACT, had used chemical weapons OF HIS OWN during the 1980s against his foreign enemies in Iran (Note:  some evidence exists that suggests that, ironically, he did so with the U.S. turning a knowing but blind eye to their use rather than seeing the mullahs gain the upper hand in the Iraq-Iran conflict), as well as against recalcitrant domestic foes in the Kurds of northern Iraq...among the estimated 100,000 to 200,000 killed as part of Sadam’s reputed genocide operation against the Kurds, as many as 5000 were killed in a SINGLE aerial gas attack in Halabja, with perhaps as many as 50,000 total succumbing to Sadam's chemicals...
While the intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD (chemical, biological, and nuclear) programs eventually proved somewhere between false and vastly overblown (it is beyond naïve, however, to a) suggest that this inaccurate intelligence was unsupported by the intelligence communities of many nations around the world, and b) that Saddam played no role himself in creating, perpetuating and lending credence to the WMD myth, given that his incessant cat and mouse games with UN weapons inspectors tended to give the impression that he was a man with something to hide) (Note to Saddam Hussein: Be careful the games that you play; if you wish the world to believe that you are a bad man, then you might just get what you wish for), as well did the pre-war intel that the regime was aiding and abetting Al Qaeda in a substantial way, the perception of the evil and ill intentions that Saddam and Iraq embodied was initially and widely accepted as well warranted, so much so that by the time the invasion of Iraq was launched the world had expended almost two years of time and energy investigating, negotiating with and trying to reign in the rogue regime; President Bush had secured bi-partisan congressional authorization for military action (with about 43% of Democrats voting in favor of it) against Iraq; a large, international coalition had been assembled and a Multi-National Force forged to undertake its invasion; and over 70% of Americans supported the action...in other words, there was, at a bare minimum, a short-term, solid consensus that military action was just and necessary before it was actually undertaken…

As the war unfolded and a) our search revealed that the WMDs did not exist in the purported state or quantities that the pre-war intel had suggested (or, at a minimum, that they had, by that time, been whisked away into hiding, perhaps in SYRIA, before we arrived - remember, it’s not as though Saddam, like Assad has had now, had no clue that we were coming or lacked time to prepare for that inevitability) and b) Saddam was toppled, apprehended from his spider hole, and turned over to the Iraqis, perhaps we should have (in my humble opinion, after extracting reimbursement in oil from Iraq for our troubles, much the same that someone making a false missing persons claim might be required to reimburse authorities for causing the "wild goose chase" search) patted the Iraqis on the back, wished them good luck and simply withdrawn, leaving the Iraqis to sort things out for themselves...
But the U.S., being the control freaks, humane sort and the lovers of democracy that we are, chose to hang around for an obligatory (and likely futile) exercise in "feel good" nation building, forced democratization and reconstruction...beyond those incentives to stay after the initial mission had been accomplished (search for WMDs and toppling Saddam), the looming presence next door of Iran, an enemy to both the Iraqis and ourselves, as well as our lingering paranoia that Al Qaeda and the 9/11 conspirators were still on the run, made an expeditious exit from an Iraq in total turmoil far from propitious and less than prudent…one way or the other, for good reason or in error, we remained in Iraq far too long (as many as five years too many) and at far too great a cost in national blood and treasure...in the end, perhaps we should just have said, “Screw ‘em” and come home…

Which brings to mind old truism…you know, “Hindsight is 20-20”…

In the last several days since punting to Congress and then asking for the ball back, given that the Russians had swooped in to save our a…um, the day (Note: the Russians are NOT, I repeat, are not our friends; Romney, despite the derision he received from the President, was correct in that they are  our greatest enemy), as well as  to reap whatever gravitas that might come their way in the region and the world for having done so, the President and his advisers have repeatedly reminded us that “Syria is not Iraq”…well, on that point, they are correct…

So, I wonder...if hindsight is indeed clear and correct, why would we, in our right minds, ignore the lessons of history and repeat our mistakes of the past…yeah, I know, I know, we’re just planning a “limited and targeted  response” to deter the abhorrent use of weapons that 98% of the world agrees should be forbidden (Note: Right or wrong, Syria, a sovereign nation, is part of the 2% that disagrees)…
What is taking place in Syria is a civil and sectarian conflict...it is not our fight and is certainly not one that we need to have a dog in…in Assad, we have a westernized, secular, yet brutal  dictator who is in bed with the Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Russians, bad folks none of whom are friendly to the U.S. and its interests…in  the rebels who oppose him, we have people who would cut the heart out of an opponent and eat it, who would behead a priest with a hunting knife, and who would summarily execute shirtless, hands bound opponents kneeling before them on the ground…in them, we would likely wind up with an Islamist state that, if not radicalized in the beginning, would likely eventually become another Muslim Brotherhood dominated, anti-Western, jihadist state similar to the one that was taking shape in Egypt prior to the military undertaking a coup there…either way, Syria is likely a lose-lose proposition for us when it comes to our picking sides…

After almost nine years in Iraq and a dozen in Afghanistan, we are war weary people…regarding the prospects of another war, the American public simply doesn’t have the stomach for more…not now…is that reason enough for us to turn our backs now, to ignore the use of prohibited, ugly weapons against innocents, among them children?...NO…so does that mean then that, should the Russian diplomatic gambit fail, we should strike Assad to diminish his capacity from using these weapons again and to deter him from wanting to, for fear of being on the receiving end of more of our moral outrage?...NO…no, it doesn't...
Unilateral military action, however limited and targeted it might be intended to be, by the United States at this time, against this nation, in this region would be, as General Omar Bradley warned against expanding the Korean War into China, as General McArthur wished to, "The wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy"…why so?...

Simple…as noted, we have been an invading presence in this part of the world for over a decade (over two, if you want to go back as far the Persian Gulf War) now…as a result, there are now at least three of generations of Middle Easterners who view us (and resent us) as invaders, if not “infidels”, as well, and one of those generations has grown up with and knows nothing but that view of us…they are already ripe for radicalization, without our making yet another encroachment into their land (and if religious and political reasons weren’t enough, I am reminded of the response of the Confederate prisoner when asked by his Union captor, “Why do you fight?”…the Rebel responded, “Because you are here”)…
We are all aware, by now,  and especially on this day, of the ardor, the passion, and the hatred that the radical, Islamist jihadists possess towards us and our way of life, even disassociated from the desire of their faith to proselytize and convert the world to Islam (at the tip of a sword if and when necessary)…we are talking about a people some of whom will blow themselves up in martyrdom simply to make a religious and political point…yeah, I know, all of them aren’t radical…but in hindsight, few Russians were Bolsheviks, few Germans were really Nazis, and few Japanese were imperialists (and in many respects, by the way, the Japanese viewed Pearl harbor as a limited, targeted action)…

Knowing the colors of this regional canvas, the existence of this vitriolic state of mind when it comes to us, the West, our religion, our culture, and its values, for us to believe that the seeds of the idea, the dream, the blood lust, perhaps even the plans themselves for how they will punish “the infidels” should they come again have not already sprouted and grown strong, far and wide among the people of this region seems simultaneously feckless and foolhardy…as a result, I don't believe that we should reenter the fray in this part of the world, not at this particular point in time...should we do so, I fear that the radicals in the region will not allow us to so easily withdraw this time and certainly not without extracting a great price from us for our having returned…
Now, does that mean that we should fear them and that, like the tortoise,  America should withdraw into its shell, into isolationism and say, “Screw the rest of the world!” (that we can really do so or that the rest of the world would leave us alone to live in peace are both flawed notions anyway)?...No, of course, not…Does it mean that we should fear Assad?...No, please, not directly...Does it mean that we should simply ignore our conscience when it comes to the evils in the world like the use of chemical weapons?...No, of course not…what it means is that we need to be realistic and pragmatic in our humanitarianism and in our idealism…we need to balance and temper the latter with the former...right now, we are in a weakened state, economically, militarily, and in terms of our morale…we need to get ourselves strong…we need to right our own ship, as well as our own wrongs…

And we need to lead from the front, not from behind, in terms of leading our international partners in the United Nations, the Chemical Warfare Commission, NATO, etc., in a more effective and productive fashion, towards influencing the outcomes of good over evil and right versus wrong around the world that we share…after all, what good are organizations and agreements to promote international cooperation if they don’t really work and really stand for anything…
Does this mean that I have become a Ron Paul-style non-interventionist?…no, hell, no…and does this mean that I have been converted to the President’s globalist views…no, hell, no…I’m an American, America first and foremost, all day every day…but in the reality of living in a world with neighbors, we can attempt to be good neighbors…but make no mistake, if you have to be part of a community, it is better to be kings of the hill...we can be good neighbors but neighbors that lead, not follow…

And should our interests and/or security be threatened, or God forbid, should we be attacked?...then we should open the “gates of hell” and may God have mercy upon our transgressors…but we need to be strong…I have always thought it best that if we were going to "speak softly and carry a big stick" that we need to have the biggest , best stick that there is…

Unilateral, limited, targeted strike in the Middle East? Now?...no sir, not today…no clearly defined objective...no clear plans for the “what if” contingencies and the aftermath…nothing substantive in terms of international support, except for verbal and moral support (as Thomas Sowell said, those who are “with us” on this are willing “to fight to the last American”)…inadequate planning for the post-war consequences of our actions was probably the biggest mistake and the take away from Iraq…we can control what we do, but we don’t control how others respond to it…believing that we do and can control everything is, I believe, naïve and short-sighted…God forbid that we should fall victims of our own jingoism and national machismo…and like the old advice warns us, we should, in this case and in most others, think with our heads first, not with our hearts...
So, for me at least, this ain’t about politics (as incompetently as I think the Administration has handled it)…it’s about pragmatism, and it’s about history..Vietnam?...Iraq?...don’t do it…not now…remember that admonition, "The wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy"…Yep...

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Did the President Get It Right?...Kinda, Sorta, Maybe, No?...



Well, apparently even O'brother (as in an exasperated "Oh, Brother"!) gets it right sometimes...or does he?...unlike many, I took a few minutes to sit down and watch (YouTube) the address that the President gave on Friday at his seemingly impromptu, yet clearly planned, appearance before the daily White House press briefing...while I am certain that some of my conservative friends will disagree, I thought that, taken as a whole, his address was both appropriate and well-intended... in fact, I thought that the “chat” (it was more that than speech) was one of his better moments...it was delivered sans the hubris and feigned affability that normally accompany his frequent teleprompter recitals...

How can an avowed Obamaphobe, like myself, possibly make such a declaration?...well, while I realize that it may result in some hardliners on the right asking to check my conservative card, I simply refuse to allow myself to filter my perceptions of everything that he does and says through my general disdain for his ideology and his policies (a disdain which remains solidly intact)...that would render me as myopic and dogmatic as I believe most liberals to be and that just ain't how I roll…

As a human being and as one who likes to rely upon reason, I can understand and (as a White American) can attempt to internalize the President's attempt to explain the origins of the angst that many Black Americans clearly feel about the Trayvon Martin tragedy and the frustration that many obviously feel towards the George Zimmerman verdict...it came across as sincere and heartfelt , intended to foster understanding while simultaneously making certain not to ignore the realities of the disproportionate involvement of Black males in the criminal justice system (his words) or to make excuses for them...his talk also struck me as surprisingly apolitical, a rarity for this President...any thoughtful person, I think, who did not already appreciate the framework of the perspective through which many Black Americans are processing these events should be better able to after listening to the President's remarks

I also found some of the steps that he suggested to actuate change (in the aftermath of the tragedy and trial) toward the end of his address positive and worthy of our consideration...certainly, any steps that we can take to further educate law enforcement and the general public on racial profiling - though I still disagree that answering the question, "What color is he? (or something to that effect)" and "What is he wearing? (the question which gave rise to the whole myth that this had anything to do with "hoodies", a completely media-generated aspect of this whole fiasco)" qualify as racial profiling - can't be objectionable...and, of course, any and all measures, programs, etc., that we might undertake to better weave Black males fully into the fabric of our nation so that they are made to feel like whole and equal fibers (citizens) would have to be considered by all as both welcomed and beneficial (Note: though I totally reject Tavis Smiley's assertion that America has disdain for Black males- there are far too many counter examples in the public's adoration for athletes and entertainment, not mention the fact that we have a Black man in the White House, to accept such a claim ...and I also reject Smiley's assertion that the President's words amounted to nothing more than a "Kool-Aid" speech )...

Time out...reality check...there were, however, a few points in his talk with which I either disagreed or would simply offer qualification and/or clarification...in the course of my thirty-one years of working with young Black men, I have known many who, despite coming from environments that may have been less than nurturing and favorable, rose above those obstacles and simply chose to become good men, sons, fathers, husbands, etc., as well as successful and productive citizens...certainly, when children of any race grow up in the face poverty, violence, and other non-nurturing environmental conditions, the obstacles that they have to hurdle to succeed in life may indeed be higher...but I believe that, unless we are content to see ourselves as simply victims of our circumstances, at some point each of us has the power to choose who and what we will become as people...so, as long as we are avoiding the "victim of circumstances" pitfall and eschewing the entitlement mentality as a solution in our approach AND are instead focusing upon helping people learn to make the right choices in life and to be accountable for those that they do make, good or bad, then overall I am in concert with the President's message regarding this issue...

As for his suggestion that the federal government needs to “help" the states examine "Stand Your Ground" laws, I am skeptical from a both a Constitutional and a practical standpoint...on a practical level, I don't think that most Americans even knew what this law was or that it existed before this case came into the spotlight...so extrapolating from the existence of these laws on the books of many states that they have fostered some kind of “Wild West” mentality, much less an "open season" on black teens for white "hate hunters"  is quite a stretch, in my view…in addition, I have to wonder...in addition, are these laws are an issue when whites kill whites, and when blacks kill blacks, and when blacks kill whites, etc., and claim self-defense or does it only become a concern in cases such as this one?...

And on a constitutional plane, if we take race out of the equation (which we should since the origins of these laws do not lie in race), then these laws are purely the purview of the states, since, in and of themselves, they have nothing to do with violations of civil rights or other specific federal laws...as I expressed the other day, I am particularly concerned with the trend in which the federal government, especially under Obama, has increasingly encroached upon states' rights...you should be too...the rights and powers of the states is part of the delicate balance of power that the Framers crafted within our federal system to safeguard us from tyranny...

Regarding his proposed initiatives to redouble the focus on profiling education and efforts to better fold Black males, on a equal and whole basis, into the American mix, I was struck by the harsh reality and stark truth, I think, of the observation that I heard one Black commentator make while he was analyzing the President’s Friday appearance...speaking of the President's call for changing perceptions and, in so doing, improving the position of black males within our society, the analyst argued that POTUS was far too understated, indirect and vague on this point…he simply observed that if we want to change the perceptions (stereotypes) that the greater society holds of young Black American males, be they fair or not (and stereotypical for certain), then behaviors will have to be changed…this is an issue to which comedian/philosopher Bill Cosby speaks all the time…he cited dress, language, misogyny, violence and crime, etc., as focal points of change...the reality of the disproportionate involvement in the criminal justice system to which the President alluded is that Blacks, who compose but thirteen percent of the population, commit half of all the nation's murders and a whopping 93 percent of all murders of Blacks victims. ...accurate or not, earned or unfairly assigned, these stereotypes exist, and as long as the behaviors that give rise to them remain unchanged, progress on things like prejudice and profiling will be slow...

In closing, the President pointed to the progress we have made in race relations as a society...I was struck by his acknowledgement of it, as I recently lamented in a post that, based upon some of the hostile and divisive language that I had read during the life of the Martin-Zimmerman tragedy, perhaps we had not come as far in race relations in America as I had previously thought and hoped...upon listening to his comments, I was reminded that I was wrong...indeed, we have come far...but we have a ways to go yet...we should all be mindful that, when it comes to the quest for race equity and unity in our society, our children have been and continue to be born into a much better America than we were...perhaps more importantly, we need to be cognizant of the fact that they are born into this world without the pernicious suspicions and prejudices that we, as adults, acquire through experiences, modeling and observations, and certainly through our interactions with others within our environment...we must take care not to make racism an unwanted and negative legacy for our children...we mustn't burden our young with the baggage of racism past, thus unnecessarily perpetuating it in the present and on into the future...prejudice doesn't need any help from us...and I wholeheartedly agreed with the President that the conversations about race that are still needed among us should be held among us, the people, in our homes, in our churches, and in our relationships with one another (even on the social networks and blogs), NOT among politicians...politicians just tend to f...well, muck things up...

Lastly, I thought that the President, in a subtle and understated way, tried to let people know that, in all probability, final justice has been rendered in this tragic case and that as a nation we should prepare to move forward...he appropriately pointed out that violent and otherwise inappropriate reactions and protests in the aftermath of unpopular justice will do nothing but detract from the tragic loss and the memory of a young man's life ...had POTUS spoken out more forcefully in his admonitions, he risked ceasing to be "The" president and would have simply become the "Black" president...I thought his calm, measured words as OUR president represented the best tack...

With that said, should he have spoken out on the matter?...Given the case's national prominence, the widespread discussion of the case, and the emotions that it had evoked, I absolutely believe that there is merit to his being able to share his insights, as a Black American man, with us...it's something that certainly no previous president could have possibly ever done...could he have also addressed other cases (in the news, e.g. the Brunswick, Georgia baby shooting) and issues (black on black crime) pertinent to race in America?...sure, but at the end of the day, putting my own political biases aside, I think that he was hoping to be helpful...I think he viewed the moment as a teaching opportunity, and attempted to share his insights and thoughts in the spirit of nation-building (something that I wished that he spent more time doing, like he promised)...besides, I would much rather he speak to the topic, from his reasoned, measured, personal perspective, than to hear from self-serving, race-baiters like the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons of the world...and the Jamie Foxxs?...man, please...

Now, with that ringing endorsement of his voicing his unique perspective extended, I found his open-ended query, rhetorically wondering aloud if the outcome of the trial might have been different had the circumstances been reversed, a quite different matter entirely...you know...his conjecturing "what if " it had been an unarmed, white teen killed by an armed Black man?...or "what if " an "of age", pistol-packing Martin (Black) had killed Zimmerman (he of the newly created "White" Hispanic race) and had subsequently attempted to invoke "Stand Your Ground" as his defense (Note to President: the Zimmerman defense team did not use that defense)?..."would that have turned out differently?" he queried in so many words...well, that right there, Boss, almost completely tanked your otherwise beneficial and positive introspective, in my eyes...you don't know that, given the same circumstances and evidence, things would have ended up differently, and neither does anyone else...in addition, your "what if" is somewhat of a head scratcher, given the fact that to date Blacks have made one-third of the "Stand Your Ground" defense claims in Florida, though they represent just under 17 percent of the state's population... the sort of subtle, race-baiting, "dog whistle" speculation that the President engaged in with his "what if" hypotheticals represented an uncalled for and unnecessary nadir in a message that he intended to be paternal, positive, insightful and instructional , I think...it seemed as though the President was almost determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

Some are criticizing the President for bringing race to the forefront of this case which, according to the evidence presented at trial, was NOT one rooted in race...I disagree with them...now, to be clear, beyond the rash of crimes involving young Black males in that Sanford, Florida neighborhood which preceded and provided the backdrop for this tragedy, I don't believe that race was central to George Zimmerman's thinking on that fateful night...and nothing has been unearthed in his background or in his relationships to support that it was...if race had been key, it most certainly would have been the centerpiece of the prosecution's case...but it wasn't...

However, to suggest that the intense sensationalism and extreme emotions surrounding this case, which have given it life in the media and made it the focus of discussion on social networks, at water coolers and dinner tables around the nation, and on blogs like this one, have nothing to do with race is a completely preposterous proposition...that's what has made it news!...and on the eve of a weekend where rallies protesting the unpopular verdict were to take place in cities around the nation, it would have been surprising, if not blatantly remiss of our President, had he chosen to remain on the sidelines and NOT address the elephant in the room, the raw emotions at the heart of people's frustration over their perceived lack of justice for Trayvon Martin...

And for all the naysayers and "pooh-poohers" of profiling?...it's real...it happens every day...I learned of it from talking and living among the young men that I taught and coached over the decades...I have probably been guilty of it myself...but it  happens on both sides of the racial fence that, despite its becoming less high with time, still divides us to some degree...when prejudice and bias are "assumed" because of one's color, that's profiling too...but I don't think that it was the factor in this particular case that many want it, for reason or another, to be...

My final thought?...I took the time from my day to listen to a voice that I hear far, far too often and disagree with almost always...and I heard him...unfortunately, I'm not so certain that all of those that really, really needed to hear the President did...as for me?...I'm going to keep looking at the world through clear lenses and judge the people that I meet in this world by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin...

Were YOU listening, Reverend Al?...and "This is for Trayvon" guys?...and "mired in the past" Jimmy Crow?...I hope so...but I doubt it...after all, what would you be or have without your hate?...


Tuesday, February 5, 2013

"Glory Days?"...Why The Thought of Attending A High School Reunion Scares the Shizzle Out of Me?

Last Friday evening upon settling down into our recliners at the end of our respective busy days, my wife and I watched a movie that she had picked up from Redbox on her way home from work. For lack of a more appealing choice, she had selected the movie, "Ten Years". The plot of this film was not a terribly original one. It was yet another foray into exploring that ever so awkward exercise in nostalgia that we call...the high school reunion.

In this flick, trendy and, so I am told, hunky heart throb, Channing Tatum, a guy I would be more inclined to describe as "that dude who plays characters that come across as lovably and disarmingly dim", plays the lead in a cast of high school chums who reunite for their ten year reunion, a celebration of their high school "glory days" that are rapidly slipping through their fingers as careers, marriage, children, responsibilities, expanding waist lines, receding hairlines, the appearance of the first gray hairs, and an assortment of other adult "issues" begin to suck the remaining life from their rapidly fading youth. In a rather predictable plot line, Tatum, who is accompanied to the party by the love of his adult life, encounters his old high school flame, a girl with whom he clearly has loose ends longing to be tied up. The subsequent, "on screen" tension that manifests itself as the "used to be" couple confronts the lingering embers of first love was palpable.

Against the backdrop of this central conundrum of the former "it couple", an array of other subplots revealing the problems, flaws, and unrequited loves of other classmates are weaved into the tale and followed to climax. When all was said and done, "Ten Years" was an okay movie. It was occasionally humorous, moderately entertaining but not at all brain-draining. Simply put, very easy on the mind which, at the end of a long, busy week, is not at all a bad thing, I think.

My takeaway from watching "Ten Years"? Well, what really got my attention had little, if anything at all, to do with the commonness and calculability of the storyline or with the familiarity and flaws of its characters. No. Instead, it was the feelings that watching this fictional portrayal of the final right of passage out of youth and into adulthood gave rise to inside of me that made watching it simultaneously salient and disconcerting.

And just how was that? How did it make me feel? Well, let's see. Raw. Uncomfortable. Vulnerable. Vicariously nervous, though on the outside looking in at an imaginary event. All in a very visceral way. Watching it just made me feel, well, you know...all "teeny bopper" inside. It was a little like imagining what it would be like to have a time warp encounter with your adolescent counterpart...on his or her very worst day.

The vexation that this feeling, having watched this fairly mundane movie about a pretty commonplace event in the lives of a group of imaginary strangers, caused me to experience is particularly weird in light of the fact that I have never even attended one of my own class reunions to even have feelings about the experience, good or bad. Since graduating almost forty years ago, I know that there have been at least a couple of them. I have always been aware of the benchmarks when they rolled around; it's not as though they just slipped by me without notice. I even recall receiving invitations. But as the dates for these class convocations drew near, I always managed to say to myself at the last moment, "You know, I think I'm gonna' pass."

I pride myself on being fairly introspective, self aware and self-critical. Admittedly, I see myself as very flawed. And I think that I am keenly aware of most of my foibles. But this question has plagued me and begs an answer, "Why?" Why do I not go? What am I hiding from, what am I avoiding by choosing not attend what should be a cherished opportunity to see those old (as in many years ago) familiar faces, to renew old friendships, etc., etc., etc.? Why I am a so reluctant to attend?  I've never really understood my squeamishness.

Well, after watching this semi-enjoyable yet most mediocre movie, which I am quite certain will garner no artistic accolades, the answer to my query became painfully clear. You see, it's really not all that complicated. That feeling, that somewhat nauseous nervousness that I welled up inside of me as I watched these fictitious friends, in all of their feigned adult splendor, maturity and wisdom, grappling with lingering insecurities and unfinished business from days gone by that for many like myself might be better left buried and forgotten...that feeling is exactly why I have avoided attending previous reunions like an STD. I just don't want to dredge up and revisit all of that suppressed teenage angst...I just don't want to go there and be that kid again. Just don't.

You see, while I really don't want to host a "poor me" pity party (though it may sound like it...well, maybe I do), I just don't remember high school all that fondly. No "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times" for me. Largely, I just remember high school as being somewhat lonely and painful. Too few buddies, relationships that ended in heartbreak, and very little healthy socialization outside of school left scars which have affected me into my adult life. Sure, with maturity and with the passage of time, I have overcome some things. For instance, I am blessed with the love of the most beautiful person, to whom I have been married for almost eighteen years now. But some of the rest of it? Not so much. To this day, building and maintaining friendships remains laborious for me. Sometimes, like even at the men's morning bible study at church where the climate is totally accepting and caring, I feel socially inept, like a social misfit of sorts. Out of place, like I don't belong. Either, I am socially maladjusted or perhaps just plain ol' not very likeable. Or maybe just paranoid.

Remember the Nazareth song, "Love Hurts"? Well, in high school, love hurts double. As long as I can remember, I have been a hopeless romantic. Not really sure why. However unhealthy it may be (you know, "you have to love yourself before you can love another", "you are only responsible for your own happiness", etc.), I think that I have always measured my own self worth by whether or not I perceived myself as "worthy" of another's love. Thinking this way, of course, is an equation for certain calamity during one's formative high school years. During high school, my heart was completely crushed a couple of times, likely more the fault of my clingy, overly serious, overly sensitive, suffocating nature than it was the fault of the girl. Regardless, my already fragile self-esteem (reference earlier blog on lifelong battle with being overweight) was obliterated. Beyond a tiny handful of other brief and oh so temporary flirtations and crushes during those years (which also ended with me on the short end of the romantic stick), for the most part I was not only "single" but dateless. I can recall so many agonizing minutes, even hours, spent staring at the telephone, too petrified to pick it up, dial it and ask someone out on a date. And when I finally did? Oh, the relief I felt when no one answered. It was almost better than having a kidney stone removed...and way better than being rejected. In the hallways of my memory, these were dark times.

What about friends? I had friends, but the vast majority of them were what I refer to as "school" friends, people that I saw and interacted with at school each day but rarely, if ever, outside of the school setting.  During high school, I wasn't involved in many extracurriculars (again, no one's fault but my own). Eventually, these normal, high school activities that most participate in funneled most of my childhood friends from church, from Scouts, from sports or from the 'hoods into new social circles. There were a small few guy friends that I intermittently did things with, but for the most part though, I was more or less a lone wolf...or a lone something.  During these years, I was fortunate, however, to have been blessed with a handful of "sister friends", close female friends (who probably wouldn't have gone out with me either had I asked them) who were, for all extent and purposes, my social life line during these otherwise lonely years. But day in and day out, I was pretty much alone. When I wasn't, my recollection is that, more often that not, I initiated the interaction.

In every high school class, there are the party animals? Well, that group certainly include me. My cousin, whom I grew up with, and attended school with throughout childhood and youth, and love dearly, has lots of pictures from various parties that different classmates threw throughout our high school years. If you peruse them, you will find that I am conspicuously absent. Sure, I did a couple of military balls and one prom, but beyond that, I can't recall ever being invited to or attending a single, non-school related party, big or small, formal or informal, during my time in high school. There were never any weekend evenings spent in the parking lot socializing with friends out at Northside. You know that "You Know You're From Thomaston If" page on Facebook? I have heard contemporaries talk about social venues in Thomaston that they have fond memories of from high school that I have never even heard of, much less been to. For Pete's sake, I have never even been on Potato Creek or to Sprewell Bluff. I mean like ever. I have never even been inside of the clubhouse at the Thomaston Country Club. The long and the short of it was that I just never "hung out" very much, never had much of anyone to "hang out" with, and never ever "hung" with anyone that hung out at many of those places that I hear so many people reminisce about.

Nope, the essence of my recollections of those high school years can be summed up in this memory... hour upon hour spent just "riding around" Thomaston, Georgia...alone...burning gallon upon gallon of gas in my car as I pretended...no, fantasized that I was actually "socializing"...just to get out of the house for awhile and to escape feeling alone and isolated. To this day, even though there have been some changes there, I think that I could drive the streets of Thomaston blindfolded. To this day, I still feel alone.

So the thought of going to a high school reunion, of filling out that name tag, of walking through that door, of awkwardly pretending to be glad to see people that I barely knew or, even worse, forgetting the names and faces of people that I did know, of having to think of something to say or talk about (a master of small talk I am not)?...well, all of that just kind of gives me the heebie jeebies.

I can see just myself , once the assemblage settles down and people, as they inevitably will, begin to divide themselves into the same cliques that they identified with as teens, I can just picture myself milling around clumsily, aimlessly moving from perimeter of one pod to the next, watching and listening to people talk and laugh about the "good ol' times" that they remember, while I vacuously grin and nod as though I remember them too. Nah, I can't. I really just can't see it at all.

But that was then and this is now, you say. We have all grown up, matured, mellowed, changed. Yeah, well, maybe. But I think that in the recesses of our psyches, hiding out in the shadows of our minds, our adolescent alter egos are still lurking, waiting for the opportunity to resurface and to antagonize us. At least mine, anyway.

Now I can understand how, for some, reunions could be fun occasions. Those who thrived in high school, the popular-ratzi if you will, who had lots of friends, successes and positive experiences might find the reunion experience a welcome homecoming, a return to the "glory days", either real or imagined, that Bruce Springsteen so cynically sang about. Or for other "pop'lars", if lady luck has been unkind to them in adulthood, the reunion might provide a place of solace, a place where he or she can once again, if only in their memories, be, as Toby Keith lamented, "as good as I once was".

For people like me, however, for whom those years are remembered far less glowingly and for whom, fortunately (or at least hopefully), we were not  the best we would ever be (or maybe sadly we were), the prospect of attending this "deja vu revue" that we refer to as our class reunion may be most scary and foreboding. The scenario is ripe with potential for ripping open and making raw again old, slow-healed scars and, in the process, feeding festering fears, unearthing skeletons or dirt that has been painstakingly buried or finding psychological baggage that was long ago to left behind in the dust of life's journey. You know, sometimes in life it is simply better not to look back. Don't look back over your shoulder...just keep on moving. The fact is that sometimes you just can't go home again.

Over the last three years or so, however, my frigidity toward the prospect of ever attending a reunion has begun to thaw...just a little bit. Surprisingly, this glacial defrost is largely attributable to the advent of social media. I never thought that beginning a Facebook page, a decision that I arrived at most reluctantly and skeptically, would have had such an impact. Like most, as "people you may know" showed up on my page and those of schoolmates, I have gradually become part of a small network of people from my hometown that I was in the same class with or whose high school experience overlapped mine at some point. A few were "friends", many were "acquaintances",  some I really only knew who they were, and vice versa, and a few I couldn't really place at all but was too polite to ignore their friendship requests.

The odd thing about this Facebook experience has been that some of the "friends" that I was fairly close and was most excited about reconnecting with via the platform I rarely interact with at all. There could be any number of reasons why this has been true: they don't really use Facebook very much, maybe our friendship was more or less unilateral and we really weren't as close as I thought or remembered, or they've moved on and just don't see the point in expending the energy rekindling our friendship either because of distance and the passage of time or because they simply don't want to add to the clutter of their current lives. I know that sometimes I am of that latter ilk. Or perhaps it's because they have a real life and I don't...lol. I don't know.

To my surprise, however, many of the people that I have drawn close to, at least virtually, through the miracle of this social platform are people that I really only barely knew back in the day and with whom I had very little, if any, significant interaction. We just barely brushed by one another in our lives back in the day. Some of the people that I interact regularly with online today, people that are really only "cyber-friends", are, however sad it may be, my best friends, given the fact that almost forty years removed I remain pretty much "socially challenged" (today's politically correct term for my disability) and very few tangible friends . During the course of my week, I look forward to reading their thoughts, hearing their opinions, seeing what's going on in their lives, what their likes and dislikes are, chatting with them , and sharing these things in my own life in return. As fantastic as it may have seemed a decade or so ago, these "computer chums", many of whom I haven't seen in decades since leaving home shortly after graduation, have been woven into and have become an integral part of the fabric of my "real" life. I truly think of them as my friends and treasure the new connections. They are "virtually", at least, such wonderful and caring people. So in the present, if there is any pull, any pull whatsoever, to attend a reunion, it is more likely the prospect of bringing these virtual friendships into the realm of reality than it is revisiting "glory days" that never were and reopening baggage that has been long packed away.

So I would go to one now, right? To actualize these new, virtual friendships, right? Well, doing my best Lee Corso, "Not so fast, my friend!" What all of this means is that I have invented an entirely new twist on having reservations about attending my high school reunion, a new age "reuniphobia", if you will. Now, new apprehensions gnaw at me and cause me to be dubious of the wisdom of taking such a big leap. Would it be worth taking the risk, to actually lay eyes on my long distance buddies and have real rather than written convos? Or would the experience have a boomerang effect, one that was the opposite of what I had envisioned? I mean if it ain't broke, don't fix it, right? Why ruin a good thing, perfectly good cyber-friendships for one face-to-face evening or weekend? Why rock the boat and risk finding out that, in real life, you are really aren't all that simpatico or that hanging out online is more copacetic than really hanging out...in person. Do I really need to find that out, to turn  my existing social world upside down? I don't know. I just don't know.

The scuttlebutt is that this summer our high school is having one of those mutli-year reunions. You know, the ones where there either isn't enough interest in any one class or, at our age, not enough survivors to have one per class  (how exactly do the organizers determine which classes are to be included in these things? And what happens if someone from a class beyond or below the established class cluster shows up?...but I digress). Fear, the old faithful and familiar one of confronting a not so pleasant or memorable past, chancing the excavation all that old, adolescent weltschmerz, intermingled with the new found nightmare of possibly upsetting the apple cart of my existing social architecture, such that it is (regardless of how dysfunctional or delusional it may be in reality, it's what I got), stands in my path as an obstacle to my getting out there and "hanging out" with some buds before it's too late.

Hm-m-m-m-m. What to do? What to do? If I go, what will it be like? Will it be like it was in "Ten Years" or "Peter's Friends" or "The big Chill", will it just turn out to be a be weekend awash in tense undercurrents of old competitiveness, drama, and secrets; of regrets and disappointments, past and present, dressed up, covered up in nice clothes, feigned laughter, small talk and pretense. Or could taking a chance and going be an opportunity to really get to know, really connect "eye to eye"  with the new, adult versions of dear, old friends and to strengthen and deepen the new connections made over distance with people that, for whatever reasons, you didn't get to know way back when. Is it conceivable that with the maturity and grace developed over years and life experience, that with the changed perspectives and reordered priorities of what is really important that accompany the aging and maturing process that attending might turn out to be a marvelous and memorable experience that ultimately enriches the final chapters of my life.

 I mean I wanna' go...I do. But then I don't. Call me "scary", if you want. Today? It's a coin toss. Perhaps to allow myself the opportunity to make an impartial, unemotional decision, I should  avoid listening to the Springsteen channel on Sirius or watching any other reunion movies for a while.

Wait a minute. What do you think Romy and Michelle would do in my situation?

"...Glory days well they'll pass you by, Glory days in the wink of a young girl's eye, Glory days, glory days..."





 

Thursday, January 31, 2013

The Devil Made Me Do It...Um, No He Didn't...He Just Put the Bait Out There Like Cheese for a Mouse...and You Took It

The other day my daughter had a relapse. A "dishonesty" relapse. Because she preferred to watch her favorite program on television rather than doing her math homework the previous Tuesday evening, she lied to her mother and me, telling us that she had already completed it. Following the honor system as we like to try to do, we accepted her at her word. Problematically for her, however, she has yet to grasp this "your grades are online in real time" concept (Thank goodness that did not exist when I was a kid!).

After I piled on (her mother had already scolded her thoroughly) in my own inimitable "coach-ly" fashion (unfortunately, this tends to be my primary response instinct), my daddy heartstrings soon began to tug at my conscience. I went up to her room and found her crying on her bed. She was upset that she had disappointed us. I hugged her and shared that growing up, and life in general for that matter, is all about making mistakes, learning from them, growing and moving on. As I often do, I reminded her that if, in making decisions, she always sought to make herself proud of her choices that she would most likely be making Mama and Daddy proud too.

Tsk-tsk-tsk. If only we could ever quit making mistakes ourselves. If only we always managed to practice what we preach. Now, just wouldn't that be a neat treat! Sadly, last night I found that my daughter's shoe was on the other foot...my foot.

Back in the fall, our pastor preached a series of sermons based upon the book, "The Bait of Satan". The premise of this spiritual guidebook for Christians is very simple. In his ongoing recruiting wars with God, Beelzebub uses "offense" as the primary bait to lure God's children astray. When people become offended by the words and actions of others, their tendency is to respond in a human way, the way of a sinner, rather than in the way that God's will would have them respond (you know, "turning the other cheek", "...peace, good will toward men"). When we behave and respond sinfully, ignoring God's word and will, we move away from God rather than closer to Him. In sum, the author contends that offense is Satan's primary and most effective weapon as he wages war with God for our hearts.

For those who know me, it is no great secret that I love my country and that I have a passion for The United States Constitution, conservative ideals, and politics.  It is also no mystery that I believe that these are dark times for our country and that this Administration is purposefully attempting to "fundamentally transform" America in a way that will destroy its greatness an uniqueness. I make no apologies for possessing these feelings and opinions. I unabashedly stand by them, unwavering in my conviction, and in the spirit and of the Patriot founders of this great nation, I am unafraid to promulgate and defend them.

During the course of the last election cycle, I found my views frequently challenged by those with a differing perspective, the liberal Progressive perspective. Being challenged is fine. I have no problem discussing and debating ideology and policy. In fact, I quite enjoy it. On occasion, however, those challenging my values and positions moved the debate beyond civil and intellectual discourse to derision and insult, making things more personal than political. For the most part, though sometimes admittedly difficult, I tried to remain above the fray, preferring to stick to policy and civility instead of resorting to hurling epithets and vitriol in response.

Last night while on Facebook, I took Satan's bait. I lost my composure, my cool. I became irritated by what I perceived as close-mindedness. I became affronted by having my thoughts, not debated or argued, but instead attacked, assailed by someone to whom they were not even directed. In addition, I became frustrated with myself for, against my better judgement, maintaining in my circle of online friends someone with whom I have no real connection or bond, knew that I never really had a genuine affinity for, and have very little common ground and agreement. In sum, I became offended and insulted by my detractor and, simultaneously, pissed off with myself for not having severed our ties after we had tersely butted heads on previous occasions (in the spirit of "life's too short, so who needs the aggravation"). In terms of affect, his is not a good combination.

Caught up in the passion of offense and insult, I lashed out. I struck back in a personal way. While never a prude or a shrinking violet, I have always managed to just stand my ground intellectually, as I prefer, but this time, I hit below the belt. Though voicing a genuine sentiment (better kept to myself), I did so in a manner that was intentionally hurtful. Almost immediately, my conscience reined me back in. Neither my heart nor my head have enjoyed any peace since.

Despite perceptions of my online persona to the contrary, I was born with a good heart. Internally, I am a most sensitive person. More often than not, too sensitive. In addition to my affective genetics, I was raised by two of God's finest servants, a pair possessing two of sweetest hearts and spirits that this earth could possibly have ever known. And beyond these good-hearted roots, after spending most of my adult life as spiritually "homeless", of late I have been working to become a better man, trying to walk in the footsteps of the Lord rather than marching to my own drum. But at the drop of a hat (perhaps symbolism for an 'offense'), I took Satan's bait...just like that. Just like that, I turned my back on both my nature and nurture and, in the process, on God's way and will. It has caused me to have the most disconcerting, discombobulating, and disappointing feeling inside. It has caused me to feel small. Caused my heart to feel black. And I want these feelings to just go away.

Before my head finally met pillow last night, I emailed the person who, in my mind, started out as my "trespasser" and apologized to him for my "trespass" against him. I meant it. Deeply and sincerely. And hope that I effectively communicated that in the words that I chose.

I am not going to profess to understand the point of view and thought processes of people of the liberal persuasion. I don't, and I won't. They are, in my opinion, socially, economically, and politically wrongheaded. And in my mind, it's okay that I just don't get liberalism. But the perspective, the ideology, and the policy don't make the man...they don't speak necessarily to the heart or character of the person. Just as I hope that the visceral response of this imperfect person, this sinner, is not reflective of what is in my heart or the true content of my character.

I guess I could just pledge to be quiet from now on, to keep my political opining to myself. That would be a way to avoid offense and, in the process, to avoid responding inappropriately and hurtfully the way that I did, and don't want to again, to it. But I believe that this is part of the strategy of liberalism. Through eliciting pangs of conscience, or creating the threat of intimidation, or just the sheer weariness of emotional erosion , I believe that liberals hope to wear down the resistance of their opposition and silence them. Had our forefathers taken the silent, complacent, and compliant route, we may have never known the freedom that we have had the privilege of enjoying over the last two hundred and thirty years. So, I just can't see myself choosing silence when I see wrong in the world, especially the kind of wrong that might ultimately destroy that freedom for my children and their children.

More importantly than those considerations, however, is the fact that it is impossible for us to live life and avoid offense. Given the flaws and foibles of mankind, offense is both inevitable and ubiquitous. Accordingly, as I move forward in my own personal and spiritual journey, my task is not to try to avoid offense but instead to heed God's call, follow in His way, and obey His will in coping with it.

In other words, Satan will always be placing some cheese out there in the trap. Of mice and men? Seek to truly be a man (or woman, if applicable) in God's image. Try not to be a mouse.