Doing the Hokey-Pokey

“You put your left foot in, you take your left foot out, you put your left foot in and you shake it all about.  You do the hokey-pokey and you turn yourself around.  That’s what it’s all about.”

Larry LaPrise, Charles Macak and Tafit Baker

DESOTO, TEXAS, JULY 14, 2007 — A small group of like-thinking adults got up early on this Saturday morning to met at a commun- ity coffeehouse.  They met to dialogue on the opening chapters of Al Gore’s new book, “The Assault on Reason.”  Yours truly found out about it and was invited to attend because an existing member had visited my blog and liked what she found here.  When she told me this and invited me to attend, I was flattered so of course I showed up.  And, yes, I am glad that I did; I met some very nice people and we had a good time.  But we only danced to the one stanza of the Hokey-Pokey song, the “left-foot” stanza.  After awhile, the discussion started sounding like echoes in a nearly-empty convention hall.  We had no real dialogue because nobody said anything that the rest of us couldn’t readily agree with — sort of like the so-called political debates we’ve been watching on TV lately between contenders for nomination by the same party.

For those of you who are not old enough to remember the rest of the Hokey-Pokey song, it continues with putting right feet in –taking right feet out, etc., etc.  According to Wikipedia.org, it became popular in the USA in the 1950s after being created as a novelty dance to entertain ski crowds at Idaho’s Sun Valley resort.  But true authorship for the song and dance is something of a mystery because a similar dance was wildly popular with American servicemen and Britons during WWII, only then it was called the “Hokey-Cokey,” a derivative of “hocus pocus” perhaps, the traditional magician’s incantation.  Ah well… if you’re interested, you can find out more about the possible origins of the dance by reading the sited Wikipedia page.  The point I’m trying to make is this:  Discussion among people who can find little or no room for disagreement is not dialogue.

As our “discussion” was winding down, I made the above point and asked if, as a group, we wanted to do more than just discuss the merits of a book we all feel compelled to read because it reinforces our already-held convictions about what is right and what is wrong with our country.  There was general agreement that we should expand our number to include persons with other political leanings, Independents and Conservatives too.  So we all tried to think of people we knew who are not in our own camp or on the fringes that might want to join us.  We all drew a blank  — “Probably a birds-of-a-feather thing,” I thought.

In response to the above thought, I drew an analogy for the group to consider, for what it’s worth:  birds do not fly with one wing.  Even if it were possible for a bird to stay aloft very long with only one wing, whether left or right, it could not fly other than in circles.  And in doing so, any real progress would be illusionary.  Perhaps this is at least part of what’s wrong with our so-called democracy today; we’ve become so polarized by the arguments of the far-left and the far-right that we don’t want to even do the whole hokey-pokey dance anymore.  Most of us sit out the dance altogether.

If you live in the south-Dallas area, do not think of yourself as leaning to the left in terms of political persuasion, and have some time on your hands next Saturday morning, perhaps you’d like to join us.  We’d love to listen to what you have to say, and we won’t even insist that you read Al Gore’s book before showing up.  Post a comment to volunteer and I’ll be sure to get back to you on the time and place.

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on July 14, 2007 at 11:29 am  Leave a Comment  

Should Americans Be Living in Fear?

The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

Psalm of David: 27:1

July 12, 2007 — There’s no getting around it, we are living in scary times.  The signs are all around us.  We are exposed nightly to reports from Iraq and Afghanistan telling of roadside bombings and ever-increasing numbers of both American GIs and civilians being killed.  Some want the killing to end, to bring our troops home, but the White House and a shrinking number of Republicans in Congress are saying that if we leave Iraq now, the terrorists will just step up their activities here on American soil.
Hmmmm…

Just last week our British allies were attacked in two separate incidents, one luckily failed altogether, the other caused minimal damage and injury.  But, of course, it could have been much worse.  Now, while evening news programs are showing us how easy it would be for terrorists to make “dirty” bombs in this country,  we’re being told that the administration’s head of Homeland Security has a “gut feeling” that we’re about to be hit again this summer by al Qaeda.
Hmmmm…

On another front, scientists are telling us that our way of life is poisoning the earth’s atmosphere, which in turn, is causing global temperatures to rise, which in turn is causing glaciers, sea ice and continental ice sheets to melt, which in turn will soon flood the earth’s heavily populated coastal areas.  Tropical storms will be more severe we’re being told, and the great rivers of the world that sustain agriculture supporting billions of people with food will cease to flow.  The White House, of course, denies this.
Hmmmm…

On the other hand, we’re being told that our economy is strong and growing at an impressive rate with low unemployment owing to the President’s tax cuts in 2002.  Americans shouldn’t worry.  Why, just the other night, ABC News reported (without comment) that the White House is predicting the federal budget deficit to narrow to just $205 billion in the current fiscal year, the smallest shortfall since 2002.  The claim is that this is due to an unexpected increase in tax revenues.  The Democratically-controlled Congress, however, says that this improvement in tax revenues, at best, is only temporary and that only by raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans can the gap be closed by 2012 with the government meeting it’s constitutional obligations to the people.
Hmmmm…

Meanwhile, Americans I know are pretty much going about their daily lives, discounting most of the claims and counter claims of doom, failure and disaster.  While everybody knows somebody who’s been laid off recently and can’t find work at a commensurate level of compensation, we keep plugging along as if nothing was wrong.   We drive by the increasing number of homes in our neighborhoods with for-sale signs on them and think, “Boy, I’m glad I don’t have to move just now.”  We’ve become anesthetized to the violence we see and skeptical of the promises and assur- ances from our elected leaders.  In short, we’ve lost confidence but are in denial about it.

“Oh well,” we think, “what difference can I make?”
Hmmmm…

Most of the people I talk to say that they don’t trust politicians in general anymore, regardless of which political party they represent.  But, should we be afraid?
Hmmmm…

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, during the height of the Great Depression, told Americans, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”  As Christians, true Christians, we have nothing to fear but God Himself.  But personally, whether we are Christian or not, I think that a little fear can be a healthy thing — that is, if it isn’t unreasonable fear.

“Okay,” you say.  “But what fear is unreasonable?”
Hmmmm…

Fear that is based on misinformation and deception is unreason- able fear.  Fear that is generated by media pundits based on unsubstantiated claims is unreasonable fear.   Fear of the unknown and fear that is fed by emotion alone is unreasonable fear.  So, maybe it’s time for us to start digging for some facts on our own.  Maybe it’s time for us to start listening to people who have no agenda to advance, people who are neither in government nor in business.  And just who might these people be?  Certainly not the FDA, the NRC, FCC, the FAA, or the CIA.  They all work for the same guy now, not us. 

How about journalists?  Maybe, but which journalists?  There are all kinds now you know, some lean to the left, some lean to the right.  And some are now being paid to tell stories the way that others want them told.  How about the associations – the AARP, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, the NRA?  Nah… they all support special interest groups.
Hmmmm…

Who then?  Oh, I know!  How about the retired military generals who spoke out against going to war in Iraq?  How about the fired judges?  We haven’t heard from them yet.  How about the past Surgeons General of this and previous administrations and the agency analysts who tried to convince President Bush that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11?  How about the scientists and other academics whose salaries are not paid by the administration, by political action groups, or by industry?

If the data collected and stored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics are not yet completely skewed by the current administration to substantiate government claims, there are plenty of graduate economists out there who can give us unbiased assessments of where we really are economically and where we are likely headed.

No, Americans should not be living in fear.  Living in fear consumes us in fear, which paralyzes us into inaction.  But, neither should we not be afraid.  All the signs suggest that we should be… reasonably afraid.  Not of “whom,” but of “what.”

Bad as it was, 9-11 did not defeat us, nor will the next attack.  America will survive attacks from without.  What we should fear are attacks from within.  We should be afraid of too much wealth and too much power concentrated in the hands of too few.  We should be afraid of our own complacencies, our own ignorances, our own dogmas (the President refers to these as principles).  We should be afraid of falling intellectual prey to other’s convictions and opinions, and afraid too of giving up too much of that which made us who we were.  These are not unreasonable fears.

So, what difference can you make?  Plenty.  Get your facts straight from unbiased sources (Yeah there really are some sources that at least endeavor to be unbiased, for example:  FactCheck.org; FactCheckEd.org; Better Business Bureaus; Ad Busters; Center for Media and Democracy; Union of Concerned ScientistsThe Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.  For a list of many, many more,  Click Here ). Become informed so that you can make reasoned judgments.  Participate in the democratic process the Founders gave to us, and don’t cast your vote in the next election based on anyone else’s opinion but your own.

When there is controversy, be open to hearing arguments from all sides because all sides have something to say.  Do your civic duty when you’re called upon to serve, and your job to the best of your ability.  And, according to your faith persuasion and traditions — pray.  This may not reduce the dangers that we face, but it will reduce the fears that we feel.

Yes, you can make a difference.  You can help restore democracy to America, but not unless you vote.

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on July 12, 2007 at 11:21 am  Comments (4)  

How Dare You, Mr. President!

After watching the video of Keith Olbermann’s July 3d call for both the President and Vice President of the United States to resign (I did not catch the original broadcast on MS-NBC) the title for this post immediately came to mind.  It was inspired by dialogue in Tom Clancy’s book and movie, “Clear and Present Danger.”  The danger that I see as being clear and present is not so much from some foreign adversary, certainly not from Iraq or even from al Qaeda, but from within our own democracy, a democracy that has atrophied from years of neglect by it’s own citzens.

The Founding Fathers would be truly saddened to see that we have come so far only to loose our way.  You’ll fully understand what this means after reading Al Gore’s new book, “The Assault on Reason.”

You may not like what Mr. Olbermann had to say last Tuesday evening.  But, after watching the video for yourself, you will almost certainly agree with me that it was journalism the likes of which we have not known since Edward R. Murrow took on Senator Joseph McCarthy on the CBS television news program, See It Now.

(click the run button twice, once to activate and once to view)

“We have met the enemy and he is us.”

(Pogo)

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on July 7, 2007 at 8:24 am  Comments (3)  

Thinking Globally

This video has made a big impression on me.  Check it out (click the play button twice).

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on June 13, 2007 at 3:00 pm  Comments (2)  

Don’t Confuse Me With the Facts

I have added a new book to my summer reading list:  “Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)” by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson.  The book sheds light on a question that I’ve had for some time — namely, why some of the most intelligent people I know absolutely refuse to budge or even admit that they might be wrong when they are confronted with new data.

Love him or hate him, one simply must give Al Gore his due.  He has raised the level of concern over global warming in this country to dizzying heights and has gained the adulation of many who never before considered themselves to be environmentalists.  No, Al Gore is not the subject of this posting, human nature is.  How- ever, one of my favorite quotes from Gore’s book and DVD, An Inconvenient Truth, speaks to human nature and to the biases in thinking that seem to be built into the way that we all tend to process information.  The quote I like so much is this:  “It’s not what we don’t know that gets us in trouble.  It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.” 

Based on recent neurological research cited in the “Mistakes Were Made” book, it seems that we’re all hard-wired to resist questioning our initial logic. This may explain why I have been known to drive on for miles, ignoring all the clues telling me that I’m headed the wrong direction.  This may also help to explain why our President refuses to accept reality with respect to our prospects for a military solution to the violence ongoing in Iraq and why he ignored the advice of so much expert opinion on likely outcomes before starting this war (see my earlier posting on this, Iraq — an al Qaeda Tar Baby for Us).  Al Gore didn’t originate the earlier quote, by the way.  Mark Twain, did, proving that Twain, not Gore necessarily, was a man way ahead of his time in terms of under- standing human nature.

The following is an excerpt from the Tavris and Aronson book:  “In a study of people who were being monitored by magnetic resonance imaging while they were trying to process dissonant or consonant information about George Bush or Jon Kerry, researchers found that the reasoning areas of the brain virtually shut down when participants were confronted with dissonant information.  The emotion circuits of the brain lit up happily when consonance was restored.”  This, the authors say in their book, was true regardless of the participants’ political affiliation.

Some time back I actually bought several copies of the Inconvenient Truth DVD and gave them to friends and family members who had sided with the prevailing conservative view on the global warming issue in conversations with me.  Obviously I am strongly in favor of taking steps to curb human causes for global warming.  One of my friends actually asked, handing the DVD back to me, “Why would I want to watch this?”  Yes, this person is still my friend, but I was dumbfounded by his question.  Why would he not want to try to understand something that is so important to me?  Interesting.  Turns out that his question was totally consistent with what the Tavris and Aronson authors say in their book.  They report that researchers have discovered that when we read information that goes against our point of view, it can actually make us all the more convinced that we were right in the first place.

Being right, it seems, is not so important to us as not being proven wrong. So there’s a neurological basis for the old saying, “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind’s already made up.”

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on June 10, 2007 at 10:06 am  Comments (2)  

A Message to Senator Barack Obama

Dear Mr. Obama,

Responding to your email, I’m not at all confident that this will ever get to you personally — I’m familiar with electronic marketing techniques.  But perhaps someone on your exploratory committee will read it and count it as a vote of encouragement.

Having just read your second book, The Audacity of Hope, I do personally believe that you have what it takes to begin a healing process in America.  It comes at a most critical time. And so I encourage you to not hesitate long in declaring your candidacy.  The race is obviously already on.

I do not anticipate agreeing with you on every issue.  But on the basics, I trust you.  These basics include:  doing the right thing, not because of political payoff or expediency, but just because it’s the right thing to do; deciding on issues not for just the present, but for the future as well; caring about people regardless of race, religion, creed, sex, age, marital status, or sexual orientation, and; restoring equity, justice and dignity to our republican form of democracy.

You have broad appeal, sir, not just because you speak and write well, not just because you are young and handsome, not just because of your humble beginnings, and not just because you symbolize for many like myself a melding of cultures, social status, and faith traditions.  It’s because of all these things and more. So don’t worry about the sound of your name.  America is getting used to it.  Do watch your back on the issue of religion, however.  The religious right in this country is already attacking your prior affiliation/association with Islam via schools that you attended as a youth.  Politics, afterall, is a full-contact sport

Your relative lack of experience on the Hill is not a weakness, neither is your enthusiasm for public service.  The American people sense that it will take a new face, someone not tethered to the old culture of the way things are currently done, to blaze a path back to bi-partisan cooperation.  I trust that the new kind of politics of which you speak in your message to Americans will lead to a democracy that gives all citizens a voice — finally.  To this end, you or someone like you will need to marginalize the fundament- alists among us and build a constituency of the mainstream, including both business and labor.  But then, you already know this.  So, my audacious hope is that this can be done at all.  And, if it can be, I’m betting that you are just the right guy to do it.

I don’t know that I’ll be able to contribute a great deal to your campaign, I’m just an average guy.  But I do plan to give what I can and do so regularly in the coming months.  Additionally, you can count on my labors when the time comes, even against the conservative political machine here in Texas.

See Barack Obama’s Website at http://www.barackobama.com/video/about.php.

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on January 19, 2007 at 2:32 pm  Comments (1)  

The Sagging Problem

It has become a real issue here in the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex, especially in our public schools.  More and more guys, especially African American guys, have adopted the “sagg’n ‘n bagg’n” style and are defiantly resisting school administrators’ attempts to ban the practice.  So we talked about it today in my World Geography class.  Having to do with the evolution of culture, ethnic identity, and juvenile defiance in the face of mounting adult frustration, it was a valid topic for discussion and debate.  But I had no idea how divided our young people are on the rightness and wrongness of what I consider to be a petty thing, a thing not unlike the long hair and rock ‘n roll issues of my own teen era.  I guess I was expecting more consensus and agreement among the youth.  There was some, but only within individual socio-ethnic groups.

Dallas School Board member, Ron Price, who is rumored to be seeking a city council seat himself, has appeared before the Dallas City Council to ask them for an ordinance that would prohibit pants that hang well below the waist. Price said, “To me, it’s disrespectful and dishonorable to women for men to walk around with their bottoms showing.” Several council members are backing the proposal. But Jesus Toscano, Assistant City Attorney, said he was unsure of the legality of such an ordinance and would have to research it.  See the article in the Dallas Morning News.

When asked about the issue, Texas ACLU Director Lisa Graybill said, “Is it a civil liberties issue? I don’t know. It’s a silly issue, I know that. Why can’t people just look away?”

I have to agree with Ms. Graybill.  As offensive as the practice is to me personally and to my wife, these kids are not really exposing themselves. They’re just making the same kind of in-your-face, independence statement that I made when, as a teenager, I wore my hair in my face and almost down to my shoulders.  My mother had the right idea about how to deal with it.  She told me she thought it was cute.  Then, when I started wearing my shirt unbuttoned below the breast bone, ala Elvis Presley, she laughed about it.  After several iterations of this, I finally had to give up and find something more worthy upon which to establish my identity.

So, for what it’s worth, here’s my position on this:  Kids are always going to push the line and break the rules wherever they can, especially the rules that don’t make any sense to them.  It’s been the bane of every adult generation since Aristotle tried to mold Athenian youth of his time into their parents’ image.  And the more we make an issue of things like this, the more our kids are going to defy us.  Don’t we all become our parents soon enough anyway?  So, chill out Mr. Price.  Lets get real, and let’s let the city council focus on solving the real issues of our times — real crime, real poverty, real illness, real divisiveness.

By this, I do not mean to imply that school dress code policies should be relaxed in anyway.  In fact, I am a strong advocate for school uniforms, which would largely obviate such issues as this at school.  But I do not believe that a city ordinance to address this issue would be enforceable.  So, if passed, it would only make matters worse.

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on August 25, 2006 at 8:07 pm  Comments (5)  

Quality Education in America

Every child in America has the right to a free, quality education, Right?  After all, do we not have a law called “No Child Left Behind?”

Many of my teacher friends know that my wife and I are hosting a foreign exchange student this year.  She is a delightful young lady from the Republic of Korea who likes to be called, Betsy.

On our way home from school one day recently, Betsy was asking me questions about the meaning of various English phrases.  Question after question after question… “Oh!” she would say in response to each answer, followed immediately thereafter by another question.

Growing weary of being the constant respondent, I asked, “So, Betsy, tell me, what do you think of American schools?”

“Um… American schools very different… better… everything in America is better.”

“Really?” I asked.

“Yes, schools very nice.  Teachers all very good and very… kind… but…”

“But what, Betsy?”

“American students not so kind… they make it… um… difficult.”

How very astute, I thought.  It takes a sixteen year-old girl from a foreign country, after less than two weeks attending classes in an American public school, to put her finger right where it sores the most.

Thinking about this, I remembered having heard our principal, a fine, well-liked, professional educator in his own right, tell the young people at our school on many occassions that they have no special rights as students, save for the right to a quality education.  Now, in all fairness, I’m sure that he believes this.  Hey… I believed it too until doing a little research on the subject.  I’m sorry to have to say that it simply is not true.

If it were true, the state would be compelled by law to make sure that every young person could graduate from high school with a diploma, or at least finish with a certificate of completion and trade skills of some kind.  If it were true, with things as they are, millions of parents would be suing school districts all across the country because we are not meeting the educational needs of all — not in Texas, not in Utah, not even in states like California where teachers are paid the highest salaries.  If it were true, we would have to have many, many more special education teachers in public schools, and ten times as many bilingual teachers in Texas would not suffice.  If it were true, public education would cost taxpayers a great deal more, and teachers wouldn’t have class- rooms filled with special needs students and English as a Second Language students trying to keep up with gifted, talented, and highly motivated students sitting right next to them.  If it were true, we would be more worried about each young person learning as much as they can, according to each student’s individual gifts and interests, rather than worrying about whether they can all be made to squeeze through the same academic sieve in the same way and in the same amount of time.

Truth is, none of us is created equal, and none of us has the right to a free, quality education — not in the good ole U.S. of A.  Education in the United States, contrary to the beliefs of many, is not one of our freedoms under the Constitution or any state law, neither is free access to it.  Provisions of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 do prohibit discrimination by states in the manner by which edu- cation is provided.  But it is not a right.  Rather, it is a privilege that is given according our our states’ various priorities and resources.

I made this connection after Betsy’s comment because I recently read where the Washington, DC city council has declined to pass a measure called the DC Education Rights Charter Amendment.  This amendment would have added to the city’s essential governing charter the requirement to provide a “free, high-quality education” to all citizens.

Now, why do you suppose they declined to pass such an amend- ment?  Sounds like a good thing to me, “a free, high-quality education.”  It’s something most of us think our kids all have coming to them, considering all the tax dollars that we give to our states, ostensibly, on it’s behalf.  But what would politicians really do by passing such a mandate, a mandate that says that the same public schools that they say are failing today shall, by their decree, hereby instantly provide a free, high-quality education?  Well, it would certainly launch a million lawsuits.  Today’s lack of quality public education would become actionable.

But lawsuits forcing even higher taxes won’t solve a problem that’s even more basic than school budgets.  The problem isn’t about money, folks, nor do I believe it’s about the lack of quality, dedicated teachers.  The problem is about apathy, especially among our kids from lower income households.  And I’m not just talking about African American and Hispanic students either, although they do seem to be afflicted with this more than European and Asian American students.  Many students from lower income families, not all mind you but many, simply enter the system with low expectations for success and, over time, validate their reckoning. 

So, where have we gone wrong?  Well, maybe it’s time for legis- lators, parents, and the courts to back off from integration and pro-inclusion mandates that do nothing to motivate slower students to try harder.  All they do is squash young people’s self esteem and distract the otherwise self-confident, highly motivated students.

Maybe Betsy’s got something.  Maybe, just maybe it’s time to let teachers, administrators and educational counselors start making class placement decisions based on students’ needs and teachers’ special gifts and qualifications.  One size, after all, never did fit all.

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on August 15, 2006 at 2:53 am  Comments (11)  

We Have Met the Enemy

Anybody out there remember Pogo in the Sunday funnies?  It was always a little too sophisticated for me; much of the humor went right over my head.  But, when I saw this movie trailer on   YouTube.com today, I immediately thought about Walt Kelley’s famous comic strip.  What a sage he was.

CLICK THE PLAY ARROW ONCE TO ACTIVATE.  THE CONTROLS FOR THE VIEWER WILL THEN FUNCTION NORMALLY.

  

  

pogo.jpgI did not know until today that Kelley had a book of his best and brightest work published.  I discovered it when goggling the title I chose for this posting.  It was called The Pogo Papers, Copyright 1952-53.  So, if any of my family is reading this, you might want to remember it next time you’re wondering what you can get me for a birthday, Fathers’ Day, or Christmas, that is, if you can find a copy.  It’s a collectable now.

  

The following is from the book’s foreword:

“The publishers of this book, phrenologists of note, have laid hands upon the author’s head and report the following vibrations:

Herein can be found that rare native tree, the Presidential Timber, struck down in mid-sprout by the jawbone of a politician. Pogo returns to the swamp from a couple of political conventions to find his unfinished business being rapidly finished, once and for all, by rough and ready hands.

With that much information you are about as well equipped as anybody to plunge into the still waters of the Okefenokee Swamp, home of the Pogo people. The activities in this present book were spread shamelessly over the past drought-ridden year. Looking back across the fertilizer, small shafts of green can be seen here and there, while off in the distance wisps of smoke denote the harvesters at work.

Some nature lovers may inquire as to the identity of a few creatures here portrayed. On this point field workers are in some dispute.

Specializations and markings of individuals everywhere abound in such profusion that major idiosyncrasies can be properly ascribed to the mass*. Traces of nobility, gentleness and courage persist in all people, do what we will to stamp out the trend. So, too, do those characteristics which are ugly. It is just unfortunate that in the clumsy hands of a cartoonist all traits become ridiculous, leading to a certain amount of self-conscious expostulation and the desire to join battle.

There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tinny blast on tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.

Forward!

*Quimby’s Law. (Passed by the Town of Quimby after the Trouble with Harold Porch in 1897)”

Published in: on August 1, 2006 at 9:01 pm  Leave a Comment  

A Case for Hyphenated Americans

As a social studies teacher, I always discuss the differences between nationality, culture, ethnicity and race with my ninth-grade students.  It’s part of our World Geography curriculum (click here for a PDF paper on the subject).  I get some interesting reactions from my students during this discussion.  It is, after all, a very sensitive subject.  Many of my students do not want to be referred to as black, or red, or yellow, or whatever.  One of my girl students last year raised her hand during this discussion.  When I called on her, she said, “Mr. Garry, we prefer the term African-American.”

“I know you do, Jamasa (not her real name),” I said, “but that is a term that refers to one’s cultural or ethnic identity, not to race.  To illustrate, I continued, “In my church, there is a white family that came to the United States from South Africa.  If they were to become American citizens now, would it be appropriate for us to refer to them as African-Americans?  No, you see how that wouldn’t quite work?  Years ago, in another community, I served in a ministry that included a black man from Rhodesia.  He was still a citizen of his native country, working in the U.S. as an employee of the World Bank.  So, it would have been most inap- propriate for me to refer to him as an African-American, right?”

She, and all my other students, got the point.  But, as a result of this dialogue, the growing diversity of my present congregation, and my choice of words in recent blog postings, I have become acutely aware of a gaping chasm in the way that we refer to one another in this country.  With so many of us preferring to be referred to by our heritage… African-American, Latino, Asian-American, Native-American, etc., why is that the rest of us are just referred to as “white?”  Why is it that being called white doesn’t bother those of us who are?  Maybe it’s because we don’t need to be some special kind of Americans because we are the norm?  We’re just the regular kind of Americans.

Regular?  Hmmm… who gets to be regular in this multicultural country, and, why?  Is it because people that look and act more like me are still in the majority?  What happens after Mexican-Americans and African-Americans both outnumber whites in this country?  And, as things are progressing demographically, especially here in Northern Texas, it won’t be very long now before this becomes the new reality.  So, maybe I better start claiming my own heritage.  What do you think?

As far as I know, my great-great grandparents all came from various parts of northern Europe.  So that makes me European-American, right?  If I’m that, instead of “white,” then I am claiming my heritage.  When I call myself a European-American, I put myself on the same level as others who claim their heritage.  Then nobody gets to be “the norm,” and nobody has to feel like they are surrounded by strangers.  Either that, or we all feel surrounded.  My hunch is that after there’s no place left for “European-Americans” to flight to, and we’re all bi-lingual, we’ll stop being hyphenated Americans and just be… angels.  Won’t that’ll be the day?  In the mean time, I want to celebrate and participate in the multicultural nature of this country. The mix of languages, religions, perspectives, foods, art, music, and appear- ance adds immeasurably to my life.  To become fully a part of that multicultural reality, then, I need to claim my own heritage.

Theodore Roosevelt, who vehemently spoke out against hyphen- ated Americans in 1915 for not expressing full allegiance to this country (click here to read what he had to say), will probably roll over in his grave when I say this, but I’m finally with you, Jamasa.  I now prefer the term,  European-American, to just plain white.  Let’s leave all the racial references to the geneticists.  After all, following the completed mapping of the human genome and the huge genetic marker study recently completed, if we believe what science it telling us now about race and the origin of mankind, we all came out of Africa originally.

Is this a positive step in consciousness, or just an unneeded burden for the politically correct?  I invite your thoughts — groans included.

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on July 29, 2006 at 8:54 pm  Comments (6)  

It Takes a Lot of Money

Here’s a little tid-bit about ethics, or the lack thereof, and politics in Texas that may not make some of my more conservative friends too happy. 

It takes a lot of money to run a successful political campaign.  Friends like Sherrie Matula, democratic candidate for the Texas House of Representatives from District 129 down Houston-way, know this all too well.  She’s been reading my stuff on education and endorsing it (see her comment in response to my Teachers’ Social Security? posting).  How candidates in Texas acquire the funds they need is the subject of this posting.

I found a reference to another blogger’s article this morning in my daily delivery from the Texas Freedom Network.  It was written in the Pink Dome, an electronic news website that is said to be written with tongues planted firmly in cheeks.  The article was about a Political Action Committee (PAC) called The Future of Texas, one of the front groups that James Leininger used to funnel money into Texas House races back during the primary.  The PAC originally focused on aiding loyal Craddick representatives like Berman, Reyna, Swinford, Campbell, Howard, Krusee, Hill, Grusendorf, Crabb, Hegar, Betty Brown, Eissler, Flynn, and Phillips. Of late, according to the article, it has also been used to secure three solid votes come the 80th session, with money still going to likely future Reps Dale Hopkins, Brandon Creighton and Tan Parker.  Anyway, the PAC is no more, yay!  They filed their final report a little over a week ago.

Oh well, as I think about it, this just means that Leininger will find some other way to funnel money to the political right.  That’s what he does.  One must wonder, however, why a successful organi- zation like The Future of Texas has closed-up shop.  Could it possibly mean that that the Texas Ethics Commission was running out of excuses not to deal with it following the criticism that the commission received in a two-page report published by a Travis County grand jury last week?  Read all about it in this American-Statesman article

Here’s a snippet from the fore-mentioned article just to wet yer whistles a bit: Texas public officials are hiding sources of income and potential conflicts of interest by calling themselves consultants on state financial disclosure forms, and an investigation into “obvious misconduct” by one official was thwarted by the practice, a Travis County grand jury has complained in a two-page report. 

Those of you who have called yourselves Texans longer than I have will remember that Texas used to be in the BLUE column.  It produced some mighty powerful democratic statesmen… and women, Lydon B. Johnson, Jim Hightower, Jim Wright, and Ann Richards for example.  Today, many districts are hard-pressed to even find somebody willing to run on the democratic ticket and many democrats have switched parties.  How come?  Well, redistricting and all that aside, I think money, and how candidates find what they need of it to conduct successful campaigns has a lot to do with it.  Republicans appeal to businesses, business interests, the wealthy and those who hope to be so someday.  Democrats have traditionally appealed to individuals, the little men and middle men like most of us.  So, their money-making machines haven’t been so big and so powerful.  There’s lots of them, but they’ve always been smaller and less well-organized. 

Now, it’s not like democrats have never been implicated in scandals of various kinds.  But lately, just from what I’ve been reading in the papers, this seems to be pretty much Republican turf.  And like Will Rogers said, “All I know is what I read in the newspapers.”

Today, the Internet has dramatically changed the way democrats raise money in this country, and there’s absolutely nothing shady about the way it’s being done.  Money raised for one purpose is not laundered for other uses, and computers keep track of individual contribution limits.  Consider the great success in fund-raising by using the Internet that was pioneered by Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont and later adopted by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts in the last presidential race.  The same kind of thing is being done here at the state level for local elections this year. 

When the lawmakers of one party hold all the power, a party that primarily represents the interest of the wealthy, the government is no longer a democracy.  It’s a plutocracy (check out the definition of plutocracy on Wikipedia), and that’s pretty much what we’ve got here in Texas right now.  So, if you’re not quite ready yet to give up entirely on the ideal form of government, a multiparty democracy, visit http://actblue.com and pledge your financial support for the democratic candidate(s) of your choice.  I have.  You can only vote for candidates in your own voting district, but you can help others financially from other districts who may have better chances of being elected.

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on July 28, 2006 at 9:27 pm  Comments (1)  

Teachers’ Social Security?

Teaching does have its rewards, but in Texas they sure aren’t economic.  

   Folks who have chosen teaching in Texas as a follow-on career, as I have done, must be nuts.  Either this or they just love kids and teaching, as I do, more than they love the prospect of a comfort- able retirement.  This is because of two Federal laws, the Govern- ment Pension Offset (GPO) and the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP).  It is also because:  Federal tax code restrictions disallow Individual Retirement Account (IRA) contribution tax credits for individuals contributing to a pension plan other than Social Secur- ity; many school districts in Texas do not participate in Social Security, and; teachers in Texas are not given a choice on whether to participate in the state’s Teacher Retirement System (TRS).

   The details associated with this conundrum are complicated and confusing.  Conundrum?  Webster defines it as a question or an intricate and difficult problem having only a conjectural answer, or a riddle whose answer either involves a pun or is a pun.  So, some- body please correct me on all this if my understanding of the situation is flawed, but with so many in the Congress these days hell-bent to screw with it, I think the term, “social security,” is itself a pun.

   The Association of Texas Professional Educators (ATPE), of which I am a proud member, has it essentially right.  The TRS in Texas is a better program than Social Security.  Its monthly benefits paid out to retired participants are substantially greater than those distributed to Social Security retirees.  But this is only true for those who have had a substantial number of creditable years of service as teachers here in Texas.  Those who teach fewer than ten years or are younger than fifty-five and have taught fewer than five years will have wasted their time and money by contributing.  And, did you know that the average male going directly into teaching after graduating from college in Texas only teaches for two years?  It’s true.  The pay and the working conditions in many districts are that bad.  Also on the plus side for TRS are retirees’ health insurance, return-to-work benefits, and life insurance.  But again, these benefits are only available to retirees who complete minimum service eligibility requirements.

   Some believe that making Social Security coverage mandatory would solve the problems that educators experience due to the GPO and WEP.  But I don’t.  Neither does ATPE.  We recognize that this would only serve to damage TRS and other state pension funds.  An alternative not often talked about by ATPE, our other state teacher unions, or our Texas legislators, would be to allow teachers to choose whether or not to participate in TRS.

   At age sixty-two, I’ve been a TRS participant in Texas for three years now.  So, at age sixty-five, as I understand the current rules, I will be eligible for some level of TRS annuity.  Fortunately, I had more than thirty years of substantial income with Social Security contributions being made before becoming a teacher, so my pension from Social Security should not be greatly affected.  Neither will my military retirement.  Thank God for that.  But I’m in an enviable situation; the numbers just happen to work in my favor.  By my rough calculations, however, and I do mean rough because the WEP offset and retirement calculation formulas of both TRS and Social Security aren’t easy for social science majors like myself to follow (they’re also subject to change and no one expects them to become more liberal), I’ll have to work full time as a teacher until after my seventieth birthday to just break even.  This is true even though the Texas 79th Legislature passed a revision to TRS eligibility requirements that obviate the notorious Rule of Eighty for retirees who are sixty-five or older and have at least five years of service.  It’s still true because of income tax disadvantages and the reduction I will incur to my social security income for the years that I do not contribute.  The other advant- ages of TRS, however, the medical and life insurance offered to retirees, plus to return-to-work benefits, I anticipate will help to compensate for this lost income.

   The Government Pension Offset (GPO) doesn’t really concern me or my wife.  It’s an offset provision in Social Security law that reduces spousal Social Security benefits for public employees who are eligible for government pensions such as those provided by TRS.  When I am gone, if I live long enough, my wife will have her own retirement income plus a portion of my military retirement owing to the years we have paid into the military retirement Survivor’s Benefit Plan.  The spouses of others employed by the state here in Texas are not so fortunate.

   The tax code that precludes Individual Retirement Account (IRA) contribution tax credits does impact us, my wife and me.  As a hedge against the prospect of my not being able to finish a full five years worth of teaching for some reason, I have been contrib- uting monthly to a traditional IRA.  But, even though we are buying our own home, claimed no personal exemptions, had extra money deducted from both our salaries, had substantial profes- sional expenses, and contributed generously to our church and other qualified charities last year, we did little better than break even on our income taxes.  Tax cuts?  Apparently not for those of us in the middle class, thank you very much Mr. Bush.  Given our joint income tax bracket, the IRA tax credit, for which we would have been eligible the past three years had I not been contributing to TRS, would have helped a lot.

   Before I conclude this little crying session, on behalf of all state public servants in this country, I want to publicly thank The Honorable Howard (Buck) McKeon, United States Congressman from California, one of the primary sponsors of the Social Security Fairness Act (a resolution for the full repeal of the GPO and WEP), the 321 other members of the House of Representatives who support this bill, and 28 bipartisan senators who support a similar resolution in the Senate.  For more information on this and to find out what you can personally do to help Congress get this bill out of committee and onto the floor for a vote, CLICK HERE to visit the National Education Association’s website.

   Again I say, if I’ve not stated things as they really are for teachers here in Texas, or if someone has a different take on this reality, I will gratefully accept correction.  Otherwise, please go to the polls in November with your public servants in-mind and give no heed to politicians’ rhetoric claiming to have done teachers a great service anytime in recent history.

   Now, if I can just live long enough and stay well…  hmmmm, school starts again in just little more than a week.  Then I won’t have so much time on my hands for all these blog postings. Do I hear a HOOAH out there!

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on July 27, 2006 at 4:25 pm  Comments (13)  

The Sweetest Sound

A Short Story on the Importance of Remembering Others’ Names, Plus Some Advice on Doing it Better

I can’t claim to be an expert at remembering others’ names.  Some seem to have a knack for it, whereas I do not.  At least I try now though, unlike I used to be and some I know who still are either too lazy or too uncaring to give it much effort.  Hard as I try, however, I’m often embarrassed when I meet someone I know but am unable to recall their name.  Unless I am able to bluff convincingly, as the following little trip down memory lane illustrates, or else my acquaintance is very graceful, it’s always a terribly uncomfortable situation to be in.

The Chevrolet dealership was still open when I drove up in my slightly-used, ’67 Camero; the tires still had a good 25,000 miles worth of tread on them.  It was almost six o’clock when I entered the showroom and recognized my salesman.  I couldn’t recall his name, but I knew what he looked like.  He was standing up to greet me from behind an old grey metal desk.  As I shook his pro-offered hand, I asked him if my new Corvette had been delivered yet.

“Garry, right — Lieutenant Garry from Ft. Walters?” he asked.  “Like wild oats,” he then said with a big grin in response to my nod.  I was impressed that he remembered me, but then, remembering people was important for the business he was in.

“It’s out on the side gett’n a bath,” he said.  “Go take a look, then come-on back in with the paperwork on your trade-in.  I’ll have you troll’n South Main before the sun goes down.”

There she was, the car of my dreams, a white convertible with red interior.  1968 — perhaps not the best model year for Corvette, maybe even the worst as most Corvette affectionados will tell you.  But she was beautiful, the first of the new Stingray design.

“This heyer y’new wheels, Mist-ah?” asked the weathered old black man, one of the first of his race I had seen since arriving in Weatherford, Texas three weeks earlier.  He was hunkered down with a garden hose in one hand and a terry-cloth towel in the other one washing off a thin layer of dust from the driver’s side of my car.  His overalls, fastened over only one shoulder, were rolled up almost to his knees revealing the tops of well-worn rubber galoshes. 

“Yes… yes it is,” I said, committing myself to a loving relationship before signing a contract or even before touching her.  For me, the car had been a mail-order bride and I was saying, “I do,” to her in my heart as I stood there.  The detail man, watching me with a smile on his face, was our witness.

“Well, you sho a lucky young genalman, suh, un ah’ll be sure ta take good care of ‘er fo ya.”

The salesman had been good to his word.  The sun was just setting as I drove back toward the center of town on Ft. Worth Street.  I had just taken my first drive after signing on the dotted line, experiencing the sport car’s quick response to my every command as I drove east out of town to The County Line.  This was the closest place to Weatherford from which one could legally buy anything alcoholic to drink.  A six-pack of Budweiser now rested behind the bucket seats for the upcoming weekend.

Before me, as I came to a stop for the red-light at an intersection, was the stately, old Parker County courthouse.  But I wasn’t much interested in Texas architecture at that moment.  I was chill’n to the sounds of a Ray Charles ballad and my new car’s 350 inch V8 at idle.  Out of the corner of my eye, however, I did notice a little blue car pull up beside me.  Feeling someone’s eyes on me, checking me out, me and my new car that is, I turned to look and I noted a Volkswagen beetle.  The eyes belonged to a young lady behind the wheel of the beetle, a very nice-looking young lady.

“Hello,” I said as smoothly as I could.  “I was just on my way to get a shake at the Dairy Queen.  Wanna meet me there?”

She smiled in a sheepish sort of way, and I took that for a yes.  And I smiled in a wolfish sort of way as I noticed the little blue car in my rear view mirror following me around the courthouse and down South Main to the only “in place” in town back then.

“Looks brand new… is it?” she asked after pulling up on my right side and turning off her car’s engine.

“Sure is.  I just got it tonight,” I answered.  “Wanna be the first to sit co-pilot while I go for treats?”

“Okay,” she said after the slightest hesitation.

“What would you like?” I asked, opening her car door first then my own on the passenger side.

“Umm… a chocolate dipped-cone would be nice,” she said, slipping into the bucket seat.

Nice legs, I thought to myself as I walked away to place our order, returning a few moments later with both hands full.

I looked down at the little chocolate-covered swirl of ice-cream on the top of my guest’s treat, and the temptation was just too great.  I bit it off before handing her the rest.  It wasn’t a very gallant thing to do, but back then I wasn’t a very gallant kind of guy.  When I saw something I wanted, I went for it.

“Augh,” she groaned. “How could you?”

“Just making sure it was safe,” I said with a wink, but not at all confident that I hadn’t already dashed any chance I might have had with this, my “first bite” for the evening.  I was relieved when she smiled at the sorry excuse I had given for my behavior, an attempt at humor.

After a short “demo” ride with this young lady down South Main, we came right back to her parked bug.  It was a school night for her and I still had more troll’n to do, so we exchanged names and a few details about ourselves then said goodnight.  She was a local girl attending classes at the University of Texas at Arlington.  But the most important detail about her, as far as I was concerned at the time, was her phone number, which I was able to get.  I wrote it down on the inside of a matchbook cover.  I failed, however, to write down her name.

Saturday came and I had a few good prospects for the evening, but my first choice was the blond with the nice-looking legs in the blue Volkswagen.  With the phone in my hand and the book of matches open before me, I started dialing, then I stopped, hanging up the phone.  What was her name?  I asked myself.  Try as I may, I simply could not remember it.

After a second cup of morning coffee, I decided on a ploy: I would dial again.  Then, when someone answered, if it sounded like her voice I would simply say, hello and give my name.  If it should be a woman’s voice but not sound like hers, I would assume it to be her mother and simply announce myself then ask to speak with her daughter, not using a name.  Likewise, if a man should answer, I would assume it to be her father and do the same.  As it turned out, it was her mother who answered.  After giving my name, I was told that she, meaning her daughter, had already gone out for the day but that she had left a message for me in the event that I should call.  Drat!  I was hoping that her mother would say her name, but she didn’t.

“She said to tell you that it’s okay for tonight,” her mother told me.  Then, after giving me directions to the house, she said, “Come by at six.”

Yes!  So far, so good.

I was there right at six, the sun being low in the western sky when I drove up.  Among the many other things the Army had already taught me, I had learned to be on-time.  I had also learned about something called “field expediency,” using whatever is at hand to accomplish the mission when the correct weapon or tool isn’t available.  My plan was to trick her into saying her name again somehow during the evening without reveling the fact that I couldn’t remember it.  After-all, there is no sound sweeter than the sound of one’s own name, and I didn’t want to signal the fact that cared more about her great-looking legs at this stage of our relationship than I did about who she was as a person.  I instinctively knew that it is our names, perhaps more than anything else about us, that project us to others as individuals.

I rang the bell anticipating one of the parents to answer and hoping that they would call out to my date by name, saying that her young man was here.  But, no such luck.  I was met at the door by my date herself.  Lovely… She was wearing a nice print dress, I noticed, if not exactly seasonal, but Texas winters do tend to be warmer than what I had grown up used to in Utah.  What I noticed most, however, is that now she had long hair worn in a pageboy-style.  When I had first met her, it had been much shorter, so I was a bit startled.  I knew she could not have grown that much hair in such a short time.

Noticing my look of surprise, she smiled as I escorted her to my car and said, “It’s a fall.”

“Oh,” I said, not having heard the term, fall, before but, assuming that it meant a hair piece of some kind, I said,  “Very nice!”

Walking around the back of the car after closing my date’s door for her, I formulated a quick plan.  Then, closing my door and starting the engine… Vroooom (I gave it a little more gas than necessary anticipating that the car’s throaty roar would quicken my date’s pulse), “Wearing your hair down that way makes you look a bit like Elizabeth Montgomery,” I said.

“You mean Samantha the witch?”

“Yeah, Samantha on Bewitched, the TV show.  In fact, I think I’ll call you Sam samvette.jpgtonight because you are so bewitching.”

And that’s how the story began, the story of my thirty-eight year relationship with Miss Natalie DeBeauford of Weatherford, Texas.  Since that evening, as my sweetheart, later my fiance, and later still as my bride, she has been Sam to me, to my family, to our mutual friends, and even to her father while he was still with us.  He had encouraged us to be together and to stay together.  God bless him for that.

Turns out, I made lemonade out of lemons that evening.  But I’d been lucky, and one cannot always count on luck.  Since then I’ve learned an important lesson:  If you want to remember a person’s name you’ve got to want to remember it and be willing to make an effort.  It’s got to be important to you or it’s just not going to happen.

For some more tips on how to do a better job at remembering others’ names, click the MORE button. (more…)

Published in: on July 25, 2006 at 3:14 pm  Comments (4)  

It Works Both Ways

  A lesson learned in making inter-racial relationships work.

 This is how I remember it. The year was 1967 and I was a young Army officer in-training to become a helicopter pilot at Ft. Wolters, Texas.  My classmates and I were preparing for Combat in Vietnam, which was about to reach its climax during the Têt Offensive of ‘68.  A lot was going on in my heart and mind at the time.
Pilot Kent  After having received my first month’s paycheck as a 2d lieutenant in flight school, basic-pay, full “per-diem,” and flight-pay, I had decided that I could finally afford something that I had always wanted, a new corvette.  Considering my options in the Chevrolet dealership showroom one Saturday morning (a red one, a blue one, or a white one for which I would have to wait on delivery), I met one of my fellow classmates, Marvin Adams.  Marvin was in the driver’s seat of my blue option.  I greeted him, not remembering his name but easily remembering his face.  He was the only black officer in our class.
  “How do I look?” he asked.
  “Like an accident looking to happen,” I answered.

(more…)

Published in: on July 13, 2006 at 4:09 pm  Comments (1)  

Infamous Politics

Things in Texas are pretty bad, infamous in fact.  This is because politics have deviated from traditional, democratic principles of fairness and equal representation for all citizens, generating news outside of the state, news that’s being reported by big, national newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune.  Yes, folks, we are infamous.

Writing from her office in Washington, D.C., Marini Goldbergs’ article begins:  “When the Texas Republican Party adopted its platform recently, party leaders left no question as to the impor- tance it placed on religion.  Another portion of the platform has stirred additional concerns.  ‘We pledge to exert our influence toward a return to the original intent of the 1st Amendment and dispel the myth of the separation between church and state,’ the document reads.”

Myth?!?!  When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.

Click Here for more information concerning the Constitutional basis for the Separation of Church and State.

“In Texas and elsewhere,” Ms. Goldburg’s article continues, “debates on social and cultural issues have blurred the line between faith and politics.  Fights over gay marriage, abortion and school prayer reflect and exacerbate the rift between religious conserv- atives, other believers, and the more secular-minded.  The platform calls America a ‘Christian nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles,’ and that has drawn a frustrated reaction from Jewish groups that consider the language exclusionary.”

READ GOLDBERG’s FULL ARTICLE

If you haven’t already read my blog posting, A Christian Nation?, please do so, because the line is crossed when politicians use religion as a prop in their campaigns, when partisanship is made a prerequisite of faith.  That’s when the separation of church and state ceases to be a fundamental principle of true democracy helping to ensure the freedom and liberty of all citizens, whether they be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Agnostic, or whatever.

In the words of William Bendix playing Chester A. Riley in the 1950s TV show, The Life of Riley, “What a revoltin’ development this is!”

To post a comment, click on the tiny COMMENTS word below.

Published in: on July 11, 2006 at 1:50 pm  Leave a Comment