Popular Posts

Friday, December 24, 2010

One Team

Last week Nancy and I visited Lincoln Center to hear the West Point Band playing Christmas and Hannukkah music with the New York Philharmonic Principal Brass Quintet. A marvelous performance of traditional holiday music from sparkling brass players and vocalists.

Just before the performance I met one of the West Point Band’s officers, thanked him for his service and then said, “As a former Navy person I offer my condolences for yesterday’s game on the gridiron in Philadelphia.”

Army lost to Navy 31-17 for ninth straight time, a record winning streak in this service rivalry.

He smiled broadly and then responded, “It’s all one team.”

All during the magnificent musical performances that followed this brief encounter I recalled players from the football game and announcements that this Navy quarter back would be serving on destroyers upon commissioning and that Army running back had signed up for infantry or this wide receiver would be assigned to field artillery.

Many of these cadets would be serving in Afghanistan before the end of next year, perhaps supported at sea by their navy comrades in arms.

Very sobering thoughts. Regardless of one’s political persuasion we pray for the life of each of these future officers and the enlisted who serve with them.

“One team.” That phrase kept resounding in my mind as I watched the lame-duck session struggle mightily, it seemed, to pass several major pieces of legislation—repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; the huge tax bill; 9/11 first responders health and ratification of the New Start Treaty with Russia.

It seems as if politics has, indeed, changed since the last election. Democrats are working with Republicans to pass significant legislation. Somebody said, “We ought to bring them in for only six weeks and set them loose!” Has the era of Good Feelings returned?

Probably not. The hyper-partisanship that has characterized the political wrangling during the past year made me sick of the whole process for a while. It was worse than sausage making. It was like small boys in a schoolyard yelling and screaming at each other when they didn’t get exactly what they wanted, and that meant everything.

This lack of conversation across the aisles—the almost total grid-lock on the field of politics—this hyper-partisanship--led to the recent formation of a new movement called “No Labels” led by Republicans and Democrats.

But reason seemed to prevail during these last weeks, even though die-hards claimed “There’s no time. . .we’re not going to rush things.” Well, both sides passed significant legislation.

But where is the sense of “One Team” for 2011? I remember former Congressman Chris Shays, Republican of CT, saying he got up every morning realizing he served not only Republicans in his Bridgeport area district, but Democrats and Independents as well. There aren’t too many folks in Congress who reflect that spirit of attempting to solve America’s problems first, not working to ensure that President Obama serves only one term or to eliminate certain tax cuts.

“One Team” means that we think, for example, of the economy, the need to mount huge efforts to compete with the Chinese who have just invested almost 1 trillion dollars in new green energy. We must think not as ideologues from one party or another, but as Americans needing to solve a problem. Too often what passes for legislative problem-solving is acceding to the wishes of one’s political base to ensure re-election.

We think of what Senator John McCain said about what he would have done post 9/11: ask for “shared sacrifice.” Such sacrifices would mean that we think first about the best ways to deal with immigration policy and not about who are our campaign contributors and ideological soul-mates.

“One team” means that we realize that those men on the gridiron serve one nation, one America. We don’t ask them to pull the trigger in defense of Republicans or Democrats, the poor, or the middle class or the rich, but of all citizens.

Yes, we’ve had our divisions since the first Washington administration when you had Madison and Jefferson strongly disagreeing with the advice Hamilton was giving the President (see Madison and Jefferson, 2010 by Burstein and Isenburg) about building standing armies and assuming a large national debt. Political discourse became rather vituperative, accusatory and inflamed at times.

My fantasy is that one day I would be given 60 seconds to speak before a joint session of Congress. During this presentation I would mention McCain’s call for “shared sacrifice” from all Americans. Tell them of my parents’ many contributions during WWII (See “Mutual Sacifice” 11/23 below) —along with millions of other American citizens.

Then I would ask them for one week—even one day—to shed any semblance of party loyalty, forget their always imminent re-election campaigns and work diligently to solve the problems we face as men and women whose only allegiance is to all the voters in the country.

Be Chris Shays for one day, just one day!

Fantasy? Sheer fantasy. Yes, I know, but I keep rehearsing my lines.

The men and women from all of the military academies serve our country—we owe them our supportive acknowledgement that we are, indeed, “All one team.”

Peace for this holiday season!

Monday, December 13, 2010

Great Askers

Great Askers

Driving north toward Albany recently to visit a high school where they challenge students to think by solving real-world problems, I happened to turn on an XM radio station that played a very short clip from a Glen Beck radio broadcast the previous day. In this segment Mr. Beck said the following (slightly paraphrased from memory):

“What is the number of Muslims who are terrorists. 1%? I think the figure is closer to 10%.”

I heard nothing of what might have followed that claim.

The person who played it, of the opposite political persuasion, however, asked the right question, “How do you know? What evidence do you have to make this seemingly outrageous claim?”

Reminded me of Beck’s similar claim on TV that President Obama was “anti-white,” that he was “deep down a racist.”

We’ve heard this claim many times over, but I’ve never heard of anybody’s challenging him to support this judgment about the President. What was it based on?

Made me think that if he’s anti-white, he must be schizophrenic, in the common definition of that term as being of a split personality.

Then I asked, “Well, which portion of himself does he hate, since he’s both black and white? The lower/upper half?”

I never heard the logical follow-up question, “What leads you to that conclusion?”

So, driving back from this terrific high technology school in Rensselaer, NY where they foster 21st century skills such as inquiry, problem solving and critical thinking, I was wondering how Mr. Beck models for his radio/tv audiences arriving at logical conclusions using valid, representative evidence?

I’ve heard Mr. Beck so many times laying on his audience that they should fear the coming revolution, just recently, the approaching chaos that will result in a communist state or the dreaded one world government. Several nights later on TV he claimed that “They [I think he means progressives since they are mostly the big bad wolves here] they feed on fear and violence.”

One way to propel your own agenda is to characterize what others do to conceal your own use of the same tactics.

This from a spokesperson who sees the coming of a Reichstag-like fire incident that would lead to dictatorship, just as a similar event led to the Nazi take-over of the German government in 1933.

This from a person who plays tapes of students in London and Berkeley demanding free education and concludes that this is evidence that we’re headed for a socialist/communist state and a loss of freedom.

But the critical thinker asks, “How representative are students at Berkeley of the entire US? What other evidence do we have that the country is headed for a dictatorship or any stripe?” Yes, there are groups here and there that might give suggestion of that idea, but what say the three major branches of the federal government, to say nothing of their state and local counterparts? Where’s the preponderance of evidence?

Makes one think that evidence/data/facts/verifiable information is of little or no consequence. Say what you will. Nobody will challenge you and some may agree. (What Jonathan Schell recently, in The Nation, called "casting off factuality."

We must be so careful in listening to folks in the media.

Each side throws claims around that baffle the mind of an educated person:

“The Obama Stimulus Effect? Zero?” (WSJ, 12/9/10) Why did they say that? Because spending almost 800 billion dollars did not lead to significant “purchases” by the states that received the money. Are there other criteria for success?

You have economists on the other side from Harvard, for example, claiming on Charlie Rose “I can’t explain why the wealthy got tax breaks.”

One wonders who amongst the young people at that NY high school accepts these kinds of claims without the requisite and healthy skepticism that demands we ask probing questions like “How do you know? What leads you to that conclusion? How good/representative is your evidence?”

Historian Barbara Tuchman wrote a most revealing book, The March of Folly (1984) about governments that pursue policies “contrary to their interests.” She cites British policy in our Revolutionary War and ours in Vietnam as examples of “folly,” that is, “perceived as counter-productive in its own time. . .[with a] feasible alternative course. . .available. . .” (p. 5) A better policy would, I imagine, be based on solid evidence to the contrary.

To avoid such future disasters Tuchman concluded that “What government needs is great askers.” (385)

What society needs to counter claims that seem outrageous, that represent only one ideological point of view, or that are merely presented without any supporting evidence are “great askers” at home, schools, in the media, and in all political parties, people who daily challenge us to examine issues in accordance with evidence, who ask us to do what very few people are willing to do, that is ask, “What’s the other side of the coin? What evidence contradicts my favored point of view?”

This is the nature of good citizenship, especially in these days of hyper-partisanship in Washington politics.

Monday, December 6, 2010

The King's Speech

The King’s Speech

As the movie critics sometimes say, “Run, don’t walk to see Colin Furth in The King’s Speech.”

Why run? Because Furth delivers a most moving portrait of a monarch, George VI, as he ascends the throne after his brother Edward’s abdication to marry Mrs. Simpson in 1936.

George VI suffered from what they then called a “stammer.” He choked up when he had to speak in public and this is something a monarch does rather often, especially if his country is heading into World War II against a man with Hitler’s articulate passion for enflaming his people against the world.

Furth recently recalled that he had what actors call an emotional memory of his fear of public speaking:

When he was eight years old he was caught talking in class and the punishment was rather severe. “The teacher said, `Oh, do you want to give the lesson?’" The following week, after several sleepless nights, Furth was made to teach an hour-long class on the topic of soil. "It’s the only thing I ever really learned during my entire school years,” he said. "I still remember words like loam and subsoil, and different levels and layers. I brought in samples and little test tubes.’” (The New Yorker, 12/6/ 2010, p. 30)

Here we see the efficacy of teaching. If you want to learn something, teach it. If you want to know if students understand something, challenge them to teach it to those who are novices.

Of course, there is the element of total fear about this learning experience and we would not want to terrify our students by putting them in Furth’s position. The actor said, “It was punishment.”

“The King’s Speech” demonstrates once again the vitality of our speech patterns, our ways of communicating. We can joke, as The New Yorker did recently, about being the only “between you and me” chap in a “between you and I” world. But for those of us who really care about “the King’s English,” as my mother always did, it’s vital to pay attention to words, their pronunciation, usage, their connotations and denotations and even their derivations. What a joy it is when we learn that “stammer” is derived from the Old English word “stamerian. . .related to stumble." That’s just what Furth did as King George VI, stumble over his words as if he had these natural or psychological blocks deep within his psyche.

Language usage sets certain expectations.

I always remember Elizabeth Barell correcting those in the media for saying, “This is a really/most/very unique experience” or rather strongly chastising them for mis-pronouncing the word “dour.” The latter drove her crazy.

What are words? They are our means of communications amongst ourselves, our concepts for understanding the world (from pen and peace to Pater Noster) and, finally, they are most assuredly magical, mysterious human creations for exploration and discovery of newer worlds of awe and wonder.

Words reveal our souls, passions, aspirations and the stories we tell with our lives.

Attention must, therefore, be paid.