Today I attended the Veterans Day ceremony at the National Cemetery in my town, Wilmington, North Carolina. Like all military cemeteries, it is beautiful--peaceful, plain, the orderly rows of matching headstones a reflection of the order which permeates military life. It is probably more beautiful than many such cemeteries, actually, because it is studded throughout with huge, old trees. The day was perfect, too--cool and sunny with enough breeze to keep the dozens of American flags flying.
A local middle school singing group performed, and during one song which I thought was an inappropriately perky and hip-shaking number for the occasion, I wandered away, down the road that runs down the middle of the cemetery. Two headstones, side by side, caught my eye because the last name was the same, although no alphabetical order existed. One of the men, born in 1899, had served as a private in WWI, and had died in February of 1953. The second, a veteran of the Korean war, was born in 1931 and had died in October of 1952, presumably in the midst of the conflict. Were they father and son, I wondered? Had the loss of a beloved 21-year-old son sent the older man to his own grave only months later? I'll likely never know.
But it reminded me vividly that the collective sacrifice of our armed forces is made up of thousands upon thousands of individual sacrifices, each story unique in some way. There's no paying back, no compensation for what is sometimes utterly crushing heartbreak. I thought, as I often do, about a man from Antioch, Illinois named John Peck.
Cpl. Peck was in Afghanistan in May of 2010, when he stepped on an IED as he acted as minesweeper for his men. He immediately lost both his legs and most of one arm, and yet, believe it or not, it actually got worse. He had picked up bacteria from the soil which invaded his body, and doctors had no choice but to amputate his only remaining limb. His home became Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where he underwent dozens of surgeries to fight the bacteria, along with grueling physical therapy. His young wife left him. Honestly, I couldn't believe anyone would be glad to be alive under those conditions, and I felt relief and a little lightening of heart (not to mention profound awe and respect) after watching a video of him in which a strong spirit and a determination to live showed strong and clear. (I'm not sure now
what his current status is, as I haven't been able to find any recent information.)
I guess my point is that when stories like this surface, we are all sad, but the immediate reaction in some quarters is condemnation of the war itself, and the conclusion that this tragedy and all those like it were "for nothing." I'm not saying those people are wrong about the advisability of this war. Perhaps they're right. But what a thing to say to people like John Peck! For myself, I wish not one more American soldier had to die or be injured in that godforsaken place. But I'm also aware that some--including some who fight there--know a lot more about what's at stake than I do, and they think it's a necessary fight. So maybe they're the ones who are right; I simply don't know.
But the one thing I do know, is that Veterans Day should be a reminder that our own opinions of what the government decides to do should not affect our gratitude, respect, and duty to those who have fought and continue to fight. A common perception among a certain part of the population is that soldiers are 'victims'--of propaganda, of economic hardship, of government malfeasance, etc. I wish those people could listen to John Peck talk, after all that happened to him, about his pride in being a Marine, about knowing ever since he was a kid that he wanted to be a military man, because he saw that they even "held themselves" a different way--you could just see the difference in them.
That's no victim talking.
(In honor of these heroes, if your means allow, please consider a donation to Hope for the Warriors or another charity of your choice that serves vets and their families.)
Friday, November 11, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
The biology of a bashed-in skull, aka just another day in school
I had intended to write something about my man, Herman Cain, and my new man, Newt Gingrich, but as I scanned the headlines an item about a fight in a Chicago high school caught my eye. Actually, it wasn't a fight at all. It was a beatdown. Another student filmed the attack with a cell phone.
A pair of sisters, one 17 and one 18, are punching the 14-year-old victim and slinging her around their Biology classroom. The sisters are both large; even in a 'fair fight' with only one of them as an opponent it's doubtful the younger girl could have prevailed. She is clearly just trying to stay on her feet. The sisters are using her long hair to hang onto her and, at one point, smash her head and face into a lab table. According to the news report, the victim sustained a concussion, a neck sprain, and multiple scratches and contusions. Unless it went unreported, there was no concrete reason for the sisters' animosity; the victim says that they told her she'd 'better answer them if they asked her a question,' and the victim's friend says, "they got angry and went ghetto on her."
The news report included an interview with another student who criticizes the teacher for failing to stop the assault, but it should be noted that the teacher appeared to be far smaller than the sisters and, one presumes, not in the habit of settling things with violence. She hovers briefly at the edge of the altercation but indeed doesn't try to stop it, and it's rather hard to blame her. A determined effort to break things up would almost certainly have resulted in physical injury to herself, and probably wouldn't have been successful, anyway. I broke up a couple of fights in my career by physically getting between the combatants, and realized when it was over that I was very fortunate not to have been hurt, possibly seriously. One incident left me with a grapefruit-sized bruise on my thigh.
There are too many issues here to count--race, possibly (the attackers were Black, the victim Hispanic) what's going on in classrooms that something like this could escalate to such a point in the first place, how the obvious lack of student and teacher safety affects learning, and so on. But ultimately, the only thing that really matters is how to stop it. Compare the following statements:
The victim's best friend, a freshman at the school, to NBC Chicago on Wednesday: "Every day there's a fight. Today there was a fight in Algebra."
Chicago Public School spokeswoman Marielle Sainvilus, responding to reporters: "Chicago Public Schools does not tolerate violence among students in any way. The safety and security of our students is a top priority and we will take whatever actions are necessary to ensure that schools remain a safe environment for learning."
"Remain" a safe environment?? Sounds like that horse is already out of the barn. Whose view do you think is more accurate--a kid who is actually in school for seven or eight hours a day, or some (probably highly-paid) bureaucrat who spends most, if not all, her time in an administrative office? 'We do not tolerate violence among students in any way'? That's school bureaucracy speak for you. Clearly they _do_ tolerate violence because if they didn't, there wouldn't be so much of it. The reality is that in most places, to be actually expelled (and then it's often only for the year) a student has to bring a gun to school or get caught selling drugs. Even if a violent assault like this results in criminal charges, the student still comes back to school!
In the big picture, particularly when it comes to large, urban public schools, society is going to have to make a hard decision. Are the schools really in their stated business, or are they holding areas because we don't know what else to do with kids who are either uninterested in, or unable to benefit from, a genuine education?
If the answer is the first, then simply paying lip service to the idea of zero tolerance for violence must stop. A well-intentioned desire to 'keep kids in school' has resulted in this attack and way too many like it. No matter how egregious some kids' behavior is to others, no matter how egregious their disrespect and contempt for their teachers, they get to stay. So what happens? Their behavior and disrespect become even worse. Truly, I am sympathetic to the question of what happens to the kids who get kicked out, because in many cases their unacceptable behavior has been encouraged by becoming completely 'lost' over the years of their supposed education, and that is not their fault, but the system's. (One wonders about these two sisters--17 and 18 in a class that is usually freshman level--note the 14-year-old victim and her freshman best friend--but is required for graduation.) Nonetheless, that problem can't be solved by allowing chronic troublemakers or those who commit savage assaults to remain in school putting others at risk. Their prospects shouldn't trump those of the non-violent kids who could certainly thrive in a better environment.
A pair of sisters, one 17 and one 18, are punching the 14-year-old victim and slinging her around their Biology classroom. The sisters are both large; even in a 'fair fight' with only one of them as an opponent it's doubtful the younger girl could have prevailed. She is clearly just trying to stay on her feet. The sisters are using her long hair to hang onto her and, at one point, smash her head and face into a lab table. According to the news report, the victim sustained a concussion, a neck sprain, and multiple scratches and contusions. Unless it went unreported, there was no concrete reason for the sisters' animosity; the victim says that they told her she'd 'better answer them if they asked her a question,' and the victim's friend says, "they got angry and went ghetto on her."
The news report included an interview with another student who criticizes the teacher for failing to stop the assault, but it should be noted that the teacher appeared to be far smaller than the sisters and, one presumes, not in the habit of settling things with violence. She hovers briefly at the edge of the altercation but indeed doesn't try to stop it, and it's rather hard to blame her. A determined effort to break things up would almost certainly have resulted in physical injury to herself, and probably wouldn't have been successful, anyway. I broke up a couple of fights in my career by physically getting between the combatants, and realized when it was over that I was very fortunate not to have been hurt, possibly seriously. One incident left me with a grapefruit-sized bruise on my thigh.
There are too many issues here to count--race, possibly (the attackers were Black, the victim Hispanic) what's going on in classrooms that something like this could escalate to such a point in the first place, how the obvious lack of student and teacher safety affects learning, and so on. But ultimately, the only thing that really matters is how to stop it. Compare the following statements:
The victim's best friend, a freshman at the school, to NBC Chicago on Wednesday: "Every day there's a fight. Today there was a fight in Algebra."
Chicago Public School spokeswoman Marielle Sainvilus, responding to reporters: "Chicago Public Schools does not tolerate violence among students in any way. The safety and security of our students is a top priority and we will take whatever actions are necessary to ensure that schools remain a safe environment for learning."
"Remain" a safe environment?? Sounds like that horse is already out of the barn. Whose view do you think is more accurate--a kid who is actually in school for seven or eight hours a day, or some (probably highly-paid) bureaucrat who spends most, if not all, her time in an administrative office? 'We do not tolerate violence among students in any way'? That's school bureaucracy speak for you. Clearly they _do_ tolerate violence because if they didn't, there wouldn't be so much of it. The reality is that in most places, to be actually expelled (and then it's often only for the year) a student has to bring a gun to school or get caught selling drugs. Even if a violent assault like this results in criminal charges, the student still comes back to school!
In the big picture, particularly when it comes to large, urban public schools, society is going to have to make a hard decision. Are the schools really in their stated business, or are they holding areas because we don't know what else to do with kids who are either uninterested in, or unable to benefit from, a genuine education?
If the answer is the first, then simply paying lip service to the idea of zero tolerance for violence must stop. A well-intentioned desire to 'keep kids in school' has resulted in this attack and way too many like it. No matter how egregious some kids' behavior is to others, no matter how egregious their disrespect and contempt for their teachers, they get to stay. So what happens? Their behavior and disrespect become even worse. Truly, I am sympathetic to the question of what happens to the kids who get kicked out, because in many cases their unacceptable behavior has been encouraged by becoming completely 'lost' over the years of their supposed education, and that is not their fault, but the system's. (One wonders about these two sisters--17 and 18 in a class that is usually freshman level--note the 14-year-old victim and her freshman best friend--but is required for graduation.) Nonetheless, that problem can't be solved by allowing chronic troublemakers or those who commit savage assaults to remain in school putting others at risk. Their prospects shouldn't trump those of the non-violent kids who could certainly thrive in a better environment.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Herman Cain is the man...
Doing this from my iPhone as the computer is being worked on, so this will be brief. I am so energized and excited about Herman Cain's candidacy catching fire, although whether it stays that way is certainly an open question. Blindered 'progressives' will never give him a serious look, of course, and never give up their religious belief in Republican/Tea Party 'racism,' so I have no intention of appealing to any vestiges of logical thinking that may remain in those quarters. For the rest of us who have become convinced that almost anyone will be better than Barack Obama but who would like a candidate to be excited about, Herman Cain fills the bill in many ways. Don't get me wrong--I know that his lack of experience in elective office is a drawback no matter how it's spun in this anti-incumbent age, and I've said from the beginning (having been his fan from the beginning) that he would best be utilized as a v.p. pick for a strong nominee. That's the problem--who is that person? But one thing you can take to the bank--inexperience and non-PC gaffes notwithstanding, HC is the real deal. Doubters of BO, whose experience as a black in America in no way approximates Herman Cain's, are embracing Herman precisely because he embodies the possibilities in the America we love and want to preserve, as well as the extraordinary strength and dignity of American blacks who rely on themselves to succeed.
Monday, August 22, 2011
I wonder why Keith Olbermann's viewership continues to drop?
You know, I can't seem to even work up much outrage over the self-satisfied and foolish exchange between Janeane Garofalo and Keith Olbermann that occurred a few days ago on his new show. He probably has, what, ten or twelve viewers, and watching these two lackluster and depressed-seeming individuals having such a lackluster and inane conversation left me understanding why, as well as feeling almost sorry for them. (I am not a viewer, by the way; I just saw the clip.)
--
Garofalo referred to the "inherent" racism of the Tea Party, something Olbermann would not, of course, challenge her to support with any evidence, and went on to opine that Herman Cain was probably being paid by someone--Karl Rove, perhaps--(this provided an unintended moment of hilarity, at least for me) to run, in order to deflect those charges of racism. One wonders if Ms. Garofalo, prior to appointing herself a political expert, did a lot of drugs or something, because the total 'out there-ness' of her speculations was made even more bizarre by the apparent seriousness with which Olbermann treated them. I kept waiting for them to burst out laughing and say "Got ya!"
But no, this was for real, it seems, and it wasn't enough for Garofalo to besmirch Mr. Cain's integrity so thoroughly, she couldn't resist further insulting him with another jab at the Tea Party by suggesting that he perhaps had a touch of "Stockholm Syndrome." (That is the name given some decades ago by a psychiatrist to the phenomenon of captives beginning to sympathize with and defend their captors.)
I won't get into the ridiculousness and absence of any kind of logic that characterized Ms. Garofalo's ramblings, because they're just not worth a lot of attention (and the lack of response from pretty much any quarter suggests maybe 10 or 12 viewers is an over-estimate) but one example will give you the general idea. After the host and his guest snicker over a couple of pictures of Michelle and Marcus Bachmann going down on corn dogs (har-har, very high-brow show!) there is a picture of Rick Perry with his foot up on a hay bale at the Iowa State Fair. Asked her opinion, Garofalo announces the racism of the Tea Party is confirmed by the fact that she doesn't see any black people. Hey, Janeane--it's IOWA! If it was an SNL skit, it would have been funny.
Vladimir Lenin noted that "a lie told often enough becomes the truth," and that appears to be the strategy behind the constant repetition--sans hard evidence of any kind--of the charge of racism against the Tea Party and all its members. (I am assuming all my readers are bright enough to understand that I am not suggesting there are no individual racists in the Tea Party. There probably are, in the same way that there are individual racists in any group. The white union member demanding of a black Tea Partier whether he had any children he was "willing to claim" comes to mind.)
The people who knowingly push this scurrilous and unfounded slur are doing it because they want gullible and loosely-informed people to "know" it, in the same way they 'know' George Bush is 'stupid,' whether or not they can cite any reasons, and the way they 'know' conservatives don't care about the poor and downtrodden while 'progressives' do, even though they can summon no evidence or logical argument to support their convictions. Why are those things true? "They just are."
So anyone--self-identified Tea Partiers for certain, one assumes, but anyone else as well--who has decided that Obama hasn't done a good job and doesn't deserve to be reelected, is a racist. But someone like Janeane Garofalo who attacks not only Herman Cain's integrity by suggesting he's being paid to run for president, but suggests his mental health is compromised, isn't?
It's always been a problem for aggressive Progressives who are spreading the racism canard, that the Tea Party loves a black man--Herman Cain--so much. So, they're reduced to attacking him to try to explain it. It smells of desperation, and I'm afraid we should just resign ourselves to 14 more months of it.
Again, I think my readers are all intelligent enough to understand that using Bachmann and Rick Perry in the above examples is not an indication that I support them. My candidate, Mitch Daniels, never got in the race, and I am simply watching, right now. The point is that this low-down strategy of denigrating anyone who wants 'change' in 2012 as a racist--whether done crudely and overtly or slyly--has no place in a campaign, regardless of who the Republican nominee turns out to be. That said, things don't look good for Obama, and I don't expect these ugly aspersions to go away. No matter that a lot of people who voted for Obama the first time but won't be voting for him again can't suddenly have turned into racists, logic isn't important to desperate people. Maybe, though, more and more people will begin to see their accusations for what they really are.
--
Garofalo referred to the "inherent" racism of the Tea Party, something Olbermann would not, of course, challenge her to support with any evidence, and went on to opine that Herman Cain was probably being paid by someone--Karl Rove, perhaps--(this provided an unintended moment of hilarity, at least for me) to run, in order to deflect those charges of racism. One wonders if Ms. Garofalo, prior to appointing herself a political expert, did a lot of drugs or something, because the total 'out there-ness' of her speculations was made even more bizarre by the apparent seriousness with which Olbermann treated them. I kept waiting for them to burst out laughing and say "Got ya!"
But no, this was for real, it seems, and it wasn't enough for Garofalo to besmirch Mr. Cain's integrity so thoroughly, she couldn't resist further insulting him with another jab at the Tea Party by suggesting that he perhaps had a touch of "Stockholm Syndrome." (That is the name given some decades ago by a psychiatrist to the phenomenon of captives beginning to sympathize with and defend their captors.)
I won't get into the ridiculousness and absence of any kind of logic that characterized Ms. Garofalo's ramblings, because they're just not worth a lot of attention (and the lack of response from pretty much any quarter suggests maybe 10 or 12 viewers is an over-estimate) but one example will give you the general idea. After the host and his guest snicker over a couple of pictures of Michelle and Marcus Bachmann going down on corn dogs (har-har, very high-brow show!) there is a picture of Rick Perry with his foot up on a hay bale at the Iowa State Fair. Asked her opinion, Garofalo announces the racism of the Tea Party is confirmed by the fact that she doesn't see any black people. Hey, Janeane--it's IOWA! If it was an SNL skit, it would have been funny.
Vladimir Lenin noted that "a lie told often enough becomes the truth," and that appears to be the strategy behind the constant repetition--sans hard evidence of any kind--of the charge of racism against the Tea Party and all its members. (I am assuming all my readers are bright enough to understand that I am not suggesting there are no individual racists in the Tea Party. There probably are, in the same way that there are individual racists in any group. The white union member demanding of a black Tea Partier whether he had any children he was "willing to claim" comes to mind.)
The people who knowingly push this scurrilous and unfounded slur are doing it because they want gullible and loosely-informed people to "know" it, in the same way they 'know' George Bush is 'stupid,' whether or not they can cite any reasons, and the way they 'know' conservatives don't care about the poor and downtrodden while 'progressives' do, even though they can summon no evidence or logical argument to support their convictions. Why are those things true? "They just are."
So anyone--self-identified Tea Partiers for certain, one assumes, but anyone else as well--who has decided that Obama hasn't done a good job and doesn't deserve to be reelected, is a racist. But someone like Janeane Garofalo who attacks not only Herman Cain's integrity by suggesting he's being paid to run for president, but suggests his mental health is compromised, isn't?
It's always been a problem for aggressive Progressives who are spreading the racism canard, that the Tea Party loves a black man--Herman Cain--so much. So, they're reduced to attacking him to try to explain it. It smells of desperation, and I'm afraid we should just resign ourselves to 14 more months of it.
Again, I think my readers are all intelligent enough to understand that using Bachmann and Rick Perry in the above examples is not an indication that I support them. My candidate, Mitch Daniels, never got in the race, and I am simply watching, right now. The point is that this low-down strategy of denigrating anyone who wants 'change' in 2012 as a racist--whether done crudely and overtly or slyly--has no place in a campaign, regardless of who the Republican nominee turns out to be. That said, things don't look good for Obama, and I don't expect these ugly aspersions to go away. No matter that a lot of people who voted for Obama the first time but won't be voting for him again can't suddenly have turned into racists, logic isn't important to desperate people. Maybe, though, more and more people will begin to see their accusations for what they really are.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
I think the American Atheists need a new president
The following is a portion of a news report about a lawsuit just filed by the atheist organization mentioned in the title:
A group of atheists has filed a lawsuit claiming the display of the World Trade Center cross at the 9/11 memorial in lower Manhattan is unconstitutional, calling it a "mingling of church and state."
The American Atheists...filed the lawsuit Monday to stop the display of the cross, arguing that it should not be included if "no other religions or philosophies will be honored," according to a statement on the group's website.
The cross, which consists of two intersecting steel beams that were found intact in the rubble at Ground Zero, was initially constructed on a side of a church in lower Manhattan. The cross was then placed inside the 9/11 Memorial Museum during a ceremony over the weekend.
"The WTC cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross," the group's president, Dave Silverman, said in a press release.
The reason I think a new president might be in order is that, surely, there are smarter candidates than Dave Silverman to choose from? The few self-described atheists of my acquaintance are intelligent people, and I can't imagine any of them saying something this dumb. Mr. Silverman's thinking seems pretty confused. Is he mad at the Christians' god because the Muslims killed in his name? Is he saying the Christians and Muslims have the same god? Oh wait, there is no God, so apparently he's angry at a figment of someone else's imagination for 'car{ing} only enough to bestow upon us some rubble.'
The suit includes claims from four individual atheists (presumably atheist 9/11 survivors--the language isn't entirely clear) that they are suffering from various physical symptoms resulting from the stress which the sight of this artifact is causing them. My guess would be that those claims are the result of advice from legal counsel that recognizes the weakness of the constitutional argument.
It's weak because this is not a Christian cross (regardless of whether or not it was later blessed, or how people began to think of it.) No one made it or purchased it with the intent to place it on the site. If that were the case, the atheists' insistence that other religious symbols should have equal inclusion and prominence would be more supportable. But this is an ARTIFACT which was found, in its present condition, in the rubble. The fact that it happened to resemble a cross and, as a result, came to have meaning vis-a-vis the tragedy for Christians, in no way negates its status as an artifact. It belongs in the museum. In the unlikely event that a pile of rubble had come to rest in the shape of a pasta strainer, and the Pastafarians had come to view it as an important symbol relative to the events of 9/11, it would belong in the museum, too.
Atheists can and often do serve an important function as watchdogs for the separation of church and state, but their credibility is enhanced or tarnished by the battles they choose. I don't think this one is wise.
A group of atheists has filed a lawsuit claiming the display of the World Trade Center cross at the 9/11 memorial in lower Manhattan is unconstitutional, calling it a "mingling of church and state."
The American Atheists...filed the lawsuit Monday to stop the display of the cross, arguing that it should not be included if "no other religions or philosophies will be honored," according to a statement on the group's website.
The cross, which consists of two intersecting steel beams that were found intact in the rubble at Ground Zero, was initially constructed on a side of a church in lower Manhattan. The cross was then placed inside the 9/11 Memorial Museum during a ceremony over the weekend.
"The WTC cross has become a Christian icon. It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn't be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross," the group's president, Dave Silverman, said in a press release.
The reason I think a new president might be in order is that, surely, there are smarter candidates than Dave Silverman to choose from? The few self-described atheists of my acquaintance are intelligent people, and I can't imagine any of them saying something this dumb. Mr. Silverman's thinking seems pretty confused. Is he mad at the Christians' god because the Muslims killed in his name? Is he saying the Christians and Muslims have the same god? Oh wait, there is no God, so apparently he's angry at a figment of someone else's imagination for 'car{ing} only enough to bestow upon us some rubble.'
The suit includes claims from four individual atheists (presumably atheist 9/11 survivors--the language isn't entirely clear) that they are suffering from various physical symptoms resulting from the stress which the sight of this artifact is causing them. My guess would be that those claims are the result of advice from legal counsel that recognizes the weakness of the constitutional argument.
It's weak because this is not a Christian cross (regardless of whether or not it was later blessed, or how people began to think of it.) No one made it or purchased it with the intent to place it on the site. If that were the case, the atheists' insistence that other religious symbols should have equal inclusion and prominence would be more supportable. But this is an ARTIFACT which was found, in its present condition, in the rubble. The fact that it happened to resemble a cross and, as a result, came to have meaning vis-a-vis the tragedy for Christians, in no way negates its status as an artifact. It belongs in the museum. In the unlikely event that a pile of rubble had come to rest in the shape of a pasta strainer, and the Pastafarians had come to view it as an important symbol relative to the events of 9/11, it would belong in the museum, too.
Atheists can and often do serve an important function as watchdogs for the separation of church and state, but their credibility is enhanced or tarnished by the battles they choose. I don't think this one is wise.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Mr. Smith goes to Washington
This classic movie starring James Stewart, Jean Arthur and Claude Rains was on one of the movie channels when my boyfriend and I sat down for a few moments prior to starting dinner preparations last night. He commented that he had never seen it all the way through, to which I responded that I had seen it from start to finish at least a dozen times, because I had shown it to my ninth-grade Civics classes (pardon me--Economic, Legal and Political Systems classes) year after year. Far from being disinterested, though, I was rushing to and from the kitchen not to miss what I knew to be the best parts. "No-watch this part!" I would say, not wanting him to miss the wonderful scene where James Stewart battles the clock and his own fatigue to avoid surrendering the Senate floor and his own reputation.
The amazing thing is that my students, for whom this movie was a minimum of 50 years old (I started teaching in 1989 and the film was produced in 1939) LOVED it. I'm sure part of this was due to the fact that they actually had to watch it--I was never one of those teachers who showed movies so they could catch up on their work--and they got a grade for staying awake and being attentive. I would also stop the film several times to make sure they understood what was happening and to discuss things which reinforced what they would previously have learned about the workings of Congress.
No matter how many times I showed "Mr. Smith," I was heartened by the way these 14 and 15-year-olds responded. Initially, they were glum, expecting to have to stare at some corny old movie for two class periods, knowing Ms. Shonosky would make it impossible for them to sleep. "It's in black and white?!" they would exclaim in horror. But little by little they were drawn in, still young enough that Jeff Smith's idealism spoke to them, and rooting, like most of us do, for the underdog. As old-fashioned as everything about the film is, they were willing to overlook it, because it became clear to them that they were watching something with genuine substance. The issues--political corruption, the evil inherent in framing an innocent man, the guts it takes to fight back, love, integrity--were as fresh as ever, not obscured by the out-of-date clothes and the 'gollies' and 'gee whizzes."
I think the kids liked the movie so much because the world they lived in (and I'd guess it's even worse now) was so filled with cynicism, and when it came to politics, well-founded cynicism. Something in them yearned to believe that such an honest man could exist, that there could actually be a Congressman like Jeff Smith, one who saw his service as an honor and a sacred trust with the people.
Maybe it's the kid in me, but I still yearn to believe that, too.
The amazing thing is that my students, for whom this movie was a minimum of 50 years old (I started teaching in 1989 and the film was produced in 1939) LOVED it. I'm sure part of this was due to the fact that they actually had to watch it--I was never one of those teachers who showed movies so they could catch up on their work--and they got a grade for staying awake and being attentive. I would also stop the film several times to make sure they understood what was happening and to discuss things which reinforced what they would previously have learned about the workings of Congress.
No matter how many times I showed "Mr. Smith," I was heartened by the way these 14 and 15-year-olds responded. Initially, they were glum, expecting to have to stare at some corny old movie for two class periods, knowing Ms. Shonosky would make it impossible for them to sleep. "It's in black and white?!" they would exclaim in horror. But little by little they were drawn in, still young enough that Jeff Smith's idealism spoke to them, and rooting, like most of us do, for the underdog. As old-fashioned as everything about the film is, they were willing to overlook it, because it became clear to them that they were watching something with genuine substance. The issues--political corruption, the evil inherent in framing an innocent man, the guts it takes to fight back, love, integrity--were as fresh as ever, not obscured by the out-of-date clothes and the 'gollies' and 'gee whizzes."
I think the kids liked the movie so much because the world they lived in (and I'd guess it's even worse now) was so filled with cynicism, and when it came to politics, well-founded cynicism. Something in them yearned to believe that such an honest man could exist, that there could actually be a Congressman like Jeff Smith, one who saw his service as an honor and a sacred trust with the people.
Maybe it's the kid in me, but I still yearn to believe that, too.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Stoopid people
Okay, I guess I'm not surprised by another example of an idiot on the loose, but I'm dismayed by how the behavior is tolerated. It happened in Savannah, GA and perhaps you saw the news item: a woman orders Chinese food and when it is delivered, decides it's not what she ordered. Her solution? Call 911, of course. The police response is to state that she "could have" been charged with abuse of 911, and then publicize the huge number of administrative, rather than emergency calls, that were received by the 911 line in the previous year.
Well, I guess so. If you're too lazy to look up the non-emergency number, or so self-centered and dimwitted as to believe the appropriate response in any situation that doesn't go your way is to call 911--AND THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES FOR DOING IT--why should you stop? These are the same people you see pulling up in the handicapped spot with their no-longer driving Granny's handicapped decal, because it's all about them and their convenience.
Perhaps the Savannah authorities believe prosecuting these people is a waste of resources, but 'education' about the matter doesn't seem too productive. And if it's 'worth it' or not probably depends on your point of view. Are you or someone you love in staring distance of death, when seconds might mean the difference? Better hope you're not waiting to get through because 911 is busy mediating a food fight.
Well, I guess so. If you're too lazy to look up the non-emergency number, or so self-centered and dimwitted as to believe the appropriate response in any situation that doesn't go your way is to call 911--AND THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES FOR DOING IT--why should you stop? These are the same people you see pulling up in the handicapped spot with their no-longer driving Granny's handicapped decal, because it's all about them and their convenience.
Perhaps the Savannah authorities believe prosecuting these people is a waste of resources, but 'education' about the matter doesn't seem too productive. And if it's 'worth it' or not probably depends on your point of view. Are you or someone you love in staring distance of death, when seconds might mean the difference? Better hope you're not waiting to get through because 911 is busy mediating a food fight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)