Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Influence peddler

Five hundred hashmarks, it turns out, takes a very long time to make.
This is blog post No. 500.

High time, then, to examine how I've done in changing the world from my little virtual outpost these last five years.

Not all of these posts have been phoned in. Not even most. Oh, they comprise so much navel gazing, of course, but almost always in thoughtful consideration of the fuzz therein. Occasionally I have looked beyond myself, out into the crazy beautiful stinking tragic foregone world, rolled this blog into a megaphone and used it to shout at the world: Hey, fix that!

And how did that turn out?

Let us review: I, in chronological order:
It stands to reason all this saving the world stuff can be overwhelming to process, which is why I peppered the blog with bits about swimming and Giants baseball and paid doodles.

Now, if you'll excuse me, time to work on No. 501. But really, what problem could possibly be left to solve?

That is, except for determining if this counts as a blog post.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

Pander-Ama™

All you need to know about presidential politics is that Arnold Schwarzenegger will take over from Donald Trump as host of Celebrity Apprentice.

It's the only way any of this makes sense.

Schwarzenegger became governor of California, I firmly believe, on the novelty vote: "Yeah, sure, what the hell? It's not like state government does anything anyway. Let's put the Terminator in office! I might finally vote this time!"

So we installed Schwarzenegger and watched him chew up yet another role — larger than life, narcissistic, hedonistic, every-man-wants-to-be-him-and-every-woman-wants-to-be-with-him, AhhhNohd!!

Or some such.

He made his political move at the right time, propelled on a movement to recall the sitting governor who epitomized all that is boring and perfunctory and defacto defunct about government, including his name: Gray Davis.

Enter Schwarzenegger from stage left, in such a raucous coronation that his handlers were already talking about tweaking the Constitution so the Austrian Oak could soon become the American president.

Schwarzenegger tilted the ship nearly overboard the other way instead. Jerry Brown came back to clean up the mess, including the cigar ash that got everywhere. Arnold's wife, Maria Shriver, got a divorce after everyone including her learned Arnold had fathered a child from an out-of-wedlock affair. The deposed, disgraced star fell and fell into that deserved pit of shame: A multi-picture deal in which he gets to play a caricature of his caricature, and now the Celebrity Apprentice gig.

That'll teach him.

It's the same for Trump, I gotta believe. I gotta believe that all his so-called supporters are just yanking our chain, seeing how far this frat prank can go, seeing if this buffoon can actually cover all the bases — base, debased, off base, baseless — on his way to the White House. Doesn't matter anyway, what's the worst he can do?! Let's vote!

Teflon®™ Reagan had nothing on this guy. The stupider, more insulting, more juvenile, the more outright outrageous Trump gets — and he tops himself daily — the more his poll numbers seem to rise. The more he trumpets his catch-all platform of "We're gonna look into it, and a lot more other things, believe me!" the more attention he gets.

The more attention the news media give him, rather. The media follow the money and open their troughs to catch it, and spill the slop on us. They don't particularly care whether he's racist or xenophobic, they just point the camera and the money comes pouring in.
 
It's why I, the casual victim of social media, know that Bristol Palin is upset that President Obama invited to the White House a 14-year-old Texas kid was arrested for bringing a homemade clock to school. Why does the media care — and why would we? — what Bristol Palin has to say about the matter, except the media give her attention because she's the daughter of Sarah Palin? Cha-ching!

It can't possibly be what the pundits said last week, that the public is so disappointed and disenfranchised by the status quo that they're reacting in anger. (I heard this three times from three pundits last week, with eerie similarity, making me question their independence of thought.)

And Trump is their answer?! Donald Trump?! Who is nothing like the average American? Who's the poster boy for the 1%? Whose empire is a house of cards? The Donald Trump who led the campaign to insist Obama was not born in the United States? That's who we want to change the world with?

Are we on Candid Camera?

The other Republicans envy Trump and gnash their teeth and rend their garments about him, which is appropriate biblical language given the theocracies that a third of them propose for us as president. They should embrace Trump instead, for making them look almost normal.

Even Ben Carson, who said this weekend on Meet the Press, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that." He looks sane alongside Trump.

The conservative media have tried so desperately to describe what Carson could possibly have meant, that he was referring to radical Muslims; Carson himself tried to help by saying he could support a Muslim who pledged loyalty to the Constitution. I'll let you think about the stupidity of these comments, about the ironic fallout of someone saying "I would not advocate that we put a black/woman/Jew in charge of this nation," and say Carson is a brilliant joke.

Maybe I'm too hasty. Maybe I should remember that, as usual with campaigns, most of these candidates will fall away, and quickly. Promising theocrat and union buster Scott Walker dropped out this week, following theocrat and government buster Rick Perry.

We will have expended too much envy on these trivial pursuits, as usual.

I'll know sanity is restored when we resume our war on Christmas and Trump takes back his leather seat on Celebrity Apprentice. So Schwarzenegger can run.

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

So … what's going on?

No really, I want to know: What's going on?

The side effects of a 9-to-5 life (well, 9 to 5:30, sometimes 11 to 8; it gets complicated; you get the point) have begun to manifest.

I no longer know.

The world gurgles rather obliquely any more. It roars and shakes and drips with blood and anger just beyond my peripheral vision, dully beneath my mittened fingers.

I used to know.

News used to break each day's silence, the fourth task undertaken upon rising: Click on National Public Radio.

All day newspeople revealed and picked at and analyzed and repeated the day's goings on.

Granted, it was not all the news, far from it. Maybe it wasn't always the whole story. But by osmosis, at the end of the day I knew the basic causes of a coup attempt in Thailand, or some of the blunt-force nuances of gun control, or what the heck ALEC is (you really want to know, by the way. Google™® it and be afraid).

No more.

I get the vague impression of unrest having taken place in Baltimore over allegations of police brutality. I think somehow that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat and highly likely to have President Obama's back, is angry with the president instead.

Something bad happened to the New England Patriots, maybe?

Democracy depends on an informed citizenry to participate fully. I barely had the informed part down before this full-time, out-of-home job, and had mused anxiously and sometimes publicly about the participation part. I was on the brink of participation.

Now I'm no longer even informed.

It puzzles me how anyone else can (1) know and (2) act.

If religion is the opiate of the masses (though Karl Marx really said, "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.") could work be far removed?

How do we keep the free state moving ahead, how do we see ahead for all the tasks on our desks, on our phone, the matters at the ends of our noses?

Most of this is on me. I did not realize how such a major change in routine would change, in a major way, how I see the world; that's naive, I'll allow.

As part of the change, I got a real mobile phone. I'm one of you now, the last holdout, sold out. I'm supposed to do more with it, though until the weekend it was mostly for looking at facebook®™ on the train and running out the battery (and running up the data, it turns out, because, again, I didn't know).

Since the weekend, thanks to my daughter's information technology sleight of hand and my son's added advice and my wife's wishes and hopes, I have the chance to become a bit better informed: My email works again.

Trying to get email to work on my computer and my phone, I made it so email stopped working on either.

Email is oxygen. It is water, as you know. I was dead for a week.

Also, my newspaper, The Sacramento Bee, took this time to wage a complete redesign. To meet the future before the future showed up, or some such marketing phrase. It asked millions of readers and devoted years to focus groups, and came up with a color-coded product that resembles a newspaper in feel if not in actual form.

I'm inclined each morning to turn The Bee upside down, in case the important news might be at the bottom. That seems so. The top of each section now features a knees-to-head full color shot of some columnist or another, wrapped in the text of his or her column. I'm not sure columns or opinions are news, or that they should be at the top of the page, or on the front of each section.

Nothing is where it used to be; the headline type is huge and whimsical and makes everything look like the features and comics section.

Where everything is now in The Bee doesn't always seem like a good idea.

Which is moot anyway, since I don't have time to read The Bee.

I'm busy color-coding folder tabs for work.

If you get a chance, tell whoever's running the world to be nice.

Thursday, May 7, 2015

Hue and tone and color

Please forgive me, for I will have sinned.

Either by omission, or sloppy phrasing or misguided intent, I will eventually have blown it in this blog. I will have blundered into offense, most likely by trying not to offend.

So when you reach that point in the post, note: I already apologized. I will be prepared to apologize again, nonetheless.

Here goes:

My wife complimented me on the post I wrote in winter about overblown outrage over President Obama's remarks at the annual prayer breakfast. The Islamic State of Whosit and Whatsit had just become all the rage — in a horribly real sense of the phrase.

Critics of the president took one phrase out of his remarks — about how religion can be twisted for evil means, and (lest we forget) Christians also have a history of using religion for violence and dominance, from the Crusades to slavery in the United States — as evidence of Obama's (1) hate of America, and (2) defense of brutal Islamists.

My wife agreed with the points I made. She is nice and generous that way.

She brought up the harsh criticism of Obama's remarks that I highlighted in my post, including those by a woman named Star Parker, a conservative columnist and political activist who founded the Center for Urban Renewal and Education. Like Obama, Parker has been a community organizer, though perhaps with different aims.

Parker in at least two venues in conservative media described Obama singled-out remarks as "verbal rape."

“Let me put it in context then, because I was in that room and it was frankly verbal rape,” said Parker.
“We were not expecting it, nobody wanted it, it was horrible to sit through and after it was over we all felt like crap.”

This was not the part of her response I wrote about after the fact in my earlier post. I wrote the next sentence in her comments instead, "Verbal rape is what it was. Because he pulled the air out of the room."

Parker elicited a "Wow!" from fellow guest panelist Geraldo Rivera — Out of admiration? Genuine shock? — on Sean Hannity's Fox News show.

Ben Carson, a retired pediatric neurosurgeon, also told Fox News after Obama's comments, “It makes me feel that perhaps we’re being betrayed. Perhaps we don’t have a leader who feels the same about things as most of us do.”
(I wrote the earlier post because I still don't understand the offense and outrage here. Is it not factual, what President Obama said? Is it not reasonable [ironic word] today to expect that people kill in the name of their religion, and that some Christians are probably killing or harming others for reasons they determine righteous in their beliefs? Are those offended trying to say, "That was then, this is now," that Christians are blameless in contemporary mistreatment on religious grounds?

(Or is it all just so much more posturing to win political points and prickle the political base?)
"Wow, 'verbal rape!?'" my wife said.

"That was Star Parker," I said. "She's African-American."

"Really?" my wife said.

"And Dr. Ben Carson, the pediatric neurosurgeon? He's African-American too."

I felt my teeth try to corral my tongue the moment I said this, trying to swallow the words. Because, why does it matter if two of Obama's harshest critics are African-American? Am I expecting all African-Americans to side with President Obama by virtue of color or heritage? Of course not. Do I expect African-Americans to give Obama leniency? Of course, no.

So why did I say it? Why did I feel need? Maybe because it's very difficult not to notice. Maybe it exposes a prejudice in me that conservatives — and especially conservative critics — are predominantly white, predominantly male. Maybe it's something uninformed about me that finds black critics so unusual.

Maybe it's difficult as well not to note Parker and Carson's role on Fox News, difficult not to ask (if only in my mind, but here it is, in a blog post) if their being African-American is why they're on Fox News, criticizing President Obama. Fair and balanced.®™

I give Fox News credit for being a media voice, a court jester if not a town crier, anxious to point out, relentlessly, the president is an emperor who has no clothes, and is Muslim, despite longstanding and repeated and blatant evidence to the contrary.

I do not accept Fox as a news company any more than I accept CNN; neither organization demonstrates a dispassionate responsibility to inform us, who need informing desperately. All is not well: But that's true for everyone, not just each news outlet's particular demographic.

Fox and the others have agendas and frame their news as the-sky-is-falling messages with particular slants to achieve certain responses. They inform, but only so much, in a certain light, for a desired result: Power to their people.

Fox among the major news outlets is absolutist, the most egregious, the most extreme in how it frames news and assumes events, real or imagined, and then builds its programming on those assumptions.

They bring on pundits, including Carson and Parker, who carry out this carefully crafted architecture of message.

You have to agree: Saying the president committed "verbal rape" is must-see TV.

Carson appears often on Fox and can also be counted on to spin words into Fox News gold.

Carson bows to no one in achievement. His life became a movie: Raised poor in a troubled family, Carson rose from a poor student to medical school, overcoming discrimination eventually to become, at only 33, the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital. He is most famous, perhaps, for having separated twins who were joined at the head, fulfilling months of planning and nearly a full day of surgery, orchestrating a medical team comprising dozens.

He has written several books about what's wrong with America, which mostly has to do us with lacking God and morals.

Carson presents himself as upright and moral; ok, I take him at his word. Clearly he is brilliant and resolute. All the more reason I don't understand why he says such dumb things:
  • Being gay is a choice, for example, said Carson, "Because a lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight—and when they come out, they're gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question."
  • "Looking at the AP course in American History that's being taught in high schools across our country. There's only two paragraphs in there about George Washington. George Washington, believe it or not! Little or nothing on Martin Luther King. A whole section on slavery and how evil we are. A whole section on Japanese internment camps and how we slaughtered millions of Japanese with our bombs. A whole section on how we wiped out American Indians with no mercy. I mean, I think most people, when they finish that course, they'd be ready to go sign up for ISIS."
  • "You know, Obamacare is really, I think, the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery. And it is, in a way—it is slavery in a way because it is making all of us subservient to the government."
  • In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's consideration of the legality of same-sex marriage, he said the president does not have to abide by the court's ruling.
  • Carson has called President Obama a psychopath, and suggested he should be tried for treason based on his foreign policy.
They're not dumb comments so much as tailored, almost cannily, to the media on which Carson frequently appears. Parker's extended analogy to rape, for example, appeared practiced to me, rolled out at a key moment in this panel discussion, for maximum effect. I wouldn't have a problem with Carson and Parker and other critics making reasoned and eloquent opposition to the people and parties in power. Carson has the capacity, I presume, to be erudite.

But reason and eloquence is boring, reserved for PBS and NPR. "Verbal rape" equals money, equals votes. Give your hungry public something nearly as base and histrionic as that!
 
I'm pretty cynical and think President Obama has fallen short of his office — failure to close Guantanamo, proliferation of drone warfare, the opacity of his government and half-assed dedication of public education among them — but I wouldn't buy what Carson is selling, nor give any credence to Carson's frequent assertion that Obama hates this country and is trying to destroy it.

But Carson has a lot of adherents who love to hear his self-avowed political incorrectness.

Now Carson is running for president, one of many fat-chance Republican candidates, and a growing number who not only call on God to guide them — following a long presidential practice — but expect their god to guide your comings and goings and thinkings too.

Carson strikes me already as the irony candidate, just as I often regarded George W. Bush as the irony president, criticizing others in a way that could just as easily apply to himself.

In his One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America's Future, he said, "Worst of all, we seem to have lost our ability to discuss important issues respectfully and courteously, and cannot come together enough to begin to solve our problems."

And:

"Each of us can positively affect our nation just by making ourselves (and those in our spheres of influence) aware of the fact that we are being used as pawns by those who try to tell us what we should think as opposed to using our own common sense."

Carson can't fail on the campaign trail. He won't win nomination or the office, of course; he's not really in it for that. But he'll write more books and lecture at whatever fee he chooses about taking America back to some earlier time when everything was good and nothing was bad. He'll have his own Fox News show to update his yesteryear theme.

I'll be judging him by the content of his character.

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

All get along

If Obama came out in favor of oxygen,
Republicans would suffocate themselves.
I love this meme because it's funny because it's true. No matter what you think about President Obama, deep down you know this clever sentiment is absolutely correct.

This is what passes for our representational leadership. This is government of the people, by the people, for the people. Maybe not really of the people; and really not by any people I know, in whose circle I travel; it's a government for some people, primarily themselves.

It's their world. We just live in the margins, at their discretion.

In his State of the Union address last month, President Obama asked for better:
 
Imagine if we broke out of these tired old patterns (of partisan rancor and fear-mongering). Imagine if we did something different.
Understand – a better politics isn’t one where Democrats abandon their agenda or Republicans simply embrace mine.

A better politics is one where we appeal to each other’s basic decency instead of our basest fears.

A better politics is one where we debate without demonizing each other; where we talk issues, and values, and principles, and facts, rather than “gotcha” moments, or trivial gaffes, or fake controversies that have nothing to do with people’s daily lives.

A better politics is one where we spend less time drowning in dark money for ads that pull us into the gutter, and spend more time lifting young people up, with a sense of purpose and possibility, and asking them to join in the great mission of building America.

If we’re going to have arguments, let’s have arguments – but let’s make them debates worthy of this body and worthy of this country.
Of course, what else could the president say? His second term is running out, and he's running up against a Republican-controlled Congress. "Why can't we all get along?" is a given. But his plea was eloquent and hopeful and shaming and true.

And it died on arrival. Basest fears, for the win! Let's fake controversies, shall we? Fear and hate, it turns out, are easier and far more lucrative than solving problems, as we witnessed last week.

With lightning speed, Obama opponents pounced on one small part from lengthy remarks the president made at the annual prayer breakfast:
And lest we get on our high horse and think this (faith used as a weapon) is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.
Controversy, ladies and gentlemen! Let's make anything we want out of this, as long as it smears the president — or as his basest opponents like to call him, "this man."

By the way, his statement is absolutely, unequivocally true, immensely relevant, delivered as admonishment that we — Obama included himself — humble ourselves.

That doesn't matter. He offended Christians!

“The president’s comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime,” said former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore, a Republican, in a Time Magazine story. “He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share.”

I find it difficult to tell if the former Virginia governor is quoted because of his status as a former governor, or for what he said and plenty of podia from which to say it.

It doesn't matter. He offended all religions!

“Verbal rape is what it was. Because he pulled the air out of the room,” said Star Parker, described as a conservative pundit, quoted at Salon.com, based on that same snippet from President Obama's remarks. "There were 4,000 people there to unify. The question on the table was can these three major religions get along? Can the Jew? Can the Muslim? Can the Christian?”

Parker used almost the same phrases when speaking on a conservative radio show hosted by Mark Levin. "Verbal rape."

It doesn't matter. President Obama defended the brutal terrorist group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) (aka, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL)!

"Yeah, I mean he’s really creating a propaganda bonanza for terrorists, because what he’s really saying is ‘Well look, these are freedom fighters, just like the patriots of the Revolutionary War. And they’re no different, their service is just as honorable,’” said Louisiana Rep. John Fleming, a Republican, said on the Family Research Council's Washington Watch radio show.

Just before the oft-quoted line, President Obama said:
As we speak, around the world, we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another -- to feed the hungry and care for the poor, and comfort the afflicted and make peace where there is strife.  We heard the good work that Sister has done in Philadelphia, and the incredible work that Dr. (Kent) Brantly and his colleagues have done.  We see faith driving us to do right.
But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge — or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon.  From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it. 

We see ISIL, a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism — terrorizing religious minorities like the Yezidis, subjecting women to rape as a weapon of war, and claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.
But nevermind that. Fingers in ears, lalalalalalalaLALALALALALAH I can't hear you! We've got controversies to fake.

Dr. Ben Carson, a pediatric neurosurgeon who appears frequently on conservative media shows — who especially likes to refer to Obama as "this man," told Fox News, “It makes me feel that perhaps we’re being betrayed. Perhaps we don’t have a leader who feels the same about things as most of us do.”

Did you get that impression, that President Obama verbally raped listeners, that he betrayed his country? Or do you think perhaps it wouldn't have made any difference what he said at the breakfast, that opponents were going to hold their breath while Obama served oxygen?
 
It cuts both ways. Liberal opponents go after conservatives too, and lie and smear with abandon. But nothing with the pace and scale of the relentless attacks against President Obama. It energizes the base and, with a little luck, spills over to poison other wells of reason and discourse.

I wonder why, and I wonder who. For both, like the Watergate coverup demonstrated, follow the money.

Who benefits from this constant campaign of made-up, salacious, ridiculous attacks? The media for one, running on the white heat of controversy. Fake or genuine, it doesn't matter.

As former journalists, Nancy and I used to get mad during Mass when the news media were frequently invoked during prayers of the faithful. No other profession or line of work seems to make the prayers quite so often as the news media, seeking fairness and justice tempered with compassion, as if the news media didn't demonstrate it.

Now I realize that the prayers were deserved and the news media does fall short, but not for the reasons the Church invoked journalism, which was to tread lightly over the Church's terrible failings.

The news media in general is failing because it doesn't do the job of informing us about the news that we citizens need to know. This nonsensical name-calling suffices for political reporting; throw in Taylor Swift and a high-speed car chase two states away, and there's your news.

It puzzles me how the personalities at Fox News, for example, can say the things they say, every day, and appear to mean it. Either they are paid handsomely, absolving all sins, or they think themselves satirists outdoing Jon Stewart, and this is all fun and games.

The worst part is that the general news media drown out the few who are still committing important acts of journalism, and washing away their message.

Politicians benefit too, fueled by our fears and fortified in their "service" by the source of money: the less than 1 percent that wants no government at all, but will settle for a government it can control. It's not conservatism, but the basest libertarianism to the point of being libertine; the downfall of all except for them that has, until it's too late to do anything about it.
 
Dr. Carson said we have solution, a weapon against this betrayal:
The good thing is, we have a system in place that has allowed us to take control. We need to observe carefully what our leaders do and what the people who support them do. We can’t forget who those people are, and we will have another opportunity, coming up in 2016, looking at all the senators and the congressman who rabidly support this man. Let’s make sure that they get the message.
He is absolutely right, though not in the way he meant. It cuts both ways.

Breathe deep.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Democracy inaction

Dedicated readers often wish to hell they had something better to do know I'm a milquetoast American citizen.

Vote and grouse, that's my modus operandi — vote for the issue and person that tires me the least. Grouse in what amounts to shouts in the wind, small and weak and scattershot.

I am an April fool. For most other months too.

A couple of weeks ago, President Barack Obama wrote me back — typing two spaces after every period, which is the strange thing I noticed first.

Yes, I know he didn't write it. Yes, I know that citizens writing about certain topics get a crafted response from someone in the White House; I'm guessing it's the press office via the State Department re: "Talking points, Syria," pulled from a digital pigeon hole.

"Thank you for writing," President Obama wrote. "Three years into the Syrian conflict, we face a brutal and protracted civil war, which extremists are exploiting and which poses a threat to stability throughout the region. I am glad you took the time to share your concerns."

Mr. Obama capsulized for me the history of the current crisis in Syria, the causes — violent responses to peaceful protests against the Bashar al-Assad governent —and the outcome, more than 130,000 dead and millions finding bleak shelter in dead spaces in their ravaged country, and across ragged borders.

All stuff I know from the daily osmosis of public radio.

Then Mr. Obama said what the United States is doing and how it helps — humanitarian assistance, negotiations for greater international aid, participating in negotiations between the Syrian government and its opposition, that sort of thing.
One thing I have said since the beginning is that I will not pursue an open‑ended military intervention in Syria,
Mr. Obama wrote.
Last year, when the Assad regime violated international law by using chemical weapons in an attack that killed over 1,000 Syrians, I was prepared to respond through narrow and targeted military action. But when a diplomatic option opened up, we took it—because I believe any chance to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force is one we must pursue.
"Targeted military action" is why I wrote Mr. Obama, puffing out my dove feathers to urge the United States not to enter another protracted war. Some dove: Syrians are being slaughtered — literally, slaughtered! — with no one to help, and I told Mr. Obama: Don't let it be us!

I blogged about it — twice.

There you have it: My exercise in democracy, my stepping out of the rut of citizenship into the merest definition of activism. I tapped a letter like I'm tapping now, and pressed "send."

And the slaughter continued. And continues. The "diplomatic option" was Russia agreeing it would see to Syria's dismantling of chemical weapons, half of which have now been destroyed or made inert, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons reported last month. The United States, China, Denmark and Norway are reportedly contributing resources and expertise to remove and neutralize the weapons.
And in the months ahead, we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve—one free from dictatorship, terror, and fear,
Mr. Obama concluded, before thanking me and referring me to its Web page regarding policy issues with Syria.

Here's the thing:
  • The Web page's last reference to the Syrian conflict is last Halloween, and
  • I wrote President Obama in early September
Since then, the world has happened. Maybe it's no worse than many terrible ages of our time on earth, but it bears its own brand of impending collapse. Not the least of which is that Russia called in a major good-guy discount by helping de-horrify Syria (which is still a horror and which Russia still supports, which I don't get, but my country stands by some egregious world neighbors out of American interests, so pot, kettle; kettle, pot).

The discount makes Russia's sweep of the Crimean Peninsula, right into Ukraine's backyard, awkward for the United States, because Europe depends on Russian energy and doesn't want to poke the bear too hard, and President Obama really doesn't want to make more war and end his presidency where he came in. At least, that's what I suppose.

Better that President Obama — or his office — had not written back at all. I already knew how busy his administration is — how hellishly busy any administration is trying to balance our country's place and might — I did not expect a letter and I'd have felt better if every single person had better things to do than write me. Even if it was to click "send."

On the other hand, I did expect a letter would be exactly like this.

Syria chews away while we attend to the crisis in Ukraine. The world chews itself up. Corporations and monied interests seem more driven to chew away on us, our money, our children, or freedoms, because they can, because we let them, until we either get mad enough finally to move against them, or until no more is left.

All that's left to conclude from my blog posts is that I have not moved off my ambivalent, frustrated, grousing ass, looking for a way to make a difference and not remain a good man, doing nothing.



Thursday, October 17, 2013

Straw constituents

red white and blue …
That was it?! One humongous, bloody, pustular, rancid, scabrous, infectious, horrid WTF?

One titanic time-wasting, money-wasting, attention-wasting exercise in venal, vain futility?

One mass demonstration to the world that we're a joke, and to ourselves that perhaps we are no longer equipped to handle this experiment in government.

Sixteen days of the federal government shutdown …
  • … millions and millions of dollars squandered (check your portfolio if you have one. That oughta be fun!)
  •  … have-not families wasting precious energy to find costly alternatives to Head Start (good for Laura and John Arnold, the billionaire couple who gave $10 million to keep the program going for 7,000 children! Shame on us they felt need to do so!) …
  • … medical research potentially set back for years … some of it gone for good …
  • … federally funded earth and climate science, like those shuttered in Antarctica, similarly damaged …
  • … startup small businesses on hold, awaiting federal OK …
  • … national parks and monuments closed, foods going uninspected, businesses in a teetering economy delaying hiring, all uncertain for the future …
  • … and much more besides, not to mention thousands of federal employees laid off, crippling their neighborhood economies.
What for? All because tea party-led Republicans maneuvered to drain funding from the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare!) and bleed it dead, holding the entire government hostage over this one demand.

Which they didn't get! That's right, the congressional agreement, on the eve of sending the country into unprecedented default, essentially leaves alone the Affordable Care Act! After 16 days of stalemate, the issue was all piss and piffle. All over us!

Now it's over. We're back to where we started, poorer in almost every way possible. Except poor in spirit. We're dispirited.
 
Others lead, and we follow, on words anymore, not on deeds. And those words are an awful variation of the already awful Big Lie, attributed to Nazi propaganda that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

Instead, our leaders tell themselves the Big Lies early and often, then govern based on reactions to their own lies. And we put up with it.

Sen. Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, a chief engineer of the shutdown — and I'm not the first to say he looks, sounds and behaves unctuously like good ol' Sen. Joseph McCarthy — said yesterday: "It appears the Washington establishment is refusing to listen to the American people. The deal that has been cut provides no relief to the millions of Americans who are hurting because of Obamacare."

Which American people? The ones who said the tea party should stand its ground, work its whiles and grind the country into the staggering irreparable effects of default? Those people? I'm confident those people are, as they say, few and far between. Too few and far between to merit closing the government and threatening default.

All of this — all of this — pivots on the assumption that the Affordable Care Act is a terrible law. Is it really? A major plank in the Obama presidency, aimed at making health care affordable overall and extending health insurance to people who had no access — is this law really so bad?

Rep. Todd Rokita, Republican of Indianapolis, called the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare "one of the most insidious laws ever created by man." Secret boards that will condemn old people to early death! Forcibly implanted tracking microchips! Fabrications manufactured before the act was even presented. Rokita's characterization is just the latest in an unbroken chain of hyperbolic condemnations of the law.

Ben Carson, a celebrated neurosurgeon who is rising in right wing Republican circles as a possible political candidate, said, "Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery."

Since slavery.

Hyperbole damns their own argument. Or should anyway, but we elect these people to office, and will likely send Dr. Carson into office somewhere, where he can enact his off-kilter ideas.

President Obama yesterday said: "There are things we know will help strengthen our economy that we could get done before this year is out. We still need to pass a law to fix our broken immigration system. We still need to pass a farm bill, and with the shutdown behind us and budget committees forming, we now have an opportunity to focus on a sensible budget that is responsible, that is fair, and that helps hard working people all across this country."

Do you really believe that? Do you have any hope that will really happen — or that words and lies will continue to lead us? Is President Obama by definition lying?

Just a political generation ago — in what I thought were the dark days of the Reagan administration, now suddenly gleaming — foes negotiated, crafted, compromised, hammered out laws that worked.
 
The Affordable Care Act staggers under immense ineptitude and failures, the most recent being the glitchy online health care insurance exchanges. Some is the result of political sabotage and neglect. But it is hardly "one of the most insidious laws ever created by man." President Reagan and his clobbering foe, House Speaker Tip O'Neill, would have forged that law into something both sides of the aisle, and their constituents, could have lived and thrived with.

Not these folks. In a time when technology accelerates and we get the opportunity to know more and more about ourselves and the world, we seem to be getting stupider, retreating to the dark condemned ideas of the past. Maybe it's more comforting in the past. Maybe we want our mommies.

This reminds me of driving home from the grocery store a couple of nights back. I couldn't catch the playoff game on the car radio (yes, I'm paying attention, even though I said I wouldn't) for all the football going on, so I set the radio to scan. Soon I snagged a religious station.

The host of the show was explaining why "creation science" makes sense, and creating straw arguments for its enemies, the "evolutionists." The host spoke from the view that the Bible is literally true, the world is 4,500 years old, and Noah really did have an ark large enough to preserve the world's species from a great flood God unleashed upon the earth to destroy the wicked.

Straw argument example, "What about the dinosaurs?" The host explained that most of the dinosaurs were small, the size of goats, and that we are misled into believing that dinosaurs were gigantic because no one would pay to see a goat-sized dinosaur skeleton in a museum.

I had to drive around my block to listen more, stunned by incredulity.

Further, the host said, logic follows that Noah knew better than to risk havoc on the ark, so he made sure that the Tyrannosaurus Rexes that he ushered aboard were babies, easier to handle, and that they'd leave the boat as the floodwaters receded, before they got too big to handle.

The last of the dinosaurs, he said, died out about 700 years ago. No basis in fact, except that the Bible tells him so, or he infers it from the biblical timetable of so much begetting.

I respect people to follow their beliefs, no matter the intensity or variety — as long as interpretation of those beliefs don't harm or deprive others — but …

Is he serious? Are we serious?! Are we ready, now, to get serious?

"I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that's completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine, but don't make your kids do it because we need them," said Bill Nye, science educator and TV personality, responding to the argument for creationism. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future."

Will we get them, or will we continue to allow stupid people, lying in their mirrors, to lead us?

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Trust us

It was ever thus … it will be ever …
So … Syria.

Down we go again.

Led by the bloodied nose. Led by lies again? Who knows?!
(I started writing this last Friday, thinking by now U.S. missiles would have struck classified targets in Damascus. Apparently they haven't, but again, who knows?

(This, more than most posts, is me just mulling through my fingers, the half-thoughts of a halfling — no military experience, poor participant in the practices of citizenship.  As always, you're welcome to ride along, maybe advise and consent.)
Let's resume our magical thinking. Where were we? Oh yes:
  • Iraq would greet us as liberators. Our enemies, shocked and awed, would relent after a week of heavy bombing. Peace would bloom anew.
  • Though decades of history confirm utter futility in anyone conquering Afghanistan, it'll be different for the United States and coalition forces. Just you wait and see!
What have been the cases for war? That's right:
  • To clear the way for Desert Storm, we learned of newborn babies snatched out of incubators and left to die on the floors of Kuwaiti hospitals. Which turned out to be a fabrication whipped to froth by a global public relations firm on Kuwait's behalf.
  • The second time 'round, of course, it was weapons of mass destruction. They gotta be around here somewhere! Oh well!
  • Also, whoever destroyed the World Trade Center has to be Iraq itself, or hiding in its boundaries!
  • Or maybe Afghanistan!
Now the case for war is evidence Syria's Assad government used sarin gas on its own people.

This conjures two thoughts, diametrically opposed:
  1. Why should we trust our government anymore? We have marched our children again and again into long horrifying wars begun on lies, and we have barely received our children, our countrymen and women, broken in body and mind, from these wars.

    This news comes out of the mouth of John Kerry, secretary of state, who after fighting as a Navy officer during the Vietnam exhorted Congress to stop that senseless war. Incredible. Literally, incredible.
  2. So what?
I am a callous monster, no better than the bat-shit crazies who gassed innocents. If the gas attack is true, I cannot modify the depravity with my words. It's pure evil, a "moral obscenity" on innocent children and women and men, as John Kerry called it, whoever the culprit.

But so is conventional warfare. So are bullets, bombs, mines, grenades, torture, rape — all of which go on throughout the world, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands. We do nothing, have done nothing, unless and until doing something suits our needs and national interests, depending on who "our" refers to at the moment.
(As to that — what's "our" interest? — I refer you to All the President's Men: Follow the money.)
I grew up thinking the United States, as the force of right, should be the world's big brother, battling inhumanity everywhere with our almighty might. Now I'm grown up and know the United States doesn't act that way, of course. My cynicism has callused over: When my government tells me we are fighting for good to triumph over evil, that we call heavily armed personnel "peacekeepers," that we have declared mission accomplished when really we have just begun to descend into hell — including U.S. white phosphorus attacks on Iraqi people — I barely raise my lips anymore in a knowing smile.

When we turn our backs on atrocities around the world, then express grim indignation at this or that certain savagery as if we have never heard of savageries — as if savageries have never been committed in our name — then I know what really is truth, justice and the American Way.

Now President Obama urges that we must respond to this chemical attack as a violation of the Geneva conventions against such use. And in our magical thinking we should expect:
  • Other of the world's despots and tyrants will get the crystal-clear message: This airstrike against Syria is solely in response to the chemical attack on its citizens.
  • So chastised, the despots and tyrants will refrain from using chemical weapons ever again. Mines, rocket-propelled grenades, machetes, machine guns, rape, yes, but not chemical weapons.
  • Syria's government will reform, its lesson learned.
  • Democracy will bloom.
  • Syria's allies will do nothing in response.
President Obama wants Congress and us to know this response "is proportional, it is limited. it does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, this is not Afghanistan."

Until it does. Until it is.

So we will send weary warriors into another war, send them in again and again in our stead. One more war from which, if they return, they will have to fight their own government for the means to heal from the wounds they suffered in our stead.

We will wage more war with a military torn up from within, faced with its own atrocities of widespread sexual assault with impunity, of broken morale.

We will leverage war from the shaky ground of our broken economy, repairing too slowly for the gashes to close.

It's a schoolyard melodrama. President Obama said he would do something if Syria used chemical weapons, and now that it allegedly has, the other allies in the world's school yard, and bullies of his own clique, are calling "ba-GAWK! Chicken! Do something, or are you chicken?!"

We are made to believe that what few friends we had on the schoolyard will loose all ties of loyalty, will spit in our general direction, if we don't walk our talk. As supposedly happened to Great Britain when Parliament chose (even if for ulterior motives) not to help with any strike against Syria. Supposedly.

But — we are assured — whatever it is, it is not war.

Until it is.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

The price we pay

Twenty four years ago today, Patrick Purdy fired a Chinese-made AK-47 assault rifle into the playground at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., killing five children and wounding 29 others and a teacher — then killed himself.

Law enforcement authorities said Purdy was upset that Asian immigrants were taking whites' jobs. All of the children killed and some of the wounded were Cambodian or Vietnamese immigrants.

His wasn't the first school shooting, of course. Ten years before, a teenager named Brenda Ann Spencer shot into a schoolyard from her house in San Diego, picking off students and teachers like a sniper. Asked why, she said, "I don't like Mondays." Her reason became infamous as the impetus for The Boomtown Rats' hit.

Tori Amos' plaintive version of that song keened from my computer for days following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, when Adam Lanza killed 20 children and six adult staff members after killing his mother.

We can see no reasons, because there are no reasons.

Brenda Ann Spencer was not the first school shooter, either. Adam Lanza wasn't the last; police believe a 16-year-old Taft High School student last week shot two other students in the south San Joaquin Valley town. On Tuesday a student shot an administrator and then himself at a St. Louis business school; police say a man in southeastern Kentucky Tuesday killed his girlfriend and her relatives at a community college, with a gun he bought that day.

That's just school shootings. A burglary suspect on Tuesday shot a Galt police officer a half-hour south of us, then shot himself to death.

Just some of the killings by firearms in the United States, which the FBI tabbed at 8,583 in 2011. An average of 23 killings by firearms each day. A classroom's worth.

In my short life as an editorial cartoonist, the Stockton shootings and their aftermath took up a good share of my attention — just as the Sandy Hook killings focus us today.

So … where are we going?

President Obama yesterday unveiled a list of $500 million in proposals to reduce gun violence, such as restoring bans on assault weapons, invigorating background checks, reducing bullets in clips, and buttressing mental health services.

Consider it the latest large volley in a firefight of statistics and particulars and semantics and invective and lunacy that will mushroom.

After the Sandy Hook killings, the National Rifle Association called for armed personnel in all schools. Teachers in parts of Utah and Texas and Ohio have begun firearms training. Posses in a part of Arizona are ready to take gun positions at public schools.

I'm imagining some of the ways that would play out:
  • the day a teacher forgets to lock the gun away and remove a bullet from the chamber, and a student finds a new toy for recess …
  • the morning a teacher fumbles to unlock the protected firearm, then the protected ammunition, as a shooter moves closer down the hall unimpeded …
  • a school district announces it can't possibly pay for music education and teacher target practice, so tubas get tossed …
  • shooters outgun armed school personnel (which happened at Columbine High School) …
  • school and law enforcement officers announce at a future news conference that thanks to quick action by armed teachers, only three people died instead of nine … though, again, three people died …
Meanwhile, Americans flock to the gun shops and shows, buying the assault weapons and ammo, driving up their prices. Some of the buying derives from fear that the government will take away the weapons, and it's easier to lose what you don't have in the first place. And harder to defend.

Gun owners — their own well-regulated militias — dig in against any and all enemies, their triggers becoming ever more sensitive.

Maybe it's true, as the NRA says, that the saturation of violent video games and movies is what makes people shoot other people. Millions play and watch every day, and far more violent fare than the outdated films NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre cited.

Even if all shooters get their motivation from these media, though, the fact remains: They get the guns easily. It doesn't matter what kind, where from, how many bullets; they get the guns easily.

Guns become the logical, terminal extension of anger or confusion or delusion. Find a way to keep the guns away, maybe people won't get hurt or die.

In the months and years to come, push and shove and shout and condemn will leave us all right back where we are. Guns will still be easy to get.

I keep returning to a line in The West Wing, in which a congressman who's gay explains why he remains in the Republican Party — whose policies disparage him.
"I never understood why you gun control people don't all join the NRA," the congressman says. "They've got two million members. You bring three million to the next meeting, call a vote. All those in favor of tossing guns ... bam! Move on." 
Josh Lyman, the president's deputy chief of staff, derides the congressman's change-from-within strategy as unworkable.

I guess Josh is right.

I think we'll just have to live with the idea that the sanctity of the Second Amendment comes at a cost — 23 people killed every day by guns in the United States. Teachers and their little students occasionally, albeit tragically, shot and killed.

It's the price we pay.

The lesson today is how to die.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Fire arms

The first thought, one of many, I drew for The Stockton Record after a mass shooting at
Cleveland Elementary School nearly 24 years ago.
Every grownup hoping for children, I suppose, collides at least once with the idea: What's the point?

Into this world?

My collision came in 1989, when a troubled young man named Patrick Purdy opened fire with an assault rifle on a Stockton, Calif. elementary school playground, an hour south of where we live. He killed five children and wounded 29 more, and a teacher, before killing himself.

The killings riveted the nation with a notion too horrible to imagine. School children, playing.

How naïve we were.

Since then, of course, the slaughters continue, the body counts rise, as if a contest is under way; Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, Oikos University in Oakland, Calif. Now the murder of 20 children and six adults — teachers — last week at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. That's just some of the schools, just some of the 62 mass shootings in the United States since 1982.

Not to mention about 30 people across the United States murdered every day by guns.

Patrick Purdy's onslaught was, if you'll forgive the worst possible analogy, child's play.

With the Sandy Hook murders, it's easy for me now to expect that at any time in America, someone with mental illness, someone unmoored by drugs or alcohol, someone mis-wired for social mores, someone unable to control anger or depression, someone lacking or losing a sense of right and wrong, will slaughter innocents.

Just add a gun.

What will it take, now, to prevent it? Are 20 little first graders enough? Do we need more little ones to die? Need they be younger still? A preschool, perhaps?

What will be — another poor word choice — the trigger?

Though I don't know the answer to this, I know it can't be more of that same. That would mean we are indeed waiting for something worse to happen, more of the same. President Obama told the Newtown folk Sunday he would "use whatever power this office holds" to prevent tragedies. But what?

My search for answer only snags more troublesome questions, which circle back to Sandy Hook.

Limit the number and kind of guns in the United States? Most people who own guns are reasonable, I get it. Hunters I've met are extremely safe, extremely respectful of their weapons, almost to the point of making me wonder why they bother to hunt.

I just can't understand why reasonable people would own handguns and assault weapons, designed for killing humans in large number. I've never reconciled how having one would keep me safe without also — and more likely — putting me in grave danger.

Why would anyone, for instance, want a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle, the kind used to kill those at Sandy Hook? "Why should anyone want a Ferrari?" someone named Philip Van Cleave answered. He's the head of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and he said in the Washington Post that Bushmasters "are absolutely a blast to shoot with. They're fast. They're accurate."

I wonder if he said that in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings. I wonder if he realizes how he sounds.

Guns flourish in the United States, enough for almost everyone to have one, and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed our right, by the awkward sentence construction of the Second Amendment. Regulations are already in place to make purchases difficult — Connecticut's is one of the nation's most stringent — and to prohibit their sale to people who exhibit mental illness, but they don't work and people who shouldn't have guns get them anyway. Laws were supposed to emasculate assault weapons, but a rivet here and semantics there, and the National Rifle Association and gun advocates have restored their firepower.

Even if somehow the most reasonable laws come forth to keep guns out of the hands of those who would kill others, they would only affect guns yet unmade. Millions are still out there.

Arm everyone? Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, among others, proposed arming teachers and principals. Gohmert said he wishes Sandy Hook's principal had an M4 (a military assault weapon) and "takes his head off." More arms, not fewer, will solve our problems, they say.

Imagine a teacher, already trying to master the manifold skills needed to produce educated, happy children, also training in tactical weapons. Imagine states and the federal government, already unable to provide all districts with enough books, paper, pencils, let alone the resources for excellence that children deserve, paying for that training. Imagine the gunfights in the hallways among the unstable and untrained and unstained.
• Odd aside — wouldn't you think by now weapons technology would have come up with something deadlier and easier to use than a gun? I mean, how long has the gun been the go-to weapon in war — 250, 300 years? Each era of war won by those with better guns, but no one has invented something better — or worse — than a gun?
Ban bullets? Comedian Chris Rock had it right when he once said bullets should cost $5,000, that bullet control is the answer. One push now is to ban large clips and limit access to ammunition; the odd result, I guess, is that only nine children would be killed in the next shooting, rather than 20?

Maybe it weakens the arms we already have. Maybe more likely people who want to shoot a lot of bullets will still find a way to do so.

Help the helpless? Salvation lies within. As the camps entrench over gun control, all can agree our mental healthcare is woeful. The only problem we can really hope to solve is the most difficult.

Our anger and grief are misdirected. It's not the guns we should focus on in that horrible killing. It's the young man who killed, in the place he killed.

We must be part of a sea-change, bringing mental illness to light rather than shunting it to dark corners, depriving it of our care and our money. Stories are emerging of the struggle the killer's family made in raising their son.

Read the heartbreaking story of another mom who finds help for her young son so hard to find, and dreads what will come of him. Soon you'll also find criticism of that mom, denouncing her fate, denying her veracity, and we are back where we started, not helping. Instead, waiting.

Some say the killing is pure evil, the result of sin, of God removed from our schools. As in, did the devil assign the killer to shoot up a school made weak by lack of prayer? Prayer can't hurt — prayer of mourning, prayer of supplication — but consigning the horror to an act of evil serves instead to free us from the responsibility of doing anything about it.

I fear we'll tire of this, and inertia will ensue.

But then I think of my own children, growing and going places in their lives.

Whether because he was first born or just built with keen emotions, our son especially embraced the world as wonderfully dangerous, or the other way around. Almost every new thing he learned became a new thing to wonder at and be wary of. He worried a lot. Come elementary school, he felt stress, and it manifested in peculiar repeated twisting of his arms and hands, a repeated sideways nod of his head, and a lot of blinking. The tics slowed about this time of year, disappeared by spring and resumed with the new school year.

Once, when both our kids were young, about the age of the first graders at Sandy Hook, we had signed them up for summer day camp in the park across the street. It was ideal; they'd play and swim each weekday for most of the summer, and I'd get work done from home.

Not a week into camp our son, already frightened of cigarette smoke, too much sun, and all the things he had heard us say were harmful and that he decided could kill him immediately, was in a bathroom stall when some older kids came in from the park and began smoking. Our son decided he was about to die, suddenly and alone and unnoticed in that stall, and when he didn't, he absolutely refused ever to return to camp.

Even the mere suggestion he give camp another try ignited yelling tantrums and flailing of limbs, so I stopped suggesting and he stayed at home. It took me months to find out why, because it took our son that long to tell my wife his problem — imagine all the possibilities I pondered.

Now I'm trying to imagine our son as this little boy again, already fraught with a first grader's heavy regard for the world, trying to understand a troubled man firing and firing a high-powered weapon.

We can't do nothing.

Raising our children is our first job, President Obama told the people of Newtown Sunday. "If we don't get that right," he said,  "then we aren't getting anything right."

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Veterans deserve more from me

A letter to myself; you can read over my shoulder if you want:

Despite my objections to the wars the United States have fought the last
20+ years (which these 'toons elucidate), I support the warriors who
have gone in my stead. I just haven't done nearly enough to show for it.
Really, what the hell is the matter with us?

If we are truly a county worthy of our many and sundry ideals, we'd focus our collective will on two matters:

[1] The education of our children, who would advance those ideals and solve dire world problems that grow only more dire daily— as long as we see to the children's preparation.  But we risk leaving our children lacking for those tasks, or at least much less prepared than the generation sending them to school.

Seniors at a retirement development near my home made news last month by adopting a public school, harnessing their wisdom and patience to help students. It's a tremendously generous effort, and absolutely perfect, because what students need above all is mentors to accompany them on the journey of mastering concepts. It's one thing for a teacher to control the learning environment for 32-plus children, and keep them on task for most of the school day; it's something more entirely for a teacher to make sure each of those students actually learns.

The best of the best teachers master it after years of practice, and master it by overcoming students' various learning disabilities or their initial inability to speak and read English. Even the master teachers, though, welcome the help of the community to leverage the results of their enormous task.


Those seniors shouldn't be newsworthy, because their endeavor should not be rare. Every community should join them. Every business whose growth and vision depends on these children, as intelligent producers and consumers and stewards, should be in the classrooms, modeling citizenship, making sure students succeed.

But that's not what I wanted to write about, even though I know a little bit. On the eve of Veterans Day, I meant to write about something about which I know nothing:


[2] The support of our veterans.

Their sacrifice should be uppermost in our minds and in our actions every day, not just Veterans and Memorial days, not just in the wake of news of the full "battle rattle" of war.

They should go to the front of every line, get free meals at every restaurant, the best tickets to the best events, not just tomorrow but every day. They should have jobs. They should have our jobs.

Can you imagine, veterans having to struggle just to find jobs?! Veterans who have done our bidding, to have faced unimaginable, indescribable, soul-shredding horrors, and then to see our backs turned on them when they come back in the world. President Obama last week proposed credits to employers for hiring veterans with disabilities, though in fairness to employers, the credits wouldn't pay the necessary resources to hire and train new employees. Why couldn't we/shouldn't we commit so much more?

Or imagine having to fight to get fixed for what war has broken. Veterans who went in our place, so badly broken physically and psychologically, and then being put in the position of having to advocate for their care and their families' welfare. Imagine families of warriors killed in action, having to fight for benefits.

Their care should be a given, and it should be given freely and immediately and generously, with all the resources we have at hand.

Even veterans who managed by good fortune or the nature of their missions not to suffer wounds of war nonetheless have given up their civilian lives for us, and deserve our thanks and generosity for their sacrifice.

Though I hate the wars in my lifetime fought on behalf of my country, I love the warriors. Not that they would know, because as one who made the choice not to serve, not to fight, I'm a hollow fake who doesn't really know what to do or how to give thanks.

Without a wink of effort, I can rattle off at least a dozen high school classmates, including my neighbor Buddy, who joined the armed services; I know at least five officers among them. One was a college roommate. One became a school teacher and was recalled to active duty in the Marines in Iraq; he got the call-up on a Friday and was gone from the classroom by Monday, without a moment to tell his students goodbye.

In time I have come to know veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan under presidents George Herbert Walker Bush and George W. Bush. I met one family whose last four generations have sent soldiers to war, and who might see the current generation go. My dad was a veteran who joined the Air Force under age to get out from under his stepfather's grip; he credits his time with getting him "squared away," being accountable to his family and community.

They went in my stead, all of them, because our volunteer armed services represents such a small portion — not even 1 percent — of our population.

We are a different 99 percent; don't you think we could use our leverage to help the few who served in our armed forces?

Veterans account for only 13 percent of the total population. Factor in veterans' immediate families, that probably leaves 60 percent of Americans who have not been touched directly by sacrifice in the armed services — a silent majority who can do more for those who served.

"Thanks" seems so small and ineffectual. A friend frequently posts tributes to veterans on facebook; though I appreciate the posts and the compassion behind them, I don't acknowledge them because I don't feel I'm the right person to respond. In a stupid and weird way, I rarely give to care packages because it feels like I'm endorsing the reason warriors are there, and helping prolong their presence; in my misguided way, I think I'll hasten their return this way.

Dumb. I can do more, and should.

Parade Magazine last weekend published tips for honoring veterans — concrete, local ideas that I can do year-round. I can do more for those who went in my place.