Thoughts on the State of War

            We have traded our World War II veterans for Korean War veterans for Vietnam vets for Afghanistan/Iraq vets, but still the question of war remains.  The issues of the impact of these wars on the people who fight in them, the physical and emotional toil that these wars have had on these men and women and their families, still remain and very little progress has been made on how to handle these things.  People put ribbons on their cars and stickers that profess support, but when concerns are actually brought up, people turn a blind eye.  When a homeless man who has lost his limbs or his sanity or both approaches us, we turn away and pretend not to see him.  When a woman lies dying of cancer in a bed with only her husband to weep over her withering form, the rest of us discuss how evil, however it is defined at the time, must be eliminated from the world.  But nothing is done.  No help is provided.  These people still suffer from the actions of a nation, the decisions of a few, while the rest of us support those decisions blindly and without question.  And if we question?  Our love of God and country are attacked, as if either would support the blind slaughter of innocent strangers or the harmful effects on those that would sacrifice for their beliefs.  As we stand on the brink of yet another war, one which pits the citizens of a nation against their ruler, one which the people use guns against the horrors of bombs and chemical weapons, the true cost of war crosses my mind. 

            I am reminded of my own first experience with war.  I am no soldier; I never have been, and I probably never will be.  I will likely never face the life and death situations which so many of my fellow countrymen do unless I am attacked on the safe streets of my own home town.  But I remember when this nation went to war against Iraq for the first time.  I was a child, in my first year of high school when the bombs were first dropped, when the missiles streaked across the night sky like streamers at a celebration, like fireworks remembering the birth of a nation.  But they did not carry the joy of those moments; instead, they carried the horror of death that I understood even then.  I remember the fear that gripped me as I watched the news broadcast that I had abhorred up until that moment, dreading the boring hourly broadcasts that my parents insisted on watching that kept me from my preferred cartoons or sitcoms that were popular that year.  I remember wondering if it was the end, the total destruction of life as I knew it.  In a way, it was.  It was the end of my innocence as war, which all of the adults that I knew were aware of, crept into my mind.  Not the war that came in cartoons or movies, but real war starring people that I did not know, whose special effects were the real thing.  I remember standing in the hallway as the missiles flew through the air at cities, lighting them up in spectacular colors and explosions.  I remember seeing the same scene in night vision, the green making the events more visible and more terrifying.  I remember going to church later, and finding out that one of those stars in the unfolding drama was a person I knew, his wife left behind with only her grief to comfort her.  She never was able to say goodbye, to kiss her husband one last time, to make love to him or yell at him or hold his hand or complain about shopping for clothes or games or cars or appliances.  It was only her, and I was aware of that.

            My second experience with war came much later.  I was an adult, having finished high school and a matching number of years in college.  I had learned much in that time.  I had learned the events of the past, I had learned how to craft sentences, I had learned how to edit and shape the written word, and I had learned how to tell a story.  I had learned the closeness of friends and the betrayal of lovers.  I had learned how to hide who I was and how to enjoy who I was.  But I had forgotten about the horrors of war, the first terrifying moment of war as seen on television.  I was reminded by the violent attacks in New York City, watching as planes were flown into three buildings and a field.  I was stunned, shocked, reverted back to the child watching horrific events on television.  But I was older, and I had to hide my fear so that I could comfort others around me.  The day was spent dividing my attention between those that needed me, explaining the unknowable, and keeping up with the constant stream of information that said nothing new.  This day, as before, ended in the same church as before where I was finally able to relieve the fear and sadness and anger that had burned inside me since nine o’clock, the time that I was reminded of the horrors of war.

            I have spent the next eleven years debating the conflicts that we have become involved in.  My anger has changed from those who attacked my country to those in this country who have attacked another.  I have debated, listened, yelled, been humbled, forgotten, and been enraged by the war that has not ended.  I have seen people I love go to war, joining the conflict between nations that was begun by the actions of a few.  I have seen atrocities committed by both sides in the name of what is right.  And I am forced to ask, what is right?

            A new conflict is about to break out, as it always is.  Another war in which our family and friends and ourselves will become embroiled in.  Why?  Why must people die, why must destruction occur, why must pain be inflicted just so it can start again?  I know we have to respond, but why is there anything to respond to?  I know that they are responding to something else, but why is there anything to respond to?  The questions are endless, but the answers seem quite limited, and none of them are satisfactory or lasting.  It is easy to think of the anger, the need to lash out in retaliation or to protect or to anticipate.  But sometimes people forget about the young boy who watches the bombs on television, dreading what the future holds.  They forget about the newly crowned adult who has to balance his own emotions against the emotions of those around him.  They forget about the homeless man who has lost everything he ever had, including himself.  They forget about the woman who is dying of cancer and is about to lose her life. 

Death of a Newsman

         I think it is safe to say that the media is dead.  It is possible that I am late to this party and am like the last caveman to run out of his home yelling, “Look!  I made fire,” while everyone else is sitting around cooking steak on an open flame.  But while we all complain about the press, I am not entirely certain that we understand how much trouble this institution that we have come to rely on is in.  And the infection has spread so completely that it has infected every medium that we ingest our news from:  television, newspapers, and the internet (I can only hope that I am not carrying the contagion with as I type this).

Television is perhaps the most diseased of all the media.  The nightly news is the most obvious, which tries to fill just thirty minutes with stories that are relevant and detailed.  They fail.  They only have thirty minutes to keep the citizenry up to date on all of the national and world news that is happening, and for that I can cut them some slack.  However, they are a lot like professional wrestling, which has two hours to fill but somehow only manage three matches an episode; four if the viewers are really lucky.  And just like with professional wrestling, the news is rigged, the outcome never truly in doubt, and the spin is just as was predicted.  There are no hard hitting questions and certainly no delving into the details behind the story.  And the human interest stories are a joke, a pitiful response to the demands of the viewers who cry out for some positive news every once in a while even as they know that is not what they really want.  The twenty-four hour stations are even worse.  With twenty-four hours to fill, it would seem as though they could attack these stories like rapid dogs, digging up the dirt, filling in the details, and letting their viewers know why they should care while giving them all of the facts to make up their own minds.  It would seem that this would be the reality.  The truth is far from that wish upon a star scenario.  The same stories are run throughout the day, just told by different announcers who have confused their celebrity status among news and political nerds with journalism.  They follow the same formula as the nightly news, only they use a whole hour to tell the same stories, and then a new person comes on to repeat the process of repetition.  This routine is constant throughout each of the channels as they all “report” on the same topics.  The monotony is finally broken as the sun descends as commentators take over to opine about the stories that have been told throughout the day.  But before you become too excited about his change, remember that the rules are set.  These men and women rarely add to what has already been reported/repeated, opting instead to expose the villain of the story, but unlike a mystery novel, the viewer already knows the outcome and is likely watching to have their own opinions regurgitated or to grab some new argument to add to their tool belt when arguing politics (rarely actual news during these timeslots, only politics). 

This brings up the issue of bias in television.  It exists, and if you do not believe it, just listen.  They will tell you which station is the most biased.  For Fox it is MSNBC; for MSNBC it is Fox.  The dirty secret that neither will tell you is that they are both correct.  Both channels have sold out journalistic integrity in exchange for viewership from a hardline audience.  But this is not the problem.  We know that they are biased.  Somewhere in the back of our heads and deep in our hearts, we know that they are biased.  Well, most of us know that they are biased.  Biased media is no problem as long as we are aware of it, and it can even be useful as long as we are willing to use it to explore other opinions.  In this, the fault lies within us, the viewers.  The bias becomes an issue when it infects news outlets without them realizing it, outlets like CNN who maintain that they do not lean to one side or the other, and who believe this.  It prevents many of their reporters from going after a candidate or asking questions of scientists or looking into business practices.  But this is a problem with journalists across the board and cannot be blamed on their choosing a side; it is a symptom of the larger problem.

            The Internet suffers from much the same problem as televised media.  The established sources of Internet news, like the Huffington Post or the Drudge Report, are mostly content with only finding out information that supports their side in the political football game that they play, a season that lasts for two to four years and has zero off-time.  With their ability to research “the enemy”, it makes one wonder why they do not have the time or resources to discover the dirt on their own guys.  Does it not exist?  Is each side right?  Hardly; like the proverbial ostrich, they keep their heads in the sand when it comes to exposing their own hypocrisies.  The rest of the Internet is made up of bloggers who repeat second hand information, explore only a few of the issues that they are writing about, and/or just want to rant in anger and frustration at one topic or another.  While their passion is to be admired, they rarely do much good, and they are usually seen as whack jobs with too much time on their hands.  More and more people are getting their news from this source, but many use it in much the same way that they use television news; to support a viewpoint or to get a glimpse of the happenings of the day.  They then take that limited information and argue with their coworkers or write blogs about what they think, not realizing that they have yet to learn anything to talk about. 

Perhaps the least infected of these three is print media.  Print media has been able to dodge some of this by having a certain amount of space to fill.  Many of these journalists write about the background of a story.  While this is commendable, part of me fears that this is caused by their lack of information more than their desire to inform their audience.  With that said, there still remain some good sources of news within the newspaper community, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal being two excellent sources (beware of the dreaded bias though).  Even good papers have their problems.  They begin with a sensational headline to grab the reader’s attention.  Should their audience make it past the bold type, they are immersed in the story, which sometimes conflicts with the headline.  Once the important information is passed on, the article fades like the color spectrum, dying in the background of the story, all of the intensity burned in the first couple of lines. 

One thing that newspapers traditionally did well at was to inform the reader of local happenings, politics, events, etc.  Even this is suffering from the disease that is corrupting our news sources.  I live in New Bern, NC, and our local newspaper is the Sun Journal.  This is a paper that locals have made fun of and groaned at for years.  Perhaps it is their inability to get the quotes right, or maybe it is the constant barrage of typos.  Whatever the reason, the paper is held in little regard and shows no sign of improving.  As an example, they ran an April Fool’s article several years ago.  The article focused on the new bridge that was being built and was full of ridiculous facts about future delays, some of which were the bridge being put on backwards and stairs having never been built.  I have yet to meet somebody that was fooled by this article; I have met people that believed it was the result of the incompetence of the writers that are involved with the Sun Journal.  For now, that is even beyond their lack of reporting.  If things continue to progress on their current course, they may soon be there.  They may have found a way around this inevitable future.  Instead of writing their own stories, they have now passed this responsibility onto others, most notably the groups that are being reported on.  At least that is one way to get to the source. 

On Wednesday, June 13, 2012, the Sun Journal ran a page on the local schools.  Most days, they run a page on local interests, whether it is schools or the military or whatever.  Being interested in education, I read over this page, devouring the information they provided.  Please read and enjoy the article yourself at their website.  http://www.newbernsj.com/news/standards-107152-students-social.html.  Did you find the grammatical errors?  I promise you they were easier to find than the links to the research that the decision to change the NC standards was based on. There is also the problem of justifying how splitting American history into two courses will aid students in making connections from the colonial period to the modern era.  And let us not forget that the article claims that students will begin learning American history in the 9^th grade, a fact that I have not been able to confirm from any other teacher (although the Board of Education not informing their teachers is not exactly surprising).  My point, however, is not to tear down this decision by our school system, especially since there are things about it that I agree with.  My problem is that this is clearly a piece of propaganda.  The Sun Journal gave precious print space to the board and allowed them to write their own article, complete with whatever tilt they desired, which the Board of Education readily obliged.  There were no follow-up questions, there was no research; there was only an eager willingness to accept what was written and then they passed it on to their reading audience.  And their audience continues to pay for the product.

I hold the media accountable for their lack of journalistic effort.  They are an important institution in our society, so much so that the founders shaped the First Amendment with them in mind, stating that the government could not pass a law that would prohibit the freedom of the press.  I doubt our founders ever believed that the press would pass on their rights without any help from the government.  But the press is not the only group that needs to be held in contempt for their laziness and ineptitude.  The American people are also responsible for allowing this to continue and for not conducting research on their own.  In an age where information is literally at our fingertips, where the average citizen can see which bills his or her congressman voted for and against, where anybody can look up scientific principles and research, where history is laid bare for all of us, we have to put forth the effort to be an engaged citizenry.  We have to demand more of our media and more of ourselves.  We know that they have let us down.  That does not mean that we have to let ourselves down as well.

Love Letter

     This is my love letter to you. You will probably never receive it, never read it, and never know about it. It will probably be kept locked away on this computer, secure in its memory banks. You will likely never look at the words, or feel the paper it is printed on, or look over it with a vase of flowers behind you and a glass of wine in your hands. But that doesn’t mean this is any less real.
     I have thought about you every day since we first met. Not all day every day, but at least at some point of every day, for just a minute or two, a couple of seconds, a heartbeat. You have inspired me, everything from the directions I have taken in my life to the writing of this letter to changes I have made personally. I wonder what you would think of me in my weakest moments, and when I become stronger. I wonder what you would say when I am at my worst, and when I become better. I think of you when I am strong, wondering how I can become stronger. I rarely speak your name, but you are always there.
     I was once asked how a person knows they are in love. There are easy answers. The quickening of the pulse, the desire to see the person again, the sweaty palms, the rush of endorphins, the strange behavior that makes one person try to gain the attention of another. But none of these were the answers I gave. I answered with longevity, the notion that love does not fade after a week or a month or a year. That standard, the one I came up with years ago, applies to you. Over the years, the ones we were together and the ones we were apart, you have stayed in my heart. You have been a part of me without your knowing. I have cried missing you and I have smiled at the prospect of talking to you. You have invaded my thoughts and emotions when you should not have, but you had no choice because I had no choice. I have loved you since the first day I saw you, a day I can still remember with a frightening clarity. How does a person know he is in love? Because he is in love with you.
     I remember the first day, a day in a classroom that changed, only six of us in the class but you were the only one that mattered. I remember the next time I saw you, a cold day that you made warm, you in a long, grey coat and a scarf and me in a new state of confusion. I remember sitting around a table, discussing ideas and concepts that we would apply later in life. I remember playing games, flirting, being coy yet knowing what we wanted. I remember our first kiss, the sweet taste of your lips and how they matched perfectly with mine. I remember your couch, your bed, moving you into your new apartment, watching a movie, starting a movie, making love, and holding you in my arms. I also remember the fights, the anger behind the words but not the words themselves, which makes me wonder how important any of that was. And I remember not having you, wanting you and not being able to feel you in my arms. It was a loss I thought I had felt before but the pain never left.
     I think of your eyes, your beautiful hair, but most of all your smile. It was God’s gift to all of us, and, for a while, it was specifically for me. I think of your personality, your sense of humor and your willingness, your need, to fight for what you wanted. I didn’t always understand you, and that was my failing. That was where I let you down. That is what deprived me of you.
     If I never get to tell you personally, it was my fault. You were the best thing that ever happened to me. You once said you were my goddess, and while I may have balked at the idea at the time, I have come to realize there was some truth in that statement. You were better than I am. More beautiful, smarter, more relatable, more ambitious, and certainly stronger.
     If we never get back together, I don’t blame you. I can only blame myself for ever doing anything that would make you want to leave. You deserve only what is good in the world. You deserve the best that this level of existence can offer. I consider myself lucky to have spent the time with you that I was allowed. In show business, the rule is to leave them wanting more. You certainly did that. Like the most extravagant show in Vegas, like a circus through the eyes of a child, like a teenager’s first rock concert, and like a glimpse of the sunrise for the blind, all rolled into one, you have captured that feeling for me. I cannot thank you enough for that gift, for showing me what I need and want, for producing emotions that can never be tamed. Only you could have given this to me, and I thank you. With all of my heart and soul, I thank you.

Banning the Future

I was looking at the list of banned books, which disturbed me greatly, but what really grabbed my attention was the list of reasons for why the books were banned. There were several mentions of a book that “conflicted with the values of the community”, claims that a book has a “focus on gangs and gang violence”, books with a “racial bias”, and books that offer “an inflammatory challenge to authoritarian roles.” All of these are ridiculous claims, not because the books don’t have these themes in them, rest assured that they do, but the claim that these books should be stricken from the curriculum because they have these themes is an idea that is not only wrong, but is also ignorant. How can I make such an outlandish claim? Simple. Let’s examine some of these concerns that were raised by different communities.
The idea that a book should be banned because its content “conflicted with the values of the community” strikes the vast majority of literature from most schools’ curriculum. For example, Beowulf is an epic poem that survives from Old English. There are very few values from that time that still exist. The theme of “might makes right” that is so clear in this poem would be frowned upon by today’s standards, at least in most American communities. Texas might see things differently. We believe in a more democratic system, one that encourages intelligence and learning. Perhaps this would allow a work from a different culture. Homer’s epic poem The Odyssey showcases a protagonist that uses his wits to survive multiple encounters with dangerous creatures. He is not able to rely on his brawn, as Beowulf is, but must instead create creative solutions to his problems. This seems more in line with current American thinking. Of course, the fact that he paused on his journey home to his wife and son to screw goddesses and witches of ten years (off and on in all fairness), may conflict with some of the family values that many communities say are so important to them. So maybe we’ll have to scratch that one off the list. I would have to say this might scratch off most books that come from other countries, since most cultures have values that vary from one to the other. So once we eliminate everything, I’m not entirely sure what English teachers are left with.
Some have claimed that a variety of these books focus on gangs and the violence that they bring. A fair claim, I suppose, especially in this day and age when more and more teens are being indoctrinated in these bloody roving bands of ruffians. And of course, this is one of the top demographics that publishers look at when they are attempting to sell a new novel, especially to young adults. We definitely would not want to start a new trend of glorifying gangs and other groups of teenagers that band together to create strife and chaos. Of course, then I am reminded that Shakespeare discusses different gangs in his little known play Romeo and Juliet. The Montagues and the Capulets were competing gangs that engaged in violence on the streets of Verona, but this is luckily one of the plays that students are not exposed to on a regular basis. That is, as long as you dismiss their freshman year, which of course a lot of people seem to do. We can also see gangs used in Lord of the Flies and West Side Story. Of course, this does not include the legendary tales of large groups of men coming together to rape and pillage and make war as in the aforementioned Beowulf and The Odyssey or in the all-together new to this conversation The Iliad. While gang warfare seems to be a little easier to avoid in the classroom, it certainly does wipe out some of the ninth grade staples.
Racial bias. This is an interesting argument. Let’s face it, there are some out there that would prefer to avoid racial bias, and all racial discussions, in the classroom, primarily through the elimination of all other races. And while I will admit that this would be effective, I also tend to think it is a little racist, but that may just be my bias showing. Racism, as with the other topics previously mentioned, is hardly a new theme. I am assuming those that put forth this argument would also be against the teaching of Uncle Tom’s Cabin or The Narrative of Frederick Douglass, delightful tales about the joys of slavery. I am sure these can be wiped from every teacher’s classroom, as well as any conversation about the Civil War, the civil rights movement, Jim Crowe laws, segregation, the idea of all men (bias there?) being created equally, or liberty and justice for all. Once those are taken off the board, do we have to take away Shakespeare as well? Let’s face it, this guy was just a rabble-rouser. Othello clearly shows its bias through its main character and the racial undertones put forth by his antagonist Iago. Should we also strike the Arabian Knights (those genies really aren’t the same as us) or Tolkien (you have to watch out for little people with hairy feet) or any story that discusses the differences between people and the way we treat people that are different from us, or better yet, those stories that point out that the differences we create are just manufactured by ignorant pricks that want to establish or maintain some sort of imagined power structure? Once again, we are left with very little that we can teach our children. Then again, maybe that is the intention…
Now we come to my favorite topic. Books that show “an inflammatory challenge to authoritarian roles.” Obviously, there are some out there that have never understood the meaning of art. Still, the reasons behind this argument can be understood. We would hate for anyone to take a closer look at the power structures and authoritarian roles in America and criticize them. All of these rebellious works should be thrown out of the classroom before students start thinking for themselves. That, after all, is not the point of the school. So, what should we take away? Well, I seem to have mentioned a few that fell under some of the other concerns. The Iliad (Achilles refuses to fight, rebelling against his king), The Narrative of Frederick Douglass (a slave that fights against an established and well respected institution? Gone!), Lord of the Flies (a group of young boys could never govern themselves! And look at how they threw out the old rules!), and Romeo and Juliet (can you believe it shows teenagers that ignore their parents and hook up anyway?! I’m shocked, shocked I tell you!!). These have already been brought up, so what about other classical pieces of literature? The Canterbury Tales satirized many of the institutions that were in power at the time, and even included a man pulling down his pants and farting in another man’s face. Gulliver’s Travels also poked fun at the government, using such classic scenes and calling the upper class horse’s asses and having the star of the novel peeing on the royal palace (but only to put out a fire, I assure you). 1984 warns of a government that is out of control and rules and watches every aspect of its citizens’ lives. Macbeth stars a power hungry protagonist that uses witchcraft and betrayal to murder the king and take his place. The Arthurian legends feature a character that recreates the entire concept of government (a round table so that no one is at the head? Preposterous!) and unites a kingdom, all with a magic sword and a creepy old man. The Crucible was written in response to the communist witch hunts of the fifties. Thoreau wrote about the time he was thrown in jail for not paying taxes and the virtues of people governing themselves. The Scarlet Letter’s protagonist went against society proudly in the name of love. Maybe all of our students can just read The Cat in the Hat during high school. Then again, the Cat did seem to be anti-authoritarian himself, didn’t he? Maybe that should be added to the list of banned books as well.
Once you go down the road of banning books, there is no end to the journey, regardless of how well intentioned the argument. Instead of fighting against books, and teachers that are trying to pass on ideas and knowledge, perhaps we should instead discuss what is being read and taught. If parents took as much interest in discussing the ideas in books as they did trying to prove how ignorant they were, wouldn’t this be a much better world? If some people would put as much energy into reading with their kids and kicking around concepts as they did being offended, maybe this country could come up with better solutions and wouldn’t be falling behind in education. Books are just ideas on paper, and it is a sad state of affairs when we decide that we would rather ban ideas that we disagree with than debate them or learn from them. When ideas can be pushed aside because people do not want to hear them, all that we have fought for will be lost and all that we have believed in will be shattered.

Republican Primary Battle

Well, everyone else is talking and writing about it, I might as well do the same. Herman Cain has become the first target of a massive, vicious attack on his character. To date, four women have come out to claim that the presidential candidate sexually harassed them. Two of these women have come forward, and at least one has provided graphic detail of Cain’s misconduct. Here is Sharon Bialek’s account of what happened according to the LA Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/07/nation/la-na-1108-cain-accuser-20111108

I cannot comment on Cain’s guilt or innocence. I am instead interested in the politics around this claim. This is, of course, not happening in a vacuum. Herman Cain is running for the office of President of the United States. He, along with his GOP rivals, is having a difficult time convincing Republicans that he is the leader they have been looking for. As of today, there are two front runners for the nomination: Herman Cain and Mitt Romney. Both are hanging out at about 25% each, with Cain slightly ahead. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

This brings up an interesting question. We all know that Mitt Romney builds no interest in the radical elements of the Republican Party, nor does the Tea Party members (there is a difference, though it may be difficult to see sometimes) rally behind him. We have seen unlikely candidates (Michelle Bachmann) contend for that number one spots as well as shining stars that quickly sputtered out (Rick Perry). And now Herman Cain is the one they are looking for. But is he really? Once again, he is only carrying 25% of the likely Republican voters. If he is carrying a quarter of Republicans, the Tea Party crowd, and Romney is carrying a quarter of Republicans, the establishment and business crowd, where are the other 50% of the party? Half of all Republicans do not like any of the candidates. Romney isn’t a real conservative. Cain doesn’t have any real plans. Perry is too weak (and what is up with that immigration thing?). Bachmann is too crazy. Paul, well, do you think Republicans want less government? Gingrich is the old way, the neo-con. And then there’s Santorum and Huntsman. So what is missing?

In the last Presidential election cycle, Republicans had a candidate that covered all three of their major political angles. McCain had the military angle covered, Romney was the economic guy, and Huckabee was the evangelical candidate. This time, there is a vacuum. There is no strong military or religious candidate. Some are attempting to fill the void (Perry on military; Bachmann and Santorum on religion), but none are succeeding. Why is that? And why has this part of the party been left untouched? The economy is obviously dominating all debates. We are in a recession, one that has lasted four years and counting. Unemployment is high, job growth is low, and the stock market is shaky. European economies are on the verge of collapse while Asian markets are growing in strength. On top of all of this, the Tea Party made a lot of noise about lower taxes, bailouts, and deficits, which makes the economy the top issue again. Republicans have (somewhat) turned around on the wars in the Middle East as a (political) response to the Democrats accepting of those wars. The evangelicals are surprisingly quiet this time, with a lot of members wanting morality to be a part of the candidates every day life, and as long as lip service is being paid to their concerns (abortion, public prayer), they are happy.

Where does this leave the current candidates? There is a reason why the top two contenders are businessmen. There is a reason both Cain and Romney are trying to paint themselves as outsiders with solutions. They know what Republicans want. My prediction? Herman Cain will slip in the polls, not because of sex scandals, but because he doesn’t seem to have the depth or political savvy to hang on. Newt Gingrich will continue to rise in the polls, because he does have the savvy, experience, and confidence to capture the Republican’s attention, and as he is introduced to a new generation of voters, he will recapture some of that ‘90s charm. However, Romney will remain strong (or as strong as he ever has been) and win this elimination tournament. With his economic background and calm, cool exterior, he will survive the other contenders. Tonight, there is an economic debate on CNBC. As with some of the past debates, somebody’s weaknesses will be exposed, another’s strengths will be accentuated, and one candidate will be seen in a different light.

The More Things Change…

It has been a while since I wrote one of these. I feel a little out of practice. What has happened since the last time I wrote? We have seen a new president elected, one that broke racial barriers and changed the direction of the country. We have seen the order signed to close Gitmo and the pledge to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq. We have seen several plans implemented to stabilize the nation’s economy. We have seen a true attempt at reforming healthcare. All good things, and this was all in 2008! So then what happened?

Gitmo was never closed and there are still troops in Iraq, Afganistan, and now Libya. Oh yes, we are fighting in a third middle Eastern country now. The stimulus plans, at best, held off a full-fledged depression but did not turn our country around. And healthcare reform? It became insurance reform, and was combined with a mandate that requires all Americans to purchase insurance. But don’t worry. If you choose not to, there really isn’t anything the government can do about it. Or at least that was the line we were sold along with the rest of the bullshit. This is on top of the various comments about cops acting stupidly, playing along with the birther movement, and not taking the lead on a single issue. The only real question here is, why have I not written before now?

Let me make this perfectly clear. I hated George Bush as president. I thought his policies were wrong and went against everything this country stands for. I thought his way of dealing with other countries was incompetent and dangerous. I Dick Cheney was pure evil on a scale that only fictional characters can achieve. But I do have to give the Bush administration credit. They did at least have a vision for the country and they were going to plow their way to that goal, no matter who stood in their way. They were not afraid to lose battles and they brought ideas before congress and the American people. They stood beside their policies and their beliefs.

These are qualities that the Obama administration is lacking. If there is to be any hope of his being re-elected, or cementing my vote at the very least, he will have to step up to the plate. I do not want him to become some sort of dictator. That’s not what I am saying, but he will have to show some backbone. He can not wait for the opposition to define what his administration is supporting (Ask John Kerry how that plan works out). He has to be confident in his beliefs, he has to stand behind what he stands for, and he cannot be forced into a position that he doesn’t agree with. This does not mean that he should not negotiate. There is still plenty of room for that while maintaining strength. Both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were very good at this. If Obama can’t find the line that he needs to walk, someone else will. And maybe someone else should.

Of course, the republicans don’t seem to have a very deep list of candidates to choose from, although they will be loads of fun to watch and discuss. These are not the only options though. There are plenty of independent candidates that need the support of the American people, if only to break the two party stranglehold that has gripped this nation for too long. They will need to have a strong candidate that doesn’t come across as some sort of crazy person that escaped from the mental institution long enough to show up for a couple of debates. It will also require a bit of effort from the American voter. You see, that is going to be the tricky part. I am guilty of it myself. People just don’t want to take the time, and some legitimately don’t have the time, to research the candidates. We are content with short sound bites that are provided to us from cable news, and don’t think that there is a network out there that doesn’t have its own agenda, even if that agenda is the almighty dollar. There are many who only watch long enough to get some juicy dirt on the person they hate. And there are far too many of us that do not care at all. As long as that is the case, the problems that I have mentioned, which are nothing new, will continue. No matter who is elected.

Waiting 17 Years for Disappointment

A week or two ago I was in the comfort of my own home, watching the Colbert Report and having a tasty beverage when I heard news made my heart race, my ears perk, and my…well, good things happened. Colbert broke the news, for me anyway. The new Guns N’ Roses album would be released the following Sunday. Holy Crap!! Could it be true? Seriously? After seventeen years of holding my breath, checking music web sites, asking people behind the counters at music stores that no longer exist when it would arrive, it would finally come. (Funny how Axl survived longer than music store chains, isn’t it? Maybe a little scary. Can you find the one that sold his soul to the devil? It would explain the braids.)

I didn’t really believe the news. I was excited, but I thought it was a prank. It had to be. But that Sunday, I ran to the nearest Best Buy to pick up the album. By the time I arrived, there was a table set up that had been picked nearly clean of clear plastic cases holding the CD of goodness that I was anticipating. I picked it up, held it to my chest and wept. After being tapped on the shoulder by the far more rational employee of the company and being escorted to the register, I purchased my long anticipated love, smiling like a child on Christmas morn, which wasn’t far off considering Christmas was just two weeks away. Isn’t Axl a marketing genius when it comes to the 30-40 age demographic? Man can’t keep a band together, but he knows when to release an album.

On my way to the car I remembered all the fond GNR moments of my life. I remembered being in high school, owning my first car, and blasting an Appetite for Destruction cassette tape with the windows open. (I don’t know what the worst part of that last sentence was: cassette tape or that my first car could blast anything other than a valve.) It reminded me of walkmans in class during exams and making love for the first time, even though I had no clue what I was doing in either case. I thought about skipping school and going to the beach, shooting pool, hanging out at some dude’s house even though I didn’t know who he was (still don’t) just because some chick was there that was hot. I was hanging with the guys, enjoying my first addictive cigarette, tasting my first funny cigarette, and getting shit faced drunk for the first time ever. I remembered good times, great times, and some of the best times with some of the best people.

I got in my car, threw the CD into the player, and pulled out of the parking lot. I never could pinpoint why I loved this band more than others. I guess it was partly because they sounded badass, but you could still understand them. Maybe it was because they had a great flow to the lyrics while keeping them simple. Possibly it was because they sounded like classic rock with some blues thrown in for effect. It was probably because they dressed in leather, had long hair, smoked, drank, and shot heroin. You know, the kinds of heroes any young man needs. Whatever the reason, they were good. And you know it too.

I turn onto the road as the new CD plays. It’s different. I drive down the road, trying to get a feel for the new sound. It’s different. I flip through a couple of songs, letting half of it play, listening to the lyrics and Axl’s scream before going on to the next tune. It’s different. I get through the whole album and tell people it’s pretty good. Then I listen to it again. I continue to promote it. I get home and play it on the stereo there. I look over at my half lab\half beagle puppy who looks up at the speakers and then at me as if to say, “It’s different, mister.” I tell him he’s right and give him a treat for appreciating music. And really, it’s not bad. If it were any other band, it would be good. A little whiny for my taste, but good. The problem is, it’s not Guns N’ Roses, and I’m not seventeen. A bad combination. The memories connected with this album aren’t going to last. Chinese Democracy won’t define my thirties the way Appetite and Use Your Illusions defined my teens. But that’s ok. I’ve listened to a lot of other great music. Pearl Jam, STP, Rage Against the Machine, and even Nickelback with their simply constructed Canadian lyrics. And I’m ok with GNR not being around. I can still listen to them and remember the old stuff. And I can listen to new stuff and remember the good times now.