Friends and Family:
This Christmas season, there's a lot to be thankful about around our house. Our grandson Markus is almost 16 months old, and every day we spend with him is a joy. Not every moment, you understand; as I said, he IS about 16 months old, and those teeth are still coming in. But watching him learn and grow is truly amazing. I've found I remember a lot more than I've forgotten about raising kids, and I hope that Kayla and Bobby can say that I've kept my mouth shut when I needed to, and let them be the parents. And while no one is 100% perfect as a new parent, Kayla has grown into the role even better than I'd hoped. Bobby's been there before with his 6-year-old daughter Aaliyah, and his moderating influence can be seen in Markus' upbringing as well.
This Christmas season, we're thankful to have Andy back from Iraq, where he spent last Christmas at Camp Stryker. And when Andy and Jennifer came in this past weekend from their home in Savannah, GA, they surprised us with the news that we'll have another grandchild, either Ella or Eli, joining the family around the end of June or the first of July. And while we already miss Andy's cats, Toby and Othakitti, who left with Andy and Jennifer to make their new home in Georgia, we know that our new grandchild will have a couple of built-in companions who'll be attentive to his/her every cry, laugh, or burp...as they've been with Markus over the past year.
This Christmas season, we're thankful that Mamaw Turley will be home to share the holiday with us. At age 97, while we've noticed that she's not quite as steady on her feet as she was not so long ago, we're thankful that we'll have one more opportunity to gather the family and share the holidays with her. Lots of families don't have opportunities like this, and I hope that we cherish this one as much as we should.
This Christmas season, Sherry and I are spending a lot more time in the kitchen making all sorts of special holiday treats. Sherry and I made a couple of batches of her mother's no-bake fruitcake, and I think Helen would've been proud of the outcome. Over the last few years, I've been making and giving away loaves of Pappy's beer bread for the holidays. I know how much pride he took in his beer bread, and I hope I'm carrying on the tradition in much the same spirit in which he did. Sherry and I have also been baking and sharing loaves of Amish cinnamon bread, but sometimes waiting the 10 days for the starter to "finish" makes me feel...well, like a kid at Christmas season. And tonight Sherry and I are trying our hand at making bourbon balls for the first time. We'll know how that one turns out sometime tomorrow, but the preliminary results are quite encouraging. And after being moderately successful with the sweet potato pie I made for Thanksgiving, I'm considering making one for our family Christmas get-together as well. In years past, we used to count on other folks to make the holiday goodies; now that we have grandchildren of our own, it's starting to dawn on me that it's going to be up to my generation to make the seasonal treats that the kids of all ages look forward to year after year.
And this Christmas season, we're thankful for all our friends who have given us support and encouragement when we've needed it, who've shared our burdens when we needed help, who've sent a joke or a thoughtful message when we've needed a lift, and who've pretty much just been there when we needed someone to ask "How's it going?" We realize that without our friends, and without our families, this would be a pretty bleak existence. So if you receive this message, know that we appreciate you for who you are and what you do...even if we don't see, call, or email one another as often as we probably should.
This Christmas season...may we all once again find all the hope and joy and wonder that we all knew when we were kids, and may the Christmas season be magical for you and your loved ones once again this year. And may God richly bless you in the coming year with companionship, love, laughter and all that's important in life.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Toothless Tiger Roars At Russia
Over the past few weeks I've noticed something about the UnitedStates that scares the bejeezus out of me. It concerns the Russian invasion of the soverign state of Georgia, and the tepid response from America. I believe I know why the US response was as it is, and the answer relates to the military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Russia is no longer the large player in world affairs that it was during the Cold War years, but that's not to say that they're the weakest kid on the block, either. But the US is supposed to be the strongest kid on the block. You just wouldn't know it from the lukewarm response the Russian military misadventure earned.
Look to the more recent past...Ronald Reagan's military intervention in Grenada, or even George H. W. Bush [Bush41]'s response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. American troops were sent in to restore things as they had been, and the message delivered to the world was that the US was ready, willing, and able to defend smaller countries from aggressive neighbors.
Now contrast this with our response to the Russian invasion of Georgia: Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice has protested Russia's actions, but that's as far as it's going to go. Why? Because the US military is already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there aren't enough troops available to enforce what's right.
So the US can't be the world's policeman. Maybe we shouldn't have tried to assume that role to begin with, because it's simply too big a pair of shoes to be filled by any one country. Apparently NATO is content to sit back and watch what happens as well. In the meantime, Russia is allowed to destroy the Republic of Georgia piecemeal, splitting away two regions on either side of Georgia, while continuing a military presence in Georgia's primary port city.
What all this reveals to the world about America's military vulnerability should scare the hell out of Americans. We have units of the National Guard and the Army Reserve and the Marines on their fifth and sixth deployments to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, and lots of equipment that is being worn out there and not being replaced at home when the units return stateside. And troops are getting burned out and not reenlisting, having had enough of being shipped out over and over again as full-time soldiers for what they understood would be a part-time committment when they originally signed up for the Guard and Reserves.
Truth be told, the next US president is going to be faced with some politically suicidal choices. Tax revenues neeed to increase to start working toward elimination of the annual budget deficit, a move that would go a long, long way toward strengthening the dollar. [And if we can't get the annual budgets under control, there's no use even thinking about the national debt, which is also burdening the beleaguered buck.] Another area that will pose a political hazard is the beefing up and staffing of the weary US military. A draft might become necessary, simply to put enough "warm bodies" into uniform to keep our nation safe. [While I don't advocate reinstatement of a military draft, if I'm going to be honest I must consider the fact that we may not have a choice in the next few years.]
But for now, all the US can do with Russia is to tell them they've been bad, and they shouldn't have gone into Georgia, and they need to stop it. And Russia, recognizing the US as the toothless tiger that we've become, will ignore us and do whatever they want to their neighbors.
Russia is no longer the large player in world affairs that it was during the Cold War years, but that's not to say that they're the weakest kid on the block, either. But the US is supposed to be the strongest kid on the block. You just wouldn't know it from the lukewarm response the Russian military misadventure earned.
Look to the more recent past...Ronald Reagan's military intervention in Grenada, or even George H. W. Bush [Bush41]'s response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. American troops were sent in to restore things as they had been, and the message delivered to the world was that the US was ready, willing, and able to defend smaller countries from aggressive neighbors.
Now contrast this with our response to the Russian invasion of Georgia: Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice has protested Russia's actions, but that's as far as it's going to go. Why? Because the US military is already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there aren't enough troops available to enforce what's right.
So the US can't be the world's policeman. Maybe we shouldn't have tried to assume that role to begin with, because it's simply too big a pair of shoes to be filled by any one country. Apparently NATO is content to sit back and watch what happens as well. In the meantime, Russia is allowed to destroy the Republic of Georgia piecemeal, splitting away two regions on either side of Georgia, while continuing a military presence in Georgia's primary port city.
What all this reveals to the world about America's military vulnerability should scare the hell out of Americans. We have units of the National Guard and the Army Reserve and the Marines on their fifth and sixth deployments to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, and lots of equipment that is being worn out there and not being replaced at home when the units return stateside. And troops are getting burned out and not reenlisting, having had enough of being shipped out over and over again as full-time soldiers for what they understood would be a part-time committment when they originally signed up for the Guard and Reserves.
Truth be told, the next US president is going to be faced with some politically suicidal choices. Tax revenues neeed to increase to start working toward elimination of the annual budget deficit, a move that would go a long, long way toward strengthening the dollar. [And if we can't get the annual budgets under control, there's no use even thinking about the national debt, which is also burdening the beleaguered buck.] Another area that will pose a political hazard is the beefing up and staffing of the weary US military. A draft might become necessary, simply to put enough "warm bodies" into uniform to keep our nation safe. [While I don't advocate reinstatement of a military draft, if I'm going to be honest I must consider the fact that we may not have a choice in the next few years.]
But for now, all the US can do with Russia is to tell them they've been bad, and they shouldn't have gone into Georgia, and they need to stop it. And Russia, recognizing the US as the toothless tiger that we've become, will ignore us and do whatever they want to their neighbors.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Is This War Really Necessary?
Is the war in Iraq critical to the survival of the United States of America?
That’s a simple yes-or-no question. Either the war in Iraq is critical to the survival of the United States, or it isn’t. There should be no shades of gray here; either the war in Iraq affects the long-term survival of the United States, or it doesn’t.
How do YOU answer that question?
If the war in Iraq IS critical to the survival of the United States, then we’re certainly doing a halfhearted effort of ensuring our nation’s survival. That’s not a reflection on our troops, who are doing what they’re ordered and putting their lives on the line every day. But it is a reflection on how much emphasis our national leaders are putting on the outcome of the war in Iraq.
If the survival of the United States hinges on winning the war in Iraq, then our leaders should be pouring immense amounts of men and materials into Iraq. We should have the kind of effort in Iraq that our nation expended in World War II, the last was that truly did have the survival of the United States in the balance.
If we fought the war in Iraq the way we fought World War II, we would’ve already secured the borders of Iraq so that no terrorists could come or go at will, and so that no materials used to make bombs or IED’s could cross into Iraq from any other country. We would’ve done house-to house searches in every square inch of Iraq, to ensure that no insurgent arms were anywhere in the country. This is a nation not much larger than some of our western states, so that sort of security should have been easy in the 5+ years we’ve been there.
If the war in Iraq was critical to the survival of the United States, why isn’t the entire nation under martial law, at least until all the power grid and the oil pipelines are 100% secure from disruptions? In WWII, that would’ve been easy enough to do, and in some areas was done.
If the war in Iraq is critical to the survival of the United States, then why doesn’t the U. S. military have enough troops to go in and take over the country until the fledgling Iraqi government is strong enough to rule effectively? For that matter, if the war in Iraq is critical to the survival of the United States, why aren’t the young people who believe this way standing in line to volunteer to fight for the United States’ very survival? Why are our forces at the breaking point, or at least at the point of physical and mental exhaustion because of multiple tours of duty, and tours that have been extended because of a lack of trained replacement troops? Why aren’t the parents who believe that the war in Iraq is critical to the survival of the United States not persuading their sons and daughters to join the military and fight for the survival of the United States of America?
Perhaps I’m taking too much for granted here. Perhaps I’ve simply assumed your answer to my initial question. Perhaps your answer was that the war in Iraq is NOT critical to the survival of the United States. If that is, indeed, your answer, then I have another question: If the war in Iraq is NOT critical to the survival of the United States of America, then WHY are American soldiers and Marines being sacrificed to this cause? Did the President simply take America to war on a whim? War is serious, folks; and dead is permanent, as far as this physical life is concerned. I believe that we have no right to sacrifice one American life on any foreign battlefield unless the safety and security and the very survival of our nation is NOT at stake.
I understand that emergency responders such as police and firemen and EMT’s risk life and limb every day within our borders in an effort to preserve our safety and to preserve order, and they make their contribution on a daily basis, essentially, so that the United States of America and our way of life can continue to survive. And I applaud and fully support their efforts. I also support our troops, because the enlisted men and women and their officers are doing what their orders tell them to do, and I don’t want to even attempt to diminish the contribution they make simply because they are asked by our leaders to do so.
But when our soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines are sent to risk their very lives for a cause that is NOT essential to the long-term survival of our nation, I question the judgment of the leaders who sent them there. Wars should never be entered on a whim. And if our troops ARE fighting for the very survival of our nation, I would also question the judgment of the leaders who would fail to pledge to our men and women in uniform that, whenever they are sent into battle, that they should go with the sufficient materiel and numbers of personnel necessary to secure their objective completely, and as quickly as possible.
Either the war in Iraq IS necessary to the survival of the United States of America, and the leaders in Washington have botched the job of providing the personnel and materiel necessary to quickly and efficiently ensure that goal; OR the war in Iraq is NOT necessary to the survival of our nation, and our military presence there is ill-advised and those who sent our troops there have caused the unnecessary shedding of blood of American troops…for which our leaders should be greatly ashamed. The life of an American in uniform is sacred, and as we approach this Memorial Day 2008, I believe that any leader who would risk the life of even ONE American soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine, either for a cause not connected to the survival of our nation, or by prolonging a war by not providing enough troops and materiel to win in the most efficient manner possible, should hang his head in shame and beg God for mercy on his soul, for the blood on his hands.
That’s a simple yes-or-no question. Either the war in Iraq is critical to the survival of the United States, or it isn’t. There should be no shades of gray here; either the war in Iraq affects the long-term survival of the United States, or it doesn’t.
How do YOU answer that question?
If the war in Iraq IS critical to the survival of the United States, then we’re certainly doing a halfhearted effort of ensuring our nation’s survival. That’s not a reflection on our troops, who are doing what they’re ordered and putting their lives on the line every day. But it is a reflection on how much emphasis our national leaders are putting on the outcome of the war in Iraq.
If the survival of the United States hinges on winning the war in Iraq, then our leaders should be pouring immense amounts of men and materials into Iraq. We should have the kind of effort in Iraq that our nation expended in World War II, the last was that truly did have the survival of the United States in the balance.
If we fought the war in Iraq the way we fought World War II, we would’ve already secured the borders of Iraq so that no terrorists could come or go at will, and so that no materials used to make bombs or IED’s could cross into Iraq from any other country. We would’ve done house-to house searches in every square inch of Iraq, to ensure that no insurgent arms were anywhere in the country. This is a nation not much larger than some of our western states, so that sort of security should have been easy in the 5+ years we’ve been there.
If the war in Iraq was critical to the survival of the United States, why isn’t the entire nation under martial law, at least until all the power grid and the oil pipelines are 100% secure from disruptions? In WWII, that would’ve been easy enough to do, and in some areas was done.
If the war in Iraq is critical to the survival of the United States, then why doesn’t the U. S. military have enough troops to go in and take over the country until the fledgling Iraqi government is strong enough to rule effectively? For that matter, if the war in Iraq is critical to the survival of the United States, why aren’t the young people who believe this way standing in line to volunteer to fight for the United States’ very survival? Why are our forces at the breaking point, or at least at the point of physical and mental exhaustion because of multiple tours of duty, and tours that have been extended because of a lack of trained replacement troops? Why aren’t the parents who believe that the war in Iraq is critical to the survival of the United States not persuading their sons and daughters to join the military and fight for the survival of the United States of America?
Perhaps I’m taking too much for granted here. Perhaps I’ve simply assumed your answer to my initial question. Perhaps your answer was that the war in Iraq is NOT critical to the survival of the United States. If that is, indeed, your answer, then I have another question: If the war in Iraq is NOT critical to the survival of the United States of America, then WHY are American soldiers and Marines being sacrificed to this cause? Did the President simply take America to war on a whim? War is serious, folks; and dead is permanent, as far as this physical life is concerned. I believe that we have no right to sacrifice one American life on any foreign battlefield unless the safety and security and the very survival of our nation is NOT at stake.
I understand that emergency responders such as police and firemen and EMT’s risk life and limb every day within our borders in an effort to preserve our safety and to preserve order, and they make their contribution on a daily basis, essentially, so that the United States of America and our way of life can continue to survive. And I applaud and fully support their efforts. I also support our troops, because the enlisted men and women and their officers are doing what their orders tell them to do, and I don’t want to even attempt to diminish the contribution they make simply because they are asked by our leaders to do so.
But when our soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines are sent to risk their very lives for a cause that is NOT essential to the long-term survival of our nation, I question the judgment of the leaders who sent them there. Wars should never be entered on a whim. And if our troops ARE fighting for the very survival of our nation, I would also question the judgment of the leaders who would fail to pledge to our men and women in uniform that, whenever they are sent into battle, that they should go with the sufficient materiel and numbers of personnel necessary to secure their objective completely, and as quickly as possible.
Either the war in Iraq IS necessary to the survival of the United States of America, and the leaders in Washington have botched the job of providing the personnel and materiel necessary to quickly and efficiently ensure that goal; OR the war in Iraq is NOT necessary to the survival of our nation, and our military presence there is ill-advised and those who sent our troops there have caused the unnecessary shedding of blood of American troops…for which our leaders should be greatly ashamed. The life of an American in uniform is sacred, and as we approach this Memorial Day 2008, I believe that any leader who would risk the life of even ONE American soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine, either for a cause not connected to the survival of our nation, or by prolonging a war by not providing enough troops and materiel to win in the most efficient manner possible, should hang his head in shame and beg God for mercy on his soul, for the blood on his hands.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Is It Just ME ??
Is it just me??
Am I the only one?
Or do some of you out there feel it too?
I'm talking about the feeling I get when I'm sent the emails, one after another, day after day, and sometimes several in the same day. The emails telling me about how proud these people are of our Soldiers and Sailors and Marines who are serving in some faraway hell-hole, laying their lives on the line for our way of life.
I don't think you quite understand yet.
These people feel that if we don't support 100% of what our sometimes clueless leaders do, and where they send these young warriors, then we are lesser Americans, less patriotic than they. They apparently don't understand just how much I really do support our troops, including my own son who just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq a few weeks back.
But then maybe it is I who doesn't understand.
I don't understand the self-righteousness of these people, whose own sons and daughters are too busy going to college or making their first million or simply drinking beer and making babies to be a part of our fighting forces. I don't understand how they can see me as being less patriotic than they are, when it's my own son, my firstborn, flesh of my flesh, who volunteered and filled that spot in our military, so that THEIR son or daughter didn't have to "waste" a year of their life, a year apparently better spent climbing the ladder in corporate America.
Oh, I know very well that my son volunteered to join the military. And I know that my son has made a choice, the same as their son or daughter. But I don't understand why these people can't see this in the same context as the relative commitment of the chicken and the pig in their Egg McMuffin in the morning. Their situation is comparable to the chicken, who is merely involved in bringing you your breakfast, whereas the pig is committed.
So I guess it's all right, then, if these folks look upon my son--and, by extension, me--as the pigs when it comes to supporting our troops...as long as they accept that they deserve to be called the chickens that they are.
I think I've earned the right, through my son's service to our country, to resent the implication of their self-righteous "patriotism" via email...as their own sons and daughters are too busy, too important, or too valuable to corporate America to defend our nation. In my point of view, these people don't have a dog in this fight. They DO have a stake in the outcome of the war in Iraq, but only to the same extent that all Americans do. If they had a son or daughter who'd served, them I might be open to the idea that they have a right to preach patriotism to anyone else.
Now I have friends and relatives who DO have sons and daughters who are serving in the military, and who have served in Iraq. Oddly enough, they are the ones who DON'T feel the need to preach patriotism. NO, I only get those self-righteous emails from the folks whose sons and daughters are too busy to get involved in the military, and who therefore [in MY view] have the LEAST reason to preach patriotism.
Am I out of line to feel this way?
Am I the only one?
Or do some of you out there feel it too?
I'm talking about the feeling I get when I'm sent the emails, one after another, day after day, and sometimes several in the same day. The emails telling me about how proud these people are of our Soldiers and Sailors and Marines who are serving in some faraway hell-hole, laying their lives on the line for our way of life.
I don't think you quite understand yet.
These people feel that if we don't support 100% of what our sometimes clueless leaders do, and where they send these young warriors, then we are lesser Americans, less patriotic than they. They apparently don't understand just how much I really do support our troops, including my own son who just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq a few weeks back.
But then maybe it is I who doesn't understand.
I don't understand the self-righteousness of these people, whose own sons and daughters are too busy going to college or making their first million or simply drinking beer and making babies to be a part of our fighting forces. I don't understand how they can see me as being less patriotic than they are, when it's my own son, my firstborn, flesh of my flesh, who volunteered and filled that spot in our military, so that THEIR son or daughter didn't have to "waste" a year of their life, a year apparently better spent climbing the ladder in corporate America.
Oh, I know very well that my son volunteered to join the military. And I know that my son has made a choice, the same as their son or daughter. But I don't understand why these people can't see this in the same context as the relative commitment of the chicken and the pig in their Egg McMuffin in the morning. Their situation is comparable to the chicken, who is merely involved in bringing you your breakfast, whereas the pig is committed.
So I guess it's all right, then, if these folks look upon my son--and, by extension, me--as the pigs when it comes to supporting our troops...as long as they accept that they deserve to be called the chickens that they are.
I think I've earned the right, through my son's service to our country, to resent the implication of their self-righteous "patriotism" via email...as their own sons and daughters are too busy, too important, or too valuable to corporate America to defend our nation. In my point of view, these people don't have a dog in this fight. They DO have a stake in the outcome of the war in Iraq, but only to the same extent that all Americans do. If they had a son or daughter who'd served, them I might be open to the idea that they have a right to preach patriotism to anyone else.
Now I have friends and relatives who DO have sons and daughters who are serving in the military, and who have served in Iraq. Oddly enough, they are the ones who DON'T feel the need to preach patriotism. NO, I only get those self-righteous emails from the folks whose sons and daughters are too busy to get involved in the military, and who therefore [in MY view] have the LEAST reason to preach patriotism.
Am I out of line to feel this way?
Friday, April 4, 2008
40 Years Later...Dr. King DID Make A Difference
As I write this, today is the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. In the past 40 years America has come a long way towards a society in which equality is more than just the inspiration for an "I have a dream" speech. But to understand where we are today, we need to know where we've come from.
I was born and grew up in Corydon, Indiana, and the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education and I both came into this world in 1954. I entered first grade in what was then called "the Annex," but which had been the old one-room "colored school" on Summit Street. There weren't many black children in the entire county, but I didn't have a problem with being in the same classroom with them. I don't claim any points for righteousness for that fact; it's just that, up to that point, I hadn't been taught to hate anyone.
But that's not to say that there weren't any prejudices in our little town. The hill on Beechmont Drive in South Corydon, where many of the blacks in the community lived, was more commonly called "Nigger Hill." Even into the late 1970's, when the Indian Creek Convalescent Center was built at the intersection of Harrison Drive and Beechmont Drive, the name lingered; the whispered nickname of the convalescent center was NHNH, or "Nigger Hill Nursing Home." Old habits die hard, I suppose...but at least the words were being whispered, and not shouted as they might have been a couple of decades before.
I remember a story my grandfather told of Brother Hodge, a black minister who had conducted a tent revival at the local fairgrounds. The services had lasted well into the evening, and as Brother Hodge began walking home, he found himself surrounded by a number of white men, some of whom may have meant him some physical harm. "Brother Hodge," one of the whites asked him, "do you believe you're going to heaven when you die?" Brother Hodge, aware of his situation, answered, "Yessir, I do believe I'm goin' to Heaven--but I'm in no hurry!" The laughing crowd, I was told, dispersed as quickly as it had formed.
When I was growing up, there were other blacks in the community who did their part to fight racial stereotypes by simply being part of the fabric of society. They bought homes and cars and trucks, they worked respected and respectable jobs, they didn't get into trouble fighting and drinking and gambling and stealing. They didn't work at being anything but good, honest citizens...and in Corydon, they were generally allowed to do so without being singled out as being "uppity," or as not knowing their "place" in society. They bought groceries at the same two stores as the white folks, and paid the same prices as the white folks. They were simply our friends and our neighbors.
As far as relations with the black students in our school went, they were very much part of the gang. We were in Boy Scouts together, and we camped and swam and hiked and ate and joked around together. We played sports together, and they were our friends. It was the out-of-town blacks, the ones that were rioting and looting in Watts and Detroit and other distant places we knew about only from the nightly news programs, who were the "niggers." Our fellow students, we had discovered, were just like everyone else. It made no difference whether you were black or white, we all still sweated out Mr. Fluhr's algebra tests and Mrs. Elam's English class, and Mrs. Enlow's geography tests and Mr. Windell's chemistry class and Mr. Cato's government class. We were all chasing after the American Dream, and we were all trying to figure out where we fit into a world that we didn't make, but one we'd all surely inherit.
I realize now that it was probably a lot harder for our black classmates to find that spot, in a world where some folks still looked down upon you because of your race. As a kid I was too caught up in my own struggles to be accepted to give much thought to the struggles of anyone else. But I always tried to judge folks by "the content of their character," in Dr. King's words, rather judge them by the color of their skin, because I always got along better with a friendly, helpful person who just happened to be black than I ever did with someone who was consistently a jerk but who happened to be white..
Now, I wasn't any kind of a saint while I was growing up. I was a reflection of the society around me, and I occasionally said hurtful things to my friends...and that included my black friends as well as my white friends. While I'd like to go back and erase all the wrong things I've ever done, I have tried to apologize for any time my ignorance led me to heartlessness. I can't totally undo or unsay the wrongs that I've committed, but I've tried to "go and sin no more," as Jesus Christ admonished those he forgave a couple of thousand years ago.
Perhaps the blacks who grew up in my generation have a radically different point of view than mine. The 1960's and early 1970's weren't easy for any of us, and dealing with the backlash from whites who watched their nightly news and read their newspapers --and who decided that "these niggers are all the same"--couldn't have been easy. I wish now I'd have been less self-absorbed, and more attuned to their struggles. But it's simply not the nature of kids and teenagers to think of the universe as being centered anywhere away from the self, and I was no different. That doesn't absolve me of guilt; it just makes me a typical kid when I was growing up.
Dr. King didn't come to our community and march or preach. But his words were carried by the national media, and there was a ripple effect even in our small town. His admonitions about our Christian duties toward our fellowman left a mark on all but the hardest of hearts, and we began to see the blacks among us were our friends, our neighbors, and our fellow Americans, and just as deserving of a chance at the American Dream as any of us who weren't born black. Our town wasn't alone, and in similar small towns across America the same realization began to occur.
As a nation, we have come a long way. Forty years ago blacks were just beginning to come to the polls to vote, with longtime roadblocks like poll taxes and restrictive voter registration laws keeping them from exercising the right to vote. Today a black candidate is a legitimate contender for the presidency of this nation. It is a direct result of the efforts of people like Dr. King and his dream of equal opportunity. In the 1960's it was hard to imagine a black having the opportunity to attend an esteemed institution such as Harvard; on January 20, 2009 a Harvard graduate who just happens to be black may be taking the oath of the highest office in the land. If that does come to pass, I can imagine that Dr. King may be somewhere smiling, knowing that his dream has come to fruition and that perhaps the discrimination and bias of Dr. King's era will remain buried within the pages of history.
For the sake of the next generation of Americans, I sincerely hope and pray that equal opportunity continues to bear positive fruit within this great nation, and that a return to the discrimination of the past is unthinkable.
I was born and grew up in Corydon, Indiana, and the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education and I both came into this world in 1954. I entered first grade in what was then called "the Annex," but which had been the old one-room "colored school" on Summit Street. There weren't many black children in the entire county, but I didn't have a problem with being in the same classroom with them. I don't claim any points for righteousness for that fact; it's just that, up to that point, I hadn't been taught to hate anyone.
But that's not to say that there weren't any prejudices in our little town. The hill on Beechmont Drive in South Corydon, where many of the blacks in the community lived, was more commonly called "Nigger Hill." Even into the late 1970's, when the Indian Creek Convalescent Center was built at the intersection of Harrison Drive and Beechmont Drive, the name lingered; the whispered nickname of the convalescent center was NHNH, or "Nigger Hill Nursing Home." Old habits die hard, I suppose...but at least the words were being whispered, and not shouted as they might have been a couple of decades before.
I remember a story my grandfather told of Brother Hodge, a black minister who had conducted a tent revival at the local fairgrounds. The services had lasted well into the evening, and as Brother Hodge began walking home, he found himself surrounded by a number of white men, some of whom may have meant him some physical harm. "Brother Hodge," one of the whites asked him, "do you believe you're going to heaven when you die?" Brother Hodge, aware of his situation, answered, "Yessir, I do believe I'm goin' to Heaven--but I'm in no hurry!" The laughing crowd, I was told, dispersed as quickly as it had formed.
When I was growing up, there were other blacks in the community who did their part to fight racial stereotypes by simply being part of the fabric of society. They bought homes and cars and trucks, they worked respected and respectable jobs, they didn't get into trouble fighting and drinking and gambling and stealing. They didn't work at being anything but good, honest citizens...and in Corydon, they were generally allowed to do so without being singled out as being "uppity," or as not knowing their "place" in society. They bought groceries at the same two stores as the white folks, and paid the same prices as the white folks. They were simply our friends and our neighbors.
As far as relations with the black students in our school went, they were very much part of the gang. We were in Boy Scouts together, and we camped and swam and hiked and ate and joked around together. We played sports together, and they were our friends. It was the out-of-town blacks, the ones that were rioting and looting in Watts and Detroit and other distant places we knew about only from the nightly news programs, who were the "niggers." Our fellow students, we had discovered, were just like everyone else. It made no difference whether you were black or white, we all still sweated out Mr. Fluhr's algebra tests and Mrs. Elam's English class, and Mrs. Enlow's geography tests and Mr. Windell's chemistry class and Mr. Cato's government class. We were all chasing after the American Dream, and we were all trying to figure out where we fit into a world that we didn't make, but one we'd all surely inherit.
I realize now that it was probably a lot harder for our black classmates to find that spot, in a world where some folks still looked down upon you because of your race. As a kid I was too caught up in my own struggles to be accepted to give much thought to the struggles of anyone else. But I always tried to judge folks by "the content of their character," in Dr. King's words, rather judge them by the color of their skin, because I always got along better with a friendly, helpful person who just happened to be black than I ever did with someone who was consistently a jerk but who happened to be white..
Now, I wasn't any kind of a saint while I was growing up. I was a reflection of the society around me, and I occasionally said hurtful things to my friends...and that included my black friends as well as my white friends. While I'd like to go back and erase all the wrong things I've ever done, I have tried to apologize for any time my ignorance led me to heartlessness. I can't totally undo or unsay the wrongs that I've committed, but I've tried to "go and sin no more," as Jesus Christ admonished those he forgave a couple of thousand years ago.
Perhaps the blacks who grew up in my generation have a radically different point of view than mine. The 1960's and early 1970's weren't easy for any of us, and dealing with the backlash from whites who watched their nightly news and read their newspapers --and who decided that "these niggers are all the same"--couldn't have been easy. I wish now I'd have been less self-absorbed, and more attuned to their struggles. But it's simply not the nature of kids and teenagers to think of the universe as being centered anywhere away from the self, and I was no different. That doesn't absolve me of guilt; it just makes me a typical kid when I was growing up.
Dr. King didn't come to our community and march or preach. But his words were carried by the national media, and there was a ripple effect even in our small town. His admonitions about our Christian duties toward our fellowman left a mark on all but the hardest of hearts, and we began to see the blacks among us were our friends, our neighbors, and our fellow Americans, and just as deserving of a chance at the American Dream as any of us who weren't born black. Our town wasn't alone, and in similar small towns across America the same realization began to occur.
As a nation, we have come a long way. Forty years ago blacks were just beginning to come to the polls to vote, with longtime roadblocks like poll taxes and restrictive voter registration laws keeping them from exercising the right to vote. Today a black candidate is a legitimate contender for the presidency of this nation. It is a direct result of the efforts of people like Dr. King and his dream of equal opportunity. In the 1960's it was hard to imagine a black having the opportunity to attend an esteemed institution such as Harvard; on January 20, 2009 a Harvard graduate who just happens to be black may be taking the oath of the highest office in the land. If that does come to pass, I can imagine that Dr. King may be somewhere smiling, knowing that his dream has come to fruition and that perhaps the discrimination and bias of Dr. King's era will remain buried within the pages of history.
For the sake of the next generation of Americans, I sincerely hope and pray that equal opportunity continues to bear positive fruit within this great nation, and that a return to the discrimination of the past is unthinkable.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Hospital Makeover Leaves "Orphans" At Our Door
I recently watched the episode of the "Extreme Makeover" TV show in which the Design Team built a new home for a Louisville family, and the joy of seeing a deserving family move into a new home more suited to their needs warmed my heart. The special "apartment" within the new house custom-tailored for the needs of the blind and wheelchair-bound Patrick Henry Hughes was especially well done.
But what if the Design Team had intentionally not built the rooms for the other Hughes brothers--and the parents had approved the design? Wouldn't that have been unthinkable?
Effectively, that's what the administrators and designers of the new Harrison County Hospital have done. While the new hospital was sorely needed, and while it's much more suited to its purpose than the hospital's old campus, the hospital designers and administrators intentionally left out any space allocation for either the Harrison County EMS or the Harrison County Health Department...and only mentioned their omission to the County Council after the new hospital building was essentially complete.
Think about that for a moment. That move is the fiscal equivalent of leaving two "orphans" on the council's doorstep while moving the rest of the family into a new home. Historically, the health department and the hospital have always operated together. That's only logical, since the business of the hospital is related to the health of the community. And since its inception in the 1970's, Harrison County EMS and the hospital have literally and figuratively been joined at the hip. Now, suddenly [and unexpectedly, for the taxpayers of Harrison County] the hospital board has decided that providing a home for these unwanted stepchildren--for whom the taxpayers of the county must still provide a roof over their heads--isn't their responsibility. Apparently the taxpayers didn't need to know about that until after the new hospital was completed.
So now county leaders, already faced with the daunting task of finding a buyer who will take the old hospital campus off their hands [and who will put that property onto the county tax rolls], are handed the task of finding new digs for EMS and the health department, essentially at the eleventh hour. In my view, the actions of the hospital board border on duplicity. As a taxpayer, I'm outraged that the disposition of EMS and the health department "never came up" when discussions of building the new hospital were going on. So now even more tax money will need to be allocated for a new building for EMS--for which the hospital board has already "allotted" a space on their new grounds. So don't think for a minute that the hospital board didn't "plan" for this "emergency" to occur. And the net result is, the taxpayers didn't see it coming because the hospital board apparently intended the taxpayers be blindsided.
Of course, the health department doesn't have to be located at the hospital. Their function encompasses a lot more than just birth and death records, and I'm sure that office space can be found at a number of places within Corydon, the county seat, that would suffice. But had county officials been aware of the need to seek a new home for the health department from the time that the new hospital blueprints were completed, a smooth transition could have been well underway by now. Why the hospital board chose to conceal from the taxpayers their plans to "orphan" the EMS and the health department is a mystery to me.
Of course, the hospital board has informed county officials that they already have a partner lined up to share the new unplanned, unbuilt EMS facility. SkyCare, a regional helicopter ambulance service, would lease part of this proposed new EMS facility, helping to defray some of the operating expense, if none of the initial building costs. But that's small comfort to the taxpayers who didn't expect to have to build a separate EMS building in the first place. And then surprising the taxpayers with the need to find a new home for the health department at the same time is a double whammy...and one that, in my opinion, could have been avoided had the hospital administration and board have been more forthcoming and pointed these details out in the meetings that preceded the building of the new hospital.
Now it's obvious that the hospital intended all along to separate themselves from EMS and the health department. But as a taxpayer, I think it would've been considerate of the hospital administration to have spelled out their intentions from the beginning. Sure, it's "only money"...but it's only MY money, and YOUR money and the money of the other taxpayers, that's being spent here. And if riverboat gambling funds are diverted to cover these "unexpected contingencies," those are riverboat gambling funds that are being diverted from other potential uses. And that means that the expenses for which those funds could have otherwise been used WILL come out of the taxpayers' pockets.
I just wish the hospital administrators would have been straight with the taxpayers from the get-go, and not left a pair of "orphan" departments on our doorstep just as the hospital triumphantly moves into its palatial new facility.
But what if the Design Team had intentionally not built the rooms for the other Hughes brothers--and the parents had approved the design? Wouldn't that have been unthinkable?
Effectively, that's what the administrators and designers of the new Harrison County Hospital have done. While the new hospital was sorely needed, and while it's much more suited to its purpose than the hospital's old campus, the hospital designers and administrators intentionally left out any space allocation for either the Harrison County EMS or the Harrison County Health Department...and only mentioned their omission to the County Council after the new hospital building was essentially complete.
Think about that for a moment. That move is the fiscal equivalent of leaving two "orphans" on the council's doorstep while moving the rest of the family into a new home. Historically, the health department and the hospital have always operated together. That's only logical, since the business of the hospital is related to the health of the community. And since its inception in the 1970's, Harrison County EMS and the hospital have literally and figuratively been joined at the hip. Now, suddenly [and unexpectedly, for the taxpayers of Harrison County] the hospital board has decided that providing a home for these unwanted stepchildren--for whom the taxpayers of the county must still provide a roof over their heads--isn't their responsibility. Apparently the taxpayers didn't need to know about that until after the new hospital was completed.
So now county leaders, already faced with the daunting task of finding a buyer who will take the old hospital campus off their hands [and who will put that property onto the county tax rolls], are handed the task of finding new digs for EMS and the health department, essentially at the eleventh hour. In my view, the actions of the hospital board border on duplicity. As a taxpayer, I'm outraged that the disposition of EMS and the health department "never came up" when discussions of building the new hospital were going on. So now even more tax money will need to be allocated for a new building for EMS--for which the hospital board has already "allotted" a space on their new grounds. So don't think for a minute that the hospital board didn't "plan" for this "emergency" to occur. And the net result is, the taxpayers didn't see it coming because the hospital board apparently intended the taxpayers be blindsided.
Of course, the health department doesn't have to be located at the hospital. Their function encompasses a lot more than just birth and death records, and I'm sure that office space can be found at a number of places within Corydon, the county seat, that would suffice. But had county officials been aware of the need to seek a new home for the health department from the time that the new hospital blueprints were completed, a smooth transition could have been well underway by now. Why the hospital board chose to conceal from the taxpayers their plans to "orphan" the EMS and the health department is a mystery to me.
Of course, the hospital board has informed county officials that they already have a partner lined up to share the new unplanned, unbuilt EMS facility. SkyCare, a regional helicopter ambulance service, would lease part of this proposed new EMS facility, helping to defray some of the operating expense, if none of the initial building costs. But that's small comfort to the taxpayers who didn't expect to have to build a separate EMS building in the first place. And then surprising the taxpayers with the need to find a new home for the health department at the same time is a double whammy...and one that, in my opinion, could have been avoided had the hospital administration and board have been more forthcoming and pointed these details out in the meetings that preceded the building of the new hospital.
Now it's obvious that the hospital intended all along to separate themselves from EMS and the health department. But as a taxpayer, I think it would've been considerate of the hospital administration to have spelled out their intentions from the beginning. Sure, it's "only money"...but it's only MY money, and YOUR money and the money of the other taxpayers, that's being spent here. And if riverboat gambling funds are diverted to cover these "unexpected contingencies," those are riverboat gambling funds that are being diverted from other potential uses. And that means that the expenses for which those funds could have otherwise been used WILL come out of the taxpayers' pockets.
I just wish the hospital administrators would have been straight with the taxpayers from the get-go, and not left a pair of "orphan" departments on our doorstep just as the hospital triumphantly moves into its palatial new facility.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
IN THE BEGINNING...
...there was the thought; the thought begat the word, and the word begat the sentence. One sentence begat another, and another, and eventually they formed an idea. As the idea took shape, it led to the formation of the opinion, and as the opinion evolved, it begat this blog.
By way of introduction, I am The Buzzman, koo-koo-kajoo. I became The Buzzman back in seventh grade, as a student manager for the junior high basketball team. Long hair was seen as a sign of a rebellious youngster in those days, and to become associated with the team I was required to keep my hair cut short. My brother, a year older, played on the team as well, and his haircut of choice was the flat-top. One of my brother's teammates noticed an uncanny resemblance between my brother's haircut and that of cartoon character Woody Woodpecker's nemesis, Buzz Buzzard...and henceforth my brother and I were known as "The Buzz Brothers." At first we were "Big Buzz" and "Little Buzz," but as I eventually grew taller than my brother, that evolved into "Old Buzz" and "Buzzman." Thus, I am The Buzzman.
I've always considered myself a writer, so this blog is something of a test. It will test whether I have the discipline to write on a regular basis; it will also test whether I have anything to say, and whether anyone will be interested in the thoughts and opinions of someone past 50 who's somewhere between open-minded and curmudgeonly, someplace between "out in left field" and stuck in the dugout. My aim is to write something to make you think...or something to make you smile...or maybe just something to make me feel like I've done something worthwhile.
Some of my posts here may be rants, and I expect many will be political in nature. But don't expect me to defend either of the major political parties, as I consider them to be two sides of the same "heads they win, tails we lose" coin. My political beliefs go back to those espoused by the Founding Fathers, who detested the idea of a Ruling Class, and whose visions of government were of offices being held for a term or two by civic-minded citizens who would then return to their roles in society. Perhaps that's a bit idealistic for some folks to comprehend, but I have always believed that the Founding Fathers were essentially on the right track, and that government is most flawed when it is most skewed from the vision of its founders.
But this blog will essentially be my commentary on life--MY life, as I see it. That's why it's called BuzzWords. I really don't know if I'll be able to entertain, or inform, or stimulate your thoughts. But without this blog, the odds of doing so are mighty slim. So it is what it is, and in the immortal words of Popeye, "I yam what I yam." And I am The Buzzman...let the BuzzWords go forth, from this day forward.
By way of introduction, I am The Buzzman, koo-koo-kajoo. I became The Buzzman back in seventh grade, as a student manager for the junior high basketball team. Long hair was seen as a sign of a rebellious youngster in those days, and to become associated with the team I was required to keep my hair cut short. My brother, a year older, played on the team as well, and his haircut of choice was the flat-top. One of my brother's teammates noticed an uncanny resemblance between my brother's haircut and that of cartoon character Woody Woodpecker's nemesis, Buzz Buzzard...and henceforth my brother and I were known as "The Buzz Brothers." At first we were "Big Buzz" and "Little Buzz," but as I eventually grew taller than my brother, that evolved into "Old Buzz" and "Buzzman." Thus, I am The Buzzman.
I've always considered myself a writer, so this blog is something of a test. It will test whether I have the discipline to write on a regular basis; it will also test whether I have anything to say, and whether anyone will be interested in the thoughts and opinions of someone past 50 who's somewhere between open-minded and curmudgeonly, someplace between "out in left field" and stuck in the dugout. My aim is to write something to make you think...or something to make you smile...or maybe just something to make me feel like I've done something worthwhile.
Some of my posts here may be rants, and I expect many will be political in nature. But don't expect me to defend either of the major political parties, as I consider them to be two sides of the same "heads they win, tails we lose" coin. My political beliefs go back to those espoused by the Founding Fathers, who detested the idea of a Ruling Class, and whose visions of government were of offices being held for a term or two by civic-minded citizens who would then return to their roles in society. Perhaps that's a bit idealistic for some folks to comprehend, but I have always believed that the Founding Fathers were essentially on the right track, and that government is most flawed when it is most skewed from the vision of its founders.
But this blog will essentially be my commentary on life--MY life, as I see it. That's why it's called BuzzWords. I really don't know if I'll be able to entertain, or inform, or stimulate your thoughts. But without this blog, the odds of doing so are mighty slim. So it is what it is, and in the immortal words of Popeye, "I yam what I yam." And I am The Buzzman...let the BuzzWords go forth, from this day forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)