Gone But Not Forgotten

A newly retired colleague asked me recently, "If I recycle/burn all evidence of my teaching past, does that mean it is gone forever?"

My initial reaction was that she was asking about larger issues. As King Lear says, "it smells of mortality."

I guess what retirement makes us contemplate is whether we have vanished or not. At a practical level, it is nearly impossible to obliterate all evidence of a lifetime career; there are always little scraps left behind. I recall a fellow teacher telling me how she kept running across little treasures, of the teacher whose room she inherited when he retired. She regarded them as clues as to who he was.

I have liquidated nearly all of my files, at least in hard copy; I have, in fact, bequeathed whole drawerfuls of lessons and materials to younger colleagues who might find them useful. There are still folders full in my computer. But there are plenty more stored in my mind, as well. And memory is a powerful force. I believe that my "teaching past" and my influence continues to exist in both my mind and in the minds and lives of students I taught and touched.

Of course, you can't make a difference in every student's life, but I always tried to work at "my personal best." I always felt that what I was doing was a noble calling, and looking back, I feel I spent my life in a worthwhile fashion. If I moved a student to think or feel more deeply or differently about the world and people around him, then I had really accomplished something. Those successes didn't come every day, but they occurred often enough.

As long as those students love reading and discussing literature and pondering the human condition, then I leave a legacy behind that exists wholly apart from my lesson plans and teaching tenure. The human touch outlasts the tangible evidence.

In addition, there are a number of my students who decided to be English majors, and even teachers. So even if I could eradicate every shred of lessons, or other paper trail detritus, there are students out there, keeping my "teaching past" burning bright.

Jan

Lying Veterans and the Lies They Tell

"[I]n the beginning when the world was young there were a great many thoughts but no such thing as a truth. Man made the truths himself and each truth was a composite of a great many vague thoughts." -Sherwood Anderson, "Winesburg, Ohio"


Does it come as a surprise to anyone that this presidential campaign has turned nasty? Not just nasty, but REALLY NAAAASTY! We are seeing Navy veterans in their late 50s and 60s who have stored up resentments for over 30 years viciously leap at the opportunity to vent their spleens now that someone may listen to them spew. Typical of this sort of bitterness gone rancid is that its purveyors want to pass it off as "truth." What a loaded, ironic, and ultimately useless word for political passions born amidst our ill-fated military exploits in Vietnam.

The muck these days is being brewed and stirred by a small collection of former naval officers who built very successful careers in the military, in business and in corporate law over the past three decades. Part of their comfortable lives has, of course, been founded in their allegiance to the party of ever-growing military budgets and substantial tax cuts for the wealthy. Like sleeping dogs, though, they were recently prodded as if kicked in the ribs by a pointy boot--in this case a Kerry biography published this spring titled "Tour of Duty" by Douglas Brinkley. On top of that, the Democrats have had the audacity to tout the uncontested military heroism of their candidate.

So the "truth" has to come out. In service of that truth, though, all manner of lies, deceptions, distortions, and disgraceful behavior is justified. The origin of the current vitriol is doubtlessly in the guts of these disgruntled veterans who never adjusted to our nation's obvious defeat in a protracted, unpopular war. John Kerry had the courage to both do his duty as a naval officer, but then when mustered out, also do his duty to his conscience and to the larger citizenry in whose name so much damage had been done.

The second ad from the Lying Swift Bush Hatchetmen gets a lot closer than the first to what has really been gnawing at these until now disorganized and disaffected veterans: Kerry's 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The "script" here is the message of outrage these veterans feel toward Kerry's description of "atrocities" committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. What the script doesn't tell the audience is that Kerry is not making accusations, is not spreading stories about his former comrades, nor is he making assertions that all soldiers fit those descriptions. What he is doing at that point in his testimony is reviewing for the senators information and anecdotes that came to light during the "Winter Soldier Investigation" in Detroit earlier in 1971, where more than 150 honorably discharged veterans talked openly about war crimes they had committed in South East Asia. He was essentially passing on the confessions of soldiers who were still in the process of unburdening their souls.

If it's Truth, this current group wants to stand for, then why are they so willing to lie and distort?

The answer is that for years these guys have lived with images of Kerry in his camouflage fatigue jacket mixing with the scruffy combat vets protesting what they'd witnessed in the rice fields and hamlets of Vietnam; they'd had to suffer quietly while figures such as Ron Kovic held the spotlight from his wheelchair chained to the White House fence; and until now they've had to content themselves with targets the size of Jane Fonda.

Now, following the Democratic National Convention, they've finally found a chance to howl. So they whip out these ads, which, of course, the nation has to at least cock an ear to and dig back for a few facts to evaluate.

But the facts are there, and I think this country still has a taste for truth if they have time to find it. To begin with, we could check out exactly what John Kerry said in his Senate testimony

Chas.

Child's Play

Several years ago, when I was cleaning up and clearing out my kitchen bookshelves, I realized that the biggest space-wasters were Julia Child's two volumes of "Mastering the Art of French Cooking." So, despite the fact that they were personally inscribed and autographed copies, and had the added sentimental value of being a gift from my dear mother-in-law, I decided they were headed for the discard box in the attic.

Sitting there on the kitchen floor that particular June day, I faced the fact that I didn't really use the books to cook from. To tell the truth, I think I had really only made three recipes out of them over the two decades I had had them. I had kept them primarily for their sentimental worth, and their iconic value.

In the last two days, the newspapers have been full of testimonials to Julia Child. Just today our local paper printed fond reminiscences of people at the farmer's market and local restaurants. I have always found her rather irascible, and some of her pronouncements about food were downright annoying. And French cooking is not particularly appealing, if you ask me.

But we can thank Julia Child for fostering a revolution in food and eating that has taken place in the last thirty years. When Julia came into American homes over the airwaves of PBS, she was the first to make cooking a fine art. It wasn't another tuna casserole, she was making. She was empowering American women in what had heretofore been the domain of European men. Her show and books signaled the start of a revolution in dining and entertaining at home . . . and in American restaurants, too. She taught us to be eclectic and undaunted in the kitchen. And it is the legions of accomplished home chefs who are Julia's children, happily at play in our kitchens.

Many of us have realized that mastering the art of French cooking isn't the highest aim. Personally I like a recipe with ingredients that you can count on the fingers of one hand. I don't generally like a multipage recipe with twenty ingredients, but that is an informed preference. I prefer the simplicity of Italian cuicina. Julia's books left my bookshelf to make way for Ruth Rogers and Rose Gray, and Jamie Oliver.

Julia's real power play was opening the door to possibilities.

Jan

Why Is It Even Close?

Perhaps the most amazing and depressing aspect of the current presidential election campaign is the fact that all the polls tell us that at this point it is going to be a close race. How can that be?

Barely six weeks ago a group of 26 highly respected former American diplomats and military leaders came out against the Bush administration's conduct of foreign policy as "unilateral" and damaging to U.S. interest and prestige abroad. Their group, "Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change," includes former ambassadors appointed by presidents from both major U.S. political parties and retired career military leaders. Some members are quoted in newspapers as saying Bush's policies have undone the diplomatic results they and their colleagues have worked hard to achieve during their careers.

But still it's an extremely close election.

Piling on this week were 200 business leaders endorsing Kerry/Edwards. These individuals join the growing ranks of prominent business leaders like Warren Buffett, Lee Iacocca, Steve Jobs, Jim Sinegal, John Thompson and Barry Diller who are supporting change in Washington. The newest group includes Owsley Brown, Chairman and Chief Executive Brown-Forman; Peter Cheering, President and Chief Operating Officer News Corporation; Charles Gifford, Chairman of Bank of America Corporation; Charles Phillips, President of Oracle Corporation; and Penny Pritzker, President of Pritzker Realty Group.

But still it's an extremely close election.

And the next day, a broad range of America's most respected recording artists announced a six-pronged, eight-day concert blitz of key battleground states under the banner of a "Vote for Change Tour." How directly or passionately the artists may speak up on stage for John Kerry will vary among the individuals, but they all feel deeply that America is in danger at this point in history and the Bush/Cheney ticket must be turned away in November.

But still it's an extremely close election.

Equally noteworthy, to say the least, in mid-July more than 4,000 scientists — including 48 Nobel Prize winners and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences — accused the Bush administration of distorting and suppressing science to suit its political goals. "Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government's outstanding scientific personnel," the Union of Concerned Scientists said in their letter.

But still it's an extremely close election.

Let's point out the obvious here: We are not hearing this message from a fringe of predictable political partisans. Set aside the vocal left in Hollywood--though they represent thoughtful analysis from some of our culture's most creative individuals. And ignore for the moment the not insignificant impact that Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is having nationwide. The outcry this year is coming from highly responsible, moderate, generally cautious leaders from every corner of American society. It makes one wonder, just who is left to support the Republican cause and its leadership.

How can this race be neck-and neck? And why would anyone at this point respond with "undecided" when ask for a choice? This week's New Yorker's lead commentary in The Talk of the Town asserts that "George W. Bush is the worst President the country has endured since Richard Nixon, and even mediocrity would be an improvement."

Yet, we are told, the contest will be a squeaker. How can it be?

This may sound dumb, but one has to wonder where all the bright-eyed, thoughtful, informed, logical, progressive-minded people who register as Democrats early-on in their adult lives go over the years. It's clear that youth leans left. When MTV celebrities urge their fans to Rock the Vote, or P-Diddy warns that it's a Vote or Die situation this year, they're not thinking of sending that vital 18-24 demographic to the polls to support the Republican agenda.

It's not universal, of course; there are plenty of Young Republican enclaves on college campuses across the nation, and there is no shortage of Democrats over 50, but stand back and look for broad political trends and it's clear that if all those young Democrats kept faith with their ideals as they aged and sorted themselves out into careers and personal pursuits, a presidential race with this degree of stark contrast between candidates would never be a close call. A lot of leopards, it would seem, are changing their stripes.

So what's happening?

First, let's dispense with those useless labels "liberal" and "conservative." They have become so laden with inaccurate connotations that they condemn any discussion of the American political spectrum to endless tail-chasing. I prefer the universal markers, left and right.

For various reasons, people move to the right as they experience more, compete for advancement, work toward lifetime goals, and start to feel successful. Selfishness, cynicism, stubbornness, and callousness all have a tendency to evince themselves in our behavior as we move from youth to middle-age. When we enter adulthood we have high ideals but little stake in the society that we'd like to reform. We have a natural urge to share and not to worry about where or when those shared resources will be replenished or repaid. As we take partners in life's enterprise, then become heads of families, we find there is territory to defend, careers to advance, wealth to guard, and even descendants to provide for.

We become evermore scornful and impatient with those who aren't keeping up. Why should we want to tie our fate to elements of society that aren't as competitive as we are, or who seem to always remain on the margin. Catch phrases like social justice, equality of opportunity, due process, civil liberties may ring clear when we are sitting in college seminars or when we first become aware that poverty and discrimination have human faces and historical consequences, but something tells us that no matter how we try, we won't be the breakthrough generation that cures this disease.

All this generates momentum toward the right. Those who don't make such great strides toward the American Dream are likely to remain firmly, even actively, on the left. Call it the Ma Joad effect, if you like, but ingrained humility goes a long way toward opening one's heart to fellow citizens.

Our Calvinist heritage, on the other hand, leads others to believe that success in life is a matter of divine pre-election. Our wealth, our stature, our popularity is a matter of personal virtue. This is precisely where that smarmy, almost lubricious smirk on George Bush's face and that Beavis and Butthead cackle in his voice comes from whenever he tries to defend the indefensible. He is the wealthy scion of an important family, not because of native intelligence or charisma, but because such people are pre-ordained to power and influence. Money, in this view of things, is not the result of virtue, but rather its worldly emblem.

And one other process seems to be a work as well. Voters tend to simplify their thinking and let their opinions calcify as they live through election after election. They long to be done with critical thinking, get over the need to follow issues in depth, or listen to lively debate. It's the "been there, done that" approach to politics. Life is messy enough without having to keep listening to diplomats, scientists, entrpreneurs, and artists, much more so reading broadly on one's own.

Does that explain the drift? Perhaps not, but something's going on here. This is clearly not a contest between differing but equally credible viewpoints, If we were a rational nation that fully understood its place in the world, there would be no contest at all.

Four years ago we made a huge mistake, the sort that a true democracy--even one as crippled by special interest influence as ours is--is entitled to make now and then. But the facts are now in plain sight, the record is public, the investigations have been conducted, the informed parties have made their public statements, the news media have done their job; there are no acceptable reasons to repeat the blunder.

Chas.

Chords for Change--Springsteen letter

Today's New York Times carried this letter from Bruce Springsteen on its Op-Ed page. Though he has voiced his opinions on national and international issues for years, this is his first step into overtly partisan politics. It is an extremely careful and thoughtful statement about the state of affairs in this election season:

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Chords for Change
By BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN
Published: August 5, 2004

A nation's artists and musicians have a particular place in its social and political life. Over the years I've tried to think long and hard about what it means to be American: about the distinctive identity and position we have in the world, and how that position is best carried. I've tried to write songs that speak to our pride and criticize our failures.

These questions are at the heart of this election: who we are, what we stand for, why we fight. Personally, for the last 25 years I have always stayed one step away from partisan politics. Instead, I have been partisan about a set of ideals: economic justice, civil rights, a humane foreign policy, freedom and a decent life for all of our citizens. This year, however, for many of us the stakes have risen too high to sit this election out.

Through my work, I've always tried to ask hard questions. Why is it that the wealthiest nation in the world finds it so hard to keep its promise and faith with its weakest citizens? Why do we continue to find it so difficult to see beyond the veil of race? How do we conduct ourselves during difficult times without killing the things we hold dear? Why does the fulfillment of our promise as a people always seem to be just within grasp yet forever out of reach?

I don't think John Kerry and John Edwards have all the answers. I do believe they are sincerely interested in asking the right questions and working their way toward honest solutions. They understand that we need an administration that places a priority on fairness, curiosity, openness, humility, concern for all America's citizens, courage and faith.

People have different notions of these values, and they live them out in different ways. I've tried to sing about some of them in my songs. But I have my own ideas about what they mean, too. That is why I plan to join with many fellow artists, including the Dave Matthews Band, Pearl Jam, R.E.M., the Dixie Chicks, Jurassic 5, James Taylor and Jackson Browne, in touring the country this October. We will be performing under the umbrella of a new group called Vote for Change. Our goal is to change the direction of the government and change the current administration come November.

Like many others, in the aftermath of 9/11, I felt the country's unity. I don't remember anything quite like it. I supported the decision to enter Afghanistan and I hoped that the seriousness of the times would bring forth strength, humility and wisdom in our leaders. Instead, we dived headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq, offering up the lives of our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited. We ran record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs. We granted tax cuts to the richest 1 percent (corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of "one nation indivisible."

It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities - respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that we come to life in God's eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far from American values. It is time to move forward. The country we carry in our hearts is waiting.

MoveOn PAC

Big news this week about musicians getting together to encourage voter registration and to sway voters in the direction of positive change in our nation's political scene. Bruce Springsteen is just one of many taking part. "I felt like I couldn't have written the music I've written, and been on stage singing about the things that I've sung about for the last twenty five years and not take part in this particular election," said Springsteen.

For the full story check this site: MoveOn PAC

Happy Anniversary

We spent much of today--our 36th wedding anniversary--opening this blog. As simple as Blogspot.com makes it, it still takes awhile to make all those decisions and settings. But here we are. Probably not your typical blog. Research indicates that 92.4% of bloggers are under 30 years old. That's not us. That big picture below will gradually be buried among other postings, and ideas will dominate here. But for today...Happy Anniversary to us.

Clice Originally uploaded by Englophool.

No Surrender

Considering where we are in time, how can we not turn first to presidential politics? Talking about issues at a grass roots level now could save a lot of misery later as the votes are counted--and obviously afterwards.

My point of departure, not surprisingly, is the musical soundtrack of the Democratic campaign. If you just watched the evening news highlights of John Kerry's acceptance speech last week, you missed his entrance and reception in the arena: As soon as Max Cleland finished his very powerful introduction (Kerry might do well to get some public speaking tips from the former Georgia senator), the house started rocking to the sound of Bruce Springsteen's anthem to youthful bonding, "No Surrender."

Kerry had arrived in Boston by boat the day before with the same soundtrack and had already picked up the theme as a kind of alternative slogan for the campaign in general. It is an interesting choice, since it is not one of The Boss's signature pieces such as "Born to Run," "Thunder Road," or (God help us) "Born in the U.S.A."

"No Surrender" does come from that mid-80s mega-seller album that Ronald Reagan misappropriated so egregiously on his own behalf--a move that Bruce has been wrathfully denouncing for years now--but it is a minor track that shows up only sporadically in concerts. For Kerry to decide that this song encapsulates what he wants to communicate indicates that either the candidate or someone close to him follows the artist and listens to the music.

And we can't help but feel confident that Bruce wholly approves of the association. Just go to the official Springsteen Web Site and check out what's on top of the news page--a reprint of an entire speech given by Al Gore at N.Y.U at the end of May. It's a powerful indictment of our current leadership and not at all in the toned-down, jokey mode that Al was compelled to deliver in Boston on the first night of the convention.

But "No Surrender" is essentially apolitical. It contains eloquent, personalized assertions of youthful camaraderie, and much to the chagrin of high school teachers, opens with a pithy put down of the formal education system that doesn't (or at least didn't in Springteen's experience) seem to ignite the passions of its customers.

That element of alienation giving way to a deeper river of personal connections between people in the same boat may be exactly the point that Kerry is tuning into as he tries to project the relevance of his experiences now 35 years or so in the past. It is a song that captures two layers in the singer's lifetime--late adolescence and that moment of discovery that adolescence is past.

The world is going to be in the hands of one baby boomer or the other. It's time to make a choice.

With all the hoopla of the introduction at the Fleet Center, it's unlikely that many in the audience actually could discern the words to what seems to be the new John Kerry theme song. So here's what you missed:

No Surrender -Bruce Springsteen

We busted out of class, had to get away from those fools
We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school.
Tonight I hear the neighborhood drummer sound
I can feel my heart begin to pound
You say you're tired and you just want to close your eyes and follow your dreams down.

We made a promise we swore we'd always remember
No retreat, no surrender.
Like soldiers in the winter's night with a vow to defend
No retreat, no surrender.

Now young faces grow sad and old and hearts of fire grow cold
We swore blood brothers against the wind,
I'm ready to grow young again
And hear your sister's voice calling us home across the open yards
Well maybe we could cut someplace of our own
With these drums and these guitars.

Blood brothers in the stormy night with a vow to defend
No retreat,no surrender

Now on the street tonight the lights grow dim
The walls of my room are closing in.
There's a war outside still raging
you say it ain't ours anymore to win
I want to sleep beneath peaceful skies in my lover's bed
with a wide open country in my eyes
and these romantic dreams in my head.

Copyright © Bruce Springsteen (ASCAP)

It beats the heck out of Fleetwood Mac.

Chas.