Headed Off, Heads Up, or Losing Their Heads?

Each morning I let out Shanti, my husky mix, feed Kira and Tawny, my cats, make coffee, shower, dress, gather my work materials for school (armed with lots of coffee), and head outside to the car.

Shanti will be there, whining. Since she was a puppy, she got some canned dog food as a “treat” to counter her anxiety about my leaving for the day. Now she demands it. As I tip-toe my way down the steps, over the coils of her leads, out to my car, she dances around me, her actions threatening to tangle me in the lead as I strive to haul my bags and laptop safely. She jumps as high as my shoulders, and lately, runs around me and ahead to place herself in my path, heading me off just in case that after four years of feeding her every morning, this will be the morning I forget if she doesn’t press the point. Bit annoying, actually.

Fifteen minutes later I will drive through the village of Cazenovia. Signs prominently posted remind drivers to give the right of way to pedestrians in a crosswalk entering from either lane. Unfortunately, many pedestrians see this as a license to jaywalk, simply walking out into traffic at any point, expecting traffic to see them and stop. Even pedestrians in proper crosswalks step out from the curb abruptly, walking out in front of a car six feet away, expecting it to stop. After all, it’s their right.

What are they thinking? This goes far beyond attitude. Even drivers crawling along at 15-20 m.p.h. can’t stop that fast—and even when they try, as some do, cars behind them are likely to rear end them. Most pedestrians are also drivers—surely they must know that drivers can’t see and respond to people rushing into the road suddenly at any point, ESPECIALLY around dawn and dusk.

But then, plenty of drivers race around fellow drivers, cut them off, pull out suddenly in front of them, all to accomplish little more than irrational displays of impatience and arrogance.

I’m reminded of a movie I saw in class as a child. Without looking, a pedestrian properly stepped into an intersection in front of an unseen car, exercising right of way. The movie’s title? “Dead
Right.” Doing that for SEEN traffic just seems stupid.

Writer

When Patriots are Blind

Remember when George W. Bush invaded Iraq? How people lined up to insist Americans must line up behind the president? Now, thousands of deaths later, and with no end in sight, we still debate the issue, long after Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” bravado—bravado his administration still embraces while pointing to the flag and couching any debate in terms of winning or losing the war.

When will we decide that ego isn’t the way to conduct policy? That opponents to those polices serve an important function? Here’s what I wrote shortly after the second U.S. invasion of Iraq:

Imagine the U.S. and Iraq had made a deal: each country kills X number of their citizens, and in return, Iraq’s leaders step down.

Certainly no one would agree to such a horrific plan. Yet how is war essentially different? What comes from armed conflict that’s missing from a simple exchange of sacrificed lives?

The Bush administration wanted this badly--so much that to challenge Baghdad was worth killing Iraqis and losing American lives. And many Americans approve. Why?

The decision was hardly altruistic. America, self proclaimed defender of liberty, isn’t interested in helping the people of Burma, for example, despite their severely repressive regime. Rather, Americans seem motivated by a combination of poorly focused anger and a lack of foresight. Nobody defies America! Time to kick butt. Damn the logic.

The counter argument? “You unpatriotic bastard! This is the time to support our troops!” But this is a red herring. Everyone supports the troops--that was never in question. They’re doing a remarkable job in extremely trying circumstances. Back home, Americans aren’t doing so well. Apparently, it’s OK to protest a war as long as there isn’t a war. Right.

So blind patriotism rules the day, unblinking in the face of senseless rhetoric and obvious fallacies. “You’re either with us or against us.” False dilemma. “Iraq has to prove they don’t have these weapons.” Inappropriate burden of proof (can’t prove a negative). “Changing the regime in Baghdad will bring peace to Palestine.” Now THERE’S a non sequitur.

Consequently, instead of examining French and German reasons for their opposition to this war, Americans rename their deep fried potatoes. Instead of improving the search capacity of weapons inspectors, America takes on the job, with no better success. Can peace in Palestine be far behind?

The cost will be high. The Bush administration has made it clear that negotiating with the United States is useless--agree or move aside--and honors agreements only when convenient. America has invaded a country, ignoring United Nations objections, and is now viewed, quite understandably, as a threat to security. Since neither treaties nor refraining from aggressive actions will help against such an arrogant nation, the only solution is to acquire nuclear arms, the only thing that seems to get American attention.

Not much occasion for pride here.

Writer

McReading

Sometimes I just ask a class: “How many of you have read this?” The response is often discouraging. While small groups are theoretically discussing the question of the day, I can clearly hear the incessant song of many a college student, bragging about how eNotes or some similar site or a Google/Yahoo search or Wikipedia etc. circumvented the arduous task of actually reading (at least they could learn to use Answers.com). And, of course, perhaps there’s a movie.

I can show ANY class why Shakespeare is so important—but not to a class that won’t read it. I love Internet sources, and I use them frequently, but I also know that the above sources are not going to offer much insight into the richness of themes in Shakespeare. Further, even if they did, students will gravitate toward what’s easiest and clearest—plot summaries, free essays (written by other students who also don’t get it) and so forth.

Three things strike me about this--first, the tremendously low value placed on reading. By implication, this means low valuation of other thoughts and ideas. One college freshman, who came to see me for help about his grade, even explained that he literally couldn’t read the required material, since he hadn’t read anything since 3rd grade (he just got the gist of the material from class sessions, and until my class, he was even quite proud of this). Second, speed tops the values list—the less time, the better, and content be damned. In his novel “Straight Man” (a book I actually read), Richard Russo quotes H. L. Mencken: “For every complex problem, there’s a simple solution—and it’s always wrong.” Third, the sheer arrogance is astounding—students feel they have better insight than the entire recorded history of thought. College committees worked to design programs that include courses apparently useless. Professors outline courses with no point. But students know better than anyone (ironic that they then pay money to attend the college, no?), so they blow off all that unnecessary reading bullshit.

Students who do grow to understand complain that high school does not prepare them adequately for college. This problem encompasses a number of issues, but I like to point out that college students are legal voters, and THEY help elect the school boards, THEY vote on school budgets. Hell, they can even RUN for school board! If things aren’t good—change them!

Of course, playing the victim and wondering why someone doesn’t do something is easier.

Writer