Â
March 31, 2006
March 30, 2006
Doing The Right Thing
The following post was posted on the old site on December 1, 2004. I was reading about the Supreme Court arguments on the Salim Hamdan case this morning and continue to feel like the entire government needs to read this play! Anyway, the post:
As our government takes heat for its tap dancing around human rights at Gitmo, I thought some words from a man familiar with the heavy handedness of the State might be enlightening. Here is an exchange between Sir Thomas More and his aspiring son-in-law, Will Roper from Robert Bolt’s play A Man for All Seasons”
MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
ROPER: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him)  This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast – man’s laws, not God’s – and if you cut them down – and you’re just the man to do it – d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.
I’m sure Alberto Gonzales is somewhere cutting a road right now. I wish our President read more.Â
March 28, 2006
2000 (Reposted from October 26, 2005)
For those of you who don’t know, I am a high school English teacher. It is a job I really love. During one of my writing classes today there was a knock on my door. I yelled “Come on in!” at the knock and the door opened. In walked a marine in full dress. It took me a minute to recognize one of the class of 2005, just four months past graduation. He had just come home from basic training and stopped in to see some of his old teachers. I gave him the congratulations he had earned on Paris Island. He was a good kid and I enjoyed having him in class. We spoke for a few minutes about where he was headed and what his plans were. It turns out he is headed to school to learn combat engineering. Amazing. I thought about reports he had written on skateboarding and helping him get ready for his global studies Regents exam. As we got past the usual “How have you been?” agenda items, the meeting became slightly awkward. It always does. In front of me was an adult and our roles had changed. Here was a young man probably headed to Iraq in the very near future, not one of my students. He had outgrown my classroom. That is what is supposed to happen.
Coincidence can be unnerving. We’ve lost 2000 men and women in Iraq as of yesterday and I cannot help wondering if this new marine will be one of the next thousand. I try to guard against sentimentality, but that can be difficult when thinking about death, especially of someone young. Especially if it is unnecessary. We have had a bit of a murder spree here in Rochester over the last few months. More than a handful of children have been gunned down this year. I have to wonder why we are sending this future combat engineer to the other side of the world.
This afternoon I went through some old e-mail and found one from my Uncle Jim. He and my dad went to high school with William Tucker, a writer for the New York Sun, and he had written me to ask if I had heard of him. I have been meaning to post about William Tucker for some time, and decided this would be an appropriate place. If you haven’t read Tucker, he is a conservative commentator who is most easily found on the internet via The American Spectator. As I began to read his work, it sounded like we agreed that the American presence in Iraq should end as soon as possible. In the spring of 2004, Tucker was calling for the United States to “pack up and leave.” He makes some persuasive arguments. Of course he also argued that Islam is inherently flawed due to its adherence to polygamy, which creates “a hard-core residue of unattached men who have little or no prospect of achieving a family life.” (I thought Syria or Iran would be the next invasion, but perhaps the “War on Terror” will take us to Fire Island or The Castro.) Tucker’s argument is that this creates a no win situation for the United States. I agree that we are in a no win in Iraq, but that is where our agreement ends.
To label the entire Muslim world as “medieval” is ludicrous. Arguing that polygamy creates a wife shortage across the Islamic world is not only crazy, it’s stupid. This idea carries some truth, of course, but it is in no way an absolute. Who says Arab men have to marry Arab women? We live in a small world where the Princess of Wales was dating Dodi Al Fayed. Come on, Bill. You have to do better than that. Sure, there are areas of the middle east that are dated, but have you been to Alabama? Of course, our own Western roots are dug deeply in an enlightened Catholic Church; that paragon of feminist propaganda. There is a lot more going on than polygamy, but like ideologs on both sides of the Hiel!, Tucker oversimplifies. He ignores colonialism as a root cause of the region’s problems and the fact that America has been playing political games in the region for decades over the Cold War and oil. But at least we still agree that the whole thing is a mistake.
Tucker makes some interesting points and he obviously isn’t afraid of making people angry. The problem with conservatives and liberals is that they get caught up in the role and sometime sound like salesmen rather than thinkers. Unfortunately, a young Marine may be on his way to Iraq in the near future, trusting this country’s leaders to use him wisely, rather than selling the rest of us a lame reason for his sacrifice.
March 27, 2006
Wrogging
Michael Saffran, of RIT, had a Speaking Out essay in the D&C today. I worry that his viewpoint, taken to an extreme would tend to limit the diversity of blogging. Saffron writes that he is “perplexed when some blogging is equated with writing – because the two are frequently very different.”  Not so. Blogging is always writing. One may disagree that blogging is good or that it is bad, but it is still writing. One can put ”brain dump” or “or stream of consciousness” (terms that Saffran does not believe to be writing) on a notebook page in crayon or type it on a webpage, but it doesn’t change what it is. The line of reasoning in this piece is troubling because blogs are treated as different from other writing technologies in terms of the relationships between the writer, the reader, and the text. Mr. Saffran has a problem with the quality of many blogs. So do I. But the way he frames his argument suggests that there is something inherently flawed in the technology that causes bad writing. I would argue that the flaw exists in the writer, not the technology.
In the end I think Saffran’s argument is the same argument made about non-traditional writing styles before computers and the internet. Many works (Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury, Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye, and Ginsburg’s Howl to name a few) were labeled by some as “not writing” when they were published.
On a side note, Saffran’s article mentions one of the D&C’s new community blogs. I think the community blogs are an excellent idea allowing for some real local color. While some of the bloggers are better than others, overall I enjoyed some of the posts. They may lose the interest of some readers as the disclaimer at the top lets you know that controversy will be guarded against. The only problem is that sanitizing to avoid offense usually leads to a washing away of much truth as well. On a related note, I do not like that one must sign up with Blogger.com in order to post a comment. I wanted to comment on the Pittsford blog about something I am writing for this blog later in the week, but didn’t as I don’t want another online entity sending me junk mail and selling my address.

















