History Lesson

In a recent article, the sole surviving member of the band Lynyrd Skynyrd, Gary Rossington said 
that the flag, the old "stars and bars" that often hung behind the band, had been hijacked by racists and, in the process, become detached from it’s original meaning as a symbol of rebelliousness and states’ rights. As a result, he said, he was concerned about the band being associated with the flag lest people get the wrong idea.“Through the years, people like the KKK and skinheads kinda kidnapped the Dixie or Southern flag from its tradition and the heritage of the soldiers. That’s what it was about,” he said. “We didn’t want that to go to our fans or show the image like we agreed with any of the race stuff or any of the bad things.”Better late than never I guess. A better history education would have informed Rossington that the stars and bars stood for racism as much as anything when they used it as a stage prop. The president of the CSA, Jefferson Davis stated that the Civil War was fought to preserve slavery. One would think he'd be an authority on what the flag stood for. The "state's rights" argument has been a paper thin attempt to put a different name on the dispute. The argument grew out of the myth of the "Lost Cause" which was an idea/theory that grew in the early 20th century to explain why the south started and fought the war. It's best seen as an attempt to give some kind of nobility to the horrendous experience including the near destruction of the southern economy. Think about it, if you looked around and saw that your home, your town, your state were almost completely leveled and so many people dead, you might want to think you fought for something grander and more lofty than just keeping people in chains. Even apart from the mis-guided attempts to rationalize the southern reasons for war, if it's truly "state's rights" then the logical next question is "rights to do what?". Are we talking about the right to deny equal rights to all citizens? To the CSA, "state's rights" meant the right to continue slavery. Later, as referenced in the song "Sweet Home Alabama" it meant the right to deny equal voting rights and equal education rights among others. They may have used the flag as a celebration of their heritage and "state's rights" but I would suggest that some parts of our heritage are not worth celebrating and the Confederate flag is a symbol of the worst parts of our heritage.

Whenever I look up at a perfect blue sky, I think about that day.

September Journal 

By Kevin Slick

© 2001

There are so many pictures frozen in my mind.  A family album that doesn’t have to be opened to be re-lived.  There was that perfect autumn blue sky, just so blue, so blue that it almost hurt to look at, that perfect blue with a jagged grey cloud ripping across the middle of the sky, like a gash in the atmosphere, a hole in the universe.  There was the man covered in dust standing next to me at the 14^th street subway station as we waited to see if any trains could still run over to Brooklyn.  And there in an abandoned lot off Atlantic Avenue, a homemade American flag nailed to a piece of wood in the afternoon sunlight welcoming me home.  But the image that always comes back first is the light coming through the window of my classroom after everyone had left as it gently floated through the window onto the newspaper that was lying on my desk, filled with words that no one would remember.  And I stood there to try to understand that moment when all those words would be re-written and this day would have forever a new meaning.  I stood there trying to understand, but couldn’t.  I could only live in the moment, and so walked outside and headed south toward that ragged tear in the sky.

I bought a newspaper on the way to work this morning.

I thought I would talk with my class, fourth grade at P.S. 116, about the primary election for mayor.  After all there would be people in and out of school all day since it was the polling place for the neighborhood around 33^rd and 3^rd.

But we didn’t talk about the election.

The voters left early, if they came at all.

By three o’ clock in the afternoon I was alone in my room.

Sunlight was coming in the window at an autumn afternoon slant

Dragging long shadows across the front page of the newspaper,

Still lying where I left it on my desk.

No one will ever remember the stories from the front page of today’s paper.

No one will ever think of this day and talk about the election

Or any one of ten other stories that were worthy of the front page of the

New York Times on September 11^th, 2001.

I walked downtown

Smoke arched across the sky

People’s faces; grim, vacant, worried.

We talked to each other like people at a funeral;

“How are you doing?”

“Are you okay?”

The streets, a constant stream of fire trucks, ambulances, police cars.

Police on every corner

Crowds gathering at the hospital a few blocks away.

And the people’s faces, unbelieving

I can’t believe it.

(how many times have I said “ I can’t believe it” when I could have said “that’s surprising” or “ I didn’t expect that”)

Now, I really can’t believe it.

Tell me again,

They’re gone?

Those two buildings are gone?

The two buildings I see from my window every day?

The two buildings I rode past this morning on the train?

Gone?

I saw an old man walk out onto 3^rd Avenue and stop traffic because some people were walking up to a hospital helping several others who appeared to be bleeding or injured in some way.  It was perfectly normal, and all the cars stopped. 

He said that it was what he had to do.  That’s what we were doing there that day – “what we had to do”

When I returned home to Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn the man who owned the middle- eastern restaurant on the first floor called me “brother” and offered food.  I joined others from the street and we ate in silence together.

Later I heard someone say “There are no words” 

The next day.

Everyone is in motion today.

On Fulton street the sun is shining and the streets are full of people.

Loud dance music rips out of a store selling stereos.

A man is begging on the corner, shaking a cup full of coins endlessly. 

Now he switches hands and adjusts the volume on his Walkman.  He’s looking all around and no one is looking at him.  He looks around some more and drives his electric wheelchair away.

The other people on the corner just keep talking and ignoring the place where he was.

It seems like this city is too big to slow down, even with the heart torn out, the body is still going through the motions.  If you chose to ignore media and not look across the river you could pretend nothing had happened.

I want to believe that nothing has happened.

This morning I work up and prayed for it to have all been a dream.

The sky is still so blue today

Only that one line of grey

Grey smoke to the south that lays across the sky.

It looks like rain clouds,

Long, low rain clouds

But it’s too sunny for rain.

There’s a cool breeze

Like the best ocean breeze on the last day of summer

It’s such a beautiful day

Such a beautiful day.

Is it nature, or God

Trying to say that life goes on?

Is this a day to help us heal?

Is this a day that covers the terrible with beauty?

This beautiful sky lies across our lives

We are held together under this sky

Held together by each other

By our heartbeats

Our footsteps

Beating out a rhythm together.

I heard a woman say

That the most important thing in the world

Was the smell of her daughter’s hair when she hugged her.

Later,           

I can see the sun as a fuzzy white ball in the grey, cloudy sky.

In Union Square there are huge crowds

Gathering around signs, candles and pictures

Offerings, gifts people have left.

Behind me, a group is singing “America The Beautiful” some of the crowd, however are only singing the first line of the melody, having forgotten the rest I guess. 

The result is an edgy harmony as one group repeats the same line over and over.

People have written poems

And the word “Love” appears over and over again.

I’ve been writing what I see and feel, waiting for words to have some meaning again, but I can’t find the meaning. 

I’m living on faith that the meanings will be revealed sometime, maybe someday. 

But I see that I’m in the midst of a living poem, the voices, the pictures, the streets themselves, the city itself is singing.

Whitman was right, this is America singing, the varied carols I hear with melodies hard to understand and words that tear and strain to rhyme but still singing.  The music is un-planned, improvised, ragged and beautiful.

Why are we all here, right now, at this moment?  How did we get here?

Maybe we’re all here just to be next to other humans

Every sound is muffled, like a church

This seems like a sacred site.

The stained glass windows have been replaced with

Flowers

Paintings

Pictures

All those pictures

Thousands of pictures.

This whole city has become a photo album

A large family photo album.

Walking down the streets, I feel like I’m leafing through memories

Memories shared with strangers.

Weddings,

Back yard picnics

Vacations.

I’m looking for my family here

Looking for faces I recognize

And I realize I know every one of them.

I can’t sing

I want to sing, but I can’t find a song to sing

Not one song

Not one song I can sing

But all songs

I have no song to sing

Unless it’s all songs

I try to speak but I have no voice

Only all voices

I’m calling on God

But I think God will only answer

To all his names

To all her names

Spoken as one.

One sky

One blue, heavenly sky

Covers us like a prayer shawl.

I want to wrap myself in the sky.

I wrap myself in these pictures

These words

The quilt of life

Of lives sewn together on the streets by broken hearts seeking peace.

I stand with others, with everyone

In search of release.

My feelings pour out on the names

On the faces

And I think all my feelings have gone out of me

But new feelings appear

Like waves on the ocean, endless

The best I can do is open my heart to the emotions

The way a rose opens it’s petals to drink the dew

And I release those feelings

Like the rose gives up it’s petals.

Accidental Learning...On Purpose.

Last school year I started a research project teaching students how to use the iPod Touch and various flip cameras to shoot videos and then iMovie to create and post videos online documenting their learning.  I originally thought that parents or family members might enjoy watching their kids at work in science, math, social studies or reading.  I soon discovered that as students spent time editing and preparing their videos they were engaged in higher level thinking as they debated what footage to include to best explain the concepts they were learning about.  Students who had previously found it hard to edit and revise their written work were engaged in editing for content, talking about how to create the best video they could make.  I began the project with an idea of what the benefits and outcome would be and what happened was something different, and perhaps better.  This year I added a Twitter account to my classroom's online presence.  Once again, as I began I thought that perhaps parents would want to tune in and follow what we're doing in the classroom.  This year already I'm finding many different learning possibilities beyond my original ideas.  I've had students acting as classroom reporters photographing and tweeting about what they think is important in our learning.  We're starting to look at issues of communication and broadcasting to the larger world, we're talking about what's the best way to show what we're learning, thinking about what are the most important things we're doing.  The biggest difference this year is that I'm expecting to learn things that I hadn't counted on.  I'm approaching this learning experience in a different way.  I've begun to see my work as setting up situations that are filled with possibility and following the paths of learning that pour out of the situation.  It makes me think about all the learning we're engaged in during the school day.  How much of the work we do with students is narrowly focused on delivering information with a specific result in mind?  How open are we to student's learning taking off in different directions than what we planned for?  A lot of school curriculum is presented as being able to deliver a particular result, and there's many times when it makes sense to learn a specific skill, for example how to multiply two digit by two digit numbers.  What I'm learning to appreciate is that there is often a lot more learning that goes on outside the confines of "What we're supposed to learn" and just as important is "What we might learn that we haven't even imagined yet".

A Clear Choice?

I've been reading the flurry of postings on social media following Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate and as always I have questions.  First, I'll list some observations that amuse or interest me.  The GOP in the past several decades has benefitted from the support of the so called "Christian Right" or the "Evangelical Vote".  Leaving aside the fact that labels like that are often faulty because the group they purport to describe is often more complex and less monolithic than the names imply, it's fair to say that those who consider themselves "Fundamentalist Christians" have overwhelmingly supported the GOP.  It's also fair to say that this group has had the opinion that any candidate they support must also share their religious belief, ie: also be a Christian that fits their fundamentalist definition, born again.  This year the GOP appears set to field two candidates, neither of whom could fit that definition of Christian.  In fact, presumptive VP Paul Ryan has professed his debt to writer/philosopher Ayn Rand time and time again.  In case anyone has forgotten this is the same writer who considered selfishness a virtue and said "Faith is the worst curse of mankind" The same person who railed against religion in general and Christianity in particular for her whole life.  I actually find it rather refreshing that those on the far right wing of religious thought are not being so dogmatic in their position that every candidate must believe exactly as they do.  Another observation is a purely technical one, the GOP convention hasn't happened yet has it? The Romney/Ryan ticket is not the really real official ticket yet, right? I just wanted to check to make sure I haven't missed anything.  Just in case it really is the really real official ticket for the party, would it be rude to ask why they'll be having the convention?
What really interests me more are the questions that come up when I read posts like this one from a friend "the race comes down to government's role in our lives: Should we be more dependent on government, its diktats and its endless "interventions" or less dependent on government and free to choose how we live, what we give and -- increasingly of late -- what we BELIEVE."
In what ways are we dependent on government?  In what ways would you like to not be dependent on government?  What sort of "interventions" are you experiencing right now? In what ways are you not free to choose how to live?  In what ways are you not able to believe what you want to believe?
I haven't yet spoken to this person yet so I can't say exactly what's behind the somewhat vague statements but I can still think of some more questions.  Let's look at how we are dependent on government, I can think of a few ways off the top of my head - clean air and water, roads that we can drive on, police to help keep those roads safe as well providing for general safety in our towns and cities, schools, parks, postal service,  and so forth.  My first question would be "Are any of these dependencies a problem?" If so, why?  As far as "Interventions" I admit to not really having an idea of what those might be, other than the government's interventions when people are breaking the law.  For the record I completely support the police pulling people over when they're cruising down the street I live on at twenty miles over the speed limit.  Looking at the idea of freedom in terms of how we choose to live, again, it's hard to say what the writer had in mind so I'll have to ask, "What would you like to do now that you're not allowed to do?"  If the point refers to equal rights for all, especially in terms of the right to marry, I'm right there, yes, equal rights are only equal when everyone has them.  But then, that's not really a choice, as in "How we choose to live", LGBT people are who they are, it's not a choice that issue falls under civil rights, so perhaps I don't understand the original complaint.  What sorts of choices are we denied, assuming it's not something that adversely effects the environment or public safety? It's the same with "increasingly of late-- what we BELIEVE" I don't get it, how are your beliefs being thwarted?  Now, if we're talking about equal marriage rights as has been the hot topic (at least in terms of where to eat lunch) recently I might have some ideas.  What I see happening in that realm is something that is probably very uncomfortable for many people.  By all accounts, the public opinion tide is turning and the belief that LGBT people deserve fewer rights by virtue of who they are, is falling out of favor.  I would imagine that in the 1950s and 60s there were a lot of people living in the south who felt themselves under attack because pubic opinion was shifting and the idea that black people deserved fewer rights because of who they are was falling out of favor.  If you've been taught something your whole life by people you love and admire and it's been engrained into your world view, feeling like that belief was being challenged could be scary.  It is, however, what happens anytime you learn something new.  Your mind has to process new information, sometimes it adds to prior knowledge, sometimes it replaces what you knew or believed before.  You can call it an attack on what you believe or you can call it learning.  Words are important, words are powerful.

What are we afraid of?

As yet another story of gun violence plays out in the news the questions, as if on cue fall out of talking heads and roll down the streets.  "Why?" and "How?" are two of the most asked questions and two of the hardest to answer.  In a tweet last week I suggested that the "bigger the questions, the less useful the answers that the questioning and the questing were perhaps more important."  It's an incomplete theory at best, but perhaps as suggested, pursuing the questions may be useful. I will expand this idea in another essay, but for now I'll just suggest that pushing questions further and following all the divergent paths of thought may reveal more than just answering one initial question. And so I will try to push this idea a little further.  In the two recent headline stories of mass killings the "how?" question has some information that can be easily applied.  People obtained guns and ammunition, often these weapons were designed or modified to shoot many rounds quickly, and they used the guns to kill people.  The statistical part is often pretty well documented, but a question like "how?" can be pushed much further. How does one person kill so many other people?  How does their mind work to accomplish this?  At this point, "How? may well blend into "Why?" It's my observation that at this point the questions tend to end, at least in the public discussion and I think it's a missed opportunity.  Why not push the questions further?
I have head several pundits and politicians  in this past week saying "Now is not the time for a discussion on gun control"  They sight people's emotions, those of the victims and families first saying the experience is too fresh and painful.  Another common refrain is that people need to "cool down" first.  I would admit that in some instances hasty decisions can cause regret, although when you see a truck that has veered into your lane of traffic heading straight towards you the hasty decision to swerve to miss it is usually not regretted in fact people usually congratulate you on your swift response.  My own opinion on guns has been well documented and it's not really the point here, I'm really more interested in the discussion.
One question that comes to mind is "If not now, when?"  There are plenty of examples in history of tragedies that caused swift action in debates, hearings, discussions and sometimes laws.  I wonder if in April 1912 there was a chorus of people saying "Now is not the time to discuss better safety standards for ocean liners such as having enough lifeboats for everyone" Perhaps we could think of this question; If we were to rush to judgement, make hasty decisions on controlling assault weapons or magazines that allow the gun to fire a hundred rounds quickly, if we were to "go overboard" in trying to protect the public, what would be the ramifications?  What would be the downside to making rash decisions around safety?  Would we end up being "too safe?"

Playing Chicken

Who would have thought that we'd be lining up to either buy a chicken sandwich at Chick-Fil-A or swearing that we'll never give them another nickel?  Perhaps we owe this current perfect storm of political discourse to the social network age we live in.  When everyone's thoughts and opinions are traveling at the "speed of twitter" is there much time for reflection and consideration?  My own Facebook page has been host to several heated discussions on this topic and as always I'm looking to, if not make sense of the situation, at least make note of the good questions to be asking.  Answers tend to be stated and then written in stone, questions live longer and perhaps offer more possibilities.  Here's my current thoughts (under construction, in progress, not written in stone, etc.) Trying to explain dispensational theology, to show why Biblical quotes about marriage in the Old Testament are not applicable for us today, is probably not really useful because it assumes one particular idea about the Bible as an inerrant reference is accurate and all others are not.  I mention this because I just read several posts on FB where one friend tried to explain to another how they chose which verses would be considered valid.  Trying to debate who is really a "bigot", the one who opposes equal rights or the one who opposes opposing equal rights, probably won't get us too far either.  So I notice that words like "bigot" have a definition in the dictionary but they also carry huge amounts of baggage and when you employ them you probably should pay attention to the baggage that's being dragged around like a moldy old suitcase behind the words.  I also think that while we all have freedom of speech, it's very naive to believe that you have a freedom from any reaction to your speech.  If there is something that can be written in stone I'd say it's that when you speak people will have an opinion, people will react.  After all, why speak your mind if you don't expect people to react?  Words are powerful, words are dangerous, words should be treated with respect.  Since I just suggested that questions are often better than answers I'll pose a few; Can a news story like this be a reference point for talking with students about the power of words? Can a story like this offer a chance to look at how people debate ideas in the public sphere? Is it possible to step back and look at a situation from outside of your own opinions?

It's Only A Game

There's been a lot of noise from my hometown lately about the sanctions handed down by the president of the NCAA to the Penn State football program.  I'm often asked about this ongoing story because I grew up there, attended PSU as an undergrad and while working in radio had something to do with the football broadcasts, I put together the highlights for the post-game show on radio for many years.  The basis for these sanctions is the Freeh Report which seeks to explain some of the events related to the sexual abuse trail of Jerry Sandusky.  The report takes various artifacts such as emails and attempts to place them on a time line, imagining scenarios that preceded or followed them.  It supposes conversations that may or may not have taken place and creates a story line.  Even it's most ardent supporters would have to admit that nothing was proved, it's primary findings, reported by Mr. Freeh are possible story lines for what happened.
  As to the sanctions, as I understand the NCAA rules, the president has complete power to issue whatever sanctions they choose and there is no board or congress  that need approve anything, they have total control over the situation.  With that in mind it seems pointless to argue over whether they were fair or not, fair doesn't enter into the discussion, that's just the way it goes.  I do believe you can have a discussion about whether or not the sanctions will have any impact on any future pedophiles who might work for Penn State in the future.  As a teacher and parent I have spent a lot of time considering consequences and trying to make sure that any punishment fits the behavior and is likely to cause a decrease in future occurrences.  In this case, I'd say the NCAA failed.  Nothing in the sanctions is likely to deter an abuser of children.  "Let's remember the children" is a phrase often heard in this debate, and the criminal trail of Mr. Sandusky was an excellent example of doing just that.  Someone who deceived thousands of people in the community while abusing children was finally caught and stopped.  There have been multiple story lines suggested for why he was able to deceive people for so long, these include the ideas that people in the football program covered for him or you can follow the narrative that implies that the attorney general for the state, now it's governor delayed action in deference to the money that could be raised by people affiliated with Sandusky's charity The Second Mile.  Those are important questions to ask, and it's worth noting that answers may not always be available, and if that's the case, inventing story lines or imagining answers, while satisfying in the moment may not have lasting value.  Sometimes, asking questions is the most important thing, because what you find might be more than the original answers you were seeking.
Many times I've heard people say "I just want to get to the truth".  "Truth" may be an elusive goal in the best of circumstances and given that Joe Paterno has died, and with him a vital part of the story will be unknown.  We may be able to guess at what he thought as the Freeh report does, but "Truth"? That might be too much to ask for.
Rather than looking for truth, I'd like to hope we gain knowledge.  It's often said "Knowledge is power" and if we gain some knowledge that can alter the future for the better that might be a more realistic and useful goal.
The sanctions issued by the NCAA president will likely have little effect on a search for truth or knowledge but according to the rules, they don't have to have any connection to those goals.  Many fellow alumni are incensed over the vacating of wins from the last fourteen seasons and this is perhaps the most interesting sanction for myself to think about.  I have to say, that particular ruling has the least impact on me as an alumni and fan.  I used to go to Penn State games in the late 1960s when the stadium was not even half the size it is today.  We watched future Hall of Fame players like Franco Harris and Jack Ham play the game with little or no respect from the national press.  Even President Nixon got in on the act of slighting PSU in those days, but did it have any impact on the enjoyment of the games? No.  Someone can say that Penn State lost every game between 1998 and 2012 and what difference will that make? None, the games happened, you watched them or you didn't, you enjoyed them or you didn't.  No one alleges that anything happened on the field to favor one side or the other and retroactively changing the statistics has no effect on children who were victims of Jerry Sandusky nor will it have any impact on children in the future.  Those statistics were not the games themselves, they're more like an echo from an event, a brief sketch of something passing by.  Back in the day we believed that our hometown team was the best in the country, the rankings didn't support that, the national media didn't agree, and as I mentioned even the President told us we were not the best, and to this fan none of that mattered.
So the fact that according to NCAA statistics, Penn State now has a whole lot less wins on the books is meaningless.  To me, a well played football game is great fun to watch no matter what the records of the teams involved.  I think we might all do well to remember, it's only a game.  Taking them out of the win column does nothing to diminish the skill and determination of the players and coaches and taking them off the books does nothing to right the wrongs of one person, or even many people if it's proven at some point that others participated in a cover up.  So much has been made of these statistics but they don't really change anything after all they're only numbers and it's only a game.