Make Mine Neat (No ICE)

 As a freshman, along with my c/o 1970-classmates at Hamilton College, I took a vocational interest/aptitude test (Strong Interest Inventory), designed to offer at least some direction to the clueless (where I was eminently qualified) about our future life/career directions and choices. 

The results for potentially successful, or even suitable, career paths were clearly unclear. My highest scores* were at best fuzzy "Maybe?"s. On the flip side, however, there were three career paths that definitively fell into the "For the love of all that is holy, NO!!! Run away, run away fast!!!" 

Not only were those scores low, they mirrored the stock market line graph on a bad day, red lines in solidly negative territory. Compared with my friends, only I had even one negative score, much less three. The highest of the lowest was Industrial Arts teacher, where I would have been not only manifestly incompetent, but a danger to myself and others. (Kind of like arming me with a gun in my classroom.) Moving literally down the scale was Pastor, so my later thoughts about opening Bob's Church & Taco Stand were obviously a goof.**

My worst score, though, was reserved for police officer, accurately predicting my casual, at best, relationship with both rules and their enforcement. Although I was undoubtedly not a good fit in law enforcement, I nevertheless respected the men (and, much, much later, women) who served their communities in that role, doing a necessary job that I could never have performed at any level of competence, not even in radar trap towns like Bella Villa, Marlboro, or their north county cousins. I do have several friends and formers who took on those un(der) appreciated tasks, though, and I thank and respect them.

But this current crop of ICE agents, hired to fill a number quota*** established only because it sounded big and ended with 4 zeroes? Honestly, I couldn’t even look at myself in the mirror (which the aging process and fading faculties already make problematic) if that had been where I ended up. Maybe there are some ICE agents with sufficient levels of competence and compassion to earn my respect, who do not need to mask their identities, but what I’m seeing, generally, are men not qualified for even small squad police work, undertrained bullies with xenophobic axes to grind and brick-sized chips on their unimpressive shoulders (meeting a baseline recruitment standard that seems to be: breathing male {preferably white}, no DEI worries here), unfit both physically and attitudinally, encouraged by what so poorly passes for leadership in the current administration to indiscriminately**** throw their (often literal) weight around.

*       Author, Journalist, Lawyer, not necessarily in that order 

**     The one time I tried to join a church, the pastor kindly, but firmly, said, "Oh, Bob, that's a lovely thought, but, really, you need to stay away from organized religion."

***   Quotas are good things now?

**** Net fishing for tuna scoops up dolphins, too.

Incompatible

When I was a college freshman I took a vocational test (Strong Interest Inventory) that offered a score of 0-60 or 70 on your compatibility for certain professions. Although it turns out that teaching was a perfect fit for me (maybe not you, my student, but me, at least), I don’t recall that career score as being spectacularly high. What I do recall is that I was the only one of my friends with a NEGATIVE (below 0!) score on not one, but three potential careers. Notably leading the pack: police officer. (The other two were, not surprisingly to those who know me, minister and industrial arts teacher.)

One of the reasons I have so much respect for police officers is that I know full well it is a job I could never do, even poorly, much less at all. We may not share many personality traits, but what teachers and police do share is an under-appreciated, under-compensated, highly demanding job (that too many critics think they can do). Policing and protection take a certain personality type (and skills). And while there is no such thing as a typical teacher (or police officer, for that matter), I would suggest that in general the people best suited for teaching are poorly suited for policing, and vice versa. When I think back on the many teachers I have known, both as a professional and a student, the ones who seemed most focused on crowd, sorry, classroom, control often were the least inspiring in the classroom.

Which brings me to my main point, if you haven’t already guessed: you generally don’t want men and women best suited for policing teaching your children – it’s a poor fit. It may be well-intentioned, but “training” and arming teachers is a spectacularly bad idea; it has gained traction only out of a desperate sense of “We have to do something (but not anything that might interfere with our ability to arm ourselves with high capacity magazine weapons)!”

We all like to think we’d respond like a hero under fire, but the Parkland shooting shows that isn’t true, even for those armed and trained to respond. There’s a lot of macho bravado in this country (we’re not alone there, of course), and I enjoy those books and movies as much as the next person, but Stephen Crane (Red Badge of Courage) gave a more realistic portrayal. I'm guessing that most military veterans who have come under fire on our behalf (thank you for that) can provide examples of fellow soldiers who, shall we say, "blinked" under that kind of pressure.

And I am not criticizing them, not even the armed deputies who stayed outside the school while the shooter went on his rampage – disappointing, yes, but they wanted to go home to their families, too. I’d like to think I’d be like the teachers in school shootings who shielded their students and forfeited their lives in the process, but what I’d like to think and what I would really do is a scenario I hope I never have to encounter. However, as I head back for one more sub gig at Lindbergh HS in May, what I really hope is that as a country we have started to move toward actions that make such a life or death decision less likely. But pretending that training and arming teachers will do that is nothing more than a convenient fiction.

Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences as you ask yourself, “What could possibly go wrong?” Feel free to start the list below.

Random Auckland (& perhaps auckward) Aubservations

Auckland is extremely pedestrian friendly, especially downtown. Of course, there are lots of pedestrians, many with backpacks or even suitcases or carry-ons. They all seem to have no problem looking the correct direction – took us a little longer. See video:

Lots and lots of public transportation, as well, although there seems no shortage of private vehicles, either. Gasoline sold by the liter and expensive, especially by our standards today. Interestingly, diesel is half the price of gasoline, although diesel vehicles are subject to a use tax. Bicyclists ignore traffic laws with the same impunity as stateside.

For a seemingly affluent town, there are still lots of street people, perhaps homeles, and beggars, at least on the main drag and environs. Their often bare feet may get cold, but at least they won't freeze to death. Not aggressive, just there, but disconcerting nonetheless.

Apparently very safe. So were told by our cabbie, but we did note almost zero police presence (except outside our hotel for the protesters, and they didn’t seem very stressed). The occasional siren, but at least once it was an ambulance. We walked the downtown area to dinner and back without any trepidation.

Based on limited evidence, it appears that NZ has not only accepted diversity but embraced it to the point where only Americans probably notice. However, apparently Asian immigration has been used as, and may be, for all I know, a divisive political issue.

Very large ethnically Asian population. Most store signs in both English and (what I assume is) Chinese. A polyglot city, with people speaking more languages than I could possibly identify.

No tipping. Plusses: you pay what you pay (you can add a bit if you want, but it's “not an insult” if you don’t. Workers claim to have better protection, fewer hassles. Minus (maybe?): no real sense of urgency in terms of restaurant service. Very casual, you can sit there all night it would seem. Tip-based industries almost require workers to turn over their tables. Relaxed for customers though, too.

Personal expression most commonly expressed via ink and hair color, explaining the large number of hair salons and barbers, plus the piercing & tattoo parlors on the main shopping areas and not relegated to the fringes. The young are just as focused on their screens as their counterparts in the U.S. Oh, and they don’t seem to have gotten the memo on smoking – or the anti-smoking campaign by our various levels of government have been effective – or both.

Aucklanders, at least, are interested in American politics. So much for our escape plan. And they are frightened (their words, not mine) and disbelieving of Donald Trump and his ascension, opinions they offered without encouragement or us even bring up the subject.

Ask Less, Get More

Kevin Horrigan wrote a great article today in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It was something I never thought of before.

I know we teachers used to (probably still do) complain loudly and often about how society was dumping all of its problems on our doorstep, that we were expected to be parent, social worker, spiritual advisor (non-sectarian, of course, although I’ve no doubt some strayed outside those lines), sex educator, counselor, etc., etc., as well as teacher. As much as we complained, though, we kind of knew it came with the territory, and we were, more or less, prepared for those aspects of the job. I like to think that the best of us (at least at The Place), for all our griping, embraced and even welcomed those challenges.

Until I read Horrigan’s column this morning, however, I had never even considered the possibility that something similar has been happening to our police officers for many years now. According to Horrigan, and I (obviously) agree, we are expecting police to not just enforce the laws and solve crimes, but to enforce social norms and solve social problems.

With no intended offense to those men and women who are doing a job that I couldn’t handle (I had enough trouble enforcing classroom discipline), I don’t think most of them are suited for the demands of social service in terms of the personality of people attracted to law enforcement vs. those attracted to education or social work. I might be wrong, but I would suggest those who want to do the (important) job of social service are not heading to the police academy but down a different educational path. I do know that when I took the Strong Interest Inventory as a college freshman, my scores for teacher (well, not industrial arts teacher) and police officer were at the opposite ends of the scale.

It is very easy to criticize police officers, but even if, as is true for some teachers, it is deserved, I refrain from doing so because no way could I do that demanding job. Add to the demands the element of risk that cannot be ignored, dumping the thorniest problems of modern society on our police departments is not only unfair but unwise.

Finally, adding a point emanating from my pragmatic bent, it is also economically inefficient. One of the reasons police departments are stretched so thin for money is because we’re asking, no forcing, them to spend their limited resources on tasks that are not, or at least should not be, in their purview.

If we want more, or better, from our law enforcement community, perhaps we should consider asking for less. (I would argue that the same holds true for education, as well.) If you have not read the article, I urge you to do so, and am adding the link again: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/horrigan-in-tribal-america-too-many-problems-are-dropped-on/article_e9e0523d-e6f9-53b8-9e4f-626c86136cbb.html

On Guns & Safety

For obvious reasons, the issue of guns, regulation, availability, safety, etc. has reared its head (again) and demanded our attention (again).

Disclaimer: I belong to a minority so small we don’t even have a support group: American males who have never fired a gun (not even a BB gun). Neither do I feel particularly deprived, either culturally or emotionally, by my utter lack of experience in this area. Clearly I don’t have any skin in the game of gun rights, so it’s easy for me to come down on the side of increased regulation. And I recognize I’m wading into (for me) uncharted and dangerous waters, almost certainly outgunned.
 

That being said, I have some questions that (to me) are based on logic about guns in the home. I understand how people believe they are needed for the protection of family, hearth and home. But if you have children in the home, surely you keep your guns locked away, preferably with a trigger lock, and unloaded. (One experience I do have, sadly, very sadly, is attending the funeral of a child who was accidentally killed with his father’s handgun. It was over a decade ago and the family has yet to recover. He was a good kid, just a teenager showing his Dad’s gun to a friend.) Aren’t those the recommended safety procedures? Isn’t that why they sell gun safes at Cabella’s?

So my question is this: In the event of a home invasion of some kind, how much protection is this weapon? Under the stress of the moment, you’d have to retrieve your weapon, load it, unlock it and then accurately fire at the intruder(s) who probably make their living as armed criminals and also probably are in close proximity to your family. I prefer my odds with submission to almost any and all demands. Maybe you don’t, and my (serious) question is this, given the parameters laid out above (safe storage of firearms), how much help is this weapon, especially if, while you’ve been retrieving your weapon, your family is literally under the gun?

Admittedly I don’t live in a neighborhood where there have been lots of home invasions, or even burglaries. Quite frankly, neither do most of you, but never mind that. I do have an alarm system. But I don’t believe I can do much beyond that precaution that wouldn’t endanger my family more than protect it. Again, I admit that giving me a firearm of any stripe would make more of a danger to myself and loved ones than to any professional (or probably even amateur) criminal. It seems to me that the odds of an accident (I have a decorated police officer friend who shot his dishwasher, although not fatally) are better than the odds of thwarting an armed intruder. If their goal is my destruction, I don't like my chances, armed or not. If their goal is my property, they’re welcome to it.

Let me be clear. I am NOT trying to take away anyone’s right to own weapons for protection or recreation. I’m a realist, and while no guns in anyone’s house wouldn’t bother me, I recognize that there’s zero chance of that happening in America, although I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument for the right to own assault weapons or extended cartridges (if that’s the proper terminology). However, neither am I convinced that turning your home into an armed fortress is really a reasonable or, more importantly, safe, alternative.

It probably goes without saying I’m not a fan of arming teachers, although it might have the unintended consequence of improving classroom discipline. I’m pretty sure just drawing the weapon would quiet a class pretty quickly. As noted, I’m a realist, so I’m under no illusion that I’m going to change anyone’s mind on the issue, but I do think I’ve posed a reasonable question. I’d like to hear reasonable answers.