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.

DT vs. BC

A lot of people are trying to defend Donald Trump by comparing him to Bill Clinton. I would suggest that if the best defense you can muster is to claim that someone else is as bad or worse, that is a pretty hollow strategy. However, in that I wouldn’t want any woman I cared about near either one of them, they do share at least that commonality. I think they are (were? – can people change? And if you argue that Mr. Trump can change, can Mr. Clinton? Can criminals?) both sexual predators, but in very different, and important, ways. Thus, I would suggest there is a significant difference between the two. I admit that this is based on only partial evidence, the recent release of the hot-mic tape.

Some want to excuse Mr. Trump’s offensive language by suggesting that “all guys talk like this when they’re alone [occasionally implying, at least, if they’re real men].” I am not claiming “real man” status for myself (because, IMO, if you have to claim it, like being cool, there is already cause for doubt], but I know too many real men who don’t, would never, talk like that to or about women.

And while I did not serve in the military, I did live in a frat house at an all-male college. Of course I heard talk like this, but not from anything like all or even a majority of my reprobate fraternity brothers. In fact, that all-male atmosphere was one reason why that fine institution (named for Alexander Hamilton while he was still alive and before he was cool) was not a good fit for me.

You see, I like women. I enjoy their company. Many are my friends. My first thought is never, has never been, of them as potential sex objects. No, I, and many men like me, think of them as people first. I never referred to (or even thought about) women as p***y, or piece of ***, and have never used the c-word to refer to any woman. If you cannot make that same claim, then you might want to consider that you just might have at least some part of your brain that is sexist.

And I think that may be the difference between Clinton and Trump. (Now I have no inside information about how Clinton talked or talks around his buddies, but this is America, and like Matt Drudge I don’t need real facts to back up my opinions, on either candidates or hurricanes.) Mr. Trump revealed himself in that tape. I think Clinton fits more into the category explored in the Tom Petty song, “The Man Who Loves Women.”

It seems to me that Clinton probably had, and may still have, for all I know, the sexual loyalty of a dog in heat. Because he was more than happy to take advantage of and manipulate the women upon whom he cast his perpetually roving eye, he opened himself up to legitimate accusations. And he certainly knows how to manipulate language and the legal system, as well, if we are to give credence to old allegations of sexual assault. But I don’t think he sank to the level of Mr. Trump’s crudity. I don’t see him as sexist or misogynistic.

Am I seeing what I want? Maybe. Selective perception isn’t confined to any group or person. However, I would suggest that Secretary Clinton is not to blame for whatever transgressions he might have been guilty of, just because she wanted to believe what worked best for her and her family. That, perhaps more than anything else about her, makes her like most of the rest of us.

Thanks for your service

This is an edited update of a blog piece from last week. It’s edited to include a link to an article provided by a friend of mine, Chris Counts, in response to my original. (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/please-don’t-thank-me-for-my-service/ar-BBhPFEn) If you don’t want to read the whole piece (it’s not that long and worthwhile, IMO), it essentially confirms my original misgivings, at least for some vets. In addition, this updated version will be (re)posted on Facebook as a stand-alone article, and not, like the last time, as part of the “Comments” section to my original Facebook question/post. This typeface and style will denote the additions to the regular piece.

In part due to smarmy radio and television talking heads and politicians making a show of their patriotism by constantly thanking all past and present military for their service, I came to question whether “Thanks for your service” was always appropriate and well received. It seemed, to me, to have become sort of a pro forma statement, so I posted the following question on Facebook:

I have a question for my formers who are, or were, in the military. I had occasion to briefly interact with the son of a friend (also a former) who is currently serving. Because of my friendship with his mom, I've known him for a while and we've met before (didn't need to be introduced). After a brief conversation, we were saying our good-byes and I thanked him for his service. While sincere, that expression has seemed to become such a catch-phrase used so often that it sounds almost meaninglessly automatic, and, therefore, discounted. What is your reaction to being thanked in this way? Or am I overthinking again?

It would appear that, as is my wont, I was, indeed, overthinking – again.

What became clear was not only that is that statement well-received, the gratitude expressed is at least matched by the pride in their service, whether or not they view it as a sacrifice. Even when not seen as any kind personal sacrifice on their part, they recognized that for many of their brothers and sisters (both literal and in-arms), the service was indeed a sacrifice that deserves recognition.

There will always be exceptions, of course, but I hope, and do believe, that we have progressed as a country to the point where we can appreciate our servicemen and women while still, when necessary, separating their efforts on our behalf from whatever political decisions made by our government put them in harm’s way. The fact that they may have benefitted personally or professionally from their service does not discount its value to the rest of us.

So I will, when the opportunity presents itself, continue to express my thanks to our military men and women for their service to our country. That small token is the least that I can do. I will continue to support charities like The Wounded Warrior Project or St. Louis Honor Flight. Beyond that, I would hope that our politicians start doing more than wearing flag lapel pins and making speeches around election time; instead I hope they start keeping the promises, both implicit and implied, that have made not only to our soldiers but their families, as well (http://bobberndt.blogspot.com/2014/05/ought-to-be-no-brainer.html). That will take money and can’t be funded simply by cutting budgets or eliminating wasteful spending. We need to start recognizing the true and ongoing cost of maintaining – and supporting – our military and make decisions based on those numbers, not imaginary ones.

As one of the original commenters, a young man who has actually served, noted, it’s your sincerity that makes the difference. Any gratitude for anything, sincerely expressed, might be misunderstood or misinterpreted, but should never be a cause for regret or second-guessing. It is your responsibility to make sure that’s the case, however.

In the meantime, to all my friends and formers, as well as their families and extended families, my sincere thanks and appreciation for your service.

On the Eve of the State of the Union...

… which I won’t watch, again. As little point as I see in using my time listening to political punching and counter-punching, from a lame duck president this reality-TV drama seems an even bigger waste of my time. Then tonight and tomorrow we’ll be treated to being forced choose which narrow slice of right or left wing real estate we’re going to inhabit.

I never liked forced choice questions, A or B, True or False, Good or Evil. I don’t live in a black and white world; mine is a (fuzzy) shades-of-grey world-view. Thus, I find there are no easy answers and am increasingly suspect of those who claim to have a monopoly on the truth, be they Islamic radicals or Fundamentalist Christians, right-wing Republicans or left-wing Democrats, Clint Eastwood or Michael Moore …..

Life is no longer simple (if it ever was), probably (at least in part) because people are complicated. Seldom, if ever, do we really have an either/or situation, at least when it comes to how we feel about something. While our personal choices may often appear to be a forced choice, if we’re honest with ourselves we’ve had a variety of paths to take before arriving at H-Hour.

Why do I have to go “all in” on an issue? Are you really telling me I can’t support both the 2^nd Amendment and background checks? That I must pick between the 1^st Amendment freedom of (pick one of the 5) and reasonable limits that protect society? Can I not support the police and those who are concerned about whether “black lives matter”? Can I not appreciate the service and sacrifice of our military men and women and have concerns about where and why they are deployed?

On these big issues we seem to be at the mercy of the absolutists and extremists who take no prisoners, admit no middle ground; they manipulate issues and events trying to force the majority of us into their particular small corners. We are also at the mercy of those political consultants who energize voters and contributions by polarizing every issue. And we wonder why Congress can’t find any middle ground?

I almost envy those who live in their narrow black and white worlds. It cuts down on listening, thinking, analyzing, concluding. I’ll finish by sharing a meme that has been posted by both conservatives AND liberals and the cartoon (above) that seems to sum it all up.* Have we finally found something we can all agree on? Nah….

* You might also try to check the cartoon on the mast-head.

Ought to be a no-brainer

Collateral damage: “Unintended damage, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation.”

I am not a veteran. I dodged that literal and figurative bullet during the Vietnam conflict thanks to my incredibly poor eyesight. I am, however, the son and grandson of veterans. I also taught numerous young men and women who are either still serving or who served, at least one of whom paid the ultimate price, a fact about which I’m still angry and heart-broken to this day. Important friends served, as well. We owe these men and women our support, not only during their service, but after it, as well. We also owe their families our support, no matter the cost.

General Sherman famously noted, “War is hell!” What he failed to add was that, for some soldiers, it is a “hell” which can remain an ongoing part of their lives long after their service has ended. They represent a minority, albeit a significant one, of our veterans. Our support for them is, at best, minimal, and, at worst, criminally negligent. If that’s not enough to make your blood boil, consider what CBS Sunday Morning called “Collateral Damage” in a story broadcast on March 16. You should watch the linked story, but the gist is that children of servicemen and women are not entitled to any kind of counseling or treatment unless such counseling or treatment will directly benefit the serviceperson. So not only are we failing our service personnel, we’re failing their families.

For reasons I don’t understand, empathy has become a dirty word in some circles, but imagine that it’s your father or mother (or spouse or sibling), away for months at a time, perhaps even for multiple tours, experiencing the stresses of combat. Whether or not (s)he comes back damaged or unscathed from deployment in a combat zone, it is at least possible, if not likely, that you would need support, if not help, in dealing with that both during his/her absence and perhaps even after his/her return.

I think it is a fair assumption that most of the men and women who experience combat will change, some dramatically. That change won’t occur in a vacuum and will impact those closest to the veteran. The family dynamic will almost certainly change, and too often not for the better. Yet we ignore that collateral damage to the people closest to the veteran.

You would think that everyone would agree that those men and women who have served us deserve our support and respect. (Sadly, we’re not doing that great a job even for them, either.) That support must, to my mind, include the soldier’s* family, because they’re not only an integral part of the process of assimilating back into “normal” life, but they, too, must find their own new normal, both during and after deployment. 

The commercials and news stories showing the tearful reunions, parades, school assemblies, stadium reunions, etc. do exactly what they’re intended: tug at our heartstrings, make us feel good. They also mask the ongoing commitment we owe these men and women, because when the cameras are gone, when all that is left of the parade is confetti on the street, what do we do about the detritus that is the result of the deployment, the fragile family ties that must be rewoven? Those are costs we need to consider – and budget for, as well. 

I have zero hope that our political “leaders” will put aside their political and party ambitions (They’d rather point fingers, an activity that exercises only one muscle and accomplishes nothing.) to offer the kind of tribute our veterans truly deserve by adding this issue to the agenda of improving how we support our returning servicemen and women. I’m not at all optimistic but, on this Memorial Day of 2014, that would be truly memorable.

* refers to all service branch members