What happened to the Post-War Dream?

The house was like many others on the block 61st block of Third Avenue in Minneapolis. It was older, built post-war, and had withstood the test of time, as the aged trees in the front yard and cracking paint in the windows could attest to.
Looking beneath the faded yellow siding, I could see cracks developing in the concrete foundation of the house, and it made me reflect that it was an anonymous representative of what I am considering to be the decline and fall of the American post-war dream. We’re not the first to go through it; England went through it during the 1980s, as evidenced by the 1983 Pink Floyd album “The Final Cut,” which even has a song on it called “The Post-War Dream.” Now, it seems to be our turn. It was a hell of a ride.
When the bombs stopped falling in 1945, America was the only participant who stood to come out ahead. The industrial centers of Europe, Russia and Asia were damaged or destroyed by the fighting, and the people in those countries were traumatized to varying degrees depending on the severity of the fighting. America, thanks to two ocean borders, was relatively lucky to have not been attacked directly (save for Pearl Harbor, U-boat attacks and the odd Japanese sub shell or paper balloon bomb on the West Coast. Nearly 400,000 Americans were killed in the fighting, which seems a relatively light total compared to those of Germany (7.2 million), Japan (2.7 million) and Russia (23 million). When the war ended, the Americans who served in uniform came home to work, to build, and to raise families. Our neighborhood, built in the 1950s, came so close after this that I imagine that the sweat from war veteran construction workers’ nightmares was barely dry on their sheets. The world, I imagine, seemed a far more optimistic place in the early 50s than it had been just 10 years before. Worldwide conflagrations can sometimes do that.
My wife and I were talking last night about an older woman she met who had traveled around the world, and filled a home with knick-knacks from every continent she had been to. I could not help but envy the time in which she came of age. The Great Depression lived up to its name, but I would like to think that the resulting post-war economic boom and higher standards of living would have been a fitting payoff. As my wife spoke about traveling when we were older and able, I doubted that anyone would afford to be able to travel across the country the way things are going, let alone across the world. I know people who can barely afford to fuel their cars, nevermind their desire the trot the globe.
The pessimist in me thinks we’ve reached the peak of the post-war dream. The harsh reality, put off for so long, is that the standards of living we’ve become accustomed to simply are unsustainable in the long term. I may have been born in a superpower, but I am pretty sure I’m not going to die in one. What I end up seeing in old age remains a unwritten, but I certainly hope it doesn’t turn out as bleakly as the "Mad Max"-meets-Great-Depression imagery that my imagination is capable of conjuring.
Goodbye, post-war dream; you were nice while you lasted.

"The Real America"

At an Oct. 16 fundraiser in Greensboro, N.C., Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin said the following remarks:
“We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.
“This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans. Those who are running our factories and teaching our kids and growing our food and are fighting our wars for us. Those who are protecting us in uniform. Those who are protecting the virtues of freedom.”
While I understand what Palin was trying to say, these remarks anger me. The inference, in case you miss it, is that you aren’t a real American unless you are “pro-American,” meaning that you don’t mind that your phones are tapped and don’t mind that Americans are still being killed in Iraq in a war that was started for dubious and politically-based reasons. Get real, Sarah; contrary to what some in your party may believe, those who don’t subscribe to “conservative values” (which, as far as I can tell, revolve around railing against government spending yet driving up record deficits, and telling “Big Government” to stay out of their lives yet demand passage of amendments to the Constitution that would impact the lives of others) aren’t hoping to see America fail. Speaking for myself, I want to see an America that’s different than the one we’ve seen since G.W. took office.
I want an America where I cam be assured that wars will be a last resort, instead of something dead set on before a president even moves his furniture into the Oval Office.
I want an America where any wars that DO happen will be for good reasons, not ones that later turn out to be wildly false and exaggerated.
I want an America where I don’t have to worry about being spied on for my own “protection.”
I want an America where the wealth is shared from the top down, rather than seeing the ultra-rich get even richer while people like me, in the middle, who see that the only number in their life that doesn’t rise is the number of their salary.
Sarah, I’m a pro-American as you. I love this country as much as you. It’s in what we want to see that makes us different. And if this, in your eyes, makes me un-American, then we’ll simply have to agree to disagree.
Before 9/11, I used to consider myself patriotic. I felt that it was a matter of realizing and recognizing the sacrifices made by those who came before you, and remembering that the freedoms we are given are not given lightly. However, in the wake of everything that has happened since, I feel cheated. I feel as though those feelings ended up being used to generate fervor to approve of things that turned out to be less than true. I wanted to believe that Iraq had WMD. I wanted to believe that we were doing the right thing by making this massive undertaking. I prayed every night before the invasion that this war wouldn’t happen. When it did, I tried to get behind it as best I could. My illusion rapidly fell apart, as it soon became apparent that there were no WMDs, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and that we’d committed to something it was proving impossible to get out of.
So long as I have a conscience, I can’t subscribe to the notion of Palin’s “very patriotic, very pro-American” areas of this country.” Patriots come from all over, in all shapes and shades, and none have completely matching views. It is a narrow mind that automatically separates “dissent” and “patriotism” from each other; the terms are sometimes synonymous.

More than just music

I purged my iTunes library again this weekend, and it’s the latest in a series of add/delete push-and-pulls between the better angels of my nature.
For now, the musical ranks in my 7.7 GB library are dominated by names like Mozart, Chopin and Wagner. I deleted all of my punk and industrial stuff last night while watching “The Sound of Music” with my wife. I’ve added and deleted these types of songs countless times over the past year, and it seems that they end up back there within a week or so. At first, I thought it had to do with music, but upon reflection, I think it had more to do how I’d like to think of myself. I’d LIKE to think of myself as the kind of guy who would like to spend an evening watching “Citizen Kane” with a glass of red wine. In reality, I greatly enjoy watching “Star Trek” movies while eating pudding cups. I’d LIKE to think of myself as someone who can discuss at length the genius of the fourth movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. In reality, I’m more at home discussing the differences between punk music from England in the early 1980’s versus hardcore punk from Los Angeles around the same time.
I am a mixture of conflicting impulses. On one hand, I appreciate righteous anger, and how it can manifest itself in a barking three-chord chorus. On the other hand, I’ve been at best hindered by such anger in the past, and realize that it doesn’t have a place in my future. Classical and choral music calms me. It helps me think in a clear, focused manner, and keeps me relaxed in the sometimes-stressful environment of a newsroom. However, there are limits to the moods it can suit. Sometimes, after an angry day, Nine Inch Nails is the only sound that can tame the savage beast within.
This isn’t about music at all; it’s about me being at a crossroads. I can either proceed down the path of the future, or turn around and head back down the dark path I came in on. It’s an ugly, stark choice, but it seems one that begs to be made with any amount of certainty. The two schools of thought are not compatible; they are fighting for dominance, and control. For now, the better half seems to be winning.
With a CD collection, it’s easy to own a variety of things that you might not be especially proud of (Marilyn Manson, ABBA, etc.) because each CD is its own entity entirely separate from a generic whole. With iTunes, on the other hand, whatever is in the library is a reflection of various facets of the listener’s personality. When I look at all of the ugly on it, it reminds me of the ugly I’ve yet to tame.

Trojan Horse

I thought of an interesting theory the other day. After considering about how odd it was that John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate (relative unknown, pregnant daughter, etc.), I realized that it was a calculated move on the part of the GOP. It is calculated due to several factors. The GOP could never hope to get another governor with a narrow resume (a la GW) and strong adherence to conservative Christian values into the White House without being torn to shreds under the laser-like scrutiny of both the Old and New Medias. The comparisons to the Current Occupant would just be too obvious. To get around this, the logical move would be to keep the actual candidate hidden until the last possible moment. In this case, John McCain would not actually be running for president in the traditional sense - he's merely a Trojan Horse for Palin, the actual candidate who, when the time came, would replace him. McCain is no spring chicken - he could very easily step down for health reasons and no one would bat an eye.
In doing so, he would be turning over the reigns of power to an unknown and perhaps easily shaped president who would probably be more willing than not to bring in cabinet members with their own powerful ideas (a la Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) and own agenda. Palin, from what I know about her, seems close to the sort of conservative GW is. She is, using quotes from her own speech at the RNC, suspicious of the media, pro-drilling, pro-Iraq War and anti-tax. If it seems the attention on the campaign trail has shifted to Palin, it's no accident. Now, it's all a matter of McCain bowing out and letting the real candidate come through. The sympathy generated from whatever "accident" or "health problem" McCain "succumbs" to could take Palin to a sweeping election victory.

I admit, it's just a theory. But it still scares me.

Illusions of Choice

Obama. McCain. Obama. Biden. McCain. Palin. Paul. Obama. Lather, rinse, repeat.
At this point in a ridiculously long election cycle, I’m tired of all of it, and try as I may, I can’t put my heart fully behind any of the candidates. It wasn’t always like this. In 2004, I felt something for the candidacy of John Kerry, because he seemed an intelligent man who offered us something other than what our faux cowboy president had given us. In 2000, I voted Bush because, unlike Al Gore, he seemed to have a personality. I regret that vote. I regret that I didn’t have the foresight to see what could have happened down the road when a blank man who seemed to project whatever we wanted to see in him (as a “compassionate conservative,” whatever that means) revealed himself for what he really was: a dynastic phony with a very narrow band of interest. I used to consider myself a conservative, but that changed in the years after 9/11. I’m not a conservative anymore for the following simple reasons:
1.) The war in Iraq is a poorly planned affair based more on the charisma of the Bush Administration than on the actual facts at hand. The war in Afghanistan, on the other hand, had a clear objective and point.
2.) Our civil liberties are being infringed now more than ever in the name of “our freedom.” What’s the point of trying to defeat our enemy when we become more and more like him with each passing intelligence bill?
3.) A grossly offensive terrorist attack on New York City and Washington, DC. in which thousands died, has been used for political gain ever since.
4.) The very planet we live on is being chewed up and spat out by companies whose foresight seems to be where their hindsight emanates from.
5.) The gap between the rich and the poor grows wider with each passing year.
6.) An American city was left to drown after rampant cronyism proved less than successful at minimizing the damage.
I’m not a conservative. I’m not a liberal. I’m not sure what I am. But I know that I’m angry. I’m angry because my electoral choice this fall isn’t much of a choice at all. Which is worse: voting for someone who you know will screw you, or voting for someone who says they won’t but probably will anyway? Obama, for all of his charisma, is untested. The last thing we need in office after eight years of Bush is another man with a fairly narrow resume. McCain, for all of his fighter pilot heroism (justified, to a point), has been in Washington for 26 years but only now claims that the system is broken. Biden, before he was chosen by Obama, talked a lot of trash about Obama’s lack of experience, a tune that changed markedly once he was picked as vice president. And Palin? A good speech does not experience make. She’s the Republican version of Obama – good at getting people’s passion stirred up, but lacking any real sort of qualifications to make her the next president of the United States.
I’m reading poll figures today that are saying McCain is pulling ahead in the race. How is this even possible? How could Barack Obama, who seemed to have the world on a string a few months ago, have fallen to this point? Why is this even a race anymore? It shouldn’t even be a contest by this point. What does it matter to me? I don’t like either of them. McCain, for all of his “maverick” tendencies, has voted more with President Bush than against him. I’m not comfortable with that. Obama, for all of his rhetoric, doesn’t convince me of much of anything concrete. This Election Day, I’m going to vote for “None of the above.” I’m not happy to have come to that conclusion, but so far, it’s the only choice that makes sense to me.

A Double Standard on Political Affairs

This week, former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has been (rightly) criticized after finally admitting to having an affair with a woman who worked on his campaign. While much of the coverage on this story focuses on the possibility of an illicit love child born earlier this year, I find marked inconsistency from right-wing blogs (and to some extent, the mainstream media) in coverage on this event. Let us not forget that John McCain, too, cheated on his wife, divorcing her after she was in a car wreck and later marrying a woman 20 years his junior.
I'm not saying that either of these men can be defended for what he'd done. Cheating in any circumstance is completely wrong, but it is even worse when your spouse suffers from some sort of affliction (Elizabeth Edwards - cancer; Carol McCain- disfigurement from car crash). The fact that McCain ended up marrying his mistress does not change the fact that he cheated on the person he was married to at the time. The fact that he's been married to her ever since is not an ablution to the stain of the original sin.
Both of these men cheated on their wives. Time notwithstanding, one is getting off lightly, and another is being strung up on the front pages of every major publication in the world. Now tell me: both crimes being equal, how is that a balanced response?

A Different World View

My baby girl hasn’t even come down the chute yet, and I’m already turning into an overprotective father figure.
The ultrasounds were pretty clear, when Evelyn wasn’t squirming around or playing with her hands. The clarity of the image was striking – and a clear line between her legs made any doubt we had about her gender assignation seems moot. She is very obviously a girl, and part of me sat there watching the little TV baby knowing that my view on being a parent had shifted gears from “carefree” to “serious” in a matter of minutes. In a matter of minutes, I felt something within me change. I was well on my way to becoming like Walter Stratford, the protective (to put it mildly) father figure in the 1999 movie “10 Things I Hate About You.” Stratford, a gynecologist, is obsessed with keeping his daughters safe on prom night.
“Kissing? That's what you think happens? I’ve got news for you. Kissing isn't what keeps me up to my elbows in placenta all day long,” he says. “I’ve got news for you. I'm down, I've got the 411, and you are not going out and getting jiggy with some boy, I don't care how dope his ride is. Mamma didn't raise no fool.”
I love his character for two reasons – one, he obviously cares, and two, he lamely tries to relate to his teenage daughters using “hip” lingo, which, as happens when most parents seems attempt it, turns out sounding unintentionally hilarious, like listening to tourists two almost, but can’t quite, carry a conversation in English. Since my wife has been pregnant, I’ve looked at things in a different way. Those movies scenes where a guy’s family is held hostage? Yeah – not funny anymore. Little kids gone missing? No longer a subject that provokes little response in me. Now, the empathy is heartbreaking. On our way home, we saw two teenage boys on bikes waiting for a stoplight to change. They were skinny and slightly insolent looking, wearing aviator glasses and plaid shorts. Normally, I would have just seen “teenagers.” Now, knowing I’ll be the parent of a daughter, I saw something else: “sexual threat.”
This sensation reached its apogee last night when Karla and I were watching a Wal-Mart commercial (of all things to find meaning in) featuring a mom dropping her daughter off at college. We, soon-to-be-parents, started to cry. We get it now.
Seriously though, finding out that I’m having a girl makes me look at things differently. First, my mind is burdened with the thought of what it is going to be like when she is a teenager, when teenage guys (who can get girls pregnant merely by being in the same state with a girl) will start calling for my beautiful (of COURSE she’s going to be beautiful!) little girl. I’m going to be that CIA-style dad who interrogates every date, who insists on regular communications checks with his daughter and who waits up until she gets home.
Yes, I’m going to be the biggest jerk those teenage boys have ever seen. And I can’t wait.