Something Good

Last weekend I went back to Wisconsin to celebrate my grandparents’ 65th wedding anniversary, where I gave one of the first toasts of my life. I was feeling inspired and uninhibited, so when my aunt held up the mic and asked if anyone wanted to say anything, I went straight for it. I only spoke for a minute and it wasn’t particularly memorable. But this is what I meant to say.

I consider myself among the luckiest people I know – my parents and all four grandparents are not only still living, but still together, with 147 years of marriage between them.

Meanwhile, of the six guys I’ve dated in my life, four are children of divorce. I’m still not sure whether or not this information is relevant to their eligibility; the success or failure of their parents’ marriages is certainly not their responsibility.

But part of me believes that if my parents got divorced, I would be more likely to also get divorced, because there would be no contrary precedent. Mom and Dad, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think any of my ancestors have ever gotten divorced. Their marriages were bonds as immutable as the genes they gave rise to, and I don’t want to be the one to break that chain.

A few months ago I decided that, if I ever fell into mutual love, I would avoid the whole issue of marriage by suggesting a civil union. “Civil union” and “dissolution” – they weigh so much less than “marriage” and “divorce,” and I wanted to keep things light.

But at the anniversary party, I cracked somewhat. I saw that my grandparents’ marriage, while weighty, doesn’t weigh them down; it sits on the other side of the scale. And it elevates them.

What I felt when I took the microphone was a profound sense of gratitude to my family. They make the risk of marriage seem like one worth taking. And I know this is trite as hell, but it’s also true: Risks worth taking make life worth living.

He Died / We Live: The Remix

This morning I walked to work above ground for the first time in five months. Everyone I passed seemed to be holding their head a little bit higher than usual. I don’t often look upon the people I pass on the street with much feeling, but today I took great pleasure in knowing that this morning we all shared the same  collective knowledge. Not that Michael Jackson had died, or that the Packers won the Super Bowl, or that Tiger Woods was a freak, but…you know. Something we could all agree on, or at least agree was relevant.

My Facebook feed is loaded with contrarians, armed with the same three pacifist quotations, who claim that the assassination of Osama bin Laden is not something to be celebrated.

I respectfully disagree.

Ten years ago I didn’t know what “hijack” meant, but I learned it in the way I wish I could learn everything. I saw it before I heard the word, and heard it before I saw the word spelled out. I didn’t even know it was possible, physically, to beat the system of airport security; I didn’t know it was possible to hate other people so much that you would die to secure their deaths.

I’m sure I would have learned this all eventually, but perhaps not so viscerally and at such a young age (13). Here’s what I remember: going to my locker in the middle of class. Hearing two teachers talking, one saying “they’ll declare war by Monday.” It was the first time I ever heard someone use the word “war” in an immediate sense. I asked her what she was talking about. She told me to go to class; I would find out.

The rest of the day was weird. No one could tell what was true, what was speculation, what was propaganda, what were lies. Someone said that Oshkosh Truck might be attacked. (That was speculation.) After school my dad picked me up as usual. My whole family went out to dinner. I wrote two pages of what I guess was a journal entry, but there was no actual journal. I cried myself to sleep, and woke up feeling heavy. There was a gray ball just outside my field of vision, a disorientation not really of space or of time, but no less profound. It was the realization that history wasn’t confined to the past, that it never stopped, and that I was swimming in it.

My generation was late to the party that was the 20th century, but we heard about it: the hedonism of the 20s, the righteous austerity of the 30s, the national ascent of the 40s, the well-intentioned sterility of the 50s, the identity crisis of the 60s, the newfound awareness of the 70s, the material excesses of the 80s, the effortless optimism of the 90s. (That’s when we came in.)

It ended abruptly in 2001. And the decade that followed was the worst hangover imaginable. Ready or not, we came of of age.

Peggy Noonan, in a column about my generation’s relationship with 9/11, wrote of how horror, over time, can become “absorbed sadness.” And I think it’s safe to say that I handled it in that way. The gray ball became less spherical as I grew older, but it wasn’t being destroyed, just stretched out to cover more, like water slowly spreading. I find it easiest to just call it depression. I’ve never consciously attributed it to the effects of 9/11, but to do so is just as logical as any other explanation I’ve found. And trust me, I’ve been looking.

This is what the death of Osama bin Laden means to me: the snake is eating its tail. 2001 and 2011 as the same point on a circle. For my generation of Americans, bin Laden brought evil out from the realm of abstraction and into reality. And last night, the veil of my absorbed sadness, borne of horror, was lifted. He is no longer a feared name and a living face that no one can find. He is dead. I am alive.

Don’t Call It a Comeback (Even Though It Is)

Lent is over! Let us rejoice! By the looks of things, you probably thought I gave up writing. (I didn’t, officially, but it did fall by the wayside.)

At Easter Mass I sat behind a middle-aged man wearing a shirt with a neck size about five centimeters too small. It was a muffin-top situation, with the guy’s neck constituting the muffin. It was extremely gross, but thought-provoking. Thoughts were mostly about how he could possibly breathe.

Moving on…How about that ad in the Sunday Trib?

Paid for by Hobby Lobby.

This was even more thought-provoking.

Thought: Did Christ not also live? Will we not also die? I need answers!

Getting There

Okay, I got what I asked for: a concrete argument against the budget repair bill. It started yesterday at work when a couple of my cubicle-mates started talking about the Supreme Court case Citizens United in relation to the situation in Madison. It humbles me to say that I really didn’t know anything about the case until then. It was a brief conversation, though, and we were at work, so I didn’t think too hard about it at the time.

The new issue of the New Yorker was at my house when I arrived, and I sat down to read the first commentary: “Union Blues” by Hendrik Hertzberg. It was eerie. In less than two pages, he explained the history of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., the decline of private sector unions, and the Citizens United case in which the Supreme Court decided, just last year, that corporate contributions to political campaigns could henceforth be limitless.

This is the sentence that swayed me:

“If a Republican Party that has lately become rigidly, fanatically ‘conservative’ can succeed in reducing public-sector unions to the parlous condition of their private-sector brethren, then organized labor – which, for all its failings, all its shortsightedness, all its ‘special interest’ selfishness, remains the only truly formidable counterweight to the ever-growing political power of that top one-thousandth – will no longer be anything close to a match for organized money.”

I’m sure that many of the bill’s opponents understood and this and that their understanding formed the basis for their opposition. I admire those people.

But I know there are many others whose opposition is motivated by the simple human desire to be a part of something huge. These are the ones holding signs that say, “Scott Walker’s a bitch! But the Packers still won!” and “Scott Louise Walker, quit being such a douche nozzle,” and the iconic “Stop the attack on Wisconsin families,” possibly the worst because it’s prefabricated, ubiquitous and betrays a widespread dearth of original thought.

Anyway.

I attribute the effectiveness of Hertzberg’s piece to two things: lucid, minimalist writing and the concession that organized labor has, at times, been short-sighted and selfish.

I have no problem with self-righteous people as long as they admit they’re self-righteous. I have no problem with uninformed people as long as they admit they’re uninformed.

The problem I have with unions, and with what’s going on in Madison, is that no one is confronting their liabilities. That applies to both sides. I haven’t read or heard anything substantial from a union member acknowledging the public’s criticisms of unions. Nor have I heard Walker or any state legislators, Democrat or Republican, propose taking pay cuts themselves. (The only states I’m familiar with are Wisconsin and Oregon, and Wisconsin legislators’ salaries are more than double those in Oregon.)

To make a long story short, I’m officially back on the fence.

Special thanks to my Aunt Kathy, who subscribed me to the magazine that communicated to me what no one else was able to.

If I have any goal in life, it’s to become a great communicator like Hertzberg. I have a long way to go, but I’m grateful – now more than ever – that my success or failure can’t be legislated.

This is What Democracy Looks Like?

I’m starting to believe that it would be wise for politicians to be as extreme as possible in their proposals so as to allow maximum room for compromise.

In other words, a politician should present new policies like a used car salesman presents cars. Set the price high (e.g., “No more unions – period!”) and then arrive at a more modest settlement that works to one’s advantage but still gives the opposition some semblance of control.

I’m being facetious (am I?), but really: I want to hear a concrete argument against the budget repair bill. One that’s unbiased and unprincipled. That’s right: I’m looking for an unprincipled argument against the budget repair bill. Because principles are like mathematical inputs. They give decisions the illusion of simplicity. They save the individual the mental anguish of having to consider a particular set of circumstances, and deny the fact that sets of conditions almost never appear more than once.

When asked what they want Walker to compromise on, Democrats have cited, above all else, the right of union members to bargain collectively for benefits.

I have a couple of serious questions for the unions and their supporters: For what do you plan to bargain for in the coming years? Why are pay raises consistent with inflation not sufficient?

Apparently, they won’t have to answer. Under pressure from absent Democrats and all-too-present protesters, Walker has indicated that he’s finally willing to compromise. Not that I’m surprised. Just look at these really persuasive signs:

Note the subtle substitution of "my dad" for "my dad's money and right to negotiate for more."

I hope this kid made that sign himself, because if not, there's an adult out there who thinks this is a good sentence.

Try for a moment to infer the reasoning this woman had in mind while making this sign. Try...and fail.

I leave you with this brief snapshot of Madison, which illustrates on of the reasons why I never considered attending the University of Wisconsin. At least Eugene’s hippies know what they’re talking about. Sometimes.