Uncategorized

Remembering Mom

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

Sunday brings us the annual Mother’s Day celebration, likely sponsored by Hallmark, or others, interested in the marketing value.

I choose to remember my mother every day.

Sometimes consciously, recalling the things she did or said.  Sometimes sub-consciously by acting in a way consistent with what she would have wanted. I may not do this all the time, that is a product of my free will, not any lack of effort on her part. When I am not, I know it.

A mother’s influence sets us on our initial path in life.  From the extraordinary burden of bearing the development of the fetus, to the pain of delivery, one’s mother begins the process of molding a child.

My mother was a woman of extraordinary determination and moral conscience.  A child born just after the depression, living through World War II, waiting as the only man she ever loved went off to fight in the Korean War, she became a young married woman in 1954.  The first of her five children arrived two years later.

By the early 60’s she was the manager of a household of five active children, two boys and three girls, and guiding those kids by way of example (with the rare but necessary strong rebuke for poor behavior by one of us).

She experienced the joys of watching her children grow, each of us taking different, yet in her mind, equally satisfying paths.  She had much pride in her raising of the Five B’s as we were collectively referred to on birthday and Christmas cards.

She was a woman of strong faith, holding onto her beliefs despite the collapse of her marriage, the death of a child, a grandchild, and a son-in-law, remaining resilient despite her heart condition and cancer.

One of her favorite expressions was Life is not fair.

Indeed, life is not fair.  Life is neutral.  It does not make you succeed. It does not make you fail.  It gives you the opportunity to live it, however you choose.

I will recall those little things that endear her to me, to everyone for that matter.

Her penchant for taking a word and twisting it to a somewhat different, yet generally hysterical, meaning.

Forsythia bushes.

Twinkies hidden in the freezer while she was on her strict diet to deal with her heart condition.

Her tactic of saying she was not hungry, asking if she could “try” your dinner, and then eating a significant portion.

Her placing everyone else’s needs above hers.

Life is indeed not fair, having taken such a woman away too soon.

Therefore, I will celebrate her memory in my own way and in my own time.

If you are fortunate enough to have your mother in your life, enjoy your time with her while you can.  If not, then hold onto the memories.

Thanks, Mom.

Mr.President, the Silence is Deafening

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

President Barrack Obama

White House

Washington, DC

Dear President Obama,

Please excuse my confusion here.  For the most part I have found your Presidency to be a positive one.   The historic, and long overdue, election of a person of color to the office bodes well for the future of the country.

With that said, I am troubled by an inconsistency in your response to attacks on our system of justice, in particular, police officers on the front lines.

A twenty-five year old NYPD Sergeant is executed for doing his job, and all that comes out of your office are some platitudes about a noble profession and the tragedy of his death.

Where’s the outrage?

Where’s the mobilization of the resources of the Justice department to investigate how a convicted felon came to be in possession of a firearm?

Where are ranking members of your cabinet and why are they not traveling to New York, standing shoulder to shoulder with the men and women of NYPD, demanding that we all must know that Blue Lives matter?

Mr. President, I am sure you realize that Blue Lives matter, I am sure you realize that Black LIves matter,  I am sure you know all lives matter.

But your relative silence on the death of this young officer and those that died in the line of duty before him makes it seem that some lives matter more.

I realize this country still has a long way to go before the words, “All men are created equal,” apply to everyone.

I realize it is important for the office of the Presidency to point out that inequality and to pursue Justice against those that would deny equality to others based on the color of their skin.

I realize all that.

But I also realize that even the perception of difference in responding to these situations is dangerous and disheartening.

I hope you’ll have a strong respresentation at the funeral  for Sergeant Brian Moore,  I hope you’ll demand that we do everything we can to prevent such tragedies in the future.  I hope you’ll show the same genuine concern for the lives of all Officers as you have for other victims of injustice.

To do any less diminishes the high regard the office of the President commands.

Do not let political correctness temper the outrage.

Speak long and loudly of this, end the silence.

Hobbling Justice to Satisfy a Bloodlust

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

By now the whole world knows something of the situation in Baltimore.  A man in custody of the Baltimore Police department dies and the inevitable peaceful protests turn violent.

The reaction in the country spans the entire spectrum from “send in the National Guard and start shooting people to Baltimore brought this on themselves.”

Depending on where you fall in this spectrum, either the cops are thugs or those throwing rocks, looting, and burning buildings are.

As with most things, it is much more complicated than that, but complex problems and the required complex responses do not make for good TV sound bites. 

Most wouldn’t, or sadly couldn’t  read it anyway which is another part of the problem.

It is impossible to sum up the issue, let alone propose a solution, in a 140 character Tweet or other such social media forum.  That doesn’t stop them from trying.

What I am about to say will likely be viewed by some of my friends and colleagues in Law Enforcement as heresy, but it falls upon them to refute it.

The character and nature of law enforcement has changed over the last several decades, mostly for the better but in several significant ways for the worse.

There was a time when the majority of law enforcement had daily, personal contact with the public not because of calls for service or responses to 911 calls, but from being out on the street walking the neighborhoods.  That all began to change with the movement to motorized patrol in a quest for efficiency and speed of response.

But the laws of unintended consequences kicked in.  We became faster in responding to problems at the cost of our separation from the public on a day to day basis, making us blind to the little problems as they developed. Those little problems eventually become big ones.  

We didn’t see the gangs taking over corners until it had already occured.  

We didn’t see graffiti growing until it was everywhere.

We focused on Patrol officers writing summonses for traffic violations and other such minor offenses as a way to measure efficiency.  When crime statistics went down we claimed it was embracing the “broken window” theory, if they went up, we attibuted it to factors outside our control.

The second error we made, or at least went along willingly, was the war on drugs.   The single biggest waste of resources ever.  Police departments that had one or two officers assigned to drug units suddenly assigned two and three times that amount.

Federal task forces were formed. Federal, state, and local law enforcement officers brought in.  The resources of the FBI, normally not tasked with drug cases, were added to the mix.  We seized larger and larger amounts of narcotics.  Put more and more people in prison.

We also created opportunity and incentive.  An incentive to sell drugs and the opportunity to generate an income with little or no education or skills.  All one had to do was accept the possibility of  the occasional arrest and stint in prison.

We also created a need for those in the business to protect themselves and their territory, thus the proliferation of weapons.

And, we let natue take it’s natural course.  If one is born into an environment where your family business is narcotics distribution, it is likely you’ll follow in those footsteps.

And you know what happened as a consequence of this policy?

The price of drugs dropped, the availability increased.  Yet we all went happily along.

And do you know why we did these two things?

Money.  

State and Federal Civil Seizure laws proliferated.   Police departments siezed the cash, vehicles, and property of those we investigated.  Sometimes, we moved to seize the property without even pursuing criminal cases because the legal requirements in court were easier than proving a criminal case.

Cities, towns, and states brought in revenue from motor vehicle violations and whole departments were created to deal with the influx of cash.

We did it with the best of intentions. No one embraced the philosophy of strong drug enforcement more than me when I was on the job.  Being away from it and having the benefit of hindsight and mountains of evidence to validate this opinion has changed my perspective.

You cannot arrest your way out of a health problem. Just look at the number of overdose deaths from opiates, the numbers are rising despite our enforcement efforts.

What does this have to do with Baltimore? The riots and rage arising from these incidents involving the police are symptoms of the problem.

Whenever there is a violent encounter with the police, those that live in an environment of hopelessness see it as another example of how things never change.  The system is stacked against them.

Those that are fortunate enough to live outside that environment only see the violence, they do not see the cause.

In the case of the Baltimore cops, there is another troubling aspect. The rush to judgement.   These six officers are innocent of these charges and will remain so until such time as a jury finds them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

It is the foundation of our criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence.   No one should forget that.

Opinions of their guilt are not only meaningless, they are dangerous.  It is dangerous for anyone to assume the guilt of anyone absent a conviction in a court of law.   It would serve us well for everyone to remember that.

Police officers assuming that those they have arrested are guilty and entitlted to less than humanitarian treatment by virtue of that arrest are as wrong as someone standing on the street hurling bricks at the police because they assume all cops are racist and prone to brutality.

Cops are human beings subjected to the same flaws as everyone else, although most learn to rise above that and perform admirably.

I hope that those in the position of authority in Baltimore, the prosecutor and those responsible for investigating what happened in the back of that police van, remember that truth is the goal not a politically expedient path of least resistance.

If the evidence supports the charges, and these officers are one day convicted then that will be justice.  If, on the other hand, the evidence contradicts these charges then these officers are pawns in a game of politics that perpetuates the very problem of those in power deciding what is the truth.

If power determines truth, then this country is in deep trouble.

Life, Inevitability, and Hope

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 1 Comment

Over the past several years, we have lived along the Blackstone River on the Cumberland/Lincoln line.

The bike path, officially the Blackstone River Greenway, provides the perfect access to walking along the banks of this newly reclaimed and cleaned up river.  The idea that the Blackstone would someday be considered a pleasant place to walk was unimaginable for those of us that grew up nearby in the 60’s and 70’s.

The river was once one of the most polluted waterways in the US, a victim of the industrial revolution.

Now, it is slowly growing cleaner and cleaner by the day.  Trout inhabit the waters once again.  The river is now host to a variety of fish, waterfowl, turtles, and other assorted creatures.

Which leads me to the story of the Mute Swan.  Pictured here

Swan

Originating from Europe and Asia, considered an invasive, non-native species, the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) actively seeks out the nests.  When they locate any eggs, they shake them to kill the embryos thus preventing the spread of the species.

I am not here to debate that policy, although it is certainly ripe for such a discussion.

Three years ago, while walking along the river, we first observed a nesting pair.  Unfamiliar with the species, a little research revealed the story of the Mute Swan, its introduction to the US, and, later, the unfortunate relationship between the birds and DEM.

One of the other things we learned is that Mute Swans mate for life.

Before we became aware of the practice of population control, we anticipated the arrival of newborn hatchlings.  They never materialized.  I am not sure if it was due to direct interference or natural circumstances.

The following year, the nesting pair was down to one.

All of last year we would walk along the river and see the solitary swan as he/she swam along the shore.  About a mile or so north, we encountered another nesting pair, but our nearby resident swan remained solitary.

It is difficult to tell the gender of this solitary bird from a distance, I have no idea if it is male or female. In spite of its solitary situation, the swan continues to inhabit this section of the river.

Yesterday, we enjoyed a walk in the (finally) warming weather.  We again encountered the swan, watching as it appeared to be busily working away constructing a nest.  When I realized what it was doing, I looked hopefully around for another swan.

While they mate for life, they also will seek another mate in the event of the mate’s death.  Perhaps, just perhaps, we would get to see some hatchlings this year.

I was disappointed to find no other swan in the area.

The solitary swan, acting under the imperatives of nature, dutifully constructed a nest that, in all probability, will remain empty.

At first, this seemed a sad situation.  The swan compelled by its nature builds a nest despite the reality that unfertilized eggs will not grow.

But as I thought about this, I realized it showed the power of hope.  The Swan has no conscious realization of hope. They follow instincts. However, they carry on with life despite the difficulties and obstacles.

Nature compels the swan to be ready in the event a new mate arrives.  Prepare for what might happen despite the impenetrability of the future, or the bad things that happened in the past.

Nature does not let the swan despair of the past or fear the future. Nature compels the swan to continue to live, as well as it can, while there is time.

We can learn something from that.

(In the event someone from DEM is reading this, this story is fictitious.  There is no nest, no swan, nothing here of interest to you. Really, honestly, nothing.)

With a Little (More) Help from my Friends  

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

In an earlier post, (With a Little Help from my Friends), I posed a number of questions seeking answers from the readers of this blog.

I received a number of interesting responses to those questions.  Many of them well articulated and argued.  I thought I would explore another issue in light of recent news events.

A number of states have passed laws most commonly referred to as Freedom of Religion Acts, the latest iteration being the Indiana Freedom of Religion Restoration Act.

Why?

The expressed purpose of this legislation is to prevent the government from imposing any laws restricting the free expression of religion or the ability to follow the tenets of one’s religious beliefs.

This seems harmless on its face. Although it is troubling that a governmental body feels the need to pass a law that prevents future governmental bodies from passing a law, but I digress.

It would seem unnecessary, in light of the well established right to freedom of religion that already exists in the United States Constitution. The language is clear and unambiguous.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

This language seems to protect the same thing.  It seems to work well.  We have not burned any witches or executed any heretics for quite a while.

However, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.  Despite denials and artfully crafted defenses of these measures, the purpose is to allow discriminatory practices under the umbrella of religious freedom.

Now, if any religious group wants to prohibit members of the LGBT community from joining their congregation, getting married, attending services, based on the tenets of their scriptures, philosophy, sacred texts, or interpretation of messages received from god, so be it.

Here’s a good one I found in the Book of Mormon. A legitimate, recognized, and rapidly growing religion.

BOOK OF MORMON 2 Nephi 5:21

“…wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God:”

There’s not enough time or space to display a host of similar discriminatory quotes from the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, and on and on.

They are free in this country to practice their religion, but they cannot seek governmental authority to impose it on anyone else in the world outside their houses of worship.

It was not that long ago in our recent history that many private organizations denied membership to people of different races, religions, ethnic origin, or gender.  Some excellent examples are the KKK and Augusta National Golf Club.  In the interest of fair and honest dialog, Augusta National did always allow blacks in, as caddies.  The KKK never invited any blacks to their club. Instead, they tortured them.

If a business owner, upon seeing the approach of a person of color, or an Asian, or a Native American, or a white person, runs to lock the door and refuses to provide services based exclusively on innate held racial biases, that is legally, ethically, morally, and constitutionally wrong.

So explain the difference, if the same business owner refuses to provide services to a gay or lesbian couple based on religious tenets.

Discrimination, whether based on learned prejudices or religious tenets, is wrong.  It should never be tolerated, never promoted, and certainly never codified into law.

It is in direct opposition to everything this country stands for.

According to some estimates, there are over 4200 known religions in the world.  Some have some rather unusual practices associated with them. Just because the majority of people in this country come from a Judeo-Christian religious upbringing, does not diminish the validity of all other religious tenets.

Be careful what you put into law.

You may find a people sacrificing a virgin, denying women driver’s licenses, marrying all your sisters, protecting all the sacred cows thus denying you that sirloin, or imposing prohibition to prevent the consumption of demon rum.

With a Little Help from my Friends

/ Joe Broadmeadow / 2 Comments

I have a problem, several of them in fact, and I am hoping the many good people that read this blog can help.  I realize I do this at the risk of infuriating some and alienating others, but I think the benefits of any discovered truths outweigh the risks.

I would ask three things,

  • Keep the responses rational. Do not attack the question, answer it
  • Use logic and evidence to support your argument
  • Think, long and hard, before you respond. There is enough emotional vitriolic clamoring over these concepts, we do not need anymore. It will not be helpful.

The topics will get more difficult as we go on.

Topic One: Why is there a War on the Police?

When did the police become the enemy?

The media floods their various venues with story after story of “alleged” police brutality.   Rallies are held, vigils staged, street-corner lawyers armed with a cell phone camera argue with an officer on a car stop as if they were in the Supreme Court.

There are no stories of the thousands and thousands of officers that go to work every night, risking their lives, and do an enormous amount of good.

How did this come about? What happened to fair and balanced coverage?

The latest protest in Boston over a Police Officer involved shooting of a suspect is a good example.  The suspect was shot and killed, thus the ensuing gathering of “Neighborhood” leaders chanting “No Justice, No Peace.”

THE OFFICER IS IN A MEDICALLY INDUCED COMA AFTER BEING SHOT IN THE FACE BY THE SUSPECT. Where is the Justice in that? Where are the crowds, arms locked together, surrounded by the media hordes, chanting, “Don’t shoot Cops, Don’t shoot Cops”?

Topic Two: Is Same Sex Marriage Wrong?

Will someone, anyone please articulate a rational, cogent, and intelligent argument that proves the danger in recognizing Same Sex marriages?

Please do not use as references any material that cannot be validated and reviewed to the same standard we would hold in a court of law.  If the authority you cite once spoke to an iron-age leader of a small tribe in the Middle East through a burning bush, please provide evidence of this.

If my numbers are correct, thirty-seven states now permit same sex marriages.  The country has not been destroyed, by apocalyptic catastrophe or any other disaster.  So please provide a rationale we can all agree on that definitively establishes a risk to permitting Same Sex marriages.

Topic Three: Was the United States founded on Christian Principles? (a subset of this question is why should religion, or practices related to it such as prayer, play any part in the government, public schools, or the courts)

Can someone articulate the evidence to support this contention?

Much is made of the alleged “Christian” basis of the United States Constitution and thus our form of government.  Yet there is clear and unambiguous language included in that Constitution that prohibits the Government from sponsoring an official religion.

While some would argue this is different from the commonly accepted doctrine of Separation of Church and State, I do not see it that way.

The founding fathers held a mix of religious beliefs. Two of the principal architects, Jefferson and Madison, are good examples of the clear conflict here.  Madison was a devout Christian, Jefferson not so much.  While Madison supported the involvement of religion in government, Jefferson clearly opposed it. That hardly shows a consensus in the use of Christian doctrine as the foundation of government.

Along with this question, comes the question of prayer in any government or public school activities.  Can someone demonstrate the efficacy of prayer?  Is there proof of the value of it being included as part of any official function?

Anecdotal stories of people claiming I prayed, I was cured, and the doctors cannot explain it is not evidence.  Doctors cannot explain many things.  Absence of an explanation is not proof of divine intervention. The absence of an explanation is an argument for more research and scientific studies, not validation of the existence of angels.

And the good people do in the name of religion, or under the auspices of a religious organization, is proof of the goodness of the people not the validity of their motivation.

Topic Four: Is there a Fundamental Right to Bear Children?

This is a tricky one.  The idea came up during a discussion about the number of children that end up in the foster care system, abused or abandoned by birth parents, and the seemingly lack of common decency by men that father these children and refuse to support them.

So it begs the questions, is there a fundamental right to have children?  Should there be a legal obligation to demonstrate the ability and willingness to support the child?

We license people for all sorts of things.  You need a license to run a daycare center in order to care for children, but there is no process to show your qualifications to be a parent before you place them in daycare.

Now I realize there are paternity statutes that can compel one to provide financial support, but that is like equating caring for a child to maintaining a car.

If you want an education in the number of people that lack any decency or sense of moral obligation, go to Family Court and listen to the arguments about child support.

I suggest as a solution, a modified version of Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” Mandatory Birth Control.

Think about it; set aside all the religious morality and abstinence philosophies, mandatory birth control solves a great deal of our problems.

It would eliminate the need for abortions, unwanted pregnancies, abandoned children, and reduce the number of people requiring public assistance.

However, wait a minute you say, it would give them a license to have sex indiscriminately, (Pre-marital Sex, oh the horror).  Well, here is your opportunity for your religion to teach them self-control, unless the threat of pregnancy is all you have.   It seems to have worked well so far, don’t you think?

I know for some of you this may be a long forgotten premise, but very little prevents people from sexual activity given the right set of circumstances, raging hormones, and opportunity.  The risk of pregnancy is always an afterthought.

So please, explain to me why we should support the right to bear children absent a proof of one’s ability and qualification for such a fundamentally important obligation.

I await your able assistance.  Please feel free to reply here or to me at joe.broadmeadow@hotmail.com

For any Fatwas or other threats of death, excommunication, or damnation, please include “Important” in the subject line.

Those Opposed to Displaying the Flag

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

I came upon a troubling story out of California, the University of California at Irvine to be specific.  The story concerned a proposal by six members of the University’s Legislative Council (Student Government) to prohibit the display of the American Flag in the lobby of the Student Government building.

Even more troubling was a letter, signed by a number of professors and other academics, in support of the resolution. (http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/03/11/uc-irvine-professors-sign-online-letter-support-campus-flag-ban/).

The line that caught my eye was this one.

“The resolution recognized that nationalism, including U.S. nationalism, often contributes to racism and xenophobia, and that the paraphernalia of nationalism is in fact often used to intimidate.”

These professors claim that nationalism, including US nationalism, contributes to racism and xenophobia.

They are correct and, sadly, they still miss the point.

What they miss is the Constitution of this country guarantees the freedom to express these opinions. A Constitution supported and defended at a high cost; one symbolized by that same flag.

The problem is not the flag or other symbols; the problem stems from the meaning and values we assign to them. That some attribute any semblance of xenophobia or racism to the American flag means they have never read, or understood, the Constitution and the ideals the flag represents.

When I see the flag, when I stand during the National Anthem, when I watch a flag draped coffin coming home, I am thankful I live in a country where some of us are willing to die to support and protect those that may hold a different opinion.

In this country, freedom of expression is the key to everything.  Those six members of the legislative council, as well as the professors signing the letter in support, are entitled to their opinions and every opportunity to express them.

Instead of proposing a ban on displaying the flag, perhaps they should focus on the underlying issues that do need to be addressed.  Xenophobia, racism, and discrimination are alive and well in this country.  Focus on addressing the causes of those attitudes. Do not attack a symbol that, for most Americans and those that want to become part of this great society, represents the best of this country, our guarantee of freedom of expression.

That symbolism, represented by the flag, is worth keeping on display as a reminder to us all that this freedom comes at a cost.

The (Almost) Foolproof Way to Survive a Police Encounter

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

In light of the recent controversy over the use of deadly force by the police, I decided to do some research.

Accurate and verifiable statistics are hard to come by, but for the year 2013 according to the FBI, there were 461 people killed by the police.  There is a website, killedbythepolice.net, which reported 748 people killed by the police for the same year.

Now, it seems obvious that a website called killedbythepolice.net, has a specific agenda (I am certain they would claim the FBI does as well) but assuming for arguments sake that these numbers are valid, let’s split the difference and say the police killed around 600 people.

First, that is 600 too many. However, with that said, we now turn to how and why.

There are certain conditions under which officers may use deadly force.

The officer must believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

The use of force must be “Objectively Reasonable.”

This standard arises from a Supreme Court ruling in 1985, Tennessee v. Garner.

In almost every case, a Grand Jury reviews the use of deadly force by an officer to determine the justification.  That most Grand Juries do not indict, while frustrating to some, is a reflection that fits with the statistics.

Most Police shootings are justified.

Despite this justification, all cases involving the use of deadly force by the police are controversial.  However, the controversies and the emotions of those that disagree with the use of deadly force does not make it unjustified.

I did come across some truly stunning information, something that should give pause to everyone concerned with police use of deadly force.

Going back over the past thirty years, analyzing thousands of arrest records, there is a group of people who enjoyed a 100% survival rate in an encounter with the police.

Many of these people possessed firearms or other deadly weapons.

Many of these people had killed or gravely injured someone.

Many of these people had a history violence.

Sadly, some of these people were innocent of any crime.

There is one common thread within each of these cases.

They complied with the instructions of the officers.

They put down their weapons, they did not resort to violent confrontation, and they did not try to run.  They followed the officer’s instructions and survived the day.

For those that were innocent, most were released immediately. If not, they found an attorney, or an attorney found them, and they sued everyone.

For those that were involved in a crime, they went to court.

Nevertheless, they ALL survived.

Instead of spending millions on new, idiotic, and politically expedient federal training programs for police, just have a short lesson in all our existing schools and teach civility and respect for the law.  Oh wait, don’t we do that already?

Do you want to survive a police encounter?  The lesson here is clear, do what the officer says. Adopt a DO NOT philosophy.

Do not commit a crime, do not point weapons, do not decide to reach for your cellphone to video this perceived injustice, do not fight with the officers, just do what they say and you will survive.

Here is a good idea, let’s recycle all those idiotic T-shirts bearing the slogan, “Don’t Snitch.”  We can take out the words “Don’t Snitch,” and change it to DO NOT.

Here is an easy way to remember this advice.

Cops like DONUTS

Cops like DO NOTs.

Maybe I should print T-shirts. Order yours today at www.dowhattheniceofficersaysandliveanotherday.com

A Whiff of Memories

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

As we grow through the various stages of our lives, we develop a memory of aromas.  Over time, our experiences accumulate and a familiar fragrance or aroma causes a reaction in our minds, invoking a memory or making us aware of something with which we are acquainted.

Those of us from New England are intimately familiar with the smell of snow, a certain aromatic essence in the air, predicting its imminent arrival.  It may be true in other areas of the world but certainly familiar to us here.

Soon, we all hope, we will be able to enjoy the smell of spring.  The emerging buds of the trees, early blooming flowers, grass returning to a vibrant growing green, the aroma of a warm sun.

Human beings are visual creatures; we rely on our vision more than any other sense.  Those among us that are blind need to rely more on the other senses.  Yet, we all have the ability to use them; we often do it without realizing it.

For me, the smell of approaching snow brings mixed feelings.  As a native New Englander, I think we suffer if we are too long separated from four seasons, no matter how much we may complain.

I am guilty of fleeing winter more frequently as I have grown older, my tolerance for cold weather diminishing with age.  Nevertheless, there is something integrated deep within my psyche that needs a little of each season and the associated smells differentiating them.

The smells of a recent rain, freshly mowed grass, flowers in bloom, the ocean mist, all of these enhancing our experiences here in this world.

Just the hint of any of them, brings forth memories of other days, other storms, other walks in the rain, other moments of rolling in fallen leaves, riding waves, sliding sleds down snow covered hills.

Like most of you, I am ready for the smells of winter to fade away for now. Let the new, yet familiar, aromas of spring take over.  I look forward to that first feeling of a warm sun on my face, as I smell the emerging new growth pushing out of the ground.

I know that the pattern will remain; the one I have come to know so well.  The rains of spring, followed by the grass and beaches of summer, the changing leaves of fall, and the return of those first hints of snow repeating itself once again.

While we may be tired of the hazy shade of winter, to borrow a line from Paul Simon, ready to move on to spring, keep in mind those aromas of the seasons. I hope we all have any more winters to complain about, many more aromas of approaching storms.  Inhale them, savor them, and hold their memories because the winter of our human life marks a real end without the chance of a following spring.

Cold Memories and Critical Thinking

/ Joe Broadmeadow / Leave a comment

The recent cold brought back memories of when I was a young boy growing up in Cumberland. We had a trash barrel in the backyard where, a few times a week, we would burn our trash.

I know this is giving the environmentalists among you nightmares, but it was a different time.

During the cold months, my father and I would stand close to the flames.  He sometimes told me stories of the Korean War, fighting in temperatures of minus 30 degrees.  He hated the cold.

I was thinking about this in light of some recent headlines.

In one headline, state legislatures want to eliminate funding for Advanced Placement History classes, because these classes are critical of America.  According to one of the Oklahoma lawmakers, these classes only teach what is “wrong with America.”

The other headline is from Rudolph Giuliani talking about President Obama.

“I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America. He doesn’t love you. And he doesn’t love me. He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up, through love of this country.”

Giuliani believes Obama is too critical of past American policies and decisions.

How does this all relate to Cumberland, Rhode Island in the winters of the 60’s you ask?

It matters because our government made decisions, against the evidence, sending my then 18-year-old father to Korea.  These decisions put him, and thousands of other Marines, at the Chosin Reservoir in North Korea in November of 1950, surrounded and outnumbered by the Chinese.

General MacArthur ignored evidence of a sizeable Chinese presence on the border.  He ignored his own intelligence reports that the Chinese might enter the war; in fact, they had already crossed the Yalu River.

The Truman administration ignored a message from the Chinese, delivered by the Indian Ambassador to China, that if the US crossed the 38th parallel, China would respond militarily.

The horrors experienced by my father haunted him his whole life.

I have another memory from those years; my father screaming in the middle of the night, thrashing around on the bed, my mother desperately trying to hold him until the nightmares, reliving the battles, drove him to exhaustion and he fell asleep.

I believe those experiences contributed to my father’s battle with alcoholism and death at the relatively young age of 65.

To argue that we need eliminate classes that educate our future leaders in critical analysis is ludicrous. This country needs more critical thinking, not less.

The decisions in Korea were not an aberration.  In 1965, we did it again, sending American troops into the wrong place, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons despite knowing the impossibility of the mission.

During WWII, we supported Ho Chi Minh against the Japanese yet, twenty years later, we sent our soldiers and Marines to fight him. It cost the lives of almost 60000 Americans, along with millions of Vietnamese. We failed to understand the nature of the conflict.

We did it again in Iraq, ignoring or fabricating intelligence, in pursuit of a doomed policy.

In each case there was evidence against the efficacy of those decisions, we knew it, we ignored it, and we did not learn from it.

Giuliani says President Obama does not love this country because he is often critical of it. Giuliani has it all wrong.  No one demonstrates love of country better than through a willingness to seek the truth, no matter how critical or difficult, in pursuit of improving our future decision-making processes.

I understand sometimes going to war is inevitable.

However, critical analysis shows there are opportunities to avoid them. Perhaps, if critical thinking took center stage rather than blind patriotism or hubris, we might have found such an alternative.

The freedom to criticize government is the foundation of our political system. Freedom of speech is the First Amendment for good reason. The founders recognized the absolute necessity of open and free discourse without fear of governmental intrusion.

Critical analysis of past actions can lead to a better future.  Many of the founding fathers owned slaves.  It took almost 70 years after the creation of the Constitution before we abolished slavery.

“All Men are Created Equal.” When these words first appeared on paper, All Men meant white men.  Black men were not included until the Civil War and women not until much later.

It was critical analysis of the errors of the past that righted those wrongs.

Legislative discussions should not be about reducing funding for advanced courses; it should be for increasing the funding.

Perhaps, with a stronger understanding of all the good this country does, tempered by recognizing our weaknesses and mistakes, future generations will not send young men and women into the nightmares of warfare absent full, and continuous, critical analysis.