"Duck and cover" became "I do"

This is a paragraph lifted verbatim (at least I owned up to it... hope she won't sue me) from an Ellen Goodman column. I use it for my own purposes, completely different from hers.
-----------------------------------------------------
"Are we safer? At the end of her convention speech Laura Bush talked about a time when schoolchildren were told to "duck and cover" under their desks in case of nuclear war. She said, "We need to explain that because of strong American leadership in the past we don't hide under our desks anymore."
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh, I remember those "duck and cover" school days. And my wife remembers being trained to line up in the hallways, face against the wall, a long line of little boys and girls about to become ashes. "Strong American leadership" of that day duped us into thinking, or pretending, the world was a much less dangerous place than it really was (is).

You know...just put your right foot in, shake it all about, and say "Duck and cover! Duck and cover!" and those nasty bombs won't put a silhouette of you on the wall.

A few years later a poster advised the following course of action should Nuclear War come a-callin':
1. Bend over.
2. Put your head between your legs.
3. Kiss your ass goodbye.

I really liked that poster. Now that I think of it, it's probably why I got married when I did.

"Huh?", you say.

When you believe the world could go poof (well, louder) any minute you really want to make the most of what you've got. And the best of what I had was in a different school 650 miles away.

We had listened to our government's lies about Vietnam daily. We saw the soldiers who didn't come home in boxes reviled instead of welcomed when they finally did get back. Yes, we were against the war, but not against the ones who went. We were against the ones that sent them.

We saw Nixon unmasked and Agnew defrocked. We saw John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Dr. King assassinated. We watched the Chicago Democratic Convention of '68; the illegal invasion of Cambodia and then four students shot by the National Guard at Kent State during a nonviolent protest; Watts and other cities in flames in protest of racial injustice; and before all that there was the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis and Soviet Premier Kruschev banging a U.N. table with his shoe, practically frothing at the mouth while he yelled "We will bury you".

He was talking to us.

A few years earlier, the government had told us to do stupid things like "duck and cover", knowing that was useless. And back then, just how did John Q. Public put Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and "crawl under a school desk" into the mental blender and fail to come up with "kiss your ass goodbye"?

I can imagine people in high places putting together an information campaign to keep the populace from sinking into mob hysterics...or political awareness. I'm sure they thought it better to prescribe this painkiller pablum.

The poster exemplified a more realistic approach to the world's dangers.

Anyway, despite being students at the time, being pretty broke and our plan not exactly finding favor in the parental world, my sweetheart and I decided we wanted to be together all the time, for as long as that might be, and before it was too late.

So, for 31 years minus working hours, we've spent just about every minute of our lives together.

If somebody drops another Fat Boy and the world does go poof (louder) we'll just hug and say "Glad we got married when we did!"

Dysfunctional Political Discourse

Certain people achieve iconic stature, despite the fact that most people don't know much about them. If you want to bash conservatism, disparage Rush Limbaugh. Want to do the same to liberalism? Take a swing at Ted Kennedy.

This is shorthand for true discourse. The vast majority of those who use this shorthand can't defend their statements with specific examples of a person's actual statements or actions. Reason? Because they have never read their subjects' statements, columns, testimonies, books, or other original source materials. They have never seen them in person, nor viewed them on television shows, interviews, or C-SPAN coverage. Any exposure they've had to these people is whatever the mass media has offered up in sound bites, small quotes out of context, or pundits' interpretations of their words.

Political campaigns distill this lack of discourse into an acidic brew of lies, innuendoes, and simplistic sloganeering. A truly hysterical send-up of this is a clip on jibjab.com (may take a while to load...you're warned). In this clip Bush and Kerry lambast each other in fine political humor that differs from real campaigning only by using more direct language, and in that the clip doesn't favor either one....

How many media clips of campaigning have you seen in which the candidate spouts something that boils down to a vapid "I stand for the American Way" or "I want to make this (country, state, city, etc.) great?" They state they have a plan to achieve all their jingoistic goals, but seldom get to the nuts and bolts.

Here's an example: I saw an ad for someone running for the Senate. In it, the candidate introduces his family saying his father is a minister, and his mother is the backbone and strength of their family. The candidate states he and his wife are bringing up their children with the values he was raised with.

Somehow this just isn't enough to get my vote. For all I know his genial father is a minister in a Satanic cult and his mother has a criminal record including public lewdness and animal cruelty. The "values" his kids are being raised with (the same as his, remember?) could include "do it to others before they do it to you."

The reason for this diatribe?

I'm sick of watching people trading accusations about their preferred politicians without any knowledge behind their words. This is a free and democratic country. We should all (myself included) take more time to read and listen to what our would-be leaders have to say. We should all (myself included) make a concerted effort to understand what the Other Person stands for and withhold judgment until we have something on both sides of the balance.

To do this we should demand that candidates explain themselves to us in plain English and in detail, in words they know we will hold them to.

If they can't do that, and if we don't make that demand before we elect them, then we deserve whoever we get..