The Murmur of Crow: Close Down This War

Posted by Brandon Crow on 02.15.2007

Can the American people be readying their letters of resignation to Congress?

Before I moved back to Southern California some six years ago, I lived in the greatest city on earth, San Francisco. While there, I had a full time teaching job (much like I do now) at a community college near Stanford University.

The college's campus was beautiful: sprawling in acreage, lush with flowering trees, marked by two creeks that ran torrent through the middle of campus, and most significantly, studded with beautiful, sharply-dressed, model-esque girls.

And after a mere two years in a dream job at a dream campus, I left. Voluntarily. I chose to leave. And I was happy to leave.

Why?

Lack of spine and/or desire, and lack of actions and results from the people in charge, with the power.

In my two years there, I encountered many problems. One particular problem befell me. As I was new, I had an office far away from the rest of my department. I did not mind much as it was surrounded by great oaks and other rustic buildings. However, after one semester, my department wanted to move all of its younger instructors closer together.

Even though I was moved into the building where my department resided, I still ended up being the odd man out. We were one desk/office short. One of the Social Science instructors decided to vacate his office and let me use it. I would be just down the hall from my department. I accepted without knowing the storm that was brewing.

Apparently, the other members of his department did not want an English person on "their side of the hallway." It was very territorial and they got vicious about it. I came to school one morning and found my books had been removed from the shelves and had been packed into boxes. The boxes were sitting in the middle of the hallway. It was like being kicked out of a shared home by a jilted lover.

It was incredibly humiliating to have to pick up books with students wandering the hallways. I went to my department chair and division dean to complain about the absolutely unprofessional and malicious action.

They listened to me and mothered me. They were both women and extremely kind people, but they fell to their mothering instincts too much. They comforted me and nearly cried for me over this tyrannous act. What they did not do was actually go fight for me.

My dean spoke to the other dean once and reported back that the Social Science dean did not want to get too involved with the whole ordeal because he's involved in a football pool with some of the wayward instructors. He did not want to upset the Sunday game gatherings.

And my dean dropped it at that. I was befuddled. The people with the power, the very ones who were supposed to stand up and speak for me abandoned me. They acted as if they themselves were meek and tender.

The "best" result I got from that distress was my chair apologizing to me for their actions and telling me how sorry she was that I had to endure such anguish. She promised me that if any unfair plight ever fell upon me again, they'd be there for me. And the results would be different.

I took them at their word.

A few months later, at an English department meeting where we would select our classes for the following semester, many of our senior English faculty chose the easiest classes to teach—the prep classes to the traditional freshmen composition. These courses, once taught, were very routine and not much planning needed to go into them. They practically ran themselves. Plus, as a prep course, there was very little writing to grade, which is usually the most taxing part of an English teacher's job.

The five most senior members of our faculty signed up for their full teaching load to be this prep course. Each of the five of them took four classes. In all, twenty of the thirty sections offered were already gone after five teachers. But that's not the worst part. Three of these five even signed up for their overload courses (guess which classes they took) before anyone else could select their regular load. 23 of 30 sections were now gone.

The remaining twenty of us could only select from seven of these prep courses if we chose to teach them. The picks were so uneven that they became glaring, even to the most green of us. We made a comment about this and got the ass-chewing of our lives. How dare we speak up? Who the hell did we think we were?

I suggested that we change our selection process. Instead of always going by seniority, let's switch the order up—reverse it one semester, redraw numbers the next and so forth. The senior teachers would have none of it. They shouted us down. They literally abused us verbally.

My department chair was there in the room. She saw it all unfold, heard the ugly vitriol that spewed forth and clearly sensed (saw) how it had affected us. One of the new instructors even started crying because the abuse was so relentless and harsh.

I sat flabbergasted that my chair, even witnessing this, did nothing. She ignored it altogether, selected her classes and left the room.

I stalked after her to her office and demanded that something be done. She told me that's how things are. Then she told me that she knows it's unfair and the verbal abuse was unwarranted. She acknowledged that they had crossed a line.

But she would not speak to them about it. Nor would she let me bring it up at the next department meeting. She just wanted it to go away because she didn't want to deal with the ugliness that would ensue.

Then she reached across and hugged me. She patted my back and whispered, "I'm so sorry this has to happen to you."

I nearly flipped. I wanted to choke her. I could not fathom the sheer timidity and ineffectiveness of someone who was supposed to be in charge and supposed to speak for the minority.

The next morning, I tendered my resignation effective at the end of the semester. A month later, I left that school and never looked back.

This morning's LA Times (2/14/07) ran a cover story of the House debate on an Iraq resolution. The House is caught in the throes of a "debate" on whether or not the resolution is a sign that we are in retreat from the war on terrorism.

Is this a joke? How is a resolution against the troop surge retreating from the war on terror?

Some have begun to question whether or not we should even have a resolution. Or the debate for that matter. Any and everything will apparently give comfort to the enemies.

Well, how about giving some comfort to our own? What about the peace of mind and the desire of the majority of the American people?

Two weeks ago, in the Senate, a similar problem. A resolution against the troop surge was introduced. Immediately the primitive, craze-filled opposition to such a resolution surfaced. Many different resolutions were introduced, some of them with language so vague and weak that no one would have a clue that a surge had even been suggested.

In the end, the weakest resolution put forth was adopted and one Senator even voted against his own resolution. Wow. Amazing. Just incredible.

Is this a joke? How did we come to this?

I understand why hardcore Republicans would want to derail such resolutions. They've had their hands in this very cookie jar for so long that they can't untangle themselves. Many have argued in favor of the "great war" and the "great president" that they cannot backpedal now without losing face.

But what in hell is keeping the Democrats, especially the newly-elected ones from pushing the envelope? How do these folks even let such insanity as "let's debate the debate that will debate the need for a resolution" make it to the floor of the House? How does such idiocy even glimpse the light of day?

This war has already been proven to have been started under dubious circumstances with highly tainted "intelligence" engineered by an office set up by the administration for specifically such a purpose as to drum up needed intelligence.

With each passing day of testimony in the Scooter Libby trial the American populace sees more and more how secretive and abusive this administration and its leaders were and still are. With each ex-official that comes forward or gets fired, we see more and more that this administration has "cooked the books" and lied to us again and again without regard.

Just after Bush announced his surge plan, USA Today polled the people and 61% overwhelmingly disapproved.

The Gallup poll also revealed that "Approval of the job Bush is doing in Iraq has sunk to 26 percent, a record low. Eight in 10 say the war has gone worse than the Bush administration expected. Of those people, 53 percent say Bush deserves ‘a great deal' of blame. By 72 percent-25 percent, Americans say Bush doesn't have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq."

And here's the kicker: "Even among Republicans, 30 percent oppose sending more troops."

This week's Ipsos poll shows that nearly 60% of Americans believe we made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq and that the war is wrong.

More telling, 63% favor a time table for withdrawing troops; 57% favor placing a cap on the number of troops in Iraq; there is even a 40% of the population who favors denying funding for this war. That's a pretty big number who are in favor of the most severe form of renouncement of the war.

Furthermore, 51% of respondents believe Bush and Company should heed the views of Congress when making decisions on Iraq and a whopping 63% noted that Bush should listen to the American people.

This same poll, in late January, found 72% of the people disapproving of Bush and 41% who believe his handling of the war has been atrocious. Nearly half of those polled felt the situation in Iraq is getting worse and worse by the day.

These poll numbers, this past November's election where many voters said a change of course in Iraq is what they voted for, plus the constant news of choppers being shot down and more and more insurgencies occurring are overwhelming evidence and support for a strong repudiation of Bush and company's continued, bull-headed and idiotic stance on the war.

Yet the new majority of Democratic leadership sit on their hands and look for the most polite and "fair" way to handle this. They allow lame and inexcusable disturbances and red herring suggestions like "should we even have a debate" come to the floor.

What is wrong with these people? The American people spoke already; they made their thoughts apparent back in November. Poll after poll, week after week, the American people again make their choices known.

These Democrats in a position of power and leadership need to stop wasting time, stop wobbling around and exercise the power they were given. The voters can only vote them in; they cannot force the representatives to act. And they'd better hurry up and do something tangible and real that will satiate the American people.

They'd better stop hugging and saying "I'm so sorry" and start getting results before the American people get fed up with the needless "mothering" and decide to tender their resignation and leave, never to look back.

The new leadership needs to stand up and be counted for. What good is power if they don't actualize it?

Stop with the shenanigans, the for-show-only gestures, the irresolute resolutions, the weak "non-binding" terminology and their infirm wobbling. Republicans need to stop trying to save face on an absolute failure; Democrats need to stop trying to walk the safest, most job-securing path.

Stop all of this pathetic senselessness and do the one thing the American people want done—close down this war.

SHUT THE HELL UP AWARD:

This week, we have a tie for first place winners. First up, is Australian Prime Minister John Howard. He gets an award this week for jumping into the ring and ripping on Barack Obama:

"I think [Obama's] wrong. I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory…[i]f I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

It appears that John Howard had officially a dick-change operation recently and has officially become Dick Cheney. But wait, Darth Howard isn't finished. He also goes under for a lobotomy and attempts to become George W. Bush by saying that an Obama victory would "encourage and give succor" to terrorists.

I guess we gotta give him some credit for the word "succor." He actually pulled out a dictionary and found a "new" way to repeat the trite Bush cliché of "emboldening the enemy."

Word of advice: Hey John, maybe you should worry less about US politics and concentrate more on your own woes in Australia. Last I checked, your poll numbers are way behind your opponent's for elections later this year.

Tied for first place this week, is another man with delusions in his head, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. During a CA stump session, Giuliani actually had the shameless presumptuousness to compare Bush to Abraham Lincoln by calling Bush a "forward looking visionary":

"We are very fortunate to have President Bush…the Civil War went really, really badly for the first two or three years. Lincoln may have been real unpopular in 1863, but he was our greatest president, because of his ability to look into the future."

Wow, where do I start? Well, how about the fact that this is a classic fallacy of logic. What Giuliani just committed here was the fallacy of faulty analogy. Everyone knows Bush is no Lincoln. Not even close. Now I've heard some HUGE faulty analogies in my time, but this one takes the absolute cake! Rudy, can we at least ground our comparisons in reality, please?

Secondly, the Civil War was our war, an American war where this country was at stake. Lincoln held this country together. What is Bush doing to our country besides tearing it apart for his own political purposes?

And the Civil War may have been bad for two years, but Iraq has now been horribly planned and prosecuted for four years. How exactly is Iraq like the Civil War again? And how exactly is Bush like Lincoln? Does Giuliani mean to suggest that Bush will be our greatest president? Come on! Not even the staunchest of Bush supporters believe that anymore!

Lastly, let's not paint Bush out to be a man in possession of prescience. If Bush has such a visionary grasp of the future, where was this clear demonstration of clairvoyance in the planning and managing of Iraq? Where was this telepathic precognition during (or should I say BEFORE) Katrina? Where was this penetrating acumen when it came to the faulty intelligence linking Al-Qaeda to Iraq?

And most importantly, where was Bush's sagacious prescience on September 10th, 2001?

This week, both John Howard and Rudy Giuliani need to SHUT THE HELL UP!

Reader Email:

I received a few emails from my readers. It's interesting that race issues always elicit responses. But Ben not only put in his two cents, he offered some personal experiences, which I like. Here's what Ben had to impart:

Not trying to kill hope or anything but I believe you would be writing a "race & 2008" article again. I believe its going to go on for a while. Being a kid who grew up in Memphis, TN, the south, I've heard tons of black parents of my best friends talk about the white person this and that (nothing good).
Me, I hated listening to this crap because it was old hate only about what white people "use to do". Even though some still do it today we shouldn't hold it against every white person because some don't care either. I like when my professor said, "don't paint everyone with the same brush."

It's funny—somehow, I've never heard the term "Halfricans" and when I saw it , I was going to look it up in a dictionary but while looking at the context I understood and laughed. I guess I would be put in that category because I'm not the model black man (Crow's Note: yes, perhaps, but are you half white, half African-American? The "Halfrican" label comes across as very demeaning to me) but while saying that what is the "model black man?" Many have their own thoughts and ideas of what this person should be, but my favorite thing to say is "Ain't black people human?" So what's the difference? I think black people sometimes see themselves as lesser and follow the stereotype of what whites made of them. That's my point.

I also got a sobering email from Chell:

Black-white tensions will continue even after whites become a minority in this country.
I wish you all the best. Great article. But, I am afraid that you will be writing about racism in the US in 2030.

Wow…not exactly the optimistic vision of America that we've been fed, eh? To think that I'll have to keep writing a "Race and 20--" column until 2030… well, at least that means I'll have a gig writing for 411 for the next 23 years!

See you all next week.

In Crow We Trust.