"I'll be what I am, a solitary man."
— Neil Diamond
Since I took a Myers-Briggs personality test about 20-25 years ago, I have often thought myself fortunate to be judged an INTJ — Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Judging. The person who administered the tests to the department managers where I worked said an INTJ like me would be happiest as a researcher in a think-tank or academic setting. I would love sitting in a library carrel every day doing research, learning something new. And I thought, "Yeah! You nailed it!"
Other personality types need human interaction. Some extroverts can't start their day without checking in first with their co-workers. Human contact is essential for them. Not so much for me.
After a traumatic layoff 10 years ago, I worked at two jobs at which I was the only employee in the office. It was not exactly the library carrel I subconsciously yearned for, but it was a job where I could work at my own pace, concentrate on tasks without fear of interruption, and enjoy the solitude.
Retirement a year ago, as you might imagine, continued my solitary ways. With my wife still working, the only "person" I had to talk to was our dog. It has been a retirement that has suited my personality and my working style. And the dog seems to have enjoyed our conversations and long walks.
It's not that I purposely avoided human contact, either in my career or in retirement. I have sought out old friends and former co-workers for conversations. While conversation is not a "need" for me as it is for other personality types, I do enjoy seeing people, catching up and sharing thoughts.
In another week, my wife will retire, and we will test the plans we have dreamed of for years. We will have time — to read, to write, to revive old hobbies, to nourish friendships and family relationships, to develop new skills, to reconnect with people from the past, to travel, to walk together and practice good exercise and good diet, to see our children and grandchildren more.
This new reality will give us the opportunity we have only rarely had — to be together without other people for extended periods of time. In the past few years, our longest uninterrupted times together have come on long drives. While neither of us is extroverted or dependent upon contact with other people, we do cherish our time together, especially now as we face what are, no doubt, our final years together.
This opportunity reminds me of the wisdom from Ecclesiastes Chapter 4, which was read at our younger daughter's wedding:
"Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labor. If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up. Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone?"
I eagerly anticipate the warmth of our final years together.
Monday, August 27, 2018
Saturday, August 25, 2018
Those who litter shirk responsibility
I was walking in our neighborhood when I came across an eyesore on the tree-shaded street flanked by well-maintained single-family homes. It was a fast-food bag, still partly filled with food or paper or foam wrappings. The bag was obviously tossed out a car window and had been run over by some unsuspecting driver. The nearest fast-food restaurant is about a mile away, but the food may have traveled farther.
It's an eyesore I see more and more these days.
I was walking my dog, as I do nearly every day. I understand that it's my responsibility to clean up after him, so I keep a couple of plastic bags in my pocket to handle such emergencies.
The fast-food bag makes a bigger mess than my dog does. Its contents get ripped open by passing cars, and small animals check the contents. Wind or rain might move the bag up or down the street. I usually think about picking up the bag and finding a trash can for it — doing what the offending litterer should have done, but I am leery of what might be in the bag. A person lazy or thoughtless enough to toss a food onto a city street might also be sick enough to put a rattlesnake or poison in the bag.
I have to assume that the litterer does not feel guilty about his offense. Someone will clean it up, he thinks, as he callously speeds away. The street is a public entity, so the city will clean it up, he thinks. The city might, but not before other motorists, walkers, nearby homeowners and the weather take their turns at the bag.
The litterer must think, "It's not my responsibility," but of course it is. Roadside litter is a multi-million-dollar problem for state and local governments, all because way too many people think they should be able to use public thoroughfares as their personal trash dumps. Tossing litter onto the street or roadside is against the law, but prosecution is rare.
This problem gets worse. Before I retired, at least once a week in the parking lot of the office building where I work, there would be a disgusting sight of a disposable diaper that had been tossed out of the car after a diaper change. People parking in the lot had to dodge these reeking land mines as they exited their cars and headed to the building. Those who failed to be extra-careful could end up ruining their shoes or sandals, thanks to some irresponsible mother or care-giver who couldn't be bothered to dispose of a disposable diaper in a responsible manner. Knowing a diaper change would likely be necessary, couldn't they put a trash bag in the car to take care of the problem responsibly?
Society depends on people to be responsible for their actions. Criminal courts punish those who fail to be responsible in the most egregious ways, but the daily skirting of responsibility for little things also threatens society.
It's an eyesore I see more and more these days.
I was walking my dog, as I do nearly every day. I understand that it's my responsibility to clean up after him, so I keep a couple of plastic bags in my pocket to handle such emergencies.
The fast-food bag makes a bigger mess than my dog does. Its contents get ripped open by passing cars, and small animals check the contents. Wind or rain might move the bag up or down the street. I usually think about picking up the bag and finding a trash can for it — doing what the offending litterer should have done, but I am leery of what might be in the bag. A person lazy or thoughtless enough to toss a food onto a city street might also be sick enough to put a rattlesnake or poison in the bag.
I have to assume that the litterer does not feel guilty about his offense. Someone will clean it up, he thinks, as he callously speeds away. The street is a public entity, so the city will clean it up, he thinks. The city might, but not before other motorists, walkers, nearby homeowners and the weather take their turns at the bag.
The litterer must think, "It's not my responsibility," but of course it is. Roadside litter is a multi-million-dollar problem for state and local governments, all because way too many people think they should be able to use public thoroughfares as their personal trash dumps. Tossing litter onto the street or roadside is against the law, but prosecution is rare.
This problem gets worse. Before I retired, at least once a week in the parking lot of the office building where I work, there would be a disgusting sight of a disposable diaper that had been tossed out of the car after a diaper change. People parking in the lot had to dodge these reeking land mines as they exited their cars and headed to the building. Those who failed to be extra-careful could end up ruining their shoes or sandals, thanks to some irresponsible mother or care-giver who couldn't be bothered to dispose of a disposable diaper in a responsible manner. Knowing a diaper change would likely be necessary, couldn't they put a trash bag in the car to take care of the problem responsibly?
Society depends on people to be responsible for their actions. Criminal courts punish those who fail to be responsible in the most egregious ways, but the daily skirting of responsibility for little things also threatens society.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Mob triumphs over silent statue
The mob rules. Long live the mob.
Last night, 200 or more people gathered around the "Silent Sam" statue in Chapel Hill and succeeded in toppling and destroying the statue memorializing the University of North Carolina students who served and died in the Civil War.
For several years, the statue had been a rallying point for protesters who claimed the statue was not a memorial to former students who died in America's most tragic war, disregarding the inscription on the statue's pedestal and the clear intent of the United Daughters of the Confederacy who funded the memorial. Protesters asserted that the statue was intended to perpetuate white supremacy, although white supremacy was not at issue in the Civil War. White supremacy was part of the culture of 19th century America and Europe. Although a speaker at the monument's dedication added inappropriate racist comments, his words did not change the reason for the memorial.
I addressed the historical background of the statue in a blog post from a year ago.
What happened last night on a once-peaceful quadrangle of the historic UNC campus had been brewing for at least a year. A year ago, another, smaller mob attacked a Confederate memorial in Durham. While law enforcement officers watched disinterestedly, vandals climbed the statue of an anonymous soldier, attached ropes and pulled it to the ground. Although numerous witnesses, including the do-nothing law officers, and video of the event would have made prosecution an open-and-shut case, Durham prosecutors, through malfeasance or incompetence, failed to get even one conviction. That non-prosecution has provided a green light for vandals, socialists and anarchists.
Monday night's mob was well-equipped with banners that would shield their vandalism from view and with smoke bombs to obscure illegal acts. This was a well-planned operation in clear violation of numerous laws, including destruction of public property. Police mostly watched from a distance.
Silent Sam stood for a century without doing harm to anyone (see Andrew Young's comments from my Aug. 23, 2017, post), but protesters assigned to this inanimate object the burdens of centuries of immorality and wrongdoing. Toppling this statue will not put an end to injustice or unfairness in society. It will jeopardize the rule of law.
What traditional artifact will be next? Chapel Hill's cemetery contains the graves of slave owners, white supremacists and unenlightened Euro-Americans. Their gravestones will be easier to knock down than Silent Sam's statue. The town of Carrboro is named for Julian Carr, who made the offensive racist remarks at the statue's dedication. Should all town signs be removed? Must the town's name be changed?
Who's next? Most American presidents prior to the Civil War owned slaves. Most who didn't own slaves did not consider African Americans their equals. Must all those public officials be disparaged and stricken because 21st century morality differs from the morality as they understood it?
Long before Silent Sam became a flashpoint for civil rights and racial equality, his bronze visage was a remembrance of UNC students who died in the Civil War. His statue was erected by descendants still mourning the deaths of their loved ones and the economic devastation of their entire region. If that memorial is to be removed or hidden, the decision to take that action should be made in an open, rational and democratic process.
The door to mob rule, once opened, is not easily closed.
Last night, 200 or more people gathered around the "Silent Sam" statue in Chapel Hill and succeeded in toppling and destroying the statue memorializing the University of North Carolina students who served and died in the Civil War.
For several years, the statue had been a rallying point for protesters who claimed the statue was not a memorial to former students who died in America's most tragic war, disregarding the inscription on the statue's pedestal and the clear intent of the United Daughters of the Confederacy who funded the memorial. Protesters asserted that the statue was intended to perpetuate white supremacy, although white supremacy was not at issue in the Civil War. White supremacy was part of the culture of 19th century America and Europe. Although a speaker at the monument's dedication added inappropriate racist comments, his words did not change the reason for the memorial.
I addressed the historical background of the statue in a blog post from a year ago.
What happened last night on a once-peaceful quadrangle of the historic UNC campus had been brewing for at least a year. A year ago, another, smaller mob attacked a Confederate memorial in Durham. While law enforcement officers watched disinterestedly, vandals climbed the statue of an anonymous soldier, attached ropes and pulled it to the ground. Although numerous witnesses, including the do-nothing law officers, and video of the event would have made prosecution an open-and-shut case, Durham prosecutors, through malfeasance or incompetence, failed to get even one conviction. That non-prosecution has provided a green light for vandals, socialists and anarchists.
Monday night's mob was well-equipped with banners that would shield their vandalism from view and with smoke bombs to obscure illegal acts. This was a well-planned operation in clear violation of numerous laws, including destruction of public property. Police mostly watched from a distance.
Silent Sam stood for a century without doing harm to anyone (see Andrew Young's comments from my Aug. 23, 2017, post), but protesters assigned to this inanimate object the burdens of centuries of immorality and wrongdoing. Toppling this statue will not put an end to injustice or unfairness in society. It will jeopardize the rule of law.
What traditional artifact will be next? Chapel Hill's cemetery contains the graves of slave owners, white supremacists and unenlightened Euro-Americans. Their gravestones will be easier to knock down than Silent Sam's statue. The town of Carrboro is named for Julian Carr, who made the offensive racist remarks at the statue's dedication. Should all town signs be removed? Must the town's name be changed?
Who's next? Most American presidents prior to the Civil War owned slaves. Most who didn't own slaves did not consider African Americans their equals. Must all those public officials be disparaged and stricken because 21st century morality differs from the morality as they understood it?
Long before Silent Sam became a flashpoint for civil rights and racial equality, his bronze visage was a remembrance of UNC students who died in the Civil War. His statue was erected by descendants still mourning the deaths of their loved ones and the economic devastation of their entire region. If that memorial is to be removed or hidden, the decision to take that action should be made in an open, rational and democratic process.
The door to mob rule, once opened, is not easily closed.
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Un-Real Reality Show at White House
One thing you can say about the Trump administration: It's never dull.
The latest episode of this "reality TV" series involves a "tell-all" (or tell more-than-all) book by Omarosa Manigault Newman. In the book and in a series of announcements and interviews hyping her book, Newman claims President Trump said all sorts of sordid things, including, allegedly, using the N-word.
Don't just take her word for it. She has tapes, and she's played some for the public's consumption (but not — so far — the president using the N-word in conversations). Some debate has arisen in the media over whether Newman has any credibility, despite the tapes supporting some of her claims. An interview early in her book-hyping blitz revealed a contradiction in her account of whether she had heard a damning tape of the president or had only heard of it. This thing isn't over, but news media (including the "mainstream media" Trump hates so much) are looking on the former White House aide with more than the usual skepticism.
What is particularly alarming to the news media gatekeepers is Newman's apparent total disregard for personal honesty and integrity and even for national security. One of her tapes was allegedly made in the White House Situation Room, a tightly controlled and closely monitored secure room that requires a high security clearance for entry. Sneaking a recording device into the room is a breach of national security and may even be a criminal act. Newman doesn't seem to care about national security and has offered no regrets over her extraordinary action.
Trump has reacted in his usual way, attacking his former trusted aide, calling her names and threatening legal action against her. But this is a crisis of his own making. Newman got the job, it seems, because she had appeared on Trump's television show, "The Apprentice," and she lavished praise on him as she sought a White House job following his election. The president was shocked that she would "go rogue" and turn out to be a threat to national security and (more important to Trump) his presidency. After all, the president said, "she said great things about me."
You would think that Trump, if he were the astute, brilliant businessman he claims to be, would know that hiring employees on the basis of how well they lick your boots is not a sound policy.
My experience as a manager who hires employees proved to me that hiring is the hardest part of any management job. A good hire can make your life easier. A bad hire can be a lingering nightmare. It's the most important thing a manager does and the most difficult.
As president, Trump has a pretty crummy record in hiring staff. He has put his daughter and son-in-law on the payroll as advisers. His son runs the family business. In most corporations, this would be forbidden nepotism. The list of Cabinet secretaries and other high officials who have had to resign is long. Scott Pruitt as EPA administrator is just the latest embarrassment of ethical lapses and luxury spending that included HHS secretary Tom Price. The departures began with Michael Flynn, caught lying about contacts with Russians. That kind of turnover, including several people Trump has fired, would raise red flags in any business.
The latest episode of this "reality TV" series involves a "tell-all" (or tell more-than-all) book by Omarosa Manigault Newman. In the book and in a series of announcements and interviews hyping her book, Newman claims President Trump said all sorts of sordid things, including, allegedly, using the N-word.
Don't just take her word for it. She has tapes, and she's played some for the public's consumption (but not — so far — the president using the N-word in conversations). Some debate has arisen in the media over whether Newman has any credibility, despite the tapes supporting some of her claims. An interview early in her book-hyping blitz revealed a contradiction in her account of whether she had heard a damning tape of the president or had only heard of it. This thing isn't over, but news media (including the "mainstream media" Trump hates so much) are looking on the former White House aide with more than the usual skepticism.
What is particularly alarming to the news media gatekeepers is Newman's apparent total disregard for personal honesty and integrity and even for national security. One of her tapes was allegedly made in the White House Situation Room, a tightly controlled and closely monitored secure room that requires a high security clearance for entry. Sneaking a recording device into the room is a breach of national security and may even be a criminal act. Newman doesn't seem to care about national security and has offered no regrets over her extraordinary action.
Trump has reacted in his usual way, attacking his former trusted aide, calling her names and threatening legal action against her. But this is a crisis of his own making. Newman got the job, it seems, because she had appeared on Trump's television show, "The Apprentice," and she lavished praise on him as she sought a White House job following his election. The president was shocked that she would "go rogue" and turn out to be a threat to national security and (more important to Trump) his presidency. After all, the president said, "she said great things about me."
You would think that Trump, if he were the astute, brilliant businessman he claims to be, would know that hiring employees on the basis of how well they lick your boots is not a sound policy.
My experience as a manager who hires employees proved to me that hiring is the hardest part of any management job. A good hire can make your life easier. A bad hire can be a lingering nightmare. It's the most important thing a manager does and the most difficult.
As president, Trump has a pretty crummy record in hiring staff. He has put his daughter and son-in-law on the payroll as advisers. His son runs the family business. In most corporations, this would be forbidden nepotism. The list of Cabinet secretaries and other high officials who have had to resign is long. Scott Pruitt as EPA administrator is just the latest embarrassment of ethical lapses and luxury spending that included HHS secretary Tom Price. The departures began with Michael Flynn, caught lying about contacts with Russians. That kind of turnover, including several people Trump has fired, would raise red flags in any business.
Monday, August 13, 2018
"Ordinary Grace" is an extraordinary novel
Usually, I'm not one to re-read books. I can count the number of novels I've re-read and barely get to double digits. There are exceptions, of course. I read Hemingway's "A Movable Feast" at least three times and "Catch 22," "Cold Mountain" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" (and others) twice. But it's not my habit.
I've just finished a re-read of "Ordinary Grace" by William Kent Krueger. I can't remember how I stumbled across this novel, but I'm so glad that I did. When I first read it, I was enthralled at how the author captured the world of a young boy in 1961. This narrator deals with issues no 13-year-old should have to contend with: marital conflict, bullies, deceit, sexuality, senseless deaths, love, arrogance, faith, sibling relationships and more. You could say this is a "coming of age" novel, but it's more than that. Young Frank is in many ways as mature and beguiling as Scout in "Mockingbird," but the plot is very different.
The bottom line in this narrative is the prevalence of spiritual grace — the concept of divine love embodied in undeserved reward. Frank's father is a minister, a tortured man whose wife is drifting away from him, whose life is darkened by wartime memories and guilt but who finds solace in religion and serves three small churches at once.
I loved the title of this novel because it shows that grace, the divine expression of God's love, can be found in ordinary things, and in extraordinary things. It is grace that helps the Drum family and other characters recover from deep emotional wounds and from tragedies that unexpectedly befall them. Although "Ordinary Grace" certainly carries a Christian message, it is not a fundamentalist or sin-and-damnation message. Krueger inserts his religious messages in the uncertainties of life and the pain of living in an imperfect world filled with free will and wrong decisions.
It was not until my second reading of this book that I noticed the term "ordinary grace" used near the end of the book to describe the "miracle" of Frank's younger brother, Jake, offering a public prayer without stuttering — a feat he had never been able to accomplish before. His clearly enunciated prayer was just an "ordinary grace" before a meal for scores of people, but it was also a manifestation of divine grace, a miracle cure for his speech defect.
Krueger offers no glimpses of heaven, no voice of God on some dusty road, no suddenly transformed lives. He does provide numerous examples of ordinary grace in the changes in relationships and lives and in the triumph of love over hatred and spite. More than 30 years ago, I took a college course titled "Theology in Modern Literature." The texts included Flannery O'Connor short stories and novels by Albert Camus and others. "Ordinary Grace" would be an excellent addition should this class ever be offered again.
This is an affirming book, affirming the importance of faith and love and affirming the subtle, unexpected grace of God.
I've just finished a re-read of "Ordinary Grace" by William Kent Krueger. I can't remember how I stumbled across this novel, but I'm so glad that I did. When I first read it, I was enthralled at how the author captured the world of a young boy in 1961. This narrator deals with issues no 13-year-old should have to contend with: marital conflict, bullies, deceit, sexuality, senseless deaths, love, arrogance, faith, sibling relationships and more. You could say this is a "coming of age" novel, but it's more than that. Young Frank is in many ways as mature and beguiling as Scout in "Mockingbird," but the plot is very different.
The bottom line in this narrative is the prevalence of spiritual grace — the concept of divine love embodied in undeserved reward. Frank's father is a minister, a tortured man whose wife is drifting away from him, whose life is darkened by wartime memories and guilt but who finds solace in religion and serves three small churches at once.
I loved the title of this novel because it shows that grace, the divine expression of God's love, can be found in ordinary things, and in extraordinary things. It is grace that helps the Drum family and other characters recover from deep emotional wounds and from tragedies that unexpectedly befall them. Although "Ordinary Grace" certainly carries a Christian message, it is not a fundamentalist or sin-and-damnation message. Krueger inserts his religious messages in the uncertainties of life and the pain of living in an imperfect world filled with free will and wrong decisions.
It was not until my second reading of this book that I noticed the term "ordinary grace" used near the end of the book to describe the "miracle" of Frank's younger brother, Jake, offering a public prayer without stuttering — a feat he had never been able to accomplish before. His clearly enunciated prayer was just an "ordinary grace" before a meal for scores of people, but it was also a manifestation of divine grace, a miracle cure for his speech defect.
Krueger offers no glimpses of heaven, no voice of God on some dusty road, no suddenly transformed lives. He does provide numerous examples of ordinary grace in the changes in relationships and lives and in the triumph of love over hatred and spite. More than 30 years ago, I took a college course titled "Theology in Modern Literature." The texts included Flannery O'Connor short stories and novels by Albert Camus and others. "Ordinary Grace" would be an excellent addition should this class ever be offered again.
This is an affirming book, affirming the importance of faith and love and affirming the subtle, unexpected grace of God.
Monday, August 6, 2018
One person brings more effective change than thousands of protesters
Last night, I watched a documentary on the life of George C. Marshall, a man many consider the most important American of the 20th century. Without Marshall, the Allies might not have defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Without Marshall, Europe might not have fully recovered from the destruction and devastation of World War II, even now. Marshall, who was Army chief of staff, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense, and key advisor to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, was responsible for success in war and in peace as his Marshall Plan laid the foresighted plans for Europe's recovery from war and its nurturing of democratic institutions and attitudes.
Even so, few Americans under the age of 60 know much about Marshall, if they know the name at all, and that's a shame. Marshall embodied the high principles and self-sacrifice of "public servants." Reared on the principles of democracy, civic involvement and personal honor in 19th century Virginia and tempered by his education at Virginia Military Institute, Marshall offered, a clear, knowledgeable, sincere voice to political debate without ever following the path of political partisanship.
Today, news accounts tell the story of clashing street demonstrations in California and Oregon, where belligerent and (sometimes) armed advocates fought each other on the streets as protests degenerated into chaotic clashes. These are just the sorts of things that Marshall opposed throughout his career. He argued for increases in defense spending to oppose threats from Germany, Italy and Japan. He argued for American generosity to salvage the collapsed governments and wretched lives of Europe. Isolationists vehemently opposed him, but his persuasive logic won the votes in Congress to pass his strategic plans.
Massive marches and demonstrations have only rarely succeeded in bringing about significant political change. Civil rights demonstrations of the 1950s and 1960s ultimately prevailed, but only after John F. Kennedy's assassination and Lyndon Johnson consummate political skills pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1968 Voting Rights Act and other landmark legislation.
Massive demonstrations during the Vietnam War did not persuade Congress to stop funding the war or force a unilateral withdrawal. President Nixon's decision to switch to an all-volunteer army in 1973 sucked the life out of anti-war and anti-draft movements.
In a democracy, the surest way of effecting change comes at the ballot box, and this is how it should be. Changing Congress and changing the occupant of the White House are the means to political change in this country. Woe to us if we allow our political future to be determined by mobs in the street.
Even so, few Americans under the age of 60 know much about Marshall, if they know the name at all, and that's a shame. Marshall embodied the high principles and self-sacrifice of "public servants." Reared on the principles of democracy, civic involvement and personal honor in 19th century Virginia and tempered by his education at Virginia Military Institute, Marshall offered, a clear, knowledgeable, sincere voice to political debate without ever following the path of political partisanship.
Today, news accounts tell the story of clashing street demonstrations in California and Oregon, where belligerent and (sometimes) armed advocates fought each other on the streets as protests degenerated into chaotic clashes. These are just the sorts of things that Marshall opposed throughout his career. He argued for increases in defense spending to oppose threats from Germany, Italy and Japan. He argued for American generosity to salvage the collapsed governments and wretched lives of Europe. Isolationists vehemently opposed him, but his persuasive logic won the votes in Congress to pass his strategic plans.
Massive marches and demonstrations have only rarely succeeded in bringing about significant political change. Civil rights demonstrations of the 1950s and 1960s ultimately prevailed, but only after John F. Kennedy's assassination and Lyndon Johnson consummate political skills pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1968 Voting Rights Act and other landmark legislation.
Massive demonstrations during the Vietnam War did not persuade Congress to stop funding the war or force a unilateral withdrawal. President Nixon's decision to switch to an all-volunteer army in 1973 sucked the life out of anti-war and anti-draft movements.
In a democracy, the surest way of effecting change comes at the ballot box, and this is how it should be. Changing Congress and changing the occupant of the White House are the means to political change in this country. Woe to us if we allow our political future to be determined by mobs in the street.
Friday, August 3, 2018
Looking back on Vietnam War draft
"Random Destiny" by Wesley Abney provides a compact history of one of the most tumultuous times in U.S. history, the era of the Vietnam War draft policy and protests, 1964-73. Those of us who lived through those years of war, defiance, domestic violence and uncertainty will never forget them, but a younger audience might find Abney's book informative and, at times, intriguing.
Abney breaks down the history of U.S. military drafts since World War I, focusing on the years of the draft to supply troops for the Vietnam War in the final years of Lyndon Johnson's presidency and Richard Nixon's first term.
As anyone who was affected by military draft policy will tell you, the regulations and laws were complicated and sometimes irrational. Abney provides explanations of the draft laws and deferments with individual chapters on medical, moral and mental deferments; conscientious objectors; deferred occupations; college deferments; sole surviving son and other family deferments.
He also has chapters on the various military services that some potential draftees turned to in order to avoid the much greater risk of ground combat in Vietnam and on the fundamental dissent and disobedience of some draftees who refused to participate in the Selective Service system, which could lead to criminal charges.
He concludes the book with the amnesties for draft resisters and AWOL soldiers offered by President Ford and expanded by President Carter after the draft ended in 1973 and America began fielding an all-volunteer army.
The Dec. 1, 1969, draft lottery is the nexus of this review of U.S. military draft policy. Implemented to reduce uncertainty about the draft and opposition to the draft, the lottery affected all males of draft age, a span of several years. By night's end, 366 numbers had been drawn, and men's futures were determined by where their birth date fell in the numbers. The certainty that those with numbers below 100 would almost certainly be drafted and those with numbers above 300 almost certainly would not changed the lives of millions.
The stories of those lives, collected over a period of years on a website that invited Vietnam-era men to share their experiences with the draft and the war, are the heart of this book. The review of the various draft laws, deferments and exceptions are thorough but can be rather dry. The personal narratives are poignant and powerful.
Abney has organized these fervent narratives to follow each chapter on the laws and regulations that sparked these personal accounts. The vast majority of stories are about the many ways young men of the late 1960s through 1973 sought to avoid the draft. Those with low draft numbers were left in limbo, unable to complete their college degrees or to get long-term employment. Some were married (not a deferment — but an excused absence early in the war), and some had dependent children (a deferment that ended in 1967). The impact of draft deferments is cited in the rise in marriage rates when marital status could get you a deferment and a rise in the birth rate when babies could get a man out of the draft.
After setting up a website to collect draft lottery stories in 2007. The website collected 840 narratives by 2017. One-hundred-sixty of these stories are included in the book, and all of the collected stories are still available on the website, www.vietnamwardraftlottery.com.
These stories show the diversity of experiences and personal opinions about the war and the draft. Some of the young men were adamantly opposed to the Vietnam War or to war in general. Others went willingly to their "random destiny," a fate they saw as their duty. Most fell somewhere in between the few who would resort to deceit or violence to avoid the draft and those who were already in military service or who were willing to comply with the government's induction orders.
I found the stories of those who entered the military service (most of them electing to enlist in a "safer" branch of service) especially interesting. Many found their military experience positive and constructive. It changed their lives. They are proud of their service in uniform. Those who returned from Vietnam combat were deeply angered by the reception they received coming home. Some protesters shouted insults ("baby killer!") and threw rocks or pig's blood at the returning soldiers. Some of the most earnest protesters of the war disapproved of such behavior.
"I would not have volunteered to serve, but having been drafted, I am proud of being a veteran," one contributor wrote. Another wrote, "I didn't want to go, but it sure changed my life. It was the best thing that ever happened to me." Don wrote, "My Navy service was one of the highlights of my life. Without the draft, I would not have done it." John, who served in the National Guard, wrote, "In retrospect, the experience made me a better person and a better student."
"Random Destiny" would make a great textbook for a college-level course on the Vietnam War's impact on the home front. The book is thoroughly footnoted and has an extensive bibliography. Still, the personal narratives are the most compelling aspect of the book. Today's generation of college students, 45 years removed from the war and the draft, could learn a lot from such a course.
Hal Tarleton
Abney breaks down the history of U.S. military drafts since World War I, focusing on the years of the draft to supply troops for the Vietnam War in the final years of Lyndon Johnson's presidency and Richard Nixon's first term.
As anyone who was affected by military draft policy will tell you, the regulations and laws were complicated and sometimes irrational. Abney provides explanations of the draft laws and deferments with individual chapters on medical, moral and mental deferments; conscientious objectors; deferred occupations; college deferments; sole surviving son and other family deferments.
He also has chapters on the various military services that some potential draftees turned to in order to avoid the much greater risk of ground combat in Vietnam and on the fundamental dissent and disobedience of some draftees who refused to participate in the Selective Service system, which could lead to criminal charges.
He concludes the book with the amnesties for draft resisters and AWOL soldiers offered by President Ford and expanded by President Carter after the draft ended in 1973 and America began fielding an all-volunteer army.
The Dec. 1, 1969, draft lottery is the nexus of this review of U.S. military draft policy. Implemented to reduce uncertainty about the draft and opposition to the draft, the lottery affected all males of draft age, a span of several years. By night's end, 366 numbers had been drawn, and men's futures were determined by where their birth date fell in the numbers. The certainty that those with numbers below 100 would almost certainly be drafted and those with numbers above 300 almost certainly would not changed the lives of millions.
The stories of those lives, collected over a period of years on a website that invited Vietnam-era men to share their experiences with the draft and the war, are the heart of this book. The review of the various draft laws, deferments and exceptions are thorough but can be rather dry. The personal narratives are poignant and powerful.
Abney has organized these fervent narratives to follow each chapter on the laws and regulations that sparked these personal accounts. The vast majority of stories are about the many ways young men of the late 1960s through 1973 sought to avoid the draft. Those with low draft numbers were left in limbo, unable to complete their college degrees or to get long-term employment. Some were married (not a deferment — but an excused absence early in the war), and some had dependent children (a deferment that ended in 1967). The impact of draft deferments is cited in the rise in marriage rates when marital status could get you a deferment and a rise in the birth rate when babies could get a man out of the draft.
After setting up a website to collect draft lottery stories in 2007. The website collected 840 narratives by 2017. One-hundred-sixty of these stories are included in the book, and all of the collected stories are still available on the website, www.vietnamwardraftlottery.com.
These stories show the diversity of experiences and personal opinions about the war and the draft. Some of the young men were adamantly opposed to the Vietnam War or to war in general. Others went willingly to their "random destiny," a fate they saw as their duty. Most fell somewhere in between the few who would resort to deceit or violence to avoid the draft and those who were already in military service or who were willing to comply with the government's induction orders.
I found the stories of those who entered the military service (most of them electing to enlist in a "safer" branch of service) especially interesting. Many found their military experience positive and constructive. It changed their lives. They are proud of their service in uniform. Those who returned from Vietnam combat were deeply angered by the reception they received coming home. Some protesters shouted insults ("baby killer!") and threw rocks or pig's blood at the returning soldiers. Some of the most earnest protesters of the war disapproved of such behavior.
"I would not have volunteered to serve, but having been drafted, I am proud of being a veteran," one contributor wrote. Another wrote, "I didn't want to go, but it sure changed my life. It was the best thing that ever happened to me." Don wrote, "My Navy service was one of the highlights of my life. Without the draft, I would not have done it." John, who served in the National Guard, wrote, "In retrospect, the experience made me a better person and a better student."
"Random Destiny" would make a great textbook for a college-level course on the Vietnam War's impact on the home front. The book is thoroughly footnoted and has an extensive bibliography. Still, the personal narratives are the most compelling aspect of the book. Today's generation of college students, 45 years removed from the war and the draft, could learn a lot from such a course.
Hal Tarleton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
