I would like to express my gratitude to The Journal News of Westchester and Rockland Counties for its interest in the many letters I have submitted to its editorial department over the years and for allowing me an opportunity to express my viewpoints. What follows is a collection of those letters.
September 25th, 1995
To the Editor:
I found Mr. Greenberg‘s column (―Poll-itically Incorrect‖) criticizing the unsportsmanlike manner of some college football coaches who perennially run up scores against weaker opponents in order to impress pollsters, (and thereby secure higher national rankings), inconsistent with previous viewpoints expressed in earlier columns addressing the same issue. No less thought provoking was his (ironic) reference to Penn State coach Joe Paterno, a gentleman whose regard for opposing coaches and players has precluded his running up scores in a manner that may have arguably cost his program a national championship or two over the years. In a column written a while ago, Mr. Greenberg defended his selection of Nebraska…………a team whose coach (Tom Osborne) understands a thing or two about running up scores……….. as NCAA National Football Champions for ―sentimental‖ reasons following a number of untimely losses and near misses depriving Osborne of the coveted title. It bears mentioning that although boasting an impressive regular season won-loss record, Osborne‘s bowl record against ranked opponents was 9 (wins) and 13 (loses) including 7 loses in a row prior to winning his first national championship. Mr. Greenburg‘s column, as I recall, underscored the Penn State-Indiana game that saw the Nitany Lions surrender two fourth quarter touchdowns in the waning moments of a game whose outcome was never (seriously) in doubt. Indiana‘s late heroics, however, was reason enough for switching his vote to Nebraska. Now, one year later, he considers such scores ―meaningless‖. Not at the time Mr. Greenberg was filling out his ballot, however!
Respectfully
Al Baldi
• • •
March 18th, 1996To the Editor:
Mr. Delnagro‘s troubling column (―Anthem gets attention‖) questioning why players and fans attending professional sporting events should be required to stand during the playing of our National Anthem, despite conflicting ideological viewpoints, instead of being allowed to ―sit it out in peace‖, if that is their desire, underscores a disturbing tendency among a number of Americans who routinely take peace for granted. The ―peace‖ that our society (presently) enjoys neither came cheap nor without personal sacrifice. It was ransomed by the lives of the many brave young men and women who stood in defense of freedom, which our flag remains the overriding symbol. Americans typically enjoy freedom(s) that for many people around the world, including those living in our own backyard, is unimaginable. How regrettable, therefore, the uneasiness of certain individuals inconvenienced by an ―involuntary‖
acknowledgment of the very symbol that provides expression to their own respective designs to begin with! This growing indifference to our flag does not bode well for a society whose patriotic attitudes have become remarkably complacent. Should we choose to remain non-participants in this ―Great Experiment‖, however, let‘s at least allow ourselves a brief moment (of silence) acknowledging the selfless sacrifices that made (even) this letter possible. Perhaps Mr. Delnagro should rethink his position.
Respectfully
Al Baldi
• • •
144April 18th 1996
To the Editor:
Mr. Cowl‘s letter questioning the effectiveness of a recent (fact finding) gathering of state governors and business men and women seeking workable solutions to declining performance trends in our urban public schools smacked somewhat of the ―father knows best‖
syndrome that he unfairly projected on these well-meaning professionals. An individual needn‘t be a product of an inner city school education in order to recognize the system‘s apparent shortcomings. That it is ―problematical‖ that any of those attending the conference has ever ―successfully‖ taught in an urban public school environment places each in an unenviable position alongside public school teachers who unsuccessfully have; notwithstanding the latter‘s extensive experience. Mr. Cowl is piqued over the idea of lay people interacting in matters exceeding the limits of their professional expertise. I must respectfully disagree with his parochial viewpoint. Although teaching and training methods oftentimes vary by profession, their underlying principles generally remain the same. The overriding concern for all interested parties should be the dismal track record of our inner city schools in recent years and the practical measures needed to improve it. The glaring academic and (civic) deficiencies of a growing number of students render it neither feasible nor desirable that any thoughtful individual should whitewash the negative impact that under-performing schools are having on our economy, not to mention the rise in anti-social behavior in general. We need simply refer to the vast financial outlays (Corporate Welfare) being allocated for ―retraining‖ (reeducating!) purposes, as well as the dramatic rise in ―social costs‖ in order to appreciate the consequence(s) of our failing schools.
Many (young) adults are failing to measure up to the basic reading, writing and number skills required for ordinary jobs, not to mention the highly specialized skills required by more challenging working environments. Corporations footing the bill should be allowed (some) input into areas directly affecting a company‘s performance; for example, suggested coursework compatible with a company‘s business requirements or communicating effectively. Many of our public schools are performing a disservice to students entrusted to their care; many of whom, having ―graduated‖, are oftentimes ill equipped to meet the basic day-to-day challenges that lie ahead. Teachers have seemingly lost the will and the desire to properly engage their students, that is to say, creating a highly motivated environment conducive to learning. Unfortunately, companies and other professional organizations and ultimately the taxpayer, are usually the ones left ―holding the bag‖.
This brings me to another discussion point that I found quite troubling. Public Schools, according to Mr. Cowl, have never (traditionally) ―cherry picked‖ its students. Fair enough. This may partially explain why most parents choose public schools for their children to begin with. In the not so distant past, however, the decision to attend public schools did not prevent children from receiving a quality education consistent with their natural talents and abilities. Academic standards are not necessarily established because they are considered achievable but because they represent objective performance measures perceived worthy of achievement, notwithstanding (the) student‘s ability to achieve them. Although the highest grade isn‘t always achievable, its aim, however, should be encouraged. Such attitudes require raising the proverbial bar to its highest level in order to provide every student an opportunity to recognize, if not otherwise achieve the highest limit of his or her natural potential. This is something that Mr. Cowl appears reluctant to endorse because of ―cultural differences‖ that have (historically) precluded a level playing field.
This brings me to (yet) another point? America is a uniquely diverse nation. Its cultural diversity (and social mobility), for that matter, has never prevented children from every walk of life from learning and achieving success. Quite the contrary! Our society has provided opportunities for many individuals or groups to move up the social and economic ladders proportionate to their (inherent) talents (and desires). I am bewildered by the latent overtones implied in Mr. Cowl‘s remarks. I am referring to his allusion to dunking basketballs and running one hundred yard dashes that seemed rather transparent if not racist. Implying that their children‘s underlying talents lay predominately in sports is demeaning to Black Americans. Sports should serve as adjuncts to academics however not the student‘s primary focus.
The real problem in my estimation stems from the rise of relativist attitudes dominating our school environments. Traditional course work no longer seems appropriate in these modern times; superseded, in large measure, by quixotic designs for ―meaning‖, ―self-esteem‖ and ―self-worth‖ ….and ―relevancy‖ rather than unconditional learning for learning sake. It is especially troubling how many teachers have encouraged such hazy attitudes. What seem to be missing are the correlative assumptions uniting the practical requirements of a well-rounded education with the essentials of sound citizenship required for financial and social success. Immature grievances commonly expressed nowadays by students toiling over ―useless‖ Algebra and ―dated‖ languages like Latin and Greek considered unnecessary or incompatible with a student‘s career objective(s) misses the point entirely; that is to say, their functional
―utility‖ is not necessarily the overriding factor but rather how such subject matter encourages a mind to think or to reason clearly by compelling it to operate on a higher intellectual plane. In any event, there are any number of vocational and/or general studies programs available to students who are neither endowed by nature nor temperament to pursue higher learning (that is not necessarily a bad thing inasmuch it fills a vital need)). Perhaps the question we should all be asking ourselves is what is it that determines relevancy in school environments where most traditional subject matter seems to have lost its potency? At the present rate, unless higher academic standards (and discipline) are restored in the classroom, many schools may very well become irrelevant in their own right, if not already so!
Our public schools need to restore balance and common sense in the classroom. They need to (intellectually) challenge rather than indulge or humor its students. The overriding issue isn‘t whether or not a student is proficient in ancient languages or higher mathematics, although the latter would be certainly commendable, but whether or not that student has at least mastered the basic requirements of reading, writing and calculating sums. Mr. Cowl concludes his argument by stating that the ―real world‖ of inner city 145
schools is best described as a casualty of diminishing public resources, inadequate staffing, and obsolete textbooks ad nauseum. I would argue that spending inefficiencies rather than insufficient resources are the real culprits masking the (underlying) reasons why many of our public schools are failing; that along with disinterested teachers and a gradual departure from traditional values at home and in the classroom that money can not buy. Vast waves of under-privileged children from needy environments have achieved success over the years because of (conditioning) values targeting education (and learning) as the means to success. It also helped having teachers who shared the same values and interests as their parents; who taught without recourse (to excuses). A tolerance for increasingly lazy study habits has a way of assuming a life of its own, however. What is needed is a return to the old-fashioned teacher/student compact that was less compromising and more demanding of its students. Mr. Cowl should seriously consider returning to the basics!
Respectfully
Al Baldi
• • •
May 1st 1996To the Editor:
I would like to make some casual observations regarding Mr. Cerbini‘s critique of the Educational System, the Media and Immorality and the manner they have indirectly contributed to rather egregious jury verdicts of late. 1) His first point is well taken. I agree with his assessment that a number of our public schools and (other) seats of higher ―learning‖ have, on some level, transformed themselves into institutionalized breeding grounds for racial/class agitation and social victimization. This may partially explain the student
―wave‖ at Howard University following the ―not guilty‖ verdict rendered by a predominantly Black Jury during the O.J. Simpson trial.
Jury Nullification, precipitated by perceived historical injustices, rejects or makes void rules or articles of evidence and their proper application as instructed by law because of pre-conceived biases unwilling to concede the legitimacy of such statutes or official practices of the court. Prevailing attitudes of this sort have become increasingly common in an age where ―organic relationships‖
(Reinhold Niebuhr) render it undesirable for certain groups to extend legal rights to members of other groups that ―necessity‖ may otherwise claim for themselves‖. Such viewpoints are oftentimes engendered by the perception of ―partial justice‖ as it seems to apply to a particular racial or ethnic group, influencing the (collective) mindset of that group seeking justice within narrower limits that typically define that group‘s self interests rather than the interests of society. Intra-Societal conflicts must inevitably produce unintended consequences respecting legal precedents affirming that no one individual or group of individuals is above the law. That having been said, racial attitudes, I believe, are oftentimes reinforced although not necessarily formed in the classroom. 2) Mr.
Cerbini‘s assessment of the Media was right on target. The ―mainstream‖ media has devolved into a homogenous collection of single-minded, self- righteous, glorified gossip columnists entertaining pretentious claims to serious journalism; its members, the artificially contrived off springs of an increasingly illiterate, ill-informed public that has become less discerning and more dependent upon television sound bites and talking points to do their ―critical‖ thinking for them. The news media is motivated by nothing more or nothing less than sensationalism and for what sells. Few, if any of its members, possess any meaningful (core) values. 3) Finally, it is debatable, as indicated in Mr. Cerbini‘s closing remarks, whether or not moral instruction should be a function of the classroom.
Although I believe that schools have a civic obligation to reinforce principles and values essential to sound citizenship, the preliminary work should begin at home, however. It all begins with conditioning and a child‘s (natural) impulses.
Respectfully
Al Baldi
• • •
May 16th 1996To the Editor:
To what extent is any free society willing to surrender a portion of its civil liberties in exchange for a safer, more secure environment?
The rising costs associated with our society‘s War on Drugs, for example, have succored qualifying arguments favoring its legalization. Changing attitudes towards drug abuse are motivated in part by 1) the growing perception among many Americans that our nation is losing the war, 2) diminishing results that do not seem to justify increasing public expenditures earmarked for its prevention, 3) tendencies to treat the symptom(s) rather than the disease and 4) society‘s unwillingness to support ―extra-legal‖
methods considered unconstitutional.
Regarding the latter, our society has faced a number of critical crossroads in its history that resulted in curtailing, if not suspending altogether, its civil liberties and other privileges in times of (national) crisis. Such examples exceeding the scope of this letter, should properly inform and caution the sensibilities of thoughtful individuals wary of the potential (long-term) effects such draconian measures might otherwise impose on the American People. Our nation‘s political institutions have provided meaning to free and open societies that ultimately define us as a people (given to ideas). Extra-Legal activities designed to pre-empt Rule of Law, in whatever manner they may (otherwise) produce some ―desired‖ effect, should be properly treated with caution. In view of our nation‘s collective uncertainty, its jealous attachment to liberty oftentimes renders the disease preferable to its (potential) cure. Changing 146
perceptions may sometimes warrant, however, a critical reassessment of existing (societal) assumptions based on practical matters rather than legal considerations. The social costs resulting in injury to property and person, not to mention the demoralizing effect on social amenities, however inestimable, are ―intuitively‖ understood.
Substance Abuse has been characterized in some circles a ―victimless‖ crime whose illegality is the result of questionable laws. Its legalization and subsequent dispensation under the auspices of trained professionals operating in a controlled environment, provides a plausible counter-argument to costly efforts aimed at apprehending and bringing drug dealers to task; not to mention promoting cleaner, safer and healthier communities by eliminating criminal incentives and (profits) associated with its unlawful procurement. I am reminded, however, of similar arguments related to legalized gambling and prostitution that never quite achieved their desired results. The potential risk associated with legalizing drugs is understood as a possible endorsement (perhaps) of other forms of aberrant or anti-social behavior under the specious argument of an individual‘s right to choose; however detrimental to the moral and spiritual well-being of that individual or society, for that matter. Neither does legalizing drugs promote the health of an individual otherwise under the influence of mind altering, physically debilitating drugs, in whatever manner or conditions such drugs are administered. I also believe that legalization sends a clear message to (potential) law-breakers that whenever law enforcement is perceived as ineffectual, its legalization, whatever the social consequences, is right around the corner. A civilized society reflects the courage and wisdom needed to challenge mistaken assumptions that otherwise degrade us as human beings; that quickly encourage proper forms of behavior not only for their own sake but also because of the positive examples they set for other people. This rather dim view of convention is never mindful of the perils of excessive tolerance that must inevitably find expression in an environment where unlimited freedom will eventually be unable to sustain itself. Such is fated for a society that is neither willing to uphold its legal traditions nor unable to estimate the consequences of its purposeful actions.
Respectfully
Al Baldi
• • •
August 28th 1996To the Editor:
Dark omens sounding the death knell of our Republic‘s ―pending‖ demise have been prophesied by doomsayers since its founding.
Nevertheless, despite the growing pains attending this ―Grand Experiment‖, (whose underlying assumptions are still being tested), our great nation has always managed to land on its feet; its Character and Purpose evolving or transforming themselves into something
―entirely‖ new yet essentially the same. This, despite the many domestic and foreign challenges it has encountered over the years.
That Americans are slow to embrace change is due in part to modifying values or customs embodied within the (broader) culture that (ironically) ―encourages‖ such values to begin with. America was uniquely conceived in the principle manner it has been able to embrace and assimilate a variety of cultures forming unqualified or hybrid expressions symbolizing the normative elasticity of its people; of ―old world‖ customs and manners that gradually introduced themselves to the American Mainstream over the years. Where problems may sometimes arise lie in shorter-term progressions resistant to (social) changes perceived counter to or incompatible with accustomed traditions. Experience has shown, however, that such ―anomalies‖, are the touchstones of a free and open-society.
America is a great, tolerant nation for the simple reason that it is adaptable and self-correcting. Such characteristics precede a universal fellowship that, however vaguely uncertain, exceeds the salient features that normally sustains the Whole in a manner that seeks to promote natural rather than artificial solutions to its social commitments. Such efforts should be pursued, however, from both sides of the aisle. Where separate roads are taken or where a nation‘s people become strangers to one another, may very well spell that society‘s potential undoing.
Respectfully
Al Baldi
• • •
March 17th 1997To the Editor:
Militant factions (gradually) emerging within the African American Community seeking monetary reparations compensating
―descendents‖ of slaves for loss of (retroactive) income could be setting a rather precarious precedent by encouraging other groups or individuals, for that matter, to seek financial restitution for (historical) privations or other (imagined) grievances precipitated by the perception of racial, ethnic or gender bias. This scenario is not as far-fetched as it may appear given our society‘s misplaced sympathy, at times, for its perceived ―victims‖ and unqualified support for underdogs in general that oftentimes checkers its thinking.
Compulsory reminder(s) (by contentious groups) of our nation‘s historical transgressions, that are neither politically nor socially relevant to present times, oftentimes serve to obstruct rather than facilitate racial dialogue.
America‘s traditional performance(s) in some areas, especially on racial matters, have been arguably inconsistent with or lagging behind its constitutional intentions. Nevertheless, our nation has managed to overcome a number of myopic shortcomings because of 147
the inherent elasticity of its conceptual designs; perhaps even more so because of the latent (moral) character of its people. America is a progressive nation because it is self-correcting. Therein lies its (political) genius; a remarkable capacity to adapt to the (conscientious) requirements of a morally (evolving) society. What I find particularly troubling about this scheme, however, is rooted in our nation‘s Civil War that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of brave young men, mostly White, who gave their lives for the cause of freedom.
Could an equally plausible argument be made that their lineal descendents should also be compensated (in kind) for their heroic efforts on the battlefield? Critics may argue that I am comparing apples with oranges. I don‘t believe so. I am merely bringing an implausible assumption to its illogical conclusion. As a society, we are all, to some degree, inextricably woven by the fortunes of other individuals.
A compelling argument could be made that this inevitable war mutually united, on some level, at least, the social and political destinies of both races. Whether the war was triggered by events unrelated to slavery, as some historians have argued, is not the overriding question. Its ―unintended‖ result(s) that inevitably enhanced the moral character of our nation is what concerns us here. Be that as it may, how long will it remain (politically) expedient for our nation to continue exhuming its dead rather than letting them rest in peace!
Respectfully
Al Baldi
• • •
July 20th 1997To the Editor:
Multi-Culturalism, as it continues to inform Immigration, is gradually transforming America into a geographical entity comprised of distinct cultural units rather than a national body combining, among other things, common language and loyalty (to the ―host‖ nation) and a proper appreciation of its social and political institutions. A nation is properly understood by its historical heritage, political and social ideologies, customs and practices, legal institutions, its borders, sovereign traditions and perhaps most importantly, its language.
These defining aspects typically characterize a nation by keeping it Whole. Without question, the intimacy of language is the lowest common denominator that ―unifies‖ a nation. Multi-Culturalism should not be confused with Inter-Culturalism that otherwise suggests a mutual exchanging and/or assimilating of the higher (Arts & Sciences, Music, Literature and Architecture) and lower (Cuisine, Fashions and Sports) cultures whose synthesis finds its ultimate expression within an overlapping culture that oftentimes acquires its own unique standing over time. Understood in this manner, diversity does not seek to diminish the collective value of other cultures considered separately, however as a whole. A variety of cultures operating within the framework of any (pluralistic) society should neither tolerate nor encourage, however, the discriminate non-participation of any of its members. Present tendencies, however, seem to be running counter to traditional practices that sought to integrate diverse cultures (E Pluribus Unum). The aim of every immigrant was, above all else, to become an American; not the preservation of separate identities in a ―foreign‖ environment. Can the cultural balkanization of America be right around the corner?
Respectfully
Al Baldi
• • •
November 1st 1997To the Editor:
This is a letter that has been long overdue as it pertains to a comic strip that was printed in your newspaper on September 14th. The title was ―For Better or for Worse‖ by Lynn Johnson. I don‘t generally read the comics as I once did many years ago but this day I wanted to read them and see how they had changed over the years and was disappointed after reading the first strip by Ms. Johnson.
It‘s about kids returning to school after summer vacation and finding a ―newness‖ about the place i.e. new floors, replaced cracked windows, clean walls etc. The big laugh or punch line was that ―it‘s gonna take a while to get this place lookin‘ good again!‖ What came across to me was Ms. Johnson‘s tastelessness in what she finds humorous. It is this kind of message that graffiti and destruction should not be considered a serious matter that has contributed to the absence of polite and civilized manners in today‘s society. Her relaxed message and ―shrugged‖ commitment to society can only encourage indifference. (I wonder whether Ms. Johnson would enjoy living in a community or working in an environment that had graffiti, broken windows and uncleaned floors. I am certain that people who do not would gladly trade places with her). We have our freedoms, yes, but not to vandalize property. Humor is a spice of life. We all have a basic need to laugh once in a while. But humor shouldn‘t be used to sow further confusion in an already troubled society. I was disappointed because I found her attitude unacceptable. My failure to write sooner shows how getting caught up in everyday life overshadows the responsibility we all have in voicing our objections against mixed-messages that fail to instill proper meaning to words like Character.
Sincerely
Rose Baldi
• • •
148February 18th 1998
To the editor:
Richard W. Dwyer‘s letter was well-meaning although it raises a very important question: To what extent should the American People be willing to compromise the ―Character Issue‖ as it relates to the Office of the Presidency, or any other political office for that matter? Americans are a forgiving people. But even our nation‘s inherent capacity to forgive a public or private misdeed has its (defined) limits, however. Forgiveness follows where personal accountability for one‘s (own) actions begins. We are all flawed in one manner or another. We all make mistakes; intentional or otherwise. Our imperfect nature(s), given all its multiple complexities, provides unlimited possibilities for such transgressions whose absence would otherwise belie our human condition. Notwithstanding our human shortcomings, however, how far should any society be expected to tolerate, for ―unity‘s sake‖, irreconcilable moral and ethical misconduct that is quickly gaining momentum within political circles? Who remains accountable for the unseemly actions of our public officials who seem unwilling or unable to reform themselves, if not the Conscience of the American People? In what manner does that society continue supporting notions of unity in view of prevailing (double) standards that falsely qualify appearances as uncharacteristic or unimportant? In what manner does that society achieve consistency between public and private matters where
―vital national interests‖ are at stake? In a word, where does society draw the line on inappropriate conduct? America is a great nation because its institutions are recoverable. It has achieved singular greatness by placing its political and social ideologies above the interests of any single individual. Such defined the wisdom of our first president (George Washington) who, properly aware of the (inherent) temptations of political power, limited himself to two terms in office. Each of us is fragile or flawed in our own unique or peculiar way. Nevertheless, we must endeavor to temper and control our passions and emotions that oftentimes occasion questionable ambitions incompatible with the interests and welfare of other people entrusted to our care. This responsibility assumes far greater importance for our public officials who many of us otherwise expect to lead by example. ―To whom much is given, much is expected‖; even among those of us possessing ―feet of clay‖.
Respectfully
Al Baldi