Sticks and Stones May Break my Bones but Words...Can Kill or Enliven

              Sticks and Stones May Break my Bones but Words … Can Kill or Enliven

                                                   Published in Marietta Daily Journal March 20, 2016

            Words matter.  When I was 14, spring time found my father and me dealing with barbed wire.  We weren’t building a fence; we were “sticking beans.”   

 My father, a good man who said little unless the topics were faith, crops, or politics, was a neat-nick.  Newspapers, once read, had to be placed back in order, and magazines - Progressive Farmer, Farm Journal, and U.S. News and World Report - had to be stacked neatly.  His diaries, in which he faithfully wrote nightly from January of 1943 to only a few months before his death in 1979, were kept at the end of the mantel.  We never touched them except when he was away from the house.  Occasionally we would peep into the diaries to settle arguments about dates.   Those diaries didn’t lie.

My father made up words.  On the morning that we gathered up a mall, oak posts, barbed wire, staples, crowbar, and hammer for the bean sticking, he cautioned me that the job was going to be a “worriation.”  A lover of words, I knew he didn’t get that one from Noah Webster.  The closest word to “worriation” that I could find in the dictionary was “worriment” which to this day I have still never seen or heard used.

Anyhow, on to that spring day of our worriation. When you stick beans “southernly,” (honestly, I’ve heard him say that one too), you don’t just stick a spindly sweet gum sapling in the ground beside the bean plant, hoping the runner will run up the sapling.  Oh, no. Even a mild wind would level such a piddly effort as that.  “Piddly” is in honor of my father.  Mr. Webster lists it, but refers you to “piddling.”  I’m with my father on this one. “Piddling” is too citified, if not … British.

Of course to do anything “southernly” really meant to do it the “W.E. Hines” way.  But that way always worked and always made things look pretty, too.  People didn’t drive from town late in the afternoon to pass by and look at his fields and gardens for nothing.

Ok, here’s “southernly.”   First you drive posts down at the 2 ends of each row and at every 6 yards in between.  Next you unroll and stretch barbed wire from one end post to the other and hammer staples over the wire and onto the every-six-yards posts.  With barbed wire stretched taut and stapled down, you can then “stick” a trimmed sapling beside each bean plant, tie it to the secured wire, and in time, train the bean vine to grow up the sapling.

With gloved hands I began to unroll the wire.  Halfway down the row I lost control of the heavy roll, causing it to whirl swiftly back toward my father at the other end of the row.  One of the barbs plowed deep into his ungloved hand and drew blood.  Shaking his hand and scattering blood, he yelled, “Son, you can’t do anything right.”

For a few years I believed him.  The words didn’t exactly hurt; they stung and numbed.  They initiated a long period of self-doubt.  But even their negative import could not diminish my respect for my intelligent, hardworking, tenant farmer father who nobly bore his responsibilities and raised 17 children to adulthood.

Eight years later on a spring Sunday morning I asked him if he still planned to go with me that afternoon 90 miles away to my college graduation.  The recent death of my mother had turned him into a sad, non-communicative man.  At age 72 he still worked hard.  His answer made me realize that for eight years I had wrongly and foolishly internalized his words, allowing them to stymie me, even though they were spoken quickly out of physical pain, not out of thought or belief.

“Son, I don’t believe I can make that trip, but I want you to know I love you and I’m proud of you,” he said.  Instantly my mind flashed back to that “worriation” of sticking beans and the words spoken on that day.

“Some say a word is dead once it is said / I say it just begins to live that day,” wrote the poet.  True, but words can also cancel previously spoken ones when the latter ones are spoken sincerely.  My father spoke sincerely.

Words are the vehicles on which our thoughts ride.  Ill-chosen, those vehicles can hit the ditch and do damage.  Luckily my self-imposed damage was reversed.  Many are those whose damage is not.

Roger Hines

3/16/16

America Has a Man Problem

            America Has a Man Problem

                                                                 Published in Marietta Daily Journal March 13, 2016

            When Terrelle stood to give his talk, his fellow inmates listened intently.  Terrelle was thirty-eight, handsome, intelligent, and much loved by all his classmates.  He was the type of guy who makes you wonder how he could ever have done anything that led to a state prison.

             Terrelle’s English course required students to give one talk.  He chose to talk about growing up in the ‘hood.  Among other heartbreaking but revealing details, Terrelle stated he had never seen his father.  Of his mother he said, “She pretty much pushed me off on my grandmother, and my grandmother left every day for work so I had to take care of my younger brother.”

            These details were wrought with emotion, but were quite familiar.  Familiarity can breed a ho-hum attitude toward a situation that needs anything but.  I had heard stories like Terrelle’s not just from other inmates but from quite a few high school and college students outside of prison.  However, toward the end of his talk, Terrelle added something that made his story different: “My family wuz my street buddies, but as far as my real family was concerned, I just about didn’t know who I wuz.”

            Those words rang in my ears for the remainder of the day.  To me, they were profound,  revealing that fatherless homes can lead to an identity crisis even in the mind of a small child.  They can also rob a child of his or her childhood, forcing children to function as parents of younger brothers and sisters.

            Yes, America has a man problem.  Perhaps that’s the reason forty percent of American children will go to bed tonight without fathers.  Today we care more about defending same-sex marriage than we do fixing our man problem.  School systems in several major cities, instead of standing for common sense, are grappling with the issue of “correct restrooms” and how to deal with transgenderism, as though there weren’t enough societal problems without the silly ones brought on by sexual chaos.

            Statistics are cold things.  If they reveal information that saddens or frightens, we shake our heads in despair and go on.  But the statistics stubbornly remain.  They indicate that before our nation’s children reach the age of eighteen, more than half of them will have spent a significant portion of their childhood apart from their fathers.

            But our male prison population isn’t the only indicator.  The general population is trending in directions that show we are becoming a nation of “men without chests.”  As C.S. Lewis further put it, “We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.”

            There are two foundational questions that pertain directly to our man problem.  One of them is “What is first in nature?”   One doesn’t have to believe the Genesis account of creation (“Male and female created He them”) to know that life is sexually transmitted.  Yet in our tinkering with human sexuality (transgenderism, homosexuality, same-sex marriage) we are consequently killing off masculinity and femininity.  The collateral damage is the denigration of fatherhood.  Does anyone remember the highly touted book for children titled “Heather Has Two Mommies”?  It didn’t exactly elevate fatherhood.

            Something else that is first in nature is that beautiful little unit of government called the family. “Male and female” does often lead to children.   As the writer John Allen puts it, humans are “a species of homebodies.”  Marriage, family, and home are not just the American psyche but the human inclination. (You know – a mom, a dad, and some kids.)  But if you believe in this time-honored arrangement today, you are “on the wrong side of history,” a nonsensical phrase if there ever was one.

            The other foundational question is “Who am I?”  We should readily see how fatherlessness leads to this question.  Fatherlessness is the most harmful demographic in America today.  But not all of it is caused by sorry men who flee from responsibility.  The culture itself is either questioning or denigrating fatherhood.  Television comedy presents fathers who are doofuses.  Masculinity itself is suspect and viewed with hostility.  It doesn’t fit modern androgyny.

            Anthropologist Margaret Mead argued that the supreme test of any civilization is whether or not it can “socialize its men” by teaching them to be fathers and to willingly nurture their offspring.  As far as social stability or law and order are concerned, no issue has higher stakes than fatherlessness.

            “ … I just about didn’t know who I wuz,” Terrelle said.  And so it will continue to be as long as governmental policies weaken the family and as long as religious values are driven from the public square.

           

Roger Hines

3/9/16

Change? Where, When, and By Whom?

                          Change?  Where, When, and By Whom?

                                   

                                                                  Published in Marietta Daily Journal March 6, 2016

            Anyone who thinks Donald Trump is arrogant needs to watch Fox News and read the Wall Street Journal, both of which, for what it’s worth, are owned by Rupert Murdoch.  If Murdoch’s minions really can’t understand Trump’s growing army, they might consider the following recent history.

            In August of 1992 at the Republican convention in Houston, President George H.W. Bush, seeking re-election, repeated the issues his party would continue to address.  Among them were school choice, term limits, and tax cuts plus a host of others with which Republicans have always been associated.

            In his nomination acceptance speech, Mr. Bush uttered 8 words that received little attention, probably because the 8 words embodied standard Republican orthodoxy with which Republicans were so familiar.  Republicans had heard these words before.  But a national convention is a pep rally, so the nominee’s main purpose was to gin up excitement by repeating the standard, though neglected, orthodoxy.

            Those 8 words were “Government is too big and costs too much.”

            Fast forward to January of 1995 and President Clinton’s state of the union address.  In the midterm election of ’94, his party had received a shellacking with Republicans taking control of Congress.  In response to that shellacking, Clinton at the beginning of his address said slowly and deliberately, “The era of big government is over.”

            Fast forward again to a Republican administration, that of George W. Bush.  With his Medicare Plan D, government costs (which the President’s father had criticized) were increased.  With his No Child Left Behind law, the federal government now had its foot in the door of every classroom in the country.   No Child Left Behind certainly didn’t reduce government’s size and scope.  It did reduce localism and ignored the 10^th amendment.

            Once more fast forward, this time to another Democrat President, Mr. Obama.  Recall the so-called Affordable Care Act and its consequent increase of government reach and costs.  Recall Mr. Obama’s re-definition of marriage.

  Why can’t the WSJ and certain Fox “contributors” see the pattern of steady growth of government under both parties as well as its connection to last Tuesday night’s primary results?  Despite differences in professed principles, is there a dime’s worth of difference between our two major parties?  Today, a quarter of a century after Bush I’s Houston address, is government any less expensive?  Any less intrusive?  If Bush I was serious, why did domestic spending and regulations explode during his first term? 

            As for Mr. Clinton’s assertion that big government had gone bye-bye, we see in retrospect that it was his first of many effective uses of triangulation.  Still a believer in big government, he was actually thinking and applying “ ‘Come into my parlor,’ said the spider to the fly.”  Mr. Clinton’s carefully chosen statement was a ruse.

            There actually is more than a dime’s worth of difference between what the two parties profess.   But as far as what they produce or achieve, how different have their presidents been between 1992 and 2016?  Has the size of government decreased?  Has the collar of regulation been loosened?  Have “family values,” which the Houston convention wallowed in, been fostered and fought for?  Is the middle class being any less gut-punched than ever?

            The answer to all of these questions is no.  Neither party has reined in government’s scope or attended to our debt or borders.

From this past week’s primaries, it seems that voters are saying, “Why not give Mr. Trump a chance?  The political class has had theirs.”  And to those voters, the Republican establishment (Speaker Ryan, Leader McConnell, the WSJ, and others) are saying, “You are absolutely ignorant.” 

Political parties are political conveniences.  George Washington opposed them.  Even so, the nation started out with Federalists and anti-Federalists.  Of course, neither exists today.

Enter the Whig Party which prevailed for two decades, only to be capsized by Lincoln and his new Republican Party.  Even though they gave us such lights as Daniel Webster, where are the Whigs today?   No, parties are not forever.  If the GOP is about to implode, it is simply following the natural course of political party history.  When parties don’t respond to their voters, they morph or fade.  The conservative intellectuals at WSJ and National Review don’t understand this?

Our present situation raises the question: can the culprit be the cure? If the culprit is our two parties that continue to deliver the same goods, then it’s time for one of Jefferson’s “little revolutions.” 

Whether that revolution comes from a distinctly different type candidate within our existing parties or a new party altogether, we must face the fact that since Houston in 1992 little to nothing has changed, including the continuing tone deafness of party leadership.

Roger Hines

3/2/16

Religious Freedom 1, Money 0...for Right Now

                                     Religious Freedom 1, Money 0 … For Right Now

                                                              Published in Marietta Daily Journal Feb. 28, 2016

            Why does Georgia’s corporate community care more about the preferences of the Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Transgender community than it does those of the general populace of Georgia?

            That’s an easy one.  Easy, but not so logical.  The corporatists and the Chamber of Commerce are afraid of offending visitors and newcomers to the state.  But does the Chamber think the majority of visitors are lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgendered?  Whom do they consider their largest customer base, the general citizenry or the LGBT community?  

And when are the business lobbyists going to add the “nones” to their special rights list?   Oh yes, those who don’t wish to be labeled as either male or female.  Right now “nones” are the latest preoccupation in the jungle of sexual identity politics.  Whatever crops up after “nones” is anybody’s guess, but rest assured the Chamber of Commerce will single them out to protect them from our bigoted General Assembly.

Engaging in selective tolerance, the Chamber of Commerce has declared its opposition to the religious freedom bills that have been introduced in the General Assembly.  One such bill is House Bill 757, sponsored by Rep. Kevin Tanner.  Dubbed the “Pastor Protection Bill,” it prohibits suits against any minister who chooses not to perform marriage rites that violate that minister’s beliefs.  It passed unanimously in the House.

HB 757 was inspired, of course, by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that re-defined marriage.  Simply put, it protects ministers who do not believe in same-sex marriage and who would not want to officiate a same-sex wedding. 

Leave it to the Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations to view all things through the lenses of dollar signs.  One such group is Georgia Prospers.  A coalition of over 300 businesses, Georgia Prospers has ample tolerance for the LGBT community and none at all for Rep. Tanner.  GP’s director, former state senator Ronnie Chance, believes that religious freedom bills “could prove devastating for our reputation as a place to do business.”

Another effort at protecting religious liberty was made by Senator Greg Kirk.  His Senate Bill 284, called the “First Amendment Defense Act of Georgia,” indicates that, like Roe v. Wade and abortion, the same-sex marriage issue is not settled.   Sen. Kirk’s bill prohibits the government from taking any discriminatory action against a person on the basis of his or her belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.  In a recent article Mr. Chance equated Sen. Kirk’s bill with hate.  (I guess he has looked into Sen. Kirk’s heart.) Declaring that “Georgia is a state too busy to hate,” Mr. Chance further stated, “We don’t have to choose between our faiths and economic growth.”

As a matter of fact, business owners across the country have had to do just that.  Ask the owner of Hobby Lobby whose Obamacare-related case was eventually resolved but who was willing to close down before violating his religious convictions.  Check with the American Family Association for the long list of those who have had to make moral choices that Mr. Chance claims do not exist.

When Rep. Tanner’s bill passed the House and reached the Senate, it was combined with Senator Kirk’s bill and sent back to the House.  Rules require that the House either “agree” or “disagree” with the Senate’s re-worked bill.  If the House “agrees,” the bill goes to the governor; if it “disagrees,” it will be sent to a conference committee of both House and Senate members for further work and re-submission to both bodies.  As of this writing, the bill is still in the House waiting to be called up for “agreement” or “disagreement.”

Meanwhile, business leaders will be working fiercely to change the minds of legislators who have already voiced their constituents’ wishes.  Their chief argument will be that the sky will fall if HB 757 becomes law.  Don’t our backward lawmakers realize that Georgia is the home to 20 Fortune 500 and 33 Fortune 1000 companies?  And don’t forget the film industry that makes those wonderful, wholesome R-rated movies in Georgia.  We wouldn’t want them to leave us, depriving us of their positive values.

The Chamber of Commerce considers religious freedom supporters a regressive force.  In the Chamber’s world, commerce (money) trumps religious freedom. Condescendingly, they’re telling us that it’s not sophisticated to be too concerned with religious freedom.  But that’s not the thinking of Georgia voters, and that’s why in this election year lawmakers have been listening to voters and not to CEO’s.

 If the governor and the speaker ignore “the folks” and decide that HB 757 should die quietly, we will see one more reason for the Trump phenomenon: leaders who turn on their people.

Roger Hines

2/25/16

Don't Blame It on Elvis...or Beyonce Either

                             Don’t Blame it on Elvis … or Beyonce Either

                                                               Published in Marietta Daily Journal Feb.21, 2016

            Ours is a culture that’s becoming more and more adolescent.   But let’s not blame it on 13 to 19-year-olds.  Their values are still being formed.

            At fault is our total embrace of the entertainment culture which has values of its own, the chief one being money.  At the heart of our entertainment culture lies youth culture, and although the Beatles’ Paul McCartney once remarked, “We can’t be teenagers forever,” we seem to be proving him wrong. 

            Who or what is to blame for an industry that shrouds the nation and vies for our children?  Not Elvis, the founder of youth culture.  Nor do I blame the crass Beyonce who so famously performed recently at the NFL Super Bowl.  No, the guilty ones are parents and schools that have acquiesced to the standards of pop culture rather than holding up standards of their own.

            If schools tried, they could successfully resist the seductive, though dead-end allure of entertainment/youth culture.  Lest you think a success story that hearkens back over a half century ago cannot be valid today, read on and at least consider my argument that youths have not changed, but that their parents have.         

When Elvis Presley invaded the music world, he instantly created a sub-culture.  To parents and schools, however, it didn’t matter too much that television granted him audience.  Television, an entertainment medium, was where Elvis belonged.  In Mississippi, Elvis’ home state, some adults and certainly teenagers (myself included) were proud that one of our own was a big star.

            But schools didn’t adopt Elvis’ music.  They ignored him.   At little Forest High School downstate from Elvis’ hometown of Tupelo, our teachers never tried to give us what we already had.  We already had Elvis.  (Fitch Hair Oil worked quite nicely for shaping my hair into an Elvis ducktail.)  We also had Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, and Chubby Checker, but we certainly didn’t expect to hear any of them piped in during lunch.  We had radios at home.

            What we didn’t have but needed was an understanding of school subjects and, let us say, Beethoven.  Classrooms provided the history, math, and other studies.  Weekly assemblies provided Beethoven and such via the talents of piano students, not to mention the very best of oratory provided by speech students and visiting speakers.  Student soloists and ensembles gave us respite from rock and roll and an appreciation for harmony.  (No relentless pounding notes or questionable lyrics.) Many a country kid like myself, steeped in country music and now the new rock and roll, was broadened and awe-struck by the vistas set before us by the Friday assemblies.

            Call it classicism if you like (that’s what it was), but because of wise school leaders and teachers, we understood that, though it was fun, rock and roll was not the vista to our highest aspirations.  We needed knowledge, and that’s what school provided.

            But today’s teens have to be entertained.  No, they don’t.  Today’s teens are different.  No, they aren’t.  Youth are always malleable, no matter in what century or at what school they appear.  Today’s parents and schools are different, however.  Different because they have swallowed the notion that youth can be “reached” only if parents and teachers “identify” with them.  Does anyone think that “the greatest generation” or its immediate offspring was very concerned about “identifying” with their children?    

Piping in “their music” during lunch doesn’t challenge or broaden students; it only promotes pop culture.  Supplying blaring music at every school event doesn’t educate; it only affords students yet another opportunity to slosh around in their present world.  Inattentive parents – and some educators – apparently don’t realize that the yearning (sometimes sad) eyes of teens cannot be satisfied by the likes of Beyonce or the sensual, “Look at me” culture she symbolizes.  Youth’s search for significance will always meet a dead-end in a culture centered on hormones.

            Had the Depression not put the quietus on the Roaring Twenties, America’s obsession with youthfulness might have come sooner.  As history unfolded, it was the fifties that ushered in youth culture and its tight hold on all of us.  Challenge the way schools accede to youthful tastes today (whether dress, music, language) and you will be told by some principals, “It’s for the kids.”  Truth is, too many parents and schools are letting “the kids” run the show.          

For me, there is no greater joy than being in a classroom full of teenagers.  Teenagers are weird, frightening, hilarious, and inspiring.  They don’t need adults who think or act like teenagers. 

  Let’s not blame “the culture.”  Let’s blame us.  Adults have the power.  What good is it if not exercised?

Roger Hines

2/17/16

Government, Leave My Granddaughters Alone

             Government, Leave My Granddaughters Alone

                                                                 Published in Marietta Daily Journal Feb. 14, 2016

            Levie (that’s a long “e”) is 19, and Nancy Cate will be 6 this month.  They are my oldest and youngest granddaughters.   Levie is a sophomore at Young Harris College; Nancy Cate is homeschooled by her mother, my younger daughter. 

            Of course these granddaughters are beautiful.  Smart, too.  Their parents are rearing them wisely.  Their fathers, my only two sons-in-law, are incredibly hard workers.  Levie’s father, a landscaper, is a giver, an encourager, and a lover of people.  Nancy Cate’s father is a native of Mumbai (Bombay), India.  A restaurant owner, he values and practices free enterprise.  So I’m not worried about my granddaughters’ home life.  Government policy that affects them is what’s on my mind.

            Levie has two sisters, and Nancy Cate has one.  My oldest son also has a daughter.  I don’t know if my son and two sons-in-law will agree with what I’m about to say about their daughters.  It doesn’t really matter.  I can still declare what I think the government should never require, or in this case, never allow them to do.

            Ok, I don’t want my 6 granddaughters in combat, and I don’t want the government to require them to register for the selective service.  But Defense Secretary Ash Carter thinks women in combat is just dandy.   Allowing it, he asserts, will promote equality.  It will allow half the nation’s population to seek a path to high military posts.  Secretary Carter’s recent order allows women to serve in the most physical of jobs, including special operations such as the Army Delta units and the Navy Seals.

            Ah, this wonderful equality.  Even in foxholes it must be an issue.  Forget about winning wars.  Forget about any differences between males and females that could negatively affect a war’s outcome. Can anyone envision a Patton or a McArthur yielding to the “evolving” values of a society that doesn’t understand what the military is for, and believes the military should be part and parcel of the progressive transformation of the nation?

            If  Pentagon Chief Carter is an egalitarian, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus is a bigger one.  According to Aaron MacLean, a former Marine Corps infantry officer and editor of the Washington Free Beacon, Marines “are seething over their treatment at the hands of a civilian appointee whose military experience consists of two years in the Navy.”

            MacLean’s beef is that Mabus is being vindictive because of the Marine Corps’ resistance to the integration of women into ground combat.  That resistance took the form of a report which concluded that allowing women to compete for ground combat jobs “would make the Marine Corps a less-efficient fighting machine.”  Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee to present the report, Marine Commandant Gen. Robert Neller added, “ All-male units are able to better march long distances carrying heavy loads and are able to fire weapons more accurately after marching over distance.”   Imagine the grief Gen. Neller received for saying that.

            Much of that grief came from Secretary Mabus.  Going beyond Defense Secretary Carter’s order to open ground combat units to women, Mabus issued a memo requiring the Marines to make recruit training open to women as well.  Call it co-ed boot camp.  And re-name it Parris Island Finishing School (or San Diego Finishing School for west coast recruits).

            Even though Commandant Neller opposed women in combat, he still told the Senate Committee he favored requiring women to register for the selective service at age 18.

            Back to my granddaughter, Levie.  She is a mountain climber par excellence.  She is a good soccer player.  She is strong.  But the fact that females can be physically strong doesn’t mean that putting 18-year-old (or 35-year-old) male and female recruits side by side is a good idea, whether in training or in combat.  Physiological differences and sexual dynamics render such an idea or action absolutely foolish.

            Why won’t more generals stand firm in opposing such foolishness?  Why are they fearful?  And where oh where were our traditional values Republicans when our new Defense Secretary and our Obama appointee Navy Secretary were using the military to advance social goals?  Isn’t it the Republican Party that most values the military and claims to guard it?  One Republican did stand up to Mabus: Rep. Duncan Hunter of California. 

            Mark my word.  Before the transformationalists leave office, we will hear that the military must make accommodations for the transgendered.  Meanwhile, I’m looking for more generals and Republicans who will help me look out for my granddaughters and who will argue that equality and sensitivity are not very wise pre-occupations on the battlefield.

Roger Hines

2/10/16

Colorful Cobb: There Are Reasons for It

                                Colorful Cobb:  There Are Reasons for It

                                                     Published in Marietta Daily Journal Feb. 7, 2016

                                                         

Let’s talk family a bit, or community if you prefer.  Because of the modern age we’re in, with its rapid-fire communications and fast moving screen images (even at the gasoline pump), we have all become close neighbors.  Indeed we are such close neighbors that whatever touches one of us affects all of us.

            To a large degree Cobb County is a homogeneous community.  To use a word I hate, Cobb has or is its own distinct “brand.”  There are reasons for this.  One is the leadership which voters in the county and its 6 cities have chosen over the years.  In recent times Cobb has provided the state a governor and now claims the state’s attorney-general as one of its citizens.  Whether or not you supported them, I’m only saying that Cobb produces leaders. 

Though free people will always have their differences, political rivalry in Cobb, at least in the last 40 years, has never brought things to a grinding halt as it has in other counties.  Cobb’s mayors, commissioners, and boards of education have kept the wheels of government and education greased and turning.  The decisions that elected leaders must consider will always be and should be debated.  In a free society, controversy is our lot.  Even when political rivalry runs deep, after elections Cobb has had a way of moving on.

            Another reason Cobb is distinct is that its citizens embrace the future without scorning the past.  Like the motto of a church in west Cobb, Keystone Baptist, Cobb’s motto could well be “Where Tradition Meets Today.”  I have always believed that one reason Cobb is a good place is that the majority of our leaders – political, religious, business, educational – and citizens as well honor the area’s past.  Perhaps we are all in agreement with one of William Faulkner’s best sentences, “The past is not over yet.”

            But our community doesn’t cling to the past either.  Over a decade ago at an institute for newly elected legislators, then-Governor Roy Barnes made a statement that I cannot forget.  For me the statement had moral and spiritual implications.  His statement was that he believed one reason Georgia had fared better economically than neighboring states was that we tried harder to do the right thing in regard to race.  “Doing the right thing bodes well for every area of life,” he said.  Seems to me most of Cobb’s mayors and county-level leaders have shared this outlook.

            In no area has Cobb been more blessed than in education.  Cobb schools are still strong. This, too, is in large part because of leadership.  Given the level-headedness and practical wisdom of Superintendent Ragsdale, it is obvious that, educationally, Cobb is experiencing an era of good feeling.  Educational leaders who preceded him, superintendents and otherwise, are numerous.  Some whom I particularly appreciated are Kermit Keenum, Larry Hinds, Don Murphy, Stanley Wrinkle, Stella Ross, James Wilson, Dexter Mills, and Dale Gaddis, all good people who enjoyed their work and gave more time and energy than any contract would ever require.

            From three members of the current board of education I have taken great satisfaction.  Two of them, Susan Thayer and Randy Scamihorn are former colleagues.  Like so many of Cobb’s teachers and administrators, these two are incurable “school people.”  They revel in seeing youth learn, mature, and set themselves on a good path.  Fairly new board member David Chastain is also eminently qualified to be an educational policy maker.

 A former English student of mine, Chastain’s humor and playfulness in class was matched only by that of Superior Court Judge Tain Kell.  Unlike Chastain, however, Kell never came to class with half of his face a neat beard and the other half cleanly shaven.  Unlike Kell, Chastain never made fun of the poetry of Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

            No doubt due to their raising, these two current leaders never let their playfulness in class go too far.  It’s no surprise to me that, choosing to live and work where they were reared, they are now partly responsible for the type of community Cobb is.

            Today the world is in strife.  It always has been, but that strife is now being brought to our attention 24 hours a day.  In the midst of it we need some islands of civilization, that is, civility.  Whether it’s a county, a state, or a region, the world needs examples of places where civility is practiced, leaders are servants, and neighborliness is the norm.

            We might ask ourselves what we can do to make sure we remain a civil, well-functioning county even as we become less homogeneous.  That will be our test.

Roger Hines

2/3/16