The Child Is Grown

Maybe it is because I am getting older, but I have been thinking more about the past than I do about the future.

As a young man, I prided myself on not having any regrets, but “to be an adult is to accumulate regret,”[i] and as I grow older and I become more reflective I realize I do have regrets.

One day, when I was thirteen and living in Quebradillas, Puerto Rico, I had the unfortunate luck of playing a full court basketball game, after a game in which an opposing player was held scoreless. His teammates promised to prevent someone from scoring in the game I was playing. I was selected as the object of revenge.

At the time, I was an average basketball player for my age, but I was the youngest person on the court, and most of the other players were bigger than me.

I was not naive. I knew the opposing team’s intentions. My teammates tried to get me scoring opportunities, but the best player on the opposing team was guarding me. He was several inches taller than me, older, and a better basketball player.

On fast breaks, the opposing players held me, preventing me from taking advantage of scoring opportunities. At times, I was double and triple teamed. I cannot remember which team won the game, but I was held scoreless.

After the game, I was mocked and ridiculed and told I was the worst basketball player. I stood there taking the abuse, and when it ended I went home – angry.

I did not like being embarrassed. Not from having a bad basketball game. I was not that accomplished. It was the mocking that made me angry.

I was still angry when I went to bed. I had trouble falling asleep. I swore I would never play another basketball game as long as I lived.

I cannot remember how many days I was able to keep my oath, but I eventually started playing basketball. I was determined to become a better basketball player. I practiced on my dribbling, and jump shots. I did not become a great player, but I did get better. I developed the ability to score 20 points in a full court game by the time I left Puerto Rico in 1979.

With determination, I could overcome any obstacle. It is a lesson I would soon forget.

In the summer of 1979, my mother, two sisters and I came to New York for summer vacation, but we eventually decided to stay.

Getting enrolled in a high school became a problem. I was in the process of enrolling in Charles Evan Hughes High School, but I became frustrated with the process, threw a temper tantrum, and walked out of the school before completing the enrollment process.

I enrolled in Seward Park High School in October 1979. I was interviewed by the chairpersons of the departments, and it was determined that I belonged in the bilingual program.

The faculty asked, “what is your name,” and “where do you live.” From my facial expressions, they determined I did not know English. The reason my face was contorted was not due to a lack of understanding. I thought they were idiots because they asked stupid questions to an English dominant 15 year old.

The Seward Park faculty also decided I had to repeat the tenth grade.

I did not like Seward Park High School. I was angry because I was forced to repeat the tenth grade. I was not comfortable with the students I shared classes with. I was having trouble making friends. After a prolonged battle, I was placing in the eleventh grade, but that accomplishment did not improve my morale. Annoyance led to frustration and that led to cutting classes and I ultimately dropped out of high school.

I often wonder if I gave Seward Park High School a chance. I definitely did not demonstrate the same resolve I did on the basketball court in Puerto Rico.

At least, I could have finished the school year, then transferred to a better school, or accepted my family’s suggestion to attend a Catholic High School. Instead, I quit.

I got a GED. It is ironic that I got my GED diploma in the mail before Seward Park High School’s graduating class of 1981 got their diplomas.

With the help a college guidance counselor, I was accepted to City College of New York. I wanted to major in English, become a journalist and become a sportswriter. It was more of a fantasy, to have a career writing about baseball, but I thought I had good writing skills. I thought.

I really did not have a high school education. I had to take remedial classes during my freshman year. The English professors were encouraging. I thought I was a good writer. I thought.

I enrolled in an advance writing class in my sophomore year. I wrote three or four essays. The essays had one thing in common. They were graded C-/D+. The last essay I wrote was about my favorite television show – Barney Miller. In the essay, I described the characters and the plots. I got the usual bad grade, but the professor wrote “monotonous” on the margins. He wrote other comments, but monotonous hurt.

I had enough. I was concerned about passing the course. I did not want to fail a class in my second year. I decided to drop the class. The professor thought I was being hasty, but I did not want a D or an F on my college transcript.

From that point, I avoided English classes. I no longer wanted to be an English major. I avoided classes that required writing term papers. I was a student without a major by sophomore year.

The boycott ended in my junior year. I was enrolled in political science classes that required term papers instead of exams. The writing improved, mostly because I had better material to write about. I stopped avoiding classes that required term papers.

On April 15, 1986, President Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya. The bombing was a retaliatory strike against Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s involvement in a terrorist attack in a West Berlin disco that killed two American servicemen.

The bombing of Libya prompted something I had never done before. I wrote an essay condemning President Reagan’s decision.

The essay was not an assignment. I did not receive a grade for it. I was satisfied with the essay, but felt the need to share it. I submitted the essay to The Campus, the student newspaper of the City College of New York. The essay was published in the April 21, 1986 edition.

I went to the office of The Campus. There was only one person the room. A young man was sitting at desk, talking on the telephone. The young man asked if I needed assistance.

I told him I was looking for more editions of The Campus. I wanted them as souvenirs because an essay I wrote was published in the school newspaper. He wanted to know which article. “The article about the bombing in Libya,” I said.

“You wrote that?” he asked. He ended the telephone conversation, got up from his desk, walked over to me, and shook my hand. He liked the article. We talked for a few minutes. He gave me a stack of papers and I left.

I was proud to have written something that was published. The essay was published in its entirety. Nothing was subtracted or added. I was a little upset that the editor changed the title of the essay and my last name was misspelled, but I felt regret over not taking advantage of writing for the school newspaper.

I was over my writing phobia. I read Hemingway for the first time. I also read Elements of Style by William Strunk and EB White. I developed a new writing style, staccato rhythm, shorter sentence structure, eliminated redundancies, and improved my editing skills.

I became a better writer after I graduated from City College. Writing term papers and a thesis was fun when I attended Brooklyn College.

But writing requires discipline, something I lack. Over the years, I started and restarted a novel I hoped to publish.

I’ve had good ideas for articles, but not written them because I did not believe the articles would be published.

I thought about publishing a newsletter. I intended the Nihilist Papers to be a monthly newsletter. I actually completed two editions, but stopped, mostly to a lack of discipline.

After September 11, 2001, I wrote an angry essay about the relationship between the Middle East and the west. I shared it with a few friends.

But it was not until the advent of Blogs that I finally found an opportunity to publish essays.

Last year was productive. The primaries and presidential campaigns produced a wealth of material to write about.

I still struggle with discipline. Writing is a constant struggle, to properly express a thought, to convey an idea in an interesting style that readers will appreciate.

Writing is hard. Not every essay flows easily like the articles about the Libya bombing or September 11.

Sometimes, I’ll write a thousand words, read them and not be satisfied with the result. The temptation to quit is great, but I force myself to persevere.

The article I wrote last year about Mayor Giuiliani’s failed presidential campaign is an example. I was unhappy with the first draft, so I wrote a completely different article.

Sometimes ideas become obsolete because news cycles change rapidly. Good ideas become old news.

Live long enough and you will have regrets. I have not lived long, but I am beginning to regret some of the decisions I have made.

Regarding writing, I wish I had demonstrated the same perseverance I demonstrated on the basketball court when I was teenager in Puerto Rico.

The article that was published in The Campus is titled, “The Politics of Stupidity – A Layman’s View.” It is the article published below this essay on this blog site. I resisted the temptation to make corrections.


[i] Randy Cohen, New York Times Ethicist.

The Politics of Stupidity - A Layman's View

"We have done what we had to do," explained the president last week as he rationalized the military option he chose, namely to bomb Libya. He claims that this military act was carried out as an act of self defense, and that this military action will hopefully deter Qaddafi from sponsoring, or taking part in, future acts of terrorism. What the president fails to realize is that Qaddafi will most likely react in an even more severe manner than ever before (I am assuming that Qaddafi will continue to act as he has done in the past). If Qaddafi retaliates, then Reagan will be forced to counterattack (Again, I am assuming that Reagan will act as he has claimed he would in the past). What we are witnessing is the possibility of of a relatively minor war beginning with the Gulf of Sidra incident, escalating into a full scale war with scores of civilians being the most likely victims.

By attacking Libya, President Reagan has converted American tourists into military targets. Europe will most likely witness countless bombings that will target innocent American lives, and will most likely endanger the lives of many innocent European civilians. This is probably one reason why the continental European nations refused to participate in this, the latest of the president's military adventures.

Americans abroad are not the only civilians in danger. We, the people who live in the United States will most likely become the target of terrorist attacks. The likelihood of this scenario occurring depends on the seriousness of damage suffered by Libya. If the damage is indeed serious, then many of the major cities of the United States will face the wrath of international terrorism. The likely targets will be government buildings, or places in which there are masses of people gathered together at one time (a stadium, or a mass transit system during rush hour), or any big city financial district. President Reagan has blindly rushed into a situation that could eventually cost the lives of innocent Americans at home as well as abroad.

What did the United States accomplish by bombing Libya? The United States destroyed several military installations, an airport, and training grounds for terrorists. Is this physical damage permanent? Absolutely not. Libya can, and most likely will, rebuild that which has been destroyed. Will this military exercise deter international terrorists? Absolutely not. Terrorists now have a new source of inspiration, and will have an even stronger desire to attack the United States and Americans. In fact, this military act will mostly likely inflate the ranks of international terrorists. Mr. President, you will soon realize that you accomplished nothing, that you made a big mistake. The future will prove that your choice of action was the wrong one. Your decision will not deter terrorism.

The bombing of Libya brought about some unforeseen circumstances. The Arab nations have denounced this military action, as well as the western European nations. Predictably, the Soviet Union opposed the Reagan air raid, but they have also threatened to cancel the summit meeting that was going to be held later this year. The Reagan administration has succeeded in alienating Arab countries, isolating the United States from its European allies in the fight against terrorism, and angered the Soviets to the point that they are refusing to hold discussions involving a much greater concern to world peace, and that concern is nuclear war.

Regardless of what the goals of this unenlightened military action were, one thing is almost certain, the Libyans will retaliate. The United States will then be placed in a position of backing up its tough rhetoric (to eliminate terrorist madmen), and it is likely the United States will be pushed into a limited war. "We have done what we had to do. If necessary, we will do it again." I've got news for you Mr. President, you will have to do it again.

Reprinted, originally published in the Campus on April 21, 1986.

A Defector You Can Believe In

Species need to adapt to the environment in order to survive. Failure to adapt could lead to extinction.

Moderate Republicans are on the verge of political extinction. However, President Obama and the Democratic Party are not the catalytic force behind the threat to eliminate moderate Republicans from the political landscape.

Conservative Republicans want to purify the party of moderates and liberals. To conservatives, it is moderate and liberal Republicans who caused the backlash against the party.

Detecting political extinction, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter changed his allegiance from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party this week. He was overcome with a moment of clarity. Senator Specter changed parties because he did not think he could defeat a conservative Republican in a primary in 2010.

The demographics changed in Pennsylvania. “Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans changed their registration to become Democrats.” With his political career in jeopardy, Senator Specter discovered his “political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”[i]

“I am not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate — not prepared to have that record decided by that jury,” said the Pennsylvania Senator at a press conference.[ii]

Instead, Mr. Specter went forum shopping, hoping a change in political affiliation would preserve his political career.

Senator Specter desperately wants to win a sixth term to the United States Senate, but the Republican Party continues to shift the right with conservatives attempting to consolidate power, or in their words – to purify the party.

Mr. Specter deserted the Republican Party’s obstructionist position because he voted for President Obama’s stimulus package. Senator Specter believed the stimulus package was “necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession,” but supporting President Obama “caused a schism which makes [the] differences irreconcilable.”[iii]

He also supports abortion rights and stem cell research. He opposed the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.[iv]

Senator Specter’s moderate voting record made him a target of Club for Growth, a conservative Political Action Committee (PAC) “who have financed primary challenges against Republicans they consider to have strayed too far from conservative principles.”[v]

Former Republican Pennsylvania congressman Patrick Toomey was Senator Specter’s rival for the nomination in 2010. He formerly led the Club for Growth PAC. He almost defeated Mr. Specter in the 2004 Republican primary.[vi]

The Club for Growth would rather lose a general election with a conservative candidate, than win with a moderate or liberal Republican candidate.

Republican voters, in a recent Quinnipiac public opinion poll, “preferred Mr. Toomey over Mr. Specter, 41 percent to 27 percent, with 28 percent undecided” – with a margin for error of plus/minus 5%. “The chairmen of both the Pennsylvania and national Republican parties have said they were open to backing a challenger, an unusual slight to a five-term incumbent.”[vii]

Mr. Specter preferred changing political affiliation rather than convincing conservatives that voting for the stimulus bill was the correct decision.

Vice President Biden is credited with persuading Mr. Specter to defect from the Republican Party.

President Obama and the Democratic Party were happy with Mr. Specter’s defection. The President made a commitment to support Mr. Specter in the Democratic primary because he was “appreciative of the support [Senator Specter] gave on a number of things, the stimulus package being one of them.”[viii]

In a press conference, President Obama said Senator Specter was liberated from the Republican Party, is free to vote his conscience, and will no longer be intimidated into voting with the Republican Party’s obstructionist tendencies.

In addition, President Obama “would campaign for him and raise money for him if necessary.”[ix]

In the Senate, Democrats will control 60 seats, when Senator Elect Al Franken from Minnesota overcomes the court challenges against his Election Day victory. With 60 seats, Democrats could theoretically prevent Republicans from filibusters, thus enabling President Obama to enact his ambitious agenda.

Welcoming and supporting Senator Specter is a mistake. Mr. Specter will not automatically support President Obama’s agenda.

Senator Specter intends to vote against the Employees Free Choice (Card Check) Act. Pennsylvania is a blue collar, pro-union state. Unions support the Employees Free Choice Act.[x]

He will not support Dawn Johnson who is President Obama’s nominee to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel.

Senator Specter, with 11 other Democrats, voted against S. 61: Helping Families Save Their in Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009. The purpose of the bill was to give bankruptcy judges greater flexibility to prevent home foreclosures. Homeowners would have greater flexibility to renegotiate their mortgages.[xi]

Senator Specter voted to authorize the war in Iraq.

Mr. Specter is the creator of the “Magic Bullet” theory. The Warren Commission used this theory to justify the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone as President Kennedy’s assassin (I’m not about to forget that one).

Presume Patrick Toomey defeated Senator Specter for the Republican nomination. The Democratic primary winner would have defeated Mr. Toomey in the general election.

Pennsylvania is a blue state. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans. The Democratic candidate would have run a campaign supporting President Obama’s agenda.

If President Obama maintains his approval rating throughout 2010, then the election would have been a referendum on the president. A candidate supporting a popular president would have defeated a candidate opposing a popular president.

The Democratic candidate would be more loyal to the president’s agenda than Senator Specter who clearly stated he would not be an automatic vote for President Obama.

The Pennsylvania Democratic Party should allow a viable candidate to run against Mr. Specter in 2010. Let registered Democrats decide if they want Mr. Specter to represent their interests.

Maybe Mr. Specter is right. He would have defeated a Democratic rival in the 2010 general election. Maybe his only obstacle was losing to a conservative in a primary.

But Mr. Specter is not entitled to be a United States Senator. He wants to continue his political career by taking the path of least resistance.

He is cynically manipulating the political system. Democrats and independents will be forced to choose between a moderate Republican or a conservative Republican.

Mr. Specter was part of the political problem from 2001 through 2008. He does not deserve an EZ Pass to the Senate.

Besides, what’s to stop him from switching back to the Republican Party if Governor Sarah Palin becomes the 45th president in 2012.


[i] “Specter’s Statement on His Decision to Switch Parties,” New York Times, April 28, 2009.
[ii] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[iii] “Specter’s Statement on His Decision to Switch Parties,” New York Times, April 28, 2009.
[iv] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[v] Katharine Q. Seelye, “Challenger to Specter From Right of His Party,” New York Times, April 16, 2009.
[vi] Katharine Q. Seelye, “Challenger to Specter From Right of His Party,” New York Times, April 16, 2009.
[vii] Katharine Q. Seelye, “Challenger to Specter From Right of His Party,” New York Times, April 16, 2009.
[viii] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[ix] Carl Hulse and Adam Nagourney, “Specter Switches Parties; More Heft for Democrats,” New York Times, April 29, 2009.
[x] “Specter’s Statement on His Decision to Switch Parties,” New York Times, April 28, 2009.
[xi] Patrick Rucker, “U.S. Senate Rejects Easing Mortgages in Bankruptcy,” Washington Post, April 30, 2009.