Our old school, Met Stadium had parallels

I have previously written that our former school building in Morris, now abandoned, was like an "erector set," such was the manner in which it expanded through the years. In this respect it was just like our old outdoor major league sports venue in Minnesota: Metropolitan Stadium.
"The Met" was razed long ago. The Mall of America now sits there, an object of Minnesota pride just like Met Stadium was.
We're not so fortunate here in Morris. Our old erector set school, which is very conspicuous in the town, couldn't be more deserted or forlorn. I'm not aware of any city timetable to tear it down. Did the city get a good value when it purchased this?
The comparison of our old school and "the Met" came to mind when reading a little about the latter. Joe Soucheray once wrote that "the Met is like a solid cottage to which has been added wings as the family has grown."
I was prompted to read about the good old "Met" by the opening of our new Twins ballpark. It has become a very hyped event with nigh a discouraging word. The gushing reached a point Thursday where I felt everyone should take a deep breath.
"It's just a baseball stadium," I said to my breakfast compatriots at McDonald's. "We'll realize in a couple of months that we just have a new baseball stadium and not some kind of shrine."
Our old school was like an expanding cottage as the school age population grew here. After many years of exhaustive efforts to expand and improve, the whole works was judged hopeless and now the sprawling set of buildings is a cold, haunted embarrassment.
It still stands out on a the city's "skyline" so it's a constant reminder of obsolescence. In the scheme of things it really isn't that old. The 1914 building is the old anchor and it was a prime candidate for "reuse" possibilities. Everything to the north of that, including the rather new media center, was judged pretty unsalvageable. I don't know how to take that, because my fourth through sixth grade years were spent in that portion of the "erector set."
The anchor of the old Met Stadium was the central grandstand: three decks that wrapped around from first through third bases.
People associate construction of the Met with attracting a major league baseball team. You'd be correct if you stated that was the purpose, but you might need reminding that a fairly long wait was required. Met Stadium opened in 1956. That was a year after I was born. The Minnesota Twins were not born until 1961. Minor league baseball occupied the facility in the interim.
The Met was like the start of an erector set project in 1956, based on Soucheray's historical reflections. Not only that, the surrounding area was pretty barren and undeveloped. All of that changed pretty steadily.
Minnesota became "big league" in 1961 with the move of Calvin Griffith's Washington Senators to Minnesota. It was just in time for the baby boom generation to become enamored with big league baseball in Minnesota. And indeed this happened, especially with Minnesota's capturing of the American League pennant in 1965.
But the Met Stadium that opened in April of 1956 wasn't on a scale to accommodate the Fall Classic. It was more like a starting point, like our 1914 school building in Morris (and the accompanying auditorium). The Met had a seating capacity of about 20,000 at the start.
Modest though it was, the sense of community pride behind it was enormous. The Minneapolis Millers played before a record opening day crowd of 18,366. The best minor league teams in those days could hold their own with major league foes. But Minnesota fans were striving to attract the real big league product. It would be a while.
Soucheray called the Met "an orphan ballpark" in its early days. It wasn't a foregone conclusion that the majors were on their way here. Soucheray wrote of the prospect of achieving that: "uncertain and distant."
Met Stadium replaced a facility that was originally constructed in 1896. The Millers had made their home at Nicollet Park of that 19th Century origin. Dave Moore, a celebrity newscaster for many years, never seemed to get over the abandonment of Nicollet Park. He felt the need to remind us of its charms long after it faded into history's annals.
You could say he brought it up in much the same way as I recall East Elementary here, on the grounds of that abandoned school, a playground where (as I wrote recently) the "Johnsons" and "Goldwaters" battled in out in faux gang warfare in the fall of 1964 - activity that would surely be shunned by the powers that be today.
I recall the old Longfellow Elementary in west Morris in the same light. It was there that my third grade teacher was called out into the entry area one day, and moments later she informed us of the shooting of John Kennedy.
I approached a classmate on the East Elementary playground one day and asked him if he had seen a quite original TV show the night before: the very first airing of "Star Trek." We were captivated.
The ranks of those who can vividly remember school life in those places will get steadily thinner.
One can debate whether the new Target Field baseball facility in Minneapolis is really advantageous vs. the Metrodome. After all, the Minnesota elements never got in the way of anything at our beloved Dome.
Engineers and planners have worked exhaustively to try to blunt the effects of weather at Target Field. But this is Minnesota!
Here in Morris, one thing I'm quite certain is not debatable: our old football field, named for the late Bill Coombe (who I had as an instructor), was vastly preferable from a fan's standpoint to our new Big Cat Field. It's nice that some issues are black and white.
Our Stevens County Museum should perhaps preserve memories of Coombe Field while those memories are still fresh.
Reflecting on all this is an important reminder that building new is not always better, as tempting as it might be to think so. I'm not convinced that Target Field will be like some kind of "shrine" by season's end. There will be lousy weather days. Maybe the Twins will fade competitively. Eventually we'll realize we just have an outdoor baseball stadium - maybe rather pedestrian.
Instead of the urgency and almost religious zeal to get this built, maybe we should have invested more effort in ensuring that our bridges don't fall into the river.
Locally, will our old erector set school complex sit there indefinitely as a growing embarrassment - a display of blight that actually stands out on the skyline? I would guess it will. Our attention would certainly be diverted from that if, as many are predicting, Wal-Mart breaks ground here. That would be the equivalent of Target Field going up. It would transform the economy and culture of our whole community.
It would also be terribly divisive once it's announced. But there could be some irresistible momentum here, like the drive to bring outdoor baseball back in the Twin Cities.
"Big box" stores are undeniably a sign of economic vitality. We probably ought to welcome it regardless of the ramifications. The ramifications would affect many but we live in a world of fluid, constant change and we can't pretend that charming old Nicollet Park, or its equivalent anywhere else, can be preserved anywhere but in the mind of Dave Moore - RIP - and others of his vintage.
So I'd say "welcome" to Wal-Mart, which already has many customers from Morris, who now just drive to Alexandria (in large numbers).
But I'll be like Mr. Moore and pine apologetically for our old Coombe Field with its free-roaming fans, town square atmosphere and community-enhancing spirit in the heart of town, not on the desolate, wind-swept east edge of the community, where cold, hard bleachers are supposed to suffice.
Well, they're not sufficing. You can't just assume the fans will keep coming. Maybe ticket prices will have to be lowered. Maybe in another decade, cries will rise for Morris Area High School to have its own football field again, not shared with the University of Minnesota-Morris, and we'll be happy even if it's the most plain-jane type of high school football field.
Are cheerleaders stuck in our memory also? How about a male/female "cheer team?"
And maybe our school board could get off the schnide and do something to ensure that a pep band plays for every home game.
Such thoughts can be expected from common citizens.
-Brian Williams - morris mn Minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com

Is "Memory of Trees" memorable?

(gayla marty site)

The late Tom Snyder used to say there was a snag in interviewing book authors, at least some of them. Snyder was a journalism pioneer, hosting a very late night (by the standards of that time) talk show on NBC that became very spontaneous. Often he would interview book authors.
Sometimes these guests, instead of giving informative answers based on their research, would say "you'll have to read the book." This kind of blatant book plug was rude and unacceptable. The host would have to try to steer the conversation back on some kind of constructive course. Some choice words might be shared in a commercial break.
I felt like uttering some choice words (or at least "sheesh") after reading an article about a book in Saturday's Star Tribune. (The paper is actually called "Early Sunday" if you buy it at the newsstand.) The book might be good although I'm somewhat skeptical.
The headline and subhead were inviting. The article and photos were displayed very prominently starting on page E1 (cover of the Variety section). Seated at DeToy's Restaurant and sipping my morning cups of coffee, I got my reading glasses perched on my nose just right and began reading.
It seemed like a classic article about baby boomers and transition. Boomers feel the whole world should feel such fascination with all their adjustments in life. Us boomers are definitely fascinated with chronicling them.
So I started reading and after wading in a few paragraphs I suddenly thought "wait a minute, this wasn't written by a Star Tribune staff writer."
So I glanced back at the byline. Sure enough there was an unfamiliar name and a "special to the Star Tribune" tag. "Special" is a pretty broad brush term. In this age of easy online journalism, anyone can stretch their writing legs and hope to maybe get something published in the legacy media, if that's what floats your boat.
The Minneapolis paper, meanwhile, has gone through bankruptcy, applied the machete liberally in making cuts, and pretty soon we've just got to start noticing the effects of this.
This space-eating feature article, written by someone whom I'll just consider a "freelancer," is evidence of the dwindling standards one can expect now in the crumbling newspaper industry. I'm not even faulting the writer. I'm faulting the paper.
How can I characterize the article? It's so meandering it's hard to sum it up here. So the prime fault is its meandering nature, by someone who appears to want to impress us with her writing ability. She uses novel-writing techniques to be descriptive in ways that don't further the subject matter. I'm not reading a novel, I'm reading a newspaper. I want easy-to-grasp background and information, not that I'd mind some compelling storytelling.
Although it's hard to be precise, it seems the article is about boomer-age people who have been forced, apparently by the economy, to leave the countryside. Such stories might be very illuminating and helpful. Maybe the book in fact reaches its target, but the article doesn't point in a very promising direction. It's too busy convincing us of the erudite and intellectual airs of both the author and article writer.
The headline was "View from the Treetops." The name of the book is "Memory of Trees: A Daughter's Story of a Family Farm," and its author is Gayla Marty. The Star Tribune article was written by Stephanie Wilbur Ash.
Ash observes of someone that "she's 71 but you'd never guess." The gem just cited was in parenthesis. Minus any context suggesting the relevance of age or appearance, this is just stupid. Is there something wrong with looking like a normal 71-year-old, whatever that might represent?
Trying to get a grip on the basic facts, as I read, was impossible. There is a quote from someone endorsing the book (in overblown fashion) but the background of that person isn't even reported. So right away I'm thinking "this is amateurish."
Is this what is becoming of my old friend, the Star Tribune (and before that the Tribune and Star, separate newspapers)? It's almost painful to keep writing this post. Ash quotes the author saying she's fascinated by the trees rather than the wide open spaces of farm country. Why? We never learn. But Ash says this orientation is one of the things that sets this book apart. We learn that the author gathered a leaf collection when young. Nothing real revealing there.
"It is an intimate story," Ash concludes of the trees and leaf fixation.
We learn that Marty's mother was part of an interesting arrangement where two sisters married two brothers. Ash then writes that "over time, religious ideology and economics fractured the families."
Fascinating, I guess. But those facts are then allowed to just sit there.
People are forced into transition all over the place by economics, which is sort of a catch word for "stuff happens." It's no more traumatic for farm families or baby boomers than for anyone else. Again, if Ash were able to report on this story in a way that made it seem unique or compelling, fine.
Maybe that story unfolds in "Memory of Trees" and Ash failed to relate it properly. I'm reminded of that problematic refrain on Tom Snyder's "Tomorrow" show: "You'll have to read the book."
I might not be writing this post were it not for the fact that Ash begins gushing over the author about midway through, emphasizing Marty's academic and refined qualities. Ash writes that "Gayla is a thoughtful, compassionate writer of deep faith."
A puffy, subjective sentence like this would never be written by a Star Tribune staff writer. Its effect would be lessened if Ash could just do better providing supportive material for this and other assertions.
The worst weasel words in the whole article were these: "(Gayla is) the quintessential baby boomer Minnesota farm girl who left for college in Minneapolis in 1976, but still kept farm ties and habits."
Oh, it's great to see a kid from "Petticoat Junction" leave the farm and "make good" in the big city, isn't it? I suppose some of her peers had to "stay behind" in the country.
But Marty pines so wistfully for the country now. Why? The trees? Why the trees?
What is a quintessential baby boomer? Is it someone who engaged in particular types of foolishness in the early 1970s? Is someone like this just an irritating narcissist?
U.S. Senator James Webb expressed some irritation with the term not long ago, suggesting that boomers were just people who happened to be born in the same general time period.
"Memory of Trees" is a paean, but is it a condescending paean?
The author is an academic person and maybe that's why we're supposed to be impressed. If she's fascinated by trees, we're just supposed to assume there's good reason for this, because someone with academic credentials obviously has a firm basis for all her feelings.
Hubris?
She says her tree focus sets her book apart from similar works (not specified) that emphasize open spaces. Academic people reflexively seek to stand apart from others. It keeps them in their exclusive circle.
There was once a popular song called "I Talk to the Trees," made popular, I believe, by the Smothers Brothers. Maybe Marty talks to the trees. Maybe her book is actually good. But I don't think I'll be shelling out for it. If it comes to the Morris Public Library, fine, I'll give it a shot, and maybe I'll find it's not a compilation of pretentious intellectual drivel.
That would be a pleasant surprise and I'd be delighted to write a new post!
-Brian Williams - Morris mn Minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com

Allow change to beat down its barriers

There is an impulse within most of us that wants to root for newspapers. There is cascading news about the retreat that institution is mounting. "Retreat" means that someone is cleaning your clock. And these things happen for a reason in our economy of "creative destruction."
An author was on Book TV (C-Span 2) Saturday discussing his book about how the traditional music/recording industry is being uprooted just like newspapers. If these institutions are struggling it must be for a reason.
I feel that people are discovering, however slowly, that newspapers were never really about journalism. Newspapers have never been built around "selling the news." The primary aim of newspapers is to sell print advertising. And they develop their online product only to the extent that it helps their bottom line.
I dare say newspaper owners almost consider their journalistic obligation to be a nagging distraction, as with kids having broccoli put in front of them. They are insincere when they proclaim that journalism is their fundamental mission. Our so-called "great newspapers" didn't get that way because of journalism. They became household words because of achieving monopolies in their distribution areas.
The journalism mission was a far easier sell for newspaper owners when people lacked alternatives for getting information. Now that people have myriad and ever growing alternatives (thanks to the world wide web), the ink-stained moguls are back on their heels, defensively propping up their product while the bottom line fades.
Their old feeling of entitlement looks pathetic now. These people may be in denial publicly about what's going on, but behind closed doors many of them know what's going on. Most of them are engaged in what I would call "harvesting." Instead of trying to be innovative or to adapt, they're riding the old business model into the ground.
There's still some good money to be made, for a while, if you just cut like crazy and bleed your "legacy" customers. Advertisers have old habits and mindsets and the loyal readers are an aging demographic. I should add that this parallels what's happening in the old music/recording industry. It was affirmed by that fellow on Book TV.
The public denial of what's happening in the media is expressed not only by the self-interested professionals. It's felt by many people over age 50, "boomers" who have always prided themselves on their rapier-like analysis but who have trouble seeing what's happening in this instance.
They might also decry reduced "service" by the U.S. Postal Service. Well, let me advise you people: New generations come along, sans blinders, with insights you never dreamt of. It takes time for a young generation to apply its principles and insights because they lack power until they reach middle age.
The boomers have been through this. We saw the terrible flaws in the Viet Nam War, lack of environmental stewardship and poky civil rights progress, We screamed out but we lacked true leverage until we got older. The young generation of today readily sees the waste and defects in the legacy print media and maybe even in traditional book publishing - do we even need textbooks for kids? - and they might also laugh at the U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Service is as much of a dinosaur as the newspaper industry's monopoly pricing structure for advertising.
The Postal Service is begging for dramatic restructuring. Older people, though, can be disturbed by dramatic change of this type. People over the age of 50 in academics are inclined to be protective about newspapers. They plead that papers have had "such an important role in our democracy" and other sheep dip.
Newspapers are watchdogs? Apply your brain. Local government everywhere is trying to find ways to put their legal notices online, for no cost, which is pretty darn tempting as opposed to paying newspapers to print it. You can find updates on this struggle all the time if you just Google the subject. Nearly all observers feel it's just a matter of time before local government can escape these archaic shackles.
What newspaper in its right mind, in this kind of climate, would try to be a "watchdog" and alienate the very people with whom they're trying to curry favor for these legal notices? Back when newspapers had some of the privileges of monopolies, they could easily "rock the boat."
As for Watergate, it was a total aberration. We're talking about the Beltway culture here which could just as easily be on Mars. It's no more useful to teach young journalists about Watergate than it is to try to get all college art students to paint like Jackson Pollack.
The real heroes of Watergate may have been the faceless employees in the Washington Post classified ad department. All the coin the Post raked in with its monopolistic ad leverage gave those testosterone-fueled young reporters the slack to do their thing and puff up the ego of the paper's owner. Today, online journalism would have Richard Nixon for lunch.
Paul Gillin of Newspaper Death Watch maintains that Watergate was a terrible thing for American journalism because it instilled a feeling of celebrity in writers. Writers deserve no such mantle.
I have read that the newspaper newsrooms of today are scared and meek places. Retrenchment looms every single day. It's no environment for trying to "speak truth to power."
Our newspaper here in Morris, owned by a Fargo company, comes out only once a week now and it seems more like a wrapper for an irritating pile of ad circulars, several from out of the area.
I suspect that the owner, which has made regular retrenchment moves, is "harvesting." The people at the top know "the jig is up" but that profits can still be made by cutting and playing many of their customers, I feel, for suckers.
But wait until that new generation comes up.
-Brian Williams - Morris mn Minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com

Maybe movies were meant to be seen once

"Independence Day" can go from riveting to rather ridiculous once you've seen it about, oh, four times.
 
"Suspending reality" can be a very important part of appreciating a movie. Movies can be full of snags when it comes to plausibility issues.
Moviegoers are invited into a fantasy realm. The idea is to keep those plausibility issues suppressed in your mind. They must not get in the way of appreciating the story or the characters.
It can be harder today for movie viewers to deal with this. That's because of the opportunity to view a favorite movie multiple times - unlimited times in fact.
As with many aspects of our day-to-day living, this is a fairly new phenomenon. Changes in lifestyle wrought by technology are a regular theme in my writing here.
Today I'm reminding you that it wasn't that long ago, in the scheme of things, when watching a movie was pretty much a one-shot deal. You'd pay to see the movie at our local Morris (MN) Theater, appreciate it, hopefully not throw jawbreakers at the screen, and probably never see it again. It might turn up on network TV but only on rare occasions. Nothing like today, when our myriad channels would liberally replay various movies so you might actually watch it at 2 a.m.
In my youth the local television station, KCMT of Alexandria, would shut down not long after our bedtime. It would shut down with generic military footage (Air Force) and the standard "Star Spangled Banner" (John Philip Sousa style). I don't know why glorifying the military had to be part of ending our day. In my youth our military was getting entangled in the Viet Nam thicket of tragedy.
I could count on one hand the movies I saw more than three times. And hardly anyone would pay to see a movie more than once. I doubt many kids had the money to do a "Titanic" ritual and see a favorite repeatedly. But many people do see movies repeatedly today, thanks to the technology that first brought us VHS tapes, then DVDs and now "Movies on Demand."
Is this a godsend? As with anything we think we desire, when we get an abundance it might not seem as desirable anymore. It's a fundamental principle of marketing as author Harvey Mackay has pointed out so well.
As a kid I would have been disbelieving if someone had told me that someday there would be rows and rows of movies at our local Morris Public Library, movies that I could "check out" and watch at my leisure - once, twice, three times, whatever. It makes paying for a movie ticket somewhat questionable.
I have written excessive background here to what the main point of this post is: Watching a favorite movie repeatedly is not a good thing. The ability to suspend reality crumbles. Whatever emotional effect the movie originally had on you dissipates. Fundamentally, what happens (based on my experience) is that you begin to see the story as a movie in the most cynical sense, i.e. a crafted work of entertainment by professionals who are trying to manipulate you.
My first revelation about this came with the movie "The Natural." I never saw it at our Morris Theater. My first viewing may have actually been through television.
Who knows if it even played at our local big screen. Because our theater can only play one movie at a time, many get passed by. I remember waiting once for the movie "Mr. 3000," a fine baseball movie with Bernie Mac - RIP - and it never came here.
Eventually I told local Morris Theater promoter Warrenn Anderson (the attorney) about this shortcoming of our theater. This was when our old theater was being put on life support. It remains in that state today, operated as a co-op. I told Mr. Anderson that I often saw movies in Alexandria because I wanted to be assured that I could in fact see them, when there was no guarantee here.
"The Natural" was also a baseball movie. It's one of Robert Redford's better efforts. He was a wee too old to play the part at the time, and worked hard to fit a younger mold. But it wasn't as bad as Kevin Spacey playing a young Bobby Darin in "Across the Sea!"
The age issue was never a problem for me in "The Natural." But after I had seen the movie, say, four times, along with snippets on cable movie channels that I would catch incidentally (as we all do when surfing), the appeal of the movie diminished. I began just seeing a bunch of actors, movie sets and a script. And that's sad.
It was a moving experience to see "The Natural" the first time. It's been said that you judge a painting by the emotional reaction of the viewer. If that's true for movies too, "The Natural" ranks way up there. But I no longer have an emotional reaction to it. I found the same thing happening with "The Karate Kid."
And after seeing the Will Smith movie "Independence Day" several times, it went from being an interesting thriller to a joke. I mean, it was so full of implausible things. And it was so cynically crafted to pull at our patriotic heartstrings. My point is this: faults like these can be overlooked the first time you see a movie. Maybe the second.
Moviemakers know this and they work inside a "buffer zone." They probably lie awake at night worrying about whether their customers will in fact be able to suspend reality in order to like a movie.
In the early days of the HBO channel, comedian Rich Hall - where is he now? - had a feature called "sniglets," so popular a book sprouted. Sniglets are terms that aren't in the dictionary but should be.
Maybe there should be a "sniglet" for the phenomenon of de-appreciating a movie by seeing it too many times. Maybe the word is already in the dictionary: "bummer."
Seeing a movie too many times is "too much of a good thing." Seeing a particular movie too often dulls the senses. We might make an exception for "The Wizard of Oz."
-Brian Williams - Morris mn Minnesota - morris theater mn - bwilly73@yahoo.com

Boomers and their less structured youth

Sarah Palin made a playground analogy when commenting on President Obama's foreign policy negotiations Thursday. Obviously she criticized it as surely as the sun rises in the east. She's a Fox News barking dog. But the playground analogy reminded me of the old abandoned school playground here, of which I wrote a few days ago.
The issue in the previous post was: what will become of the old playground and the massive old school complex that overlooks that part of Morris?
Today the topic is plain old reminiscence along with cultural analysis.
The baby boom generation gave our public school a firm base of numbers. I dare say the people who worked in that system took those numbers for granted. They were comfortable in their positions and felt they could shoo away or intimidate critics. And the boomers' parents weren't likely to be critics anyway. They were very gentle and deferential. The term "helicopter parent" hadn't yet been coined.
Parents who had been through the Depression and World War Two weren't very excitable. Parents were more likely to work with teachers on discipline than to protect children from it. The whole system just rolled forward, and I suspect many education professionals felt it would always be like this. They probably looked forward to lower enrollment because they felt it would make their jobs easier and improve the educational environment.
But there has been unrelenting retrenchment. The young parents of today, many of the "helicopter" type, don't blandly accept what happens to their kids in school. They set rigorous standards (for the teachers) and demand answers.
As schools wrestle with the numbers issues, it is incredibly ironic to note all the advantages and programs that have been created for the young people of today, compared to when us boomers flooded that old playground. Many tiers of special education have sprouted. In an earlier time, kids who lagged behind might be branded as stupid but they largely forged ahead anyway. They made do with their limitations and their peers accepted them. Many kids with apparent special needs were "mainstreamed."
Another term is "social promotion" based on the idea that kids need to be kept with their age peers with whom they have bonded. Of course, once you graduate and enter real society, that peer network is gone.
Nowadays the "slow" kids get identified with "learning problems." Many of these kids who are assigned to specialists would have been considered quite normal when I was in school. By the same token, kids with behavior issues when I was in school had to try to just "go with the flow" as best they could. Their peers learned to deal with them and maybe even help them.
Behavior medications weren't handed out like candy as can be the case today, apparently. Those medications weren't available as a crutch for educators to just tranquilize problem kids.
As enrollment has seriously declined, we have this huge irony of resources available to kids that weren't dreamt of when us boomers romped on the playground. Girls sports is a huge one. So is the indoor ice arena. Then there's FFA. In God's name why didn't Morris have an FFA program back then?
We have a jaw-dropping concert hall. It was like pulling teeth to get the high school auditorium built back in the mid-1970s. The superintendent at that time, Fred Switzer, would later tell people "I almost lost my job over that."
What would have happened to him if he had tried to sell that concert hall? Tar and feathering?
Our new school complex is vast and excessive. How did we get here? How did we get sold on a new football field that is slowly being forgotten by the community? People are always groping for something new. A few years ago we got all the toys we could have wanted.
But the school of yesteryear had its charms. The kids were challenged to get along with each other and gained maturation, despite bumps in the road. Those bumps could include teasing and conflict. Behind all that, kids were forced to take a thoughtful look at those around them and sort out how society is put together. There were far fewer "excuses" that would lead to special ed coddling or behavior medications.
Could it be rough? Yes. Today, "conflict resolution" would be quickly imposed on kids who are inclined to roughhouse behavior on the playground. When I was a kid, in the fall in 1964 there was faux gang warfare on the East Elementary playground between the "Johnsons" and the "Goldwaters." This mirrored the presidential election of that year: the incumbent Lyndon Johnson vs. the pure conservative Barry Goldwater. Johnson inherited the JFK legacy but he was destined to be scarred by the Viet Nam War.
The playground conflict ended up a pretty scientific study too because the "Goldwaters" were a decided minority. Johnson indeed won the election going way, paired with Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, his runningmate whose later timid approach on Viet Nam probably cost him the presidency in 1968.
You could get into trouble on the playground if someone came up to you and asked your opinion on N.F.O. (the National Farmers Organization, at attempt to unionize farmers which was sort of like trying to herd cats). I believe that a few blows were struck in the name of N.F.O.
Is there such a thing as unfettered "recess" time anymore? Or is all playtime strictly governed? In our risk averse culture (with litigation hovering at all times), something like the "Johnsons" vs. "Goldwaters" would probably be discouraged.
Our school in the 1960s was in a friendly neighborhood setting. The biggest issue with our school facilities was available space, because the boomers were filling everything up to the brim. But I don't recall any fundamental criticism of the facilities i.e. their quality.
Our teeming numbers forced "split shifts" until finally a new high school was built with a new gymnasium. The "new" gym built in 1968 was the focus of considerable community pride. Its predecessor was the type of gym that could have been a backdrop in the movie "Hoosiers." It had to be replaced because it was of substandard size and the seating capacity was inadequate.
And it was just, well, antiquated, although it could easily be used for theatrical and music purposes today along with youth basketball. It was an auditorium/gym complex and it seems destined for the wrecking ball now, if the City of Morris can come up with the money. If not, it will just stay cold, empty and haunted - a blight.
And the 1968 gym? It isn't even good enough for varsity basketball anymore. Most of the original bleachers have been taken out. You could say it's forgotten. Another new gym was built in 1991 and it only briefly captured our imagination. Now it too is forgotten, and it never did have enough bleachers to accommodate major varsity competition.
It seems that no matter how much we do for our schools, more is demanded.
Our new varsity gym and concert hall would have boggled minds if shown to parents of the "Wonder Years" 1960s. If Mr. Switzer thought it was risky to push for the very modest high school auditorium, my God, what must he think when looking at all the new stuff?
All these incredible new facilities, along with girls sports that has total parity with boys, are for current generations with substantially smaller numbers than in the "Wonder Years."
But maybe we'll find we can't afford it after all. Maybe we've been doing it with mirrors, sort of like Sarah Palin's ascendance politically. The future can never be predicted.
Maybe future generations of parents will want to push aside all the "extras" like sports and special ed and push for neighborhood schools in intimate, friendly settings where kids can be gently developed, aided by the limitless frontier of information on the Internet.
What does the future hold for Sarah Palin? Politically she has nothing to offer except buzzwords for the political right, but she will surely end up spectacularly rich. No wonder she appreciates John McCain.
Palin is using Fox News to build her fame. Fox News is harassing the Obama administration, which was democratically elected, to the point where it might be considered treasonous. Glenn Beck might as well be in a comic book. They cheerlead for the Tea Party which might just as well don white sheets.
We can only hope that Fox News keeps pushing the envelope until its excesses finally bring it down. In entertainment there is always an urge to "push the envelope." And Fox News and its ilk are clearly entertainment but it's dangerous entertainment.
Palin with Michele Bachmann is a circus of idiots. Bachmann is a very attractive woman and when she's with Palin, she makes Palin look less attractive. And older. There, now if someone in Palin's camp reads this, maybe they won't appear together again.
Maybe what we need is that old "Johnsons" gang from the East Elementary playground to chase the Tea Partiers away.
-Brian Williams - Morris mn Minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com

"Confederate History Month" in retreat

A Civil War flap erupted a day after I wrote an extensive post on the subject. Somewhere Tony Horwitz is smiling like yours truly. Not that we'd smile about the Civil War itself because it was horrible and should have been avoided (as long as the Union's objectives were not compromised).

Compromise? The Civil War is still being fought in non-military ways. Horwitz documented this in sometimes-sobering, sometimes-amusing ways. He traveled the south, specifically in areas where the Civil War was fought (because it was fought almost completely in the south). He took notes exhaustively and wrote "Confederates in the Attic," a must-read tome for history enthusiasts.
Horwitz is the quintessential journalist, author also of "Baghdad Without a Map."
The current flap has to do with Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell's attempt to proclaim April Confederate History Month. How he could do this without foreseeing controversy is beyond me. It's like the politicians who make analogies with the Nazis and World War Two and then have to apologize. Usually these analogies trivialize those earlier tragedies. These politicians repeatedly make the mistake. Southerners trying to commemorate the Civil War by honoring the Confederacy are making the same kind of mistake.
The Confederacy, which could more accurately be described as a rebellion, ceased being real a long time ago. The real Confederacy was nothing but ugly. It had far from universal support in the South. It was a pathetic resistance to change and progress. Since it is no longer real, it must represent different things today. Indeed it does.
Commemoration is usually framed in the issues of today, mostly on a subconscious level. Since the Confederacy never reached fruition or became real, it never had to meet any expectations. Thus it sort of exists in the ether of our collective imagination. There is a feeling tugging at all of us that we ought to admire the gallantry of those outnumbered southern troops and their beloved "battle flag" (the Stars and Bars, not the official flag of the Confederacy, contrary to the belief of many).
We all liked seeing the Butler men's basketball team in the Final 4 of the men's hoops tourney, so we all admire the grit and competitiveness of the underdog.
But the northern states had a huge challenge before them. While the South had only to defend a vast geographic area, the North had to invade and suppress a rebellion that had strong legs. The Union paid a horrible price in the process. The expenditure of blood and treasure was staggering. The point I'm primarily trying to make is that Civil War "nostalgia" is not based on reality. The Myth of the Lost Cause grew up in the ashes of the war, and it too had little to do with reality.
The South obsessed on its war heroes and constantly pondered how a different turn in the war here and there could have led to a different outcome. Their No. 1 question: What if Stonewall Jackson had lived? Losers always talk about "what ifs." General Jackson was killed by friendly fire in the aftermath of the battle of Chancellorsville. What if the military leadership had shown better judgment than to have Jackson out there in a vulnerable position?
What if the Confederates had been better supplied with artillery ordnance for the Gettysburg campaign? What if their artillery had used "triangulation" better for the barrage that preceded Pickett's Charge?
The fact is, the Confederates lacked the resources to win that war. When you lack resources you commit lapses. The Union had redundancies to cover for their mistakes. There is that tempting inclination to admire the valor of the Confederates, men whom we can view as products of their culture and not necessarily bad human beings.
Nearly all Civil War movies show the Confederates as great, deeply feeling human beings whom destiny had placed on the losing side. The movie "Gods and Generals," in which Ted Turner had a guiding hand, was a departure in that it tried to suggest that the South's cause was morally superior. The overblown movie has been judged a failure. It was made as a "prequel" to the movie "Gettysburg," which was a success and made along the traditional lines - no political tweaking of history.
Eventually there was supposed to be a third movie called "The Last Full Measure" to complete a "trilogy" of flicks. No. The failure of "Gods" has doomed those plans. But there would be nothing wrong in seeing some more Civil War movies because the topic is worthy of continuing attention, reminding us of our troubled and conflicted past.
But "Confederate History Month" is a laughable throwback to the "Myth of the Lost Cause." Governor McDonnell, a Republican, had to apologize and amend his proclamation to include the topic of slavery. Southerners always end up on their heels, backpedaling when these topics emerge from the murky depths.
Ironically, part of the push to honor the valor of Confederate warriors came from the North in the wake of the Civil War. This was for the sake of national morale during the very challenging time of Reconstruction and henceforth. The North was happy to put General Robert E. Lee on a pedestal. Why should the North care? The North had in fact prevailed in the only showdown that mattered.
The North allowed its Southern brethren to cling to the pride associated with the scrappy but futile battle with the industrialized North, a foe that represented the irresistible forces of progress. The North allowed the South to embrace some consolation prizes. But they're empty, as empty as "Confederate History Month."
-Brian Williams - Morris mn Minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com

Mr. Dowd might like our "green community"

What's to become of this? It's our old school property in Morris. (B.W. photo)

Elwood P. Dowd had an imaginary giant rabbit friend in the 1950 movie "Harvey." Having an imaginary friend is something we usually associate with children. It can happen with adults too as we are apparently seeing with at least some adults in Morris now.
Their imaginary friend is the "green community" which occupies the old school property.
Think you just see a big grassy expanse of land with some vestigial evidence of school life? If you do, you're like me. The "green community" of enlightened souls in their happy homes of low consumption is so real to some, it's winning awards.
The local print media informed us Saturday that the landscaping feature is in the award spotlight. Specifically this award went to an entity called "The Morris Affordable Green Neighborhood Master Plan."
Jimmy Stewart played the character Elwood P. Dowd, and I can just see our local equivalent accepting this award at the annual banquet of the Minnesota chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects. This fete is set for April 23 in Minneapolis.
I can't predict the future, but I just can't believe there is a substantial need for new housing in this community! As for the people who really do want to build new, would they really choose this location?
In the last few years, haven't most people chosen to build on the eastern fringes of the community, out near the bypass and the bike path that skirts the Pomme de Terre River in such an aesthetically pleasing way?
What are the aesthetics of the old school property? I don't see any redeeming features, so correct me if I'm wrong. The Summit Cemetery chime music would waft over your home. To the west you'll be treated to the site of the big, totally abandoned old school complex, unless the city can suddenly find the funds to tear it down.
Local government isn't swimming in money these days, is it?
But won't this decaying hulk of a building complex have to be dealt with sometime? Don't people shake their heads as they drive past it?
Friend Glen Helberg has repeatedly told me, while we share breakfast at McDonald's, that the funds for demolishing the old school should have been included in the package for building the new school. I agree, and absent that, there should have been some guarantee of re-use of the old building and property (at least part of it).
It's a tragedy for the art deco auditorium to be crumbling away. That auditorium is attached to the anchor structure of the complex, ironically the oldest part, built in 1914. And certainly this anchor building could have had its interior refurbished for some type of meaningful new use.
I've always suggested it's a shame the Stevens County Museum couldn't have relocated there.
The museum stayed at the old Carnegie building which by itself was worthless in terms of interior space. The Carnegie building was a striking landmark only on the outside. And that wasn't reason enough to preserve it. Much money was poured into constructing an "addition" which for all practical purposes constitutes (or could have constituted) the whole museum.
The museum is in residential west Morris which is an out-of-the-way place. It has no parking provisions so cars are lined up along residential curbs whenever there's a special event.
The old school property in east Morris is one of those open spaces that city planners actually like. Isn't it true that in most cities, parks are mandated at certain intervals in order to promote a healthy overall environment? Eastside Park is a short jog from the old school property and it's less of an open space than when I was a kid, due to that hulk of a bandshell (the Killoran music stage) which sits cold and silent for the vast majority of the year.
It appears that our city leaders aren't comfortable with the old school property as one of those open spaces. The city manager has stated that he wants to see this land "back on the tax rolls." This would seem to require some sort of net increase in population or business activity in Morris. Does that appear to be on the horizon?
Again, no one can predict the future, but one might argue for prudence based on the current realities. One of those realities might be that we were misguided in approving of the new school and football field in the first place.
At least, one could argue that the new school reflected an overly grandiose vision. It was sold to the voters on the basis of "we need a new elementary school." But what we got was so much more than that.
We now have a school that before long might appear dated - one of the generation of schools that in appearance can be likened to a big prison on the outskirts of town. I'm not the one who coined the "prison" comparison. Credit for that goes to a current school board member who was describing the new schools in general, not ours specifically (although he/she might have been).
Meanwhile our old, abandoned school, big enough by itself, just sits there as a suggestion of blight overlooking that expansive empty space which once was a playground, and where the Tiger football team would practice and play its games.
In a conversation I had with a different school board member, he/she told me - I'm keeping them anonymous - we will probably never again see the "town square" atmosphere that marked football games at Coombe Field. That atmosphere cannot be duplicated at Big Cat Field.
Attendance at Big Cat for Tiger football has appeared to drop since its opening. We're supposed to be happy about this? Is this progress?
We were told during the "vote yes" drive that these new facilities were so important for attracting new residents to Morris. Has there been any growth in the population or economy? The prevailing signs have in fact seemed negative.
The residents of a new "green community" would probably just be transplants from other parts of town and not newcomers. Would that add to the tax rolls?
Will our monstrous new school complex end up being an asset at all? We have been through a period in which bigger has been equated with better, and "build new" has been like a mantra with a stigmatizing effect on more conservative people who might like to just renovate what we have.
The advocates of "vote no" were put on the defensive. But time might vindicate them. Saturday's Star Tribune (actually called "Early Sunday") reported "state educators and policymakers say the financial outlook for schools in Minnesota is as bleak as it's been in at least a generation, as a host of budget-busting factors converge."
This might not be just one of those cyclical revenue issues either. Demographics are involved in a big way.
"Voters whose children are grown and whose incomes have shriveled will be less likely to approve requests to hike their property taxes," the article asserted.
It was added that the recession isn't the cause. There is a firm trend of diminishing funds and smaller enrollment. We've seen four-day school weeks in some places.
Some say this move and others like it are nothing more than Band-Aids. Truly innovative thinking is going to have to come into play. The problem might be compounded in Morris because we have two monstrosities: the sprawling new school with its aspects of opulence (e.g. the concert hall) and the haunted old one.
Unless some big new industries start up here, we could be in a world of hurt. Experts are saying that the excrement won't really start hitting the fan until the 2011-12 school year. Federal stimulus dollars will dry up.
"It's scary," says Scott Croonquist, head of the Association of Metropolitan School Districts, quoted in the Star Tribune article.
Look for more headlines about school closings, increased class sizes and tense issues to be resolved with teachers' professional associations. Sports will have to go under a microscope.
Many people are skeptical about shoveling more money at schools. "Money pits" is how they are seen by many, according to the Star Tribune.
That reminds me of a quote attributed (not publicly) to a former Morris Area school board member, someone imbued with that healthy skepticism. Reacting to a plea for more funds, he/she (anonymity again) told someone in an informal conversation that "if you give us the money, we'll just spend it."
That's priceless.
My top suggestion has been to creatively move away from the old education model and have kids learn more online. This continues a primary theme of this website. We've barely seen the start of how the Internet will change our world. Education might actually be enhanced and with a significant cost savings.
But will our old "prison" type schools be rendered as costly dinosaurs? I feel they might be.
The Star Tribune cited a popular suggestion of having "more but smaller schools, which might realize significant savings by partnering with other organizations to offer arts and sports."
The article then took some words right out of my mouth, stating that "smaller schools create a strong sense of community and accountability, which in turn minimizes discipline and learning problems."
The term I have often used in sharing this thought is "neighborhood schools."
Our old school in Morris was nestled in a cozy, friendly neighborhood setting. I think there is much to be said for this as opposed to the "prison" model.
But our old school and old "town square" football field are apparently gone with the wind. Subconsciously a lot of people may share my interpretation of all this, but in their denial they have come up with their "imaginary friend" of the "green community," a la "Harvey" in the Jimmy Stewart movie.
I fear this movie might not have a happy ending.
-Brian Williams - Morris mn Minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com