Lessons from my father

Let's hypothetically say that a mayoral candidate, during the height of campaign season, makes a decision to abandon his spouse and family.  That is a decision that would automatically cause my heart to sink into my stomach.  It is a decision that would simultaneously make me sad and angry and perhaps a bit bewildered.

And it is not only because I am, deep to my core, a pro-family conservative.  It is also because of how I was raised.

I have rarely discussed my father at this blog.  He died 21 years ago of heart disease at age 59.  He grew up in a small-town environment on Staten Island, and had six siblings.  Both of his parents had immigrated from southern Italy.

He had a best friend when he was growing up, whom I shall call Tony.  And it turns out that after they all came of age, Tony married my dad's sister, whom I shall call my Aunt Margie.  They had four children together, and lived three blocks from our home. 

The life of our extended family, when I was a child, was a joyful one.  We got together for every birthday, anniversary, first communion, graduation, confirmation, etc.  Family get-togethers were frequent and spirited and fun.  And that was always true when we visited the home of Aunt Margie and Uncle Tony.

But then, when I was approximately 10 or 11 years old, something happened.  Uncle Tony ran off with another woman with whom he worked.  He left behind his wife and four children.  Even when Uncle Tony was there, they were barely scraping by with their bills.  After he left, they became destitute.  My aunt had no career skills-- zero.

My dad and all of his siblings pitched in money every month to help Aunt Margie pay her bills, and so that she would not lose her house.  The community eventually rallied to support them.  Part-time jobs were found for the two older kids in a department store and bakery, respectively.  Whatever money they made went to household expenses.  The local Catholic church to which most of the extended family belonged hired my aunt as a cleaning lady.

A long period elapsed, and no one had seen Uncle Tony.  They didn't even know where he was.  Everyone was distraught and puzzled.  He had attempted to make no contact, and provided no support.

But finally, he came back.  And somehow, my dad had the opportunity to confront him.

I should note that my father was rough around the edges, a carpenter by trade, a somewhat formidable presence-- also named Joe.  He had been facing the reality that his boyhood best friend-- now his brother-in-law-- had abandoned his sister and her kids. 

In any case, my dad finally had the chance to see Uncle Tony.  He told Uncle Tony, face-to-face, that he was an animal, because only an animal would abandon his wife and kids.  It was a guttural expression of outrage.  He then leaned forward and pointed to his own chin; and told Tony that if he didn't like what he had just said, Tony could go right ahead and nail him... right in the chin.

My dad, of course, was speaking metaphorically.  He was speaking of the norm in the animal world -- that males are usually out of the picture quickly, and that the female would typically assume the role of nurturing and raising the young.

Uncle Tony wisely shrank from the challenge my dad issued.  He would have gotten whupped if he had chosen to fight.

Looking back on this episode, I am proud of the stand that my father took.  This is one of those stories that speak volumes about the values and morals to which people were once expected to adhere.  But from where had this outrage come?

My dad was not a devout Catholic.  He attended church precisely twice per year-- Christmas and Easter.  This was not unusual for Italian-American adult males. 

But surely, there must have been a centuries-long Catholic expectation that had been inculcated into his ancestors, and passed along the generations.  He had doubtless been taught about family and marital obligations, according to an ancestral wisdom that had emanated from the village from which his parents had come, about which I had written previously.  It was a lesson and example that I also had learned from my mom and grandparents and aunts and uncles and older cousins.

And so, when I consider the hypothetical example of the mayoral candidate who abandons his wife and/or family, it arouses in me a visceral reaction partially programmed by my upbringing.  If he were to do such a thing, he would be, metaphorically speaking, akin to an animal-- just as my dad had said. 

And I can't help but feel even more strongly about it when it occurs among elites who have every economic advantage, and who even propose to be leading us.  These are the people who should be setting the best example.

We can talk about how, in the contemporary world, problems are somehow more intractable or complex.  But in fact, problems of the human heart caused by individual frailty and sin have existed for thousands of years.  This is nothing new.  We are all vulnerable.

We can wield an "enlightened", contemporary, tolerant attitude toward marital dissolution, and pretend it should be of no consequence to anyone but the parties involved.  Everyone has the right to pursue their own perceived self-interest, so goes the current thinking.  It is therefore beyond the reach of polite, restrained discussion.

But a man of honor and integrity and character does not typically abandon his wife and family.  The man who is trustworthy does not typically do this type of thing.

If he were still alive, you could even ask my dad.

Comments

[Joanne Wittenborn]

Awesome,Joe. You are so fortunate to have a wonderful family. You, yourself are an example of a wonderful family man. We are also very blessed to have a strong marriage and 3 wonderful grown children. My heart aches for those who -for what ever reason -squander the privilege. I do not pretend to walk in any one elses shoes but marriage is a "work in progress" everyday. If I am looking at a politician -I am hoping to vote for one who has "weathered the storms" and put family first.

[Jack Hart]

Joe, in the other post about this, some have taken you to task for it. I am glad you have been steadfast in trying to get this reported!
I have no idea who this is, however if I could vote there, it would cause me concern. I am sure I am not alone!
Jack

[Ken Hill]

To paraphrase a thought about marriage from some other; "When there is commitment and problems arise, as they surely will, the individuals involved look for solutions. When there is no commitment, they look for an escape."
Which mindset would make the better mayor?

[Billy Jones]

Again you are making assumptions. Divorce does not equal abandonment and destitution. This politician's wife will probably get all the money she needs and he might even remain a very big part of the children's lives. Not every man who leaves his wife is your Uncle Tony.

Besides, we don't know what her issues are. Sometimes a man or woman simply can't stay.

There's a kind of doctor who can help you with your issues, Joe. Call one and make an appointment today.

[bubba]

"There's a kind of doctor who can help you with your issues, Joe. Call one and make an appointment today."

Ah, yes......Billy Jones, arbiter at large, qualified judge on moral and ethical manners, and blogger.

You need to stop hanging out with the Ed Cones and the Roch Smiths of the world.

[Jim Langer]

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html

(Just food for thought. I don't subscribe to total determinism and don't recommend others should.)

I also recall as a young Catholic being taught the confessional seems the only place any man would likely get enough information to "judge" someone's heart in such intimate matters, other than those involved in the marriage/situation directly. And, if the sinner was contrite, he was offered absolution by God through an ordained priest. Penance then ensued.

My father, though physically weakened, is every bit as tough as yours sounds, Joe, and more likely to have attended Mass while we were growing up. He even poked his chin out a few times, as I remember, for family honor. When I went through my divorce, he had my back and I could sense he would've thrashed the interloper, but he also understood I was not going to pursue what in NC today is available as "alienation of affection" charges. Rage restrained became, however, more potent.

Luckily, among the other things I still hold close about my relationship with both my dad and my experience as a young Catholic, are the teachings of Christ that dealt with mercy, and with compassion. I was mad, mad, mad back then, but it didn't take me long to forgive and let go. Granted, no children were involved, which made it much easier.

I personally feel that people consumed by love, people consumed by love and sex, are not usually full of malice. They may be misguided and led by biology more than reason, but they often deserve more understanding than condemnation. To be pitied, perhaps. But not worthy targets of hate.

Our culture is so saturated with the dregs of chivalrous
"romance" and nagging exhortations to marital and sexual bliss, it's a wonder the divorce rate isn't 80%. I share your sense of loss over the dignity of family connection, Joe.

Happily, I don't live in Greensboro now and won't face the ballot box. I admit I am not up on the marital woes or joys of the people in my town's elections. The local paper, alas, is hardly worth reading anymore. I ignore rumors and gossip. My usual approach is to consult a few people whom I trust and with whom I agree on many issues, and go and listen to the candidates speak. I intend always to ask my own questions on the issues.

[conservativewatcher]

"There's a kind of doctor who can help you with your issues, Joe. Call one and make an appointment today."

Yes Joe, advocating for the family structure and moral responsibility definitely defines you as someone with issues. We need more divorce and homosexuality, that will certainly add a much brighter future to our society. You must learn to be more compassionate and understanding of your brethren who hold no moral standards or ethics. You might even consider becoming a Liberal Progressive so you have a clearer understanding of what a total moral decay looks like. Atleast you wouldn't have to pay a doctor.....

[Spag]

Billy is right. Joe, you are assuming facts about this candidate that you know nothing about.

Divorce is complicated and every case/reason/outcome is different.

Your simple "once size fits all" concept makes you look pious and simple, and this is coming from a friend.

[anon]

Joe, you've spent so much time and energy justifying your pursuit of this rumor/gossip about this hypothetical candidate and his hypothetical marriage problems, which, despite being unsubstantiated and hypothetical, must clearly in your mind be quite similar in circumstance to Uncle Tony's. Is there not some point at which it is time for you to spill what you know and/or drive on, or are you just going to start thread after thread looking at every conceivable angle of said hypothetical rumor?

[Preston Earle]

Joe, I'm with Billy and Spag on this. Billy's "doctor" suggestion is intemperate, but he is otherwise spot on. Without your presenting any other particulars, to scold a person for separation (or even divorce) is off base and disappointing. Your uncle Tony, scoundrel that he is, is irrelevant to this local person unless you mean to accuse this person of abandoning his/her family. That isn't what "separation" usually is. Please consider whether you owe this person an apology for lumping them with your Uncle Tony.

[Ed Cone]

At some point, the insinuations and implied comparisons veer toward bearing false witness.

To say you view any divorce as a campaign issue is one thing; to hint at abandonment, mistreatment, and scandal is another.

What you have done here diminishes you, Joe.

[bubba]

"Billy's "doctor" suggestion is intemperate, but he is otherwise spot on. Without your presenting any other particulars, to scold a person for separation (or even divorce) is off base and disappointing."

Do you think John Robinson's blog entry was appropriate, Preston?

[bubba]

"What you have done here diminishes you, Joe."

What you do on an almost daily basis on your blog diminishes you, but you don't seem to care.

[Preston Earle]

Bubba asked "Do you think John Robinson's blog entry was appropriate, Preston?"
-----------------
Which blog entry?

[Abner Doon]

Dear Ed Cone;

"HYPOCRITE

1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

2: a person who acts in contradiction
to his or her stated beliefs or feelings"
.
.
.
regrebeldidr

[Abner Doon]

Let's not forget who publicly started it:

http://www.news-record.com/blog/56184/entry/126587

[Roch101]

Refresh our memory, who brought Riddleberger's problems into public discussion?

[Abner Doon]

Agreed Roch,

But then what?

The News & Record's John Robinson brought this to the public.

So? Are you saying two wrongs make a right?

Obviously not.

So why isn't Ed Cone covering the story,
as he most likely certainly knows what's up?

If Ed went with the Riddleburger story,
why won't he, or you go with this one?

[Roch101]

Me? Because I'm consistent.

[Abner Doon]

LOL.....

[Ed Cone]

What story is the story to go with, George?

Mrs. Riddleberger took their story public, and made it newsworthy by accusing an elected official of being involved in an alleged attempt to manipulate the GOP leadership race.

What is there to report here?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

"There's a kind of doctor who can help you with your issues, Joe. Call one and make an appointment today."

Billy, I've been a big fan for a long time. But that comment was simply despicable. Worthy of Jeff Martin or Roch Smith, Jr., but not you.

As for all of the usual suspects pummeling Joe for (of all things) exercising his free speech, answer me this: Did John Edwards' skirt-chasing and serial lying diminish your opinion of the man and the likelihood that you would vote for him for President?

I expect the answer is yes.

Do you have a lower opinion of the mainstream news outlets that openly drooled over the sham of Edwards as all-American husband and father (as reporting "gossip" that might lead to proving otherwise wasn't "newsworthy") until the National Enquirer finally got that story right?

I expect the answer is, once again, yes.

When you run for office, your life is subject to the microscope. Period. What you say on a blog - if you beat your dog - or leave your wife (for whatever reason). Everything.

And there are still a fair number of citizens out there (myself included) who think that how one conducts one's personal life IS a reflection of general character - and relevant to consideration when we are considering how to vote.

The person running for office has the opportunity to explain . . . or to say, simply, "no comment".

We the voter can consider the explanation. We're grown-ups, you know.

Those flinging their arrows at Joe here are endorsing ignorance because THIS TIME it (whatever it is) apparently suits your purposes. Consistent.

It's interesting to me that two of the loudest voices berating Joe are bloggers who've run for office and lost.

As for you Mr. Cone, you're the LAST man in the world to preach to any of the rest of us about hypocrisy - or scold anyone for bearing "false witness".

Shared any secret passwords with your pal, "Fec", lately?

Feeling "diminished" yet?

[bubba]

"It's interesting to me that two of the loudest voices berating Joe are bloggers who've run for office and lost."

Hmmmm.....

Shall we expand that thought?

[Billy Jones]

Preston wrote: "...Billy's "doctor" suggestion is intemperate..."

Actually, mt doctor suggestion, while being intemperate on the surface, is an assumption and an example of the exact same flaw Joe commits again and again as he repeats his obsession with someone's marriage other than his own.

[Billy Jones]

mt should have been my...

[Billy Jones]

Doctor Mary,
I was a big fan of Edwards UNTIL I learned about what he did behind Elizabeth's back.

I was never a fan of Clinton and was appalled by his actions-- especially when he stood in front of television cameras and lied to the entire world.

But as long as Joe remains too much of a coward to come out and tell us what he believes to be the truth I cannot take his actions seriously.

You can best believe that if Billy Jones had evidence as to bad behavior on the part of the candidate that I THINK Joe is talking about that I would have the balls to come out and say it. After all, if Joe is talking about who I think Joe is talking about, all of you know I despise the candidate and would love to contribute to his fall.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Oh come on, Billy. You just made my argument (with your references to Edwards and Clinton) and it has ZERO, ZIP, NADDA with Joe being a "coward" . . . gossip-monger or anything else.

Joe's a doctor, not a newspaper reporter.

Stuff like this MATTERS. As you, yourself admit, it makes people re-think their support. And at this point, given what you just said (in your 04:45 comment) one could question your own motives for holding Joe's feet to the fire.

I've followed the threads on this subject for days now, and I am just amazed at the fuss people who continually pontificate on open government and accountability and truth and transparency (blahblahblah) are making over a rumor Joe IDENTIFIED AS A RUMOR about a public figure he will not name (because what he's heard should be confirmed as fact before it's put to print) . . . not to mention that it would be real nice if the local newspaper would do its homework and report the story themselves.

Of course, as some of us have learned the very hard way, if John Robinson (or Edward Cone) is making the decsions about what is "newsworthy" and what is not, good luck with that.

And OBTW, Joe can just get in line. How long have I been in this blogosphere with cold hard facts about public "servants" lying and cheating and laughing all the way to the bank?

In this instance a good number of these commenters seem to know who the person is. But the rest of us can just live in ignorance. It's absurd.

Moreover didn't you say at one point that this particular public figure is laughing his ass off over this?

Doesn't that translate to he/she is laughing at us . . . at the voters?

It's raining hard here. I think I'll go stand in it. Might wash off some of the ick I feel whenever I see some of our nobler, more progressive bloggers hard at work trying to "diminish" one of their own . . . mostly because he doesn't march in their step.

[bubba]

"....I am just amazed at the fuss people who continually pontificate on open government and accountability and truth and transparency (blahblahblah) are making over a rumor Joe IDENTIFIED AS A RUMOR about a public figure he will not name (because what he's heard should be confirmed as fact before it's put to print) . . . not to mention that it would be real nice if the local newspaper would do its homework and report the story themselves."

You nailed it, Mary.

All the nonsense we've read in opposition to Joe's thread amounts to little more than hot air.

[David Hoggard]

"But a man of honor and integrity and character does not typically abandon his wife and family."

The "typically" qualifier is not needed nor acceptable to me. ANY man who abandons his wife and children is devoid of honor, integrity and character in my book just as it was your father.

But I fear you gleaned too harsh and narrow of a "lesson" from your father's correct and laudable stance toward your obviously dead-beat uncle.

Divorce is neither "animal"-like nor "abandonment" and to state so blithely that there is such an equivalence is, frankly, a bit scary.

Surely your family knew a divorced family or two while you were growing up who treated each other with love and respect and supported each other - but just didn't live under the same roof all of the time? I'm guessing (hoping) that your dad didn't offer his chin to them in the same way he did Uncle Tony. If he did, then I suppose I will have to give you a pass on your harsh stance against all divorce, because that may be all you know.

But if he didn't... if he was more of a discerning man regarding such matters... then perhaps you didn't learn all of his life lessons equally.

Love the story about your Dad taking the stand he did, but it has absolutely NO relevance to a set of parents, who love and supports their children (despite falling out of love between themselves), entering into an amicable divorce.

[bubba]

"Which blog entry?"

This one,Preston.

http://www.news-record.com/blog/56184/entry/126587

it's the one which is the functional equivalent of the information Joe provided, and contains Abner's comments on Robinson's "selctivity" on the stories the N&R chooses to cover.

There is no moral high ground for certain responders here to claim.

[bubba]

"Mrs. Riddleberger took their story public, and made it newsworthy by accusing an elected official of being involved in an alleged attempt to manipulate the GOP leadership race."

...to take away the potential for blackmail.

"What is there to report here?"

Are you really that stupid to not understand this?

[Spag]

Ed, you diminished yourself when you banned me apparently for life from your blog and then gave pathetic reasons for doing so. You have no credibility when it comes to matters of credibility, so perhaps you should just stay out of this.

[Preston Earle]

Bubba asked "Do you think John Robinson's blog entry was appropriate, Preston?" and then provided a link.
------------------
I didn't pay much attention to Joe's first post on this subject so I don't have any thoughts on the various comments to it. My objection to this post is Joe's equating separation to abandonment. It's Joe's blog and if he wants to write about gossip that's his (Joe's) business. I guess if John doesn't want to write about gossip on his blog, that's his (John's) business. [I hope my favorite high school teacher, Peggy Joyner, doesn't read that paragraph.]

[Billy Jones]

Dr Mary wrote: "Joe's a doctor, not a newspaper reporter."

When one publishes a public blog for all to see, one becomes a publisher. Therefore, the rules are the same for blogging doctors and reporters.

Joe has chosen to work within the framework of rumor and innuendo just as some reporters choose to operate, and has lowered himself to their level.

As have I: http://bloggingpoet.squarespace.com/bloggingpoetcom/rumor-mill.html

The difference is: I write poetry, parody and works of fiction along with the occasional story from my life, Joe writes in the political realm and claims to write the truth. After many years and a lot of frustration, experience has taught me that you can't do both. Joe needs to make up his mind if he wants to be a voice people take seriously or another writer of poetry, parody and works of fiction.

Joe is like the rest of us in that he can't have his cake and eat it too.

[bubba]

"I guess if John doesn't want to write about gossip on his blog, that's his (John's) business."

Why did Robinson bother to bring the subject up in the first place?

It certainly wasn't to explain himself, or his management style. We know he doesn't feel an obligation to answer any questions put to him regarding his judgement. We have the Sons of Confederate Veterans outrage by Ethan Feinsilver, and the David Wray lynching by Lorraine Ahern as prime examples of that.

[Stephen]

Hey Joe,

You're a bigot.

I'll be happy to meet you in front of city hall and let you nail me on my chin if you don't like what I have to say.

[Craftyboro]

I'm with Stephen.

Joe, you are just a self-righteous jerk.

[ab]

Is violence the last refuge of the incompetent? Does his post contain bigotry? The superjam question? Maybe. The gay question? Biblical. Make argument, not broad statements not relevent to the subject at hand.

[ab]

Stereotypes of different christian denominations? I think so. Still not the subject of the issue at hand. To me re issue is a compromised local press. Journalism ethics of our paper of record. And at this point, a failure for some elites to police themselves for the benefit of everyone else.

[ab]

Btw...I believe the chain of events began with john Robinson. I believe joes involvement to be an effect of the initial cause.

[Joe Guarino]

Ab, I disagree with your last comment. My belief is that the substance of the "rumor" was essentially correct, or I would not have posted about it.

Have heard more about that over the last couple of days that tends to corroborate.

[Anon]

Then tell it or do enjoy this game?

[Joe Guarino]

Not a game, anon. It is very serious stuff when a man does this kind of thing-- especially someone who offers himself up before the public as a leader. One problem previously undiscussed (from the practical standpoint of governance) is that he would be much more susceptible to blackmail.

And David, it should be noted that this is not merely an amicable divorce equally desired by both parties. What I have consistently heard is that the truth is much more ugly than that. And the story apparently continues to evolve, unreported.

[David Hoggard]

Joe. you don't KNOW that, nor do you KNOW anything else unless you are privy to very intimate conversations between whomever it is that you are talking about.

"What I have consistently HEARD..." "... the story APPARENTLY continues to evolve..." "...not merely an amicable divorce equally desired..." "...much more ugly than that....

It is time for you to either report what you actually know, or end the embarassment. I'm betting your father would agree that the spreading of 'guess-what-I-heard' rumor and innuendo, like some bored housewife over the back fence, is much more demeaning to the over-eager gossiper than it is to the person(s) being gossiped about.

Didn't I read something about "bearing false witness" somewhere? How does that NOT apply to what you continue to perpetuate here?

You really need to undertake some serious introspection.

[Joe Guarino]

I really appreciate your concern, David. I agree with you that this is a story that needs to be reported.

[Billy Jones]

Joe wrote: "I really appreciate your concern, David. I agree with you that this is a story that needs to be reported."

Then report the story, Joe. Quit pointing a crooked finger at "the media" Stand up and do what you believe should be done.

Show us you're half the man your father was.

[bubba]

"It is time for you to either report what you actually know, or end the embarassment."

It is time for you and the bottom feeders like Craft and Stephen to just shut up.

[Ed Cone]

What story should be reported, Joe?

There are three major candidates for mayor. Only one of them lists (and has listed for some time) "separated" as his marital status on Facebook. So that doesn't seem to be very newsy, as it's already part, and has been a part, of the the candidate's own, self-published profile.

Is that the news the local press should report? That Robbie Perkins and his wife separated at some time before he filed to run for mayor?

All the other things here, up to and including Joe's latest mud-fling (the alleged potential for blackmail) are, as far as I can tell, unfounded and not relevant to the situation at hand.

What is it you think the press should be reporting, George?

The known fact of the separation, or one bloggers unsourced, unsupported smears of a the family for which he claims to have such concern?

[bubba]

"The known fact of the separation, or one bloggers unsourced, unsupported smears of a the family for which he claims to have such concern?"

The "rumor" would not have stayed a rumor very long if the person had been a conservative opposed to the "progressive" agenda advocated on a regular basis by the N&R, and by you and your cronies.

The sole reason for this hysteria is simply a way to smear Joe Guarino.

[Spag]

I am no fan of Robbie Perkins and I think that has been well established. However when Joe writes "it should be noted that this is not merely an amicable divorce equally desired by both parties. What I have consistently heard is that the truth is much more ugly than that. And the story apparently continues to evolve, unreported", I have to urge caution.

Here's a dose of reality: People lie/exaggerate/embellish all of the time in divorce cases. Rarely does anyone ever learn "the truth". The best that you can hope for until the matter is resolved when looking for the "truth" are undisputed facts.