博客存档

What a Start!

3/30/2022

It seems for the past several years on December 31 I have looked back on the previous 12 months and felt relief as I bid them farewell. I was ready for the fresh new year to be better—and expecting it to be so. Apparently I’ve been living in Groundhog Day because on the next December 31 I’d find myself repeating the same ritual.

December 31, 1999 was especially important because of its double duty of bidding adieu not only to the previous year of the 20th century, but also to the entire century itself, a century that saw two World Wars, years of segregation, and the long, unfinished struggle for equal rights.

Hope for the new century was high.

As we are a mere three years from the quarter way mark through it, let’s take a look at how it has worked out so far by examining 50 of the events that have occurred since January 1, 2000. For each, decide if it’s a good thing or not. Keep a tally.

George W. Bush was elected president
9/11 occurred
As a result of 9/11 we have begun to feel vulnerable to external attacks
As a second result we developed irrational hatred of all Muslims
As a third result we entered into two wars because of erroneous warnings about weapons of mass destruction in one and a desire for revenge in the other
As a fourth result we accepted limitations on our freedom which continue to expand
Climate change worsened and became a political football
Saddam Hussein was captured and executed
George W. Bush was reelected
Barak Obama was elected president and we were reminded a president could speak complete sentences
We learned of the underlying hatred many had with a Black president and the resultant subsequent obstructionist philosophy being honed by the Republican party
Sonia Sotomayor became a justice on the Supreme Court
Elena Kagan became a justice on the Supreme Court
The Republicans blocked the legitimate right to have a vote on an Obama nomination for the Supreme Court
During Obama’s presidency the two wars continued as more and more troops and civilians were exposed to its horror
A con man with no scruples was elected president
Lies occurred like never before and soon millions would accept them as truths
The Republican party abandoned long held beliefs in order to submit to the con man who had become surprisingly powerful
We withdrew from the hard negotiated Iran pact
We alienated allies in NATO and elsewhere
We cozied up to dictators
Neil M. Gorsuch became a justice on the Supreme Court
Brett M. Kavenaugh became a justice on the Supreme Court
Amy Coney Barrett became a justice on the Supreme Court
Covid struck
Our president eschewed advice from medical experts and recommended ingesting crazy substances
Asians were attacked as our president blamed China for the virus
Operation Warp Speed was established
With the assistance of Mitch McConnell, the con man swung federal courts in general and the Supreme Court specifically well to the right
The threat to legal abortions became significant
Joe Biden was elected president
In the same election Republicans made significant gains
Lies about the election formulated and are still believed
January 6, 2021 saw an insurrection that disgusted most, independent of party
After time one of our political parties came to believe the insurrection was just a normal tourist day
New even more dire reports on climate change were issued
The obstructionism perfected during the Obama years was unpacked and modified to stand in Biden’s way
Covid vaccines became available
Many refused to get it, or even wear masks
Biden removed us from Afghanistan
The way leaving Afghanistan was handled was chaotic at best
Inflation reared
Gas prices soared
Education came under attack in many states
Increased restrictions on voting were enacted in many states, essentially denying the vote to many classes of citizens
Russia invaded Ukraine
Biden united Europe, much of Asia, and the United States in a coordinated response to the invasion
Gerrymandering continued to thwart fairness
Right wing extremists have expanded their influencce
Prejudice and violence against gays have expanded

Of these 50 events, I look at 9 in a positive way. That’s 41 that I would view negatively. How about you? Maybe you would add more to the above list. I’m sure I’ve left out many possibilities.

It alarms me that much of our population might very well consider 41 to be positive.

But for me, though, 9 positive and 41 negative. That’s a whopping 18% positive.

I’d say the 21st century hasn’t started well.

2 Comments

The Whole Story

3/23/2022

2 Comments

Newspapers are going through a tough time. The digital age, reduced revenues, corporate takeovers by those looking for profit over public service, political revenge, and increased consumer preference for social media lies over responsible journalism truths. A significant number of journalists annually have been killed for accurate reporting.

So I have a tremendous respect for those who daily work under these hardships as they labor in support of their longtime belief that what they do is important. There is much truth to the statement that news organizations are essential to a thriving democracy. Which is why dictators work to suppress them.

Therefore, I feel somewhat guilty for suggesting a couple of improvements papers could enact to make them even more relevant. And these certainly aren’t major problems.

There’s more than one way to tell a story. Words, certainly. But also images. They are an important part of many reports. They can add to the impact in a way that words cannot.

So, consider the following, all of which occurred in my local paper in December of 2021 and early January of 2022.

On December 4 the words described a significant rise in reported number of Covid cases (of course, nothing like the number that was to occur later with Omicron). The photograph associated with the article showed cars lined up for Covid testing on the previous July 29!

A December 5 story discussed a major utility’s political contributions and alluded to the possibility they were used to support ghost candidates. The only purpose was to fool voters into selecting the ghosts in order to defeat legitimate Democrats running for the office. The accompanying picture showed the utility installing electrical equipment on a pole in 2015.

December 19 discussed Joe Manchin’s stance on how the child tax credit program was not appreciated by many in his home state along with a photo of him walking on November 18 with the White House Director of National Drug Policy.

December 19 also discussed a concert by Andrea Bocelli at the Amway Center along with a picture of him singing at a Berlin concert in 2020.

On December 26 the Broward county sheriff expressed a desire to obtain seized gambling money for the department while he was shown giving a news conference on January 14 of 2021.

Also on December 26 an article dealt with what to do if one tests positive for Covid while the accompanying photograph showed a sign advertising Covid tests at a pharmacy.

January 2 had a story on us oldsters recalling inflation under Jimmy Carter with a picture of Dan Aykroyd playing Carter on Saturday Night Live in 1978.

On January 4 a report appeared detailing the problems of reopening schools while the Omicron virus was surging. The related picture showed testing going on at a drive through site in Miami.

All these preceding paragraphs share a common characteristic. The photograph accompanying the story, while somewhat related, really did not enhance the report itself. In fact, I would argue in many of the instances it detracted from it. Take, for example, the one about the utility company perhaps engaged in shady political maneuvering with the picture showing installation of equipment on a pole. The photograph had me wondering if I had missed something in the story.

I could have listed dozens of other examples all occurring in that brief time period.

As I said earlier, images can increase the potency of a report. But only if they’re relevant. So my first suggestion is find a germane photo for the story or don’t include one at all.

My second is that more maps be included with associated news reports. This used to be the case, but somewhere along the line the practice has disappeared, at least in my local paper.

I read there are 194 recognized countries in the world. Where are they? How are all those past Soviet states positioned with respect to each other and with the other nations of the world? Could you draw a sketch showing Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam and other countries in the region? I could not. How about Africa and South America?

Certainly, I could look up maps, but wouldn’t it be nice to have an appropriate one right next to the story? Better than some of the unrelated photos discussed earlier. And so important to aid understanding in these turbulent times that the world is experiencing.

But even if my paper continues with its present practices of unrelated photos and no maps, I will support it for continuing to maintain its devotion to the truth in a time when truth doesn’t have the respect it used to. And doing it all with significantly reduced staff.

2 Comments

Can Democracy Live?

3/16/2022

3 Comments

When I was young, I had no idea how unique our democracy was.

I recently read Power and Liberty: Constitutionalism in the American Revolution by Gordon S. Wood. If you suffer from insomnia, I recommend you give it a try. Nevertheless, I found it contained interesting takes on the history of constitutions.

It seems that formal written constitutions were a novel idea in the 18th century. So much of our governmental system had its roots in English experience, but England had no written difficult-to-alter constitution. True, much of English legal structure included documents like the Magna Carta, but the rulings of government were ever changing, and once Parliament passed a law it essentially became a part of the country’s “constitution.” If a new law invalidated a previous law, the old one was gone. If a new law violated what we think of as a basic right, so be it. It was the law.

As the American colonies were struggling with forming a legal basis for governance, they recognized a problem with this type of system. There was nothing that limited what could pass, and hence protections that were important to the people could be wiped out with a legislative vote.

The colonists began to realize there were two distinct kinds of laws. The everyday and ever-changing ones dealing with commerce, taxes, criminal activities, and other areas involved with communal living was one kind. But also there was a more fundamental one that ensured a stable government and guaranteed fundamental rights that could not be eliminated by the whim of any legislative body.

They believed any constitution should recognize this.

Such an idea was new, but it was important to the colonists because of their fear of being ruled by some high-level executive such as a king or having their individual rights eliminated as the result of legislative action. Thus, the colonists, first in each colony separately and later in a meeting of all colonies, attempted to cement these different levels into governing documents. The experiences and learning curves from such efforts in the individual colonies influenced the framers of our national Constitution.

A major part of their solution was the creation of state and national supreme courts as independent judiciaries not beholden to either the legislative or executive branches, as had been the case in the past. This “higher” level of governance cannot, at least in theory, be changed by the caprice of legislative action or executive mandate.

And it has served us well.

But I fear it now is failing us. There is a man who wants to be king. There are legislators who want to be in the royal court. And there are judges appointed for political beliefs who are willing to act on those beliefs rather than on an impartial interpretation of the law and the Constitution.

How did this happen?

Why isn’t our Constitution saving us from this, as it was designed to do?

I think it’s because the colonists were wrong. Putting protections in writing can help. It has for over 200 years. It hasn’t been perfect. We enslaved human beings and then treated them abominably once they were “freed.” We incarcerated Japanese-Americans during World War II. We for so long denied rights to women.

But through it all the Constitution endured and remained our nation’s guiding light.

So why isn’t it working now?

Because written words cannot protect us unless…

Unless there is a will to abide by them by the general populace and the country’s leaders. For over two centuries most of the country believed in the Constitution, as did the leaders of the government. Over the years there were those who would tear down our government, but they were always unsuccessful. A major reason was the belief by most that we did not want to destroy the basic tenets of our nation.

That is no longer true.

And I fear we are on the verge of losing the country.

Because it takes more than words on a piece of paper to save us from ourselves.

3 Comments

Double Negatives and More

3/9/2022

0 Comments

I am no expert on writing, but I can’t help being annoyed by common types of phrasing that, as far as I’m concerned, are way too common.

Double negatives and confusing statements

We’ve all heard people issue sentences like, “Alice is not eating nothing.” What is meant by that? My bet is the speaker is intending to convey the message that Alice is starving herself. But what do the words actually mean? Well, if she eats nothing, it means no food passes her lips. So, if she’s not eating nothing, she’s eating something. The double negative is working against the intended meaning.

On the other hand, consider the sentence, “She is not unbeautiful.” Meaning she is beautiful. Some say this is stronger than saying the straightforward, “She is beautiful.” I’m not so sure.

I think avoiding double negatives is a worthy general goal.

What prompted me to hit the keys on this subject was a confusing story in my local paper about an airline passenger who demonstrated the maturity of so many these days by jumping on the wing of the plane. A spokesman for the airline said that he “cannot say without certainty that something like this has not happened before.”

What? Looks like three negatives are present.

I think what he’s saying is, “I’m not sure whether this happened before or not.” Wouldn’t that be so much easier and clearer? Heck, just putting those words he uttered in the way they were must have been a gargantuan task. Or a completely random one.

The “at about” syndrome

A report in my local paper included “…after a 911 call was received at about 7:30…” This was hardly unique. Such a phrase appears often in newspaper accounts and novels. Sometimes the wording is “at around” instead of “at about.” We all know what it means: the 911 call occurred in the neighborhood of 7:30. My eighth-grade teacher would have given the reporter a poor mark and I agree. Something either happened at 7:30 or it happened about or around 7:30. If it happened at 7:30, then, at that time, all accurate digital clocks would say 7:30 and the seconds would be 00 and even if billionths of a second were registered it would be 0 of them. If the call happened around 7:30 it might have occurred, say, somewhere between ten minutes before 7:30 and ten after.

As a mathematician, I’m forced to note that the probability of it happening at 7:30 is zero, but that’s a discussion for another day. For practical purposes it’s reasonable to assume at 7:30 means within a few minutes of 7:30.

So at around 7:30 means the same thing as around 7:30. The at is redundant. Why not just say around 7:30 or about 7:30 instead?

The “only” problem

Again I suffer from the efforts of that same teacher. The word “only” can describe a situation precisely or it can lead to a complete misinterpretation of a sentence.

Consider the sentence, “I only like coffee ice cream.” Now that’s perfectly okay if you mean you like coffee ice cream but you don’t love it. But if you’re trying to indicate that the only kind of ice cream you like is coffee ice cream, then you are better served to say, “I like only coffee ice cream.”

I’ve found that, when using the word “only,” it’s wise to put it directly before what it is referring to.

Different than

If I said,“different than,” that same demanding teacher would have shuddered. She really did a number on me, didn’t she? She taught us never to say, “different than.” So what’s the alternative? Different from. But it’s not hard to find print reporters, TV journalists, and your friends quite willing to shock my teacher. I did a little reading online. English Grammar for Dummies, probably not the most reliable source, says, “Different than is never correct.” But many who are among the smartest people in the world use it. The consensus seems to be that employing “different than” is unwise but is not a major offense. Except to me.

You probably agree all these gripes are petty. After all, we seem able to interpret the real meaning even though the wording is imprecise. I dislike almost everything William Buckley said and stood for when he was a major voice for conservative thought. However, he was a master wordsmith and took a lot of mocking for his careful use of words and wordings. In this one area I liked his response when asked about his unambiguous employment of the English language. He responded with his own question, “Why shouldn’t people use words and phrasing that are as precise as possible?”

Now I fear I’ve opened a can of worms, so please feel free to criticize me whenever I violate the thoughts presented here.

0 Comments

What a World!

3/2/2022

5 Comments

Even I am not old enough to remember World War I. It wasn’t called that back then. It took World War II, some 26 years later, to necessitate the name. Instead it was known as the “War to End All Wars.” As if the human beast could be expected to learn a lesson.

When German tanks rolled across Europe in the late 1930s and early 40s, the United States watched with interest and detachment. I believe Franklin Roosevelt was pulling some behind the scenes shenanigans to help England and other countries, but the population as a whole was content to avoid conflict.

Until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

Then, for the most part, we came together as a nation, with only a single negative vote in the House of Representatives. We partnered with other countries and responded with a determined war effort that would eventually prove successful, destroying a bully with no moral boundaries.

Much as we did after 9/11.

They say that those who do not study history are destined to repeat it.

I’m not sure that’s true. I believe the Hitlers of this world, whether they have studied history or not, will do whatever they want. Because they think differently from the rest of us. They think that the people who came before, who unleashed horrible pain and devastation, just weren’t as smart as themselves. They cannot believe they would repeat the stupidity of their predecessors. Rather they convince themselves they will emerge victorious.

Bullies like Vladimir Putin.

He is said to have lost touch with reality. That may be true, but I doubt he would agree. He has had a life that fed the development of a dictator with no limits. After all, he spent years as an intelligence officer with the infamous KGB, Soviet Russia’s equivalent of the secret service.

Under his time as president those deemed a threat to his regime have been attacked and many killed, even if they had fled Russia and lived in other countries. So excessive and innocent deaths would not deter any action he might take.

Like invading Ukraine.

But unlike the 1940s, this time our country did not look the other way. Our President Biden showed great leadership in stepping up to the challenge. I would never have thought he could marshal the European Union to present a unified and sustained response, especially since this could severely impact its energy needs. I suspect memories of the previous time European countries were overrun by a stronger and unchecked military might have played a role. In any event, I am proud of our president and our allies.

Unfortunately, also unlike the 1940s, our country has not come together to support our efforts.

Early on in the crisis and later at the yearly conservative CPAC meeting our past president extolled the brilliance of Putin. And he praised his own intelligence versus the stupidity of Biden. He added this would never have occurred under his watch, and Putin picked this time because Biden is so dumb. And he didn’t explain how his estrangement from NATO would have been an asset, an area where Biden has been brilliant in building consensus. The group of thousands of so-called patriots who heard the former president speak cheered and demanded four more years

Furthermore, while there was a token of bipartisan support at Biden’s State of the Union speech, some members of the Republican party have claimed that Biden is acting too weakly. Others say he is being unnecessarily demanding. It appears that this is just one more opportunity to attack our president, indicating even a threat to world order is not sufficient enough of a problem to trigger an overwhelming nonpartisan response.

Indeed, and unbelievably, some conservatives and their pundits have taken the stand that the Russian action was necessary.

At a convention of white nationalists, the crowd enthusiastically chanted “Putin, Putin, Putin.”

What is wrong with our country where so many of our citizens participate in actions that demean and embarrass us?

They are disgusting.

They are sickening.

They are scary.

I can only hope that the sturdy resistance to the Russian invasion that Ukraine, we, and other brave nations have taken will thwart Putin’s power play and make him wish he had listened to the lessons of history.

I can only hope our nation recovers its commitment to democracy and keeps power hungry individuals here from becoming our own version of Putin.

5 Comments

What a Start!

The Whole Story

Can Democracy Live?

Double Negatives and More

What a World!

Author

Archives

Categories