Blog Archives

No More Excuses

9/26/2018

Reasons not to vote abound. No, I’m wrong. They aren’t reasons. They’re excuses! And, frankly, they disgust me. Let’s take a look at some of them.

First there are the “poor me” justifications.

My vote doesn’t make any difference.
None of the candidates care about me.
I’m busy and don’t have time.

If you’ve spouted one of these, you must think it’s all about you.

Well, here’s a surprise. it’s not about you, or at least only you. It’s about me, all your neighbors, everyone in your local, state, and national communities. If “you” is multiplied by the thousands and thousands of “yous,” that one vote of yours increases to a number that can influence not only local elections but also state and national ones. If you don’t feel it’s worth your time to make a difference then, guess what, there won’t be a difference. Will that have validated your feelings that it’s all a waste of time?

Absolutely not! And no amount of self-justification will undo the harm you have created for the rest of us.

Next there are those so turned off by the elective process itself that they reject it by not voting.

It doesn’t matter who wins; they’re all the same.
They’re all crooks.
Money is all they care about, and the ones with the most win.

Not one of those statements is true. It definitely matters who wins. All candidates are not the same. If the recent past hasn’t made that clear, then rational thought has flown the coop. All candidates are not crooks. All have flaws. But that doesn’t make them crooks. How about those dedicated souls serving on school boards or as judges? How about John McCain or Jimmy Carter? To say several break the law so all break the law is a weak logical argument that says more about the person making it than I want to contemplate. I would be the first to complain about money in politics. I find it disgusting and an antithesis to the democratic spirit. Something must be done. But the one with the most money does not always win. There have been countless examples over the last several months.

Finally, there are the spoiled brats.

My candidate didn’t win the primary.
I like almost everything about him, but he’s wrong on an issue I care about.

Ah, yes, if I can’t have everything, and I mean everything, my way, then I’m not going to play. Reminds me of elementary school. Have we reached a point where everything is an absolute, and if it’s the wrong absolute we simply walk away? How childish and how selfish.

Here’s an incontrovertible fact. Whether you vote or don’t, someone is going to be elected to every position up for grabs. If you don’t vote, it seems to me you’re saying it’s okay for anyone to be elected. If that’s how you feel, I pity you, and I pity our country.

Most everyone I know takes civic duty seriously, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart. For anyone else, let me beg you to participate in the democratic process. Maybe, just maybe, doing so will help save the country and improve local administration. So, please, please, please learn about the candidates and VOTE!

And if you’re not registered, DO IT NOW!

0 Comments

Adults in the Room

9/19/2018

0 Comments

“It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room.”

So spoke an anonymous op-ed writer in a recent issue of the New York Times that had all of us concerned citizens salivating. It seemed to be a recognition that the very insecure man in the very important position was off his rocker. But don’t worry, the essay said, the “unsung heroes in and around the White House … have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained in the West Wing.” So, we don’t have to be concerned about bombers and missiles being unleashed by the stroke of a misguided pen.

Are we supposed to be comforted by these assurances?

I, for one, am not.

This article was a terrible idea. For at least two reasons.

The first mistake lies at the feet of the Times. I have strong respect for that newspaper, so when it assures me the author is a “senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us,” I believe it.

It pains me, then, that they chose to publish it on the editorial page without attribution, trashing a long standing and honorable tradition. Were they so caught up in the excitement of a “scoop” that they elected to take this unusual step, perhaps fearful a refusal would send the author to the competition?

It isn’t as if there wasn’t another way to handle it. It should have been assigned to a reporter and treated as news, with the explanation the source requested anonymity for fear of reprisal. That’s done all the time.

What isn’t done all the time is posting articles on the editorial page without an attached name. Seems to me that’s the whole purpose of the page, so those with strong views can share them and suffer the consequences of any ill feelings that result. I think it’s a dangerous precedent to allow anyone the luxury of hiding behind anonymity, no matter how significant the report is.

The Times chose to replace my ability to evaluate the material based on knowledge of the source with its own assurances. Essential information was denied me.

But, you may say, if we knew who wrote it, so would the rest of the world and the author would be fired. Thereby annihilating the effectiveness of the “protection” offered.

Which brings me to the second mistake. This document should never have seen the light of day.

Based on your knowledge of the man from whom our author is protecting us, what do you believe his reaction will be? Of course, there will be the assorted tweets of the childish bully. But I believe it will go much further.

I think he’ll be suspicious of everyone in his inner circle. I think he’ll constantly be on the lookout for the culprit. I think it will make it harder for anyone trying to impose the necessary restraints.

I think advisor after advisor will rush to say, “It wasn’t me.” I think these advisors will increase the sycophantic groveling assuring their boss of their complete agreement with his wonderful policies and reassert how great a leader he is, knowing his egotistical personality will eat it up. We’ve seen this before.

I think anyone in disagreement with administration policy in any form will be increasingly subject to vilification from the man who tolerates no deviation.

I think the man and the ones truly in league with his destructive leadership will be vigilant in looking for interference to their goals.

In other words, I believe publication of the op-ed has undone the ability of these “heroes” to accomplish what the article claims. Ironic, isn’t it?

So what in the world caused this “hero” to publish? I can think of only two reasons.

The first reflects the cynicism I have for the political game, perhaps a result of too much mystery writing. Wouldn’t this be a smart move by someone loyal to the leader in order to force subservience and allegiance because of the reasons given earlier? In other words, the goal is the exact opposite of what the article asserts. I can see one of the diabolical and intelligent true believers coming up with such a manipulation.

The second possibility? The writer’s intentions were honorable, but the action was ill-advised to the extreme, if not downright stupid.

0 Comments

Sunday Morning

9/11/2018

2 Comments

In 1945 a radio program entitled American Mercury Presents: Meet the Press aired on the Mutual Broadcasting System. In 1947 Martha Rountree developed a TV version, shortened to Meet the Press, that went to the NBC television network and she was the first host. The show is still going strong and currently is on its twelfth host, the eleventh male.

What novel ideas it embraced, not the least of which was having a female host. The idea was to invite a single guest who was questioned by a group of “experts,” a sort of press conference. The first guest was James Farley who played major roles in the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration.

I can’t recall when I first discovered it, but I imagine it must have been the late forties or early fifties. I loved it. Especially seeing some bigwig put on the spot and trying to talk his way out of it
.
Sunday morning is its legacy. Besides Meet the Press, we have Face the Nation, This Week, Fox News Sunday, and State of the Union plus any number of lesser efforts. One can devote the entire morning and early afternoon to these shows.

And what will you get?

A big waste of time.

If you watch any of them, do you feel you are being educated? I don’t.

I see some shows having no allegiance to journalistic integrity as they push a political agenda with lies, misdirections, and bombastic outbursts.

I see hosts who cannot control their guests, allowing them to commandeer the conversation for their own ends.

I see moderators “leading” a round table of individuals who interrupt, shout, and don’t listen.

I see administration officials being invited to any show they want and fanning out over the shows to push the party line on issues or defend their boss.

I see opposition leaders doing the same thing.

I see guests who have learned the art of manipulating the media, treating a question they don’t like with an answer having nothing to do with it.

I don’t see much that I couldn’t predict knowing who the guest is and what the topic is.

I don’t see anyone responding to another’s point with, “You know, that’s an interesting thought. I think we could work together on that.”

I don’t see anyone putting our country first over a petty political agenda, even though they say that is exactly what they are doing.

I don’t see anyone choosing the old-fashioned idea of being willing to risk a political career to do what is right.

I don’t see kindness and caring and understanding.

I don’t see listening.

As with everything, nothing is black and white. Some leading the Sunday entertainment are competent, talented, and dedicated journalists. Some guests really do care. But the John McCains are too few.

These shows still air occasionally in my home, but I rarely watch. Because I finally recognized I was learning nothing from them. Because I feel there is little hope of anyone saying something unpredictable, or of opposing views merging to even the slightest degree.

I have better ways to spend Sunday morning.

2 Comments

What You Do Is Awesome

9/5/2018

0 Comments

In Italian a male ballet dancer is called a ballerino. The word rolls off the tongue, perfectly informing its meaning. And it came to mind a few years ago as I was observing a premier performance. The man gracefully landed, swept up his goal, tossed it accurately into the air, and leaped high.

This man was doing his job. He was a garbage collector, hanging precariously at a back corner of the huge truck as it moved between collection points. Since then trucks have become automated, but the personal touch is still required when the modern version breaks down.

I was struck by the beauty and efficiency of this man’s actions, and I reflected that, no matter what the job, those who take pride in their work will always manage to operate with skill.

I wish I could have spoken with the dancer. I have talked with other collectors of our trash, mainly those picking up the big items—refrigerators, sofas and all sorts of stuff—thanking them for what they do and learning how heavy loads are lifted safely.

I make it a point to chat with anyone doing things I wouldn’t want to do or am incapable of doing. These include plumbers, carpenters, appliance repair folk, lawn maintenance workers. In fact, anyone who will speak with me.

I have discovered that almost without exception they love it when someone takes an interest in their job and are more than willing to discuss their work. I learn of tricks they’ve found to facilitate their efforts. Sometimes they tell me about their families: pride in what their children are accomplishing and even admissions of guilt about not always having been the best of parents.

Rarely am I rebuffed for expressing interest. I’m sensitive and if I detect even the slightest reticence, I back off. But I don’t have to often.

I find I like the ones I engage, fascinated by what they do and full of admiration for their work.

Several years back the city decided to install improved street lighting around a couple of nearby lakes. After the requisite several month delay between decision and implementation, a crew appeared. I had been waiting, and it wasn’t long before I pounced.

Wires had to be strung underground from lamppost location to lamppost location. I was fascinated to watch their machines make it all possible without digging trenches.

Once that was accomplished, the wiring had to be completed by hand. And that’s when I met Tiny. Not his real name, of course. You might guess he was big, very big, both from genes and food. And a wonderfully nice guy.

I asked if he’d mind if I watched him work. This is my standard approach because I feared many wouldn’t like it, a concern fostered by the comic strip Blondie.

He said not at all; in fact he’d enjoy the company. He was sitting on the ground, legs spread, with the top of the lamppost between them. He showed me what turned out to be the intricate wiring required, much more complicated than a ceiling lamp. We went from location to location. I think I stayed with him through five or six lights. He explained how the lights were divided into different sets, two sets for each lake, each under their individual control. He was proud of his work, demanding the best job possible from his large nimble fingers.

This was a long time ago and I never have forgotten Tiny.

I think too often we don’t “see” folks doing the essential work that surrounds us and makes our lives better. I love the fact that they are people sharing many of the worries, family goals, interests as I.

I will continue to engage these fascinating people in conversation as long as they let me. And I will learn from what they have to say.

0 Comments

No More Excuses

Adults in the Room

Sunday Morning

What You Do Is Awesome

Author

Archives

Categories