We’re all aware of how many use social media to inform us of every twist and turn in their lives – or to foment revolutions – but this week I became aware of its healing power, at least in a small way.
A Facebook friend posted a rather alarming report from the hospital. He had undergone a heart operation a while back, but chest pains had returned, and he was actually wondering if he were going to die. Almost instantly, his friends responded, saying they were praying for him, etc. – but one in particular had been through exactly the same thing and advised him to stay calm, because fear only makes things worse, especially for heart patients. My friend was released from the hospital the next day and was full of gratitude for all the good wishes and advice, which had calmed him down to the point where the doctors (among the best in the country for heart issues) could let him go home.
Another FB friend reported a death in his family. In this case as well, his friends responded quickly with comforting words.
Before social media, these individuals might have had to call their friends one-by-one and relive their woes over and over.
On a more mundane level, I’ve seen people report all kinds of problems trying to fix a broken appliance or navigate paperwork, and in just about every case, one of their FB friends has been there and done it, and shares the wisdom needed for the fix.
Many of us have a love-hate relationship with Facebook. I don’t know exactly what this Timeline business is for, and wish Mr. Zuckerberg would just leave things alone. A young lady I know was hopping mad that Timeline apparently re-published photos from past years of ex-boyfriends, and she had to go back in and delete what she had previously removed.
But for me, FB has had an important benefit. I do most of my work at home now, which means I have no co-workers, and I’d probably have gone batty months ago were it not for the ability to talk with friends and former colleagues. And being an old radio person, I discovered I still have a critical need for something I thought I could do without: an audience.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Real People
Just what does Mitt Romney have to do to convince the population that he’s human?
Many people think his problem is that he’s rich, and the average bear can’t identify with him. What we have heahhh, as the old “Cool Hand Luke” line goes, is a failure to communicate, but it’s not about money.
By the time most people get to the point where they can run for President, they have money – they just about have to have it. In the case of most, they were born into average circumstances and became financial successes. Romney’s a different case, some will say, because he was born into it and has no concept of what it’s like to struggle. But that’s not it, either. FDR’s family wasn’t poor, nor was JFK’s, but both men were effective communicators who were able to convince people to elect them.
Clothing has nothing to do with it. Steve Jobs didn’t wear ties to Apple conferences but was CEO of what now appears to be the world’s most successful company. And then there’s Michael Moore, who shows up for national interviews in T-shirts and baseball caps. He can buy and sell the average bear about 20 times over, but said bear doesn’t hold that against him. But no matter how “down” Romney tries to dress, no matter how far he rolls up his sleeves, he just isn’t going to be “one of us.” At least not that way.
A little story: Many years ago, my wife and I were at a party in another state. A woman we knew distantly was there. She was a very pretty brunette, with nice dress, figure, etc., but for me at least, the “attractor factor” wasn’t quite there -- why, I don’t know. Anyway, about halfway through, she slumped to the floor, and people rushed to her aid. The general conclusion was that she was tired, or had too much to drink. I never knew what the issue was -- she revived quickly, and as I recall, resumed conversations with people. I joked later that her batteries ran out and she just needed a charge.
Which brings us back to Romney. It isn’t wealth. It’s not dress. He’s an articulate speaker. He knows his stuff. He has the qualifications to be President. So if you were one of his handlers, what would you tell him he needed to do to connect with voters?
Don’t look at me, I don’t have a clue.
Many people think his problem is that he’s rich, and the average bear can’t identify with him. What we have heahhh, as the old “Cool Hand Luke” line goes, is a failure to communicate, but it’s not about money.
By the time most people get to the point where they can run for President, they have money – they just about have to have it. In the case of most, they were born into average circumstances and became financial successes. Romney’s a different case, some will say, because he was born into it and has no concept of what it’s like to struggle. But that’s not it, either. FDR’s family wasn’t poor, nor was JFK’s, but both men were effective communicators who were able to convince people to elect them.
Clothing has nothing to do with it. Steve Jobs didn’t wear ties to Apple conferences but was CEO of what now appears to be the world’s most successful company. And then there’s Michael Moore, who shows up for national interviews in T-shirts and baseball caps. He can buy and sell the average bear about 20 times over, but said bear doesn’t hold that against him. But no matter how “down” Romney tries to dress, no matter how far he rolls up his sleeves, he just isn’t going to be “one of us.” At least not that way.
A little story: Many years ago, my wife and I were at a party in another state. A woman we knew distantly was there. She was a very pretty brunette, with nice dress, figure, etc., but for me at least, the “attractor factor” wasn’t quite there -- why, I don’t know. Anyway, about halfway through, she slumped to the floor, and people rushed to her aid. The general conclusion was that she was tired, or had too much to drink. I never knew what the issue was -- she revived quickly, and as I recall, resumed conversations with people. I joked later that her batteries ran out and she just needed a charge.
Which brings us back to Romney. It isn’t wealth. It’s not dress. He’s an articulate speaker. He knows his stuff. He has the qualifications to be President. So if you were one of his handlers, what would you tell him he needed to do to connect with voters?
Don’t look at me, I don’t have a clue.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
The Character Thing
Looks like it’s time for the quadrennial discussion about the character of our next President, and whether a track record of marital cheating is cause to conclude a candidate isn’t qualified to run the country. All things being equal, it’s clear to me that a clean record in this area is important. Trouble is, all things aren’t.
Rick Perry says if a man will cheat on his wife, he will cheat on his business partner. The buzzer’s going off on that one – it’s wrong. Those are two entirely different things. There are plenty of examples of swindlers and scam artists who have impeccable family values.
My problem with extramarital behavior on the part of a candidate – or a sitting President, for that matter – is that it’s a security risk. If a President fools around, as Bill Clinton did, he is, by the very act, supplying someone else with damaging personal information about himself. What is the other individual going to do with it? Blackmail? Give it to foreign agents? These are extremes, which – fortunately – Monica Lewinsky apparently wasn’t interested in. But when the information came out, it did seriously limit President Clinton’s effectiveness, and the political fallout wasted a lot of time.
Is a President’s hanky-panky anyone’s business? Absolutely. What would the cable news operations have done with JFK’s activities? Or Eisenhower’s? or FDR’s? Plenty! And how effective would they have been after that?
One of my favorite sayings is, “Every saint has a past and every sinner a future.” Bill Clinton, for example, walks on water now – but are Republicans – or other voters – willing to give Newt Gingrich a pass?
It seems the only way to handle the character thing is to assign a value to it, making it like a credit score element – paying bills on time, 30 percent, proportion of balance to credit line, 20 percent, something like that.
I’ve always believed that we elect human beings to office, not simply positions on issues. The issues that are top-of-mind now may not be there several years from now – but we’re still stuck with our choice till the end of the next term. So we’d best try to get it right.
Rick Perry says if a man will cheat on his wife, he will cheat on his business partner. The buzzer’s going off on that one – it’s wrong. Those are two entirely different things. There are plenty of examples of swindlers and scam artists who have impeccable family values.
My problem with extramarital behavior on the part of a candidate – or a sitting President, for that matter – is that it’s a security risk. If a President fools around, as Bill Clinton did, he is, by the very act, supplying someone else with damaging personal information about himself. What is the other individual going to do with it? Blackmail? Give it to foreign agents? These are extremes, which – fortunately – Monica Lewinsky apparently wasn’t interested in. But when the information came out, it did seriously limit President Clinton’s effectiveness, and the political fallout wasted a lot of time.
Is a President’s hanky-panky anyone’s business? Absolutely. What would the cable news operations have done with JFK’s activities? Or Eisenhower’s? or FDR’s? Plenty! And how effective would they have been after that?
One of my favorite sayings is, “Every saint has a past and every sinner a future.” Bill Clinton, for example, walks on water now – but are Republicans – or other voters – willing to give Newt Gingrich a pass?
It seems the only way to handle the character thing is to assign a value to it, making it like a credit score element – paying bills on time, 30 percent, proportion of balance to credit line, 20 percent, something like that.
I’ve always believed that we elect human beings to office, not simply positions on issues. The issues that are top-of-mind now may not be there several years from now – but we’re still stuck with our choice till the end of the next term. So we’d best try to get it right.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Howdy, Neighbor
NASA revealed this week that there’s a planet out there that seems to have a really good chance of supporting life. For the moment, at least, it has the unromantic name Kepler 22B. It’s about twice as big as Earth, but lies within a reasonable distance of the star around which it revolves, and the surface temperature is said to average around 72 degrees. The next trick is to find out if there’s water on it, which could be a clue as to whether it supports life.
While this is quite a discovery, it’s not exactly breaking news, cosmically speaking. Kepler 22B is some 600 light-years away from here, which means whatever our space telescopes can see happened about 600 years ago – relatively close, though, in space terms.
If you think about it logically, considering the size of the universe, the odds are much better than even that there is life on other planets. Does it have to look like us? Does it matter?
I have no doubt there are other beings out there, and I don’t have a problem with that. When I was about eight years old and the original version of the movie “Invaders From Mars” was released, many of my friends were running screaming from the theater when the aliens appeared, but I sat there and watched the whole thing without flinching.
We continue to wait for proof of alien contact, but it’s very possible they’ve already been here. After creating a few crop circles, drawing giant figures in the Peruvian desert and helping with a Stonehenge or two, maybe most got bored and moved on. But I wish those still arriving would pick better places to land. A few years ago, when I worked in radio news in Southern California, a guy called me on the phone and said that a UFO had landed in front of him one night on a lonely stretch of Interstate 10 between Indio and Blythe. I had no reason to disbelieve him, except that he had no proof. With everyone armed with smart phones, the aliens couldn’t get away with that now. If we aspire to a little intergalactic tourism, why shouldn’t they enjoy it?
Not to go Biblical on you, but it’s documented in the New Testament that Jesus said, “Other sheep have I that are not of this fold.” Most of you will say, of course, that’s not what he was talking about.
Really?
While this is quite a discovery, it’s not exactly breaking news, cosmically speaking. Kepler 22B is some 600 light-years away from here, which means whatever our space telescopes can see happened about 600 years ago – relatively close, though, in space terms.
If you think about it logically, considering the size of the universe, the odds are much better than even that there is life on other planets. Does it have to look like us? Does it matter?
I have no doubt there are other beings out there, and I don’t have a problem with that. When I was about eight years old and the original version of the movie “Invaders From Mars” was released, many of my friends were running screaming from the theater when the aliens appeared, but I sat there and watched the whole thing without flinching.
We continue to wait for proof of alien contact, but it’s very possible they’ve already been here. After creating a few crop circles, drawing giant figures in the Peruvian desert and helping with a Stonehenge or two, maybe most got bored and moved on. But I wish those still arriving would pick better places to land. A few years ago, when I worked in radio news in Southern California, a guy called me on the phone and said that a UFO had landed in front of him one night on a lonely stretch of Interstate 10 between Indio and Blythe. I had no reason to disbelieve him, except that he had no proof. With everyone armed with smart phones, the aliens couldn’t get away with that now. If we aspire to a little intergalactic tourism, why shouldn’t they enjoy it?
Not to go Biblical on you, but it’s documented in the New Testament that Jesus said, “Other sheep have I that are not of this fold.” Most of you will say, of course, that’s not what he was talking about.
Really?
Monday, November 21, 2011
How About Black SATURDAY?
I’m not one to risk an arm, a leg, an eye or teeth – much less contracting frostbite – just to be the first through the big-box store door on Friday morning to score a flat-screen TV or tablet, but the whole concept of Black Friday still is offensive. This year, of course, some retailers aren’t even waiting till Friday, and we all know what that means for Thanksgiving, which should be one of those sacred holidays (and why they call them “holidays” is a mystery to me, but that’s another program).
The “black” part is supposed to be about retailers kicking off the season so they can be “in the black” at the end, but historically, putting “black” in front of a day of the week has always meant a financial panic or some other disaster. I guess the naming was deliberate, but I’m not sure it has the desired effect.
It’s all just a big game, though, as retailers have to show the huge numbers for Black Friday as an indicator of how the shopping season will go and the overall health of the economy. But I resent the idea that you have to have your will on file somewhere and your life insurance in force before you go shopping.
At the very least, can’t we compromise a little bit and push it all back to Saturday, if only as a Thanksgiving digestion aid? And please, can we eventually go back to celebrating seasons sometime during the actual seasons?
I’m waiting for a kid to show up at the front door next Halloween dressed as Santa – trust me, it’s coming.
The “black” part is supposed to be about retailers kicking off the season so they can be “in the black” at the end, but historically, putting “black” in front of a day of the week has always meant a financial panic or some other disaster. I guess the naming was deliberate, but I’m not sure it has the desired effect.
It’s all just a big game, though, as retailers have to show the huge numbers for Black Friday as an indicator of how the shopping season will go and the overall health of the economy. But I resent the idea that you have to have your will on file somewhere and your life insurance in force before you go shopping.
At the very least, can’t we compromise a little bit and push it all back to Saturday, if only as a Thanksgiving digestion aid? And please, can we eventually go back to celebrating seasons sometime during the actual seasons?
I’m waiting for a kid to show up at the front door next Halloween dressed as Santa – trust me, it’s coming.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Bad Endings
By now, you’ve had more than an earful about the “Wednesday night massacre” at Penn State, and the firing of legendary football coach Joe Paterno. The university’s board of trustees is receiving praise in many circles for the courage it showed in making these decisions, especially about Mr. Paterno.
In a discussion last night, I said that while I didn’t necessarily disagree with the decision to fire him, I was still having a hard time with it. Many aren’t. It was simply a question of a powerful individual failing to use that power in a way that could have avoided a terrible injustice, in this case, to children and their families. End of story, right?
I guess what I’m having a hard time with is this: here’s a man who was still coaching college football at the age of 84 and was called the winningest coach. His career spanned more than 45 years. How many young men’s lives has he helped shape over that period? How much honor – and money – has flowed to that university because of him, enhancing the quality of education at that school for many other students? And poof! – it’s all gone after a little TV coverage. In other news...
If the tragedy involved in Paterno’s situation here hasn’t registered with you, I hope you take a minute to think about it. The easy answer is, what about the children that could have been protected if he had taken more forceful action? Isn’t that more important than college football?
Don’t worry, Joe Paterno will get what many think he deserves, and more. He will likely spend a good portion of the rest of his life as a civil defendant. If it’s shown that he violated the law or participated in an actual cover-up, he should be a criminal defendant.
But as we prepare to flush someone’s life work down the toilet, I hope we take just a little time – at least in our own minds -- before we reach for the handle on the tank.
In a discussion last night, I said that while I didn’t necessarily disagree with the decision to fire him, I was still having a hard time with it. Many aren’t. It was simply a question of a powerful individual failing to use that power in a way that could have avoided a terrible injustice, in this case, to children and their families. End of story, right?
I guess what I’m having a hard time with is this: here’s a man who was still coaching college football at the age of 84 and was called the winningest coach. His career spanned more than 45 years. How many young men’s lives has he helped shape over that period? How much honor – and money – has flowed to that university because of him, enhancing the quality of education at that school for many other students? And poof! – it’s all gone after a little TV coverage. In other news...
If the tragedy involved in Paterno’s situation here hasn’t registered with you, I hope you take a minute to think about it. The easy answer is, what about the children that could have been protected if he had taken more forceful action? Isn’t that more important than college football?
Don’t worry, Joe Paterno will get what many think he deserves, and more. He will likely spend a good portion of the rest of his life as a civil defendant. If it’s shown that he violated the law or participated in an actual cover-up, he should be a criminal defendant.
But as we prepare to flush someone’s life work down the toilet, I hope we take just a little time – at least in our own minds -- before we reach for the handle on the tank.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Let's Make It a Real Holiday
Undoubtedly, you’ve heard people say that Halloween is their favorite holiday – which it isn’t. But let’s face it – Halloween just isn’t a normal business day.
Does anyone in your office dress up for Halloween? Does the management encourage it? I went to the dentist the other day, and they had scary decorations up. I told them, “Hey, this is a DENTAL OFFICE, you don’t need extra fear factors!” Do banks still have tellers wear costumes? Well, bamkers are portrayed as the real monsters these days, right?
I enjoy Halloween for a couple of reasons. I’ve always liked horror movies, but they rarely make them like they used to, with Karloff, Lugosi and Chaney. Knives and buckets of blood don’t do it for me, nor do vampires suffering from discrimination. But Halloween is the one day on which you get a free pass to take a vacation from yourself. Conventional wisdom has it that this is particularly true of women. I do remember some years ago in an office I worked in that a young woman – a rather religious one most of the time -- came to work in an anatomically correct flesh-colored angel’s costume. No, she didn’t wear it all day – she quickly resumed being herself – but she got the point across.
There are some parents who believe Halloween is wrong, but I think children relish the idea of taking on a different persona for at least part of one day a year, and that they shouldn’t be deprived of that experience. I envy actors, who get to do it for a living all the time.
Let’s just bite the bullet and make Halloween a national holiday. If you think you’re going to get something important done, well, best wait till All Saints Day.
Does anyone in your office dress up for Halloween? Does the management encourage it? I went to the dentist the other day, and they had scary decorations up. I told them, “Hey, this is a DENTAL OFFICE, you don’t need extra fear factors!” Do banks still have tellers wear costumes? Well, bamkers are portrayed as the real monsters these days, right?
I enjoy Halloween for a couple of reasons. I’ve always liked horror movies, but they rarely make them like they used to, with Karloff, Lugosi and Chaney. Knives and buckets of blood don’t do it for me, nor do vampires suffering from discrimination. But Halloween is the one day on which you get a free pass to take a vacation from yourself. Conventional wisdom has it that this is particularly true of women. I do remember some years ago in an office I worked in that a young woman – a rather religious one most of the time -- came to work in an anatomically correct flesh-colored angel’s costume. No, she didn’t wear it all day – she quickly resumed being herself – but she got the point across.
There are some parents who believe Halloween is wrong, but I think children relish the idea of taking on a different persona for at least part of one day a year, and that they shouldn’t be deprived of that experience. I envy actors, who get to do it for a living all the time.
Let’s just bite the bullet and make Halloween a national holiday. If you think you’re going to get something important done, well, best wait till All Saints Day.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
The Cowboy and the Alien
Some of you have heard me quip that if Rick Perry is the cowboy among the Republican presidential candidates, then Mitt Romney must be the alien. OK, so you get the cowboy part, but why do I think Romney’s an alien?
Just to be clear about this -- a relative and I occasionally bestow this classification on certain people we run across. All of us have encountered at least one. They’re attractive, competent and sensible, but gosh darn it, there’s something missing. What it is, we don’t know – but we know it’s why the individual so designated has trouble connecting with us, or with others. I have no doubt that Mitt Romney is qualified to be President. So why does he make even Republicans uncomfortable? It’s that thing that isn’t there. With McCain they worried that his heart might give out at his age; with Romney, is there a reasonable fear that his batteries may die?
Romney’s a great backup in case nobody else works out for the GOP. But Republicans want desperately for someone else to work out. They’re attracted to Herman Cain. He’s decisive. He has plans to fix things. Some of them make a certain amount of sense. He makes them sound like they make sense. He’s the CEO of a successful company who knows what success is. He’s a leader. That’s what Republicans want. Heck, that’s what the country wants right now.
Just one problem. Cain’s a nut case. Off the scale on some things. Come on – do you really agree with him that Sharia law is going to take over our judicial system? What about his statement that he won’t have a Muslim in his cabinet, or appoint one to a federal judgeship?
Which brings us back to the alien. I’d have a really hard time voting for an alien, but as long as we’re in the sci-fi/horror genre, I’d easily vote for a zombie if his name were Teddy Roosevelt.
That’s what’s really missing.
Just to be clear about this -- a relative and I occasionally bestow this classification on certain people we run across. All of us have encountered at least one. They’re attractive, competent and sensible, but gosh darn it, there’s something missing. What it is, we don’t know – but we know it’s why the individual so designated has trouble connecting with us, or with others. I have no doubt that Mitt Romney is qualified to be President. So why does he make even Republicans uncomfortable? It’s that thing that isn’t there. With McCain they worried that his heart might give out at his age; with Romney, is there a reasonable fear that his batteries may die?
Romney’s a great backup in case nobody else works out for the GOP. But Republicans want desperately for someone else to work out. They’re attracted to Herman Cain. He’s decisive. He has plans to fix things. Some of them make a certain amount of sense. He makes them sound like they make sense. He’s the CEO of a successful company who knows what success is. He’s a leader. That’s what Republicans want. Heck, that’s what the country wants right now.
Just one problem. Cain’s a nut case. Off the scale on some things. Come on – do you really agree with him that Sharia law is going to take over our judicial system? What about his statement that he won’t have a Muslim in his cabinet, or appoint one to a federal judgeship?
Which brings us back to the alien. I’d have a really hard time voting for an alien, but as long as we’re in the sci-fi/horror genre, I’d easily vote for a zombie if his name were Teddy Roosevelt.
That’s what’s really missing.
Monday, September 12, 2011
It's My Job, Man
When 9/11 happened 10 years ago, I was curiously fortunate. I worked in a newsroom, and I knew exactly where I was supposed to be. Certainly, journalists faced challenges that day, and the weeks that followed, reacting to the shifting and cascading elements of the story, but the job was basically the same.
It was the case during every big event, like the major earthquakes I covered on the radio. Someone asked me why I didn’t seem to get upset or break down. I couldn’t answer right away, but after thinking about it, concluded that I simply didn’t have time for it. Of course, at some point you have to deal with your emotions, but those who have specific jobs at such times, like first-responders, and yes, reporters, instinctively know they have to put all that off. It’s usually better to deal with those issues later, when things calm down a bit.
Deep inside most journalists – and in some cases, not so deep – is a part that actually enjoys cataclysms – we get our cheap little adrenaline thrills at someone else’s expense. But that gets old really fast. Still, perhaps the real reason journalists keep going is that gathering and disseminating information about the event provides the comforting illusion of having some measure of control over it. By putting out the information, journalism is the process of sharing some of that sense of control. After being removed from immediate danger and having basic physical needs met, the next thing the individual must have to survive is information.
One of the benefits of having a home or family disaster plan is that it gives you a sense of control. When disaster strikes, you may find that some parts -- or most parts -- of the plan are useless, and you really don’t have the control you think you have, but at least you have some structure to hang thoughts on. The plan doesn’t have to be perfect. What’s important is that you have a job to do. Trust me, it will help keep your head together.
It was the case during every big event, like the major earthquakes I covered on the radio. Someone asked me why I didn’t seem to get upset or break down. I couldn’t answer right away, but after thinking about it, concluded that I simply didn’t have time for it. Of course, at some point you have to deal with your emotions, but those who have specific jobs at such times, like first-responders, and yes, reporters, instinctively know they have to put all that off. It’s usually better to deal with those issues later, when things calm down a bit.
Deep inside most journalists – and in some cases, not so deep – is a part that actually enjoys cataclysms – we get our cheap little adrenaline thrills at someone else’s expense. But that gets old really fast. Still, perhaps the real reason journalists keep going is that gathering and disseminating information about the event provides the comforting illusion of having some measure of control over it. By putting out the information, journalism is the process of sharing some of that sense of control. After being removed from immediate danger and having basic physical needs met, the next thing the individual must have to survive is information.
One of the benefits of having a home or family disaster plan is that it gives you a sense of control. When disaster strikes, you may find that some parts -- or most parts -- of the plan are useless, and you really don’t have the control you think you have, but at least you have some structure to hang thoughts on. The plan doesn’t have to be perfect. What’s important is that you have a job to do. Trust me, it will help keep your head together.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Overblown?
There are always people who think that the media make too much of things like hurricanes. It must be a hurricane if Anderson and Geraldo have to get their ankles wet, right?
Irene did not disappoint. She followed the path the forecasters said she would, almost slavishly. She wasn’t quite as strong as feared, but strong enough for billions of dollars in damage, power losses in many states, and 18 deaths. She graciously did not make fools of all those mayors, governors and emergency managers – their orders for evacuations and shutdowns seem pretty sensible after the fact.
Of course, it hasn’t always been that way. Case-in-point: My wife and I were in Miami around this time of year back in 2006. A storm named Ernesto had just left Cuba and was on its way, expected to make a direct hit as a Category 2 hurricane, or so I remember. The city boarded up quickly. Even our hotel took down those overhead fans so flying blades wouldn’t decapitate any guests in a hurricane. The TV stations promised their crews would be there with us for the duration of the storm. They had more graphics on that hurricane than I’d ever seen. They showed Ernesto to us up, down and sideways.
But a few hours before Ernesto arrived, it basically dissipated, as some dry air got into the system. The TV anchors who swore never to leave us sheepishly told us there was really nothing more to report, and said “We now return you to our regular program, Fear Factor.” Ernesto made fools out of a lot of people. Interestingly, the storm reconstituted itself and moved up the coast to do actual damage in North Carolina.
All those warnings Easteners heard this past week left a lot of people prepared to fend for themselves – especially those who are now without power for up to a week. The earthquake was a particularly clever touch from Mother Nature.
But let’s not be too hard on the meteorologists and the TV anchors – they’re supposed to supply us with information, and for the most part, they do their best. As for the mayors, governors and emergency managers, they can only work with the information they’re given; they have to make decisions involving thousands of workers and perhaps millions of dollars well in advance of any event, taking a considerable political risk that it won’t look like they wasted money when the storm is just a memory.
While I don’t wish disaster on anyone, part of me feels we have to thank Irene for sending a message many of us need to hear.
Irene did not disappoint. She followed the path the forecasters said she would, almost slavishly. She wasn’t quite as strong as feared, but strong enough for billions of dollars in damage, power losses in many states, and 18 deaths. She graciously did not make fools of all those mayors, governors and emergency managers – their orders for evacuations and shutdowns seem pretty sensible after the fact.
Of course, it hasn’t always been that way. Case-in-point: My wife and I were in Miami around this time of year back in 2006. A storm named Ernesto had just left Cuba and was on its way, expected to make a direct hit as a Category 2 hurricane, or so I remember. The city boarded up quickly. Even our hotel took down those overhead fans so flying blades wouldn’t decapitate any guests in a hurricane. The TV stations promised their crews would be there with us for the duration of the storm. They had more graphics on that hurricane than I’d ever seen. They showed Ernesto to us up, down and sideways.
But a few hours before Ernesto arrived, it basically dissipated, as some dry air got into the system. The TV anchors who swore never to leave us sheepishly told us there was really nothing more to report, and said “We now return you to our regular program, Fear Factor.” Ernesto made fools out of a lot of people. Interestingly, the storm reconstituted itself and moved up the coast to do actual damage in North Carolina.
All those warnings Easteners heard this past week left a lot of people prepared to fend for themselves – especially those who are now without power for up to a week. The earthquake was a particularly clever touch from Mother Nature.
But let’s not be too hard on the meteorologists and the TV anchors – they’re supposed to supply us with information, and for the most part, they do their best. As for the mayors, governors and emergency managers, they can only work with the information they’re given; they have to make decisions involving thousands of workers and perhaps millions of dollars well in advance of any event, taking a considerable political risk that it won’t look like they wasted money when the storm is just a memory.
While I don’t wish disaster on anyone, part of me feels we have to thank Irene for sending a message many of us need to hear.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Advice, Please
Now that our big debt-ceiling crisis is pretty much (at this writing) over with, the financial gurus have to start telling us what to do next, because it’s generally agreed that a credit downgrade from Moody’s et al is inevitable – and probably well-deserved. The experts are saying, however, that since we have a new debt ceiling, it will only be a small downgrade, not a really serious one. How does that make you feel?
So I want to hear a killer strategy from somebody. Should you buy a house while the interest rates are low? After all, if we’re downgraded, you may never see these rates again in your lifetime. All you have to do is...qualify. So what else? Buy (or sell) stocks, bonds? Buy (more) gold? Acquire yuan? Resume collecting Beanie Babies? If credit card rates go up to 40 percent, what will the Mafia be charging? Personally, I was thinking of screening some “Dynasty” DVDs to breathe some ‘80s air again. Ladies, get out those tops with the padded shoulders. They may be coming back.
But seriously, folks: we’re in the hole for trillions, and it seems today that it’s pretty close to impossible for us to dig our way out of this one, ever. Except for one thing.
Gabrielle Giffords actually made it to Congress yesterday to cast her vote on the debt ceiling bill. If she can make it back after what happened to her, do you think maybe our economy has a chance?
Now I feel just a little better.
So I want to hear a killer strategy from somebody. Should you buy a house while the interest rates are low? After all, if we’re downgraded, you may never see these rates again in your lifetime. All you have to do is...qualify. So what else? Buy (or sell) stocks, bonds? Buy (more) gold? Acquire yuan? Resume collecting Beanie Babies? If credit card rates go up to 40 percent, what will the Mafia be charging? Personally, I was thinking of screening some “Dynasty” DVDs to breathe some ‘80s air again. Ladies, get out those tops with the padded shoulders. They may be coming back.
But seriously, folks: we’re in the hole for trillions, and it seems today that it’s pretty close to impossible for us to dig our way out of this one, ever. Except for one thing.
Gabrielle Giffords actually made it to Congress yesterday to cast her vote on the debt ceiling bill. If she can make it back after what happened to her, do you think maybe our economy has a chance?
Now I feel just a little better.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Name It and Claim It
It didn’t take very long for someone to come up with a name for new legislation in the wake of Casey Anthony’s acquittal on murder charges: Caylee’s Law, which would make it a felony for a parent to fail to report a child missing (as if this happens all the time). It’s not the law I have the biggest problem with – it’s the fact that they have to name these things after adorable-child crime victims to get our attention. We have Megan’s Law, Jessica’s Law – even Buster’s Law (that’s animal cruelty legislation named after a dog). But in my case, tugging at my heartstrings doesn’t work – it actually has the opposite effect. I’m perfectly happy with AB 2531 or something dry like that, if it’s a good law. Leave my heartstrings alone! But I guess if a name is needed to raise awareness, I should shut up.
You may have heard my theory before, but just to repeat: if Disney had named the insect character Jiminy Cockroach instead of Jiminy Cricket, guess which bugs we’d be kind to and which we’d be stepping on. Most of us really are suckers.
Fortunately, it doesn’t always work. Here where I live, there was a huge eucalyptus tree whose roots were creating a “speed bump” in the street in front of a branch library, nearly causing numerous traffic accidents. The city announced this tree would have to be removed because of the road hazard. So what did the tree huggers do? You guessed it – they gave it a name, and soon there was a movement to Save Tom the Tree. But the city was a little more concerned with saving drivers than Tom. The tree was cut down – and the road resurfaced. A small sapling was planted on the sidewalk in the spot that Tom once occupied, and will eventually grow. Interesting, though, that I don’t hear anybody calling it Tom, Jr. Actually, I do call it that, every time we pass it.
You may have heard my theory before, but just to repeat: if Disney had named the insect character Jiminy Cockroach instead of Jiminy Cricket, guess which bugs we’d be kind to and which we’d be stepping on. Most of us really are suckers.
Fortunately, it doesn’t always work. Here where I live, there was a huge eucalyptus tree whose roots were creating a “speed bump” in the street in front of a branch library, nearly causing numerous traffic accidents. The city announced this tree would have to be removed because of the road hazard. So what did the tree huggers do? You guessed it – they gave it a name, and soon there was a movement to Save Tom the Tree. But the city was a little more concerned with saving drivers than Tom. The tree was cut down – and the road resurfaced. A small sapling was planted on the sidewalk in the spot that Tom once occupied, and will eventually grow. Interesting, though, that I don’t hear anybody calling it Tom, Jr. Actually, I do call it that, every time we pass it.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Gross-out Therapy
So now the FDA is going to require unpleasant graphics or photos to cover the top half of cigarette packs sold in the U.S. Some of them are really disgusting. Now, I don’t smoke (I stopped when I was 23), but there’s something wrong with these pictures.
I feel sorry for you if you do smoke. Beside the health issues, it’s just plain difficult. The number of places where you’re allowed to do so is diminishing rapidly. The people pass initiatives to load punitive taxes on cigarettes. Smoking used to make you look sophisticated; those days are over.
But I see a really slippery slope here. If the government is going to start requiring those who put out potentially bad products to post ugly pictures on their packaging, where is that heading? Instead of the fancy label on that $30 bottle of wine you just bought, will there someday have to be a photo of a cirrhosis-scarred liver on the bottle? Or how about pictures of fat kids on Coke cans? Or someone throwing up after eating hamburger meat with E. coli?
Attempts to force physicians to show pictures of aborted fetuses to women opting to get that procedure have been blocked consistently. So why are these cigarette-pack graphics any better?
Gross-out therapy has been tried before. I heard a neurologist, who’s an expert on addiction, interviewed on NPR yesterday. He said that in the short term, such measures do actually work, causing people to want to give up bad habits and discouraging newbies from starting or continuing with them. But after a while, the effect wears off – we humans can adapt to almost anything -- and we’re left with just that extra little bit of required ugliness in our environment, accomplishing very little.
It’s an accepted fact that smoking kills people. Even alcohol, in moderation, is purported to have some health benefits. But tobacco has virtually nothing to recommend it, except that the plants help repel certain insect pests in gardens. So if it’s so awful, why doesn’t government stop fooling around with these behavior-altering schemes and simply ban tobacco outright, maybe after a five-year warning?
Cold turkey is really the only thing that works. And it’s a lot cheaper.
I feel sorry for you if you do smoke. Beside the health issues, it’s just plain difficult. The number of places where you’re allowed to do so is diminishing rapidly. The people pass initiatives to load punitive taxes on cigarettes. Smoking used to make you look sophisticated; those days are over.
But I see a really slippery slope here. If the government is going to start requiring those who put out potentially bad products to post ugly pictures on their packaging, where is that heading? Instead of the fancy label on that $30 bottle of wine you just bought, will there someday have to be a photo of a cirrhosis-scarred liver on the bottle? Or how about pictures of fat kids on Coke cans? Or someone throwing up after eating hamburger meat with E. coli?
Attempts to force physicians to show pictures of aborted fetuses to women opting to get that procedure have been blocked consistently. So why are these cigarette-pack graphics any better?
Gross-out therapy has been tried before. I heard a neurologist, who’s an expert on addiction, interviewed on NPR yesterday. He said that in the short term, such measures do actually work, causing people to want to give up bad habits and discouraging newbies from starting or continuing with them. But after a while, the effect wears off – we humans can adapt to almost anything -- and we’re left with just that extra little bit of required ugliness in our environment, accomplishing very little.
It’s an accepted fact that smoking kills people. Even alcohol, in moderation, is purported to have some health benefits. But tobacco has virtually nothing to recommend it, except that the plants help repel certain insect pests in gardens. So if it’s so awful, why doesn’t government stop fooling around with these behavior-altering schemes and simply ban tobacco outright, maybe after a five-year warning?
Cold turkey is really the only thing that works. And it’s a lot cheaper.
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Madding Crowd
The riot in Vancouver following the Canucks loss to the Boston Bruins in the Stanley Cup hockey contest has turned into a sort of scientific phenomenon that social theorists are trying to figure out. For starters, this was Canada – the last place you’d expect something like that to happen.
The cops and the media struggled with whether this should be called a “riot” or not. Well, “riot” these days has a connotation of humor or enjoyment, and a lot of the participants in Vancouver who were looting stores and burning cars were actually enjoying themselves – which is really sad. It had nothing at all to do with losing the Stanley Cup. So “riot” works fine for me.
The theorists divided the crowd into three main layers. The first were the actual troublemakers; the second stood by cheering them on, and the third were spectators. Layers two and three didn’t have the cojones to actually cause trouble themselves, but they sure enjoyed watching it – and having their own pictures taken in front of scenes of mayhem on their smart phones.
There were probably fourth and fifth layers – the fourth being people who wanted to get out of the crowd and were trapped, and the fifth being the few people who tried to prevent those in the first layer from doing the damage. Some were beaten up for trying.
The Vancouver cops were adhering to a plan, apparently designed to control the crowd without confronting it -- which may be supported by police science, but generally not acceptable to the public, who would have preferred heavy tear gas and clubs swinging. Some say the city should have never invited people to go downtown to watch the hockey game on big screens. There simply weren’t enough cops, it appears, to handle those crowds. They say the city may have been lulled into a false sense of security by the success of the Olympics, crowd-wise, but then, there were 8,000 police on duty. The only good news was that there was no shooting among the crowd – they don’t do handguns in Canada.
Vancouver just happened to have a convention of travel bloggers in town during Wednesday night’s activities – whoops!
It’s my belief that social media and smart-phone technology have become the steroids fueling these events. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against these things at all. But if Facebook and Twitter can cause an Arab spring, what role did they play in Vancouver? With these modern marvels, the human race clearly has a tiger by the tail, and had better figure it out fast.
The cops and the media struggled with whether this should be called a “riot” or not. Well, “riot” these days has a connotation of humor or enjoyment, and a lot of the participants in Vancouver who were looting stores and burning cars were actually enjoying themselves – which is really sad. It had nothing at all to do with losing the Stanley Cup. So “riot” works fine for me.
The theorists divided the crowd into three main layers. The first were the actual troublemakers; the second stood by cheering them on, and the third were spectators. Layers two and three didn’t have the cojones to actually cause trouble themselves, but they sure enjoyed watching it – and having their own pictures taken in front of scenes of mayhem on their smart phones.
There were probably fourth and fifth layers – the fourth being people who wanted to get out of the crowd and were trapped, and the fifth being the few people who tried to prevent those in the first layer from doing the damage. Some were beaten up for trying.
The Vancouver cops were adhering to a plan, apparently designed to control the crowd without confronting it -- which may be supported by police science, but generally not acceptable to the public, who would have preferred heavy tear gas and clubs swinging. Some say the city should have never invited people to go downtown to watch the hockey game on big screens. There simply weren’t enough cops, it appears, to handle those crowds. They say the city may have been lulled into a false sense of security by the success of the Olympics, crowd-wise, but then, there were 8,000 police on duty. The only good news was that there was no shooting among the crowd – they don’t do handguns in Canada.
Vancouver just happened to have a convention of travel bloggers in town during Wednesday night’s activities – whoops!
It’s my belief that social media and smart-phone technology have become the steroids fueling these events. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against these things at all. But if Facebook and Twitter can cause an Arab spring, what role did they play in Vancouver? With these modern marvels, the human race clearly has a tiger by the tail, and had better figure it out fast.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Patterns
I’d like to join in expressing shock and shaking my head at the revelations about New York Congressman Anthony Wiener’s sexual tweets, but frankly, I’m exhausted. Let’s see, there’s our ex-governor, there’s John Edwards, Tiger, the IMF guy – I’ll let you finish the list. The sad part of these stories, of course, is the damage, not just to the villain du jour, his family and to potential victims, but to our faith in those presumed to be leaders and role-models among us – how many more hits can that faith take?
More often than not, the volcano of publicity erupts following an event that is simply a pattern, perhaps a longstanding one, coming to the surface – and we all have patterns. It doesn’t have to be sexual. It could be about drinking, eating, shopping, gambling or playing videogames. It starts out as a predilection, then becomes a pattern. If we lose control of the pattern and it gets destructive, we call it addiction. What follows are unbelievable lapses of judgment, lies, and the betrayal of those we love. It’s just very easy to say, “How could he…?”(or she) when that isn’t one of our own patterns. There are as many strokes as there are folks.
Congressman Weiner’s resignation is the right course, simply because no one will take him seriously again for a very, very long time. But I wonder: if his problem had been alcoholism, a potentially more debilitating and destructive addiction, would we have been more forgiving?
Before we play the “ain’t it awful” game, maybe we should reflect on our own performance at dealing with patterns. For starters, how about our insatiable appetite for every last sordid detail of these stories, served to us by cable TV reporters breathlessly expressing shock and amazement. They should be sending thank-you notes to these perpetrators, maybe with an expensive bottle of wine. They know very well how much we out here in the audience love train wrecks.
More often than not, the volcano of publicity erupts following an event that is simply a pattern, perhaps a longstanding one, coming to the surface – and we all have patterns. It doesn’t have to be sexual. It could be about drinking, eating, shopping, gambling or playing videogames. It starts out as a predilection, then becomes a pattern. If we lose control of the pattern and it gets destructive, we call it addiction. What follows are unbelievable lapses of judgment, lies, and the betrayal of those we love. It’s just very easy to say, “How could he…?”(or she) when that isn’t one of our own patterns. There are as many strokes as there are folks.
Congressman Weiner’s resignation is the right course, simply because no one will take him seriously again for a very, very long time. But I wonder: if his problem had been alcoholism, a potentially more debilitating and destructive addiction, would we have been more forgiving?
Before we play the “ain’t it awful” game, maybe we should reflect on our own performance at dealing with patterns. For starters, how about our insatiable appetite for every last sordid detail of these stories, served to us by cable TV reporters breathlessly expressing shock and amazement. They should be sending thank-you notes to these perpetrators, maybe with an expensive bottle of wine. They know very well how much we out here in the audience love train wrecks.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Doomsday is No Joke
So, you’re thinking, “Oh no, now you’ve really gone off the deep end!” That’s a plunge I probably took long ago, but no, I don’t believe today is Doomsday.
The prediction of Harold Camping, the 89-year-old president of Family Radio, has been a gift from heaven for comedians and talk-show hosts. I’ve enjoyed making jokes about this myself. But some aren’t laughing. There are people all over the world who believe this – or have been persuaded by the billboards – and have been prompted to quit jobs, sell property and otherwise trash their lives. It especially upsets me to hear NPR actually providing coverage of this. But they’re kind of stuck: If millions of people are talking about this, don’t the media have to cover it? On the other hand, would fewer people be talking about it if the media didn’t give it the time of day? But the damage has been done. While you’re driving to work, it’s hard to ignore a billboard that screams GAME OVER.
The prophet in this case is just the latest in a series that have popped up periodically for centuries. I’m sure he believes what he says – otherwise, he wouldn’t have spent millions on this billboard campaign. But it’s especially sad when you think about the good that these funds amassed by a religious man could have done in the world.
One spiritual writer has told us that Judgment Day really comes “hourly and continually.” That means we’re being called to account moment by moment for what our own lives have meant so far. If you’re asking me what I believe, it’s that we were put here to do more than just take up space.
I’m writing this ahead of the End, which means in a few hours I may have to eat my words. Fine. But in case I miss it, if you see seven guys in the sky dressed in white with wings and blowing trumpets, I’d appreciate it if you’d give me a heads-up. Thanks!
The prediction of Harold Camping, the 89-year-old president of Family Radio, has been a gift from heaven for comedians and talk-show hosts. I’ve enjoyed making jokes about this myself. But some aren’t laughing. There are people all over the world who believe this – or have been persuaded by the billboards – and have been prompted to quit jobs, sell property and otherwise trash their lives. It especially upsets me to hear NPR actually providing coverage of this. But they’re kind of stuck: If millions of people are talking about this, don’t the media have to cover it? On the other hand, would fewer people be talking about it if the media didn’t give it the time of day? But the damage has been done. While you’re driving to work, it’s hard to ignore a billboard that screams GAME OVER.
The prophet in this case is just the latest in a series that have popped up periodically for centuries. I’m sure he believes what he says – otherwise, he wouldn’t have spent millions on this billboard campaign. But it’s especially sad when you think about the good that these funds amassed by a religious man could have done in the world.
One spiritual writer has told us that Judgment Day really comes “hourly and continually.” That means we’re being called to account moment by moment for what our own lives have meant so far. If you’re asking me what I believe, it’s that we were put here to do more than just take up space.
I’m writing this ahead of the End, which means in a few hours I may have to eat my words. Fine. But in case I miss it, if you see seven guys in the sky dressed in white with wings and blowing trumpets, I’d appreciate it if you’d give me a heads-up. Thanks!
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Let's Make a Deal
Let's tell the Pakistanis the following, kinda like Tony Soprano might put it: "Look, stop breaking our … about not telling you about invading your country to kill Osama bin Laden., and we won't break yours about not telling us he was there -- deal?"
There is no percentage in antagonizing Pakistan. I wish Leon Panetta hadn't told the world we didn't trust them. It would have been better to say, "Well, we decided to tell as few people as possible about this operation to ensure its success," and leave it at that. Let's stop trying to explain this to the world! We invaded a sovereign country to get a real bad guy. We got him. For whatever reason, the Navy Seal shot him to death. End of story. When the full account finally comes out about how we did this, we're not going to have perfectly clean hands. Let's just accept that, and let Pakistan save a little face. Whether we like it or not, we're better off not making them our enemies.
Should we release pictures of the dead bin Laden? NO. We have good proof that he's dead -- we don't need to prove it to anyone. This is not a Mafia hit, and we don't have to put the grisly photos in the Daily News to prove it. Rubbing noses in it accomplishes nothing. That said, don't be surprised if someone releases a new video of bin Laden, shot before his death, just to energize the believers with the idea that he might be still around.
If those who don't believe Barack Obama was born in this country are "birthers", does that mean those who don't believe Osama bin Laden is dead are "deathers"? Just wondering.
There is no percentage in antagonizing Pakistan. I wish Leon Panetta hadn't told the world we didn't trust them. It would have been better to say, "Well, we decided to tell as few people as possible about this operation to ensure its success," and leave it at that. Let's stop trying to explain this to the world! We invaded a sovereign country to get a real bad guy. We got him. For whatever reason, the Navy Seal shot him to death. End of story. When the full account finally comes out about how we did this, we're not going to have perfectly clean hands. Let's just accept that, and let Pakistan save a little face. Whether we like it or not, we're better off not making them our enemies.
Should we release pictures of the dead bin Laden? NO. We have good proof that he's dead -- we don't need to prove it to anyone. This is not a Mafia hit, and we don't have to put the grisly photos in the Daily News to prove it. Rubbing noses in it accomplishes nothing. That said, don't be surprised if someone releases a new video of bin Laden, shot before his death, just to energize the believers with the idea that he might be still around.
If those who don't believe Barack Obama was born in this country are "birthers", does that mean those who don't believe Osama bin Laden is dead are "deathers"? Just wondering.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Don't Party Too Hearty
At our house, we opened some champagne last night on hearing of the slaying of Osama bin Laden -- but our group didn't finish the bottle.
Revenge is indeed sweet, and as I told friends last night, it's a language that our enemies understand. But it works both ways, and the cycle can go on forever -- perhaps that's why the Lord said we should leave it up to him. Clearly, we are in more danger today than we were on Saturday, as the terrorists are likely already plotting about how to get us back. The killing of bin Laden, as has been pointed out, occurred eight years to the day after President Bush stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier proclaiming "mission accomplished" in Iraq.
It's also clear that President Obama had a few more important things on his mind than dealing with Chief Birther Donald Trump, who should be feeling pretty silly at the moment. Will this translate into an easy victory for Obama next year? Don't count on it. I've often said that President Carter would easily have been reelected if the Iran hostage rescue mission had succeeded -- but that was in April 1980 -- much closer to Election Day. If we have a national disease, it's a short attention span, and there will be plenty to bash Obama with between now and November '12. Suppose, just for starters, that there's a major terrorist revenge attack in this country that we're unable to stop?
It's being reported that some of the intelligence to back up the raid on bin Laden's compound came from detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I haven't heard how that information was obtained -- hopefully, Jack Bauer wasn't involved. We don't need Rumsfeld & Co. shouting, "Ya see?"
But don't get me wrong -- I'm not suggesting in the least that this moment in history isn't worthy of celebration. When I think of how our TV screens have often been filled with crowds in certain other countries jumping up and down when bad things happened to us, I hope their screens are filled with our flag-waving crowds in Washington and New York, if their governments let them see it.
Right now, though, sleeping with one eye open and keeping a finger on the trigger seems like a really good idea.
Revenge is indeed sweet, and as I told friends last night, it's a language that our enemies understand. But it works both ways, and the cycle can go on forever -- perhaps that's why the Lord said we should leave it up to him. Clearly, we are in more danger today than we were on Saturday, as the terrorists are likely already plotting about how to get us back. The killing of bin Laden, as has been pointed out, occurred eight years to the day after President Bush stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier proclaiming "mission accomplished" in Iraq.
It's also clear that President Obama had a few more important things on his mind than dealing with Chief Birther Donald Trump, who should be feeling pretty silly at the moment. Will this translate into an easy victory for Obama next year? Don't count on it. I've often said that President Carter would easily have been reelected if the Iran hostage rescue mission had succeeded -- but that was in April 1980 -- much closer to Election Day. If we have a national disease, it's a short attention span, and there will be plenty to bash Obama with between now and November '12. Suppose, just for starters, that there's a major terrorist revenge attack in this country that we're unable to stop?
It's being reported that some of the intelligence to back up the raid on bin Laden's compound came from detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I haven't heard how that information was obtained -- hopefully, Jack Bauer wasn't involved. We don't need Rumsfeld & Co. shouting, "Ya see?"
But don't get me wrong -- I'm not suggesting in the least that this moment in history isn't worthy of celebration. When I think of how our TV screens have often been filled with crowds in certain other countries jumping up and down when bad things happened to us, I hope their screens are filled with our flag-waving crowds in Washington and New York, if their governments let them see it.
Right now, though, sleeping with one eye open and keeping a finger on the trigger seems like a really good idea.
Friday, April 29, 2011
My 180 on the Wedding, Almost
I hereby announce that I am no longer a Royal Wedding disser. I was one of the estimated 2 billion who watched it, though Circadian rhythm won out, dictating that I pull the plug around 3:30 a.m. But it was really an impressive event -- nobody does the royal thing better than the Brits. And I'm sure we're all grateful for the distraction it provided from other things going on in the world -- it was a real "mental health day" for the soul.
But tell me it wasn't a chick thing. Did the world wait breathlessly to see what Prince William would be wearing? Heck, it wasn't even a secret, right? For those of you men who watched the wedding, how many of you were actually offended by some of the hats worn by audience members? And did you stay up the extra two hours to watch the royal kiss on the balcony? Total speculation on my part, but I think the answer to the last question, in a majority of cases, is no.
All I know is, the world would be a safer place if someone would find out those responsible for keeping pictures of wedding dresses from being leaked (almost the same level of secrecy for Chelsea Clinton, you'll recall) and put them in charge of the CIA and MI6.
OK, so some of the hats were a little over the top, but those women can save them to wear to the Kentucky Derby, which is coming up soon -- more bang for the buck, or the pound, in this case.
Rule Britannia! Britannia doesn't rule much anymore, but at least it "kicked some" today.
But tell me it wasn't a chick thing. Did the world wait breathlessly to see what Prince William would be wearing? Heck, it wasn't even a secret, right? For those of you men who watched the wedding, how many of you were actually offended by some of the hats worn by audience members? And did you stay up the extra two hours to watch the royal kiss on the balcony? Total speculation on my part, but I think the answer to the last question, in a majority of cases, is no.
All I know is, the world would be a safer place if someone would find out those responsible for keeping pictures of wedding dresses from being leaked (almost the same level of secrecy for Chelsea Clinton, you'll recall) and put them in charge of the CIA and MI6.
OK, so some of the hats were a little over the top, but those women can save them to wear to the Kentucky Derby, which is coming up soon -- more bang for the buck, or the pound, in this case.
Rule Britannia! Britannia doesn't rule much anymore, but at least it "kicked some" today.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Trump Isn't Funny
A few years ago, there was a popular book with a title something like "1,001 Uses for Duct Tape." The 1,002nd could easily be muzzling Donald Trump.
Perhaps some of us have enjoyed laughing at Trump's buffoonery over the past few weeks. At least buffoons are sort of like clowns -- they're funny. Trump just isn't.
We've all contributed to this unfortunate phenomenon in some way. I fault prominent Republicans for failing to denounce Trump's behavior in the strongest possible terms. I fault the media for sticking a microphone in front of this guy. I even fault the President for not releasing his "long form" birth certificate until this week. Now perhaps Republicans enjoyed seeing Trump cause Obama so much grief. Some have argued that Obama himself enjoyed dragging this out because it kept the President from having to deal with criticism over more substantive issues, while Trump blackened the GOP's eye.
But we're to blame, too. We consumed the coverage of this unfortunate affair. When you consider what's going on in the Middle East right now, especially Syria, how did this Trump business make it to the top of the news charts?
If I were a sponsor of Trump's TV show, I'd seriously reconsider my association with him. How he can have any credibility as the host of the show from this point forward is beyond me, but then again, it's not a sphere where credibility is required.
The best treatment for Mr. Trump right now is obscurity. It would be great if we could all make sure he gets it.
Perhaps some of us have enjoyed laughing at Trump's buffoonery over the past few weeks. At least buffoons are sort of like clowns -- they're funny. Trump just isn't.
We've all contributed to this unfortunate phenomenon in some way. I fault prominent Republicans for failing to denounce Trump's behavior in the strongest possible terms. I fault the media for sticking a microphone in front of this guy. I even fault the President for not releasing his "long form" birth certificate until this week. Now perhaps Republicans enjoyed seeing Trump cause Obama so much grief. Some have argued that Obama himself enjoyed dragging this out because it kept the President from having to deal with criticism over more substantive issues, while Trump blackened the GOP's eye.
But we're to blame, too. We consumed the coverage of this unfortunate affair. When you consider what's going on in the Middle East right now, especially Syria, how did this Trump business make it to the top of the news charts?
If I were a sponsor of Trump's TV show, I'd seriously reconsider my association with him. How he can have any credibility as the host of the show from this point forward is beyond me, but then again, it's not a sphere where credibility is required.
The best treatment for Mr. Trump right now is obscurity. It would be great if we could all make sure he gets it.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
It's a Chick Thing
I just don't care a jot about the Royal Wedding, convinced that it's a chick thing. Just to be sure, I asked Facebook friends about it. Most of those responding, as you might expect, were women -- some of whom said they didn't care about the Royal Wedding either. But for those who do care, there's no holding back. One friend plans to enjoy cupcakes and cucumber sandwiches early Friday morning while watching the coverage. Others are planning parties. Is it Super Bowl revenge? As for my attitude, one woman asked if I were dead inside. I think she was only half joking.
So what is it about this fascination with the British royal family? I suspect it's probably jealousy -- many Americans wish we had one. You can talk about the Kennedys and Camelot all you want, for instance, but it's just not the same thing. Our political system, on average over time, has probably produced better leaders, but none of them was a king. "Hail to the Chief" just doesn't quite cut it.
But back to the question at hand: is my attitude a guy thing, and does this event seem more important to women? Sorry for the generalization, but of course it does. It's simple, really. If the "royal" part doesn't get 'em, the "wedding" part does. Weddings, at least traditionally, are regal events for women. The bride's gown is typically many, many times more expensive than the groom's clothes, and if there's a long train, well someone has to carry that. It may be the only time in life when the commoners among women get to feel like royalty. On their wedding day, as happy as they may be, men just aren't breathing quite the same air.
Anyway, I told my friends they'd have to watch the royal wedding live without me. Those who were worried that I might miss a life-changing event reminded me I could DVR it, but I'm thinking I’ll just settle for the highlight reel.
So what is it about this fascination with the British royal family? I suspect it's probably jealousy -- many Americans wish we had one. You can talk about the Kennedys and Camelot all you want, for instance, but it's just not the same thing. Our political system, on average over time, has probably produced better leaders, but none of them was a king. "Hail to the Chief" just doesn't quite cut it.
But back to the question at hand: is my attitude a guy thing, and does this event seem more important to women? Sorry for the generalization, but of course it does. It's simple, really. If the "royal" part doesn't get 'em, the "wedding" part does. Weddings, at least traditionally, are regal events for women. The bride's gown is typically many, many times more expensive than the groom's clothes, and if there's a long train, well someone has to carry that. It may be the only time in life when the commoners among women get to feel like royalty. On their wedding day, as happy as they may be, men just aren't breathing quite the same air.
Anyway, I told my friends they'd have to watch the royal wedding live without me. Those who were worried that I might miss a life-changing event reminded me I could DVR it, but I'm thinking I’ll just settle for the highlight reel.
Monday, March 14, 2011
It's Only Fitting
I hope we do all we can to help Japan deal with its nuclear power plant emergency -- especially seeing as we caused them so much trouble with radiation in the last century.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Obama Come Lately?
The Obama administration is taking no small amount of heat for being slow to react to the Libya crisis. At least it's reacting now, and it's likely Mr. Wacko over there in Tripoli will be gone fairly soon by one means or other.
The President chose to wait until there was some kind of international consensus about what to do. Many of us would have preferred that we just send in the Marines and kick a little butt -- I felt that way, too. But if you look back in history not so very far, you can see where doing it the other way got us. You do remember Bush's "coalition of the willing" before we went to Iraq, right?
Jumping in late is kind of how we do things. How many people did Hitler and the Japanese kill in their respective marches of occupation before we got involved in World War II? It feels good, in a perverse sort of way, to have a clear villain like Gaddafi to hate -- but there are quite a few more around the world who mistreat whole populations, but manage to do it very effectively under the radar.
What's going to be very interesting is what happens after Gaddafi is removed and the finger-pointing begins. After World War II, liberated populations in Europe shaved the heads of collaborators in public -- many of them women who had slept with the enemy. There are a lot of dirty hands this time around. Just for starters, Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Usher and others have 'splainin' to do after reportedly taking big bucks to perform at private Gaddafi parties. But who rehabilitated Gaddafi in the first place and welcomed him back into the civilized world? Libya served on the U.N. Human Rights Council, for heaven's sake. Gaddafi ordered an airliner shot down and later, he wasn't such a bad guy after all? And who's been supplying his regime with weapons? The West in general would do best to stay out of the collaborator hunt. One concern for the U.S. going forward is what side the newly emerging governments in the Middle East are going to perceive we were on.
Yes, we were late getting into the game, but at least we're in it now. You can still turn things around, even after the two-minute warning.
The President chose to wait until there was some kind of international consensus about what to do. Many of us would have preferred that we just send in the Marines and kick a little butt -- I felt that way, too. But if you look back in history not so very far, you can see where doing it the other way got us. You do remember Bush's "coalition of the willing" before we went to Iraq, right?
Jumping in late is kind of how we do things. How many people did Hitler and the Japanese kill in their respective marches of occupation before we got involved in World War II? It feels good, in a perverse sort of way, to have a clear villain like Gaddafi to hate -- but there are quite a few more around the world who mistreat whole populations, but manage to do it very effectively under the radar.
What's going to be very interesting is what happens after Gaddafi is removed and the finger-pointing begins. After World War II, liberated populations in Europe shaved the heads of collaborators in public -- many of them women who had slept with the enemy. There are a lot of dirty hands this time around. Just for starters, Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Usher and others have 'splainin' to do after reportedly taking big bucks to perform at private Gaddafi parties. But who rehabilitated Gaddafi in the first place and welcomed him back into the civilized world? Libya served on the U.N. Human Rights Council, for heaven's sake. Gaddafi ordered an airliner shot down and later, he wasn't such a bad guy after all? And who's been supplying his regime with weapons? The West in general would do best to stay out of the collaborator hunt. One concern for the U.S. going forward is what side the newly emerging governments in the Middle East are going to perceive we were on.
Yes, we were late getting into the game, but at least we're in it now. You can still turn things around, even after the two-minute warning.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Insanity's Poster Boy
Mr. Gaddafi has just delivered a speech lasting more than an hour. Yesterday I hated him; today, it's more about sadness. If you need a definition of insanity, he's it. It's hard to feel hate and pity simultaneously. Libya is waking up from a nightmare -- and the first step in the healing process is to become aware that in the end, scary as it is, it's just a nightmare.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Presidential Love
I watched with interest some of the ceremonies related to what would have been Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday. Why do we love this man so much?
When I say "we," I mean this in a very general sense, because some people hated the Reagan area for various reasons. Mr. Reagan certainly wasn't perfect. Contrary to popular belief, he was not singlehandedly responsible for the fall of Communism in Europe. There was Iran-Contra, and Star Wars. But a lot of people loved him, and if you're a Republican running for office, at some point it's almost required that you invoke him. It may not get you elected, but it certainly can't do you harm.
I can't explain it; I'm not that diligent a student of history and don't have the credentials to debate this issue here, but it must be that we perceive that he made us feel good about ourselves as Americans.
I can think of a lot of Presidents who are respected for accomplishing important, even historic things during their terms, or after their terms. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are both appreciated for what they do. LBJ turned landmark legislation into law. I don't remember what Eisenhower did, but he's associated with the good old days and a time of stability. Harry Truman was praised for his no-nonsense style. JFK faced down the Russians during the Cuban missile crisis, and said, "Ask not…" But we didn't love any of these people the way we loved Reagan.
The last President people felt this for was FDR. And before that, it was Teddy. Americans did not feel this for Woodrow Wilson or Herbert Hoover. Or Grover Cleveland. Or William Howard Taft. No -- you have to go back to Abraham Lincoln for genuine (though not universal) love. It seems we only get one of these every 30 to 50 years.
Clara Bow was the "It" girl back in the 20s. Someone tell me what actually makes an "It" President -- and how long do you think we'll have to wait before the next one comes along?
When I say "we," I mean this in a very general sense, because some people hated the Reagan area for various reasons. Mr. Reagan certainly wasn't perfect. Contrary to popular belief, he was not singlehandedly responsible for the fall of Communism in Europe. There was Iran-Contra, and Star Wars. But a lot of people loved him, and if you're a Republican running for office, at some point it's almost required that you invoke him. It may not get you elected, but it certainly can't do you harm.
I can't explain it; I'm not that diligent a student of history and don't have the credentials to debate this issue here, but it must be that we perceive that he made us feel good about ourselves as Americans.
I can think of a lot of Presidents who are respected for accomplishing important, even historic things during their terms, or after their terms. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are both appreciated for what they do. LBJ turned landmark legislation into law. I don't remember what Eisenhower did, but he's associated with the good old days and a time of stability. Harry Truman was praised for his no-nonsense style. JFK faced down the Russians during the Cuban missile crisis, and said, "Ask not…" But we didn't love any of these people the way we loved Reagan.
The last President people felt this for was FDR. And before that, it was Teddy. Americans did not feel this for Woodrow Wilson or Herbert Hoover. Or Grover Cleveland. Or William Howard Taft. No -- you have to go back to Abraham Lincoln for genuine (though not universal) love. It seems we only get one of these every 30 to 50 years.
Clara Bow was the "It" girl back in the 20s. Someone tell me what actually makes an "It" President -- and how long do you think we'll have to wait before the next one comes along?
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Safe Speech
The shooting in Arizona has been followed by the expected discussion about right-wing talk radio, Sarah Palin and her map with crosshairs on it and the like. I agree that we'd all benefit from an infusion of civility in our discourse, but what exactly is safe?
The threat of terrorism has caused us to implement all kinds of security measures which have slowed us down and lowered our quality of life. Commercial air travel is now a thoroughly unpleasant experience, but we put up with the inconveniences and embarrassments we wouldn't ordinarily tolerate because they make us safer -- or at least, makes us feel safer. But there always seems to be someone who figures out a way to get around our carefully crafted safeguards, and we have to tighten the cinch still further.
Maybe we can keep most bad guys off airplanes, but what are we going to do about speech? It's very easy to blame the cable channel whose politics you don't agree with or the Internet for rhetoric that seems to give permission to people to do outrageous things. But do we now have to water down what we say in the course of legitimate debate to avoid sending the lowest common denominator of nut case over the edge? Do we have to start tiptoeing around verbal eggshells?
The young man who shot up that Tucson parking lot clearly had a track record of mental instability, and he sent out plenty of signals ahead of time. Is there any way to intervene earlier and more forcefully with people like this, especially before they have access to guns? Talk about "Second Amendment solutions" -- maybe there should be a solution to the Second Amendment.
All I know is, I don't want to live in a world where I have to pass through a full-body scanner before going to see my congressional representative at a public meeting. If we start restricting access to gatherings like the one in Tucson, where is it going to end?
BTW, do you notice that after every one of these shootings, we go through the same struggle trying to make sense of it? Are we going around in big circles, or are we really learning something new, and acting on the information?
The threat of terrorism has caused us to implement all kinds of security measures which have slowed us down and lowered our quality of life. Commercial air travel is now a thoroughly unpleasant experience, but we put up with the inconveniences and embarrassments we wouldn't ordinarily tolerate because they make us safer -- or at least, makes us feel safer. But there always seems to be someone who figures out a way to get around our carefully crafted safeguards, and we have to tighten the cinch still further.
Maybe we can keep most bad guys off airplanes, but what are we going to do about speech? It's very easy to blame the cable channel whose politics you don't agree with or the Internet for rhetoric that seems to give permission to people to do outrageous things. But do we now have to water down what we say in the course of legitimate debate to avoid sending the lowest common denominator of nut case over the edge? Do we have to start tiptoeing around verbal eggshells?
The young man who shot up that Tucson parking lot clearly had a track record of mental instability, and he sent out plenty of signals ahead of time. Is there any way to intervene earlier and more forcefully with people like this, especially before they have access to guns? Talk about "Second Amendment solutions" -- maybe there should be a solution to the Second Amendment.
All I know is, I don't want to live in a world where I have to pass through a full-body scanner before going to see my congressional representative at a public meeting. If we start restricting access to gatherings like the one in Tucson, where is it going to end?
BTW, do you notice that after every one of these shootings, we go through the same struggle trying to make sense of it? Are we going around in big circles, or are we really learning something new, and acting on the information?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)