The Underdog and The Bully

Yesterday I watched Rocky. It had been quite a while since I viewed this movie, perhaps decades, to be honest. And, to be even more forthcoming, I have lost a bit of admiration for Sylvester Stallone, although certainly admire his tenacity and persistence in creating, not only the Rocky character, but his other successful iconic characters. 

It has been calculated that with a $1 million budget, the original Rocky movie grossed $225 million worldwide in box office revenue. A rags to riches story about a boxer conceived by a rags to riches actor/neighborhood club fighter. It is no wonder that his statue stands proudly on the steps of the Philadelphia Art Museum, and that his famous run up those steps is reenacted, probably daily, by tourists, native Philadelphians, and Americans from around the country. 

Coincidentally, Rocky was released fifty years ago. I say coincidentally, because 1976 was also the year I graduated high school. 

I remember seeing the movie that year, tearing up when he finally made it to the top of the Art Museum steps, feeling every hit as Apollo Creed relentlessly pummeled him, then cheering when he came to his feet after being knocked down in the 14th round. It all came back to me as I watched again yesterday, especially his calls to Adrian as he awaited the decision, a decision, it seemed to me as I experienced the film all these years later, that didn't really matter to him. Even though he had admitted that he didn't think he could win, and that he just wanted to last fifteen rounds, I guess I missed that part when I first watched the movie. I expect I was disappointed when he didn't win in 1976, but understood far better in 2026 why it didn't matter. 

Why he was a winner none the less.

I mentioned in my last post that I often wonder how much of my waning optimism in America is related to my own personal aging. Certainly in 1976, having my whole life ahead of me, I was far more optimistic about my future, far more likely to identify with a rags to riches story and the idea that something similar could happen to me. Whether that is also part and parcel to my reduced hopefulness, that, in fact, nothing similar has occurred in my life, at least not in terms of recognition on a large scale, is debatable, and not entirely unlikely.

Two hundred and fifty years ago, America was the underdog of the world, taking on the biggest, most powerful military of the day. It is easy to understand why we identify with characters like Rocky as we see our own national origin story as a rags to riches epic journey. 

Which makes it all the more sad that America has become the bully that we always cheered against in movies, and life. 

Don't get me wrong, even in 1976 when I was in the full bloom of my youth, America had already belittled the accomplishment of defeating Hitler's attempt to rule by intimidation and violence, when we secretly but actively deposed the leaders of other countries, in addition to actually invading foreign lands, Korea and Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, to mention the worst debacles.

But now we have a leader who not only stands with bullies like Putin and Netanyahu, but has remade America into a country that has no qualms about invading another nation to take its resources, oil in this case. At least now we know that all that talk about drugs was just a line of bullshit, oil being the ultimate goal all along.

What makes me laugh, truly, in spite of the decline that this invasion marks, is that we have thrown away our reputation for decency, for democracy, and especially for being a Christian nation, for a natural resource that represents the past, not the future. 

No surprise considering that our president wishes to return America to the Gilded Age, but you would think that the masses, the people who do all the work, all the living and dying in this country (to quote "It's a Wonderful Life") would turn their collective backs on the outdated concept that fossil fuel extraction is our future. 

They say that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. For a man who has criticized our history of foreign entanglements, you would think that he would know that invading another country, generally unites that country against the invader, and rarely leads to the population of said country lining the streets in gratitude.

If Afghanistan didn't teach us just that one lesson after both Russia and the United States invaded it, the two most powerful nations in the past 75 years, trying, and failing, then I guess we deserve whatever comes from this atrocity. 

Somehow Trump thinks that he "holds all the cards" as he is prone to tell Zelensky when using Putin's talking points to convince him to give up parts of his country to an invading force. 

He has learned nothing from the past even though he lives there. 

Venezuela's recent leaders have done a piss poor job of running that country, as is reflected by the contested elections in the last decade, and the failing economy. But nothing unites a country quicker that an invading force. Just as the colonies were able to put aside their differences, differences that simmered below the surface and eventually exploded into the Civil War, it should come as no surprise if the Venezuelan people reject our notion of who should run their country, just as the majority of peoples do when invaded by a hostile enemy.

Bullies do well, sometimes for quite a while. But eventually, a bigger bully comes along, or perhaps tens of thousands of regular people who band together to fight, as occurred 250 years ago.

Perhaps when the first American soldier, or construction worker, or oil executive is killed on Venezuelan soil, the American voter might look up from their 72" TV's and their cell phones, and realize that we are just another bad guy country, no longer the underdog to be proud of and to cheer for. Maybe...

And so the decline continues.

 

America

Whenever Nora and I listen to the radio at home, the dial is tuned to WXPN, the public radio station out of Philadelphia. It is an amazing source for new music as well as to walk down memory lane. We have been members for quite a long time, the initial membership the result of a Christmas gift from me to Nora soon after we discovered, and became regular listeners.

This past week, WXPN has been playing the top 885 cover songs, as voted on by the listeners. (WXPN is found at 88.5 on the FM dial, hence the number of songs).

Just a few minutes ago, at #35, the Yes version of Simon and Garfunkel's song "America" was played. I was immediately transported back to English class, freshmen year in high school, 1972 when Mr Topper used the song, the original, not the Yes version, as a discussion topic. He played the song a number of times, in its entirety, as well as portions, to spur the class to consider, and to interpret. 

Here are the words. 

 

[Verse 1]
"Let us be lovers, we'll marry our fortunes together
I've got some real estate here in my bag"
So we bought a pack of cigarettes and Mrs. Wagner pies
And walked off to look for America

[Verse 2]
"Kathy," I said as we boarded a Greyhound in Pittsburgh
"Michigan seems like a dream to me now
It took me four days to hitchhike from Saginaw
I've gone to look for America"

[Bridge]
Laughing on the bus
Playing games with the faces
She said the man in the gabardine suit was a spy
I said, "Be careful, his bowtie is really a camera"

[Verse 3]
"Toss me a cigarette, I think there's one in my raincoat"
"We smoked the last one an hour ago"
So I looked at the scenery, she read her magazine
And the moon rose over an open field

[Verse 4]
"Kathy, I'm lost," I said, though I knew she was sleeping
"I'm empty and aching and I don't know why"
Counting the cars on the New Jersey Turnpike
They've all come to look for America
All come to look for America
All come to look for America

I can't say for sure that Mr Topper's introduction of this song had anything to do with the travels I embarked upon after leaving high school. I do know that after a lackluster semester at college as part of the track that was expected of students like me, I dropped out.

After a few years of bill paying but unsatisfying jobs, I began to travel, first by bus, then with my thumb. Although I never made it to Saginaw, I did take two cross country bus rides, both which began with Pittsburgh as the first stop. The first took me to the Grand Canyon, out and back with two days at the great crater, the second one more ambitious, all the way across America, and up to Seattle, then back to home, a dozen cities in 14 days. For those who are curious, a two week bus pass, if memory serves, cost $150. Total.

Once emboldened, I hitchhiked across the country and back in one incredible six week trip, then also made trips to Rochester, New York and Houston, Texas. I slept outside a lot, in places one doesn't normally sleep, but also at parks, local, state and national. 

And, of course, I encountered many other young people, doing the same, some traveling like myself, some working at national parks for the summer, some aimless, some with purpose, many Americans, but also many from Europe. All looking for a version of America that matched the version of themselves, or who they wanted to be. 

While I can't speak for anyone else, I gained a wonder and belief in our country, both of its natural beauty, and its inhabitants, my fellow Americans, that stuck with me for most of my adult life. After all, I was dependent on others to travel about, sometime even for food and shelter, but was never stranded for any substantial length of time. Always on the move, meeting new people who were looking for a conversation to help the miles pass quicker, or for ideas as to where to look for America, and themselves.

That's what makes it all the more sad, to see how we have changed, as a country, and as a people, since then.

How cruel our national policies have become to those whose only crime was to be born in a poor country, or in a place where sun exposure results in a darker skin color. 

Even worse, how we treat fellow Americans who choose to love someone of the same gender, or whose gender identity is not as black and white as some would prefer. Or who have spent their lives as public servants. Or choose to intervene when they encounter government sanctioned intimidation and violence in their communities. 

But the real shame is that I wonder if young people, born on American soil, brought here as an undocumented child, or living overseas in a country where opportunity is lacking, would still seek America as I did forty plus years ago. Would still think that all our welcome on our shores, especially considering the rhetoric that issues from the White House about people from certain countries. 

In those days, I traveled, and encountered other wanderers with very little resources. My recollection is that I spent about $120 during my six week trip. Today it seems clear that only people with money are welcome here, and that some of our leaders do not see America as a place to look for opportunity or one's self, but only for people with marketable talents or big bank accounts. 

When I hitchhiked in the 1980's, I was told that you can't do that today, it isn't the sixties anymore. When I recount my travels, I am told the same about today, that it isn't safe to travel in this manner anymore. I didn't believe that advice then, and while I often joke that I would like to recreate those days some time, to try it again as a senior citizen, I wonder how safe I would be. And that makes me even sadder than the thought that I might be too old to try.   

I don't know if Mr Topper is still kicking around somewhere, although I would like to think that he knows that he had an impact on at least one student. An impact that planted the seed of self discovery, and of understanding something about America by experiencing it up close and personal, one ride at a time, one adventure at a time, one new experience with a fellow American, at a time. 

 

 

Epstein Files

An acquaintance recently asked me why I haven't posted about the Epstein files, given that is such a huge story, and has been for quite a while. 

To be honest, I am not sure exactly why, although, to be honest, I don't think that Trump is neck deep in Epstein related dirt. Certainly he was a friend, and not just in passing. It is obvious to many that Trump has no moral compass. Using women for play is just one of many flaws in his personal make-up, so I guess I preferred to focus on the danger he represents to our 250 year experiment in democracy.

Perhaps this indicates my own bias in that I consider his attacks on the institutions of our government and the guardrails that have protected our unique form of government more important than his sexual escapades. 

That being said, let me be clear. Jeffrey Epstein provided a service to a group of men who deemed themselves above, not just the law, but above any of the accepted morals of our society. They abused women, many underage girls, because they could, but also because they had a perverted belief that it was something they deserved, something that men of power and money have done throughout history, as Trump testified in his deposition during the E. Jean Carrol assault trial.

As the emails are revealing, Epstein's advice was sought after by many very rich, very powerful, very entitled men, some who sought sexual gratification, and some who sought a way to gain favor with Trump. As these revelations continue to become public, one can only hope that there is some kind of accountability, and not just the loss of one's royal standing. 

Real, hard punishment. And I don't mean prison time. Not that I wouldn't support seeing some of them in orange jumpsuits, but I would much prefer hitting them where it hurts the most. 

Isolation, shunning even, so that they can no longer be the giants of industry or politics that they believe themselves to be. And very, very large fines. Millions of dollars. 

Like the occasional example when the masses boycott certain products, we need those who do business in America to stop doing business with men like this. To set an example that such behavior, such attitudes that place people like that above the law, above responsibility for their sordid actions, will no longer be tolerated. People who engage in sex trafficking, especially when children are involved, and yes Megyn, anyone under 18 is a child, are loathsome indeed. But without the customers, there wouldn't be a business. 

Is it possible that in the future, at least in my lifetime, that the peer pressure of those who consider sex with children a crime that cannot be tolerated, will eliminate underage sex trafficking? Perhaps not, but it can only begin when people ostracize those who participate in the activity, on either side of the equation. One might even say that such a movement, to truly identify and isolate people like this, could enable us to actually claim to be a Christian nation.

Whether Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, President, ex-President or a woman like Ghislaine Maxwell, they should all be held responsible in ways that do not allow them to be active in everyday society, whether that results in a prison sentence or just by being shut out of our society. Outcasts. If we could somehow make legal the application of a scarlet letter upon their brow to indicate their worthlessness, I would heartily vote for it. 

More importantly, the saga of a man like Jeffery Epstein is a black mark on all of us. He represents greed, and power, and privilege run amok, and while some of it may have been hidden, we all know that the rich and powerful have been playing by different rules for all of history. 

Shame on all of us for believing that rich people are somehow better than us just because of their wealth, regardless of how they accumulated such wealth. We excuse their behavior because they have convinced us, the everyday folks who do all the real work in America, that without them all would be lost. A sort of too big to fail logic applied to people, not just humongous corporations.

Is Trump guilty of ignoring Epstein's horrendous treatment of women? Of course. Not because he may or may not have known about the underage girls but because he accepted, neigh, relished, the idea that men like himself are allowed to engage in such activity. As are all of those whose names are being revealed in the files. They all knew he was a slime ball, but valued his use to them to gain some advantage. 

In some ways, the men who only used him to get sex are less horrible than those who sought his advice to gain political insight or access, although I wouldn't want to be any of them when they face their day of judgement.

Moving forward, I don't expect an email that implicates the current president in the sex trafficking aspect of the scandal. I just can't imagine such an email being released, if not completely redacted so it is impossible to link to Trump.

Of course, it doesn't matter to me. He is as guilty as any and all of the men who partied and associated and sought guidance and ignored Epstein's crimes. While it is certainly ironic that a sex scandal may mark the beginning of our communal break from the spell Trump has cast on so many people, it really needs to be more than just a few men who pay the price for the likes of Jeffrey Epstein.

Whether that occurs, is the real question. 

 

 

Diane Keaton

When I first heard of the passing of Diane Keaton, already over a month ago, it hit me hard. Certainly not as hard as a family member or longtime friend, but still I felt truly sad.

I imagine I wasn't the only person to feel that way, that, in fact, it is very common for regular people to mourn the death of famous actors, or athletes or musicians, or other such people whose work they admired. Or whose life represented something beyond just respect for their accomplishments.

While I can't know for certain why other people get upset when someone like Diane Keaton passes, I can surmise why I felt sad, almost tearful, when I heard the news.

Keaton represented the type of woman that I, as a young man, was attracted to, perhaps even searched for as a life mate. 

Now, I know that sounds kind of ridiculous when one understands that what I admired about her was not really Diane Keaton, but the characters she played in the movies, especially Annie Hall.

I had been musing about this post, considering the direction and details of it, since her death, but had let the idea drop away as is evident since I have posted seven times already since her passing despite a search for Diane Keaton movies that resulted in my watching a number of her films in the two weeks or so right after her death.

Most I had never seen before, Manhattan and Interiors being the two I enjoyed the most. A few were not that good, to be honest. I still haven't had the opportunity to see Sleeper again, or Play It Again, Sam which might be an indication that I enjoyed Keaton characters that Woody Allen created for her. Perhaps it also suggests that the love that Allen felt for Keaton was transferred to the film goer in general, and myself in particular, for although they dated but never married, Keaton was a longtime defender of his less than acceptable relationship scandals while he often ran his scripts and ideas past her first, his respect for her opinions being so profound.

If I am totally honest, there may even be a bit to the idea that if Woody could successfully woo Diane, even if in the make believe world of movies, then I might find success in winning over a woman like her. In that example, Woody's well known lack of self esteem reflected my own, yet somehow he is still able to be attractive to Keaton, as it turns out, in film and real life.

What really surprised me is that I was unaware that Diane Keaton was in the Godfather movies, being one of the eight people in America to have never seen any of the those films. The fact that she was in those movies while also appearing in Love and Death and Sleeper illustrates the range of her acting ability. 

Another odd juxtaposition of roles are those she played in the aforementioned Annie Hall and Looking for Mr Goodbar both which released in 1977. I am hoping to find the latter on some streaming service some time soon, perhaps right after seeing the former again.

Over the years, as I aged along with Keaton (just to note, she was born a dozen years before me), I enjoyed her in Baby Boom, the Father of the Bride movies, the First Wives Club, The Family Stone, and Somethings Gotta Give, among others.

I also hope to see Reds again sometime in the near future although I recall losing interest in parts of the movie when I first saw it. 

So, again, why was I attracted to Keaton, or to be more realistic, her acting roles?

Since retiring, I have been watching a lot of movies, most notably older movies, older being defined as released before 1970. One that I enjoyed the most, starring my favorite black and white movie female actress, Katharine Hepburn, is Bringing Up Baby with Cary Grant.

I mention Hepburn because Keaton reminds me of her. Both versatile actors, both attractive but not glamorous, perhaps best of all, both seemingly approachable, more like the girl next door as opposed to a  Hollywood starlet.

And, perhaps, most important to me, both able to play comedic roles, which I interpret as not taking themselves too seriously.

As I said in the beginning of this post, Diane Keaton represented to me the kind of woman I wanted to be around, perhaps even marry, despite my understanding that it was her roles that created that desire. 

Whether she was anything like those roles in her real life, we may find out as time passes and various people in her life open up about what she was really like. Hopefully, I won't experience too much bursting of the balloon should the reality not match my fantasy. But as someone famously said, la-di-da, la-di-da.

 

 

  

 

Mrs Dalloway and the Mailman

A few weeks ago, I borrowed two books from the library, Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf, and Mailman, My Wild Ride Delivering the Mail in Appalachia and Finally Finding Home, by Stephen Starring Grant.

As far I as know, I have never read a Virginia Woolf novel. Woolf was born around the same time as my paternal grandparents, and died at the start of WW2. Mrs. Dalloway was published in 1925 while Mailman... was just published this year, a hundred years later. There was no connection, in my mind, why I chose these two books, other than I had read a review of Grant's book and thought it sounded interesting, while I had read something which mentioned Woolf, and her standing in the world of literature, and realized my oversight in never reading any of her efforts.  

First, Mrs. Dalloway. 

To be frank, I struggled through the book. As to why, I have a few thoughts. As it says on the jacket, and perhaps in the mention that led me to search out this book, Woolf spends the entire novel tracing the day of a woman, Mrs. Dalloway, as she spends her time recounting and thinking about the people and things she encounters, as well as shopping and planning for the party she is throwing later that night. 

In comparison, Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, also published 100 years ago, and which I recently read and discussed, took place over the course of a few months. But more importantly, at least as it applies to why I moved through that book more easily, there was action. While also some internal thinking that was reflected upon in The Sun..., it was nothing like Woolf's constant stream of thoughts, and almost random connections of the physical world and what popped into the head of the characters she creates.

Whether my preference for a bit more action is a product of being a man, or an American, or a human alive in a world with a 24/7 news cycle and instant gratification, or a combination of all of those, I am not sure. While my own writing is no way similar to Woolf's in terms of her descriptive powers, especially when detailing the environment, everything from the people in it to the world happening all around them, I do tend to have rather long sentences that my grade school English teachers would have scowled at when attempting to diagram them into their parts. (Does anyone else remember that exercise on the blackboard, breaking down a sentence into its parts, noun, verbs, etc?)

As it happens, both Hemingway and Woolf took their own lives, right around the age of 60. Whether that kind of timing is indicative of an age when truly gifted people find it difficult to prolong a life that no longer allows them to be creative, or is a coincidence, I can't say. But what is more typical is that Hemingway chose a more violent mode to end his life (gunshot) while Woolf chose a more passive vehicle, drowning. 

One thing I did notice as I read Mrs Dalloway was that I felt more engaged when she focused on some of the past relationships between the characters, especially the scenes involving Clarissa Dalloway and Peter Walsh, as well as those reflecting on the interactions between Sally Seton and Clarissa. For me, those interplays were at the heart of how all three people's lives developed over the years and came to be in the present time, when Mrs Dalloway takes place.

Another reason for my lack of enthusiasm for Mrs. Dalloway is that there is no real conclusion at the end of the book. Of course, the plot of the story isn't such that it leads to a conclusion, being a day of observation and reflection. Clarissa spends a lot of time in her head, justifying why she rejected the love of Peter Walsh, Peter spends a lot of time wondering why she did that, and why he still cares, but neither seems to come to any conclusions as to why they still think about it. Perhaps that is the point, or perhaps I have missed something in the meaning of the book. One thing is for sure, if I had been assigned it in high school, I would have liked it even less. At least now I can appreciate some of its themes through the lens of my own 60 plus years of life.

Finally, maybe the resignation as exhibited by Clarissa and Peter, reflects the shared experience of those who lived during World War 1. I know his WW1 experiences altered Hemingway's life and outlook, although he reacted through hedonism as opposed to seeking  normalization, or at what society calls normal, which Clarissa, Peter and Sally successfully find, if boring and less than rewarding. 

While I can't say it was my favorite book of the year, perhaps even one of my least favorites, I did enjoy the way Woolf incorporated those characters' past into the present. It reminded me of my recent mission to contact my friends of yore, but also about how so true it is that we can't go home again, at least when it comes to friends from decades ago.

Where Mrs Dalloway was serious and somber, Grant's Mailman... was light and featured a number of comical recollections. The author, a very successful ad man, found himself unemployed and without health insurance in his fifties, during the pandemic. He decides to apply for, then accept a job working for the United States Postal Service delivering mail in his hometown of Blacksburg, Virginia, a place he had escaped from a number of decades prior.

During the pandemic, my experience, as well as my wife's was not typical. Nora was working as a floating pharmacy tech at a few local assisted living facilities. Once they suspended the techs from traveling to those places, she was reassigned to work in the warehouse picking the prescriptions that were sent to the clients of her company. In other words, she worked right through the lock down.

I was employed by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) as a general manage of one of the stores. We were given off, for a month with pay, then brought back to pick orders as part of their curbside delivery experiment, which morphed into a direct to home shipment process. Again, except for that one month, I worked through the pandemic. 

And so, fortunately, we did not experience a loss of employment or a change in income.

For Grant, who is laid off his very well paying job with only a few months health insurance coverage as part of his severance package, his entire life is upended overnight. That is the sort of desperation he was experiencing when he took a blue collar job with a government agency at the very time when so many blue collar workers were being forced to work/be exposed to COVID, and when the government was not considered a trustworthy entity.

Add to that the fact that he would be delivering mail in areas that were already isolated in a number of ways, and one can imagine the culture shock that awaited him.

The book was delightful, a word I am pretty sure I have never used in describing a book I have read. But also insightful, not just about Grant as he navigates the incredibly difficult job of rural mail carrier, but as he rekindles his relationships with people, real people in the real world so unlike that which he had lived in as a consultant, but also with his family, especially his daughters whom actually work with him for a short time delivering the mail.

I was fortunate enough to have a similar experience as a child, and young adult, working with my father as he delivered knives in the various restaurants, delis, butcher shops and convenience stores in Philadelphia, an experience which I used in a story which I wrote in college.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/12/my-dad.html 

Even though Grant did not deliver the mail all that long as he was able to acquire a job which allowed him to return to his "old" life as a white collar worker making a six figure income, he reflects fondly on the lessons, and experiences of that brief time, admitting that while economically difficult, they had exhausted their emergency funds by the end of his time with the USPS, he was proud of the work he did, and glad for the people he encountered and the hard working postal employees he met.

He realized an appreciation for the people who actually do the work in this country as opposed to what he did, well paid as it was, which did little to help others.

Interestingly, I just borrowed Bull Shit Jobs by David Graeber from the library, a book which discusses the idea that far too many jobs are worthless, do not really help anyone or produce anything meaningful while the jobs that really matter, jobs like postal workers, hair dressers, child care workers, teachers, policemen, etc, are valued far less than they should be. I will let you know my thoughts when I am done.

While I retired from the PLCB over four years ago, I have been working for a local grocery store (yes, we sell groceries), for the last three years. I work three days a week, on shipment days. We break down the skids onto U-boats, those funny looking carts with a U handle on each end and a metal flatbed about a foot above the ground, separating the product by aisle, such as pet products, paper products, laundry products, baking items, etc, then "pack out" the shelves (grocery store jargon) with the goods. 

It provides exercise, walking and lifting, some interesting interactions with customers, especially requests to reach things on the top shelf, our clientele being on the short side, and even some job satisfaction when I help people find something they need, or after a good day of filling shelves so they are neat and organized.

In this way, and also in that eighteen months when I delivered newspapers before most people woke up, I can understand Grant's realization about who does the real work in America. While I must say that I was a bit disappointed to read that he goes back to his former life, the money being the biggest factor, he at least went back with a better feeling for his neighbors, their problems, and what is most important in life.

A similar lesson as was presented in the movie Good Fortune, which I reviewed a few posts ago.

Perhaps in just that small way, Mrs. Dalloway and Mailman... were similar in that the people coming in and out of the lives of Clarissa Dalloway and Stephen Starring Grant, even though one was fictional and the other real life, still detailed the inner thoughts of everyday people. 

I am fortunate that I could leave my job tomorrow and it wouldn't dramatically effect our lives, economically speaking. But so many of the people I work with, my job being in the retail sector, are not so lucky. They work hard, as do the vast majority of blue collar workers, but are generally underpaid, especially when we read of the salaries that those who own large retail businesses earn, often hundreds of times more than the very people who do the actual work.

It is similar to the appalling treatment that federal workers are receiving from the current administration. For the first few months, there were daily proclamations from Musk and Vought and Trump about the bloated federal work force. Literally thousands of federal workers were threatened, belittled, bribed into retirement, or worse, were labelled as DEI hires which meant that they weren't qualified to be employed in the first place, and would be eliminated.

Not to mention the white collar workers, DOJ lawyers, FBI officers, various middle management staff, who were told that they weren't loyal enough to the president, the Constitution and the taxpayers who funded them, be damned.

Now, six months later, the DOJ is having a hard time finding qualified lawyers, the various scientific arms of the government are struggling to find qualified scientists and researchers, and, most glaringly, the FAA is hundreds of air traffic controllers short of the level of staffing needed to monitor our skies.

When one's employer fires people for no good reason, or alters the qualification standards to include sycophants first, competence second, or just blatantly tells you that you suck at your job, it should be expected that people will quit, or retire, as soon as viable. But more importantly, word gets out that the employer not only tolerates, but has created a hostile work environment, so the pool of replacements suffers. 

So, when I see Sean Duffy complaining that dozens of air traffic controllers are retiring every day at four and five times the normal rate, or when sick outs increase because those "essential" workers are not being paid while the House of Representatives, the very body whose job is to fashion and pass a budget, is on a paid vacation for six weeks, it should come as no surprise. In fact, rather than empathizing with those workers the president tweets in all caps that he might dock the pay of anyone who calls out even while threatening to not approve their back pay.  Can you say asshole!

I've said it before, and I will say it again. The American worker, those doing the real work driving buses, taking care of our children, tending to our sick (nurses, not as much doctors), and elderly, standing behind counters in retail environments, cooking our take out orders, delivering our mail, need to organize. Or perhaps strike.

At the least, take a day or two off. Demand not just respect, but livable wages. And a more equitable share of the vast amount of money that is created by your hard work.  

If only... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Toni Morrison

I believe I mentioned in a previous post that I borrowed two books from the library written by Toni Morrison. In the last two weeks, I have read those books, The Bluest Eye and Sula. 

I enjoyed both, perhaps Sula a bit more. Both described, in raw detail the lives and experiences of Black people in the South in that hundred years after Emancipation but before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In each, Morrison does not pull any punches as she relates in very graphic scenes the reality of being Black in America during that time. 

While I believe it would have been educational, certainly challenging, to have been required to read her novels in high school, I can understand why so many White Americans, Christians no less, push to have her books banned. Advocate that their sons and daughters not be exposed to the systemic racism that existed in the land of the free for so many generations.

That it is better to pretend that those times are gone, not withstanding the glorification we are experiencing concerning Charlie Kirk who often expressed opinions that dismissed the damage done by slavery, individually as well as communally, while claiming the existence of some kind of reverse discrimination that elevates undeserving people of color and women over the much superior white male.

No wonder people of his ilk prefer to erase the historic level of racism that existed in America. They need such erasures to enhance their support for continued prejudice against minorities and women but with a new twist, that white males are now the victims.

It would be comical if it wasn't so successful, and so insidious.

Morrison died in 2019, so she has missed the meteoric rise of MAGA, although I am sure she noticed the roots of it from the day of that famous ride down the escalator, and during those first few years of the first administration.

I haven't done any research into Morrison and her books. Whether some of her stories were partly autobiographical, or just what she observed, or what was passed down from her family or her neighbors. Having been born in 1931, I am sure she experienced some of the hopelessness that she imbues in some of her characters. And the resilience against the stacked odds against her race. And the resignation that nothing would change, as long as their skin color did not match those in charge.

Neither book is happy, neither has a happy ending, or a hero or heroine who succeeds despite the odds. Perhaps she has other novels that do supply more hope. When I googled that question, the description of her novel Paradise seemed to indicate one such book.

But both books delve into the topics of self identity, self worth, race, family, and friendship, all themes that resonate across race and gender, but are uniquely detailed through the lens of the accepted belief that being born Black makes one less equal, a belief that Morrison expresses as common for both sides of that color divide.

Again, it is only two books, but I was also struck by the lack of the angry black man, or woman, that is depicted in so many stories told for white readers, by those who wish to justify the need to keep "them" under control. This is not to say that there exists in any of her other books, or books by other famous Black writers, homage to those who were more aggressive in their fight for freedom and equality.

But that is the irony. When a mostly white mob attacks our nation's capitol at the behest of the outgoing president who is too weak or just too arrogant to accept his election loss, they are hailed as patriots, and eventually pardoned. Some are even serving in legislatures, state and federal, across our land.

But when a non-white person exhibits similar aggressive action, they are law breakers, pure and simple. They must be labelled terrorists, as the president has now done in reference to antifa, which actually stands for anti-fascism. Funny how a president who actively calls his enemies all the pejorative names, socialist, communist, fascist, as if he, and his cult, understand the meaning of any of them, would be so focused on a group that itself is against fascism.

I am old enough to remember when, on the podium as they received their gold medals at the 1968 Olympics, Tommie Smith and John Carlos raised a black-gloved fist to express their dissatisfaction with the state of race relations in America. Of course, this "black power" salute as it was named by the white power brokers in our country was roundly condemned. Calls for them to have their medals revoked burst from the halls of Congress and the pundits of the day. 

Not to mention the kneeling during the national anthem that was a thing for a hot minute during the early part of Trump 1. 

In each case, just a gesture. No one was hurt, nothing was destroyed, yet because it was Black people leading the way, there was condemnation. Outrage. Ostracism.

To be fair, there was also outrage when 140 Capitol Police officers were attacked, when a couple million dollars of damage was done to the Capitol building, when a number of those same injured officers died in the days following the attack, some of their wounds, some by their own hand, traumatized as they were. 

But now, the whole incident is being rewritten as a day of Love and Peace. Nothing to see here. In fact, perhaps we should start investigating anyone who says it was a riot, anyone who investigated it and came to any conclusion other than it was an act of American patriotism.

Not sure why I decided to read Toni Morrison books so late in life, so long after their publication. I assume I encountered her name, or a reference to her works in a magazine, perhaps even The Atlantic. 

But I am glad that I read them, even if a little late. They help me feel more confident that I am on the right side of history in my condemnation of the policies of the Trump Administration, and the words of someone like Charlie Kirk, both who represent the worst of American behavior towards people not white. Whose words are the antithesis of the teachings of Jesus, the inspiration of the religion they claim to follow.

Finally, I recently asked a friend of mine how all this will end. What will it take for America to wake up to the fact that we have lost our way. His response, bloodshed, matched my prediction earlier this year that an American citizen, or citizens would be killed by an ICE or National Guardsmen, or military soldier sometime in the summer.

Fortunately, I was wrong, as summer ends has ended. But with the planned national day of celebration and remembrance for Charlie Kirk on October 14th, his birthday, which is also the birthday of George Floyd, I am hesitant to withdraw my prediction. I expect there to be all sorts of counter protests, and, if history is any lesson, those that celebrate the white racist will be called American patriots, while those that honor the murdered black man will be labelled anti-American terrorists.

And so the decline continues. 

    

Kurt Vonnegut

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have been using the Chester County Library System a lot these last few months. Last week I withdrew three books, two by Toni Morrison, and Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five.

Not exactly sure why I decided to read Vonnegut's book, although I suspect his name may have appeared in one of the articles in the August Atlantic about nuclear weapons.

But first, interesting story. When I searched the adult fiction section for "Slaughterhouse...", I didn't find it even though I had checked before going and knew it was on the shelf. After easily locating the two Morrison books, I asked at the desk where I was told that "Slaughterhouse Five" was in the young adult section. I was intrigued. When I asked why, I was told that it was there because it was included on a the local high school reading list. In retrospect, I guess this shouldn't have surprised me as I am sure I was assigned to read it in high school.

While also at the checkout desk, I asked if they had a banned book section yet. Working on it, was the response When I commented that all three of the books I was checking out would most likely be included when they did establish such an area, the librarian agreed. I told her I would make sure to return them all soon.

Now, of course, as an adult, I would certainly be able to access any of those books, I assume, even in the most backward/aggressive of states which are actively banning books. What is sad however, is that they would not be available to young adults in those places.

Just another reason why it boggles my mind that so many Americans embrace the current surge of ideology that results in ideas being censored. And so the decline continues.

Anyway, as I read "Slaughterhouse...," I was taken back to Mr Topper's English class in high school. Or was it Mr McCabe? I guess it doesn't really matter who lead the discussions, just that it was discussed, although I can't recall any of those classes and analysis.

As I read the book this time, I must say that I was getting a bit tired of the phrase "And so it goes", which Vonnegut uses throughout the book. I actually googled the question, how many times...., and found one answer to be 106 times. Of course, who am I to critique Kurt Vonnegut, but I felt it started to lose its effectiveness after a while. Although, perhaps that was the point.

Anyway, I was most struck by the invention of the Tralfamadorians in the book, especially as it relates to their ability to see in 4D, where the 4th dimension is time, and their perception of death, which is that, for them, there is no death, only experiences, and in no definitive order.

The character Billy Pilgrim, who claims to have been abducted by the aliens, and to have traveled in time many, many times, illustrates the advantages of this concept. While many of us may be adverse to knowing when we are going to die, Billy knows precisely when, and in fact seems to have experienced it, but not as the finale of his life. He even predicts that he is going to die while giving a speech, which leads to him being offered police protection. He declines. And so it goes.

Of course, many people believe that death is not final, believe there is an afterlife. That our life force will go on without the body. Sometimes I wonder how many people actually believe that, despite the high percentage of people who say they do.

I say this because of the plethora of ways humans attempt to lengthen their lives, certainly their youth. I mean the search for the Fountain of Youth is as old a tale as tales themselves. Not to mention the obsession we seem to have for accumulating wealth. Do we forget that you can't take it with you, or do some people really believe that the afterlife has a yardstick for possessions, and that the more you die with, the better cloud you get assigned to?

Perhaps it is the fear of death that makes us scramble, lie, cheat, long for, even sacrifice our morals and principles to gather more and more money. 

I recently expressed my surprise at boomers whose goal is to spend every single dollar they have earned, to purposefully leave their children nothing. Seems a bit selfish, but then again, at least it reflects the understanding that money will not buy one's way into eternal bliss.

Throughout the book, the character Edgar Derby is mentioned. He is found guilty of stealing a teapot in the aftermath of the fire bombing of Dresden which killed more people than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and is shot by a firing squad. 

I imagine the irony of such an act was discussed in those high school classes I attended, and perhaps in today's classes as well. Or is the correct word sarcasm?

The United States military recently blew up a boat traveling from Venezuela to our borders, allegedly carrying drugs. While there may be proof that there was a crime about to be committed, it seems that whomever was on that boat was guilty until proven innocent. Except there was no chance to prove that innocence. 

For a country that values freedom, and the rule of law, and our alleged superior system of justice, there was remarkably little coverage in the media, and very little outrage. A national shrug.

Yet today, a conservative firebrand, someone who has openly expressed anti-LGBTQ and transgender views, who has called for a reversal of gay marriage rights, who considers the passing of the Civil Rights Act to have been a travesty, who supported unproven claims about the 2020 election being stolen, etc, etc, was assassinated in Utah. Since then, he has been lauded by no less than the president as a fine person, loved by ALL (his caps). 

I would imagine that the majority of people he believes (his) God hates didn't love him. Nor should anyone who believes in the phrase "all men are created equal", or even the advice "love thy neighbor as yourself."

Yet, even on MSNBC there are laments that we must not allow political violence to take hold, that there is no place for it in a country such as ours, that all must condemn such barbaric actions.

Unless of course, it is directed at people like those in that boat that was blown away. 

Or against the Capitol police officers who were brutalized on January 6th.

Or against the tens of thousands of Palestinians that have been slaughtered, a large percentage by American bombs. 

Or against any of the "others" that are so easily identified by people like Charlie Kirk, or Donald Trump. People who are now denied medical care, are being kicked out of the military, and who are bullied to such a degree that upwards of 40 percent of them have tried to kill themselves. 

Oh, and by the way. Two students were shot at a school in Denver today. There have already been dozens of shootings in schools and it is only September, but again, a national shrug. 

I don't know if Charlie himself said this, or just agreed with the sentiment but more than once he chided those trying to restrict 2nd Amendment rights, stating that it was ludicrous to think that in a country with such rights there would be no children deaths, or deaths of any innocent person. And that it was worth those sad but inevitable deaths to guarantee those gun rights.

Perhaps we should chalk his death up to that very same belief. Or just shrug, as we do at so many other senseless deaths.

And so it goes. 

 

 

 

The Atlantic and Anne Applebaum

After the SignalGate controversy broke, followed by an attack on the editor from the Atlantic magazine who was mistakenly added to the chat, I decided to subscribe to that organization for both daily news and opinion articles, and its monthly magazine.

Since then, I have been happily exposed to multiple, interesting articles, and writers with whom I was unfamiliar.

In particular, in the May edition of the magazine, I have read essays, in addition to a few concerning politics, about music, religion, Ringo Starr, how porn has changed America, Dwayne Wade and the AI company Nvidia. Can you say eclectic?

Each were extremely well written and informative. I was especially effected by the Ringo Starr article. To be honest, I was never a huge Beatles fan, only gaining an appreciation for the range and depth of their music during my newspaper delivering days when I listened to the multiple hour Breakfast with The Beatles which aired on the radio on Sunday mornings.

Ringo is 84 years old now, still performing, still flashing a peace sign as he repeats his idiosyncratic phrase, Peace and Love. I read the last quarter of the article fighting through wet eyes. 

Why was I teary eyed?

Perhaps because Ringo, for all his fame, retains a significant part of the boy who grew up in difficult circumstances, someone who acknowledges that luck blew against him as a child, then was at his back for much of his adulthood. 

Perhaps because Ringo was always considered the least talented of the Fab Four, but is considered by some, to have inspired the most people through his positive outlook, persistence in making music as he feels it, and connection with every day people.

Or perhaps simply because in the near future, Ringo will be gone from this world, and we will be the poorer for the loss of someone for whom Peace and Love was not just a fad.

In addition to all that, I was introduced to the writings of Anne Applebaum.

They say a silver lining can be found in all situations, no matter how horrible. For me, discovering Anne Applebaum as a writer is the silver lining in the SignalGate scandal.

So far, in addition to the various articles of hers that I have read in the Atlantic, I have read two of her books, Twilight of Democracy and Autocracy, Inc.  

Applebaum has been around for quite a while, describing her life at the turn of the 21st century in her books, as well as the people with whom she associated, and her understanding of the conservative, pro-democracy thinking that she feels is being betrayed by the current president.

It's funny how so many people who align with the MAGA movement, dismiss conservatives like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, David Frum, among others, who they view as disloyal to Trump, the GOP, and the conservative philosophy, completely missing the point that these people believe they are still conservative, just not aligned with Trump.

The two books I read by Applebaum do not paint a pretty picture of a world she believes has turned away from democracy, towards authoritarianism. And her extreme disappointment that she sees a similar turn in America today.

Her detailed knowledge and description of Hungary and how its authoritarian leader, Victor Orban, slowly turned a democratic nation to one in which he now controls the legislature, the courts, and who succeeds economically (and who doesn't), is revealing in light of the steps that Trump has taken since his inauguration.

What is clear to Applebaum, is that governments like the ones led by Orban, Putin, and their ilk, have never benefited the general populace. It is only through fealty to leaders such as they, that businesses prosper or not, and that freedoms are granted, or lost.

If nothing else, it is her prime lesson, for those that listen. Compliance and complacency might direct the dictator's wrath to another direction, temporarily, but leaders like that are never satisfied. Once the easy targets are defeated, the marginalized communities, immigrants, those that live, love, worship differently, new victims need to be found to maintain power, to reinforce the message of fear and submission.

So, while institutions like Harvard are resisting, so far, other universities, law firms, legislators, politicians, are bending the knee. Sadly, some are already discovering that once on your knees, there is no chance to stand again.

The good news is that the judicial branch is holding, so far. The new administration's multiple illegal executive orders and policies, are mostly being delayed. But justice can move awfully slow in a democracy. 

Our magnificent tradition of due process can play out in an excruciatingly protracted manner when it comes to determining the extent of executive power. It is a gambit that Trump and his allies depend on, all the while denying the same due process to people they have deemed enemies of the state. 

Sadly, for now, many Americans support some of these violations of our Constitution with the short sighted reasoning that those exemptions will only be applied to the "others". The fact that American citizens, even children, have already been deported because of their association with those "others", hasn't penetrated enough of the electorate for them to realize that anyone can be linked to an undesirable when absolute power is granted to one person, or one mindset.    

In the past, I have mentioned that when I first discovered the magazine Lapham's Quarterly, I was surprised and excited; surprised that I had never heard of such a wonderful literary magazine, and excited that I would now be able to read such an extraordinary publication. 

Sadly, one of the many victims of the pandemic, the magazine stopped publication a few years ago, and even more unfortunate, the impetus behind Lapham's, Harold Lapham, passed away last June. While there are plans to reactivate the magazine, in the meantime, I am very content with the newest addition to my monthly reading list, The Atlantic. 

I have written before under the topic of Media, as this post has been labelled. Here are links to four of those posts.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/07/newsoom-and-more-congressional-votes.html

 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/02/truth-whole-half-or-none-at-all.html

 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/03/news-facts-and-opinions.html

 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/04/would-mr-rodgers-neighborhood-be-too.html

 

Would Mr Rodgers Neighborhood be Too Woke Today?

I recently heard that Twitter labelled NPR as a state affiliated news organization, reflecting, apparently an inability for Elon Musk to google NPR's funding details. I say apparently, because when I did it, I found that less than 1% of the funding for NPR comes from the federal government, information that took me, literally, seconds to discover. Soon after that designation was made, Twitter altered the label to "government subsidized" which is at least technically true, but still very misleading. As a result, NPR, and then PBS, announced they would stop using their accounts on Twitter. I imagine that Musk doesn't mind receiving millions of federal dollars to help him with his businesses, and to help his customers buy his products, but I wonder how he would feel being called a government affiliated or subsidized business?

Anyway, I bring this up because it dawned on me after reading this latest silliness from Musk, that if Mr Rogers Neighborhood, which was a staple for PBS and watched for more than 30 years by multiple generations of children might be too woke today.

Full disclosure, I was not a fan of Fred Rogers' show. I referred to him as Mr Vomit Man, because he seemed too nice, too caring, too sappy, perhaps even a bit fake. Of course, I was a teenager when I first saw his show, watched by my siblings. The fact that I was not the target audience for The Neighborhood, or even for Sesame Street for that matter, didn't mean much to me then, but during the mid to late 90's when my children were young, I realized how valuable, how positive, both these shows and Public Broadcasting was for their impressionable minds. 

One of my wife's favorite stories about our son, JW, was that one day he came into the kitchen and told my wife that the TV was broken. Nora hurried into the living room to see what was wrong, but there seemed to be nothing amiss. The TV was on, the picture and sound were working fine. What was JW referring to?

Nora had changed the channel from PBS to a regular station, most likely because the PBS children's shows were over. JW thought the TV was broken because those other channels which also broadcast children's shows, had commercials. It was these interruptions that he was not accustomed to, these ads for cereal and toys, etc that did not appear on PBS. The actual content was replaced by a commercial, so he thought something was wrong.

It is for that reason alone, no commercials for useless items, that federal support, even at a minimum, is important. In a sea of advertising the latest and greatest everything, having one channel that does not indoctrinate our children into the morass of consumerism seems lost on those that continue the call to defund these necessary organizations. 

But I digress.

Fred Rogers, as the vast majority of people who watched his show with their children can attest, was the real deal. He truly believed that all people were special, especially all children. He didn't just believe in helping children understand the changing world around them, and their own changing minds and bodies, but felt it was critical to provide them with a safe neighborhood to be their true selves. 

Many people probably don't remember this, I certainly didn't nor had I read about it before today, but during an episode in 1969, Fred Rogers invited a local police officer, who was black, to dip his feet in a pool, thereby sharing that pool with the man. Believe it or not, this was pretty controversial back then, scandalous even to some self described religious people. Remember, white only public swimming pools, drinking fountains, food service counters, might have been officially abolished by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but reality didn't always match the law, and in those days, the media outlets were owned and controlled by rich, white men, so mixing the races, even just their toes, was a big deal. 

I provided this example, because, while I can't prove it, Fred Rogers having passed away 20 year ago, I feel comfortable in saying that he would have addressed head on the issues of inclusion, equity and diversity that have so many insecure adults foaming at the mouth. His neighborhood of 50 years ago was inclusive, so I have no doubt it would be so today. 

I know it might sound ridiculous to some, but I have no doubt that once Fred Rogers invited RuPaul on his show, to read, or count, or just have a laugh with the children, he would have been attacked by the religious right and the self imposed arbiters of morality. Yes, I believe that one of our most beloved children's TV pioneers, recipient of the 2002 Presidential Medal of Freedom, were he alive today, still advocating for a safe place for children, still including equal representation on his show, would be a target for the nonsense we see about being 'woke'. Fred Rogers was woke before it was a thing, and, I believe, would be proudly woke today.

Which brings me to the Bud Light controversy. As I understand it, the Anheuser-Busch organization sent a commemorative beer can (or cans) to Dana Mulvany, a transgender woman who had posted that she had just celebrated 1 year of being a woman. As Mulvany is one of the thousands of "influencers" who have followers on TikTok, etc, the venerable beverage company thought it might be a good idea to work with her, as a way to expand their market presence, given that since the advent of the IPA and craft beer industry, Budweiser and Bud Light have lost some market share, especially in America. So, while Budweiser products are still the most consumed in the world, it is foreign drinkers who have kept it at the top, not American.

Clearly though, as the backlash to this decision expands and reverberates throughout the beer drinking world, as other influencers produce their own videos and clips of them shooting up cases of beer, or vowing to never drink a bud again, and as some tavern and bar owners pull Bud Light to avoid altercations between their employees and patrons, and among their patrons as well, it begs the question, do these irate Bud Light drinkers really hate transgender people, or are they afraid to drink a beer that a transgender person might drink, and risk being ridiculed by more "manly" beer drinking friends and relatives?

Is their manhood that fragile, that buying a beer that a transgender person might like makes them less masculine? 

It used to be that many beer drinkers thought men who drank wine were sissies. Of course, Bud Light was considered a sissy beer by many manly men 20 years ago, what man cares about calories, right?, but that seems lost on these outraged customers.

My wife commonly calls beer like Bud Light, Miller Light, actually most American beers, weasel piss. I famously say that she likes her beer chewy, meaning with lots of flavor, even heavy.  Stouts were her beer of choice. So, to her, while men were free to drink Bud Light, she didn't think much of their choice. Put it this way, when we were in Ireland she had a Guinness virtually every night.

Would Nora shoot up some cases of Guinness if they associated with a transgender person in hopes of expanding their market? Undoubtedly not, since she does not live in fear that someone will judge her manliness by the beer she drinks. 

Think about it. Some men are upset about their beer of choice, Bud Light, being associated with a transgender person. Perhaps they should reevaluate their opinion about what makes a beer 'manly', or what makes a man manly, for that matter.

 

News, facts, and opinions

There has been a lot of talk recently about the integrity of the news media.  While this is nothing new, it seems that the focus has been intensified with the rise in popularity and election of Donald Trump. Regardless of your opinion concerning the delivery of real news or fake news by the media, it is important to remember the importance of an independent media in our democracy.

Notwithstanding the Watergate investigation that led to President Nixon's resignation, an independent media is a critical watchdog for the citizens of any country who wish transparency in the policies and activities of their elected officials.  Without such independence, the free flow of information to the citizenry is blocked, transmuted, and recreated so as to inform the public only that news which is complimentary to the government.  Propaganda is one of the main tools of a government that wishes to control its people, which explains why seizing control of media outlets is one of the first maneuvers undertaken by dictators and autocrats.

When talking about the news media with friends and acquaintances, I often hear wistful reminiscence of the golden age of broadcast news. They just gave us the facts, it is said, without opinion, allowing us to make our own judgments.  Just the facts.  Yet, with the recent creation of the phrase "alternate facts", is it possible that it is only our naivete that leads us to believe that Murrow, Cronkite, Facenda, etc, did not present the news to us in a slightly biased fashion?

Certainly, the Big 3 of news broadcasting, ABC, CBS, and NBC were run by wealthy people who were most likely more conservative in their perspectives.  And, of course, we have all read stories of how serious the censors took their jobs in making sure that the American public was not exposed to anything that even hinted of non-conformity.  But it is also true that the majority of the journalists who investigated the stories, the editors who decided content and tone, and the icons who delivered the news to us at 6:00 were much more liberal in their thinking. One might believe that facts are facts, indisputable, provable, but WHICH facts are pursued, printed and passed along on the nightly news can certainly paint a purposeful picture, and influence the audience towards a specific viewpoint.

Take a simple fact, unemployment.  As of this moment, a case could be made that there are more unemployed people than ever before in our history. The numbers can be verified from many different sources, and the information can be passed along multiple times on various news and opinion shows in order to make the audience believe that the job market is horrible and that our elected officials, through burdensome regulations, are holding back the economy and the job creators.

In the meantime, on a different channel, facts can be displayed and repeated that demonstrate that more people in America are working than ever before, and that more people have multiple jobs than ever in American history.  Surely, that must mean that our economy is strong, and jobs prevalent.

How can this be, you ask?  Well, first of all, there are more people in America than ever before so just through the use of aggregate numbers it is true to say that there is more of practically anything than ever before if the statistic is related to people.  Also, the average age of an American has been slowly increasing as the baby boomer generation ages plus we are living longer than before, both which equate to people spending many more years of their lives retired (not working) than in the past.

So, news outlets that report both sets of facts are correct. And both are misleading their audiences by not explaining those facts.  \They report information to an audience already predisposed to a conclusion, unemployment is or is not high, with no other salient facts to explain how meaningless the original fact is without complementary information.

(It is easy to see this bias is action if one is to look at how those who chose to report that the unemployment rate was not a true measurement since it didn't account for those that were not looking for work.  Now, with a different administration in charge, are they still reporting in that manner?)

Which brings us to opinions.  Despite what I said above, that the news of yesteryear was still influenced by perspective, I do believe that the line between news shows and opinion shows has been blurred significantly in the past decade.   While fair and balanced might sound nice, it is very difficult to find either.  

Part of the problem is that while past news organizations may have been owned by conservative, rich people, they did not openly dictate the tone or direction of the news.  There seemed to have been a respect for the news itself, as if no one was above the accepted vision of news as fact driven, and the belief in a separation of news and entertainment.  

Now, billionaires and huge corporations own most of the news outlets, and it is clear that the news is being used to frame discourse, drive agendas and, of course, make a profit.  When news content and presentation is being driven by ideology and profit margin, the most salacious and headline grabbing stories will dominate, while facts, if used, will be noted sparingly, in isolation of the information needed to understand the significance of those facts.

So, where are we to turn for news, and unbiased facts?  One solution is to watch news from both radical sides.  It will be tough, at first, as you might find yourself tempted to throw your shoes at the TV when you hear ridiculous statements, but by hearing both sides of a story, over and over again, it may become clear that the truth is somewhere in between.  You could also do your own research, but again, when you Google a topic, there will be returns that represent all angles and all viewpoints.  At that point you must look for fact based returns which can be corroborated by other fact based outlets. 

This will help you differentiate between a fact that is viral but has just one undocumented source, and a fact that lists a real source.

There is also the smell test.  If it sounds fishy, and so far-fetched that only those drinking the kool-aid of that particular viewpoint would believe it, then it probably is dubious in its fact or interpretation.

Finally, there is what I like to think of as the half empty, half filled theory.  For whatever reason, we seem to be enmeshed in a time where people are far less positive, especially when compared to the giddy days of the 50's and 60's when the future was a place where nothing seemed impossible. 

Perhaps it is part and parcel to our aging population; the elderly see far less promise in a future in which death is imminent.  Perhaps it is because the promises we were made when anything seemed possible did not all come true, or at least not enough of them did.  In any case, we seem more willing to assume the bad than the good, that our kids are lazy and uninspired, our politicians are all on the take, our business leaders are all greedy, and our culture light on values, heavy on material possessions.  We now look at everything through opaque glasses, roses be damned.

We seek news, opinions and facts which confirm our half empty philosophy, not realizing there are just as many that might point us in a half filled direction.

So, take heart.  There are medical breakthroughs on the horizon that will revolutionize disease detection and cure.  There is technology to come which will continue to enhance our ability to communicate with our fellow humans so as to better understand them, and find common ground.
There is a social evolution at work which, despite any backward pendulum swing we might be in, will move us forward to labeling others as Earthlings, all part of one big blue planet.  And there is a spiritual renaissance just around the corner, one driven not by religious ideology and its present institutions that prefer an us versus them mentality, but one inspired by the thought that within every person is the capacity for good and bad, and our goal, the point of the life that has been granted to us by the Creator, is to raise up the good and diminish the bad.

Of course, that is only my opinion.      
  

Truth; whole, half or none at all

Today I finished reading the latest Lapham's Quarterly edition, Spies.  Coincidentally, I watched a movie called The Fifth Estate last night. 

Spies was interesting in its recounting of how espionage can be said to predate the birth of Christ.  Any number of essays concerning the use of spies during a variety of Chinese Dynasties, as well as the days of the Greek city states, and the Roman Empire are included.  Even during the so called Dark Ages, methods to discern one's enemy's thoughts and actions, especially as related to war and religion, are documented.  It seems that gaining the upper hand on one's rivals, personal, business and national, is as old as organized communities and governments. 

Strangely, and despite the seeming necessity of employing such people, spies are not viewed as especially laudable people.  One long dead ruler discounted the use of spies deducing that the most effective of infiltrators is one who resembles in looks and thought those he is asked to betray, and that someone willing to betray one's own people is just as likely to betray those paying him to do so, if the money is better or the opportunity more advantageous.  There is also an interesting essay which expresses the opinion of some that betraying one's country is far less an indicator of integrity as betraying one's friends or family, the idea being that personal loyalty is more valuable than loyalty to country and king.

The Fifth Estate was about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, a man regarded as both defender of truth, and traitor.  The movie depicted the beginnings of WikiLeaks, its minor accomplishments in bringing to light human rights abuses, bribery and corruption in various governments, war crimes committed by those purportedly on the "right" side of the conflict, and any number of secrets, whose existence is justified by those in power as a way to protect national interests and citizens' safety.  It ends with the cataclysmic release of the United States war logs from Afghanistan, and the disclosure of 250,000 diplomatic cables, names and dates not redacted as had been done when released by the world's biggest newspapers.  It also details the falling out between Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who eventually disables the launch platform for WikiLeaks, temporarily delaying the release of those cables.  Assange considers Berg a traitor to the cause; a traitor to the traitor in some eyes.   

I found it interesting to realize that journalism can be described as a form of espionage, except that those who bring the secrets of governments into the light frequently do so out of love for their country, as opposed to discovering secrets of one's enemies to help destroy them.  In the movie, Assange is portrayed as a seeker of truth, and a harbinger of an information war between those who keep secrets and those of us who are kept in the dark but also as an egomaniac who put his concept of truth, and his opinion of what should be public knowledge above the real life consequences for those whom his disclosures would injure, even when those people are merely cogs in the machine.

It is an interesting debate; how far should one go when revealing secrets.  Is the cost of truth beyond calculation, or is there a line that even whistle blowers should not cross?  And, when we decide to draw that line anywhere short of the truth, what does that say to those who have abused the public trust and engaged in activities, such as illegal interventions in other governments, assassinations without trial of those we call our enemies, and war time atrocities that are justified as collateral damage.  When is justice served, or is justice denied the price we pay for our willingness to feel safe. 

How ironic is it that there is such a ground swell of dissatisfaction with our political process, hence the popularity of Trump on the right and Sanders on the left, yet when it comes to allowing those we elect to engage in activities conveniently labeled as "counter terrorism", we generally turn a blind eye.   "If you have nothing to hide, then NSA tapping of your phone and emails is OK", we say to ourselves.  "Only criminals should fear the forced opening of that I-phone by the FBI".  We rail against government intervention in our lives, yet sleepily parrot the justifications as used by those very same people who routinely violate our privacy in the name of national security.

At last count, I believe the House has tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act over 60 times, not to mention all the hearings and meetings that have been held at taxpayer expense to justify their obsession with this law.  It has been the rallying cry for the GOP ever since its passage in 2010; the ultimate in government intrusion into our lives.  Too bad that not even 1/100 of interest and outrage has been expressed, on either side of the aisle, in analyzing and critiquing the Patriot Act which has legalized directly as well as tacitly a myriad of violations of the American citizenry. 

Based on the rhetoric I have heard so far, I envision even more violations in the name of protecting our borders, and keeping out our enemies, most emanating from the GOP presidential candidates.   Let's hope we are better able to distinguish the whole truth from 2% and skim, especially if we are going to continue to allow those we elect to trade our privacy for our safety.


   

The Newsoom, and more Congressional Votes

My wife and I have been watching the new HBO series, The Newsroom.  If you aren't able to watch it or haven't caught an episode, I will briefly summarize the direction of the show.

Jeff Daniels plays a cable news anchor, extremely successful up until the recent past when he let loose a tirade of unpleasant, but true, facts about the United States in response to a coed's question at a large university.  During this "epiphany", he imagines that he sees the face of a woman in the crowd holding up signs which encourage him to continue.  After a few weeks of forced vacation, he returns to find that his boss has hired his ex-lover, that very same woman in the crowd, to be his new executive producer.  (In a real quick scene at the end of the pilot episode, it is revealed that she was, indeed, in that audience with those signs.)

This new team, anchor and executive producer, are brought together to create a news show that hearkens back to the days when news was delivered by the giants, Huntley, Brinkley, Cronkite, etc.  Journalists, who, at the time, were trusted overwhelmingly by the American people to give them the facts, first, opinion, second.

As the show is an Aaron Sorkin production, famous for other works such as The West Wing, Charlie Wilson's War and Moneyball, is has a liberal or left leaning tilt, so some with a more conservative viewpoint may dismiss some of its topics, not withstanding the fact that the anchor is portrayed as a life-long Republican who is concerned about the lack of moderation from those far right elements of his party.

For instance, one of the shows concerns the tea party movement.  The anchor states that he was sympathetic to their original concern with the Wall Street bailouts, and the ballooning deficit.  But when he confronts a couple who started a tea party chapter in their town and asks them about the Koch Brothers, two extremely powerful and wealthy individuals who are known to be bankrolling tea party candidates throughout the country, they are portrayed as ignorant that so much money is flowing from the Kochs, seemingly in contrast to their belief that the tea party movement is solely of grassroots origin.

Anyway, I am enjoying the show as it mimics some of my concerns, and some of my conversations with moderate republicans who, I believe represent a bigger part of the party but whose voices are either silent or being suppressed by an extremely vocal minority.

The politics of the show aside, it is clear that today's news is dominated by a lust for ratings.  And, as ratings are driven by controversy, we now have a news media that is more worried about being first with a story rather than being correct.  A media driven by opinion first, facts second.

Speaking of facts, two of this past week's House of Representative votes were interesting.

The Republican controlled House voted, for the 32nd time I believe, to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  It was HR 6079.  (By the way, as an aside and despite what the far right ideologues will tell you, the Affordable Care Act was an attempt to make health care more accessible and more affordable, hence its name.  That is why those opposed to it call it Obamacare, as it is much easier to deride a law with a derogatory name than discuss its actual components). 

Anyway, the House voted 244-185 to repeal.  All Republicans voted to repeal, and a few Democrats joined them.  In our area, PA, NJ, DE, all GOP reps voted to repeal, all DEM reps voted against.  Of course, there is no chance that the bill will pass in the Senate so nothing will come of it. 

The more interesting vote came on a linked bill that would have discharged, or removed, any members who voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) from their health care plan, a federal plan which provides many of the benefits, such as denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, option for parents to include children up until age 26 on their plan, and lifetime caps of benefits paid by insurance companies.  The very same benefits that everyday Americans will lose with the repeal of ACA. 

In other words, all those people who are calling for our elected officials to have the same health care options as the rest of us, should be outraged at those reps who are not willing to "put their money where there mouth is".  The vote to require those reps to hit the open market for their insurance coverage was 188 to 245.  Virtually all GOP against, all DEMS for with a few exceptions.  Now, I am not naive enough to believe that the DEMS are all saints and the GOP sinners on this topic, but the fact remains that the voices most vocal against reforming our current health care system have a government provided health benefits package that protects them from all sorts of health insurance tricks to deny coverage and improve industry profit.

Which brings us back to the news.  Did you see the details of this vote on the news?  I read about it in the Philadelphia Inquirer.  Was it on Fox News?  Will Limbaugh or O'Reilly discuss it on their show?  Will anyone shout it from the highest mountain that our elected officials have a government sponsored health care plan (sounds sort of like socialism) that they think they deserve but which they are unwilling to help those who voted for them attain as well.  The servant, public in this case, saying no to those who elected them, the alleged master. 

Frankly, I believe that this "fact" should be part and parcel to every news or opinion show that debates health care.  Oh, that's right, I forgot, opinion first, facts second.