This morning the first sound I was conscious of was of a sand hill
crane clearing his throat, making that strange rattling sound of
theirs but in a low, soft, tentative way-- not with the usual urgency
when they have something significant to say. It got me thinking. Did
they settle on that sound first thing or did they try a variety of
other sounds before they all agreed to use that one ? After all
they're really ancient breed and what with the great variety of
sounds birds are capable of producing, you know , song birds, parrots
and the like, it seemed the sand hills probably had a lot of choices
to consider before they decided on their throaty warble rattle.
Strange though !
Which, in turn, brought me back to an earlier concern, nicknack (see)
Knick kack as alternatively defined and spelled by Webster's New World
Dictionary; a definition masquerading as a tautology- bad start- a
small ornamental article or contrivance; gimcrack; trinket, also
spelled -etc. I found all of this astounding. No credit or derivation
as to how all this wonderful stuff came about- or who contrived the
alternate spelling with the silent "K" ? Probably some Teutonic "K"
hater.
My mother filled our house with volumes of this useless junk and I
used to marvel at all of the wonderful questions it would provoke.
firstly, why ? the purpose of all of this useless, non-utilitarian
stuff. Sure, it gave rise to other industries, shelf manufacturing,
five and dime stores (now called Dollar Stores), feather duster, dust
rags, even those things now advertised on TV - the cleaning thing from
Germany (where they make good stuff.) Well that's the idea.
It congers up visions of my mom, shopping and "window shopping"; back
during the depression when times were really tough and bring home this
useless, garish ugly stuff- to then be displayed and regarded until some
hoped for event like an earthquake (rare in the Bronx in those days)
or some clutsy (Klutzy) event came alone and reduced the clutter to a
sweepable jumble.
And where were the factories producing truckloads of this commodity
with which to fill the windows of the 5 & 10 (now $ 1.00) Did they
employ great mobs of underutilized people, yearning for a living or
was it a product of elves, those little guys who work the North Pole
ore Christmas, something to keep them busy in the off season ?
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Why not a Tie ?
It was said that nature abhors a vacuum and sports fans abhor a tie.
Yet with the sole exception of baseball, where extra innings can continue
ad infinitum, sports contests in the United States used to tolerate
ending in a tie. Now, with the heavy influence of statisticians odds
makers and gamblers; sporting events; football, basketball, hockey,
and soccer have all added provisions to the rules to eliminate the
possibility of a contest ending in a tie. Overtime periods some for
fixed periods, some with "sudden death " conclusions, still others
with "shootouts" as methods for providing a final resolution and no
ties.
Yet in the remote years of my youth, a football game between two
champion teams, ranked 1st and 2nd in that particular year, each with
Heisman winners on their squads, played a game know for years as the
"Game Of The Century," to a 0-0 tie. The year 1946, the teams Army,
no.1, undefeated, Notre Dame, no.2, undefeated. Army's backfield
included Doc Blanchard (Heisman 1945) and Glen Davis (Heisman 1946).
Notre Dame quarterback, Johnny Lujak (Heisman 1947) A duel of
quarterbacks and sterling defensive play in an era before 2 platoons
and free substitution, where both offense and defense were played by
the same squad. So, stats, percentages, standings be dammed, for the
love of the game what's wrong with a tie ?
Yet with the sole exception of baseball, where extra innings can continue
ad infinitum, sports contests in the United States used to tolerate
ending in a tie. Now, with the heavy influence of statisticians odds
makers and gamblers; sporting events; football, basketball, hockey,
and soccer have all added provisions to the rules to eliminate the
possibility of a contest ending in a tie. Overtime periods some for
fixed periods, some with "sudden death " conclusions, still others
with "shootouts" as methods for providing a final resolution and no
ties.
Yet in the remote years of my youth, a football game between two
champion teams, ranked 1st and 2nd in that particular year, each with
Heisman winners on their squads, played a game know for years as the
"Game Of The Century," to a 0-0 tie. The year 1946, the teams Army,
no.1, undefeated, Notre Dame, no.2, undefeated. Army's backfield
included Doc Blanchard (Heisman 1945) and Glen Davis (Heisman 1946).
Notre Dame quarterback, Johnny Lujak (Heisman 1947) A duel of
quarterbacks and sterling defensive play in an era before 2 platoons
and free substitution, where both offense and defense were played by
the same squad. So, stats, percentages, standings be dammed, for the
love of the game what's wrong with a tie ?
Small Government Fallacy
It is argued that what we need is a smaller government, as if less government will provide a better, stronger society. This premise is advanced without any supporting analysis nor any consideration of how our government grew to their current size.
The government of the United States grew largely in response to problems in our society, abuses which were not resolved and a ruthless exploitation of the American people by a few people with power and privilege. During the era of our history known as The Gilded Age, when extravagance and excess were the hallmarks of the life style of the very rich, most of the rest of the people of the U.S. worked and lived in conditions of abject poverty.
Those ultra rich who owned the railroads, the steel industry, mining and manufacturing treated labor as a commodity rather than people. Journalists and writers, known collectively as "muckrakers" publicized the horrible working conditions and other abusive practices of big business. Government responded to the needs of the people, "The Progressive Movement" created institutions to regulate and control these objectionable practices.
Decent working conditions, minimum wages, safety regulations were promised. The ICC was established to curtail railroad abuses, the SEC to limit stock market frauds, Pure Food and Drug regulations to prevent snake oil swindlers and protect public health to name a few. As problem areas surfaced and no relief was in sight, government responded on behalf of the people, to provide protection and satisfy a need otherwise neglected. In short, government didn't just grow big by accident nor for any sinister purpose, rather it grew to promote the health, safety and prosperous society which was America.
Then St. Reagan opined that the government was the problem and led a movement to advantage the rich by abolishing regulation whenever possible. We dutifully dismantled protection that had served so well. We have just survived from the folly of that philosophy which led to the banking and Wall Street abuses which almost destroyed the economy.
Neither small nor large government, per se, is the answer. We need sensible, responsible government to prevent abuses. Size alone is no criteria with which to judge whether government is well serving its people.
Reducing the size of government without concern with what aspects of society then go unregulated can only lead to another
"Gilded Age" where some of us live in luxury and excess while the rest of society subsists on unemployment insurance and food stamps.
The government of the United States grew largely in response to problems in our society, abuses which were not resolved and a ruthless exploitation of the American people by a few people with power and privilege. During the era of our history known as The Gilded Age, when extravagance and excess were the hallmarks of the life style of the very rich, most of the rest of the people of the U.S. worked and lived in conditions of abject poverty.
Those ultra rich who owned the railroads, the steel industry, mining and manufacturing treated labor as a commodity rather than people. Journalists and writers, known collectively as "muckrakers" publicized the horrible working conditions and other abusive practices of big business. Government responded to the needs of the people, "The Progressive Movement" created institutions to regulate and control these objectionable practices.
Decent working conditions, minimum wages, safety regulations were promised. The ICC was established to curtail railroad abuses, the SEC to limit stock market frauds, Pure Food and Drug regulations to prevent snake oil swindlers and protect public health to name a few. As problem areas surfaced and no relief was in sight, government responded on behalf of the people, to provide protection and satisfy a need otherwise neglected. In short, government didn't just grow big by accident nor for any sinister purpose, rather it grew to promote the health, safety and prosperous society which was America.
Then St. Reagan opined that the government was the problem and led a movement to advantage the rich by abolishing regulation whenever possible. We dutifully dismantled protection that had served so well. We have just survived from the folly of that philosophy which led to the banking and Wall Street abuses which almost destroyed the economy.
Neither small nor large government, per se, is the answer. We need sensible, responsible government to prevent abuses. Size alone is no criteria with which to judge whether government is well serving its people.
Reducing the size of government without concern with what aspects of society then go unregulated can only lead to another
"Gilded Age" where some of us live in luxury and excess while the rest of society subsists on unemployment insurance and food stamps.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
RETIRED, Today
This morning when I first awoke I instinctively looked to the clock to see whether I was delinquent in some time related function when it hit me, you’re retired, really free from the tyranny of the alarm clock, schedules and deadlines. Except for the medical necessity of periodic reference to a glucometer to meter the ups and downs of my diabetes dominated blood sugar level I am really independent from the domination of deadlines.
For years I have lamented, quietly and at times not so quietly, about feeling purposeless and uninvolved, once again the perpetual malcontent who after being freed from the wheel of real threats and consequential anxieties. I have constructed a framework of concerns surrounding letters to the editor, whether the cats have eaten our offering or is it once again necessary to find another brand, and even more mundane concerns about chores, now elevated to real problems worthy of much concern and thoughtful recollection. Aside from a slight concern that this may be perceived as a mood swing worthy of consideration as a symptom of bipolarism, I am symbolically kicking myself in the butt and thanking myself for this realization.
My last writing (ramble really) now looks like I was trying for the T.S. Eliot prize for self-pity; now seems more of a lament for the death of self-importance. While it contains some valid verities, worthy of being integrated into my consciousness, my awareness of where I am, it is really part of why I should rejoice at being retired, beyond serious consequences should others take serious disagreement with my view of world affairs, the tax structure, the garbage collection schedule, or any of the myriad earthshaking events which daily compete for my attention. My mountains are once again becoming mole hills and I am thankful for that.
Apologies to my loving wife who tolerates my emotional roller coaster rides but hell, it keeps things interesting for her too, never being quite sure what kind of firestorm I’m apt to stir up today- perhaps none at all - but on the other hand ?
So to all you retirees who may read this one day - rejoice, your situation is really so much better than it used to be if you give it some quiet reflection. In other words- free at last, free at last, thank God almighty ! free at last.
For years I have lamented, quietly and at times not so quietly, about feeling purposeless and uninvolved, once again the perpetual malcontent who after being freed from the wheel of real threats and consequential anxieties. I have constructed a framework of concerns surrounding letters to the editor, whether the cats have eaten our offering or is it once again necessary to find another brand, and even more mundane concerns about chores, now elevated to real problems worthy of much concern and thoughtful recollection. Aside from a slight concern that this may be perceived as a mood swing worthy of consideration as a symptom of bipolarism, I am symbolically kicking myself in the butt and thanking myself for this realization.
My last writing (ramble really) now looks like I was trying for the T.S. Eliot prize for self-pity; now seems more of a lament for the death of self-importance. While it contains some valid verities, worthy of being integrated into my consciousness, my awareness of where I am, it is really part of why I should rejoice at being retired, beyond serious consequences should others take serious disagreement with my view of world affairs, the tax structure, the garbage collection schedule, or any of the myriad earthshaking events which daily compete for my attention. My mountains are once again becoming mole hills and I am thankful for that.
Apologies to my loving wife who tolerates my emotional roller coaster rides but hell, it keeps things interesting for her too, never being quite sure what kind of firestorm I’m apt to stir up today- perhaps none at all - but on the other hand ?
So to all you retirees who may read this one day - rejoice, your situation is really so much better than it used to be if you give it some quiet reflection. In other words- free at last, free at last, thank God almighty ! free at last.
ONCE , yesterday
As time passes; we were once held in some regard,
no longer now, not so much as things forgotten,
We exchange hot letters through the editorial page
as if to assert a position entitled to attention
If anyone were listening-
Like opinions shouted across the back fence
at midnight-
A clearing of the throat,
an old habit, a refusal to recognize that our time has passed.
Insistence that we can still influence
Like blind men communication in sign language.
“you may talk of.... but none can compare with the
British, British,British, grenadier. “
It could not, in reality, be otherwise
time to move over, to one side,
time for others to assert their views,
Ignore or be influenced by our advice as
they see fit - but only to a point-
Like politely repeating the mispronunciation
of an elder in deference to his age,
but only that.
Now unnoticed, but still casting a shadow...
a bit at a loss to identify that point in time,
that point of transition when it ceased to matter.
no longer now, not so much as things forgotten,
We exchange hot letters through the editorial page
as if to assert a position entitled to attention
If anyone were listening-
Like opinions shouted across the back fence
at midnight-
A clearing of the throat,
an old habit, a refusal to recognize that our time has passed.
Insistence that we can still influence
Like blind men communication in sign language.
“you may talk of.... but none can compare with the
British, British,British, grenadier. “
It could not, in reality, be otherwise
time to move over, to one side,
time for others to assert their views,
Ignore or be influenced by our advice as
they see fit - but only to a point-
Like politely repeating the mispronunciation
of an elder in deference to his age,
but only that.
Now unnoticed, but still casting a shadow...
a bit at a loss to identify that point in time,
that point of transition when it ceased to matter.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Executive Compensation
One of the leading controversies on the Sunday TV talk shows was the appropriateness of the government imposing limits on the executive compensation packages of those corporations which have been bailed out with tax funds. A moment’s reflection on the fact that the taxpayer now stands in the place of the stockholder as the owner of these companies should be a sufficient justification for these limits.
Stockholders, as the owners of a corporation originally set the compensation of its officers and employees but over the years, the officers and boards of directors, through a series of strategies wrested control from the stockholders and, treating the companies as their own, set their own compensations without regard for the wishes of the true owners, the stockholders. Their view ? If you don’t like it sell you stock. A board room “coup de corps” !
When these corporations who now owe their very existence to the American taxpayer have repaid the government, they can go back to their former way of doing business if their stockholders permit. Till then, they can thank their stars that the government bailed them out and saved their bacon and be grateful that they still have a job rather than complain that they can no longer take home a paycheck in the millions.
Stockholders, as the owners of a corporation originally set the compensation of its officers and employees but over the years, the officers and boards of directors, through a series of strategies wrested control from the stockholders and, treating the companies as their own, set their own compensations without regard for the wishes of the true owners, the stockholders. Their view ? If you don’t like it sell you stock. A board room “coup de corps” !
When these corporations who now owe their very existence to the American taxpayer have repaid the government, they can go back to their former way of doing business if their stockholders permit. Till then, they can thank their stars that the government bailed them out and saved their bacon and be grateful that they still have a job rather than complain that they can no longer take home a paycheck in the millions.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Define A Republic
A recent letter by Jesse James apparently defining our government as other than a democracy, expressed enthusiasm for the study of civics, but omitted the importance of history in explaining government.
Two concerns of the drafters of the Constitution were the avoidance of a monarchy and unlimited rule by all of the people, which they characterized as “mobocracy.” Control was to be reserved for the “right people, ” those with money and property.
Madison defined a Republic as “...a government which derives all of its powers, directly or indirectly, from the great body of the people, and is administrated by persons holding their office during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.” In effect, a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy.
Originally, the Constitution provided indirect selection of Senators by the legislatures of the states . Unfortunately this led to the abuses disclosed by David Graham Phillips in his work ” The Treason of the Senate” published in 1902, which led to the passage of the 17th amendment in 1912, amending Article I. section 3 of the constitution and provided for Senators to be “...elected by the people.”
Initially, the view was that the Senate represented the original 13 sovereign states. This position became meaningless when former territories, which were never sovereign nor independent, were admitted to statehood. Vesting the selection in state legislatures initially was a stratagem to avoid “mobocracy,” that terrible concern that ordinary citizens would control government; placing contol of the Senate instead in the elite property class which then controlled state legislatures.
Mr. James’ disparagement of democracy is little more than a continuation of the “mobocracy” slander of some of the founding fathers and their attempt to vest some important aspects of government exclusively n the hands of a few elitists. The passage of the bill of rights was to foreclose some overlooked abuses of the English crown , not fear of a democratic majority.
The magic in our system is its democracy, and the restrains imposed on government at the instance of the people, not our “aristocratic forefathers” as Mr. James contends.
In sum, there was no essential virtue in avoiding democracy, only a desire to restrict certain critical functions for the Senate, which in turn was controlled by a privileged class, the propertied citizens and providing for the selection of Senators by state legislators. An amendment to the Constitution ended this abuse.
Two concerns of the drafters of the Constitution were the avoidance of a monarchy and unlimited rule by all of the people, which they characterized as “mobocracy.” Control was to be reserved for the “right people, ” those with money and property.
Madison defined a Republic as “...a government which derives all of its powers, directly or indirectly, from the great body of the people, and is administrated by persons holding their office during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior.” In effect, a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy.
Originally, the Constitution provided indirect selection of Senators by the legislatures of the states . Unfortunately this led to the abuses disclosed by David Graham Phillips in his work ” The Treason of the Senate” published in 1902, which led to the passage of the 17th amendment in 1912, amending Article I. section 3 of the constitution and provided for Senators to be “...elected by the people.”
Initially, the view was that the Senate represented the original 13 sovereign states. This position became meaningless when former territories, which were never sovereign nor independent, were admitted to statehood. Vesting the selection in state legislatures initially was a stratagem to avoid “mobocracy,” that terrible concern that ordinary citizens would control government; placing contol of the Senate instead in the elite property class which then controlled state legislatures.
Mr. James’ disparagement of democracy is little more than a continuation of the “mobocracy” slander of some of the founding fathers and their attempt to vest some important aspects of government exclusively n the hands of a few elitists. The passage of the bill of rights was to foreclose some overlooked abuses of the English crown , not fear of a democratic majority.
The magic in our system is its democracy, and the restrains imposed on government at the instance of the people, not our “aristocratic forefathers” as Mr. James contends.
In sum, there was no essential virtue in avoiding democracy, only a desire to restrict certain critical functions for the Senate, which in turn was controlled by a privileged class, the propertied citizens and providing for the selection of Senators by state legislators. An amendment to the Constitution ended this abuse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
