Today, as I sat in a doctor's waiting room, two other patients
endeavored to strike up a conversation, their opening gambit "aren't
things bad ?" Whether they were soliciting agreement or disagreement
was hard to tell but since, predictably, the doctor's TV was set to
Fox News, I assumed the former. I usually try not to converse with
people in doctors waiting rooms; firstly, they are sick or they
wouldn't be there, secondly, if their cue comes from the program on
TV, odds are I will probably disagree with them and thirdly, my
instinct is to either tell them to "shut the fuck up" or pantomime
George Carlin's motion of ultimate dismissal. Most usually, I do a
banal nod and grunt (a republican signal of dismissal.)
Today I felt mildly combative and a bit irritated, so I ventured "how
come?" wearing my I just left the mother ship expression. My first
interrogator, an oriental woman of indeterminate age, turned
immediately defensive, as if she had given an immigration official a
wrong signal, quickly backed up saying " I'm only 50 but I think so,
it's bad.' she left shortly thereafter, appointment apparently
abandoned.
Feeling elated after this encounter, I was primed when a man of my
approximate age, entered the room, attired in a shirt sporting a golf
logo and pricey loafers. To my surprise he opened with the same
gambit, adding "I feel sorry for these young people who can't find a
job." Tough to find a riposte but I countered "I've been unemployed
any number of time's, it's not such a big deal." this had the intended
off putting effect and he concentrated on his golfing magazine,
probably an article dealing with how bad things were on the links,
I remained quiet until my name was called and I went off to attend to
the business which prompted my visit in the first place.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
SAND HILL CRANES
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 ?
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 ?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)