Local News & Commentary Since 1890.

Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

, , ,

Avoiding sequestration may depend on back room deals

In Business, Economy, Jobs, Media, National News, Opinion, Politics, State News, Uncategorized on March 8, 2013 at 9:38 am

DEER IN HEADLINES

By Gery L. Deer

Over the last several weeks, political bloggers and cable news talking heads have tormented their mush-brained followers with frightening tales of the pending budget sequestration. As the media spreads yet another horror story of fiscal disintegration, the real efforts to solve these problems probably won’t be broadcast by CSPAN or anyone else for that matter. Actually, it’s unlikely anyone will know how the deals were actually reached or by whom.

Washington seems to be consumed in a cloud of congestion caused and perpetuated by power-hungry narcissists who go relatively untouched by their own actions. More than $85 billion will be cut reaching virtually every part of government infrastructure from soup to nuts.

For those not schooled in political fiscal jargon, sequestration probably sounds less like an economic term and more like something a proctologist might diagnose. Instead the word refers to a series of pre-arranged and unilateral budget cuts to government agencies. The plan was laid out as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011which extended the government’s ability to borrow money.

Preventing the process from going forward is essential if the recent economic growth in the country is to continue. Despite exaggerated job growth numbers, the economy really is improving, albeit at a snail’s pace for those down in the real world. As the clock ticks down to the self-imposed fiscal doomsday, all sides profess that progress is being made but officials never sound too optimistic.

Somewhere in Washington, however, in some dark, smoke-filled room, lesser known but equally powerful political operatives are working the real deals that will settle the budget crisis. These quiet, back-room bargains are a mainstay of politics at every level of government and are often where the real work gets done.

Bob Greene is a noted Washington journalist, author and CNN contributing writer. In a recent CNN.com editorial, he mentions a South Michigan Avenue hotel in Chicago called the Blackstone. More than a century old, the Blackstone was where the political phrase “smoke-filled room” originated, referring to the back-room deals made by politicians to hammer out solutions to issues out of view of the public and the press.

Greene writes, “In 1920, Warren G. Harding was chosen as the Republican candidate for president by a group of leaders meeting there to hammer out a consensus, even as the official convention was in session in a different part of town. A wire-service reporter wrote that the choice had been worked out “in a smoke-filled room,” and it became part of the language.”

Put another way, there are two things no one wants to see made – sausages and laws. The fact is, for the most part, the public only sees what Washington wants exposed. Even though most government buildings are now smoke-free, there are still plenty of back room deals and, oddly, that’s probably how it should happen.

Sometimes legislators and their associates are charged to get the job done and keep the public out of it, that’s why there are elected representatives of the people. But for the last few years, very little of substance has been accomplished because of a Washington steeped in a self-induced state of perpetual crisis.

Millions of Americans will be affected by sequestration if a deal cannot be reached soon. Yet, a bitter irony surrounds the group of people who go unaffected by the cuts – congress and the president. While layoffs and furloughs create havoc for millions of families, Mr. Obama, Mr. Boehner and the rest of their Beltway buds sleep comfortably in luxury unwilling to give an inch of political ground.

Whatever they might say during election season, a more disconnected group of legislators never existed. Stocked with millionaires drawing six-figure salaries, federal leaders have no comprehension of how their actions affect their tax-paying benefactors.  The only thing left to do now is hope the smoke-filled room has an “occupied” sign on the door.

 

, , , , ,

Has Kasich set his sights on the Oval Office?

In Business, Economy, Education, Jobs, Local News, Media, National News, Opinion, Politics, Senior Lifestyle, State News, Uncategorized on February 19, 2013 at 11:45 pm

Deer In Headlines

By Gery L. Deer

(AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall, File)

(AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall, File)

I am by no means one of the top political minds in the State of Ohio – far from it, in fact – nor do I hold any connections that would give me insight into what might be going on in the governor’s office right now. But, it seems to me (nod to fellow columnist Bill Taylor) that John Kasich has his eye on another chief executive office – the one with the oval-shaped room.

While most commentators are crediting the activity to Kasich’s bid for re-election, given the level of his high-handed agenda over the last two months, it is my belief that the governor is planning a run for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, or at least the vice-president’s spot on the ticket. A quick review of the governor’s public agenda clearly shows a noted increase in the number of high-profile policy and legislative initiatives, particularly in recent months.

It certainly seems as if he is doing just what a politician should do when he wants to win over both sides for a broader appeal. He’s riding the fence, trying to appease liberals as well as conservatives with nationally controversial legislative changes such as an increase in the minimum wage passed in December, but largely unpopular with republicans. Dangerous, since he is still vulnerable even in a re-bid for his job, but it’s a give and take.

According to political columnist, Chris Cillizz, a September Washington Post poll showed that the republican governor held a 50-percent approval rating. In December, a Quinnipiac University poll gave him a 42 percent overall job approval, with 35 percent disapproving, his highest marks in that poll since inauguration.

He is more popular than ever, possibly more so than his democratic predecessor, Ted Strickland. But, in the last half of his term, he is upping the ante to prove he can lead in tough times and get things done to improve Ohio’s economy even as Washington remains stymied.

Kasich still has a long way to go with a great many negatives on his desk, among them lackluster job numbers, which are currently below the national average. He also has some outspoken opposition to his “rough” demeanor.

In a recent Dayton Daily News report, Montgomery County Republican Party Chairman Rob Scott, a Kasich supporter, admitted that the governor sometimes has a harsh approach.

“I think what Gov. Kasich has brought to Ohio is that he’s up front and honest: this is what we need to do and this is how we get there,” Scott said. “And he may run over a couple people, but sometimes to get things done, and to do what’s right, you’ve got to do that.”

If there is a possibility that Kasich is looking towards 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then the question is, does he have what it takes first to get the attention of a splintered GOP and second, to win over the disheartened voters from both sides of the aisle? At the moment the only conservative frontrunner for the presidential nomination is former vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan. Once an unknown, Ryan had the national stage, often upstaging his running mate with his more down-to-earth demeanor and likeability among the younger voters.

Kasich is getting national attention for his aggressive policies and growing poll numbers, but he’s still not well known outside Ohio and far too conservative even for moderate democrats. But, he might at least get credit for adding some new Ohio jobs in the near future, beginning with Ford’s pending announcement about a new engine plant to be located near Cleveland. The $200 million upgrade will add about 450 jobs to a plant which currently employs approximately 1,300 hourly and salaried workers.

This announcement comes on the heels of Kasich’s State of the State address in which he outlined even bolder plans to achieve his vision for the state. It remains to be seen if he can get legislators to go along with radical changes in taxes and school funding. If he manages to do half of what he’s set out to, he might just have a shot at the big chair in the Oval Office sooner than later.

, , , , , ,

Hitler didn’t disarm the German people, the Allies did

In Business, Education, Local News, Media, National News, Opinion, Politics, Religion, sociology, State News, Uncategorized on February 5, 2013 at 12:45 pm

Deer In Headlines

By Gery L. Deer

This picture couldn't be more inaccurate. Hitler was a strong advocate of gun deregulation.

This picture couldn’t be more inaccurate. Hitler was a strong advocate of gun deregulation.

It’s an unfortunate fact that many high-profile politicians only speak out about issues like gun control when devastating events like mass shootings hit the headlines. Suddenly, people shift to one side of the debate or the other; with conservative Republicans typically taking the defensive, pro-gun position.

Unfortunately, most of this issue is argued, not from factual evidence or statistics, but from the standpoint of emotion, religious dogma and political position. If that isn’t enough, conservative extremists hoping to insight fear seem to always cite Hitler’s Nazi Germany as an example of what could happen to America if guns are taken away. Sadly, people rarely do any research before they start spewing nonsense like this; again, why let facts get in the way of a good scare tactic?

In fact, Adolf  Hitler did have a gun control policy, one that many on both sides of the debate say looked a lot like that proposed by California Senator Dianne Feinstein. But Hitler’s policy was an addition to gun control acts set up by the Allied powers after World War I to prevent Germany from regaining a military presence.

Quoting Cris Miles, editor of PolyMic.com, “The German (gun control) regulation was in response to the Treaty of Versailles and the Weimar government passed the legislation (not the Nazis).” Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles stated, “Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless.”

As Mr. Miles points out in his own article on the subject, the wording of this policy must sound like the nightmare of every pro-gun activist in the country. So far, there is no national legislation being proposed promoting confiscation of personal firearms. Keep in mind that the German regulations were put into effect nearly a decade and a half before Hitler’s Fascist party took control of the country in 1933. In a strange twist of irony, pro-gun advocates might be surprised to learn that they had something in common with the vile German dictator.

As it turns out, Hitler was a strong supporter of gun deregulation. In 1928, German citizens were granted the right to carry a firearm (applying only to handguns at that point) with a permit but where ownership was restricted to, “Persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.” (That had to be interesting to enforce before the days of the Internet).

The 1938 German Weapons Act effectively removed most other barriers to gun ownership, deregulating the acquisition of rifles, shotguns and ammunition. It also lowered the gun ownership age to 18 and forbid Jews from manufacturing or selling firearms. It wasn’t until the Nazi surrender after World War II in 1945 that the country was once again disarmed.

So, in effect, it was the United States and the Allies that disarmed Germany each time, not the Nazis. In 1956, German citizens were once again allowed to own firearms, but gun laws in that country are far more restrictive than those in America. The point is that America’s leaders are not trying to circumvent the Constitution but are desperately faced with the seemingly insurmountable problem of rampant gun violence against innocents.

Comparing President Obama, or any other U.S. leader, to one of the most notorious mass murderers in the history of the world is, to put it mildly, disrespectful and unpatriotic. Such statements only further demonstrate the ignorance of a few gun-obsessed people trying to make a point from an uneducated, feeble position.

Any fruitful debate on gun control must originate from facts and effective solutions will have to include some better method to keep deadly weapons from the hands of career criminals and the mentally ill. The idea that weak arguments can be made stronger simply by citing events from Nazi Germany is foolish, to say the least, and just weakens the position of the debater, particularly when the history being quoted is so inaccurate.

, , , ,

Harry S. Truman, the Accidental President

In Education, Media, National News, Opinion, Politics, Uncategorized on January 29, 2013 at 10:03 am

Deer In Headlines

By Gery L. Deer

Probably the most famous photo of Truman. (Photo by W. Eugene Smith//Time Life Pictures/Getty Images)

Probably the most famous photo of Truman. (Photo by W. Eugene Smith//Time Life Pictures/Getty Images)

I’ve always been interested in politics and, given how public I am in some ways it’s not unexpected to have people come up to me and ask why I don’t run for some public office. Given my work and family commitments, I don’t really see that as a viable option. If I did run, though, I know where my inspiration would come from.

While everyone else is quoting Lincoln and idolizing Thomas Jefferson, I would probably try my hardest to emulate Harry Truman. My generation probably doesn’t know much about our 33rd president. I know I didn’t until I watched a documentary about him recently. Then I did some research of my own.

Truman is featured in many pages of America’s history book but is most noted as the man who made the final decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, forcing their surrender to end World War II. Upon the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, Truman was sworn in on April 12, 1945, but the presidency was a job he never had any ambition to hold.

Harry was a man of short stature (5-foot, 8-inches in height) but big accomplishments. He didn’t even enter politics until he was 33 years old and, by that time, he had, in his own words, “failed at everything he tried.” As a young boy, he dreamed of becoming a concert pianist, practicing for hours on end. His mother was a college graduate, a music teacher who, to some, probably seemed a bit over protective of her small, bespectacled son.

Socially awkward, young Harry rarely roughhoused or played sports like the other boys his age and he was thoroughly terrified of girls. That is, until he summoned up the courage to talk to Elizabeth “Bess” Wallace, a girl he’d virtually grown up with and finally married many years later after numerous rejections to his courting.

His father held many jobs, finally tending his mother-in-law’s farm before being severely injured and incapacitated. Harry was forced to leave his job as a bank clerk and forget his dream of college to work the farm and help pay off the family’s mounting debt. Later, he joined the army during World War I, where he became an officer. After the war, he and an army buddy opened a haberdashery which later went bankrupt. But, as usual, Truman didn’t give up.

Shortly afterwards, Truman ran for the office of district judge, essentially a county commissioner, in Jackson County, Missouri. Though he weathered his share of scandal in the corrupt, good-old-boy system of Kansas City, his straight-forward honesty and no-nonsense demeanor seemed to resonate and he eventually won a seat for the Democratic Party in the U.S. Senate in 1934. His rise to the second-highest seat in the government came almost by accident and with great trepidation by many in the party.

When Roosevelt died, it was immediately apparent that Truman’s White House would be run quite differently. His “regular guy” persona was in stark contrast and a welcome change from FDR’s upper-class style. His impoverished upbringing probably had something to do with his detest of wasteful spending and Truman became known as the chief of all budget hawks. At one point, he even had the entire White House gutted and refurbished to protect it from further deterioration while also saving public money on excessive repair.

In the end, however, the simple clerk from Independence, Missouri proved to be much more than the accidental president. He had managed to create foreign policies that are still the basis of modern diplomacy, he was one of the first presidents to work towards equality in the workplace for African Americans and he helped restructure the country’s economy after World War II.

I could go on and on about this man, but you should look him up on your own. Harry S. Truman’s is a story of great struggle, fortitude and achievement from a man who many considered a lifetime failure with no focus or ambition. With today’s staggering level of corruption and waste in government, America certainly could use another, “Give ‘Em Hell Harry.”

 

 

, , ,

Equal citizenry under the 14th Amendment

In Economy, Education, Opinion, Politics, psychology, Religion, sociology, Uncategorized on January 22, 2013 at 7:04 pm

14thAmDeer In Headlines

By Gery L. Deer

With a single sentence early in the text of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson established the concept of human equality in a fledgling country. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” Jefferson famously penned, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Ironically, many of the men who signed the final version of the document were slave owners, with no acknowledgement of the hypocrisy they were about to go to war to protect. It took more than a century after John Hancock applied his prominent penmanship to the parchment to bring about a law that would provide the basis for the ultimate guarantee of a free and equal society.  But it didn’t exactly work out that way.

Passed on July 9, 1868, the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in theory, sets equal status for each citizen. The wording clearly recognizes “citizens” as having either been born within the country or naturalized and goes on to grant equal privileges to each with no specifically stated restrictions based on gender, ethnicity, economic status, sexual preference or anything else.

At the time it was written, America was still experiencing shell shock following the Civil War, and it would be some time before full enforcement of the 14th would be widespread. Early on, even the government seemed to be choosing to ignore its own laws wherever it pleased to do so. A large part of the virtual annihilation of the Native American populations within the United States took place after the 14th was passed.

This legislation should have immediately equalized anyone born in the country, regardless of gender or race. But this was rarely the case. Some whites, particularly in the south, rejected the concept of overall equality. Racism and general prejudice ran high throughout the region, becoming violent on far too many occasions.

For those situations not expressly dealt with under the 14th, supplemental legislation has had to be passed to address those issues. But some people are offended that any subsequent legislation is required to enforce those “unalienable rights” already granted by the Constitution.  In their eyes, doing so only serves to solidify the idea that anyone other than the able-bodied, white male was somehow inferior and now needed ‘special’ legal considerations.

Sublime in their fortitude and thirst for liberty, America’s Founding Fathers are quoted by academics, politicians, world figureheads and even religious leaders. But in many ways that honorarium is less deserved because of staggering moral shortsightedness by not extending basic civil rights to everyone. Such a simple act in the beginning may have upended the economy of the new country, but it might also have helped preempt two hundred years of prejudice, war and bloodshed.

In the end, all rights are ‘civil,’ established and enforced by duly elected representatives of the people. Even with the country so divided over these issues, the government still has a chance to enforce the original purpose of the 14th Amendment.

People are always going to be frightened of change. But the opportunity remains to squelch old prejudice and make sure that all men, all citizens, are equal under the law no matter the color of their skin, to which god they pray, or whom they choose to marry.

It may be that no more laws need to be created. Each citizen is already endowed with the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; not as much by their creator, as the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. If it really is the Supreme Law of the Land, it needs to be applied that way. If it doesn’t happen soon, Jefferson’s goal of an equal citizenry will never be much more than a pipe dream.

, , , , , , ,

Congress is robbing Peter to pay Paul … and Mary

In Business, National News, Opinion, Politics, Uncategorized on January 8, 2013 at 8:53 pm

Deer In Headlines

By Gery L. Deer

debt calamityAnytime you take resources originally allocated for one use and direct it towards another, you are “robbing Peter to pay Paul.” Although there’s some dispute about the origins of the old saying there seems to be no doubt about its meaning, particularly with the United States Congress. Given the scope of the debt and the amount of money coming in, perhaps the saying should really be, “robbing Peter to pay Paul and Mary.“

Now that we’re past the overblown, media-hyped and mostly imaginary fiscal cliff, the next challenge is to get both sides of the congressional aisle to come together on how to pay America’s bills.

Just like the rest of us, the government takes in a certain amount of revenue every day and congress decides how it is going to be spent. In recent years, however, money coming in doesn’t come close to what has to be paid out – an issue all too familiar to their constituents.

To be fair, juggling America’s money is no easy task and trying to comprehend the full scale of fiscal goings on in Washington would be impossible in this short essay. So, let’s just focus on a single day in the life of the almighty federal dollar; say, February 15th.

On that day alone, according to a recent CNN report, the Treasure will take in only $9 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, right? Not when you consider the government is already committed to pay out $52 billion. Deciding how to allocate spending is the major challenge taking into account the kinds of bills that need to be paid.

On our random date, February 15th, again from the CNN report, America’s bills include $30 billion in interest on the national debt; $6.8 billion in IRS refunds; $3.5 billion in federal salaries and benefits; $2.7 billion in military active pay; $2.3 billion in Medicare and Medicaid payments; $1.5 billion to defense vendors; $1.1 billion in safety net spending, including for food stamps and unemployment benefits; and $4.4 billion in other spending.

Just like balancing your home checkbook, there is only so much money to go around and you have to decide what to pay and when. The stakes are a bit higher at the federal level, of course. If you don’t pay your electric bill the power company disconnects you. It’s inconvenient, but unless you’re on some kind of life-sustaining device, you aren’t likely to die from it.

If congress fails to pay Medicare or Medicaid or the salaries of our military, it becomes far more than an inconvenience. People could lose their homes, hospitalization and child support.

That said, the danger is also a bit over dramatized for the evening news. What happens next is a game of musical bucks, shifting and reallocating funds from one program or department to another until the immediate needs are covered without causing too much uproar in the area from which the money originated. Sound familiar?

It should. This is how most middle-class families balance their budgets every month; choosing which bills get paid over the ones that are less urgent. It’s more about weighing consequences and trying to keep from adding more debt to the pile than actually paying off the amount owed.

The debt ceiling is one of the determining factors in reallocating resources. If the debt ceiling is higher, they get more time to cover certain bills, thus allowing them to pay other, more critical ones.

Every bill passed by congress has “pork” in it; pet project funding that really benefits no one but the congressman or senator who sponsored it. In most cases elimination of that kind of spending would ratchet up the country’s bank account and allow more debt to be paid down, instead of using it for a study like how long it takes a cockroach to eat a bar of chocolate.

Congress has several fiscal deadlines coming up and, as usual, Democrats and Republicans are already posturing to gain ground before debate even begins. But in the end, the American people will be the ones paying the price; higher taxes, higher energy costs and more wasted money on a congress that has simply failed to do its job.

 

, , , , , ,

Hooper’s Les Miserables film may set a theatrical precedent

In Business, Children and Family, Economy, Education, Entertainment, Media, National News, Opinion, psychology, sociology, Technology, Theatre on January 2, 2013 at 11:20 am

lesmisDeer In Headlines

By Gery L. Deer

Over the holidays, I was compelled to see the new movie, Les Miserables, based on the musical theatre version of the 1862 novel by Victor Hugo. In this big-budget film, director Tom Hooper’s version of Les Mis, as it is known colloquially, has set a precedent for helping to expose the masses to quality musical theatre without having to know that the word “gallery” is just rich people theatre speak for “nosebleed seats.”

In case you haven’t seen the show or read the novel, here’s the Reader’s Digest version. The story follows the plight of petty thief Jean Valjean the 1800’s when France was on the brink of revolution.

After breaking his parole, Valjean struggles to rebuild his life under assumed names as he is relentlessly pursued by police inspector Javert. He eventually winds up raising the daughter of a woman for whose death he felt ultimately responsible and finds himself tangled in the beginnings of the French Revolution.

Hugo’s novel was adapted into musical theatre in Paris in 1980 using music written by Claude-Michel Schönberg and original French lyrics by Alain Boublil and Jean-Marc Natel, as well as an English-language libretto by Herbert Kretzmer. Over the last 30-odd years, it’s been one of the most successful musicals of all time and the producers of this new film have made every effort to bring the sights and sounds of the stage show to the silver screen and to a wider audience.

Instead of having the actors lip-sync to a recorded track and overlay the vocals later, director Tom Hooper attempted something that hasn’t been done since the infancy of the industry. All of the singing parts were recorded as they were shot, right along with the video, just as if the audience was watching it happen live on stage.

The result was a wonderful mixture of visual and audio effects that brought the audience closer to the actors and the emotion of the story than could have ever been achieved before. But technical innovation was not the only potentially ground-breaking achievement demonstrated by this movie.

There is a direct correlation between the progress of a society and advancement in the arts. Unfortunately, in most countries including the United States, high quality theatre productions are often inaccessible but to the elite wealthiest few because of the staggeringly high ticket prices.

Occasionally, there will be lower-priced seating on lesser-known shows or locally produced events, but Broadway-quality performances are still usually out of reach of the average middle class, particularly once you factor in parking and other associated expenses.

Of course, organizers constantly tout that theatre should be available to everyone but the prices remain astronomical. However, Hooper’s Les Mis film may change that. For the price of one mezzanine seat at the theater, a family of four can go to a matinee movie or, later on, buy or rent the video of the production at a substantially lesser cost.

The challenge for filmmakers will be to create quality productions that mirror the stage show. In the case of Les Miserables, Hooper has captured the intent of the production and combined it with the grandeur available on the big screen and, in doing so, has the potential to reach millions more audience members than his stage-bound counterparts.

As so many people complain about the quality of today’s movies and television, Hooper’s version of Les Miserables provides a welcome respite from the violence and repetition in today’s mass entertainment industry.

As for my experience, it was fascinating. At the end of the movie when the final note was sung, there wasn’t a dry eye in the house and the audience broke into applause, just as if all of the actors were there to hear them. It was really something to see.

Nothing will ever replace the experience of seeing a live production on stage. But, at that moment I realized that films like this could change the face of theatre in the digital age and bring high quality shows more accessible to everyone.

, , , , ,

Stop the presses. Please?

In Children and Family, Entertainment, Media, Opinion, Politics, psychology, sociology, Technology, television, Uncategorized on December 18, 2012 at 10:41 am

mic1DEER IN HEADLINES

By Gery L. Deer

Following the horrific shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, I’ve debated whether to weigh in as yet another part of the media’s relentless armchair quarterbacking of the tragedy. When I finally decided to write about it, I thought I’d take a slightly different approach. Even though I am a part of the machinery of the American press, I believe they deserve a scolding.

From the moment the news hit the wires that a gunman had opened fire at Sandy Hook Elementary, the press has been relentless in its coverage. Every media outlet has surpassed the necessary “news” aspects of the story, as each tries to scoop the other with grotesque detail, or by displaying the most painful tale from surviving parents and children.

None of this is necessary. As Newtown tries to begin what is certain to be a long and difficult recovery from these events, it has become a media circus. Completely oblivious to how invasive and unwelcome they are, television news programs are broadcasting remotely from every open parking lot, thrusting microphones and cameras into the faces of grieving parents and neighbors.

If the pointless commentary by coffee mug wielding morning show hosts isn’t enough to make you sad for the state of our news agencies, factor in that both sides of the gun control debate are using this awful event as a pulpit for their ridiculous agendas. Other commentators suggested the shooting would distract the public from the Fiscal Cliff debate. Apparently, the ignorance of such an unprofessional media just continues to flow. Politicizing such unspeakable tragedy is reprehensible and, for lack of a stronger word, moronic in the highest degree.

Additionally, when the media gives exploiters a platform, they are just as guilty. While the American press has the responsibility to report, they also have an equal liability to know when enough is enough and let respect and good taste outweigh greed for ratings gold.

No matter how many guest experts are interviewed or what level of speculation goes into the motivations of the troubled man who pulled the trigger, or even how many cameras are shoved into the faces of survivors, we may never know the real reasons why these things happen. Endlessly debating the issue on morning talk shows will do nothing more than provide a better plan for the next unstable loner to do it more efficiently.

As the days and weeks pass, the frenzy will die down and Newtown residents will be left to deal with things on their own. Unfortunately, because of the nature of this event and our country’s twisted fascination with mass murder and other horrific crimes, the families will be faced with constant reminders in the media, books, online, everywhere. They will have something in common with those who lost loved ones in the Twin Towers on 9/11. They will forever be forced to relive that day over and over because of the public’s sick thirst for grotesque detail.

From my point of view, this will happen again; not because of guns or some madman’s quest for power but because our nation aggrandizes the killer and the event. It’s likely that there are more mentally ill people out there who see an act of deadly aggression as his or her only way to get noticed and distort that undying craving for attention into an internally-driven martyr complex.

Those who guard our schools, theatres and malls need to be on the alert, now more than ever. Thanks in no small part to the media’s continuous exposition, somewhere out there, sitting quietly in a dark room, the next shooter is deteriorating into madness and admiring the mayhem of this most recent horror.

Make no mistake – I do not blame the media for the acts of a madman. But I do blame them for their lack of good taste and journalistic judgment. We are lucky to have a free press, but there is a point where complete coverage becomes blatant commercialization and exploitation of tragedy.

 

 

, , , , ,

Don’t Sweat the Holidays

In Children and Family, Entertainment, Food, Opinion, Religion, Senior Lifestyle, sociology, Uncategorized on December 11, 2012 at 12:27 pm

hopDeer In Headlines
By Gery L. Deer

Every year about this time, people wrap up their Christmas shopping, attend uncomfortable social functions and worry about New Year’s resolutions they have no intention of keeping. It’s a stressful time emotionally, financially and socially. In the end, Darwinian Theory incarnate enables one to reach the finish line of January 1st without a nervous breakdown – survival of the fittest, beginning with Christmas parties.

Between family gatherings and holiday office parties, we spend about half our free time in December enduring the company of people we don’t necessarily like or want to be around the rest of the time. The point of all of this unwarranted schmoozing varies depending on your particular position in society.

If you’re a corporate exec hosting an event, you’re expected to make a good show of the holidays, pretending that you’re generous and thoughtful to those whose backs you stepped on in order to get where you are today. As an underling, you’re required to fain some misplaced exposition of loyalty to people who neither appreciate your hard work and long hours nor identify with your problems just trying to make ends meet. Of course, the ridiculous doesn’t stop there.

I debated whether to even mention fruitcake. It seems like a trite and highly over-dramatized topic, but still may warrant some scrutiny. It’s not the actual fruitcake that should be considered, but what it represents. Along with the late Twinkie, the fruitcake has been touted as one of the few sources of food, if you can call it that, which might actually survive after a nuclear disaster.

In truth, the fruitcake is a symbol of the requirement bestowed on today’s society that we give – and give a lot – to people we don’t even like. Now there are people out there for whom fruitcake is a genuine treat, they may be in need of some psychiatric help, but they do exist. But giving the fruitcake because it’s an easy buy in fulfillment of the gift requirement is just ridiculous.

Along with the requisite gifts comes a host of holiday cards clogging the mailbox from people you don’t talk to any other time but to whom you are now suddenly obligated to return the gesture in a never-ending cycle of artificial sentiment. The constant worry over whether to send a “Christmas” card or more generic holiday greeting is maddening. Get over it already. How offensive could it be to receive a note that wishes someone good cheer? Apparently it offends a great many people, but not enough for me to worry about.

Outdoors, we inevitably decorate the house in hopes of being noticed by some neighborhood committee arbitrarily voting on who shelled out the most for new LED light strings, to say nothing of excessive electric bills. In a variation of the “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality, each house along the street progresses with increasing gaudiness, ranging from a lighted reindeer whose flashing lights on its legs make it appear to be running, to two-story, inflatable representations of the Nativity which look like they would be more at home at the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. And the list goes on.

Now all of this might seem a little cynical and, at some point, everyone thinks about this stuff but most people would never admit to any of it. We’re generally happy just going along with everything and continuing in the repetitive traditions of our families or friends. In the end, the holidays were meant as a time of celebration but for many they can bring depression, anxiety and frustration. Recognizing the causes of these feelings can be a first step in easing them a bit, before they thoroughly take over.

Some things you just have to accept. There are the haves and the have-nots, along with those who don’t care one way or another. Christmas, Hanukkah, Solstice, or whatever you celebrate, don’t forget the point and, like the saying goes, “Don’t sweat the small stuff.”

 

, , , , , , ,

Christmas trees represent peace and goodwill

In Education, Entertainment, Health, Media, National News, Opinion, Politics, psychology, Religion, sociology on December 3, 2012 at 11:55 pm

Deer In Headlines

By Gery L. Deer

1836 sketch of a Christmas tree in America

1836 sketch of a Christmas tree in America

Are you offended by the term, “Christmas” tree? Or, on the other hand, maybe you get upset when someone refers to a “holiday” tree? Whatever your viewpoint, you might be surprised to learn that until the 1840’s, the Christmas tree was virtually nonexistent in America and largely considered a pagan symbol. Like many other Christian images and traditions, the tree was borrowed from earlier beliefs.

In fact, leaders of early New England Puritan societies preached against what they considered to be “heathen traditions,” such as caroling, decorating and so on. Around 1659, the General Court of Massachusetts declared any observance of the “sacred” December 25th holiday a penal offense.

Only church services were permitted and anything else, even the simplest ornaments or decorations, earned the offender punishment by fine or imprisonment. That mentality continued, for the most part, until the 19th Century when the first recorded display of a Christmas tree in America was by German settlers of Pennsylvania in 1830. So what happened? History.com offers this explanation.

“In 1846, the popular royals, Queen Victoria and her German Prince, Albert, were sketched in the Illustrated London News standing with their children around a Christmas tree. Unlike the previous royal family, Victoria was very popular with her subjects, and what was done at court immediately became fashionable—not only in Britain, but with fashion-conscious East Coast American Society.”

And with that, the Christmas tree was finally accepted in the New World. But why is the evergreen used? As it turns out, that story has ancient beginnings. During the winter solstice, ancient people collected evergreen boughs and placed them over entrances and windows. It was believed in many countries that the evergreen helped to keep away evil spirits, witches, demons and other supernatural bad guys.

The mysterious Druids, the Vikings and even the ancient Egyptians and the Romans had similar tree-related practices. Today, 16th Century Deutschland is credited with the origins of the modern Christmas tree, or tannenbaum, a German word meaning “fir tree.”  Devout Germans borrowed the ancient practice and added decorations to the trees, brought them into their homes and eventually added candles and gifts to the tradition.

In the 21st Century, the tree has finally become the centerpiece of Christmas holiday decor. Some of the largest trees are placed on the grounds of The White House in Washington D.C., and New York City’s, Rockerfeller Center. But as America grows increasingly secular regarding Christmas, people are starting to refer to “holiday” trees, effectively removing the Christian association from the emblem.

As odd as it might sound, given the varied history of the institution, it may be more accurate to share the image outside the Christian connotation. Since the tradition stems from such ancient beginnings, thousands of years before Christ, tree decorating is not uniquely Christian. Hard line Christians may be offended by this idea, but hopefully they can see the promise over the offense. Sharing the practice may open the hearts of those less cordial, regardless of their faith.

Whether to you it is truth or myth, the story of the birth of Christ is one of hope. Christmas is not about the decorations, songs or presents associated with the holiday. It’s about a spirit of good will to celebrate the hope that mankind can be better than he is the other 364 days of the year.

For the truly devout, deeply held faith cannot be rocked by the change in reference to one holiday image. But remember, respect for beliefs other than your own should be paramount if Christmas is to have any meaning at all. Only through respect, understanding and kindness can there truly be peace on earth and goodwill to… everyone. Have a Merry Christmas, a joyful Hanukkah and a happy and safe New Year.