A couple of folks have been kind enough to send me E-mail references in The Washington Post, etc.
While out of town recently my E-mail backed up to about six figures, I think. And that's alright as I receive some truly funny ones as well as some that pull at the old heart strings.
One of those E-mails included a reference to a column by Cal Thomas, who I usually find amusing in his weekly debate column in the USA Today. Cal can be a little churlish - and looks the part.
His column suggested making Congress a part-time job. He quotes Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal who recommended that they should also never be allowed to become lobbyists, reasoning that "when they have to live under the same rules and laws they pass for the rest of us, maybe you'd see some more common sense coming out of Washington."
Obviously, this is not a new song sung by some members of the media. However it , along with a lot of other opinions being published, suggest that maybe - just maybe - the politicians are starting to get the message. If so, some of our prayers may be answered.
Some interesting observations: Jindal, a former congressman, said, "Once elected, too many lawmakers become entrenched in Washington and are transformed into the very people they campaigned against.(my very concern about the recent Tea-Party victors).
Thomas points out that several states have part-time legislatures that meet every two years to consider a budget as well as other truly important matters. One assumes that does not include "posturing themselves" on C-Span.
It is true that there does not appear to be a movement afoot asking Congress to pass any more laws. Under this premise Congress - like the part-time legislature - would be on call "should anything momentous occur."
Is this a viable idea? Let me just say that if this blog was more widely circulated there would be more dissents than the number of blogs I've written - and, that's saying something.
Like a drivers licence is advertised as a privilege rather than a right, Thomas argues that serving in Congress should be seen as just that: service as opposed to self-service. He pleads that serving should be as originally intended - a privilege - but, never a profession.
I've often felt there are two films that should be required to be shown in all school systems. The first is "Inherit The Wind" an examination of "The Scopes Monkey Trial." The second is the musical play turned into a movie, "1776".
A viewing of the latter enables one to understand the dissent and compromise inherent in the founding of our country as well as the events leading up to the signing of The Declaration of Independence."
Perhaps it should be required viewing by Congress. However, the sight of Mitch McConnell in a fright wig portraying John Adams while singing something by Eminen, kind of discourages a re-enactment.
Still, Thomas uses some historical data to advance his cause for more stay at home politicians. He speaks of the concern The Founders had over a Congress " divorced from the realities of the rest of the country."
He quotes one of the leaders, Connecticut's Roger Sherman, during the Constitutional Convention in 1787: "Representatives ought to return home and mix with the people. By remaining at the seat of government, they would acquire the habits of the place, which might differ from those of their constituents."
One of my pet peeves about Congress is addressed much more eloquently by Thomas.
He states "Returning home shouldn't mean flying home for long weekends and then coming back to Washington." He supports the alternative where members of Congress return to a 'real job', where the member cannot raise his own pay, receive top medical care at reduced or no cost, print and spend other people's money - or count on others to pay his retirement fund."
He ends his essay by quoting former Missouri Republican Sen. John Danforth: " I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs. I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country.. We know that we have bankrupted America and that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy . . . .We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected."
Most people admire people who espouse our own beliefs, and in some case, written opinions.
This humble blogger is no exception. If this is the beginning of a common theme to promote healing and common sense, then definitely, 'Things are looking up."
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Absolutely No Truth
There is absolutely no truth to the rumor that NFL Commisioner Goodell was mugged in the parking garage under the NFL headquarters on Monday.
Thus, the follow-up rumor that the Commish immediately went back up the elevator and fined Linebacker James Harrison $50,000 for his obvious involvement in the incident, cannot be sustained.
This past Sunday the officials saw to it that, once more, James was penalized for his hit on the Buffalo quarterback. He awaits word on whether he will also be fined for that QB hit. His appeal of the $95,000 in previous fines was denied by the NFL the other day. Big surprise!
You got to feel bad for the guy if you later watched the tender treatment administered to the same QB by defensive back Ike Taylor and Harrison. The only thing they didn't do was to bring out a Serta Mattress before they jointly grasped ( not tackle) him to impede his forward progress.
I believe I saw one of them wipe his nose before helping him up. Them Harvard grads get all the breaks.
Despite all the criticism of Harrison by those who are not Steeler fans, he appears to be genuinely contrite - and scared. And, I am not being empathetic strictly because his surname is the same as my long deceased grandmother.
Some suggestions for Uncle James as he seeks a new and kinder approach in the remaining Steeler games:
Campaign for the the other teams' players to be required to wear sash like flags that you might grasp thus signifying you have stopped their progress.
Learn to yell loudly, "Look out, ready or not, I'm coming!" before making contact with any opposing player.
Each week, pay the NFL filming crew to send you a DVD of all the "vicious" hits by other teams' linebackers that were not called. Then forward the film to the Commish's office - return receipt requested. If that doesn't work, consider mailing them to WikiLeaks.
When approaching the quarterback, instead of striking him immediately, first reach up and remove his helmet before pummeling him with your fists. The fine has apparently been set at $25,000 - a much more palatable amount than the Price Is Right approach you have been enduring.
It's hard to imagine how the Buffalo Bills haven't won more games. No holding penalties? We had one guy who was assessed four, I think.
No, we're not being picked on? The Giants have now knocked "5 "QB's out of games? Anybody remember the penalties or fines?
There was an interesting letter to the USA Today editor by a guy who was a former high school football coach. He suggested some options to accomplish Goodell's Goodwill Mission. (GGM):
Move the defensive line a yard off the ball to lessen the blow lineman on both sides suffer, thus eliminating or greatly reducing the "launch" damage.
Encourage more "spearing" calls by the NFL referees similar to the high school rules making same a 15 yard penalty.
Declare that if the offending player caused an injury due to a helmet to helmet hit, the "bad guy" would sit out the same number of games as the injured player.
If the injured player is required to sit out the season due to the injury the offending player must do the same.
He reasons: "It is only when players see their livelihoods are attached to the well-being of fellow players that change will take place in the NFL."
Yeah, I agree there are more than a few holes in the above premise; but these are suggestions that may be worth discussing in an attempt to reach some sanity. God knows we desperately need some consistency; and this may be a start.
Of course, that's assuming the "Bully On The Block" ever approves of discussion as a plausible approach.
Oh, and there's absolutely no truth to that rumor either.
Thus, the follow-up rumor that the Commish immediately went back up the elevator and fined Linebacker James Harrison $50,000 for his obvious involvement in the incident, cannot be sustained.
This past Sunday the officials saw to it that, once more, James was penalized for his hit on the Buffalo quarterback. He awaits word on whether he will also be fined for that QB hit. His appeal of the $95,000 in previous fines was denied by the NFL the other day. Big surprise!
You got to feel bad for the guy if you later watched the tender treatment administered to the same QB by defensive back Ike Taylor and Harrison. The only thing they didn't do was to bring out a Serta Mattress before they jointly grasped ( not tackle) him to impede his forward progress.
I believe I saw one of them wipe his nose before helping him up. Them Harvard grads get all the breaks.
Despite all the criticism of Harrison by those who are not Steeler fans, he appears to be genuinely contrite - and scared. And, I am not being empathetic strictly because his surname is the same as my long deceased grandmother.
Some suggestions for Uncle James as he seeks a new and kinder approach in the remaining Steeler games:
Campaign for the the other teams' players to be required to wear sash like flags that you might grasp thus signifying you have stopped their progress.
Learn to yell loudly, "Look out, ready or not, I'm coming!" before making contact with any opposing player.
Each week, pay the NFL filming crew to send you a DVD of all the "vicious" hits by other teams' linebackers that were not called. Then forward the film to the Commish's office - return receipt requested. If that doesn't work, consider mailing them to WikiLeaks.
When approaching the quarterback, instead of striking him immediately, first reach up and remove his helmet before pummeling him with your fists. The fine has apparently been set at $25,000 - a much more palatable amount than the Price Is Right approach you have been enduring.
It's hard to imagine how the Buffalo Bills haven't won more games. No holding penalties? We had one guy who was assessed four, I think.
No, we're not being picked on? The Giants have now knocked "5 "QB's out of games? Anybody remember the penalties or fines?
There was an interesting letter to the USA Today editor by a guy who was a former high school football coach. He suggested some options to accomplish Goodell's Goodwill Mission. (GGM):
Move the defensive line a yard off the ball to lessen the blow lineman on both sides suffer, thus eliminating or greatly reducing the "launch" damage.
Encourage more "spearing" calls by the NFL referees similar to the high school rules making same a 15 yard penalty.
Declare that if the offending player caused an injury due to a helmet to helmet hit, the "bad guy" would sit out the same number of games as the injured player.
If the injured player is required to sit out the season due to the injury the offending player must do the same.
He reasons: "It is only when players see their livelihoods are attached to the well-being of fellow players that change will take place in the NFL."
Yeah, I agree there are more than a few holes in the above premise; but these are suggestions that may be worth discussing in an attempt to reach some sanity. God knows we desperately need some consistency; and this may be a start.
Of course, that's assuming the "Bully On The Block" ever approves of discussion as a plausible approach.
Oh, and there's absolutely no truth to that rumor either.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
STAND-UP COMEDY?
The 15th District Harlem voters selected Democrat Charles Rangel to be their congressional representative in 1970. Forty years later he is still the Representative - having been re-elected 20 times.
He was easily re-elected in 2010 for a 21st term this year despite Ethics violations - the extent of which was only just recenty determined. He is Dean of New York's congressional delegation.
In 2007 - three years ago - he became the Chairman of the powerful House Ways & Means Committee. - the first African-American to do so; and is also a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Thursday, the House ethics committee overwhelmingly voted to censure Rangel for abusing his office and engaging in financial misconduct. Let's try to put this in perspective.
If a Prosecutor's Office of a major city finds that the prosecutors failed to perform their job in a legal righteous manner - there is Hell to pay.
If found to be guilty of violations such as witness tampering, failure to disclose evidence to the Defense as provided for by judicial regulation - or even are guilty of being "mean spirited" - a detailed investigation of their pattern of misconduct is immediately sought.
One outcome is that many of the folks who have been convicted by the Prosecutors office during the relevant period of time - may be released.
Rangel was also "released". He lost his Chairmanship status recently in view of the ethics violations against him.
Despite this there's no indication any or all decisions/contracts promulgated by the Chairman during the past three years will be reviewed for possible revocation. Given the extent of the findings(below) one could logically assume that all legislation and contracts awarded should be careful examined to determine if criminal misconduct was committed by Charlie. "Right!"
In the 9 to 1 vote by the the House Ethics committee (in closed session) the committee recommended he be censured - but, not removed from office. The censure is the second strongest punishment short of expulsion. The findings of the Committee were that he was guilty of 11 counts, of which a few are:
Breaking House rules by using his office to solicit millions of dollars in donations from companies before his committee.
Housing a campaign office in a rent-stabilized New York apartment that had been set aside for residential use.
Failing to disclose assets and income in reports to Congress.
Failing to pay taxes to the IRS on rental income from his Caribbean vacation villa - for seventeen (17) years.
No other House lawmaker has been found guilty of as many counts of rulebreaking by an Ethics panel. Former Pitt quarterback and ex-legislator Jimmy Traficante - now out of jail - may demand a recount from his former Congressional buddies.
The money Charlie was found guilty of soliciting from those companies in interest was to help fund a non-profit college center to be named for him. That amount, again, was determined to be in the "MILLIONS.".
An emotional Rangel had a request. He implored the committee to make clear in its report "Charles Rangel never sought any personal gain." He claimed he may have been "overzealous" in his effort to raise money for the center - but, declared he was "not corrupt."
Reminds one of a President who swore "I am not a thief", and a more recent one who declared "I never had sex with that woman."
The case now moves to the full house which would have to approve"formal censure".
N.C. Democratic Representative G.K. Butterfield said, "Censure is extreme. It should be reserved for intentional conduct". Georgia Democratic representative called Rangel "a good and decent man".
Apparently, the violations committed by Rangel are okay if he is found to be "a good and decent man." Makes one wonder what Charlie might have done had he been indecent.
A voting district which constantly elects the same representative suggest they also see him as "a good and decent man." Who would want to elect a politician who was corrupt?
Perhaps that's because, in comparison, his Congressional District predecessor was Adam Clayton Powell who, in the late 60's, forced most of us to look up the location of Bimini; where Powell spent much of his time as Congressman.
The reasons for the district's decision to replace Adam with Rangel were many; possibly including Powell's alleged threat to reveal Martin Luther King as having had a homosexual relationship.
If the House agrees with the 9 to 1 vote of the Ethics committee, Rangel, as a censured lawmaker - has to "stand" on the House floor as the resolution condemning his actions is read aloud.
Shouldn't be a problem. Apparently Charlie has always been thought of as "a stand up" kind of guy.
He was easily re-elected in 2010 for a 21st term this year despite Ethics violations - the extent of which was only just recenty determined. He is Dean of New York's congressional delegation.
In 2007 - three years ago - he became the Chairman of the powerful House Ways & Means Committee. - the first African-American to do so; and is also a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Thursday, the House ethics committee overwhelmingly voted to censure Rangel for abusing his office and engaging in financial misconduct. Let's try to put this in perspective.
If a Prosecutor's Office of a major city finds that the prosecutors failed to perform their job in a legal righteous manner - there is Hell to pay.
If found to be guilty of violations such as witness tampering, failure to disclose evidence to the Defense as provided for by judicial regulation - or even are guilty of being "mean spirited" - a detailed investigation of their pattern of misconduct is immediately sought.
One outcome is that many of the folks who have been convicted by the Prosecutors office during the relevant period of time - may be released.
Rangel was also "released". He lost his Chairmanship status recently in view of the ethics violations against him.
Despite this there's no indication any or all decisions/contracts promulgated by the Chairman during the past three years will be reviewed for possible revocation. Given the extent of the findings(below) one could logically assume that all legislation and contracts awarded should be careful examined to determine if criminal misconduct was committed by Charlie. "Right!"
In the 9 to 1 vote by the the House Ethics committee (in closed session) the committee recommended he be censured - but, not removed from office. The censure is the second strongest punishment short of expulsion. The findings of the Committee were that he was guilty of 11 counts, of which a few are:
Breaking House rules by using his office to solicit millions of dollars in donations from companies before his committee.
Housing a campaign office in a rent-stabilized New York apartment that had been set aside for residential use.
Failing to disclose assets and income in reports to Congress.
Failing to pay taxes to the IRS on rental income from his Caribbean vacation villa - for seventeen (17) years.
No other House lawmaker has been found guilty of as many counts of rulebreaking by an Ethics panel. Former Pitt quarterback and ex-legislator Jimmy Traficante - now out of jail - may demand a recount from his former Congressional buddies.
The money Charlie was found guilty of soliciting from those companies in interest was to help fund a non-profit college center to be named for him. That amount, again, was determined to be in the "MILLIONS.".
An emotional Rangel had a request. He implored the committee to make clear in its report "Charles Rangel never sought any personal gain." He claimed he may have been "overzealous" in his effort to raise money for the center - but, declared he was "not corrupt."
Reminds one of a President who swore "I am not a thief", and a more recent one who declared "I never had sex with that woman."
The case now moves to the full house which would have to approve"formal censure".
N.C. Democratic Representative G.K. Butterfield said, "Censure is extreme. It should be reserved for intentional conduct". Georgia Democratic representative called Rangel "a good and decent man".
Apparently, the violations committed by Rangel are okay if he is found to be "a good and decent man." Makes one wonder what Charlie might have done had he been indecent.
A voting district which constantly elects the same representative suggest they also see him as "a good and decent man." Who would want to elect a politician who was corrupt?
Perhaps that's because, in comparison, his Congressional District predecessor was Adam Clayton Powell who, in the late 60's, forced most of us to look up the location of Bimini; where Powell spent much of his time as Congressman.
The reasons for the district's decision to replace Adam with Rangel were many; possibly including Powell's alleged threat to reveal Martin Luther King as having had a homosexual relationship.
If the House agrees with the 9 to 1 vote of the Ethics committee, Rangel, as a censured lawmaker - has to "stand" on the House floor as the resolution condemning his actions is read aloud.
Shouldn't be a problem. Apparently Charlie has always been thought of as "a stand up" kind of guy.
Friday, November 19, 2010
FUNNY HEADLINES ETC.
There is a lot of humor in this country we just don't hear about. Fortunately, we have some good friends that keep us up to date. Here are some examples:
"ONE ARMED MAN APPLAUDS THE KINDNESS OF STRANGERS." (obviously, a left handed compliment.)
"CASKETS FOUND AS WORKERS DEMOLISH MAUSOLEUM" (The subheadline: "We had no idea anyone was buried there." (maybe they thought it was a "M-U-S-E-U-M?")
"UTAH POISON CONTROL CENTER REMINDS EVERYONE NOT TO TAKE POISON" (Apparently, we need to produce more bottles with that ugly face to warn us. How about Harry Reid's?)
"FEDERAL AGENTS RAID GUN SHOP - FIND WEAPONS." (Yeah, that'll happen some time.)
"FISH NEED WATER, FEDS SAY" - (Are these the same guys who wanted me to invest my Social Security benefits in the market?)
SOME INTERESTING ADVERTISEMENTS:
"GET 50% OFF - OR HALF PRICE - WHICHEVER IS LESS" (See, kids it wasn't just me who struggled with your New Math homework.)
"WANTED: Somebody to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. P.O. BOX 322, Oakview, California. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before." (Yep, you gotta get the good stuff to go on
this trip.)
"HUMAN SKULL - USED ONCE only. Not plastic. $200 or best offer: Dr. Scott Tyler.("Oh yeah! you can't threaten ME about my unpaid bill, Dr. Tyler! I know all you quacks are over charging. I'm no dummy and have a real good head for business.")
"1995 Nissan. Green, Leather, Loaded, Auto start, Sunroof, 4-door, good condition. $4,500. NOT FOR SALE. (Guess, the guy had a change of heart.)
"TOMBSTONE: Standard gray. A good buy for someone named Grady. 508 -375- xxxx. (Grady, any possibility we could talk about that Nissan, too?)
SOMETIMES, IT'S JUST THE SMALL THINGS IN THE PAPERS THAT GRAB YOU:
"Debra Jackson said she likes shopping at The Golden Palace - because it's convenient and casual. 'I don't have to get all dressed up like I'm going to Wal-Mart - or something,' she said. (Hey, I spotted it first and have dibs on the photos.)
Happy Holidays!
"ONE ARMED MAN APPLAUDS THE KINDNESS OF STRANGERS." (obviously, a left handed compliment.)
"CASKETS FOUND AS WORKERS DEMOLISH MAUSOLEUM" (The subheadline: "We had no idea anyone was buried there." (maybe they thought it was a "M-U-S-E-U-M?")
"UTAH POISON CONTROL CENTER REMINDS EVERYONE NOT TO TAKE POISON" (Apparently, we need to produce more bottles with that ugly face to warn us. How about Harry Reid's?)
"FEDERAL AGENTS RAID GUN SHOP - FIND WEAPONS." (Yeah, that'll happen some time.)
"FISH NEED WATER, FEDS SAY" - (Are these the same guys who wanted me to invest my Social Security benefits in the market?)
SOME INTERESTING ADVERTISEMENTS:
"GET 50% OFF - OR HALF PRICE - WHICHEVER IS LESS" (See, kids it wasn't just me who struggled with your New Math homework.)
"WANTED: Somebody to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. P.O. BOX 322, Oakview, California. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before." (Yep, you gotta get the good stuff to go on
this trip.)
"HUMAN SKULL - USED ONCE only. Not plastic. $200 or best offer: Dr. Scott Tyler.("Oh yeah! you can't threaten ME about my unpaid bill, Dr. Tyler! I know all you quacks are over charging. I'm no dummy and have a real good head for business.")
"1995 Nissan. Green, Leather, Loaded, Auto start, Sunroof, 4-door, good condition. $4,500. NOT FOR SALE. (Guess, the guy had a change of heart.)
"TOMBSTONE: Standard gray. A good buy for someone named Grady. 508 -375- xxxx. (Grady, any possibility we could talk about that Nissan, too?)
SOMETIMES, IT'S JUST THE SMALL THINGS IN THE PAPERS THAT GRAB YOU:
"Debra Jackson said she likes shopping at The Golden Palace - because it's convenient and casual. 'I don't have to get all dressed up like I'm going to Wal-Mart - or something,' she said. (Hey, I spotted it first and have dibs on the photos.)
Happy Holidays!
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
SMART INSIGHTS
The USA Today has a section of their editorial page that is called "Smart Insights." Articles by various writers, bloggers, and people of strange but unknown classification are edited down to about 3 inches of type.
There has been a strong demand for this blogger to do the same. But, did anyone ever demand that of Michener? Of course not.
Well, this non-famous blogger ( and definitely not Mitchner quality) will attempt to do that. Following is word for word the edited version of an article by Evan Thomas in Newsweek.
"With the possible exception of FDR in wartime, presidents have been careful not to demand too much. And broadly speaking, American popular culture is not very amenable to sacrifice, to choosing the harder right over the easier wrong, as our sterner parents and grandparents might have said.
We have built a society of safety nets, a lawyer-constructed web where no one really has to take responsibility, where there's always someone else to blame, where all the children are above average, or at least deserve a trophy for participation. . . . But, deep down, I think people are perfectly aware that something has to change."
There is a thin line of light at the end of the post-election tunnel. We are hearing indications that the banning of "earmarks" - the pork belly movement - may be in our future. Even old "Mitch The Republican" seems willing to hear arguments in favor of doing that.
We are too jaded to accept that there won't be a trick play - or end run - before "the end of the game". But, if not, it's a good sign people are starting to listen to the voters.
Me? I'm just going to wait and see how the Charlie Rangel soap opera plays out. The head of the ethics committee said yesterday that Charlie was guilty of nothing more than some sloppy bookkeeping.
If that position is allowed to influence the outcome then we have yet another vote for "same-o same-o" Let's hope there are enough people on the committee capable of demonstrating "smart insights."
There has been a strong demand for this blogger to do the same. But, did anyone ever demand that of Michener? Of course not.
Well, this non-famous blogger ( and definitely not Mitchner quality) will attempt to do that. Following is word for word the edited version of an article by Evan Thomas in Newsweek.
"With the possible exception of FDR in wartime, presidents have been careful not to demand too much. And broadly speaking, American popular culture is not very amenable to sacrifice, to choosing the harder right over the easier wrong, as our sterner parents and grandparents might have said.
We have built a society of safety nets, a lawyer-constructed web where no one really has to take responsibility, where there's always someone else to blame, where all the children are above average, or at least deserve a trophy for participation. . . . But, deep down, I think people are perfectly aware that something has to change."
There is a thin line of light at the end of the post-election tunnel. We are hearing indications that the banning of "earmarks" - the pork belly movement - may be in our future. Even old "Mitch The Republican" seems willing to hear arguments in favor of doing that.
We are too jaded to accept that there won't be a trick play - or end run - before "the end of the game". But, if not, it's a good sign people are starting to listen to the voters.
Me? I'm just going to wait and see how the Charlie Rangel soap opera plays out. The head of the ethics committee said yesterday that Charlie was guilty of nothing more than some sloppy bookkeeping.
If that position is allowed to influence the outcome then we have yet another vote for "same-o same-o" Let's hope there are enough people on the committee capable of demonstrating "smart insights."
Saturday, November 6, 2010
BEING ABUSIVE
One more attempt to address the monopolistic power of the NFL.
Years ago I had assumed the management duties in a rural claim office. The claim representatives all had a certain settlement authority awarded to them. Some, with a more advanced classification received the higher authority. I , as "da boss" had the most settlement authority in the office.
My example this time is of the 6'5" claim representative who had the habit of standing beside my desk and looking over my shoulder as I examined his "emergency need" for additional settlement authority. Unfortunately for him I had studied proxemics- including what constitutes appropriate "personal space", and he was clearly violating mine. I told him so.
My style was a careful reading of the claim file before making a decision. It was tough to do with this guy towering over me. And, he knew it. It was his way of getting a head start on the negotiations with me in his effort to convince me to increase his authority.
I was reminded of the story as I read the sports pages about the NFL's recent flurry of more fines for "questionable" hits. The problem is, as most TV viewers - game officials - and instant replay have confirmed, - many , but not all, of those hits were unavoidable.
It reminded me of my college management studies where the books clarified that many labor unions gained acceptance only due to to the power abuses of management. I'm sure friend Harry would be much more informative if writing about same in his interesting blogs.
Earlier this year NFL owners openly talked about the possibility of an employee lockout if both sides couldn't reach an agreement on a new contract. The union decided to take their first "small" step right before the season began.
They requested the teams to vote for allowing decertification of the union so that a lock out of the players could possibly be avoided at crunch time . The union need not decertify - it just wants the authority to do so. The players agreed.
The NFL's position was "no comment." They were planning their own direct "first step", and it wasn''t so "small." It had to do with money owed by the players. The NFL was to become the ultimate arbiter - if you read between the lines. The move was cloaked in safety concerns The purpose of this blog is not to refute this - only to suggest that there is often more than meets the eye in the nefarious world of the NFL. You may or may not disagree. Just consider it.
Steeler defensive standout and previous Super Bowl MVP and Defensive MVP James Harrison was to be the initial guinea pig. What? You want to pick some third line defensive back to gain the kind of publicity you seek?
Harrison ultimately was fined $75,000 for two questionable hits and then invited by the NFL to come to speak with them in their NY offices.. When he returned they not only did not reduce his fine but added another one for $20,000. Now, he is to formally appeal the first fines. Harrison and his agent as well as Steeler management and owners all have probably a pretty good guess as to what odds Vegas bookies are giving him.
I hesitate to talk about the NFL and Vegas oddmakers in the same paragraph as we all know how strongly the NFL feels about the evils of gambling. The editors of your family paper and favorite weekly sports magazines are apparently unaware of the NFL's feelings as they consistently update us of the game odds daily during each football week
The league has insisted that each team communicate any player injuries - not once - but now twice a week,. One assumes the purpose is to make sure the odds may be more accurate. A teams failure to do that will, and has, resulted in fines for the teams involved.
You see, like the lowly claim superintendent above - the NFL has the last word. And, that's probably as it should be- as long as they don't abuse that authority. The key now is to determine how that authority is being interpreted by the NFL and whether it results in a violation of their limited anti-trust exemption?
Earlier this year The Supreme Court refused to broaden that exemption in a matter of who gets to make hats, shirts etc for the NFL. The NFL had precipitously given a carte-blanche authority to Reebok to do that in exchange for a pittance of some size; we can only imagine. The little guy, manufacturer American Needle took them on and won, claiming that the NFL violated anti-trust laws.
The NFL tells us daily that they have replaced baseball as "The American Pastime" - and now it's seeking to acquire baseball's blanket anti-trust exemption as well. Don't expect them to give up.
Following the Court's decision NFLPA (players) executive director Demaurice Smith said in a statement:
"Today's Supreme Court ruling is not only a win for the players past, present, and future, but, a win for the fans. While the NFLPA and the players of the NFL are pleased with the ruling, we remain focused on reaching a fair and equitable CBA (colelctive bargaining agreement.) We hope that today also marks a renewed effort by the NFL to bargain in good faith and avoid a lockout."
Back to the fines. The NFL apparently has the sole authority to fine folks and to determine for how much, based on what three men feel is an "illegal hit". It is not being left to people willing to put on a uniform and run up and down a NFL field.
These folks are called "officials" - and they aren't seeing the same thing the folks up in the ivory tower are seeing. Why should they? Maybe because they're not the ones preparing for negotiations down the road with the players association? Like a courtroom attorney the NFL has made their opening statement via their inexplicable refusal to stop fining the players "without further review" by an impartial panel.
This "holy trinity" has made clear their unwillingness to accept any unbiased judgment to work toward a resolution of a problem that is very real. They have couched their actions as "a determination that no football player will sustain permanent and disabling injuries as a result of playing this game." Noble aim - if consistently applied. Recall the video games and your ads.
No real fan wants to see a ball player permanently disabled as a result of an illegal hit. Unfortunately, there appears to be disagreement as to what constitutes just that. The NFL, in their early flurry of labor/management negotiations has jumped on the injury issue quicker than the guy who insists you tell everybody yes or no whether you have stopped beating your mother.
What? It's coincidental to raise the issue now they are negotiating a new contract? Apparently, we'll save the issue of the height of the players socks for other times of crisis. Oh, and then there's the support they're giving regarding the owners agreed upon decision to expand the regular season by two more games? Maybe those two will be "flag football?"
Steelers safety Troy Polamaulu had a reasojnable suggestion to have a panel - removed from the current triumvirate - to be in charge of "second guessing." The NFL remained silent.
Don't you think it's strange that we live in a country that prides itself on free speech - but in dealings with the NFL, "it ain't free"? If there is any verbal disagreement with the NFL by players - coaches - and even some owners - they may well be fined in a very high amount. There is no consistency in the amount of the fine . It's decided by the same people from whom a clarification was being sought by the supposed "speech offenders".
And, you don't think we're in trouble? Making the NFL judge and jury doesn't bother you?
Surely there is no 100% employment of attorneys in the USA.. Someone must be available to examine what, on the surface, appears to be a clear incentive for the NFL to be abusive.
How is this different than the town bully that sucker punched you. You know, the guy who insisted you tripped and fell into his fist - 26 times.
So what leverage do the NFLPA folks have. How about a walkout? Seems to be a lot of that going around. Would decertification change the game rules? One suspects that the NFL players would be happier to contribute to this effort than pay the fines being taken out of their pocket by the NFL , who simply refuse to consider alternatives.
Truly, you're not bothered by "three suits" who have decided they are omnipotent? Wait until the lockout. Not worried? Sort of like the adage, "I cried about having no shoes until I met a man with no legs."
This is a case of abuse by the NFL and our chances of getting them to stop is like convincing Congress - earmarks are bad..
(This blog has been in a rough draft unpublished form for a few days. We now read that NFLPA executive director has joined in support for Polamaus alternative plan. Let the game begin!)
Years ago I had assumed the management duties in a rural claim office. The claim representatives all had a certain settlement authority awarded to them. Some, with a more advanced classification received the higher authority. I , as "da boss" had the most settlement authority in the office.
My example this time is of the 6'5" claim representative who had the habit of standing beside my desk and looking over my shoulder as I examined his "emergency need" for additional settlement authority. Unfortunately for him I had studied proxemics- including what constitutes appropriate "personal space", and he was clearly violating mine. I told him so.
My style was a careful reading of the claim file before making a decision. It was tough to do with this guy towering over me. And, he knew it. It was his way of getting a head start on the negotiations with me in his effort to convince me to increase his authority.
I was reminded of the story as I read the sports pages about the NFL's recent flurry of more fines for "questionable" hits. The problem is, as most TV viewers - game officials - and instant replay have confirmed, - many , but not all, of those hits were unavoidable.
It reminded me of my college management studies where the books clarified that many labor unions gained acceptance only due to to the power abuses of management. I'm sure friend Harry would be much more informative if writing about same in his interesting blogs.
Earlier this year NFL owners openly talked about the possibility of an employee lockout if both sides couldn't reach an agreement on a new contract. The union decided to take their first "small" step right before the season began.
They requested the teams to vote for allowing decertification of the union so that a lock out of the players could possibly be avoided at crunch time . The union need not decertify - it just wants the authority to do so. The players agreed.
The NFL's position was "no comment." They were planning their own direct "first step", and it wasn''t so "small." It had to do with money owed by the players. The NFL was to become the ultimate arbiter - if you read between the lines. The move was cloaked in safety concerns The purpose of this blog is not to refute this - only to suggest that there is often more than meets the eye in the nefarious world of the NFL. You may or may not disagree. Just consider it.
Steeler defensive standout and previous Super Bowl MVP and Defensive MVP James Harrison was to be the initial guinea pig. What? You want to pick some third line defensive back to gain the kind of publicity you seek?
Harrison ultimately was fined $75,000 for two questionable hits and then invited by the NFL to come to speak with them in their NY offices.. When he returned they not only did not reduce his fine but added another one for $20,000. Now, he is to formally appeal the first fines. Harrison and his agent as well as Steeler management and owners all have probably a pretty good guess as to what odds Vegas bookies are giving him.
I hesitate to talk about the NFL and Vegas oddmakers in the same paragraph as we all know how strongly the NFL feels about the evils of gambling. The editors of your family paper and favorite weekly sports magazines are apparently unaware of the NFL's feelings as they consistently update us of the game odds daily during each football week
The league has insisted that each team communicate any player injuries - not once - but now twice a week,. One assumes the purpose is to make sure the odds may be more accurate. A teams failure to do that will, and has, resulted in fines for the teams involved.
You see, like the lowly claim superintendent above - the NFL has the last word. And, that's probably as it should be- as long as they don't abuse that authority. The key now is to determine how that authority is being interpreted by the NFL and whether it results in a violation of their limited anti-trust exemption?
Earlier this year The Supreme Court refused to broaden that exemption in a matter of who gets to make hats, shirts etc for the NFL. The NFL had precipitously given a carte-blanche authority to Reebok to do that in exchange for a pittance of some size; we can only imagine. The little guy, manufacturer American Needle took them on and won, claiming that the NFL violated anti-trust laws.
The NFL tells us daily that they have replaced baseball as "The American Pastime" - and now it's seeking to acquire baseball's blanket anti-trust exemption as well. Don't expect them to give up.
Following the Court's decision NFLPA (players) executive director Demaurice Smith said in a statement:
"Today's Supreme Court ruling is not only a win for the players past, present, and future, but, a win for the fans. While the NFLPA and the players of the NFL are pleased with the ruling, we remain focused on reaching a fair and equitable CBA (colelctive bargaining agreement.) We hope that today also marks a renewed effort by the NFL to bargain in good faith and avoid a lockout."
Back to the fines. The NFL apparently has the sole authority to fine folks and to determine for how much, based on what three men feel is an "illegal hit". It is not being left to people willing to put on a uniform and run up and down a NFL field.
These folks are called "officials" - and they aren't seeing the same thing the folks up in the ivory tower are seeing. Why should they? Maybe because they're not the ones preparing for negotiations down the road with the players association? Like a courtroom attorney the NFL has made their opening statement via their inexplicable refusal to stop fining the players "without further review" by an impartial panel.
This "holy trinity" has made clear their unwillingness to accept any unbiased judgment to work toward a resolution of a problem that is very real. They have couched their actions as "a determination that no football player will sustain permanent and disabling injuries as a result of playing this game." Noble aim - if consistently applied. Recall the video games and your ads.
No real fan wants to see a ball player permanently disabled as a result of an illegal hit. Unfortunately, there appears to be disagreement as to what constitutes just that. The NFL, in their early flurry of labor/management negotiations has jumped on the injury issue quicker than the guy who insists you tell everybody yes or no whether you have stopped beating your mother.
What? It's coincidental to raise the issue now they are negotiating a new contract? Apparently, we'll save the issue of the height of the players socks for other times of crisis. Oh, and then there's the support they're giving regarding the owners agreed upon decision to expand the regular season by two more games? Maybe those two will be "flag football?"
Steelers safety Troy Polamaulu had a reasojnable suggestion to have a panel - removed from the current triumvirate - to be in charge of "second guessing." The NFL remained silent.
Don't you think it's strange that we live in a country that prides itself on free speech - but in dealings with the NFL, "it ain't free"? If there is any verbal disagreement with the NFL by players - coaches - and even some owners - they may well be fined in a very high amount. There is no consistency in the amount of the fine . It's decided by the same people from whom a clarification was being sought by the supposed "speech offenders".
And, you don't think we're in trouble? Making the NFL judge and jury doesn't bother you?
Surely there is no 100% employment of attorneys in the USA.. Someone must be available to examine what, on the surface, appears to be a clear incentive for the NFL to be abusive.
How is this different than the town bully that sucker punched you. You know, the guy who insisted you tripped and fell into his fist - 26 times.
So what leverage do the NFLPA folks have. How about a walkout? Seems to be a lot of that going around. Would decertification change the game rules? One suspects that the NFL players would be happier to contribute to this effort than pay the fines being taken out of their pocket by the NFL , who simply refuse to consider alternatives.
Truly, you're not bothered by "three suits" who have decided they are omnipotent? Wait until the lockout. Not worried? Sort of like the adage, "I cried about having no shoes until I met a man with no legs."
This is a case of abuse by the NFL and our chances of getting them to stop is like convincing Congress - earmarks are bad..
(This blog has been in a rough draft unpublished form for a few days. We now read that NFLPA executive director has joined in support for Polamaus alternative plan. Let the game begin!)
Friday, November 5, 2010
IT HASN'T SUNK IN YET (mercifully re-edited)
If asked (and nobody did) what reaction I had to the election results I want to put my two cents in. First of all, "I think all politicians are dogs."
THE REPUBLICANS:
John Boehner -"the Speaker Elect" of the new ruling party in the House, and Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell will now have an opportunity to say much more than: "Not On My Watch." However, if it's more of the same, we probably will tune them out too.
It's doubtful if we are going to see any real change from the Republicans. Few politicians in either party appear to be willing or able to grasp what WE were trying to say in these recent elections.
Perhaps if you have enough money in the bank andhave pre-retirement employment offers as lobbyists, you don't mind being dissed. There are always the corporate jets and the golf outings. Like Liberace said, "I'll cry all the way to the bank."
Today's politicos view "compromise" as a sure sign of weakness
A few days before the election, when even "The Amazing Kreskin" could have predicted a Republican landslide and the chance to steer us in the right direction was apparent,McConnell was quoted as saying: "The #1 priority for Congressional Republicans is making sure President Obama doesn't get re-elected." Nothing about healing the country! Now, Mitch says "banning earmarks is not realistic" The last time they voted he was in favor of eliminating them.
I usually don't pay a lot of attention to Mitch. His appearance always reminds me of character actor Edward Andrews, the crime boss in the "Phenix City Story?
In a recent Bloomfield poll, folks were asked if the Republicans should compromise in order to get some things done - or stick to their positions even if it means getting little done. The vote: 80% to 16% in favor of compromise. Think it will happen?
Most critics predict very little will change despite our best efforts to make that happen.They say, "Now that the Republicans managed to get through the mid-term election with flying colors - their primary goal is to start campaigning for 2012."
To me, Republicans appear to be like the dog in Aesop's fables. Remember? He was walking across the log with a bone in his mouth. Suddenly he looked down at the water and saw the reflection of a dog who seemed to have an even bigger one. As he barked at the "other dog" ' he dropped his own bone. It fell into the water right where the other dog had been standing and floated away downstream.
THE DEMOCRATS:
Democrats are "somewhat" bitter. Think of their mood as one you would expect from a man responding to a request from his ex-wife to allow her "new squeeze" to borrow his Maserati. Compromise? No!
Tis a shame. For two years the Dems were pretty much in charge . So much could have been accomplished for this country if they had put their elitist attitude on the back burner.
Now, once again, the party of the Donkey is acting like one. Instead of calculating how they can mitigate their losses, make some positive changes via compromise, most are running around yelling, "Someone call Ducky Lucky and tell him - the sky is falling!" Pelosi now states - as she bids to become minority leader - "that vote wasn't against the Democrat".
To follow the Republican animal analogy above, the Democrats are like the dog who lost his interest in a previous favorite pet toy until another dog comes over and wants to chew on it.
They learned little from the pre-2008 Republican mistakes. Post 2008 Democrats treated their constituents as if they were the peasants in Monty Python's Holy Grail - with the same results.
Democrat strategists, like many bright people, historically have a reputation of perceiving their constituents as stupid. It's true that many of the party faithful lack the formal education of followers of the GOP. But, that isn't the point and the gap is closing.
We love movies and TV shows that allow us to root for the guys who are street smart - not book smart. Most of us can relate. Many can't.
You may not like James Carville, but he get's your attention. Maybe we need a few more politicians on both sides of the aisle who are willing to crack an egg on their bald domes and admit, "I screwed up." Pelosi: "We must pass the healthcare bill - so, we can understand it"?
TO BOTH PARTIES AND THEIR CONSTITUENTS:
To the leaders of both parties "We know the catharsis of our pleas, as reflected in most election results, will sadly result only in more lip service from you. Incredibly, the light bulb still hasn't come on. Start reading more Mickey Spillane and less Herman Melville & Dostoevsky.
To the Tea party activists:"Sex on the first date seldom results in a phone call the next morning" .
To those people around the country embarassed by their Obama bumper stickers and now replacing them with pictures of ships in Boston Harbor: "Toss out the Super-Glue".
To voters in general: "Stop supporting politicians who appear to be people of "good taste". Replace them with folks whose ideas and actions will "taste good" down the road. You are too bright to continually allow yourself to be deceived. Run "Charlie The Tuna" for President in 2012 .
To the elitists: We understand your 2012 priority is not what's good for the country. It's whether or not you'll receive an invitation and a prominent table at one of the Presidential Balls. If you do -and can't go- please assure us the invitation will turn up on your Facebook page.
Columnist Cal Thomas:"Wouldn't it be nice if political leaders put their country before their own career and all those advocacy groups?"
Yeah, wouldn't it just? But, apparently "It hasn't sunk in yet."
THE REPUBLICANS:
John Boehner -"the Speaker Elect" of the new ruling party in the House, and Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell will now have an opportunity to say much more than: "Not On My Watch." However, if it's more of the same, we probably will tune them out too.
It's doubtful if we are going to see any real change from the Republicans. Few politicians in either party appear to be willing or able to grasp what WE were trying to say in these recent elections.
Perhaps if you have enough money in the bank andhave pre-retirement employment offers as lobbyists, you don't mind being dissed. There are always the corporate jets and the golf outings. Like Liberace said, "I'll cry all the way to the bank."
Today's politicos view "compromise" as a sure sign of weakness
A few days before the election, when even "The Amazing Kreskin" could have predicted a Republican landslide and the chance to steer us in the right direction was apparent,McConnell was quoted as saying: "The #1 priority for Congressional Republicans is making sure President Obama doesn't get re-elected." Nothing about healing the country! Now, Mitch says "banning earmarks is not realistic" The last time they voted he was in favor of eliminating them.
I usually don't pay a lot of attention to Mitch. His appearance always reminds me of character actor Edward Andrews, the crime boss in the "Phenix City Story?
In a recent Bloomfield poll, folks were asked if the Republicans should compromise in order to get some things done - or stick to their positions even if it means getting little done. The vote: 80% to 16% in favor of compromise. Think it will happen?
Most critics predict very little will change despite our best efforts to make that happen.They say, "Now that the Republicans managed to get through the mid-term election with flying colors - their primary goal is to start campaigning for 2012."
To me, Republicans appear to be like the dog in Aesop's fables. Remember? He was walking across the log with a bone in his mouth. Suddenly he looked down at the water and saw the reflection of a dog who seemed to have an even bigger one. As he barked at the "other dog" ' he dropped his own bone. It fell into the water right where the other dog had been standing and floated away downstream.
THE DEMOCRATS:
Democrats are "somewhat" bitter. Think of their mood as one you would expect from a man responding to a request from his ex-wife to allow her "new squeeze" to borrow his Maserati. Compromise? No!
Tis a shame. For two years the Dems were pretty much in charge . So much could have been accomplished for this country if they had put their elitist attitude on the back burner.
Now, once again, the party of the Donkey is acting like one. Instead of calculating how they can mitigate their losses, make some positive changes via compromise, most are running around yelling, "Someone call Ducky Lucky and tell him - the sky is falling!" Pelosi now states - as she bids to become minority leader - "that vote wasn't against the Democrat".
To follow the Republican animal analogy above, the Democrats are like the dog who lost his interest in a previous favorite pet toy until another dog comes over and wants to chew on it.
They learned little from the pre-2008 Republican mistakes. Post 2008 Democrats treated their constituents as if they were the peasants in Monty Python's Holy Grail - with the same results.
Democrat strategists, like many bright people, historically have a reputation of perceiving their constituents as stupid. It's true that many of the party faithful lack the formal education of followers of the GOP. But, that isn't the point and the gap is closing.
We love movies and TV shows that allow us to root for the guys who are street smart - not book smart. Most of us can relate. Many can't.
You may not like James Carville, but he get's your attention. Maybe we need a few more politicians on both sides of the aisle who are willing to crack an egg on their bald domes and admit, "I screwed up." Pelosi: "We must pass the healthcare bill - so, we can understand it"?
TO BOTH PARTIES AND THEIR CONSTITUENTS:
To the leaders of both parties "We know the catharsis of our pleas, as reflected in most election results, will sadly result only in more lip service from you. Incredibly, the light bulb still hasn't come on. Start reading more Mickey Spillane and less Herman Melville & Dostoevsky.
To the Tea party activists:"Sex on the first date seldom results in a phone call the next morning" .
To those people around the country embarassed by their Obama bumper stickers and now replacing them with pictures of ships in Boston Harbor: "Toss out the Super-Glue".
To voters in general: "Stop supporting politicians who appear to be people of "good taste". Replace them with folks whose ideas and actions will "taste good" down the road. You are too bright to continually allow yourself to be deceived. Run "Charlie The Tuna" for President in 2012 .
To the elitists: We understand your 2012 priority is not what's good for the country. It's whether or not you'll receive an invitation and a prominent table at one of the Presidential Balls. If you do -and can't go- please assure us the invitation will turn up on your Facebook page.
Columnist Cal Thomas:"Wouldn't it be nice if political leaders put their country before their own career and all those advocacy groups?"
Yeah, wouldn't it just? But, apparently "It hasn't sunk in yet."
Monday, November 1, 2010
So, where's the satisfaction?: The Village Idiot
I love funny E-mails. I also love some of the others that pull at the heartstrings.
Some contain a personal reference to a Pittsburgh I knew as a child. Some are like the one I just received from daughter Beth, asking me for information. The information she sought was from a Father/Daughter chat we had when she was around the age of 16.
Now, I love my daughter very much. I also love her & husband Larry's four kids - one of which I referenced recently when discussing his high school football injury.
The fact that she now has 4 kids of her own suggests a couple of things to me. There is real satisfaction coming from a daughter who actually listened to her dad back then. There is even more satisfaction that she assumed I would remember what the heck I said.
Beth related that the subject of my "speechifying" was the three types of people she would most likely meet in the world. She said she remembers part of it and often uses it when meeting new people.
Now, she had a friend who was in need of some "girlfriend" guidance. She'd like to be able to impart what had impacted both her and her Dad.
She told me enough that I took a stab at trying to complete her picture using what was going on in my life at that time. Memory suggested it possibly was when I was singing the praises of various psychotherapists whose works had impressed me.
After my brief "stabbing" attempt ' I referred her back to my recent blog on Fritz Perls.
What a satisfying experience! What a great "kid." (Sorry, she'll always be that.)
Not all E-mails are satisfying, as you know. They can often leave you wondering what was on the mind of the person who sent them. Such was the case of one I received today entitled "Why Mr. Rogers wore a sweater."
It came from a lovely lady by the name of Joan . She is my wife's aunt and one of the few people with whom I exchange E-mail who has also been in this world longer than this old blogger.
I read the E-mail and realized it contained some references about Mr. Rogers that I - another Western Pennsylvania native - and fan - had never heard before.
It spoke of a Fred Rogers who at one time allegedly was a rough and tumble guy - a war hero - with multiple tatoos on his body which he chose to cover up with his cardigan- on his kid's show- on the way to becoming an ordained minister.
The E-mail also made a similar war reference to Bob Keeshan - the Clarabelle the Clown and Captain Kangaroo personage. The story involved Tonight Show host Johnny Carson and movie actor Lee Marvin, too.
It was an outright lie and involved more spinning than Rumplestiltskin could ever have conceived.
A check of Snopes revealed that "NO" - Fred Rogers had never served in the armed forces - had never been a US Navy Seal and had never been credited with over 25 confirmed kills to his name. It said nothing about the alleged "many tatoos on his forearm and biceps" or that he was a master in small arms and hand-to-hand combat - able to disarm or kill in a heartbeat.
I kind of eliminated those last allegations on my own. I justifiably concluded it was just the ramblings of some perverted S.O.B. who apparently did not receive enough hugs as a child.
My question of the author is, what was your purpose in spreading this cow dung? More important, "Where is the satisfaction" you hoped to receive?
Is it in the satisfaction that some frail little old gray haired lady will think less of or more of a fundamentally great man? Is it in the anonymity to which you cling? Is your own self-esteem so lacking that you're desperately looking for any possible "15 minutes of fame"?
Was it in the hope your story would continue to be repeated per your: "Send this on, please? Nothing will happen if you don't, but you will be awakening others to what a HERO is made of "
It won't be Aunt Joan who I contacted and delicately explained that her fond memory of Fred Rogers should not be disturbed by the sick mind of some idiot. I also thanked her for thinking of me and my Pittsburgh connection when she sent it off.
In some strange way I think I just remembered one of the three types of people I described to my daughter, lo, those many years ago.
That would be: "The Village Idiot!"
Some contain a personal reference to a Pittsburgh I knew as a child. Some are like the one I just received from daughter Beth, asking me for information. The information she sought was from a Father/Daughter chat we had when she was around the age of 16.
Now, I love my daughter very much. I also love her & husband Larry's four kids - one of which I referenced recently when discussing his high school football injury.
The fact that she now has 4 kids of her own suggests a couple of things to me. There is real satisfaction coming from a daughter who actually listened to her dad back then. There is even more satisfaction that she assumed I would remember what the heck I said.
Beth related that the subject of my "speechifying" was the three types of people she would most likely meet in the world. She said she remembers part of it and often uses it when meeting new people.
Now, she had a friend who was in need of some "girlfriend" guidance. She'd like to be able to impart what had impacted both her and her Dad.
She told me enough that I took a stab at trying to complete her picture using what was going on in my life at that time. Memory suggested it possibly was when I was singing the praises of various psychotherapists whose works had impressed me.
After my brief "stabbing" attempt ' I referred her back to my recent blog on Fritz Perls.
What a satisfying experience! What a great "kid." (Sorry, she'll always be that.)
Not all E-mails are satisfying, as you know. They can often leave you wondering what was on the mind of the person who sent them. Such was the case of one I received today entitled "Why Mr. Rogers wore a sweater."
It came from a lovely lady by the name of Joan . She is my wife's aunt and one of the few people with whom I exchange E-mail who has also been in this world longer than this old blogger.
I read the E-mail and realized it contained some references about Mr. Rogers that I - another Western Pennsylvania native - and fan - had never heard before.
It spoke of a Fred Rogers who at one time allegedly was a rough and tumble guy - a war hero - with multiple tatoos on his body which he chose to cover up with his cardigan- on his kid's show- on the way to becoming an ordained minister.
The E-mail also made a similar war reference to Bob Keeshan - the Clarabelle the Clown and Captain Kangaroo personage. The story involved Tonight Show host Johnny Carson and movie actor Lee Marvin, too.
It was an outright lie and involved more spinning than Rumplestiltskin could ever have conceived.
A check of Snopes revealed that "NO" - Fred Rogers had never served in the armed forces - had never been a US Navy Seal and had never been credited with over 25 confirmed kills to his name. It said nothing about the alleged "many tatoos on his forearm and biceps" or that he was a master in small arms and hand-to-hand combat - able to disarm or kill in a heartbeat.
I kind of eliminated those last allegations on my own. I justifiably concluded it was just the ramblings of some perverted S.O.B. who apparently did not receive enough hugs as a child.
My question of the author is, what was your purpose in spreading this cow dung? More important, "Where is the satisfaction" you hoped to receive?
Is it in the satisfaction that some frail little old gray haired lady will think less of or more of a fundamentally great man? Is it in the anonymity to which you cling? Is your own self-esteem so lacking that you're desperately looking for any possible "15 minutes of fame"?
Was it in the hope your story would continue to be repeated per your: "Send this on, please? Nothing will happen if you don't, but you will be awakening others to what a HERO is made of "
It won't be Aunt Joan who I contacted and delicately explained that her fond memory of Fred Rogers should not be disturbed by the sick mind of some idiot. I also thanked her for thinking of me and my Pittsburgh connection when she sent it off.
In some strange way I think I just remembered one of the three types of people I described to my daughter, lo, those many years ago.
That would be: "The Village Idiot!"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)