Notes of Concern…..
…… Jackson Blair
BLESS YOU!
When you awakened this morning did you sneeze? Bless You!
After rising and showering and brushing your teeth did you feel achy and thought you might have a temperature? Were you concerned about a red spot on your leg? And did a little dizziness cause you some concern?
If these things happened to you in The United States of America, you would actually consider going to see your medical general practitioner. You would call him in the morning and it is highly likely he would see you in his office in one or two days.
Play out the same scenario in Canada or England and you are in for some surprises. They have health care systems that started out like the one being suggested by The White House for Americans.
Let me cut to the chase:
I do not have a solution for rising medical costs.
I do not have a suggestion for a better program.
I do think we need to manage health care more professionally and with a sense of urgency in our country.
That said, I do not think what is being proposed is going to make anyone happy after it is enacted by the Congress.
I have a vacation home in Canada. I do not have a doctor in Canada. If I awake with the symptoms outlined above, my only recourse is to go to the emergency room of the hospital. At the emergency room it costs $500 to walk in the door, without being seen by any doctor.
Last summer I needed to get a prescription. My U.S. based doctor faxed it to a local drug store in Canada. The druggist told me she was not able, under law, to fill a prescription from the U.S. In order to get the medicine, I had to find a Canadian doctor who would re-prescribe the drug. However, no Canadian doctor was open to seeing a U.S. citizen because of the Canadian health program requirements.
Choices: do without the medication or head to the emergency room with $500 in hand.
Decision: I did without the prescription, which was probably not a good move.
This same scenario would play out for me had I been in London.
Here is another scenario about the rationing of health care.
You are 80 and discover a lump in your breast.
Your neighbor is 40 and discovers a lump in her breast.
In rationed health care, one could realistically decide that spending money on treating the 80 year old was not in the best interests of the program but treating the 40 year old was.
Assume you are financially well off. One of the things your financial success brings is the opportunity to find the best doctor and the best hospital in America to treat your life threatening disease.
Under rationed care, you might need to leave the country to accomplish that.
All your life Doctor Wonderful has treated you in your small town. Under rationed health care, the government will tell you what doctor will treat you, and how long you will wait, and what he will be paid for his services.
I have a friend in Canada who has a heart problem. In our country, as I understand his problem, a bypass would probably have been ordered and would have taken place. In Canada, the severity of his problem is weighed and he is placed on wait list before any such surgery is planned or scheduled. As of today, he has been waiting a little over two years.
He commented to me that he would have been much better off actually having a heart attack, which would have resulted in immediate care.
As I mentioned early in the column, I am certainly not an authority on this subject nor have I done a great deal of research. I do think the subject needs widespread discussion and the proposed plans need to be easily understood by citizens.
I am just an aging American who has serious reservations about the government running anything, let alone a program that will define how I can get health care, when I can get it, who I can get it from, and most importantly: whether I am young enough for them to bother spending the time and money on me.
I urge my readers to watch this program carefully. Do not think of it as a Democrat or Republican program. Insist on knowing exactly how it will affect you personally. Once you have determined how you feel, you had better speak up, loudly and often, or you could end up with a very different set of Golden Years than you might have anticipated.
My last suggestion: see if the members of the Senate and the House exempt themselves from any program they suggest. That will tell you more than I could ever explain in a column on the subject.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
THE UGLINESS OF HATE
Notes of Concern…
….Jackson Blair
THE UGLINESS OF HATE
The recent hoopla over Sgt Crowley, Professor Gates and President Obama, sent me into serious thinking mode. Basically, I wondered why this ugly thing had raised its head and whether any good would come of it.
There was a time in this country when people hated a lot.
Whites hated blacks.
Blacks hated whites
Both hated Hispanics, and they hated right back.
Straights hated gays.
Wasps hated Catholics.
Catholics and Protestants hated Jews
Jews hated Muslims
People who had ancestors on the Mayflower hated immigrants.
Labor hated management.
Such a list could go on for pages.
But I am going to stop here.
And I suggest we all stop here.
People hated mostly what they could not understand. If you didn’t understand it, then it must be dangerous.
After a while the word hate became interchangeable with discriminate. The people we used to hate became the people we discriminated against.
When that got really confusing, we launched into reverse discrimination. And that got a big boost from Affirmative Action, which was a federal suggestion that in order to stop discriminating we discriminate against the discriminators.
And so today, for all the right reasons or wrong ones, we have serious minority candidates for high office.
Currently we have mixed race President, a black Attorney General, the third female Secretary of State, a woman serving as Ambassador to the United Nations, various Hispanics in very senior positions in governments across our land, and many candidates with immigrant pasts moving right up the political ladder. We have at least one openly gay member of Congress and probably a considerable number of closeted ones.
As the old advertisement for cigarettes for women proudly proclaimed: “We’ve come a long way, baby!”
As I reflect on these momentous changes in the way we think and operate, I have a real sense of pride that we as a nation have been able to face up to these prejudices, look them right in the eye, confront the worst about them, and find a way through the ugliness of it all.
I know the battle is not over. I understand that some people still burn barns, put flaming crosses on peoples’ yards, write horrible graffiti on overpasses and the sides of houses.
But by and large the following once clearly easy to find examples of hate are quite hard to find now:
NO IRISH NEED APPLY
NEGROES TO THE BACK OF THE BUS
WHITES ONLY DRINKING FOUNTAIN
KILL QUEERS
SPICS, KIKES, NIGGERS, HONKIES and other less than desirable taunts are hardly heard any more in our more civilized world. Just writing these words, or speaking them, should leave a horrible taste in anyone’s mouth.
Lets congratulate ourselves. We have made huge strides in the social arena. But as the recent worldwide furor over the Cop-President-Professor dust up demonstrates, there is still some ground to cover!
Lets commit to finishing the job.
There is absolutely no room for hate in our America.
….Jackson Blair
THE UGLINESS OF HATE
The recent hoopla over Sgt Crowley, Professor Gates and President Obama, sent me into serious thinking mode. Basically, I wondered why this ugly thing had raised its head and whether any good would come of it.
There was a time in this country when people hated a lot.
Whites hated blacks.
Blacks hated whites
Both hated Hispanics, and they hated right back.
Straights hated gays.
Wasps hated Catholics.
Catholics and Protestants hated Jews
Jews hated Muslims
People who had ancestors on the Mayflower hated immigrants.
Labor hated management.
Such a list could go on for pages.
But I am going to stop here.
And I suggest we all stop here.
People hated mostly what they could not understand. If you didn’t understand it, then it must be dangerous.
After a while the word hate became interchangeable with discriminate. The people we used to hate became the people we discriminated against.
When that got really confusing, we launched into reverse discrimination. And that got a big boost from Affirmative Action, which was a federal suggestion that in order to stop discriminating we discriminate against the discriminators.
And so today, for all the right reasons or wrong ones, we have serious minority candidates for high office.
Currently we have mixed race President, a black Attorney General, the third female Secretary of State, a woman serving as Ambassador to the United Nations, various Hispanics in very senior positions in governments across our land, and many candidates with immigrant pasts moving right up the political ladder. We have at least one openly gay member of Congress and probably a considerable number of closeted ones.
As the old advertisement for cigarettes for women proudly proclaimed: “We’ve come a long way, baby!”
As I reflect on these momentous changes in the way we think and operate, I have a real sense of pride that we as a nation have been able to face up to these prejudices, look them right in the eye, confront the worst about them, and find a way through the ugliness of it all.
I know the battle is not over. I understand that some people still burn barns, put flaming crosses on peoples’ yards, write horrible graffiti on overpasses and the sides of houses.
But by and large the following once clearly easy to find examples of hate are quite hard to find now:
NO IRISH NEED APPLY
NEGROES TO THE BACK OF THE BUS
WHITES ONLY DRINKING FOUNTAIN
KILL QUEERS
SPICS, KIKES, NIGGERS, HONKIES and other less than desirable taunts are hardly heard any more in our more civilized world. Just writing these words, or speaking them, should leave a horrible taste in anyone’s mouth.
Lets congratulate ourselves. We have made huge strides in the social arena. But as the recent worldwide furor over the Cop-President-Professor dust up demonstrates, there is still some ground to cover!
Lets commit to finishing the job.
There is absolutely no room for hate in our America.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Outrageous, Mr. President
Notes of Concern…
…..Jackson Blair
OUTRAGEOUS ,MR. PRESIDENT
Someone on your street sees a person forcing his way into your home. He goes to his telephone and reports to the local police that he has seen someone forcing open your door.
The police dispatch a car to the address. The officers in the police car know only that there has been a report of a break in at a certain address.
They arrive and proceed to the front door. They are greeted by a man. They ask to see his identification.
Up to this point all of this seems quite normal and ordinary and appropriate. Most homeowners would be delighted to know the police had been called, and had responded, to a report of a break in.
Not this owner.
He is Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr of Harvard University. He is a renowned black writer,teacher and leader. He has a pretty good opinion of himself and of his public persona. I guess he thinks a police officer should know how important he is as well as knowing who he is, without prior introduction.
The police do what police should do, they ask for some identification proving he is, in fact, the owner of the home.
Professor Gates refuses to provide the identification.
OK readers, why don’t you think about how this should be handled. What do you think the police should do? Perhaps they should say “we are so sorry we bothered you Mr. unidentified Sir and we are delighted to leave without knowing who you are.”
Then they could radio back to the police station and report that they had indeed found an unidentified man on the front porch of a home reported to be burglarized but they didn’t want to offend the guy so they just left.
In this scenario if the man was a burglar, or murderer, or rapist, he is free to continue on the course he has set.
Did the professor thank the officers for coming, explain the situation, proffer his ID and then close his door.
No he did not.
He yelled at them, and said “this is what happens to a black man in America.” And then he added: “you don’t know who you’re messing with.”
I make no claim to have any inside information on how black men in America are treated. I know one currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, one sits in the Senate of the US and numerous black people serve in the Congress, a black man is a Supreme Court Justice, and recently a black woman was Secretary of State, following a black man in that position.
Frankly, I don’t think that has any application here. I do know from the reports I have read that the police seem to have acted in a reasonable fashion. Their purpose in being at Professor Gate’s front door was to protect him, his family and his property from a possible intrusion.
Now the second part of what the professor had to say is much more of concern to me. The threat of using his clout, his contacts, his power to bring down wrath upon the officers, now that is another matter entirely. It is neither reasonable, appropriate, or laudatory.
But that is just what Professor Gates did.
When was the last time a sitting President of the United States commented on the actions of local police officers responding to a reported burglary?
That would be never!
For one reason, it is not something that would attract the attention of a president.
Another reason would be that juries in potential lawsuits are difficult to empanel because they would know the preference of the President of the United States for an acquittal prior to the trial.
But the overriding issue would be that none of us want the leader of the Free World, managing wars on two fronts and a crumbling economy at home, to insert himself in such a situation.
Imagine you are the officer in question here.
Sgt. James Crowley, acting in his official position as a law enforcement officer, answered the telephone dispatch. The man he encountered refused to cooperate, yelled at him, and then accused him of being a racist. The Sergeant arrested the man.
Up until then, probably an uneventful night for the Cambridge, MA police.
Professor Gates brought on the dogs.
The comedian Bill Cosby commented on the arrest.
The President of the United States commented on the arrest.
News organizations around the world covered the incident.
Do you think they suggest Professor Gates might have overreacted? Did they counsel their friend to loosen up a bit? Did they suggest that the police were simply doing their duty? Did they suggest this was a tempest in a teapot?
Nope.
They attacked the police.
Do you think the professor acted maturely?
Do you think the police officer made a mistake?
Well, the day I am writing this column the results of this situation are in the news.
The professor has been released from custody.
All charges have been dropped.
The professor demands an apology from the police sergeant.
The sergeant refuses to apologize.
From where I sit, the professor owes the sergeant an apology and the President of the United States needs to focus on real problems.
…..Jackson Blair
OUTRAGEOUS ,MR. PRESIDENT
Someone on your street sees a person forcing his way into your home. He goes to his telephone and reports to the local police that he has seen someone forcing open your door.
The police dispatch a car to the address. The officers in the police car know only that there has been a report of a break in at a certain address.
They arrive and proceed to the front door. They are greeted by a man. They ask to see his identification.
Up to this point all of this seems quite normal and ordinary and appropriate. Most homeowners would be delighted to know the police had been called, and had responded, to a report of a break in.
Not this owner.
He is Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr of Harvard University. He is a renowned black writer,teacher and leader. He has a pretty good opinion of himself and of his public persona. I guess he thinks a police officer should know how important he is as well as knowing who he is, without prior introduction.
The police do what police should do, they ask for some identification proving he is, in fact, the owner of the home.
Professor Gates refuses to provide the identification.
OK readers, why don’t you think about how this should be handled. What do you think the police should do? Perhaps they should say “we are so sorry we bothered you Mr. unidentified Sir and we are delighted to leave without knowing who you are.”
Then they could radio back to the police station and report that they had indeed found an unidentified man on the front porch of a home reported to be burglarized but they didn’t want to offend the guy so they just left.
In this scenario if the man was a burglar, or murderer, or rapist, he is free to continue on the course he has set.
Did the professor thank the officers for coming, explain the situation, proffer his ID and then close his door.
No he did not.
He yelled at them, and said “this is what happens to a black man in America.” And then he added: “you don’t know who you’re messing with.”
I make no claim to have any inside information on how black men in America are treated. I know one currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, one sits in the Senate of the US and numerous black people serve in the Congress, a black man is a Supreme Court Justice, and recently a black woman was Secretary of State, following a black man in that position.
Frankly, I don’t think that has any application here. I do know from the reports I have read that the police seem to have acted in a reasonable fashion. Their purpose in being at Professor Gate’s front door was to protect him, his family and his property from a possible intrusion.
Now the second part of what the professor had to say is much more of concern to me. The threat of using his clout, his contacts, his power to bring down wrath upon the officers, now that is another matter entirely. It is neither reasonable, appropriate, or laudatory.
But that is just what Professor Gates did.
When was the last time a sitting President of the United States commented on the actions of local police officers responding to a reported burglary?
That would be never!
For one reason, it is not something that would attract the attention of a president.
Another reason would be that juries in potential lawsuits are difficult to empanel because they would know the preference of the President of the United States for an acquittal prior to the trial.
But the overriding issue would be that none of us want the leader of the Free World, managing wars on two fronts and a crumbling economy at home, to insert himself in such a situation.
Imagine you are the officer in question here.
Sgt. James Crowley, acting in his official position as a law enforcement officer, answered the telephone dispatch. The man he encountered refused to cooperate, yelled at him, and then accused him of being a racist. The Sergeant arrested the man.
Up until then, probably an uneventful night for the Cambridge, MA police.
Professor Gates brought on the dogs.
The comedian Bill Cosby commented on the arrest.
The President of the United States commented on the arrest.
News organizations around the world covered the incident.
Do you think they suggest Professor Gates might have overreacted? Did they counsel their friend to loosen up a bit? Did they suggest that the police were simply doing their duty? Did they suggest this was a tempest in a teapot?
Nope.
They attacked the police.
Do you think the professor acted maturely?
Do you think the police officer made a mistake?
Well, the day I am writing this column the results of this situation are in the news.
The professor has been released from custody.
All charges have been dropped.
The professor demands an apology from the police sergeant.
The sergeant refuses to apologize.
From where I sit, the professor owes the sergeant an apology and the President of the United States needs to focus on real problems.
Monday, July 20, 2009
WHERE'S THE BEEF
Notes of Concern…
…..Jackson Blair
WHERE’S THE BEEF?
We are celebrating the 40th anniversary of our country winning the race to the moon!
Did you remember there was a race?
Do you remember who was in the race?
Do you care?
More importantly, do you have any idea how many billions of tax dollars have been spent on the space program since the moon landing 40 years ago?
Well if you do, that’s great but you need to go back to the beginning of the planning for such a venture and compute those additional billions.
There are reports on the costs of this program. They come from Roger Pielke, Jr. who is Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado.
He states that the lifetime cost of the space shuttle program has been $145 billion. It is important to keep in mind that this figure relates to only the space shuttle and does not include other monies spent on space exploration.
He also reports that the average cost per flight has been $1.3 billion over the life of the program. In his report he projects that should the program be terminated in 2010 the lifetime cost will be $173 billion.
A number of years ago an elderly woman gained fame in television advertising when she went into a fast food restaurant, and with a meatless sandwich with a huge bun in hand, she asked “where’s the beef?”
Today, as we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, more of us should be asking, “where is the beef?” What did our nation buy with the $173 billion? What is the return on our investment?
National pride. For sure!
World peace? I don’t think so.
Cures for major illinesses? Nope.
New residential lots on the moon: nada
New oil fields: not a drop
Amazing new agricultural products: can’t grow anything
I would guess that if we spent the $173 billion on cancer research or new fuel sources or healthcare for the poor we would be seeing some very measurable results.
It is reported that the American people continue to support the space program. Translation from “government speak”: we can keep spending billions as long as they (us) can watch a space shot from time to time on television.
Reasonable people can disagree.
Some of my readers may think these programs are worth the cost. To those people I say: maybe -but not yet!
Those of you who see it the way I do need to start asking loudly, and often, where is the beef!
…..Jackson Blair
WHERE’S THE BEEF?
We are celebrating the 40th anniversary of our country winning the race to the moon!
Did you remember there was a race?
Do you remember who was in the race?
Do you care?
More importantly, do you have any idea how many billions of tax dollars have been spent on the space program since the moon landing 40 years ago?
Well if you do, that’s great but you need to go back to the beginning of the planning for such a venture and compute those additional billions.
There are reports on the costs of this program. They come from Roger Pielke, Jr. who is Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado.
He states that the lifetime cost of the space shuttle program has been $145 billion. It is important to keep in mind that this figure relates to only the space shuttle and does not include other monies spent on space exploration.
He also reports that the average cost per flight has been $1.3 billion over the life of the program. In his report he projects that should the program be terminated in 2010 the lifetime cost will be $173 billion.
A number of years ago an elderly woman gained fame in television advertising when she went into a fast food restaurant, and with a meatless sandwich with a huge bun in hand, she asked “where’s the beef?”
Today, as we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the moon landing, more of us should be asking, “where is the beef?” What did our nation buy with the $173 billion? What is the return on our investment?
National pride. For sure!
World peace? I don’t think so.
Cures for major illinesses? Nope.
New residential lots on the moon: nada
New oil fields: not a drop
Amazing new agricultural products: can’t grow anything
I would guess that if we spent the $173 billion on cancer research or new fuel sources or healthcare for the poor we would be seeing some very measurable results.
It is reported that the American people continue to support the space program. Translation from “government speak”: we can keep spending billions as long as they (us) can watch a space shot from time to time on television.
Reasonable people can disagree.
Some of my readers may think these programs are worth the cost. To those people I say: maybe -but not yet!
Those of you who see it the way I do need to start asking loudly, and often, where is the beef!
Saturday, July 18, 2009
WALTER CRONKITE
Notes of Concern…
….Jackson Blair
ANCHOR AWAY
I am an unrepentant Walter Cronkite fan.
I apologize to Walter Cronkite for making him the story today.
He never wanted to be the story.
From the first day we got a television in our home until today, the day Walter Cronkite died, I watched him any time I could, whether it was the CBS Evening News or the various specials he produced and presented.
By the time this column appears in your newspaper you will have heard everything there is to hear about Walter Cronkite. Being the good newsman, he gave everyone a surprise on the day they announced he was dying (a couple weeks ago,) and then he waited weeks to finish his passing. This provided all the networks and newspapers ample time to gather their stories, line up commentators to go on the air when he died, and plan their coverage of the event.
As Managing Director of the CBS Evening News, he would have appreciated that.
His sense of timing even allowed him to wait long enough for the Michael Jackson hysteria to die down. One could only imagine how all this would have been handled if Walter had died the same day as the “Gloved One.”
Pollsters tell us most of us really don’t like news people!
These same pollsters have for years tried to figure out the Cronkite phenomenon. Most of us really liked Walter Cronkite. We trusted Walter Cronkite. We were happy to invite him into our homes nightly. When he was in the anchor chair, most of us chose to watch him over the parade of others that networks ran up their flagpoles to see if we would salute.
When Walter was in the chair, CBS was in first place.
Politicians tried to get Walter to run for the U.S. Senate from New York. He said something along the lines of “thanks but no thanks.”
Politicians tried to get him to run for President. His answer was the same.
He knew these were people who wanted to capitalize on his popularity, not people who felt strongly he would do the best job.
He had a very clear understanding of what he was best doing.
Walter Cronkite was popular with us because we found him humble, truthful and fun. He had a gleam in his eye, a sonorous voice, and he valued his audience. He respected us and it showed in every newscast.
Walter Cronkite started in the newspaper business as a stringer for the news services, then as a war correspondent, a stint in radio, and then the fledgling new business of broadcast news-television.
He paid his dues.
He made it his trademark not to influence the content of his stories. He never thought we wanted to know, or needed to know, what he thought. He simply reported the news, straightforward, accurate, and timely.
We did not need a panel to tell us what he said after he said it.
We did not need anyone to explain to us what he meant.
Cronkite came into our home, reported the news, assumed we would consider it and reach our own conclusions, and then went home.
As delivering news became sexier, the honchos at CBS eased old Walter right out of his chair. Some brilliant focus group told them we wanted younger, hipper, and sexier.
So they gave us Dan Rather!
Wow. There was a miscalculation.
Dan gave us the impression that he was a star. He was certain he needed to explain the news to us. After a while, he even seemed to shape the news to fit his own personal preferences. Did you think Dan Rather respected you or did you secretly assume he thought you just fell off the turnip truck?
CBS began to slip in the ratings.
We wanted Walter back. They were not planning on giving us Walter so we roamed the television dials looking for Walter, or someone just like Walter.
I wonder who makes up these focus groups. Everybody I meet tells me they liked Walter Cronkite. George Gallup provided the statistics to confirm that sentiment. But someone at Black Rock (the nickname of the CBS headquarters building in New York City) thought we needed change.
Walter and Betsy Cronkite knew everyone worth knowing.
It didn’t change either of them one bit.
Celebrities and common people felt comfortable with them both.
Walter loved his life at CBS. His other interests, sailing and space exploration, occupied whatever free time he had. In his retirement, he spent a lot of time covering scientific stories, especially those related to space.
No one who knew Walter Cronkite doubted that he would have accepted an offer to ride a missile into space in a New York second. He said as much publicly often and loudly.
As a reporter, he could not imagine a better story. As a real reporter he could not imagine a greater adventure. If we had a program for a “Reporter in Space” instead of a “Teacher in Space” Walter might have had the chance.
Lets face it. Walter was not handsome. He wasn’t sexy. He didn’t know how to elaborate on a story or throw a punch line.
He was simply good. He was the best. He loved to learn and to be reporting on historical events. Those of us who grew up watching and listening to him were blessed. He explained the confusing times: the sixties, the seventies, assassinations, moon landings, and wars.
He didn’t craft his news reports to influence us or impress us. He simply wanted us to be well informed so we could reach our own conclusions.
If Walter could report his own death, it would be without emotion, just factual, and he would end his report, as he always did, with “and that’s the way it is ,on Friday, July 17, 2009.”
We will not see his kind again.
….Jackson Blair
ANCHOR AWAY
I am an unrepentant Walter Cronkite fan.
I apologize to Walter Cronkite for making him the story today.
He never wanted to be the story.
From the first day we got a television in our home until today, the day Walter Cronkite died, I watched him any time I could, whether it was the CBS Evening News or the various specials he produced and presented.
By the time this column appears in your newspaper you will have heard everything there is to hear about Walter Cronkite. Being the good newsman, he gave everyone a surprise on the day they announced he was dying (a couple weeks ago,) and then he waited weeks to finish his passing. This provided all the networks and newspapers ample time to gather their stories, line up commentators to go on the air when he died, and plan their coverage of the event.
As Managing Director of the CBS Evening News, he would have appreciated that.
His sense of timing even allowed him to wait long enough for the Michael Jackson hysteria to die down. One could only imagine how all this would have been handled if Walter had died the same day as the “Gloved One.”
Pollsters tell us most of us really don’t like news people!
These same pollsters have for years tried to figure out the Cronkite phenomenon. Most of us really liked Walter Cronkite. We trusted Walter Cronkite. We were happy to invite him into our homes nightly. When he was in the anchor chair, most of us chose to watch him over the parade of others that networks ran up their flagpoles to see if we would salute.
When Walter was in the chair, CBS was in first place.
Politicians tried to get Walter to run for the U.S. Senate from New York. He said something along the lines of “thanks but no thanks.”
Politicians tried to get him to run for President. His answer was the same.
He knew these were people who wanted to capitalize on his popularity, not people who felt strongly he would do the best job.
He had a very clear understanding of what he was best doing.
Walter Cronkite was popular with us because we found him humble, truthful and fun. He had a gleam in his eye, a sonorous voice, and he valued his audience. He respected us and it showed in every newscast.
Walter Cronkite started in the newspaper business as a stringer for the news services, then as a war correspondent, a stint in radio, and then the fledgling new business of broadcast news-television.
He paid his dues.
He made it his trademark not to influence the content of his stories. He never thought we wanted to know, or needed to know, what he thought. He simply reported the news, straightforward, accurate, and timely.
We did not need a panel to tell us what he said after he said it.
We did not need anyone to explain to us what he meant.
Cronkite came into our home, reported the news, assumed we would consider it and reach our own conclusions, and then went home.
As delivering news became sexier, the honchos at CBS eased old Walter right out of his chair. Some brilliant focus group told them we wanted younger, hipper, and sexier.
So they gave us Dan Rather!
Wow. There was a miscalculation.
Dan gave us the impression that he was a star. He was certain he needed to explain the news to us. After a while, he even seemed to shape the news to fit his own personal preferences. Did you think Dan Rather respected you or did you secretly assume he thought you just fell off the turnip truck?
CBS began to slip in the ratings.
We wanted Walter back. They were not planning on giving us Walter so we roamed the television dials looking for Walter, or someone just like Walter.
I wonder who makes up these focus groups. Everybody I meet tells me they liked Walter Cronkite. George Gallup provided the statistics to confirm that sentiment. But someone at Black Rock (the nickname of the CBS headquarters building in New York City) thought we needed change.
Walter and Betsy Cronkite knew everyone worth knowing.
It didn’t change either of them one bit.
Celebrities and common people felt comfortable with them both.
Walter loved his life at CBS. His other interests, sailing and space exploration, occupied whatever free time he had. In his retirement, he spent a lot of time covering scientific stories, especially those related to space.
No one who knew Walter Cronkite doubted that he would have accepted an offer to ride a missile into space in a New York second. He said as much publicly often and loudly.
As a reporter, he could not imagine a better story. As a real reporter he could not imagine a greater adventure. If we had a program for a “Reporter in Space” instead of a “Teacher in Space” Walter might have had the chance.
Lets face it. Walter was not handsome. He wasn’t sexy. He didn’t know how to elaborate on a story or throw a punch line.
He was simply good. He was the best. He loved to learn and to be reporting on historical events. Those of us who grew up watching and listening to him were blessed. He explained the confusing times: the sixties, the seventies, assassinations, moon landings, and wars.
He didn’t craft his news reports to influence us or impress us. He simply wanted us to be well informed so we could reach our own conclusions.
If Walter could report his own death, it would be without emotion, just factual, and he would end his report, as he always did, with “and that’s the way it is ,on Friday, July 17, 2009.”
We will not see his kind again.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
DON'T CRY FOR ME SOUTH CAROLINA!
Notes of Concern….
….Jack Blair
DON’T CRY FOR ME SOUTH CAROLINA
The Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, went missing for a few days. It is hard for a Governor to be away from his office without the press pool noticing. The natural “next step” is to ask his office where he might be.
Now if the office has no idea where the Governor might be, they engage in a sort of hide and seek game. In this case, they suggested he was taking a hike on the Appalachian Trail.
Not a bad try.
If a guy takes off on the Appalachian Trail it is obvious that no one can find him and ask him questions.
Later, the Governor reported that he had actually had a tough legislative session and had gone off to Argentina to drive around and clear his head. Obviously, he wasn’t coordinating his story with the guys in his office.
Not a bad try.
But reporters are never satisfied with the “pat” answer. It was always just a matter of time before they uncovered the truth.
The Governor of South Carolina had, in fact, gone to Argentina. However, he had not gone there for rest and relaxation and a time away from the stress of official duties. He had gone there to meet his mistress. Well, perhaps that qualifies as “rest and relaxation.”
There also was a small problem of expenses being charged to the state of South Carolina for other trips to Argentina for similar purposes.
The Governor has gallantly suggested he repay the portion of his Argentina trips that involved the mistress, but not those portions that involved official business. Bet you didn’t know South Carolina had a foreign policy with reference to Argentina!
Back home, when reporters ask the First Lady of South Carolina where her husband was her response was that she didn’t know but wasn’t worried.
Not a bad try.
We have since learned that Governor Sanford had been carrying on this affair for over one year and that his wife did know about it.
When Evita Peron, or was it simply Madonna playing Evita Peron, sang “Don’t Cry for Me Argentina” I was moved.
When Governor Sanford suggests a similar refrain, perhaps to be titled “Don’t Cry for Me South Carolina” I am unmoved.
It is true that the Governor’s sex life has little to do with his official duties.
However, when a Governor lies to the people, when he absents himself from his office, when he demonstrates such a capacity for betrayal, it seems to me a removal from office might be a proper reaction for the people of South Carolina.
Then the Governor would be unburdened by the demands of his office, could continue to ignore his wife and children, and return to Argentina for an extended “play date” with his mistress.
South Carolina could be happy.
Governor Sanford could be happy.
The mistress could be happy.
As for the First Lady of South Carolina, she would be well rid of him.
….Jack Blair
DON’T CRY FOR ME SOUTH CAROLINA
The Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, went missing for a few days. It is hard for a Governor to be away from his office without the press pool noticing. The natural “next step” is to ask his office where he might be.
Now if the office has no idea where the Governor might be, they engage in a sort of hide and seek game. In this case, they suggested he was taking a hike on the Appalachian Trail.
Not a bad try.
If a guy takes off on the Appalachian Trail it is obvious that no one can find him and ask him questions.
Later, the Governor reported that he had actually had a tough legislative session and had gone off to Argentina to drive around and clear his head. Obviously, he wasn’t coordinating his story with the guys in his office.
Not a bad try.
But reporters are never satisfied with the “pat” answer. It was always just a matter of time before they uncovered the truth.
The Governor of South Carolina had, in fact, gone to Argentina. However, he had not gone there for rest and relaxation and a time away from the stress of official duties. He had gone there to meet his mistress. Well, perhaps that qualifies as “rest and relaxation.”
There also was a small problem of expenses being charged to the state of South Carolina for other trips to Argentina for similar purposes.
The Governor has gallantly suggested he repay the portion of his Argentina trips that involved the mistress, but not those portions that involved official business. Bet you didn’t know South Carolina had a foreign policy with reference to Argentina!
Back home, when reporters ask the First Lady of South Carolina where her husband was her response was that she didn’t know but wasn’t worried.
Not a bad try.
We have since learned that Governor Sanford had been carrying on this affair for over one year and that his wife did know about it.
When Evita Peron, or was it simply Madonna playing Evita Peron, sang “Don’t Cry for Me Argentina” I was moved.
When Governor Sanford suggests a similar refrain, perhaps to be titled “Don’t Cry for Me South Carolina” I am unmoved.
It is true that the Governor’s sex life has little to do with his official duties.
However, when a Governor lies to the people, when he absents himself from his office, when he demonstrates such a capacity for betrayal, it seems to me a removal from office might be a proper reaction for the people of South Carolina.
Then the Governor would be unburdened by the demands of his office, could continue to ignore his wife and children, and return to Argentina for an extended “play date” with his mistress.
South Carolina could be happy.
Governor Sanford could be happy.
The mistress could be happy.
As for the First Lady of South Carolina, she would be well rid of him.
Farrah Fawcett's Gift
Notes of Concern….
….Jack Blair
Farah Fawcett’s Gift
Not long ago there was a television special titled “Farah’s Story”.
I decided to watch it although I must admit that I didn’t expect much.
What I received was so very much more than I expected.
I imagine the nine million people who watched this show left with similar feelings.
Many knew Farah Fawcett was ill with cancer. Some knew her prognosis was not encouraging. Few knew how she was dealing with the disease.
Those of us of a “certain age” remember when Farah came on the scene. She started doing commercials and quickly parlayed her beautiful blond hair and engaging smile into a super television career.
Farah’s first big splash was the television show “Charlie’s Angels.” She starred in this vehicle with Jaclyn Smith and Kate Jackson. The three formed a friendship that has stayed strong ever since.
After a brief marriage to Lee Majors, Farah’s companion was Ryan O’Neal. Mr. O’Neal came to our attention as the star of Love Story and Peyton Place. Ryan and Farah had one son, Redmond. A separation followed but fate and circumstance put them back together some years ago and they were devoted to one another.
Ms. Fawcett was born in 1947. The name she received is an Arabic word for “joy.” Over time she lost her mother. Her sister died of lung cancer. Her father is seen in Farah’s Story and clearly they have great affection for one another and have walked on eggshells since her diagnosis.
In 2006 Farah was diagnosed with anal cancer. As she contemplated the fight ahead, she determined to film it. She wanted people to know what cancer was really like. She enlisted the help of her friend, Alana Hamilton, to film her ordeal.
Such a decision seemed out of character for a television and movie star. Such people rarely want you to see them without their make-up let alone in the agony of terminal disease.
It is anyone’s guess what she planned to do with the film. She was optimistic at that time. She thought she would beat the disease. So she must have been thinking of how she could use the film for good in educating others.
She did travel to Germany for experimental treatments when ones available in the US didn’t seem to provide a cure. She did achieve a cancer free status along the way. Four months after this, as she went for her check-up, she continued her practice of having her encounters filmed.
Unfortunately for Farah, the diagnosis, a stage four metastasis, was not what she was expecting. The news was very difficult. It led to more treatments, more surgeries and more fallen hopes.
All of this was filmed. All of it was shared in the television shoe Farah’s Story. The filming was stark, honest and difficult. That said, it was an honest look at what fighting cancer is like for the patient, and for everyone in the patient’s circle of family and friends.
In cases like this, the patient does not live alone with cancer. Everyone who loves the patient, or works for the patient, or prays for the recovery lives the cancer, too. It insinuates itself into the lives of so many more people than just the patient.
The experience will not be fatal for the circle of family and friends, but it will affect them for the rest of their lives.
Ryan O’Neal’s role in Love Story is one where he is faced with the cancer of the young college student with whom he has fallen in love. There is a scene in that story where O’Neal crawls into the hospital bed of his lover and holds her close and tries to comfort her.
In Farah’s Story there is a similar scene. It was very surreal.
Clearly, O’Neal is shattered by the life the two of them have been living for three hard years as well as by the certainty that the story will not have a happy ending.
O’Neal and Farah’s friends comment in the film that Farah was “positive from day one. Didn’t waver. Was frightened a time or two, but said to them: ‘this is cancer, film it’”.
In addition to the film depicting how difficult each individual’s fight with cancer can be, during the process the National Enquirer printed news of her cancer before she had even been able to discuss it with her family.
An investigation, encouraged by Farah, showed that medical records were being released from her hospital; almost at the same time she was hearing the news from her doctor. This behavior by the UCLA Medical Center and The National Enquirer brought about legislation that keeps these kinds of records from being breached. In the investigation they found 935 instances where medical records had been breached in this manner.
The television special ends with Ms. Fawcett in bed, unable to talk, and awaiting her fate. She put up an incredible fight against a despicable disease and, in the end, she lost.
That said, there were some victories.
She brought down a system of medical information breaches that were serious and previously unpunished.
She showed the ugly side of cancer in its every day form.
She demonstrated a fighting spirit and an incredible will to live.
And in the final analysis, according to her friend Kate Jackson, the golden haired pinup girl, the TIME magazine “TV Superwoman” simply wanted this filming of her ugliest moments, from throwing up to loosing the famous blond hair, to be a gift to others to help and inspire them.
People die every day from cancer. It is the scourge of our time. Ms. Fawcett’s taped battle is the demonstration not of victory over disease but of the importance of choices.
As I watched the show, I kept wondering if she asked herself if the four years of agony was worth the decision to fight the cancer.
Were the few months, interspersed with horrific treatments and bad news, worth the pain and horror of many of her days?
Each person has to answer that question for him or herself.
Farah Fawcett died on June 25, 2009 at the age of 62.
….Jack Blair
Farah Fawcett’s Gift
Not long ago there was a television special titled “Farah’s Story”.
I decided to watch it although I must admit that I didn’t expect much.
What I received was so very much more than I expected.
I imagine the nine million people who watched this show left with similar feelings.
Many knew Farah Fawcett was ill with cancer. Some knew her prognosis was not encouraging. Few knew how she was dealing with the disease.
Those of us of a “certain age” remember when Farah came on the scene. She started doing commercials and quickly parlayed her beautiful blond hair and engaging smile into a super television career.
Farah’s first big splash was the television show “Charlie’s Angels.” She starred in this vehicle with Jaclyn Smith and Kate Jackson. The three formed a friendship that has stayed strong ever since.
After a brief marriage to Lee Majors, Farah’s companion was Ryan O’Neal. Mr. O’Neal came to our attention as the star of Love Story and Peyton Place. Ryan and Farah had one son, Redmond. A separation followed but fate and circumstance put them back together some years ago and they were devoted to one another.
Ms. Fawcett was born in 1947. The name she received is an Arabic word for “joy.” Over time she lost her mother. Her sister died of lung cancer. Her father is seen in Farah’s Story and clearly they have great affection for one another and have walked on eggshells since her diagnosis.
In 2006 Farah was diagnosed with anal cancer. As she contemplated the fight ahead, she determined to film it. She wanted people to know what cancer was really like. She enlisted the help of her friend, Alana Hamilton, to film her ordeal.
Such a decision seemed out of character for a television and movie star. Such people rarely want you to see them without their make-up let alone in the agony of terminal disease.
It is anyone’s guess what she planned to do with the film. She was optimistic at that time. She thought she would beat the disease. So she must have been thinking of how she could use the film for good in educating others.
She did travel to Germany for experimental treatments when ones available in the US didn’t seem to provide a cure. She did achieve a cancer free status along the way. Four months after this, as she went for her check-up, she continued her practice of having her encounters filmed.
Unfortunately for Farah, the diagnosis, a stage four metastasis, was not what she was expecting. The news was very difficult. It led to more treatments, more surgeries and more fallen hopes.
All of this was filmed. All of it was shared in the television shoe Farah’s Story. The filming was stark, honest and difficult. That said, it was an honest look at what fighting cancer is like for the patient, and for everyone in the patient’s circle of family and friends.
In cases like this, the patient does not live alone with cancer. Everyone who loves the patient, or works for the patient, or prays for the recovery lives the cancer, too. It insinuates itself into the lives of so many more people than just the patient.
The experience will not be fatal for the circle of family and friends, but it will affect them for the rest of their lives.
Ryan O’Neal’s role in Love Story is one where he is faced with the cancer of the young college student with whom he has fallen in love. There is a scene in that story where O’Neal crawls into the hospital bed of his lover and holds her close and tries to comfort her.
In Farah’s Story there is a similar scene. It was very surreal.
Clearly, O’Neal is shattered by the life the two of them have been living for three hard years as well as by the certainty that the story will not have a happy ending.
O’Neal and Farah’s friends comment in the film that Farah was “positive from day one. Didn’t waver. Was frightened a time or two, but said to them: ‘this is cancer, film it’”.
In addition to the film depicting how difficult each individual’s fight with cancer can be, during the process the National Enquirer printed news of her cancer before she had even been able to discuss it with her family.
An investigation, encouraged by Farah, showed that medical records were being released from her hospital; almost at the same time she was hearing the news from her doctor. This behavior by the UCLA Medical Center and The National Enquirer brought about legislation that keeps these kinds of records from being breached. In the investigation they found 935 instances where medical records had been breached in this manner.
The television special ends with Ms. Fawcett in bed, unable to talk, and awaiting her fate. She put up an incredible fight against a despicable disease and, in the end, she lost.
That said, there were some victories.
She brought down a system of medical information breaches that were serious and previously unpunished.
She showed the ugly side of cancer in its every day form.
She demonstrated a fighting spirit and an incredible will to live.
And in the final analysis, according to her friend Kate Jackson, the golden haired pinup girl, the TIME magazine “TV Superwoman” simply wanted this filming of her ugliest moments, from throwing up to loosing the famous blond hair, to be a gift to others to help and inspire them.
People die every day from cancer. It is the scourge of our time. Ms. Fawcett’s taped battle is the demonstration not of victory over disease but of the importance of choices.
As I watched the show, I kept wondering if she asked herself if the four years of agony was worth the decision to fight the cancer.
Were the few months, interspersed with horrific treatments and bad news, worth the pain and horror of many of her days?
Each person has to answer that question for him or herself.
Farah Fawcett died on June 25, 2009 at the age of 62.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)