COST OF WORLD POWER

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair

The Responsibility of World Power Might Be Too Costly

Many decades ago an old friend of mine, United States Senator Gale McGee (D-Wyoming) wrote a book entitled Responsibilities of World Power. It was a defense of our involvement in Vietnam. He was one of the few taking a positive public stand on the unpopular war. I admired him both for his bravery and for his argument.

Over the intervening decades I have found myself becoming older and wiser about these things. The years have a way of bringing wisdom to most of us simply through our life experiences.

The other day I gave a speech at a Veterans’ Cemetery. As I looked out the window at all the graves and saw the flags flapping in the wind while the beautiful sunshine highlighted each of them, I asked myself what exactly our country received in return for those lost lives. Basically, was the result worth the price those that lost their lives paid.

In so many of our nation’s early wars it would be difficult to make an argument that the blood of patriots was shed without good cause. The “cause” was easy to see and understand and espouse. The results of defeat were obvious and real and immediately tangible.

At the same time, the blood of patriots has been shed in our more recent history for causes more difficult for the citizen to easily understand. Our “national interest” has grown broader and the nuances of our international role have grown more complicated.
We hear now that as the” leader of the free world” we have responsibilities that extend beyond our borders and our own self-interest. Harshly translated this means that our young soldiers must risk life and limb for causes more difficult to comprehend as having direct meaning to them and their loved ones.

This is where I have decided that I draw the line.

The American people did not seek leadership of the world.

If the world needs leadership it needs to come from a group of like-minded nations and not fall to any one people or nation. Even our oldest ancestors understood the importance of treaties and alliances.

I am less willing, day by day, to condone the sacrifice of American lives to save a world less and less interested in our country’s direct, easily understood well being.

I have three sons and a daughter. I would be unwilling to encourage them to risk their lives in defense of Afghanistan, the land of Taliban and poppies and drugs.

I would be unwilling to encourage them to risk their lives in defense of our Middle East allies who are often fair weather friends.

I would be unwilling to encourage them to risk their lives in any effort to rid Mexico of drug cartels.

Modern America would do well, in my opinion, to concentrate on direct threats to the homeland, to prepare to repel any “barbarians at the gate.” One can make an argument that we need to stop the enemy where he is but, my friends, that argument is getting moldy after Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bottom line: as long as our nation has atomic capability no other nation will conquer us. We have the ability to defend our nation, our people. The armaments of war have changed. It is less and less important to the survival of our way of life that any one soldier lose his life. In the age of massive bombs and technology the foot soldier is less integral to the success of our efforts.

The huge loss of American lives recently in Afghanistan and Iraq reflect only that we have been unwilling to use the power in our arsenal to lessen that loss of American life. That may well be a good decision but it is only so if we also are willing to let young American men and women die because we as a nation do not use what is in our arsenal to save them.

America needs to value every single life. America needs to make every effort to reduce the need for any individual American to lose his life in a time of war.

President Truman understood that basic fact when he used horrible weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. He knew that he was the American president, not elected to protect the world, elected to protect Americans and America, When one looks at the projections of American dead had he chosen to wait on the ground combat necessary to win one begins to have some sympathy for his decision.

For those who feel strongly that America should never use her war ending weapons, I suggest that we should not engage in any war where the use of our weapons in the search for a quick and complete victory is not a choice. We should not enter into any military engagement it is not our intention to win. And we certainly should be unwilling to sacrifice one life for any conflict in which it is not our intention to be victorious.

When did our country decide it was OK to lose the lives of our young patriots because we withheld the tools of a victory that could clearly be ours?

I do not want the responsibility of world power.

I am content to live in America and I am willing to die to preserve our way of life. The stretch to see how dying in Afghanistan or Iran can be tied through difficult explanations and equations ultimately to be good for America is a stretch I am daily less and less willing to make.

At the same time, every life lost in whatever conflict is worthy of reflection, honor and remembrance. Not one soldier is responsible for the military decisions made by our leaders. But in the end, it is the soldier, not the decision makers, who pays the ultimate sacrifice.

We need to rethink war.

Moon Beam Over California

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair


“The Moon Beams Over LaLaLand”


The mid term elections are over.

Do I hear a sigh of relief?

Many years ago, in my youth, a dashing young “hippie” named Jerry Brown was all the rage in “LaLaLand”. His much more establishment-oriented father, Edmund “Pat” Brown, had been the state’s Governor. Now the son was seeking to follow in Dad’s footsteps, although probably not in wing tips and a business suit.

Let me cut to the chase. Jerry was elected. He was pretty flashy and dated some Hollywood starlet types so he got a lot of national press attention. In fact, he got so much attention that he announced he would like to be president.

In those days one needed more than the gift of gab and an attraction to the ladies to be seriously considered for president so it was not long before he became somewhat of a national joke. He was labeled “Governor Moonbeam” by his detractors.

“Moonbeam” completed his term and quietly slipped into anonymity. His last known job of any significance was as Mayor of Oakland, CA.

He must have been dreaming of the good old days because he decided to throw his hat in the ring for Governor again. He doesn’t look too “hippie” these days and one doesn’t see any “starlets” vying to be seen walking on his arm, so what was the attraction?

Some will say Californians, like many Americans, had a longing for the past. Perhaps they are tired of the new type of politician. But I think it had more to do with the ballot question about legalizing marijuana in California. Is it possible that “Governor Moonbeam” envisioned himself as leading the “LaLaLand” at a time when he could happily and safely engage in what heretofore was considered illegal?

I need to mention that I do not dislike California. I have a son, daughter-in-law and two granddaughters living out there. Fortunately my son and daughter-in-law had good strong East Coast upbringings so I permit myself to envision them as sort of missionaries sent out to LaLaLand to bring sense and order to those so desperately in need of both.

May I point out that my LaLaLand family does not place much faith in my dreaming, nor support my hopes and expectations for their missionary work with any sort of zeal, and have actually been won over by the natives. But I comfort myself in knowing that had they stayed in the East they would clearly have been titans of industry and pillars of society.

I digress. Back to “Governor Moonbeam” and his dream.

Well the fickle finger of fate tripped (using this verb lightly) up that dream. “Moonbeam” got elected but “LaLaLand” voters defeated the legalization of marijuana.

In the “Land of Crazies” there has to be a happy ending. After all, the movies are made out there. So I envision “Governor Moonbeam” and former Speaker Pelosi enjoying some Pina Coladas on a beach facing the Pacific Ocean while reminiscing about happier more carefree times. Maybe they will be joined by Barbara Boxer.

I am hoping they don’t inhale.

Marking the Passing of James Fuchs

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair

ANOTHER GREAT ONE PASSES: JAMES FUCHS


Not too long ago I wrote a column about my friend George Steinbrenner’s passing. In that column I mentioned his role in starting the Silver Shield Foundation.

Since then a number of readers have asked about this foundation. If you have the time, visit the website: www.silvershieldfoundation.org

Steinbrenner’s partner in birthing this foundation was the famous Olympic medalist, James Fuchs. Jim died on October 8, 2010. Many Americans knew him as an athlete who represented our nation in both the discus and shot put. His story captured the attention of news organizations because he had a leg injury that required he develop a new way to compete in the shot put. He called his method “the sideways glide”.

Wikipedia notes that Fuchs “set world records…and completely dominated shot-putting over a two-year span in the 1950’s in the years between winning bronze medals at both the 1948 Summer Olympics in London and the 1952 Summer Olympics in Helsinki.”

At the Pan American games in 1951 held in Buenos Aires Jim won gold medals in both the Shot Put and the Discus competition.

So often we think of athletes as leaders. In the case of Jim Fuchs this was certainly the case. When I worked in international finance I had the privilege of meeting Jim and engaging his firm, Fuchs, Cuthrell & Company. On occasion, we would have lunch together at the “21 Club” in New York City. The place where we dined had no importance beyond the fact that it was wall-to-wall with “movers and shakers” every day. When Jim would enter the main room for lunch it would take some time for him to reach his table. The diners all seemed to know him, and to like him. His large stature and beaming smile made everyone feel at ease.

If Jim Fuchs had wanted a political career, he could have easily had one. He would have had neither difficulty raising money nor engaging large numbers of his wealthy and influential friends in support of any campaign.

But Jim had a nice reserve of modesty. He preferred helping others. In his main business enterprise he helped people who were seeking employment. Many of those men and women had been “out placed” and his firm was assigned the job of helping them re-establish their identities, prepare better resumes, deal with family and professional disappointment, and get back out into the world. In this endeavor, Jim and his associates were incredibly successful.

But it will perhaps be his work with the Silver Shield that brought him the most respect and admiration. Yet this foundation started out with every intention of doing good things anonymously. In New York City it is difficult to do anything important anonymously. So it is that Silver Shield is now recognized and heralded for the work it undertakes.

Jim’s work as chairman and executive director of Silver Shield had to be one of his most lasting accomplishments. The foundation provided each of 900 children of victims of the September terrorist attacks with $20,000 in funds to be used toward their education,

I am pleased to have the opportunity through this column to introduce you to a great American, James Fuchs, and to join his friends and colleagues in mourning his passing.

TAVERN on the GREEN NOSTALGIA

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair


TAVERN ON THE GREEN NOSTALGIA


This column is one of nostalgia. For readers who had occasion to visit New York City for any reason in the late 1970s and 1980s you may have dined at one of the city’s most famous restaurants: Tavern on the Green.

I have not thought recently about the restaurant but a mention of it in one of the Sunday papers brought back a flood of memories.

In the early 1970’s, as an executive of a Midwest based banking organization, I traveled often to New York City on business. As is often the case with businessmen, I found a restaurant and bar that I particularly enjoyed. It was called Maxwell’s Plum. It was a very ornate place with a long and popular bar that diners passed on their way to a table. Maxwell’s Plum was the preferred “hangout” for young New Yorkers so if you went there to dine you really did have to fight your way back to the tables in the rear of the restaurant. In was not at all uncommon for the bar crowd to be 3-4 people deep.

I remember the restaurant had loudly colored stain glass as a ceiling, deep and rich woods surrounded the tables and comprised the bar, and brass rails were everywhere.

When my career moved me from the Midwest to a bank in New York City, I looked forward to entertaining clients at Maxwell’s Plum. But when I arrived I found that the owner of Maxwell’s Plum had taken a huge step in opening a new restaurant on the site of a famous old restaurant called Tavern on the Green. It was the talk of the town.

Warner Leroy, son of fabled movie producer Mervyn Leroy, had created an almost completely glass building in Central Park. It was a restaurant where there was no such thing as a “bad table”.

With all the beautiful surroundings of Central Park visible from every table, you might have thought he would be satisfied. Not Warner Leroy. He very carefully strung small lights around every branch on every tree that could be seen from inside his restaurant. Those dining after dark were treated to a magnificent sight of the park all aglow with little white lights.

LeRoy did not stop there. In case some might look “up” rather than “out” he had the ceilings painted in multiple pastels and decorated as if they were the tops of wedding cakes. The intricate ceiling work captured the imagination of every diner.

To top it off, LeRoy purchased fabulous (and huge) chandeliers in many different colored crystals. They were the largest I have seen outside of Europe. At least ten of them hung from the ceiling in what he named “The Crystal Room.”

Some might argue that LeRoy inherited his father’s gift for “staging”. Others did argue that he wanted to draw your attention away from the average quality of the food. But it was the rare diner who ever complained about his visit to Tavern on the Green.

It was never about food.

It was an experience.

It was always an event.

It was memorable.

Time seems to bring an end to all things. As I read about the Tavern being turned into a Visitors’ Center for Central Park I felt a sense of sadness. It will be a wonderful place for people to go for information on the Park, to arrange for carriage rides and tours, to get maps of locations like Strawberry Fields. But in so many ways it will never replace the legendary Tavern on the Green.

The Tavern was the scene for the New York City Marathon. The Tavern was a place to bring out all the excitement of New York City, including its magical nature. If it was raining, snowing, or sunny you never regretted being at Tavern on the Green. When you departed there was always a horse and buggy available out front for a quiet and romantic ride through the Park.

There are places that we think will never cease to exist. I would have bet that the Tavern would have been one of them. How wrong I would have been. When I visit NYC I do not think I will venture into the new Visitors’ Center. It would ruin memories.

It is not one of our society’s greatest virtues that so many things in our past are demolished, reinvented or changed in major ways as part of “moving on” with life. I suppose that is why those of us who are a “certain age” do enjoy living with our own memories and often avoid engaging with new things.

Take a moment to think about your own path.

Where were those places that meant so much to you? How long has it been since you treated yourself to a return visit?

Better hurry.

Your special place may, like Tavern on the Green, simply be reborn one day as a Visitors’ Center.

BRING BACK THE GOOD OLD DAYS

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair


BRING BACK THE GOOD OLD DAYS


What would happen if:

1. You could not obtain a mortgage without having saved a 20% down payment prior to applying?
2. Your mortgage would not be granted if your required monthly payment of principal and interest exceeded 30% of your monthly income?
3. Your mortgage application would not be approved if the cost of the home were more than 3 times your annual salary?
4. People were reminded that their home purchase/investment could easily be the single most important piece of their eventual retirement security and learn that borrowing against that investment in good times could lead to disaster in bad times?
5. One of every person’s major goals was to actually payoff their mortgage and own their home free and clear?


Back in the “good old days” when I started a career in banking those were the rules. For the sake of discussion let’s define the “good old days” as a time when people were helped by banks that had pragmatic rules about lending, saw a requirement to counsel borrowers not to get in over their head, and were able to anticipate not only the adverse affect on borrowers of easy lending policies but also the long term adverse affect that could befall the bank and their stockholders.

These were simple and pragmatic and responsible approaches to lending. They took into account both the best interests of the consumer and the investor.

In my view, the government today went to great lengths to save the banks that made very questionable lending decisions and they saved those institutions with taxpayer dollars.

The government failed to extend the same level of courtesy to the taxpayer whose money saved the banks. Many of our fellow tax payers are no losing their primary residence to foreclosure or seeing their retirement nest egg depleted in order to pay for their home, or watching the value of their investment shrink almost every week and the selling price of their home reduced to an amount less than the loan they are carrying on it.

Some would call this progress. I would call it idiocy.

Where is the average person who can bring common sense to public service in our country? The government has run amok.

THE GIVING OF GIFTS

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair


The Giving of Gifts

I was reading the column called Miss Manners one day and the subject was the giving of gifts. Specifically, she was referring to the currently popular practice of just giving cash. This brought back memories of my childhood and concerns I have for how the quick pace of life has caused many to lose the important parts surrounding the identification, selection and presentation of gifts to loved ones.

When I was a small child I enjoyed being surrounded by a great extended family of aunts, uncles and cousins. Since I was an “only child” this was really important and as a group we got together every weekend. In addition to those related by blood, really good friends were also included.

On special occasions we all looked forward to receiving gifts. The occasion might be Christmas, a birthday, or another special occasion but one things remained the same: I never received money.

On these special occasions the people who loved me spent time thinking about what I might like that would fall within their budgets. They would take time to find the right present. The shopping experience was part of what made it fun for them.

Once an appropriate gift was found, they had the wrapping to look forward to. They didn’t just grab a bag at the drugstore, along with a Hallmark card, and some crepe paper for stuffing.

They usually found a box at their home, something that was just taking up room on the shelf or in the attic. Then they would look in the special place where they kept pretty wrapping they had saved for special occasions. They would carefully wrap the box. Then they would decide exactly which ribbon would work best and how fancy the bow should be. This latter decision was usually related to whether the recipient was male or female.

When the shopping and the wrapping was complete they would make the card. Sometimes they would cut and paste. Often they would just write a really nice note on their own stationery. Sometimes they would attach a “store bought” card but when they did this it was always clear they had gone through lots of cards looking for one that said exactly what they felt before making the decision not to make their own.

Finally, the gift would be presented.

Often this occurred at a party but sometimes they took the time to come to the house, sit down to talk, and enjoyed watching me open the gift.

The reader can see from the length of this description that to do it this way took time. Time is precious. That is why giving of your time to someone you love is so important.

As an adult I have seen this practice I describe almost disappear. In our busy, busy world we might just grab something, put it in a pretty bag, attach a “bought card” and hand it to the recipient. I find that approach pretty disappointing and it certainly provides very little enjoyment for the giver.

That said, the gifting approach that really bothers me is the “bought card” with money in it. I have heard all the excuses:

They can buy what they really want.
They really need cash at this point in time.
I don’t have time to shop and wrap and this will have to do.



I admit that I am not very good at arguing with people who think this way. Often they are short of time. Often I cannot argue that the recipient needs money. Who can argue that the recipient will get to pick what he wants as a gift.

But something is missing.

The giving of time is missing.
The fun of planning is missing.
The enjoyment of watching the surprise and pleasure when the gift is given is missing.

When you really think about it…don’t you miss the “old approach” too?

MADAM SPEAKER

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair

MADAM SPEAKER

Garth Keeping, of Canada, asked me the other day what I thought about Nancy Pelosi’s recent trip to his country and her controversial remarks. He even supplied me with copies of newspaper articles about her visit.

Since Garth is a fan of President Obama and a liberal in his political thinking, I found his thoughts about Speaker Pelosi especially interesting.

Unless all the polls are wrong, Nancy Pelosi will not be Speaker of the House of Representatives after the November election. As the first woman to hold the post, and one of the most outspoken, she has shown that she is adept at putting together coalitions and also at being one of the most divisive figures in government.

Ms. Pelosi decided recently to visit Canada. The purpose of her visit was to discuss oil sands and she brought with her Massachusetts Congressman. The meetings were to discuss climate change, the oil sands, and the Canadian energy industry.

She said she would: “come and listen”.

She seems to have honored one half of that promise. She went to Canada. The second half was unlikely from the time it was uttered and she behaved like a bull in a China shop while a guest of the Canadian government.

For my readers who may not know, Canada is the top energy provider to the United States. Given our lack of popularity in the Middle East and our dependence on oil, one would think we would like to solidify the friendship with our neighbors to the North. Canadians genuinely like Americans and we have always enjoyed a special relationship with their land.

If we want to keep it that way, we need to life Speaker Pelosi’s passport!



The headline in Canada’s press was: “U.S. Speaker calls for cut in Canadian oil imports.” Now there is a way to win friends and influence people. It ranks right up there with accepting an invitation to dinner and announcing to the other diners that the meal is uneatable.

The lead-in sentence of the news article: Nancy Pelosi would like to see the United States buy less of what Canada is selling.”

She is reported to have said in a casual conversation with some key Canadian women that she doesn’t like “any fossil” and doesn’t care whose it is or where it comes from (The Globe & Mail, September 10, 2010).

The Premier’s wife and a former Premier’s daughter invited Speaker Pelosi to visit the actual oil sands and see for herself all the efforts against pollution and toward “green” programs.

Pelosi’s response? Her office says she has no plans for such a visit.

If Madam Speaker made this trip with any intent to cement relationships between these two friendly nations, she obviously had a “senior moment” after she landed on Canadian soil. If President Obama sent her he made a grave mistake in his selection of a messenger. Frankly, I think our president is “clean” on this one. I don’t think he would have sent her and I certainly don’t think she would have asked for permission.

I don’t think the Founders envisioned Speakers of the House making international trips, meeting with international leaders, or messing in foreign affairs. I think they saw that as an executive branch function. Although I haven’t read those early documents recently I believe the president is charged with the conduct of foreign affairs. One of the huge number of aides to the Speaker might point out that portion of the Constitution to her.

Over the years the original plan has morphed into one where any Senator or Congressman seems to be able to travel the world, at taxpayer expense, and to interface with world leaders.

While “good” can come from this, so can “bad”.

These kinds of things have to be part of an organized foreign policy initiative. The world is complex. Trained diplomats are our best hope in dealing with foreign governments.

The speaker represents a small district in California. Recently, she has had control of the gavel in the U.S. House of Representatives. Soon she will return to representing a small district in California. It can’t be soon enough for me. Her second in command, Congressman Stoyer, would have made a much better Speaker.

In the meantime, could we keep her in Washington minding the hundreds of Congressmen who are now likely planning their own fact- finding missions abroad.

And, just in case it is needed, I hope President Obama will send some flowers and candy to our friends in Canada. These days we need all the friends we can get and insulting Canada is just too symptomatic of our hubris.

Every day in our relationships with allies and former allies it looks to me like it is amateur hour in the nation’s capital. This kind of behavior comes at a very high price relative to our national security and our future.

HERE WE GO AGAIN IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair


HERE WE GO AGAIN

Recent news reports tell about President Obama’s “invitation” to the Israeli Prime Minister and the Palestinian leader to come visit him in Washington, DC so that they could work out a peace in the Middle East.

As Yogi Berra once said: “déjà vu all over again.”

No one could blame anyone in middle age or older for simply ignoring this story and going right to the sports page. Or perhaps straight to the comics. Some might even see a reasonable similarity between this news and the comics.

I admit up front to being jaded in my view of these presidential interventions. Every American president in recent memory has “invited” leaders from the Middle East to Washington for “talks.”

If you read biography or history you know that these “invitations” are not really invitations. They are command performances. With our influence in that region and our key role in maintaining a balance of power there, no one would dare refuse an American President’s importuning.

The histories and biographies also make very clear that every agreement that is reached and announced with great fanfare, usually at The White House or at Camp David, eventually falls apart.

Sometimes the appearance of an agreement brings great press to the American president. It has even been an important part of Nobel Peace Prize determinations in some cases.

The repercussions for non-American attendees have not been as pleasant. After Anwar Sadat shook hands with Menachem Begin with The White House as a backdrop he was shot to death during a military parade in his own country.

Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin who wanted peace suffered the same fate, although not during a parade!

Other Israeli leaders have suffered at the hands of their own voters. Arab leaders have experienced rapid falls from influence and position.

The President of The United States cannot force peace in the Middle East. This is a definitive statement backed by history.

Every president since Harry Truman has had his hand in this sort of activity and all have experienced various levels of immediate satisfaction but all have equally seen their efforts fall apart.

The problems that exist in the Middle East are complex. Perhaps more importantly they are tied up in strong emotions. Add to that they relate to strongly held religious beliefs. None of these factors lend easily to political solutions and none of them suggest any sort of forced agreement can hold long.

One does not see evidence of the old Soviet Union attempting to insert itself in these types of discussion. Even the United Kingdom, France, Canada and other nations more like our own have not sought such influence or meddled as often or as unsuccessfully.

Many will fault my position on this issue by saying failure at such an important task should not cause us to cease trying to find a way to peace. That is a strong argument.

However, quiet, behind the scenes diplomacy rather than grandstanding press oriented meetings in Washington would have, in my view, a better chance of success. Because I do read history I know that we have twisted arms, threatened trade, and even “reminded” Middle East leaders what might happen if we withdrew our military support. These threats provide quick agreement, a good photo opportunity for our president, but never lasting agreement among those whose arms are twisted.

While I do not question the sincerity of our presidents who have hoped to bring peace to that part of the world, I do question their level of understanding the complexity of the task and the individual risk any meeting or agreement brings to many of the participants.

More importantly, I question whether any of our presidents, who clearly are adept at being politicians, have seriously weighed the history of such attempts. Being the “Leader of the Free World,” having everyone stand up every time you enter a room, and getting used to hearing “Hail to the Chief” every day seems to lead men to believe they can accomplish anything they want. History suggests otherwise.

You might fairly ask me what then is the way forward in the Middle East.

If any of us could successfully answer that question we would be important players in the history of the world.

My best guess is that any peace that should ultimately be found in the Middle East will have to come from the players who live there. They will have to find the way forward by negotiating with one another, by finding death and destruction on a daily basis to be no longer tolerable, and by finding ways to accept, even honor, the differences in their history and their beliefs.

Everyone would need to take a mighty step toward tolerance and acceptance of their differences. Their impetus for doing this would be the safety it would bring to their own people and the chance to live in peace for the first time since the State of Israel was created in the midst of their natural religious enemies.

History suggests this is not likely to happen. History suggests that this may well be settled in a military, and totally unsatisfactory, way. That is often the way these seemingly difficult questions get settled.

And by the way, where is the United Nations?

While I can hope that President Obama will be successful long term where so many other American presidents have not been, I am a realist.

It would be difficult for me to tell you how much I hope I am wrong.

DOG DAYS OF SUMMER

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair

DOG DAYS OF SUMMER

In the summer our two Labrador Retrievers, Bailey & Lucy, like to swim each day in the ocean and they especially like to “fetch and chase.”

The fetching involves our throwing sticks into the waves and their swimming out into the ocean to retrieve the sticks, which they then bring back to us, place them at our feet, and then shake the water off of themselves all over my wife and me.

The chasing involves catching a glimpse of one or more seagulls down the beach and then charging full-out down the beach barking all the way.

Somehow the dogs have come to believe it is their duty to clear the beach of seagulls. The gulls, however, are fully aware that the Labs will never catch them because the gull experience has proven, beyond a shadow of doubt that dogs cannot fly.

The dogs are still hopeful.

So I stand by watching the dogs run along, eager for what they assume they will ultimately catch, only to have the gull take wing when the dogs get close. I wish I could interpret what the gulls are thinking as they see these “beasts” charging toward them. It would seem all they would be thinking about would be escape, but they stand their ground, teasing the dogs, until the last minute.

Dogs are loyal.

Dogs are strong.

Dogs have a great nose and understand scents.

But alas, dogs are not nearly as smart as their owners think they are. And they are most certainly as dumb as the seagulls think they are.

One of the great thrills for the seagulls is when they take wing out over the ocean and the chasing dogs, without looking around, find themselves pretty well out into the crashing waves before they recognize that there will be no seagull sandwich on a hard roll for lunch that day.

My greatest thrill is when I go to the beach and there are no other people there. In the Maritimes that happens more often than not.

On days when there are other people present, the dogs often forget about fetching and chasing and instead head straight for the other human beings (which may well be just a different version of fetching and chasing to them). If the people happen to have one or more dogs with them, then it is a definite certainty that Bailey and Lucy are going to visit.

Bailey is docile. He wants to see people and play with children. Unfortunately, strangers do not always know that and panic grips them when the big black dog is charging in their direction.

Lucy is noisy. She barks and snarls. So while she is charging a group of people they not only panic but often run.

Running is not good.

Doggies seeing people running assume a new game has just been introduced. Most dogs can outrun a human.

The other day we arrived at the beach and it was completely unoccupied. So I left my leashes in the car.

Big mistake.

The dogs and I were in the middle of a throw and fetch outing when I noticed a young couple arriving just down the beach from us. They had two toddlers and a dog!

Fortunately, Bailey and Lucy were concentrating on sticks and swimming at the moment so I made a crucial decision. I would walk further away from the newly arrived people and continue tossing the sticks. The dogs would focus on the sticks and continue up beach with me. Eventually, I thought, the people would leave and we would go back down the beach to the car. Unfortunately, the beach is below very high cliffs and there is only one path off the beach back to parked cars. And the “new” family was right at the bottom of that path.

A lesson in faulty reasoning was presented to me.

The people did not depart. I got tired throwing sticks. The dogs showed the occasional interest in the humans down the beach. So I made a crucial decision: take the dogs, climb and struggle up the high edge of the beach and walk back to the car through the field above.

The beach is well below the overhang cliff. I had never been up there before. The dogs were game. So up we climbed. Once reaching the top I found that what looked like a peaceful green pasture from the beach was actually a “prickler” filled field. The growth was taller than the dogs so they had difficulty making their way. The thorns were tearing at my legs and blood was trickling down toward my ankles.

I felt I had crossed the Rubicon and going back would be no better than going forward. So onward we trekked. I took some pleasure in the fact that we would avoid the family and their dog and get to the car without any adverse event, other than the blood on my leg.

Unfortunately, when we had just about reached my car, the dogs noticed the people (and their dog) below on the beach. We had reached a point where we were parallel to them. And that is when the dogs reminded me that waves, “prickler plants”, or very tall cliffs cannot keep a dog from his intended playmates.

Bailey and Lucy, ignoring the steep incline of the cliff and the danger it posed simply jumped off, ran and slid, barking all the way, toward the fearful small group on the beach.

Whatever terror two dogs running toward you on the beach might regularly instill, two dogs running, barking, and sliding down a hill toward you must simply take your breath away.

These presumably very nice people, who thought they were alone on the beach enjoying the waves and the gulls, had looks on their faces that would be suited to a Hitchcock movie. I was very pleased to be out of sight on top of the hill.

The dogs came to a crashing stop right before the family. The tail wagging and sniffing probably came as a relief to the humans. After every person, and the visiting dog, was completely and satisfactorily sniffed, the dogs gave a passing thought to chasing some gulls but instead came climbing back up the cliff and jumped into the car.

When we returned to the cottage there was no treat for them. I hosed them down with well water to get rid of the salt water on their skin. For some reason, they love swimming but hate hosing. Normally they get a treat after the bath. Not this day.

But since they are dogs, their disappointment was momentary and followed quickly by a long snooze. From the whimpering and light growling and quick sleep body movements, I expect they were reliving their great adventure with sticks, gulls and people on the beach.

Final score:

Dogs- 1
Owner-0

PERENNIAL CANDIDATES

Notes of Concern…
…. Jack Blair

PERENNIAL CANDIDATES

Many of my friends seem to have their “undies in a wad” over Sarah Palin. Funnily enough, some are ecstatic about her chances for the presidency. Others are apoplectic with the same thought.

I always refer them to history.

When George Wallace regularly ran for president, people reacted in the same two ways. History taught us that he was never a serious candidate but he ran every chance he had. Some people loved him. He scared the others to death.

Ralph Nadar is another name that comes to mind as a perennial candidate. There have been a number of others.

Why would anyone exhibit an interest in running for president or actually conduct a race for president with no hope of victory?

As it is always applicable I respond: follow the money.

People from all walks of life send donations, large and small, to candidates for national office. No matter how long the odds, or how odd the candidate, there are enough Americans eager to applaud their candidacy that there is BIG money to be gained.

Of course, money is not the only motivator. These candidates regularly pique the interest of the national news media, especially on “slow news” days. If they are not getting national attention, all they have to do is say something outrageous, or misspeak, and the press comes running. So in addition to accumulating some big bucks every four years you also become a bit of a celebrity.

The celebrity piece brings big bucks, too. Some organizations ask you to come and speak to them. They pay your expenses and give you a nice honorarium. Before you know it, you sign with a speakers’ bureau or agency and you are running all over the country delivering much the same speech and collecting thousands each time.

When the ballots are counted and you have clearly lost, you take a vacation and rest up for the next run for the roses, which will start in about 3 years.

In the meantime, every time the winner does something wrong, the newspapers and magazines and television reporters come to you for your usual response: “I told you so.”

MANHATTAN MOSQUE

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair

MANHATTAN MOSQUE

In our country we cherish our freedom to worship as we please.

We don’t want anyone, least of all our government, messing with our religious beliefs. Fellow citizens have died in the past just to guarantee this and other freedoms.

Recently, America was confronted with the desire of a New York City based Muslim leader to create a mosque at the site we call “Ground Zero.”

Then the storm started and continues to rage on.

There has been so much written on this subject, much of it extreme in nature, that I felt I wanted to try to simplify the discussion if that is possible.

Consider this my attempt to do so:

1. Everyone has a right in this free country to pursue the their religious beliefs;
2. A Muslim leader has the right to build a mosque on any site for which he has legal title and where no laws exist to suggest such a structure cannot be built.

So the issue is a “settled issue” from a legal standpoint.

But in our country issues often have “standpoints” that might be considered even more important than the legal ones.

The Mosque proposed for the site where Muslims slaughtered thousands of Americans is just such an equation. It has raised the “fairness standard.” It has raised the “empathy standard.” It has raised the “common sense” standard.

Assuming that this particular Muslim leader and his followers are fine Americans who condemn the action of the 911 Muslim terrorists and that their intentions are completely honorable, the decision they have taken has not contributed to good feelings between Muslims and non-Muslims. It has aggravated already fragile feelings between those communities.

In the best light, the Muslim leader and his followers have misread America’s remaining open wound on the subject of what happened on September 11th. They have not given enough weight to the fragile emotions of families that lost loved ones on that day.
They have been both insensitive and inconsiderate.

The damage has been done.

The best course of action would be to apologize for the insensitivity and lack of consideration and build their new mosque in another location.

Of course, in our country, nothing is ever that easy.

The Mayor of New York City has weighed in on the issue. Even the President of the United States has put his oar into the turbulent water of this issue. Various lesser politicians have taken a poll of the mood of their constituents and beat this particular horse to death.

Now the Muslim group is in a position from which it is hard to back down.

The Mayor has found himself in a boiling cauldron.

And the President has had to morph his first statements so many times that everyone can see that he is simply trying to keep the high moral and legal ground without losing support from those who are outraged.

In the last analysis, the points I made above stand.

What the Muslims want to do is legal. If they do not develop a keener sense of sensitivity to the issue, they will build their Mosque.

It would be a very bad decision.

THE RULES DO NOT APPLY TO ME

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair

The Rules Do Not Apply to Me

I was reading news reports of the Jet Blue Flight attendant recently arrested for his bizarre behavior while his plane was taxiing on the runway in New York.

For those of you who did not see this report, the plane had landed and the usual announcements had been made, including the one reminding everyone to stay in their seats until the plane had come to a complete stop and the Captain has indicated it is OK to release your seat belt. You may recall this is for safety reasons. Planes can come to quick and unexpected stops along the taxi-ways. Planes can be ordered by the control tower to quickly change directions, for instance to avoid being slammed into by a plane landing on the same runway.

In addition, the announcement also tells you not to open any overhead bins as luggage can reposition itself in flight and can fall out of the bin onto the heads of unsuspecting passengers.

I have flown well over one million miles on just American Airlines. This does not count the miles I have flown on other domestic and international carriers. I have heard these announcements many times.

It amazes me that passengers simply ignore the announcements.

It is as if their personal business is more important than their safety or the safety of their fellow passengers. These fliers are ignorant and full of themselves. They are narcissistic. They are the bane of reasonable people everywhere. And they are criminals! They do not follow directions or obey the laws.

The flight attendant in this case saw the passenger rise from his seat and open his overhead bin while the plane was in motion. At risk to himself he left his seat and approached the offending passenger and asked him to sit down and close the overhead bin. The exchange got heated and the passenger shared a familiar four-letter word with the attendant and then the attendant was struck by a piece of baggage from the overhead bin. I do not know whether the baggage hit was intentional or just the fulfillment of the warning the announcement provided.

In any event, the irate attendant returned to his seat, used the intercom to send the same four letter descriptive term back at the passenger, proceeded to grab a cool beer from the refrigerator on the plane, pulled the emergency door handle, opened the door, engaged the emergency shoot and then departed the plane by sliding away. No word on whether he waved happily or uttered some more profanity.

This reminded me of the famous scene from the movie NETWORK where the broadcaster raised his apartment window and shouted something along the lines of “I have had enough and I won’t take it anymore.” A lot of movie viewers could relate to this “last straw” reaction.

And so I could related to the “last straw” action of the flight attendant.

My mind is playing with all the scenarios that could have been working on the flight attendant. Perhaps after flying for many hours or days, encountering many people who simply would not operate in the best interests of all passengers, or a series of incredibly angry and difficult passengers, he just decided it wasn’t worth it and he wasn’t going to take it anymore.

I admit his decision to abandon the plane on the tarmac via the emergency slide, with a cool brew in his hand, was both dramatic and also placed him in the same category as his antagonist. Clearly, his departure in that manner placed his passengers at greater risk.

The police were charged with the task of finding the errant attendant and they did so, at his home. He was arrested and according to newspaper accounts may face up to four years in jail.

No mention of any charges against the offending passenger.

Too bad.

In this fight I am far more sympathetic with the attendant than with the passenger. Four years in jail for him would send a wonderful message to people who think and act the way he did.

The rules, alas, apply to us all. Those who think they are above the rules need to take some remedial classes on the subject. When we are in planes, whether on landing strips or 40,000 feet in the air, we want everyone to follow directions and obey the rules.

When one person doesn’t we are all at risk.

Michelle's Excellent Adventure

Michelle’s Excellent Adventure

The First Lady took a vacation.
She went with her daughter Sasha to Spain.

The media did not permit the ladies to enjoy their outing.

If Michelle Obama and daughters were not residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue no one would have been interested in their trip. Mothers and daughters go off on adventures all the time. Sometimes it is just to a local beach, the golf course, or shopping for new dresses.

On these occasions, they get in the family automobile and take off. They pay for the gasoline, the food and any purchases with the contents of the family purse.

When the Obama gals go anywhere they are accompanied by aides, secret service, armored limousines, medical personnel, and people too numerous to mention.

My take on all this: as it should be.

Living at The White House is both marvelous and horrible. Read the memoirs of those who have had the experience.

While you are temporarily given an exciting opportunity you are also temporarily asked to forgo the pleasures of anonymity, privacy, and individual action.

The reader might well say: that’s the deal. They wanted the job with all the perks so they get the “downside” too.

To an extent I have no problem with that. I think the people who choose the life could be a little more willing to take the bad with the good. I also know that the pressure that comes with the job can adversely affect good decision making, it can make the atmosphere in the private residence of The White House tense, it can put people in situations where they are not at their best.

We want the President and his family to be at their best. We want the President to have a refuge in the family quarters. We want everyone involved being reasonably happy for four or eight years. It is in our national interest to want this.

But the most important reason for wanting the President and his family to travel the way they must is their safety.

Every terrorist or anyone wanting to hurt America, or with the idea they could affect decision making, or any “nut case” just wanting to make a name for himself, would attack, kidnap or kill a member of the president’s family in a “New York second” IF THEY COULD.

As a people we must be invested in making certain THAT THEY CANNOT.

I am not naïve. I understand that Michelle and Barak Obama could restrict their travel in order to appear prudent, to seem concerned about the fiscal condition of America and the unhappy lot of many of their fellow citizens.

In this way they would be protected within the cocoon of security we already provide to them. We also provide a “camp” (Camp David) where they can enjoy a different atmosphere and security is already in place. We provide the opportunity for them to entertain lavishly and to invite anyone they want. In their home they never need to make a bed, prepare a meal, or drive a vehicle. They do not need to shop for groceries or anything else.

Some would suggest they should be happy with such a situation. Name a president who was! I know of none in recent memory.

So I am happy the President’s family had the chance to go to Spain. I hope they had a grand time. I hope when they returned they provided the kind of family support and comfort a president deserves and needs in order to conduct the duties of his office.

I have seen estimates that this adventure cost the taxpayers a sizeable piece of change.

Well, if Mrs. Obama paid her personal costs and those of her daughters, and I believe she did, we can hardly criticize her because the job her husband holds requires that a small army accompany her wherever she goes. Those decisions are not made by the President or by his family.

That is where some cutting could be done. It seems reasonable to expect the President and his family to consider appearances in their personal decisions.

In this age of terrorism we have, perhaps, overreacted. It would seem reasonable that the first family, minus the President, could travel with a few bodyguards and the occasional luggage handler.

I think of Harry and Bess Truman.

She stayed most of the time in Independence, Missouri, not caring at all for the requirements of White House life. When their term came to an end, Harry told reporters who wanted to question him on his return home to Missouri that they would have to wait while he carried his bags upstairs in his own house. Many years after his presidency, when Congress enacted legislation to protect presidents and their families after their time in The White House, Harry refused to graciously accept and his “minders” had to live off site and watch him and his family from a distance.

Those were simpler times my friends.

BP and Tony Hayward

BP SAYS GOODBYE TO TONY HAYWARD

Tony Hayward most likely worked his way to the top of the giant company BP the usual way: hard work and lots of good decisions all of which made the company more profitable.

Of all the companies drilling for oil off the coast of the United States, unfortunately for Tony, one of BP’s wells sprang a leak.

We all know the rest.

Gazillions of gallons of oil spewing into the Gulf ruining state economies, endangering wildlife, ruining summer vacation plans, and creating a new guy for people to hate. He became the poster boy for clueless executives.

Dubbed the "most hated - and clueless - man in America," Hayward is to be walking away with a golden parachute worth $18 million, The Times of London reported.

So we won’t have to take up any collection for Tony. If he makes 5% interest on his $18 million he will probably have to live on about $900,000 a year. And of course a man of Tony’s success and stature will also be getting pension monies and a return on all his investments.

He went yachting during the crisis so we can assume he will ride out the days remaining in his life yachting, traveling and generally living la dolce vita.

Corporations have a way of realizing that these things are rarely the fault of one man or one decision. In this instance, the leak probably could have happened to any one of the many drilling organizations. This time it just happened to BP. So recognizing that someone has to take the corporate fall, they will make it a soft landing for Tony.

It is in their interest to keep us mad at Tony. They don’t want us mad at BP.
They also don’t want Tony destitute and writing a “tell all” book about the company.

At the end of the day, we Americans have to take a look at ourselves as our thinking is expressed through our government. We need to ask some questions.

Where were the regulations on drilling?

Where were the inspectors?

Did we lose sight of safety in the pursuit of oil?

How many of the other oil-rigs out there are deficient in some way?

How long will it be before another oil-rig springs a leak?

Will we have learned anything from this disaster?

-------

Update: in a previous column I wrote about the horrendous mistakes that were made at Arlington Cemetery. Recent information is that there may have been a much greater misidentification of graves than originally thought. Original reports put the problem at hundreds of graves. More recently they have mentioned that there maybe 6600 graves misidentified.

PHEW

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair

PHEW!
(That Was Way Too Close)


I do a lot of reading in the summer. During the other seasons life is simply too hectic to provide opportunities for encountering many books and authors.

This summer one of the tomes I decided to read was titled
The Politician-An Insiders Account of John Edward’s Pursuit of the Presidency and the Scandal that Brought Him Down-by Andrew Young.

Why did this book make it to my list of summer readings?

Although I am interested in politics I had felt no desire to read this “ tell all” book by a disgruntled aide to former Senator Johnny Reid Edwards.

Not only was I not interested in the one term Senator from North Carolina who made a splash on the national scene in two presidential campaign seasons but also I suspected his aide was almost as deficient in morals as the former senator

But a small mention that a major producer planned to make a movie out of the book suggested to me that there might be some things of real interest in the writing.

So I purchased the electronic edition and began reading it on my Kindle.

Friends, I have just concluded reading the book and I am painfully aware how close we came to having this man (Edwards) in one of the two top positions in our country: president or vice president.

Johnny Reid Edwards was prevented by a few hundred thousand votes cast in the state of Ohio from being a heartbeat away from the presidency. In the most recent presidential contest, he was thought by many to have a real chance at his party’s nomination. After losing that nomination to Barack Obama, many thought he was the odds on choice for the vice presidential nomination. In fact, it is stated in the book that after Edwards dropped out of the contest he told both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama he would throw his support (and delegates) to whichever of them offered him the vice presidential nomination first! Talk about chutzpah! Just another example of how totally immoral Johnny Reid Edwards really was.

Andrew Young, Edward’s chief aide and confidant( and enabler) concludes in hindsight that Edwards was brought down by narcissism, greed and power-lust. Reasonable people would add to this short list: lust and immorality.

How does a fellow like this convince so many of us that he is “presidential timber?”

Let us revisit a few facts.

Johnny Edwards was a one term United States Senator who willingly admitted he was bored with the job.

Johnny Edwards was what people in business call an “8x10 Glossy” which means “all style and no substance.”

In the television and computer age, our own experiment with narcissism, we were attracted to this handsome young man with a gift for gab who was married to an overweight woman with spunk and smarts who was fighting stage four cancer.

He also never failed to point out to us his humble beginnings while showing us his incredible financial success as an “ambulance chasing” injury lawyer. How many guys do you know who pay $400 for a haircut on a regular basis?

We hope that our candidates are real. We trust that they want to make life better for us. Sometimes we live vicariously through their” larger than life” lives.

This book by Young tells us that Edwards was not above using his teenage son’s tragic automobile accident death to further his cause.

The book demonstrates in great detail that Edwards was not above using his wife’s terminal cancer diagnosis to further his candidacy.

The book demonstrates how Edwards used the people around him, without regard for their personal circumstances or the eventual damage to their lives, to further his cause.

The book demonstrates how Edwards, while prominent nationally and followed daily by reporters from both respectable newspapers and gossip rags, still felt he could bed a woman who attracted him on the first night he met her, hire her to work on his campaign, pay for her with contributed money, and actually consider her as “First Lady” material as he contemplated what he thought would be the future demise of his wife. Essentially, Edwards had a wife and a spare!

More importantly, he had unprotected sex (damning under these circumstances) and fathered a child with his mistress while in the middle of a presidential campaign.

Wealthy Americans ponied up millions of dollars to help Edwards deceive the American people. Some of these wealthy supporters knew what he was doing. From others he simply took the money and applied it to support for his pregnant concubine without their knowledge.

One such wealthy individual was “Bunny” Mellon of the considerable Mellon fortune. She channeled over six million dollars to Edwards, much of it used to fund the effort to hide the mistress as well as the author of the book’s family in high priced, toney accommodations across the country during the political season. In the book there is not much evidence to suggest she knew how her money was being used. It doesn’t speak well of her that she required no accounting.

It is not my intention to retell the story found in Andrew Young’s book. If you have an interest in this story you can read the book. What I want to highlight here is how close Johnny Reid Edwards came to being the “Leader of the Free World “and suggest that we all need to be more demanding of our candidates for national office.

Edwards used and tossed away his wife. He used Andrew Young and the entire Young family and then discarded them. He used “Bunny” Mellon and a great many other substantially wealthy Americans and did not value them. More importantly, he used all Americans who bought into his campaigns for vice president and president and could only have thought of them as dolts.

As his world crumbled, was he contrite? Did he seek our forgiveness? Did he make amends to those he used?

He did not.

Mrs. Edwards, not completely innocent or naïve by the way according to this book, came in second to the bimbo Reille Hunter. Edwards acknowledged his child with Reille Hunter long after everyone else already knew the baby was his. Not a very stand-up guy.

The Edwards children, facing the horrible cancer diagnosis with their mother, watched their father embarrass them all and abandon his wife.

Edward’s key aide, Andrew Young, is hardly employable and forever tarnished. More importantly, Young saw his whole family tarred with the same brush. Again, Young is not completely innocent or naïve in any of this. He was a willing companion on this fall from grace. And his willingness to enable Edwards says a lot about his willingness to foist this guy on the nation and about his own conceit.

“Bunny” Mellon asked only one thing from John Edwards, to whom she had funneled over six million dollars,” and that was his attendance at the funeral of her daughter.

Surprise. Surprise. He failed to attend.

Phew. We came so close friends.

We need to be more demanding of information about candidates to lead our land in the future. We need to get past their superficial qualities and demand evidence of their inner core beliefs.

Imagine what we would be dealing with had he actually become vice president or president.

And the damning piece in all of this was that he was willing to be this kind of person while thinking we were all so lacking in intelligence that he could pull the wool over our eyes.

I wonder where he got that idea.

14.6 MILLION AMERICANS OUT OF WORK

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair



14.6 MILLION PEOPLE WITHOUT WORK

The U.S. government reports that just slightly under 10% of Americans who are qualified and ready to work have no work. 14.6 million of our fellow Americans are without a job.

These statistics were released by the government on July 2, 2010.

The world is facing growing problems with reference to employment. “The under-30 unemployment rate in Spain is at 44%, twice the adult rate in Spain (22%). Italy has also passed the 40% mark and Greece has gone even further.”(Doug Saunders-The Globe and Mail).

The unemployment rate for young people is considerably higher than for older workers. That said, historically young people without mortgages or children have found ways to “make do” and have become proficient at establishing lives not based on high income requirements. It is much more difficult for the older worker who has financial responsibilities and a family.

To the extent that older workers who are unemployed at the moment cannot fall back on traditional expectations, the future looks quite bleak.

Many of the current unemployed have been without work for a long time. The historical expectation that one will find a new job in six to nine months after commencing to look for employment simply is not proving true any longer.

In fact, recently there have been a number of columns suggesting that the jobs that were lost were not coming back and that suitable alternate employment (at the same level as the job lost) probably would not present itself.

My generation came to understand that people would probably have 6-7 different jobs in their working lifetime. We also understood that those jobs would probably be in the field for which we were trained and at the same level (read pay and responsibility) as the other jobs we held previously. Often, this was the case.

However, it appears that older people who are unemployed are now being encouraged to lower their expectations and look for a job, any job, that will help them meet their financial and family obligations.

This idea is not an easy sell.

Children are encouraged to do well in school. They are encouraged to study hard and then learn a skill. They are told that as skilled workers they will always be in demand. So they are ill equipped to believe they have to settle for less than they previously earned.

The fast paced world in which we now live provides us daily examples of how fast things can change.

Suppose you owned a large company that made locks. If you are reading about developments in the field of security you know that we are just a short distance away from having locks recognize our fingerprints or the special nature of our eyes. We will one day open our front doors as well as the doors on our cars by simply putting one of our fingers on a designated spot.

When that happens, you better be geared up to change your product in the lock business or you will be out of business.

Think back to when the big steel companies made…steel. Are you aware that some of them are making kitchen appliances today? And many others simply no longer exist.

How about the companies that made airplane propellers? If they didn’t retool and prepare for the jet age they either are non-existent or working with a considerably lower stock price.

Maybe you are the fabled New York Times and you didn’t fully anticipate the electronic age. You are still trying to sell Sunday papers to people who can read exactly the same stuff on their computers for free, and without leaving the comfort of their living room.

What is the message?

The message is that if you are unemployed you need to think outside the box, take a look at the cards you hold, and make some big decisions.

Here are some thoughts:

A job, any job, is better than no job.

Waiting for the ideal situation is not wise.

Work, any work, can be ennobling.

Your value as a human being, a parent or a spouse, is not now and never should be determined by what you do. It should be determined by who you are.

GEORGE STEINBRENNER, THE BOSS

Notes of Concern…
….Jack Blair

GEORGE STEINBRENNER


George Steinbrenner, the famed owner of The New York Yankees, died in Florida on Tuesday, July 13th of a massive heart attack. Steinbrenner had been in declining health for some years.

I debated writing about George in a Massachusetts based column due to the vigorous rivalry between his Yankees and our Red Sox. I worried that any column about the Yankee owner might not be read!

The competition between the Yankees and the Red Sox was a good source of pride and revenue to both organizations and it made games between the two teams sell-out events. So I am going to write the column in the hope that Steinbrenner can be seen in a new light.

During George’s time as principal owner of the Yankees the Yankees won 11 AL pennants and seven World Series titles. His pride in his team, insistence on winning, and personal interest in the players and coaches certainly contributed to this record.

But George Steinbrenner was more than the owner of the fabled New York Yankees. A lot has been written about George, not all of it positive, but much remained unwritten and a lot of that had to do with his charitable nature and his dedication to his friends.

It is not my intention to focus on all of George’s good works but I do want to highlight one which I think serves as an example of his true nature.

Jim Fuchs, former Olympic Shot Putter and a friend of mine when I worked in New York City, partnered with George Steinbrenner in forming Silver Shield Foundation. George was also a friend of mine in those days so I was keenly aware of what the two of them were doing to help the widows and children of firemen and policemen lost in the line of duty. Here is a good description from one of the blogs:

“Jim Fuchs, formerly of Greenwich, is President of the Silver Shield. In 1982, he attended a policeman’s funeral with George Steinbrenner, who was moved by the ceremony and concerned for the officer’s children. Steinbrenner wondered who would pay for their college. George Steinbrenner began a fund for police officers’ children’s college and asked Jim Fuchs to run the Silver Shield Foundation. Today, the Silver Shield Foundation provides tuition and education benefits to the children and spouse of all members of the Fire Department( and Police Department) of the City of New York.”


I met George Steinbrenner when we both served on the Culver Educational Foundation Board. It was a small board and provided all of the members with the opportunity to create and sustain friendships with others who had enjoyed the experience of having attended Culver Military Academy, Culver Summer Schools, or one of the Culver camps.

I found George to be not only dedicated to Culver but a lot of fun to be around. Of course, with his background in business, politics and sports he had a lot of stories to tell. When we first met I was working and living in Pittsburgh, PA.

When my career took me to New York City, one of the first invitations I received was from George Steinbrenner. He invited me to join him in his private box for one of the Yankees games.

Now this was quite a welcome surprise from a young executive from the Midwest new to the Big Apple. When I arrived I found that the box was spacious enough to welcome a sizeable number of George’s friends. United States Senator Birch Bayh was there, as was the owner of the Fugazy limousine company and Tom Carvell of ice cream fame.

It was a memorable night.

Over the course of years, I made a few more visits to George’s box at Yankee Stadium and was always treated equally to those of much more stature. That was his nature.

When he heard my parents were visiting, he arranged for me to host them at Yankee Stadium and to entertain them in the dining club there. On another occasion, George had my whole family to the stadium and arranged for us to sit behind the Yankees dugout. My children were young then and it made an enormous impression on them.

When I moved to Massachusetts and was involved in fund raising, George sent me a signed Yankees baseball to be auctioned off in support of The Winchendon School. It brought the School $1000.

During a year in which my mother’s health was declining and she was in a local nursing facility, George sent her a letter to post on her door, signed by him, complimenting her on her bravery in being a Yankees fan in Red Sox Nation!

These are a few examples of the George Steinbrenner I knew. A man not much like his public image. While I admire the accomplishments of George Steinbrenner the team owner and the businessman, it is the personal George Steinbrenner, the philanthropist, friend to so many, and kind man that I remember today and that I will miss tomorrow.

The Red Sox and the Yankees will continue their rivalry but I suspect it will never be quite the same.

God Save the Queen

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN


Elizabeth Alexandra Mary was born on April 21, 1926 and is known as Queen Elizabeth II of England to the world and “Lilibet” to her family.

I am in Canada as I write this column and Her Majesty has just visited this country. As I read the various newspapers I see her picture daily in a number of different colorful hats. I read that she brought fifty hats with her.

This seems to be her habit. They write that she tries to have hats designed to cover both the possible “weather” as well as the symbolism of whatever event she attends.

Three things are very predictable with reference to Her Majesty:

• she will have a striking hat or crown
atop her royal head

• she will have a pocket book swinging from her
arm

• she will faithfully attend to her duties every day of her life


Pollsters indicate that her subjects are rather lukewarm on the idea of monarchy. That said, they are very fond of the current monarch. Elizabeth is incredibly popular with her subjects and is met by large crowds wherever she goes.

Her Majesty is one of the longest reigning monarchs in British history. The fact that her mother lived beyond age 100 suggests that Queen Elizabeth may yet capture the title of longest reigning monarch. She has expressed no interest in abdicating in favor of her eldest son, Charles, the Prince of Wales.

Like her mother and father did, she has an enormous sense of duty.

Criticism of the Queen is rare in this day of a great willingness to attack people in authority. She is focused on the work of the monarchy and by all accounts attends to her duties efficiently and effectively each and every day. Not one iota of scandal has touched this monarch.

Like many mothers in her generation, she has been disappointed in the antics of her children. The Queen is undoubtedly concerned about the future of The House of Windsor.

We have not seen the seriousness of purpose, the dedication to duty, or the appreciation of royal birth in any of her offspring. It is unlikely any of her children could equal her popularity or dedication to the people of the United Kingdom.

I have had an opportunity to be in her presence once. My wife and I were the only Americans at The Commonwealth Service in Westminster Abbey one year as guests of the Dean of Westminster Abbey. This is a service to which all the countries in the British Empire send representatives and the entire royal family is in attendance.

When the trumpets sounded and the organ took up the thrilling “God Save the Queen”, the small statured Elizabeth marched down the long aisle, colorful crown astride her head and ever-present pocket book carried on her arm. No one would say she made a powerful presence, or exuded charm or regality. The vibes she sent out were ones of competence, seriousness of purpose, and love of country.

In 1947 Elizabeth married Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh.
They have a family of four children and eight grandchildren.

On a couple of occasions, my wife and I have met His Royal Highness, Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

On one occasion we had tea with him at the home of the British Consul in New York City. There were six of us and I found him to be an interesting conversationalist and a friendly host. However, there was no familiarity in his bearing and I felt certain meeting with us was simply one more burden of his daily schedule.

On another occasion, my wife and I had dinner with Prince Philip in a private dining room at a club in New York. There was a large round table and about twenty guests. On this occasion, I found him to be pompous and overbearing.
More importantly, he seemed completely unappreciative of the efforts our host had extended to make it an enjoyable night for him.

We attended a picnic with Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, in upstate New York one spring and later a dinner with him at the New York Yacht Club. He seemed very much like his father.

Like you, I have only read about the other children: Anne, Charles and Edward.

So Elizabeth has a handsome but seemingly distant consort in Philip, and four children, each of whom has demonstrated some public bad behavior and in their own way tarnished the family name in ways that could only pain their dedicated mother.

Presidents, dictators and other heads of state come and go.

Fortunately for her subjects, Elizabeth continues.

As the world is roiled in politics, she stands out as a beacon of service, patriotism and class.

It is easy to see she truly cares for her subjects. She loves them and they love her.

The rest of us are living in times that permit us to be her contemporaries. We are seeing a reign like few others and her passing will be painful not just to her subjects.

I feel completely justified in stating that this Elizabeth has set the standard for “reigning” in her 58 years as Queen and that standard will not be met by any future British monarch nor any other person ascending the throne in any other land.

God Save the Queen.

The System is Broken

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair

THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN

I have been reading about the sunny state of California. It appears things are not all that sunny in “La La Land” these days. In fact, in order for California to deal successfully with the current fiscal dilemma in which it finds itself it would, according to the writer Barrie McKenna, need to free 168,000 prisoners from California jails and close forever 240 college and university campuses.

The real problem, however, for those of us who do not live in “La La Land” is that it might be the preview for what we can expect in the years to come.

We are a nation that expects a great deal from our government.

We are a nation that does not like taxes.

For the government to satisfy our “wants” they must tax us.

I wrestle with how all of this can possibly work out.

Many in America do not understand that we are one of the least taxed countries in the world. We don’t understand it because we don’t study it and no one tells us about it.

It is, however, an unwelcome truth. And it stands in each of our living rooms as a very large elephant.

What will we do about the elephant in the room?

If we slash expenses (programs) the people get angry.

If we raise taxes to fund the programs, the people get angry.

The bottom line is that people are angry. We see it in almost every electoral contest from sea to shining sea.

We have in our country a very layered and very costly federal government. At the same time, we do not provide the tax income to pay for this government. To a lesser extent, but no less critical, we have the same situation in each state.

Very soon California will be asking for a federal bailout. Whatever consideration is given to that will have to occur in the knowledge there could be 49 more bailout requests over the years.

If the federal government provides a bailout the money has to come from either slashing federal programs or raising taxes. If you don’t know what kind of reaction there would be to either of those, re-read the column!

As Robert Preston sang in the musical “The Music Man”, slightly paraphrased:

We got trouble! …

Well, either you're closing your eyes
to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge
or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated…

We have to stop spending money.

Or

We have to expect less from our government.

Or

We have to be willing to pay more in taxes.

It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

What will it be?

BACK TO BASICS ?

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair

BACK TO BASICS?

Most of us have the basics: shelter in the form of a home, transportation, medical coverage, sufficient income to live on, safety, and freedom.

Many of us have more than the basics: we actually own a home, we have more than one car, we have really good medical coverage, we have more income than required to cover the “basics” and we could be referred to as “comfortable”.

Some of us live our lives with a great many more toys than we need.

Fewer of us make charitable donations than would seem appropriate given how much financial security we enjoy. We don’t share very much.

A very small minority of us prepare for that “rainy day” that always worried our parents. One of the reasons is that we haven’t seen the rainy days that came their way, so we have trouble envisioning one.

An article in another paper this week started me thinking about this. The thrust of the article was that Americans just don’t sacrifice anymore.

We always want more from the government than they are prepared to give.

We want more from the company for which we work than they are prepared to pay.

We want more channels from the cable company on our televisions; we aren’t satisfied anymore with AM/FM and want to pay for satellite radio; we don’t find one or two automobiles in our garage sufficient and hope to add a motorcycle, scooter, and a couple of bikes (mountain, dirt, etc) to our collection of “wheels”.

We want bigger, better and sexier vacations. We want our airplanes to carry 500 and have bars, sleeping quarters and maybe a fitness facility. We want our cruise ships to have ice arenas and the capability for surfing on the deck. We want our cars to play movies to keep the kids quiet on long trips. We want designer clothes, not just something from Penny’s or Sears.

This list could go on for far more space than I have in this paper today.

We live a charmed life in many ways.

Even those of us who have difficulties in our lives would find that we are still so much better off than many people in the world.

Perhaps the reader would consider cutting back a little? Donating more to others (sacrificial financial gifts or gifts of service)? Starting a “rainy day” fund? We should at least contemplate our bountiful lives and take a moment to compare them to the lives of others in places like Soweto, South Africa and Delhi, India.

As our nation loses the reputation it once enjoyed in the world and gains a growing list of enemies abroad, we need to focus on how we as a people have changed and ask ourselves if that might be the source of our new-found difficulties.

Perhaps the changes that need to be made cannot be successfully made in Washington, DC but need to occur right in our own backyard-in our own homes.

There is no reason to be ashamed for having the blessings we have in life. But it is important to keep them in perspective and to have a realistic view of the basic ingredients required to live our lives.

DISHONOR

Notes of Concern…
…Jack Blair


DISHONOR


Arlington National Cemetery has announced that it has misplaced some of our heroes.

It was announced on MSNBC that problems of misidentification or improper record keeping has occurred with reference to 211 graves. In other words, folks being paid huge salaries screwed up.

In one instance one body was buried on top of a previously buried body in the same grave.

Did the government uncover this on their own? No!

One family visited the grave site of their loved one only to find another family had placed a tombstone there.

And that is when the dominoes began to fall.

The top man at Arlington has lost his job.

The number two guy is on administrative leave. He may get to return.

It is hard to think of a situation that engenders more disgust than this one. Arlington was created and is maintained to be a dignified resting place for men and women who gave their lives in service to our nation.

It is a place of incredible beauty with magnificent lawns, dignified military funerals, and the resting place of many important Americans, none of them more important than the soldiers who paid the ultimate price.

How does this happen?

This should be pretty straight forward: A soldier dies. He is identified by his dog tags and other scientific procedures. He is flown home in a military transport. His casket is carried off the plane and placed in a hearse. His body is driven to Arlington where his family and friends meet it and the military conducts a formal service. He is interred in the grave that was opened for him.

Simple.

Clear cut.

Straight forward.

One would assume the details were handled as crisply as the soldiers fold the flag or with as much care as the riflemen provide the salute or the horn clearly sounds “Taps”.

Assumptions are often wrong.

Many of us have learned that the Federal Government can screw up a one-car funeral. That they could blow something as simple, and important as this, renders many Americans speechless.

We have seen lately an incredible number of examples of incompetence in our government. This is just one more.

However, this one strikes at the very heart of our patriotism.

There is no room for error here. In the handling of our military dead we need to see perfection. This is an inexcusable situation that adds further grief and worry to the families our soldiers have left behind.

Every individual associated with this mess needs to lose his job.

If he knew about the situation and did nothing, he needs to go.

If he did not know about the situation but should have, he needs to go.

If he was just taking orders, he needs to go.

Memo to the Federal Government: clean house! Then hire competent administrators.

First order of business must be to make this right.

Determine which soldiers should be in which graves. Reinter them appropriately. And while you are at it, offer to redo the ceremonies if the affected families so desire.

Do it right this time.

Shame on you.

IN OUR GREED

IN OUR GREED

Our earth is a wonderful gift.

We live in beautiful surroundings. Each of us has driven along winding and beautiful country roads; we have taken a swim in crystal blue water; we have soaked up the sun while resting on a sandy beach.

We have enjoyed boating off one of our coasts; climbed high in a spectacular tree; looked down on the hills and valleys of our country as we were engaged in air travel.

Many of us have watched the sparkling white snow fall on beautiful evergreens; walked in a light spring rain; hiked along seldom traveled trails through incredibly quiet and striking forests; and stared upward on a dark night to admire the beautiful heavens.

The calamity brought upon us by British Petroleum is only the most recent rape of the earth. In our eagerness for progress, our insatiable appetite for oil, our pursuit of the almighty dollar, and our disregard for the infamous “downside” of our greed, we are regularly, systematically, and predictably destroying much of what is good and wholesome in our lives.

No one company is to blame. All companies are participating in one way or another.

No one chief executive can be tarred and feathered.

No one government is responsible for what is happening.

Collectively, we encourage and permit the blind pursuit of profit.
We buy the products.

We use the resources.

We invest in the stocks.

WE THE PEOPLE… had better wake up!

THE UN and Human Rights

THE UNITED NATIONS & HUMAN RIGHTS

I am not a big fan of the United Nations.

Here is yet another reason why.

“Seven countries accused of human rights violations, including Libya, Angola, and Malaysia won seats on the U.N. Human Rights Council in an uncontested election yesterday.” (Associated Press)

Lets start with the atrocities committed in these countries. I don’t need to list them. Just “Google” the country and look under human rights.

Some of the dankest and darkest places on earth are serving in this august body. Further, these countries were elected by substantial margins.

More disgusting, the election was uncontested which means the United States, Great Britain, France and other supposedly enlightened nations failed to oppose.

There could be only one reason for not opposing something as outrageous as this: because it simply doesn’t matter; because the Council will have no power; because this is just another piece of UN “window dressing.”

This is just one example of an organization that has failed on almost every front to achieve the ambitious and noble goals outlined when it was founded.

The UN sits on an expensive piece of waterfront real estate in New York City (courtesy of the Rockefeller family) and houses a large group of people who have diplomatic immunity and park their cars everywhere Americans may not, demand attention, enjoy the perks of big city life, and produce very little in the way of progress for mankind.

You may have noted how successful the UN has been in resolving the conflict in the Middle East. No matter how many threats they issued against Iraq they were unable to bring Saddam into line. For years they have been threatening to bring lots of trouble to Iran over the development on nuclear capabilities and Iran just continues building.

There is no country in the world, large or small, that has anything to fear from the UN. It has proven itself over and over unable to do more than threaten action.

As a nation, the United States talks a lot about human rights. We should have led the charge against these countries that have just been elected to the Human Rights Council of the UN. We might have failed (because a great many countries that do not see eye-to-eye with us populate the UN), but at least we would have taken a stand.

We did not.

Shame on the UN and shame on us.

"CHARLES"

Notes of Concern…
….Jackson Blair


“CHARLES”



Like you, I have read all the horror stories about events that took place in hospitals. For instance, there was the surgeon who left his patient “open” on the table while he ran to the ATM to cash a check.

Then there was the fellow who was to have his right leg amputated only to awake and find his left leg gone.

Also, there were a number of stories of patients post surgery who found through x-rays that surgical instruments and sponges were left inside the wound when the surgeon “closed."

Recently, I had occasion to head to a hospital (not local) for some pre-op testing and preparation. Frankly, I really wasn’t thinking about these horror stories as I pulled into the parking lot.

I went right up to the check-in window, as instructed. “Hello Charles," said the lady. A very lovely young woman began to go over the pre-printed information they had on their form. I told her I used my middle name and would like to be called Jack. She said “Ok Charles."

Things were moving along smashingly until she got to “heritage” on her pre-completed form and read off the form that I was “Irish/Iraqi.”

Irish/Iraqi!

I didn’t even try to figure out where they got that.

Even if they actually have someone employed to just look at a patient and guess, they never would have come up with Irish/Iraqi. I have the fair complexion of my ancestors and I am built like the Scots.

She was nice enough to correct it for me.

While she was writing I was thinking of what it would have been like to have been visited by an Imam or Mullah carrying a bouquet of green clovers in my hospital room and wanting to share prayers on the rug with me five times a day.

She asked if I had a Healthcare Proxy on file. When you are contemplating surgery you are always so relieved to be asked who gets to decide to pull the plug if things don’t go as planned. I responded that I indeed had one but not at that hospital.

“No problem Charles," said the lass. I said, “please call me Jack. My first name is Charles but I use my middle name."

She gave me a form and asked me to fill it out and bring it back to her.

I moved to another desk area and took a chair. I began to fill out this important form. Well, I started to fill it out. The form she gave me was the wrong form. It had absolutely nothing to do with healthcare proxies.

I reported this to her. She giggled and said “sorry about that Charles” and pulled the right form out of another drawer.

I said “please call me Jack."

Then I was off to see the resident in charge of beginning my day. And what a beautiful sight she was. Young, pretty, and friendly. What could go wrong?

She said “nice to meet you Charles.” I said “please call me Jack.”

She was then joined by another younger, less pretty, somewhat friendly “trainee” who evidently was there to see how these input meetings are to be run. We went through the “Charles/Jack” bit again and moved on.

As the lady went over all the questions I had previously been asked out front, she totally ignored me and began speaking to the trainee, complaining that this sort of thing (the asking of questions and writing of answers) was a horrid waste of the time of talented staff.

While I completely agreed, it was a little off-putting to feel so generally that I was clearly a large burden on the important tasks of the day facing these two young things.

As they were chatting, and I was answering questions, they put a band on my wrist. All hospitals do this. No big deal, right?

Except my band had the name of a doctor I had never heard of before. Flashing across my consciousness was the thought that perhaps my own surgeon shoved me off on someone else. Worse, maybe this guy was an obstetrician. So I got up my courage and asked.

“Oh, Charles”, says the lady. I asked her to call me Jack.

Whoops, wrong doctor.

Not to worry.

They will take care of it. I wasn’t encouraged as she did not rip the band off my wrist and replace it. She just continued with the questions.

When she finished, she told me an EKG would be needed and she bid me goodbye.

I reminded her about the bracelet. “Oh! Of course. Charles.” She would take care of that.

I quit the “Jack” stuff. I know a losing streak when I am having one.

In came the EKG lady. Let us just say not young, not pretty, reasonably friendly but more importantly, she seemed to actually know what she was doing.

She did not try to shave my chest. She made no move toward checking for rashes. She didn’t ask me to cough. She never asked me whether I had any relatives living in Baghdad.

She just did her job.

Quickly, efficiently and without fuss.

I knew I had a winner here. So as she left I told her the story about the wristband and asked for a new one. She said she would take care of that. The name “Charles” did not even pass her lips. Of course, neither did the name “Jack.”

I regret to say that in one fell swoop all the confidence I had in her disappeared when she left the room and never returned with any bracelet, correct or incorrect.

Time to meet the anesthesiologist.

What could possibly go wrong here? No one waiting in the chair outside his office-good sign.

Eight of those plastic things they nail to the wall to hold the files of all the people waiting to be seen…and all empty. Wow. No wait.

Dreamer!

He came out, introduced himself and as I got up to enter his office he said that I might as well just stay seated because no one had brought him my file. The assembly line had failed.

I thought if I could find a paper and pencil and pin I could write a name tag with JACK on it. But alas, they don’t keep any sharp objects in the patient area.

Your mind does tend to wander while waiting for an appointment. Some guys get their best ideas while in the shower. Me, my brain goes into overdrive outside doctors’ offices.

He came out again in about five minutes, noticed the plastic file containers were still empty, and went back in his office. On his next venture out he looked really disgusted and went down the hall in search of my file.

I didn’t even have time to ask him if he could get me a new bracelet.

I sympathized with his dilemma. He was to see a guy named Charles with a doctor who was not really Charles’ doctor on the list. And outside he had a guy named Jack who said the name of a different doctor when asked.

Maybe the whole staff was busy trying the figure out the mystery. This could be the stuff they hold seminars about. I could see my name in the medical journals. I could have been Mr. Mustard-in-the-library-with-a-candlestick as far as they know (you have to be a certain age to appreciate this).

So the meeting began. But not the way I thought it would. My wife and I walked in. He said something about the Ides of March. She responded with something from Shakespeare. He threw back another line.

Wait a minute. Wrong name. Wrong hospital. And now I am attending a seminar on Shakespeare!

What the heck. I threw out the only line I know from Shakespeare. I just up and said it:

“Out Out Damned Spot. “

Bad move.

They both looked at me like I had just passed a little gas and my wife said, simply, “wrong play.”

He asked me all the same questions again. You know, somebody could really be of value telling hospitals that asking these things once, copying them, and making the patient sign multiple copies, would save everybody a lot of time. Not to mention all the extra ink being used to cross out “Charles” and write in “Jack” on every form.

I toyed with the idea of introducing myself as “Ezekiel” when next asked but I figured they might have to shut down the hospital due to the turmoil another name change might cause.

When the questions were complete he shared with me everything that could possibly happen to me if my anesthesia didn’t work.

Then there was the bit about sticking a tube down my throat after I was asleep and the fact that it was often hard to do and I might have some tearing or pain there when I awoke.

He also mentioned that I would be choking a lot because it was hard to breath with a tube down your throat but not to worry because I wouldn’t remember the choking.

The basic bottom line was: you won’t feel it when I put it in or when I pull it out but you will know it has been there when the pain killer wears off.

We segued from the throat lacerations to a discussion of bleeding. Why stop there. We went over all the things that could happen to a patient while he is laying naked on a steel table surrounded by guys with very sharp knives.

Well, you get the idea.

I weighed whether to mention the bracelet problem and got brave.

I don’t think anesthesiologists really care who is doing the operation as long as they are giving you the drugs. He didn’t seem too concerned.

He kindly led me to the waiting room and said “goodbye Charles and good luck.” The “good luck” comment rendered me speechless so I didn’t even mention “Jack” or remind him about the bracelet.

The next lady was a lot of fun. She asked me if I had an allergy to latex. While I tried to figure out where this conversation was headed, the wife joined us.

That ended the talk of latex and we moved into a discussion of peanuts. I hadn’t had anything to eat or drink all night so I really wasn’t into the discussion of any food item. Frankly, I was still intrigued about the latex.

We did the “Charles/Jack tango” and then moved into the “who can get the right bracelet” quiz.

She handed me two sponges that I was to wash myself with the night before surgery. We discussed in intimate detail the places those sponges were never to touch. I would have appreciated more talk about latex at that moment.

She gave me a map designed to get me from the building in which we were to the building where I was to go next.

I am not going to use a lot of space to discuss this other than to say to you that if NASA had this map we would have a lot of fellows circling the earth in a never-ending orbit. The guy who mapped this route worked for the Vietcong years ago when they put in their tunnel system in the jungle.

A gang of beagles could not have sniffed out this route. I would have given anything to see a Labrador retriever standing in the hall pointing the way.

One good thing did happen, somebody came running up to me, snipped off my original bracelet and gave me a new one.

Right doctor now.

But I am still Charles to them.

I just surrendered.

It occurs to me being elderly and a little senile might make this kind of experience an adventure.

Having not reached that point in life yet (right!), the thought of this repeating itself on surgery day scares me to death.

What a surprise it would be to wake up and learn what body part they operated on. They have so many choices.

I ventured once again a question I knew would cause trouble: “how often does the surgeon operate on the wrong body part?”

The answer was more terrifying than anything Edgar Alan Poe ever put on paper.

Did you know right before you go into surgery they come in and have a conference with you so that everybody in the room is in agreement as to which body part will be sliced?

And just to confirm it, you put your initials in ink on the body part to be cut, you actually write on your skin and so does the doctor.

Then they put you out and roll you into the operating theater.

Theater?!

Somebody is carrying this Shakespeare stuff way too far.

Can you even guess what it cost the hospital in legal fees to get the recommendation that the doctors and patients sign the patient’s body so nobody makes a mistake!

“Nobody.”

Now there is a great yuk. One guy is awake, dressed in white (maybe an Irish/Iraqi surgeon) holding a scalpel looking for some scrawled signature in ink on the totally unconscious body atop the table in front of him.

And on top of that he is wearing a mask!

Who sees in this scenario any chance for the patient to make the mistake?

And should a mistake be made, the patient cannot identify the culprit because everybody but the guy on the table is wearing a mask.

What am I supposed to do, sit up and say “who was that masked man?” Maybe that is why they use the wrong doctor’s name on the bracelet.

I will just keep foremost in my mind that when I hear someone in the recovery room saying “Charles, can you hear me?” it will be a nurse who is part of the “system.”

If anyone says “Jack can you hear me?” I will know there is something seriously wrong.

The last conversation we had with the person charged with sending us off related to the safety of the hospital.

Basically, I was told to leave all my jewelry, watch and ring at home; do not bring your wallet; no need to bring any medical cards or medicine lists; cell phones, laptops, or anything of value because those things will be stolen while you are out cold.

In review: they don’t know my name, they don’t have me associated with the right heritage, they don’t know which doctor plans to operate, they don’t have my medical bracelet correct, everybody in the operating room will be masked and while I am there it is possible someone is robbing me of any personal belongings I might have left in my hospital room.

I leave this day of “pre-op” with an overwhelming sense of confidence!

As we drove out of the parking lot my wife said “well Jack, what did you think of the experience.”

I replied, “please call me Charles.”