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
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Friday, August 20, 2010
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.”
…. 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.”
Sunday, August 15, 2010
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.
…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.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
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.
…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.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)