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?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
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.
…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.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
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.
…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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)