BLIMEY

Notes of Concern…

                               …Jackson Blair

BLIMEY !

The Brits are all caught up in the Summer Olympics.

As they should be. They have spent a fortune for the honor.

As I follow various events on television I am constantly surprised to see so many vacant seats. A number of fellow writers have noticed it too as it seems to be the topic of a number of columns lately.

Normally, getting tickets to any Olympic event is very difficult.

What has changed?

I think the cost of putting on the Olympics has caused many of us to wonder if the event is worth the huge amounts of capital required to stage it. And we also wonder whether the hassle of getting a ticket, the price of the ticket, and the hassle of getting to and from the venue is worth it.

In order to meet the costs, the ticket prices are astronomical and cities around the world promise everything just to bid on hosting the Olympics.

As with so many things in life, perhaps we need to review the cost- benefit of the Olympic Games.  I am not suggesting they should not be held, but perhaps some review of how they were held in the early days would be enlightening.

In early times one had the youth of the day heading out to the fields to contest against each other in various events. People interested in watching showed up.

No tickets.

No Ralph Lauren designer duds.

No worry about doping.

No worry about terrorism.

Why do we have to take something so noble, so simple, and so rewarding and make it into a money making venture not closely related to athletic prowess?

I know the answer.

NBC will spend billions because they will reap billions in making sure we can all watch it in our homes. Their advertisers will pony up the dough so they can sell us stuff. Cities will cut all sorts of corners, make new subways, build swimming pools and athlete housing and guarantee special treatment, just for the honor of hosting the Olympics.

Forget NBC…how about all the other networks in all the other countries! This is a big, big business folks.

It bears little resemblance to the original Olympic Games.

Sure it is fun to watch. It is entertainment my friends!

The Greeks had a great idea.

Those of us that followed have managed to really screw it up.

MANDIBA

Notes of Concern…

                               …Jackson Blair

MANDIBA

I am writing this column on Nelson Mandela’s birthday. He has completed his 94^th year.

In our country we talk of “change” in sound bites. We expect change to come quickly. We are not very good at being patient or at delaying gratification. In so many ways we are the “short view” proponents.

When I consider the life of Nelson Mandela, “Mandiba” to his countrymen, I see an example of a man who took the “long view” and who saw the glass as half full and who believed that all things would come in time. He saw “change” as a long, slow process.

I don’t need to spend time writing about his accomplishments. But I do want to remind my readers that he was first a “rebel” in his country. There is a lot of “baggage” that comes with being a “rebel.”  I feel certain the Mandela we know today was very different as an angry young man, striking out against enemies, planning disruptions and risking his life every day. It was what put him in prison.

But it was the Mandela that came out of that experience that proved a blessing to the world.

It is not necessary to document his over twenty years of imprisonment. I have seen the small cell on Robben Island where he spent his days, the rock piles on which he left his sweat. That long period in the company of beaten men, disillusioned prisoners, and mean-spirited guards would, I believe, be sufficient to make an angry young man an even angrier old man.

However, that was not the lesson learned by Mandela on Robben Island. In the midst of hate and deprivation and forced work he discovered a better way.

It was a truly free man who walked out of Robben Island after more than 20 years of imprisonment. Freed not just from his shackles but also from his hate.

Again, the Mandela that emerged from that dark experience became a blessing to the world.

As a free man with a calm and studied demeanor and a belief that only reconciliation and forgiveness could unite his land, he went on to become president. During his time in office he suggested that those who had demeaned men and women of his race, maimed and killed many of his compatriots, be forgiven their crimes if they made a public confession of them.

One by one the perpetrators of the apartheid period came before the Truth & Reconciliation Commission and admitted their crimes.

And they were forgiven their sins.

We who are alive in this time have seen historic change brought about in the Republic of South Africa by a common man.

More importantly, we have been privileged to witness once again the immense power of forgiveness to move mountains, change people, and provide hope.

Happy Birthday Mandiba.

You were given the blessing of years.

You have used them well.

NYC's LONGEST RUNNING SHOW (with NO rave reviews)

Notes of Concern…

                               …Jackson Blair

New York’s Longest Running Show

(No Rave Reviews)

Woodrow Wilson wanted a League of Nations.

That was the beginning of discussions about a world body where problems could be discussed and solutions found through the combined intellect and concerns of ambassadors from every member nation.

That didn’t work out.

Finally, The United Nations was born. 

Now there is a misnomer!

The UNITED Nations? 

Not for one day of their existence have they been united. All sorts of major and minor, petty, and insignificant individual needs, requirements, hopes, and desires have driven that group of countries. And as one would suspect, skullduggery, espionage, politics, personal ambitions, and geographic and cultural differences have made compromise on almost anything elusive.

The Rockefeller family gave the land-prime real estate on the East River of New York City-for the UN Buildings. The United States welcomed the nations of the world and, over the years, has borne about 25% of the total cost of running the organization.

The cost of running the United Nations is $1.9 billion per year.

In schoolrooms across the world the import of The United Nations is regularly discussed. While we instill in our students a respect for such international dialogue, we fail to highlight what a failure the UN has been. With the veto power of members of the Security Council solidly in place, no real difference has been made anywhere in the world.

UN Ambassadors drive New York City crazy. They have diplomatic plates on their cars and park anywhere they wish. They have diplomatic immunity and avoid prosecution and imprisonment for crimes. Every time a world leader arrives in NYC for a UN presentation, it costs New York residents and America a ton of money for protection, not to mention crowd and traffic control.

If any reasonable manager were to look at the cost-effectiveness of The United Nations, he would dissolve it immediately.

So it is a matter of idealism.  Solely a matter of idealism.

Billions of dollars spent in pursuit of an illusive dream: world peace. Who can argue against world peace? Who can argue that talking about world problems is wrong? Everyone wants peace to prevail.

So let us agree that pragmatism has nothing to do with the United Nations. It is the idea that people around the world would get together and talk about their differences that makes hearts soar.

I cannot think of any way The United Nations has made a real difference in the world during my lifetime. The acts of charity could be handled in any number of less expensive ways. The outreach to the poor and hungry can be done more effectively and more efficiently. With reference to the matter of stopping wars or preventing real terror the UN is a dismal failure.

The United Nations has its own set of political rules. They cannot really favor any member nation. They must abide by the decisions of the Security Council, decisions that are rarely unanimous and can be erased by one veto.

The UN was set up to encourage the participation of the super powers. In order to do this, they were given the “veto” over anything the rest of the membership might wish to do.

In other words, unproductive, irresponsible, and costly devotion to an unworkable concept is the rule of the day at the UN.

When I think of the billions of dollars spent on this organization, I have to remind myself that the money is spent in support of an ideal, not a reality.

There are no pragmatic arguments for the continuance of The United Nations.

There is little popular support in our country for the United States paying such a huge percentage of the cost of the UN operation. There certainly is a recognition we pay a seriously disproportionate share.

There are no winning argument as to why New York City should have to shoulder the burden of hosting The United Nations.

For many impoverished nations around the world, sending a representative to live in the “chi-chi” environs of NYC is an incredibly expensive proposition. For the men and women who get to come to NYC and live in such a center of wealth, it is a heady experience.

Frankly, it makes no sense.

If the UN were to be located in Bangladesh, or Somalia, or Liberia, I wonder how many representatives would be so keen on being assigned there. And in such parts of the world the host country could not absorb the costs associated with protection. Each member nation would have to assume responsibility for its own representative.

My wife and I befriended a couple many years ago. The husband was his nation’s Ambassador to The United Nations. He came from a very poor nation. In order to survive, his wife cleaned houses. On a number of occasions the Ambassador told me that his government was shaky. He worried all the time. Within the halls of the UN it was clear he was a respected man and he represented his government's current regime very well.

Eventually, the opposition in his country prevailed. The Ambassador was not only “out,” but if he returned home, he would be executed. You can imagine the life he and his wife and children then had to live.

From “Ambassador Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary to The United Nations” to impoverished outcast this man now had a price on his head.

This is the real United Nations story. Far more nations fit this pattern than that of the super powers. What their countries want one day can be very different a week later.

At the end of the day, the big nations remain the “big shots” and make the calls. The nations with the “big sticks” make sure their interests are served.

Not so much has changed since the days of Attila the Hun!

Send all the limousine-riding, law ignoring, high living ambassadors back to their home countries!

Use the almost $2 billion budget of the United Nations to ease hunger and disease in the world.

If the big guys on the Security Council want to get together once or twice a year, let them do it in a nation that can show them what real despair looks like. Hold that meeting in Haiti, and see how many of them choose to attend.

Let New York City police and fireman, as well as the United States State Department personnel and Secret Service, get back to serving the American people.

It did not take the Ford Motor Company long to realize that the “Edsel” wasn’t going to cut it no matter how much they had hoped otherwise. They stopped production and cut their losses.

Time for the producers of the long running “Broadway” show we call The United Nations to read the reviews and bring down the curtain. The United States is the biggest backer of the “show” and we are getting no return on our investment.

Let’s cut our losses.

For further information:  jacksonblair@gmail.com

Vandergrift & Russia

Notes of Concern…

                               …Jackson Blair

Vandergrift & Russia

When I was growing up in a small western Pennsylvania town named Vandergrift, my elementary school, The Sherman School, had numerous fire drills.

One day, they added bomb drills.

This was a time in the 1950’s when the Russians had successfully launched Sputnik and Americans were very concerned that between the development of an A-bomb and a successful space program, the Russians were a serious threat to life, as we knew it.

Add to these facts the knowledge that Russia espoused a very different system of government and that they didn’t much admire the democracy of The United States.

So, a period of bomb drills as well as bunker building began in America.

You see, the Russians were coming!

Or more accurately, the Russians might come.

In our bomb drill we were trained to crouch down under our already too small desks and to remain there until the “all clear.”

I have no idea whether Ms. Blanche Willard, our principal, or the Superintendent of Schools, or some national agency thought we could be safe by hiding under a desk, but I know now that should that bomb have been dropped we would not have been spared!

Those days in Vandergrift were a long time ago.

No bombs were dropped.

Ms. Willard retired to her home in Apollo, PA and lived out her years. All of the students went on to experience life without ever experiencing an actual bomb drop.

I was reminded of all this as my wife, Pam, and I visited St. Petersburg, Russia recently. We met many Russians. We visited all the usual Russian historic sites. It was hard for me to accept that these people ever wanted to bomb my school, The Sherman School.

As we interacted with them, I wondered if they had bomb drills, too. Did they fear an America they did not know? Did people they never met frighten them? Did their elementary school children seek security under a small desk?

As I reflect on that experience I cannot help but wonder if the supposed “enemies” of today are any more real than the Russians were then.

Do politicians benefit from encouraging fear?

Do school systems willingly engage in preparedness exercises that would be woefully inadequate if an event actually happened?

Ms. Blanche Willard would have liked the Russians I met.

They would have liked her.

No one in my class would have wanted to bomb those Russians and, if they had met my Vandergrift classmates at The Sherman School, they would not have wanted to bomb them.

In the end, people meeting other people where they live and where they work is what brings international understanding.

I am sorry it took me so long to visit Russia.

People connect with one another pretty much anywhere.

It seems to be our leaders that have problems finding common ground.

Profile in Courage? The Chief Justice

Notes of Concern…

                               …Jackson Blair

Profile in Courage?

The Honorable John Roberts, Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court, garnered some unwanted publicity with his recent decision to uphold what many refer to as “Obamacare.” 

While it is true he was only one of five votes cast to uphold the law, no one debates that it was his vote that was unexpected and that without it, the decision would have struck down some or all of the President’s signature health care initiative.

Probably no one was as surprised as President Obama himself that the man a Republican president (George W. Bush) chose to elevate to the Chief Justice position on the court provided the one vote needed to save the Democrat president’s (Barack Obama) most cherished accomplishment.

The outrage expressed by many Republicans, especially those in the more conservative ranks, was loud and damning. They saw Roberts' action as one of ingratitude to the man who appointed him, alarming to the conservatives in the land who saw his appointment as providing hope that their interpretation of the Constitution would prevail in future years, and as traitorous to his fellow jurists who were then cast in the minority on this important issue.

Personally, I am not a fan of the government requiring any citizen to buy anything. So I guess that would put me with the minority of the Court on this matter. I am not unsympathetic to those who believe our country must find a way to provide healthcare to all. I just fall into a category of people who believe the law just upheld could be better crafted and who would have liked to see it returned to the Congress for more in-depth work.

I am cutting the Chief Justice some slack on this one.

He is a learned man with a considerable record. He is one of the youngest Chief Justices, and he holds a lifetime appointment. He had to understand that the position he carved out on this issue, in a presidential election year, would be mighty unpopular with a lot of people.

It is fair, I think, to assume that he made a very difficult decision based on his own understanding of the law, and he did so knowing many in our society would view it with outrage. If this assumption is correct, the Chief Justice is another “Profile in Courage” for making an unpopular judgment because he believed it to be the correct decision.

Because of this decision, the president will probably be stronger in the coming election campaign, his conservative colleagues will never again see him in the same way, liberals will be watching to see if he can be counted on for a “swing” vote on other occasions, and Americans who would have made a different judgment will watch the entire matter unfold while awaiting history’s judgment on this 5-4 decision.

Critics of the court need to remember there are reasons the Justices have lifetime appointments. Perhaps the most important reason is to remove them from a need to be popular and to encourage them to do what they think is right.

Justices continually surprise their appointers.

Dwight Eisenhower is reported to have concluded that appointing Earl Warren as Chief Justice was his worst decision. Richard Nixon wasn’t too happy with Justice Blackman. Bush Senior watched his appointment of David Souter boomerang on the conservatives, and the list goes on.

Bottom line: no matter what the party of the President doing the appointing, or the political affiliation of the person nominated, the appointee has to become his own man (or woman) for the system to work.

In any “close call,” and a 5-4 decision of “The Supremes” is certainly that, a legal matter is not necessarily closed to further discussion.

This one will be no different.

If the President prevails in the next election the people will have four years of experience with “Obamacare” before the subsequent election. If the President does not prevail in the next election, the Republican will have an opportunity to tweak this health care mandate.

In the meantime, there are winners and losers, happy people and sad, and “Obamacare” is the settled law of the land.