My son Sean has been in Kansas City for a visit recently and picked me up from an appointment in the middle of the afternoon. Like his father, Sean always has the radio or CD player going while in the car; but unlike me, his political views and taste in radio stations do not permit him to enjoy conservative talk radio on weekdays (in spite of my failed attempts at political conversion).
After scanning the radio dial twice (according to his retelling of the event) he was unable to find more anything other than National Public Radio to suit his tastes. It appeared that there was plenty of Country music, and what to his sensibilities seemed an inordinate amount of Christian radio, but nothing like the music selection that he was used to in his home of Columbus (OH).
Thinking of his problem reminded me how much this country changes as we move from place to place.
Now as I look back in time, I have lived in Chicago, Kansas City (now twice), Columbus (twice), Cleveland (actually Medina if you want to get technical), LaGrange GA, and Toledo. Each of these places had things that recommended them, and some had more than others. Certainly however, each featured differences in the level of culture, variety and type available cuisine, and in the personalities of their populations. Ultimately, each had a charm of its own (sometimes in spite of itself).
This is turn reminded of that first time I had moved to what is known as the "City of Fountains" in the mid 70's. I remember a time not long after that arrival that found me sitting in a quiet local bar and enjoying a quiet local beer. The discussion of my fellow patrons that day was of their attire, more specifically of the material making up their foot coverings. One described cowboy boots as being made of alligator skin, another of rattlesnake skin, and the third of shark skin. (Please, no complaints from PETA members, as these none of these politically incorrect foot coverings were mine.) My reply, as the three looked at me was simple and to the point:
"Sorry guys, but I just moved here from Chicago. I don't own a pickup truck, don't have a rifle rack, and I'm wearing penny loafers." (Wow, did I just date myself or what?)
Any fears that I might have had of physical intimidation following this shocking admission were quickly dispelled however, as having just moved from Chicago, my erstwhile companions in libation assumed that I was part of the Mafia (Higgins being a well known Sicilian surname).
I came to love the city and its people over the subsequent seven years that I lived here the first time. I find likewise that I am enjoying my return to both KC and the family that remains here in residence, in spite of the fact that it has a Mayor whose name suspiciously reminds me of one which should not be spoken (Mark Funkhouser).
I have to admit however, that even though I have lived here before, there is a bit of dislocation that comes with this most recent relocation (as has occurred with every previous relocation), and I'm sure that I will continue to experience periodic mental displacement (beyond what I normally experience) caused by the difference between my current surroundings and those of my previous home in Toledo from time to time.
In considering this current situation, I couldn't help but recall the line from The Wizard of Oz; when Dorothy said, "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more."
"Sorry Dorothy, but you're wrong," I would be forced to reply to her these days. "In point of fact, we both are!"
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
TFP Column: Blast From The Past
Taking advantage of things going on in my current city of residence (Kansas City) and my former former (Toledo), I have discovered a rather unlikely connection between the two through a group that I hadn't heard from for years and had thought had gone the way of the dinosaur. In my most recent effort for the Toledo Free Press, editor-in-chief Michael Miller has allowed me to explore this connection (and to continue to pick on the Department of Justice) with a piece called "Blast From The Past" in the electronic edition of that publication.
For those of you of with an interest in all things political however, there is a much more important piece in this week's edition. Kristen Rapin has written an outstanding piece on the current scrutiny that NW Ohio Representative Marcy Kaptur is getting in regards to earmarks and political contributions.
It's far too hot, humid, and uncomfortable to be outside doing anything (even if it needs doing), so my personal recommendation would be to find a cool place, a cool drink, and curl up with this weekend's Toledo Free Press.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
It's Good To Be The King
For those of you who might recognize the phrase but not the source, it is a memorable one from what I consider an otherwise forgettable cinematic effort by Mel Brooks, "History of the World, Part I". The line is spoken by Mel himself, while playing King Louis XVI during the French Revolution (one of the many roles he played in this movie), as he takes any number of liberties while using the quoted line as only his excuse for these acts. We don't have any kings in this country currently (in spite of claims to the contrary), but we certainly seem to have a less than excusable elite capable of taking liberties. Surprisingly enough, I'm not talking about Congress this time however, but instead about some of the minions and myrmidons that namelessly work in the federal bureaucracy, public sector employees. Now I have written on this subject and these people before, but the sheer magnitude of the facts of the situation have never been so clearly illustrated as they have in a recent Heritage Foundation piece by James Sherk. Now for those of you are are either unable or unwilling to read the entire piece supplied in the link, let me pull a couple of salient bits of information out for you education and edification.
- The federal pay system gives the average federal employee hourly cash earnings 22 percent above the average private worker’s, controlling for observable skills and characteristics.
- Including non-cash benefits adds to this disparity. The average private-sector employer pays $9,882 per employee in annual benefits, while the federal government pays an average of $32,115 per employee.
- Overall, controlling for other factors, federal employees earn approximately 30 percent to 40 percent more in total compensation (wages and benefits) than comparable private-sector workers.
- Federal employees enjoy job security irrespective of the state of the economy. Since the recession began, federal employment has risen by 240,000—12 percent. The unemployment rate for federal employees has only slightly risen from 2.0 percent to 2.9 percent between 2007 and 2009.
- Federal employees demonstrate with their actions that they receive better compensation in the public sector than in the private sector: They quit their jobs at one-third the rate of the private employees.
- Bringing federal compensation in line with private-sector compensation would save taxpayers approximately $47 billion in 2011.
Now the study does point out (and it's worthwhile to note), that public sector employees tend to be better educated (33.4% in the public sector to 21.9% in the private have bachelor degrees) and are higher skilled as well; both of which can account for some level of higher pay. The study also points out however, that, "Many federal employees in highly skilled occupations receive market wages. However, semi-skilled federal workers earn substantially more than they would in the private sector." Such a statement would seem to mitigate some part of the education argument as justification for the vastly different levels of compensation, as it hardly seems likely that the more highly educated would be taking the lowered skilled positions.
Ultimately, we must conclude from the information supplied by the Heritage Foundation that at a time when the only discernible job growth in this country appears to be that of the federal government, these statistics and conclusions are more than alarming. At a time when the federal deficit has all of the appearances of a runaway train, this kind of compensation disparity seems at the least irresponsible and at worst, all but criminal. As Mel Brooks says, "It's good to be the king"; but it appears that if you can't manage to sign up for that gig (it is tough job market after all), the next best one for those desiring of the taking of financial liberties is to work for the federal government.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
A Diamond In The Rough
Something in a conversation that I had today got me thinking about the subject of diamonds. Have no fear, this discussion had nothing to do with the contemplation of matrimony on my part (been there, done that twice, threw away the T-shirts). No, this was in regards to one of those endless commercials by jewelry stores making none too subtle hints that the only suitable gift for a woman is one of these pieces of compacted carbon.
That the purchase of volcanically densely packed bits coal should be the only way to win or keep a woman's heart has often struck me as rather insulting to the intelligence of the fairer gender.
That such blatant capitalism apparently works as well as it does should be considered a miracle of modern advertising. The whole thing got me thinking about the fact that one of the great scams of the modern world is the value of diamonds. While it is true that this is one of hardest substances known to man (harder in fact than a conservative's heart, or so they tell me), it is not nearly as rare a gem as was once thought.
In fact, some 130 million carats (57,000 lbs) are mined, and over three times that are synthesized annually according to our friends at Wikipedia. (The carat, by the way, is a unit of weight based on the carob seed, or approximately 200 milligrams.) Rubies and emeralds are certainly more rare, as are sapphires and opals. Even pearls, though technically not a gemstone and also somewhat artificially produced, are more difficult to obtain. Regardless of the geologic facts of the matter however, the diamond remains the most prestigious of rocks.
It simply struck a chord in me that while many are quick to vilify oil companies over the price of their product, their apparently scandalous methods of obtaining it, their exploitation of both their workforce and their consumers, and their apparently scandalous profitability; few realize the level of manipulation and the artificial value that is maintained over this particular gemstone.
DeBeers, begun in 1888 and still one of the larger players in the diamond market (during the 20th Century having roughly 80% of the world's diamonds passed through their hands) still holds significant inventories of stones. That organization's inventory and that of their counterparts in the world diamond cartel, closely control the release of both the number of stones and the number of large stones, in order to artificially maintain the high price of diamonds in the world market.
Yet in spite of this blatant manipulation, diamond producers are held in high esteem, diamond purveyors (jewelry stores) are considered palaces, and customers of these overprice baubles are considered intelligent and trendy. Quite frankly, the whole process is a sham, propped up by all of the worst excesses in both capitalism and consumerism.
Perhaps this is the true meaning of "diamond in the rough", which phrase.org defines as, "Someone who is basically good-hearted but lacking social graces and respect for the law." Of course, they go on to list another definition as well, "This term is often used to describe people on the edge of the criminal fraternity who, while they may not commit serious crimes themselves, probably know people who do."
Maybe that particular connection is why the whole thing got me so aggravated in the first place ... it reminds me of politics.
That such blatant capitalism apparently works as well as it does should be considered a miracle of modern advertising. The whole thing got me thinking about the fact that one of the great scams of the modern world is the value of diamonds. While it is true that this is one of hardest substances known to man (harder in fact than a conservative's heart, or so they tell me), it is not nearly as rare a gem as was once thought.
In fact, some 130 million carats (57,000 lbs) are mined, and over three times that are synthesized annually according to our friends at Wikipedia. (The carat, by the way, is a unit of weight based on the carob seed, or approximately 200 milligrams.) Rubies and emeralds are certainly more rare, as are sapphires and opals. Even pearls, though technically not a gemstone and also somewhat artificially produced, are more difficult to obtain. Regardless of the geologic facts of the matter however, the diamond remains the most prestigious of rocks.
It simply struck a chord in me that while many are quick to vilify oil companies over the price of their product, their apparently scandalous methods of obtaining it, their exploitation of both their workforce and their consumers, and their apparently scandalous profitability; few realize the level of manipulation and the artificial value that is maintained over this particular gemstone.
DeBeers, begun in 1888 and still one of the larger players in the diamond market (during the 20th Century having roughly 80% of the world's diamonds passed through their hands) still holds significant inventories of stones. That organization's inventory and that of their counterparts in the world diamond cartel, closely control the release of both the number of stones and the number of large stones, in order to artificially maintain the high price of diamonds in the world market.
Yet in spite of this blatant manipulation, diamond producers are held in high esteem, diamond purveyors (jewelry stores) are considered palaces, and customers of these overprice baubles are considered intelligent and trendy. Quite frankly, the whole process is a sham, propped up by all of the worst excesses in both capitalism and consumerism.
Perhaps this is the true meaning of "diamond in the rough", which phrase.org defines as, "Someone who is basically good-hearted but lacking social graces and respect for the law." Of course, they go on to list another definition as well, "This term is often used to describe people on the edge of the criminal fraternity who, while they may not commit serious crimes themselves, probably know people who do."
Maybe that particular connection is why the whole thing got me so aggravated in the first place ... it reminds me of politics.
Friday, July 9, 2010
TFP Column: Consistent Inconsistency
I hadn't written anything for Michael Miller and the Toledo Free Press during my hiatus period either and the skills to do so were more than a little rusty, but he decided that my last minute effort was at least worth of posting in the online edition this week regardless. I hope that you enjoy "Consistent Inconsistency" while promising that any future TFP effort will be submitted more in line with the editorial schedule.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Summer & Immigration Continue To Heat Up
It has occurred to me that both the planet and immigration reform have been heating up in recent days. The planet (at least the northern hemisphere thereof) can be said to have some excuse for this other than the purported looming crisis of global warming ... summer. Different areas of the country are experiencing this annual event to different extents, with my current home of Kansas City to experience rain and highs in the mid 80's and my former home of Toledo and my daughter's home in the NYC area both expecting temperatures close to 100.
The heat up of immigration law debate in this country has no such scientific justification; nevertheless, the subject seems to be drawing increasing levels of attention. Having dispensed with stimulus programs that didn't provide all that much relief from the nation's economic doldrums, health care reform that failed to provide relief for rising health care costs (at least in the near term), and having likewise proved that it's little better in dealing with disasters in the Gulf of Mexico than the previous administration; the current one is now apparently directing the full force of its attention to subject of immigration. Both sides on this subject seem to have their share of worthwhile points, as well as their respective flaws of argument and inconsistencies.
Many choose to stand behind the idea of building a wall at the border, in spite of the consistent failure of fixed fortifications to provide any safety for those who built them (the Maginot Line, the Atlantic Wall of WWII, the Walls of Troy & Jericho). In fact, one cannot help but see an interesting inconsistency in the fact that many of the same people who cheered Reagan when he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." are now those most likely to be those demanding the building of one on our own border.
Others demand sympathy for offenders of Immigration law, especially for those who have been in this country for some time. This position seems equally inconsistent, since two previous immigration reform acts would have allowed such offenders two previous paths to forgiveness and legal citizenship. Still others point out that violations of immigration law are misdemeanors, and offenders should be cut some slack. And while there is little doubt that we have selectively enforced many of the laws in this country over the years, it also shows a lack of 'big picture' vision when we suggest such laxity while demanding increased enforcement of laws on misdemeanor alcohol or drug related offenses. Like summer temperatures, different areas of the country are experiencing different comfort levels where immigration is concerned.
Arizona's recent passage of its own kind of immigration reform has certainly put them on the hot seat and at the center of the storm. Apparently a state does not have the right to increase enforcement of existing federal law (when such federal government does not want them to) by the use of its own personnel and funding, and that federal government will not hesitate to say so. Texas seems equally uncomfortable these days, as kidnappings, murders, and armed incursions of drug cartels penetrate their border with the south. Then again, Texas has always had a bit of a reputation for stretching the truth and using the least little thing (like uniformed gangs holding hostages, killing judges and prosecutors, and severed heads being delivered to families as warnings for good behavior) to justify the use of their second amendment rights.
Not surprisingly, California seems largely untouched by the immigration issue, in spite of the border that they share. Then again, California seems largely untouched by much of reality much of the time. There is little hope that any real action will come of the heated debate on Immigration Reform this summer. Washington DC is also one of those places whose residents can experience serious discomfort during the summer months (which is why Congress recesses then). Additionally, this is an election year, and the polling data is inconsistent for those running for office as to which side of this debate provides the greatest chance of re-election (and the most political cover).
There will however be a significant amount of additional hot air generated by politicians, advocacy groups, and pundits on the subject; as a part of the heated rhetoric. As such, they will do little to resolve the issue; but will undoubtedly make a contribution to the increase in summer heat.
The heat up of immigration law debate in this country has no such scientific justification; nevertheless, the subject seems to be drawing increasing levels of attention. Having dispensed with stimulus programs that didn't provide all that much relief from the nation's economic doldrums, health care reform that failed to provide relief for rising health care costs (at least in the near term), and having likewise proved that it's little better in dealing with disasters in the Gulf of Mexico than the previous administration; the current one is now apparently directing the full force of its attention to subject of immigration. Both sides on this subject seem to have their share of worthwhile points, as well as their respective flaws of argument and inconsistencies.
Many choose to stand behind the idea of building a wall at the border, in spite of the consistent failure of fixed fortifications to provide any safety for those who built them (the Maginot Line, the Atlantic Wall of WWII, the Walls of Troy & Jericho). In fact, one cannot help but see an interesting inconsistency in the fact that many of the same people who cheered Reagan when he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." are now those most likely to be those demanding the building of one on our own border.
Others demand sympathy for offenders of Immigration law, especially for those who have been in this country for some time. This position seems equally inconsistent, since two previous immigration reform acts would have allowed such offenders two previous paths to forgiveness and legal citizenship. Still others point out that violations of immigration law are misdemeanors, and offenders should be cut some slack. And while there is little doubt that we have selectively enforced many of the laws in this country over the years, it also shows a lack of 'big picture' vision when we suggest such laxity while demanding increased enforcement of laws on misdemeanor alcohol or drug related offenses. Like summer temperatures, different areas of the country are experiencing different comfort levels where immigration is concerned.
Arizona's recent passage of its own kind of immigration reform has certainly put them on the hot seat and at the center of the storm. Apparently a state does not have the right to increase enforcement of existing federal law (when such federal government does not want them to) by the use of its own personnel and funding, and that federal government will not hesitate to say so. Texas seems equally uncomfortable these days, as kidnappings, murders, and armed incursions of drug cartels penetrate their border with the south. Then again, Texas has always had a bit of a reputation for stretching the truth and using the least little thing (like uniformed gangs holding hostages, killing judges and prosecutors, and severed heads being delivered to families as warnings for good behavior) to justify the use of their second amendment rights.
Not surprisingly, California seems largely untouched by the immigration issue, in spite of the border that they share. Then again, California seems largely untouched by much of reality much of the time. There is little hope that any real action will come of the heated debate on Immigration Reform this summer. Washington DC is also one of those places whose residents can experience serious discomfort during the summer months (which is why Congress recesses then). Additionally, this is an election year, and the polling data is inconsistent for those running for office as to which side of this debate provides the greatest chance of re-election (and the most political cover).
There will however be a significant amount of additional hot air generated by politicians, advocacy groups, and pundits on the subject; as a part of the heated rhetoric. As such, they will do little to resolve the issue; but will undoubtedly make a contribution to the increase in summer heat.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Respect
"I find it interesting in listening to the demands for respect of many young men today to discover that in fact they have little for themselves, less for the women that they consider important in their lives, and almost none for the rules under which we live."
- me
The observation that such is the case for the generation that will be responsible for our future was rather disturbing to me, though I suppose that many would say that every generation of my has felt the same way about the ones that followed. On this Fourth of July, such concepts seem incredibly important to me.
After all, this is the day when we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence (in spite of the fact that many of those who signed this document apparently did so some time after the date credited for the document). Those signers were in fact not only dissenting, but breaking with a king and government in England that many held in high esteem in spite their differences. They took the time however, to create a document (which remains in some significance) setting forth the purpose of their action and carefully outlining the justification for those which would follow.
In making this attempt they were fact showing polite regard for the very people to which they assigned their currently untenable situation to. What greater compliment can be paid to a group of political representatives (especially in light of some of the recent history of the calling) than that they felt the need to do this for their enemies ... and in such a fashion!
This of course, is not to say that one is not allowed to disagree with one's opposition (even violently so). In fact this Declaration could be no clearer a statement of opposition and the firm resolve to stand by that opposition if it were made as a declaration of war. Further however, if it has taught us anything, it is that even when doing so (and perhaps especially so) that there is a certain respect of the rules to be considered.
Now since I have not put keyboard to paper recently (a situation for which some are no doubt more than grateful), I will try and keep this brief today. I would like to say however that as we all enjoy time with family and friends, enjoy good food and good company, and remember the day that once and for all set this country apart from any other in the history; perhaps we might also remember the example of respect illustrated in the Declaration of Independence by our Founding Fathers.
Strident rhetoric is all well and good when trying to attract media attention (or when political figures or media pundits are bloviating at annoying volume and length), but respect is owed even to those with which we violently disagree. It is not necessary to demonize the people who make up the opposing point of view in order to make our own. In fact we may even demean our own cause by doing so. Enough already!
May each of you enjoy the sentiments of the day, remember the constant sacrifices involved both those maintaining it around the world, and renew our own respectful declaration to continue the struggle to maintain the freedoms that define the United States of America.
- me
The observation that such is the case for the generation that will be responsible for our future was rather disturbing to me, though I suppose that many would say that every generation of my has felt the same way about the ones that followed. On this Fourth of July, such concepts seem incredibly important to me.
After all, this is the day when we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence (in spite of the fact that many of those who signed this document apparently did so some time after the date credited for the document). Those signers were in fact not only dissenting, but breaking with a king and government in England that many held in high esteem in spite their differences. They took the time however, to create a document (which remains in some significance) setting forth the purpose of their action and carefully outlining the justification for those which would follow.
In making this attempt they were fact showing polite regard for the very people to which they assigned their currently untenable situation to. What greater compliment can be paid to a group of political representatives (especially in light of some of the recent history of the calling) than that they felt the need to do this for their enemies ... and in such a fashion!
This of course, is not to say that one is not allowed to disagree with one's opposition (even violently so). In fact this Declaration could be no clearer a statement of opposition and the firm resolve to stand by that opposition if it were made as a declaration of war. Further however, if it has taught us anything, it is that even when doing so (and perhaps especially so) that there is a certain respect of the rules to be considered.
Now since I have not put keyboard to paper recently (a situation for which some are no doubt more than grateful), I will try and keep this brief today. I would like to say however that as we all enjoy time with family and friends, enjoy good food and good company, and remember the day that once and for all set this country apart from any other in the history; perhaps we might also remember the example of respect illustrated in the Declaration of Independence by our Founding Fathers.
Strident rhetoric is all well and good when trying to attract media attention (or when political figures or media pundits are bloviating at annoying volume and length), but respect is owed even to those with which we violently disagree. It is not necessary to demonize the people who make up the opposing point of view in order to make our own. In fact we may even demean our own cause by doing so. Enough already!
May each of you enjoy the sentiments of the day, remember the constant sacrifices involved both those maintaining it around the world, and renew our own respectful declaration to continue the struggle to maintain the freedoms that define the United States of America.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Hiatus
Just Blowing Smoke will be taking a brief hiatus while I take care of some personal obligations, relocate to more familial environs, recharge my batteries, and take up the long overdue quest to rediscover some creativity.
Have no fear however. Regardless of the requests of some to make this departure of a more permanent nature, Just Blowing Smoke will be returning to tilt at windmills before you know it ... I can think of no more fitting way to begin this latest transition in life than with one of my favorite quotes from Tom Stoppard:
"We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke, and a presumption that once our eyes watered."
Sunday, May 2, 2010
But Seriously ...
I find that without perhaps intending it to, that this has become a theme weekend for me. I wrote the TFP Column "Leaving It To Professionals" last week after becoming increasingly incensed by some of the talking-heads on the cable news channels insisting that only members of their journalism school club should get an opinion on matters of import. I believed then, and I do now, that their spouting on the subject was little more than some intellectual snobs performing an act of mutually satisfactory sexual congress (sorry, but that's as obscure as I could make the reference).
I may not always agree with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or Sean Hannity (though far more often than not, I find that I do agree with local WSPD hosts Fred Lefebvre and Brian Wilson); but they appear to do their research on the subjects they choose and therefore have just as much right to spout opinion as many of the other pundits on radio and cable ... and at least as much as media trolls Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews.
I followed up yesterday with a post in this blog, "Area of Expertise", where I might have appeared to contradict myself by saying that actors or musicians should probably refrain from expressing opinions about subjects they are untrained on; but I was not. As I said in the piece, everyone has a right to an opinion and to express it. Publicly doing so however, carries an obligation to do some research before expressing oneself. Being given a national stage on television or radio provides them an additional mantle of expertise (real or imagined) that mandates even more of an effort to perform due diligence on the subject they speak on.
Having said both of these things already, it seems as if it's time to wrap it all up in a pretty package and tie it up with a bow. For the most unstable of perches has only two legs, and there is a third that should recommend itself to your consideration. That of course is how serious all of this is and how serious those saying should be taken.
We live in truly interesting times, and many of the decisions being made today will have an impact far into the future. There are hard choices being made as we speak about the role of government in this country, the role being played by corporations and unions in that government, and of the role left to its citizens (or the role they will be allowed to have) in the coming days. These are subjects of serious import and there are many meeting, speaking, and writing on them (many far better than myself). Since most people do not have the time or the interest to research the data on the wide variety of subjects out there, let alone attempt to cohesively analyze it, the work that these pundits do is extremely important. They are not of themselves however, important at all except as a source.
As important as these ideas and their interpretation might be, we need to be careful not to lionize those expressing them. Media personalities are in fact no different than the rest of us. They have their strengths and their weaknesses, and the only thing that might truly set the major ones aside is that they have performed their professions well and promoted themselves with equal alacrity.
In fact there is a distinct danger in creating something more of these personalities than they deserve. Power and influence are dangerous toys to play with, and more than one media figure (or politician) has fallen prey to abuse its temptations. We need to be careful to separate the knowledge that we desperately need from the people supplying it. The last thing that we need is to create a cult of personality around such people.
Even we humble bloggers hold no special place in society. Most do what they do in fact, because of a desire to inform or simply they simply love to do it. One can admire their pluck in taking a stand or skill in expressing it, but they are still a part of the same flawed humanity as the rest of us. Their work should be critically examined and even judged, but no special place should be assigned to those who do it.
So please, take the issues being put forward with all due seriousness. Study the arguments on both sides with equally sober consideration. Expose yourself to all of the punditry on these subjects that you can stand without tearing your hair out. Please however, do not confuse the serious nature and import of the subjects with how serious you take the people who are dealing with them.
It is only through enlightened skepticism that we truly become informed. That holds true for people as well as ideas.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Area of Expertise
I was surfing TV stations recently when I came upon a couple of actors speaking out about the passage of immigration legislation in Arizona on one of the cable news networks. It isn't important which station we are talking about, nor are the actors names particularly important. What was important however, was that neither of them appeared to have actually read the legislation they were commenting on and it appeared that they were simply mimicking some talking points that they had heard or read elsewhere.
Their lack of informed opinion was the point that struck me ... that and the fact that the only reason anyone was willing to listen to what they had to say had nothing to do with what they knew and was all about who they were. So I asked myself: What makes the opinions of actors (or musicians for that matter) in any way important on subjects other than acting or music?
Certainly an actor can have credibility when it comes to speaking about the theater, doing TV, or making movies; but how does that translate to expertise in the area of state or federal legislation (or any other subject for that matter)? If achieving celebrity is to be the arbiter of who gets to have opinions, one might just as easily accept their opinions on medical ethics or nuclear physics. If being famous is the only scale that counts, one could just as easily decide that since everybody seems to care what the judges from American Idol think every week, we should send them over to negotiate peace in the Middle East once and for all.
This is not to say that celebrities have no right to an opinion or to express it. They in fact have the same rights of free speech that everyone in this country has. Nor is this an indictment of a particular point of view that any chooses to express (whether I agree with it or not), but instead a question of its relevance. If you choose to speak out publicly on a subject, then you need to at least take the time to become informed on it. If the mainstream media is going to give you a national platform to express your convictions, then someone in charge should make sure that you have some idea of what's going on before allowing you to do so.
The whole thing took me back (way back) to my days in high school, when those of us who were not the popular or cool kids were so concerned about the approval, the personal style, and the opinions of those who were. Looking back on it now of course, I realize now that members of the football team or the cheerleaders were in no way smarter or better than anyone else; but we certainly seemed to think so at the time, and far too often we let them influence our decisions. I would venture to say that those who still have any contact with these people today would probably not consider asking for their views, let alone continuing to follow their lead.
This need to influence on the part of the famous seems to stem from the atmosphere that makes up the celebrity lifestyle. Catered to at home and at work by an entourage of handlers, assistants, and agents (all of whom would like to keep their celebrity jobs), these performers are surrounded by little more than a group of human bobble-head dolls. The result of such an atmosphere is foreordained: spend enough time with people who always agree with you (whether you're right or not) and you can't help but grow into the belief that your opinions are not only always right, but of greater value to the world at large. Few of us exposed to such constant approbation and worship could retain the proper level of humility, or fail to succumb to a feeling of ingenuous self-importance, if not false omniscience.
Now I know that there are some celebrities that take a genuine interest in causes around the world. They take the time to do careful research, consult with actual experts in the field, and try to gather as many facts as possible before putting themselves forward. They then use their celebrity to draw attention to causes and lend their support with personal appearances and with monetary donations. For this they deserve our respect.
I fear however, that they are the exception rather than the rule. Most seem far less involved and far too easily swayed by whoever manages to bend their ear while massaging their ego. Having once been swayed, they mount their steed of self-importance and ride off in quest to right a wrong that they don't understand and which may not exist; secure in the knowledge that as one of the beautiful people, they will never really be questioned.
Overall, I think that the world would be better served if these over-aged "popular kids" spent more time concentrating on their art and craft, and less pontificating on subjects that they saw on a PBS special or read about in People Magazine. No matter how pretty they are and how far-reaching their celebrity, most of the world's great issues are simply outside their area of expertise.
Their lack of informed opinion was the point that struck me ... that and the fact that the only reason anyone was willing to listen to what they had to say had nothing to do with what they knew and was all about who they were. So I asked myself: What makes the opinions of actors (or musicians for that matter) in any way important on subjects other than acting or music?
Certainly an actor can have credibility when it comes to speaking about the theater, doing TV, or making movies; but how does that translate to expertise in the area of state or federal legislation (or any other subject for that matter)? If achieving celebrity is to be the arbiter of who gets to have opinions, one might just as easily accept their opinions on medical ethics or nuclear physics. If being famous is the only scale that counts, one could just as easily decide that since everybody seems to care what the judges from American Idol think every week, we should send them over to negotiate peace in the Middle East once and for all.
This is not to say that celebrities have no right to an opinion or to express it. They in fact have the same rights of free speech that everyone in this country has. Nor is this an indictment of a particular point of view that any chooses to express (whether I agree with it or not), but instead a question of its relevance. If you choose to speak out publicly on a subject, then you need to at least take the time to become informed on it. If the mainstream media is going to give you a national platform to express your convictions, then someone in charge should make sure that you have some idea of what's going on before allowing you to do so.
The whole thing took me back (way back) to my days in high school, when those of us who were not the popular or cool kids were so concerned about the approval, the personal style, and the opinions of those who were. Looking back on it now of course, I realize now that members of the football team or the cheerleaders were in no way smarter or better than anyone else; but we certainly seemed to think so at the time, and far too often we let them influence our decisions. I would venture to say that those who still have any contact with these people today would probably not consider asking for their views, let alone continuing to follow their lead.
This need to influence on the part of the famous seems to stem from the atmosphere that makes up the celebrity lifestyle. Catered to at home and at work by an entourage of handlers, assistants, and agents (all of whom would like to keep their celebrity jobs), these performers are surrounded by little more than a group of human bobble-head dolls. The result of such an atmosphere is foreordained: spend enough time with people who always agree with you (whether you're right or not) and you can't help but grow into the belief that your opinions are not only always right, but of greater value to the world at large. Few of us exposed to such constant approbation and worship could retain the proper level of humility, or fail to succumb to a feeling of ingenuous self-importance, if not false omniscience.
Now I know that there are some celebrities that take a genuine interest in causes around the world. They take the time to do careful research, consult with actual experts in the field, and try to gather as many facts as possible before putting themselves forward. They then use their celebrity to draw attention to causes and lend their support with personal appearances and with monetary donations. For this they deserve our respect.
I fear however, that they are the exception rather than the rule. Most seem far less involved and far too easily swayed by whoever manages to bend their ear while massaging their ego. Having once been swayed, they mount their steed of self-importance and ride off in quest to right a wrong that they don't understand and which may not exist; secure in the knowledge that as one of the beautiful people, they will never really be questioned.
Overall, I think that the world would be better served if these over-aged "popular kids" spent more time concentrating on their art and craft, and less pontificating on subjects that they saw on a PBS special or read about in People Magazine. No matter how pretty they are and how far-reaching their celebrity, most of the world's great issues are simply outside their area of expertise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)