Morning Fog

Is The New Year New? Random Musings

Like most of us, I suppose, I had come to think of "the New Year" as something of a momentous occasion - one meriting the celebration of its arrival, and one which conceptually is the beginning point for new endeavors.

This year, though, I realize it's hardly an occasion at all; and if a theme is to be discerned, it's less about excitement and change than the continuation or resumption of the mundane. This dawns on me as I look at what sorts of things have and/or will occupy me in this first week since Ol' Man 2015 hobbled offstage:  I did a bit of paperwork, I prepared our dinner for New Year's Day, we began to plan our travel and social events, we'll probably get around to taking down seasonal holiday decorations, and I'll probably start to gather the data I'll need to do our taxes this year. 

"Out in the world," it's the same. Once again nature sees to it that the hours of daylight start lengthening out, but this is a repetitive cycle, nothing new, and we haven't really begun to notice the difference in our daylight yet, anyway. One local columnist opines, with blinding lack of originality, that "In 2016, we could unplug, vote, be less selfish."  Yeah ... that. 

Is it my advanced age that leads me to this jaded view?  Certainly that idea seems especially credible as I consider another pop affliction of the season, the list of what's "out" and what's "in."  Far too many of these are completely unintelligible to me, for example, vine stars, vetement, and Yeezy Boost are "out" and in their respective slots, Twitch streamers, Demna Gvasalia, and RiRi Creeper and "in." I find I don't care, since not a single one of those terms has any meaning whatsoever for me!  But I'm not inconsolably crushed, because I can recall when cash, LPs, and typewriters went "out" and credit cards, CDs, and word processors came in. 

All told, however, it's nice that there are some (maybe many?) who see "new year" and think "new leaf."  One such is President Obama, who has decided to ignore nay-sayers and do what he can by means of Presidential action to curb senseless weapons violence.  His proposals don't seem very far-reaching (you say "informal" arms dealers would have to be registered?) but they might prove to be the seed of greater things.   

 

Good News

Sometimes I think Morning Fog is too focused on being critical, on pointing out what's wrong rather than what's right.

Could that be the reason I haven't written a lot lately?  Is it possible that the world suddenly changed, becoming in a trice the "best of all possible worlds" in which Voltaire's Candide professed to believe?   Well, no, I rather doubt that.  A brief look at the day's news from Syria (refugees, mayhem, the senseless destruction of world-heritage art) or the mass killing du jour, should put that notion rapidly to rest.

Nevertheless, there have been a couple of recent blips on the world screen that offer a hurrah moment.  Let me focus on those today: 

I. 

First, I applaud President Obama's executive order re-naming our nation's highest peak -- no longer Mt. McKinley, it will revert now to its local name, Denali.  This seems (to me) the right way to go. 

It's nice to hark back to a name that can be identified as native-American, but the broader point is to prefer names that reflect local and/or historic usage, rather than some politician who will be totally forgotten in a couple of decades.  

McKinley was no great shakes as a President; his main claim to fame appears to have been to get shot, which served to place his name not just on the recently de-commissioned Mt. Denali, but a school in nearly every town in the country.  Let's continue the trend and return to "Idlewild" for that airport in New York, and move on to "Mt. Whitney," preferably and more interestingly known as Tumanguya.

II.

More recently, a young man named Dylan Marks was shark-fishing from his kayak along the Pacific Coast when he snagged a hammerhead and ended up with a serious bite wound on his foot.  The "regular" Morning Fog might question the wisdom of shark fishing from a fragile craft like a kayak (however, this seems to be a bit of a fad at the moment), or of dangling his foot over the side while doing so (but hey, dude, that's probably a typical California posture - the Laid-Back Loll?).

But today's posimistic Morning Fog applauds Mr. Marks for his attitude after the event:  He resisted the bait dangled by his TV-journalist interviewer, who tried to get him to say he had been attacked.  No, he insisted, he respects the sharks; this particular one most likely bit his (Marks's) foot out of confusion and fear; it was not an attack.  Furthermore, Marks claims he will give up shark fishing.   A cool and sensible response.  Let's have more of those!

 

A Brownian Ramble Through The News/Views Of The Day

So, we're going to ban transfats, they say.  People will have different opinions about this.  However, a Washington Post editorial today applauds the decision, insists that "it's not food fascism," and points to additional future non-fascist steps to regulate what people eat, by taxing bad food choices: 

We believe that taxing things the government wants to discourage is a way to achieve legitimate national goals with minimal economic disruption and individual coercion.

I can't agree. I've never smoked cigarettes, don't eat a whole lot of junk food (unless potato chips are in that category - are they?), and recognize that some things may be certifiably bad for us. Yet I think the government's role should be to inform, not to legislate good behavior where individual choices redound mainly to the individual.

Besides, I see little evidence that higher taxes on consumer items really dissuade people. Cigarettes? Alcohol? Gasoline? Now potato chips maybe?  People still buy.  Might we even suppose that they see such items as more desirable because of their high price?

But sorry, Paul Ryan, this doesn't constitute my free pass to squash increases in the gas tax.  Higher tax here is justified because even if it doesn't discourage consumers from consuming, it does raise revenue, which in turn can be (but is not always) used for badly needed infrastructure maintenance.

Meanwhile, back on the food beat, George Will has fun quoting McDonald's's new public relations chief:

McDonald’s will be “more progressive around our social purpose in order to deepen our relationships with communities on the issues that matter to them,

but Will points out that companies like McDonald's and Budweiser probably will not accomplishing much by making appeals to a demographic who are not among their customers and are unlikely ever to be - these are people who have never drunk a Bud and wouldn't think of stopping in at "Mickey D's." 

As Will cautions, "history is a story of vanished supremacies."  To me, the lesson is that these companies are trying to put lipstick on what (to some) is a pig, while losing sight of the fact their core business is selling ham and bacon.  Will they be the next decade's General Motors, or can they "Ford" the troubled waters ahead?  Maybe as they design a business strategy, they will want to take to heart the advice of home designer Nate Berkus, also quoted today in the same Post: 

Design is really about finding a style that represents who you are, and not following the trends in magazines.

And that, finally, leads me to think of the latest candidate to toss his hat into the Presidential race, Donald Trump. Granted, he makes no effort to soften his image, but it does seem likely that his core business relates more directly to building skyscrapers and such.

Slipped Stirrup At Post Time - The Triple Crown

On Monday five days ago, at about this time of day (5 PM) I was just sitting down to try yet again to recover from my writing slump with a new post.  But just as I had managed to write an opening line, a passing thunderstorm zapped our electricity and the computer shut down. 

Could it possibly be a warning, or a review of my oeuvre, from Old Mother Nature herself?  I hadn't been aware that She was even a reader.  However I do recall many years ago when I tried to fool her with a "spread" that wasn't butter, and she was much displeased, so it is apparent that she does keep an eye out, and not just in hurricanes, either.

My five-day delay, though, wasn't due to fear of even more vehement fear of meteorological retribution, but simply to other things that have laid claim to my time -- contractors finishing a project, contractors getting ready to start another, the demands of a yard and garden as summer approaches ... and on and on.

Enough, already.  On to the topic I had intended to address before, now slightly stale:

ISN'T IT GREAT THAT WE FINALLY HAVE A TRIPLE CROWN WINNER AFTER SO MANY YEARS?

My own direct experience with horse racing was limited to a period of a year or two in my college years, when a friend and I used to make an occasional weekend pilgrimage from the University of Kansas (at Lawrence) to Omaha, where the nearest "real" track beckoned.  We took the effort seriously, studying up on the best advice about analyzing and betting, and usually were able to return, after Saturday's full program of 9 races, at least enough ahead to cover our expenses.  Since that time, I've hardly thought about racing, except to watch the big three races that constitute the Triple Crown when I could.

The "Sport of Kings" seems to have lost some of its luster in recent decades, to the point that I suspect some younger generations may not even realize that the term refers to thoroughbred horse racing.  A search of the internet reveals that other sports may now wish to claim that moniker. 

Why?  I suppose the term itself, and the reality that underlies it (i.e. that horse racing, or more accurately racehorse owning, does require the possession of princely sums) is one big reason that the sport attracts less general interest than in the past.  Elitism is out of style.  Some may have succumbed to the idea that racing somehow represents mistreatment of the horses, a view I can't share because these are animals that were bred to run and race.  Also, race tracks aren't found on every corner, or even in every U.S. state or city, and some have closed down, so fewer Americans have had the experience of going to the races, absorbing the rituals and experiencing the fleeting excitement of watching a race or rooting for their favorite.

Notwithstanding all that, though, I think the "big win" the Triple Crown represents is a special thrill - a triumph for the horse, the jockey, the trainer, the owner, but most importantly, for the spectator.   It attracts attention to the sport, and must inevitably have a positive public effect.   As such, I suspect even the owners and trainers of the also-ran horses secretly are elated that some horse, even if not theirs, has finally claimed this prize after a very long dry spell.

 

Net Neutrality - A Level Playing Field In A Tilted World?

It's been a depressing sort of day today.  The weather doesn't help - light snow turning to freezing rain and sleet which is expected to continue well into the night and tomorrow morning; gray skies; and the daytime high once again below freezing, in an area where 48 or 50 degrees would be normal this time of year.

But then, practically wherever I looked, I found yet another case in which consumers are being taken for a ride, or citizens being denied basic protections of law, by the unscrupulous and greedy.-- banks, airlines, hotels, rent-a-cops, and others.

I'll explore several of the specifics in future posts, but want to begin today on the seemingly positive side, with the issue of "net neutrality."

I'm heartened by the recent FCC decision. It seems glaringly obvious to me that the internet has indeed become a utility, albeit not a traditional but a new one.  As such, it should quite naturally be subject to a degree of government oversight and regulation. 

It's actually true that Al Gore did not invent the internet.  But neither did the big service providers who are now fighting for the right (in effect) to uncontrolled pricing.      

Those who would argue that point, pleading instead for self-regulation, or scoffing at the need for any regulation, are of course those who stand to profit big from sticking their hands in your pocket.   And though I'm heartened by the FCC's stand, I'm very disheartened by the realistic expectation that the profiteers will largely succeed in rolling back the FCC's ruling, even if they have to lie to do it.  (Current ads in favor of what we might call "net discrimination" claim the future, under neutrality, hold "billions" in new taxes.  In fact, no new taxes are proposed.) 

It's disheartening, too, to realize the extent to which we the people continue to accept getting the short end of the stick, buying into such nonsensical concepts as trickle-down economics, or the disingenuous notion that consumer businesses are motivated by providing the consumer what he/she wants. 

(Hey, aren't you loving the pachyderm insurance folks who tell us they started their business just so they could give us more service for less money?  What Samaritans they!) 

Oh, and a final blow to our self-esteem as consumers should be that "neutrality" is just a buzzword.  It sounds good, but it disguises what's at stake. The "neutrality" battle didn't originate from either side's desire to offer consumers low prices.  The cynic's view:  It's a fight between two mammoths - the companies that create "content" and those who deliver it - over who will have the right to plunder our bank accounts first.

That said, I still think the FCC is on the right track.

 

 

 

   

Columbus Day? No Way

A few years ago I scribbled out some observations about the holidays we observe in the U.S., pointing out that some just seem rather beside the point today, and suggesting some reforms to bring our vacation schedule up to date.  Progress toward adopting these changes has been, umm... slow. 

But now that I observe a groundswell of opinion in favor (i.e., a fellow named John Oliver has questioned whether it makes any sense to celebrate "Columbus Day" - a question I ask myself every year), I think it's time to republish them so that more people can get on the bandwagon.

A (Not-So-) Modest Proposal Regarding Holidays, Part II

(Originally posted: February 18, 2009)

On Monday, I delved into some reasons we might want to move the Monday holidays back to their specific dates.  (A (Not-So-) Modest Proposal Regarding Holidays, Part I.  Now, I'd like to add some other thoughts about modernizing our calendar, bringing it into closer harmony with the shifting characteristics of our nation.

On this blog, I have said often that in politics we need to work to rediscover common ground among various parties and factions.  I think that's also true in society generally. As the United States becomes more multicultural and more pluralistic, we need to move beyond holidays that mark observances of only one religion, or one group of citizens (like the suggestion that Patriot Day be a full-fledged holiday).  

In brief, I suggest that MLK Day, Easter, Columbus Day, and Christmas all need serious rethinking -- and renaming.  Some may see that as radical (sorry, I ought to have warned you to get the smelling salts out ahead of time).  But shouldn't our federal holidays be defined in a way that all of us can identify with?  If you are among those who value the religious or Italian-American aspects of these days, ask yourself if you would also support federal holidays for Eid-al-Fitr, Kwanzaa, Passover, Cinco de Mayo, Greek Day, and a host of others, for which federal status might legitimately be claimed, and which would create an interesting but unworkable crazy-quilt of holidays.

Thanksgiving is the quintessential "American" holiday.  Its focus is family and friends, it can be celebrated by all of us regardless of religion, ethnicity, or other factors, AND it is blessedly free of the commercialization that accompanies many of our other holidays.  We need more days like it.

Let's look at Martin Luther King Jr. Day.  It might seem that this is a day for African-Americans.  Some states and regions interpret it that way.  But I see it differently.  The more reading I do on U.S. history, the clearer it becomes that the issue of slavery -- along with its legacy of emancipation, civil rights, separate-but-equal, affirmative action, discrimination, and continuing racism -- has affected our society throughout our history and continues as a political factor today, even after the election of our first African-American President.  Issues of equality continue to come to the fore for other groups like Latinos, or gays, as well.  We should continue to observe the day, but we should rename it ("Equality Day"?). Despite its cold January proximity to New Year's, let's keep it on the same date because the identification with MLK gives it significance (besides, it's my birthday too!) 

Easter is not a federal holiday, but we often refer to the school breaks or other events at this time of year as "Easter," which has meaning only for Christians; I prefer "spring" break for this, because even those who may not consider it religiously significant nearly all conceive of it as a time to celebrate the arrival of spring, to dye eggs and give the kids easter baskets.  It's analogous to Halloween in that respect.   If anyone ever feels we need a new holiday, this is the time of year we could use one (we have none in March or April). The spring season is already identified with environmental efforts in the U.S. and internationally, so we might consider making Earth Day (April 22 - it is an already-existing observation originally proposed by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson), an official federal holiday.    

Columbus Day needs work too.  For starters, Columbus didn't "discover" the Americas. For most Americans, it's just a meaningless day off.  For many Italian-Americans, it's a day to honor their cultural tradition.  But that suggests it should be more like St. Patrick's Day, Cinco de Mayo, or Kwanzaa -- celebrated by those to whom it is truly meaningful, ignored by the rest of us.  Better yet, why not celebrate our ethnic pluralism, from Native Americans on, with an Ethnicity Day, or a Cultural Heritage Day, at this time of year? 

And last, Christmas.  Although it's a Christian holiday, it is commonly observed in various ways by people of many faiths and persuasions.  I have known Hindus and Muslims in this country who put up a tree and exchange gifts as a secular tradition of the season.  To non-Christians and even many Christians, it has become more about gift-giving than anything else, and of course for retailers, it's lifeblood.  The date is arbitrary -- we celebrate Christ's birth at this time of year because it roughly coincided with pagan rites accompanying the winter solstice.  My suggestion:  December 22, Solstice Day, a time of rejoicing, a festival of cheer and light that chases away winter doldrums; a time, too, of gift-giving and of the all-important end-of-year extravanganza of buying that drives our economy. Maybe the change would also help move some of the commercialism away from the "real" Christmas on December 25.

So, that's my whole package.  Religious holidays, and regular events like Valentine's Day and Halloween, would still be observed by those who wanted to, who would decide whether to take a day off work or not.  I omitted Inauguration Day (January 20), the one federal holiday that is not widely observed except around Washington DC, and which comes only once in four years.   I also considered whether we need a new word besides "holiday," since so few of our special days are "holy."  But we all use the word generically now for any day off, and besides, I couldn't think of a better one.  Keep reading below for a calendar that summarizes all this.

 

The Morning Fog Revised Calendar of U.S. Federal Holidays^(c) 

January 1 - New Year's Day

January 15 -  Equality Day (formerly Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day)

February 22 -  Constitution Day (formerly George Washington's Birthday, also popularly known as Presidents' Day)

April 22  - Earth Day  (optionally providing a new holiday in this part of the year where we have none; I've chosen the date of Earth Day, which is already an established occasion observed internationally; an equally good choice would be UN Earth Day, observed at the March equinox annually) 

May 30 - Memorial Day (or Remembrance Day)

July 4 - Independence Day

September, first Monday - Labor Day

October 12 -   Cultural Heritage Day (renaming Columbus Day but keeping the date; although Columbus wasn't the first European to reach North American shores, he was the precursor of pluralism, bringing European culture into contact with Native American).

November 11 - Veterans' Day

November, fourth Thursday - Thanksgiving

December 22 - Solstice Day

 

 

 

Give Me A Break!

"Give Me A Break!"  - a phrase that's a little bit out of fashion now, yet still valid as an expression of exasperation over hopelessly ridiculous or insignificant statements and views.  Recent examples:

Lately we've heard yet again people who claim to be serious political analysts complaining that in the midst of some crisis or other, the President of the U.S. is taking a vacation.  (In this case, Martha's Vineyard as we unleash air strikes in Iraq.) The best news is that these gripes are nonpartisan, arising whenever any President goes on any formally announced vacation.  But they're also ignorant.  There are those (I'm not one of them) who say that vacation is restorative, essential to mental health, blah blah.  But more important, as is frequently pointed out, modern Presidents are never out of touch, never away from the job; and equally important, there really is never a time when there isn't some crisis or pseudo-crisis going on.  Presidents probably can't really relax (I feel certain that I couldn't) but let's let them try, without all the fol-de-rol.

In Ferguson, Missouri, beyond the underlying tragedy that an African-American teen has died at the hands of police, under rather murky circumstances, we keep hearing about people's demands that the local fuzz release the name of the officer involved.  To what end?  For me, it's difficult to fathom how the release of the name, in the midst of a heated crisis, is really going to help anyone.  I suspect the police were correct to hold off, at least until the brouhaha had subsided a bit.  But this rather pointless demand became a rallying cry, and news this morning says they'll be making the name public today.  I suppose the dynamic of making the demand, and having the authorities refuse to respond to it, has served to highlight that the Ferguson police are out of their depth.  Yet the underlying issues -- the facts and disposition of the case -- will remain.

There's a new app available that enables the user to check out the political contributions made by the corporations that produce the items they buy.  It's called BuyPartisan.  Use it to check out that bag of potato chips in your hand - has the mother-corporation been giving heavily to Republican political candidates, and you're an over-the-top Democrat?  Put it back, and pick another brand!  There's an obvious tongue-in-cheek element in this, given the obviously annoying labor of tracking down dozens of brands and items while wandering through the grocery store or shopping for the kids' back-to-school items.  But:  Really? Does everything have to be about politics?  Give me a break! 

 

The Delivery Meltdown Shows How Spoiled We Are!

This year a lot of people didn't get their Christmas deliveries from UPS and Fedex in time.  Packages they were told would reach their destinations by December 25 ... DIDN'T.

So what?

It's amazing to me how this has become such a big deal.  Part of it is just media hype at a time of year when there is a paucity of real news; this is something we've come to expect in the age of instantaneity. 

But it goes beyond that, evidently, because people are grumbling, and both the delivery services and the companies that use them are offering more than just a kiss to make up.

For the retailers, I would say:  Stop with the freebies, gift coupons, and so on.  You sell goods; unless you also run your own in-house nationwide delivery service too, you have absolutely nothing to be sorry for.  Once you release that shiny new dustbuster, or that fancy new tablet, to UPS, you're absolved.  The "guaranteed" delivery is Fedex's claim, not yours.  Only an idiot would hold you responsible.  Unfortunately you, there are many, many idiots out there; and many more who won't say "no" when you offer them an unnecessary freebie.  So maybe you believe it's better to offer bennies - which you can pay for out of the refunds you should get from shippers -- than take the risk.  Sad, but contemporary.

For the delivery companies, I offer the following thought:  I don't really think it's your "fault" either.  Weather is unpredictable.  But maybe you should stop overhyping the last-minute delivery.  It's evident to me, if not to you, that the more you push volume into the last day or two, the more likely it is that you'll be unable to handle it, even without a major storm.  Can you get more planes and hire more workers on a day's notice?  I doubt it.  Delivery in general is usually an estimate, but for those who paid extra for a "guaranteed" delivery, you should provide refunds of that shipping.  I feel certain that you've factored the odds of a huge weather disaster into the stiff prices you charge for the service.

For people who are grumbling as if it's the end of the world, I offer this advice:  Get over it!  No, that's really wrong, it should be:  Don't get into a tizzy in the first place. Mother Nature doesn't give guarantees, and neither does life.  If you took the "free shipping" a week ago and didn't get your delivery, remember that you get what you pay for.  If you paid extra for those guaranteed fast delivery, I commiserate and believe you should get your money back.  In either case, though, I have two suggestions:  (1) Order earlier!  And (2) relax, get a sense of perspective, and consider how spoiled we've become, if this is all we have to complain about.   

Conflicted American Voters

In looking at what some voters are saying in some of the rural and mainly Southern districts that have voted so many tea-party politicians into office, Jim Tankersley offers an interesting tapestry of the contradictions and paradoxes that seem to characterize the attitudes of American voters generally.  In one small community, we have them all:

• Businessmen who, when times are booming, pat themselves on the back as brave, rsik-taking entrepreneurs but when risk comes knocking at the door, blame the government.
• The guy who prospered (for a while) in the real estate development business - a business that, in macro terms, merits major blame for precipitating the downturn in the first place - then made the unwise decision to deal with the downturn by quitting construction and opening a retail business in mid-recession; but doesn't blame his failure in the least to simple bad business judgment. 
• People who want government out of their lives, until things turn bad; then expect the government to improve things for them.
• The small store owner who loses business to a new big-box store; sees that as a government (?) plot aimed against him, seemingly unaware that this kind of transfer has been going on for 20 years or more, or that it points again to his failed business judgment. 
• Bankers (the other gang who merit blame for the recession) blithely blaming the drying-up of loans on the government, too.

Not to make light of the real difficulties small businessmen, in small towns, especially in rural areas, are facing.  Things are bad, and regardless of who's at fault, people suffer as a result.  That they should turn in their distress to the party that has steadfastly sought to block the government's efforts to bolster the economy and that has purposely brought on immense waste of taxpayer money in shutdowns and lost economic opportunities ... well, that's just one more paradox.

It's one that Obama and the Democrats will have to deal with.  There's no altering reality, and no way to alter voters' deep-seated failure to see reality, either.  Mr. Tankersley's article does, as it claims, enable us to understand why tea-party politicians have been so stridently anti-establishment, and why it's very likely that some of them will be returned to office.     

 

Reader's Digest

If you're like me, you often find you're too busy to focus on all the news and information that is available to you every day.  Usually, I hear a bit of morning television news, and with the morning Washington Post, which for some reason arrives later than it used to, I find I can only scan headlines, perhaps read the one or two items that really draw me in for some reason.

This morning, though, I found  a rare, spare half-hour for a leisurely read of the Post.  That's why for those of you who didn't (or don't get that particular source), I highly recommend two items:

Walter Pincus reflects on the sale of the Washington Post, and what that means for news media and journalism. I suspect he's a little overoptimistic about the future, but along the way he provides an interesting capsule description of how the "newspaper business" changed over the years.

Charles Lane reviews the arcane system by which we "manage" our energy policy, specifically the production and sale of gasoline.  He, too, is tilting at windmills - logic tells us that the tax on gas is the best, most direct, and least intrusive-to-the-market tool we have at hand, but will politicians ever be able to get beyond voters' penny-wise/pound-foolish overwrought concerns about a change of a few pennies in the cost of gas?