I was on my way to catch the train this morning and heard on the local NPR station an invitation to engage in a "real-time chat" during the president's State of the Union address tonight.
Whatever happened to listen, then think, then react?
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
A giant exercise in missing the point
Rob Manker's column today on Page 2 of the Chicago Tribune ("Aside from anti-obese bigotry, no reason POTUS can't be XXL") reads to me like a giant exercise in missing the point. He writes off the recent public discussion of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's weight as mere bigotry against a fat person. He even quotes an expert, Gary Foster, director of the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple University, in support of his case: "If you're looking at someone as a presidential candidate, of all the things to worry about, you're going to worry about their body weight? What about their ability to govern? What about their ability to balance a budget?"
But the concern over Christie's weight is not frivolous and bigoted. It's about the man's health, and whether he can be depended upon to live through a presidential term. It was in that context that the issue was raised by an Arizona doctor and former White House physician.
Christie's weight is no less legitimate an issue than would be an elderly candidate's age.
But the concern over Christie's weight is not frivolous and bigoted. It's about the man's health, and whether he can be depended upon to live through a presidential term. It was in that context that the issue was raised by an Arizona doctor and former White House physician.
Christie's weight is no less legitimate an issue than would be an elderly candidate's age.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Lives--and Libraries--of the Presidents
A couple of years ago on the way back from a vacation in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, my wife Pam and I stopped at the Gerald Ford Presidential Museum in Grand Rapids. That visit inspired an item on our bucket lists: To visit all the existing presidential libraries, 20 at last count, 13 of them operated by the National Archives and Records Administration.
On Tuesday, while returning from a family gathering in Texas, we stopped in Little Rock, Arkansas, and spent about three hours at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library. It is housed in a splendid modern structure, situated next to the Arkansas River just outside downtown Little Rock. The building appears to have been designed to evoke one of President Clinton's favorite phrases--"building a bridge to the 21st Century." But in the end, I found myself as unmoved by the Clinton library as I was moved by Ford's, and it took me awhile to understand why.
The Ford museum (the Ford library is located in Ann Arbor at the University of Michigan) had a funky feel to it. Touring it felt like going through a trove of old family photos and other memorabilia. While the place obviously followed a plan, it had a relaxed, serendipitous feel. It seemed as if the exhibits were telling a story--or a series of stories--about Ford and his life and times.
Touring the Clinton library, by contrast, felt like sitting through a political science lecture, with Clinton himself as the lecturer. The place seemed relentlessly planned, organized, ordered. At some point pretty early on, I quit listening to the audio tour device over which Clinton explained the displays and exhibits. Between the sound from the device and the sounds piped into each exhibit alcove through ceiling speakers, there was just too much audio. In fact, there was just too much of everything--documents, photos, explanations, placards. I found myself thinking, "What this place needs is a good editor."
Strikes me there's a lesson for journalists in these two different approaches. The Clinton library is like one of those long, ponderous newspaper series on an issue that has been researched beyond exhaustively, but that nobody can stand to read. The Ford museum is like a well-told story--one that is long and important, but engagingly told and full of life and people and color. I know which one I would read first.
On Tuesday, while returning from a family gathering in Texas, we stopped in Little Rock, Arkansas, and spent about three hours at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library. It is housed in a splendid modern structure, situated next to the Arkansas River just outside downtown Little Rock. The building appears to have been designed to evoke one of President Clinton's favorite phrases--"building a bridge to the 21st Century." But in the end, I found myself as unmoved by the Clinton library as I was moved by Ford's, and it took me awhile to understand why.
The Ford museum (the Ford library is located in Ann Arbor at the University of Michigan) had a funky feel to it. Touring it felt like going through a trove of old family photos and other memorabilia. While the place obviously followed a plan, it had a relaxed, serendipitous feel. It seemed as if the exhibits were telling a story--or a series of stories--about Ford and his life and times.
Touring the Clinton library, by contrast, felt like sitting through a political science lecture, with Clinton himself as the lecturer. The place seemed relentlessly planned, organized, ordered. At some point pretty early on, I quit listening to the audio tour device over which Clinton explained the displays and exhibits. Between the sound from the device and the sounds piped into each exhibit alcove through ceiling speakers, there was just too much audio. In fact, there was just too much of everything--documents, photos, explanations, placards. I found myself thinking, "What this place needs is a good editor."
Strikes me there's a lesson for journalists in these two different approaches. The Clinton library is like one of those long, ponderous newspaper series on an issue that has been researched beyond exhaustively, but that nobody can stand to read. The Ford museum is like a well-told story--one that is long and important, but engagingly told and full of life and people and color. I know which one I would read first.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The Freezin' Season
It's the freezin' season. I suppose because it was May 1, air-conditioning was turned on in my office, in the classrooms at Loyola and on the CTA train I rode home today. Wouldn't have minded if it had been 80 degrees, but it was closer to 60 and rainy. I found myself having to put on a coat to stay warm in the classroom where I administered one of my final exams. Same thing in my office. But my coat did little good on the CTA, where frigid air issued from the AC vents and left me shivering.
No point complaining. This is the way it has become in modern America. We exult when we have a warm winter like the one just past. But the brains who have designed our modern systems have decided that, come spring and summer, we all must be kept refrigerated like so many sides of beef in a meat locker.
No point complaining. This is the way it has become in modern America. We exult when we have a warm winter like the one just past. But the brains who have designed our modern systems have decided that, come spring and summer, we all must be kept refrigerated like so many sides of beef in a meat locker.
Final Exam Time
I am currently administering the final exam in my course in Ethics and Communication. This has been a difficult semester. Neither I nor my students seem to have been as sharp as in semesters past. I don't know why that was so for the students. For me, it was a matter of fatigue--I suddenly seem not to have the energy I used to have. Gotta find a way to get it back. Going to a part-time schedule in the fall should help.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Dick Clark, R.I.P.
Owing to the stroke he suffered in 2004, Dick Clark hasn't been Dick Clark for some time now. Still, it saddened me to learn of his death. He was an indelible part of my life and the life of my generation. Thanks for the memories.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Ozzie the Liberator: Time for a Debate on U.S. Policy Toward Cuba
Something tells me Ozzie Guillen isn't going to survive the firestorm that he ignited last week with his complimentary remarks about Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. And maybe he shouldn't. I don't have an opinion about what should happen to the Florida Marlins' manager.
But if Ozzie's remarks can ignite a conversation in this country about U.S. policy toward Cuba, his political misstep will have served a good and healthy purpose. Because the truth is that America's Cuba policy has for far too long been set with a view to what is acceptable to the most rabidly anti-Castro elements in the Cuban "exile" community, not what is most conducive to the interests of the United States and, for that matter, of Cuba.
Yes, Castro--first Fidel and now Raul--is a dictator and, yes, Cuba is a dictatorship. But the United States has found ways to deal with dictators in myriad other countries, to the benefit of the U.S. and, often, the benefit of the citizens of those countries. Cuba is the great, glaring exception.
Long since it made any economic or political sense, we continue to impose an embargo on Cuba and to isolate it in many other ways. And the reason: because that's what the Cuban exiles in Florida want. And because both major parties covet their votes and Florida's electoral votes, neither party challenges that domination of national policy by a small group.
I don't fault the Florida Cubans for using their muscle on behalf of their cause. I do fault the politicians who are supposed to represent the United States of America for allowing the exile tail to wag the national dog. It's time this foolishness was ended.
With any luck, Ozzie Guillen will have given us the opportunity we desperately need to have a long-overdue conversation about our Cuba policy. Ozzie may not be salvageable, but American policy toward Cuba may be.
But if Ozzie's remarks can ignite a conversation in this country about U.S. policy toward Cuba, his political misstep will have served a good and healthy purpose. Because the truth is that America's Cuba policy has for far too long been set with a view to what is acceptable to the most rabidly anti-Castro elements in the Cuban "exile" community, not what is most conducive to the interests of the United States and, for that matter, of Cuba.
Yes, Castro--first Fidel and now Raul--is a dictator and, yes, Cuba is a dictatorship. But the United States has found ways to deal with dictators in myriad other countries, to the benefit of the U.S. and, often, the benefit of the citizens of those countries. Cuba is the great, glaring exception.
Long since it made any economic or political sense, we continue to impose an embargo on Cuba and to isolate it in many other ways. And the reason: because that's what the Cuban exiles in Florida want. And because both major parties covet their votes and Florida's electoral votes, neither party challenges that domination of national policy by a small group.
I don't fault the Florida Cubans for using their muscle on behalf of their cause. I do fault the politicians who are supposed to represent the United States of America for allowing the exile tail to wag the national dog. It's time this foolishness was ended.
With any luck, Ozzie Guillen will have given us the opportunity we desperately need to have a long-overdue conversation about our Cuba policy. Ozzie may not be salvageable, but American policy toward Cuba may be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)