Christmas miracles from childhood to adults

This post was published in The Wilson Times on Dec. 22, 2019.

In practical terms, Christmas is over. The after-Christmas sales have begun. But indulge me as I think of Christmas in the present tense on this fourth day of Christmas, with eight of the 12 days of Christmas remaining.

When the children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren of my parents gathered in Charleston, S.C., “the Holy City,” last weekend, I found myself reflecting on Christmases I have known over my lifetime. My conclusion is that life goes through several episodes of Christmas emotions.

As children, we are consumed by the excitement of Christmas, an excitement too great for young children to examine and understand. The word “miracle” pops up frequently in young children’s thoughts. They hear about the “Christmas miracle” of God made flesh-and-blood human in the form of a helpless baby in a stable. “Miracle” is also an apt description of the assortment of gifts, candy and celebration, in quantities with usually unimagined magnitude. Candies, nuts and fruits overflow stockings in quantities that are normally forbidden. Children get what they ask for, with some exceptions, and parents loosen their rules on candy consumption and behavior. A mysterious benefactor in a red suit and a magical sleigh makes this impossibility happen — one day out of the year.

Christmas is every kid’s favorite holiday. You can find them out on the street or front yards at daybreak, playing with new toys — bicycles, air rifles, dolls and games. This inexplicable mystery is played out against the soundtrack of Christmas music that every radio station and every store’s sound system plays endlessly leading up to Dec. 25, then the music goes away for 10 or 11 months.

I was sure my parents, who struggled to feed and clothe five children, could not afford the expensive toys that appeared magically in the living room. It had to be a part of the Christmas miracle discussed at church and of the legendary Christmas saint, who loved children so much he provided toys for them. It had to be a magical conjuring that got all those toys into all those houses. Nothing could be better than being a child on Christmas morning.

Then, when the child matures, questions myths and expects rational explanations, something else happens: The grown-up child discovers that there is one thing better than being a child on Christmas morning. It’s being the parent of a small child on Christmas morning. While a child glows with excitement, a parent feels a greater joy, greater gratitude, and a greater understanding of what human happiness really is. In family lies the greatest happiness of all.

As parents age, they observe the maturing of their children, and Christmas becomes not just a bonanza of toys and treats but also, and more importantly, a family ritual of celebration and renewal built around shared memories and a dining table that now includes grandchildren. The consumption of treats and the sparkle in the eyes of children with new toys mean less than the re-stitching of the family fabric. Grandparents enjoy the vicarious excitement they feel with each new grandchild. While nothing can replace the thrill of your child’s first few Christmas mornings, seeing grandchildren experience that same joy offers a time machine experience.

As a new parent many years ago, I wanted to show my children what my Christmas mornings had been like: a pre-dawn awakening, excitement that made my whole body shudder, and a drive in the dark to my maternal grandparents’ rural home, where a large breakfast and a crowd of aunts, uncles and cousins awaited. More gifts would be distributed after breakfast, then a hefty lunch would be served before our exhausted carload returned home.

I could not replicate that experience for my children, although we did something quite similar for several years. I could only tell them how I felt about that Christmas routine. Now my children and grandchildren have their own routines, and my wife and I have ours, which we try to mesh with those younger generations.

Republlicans see Democrats as Pontius Pilate and Trump as God

During the debates (which were more like a shouting match) Wednesday as the House of Representatives was about to vote on two articles of impeachment against President Trump, a Georgia congressman compared House Republicans to Pontius Pilate and said Pilate, the Roman governor who sentenced Jesus to death, was more fair than House Democrats. Jesus got better treatment from Pilate than President Trump got from House Democrats, he said.

Think about that. If Democrats are the equivalent of the 2000-years-ago Roman governor, then Donald J. Trump must be ... Jesus Christ. That makes Trump GOD!

No wonder Republicans are falling in line behind their leader: They have him mistaken for the one true God, who made heaven and Earth, who divided the Red Sea, who gave the laws to Moses, who is and was and always will be.

This explanation helps explain Republicans' boot-licking attitude toward President Trump and their refusal to believe overwhelming evidence of his wrongdoing and misbehavior. The trance he has imposed on every (R) in the Senate can only be understood as divine intervention or mass ignorance.

 

Words should be right, not almost-right

This post was published in the Wilson Times Dec. 14, 2019

“The difference between the almost-right word and the right word is really a large matter — ‘tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning,” Mark Twain said.

I spent most of my working life trying to find the right word or trying to explain to subordinates why the words they used were not right. The distinction was never as clear as lightning bug and lightning. Although I had earned a college degree in journalism and English, I had much to learn about the subtle differences between words that sound or are spelled alike. Several books devoted to correct word usage expanded my education.

In the 1970s, I read two books by television newsman Edwin Newman, “Strictly Speaking” and “A Civil Tongue.” Newman’s clear and often amusing explanations of word usage made me a crusader for proper usage. Both books are still available online. The Associated Press Stylebook teaches AP writers and subscribing newspapers the difference, for example, between a lectern and a podium. Often known as the newspaper’s bible, the Stylebook is a resource I still turn to, a decade after leaving the newsroom.

But there are other books that will make you an unctuous corrector of verbal errors (and I do mean verbal, not oral — there’s a difference). Perhaps the best I can recommend is “Words on Words,” the alphabetical listing of words that are often misused compiled by John B. Bremner. This author conducted a class on correct word usage that I attended more than 35 years ago. He sold me after the first five minutes. The man — a former Catholic priest turned Journalism professor at the University of Kansas — knew his stuff and presented it in a delightfully entertaining way. The class I attended was part of a national tour sponsored by the Knight (newspaper) Foundation. Bremner died in 1987 at age 67.

When subtle differences in meanings arise between words, I turn to Bremner’s book, the AP Stylebook or (for really difficult issues) H.W. Fowler’s 1944 “Modern English Usage.” Fowler is written for the harshest of teachers with a very British perspective. Some of his explanations of correct usage are so thorough you’ll wish you never asked.

For someone who wants only a practical guide with simple explanations, I would recommend the “AP Stylebook” or “Words on Words.” Any teacher of any scholastic discipline should expect correct usage in their students’ writing. Using the wrong word in a history or sociology class should be penalized the same as it would be in an English class.

What’s the big deal? Are these the rantings of a handful of snobbish elites who like to say, “You mean lie, not lay”? As I told reporters when I was an editor, “Would you hire a carpenter who didn’t know how to use a hammer or saw? Your tools as a writer are words and punctuation. You have to know how to use them. Fortunately, you can look up most things.

Dictionaries, like encyclopedias, have gone on-line in the digital age, and I use a dictionary app on my computer for quick checks of word meaning or similar words (in thesaurus mode). This feature has made my writing more efficient because it’s quicker to use the dictionary app than to pull the dictionary off the shelf and thumb through the pages to the questioned word. But for more thorough understanding of correct usage, printed guidebooks, such as “Words on Words” are still important. Unlike a dictionary, these usage books explain how a word differs from similar words.

As with dictionaries or encyclopedia, usage books can be so intriguing that a user can easily get lost in the details. Aren’t words wonderful?

Primaries might not be best way to choose nominees

An article in the December issue of The Atlantic addresses an issue that has disturbed me for some time: Did we go too far in the 1970s in removing political “bosses” from the presidential nomination process?

The tumultuous party nominating conventions of the late 1960s — recall the image of Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daily cheering on police violence in the streets as Democratic Party delegates snubbed candidates not endorsed by the party establishment — and the post-Watergate campaign reforms of the 1970s fueled the shift in nomination process from collective decisions made by faithful party delegates in mammoth national conventions to a universal primary system, in which millions of individual voters make the decision once reserved for or controlled by party officials with years of experience in politics.

The “democratization” of presidential nominations seemed like a great idea at the time. The entire electorate would have a role in choosing nominees. Instead of safe, “establishment” candidates who have earned their promotion to the top job after decades of service to the public and the party, the primary system gave us unconventional candidates such as Jimmy Carter and George McGovern. Voters got to have their say, but what they often said was, “I like the cute one with a sense of humor.” Instead of a party convention, Democrats and Republicans sponsored two “beauty contests” of potential nominees.

Eventually, this led America to Donald Trump, a presidential nominee with no experience in government and no interest in learning about how the government works, even as he practices diplomacy by insult and policy making by impulsive tweets. It also led to useless enterprises such as this year’s Democratic candidate debates, featuring two dozen candidates, many of whom get few chances to speak.

The 2016 presidential campaign saw a Republican nominee who was not a Republican in the usual sense, and a Democratic candidate who did not refer to himself as a Democrat at all and had not been registered as one. This year’s candidate debates include a “spiritual adviser” with no experience in government and no clear policies.

Reforms that made presidential primary results the standard for nominating a president have not lived up to their promises. We all wanted to put an end to the “smoke-filled rooms” where presidential nominations were “really made” by cigar-chomping big-city party bosses, but we weren’t aiming for the circus we got.

We (I thought primaries would be a great way to select a presidential nominee) never thought the new process would turn into such a shipwreck. Without some “party bosses” to ride herd on candidates, we have ended up with candidates who don’t know what they’re getting into and voters who succumb to glitz, glib comments and greatly exaggerated promises.

In the Atlantic article, Jonathan Rauch and Ray La Raja suggest a new reform: allow veteran party officials (members of Congress, elected state officers, state party chairmen, etc.) to serve as appraisers of potential nominees and avoid embarrassing (and dangerous) surprises. These party regulars, with deep knowledge of governing and party principles, would serve as the “adults in the room” who can screen out the unqualified, the dangerously unhinged, the inexperienced and those untested or unsuccessful at lower levels.

Turning away from the exciting state primaries and caucuses will not be an easy sale, but a comparison of the nominees selected in traditional convention nominations and in primaries might sway opinion. Smoke-filled rooms gave America Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, and Harry Truman. The only major mistakes in this system, arguably, were Warren Harding and Richard Nixon. That’s not a bad record.

To cut costs, newspapers cut days of print publication

This post was published in the Wilson Times Nov. 23, 2019.

If you like a good newspaper to linger over on a Saturday morning breakfast table, you might have to rearrange your table soon. McClatchy, which owns the Raleigh News & Observer, the Charlotte Observer, the Durham Morning Herald, and a total of 29 daily newspapers in 14 states, has announced it will stop publishing a Saturday print edition in the next few months.

For lovers of ink-on-paper news delivered to your door, this is the topper to a quarter-century trend of newspapers abandoning daily printed papers and putting profit-and-loss spreadsheets ahead of newspapers’ solemn duty to inform the public by reporting the news without bias or prejudgment. (Wilson readers are blessed to have a local daily that is not owned by a giant corporation that sees newspapers not as a solemn duty but as a potential profit stream.)

McClatchy Corporation has financial reason to drop days of publication, cut employment and trim investment in news reporting. On Oct. 8, the company reported a drop in stock price from $2.73 at close to 49 cents a week later.

McClatchy has been a train wreck for a long time. McClatchy, publisher of the Sacramento Bee since 1906, bought Knight Ridder, publisher of some of the most respected newspapers in the United States, including the Miami Herald and the aforementioned N.C. dailies. In March 2006, McClatchy paid $4.5 billion for Knight Ridder, which was known as one of the best newspaper chains, one that saw journalistic principles as an obligation. You’d be hard pressed to find a journalist on McClatchy’s corporate board.

Another worrisome newspaper development last week was the merger of Gannett with Gatehouse Media. Gannett, best known for USA Today, will be part of a conglomerate owning 250 newspapers. This degree of consolidation in news media once would have brought out anti-trust concerns, but now it’s just a routine business transaction.

On the cusp of the Great Recession, McClatchy overpaid for Knight Ridder and is still burdened with debt from that transaction. The once-powerful and profitable properties bought from Knight Ridder became unsellable in the depressed market and its sharp drop in newspaper advertising. The corporate office ordered layoffs and job consolidation to cut costs.

Just as in other newspapers, news employees were jettisoned to save money, making the newspapers less valuable to investors and readers as news coverage shrank. McClatchy consolidated jobs, such as publisher, which used to be a local position, a spokesman and business leader for each newspaper. McClatchy has already consolidated publisher and editorial positions in its North and South Carolina properties. Even these cuts and veering from traditional staffing were not enough to cover the rising debt.

So McClatchy has made the decision to “transition to digital,” meaning eliminating more costly print editions altogether. A number of major newspapers across the country have cut back on publication days. Dropping the Saturday print edition is a less drastic cut than some papers have taken. But the cuts are not over. It is apparent to my household, subscribers to the N&O for nearly 40 years, that print subscribers are expendable. When we went to renew our subscription, we found the three-month subscription cost about quadruple what an annual subscription cost a few years ago.

When I called to object to the price jump, I was expertly steered to a part-digital subscription. I now get the print edition Friday, Saturday and Sunday and have digital access all seven days. This hybrid plan for one year costs what print-only costs for three months.

The crisis in the newspaper business goes far beyond the “forget print” perspective at the N&O. Newspapers around the country are folding, leaving residents with no neutral resource about local government, crime, nonprofits, churches, jobs, industries, elections. The crisis in the loss of newspaper advertising is also a crisis in American traditions of vigorous public debate, informed voters and access to the ballot.

We are losing more than a day of print publication.

Impeachment unfolds in deeply divided nation

This article was published in the Wilson Times Oct. 16, 2019.

The first day of public hearings in the U.S. House impeachment inquiry took place in a far different political atmosphere from the 1973-74 Watergate hearings and subsequent House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings.

Wednesday’s hearings showed that partisan rancor would play a much larger role this year than it did in the Nixon hearings. Some Republican members and staff saw fit to attack witnesses’ integrity and engage in speechmaking rather than asking witnesses for information. The minority counsel seemed lost and confused as he tried to put words into the mouths of witnesses. Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, used his question time to blurt so many accusatory questions so fast that the witnesses had little opportunity to respond, which was fine because his questions were not really questions anyway.

Ambassador William Taylor and the State Department’s George Kent handled themselves and the situation admirably. These two career diplomats who had served under Democratic and Republican presidents respectfully responded to some loaded questions by saying they could not answer because they had no knowledge of the matter. When asked about his view on impeachment, Taylor responded that he had no view; he was a career professional who served the president, whoever the president might be. The impeachment question is one the Constitution leaves to members of the House, he told the questioner.

Taylor and Kent were in many ways as impressive as John Dean was in 1973. Dean had a seemingly encyclopedic recall of facts and incidents he observed as White House Counsel. Taylor had notes about episodes he had observed, a lengthy, thorough opening statement and detailed responses to questions. Kent was unperturbed by disrespectful, even angry questions.

In 1973, Dean’s testimony was dismissed by Nixon supporters, but when the White House tapes were released over Nixon’s objections, Dean’s recollections proved amazingly accurate and complete.

In 2019, there is not likely to be a “smoking gun” like the White House tapes, but there will be additional witnesses, most of whom are expected to support Wednesday’s witnesses’ testimony and previous reporting.

Thus far, no celebrities have been created by the 2019 impeachment hearings in the like of Sen. Sam Ervin or Sen. Howard Baker, the majority and minority leaders of the Watergate committee. The 2019 committee chair, Adam Schiff, was unemotional and fair Wednesday, despite scurrilous personal attacks by Trump and others. But he lacks Sam Ervin’s colorful stories and personality. The seven-member Watergate committee ultimately found Richard Nixon had used the powers of the presidency to cover up his approval of the Watergate break-in.

The biggest difference between 1973-74 and today is the existence of highly partisan organizations that are willing to distort facts, deny obvious truths and make up whole scenarios contradicting plainly seen incidents. The result has been a nation more divided than it ever was during the Watergate inquiry, even though the two sides in the Watergate scandal were ferocious in their criticisms. Nixon and his minions did all they could to excuse Nixon’s actions but they did not have the lobbying groups, highly partisan news sources and “alternative facts” of today.

While most news sources and individuals saw impeachment inquiry witnesses forthrightly reporting potentially impeachable actions of the president, Fox News, the largest and most successful Trump defender, proclaimed the hearings boring and a disaster for Democrats. Recent polling shows the electorate divided between those who get all their news on the Fox News channel and those who don’t.

Impeachment by a vote of the full House will not settle the matter. To remove a president from office, impeachment charges must be tried in the Senate, where Republicans hold a majority.

If the impeachment hearings convince the public that Trump abused his office, but loyal Republicans prevent his conviction, the party could lose national support. If an impeachment resolution fails to pass in the Democrat-led House, the party could face long-term damage.

Two presidents have been impeached (Nixon would have been had he not resigned to save face), but none has ever been convicted in a Senate trial. If impeached, Trump is determined to continue that streak.

Concussion concerns threaten football's dominance

This post was published in the Wilson Times Nov. 10, 2019.

Last weekend provided a cup overflowing with televised football games — Thursday and Friday night games between high school and college teams, more college games on Saturday with ever-expanding networks to broadcast or stream games between even obscure schools with minuscule followings; and National Football League games nearly all day Sunday, plus a smattering of weeknight games.

Through ticket sales, merchandising and generous television revenue, the NFL is bringing in about $16 billion this year. In little over half a century, the NFL has become by far the dominant professional sports league, and college football retains its hold on collegiate sports culture, challenged only by men’s basketball.

You’d think American football was a sure bet, but America’s love for football and its college and professional leagues face existential challenges resulting from the recognition that CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) threatens the mental functioning and even the lives of football players. Concerns about CTE have led to rules changes that limit the dangerous collisions inherent in a sport that involves very large boys and men hurtling at each other at top speeds. Medical research has found playing football can result in brain injuries (CTE) that might not show up until decades later.

Fewer children are participating in high school football, long the “major sport” in U.S. high schools. You can hardly blame the parents who don’t want to sacrifice their sons’ brains for ephemeral glory and a long-shot opportunity to earn big contracts in professional football. It is a sport where young men can be maimed or killed, and old men lose their memories and reasoning powers.

I played high school football in another era, 50 years ago, and I played for a losing team in a lower competitive level. My first year on the team, I was listed as a 110 pound center. It was a time when no player was held out after “getting your bell rung,” as head injuries were known then. Those injuries were treated with smelling salts and a return to action. There was no concussion protocol, not even the acknowledgement that a concussion occurred. I recall the tackle to my right in the offensive line asking me, “who do I block” after being briefly knocked out on the previous play. He never missed a snap.

A Boston University study found that the risk of developing CTE increases 30 percent for each year of playing football. I played three years, and that is frightening to me now. My son did not play football in high school, but he enjoyed throwing the football around and playing backyard games. None of my five grandsons has shown much interest in playing football in high school, and that’s fine with me.

Last Sunday’s Raleigh News & Observer spotlighted the dilemma with a front page cover story headlined “Can Football Be Saved?” Participation in high school football is down 25 percent since 2010, the N&O reported. Without players, there can be no football. The very long article highlighted a high school coach in Apex who has minimized brain injury risks by eliminating full-speed contact in practices and teaching blocking and tackling techniques to avoid concussions in games. Saving football, it appears, might require drastic changes in how the game is played and practiced. The amazing shows of strength, speed, balance and athleticism may have to be curtailed for football to survive.

But I haven’t stopped watching football on television and, occasionally, in person. The athletic competition, the excitement of the game, the teamwork, the combat-like strategies all appeal to me. It is with a sense of guilty pleasure that I watch football, knowing that the men and young boys playing are risking their health for my (and millions of others’) enjoyment.

It seems inevitable that football will lose its perch atop the popularity of spectator sports. The hidden dangers of CTE will turn off parents, players, fans, and politicians to the point that football recedes into an archaic past in much the same way boxing did.

If football fades away, gone with it will be a testing and maturing opportunity for teenage boys, as well as a cohesive pride that brings communities together. Just look at what Fike High School’s state championships did for Wilson or look at the “Friday Night Lights” TV series. But young people’s health is worth more than community pride.

Woodrow Wilson gave his life for his principles

This post was published in the Wilson Times Nov. 2, 2019

Woodrow Wilson, who was completing his second term 100 years ago, was one of the most popular of all presidents, despite his having only minimal experience in government before ascending to the White House. Scott Berg’s 818-page biography, “Wilson,” (2013) reveals an extraordinary man: scholar, theologian, peacemaker, lawyer, university president and reformer. Born in Staunton, Va., the son of a Presbyterian minister, Wilson was a man in a hurry from an early age. He was a champion debater at a time when skill at debate, rhetoric, public speaking and logic were highly prized. He studied at Davidson, Princeton, the University of Virginia and Johns Hopkins, earning a Ph.D.

Wilson was also a man divided between two centuries. Born in 1856 in a state that would secede from the United States before he was six, Wilson’s perspective was influenced by Confederate veterans. His morals were both Victorian and segregationist, but he enthusiastically looked toward the future in a world about to experience its greatest changes in centuries.

Leaving a position he loved as president of Princeton, Wilson ran for governor of New Jersey and won. Two years later, in 1912, he won a landslide victory to become president of the United States in one of he oddest elections in history. The electorate was divided into four camps, with former president Teddy Roosevelt running a third-party campaign against Republican incumbent William Howard Taft. Socialist Eugene Debs was also on the ballot. Wilson, the Democratic nominee selected by party bosses, had Democratic voters to himself.

Two years later in 1914, war sparked by miscalculations, poor communications and lingering ethnic hatred, broke out in Europe. Industrialized war had created unimaginable slaughter. Despite the loss of American lives in German U-Boat attacks, Wilson refused to join the war on the side of the western democracies.

In 1916, Wilson ran for re-election on the slogan “He kept us out of war,” but two years into his second term, he asked Congress to declare war on Germany and its allies. Wilson’s ability to sway an audience made it possible for him to persuade an isolationist nation to join the “War to End All Wars.”

Wilson was a great believer in the power of language. He wrote history books, and he wrote his own speeches through most of his varied careers. He was also a believer in the power of ideas, and he put great thought into the ideas that motivated his speeches.

He saw opportunity in the armistice ending the Great War (as it was known) and the formal peace treaty that would finalize the war’s end. He developed his Fourteen Points that he considered essential to any peace treaty. He then broke precedent by going to the peace conference in Paris himself to wrangle Britain, France and Italy into a peace treaty that would reshape the maps of Europe, Asia and Africa. Two key points were the right of people to self-determination and establishment of a League of Nations that would arbitrate international disagreements and avoid future wars.

Wilson put all of his energy into this treaty, but his absence from Washington gave isolationists under Henry Cabot Lodge a chance to build opposition to ratification of the treaty.

Berg begins his biography with a description of President Wilson waiting to board a steamship to France to negotiate the peace. Wilson was, Berg writes, by far the most popular person in the world, the man who would end war and give freedom of self-determination to all peoples. Wilson set out on a grueling transcontinental trip, giving several speeches a day, in order to win ratification of the treaty. Before his trip ended, he was a broken man, having suffered a stroke that left him paralyzed on one side and a shadow of the man he had been.

Wilson’s second wife (his first wife, to whom he was deeply devoted, had died in 1914), Edith Gault, and a few others guarded the secret about how seriously incapacitated the president was. He remained popular even after his presidency; admiring crowds would stand outside his Washington townhouse hoping for a glimpse of the great man.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that Wilson gave his life (or at least his health) for his vision of a world without armed conflict. His presidency based on scholarship and principles offers a contrast and possibly an alternative to today’s winning-is-everything politics.

The Red Eye, another failedd effort to save printe newspapers

This post was published in the Wilson Times Oct. 26, 2019

At our daughter’s urging, my wife and I took a recent trip to Chicago, which neither of us had ever seen. We planned to see the sights and major attractions, the Lake Michigan waterfront, the “Magnificent Mile” of tall buildings, the parks, the Art Institute, Picasso’s massive untitled steel sculpture and more.

We had anticipated all those things; they were in our plans. What we didn’t expect was an artifact from the desperate attempts of a once-powerful and wealthy newspaper corporation in a great, even legendary, newspaper town to keep people reading their news in print.

I didn’t recognize at first the odd-looking metal box about three feet high with a big round red metal ball on top. Then I remembered reading about the RedEye, a tabloid publication that the Chicago Tribune launched in 2002 in the hope of luring 18- to 34-year-olds back to print media. RedEye was free at first and published daily. Initially, distribution agents just handed out the papers as commuters boarded or exited trains. The smaller tabloid format was thought to be “commuter friendly,” meaning it could be read by holding the RedEye with one hand while holding onto a pole or strap in the train with the other hand.

Readership of print newspapers was plummeting, and advertising was migrating to the Internet in the 1990s. From the late 1980s through the Great Recession, newspaper publishers scrambled to find a way to stop the bleeding. Many thousands of newspaper jobs were eliminated. Advertising-starved papers shrank in size, and all kinds of creative ideas, such as RedEye, were proposed by news executives and consultants. None of those ideas saved the industry. Aggregators such as Google and Facebook pile up billions in cash revenues while once-strong newspapers, which created the news aggregators sell, are forced to close.

Despite great promotional campaigns from a company with more than 150 years in the newspaper business (The Tribune started publication in 1847 and survived the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, then helped lead the city’s recovery and reconstruction), RedEye ultimately failed to bring younger readers and commuters back to ink-on-paper news. After giving away copies of RedEye for six months, the Tribune began charging 25 cents per copy. The decrepit newspaper boxes with the big red ball on top that I saw show that RedEye just couldn’t make it. In 2017, RedEye switched to a weekly production schedule.

Tribune Media, once a dominant news and content provider in newspapers, radio and television, went through a series of mergers, spinoffs, and other attempts to stay solvent before succumbing to bankruptcy in 2008.

The old RedEye boxes were not the only artifacts of a once-thriving industry. The grandiose Tribune Tower on Michigan Avenue is another artifact of a bygone era, from the same company that attempted a turnaround with red news boxes, splashy promotions and big red orbs atop their news boxes. The 1925 Gothic Revival Tribune Tower was the result of an international competition to design the greatest skyscraper ever. The elegantly chiseled stone building that once housed the Tribune empire was a cathedral to news. Now, the 36-story building is being converted to apartments and retail space. It still looks impressive, and I’m sure the apartments are very pricey. It, too, is a reminder of how far the newspaper industry has fallen in half a century.

-->

Dinner Parties, "Bowling Alone" and social capital

This post was published in the Wilson Times Oct. 12, 2019.

A Miss Manners column posted Sept. 30 asked the provocative question, “Are dinner parties dead?”

Miss Manners, AKA Judith Martin, concludes that, yeah, they probably are dead.

In a world of “Bowling Alone” (Robert Putnam’s 2000 book about the loss of “social capital,” the connectedness and sharing of people’s lives, in America today) if bowling leagues, civic clubs, fraternal organizations and other forms of communal, civic and social engagement are all faltering, why shouldn’t dinner parties go the way of buggy whips and slide rules?

Miss Manners admits that Americans don’t “entertain” the way they used to. It once was standard procedure in good neighborhoods to invite the new neighbors over for dinner, and the new neighbors would reciprocate the favor. On practices as simple as this are strong neighborhoods and close neighbors formed.

But in a world of two-earner households, long, tiring hours at work, corporate expectations of 10-hour days and six-day workweeks, no one has time for dinner parties. We hardly have time to eat a snack at our desks.

The few who do welcome the new neighbors to the neighborhood are more likely to offer dinner at a nearby restaurant rather than a home-cooked meal in the home. This is the result of rising numbers and varieties of restaurants as well as the stressed home life (who has time to clean and bake?) of today’s couples.

Not long after I moved into our current home, an old friend stopped to tell me he had lived on this short street and enjoyed the hospitality of neighbors several times a week when he and the neighborhood were much younger. There were dinner parties, potlucks, card games, and other social gatherings to fill nearly every weeknight. Now, I try to learn the names of the people on this same street and have some difficulty with that.

Americans have grown more insular and secluded, Putnam’s study showed. Many people would rather sit in front of the television every night and ignore the outside world.

Unfortunately, good neighborhoods, good communities, and good cities didn’t become that way because people sat in their dens and ignored the outside world. The abandonment of formal dinner parties can be seen in the fire-sale prices for entertainment dishes and utensils. If no one throws fancy dinners, no one wants or needs fancy dishes, matching china and sterling silver flatware, so the specialty gift stores that used to rely on weddings, anniversaries and other special occasions to drive their sales are struggling or already closed. Changing habits have economic impacts.

When I moved to Wilson almost 40 years ago, the level of civic involvement deeply impressed me. A multitude of civic clubs offered opportunities to make the city better. Nonprofits also flourished here and did outstanding work addressing a variety of needs. The local United Way was strong, with top executives of nearly every business in town participating in the annual United Way campaigns. Political meetings attracted big crowds.

Wilson still has strong civic club and nonprofit sectors, but even here the “bowling alone” syndrome is evident. Demanding jobs, two-earner households and the lure of ready, economical, on-demand, in-home entertainment have dwindled the number of civic activists, even here, in a city I once described as “feeling like a small town,” even though it is a small to mid-size city.

Reviving dinner parties may be next to impossible, but it’s not too late to work on that social capital Putnam recognized. More participation in the daily life of the city or neighborhood can have far-reaching consequences and make this community (dare we say it?) a better place.

Trump decision plays into Putin's hands

What can one make of President Trump's abrupt, contradictory, unadvised decision to pull American troops out of Syria and abandon America's Kurdish allies to the whims of a sworn enemy, Turkey? Many Trump pronouncements in domestic and foreign policy are inexplicable, except to cite Trump's all-knowing "gut" instincts, but this one seems especially bewildering.

American military officers are left shocked and angered, knowing that they are abandoning Kurdish allies, who were primarily responsible for the wresting of its territorial "caliphate" from Islamic State (ISIS). Turkey has sent its troops pouring over the border into Syria, killing Kurds and further destabilizing that war-riven country.

To explain the unexplainable, it is helpful to ask "Who gains?" In this case, it seems obvious that this policy shift benefits not the United States, not Syrians, not Middle East stability; it benefits Russia under Vladimir Putin. Russia has long been a protector of the Assad regime in Syria, and Russia has been a historical defender of the Kurds. 

By abandoning America's brave Kurdish allies, Trump has opened the door to Russian domination of Asia Minor, Syria, and Lebanon, along with Turkey and Iran. It's hard to believe that Trump, although proudly ignorant of international alliances and diplomatic thinking, could not recognize that his decision turns over Syria and the whole region to Russia.

The seemingly outlandish theory that Trump must be a Russian plant posted to the American presidency as a way to bolster Russia's international power and prestige, gains some apparent logic through Trump's action in Syria. Why else would an American president hand over a highly strategic region to America's most hostile adversary?

President Obama made the mistake of threatening the Assad regime if it violated a "red line" in its war on its own citizens and then did nothing when Assad violated the line. But that error pales in comparison to Trump's crazy decision in Syria. Trump destroys American credibility and trustworthiness while handing over the region to Russia. How can this possibly be in America's best interests?

History is anything but "boring"

This post was published in the Wilson Times Oct. 19, 2019.

I recently received a letter that began, “Dear Fellow Student of History.” With a salutation like that, you know you are getting a fundraising appeal. The letter from Jim Lighthizer of the American Battlefield Trust, was, indeed, a fund-raising appeal. Like other such letters I’ve received over the past three decades, this letter was alarming and effective.

The American Battlefield Trust, formerly the Civil War Trust, is a nonprofit devoted to preserving and restoring American battlefields. Originally, the organization focused solely on Civil War battlefields but has expanded to include Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields. Walking around on the “hallowed ground” of battlefields is one of my favorite things to do on vacation. Just four years ago, I made my third visit to Gettysburg and hiked all around the boulders and fields where more than 51,000 Americans were killed, wounded or missing in a three-day battle in 1863.

Lighthizer’s organization has preserved many acres of battlefield land at Gettysburg, Richmond, Chancellorsville, Harper’s Ferry, Bentonville and dozens of other places. The Battlefield Trust has been very successful in saving “hallowed ground” from commercial and residential developers and other threats.

What worries Lighthizer is the lack of interest, especially among younger generations, in the history he and other supporters are preserving. He calls it “a crisis in history education” and writes, “The numbers are terrifying.” Here’s a brief listing of scary facts:

1.    Over a recent 20-year period, no more than 17 percent of U.S. eighth graders scored “proficient” or better in history in national tests. That leaves 83 percent who are less than proficient in history, and they will be able to vote!

2.    A 2015 survey found that one-third of new college graduates could not place the Civil War (the most significant American event since the founding of the Republic) in its correct 20-year time frame.

3.    A survey of America’s top 75 colleges found that a third of them did not require an American history course to earn a degree in history!

4.    A survey by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation found that only 40 percent of Americans could pass the U.S. Citizenship Test given to immigrants seeking to become citizens.

These statistics reinforce other findings that Americans are ignorant of their nation’s history. Many young students say they find history “boring.” These are probably students taught that history consists of a bunch of dates and obscure people who are all dead anyway. That’s not the way to teach history.

To teach the Civil War, take students to Gettysburg. Have them stand at the stepping off point of Pickett’s Charge, and point out the ridge three-quarters of a mile away, and tell them they must walk briskly uphill toward that ridge while 10,000 well dug-in soldiers supported by cannon delivered a hailstorm of bullets and cannonballs at them. There’s nothing boring about being shot at. Use that incident to open the door to the whole history of the Civil War.

Meanwhile, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, which has been “selling” history for 80 years as a 301-acre living history museum (and the colonial capital of Virginia), is alarmed that freedom, liberty and democracy seem to be declining worldwide. Williamsburg CEO Mitchell Reiss used his column in the Foundation’s quarterly magazine to warn that liberty is in decline and authoritarianism is on the rise around the world.

In Williamsburg, visitors can walk the streets and visit the homes and government buildings the founders of American democracy inhabitated. This “living history” also is not boring. It is the closest thing we have to a time machine that transports us to the age of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and others.

Nevertheless, Colonial Williamsburg has struggled with changing tastes of American vacationers. Many parents want their children to have fun on vacation, not learn how their nation began. CWF has changed its programming to include more child-friendly activities and more African-Americans of the 18^th century, both enslaved and free.

Both the Battlefield Trust and Colonial Williamsburg offer on-site seminars for teachers, showing them how to turn “boring” into excitement and equipping young Americans to understand their rich history and to appreciate the courageous acts that give them their liberty.

-->

Impeachment 2019 won't be like Impeachment 1974

As the impeachment of a president begins to look more and more likely, I have found myself thinking back to the 1974 impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon. I was working in Washington at the time, reading the Washington Post daily and feeling excited about having a close-up seat for this political drama.

Nixon was not impeached, but the House Judiciary Committee had filed articles of impeachment and sent them to the full House for a vote. Recognizing that the House vote would be overwhelmingly for impeachment, Nixon reluctantly resigned, thereby allowing appointed Vice President Gerald Ford to ascend to the presidency and issue a pardon, which saved Nixon from charges for criminal conduct the impeachment inquiry had revealed.

It took a visit from Sen. Barry Goldwater, the most recognized and admired Republican in the Senate, to convince Nixon that his presidency could not survive an impeachment vote. If Nixon had not resigned, the impeachment trial before the full Senate could have dragged on for weeks, leaving the country nearly rudderless.

The 2019 impeachment debate will play out in a very different climate. Nixon had lost the support of all but the most dedicated Republicans. A recent poll showed Trump’s overall approval rating around 50 percent, but his approval among registered Republicans was more than 90 percent. It’s difficult to explain the disparity in one large portion of the electorate. Trump’s lashing out at every criticism and total denial of every accusation has to be a factor in the polls’ schism. His true believers have been trained to ignore all news reports that do not emanate from Trump himself or his minions.

Another factor in Trump’s favor if impeachment happens is his demand for personal loyalty from all appointees in his administration as well as elected officials. Although federal officials take an oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, Trump demands and usually gets personal loyalty. If enough people in power violate their oath to uphold the Constitution and rule instead in favor of Trump’s interests, any impeachment vote will fail.

For Nixon, the secret Oval Office audiotapes were the deciding factor for impeachment. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Nixon had to release the tapes. Would a 2019 Supreme Court, with a 5-4 Republican majority including two Trump appointees, rule against this president? We may find out before this is all over.

Trump has been frequently accused of violating his oath of office and seeking to rule regardless of Constitutional restrictions and balance of power. He also faces lawsuits alleging he is violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution by accepting (and even marketing) stays at his hotels and resorts paid by foreign governments. His latest alleged violation involves telephone calls to the president of Ukraine. Those calls could be problematic on two counts: (1) Trump asks for “a favor” involving a Ukrainian investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son; and (2) Trump uses his elective office to conduct personal business, a vendetta against the Bidens, and brings in his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and U.S. Attorney General Robert Barr. Using company time, company assets and company resources to conduct personal business is unethical on any level. If true, Trump has committed what amounts to a corporate executive conducting his Amway business from his corporate desk.

What makes this impeachment inquiry particularly difficult is Trump’s insistence that he has never, ever done anything wrong (and claimed the calls to Ukraine were “perfect”), and his followers’ willingness to believe every word from a man with an astounding history of prevarications. A delegation from Congress, like the one that convinced Nixon to resign, will not work with Trump. If he goes down, he will go down screaming his innocence and perfection.

Amendment will clear the way for The Leader

Proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: 

Article 2, Section 1: The Second Article of the Constitution of The United States is hereby rescinded.

Section 2: The following wording shall constitute, in its entirety, Article 2 of this Constitution: The executive power shall be vested in a President, henceforth to be known as The Leader. He/She shall hold this office for an indefinite period to be determined by The Leader himself/herself. When The Leader is ready to relinquish his/her office, he/she may appoint, at his/her sole discretion, one person to succeed him/her. The successor shall be an adult citizen of the United States and may be a relative or direct descendant of The Leader, but kinship with The Leader shall not be a prerequisite for office.

Section 3: The Leader shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy, the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and any and all executive agencies he/she wishes to command. As Commander of the Federal Communication Commission, the Leader shall have the authority to restrict reading of newspapers, watching of television, listening to radio or reading anything on the internet that fails to meet the Leader's news standards.
The Leader shall have the authority, without any input or consultation with any other person, to make treaties, trade agreements, declare war on other nations, and appoint ambassadors, federal judges for district courts, appeal courts, and the Supreme Court without any consultation, advice or consent from any other branch of government or public opinion. The Leader may decide on punishments for various crimes, and the punishments he selects cannot be challenged. Immigration offenses may be punished by public hanging, if The Leader so chooses. Disagreement with The Leader may also be punished by death.

Section 4: The Leader may, from time to time, offer reports to Congress on the State of the Union, but is not required to make any reports or pay any attention to Congress or to the various state legislatures. Congress shall have no authority to question decisions or actions of The Leader or even to know about The Leader's decisions and actions. The Leader shall be the sole authority on all issues foreign and domestic, and his authority shall not be challenged. The Leader shall have the right to receive payments from foreign countries, non-governmental organizations, or foreign or domestic individuals who wish to donate to The Leader's fortunes out of gratitude for The Leader's service.

Section 5: This amendment will be in force on the first January 1 following ratification of this amendment. The Leader may choose to use the title "Der Fuhrer" if he/she so chooses.

Section 6: The Leader may require the teaching of the German language in all American high schools.  

Note: Three-fourths of each branch of Congress and two-thirds of the states must vote for ratification for this amendment to become law. How will you vote?

 

A parade by any other name would be a controversy

This post was published in the Wilson Times on Sept. 28, 2019.

It would take a dang fool or an idiot to jump into a seething controversy over a parade. Well, here I go.

I should preface this by saying that I’m not much of a parade fan. I never watch parades on television and will not walk far to see a local parade.

According to the Wilson Times and some brief sociable conversations, Wilson officials decided to change the name of the annual parade from the Christmas Parade to the Holiday Parade. Because the parade had to be scheduled before Thanksgiving, it seemed logical to change the name to “Holiday” in order to recognize both Christmas and Thanksgiving.

Some people might think a Christmas Parade before Thanksgiving would be premature by at least a week, which is what happened last year when Wilson’s 2018 Christmas Parade took place on Nov. 17 (Thanksgiving was Nov. 22). So it seemed logical this year to call the event a Holiday Parade. Unfortunately, emotion often trumps logic.

This little brouhaha in Wilson reflects the nationwide hulabaloo over “Merry Christmas” versus “Happy Holidays.” Some religious conservatives saw in the late-year greeting that omits “Christmas” a conspiracy against Christianity. Politicians sought to win points by jumping on the “Merry Christmas or else!” bandwagon. There were claims that President Obama or some other politician had used the alternative greeting because they were anti-Christian. “Keep Christ in Christmas” became a slogan for those seeking to commemorate the birthday of Jesus of Nazareth.

Anyone who knows much about church history knows that Dec. 25 is an artificial date for Jesus’ birthday. The Gospels and other Christian writings do not state when Jesus was born. We don’t even know what year he was born (the latest scholarly estimate is around 4 B.C.) Luke and Matthew tell of events around Jesus’ birth but do not say when it occurred. The Gospels of John and Mark do not mention Jesus’ birth. In the early years of the church, there was no birthday celebration for Jesus.

So why do we celebrate Christmas in December? The simple explanation is that early Christians were absorbing pagan Winter Solstice holidays, and even adopting some pagan traditions, such as lighting candles, exchanging gifts and eating a celebratory meal. Bart D. Ehrman’s book “The Triumph of Christianity” credits the early Christians with deftly appropriating the most popular aspects of other religions, helping Christianity to become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire and beyond. The subtitle of his book is “How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World.”

Arguing that Christmas must be maintained in its purest, untainted form ignores the fact that the Apostles would not recognize this holiday, which became part of the church calendar in the Fourth Century, first had its own liturgy in the Ninth Century and was still evolving when Charles Dickens (who has been called “the man who invented Christmas”) wrote “A Christmas Carol” in 1843.

I find it odd that the most zealous opponents of “Happy Holidays” find nothing wrong with retailers hyping Christmas sales in October and people throwing out Christmas decorations just as Christmas is beginning. In the church calendar, Christmas begins Dec. 25 and ends Jan. 6, which is “Twelfth Night” or Epiphany. Dec. 26 is not Throw Out That Tree Day, it’s the second day of Christmas.

Jumping the gun on Christmas with decorations and sales and trees on display before Thanksgiving ignores one of the most reverent periods on the church calendar — Advent, which is celebrated the four weeks before Dec. 25. Advent provides a reflective, quiet time to consider the miracle of God becoming a man and living among us. Without Advent, Christians are not truly prepared for Christmas.

A wise pastor once told me that there are some things worth fighting for in the church and some things that aren’t. What to call a parade, it seems to me, is not a theological issue.