I looked in the mirror
and saw myself
You looked at me
and saw someone else
You saw what you wanted to see
but what you saw wasn’t me
]]>
Posted on: Sep 11 2020 / Written by: Brett Lunger
Change happens. Doesn’t matter if you are rich or poor, powerful or helpless. Nothin’ you can do about it. Change happens.
You are born. From that moment on you will experience a series of changes, some good and some not so good. One change after another until the final change. You die.
Does that mean you should resign yourself to the vagaries of change, that you should accept whatever fate is tossed your way? Absolutely not.
You have the power to manage the changes that will inevitably come your way, even if you do not know right now what those changes might be.
As a teenager, getting your driver’s license is a big deal. Before getting your license, give some thought to what that change will mean to you. New freedom, yes. But also new responsibilities that go with that freedom. Also, new expenses…...insurance, gas, and maintenance. How will you pay for those things? These are big changes, but they can be managed if you plan ahead. Manage the change.
What about when you graduate from High School or College? Big changes. Your school schedule will no longer govern your every move. That may seem cool, but it also has the potential to create hassles. Don’t want that to happen. Give some thought as to how you will plan your day. Do that and you will make the most of each day. Manage the change.
A new job or a promotion at your current job? Transferred to a new town? Deciding to share your life with a special person? All big changes. And, yes, those changes will be challenging. Think about them before they happen. Manage the change.
Change happens. Some good and some not. You can drift from one challenge to the next. Sometimes you will get it right, sometimes not. Random outcomes. Or you can be proactive and stay ahead of life’s changes.
You either manage change or it will manage you. Your choice.
]]>Did you hear the news? On May 17th, Congress held hearings to discuss what they called Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, what we call UFOs.
Traditionally, congressional hearings have been held to accomplish the following: (1) to gather information relating to pending legislation; (2) to prepare for legislation that may occur in the future; and (3) to oversee existing federal programs.
The UFO hearings did none of the three. Instead, one lawmaker stood before the cameras and solemnly warned that UFOs “must be investigated and taken seriously as a potential threat to national security.”
That is what they used to say about Donald Trump. No more Trump transgressions to investigate? No problem. Pivot to UFOs. Save our children and grandchildren.
What was the cost of that hearing? Not chump change, that’s for sure. Congressional staff had to prepare briefing books for their bosses. Expert witnesses had to be transported and housed to appear before the cameras. Reports had to be published and mailed to constituents.
Oh, and by the way, the hearings were convened by the House Intelligence Committee’s Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Counterproliferation subcommittee. Didn’t even know that such a subcommittee existed. Too much time and not enough focus on the people’s immediate needs.
Our tax dollars at work.
]]>Posted on: May 17 2021 / Written by: Brett Lunger
To wear or not? That is the question. Clearly, mass confusion reigned after the unexpected C.D.C. announcement lifting their nationwide mask mandate. New guidelines allow those who have been fully vaccinated to forgo the mask in most public places.
Okay, fine. But which public places? How many people? How do you confirm that the maskless person entering your store has, in fact, been vaccinated? There is no easy answer to these, and other, questions. Confusion and uncertainty.
Take the state of Minnesota for example. The day after the C.D.C. made its surprise announcement, Governor Tim Walz issued an executive order ending the statewide mask mandate. At the same time, Minneapolis Mayor, Jacob Frey, insisted that his city would continue to require face coverings.
Similar questions plagued other states. Some lifted the mandate, while others kept it in place.
Businesses, both large and small, were also grappling with this quandary. Should they insist that all employees wear masks? Should patrons be required to wear face coverings and be denied access to stores and restaurants if they refused?
Should Washington be held accountable for this troubling situation? Would it be appropriate to blame someone for what seems to be a clear lack of anticipation and leadership?
Strangely, no one is asking that question. During the forty-eight hours after the C.D.C. put out the new guidelines, not a single news outlet showed any interest in accountability. Yes, the media did cover the confusion and uncertainty sweeping the country. But not one mentioned accountability. The New York Times, the Washington Post, plus all the major broadcast networks…...not even a passing mention of who might have been responsible.
What would the news coverage have been if this had happened two or three years ago? What would the focus have been if Donald Trump were in the White House?
]]>Posted on: April 4 2021 / Written by: Brett Lunger
The Doctor is in the house. The diagnosis is clear. You are suffering from acute “PPPSD.” That would be Presumptive Partisan Politics Syndrome Disorder.
The New England Journal of Quackery defines PPPSD as “the propensity to automatically assign partisan malfeasance to any position taken by the other party. This condition makes any rational or objective analysis totally impossible, thus rendering compromise for the good of the country an unattainable outcome.” See my essay “What Are Your Priorities?”
This disorder first emerged shortly after Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. Many on the left were outraged that Trump had the gall to deny Hillary her rightful place as America’s first female president.
Within hours of this stunning upset, newscasters and political pundits scrambled to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s victory. No transgression, misstep or tweet was ignored. The reaction to anything Trump was to automatically highlight it as proof that he was not fit for office. This automatic, knee-jerk reaction became known as PPPSD.
But wait, Democrats are not the only ones susceptible to this disorder. Republicans are equally at risk and have demonstrated that they, too, have been afflicted with PPPSD.
Within hours of President Biden’s inaugural address, it became clear that PPPSD was running rampant on the right. Consider the words of one prominent Republican. When asked what he thought of Biden’s promise to reach across the aisle for the sake of compromise and national unity, the Republican sneered and said, “Sure, he will reach across the aisle. He’ll reach across and slap me upside the head.” A clear example of Presumptive Partisan Politics Syndrome Disorder. He presumed the worst. PPPSD.
According to many Republicans, anything that President Biden says or proposes automatically confirms the allegation that his diminished mental capacity makes him unfit for office. No objective analysis of the facts needed, just PPPSD.
With both parties so afflicted, the situation is not good. It is difficult to maintain any hope for the future of this nation with PPPSD so pervasive.
Really? If we really are concerned for America’s future, is there anything we can do to reverse this disturbing trend?
Being the eternal optimist, I believe that there is something we can do. Not easy but something we must force ourselves to do.
Look to the origin of the disease. It did not just spring up and infect the political establishment. No, it started with us. At some point we allowed ourselves to believe that the opposition was so irredeemably evil that their every step deserved nothing but utter condemnation.
But if it did start with our own blind cynicism, we also have the power to reverse that trend. When faced with a proposition or proposal from the other side, we can resist our ingrained PPPSD. We can pause, reflect on the facts at hand, and then comment. The bias on both sides of today’s news media will make this task extremely difficult, but it can be done. PPPSD started with us and it can end with us.
Doing this would end the unproductive invective that dominates today’s national discourse. Politicians, regardless of party, would realize that they could no longer retain the support of the people by fanning the flames of tribal hatred. Instead, they would have to create policies beneficial to the whole country. That, in turn, might require discussion and compromise. What a novel idea!
So, the next time you find yourself moaning about how divided the country has become, look in the mirror. Could it be that the problem starts here? Is it possible that you are suffering from PPPSD? Take heart. You have the power to change that.
]]>
Posted on: March 20 2021 / Written by: Brett Lunger
Will President Biden turn out to be a “Doctor Jekyll” or a “Mister Hyde?” Will he unify the country or lead us back to the toxic political combat that has characterized our recent past?
We cannot be sure this early in his presidency. But we will learn soon. The answer will be clear when the president’s tax proposals are put forth.
Those proposals we will tell us whether President Biden intends to give ear to Republican concerns or simply force his party’s agenda into law.
He certainly does not have to listen to those who would oppose massive tax increases, those who worry that aggressive tax policies might dampen any economic recovery. His party’s control of the Senate allows him to pass legislation by a procedure known as “reconciliation.”
Jekyll or Hyde? There is reason to be hopeful. Joe Biden often spoke of unity during run for the White House. In a May rally, held in Philadelphia, he said, ”This nation needs to come together. It has to come together.” Further, he pledged to, “unite this nation, one America, one America…..I know how to make government work, not because I’ve talked about it or tweeted about it, but because I’ve done it. I’ve worked across the aisle to reach consensus, to help government work.”
President Biden’s inaugural address was even more forceful in. Citing the problems facing the nation, he said, “To overcome these challenges --- to restore the soul and to secure the future of America --- requires more than words. It requires that most elusive of things in a democracy, Unity, Unity.”
He went on to proclaim that, “On this January day, my whole soul is in this: bringing America together, uniting our people, and uniting our nation. I ask every American to join me in this cause.”
And there was more. Ending his address, President Biden asserted that, “History, faith and reason show the way, the way of unity……For without unity there is no peace, only bitterness and fury…..For This is our historic moment of crisis and challenge, and unity will is the path forward…..Let us show respect for one another. Politics need not be a raging fire destroying everything in its path. Every disagreement doesn’t have to be a cause for total war. We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal.”
Yes, there is reason for hope. President Biden has an opportunity to unite the country and to bring politics back to a more civil state. We will know soon enough. Will he seize that opportunity or will he allow himself to be dragged back to the divisive political combat that has plagued the nation for too many years?
Doctor Jekyll or Mister Hyde? We will know soon.
]]>
Posted on: February 14 2018 / Written by: Brett Lunger
Can any good come from the recent mass shooting in Florida?
For the families and loved ones of those murdered on that day, probably not. Nothing can undo the finality of their loss. They know that they will never see that special smile again, that they will never be able to share life’s challenges and passions again, that they will never see the joy of potential fulfilled. For them, my prayers will probably ring hollow. I am sorry. And, you are right, being “sorry” changes nothing.
But, back to my original question. Can any good come out of this tragic event? Can we learn more about what happened in the days and weeks leading up to the shooting? From that knowledge, can we agree on effective measures that would reduce the likelihood of this happening again?
I say yes. It will not be easy. And, yes, you are right, I am guilty of being the “eternal optimist.”
As we consider these questions, please note that I will not use the words, “Democrat, Republican, Trump, or Clinton.” This is not a partisan matter. To engage in “Gotcha Politics” would only cloud the issue. If we are to identify and implement practical measures to make future incidents less likely, we need clarity and focus, not the blame game.
If you are not able to accept that, if your objective is to use this issue to gain political advantage against a perceived foe, then by all means point fingers and make loud noises. Just don’t expect any meaningful progress in addressing the problem of gun violence. (See Rahm Emanuel statement October 30th, 2012).
Should we look to Congress to solve the problem? Immediately after the shooting, there were loud and insistent calls for legislative action to prevent the next outrage. This reaction is understandable, but more thought needs to be given to the actual details if meaningful outcomes are to be achieved.
For example, some are calling for an immediate, and total, ban on all firearms, followed by the confiscation and destruction of all guns in private hands. Zero guns equals zero gun violence, right? Maybe yes, maybe no. But is this a practical solution? Could it actually be done? As attractive as this “solution” might seem, it is not likely to effectively address the problem.
As an alternative, might we gain a collective benefit by enacting stricter screening and registration legislation? Absolutely! But is that likely to happen in any meaningful way? It is possible, but Congress’s record is not encouraging. What happened after the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre? Not much.
What about enforcing existing gun laws? This course of action would, to a certain degree, keep firearms out of the hands of those individuals most likely to commit gun violence. But, would it totally eliminate the potential for future mass shootings? Though the net outcome would be positive, it would not completely end the killing.
So, should we rely on Congress to waive its “Magic Wand” to solve the problem? (See my “Magic Wand” Essay, posted at www.responsibilitytoday.com). After all, we pay their salaries; so why not push them and see what they come up with? Sure. Give it a shot. Just don’t bet the ranch on the outcome.
What about initiatives by individuals and communities? Might we encourage students, teachers and parents to be more vigilant, keeping an eye out for unstable conduct by individuals within their own communities? Ahhh, now we are getting somewhere. Social media has been blamed for many problems, but monitoring social media postings and tweets might provide early warning and lead to intervention. (Okay. I know that you are severely tempted, but please do not re-direct this conversation to the “Tweeter In Chief.” Remember, we agreed not to do that sort of thing, didn’t we?)
We have already seen that community vigilance can be effective. Marc Barden, whose daughter was gunned down in the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012, has somehow been able to put his grief aside and has launched Sandy Hook Promise (see https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/.). The potential for this sort of action is powerful if implemented on a national scale. Think about how you might bring the same sort of program to your own community. Let’s encourage our neighbors, their children and teachers to take personal responsibility for our own collective safety.
Bottom line? This problem will not be easily solved.
We would be best served if we were to employ a two-pronged approach. One, encourage (scream at) Congress to stop “kicking the can down the road” and actually do something constructive (good luck with that, but at least give them the task). Two, talk to your neighbors. Ask them for ideas to identify problems and devise practical interventions. At the end of the day, the schools and communities belong to us, not to Washington. We can ask for legislative help, but it is our responsibility to work together and come up with viable solutions.
]]>What is Faith? There are two kinds of faith: secular faith and spiritual faith.
In a secular context, having faith means that you have trust or confidence in something. For example, you might have faith that your favorite sports team will win their next game. (Not easy if you are a Philadelphia Eagles fan.) Or you might have faith in a relationship. For a joyful expression of this sort of faith, go to YouTube and see the Stevie Wonder – Ariana Grande video.
Spiritual faith is different. Oxford Languages defines spiritual faith as “strong belief in God or the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” We all know of examples where spiritual faith has enabled individuals to remain steadfast in the face of extreme adversity or hardship.
There is another more basic, and perhaps more profound, form of faith. It occurs when we say a simple prayer of thanks: “Thank you God for blessing me……” Whatever the “blessing” might be is not important. It might be food, good health, friendship, or a momentary joy. What does matter is that your expression of thanks is an acknowledgment that the particular “blessing” is coming from an almighty being. In other words, you are confirming the existence of God.
You don’t waste time on empirical analysis or scientific discussion. None of that matters. It is simply what is.
There is a place in our lives for both secular and spiritual faith. For that, we should all be thankful.
]]>Posted on: February 19 2021 / Written by: Brett Lunger
Rush Limbaugh is gone. Love by my many and, yes, hated by many. How will you remember him? Love him or hate him?
To many on the left he was the devil incarnate. For more than forty years his radio presence touched on all the issues central to their progressive agenda. And, of course, he seldom spoke with a perspective acceptable to them. (Wait. That’s an understatement. Change “seldom” to “never.”) He drove them crazy.
For those on the right, he was the bold voice of logic and reason, striving in a never-ending battle to oppose the forces that were hell bent on the destruction of America.
The fact that he was able to ignite such passions of hate or love (take your pick, depending on your perspective) was truly remarkable.
My own feelings are mixed.
His championing individual initiative, personal responsibility (see my website *****insert link*****) and love of country resonated with me.
But from a policy point of view, I found considerable reason to oppose his pronouncements. Unrelentingly, he was absolutely committed to the fight. For him, any fleeting thought that a liberal initiative had merit was to be scorned and rejected. It was total war or nothing. This confrontational stance, in my opinion, was not good for the country.
Putting these conflicting emotions aside, there is one thing that I will forever remember and always cherish. Rush Limbaugh loved his job. Through success (his broadcast career) and failure (his brief stint as an NFL commentator), he brought genuine joy to every working day of his life.
Would that we all could do that.
]]>Posted on: Feb 9 2021 / Written by: Brett Lunger
For the second time in less than fourteen months, Donald Trump has been impeached by the United States House of Representatives.1
The first impeachment ended in acquittal when the Senate failed to gain the necessary Super Majority to convict.
Now, the Democrats are back at it again. This time they have issued a single article of impeachment, alleging “Incitement of Insurrection” (117th Congress, Session 1, House Resolution 24).
Supporting their impeachment contention, House Democrats cite remarks made by Trump while addressing a crowd of loyalists on the morning of January 6th. The Democrats contend that Trump’s remarks sparked a violent assault on the nation’s Capital just blocks from where he was delivering his speech.
It should come as no surprise that this allegation has generated controversy and is the subject of heated debate on Capitol Hill and around the nation.
Where do you stand? Do you have an opinion regarding Donald Trump’s guilt or innocence? Do you believe that Trump’s remarks incited the crowd to violent insurrection? Or do you think that his remarks, as ill-conceived as they might have been, fall short of “inciting insurrection?”
Good. Taking a stand on such issues is important. An engaged citizenry is vital to the future well-being of our democracy.
But wait. Let me ask two additional questions. First, did you read the full text of the House’s article of impeachment? Second, did you read the full transcript of Donald Trump’s speech?
If you answered “no” to either question, is it possible that your passionate desire for a particular outcome has prevented you from making an objective analysis of the issues?
Objectivity is not easy, but it is critical if our opinions are to have any credibility. See my essays “Open Minded” and “DNC Debates.”
]]>Posted on: December 31st 2020 / Written by: Brett Lunger
1) Run five miles
2) Do 400 sit ups
3) Read the New York Times & Wall Street Journal from cover to cover
4) Solve Global Warming
5) Negotiate peace for at least one war or two regional conflicts
6-a) Raise $600K for Hillary’s 2024 election campaign
(yes, she felt that 2016 was not valid; so she is running again)
(or --- take your pick)
6-b) Raise $600K for President Trump’s 2024 re-election campaign
(yes, he felt that 2020 was not valid; so he is running again)
7) Loose ten pounds
8) Compose a symphony
9) Write another chapter in the Great American Novel
10) Leap a tall building in a single bound
11) Not feel guilty if you fail to fulfill your New Year’s Resolutions
]]>]]>It is not what you say.
It is what you do.
It is not what you pray.
It is what you do.
I pray that I might do what I pray.
Prepare for it. The coordinated assault has begun. They have selected their target and have marshalled the troops.
“They” are the anti-Trump media. Their mission, as it has been since the 2016 election, is to deny Donald Trump a second term. (To be precise, thwarting his re-election is a fall back objective. The primary mission had been to remove him from office, but that did not work.)
Their method has been to roll out a never-ending series of Trump transgressions. But what if the topic du jour fails to move the needle? No problem. Pivot to the next, and the next, and the next.
So, what is next? Terry Gross, host of PBS’s Fresh Air, gave us a hint. Tuesday’s (October 27th) show featured Evan Osnos, a staff writer for the New Yorker magazine. The show covered a wide range of election related questions. Forty-one minutes into the show, Terry Gross steered the conversation to the topic of violent extremism in American politics. Noting that political extremism was increasing, her guest asserted that “the overwhelming majority of acts of political violence in this country have come from right wing or far right actors.” He went on to speculate that “if Trump loses, he will become a rallying cry to groups who will say ….. that Donald Trump’s loss is invalid and that they feel an almost apocalyptic need to take up arms and defend themselves.” Scary stuff.
The show ended with Terry Gross saying, “Tomorrow we will talk about a Pro-Trump militia group that’s recruited thousands of police, soldiers, and veterans and what they might do on election day.”
And, lo and behold, others picked up the banner. The very next morning, Stephanie Ruhle’s segment on MSNBC Live opened with the banner headline, “Armed ‘Militia’ Groups Rising Across the U.S. This Year.” The message was clear. Trump supporters are predisposed to violent political action.
And so, the coordinated assault has been launched. Fasten your seat belts, more to follow.
Don’t be surprised if CNN jumps on board. And, of course, Sunday’s New York Times will likely push the same narrative. All designed to strike fear in the minds of sensible American voters and get them to the polls to deny President Trump a second term.
See my essay “Fear, Anxiety & Blame.
]]>
Would it be fair to say that some members of the media might doubt President Trump’s understanding of today’s issues? Is it possible that their skepticism might have pushed them into the camp of the so-called “Never Trumpers?” Might they be dedicated to preventing Donald Trump from winning another four-year term?
It would seem so. If you fell into that camp, what would you do to achieve that outcome?
Pretend for a moment that you are one of those “Never Trumper Journalists.” Your task is to craft a media strategy to oppose Donald Trump and to prevent his second term. If you were a journalist, how would you approach that challenge?
Not an easy assignment. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the president had enjoyed a series of notable successes. On the heels of tax cuts and a roll back of burdensome regulations, companies began expanding and hiring new workers. The economy picked up and we saw record low unemployment. Inflation remained in check and Americans generally felt good about their prospects.
To be sure, President Trump often stumbled and did not seem “presidential.” But those flaws might just have stimulated more support for him. He certainly was not your typical politician. No, not even close. He came to Washington and kicked the table over. It was no longer “business as usual.” Many Americans applauded because they were fed up with the Washington establishment. The relentless pursuit of party politics at the expense of national interests had turned off many voters. Trump to the rescue! (See my essay “Priorities”)
Given Trump’s successes (whether deserved or not), what would you do? Fear might be your best weapon and the Covid-19 pandemic might just have given you a golden opportunity to use that weapon. Mix in a healthy (pun intended) dose of Anxiety & Blame, and you might just turn the tide.
It goes like this: Fear (everybody is going to get infected and die); Anxiety (there is no way to avoid the virus); and Blame (Trump mismanaged the crisis).
And, lo and behold, that is exactly what has happened.
Fear #1: Early Coronavirus projections were devastating. On the 16th of March, the Imperial College in London predicted that 81% of Americans would become infected and as many as 2.2 million would die. CNN, MSNBC, PBS all ran with it.
Fear #2: Nancy Pelosi was more direct. During CNN’s Sunday talk show, “State of the Union (March 29th), she asserted that Donald Trump’s mismanagement had cost American lives. “The president’s denial at the beginning was deadly. His delay in getting equipment to where it’s needed is deadly….As the president fiddles, people are dying.”
Anxiety: In the month of May, national anxiety became the dominant focus. CNN ran nine separate segments highlighting how anxiety was gripping the country. Repeat the narrative often enough and even normal citizens would begin to feel that they ought to be anxious.
And then there was the Blame. On March 7th, Politico ran a piece under the banner, “Trump’s Mismanagement Helped Fuel Coronavirus Crisis. Not to be outdone, the New York Times (April 11th) headlined, “He Could Have Seen What Was Coming: Behind Trump’s Failure on the Virus.”
And, of course, the other news outlets dutifully repeated that storyline.
Mission accomplished. You, as the quintessential “Never Trumper Journalist,” are to be congratulated. Your strategy of Fear, Anxiety & Blame has worked to perfection. Joe Biden wins in a landslide. Donald Trump is denied his cherished second term.
(Whoops, that sounds an awful lot like Hillary in 2016. Maybe we ought to wait until after the election.)
]]>On November 8th, 2016, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. Should we have seen it coming? I certainly did not.
Democrats were stunned. That goes without saying. Newscasters, fundraisers, politicians, and ardent supporters had all assumed that Hillary Clinton would soundly beat the severely flawed Republican candidate, that she would waltz into the White House.
Those “Hillary Believers” saw an opponent dogged by scandal, eminently unqualified and grossly inarticulate. From the moment Donald Trump won the Republican nomination, the left-wing media regaled in his shortcomings. Hillary supporters were treated to an unending flow of Trump disasters. Rubbing their hands in eager anticipation, they just knew this would be a slam dunk.
Surely, the nation would welcome the first female president and a continuation of the Obama legacy. Put the champagne was on ice. Celebrate the culmination of a long and passionate quest.
To be fair, many Republicans were equally shocked. During the weeks leading up to the election, most had resigned themselves to hunkering down and mitigating any damage suffered during the ensuing four years. Those Republicans who did toe the party line and support Trump’s candidacy did so with lukewarm endorsements, at best. Others simply walked away. Few thought “The Donald” had a chance.
How could so many have gotten it so wrong? Well, the fact is, we should have seen it coming. Huh? Really? Yes, really. Consider the following.
Domestic political discontent had been visible for quite some time. Ted Kaczynski serves as a good example. Between 1978 and 1995 Kaczynski (aka, “The Unabomber”) undertook a nationwide bombing campaign intended to foment revolution.
Timothy McVeigh sought a similar outcome. In April of 1995, he detonated a massive truck bomb in front of the Alfred P Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 innocent people.
We did not recognize the magnitude of this national discontent. We should have. The signs were there. We just failed to recognize them for what they were.
This discontent had been simmering for decades before 2016. Look no further than the content and tone of television programming during that period.
For decades, the cultural elite on both coasts had looked down on all those regular Americans living in the heart land. Whether you tuned in to evening news or nightly entertainment, the message was clear: “You, the American public, are too stupid to think for yourselves.”
It was not enough to simply report the day’s events on the evening news. No, it became increasingly common for newscasters to pat themselves on the back, their condescending tone telling us that they, and they alone, had the ability to sort out the issues being reported. We were too stupid to analyze events for ourselves. It was their mission to explain the significance of it all, so we would not have to tax our limited intellectual capability. Additionally, before 2016, few citizens had the courage to call out “Fake News” when broadcasters drifted from reporting the news to selling an agenda. We should have seen it coming.
The coverage of sporting events was not much better. Rather than letting the action speak for itself, the producers felt the need to “juice the sound” to show us what was exciting. Clearly, we were too stupid to recognize dramatic moments that might, potentially, decide outcomes.
Sitcoms were no different, inserting laugh tracks to tell us what was funny (even if it was not). We were too obtuse to recognize contemporary humor. Hollywood knew better.
But there was more than the artificial laugh track. Some shows gave voice to controversial topics considered off-limits at the time.
Take a look at CBS’s All In The Family. Dominating the ratings during the 70’s, this show had the temerity to touch on such topics as immigration, equal pay for women, racial inequality, and homosexuality. What was significant was the fact that the central character, Archie Bunker, consistently expressed rejection and disdain for the inroads being made in those areas. The spirit of Archie Bunker was alive and well going into the 2016 election. We should have seen it coming.
And so, there was a whole segment of society that had been systematically marginalized and belittled by those who knew better. What Ronald Regan identified as the “silent majority” had become the “silent, angry majority.” And they voted.
We should have seen it coming.
]]>You smile as you pass. An innocent smile, just acknowledging that you appreciate her.
Suddenly the whole world comes down on you. You are branded a filthy, sexist pig. If you were nominated for a Supreme Court vacancy, you would be toast.
The next day you are walking down the street, you see a gorgeous black woman walking toward you. She is well dressed, slightly urban, classy and hot. She walks with a confidence that makes clear she knows and embraces all that she is.
Quickly you cross to the other side of the street. You lower your head and avert eye contact as you pass.
Suddenly the whole world comes down on you. You are a racist, white supremacist for not acknowledging her presence and validating her existence. If you were nominated for a Supreme Court vacancy, you would be toast.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.
]]>William Hale Thompson, who served as Chicago’s mayor from 1915 to 1923 and from 1931 to 1935, famously said, “Vote early and vote often.”
The phrase was repeated by gangster Al Capone and later by Richard Daley, Chicago’s mayor from 1955 to 1976. Some say that Mayor Daley was responsible for Jack Kennedy’s victory over Richard Nixon in 1960.
Will there be voter fraud in November’s presidential election? Safeguards are in place, but questions remain. Both the Biden and Trump organizations have, allegedly, hired teams of lawyers to contest the results.
There can be no doubt, this year’s election is considered to be one of the most important in American history. Both sides are predicting national disaster if their opponent prevails.
A Biden’s presidency would, according to one Trump spokesman, usher in an era of socialist policies that would cripple the country. Bloated government, higher taxes, burdensome regulation, skyrocketing unemployment.….disaster!
Victory by Donald Trump would, according to the progressive left, be the death of democracy in America. They cite……well, the list is endless and covers every imaginable transgression. You have heard it all. There is no need to repeat it here.
Yet, voters in the United States have a dismal record. There were 126 million voting age citizens in 2016, but only 55% of them went to the polls. That was the lowest turnout since the 1996 election when just over 53% voted.
Excuses abound: “It was too cold (hot) to go outside. My candidate was way ahead in the polls; so why bother to vote? My candidate was hopelessly behind in the polls; so why bother to vote? The dog ate my ballot.”
We ought to do better this time. No, we need to do better this time. If you don’t vote, you forfeit your right to complain for the next four years.
( Check your state early vote deadlines https://www.vote.org/absentee-ballot-deadlines )
The signs are encouraging. Early balloting is running dramatically ahead of what we saw in 2016.
One political expert, noting the passion and energy emanating from both campaigns, predicted that turnout would exceed 65%. That would be impressive, but a liberal friend of mine said that he was shooting for 120%.
Vote early and vote often.
]]>
Posted on: Jan 19 2010 / Written by: Brett Lunger
Are you open minded? Hold on, don’t answer without pausing for a moment. You might think that this is a simple question with a simple answer. It is not.
Sure, we all like to think that we are open minded; but before you declare that you are, consider the definition found in the Cambridge English Dictionary: “Willing to listen to other people and consider new ideas, suggestions, and opinions.” Be honest. Can you sign on to that?
For me, it is a struggle. Every day I question my attitudes and opinions. Regrettably, they might not be as “pure” as I would like. Too often, I find myself dismissing opposing points of view without giving them fair consideration. Admitting this flaw is particularly troubling because in my writings about personal responsibility I have urged others to be open-minded. (See the letter “O” in the Young Adult version of my Responsibility Workbooks). I fear that I might not be living up to my own standard.
But that is my problem, not yours. I will work on my short-comings on my own time. Instead, let’s look at the issue of open-mindedness in a broader context.
Are we, as a society, being open-minded? Probably not. If that is the case, we do have a problem, a serious problem. Today, it is increasingly apparent that knee-jerk rejection vs. objective consideration is the norm, not the exception. Worse, this response frequently entails attacking the messenger, not addressing the issue.
How have we come to this sorry state? How have we turned away from civil discussion and adopted confrontational opposition? How have we become so polarized?
Perhaps the answer lies in how we gather and absorb information. What news resources do we access to learn about events unfolding around us? What information guides our understanding of current events?
There are plenty of news sources to choose from: network and cable news, talk radio, social media. The problem is not lack of information. No, the problem is recognizing the difference between factual reporting and agenda driven opinion. The line between the two is no longer clear. All too often, newscasters will present the news in such a way as to reinforce their own preconceived position. Their mission is no longer to inform but, rather, to bolster an opinion which supports their agenda.
The challenge of differentiating opinion from straight reporting is made more difficult because, all too often, we only listen to those news sources which reinforce the positions that we hold.
The current debate swirling around our national leadership illustrates how vexing this problem has become. Should we support Donald Trump because he is our president? Or should we seek his removal from office because we question his qualifications and the legitimacy of his election? News sources on both sides offer persuasive arguments for either position.
A friend of mine is a rabid, right-wing conservative. He is so invested in a particular outcome that he is totally unable to listen to, let alone consider, any liberal commentary.
Another friend of mine is a radical, left-wing progressive. He is so invested in a particular outcome that he is totally unable to listen to, let alone consider, any conservative commentary.
Take your pick. You get the picture. We have a problem. Is there a practical solution? Yes, I believe there is.
This problem, as daunting as it may seem, can best be addressed if we learn to ask ourselves three, very basic, questions.
The first is, “do we want to be open-minded?” Asking this question is important. If you say, “No, I am not interested in being open-minded,” that’s okay. You are being honest. Thank you. But, if that is the case, the conversation stops here. You no longer have credibility and your position, whatever it might have been, has little importance in our effort to engage in open-minded discussion. On the other hand, if you say “Yes, being open-minded is important to me,” you are committing to honest debate and civil discussion. Move on to the next two questions.
The second question is, “Are we being influenced by newscasters whose commentary is presenting opinion rather than reporting facts?”
This problem is not easily dealt with. Today’s newscasters are skilled at reporting news-worthy events in such a way as to serve an unrelated agenda.
Consider this hypothetical example: a spectacular apartment fire takes the lives of a mother and her four children. The newscaster reports the fire and its tragic consequences but also notes that the incumbent Mayor (of whichever political party happens to be in the network’s crosshairs) had blocked funding for union-supported emergency responder training. Of course, our hearts go out to the victims. But we also take on a decidedly negative attitude toward the Mayor and his political party, exactly the outcome sought by the network.
We need to make a concerted effort to recognize the difference between agenda driven commentary and straight news reporting. When faced with outcome driven content, pick up your remote and change the channel. It might drive your spouse crazy but keep hitting the remote until you find objective reporting. You might end up on the Weather Channel but that is certainly more productive than listening to some pointy-headed pundit pushing his agenda. Don’t accept anything less than intellectually objective content.
The third question is, “do we have sufficient information to reach a well-informed conclusion?”
It is all too easy to adopt a position without taking time to dig into background and context. Even professional newscasters occasionally stray into areas where they have only superficial knowledge.
This problem becomes intractable if one party to the conversation amps up the volume in an attempt to mask an ill-informed position.
Don’t let that happen. If you do find yourself in a discussion where you are getting into unfamiliar territory, don’t be afraid to step back and say, “I really don’t know much about that. Let me take some time to look into it and we can pick up the conversation later.”
Warning..,.Warning. There is a potential danger in taking that approach. What if we do the honest research and discover, horror-of-horrors, that our cherished position might, in fact, be wrong. We could never let that happen, could we? Yes, if we are truly open-minded, we could. (See my essay, Three Powerful Words.
Given the power of today’s internet, there is little excuse for taking a position without knowing the basic information underlying the issue.
At the end of the day, most of us do want to be open-minded. It will not be easy. As much as we aspire to that ideal, it takes more than words.
Yes, it can be done. It can be done if we make a personal commitment to be open-minded, if we are able to recognize opinion disguised as fact, if we go beyond news sources which might support an outcome which we desire, if we make the effort to be well-informed……then yes, we can reverse the trend toward polarized hostility and return to civil discussion of the issues.
I will try. I hope you will, too.
]]>
Posted on: September 1, 2020 / Written by: Brett Lunger
Covid-19 has changed this country, perhaps forever. Faced with this new reality, what would your priorities be?
Americans were feeling pretty good at the end of 2019. We ushered in the New Year with a resurgent economy and record low unemployment.
Sure, we heard the predictable complaints about our president. We were fed a daily laundry list of all the bad things that had befallen the county since Donald Trump astounded the Liberal Establishment and snuck into the White House. We were told that his shortcomings would destroy the country…….unless we could force him from office. Or, at the very least, deny him a second term.
The shortcomings attributed to President Trump would soon pale in comparison to what was about to hit the country.
On January 9th, the World Health Organization announced that a strange form of pneumonia had been discovered in Wuhan, China. At the time, little was known about this illness; but on January 21st, the first case of coronavirus was confirmed in the United States. On that same date, a Chinese scientist confirmed that human to human infection was occurring.
Since then, the Covid-19 pandemic has devastated this country in ways we could not have imagined.
Death by Covid-19 was the stuff that horror movies were made of sepsis-related organ failure, abnormal blood clotting, and respiratory failure. More troubling was the insidious nature of the disease. An infected individual could be a-symptomatic for two to five days after contracting the virus. Some never showed symptoms at all, thus making it almost impossible to prevent further spread. Furthermore, the infection was not limited to human-to-human contact. It could
also occur by touching an infected surface.
The health consequences were bad enough; but the ripple effect on our daily lives was devastating, creating disruptions unseen in our nation’s history.
Hospitals were overwhelmed. Doctors and ER personnel worked to exhaustion. Protective gear was in short supply. Patients needing non-coronavirus care were turned away.
Office workers were told to work from home. Business travel virtually stopped. Conferences and conventions were canceled.
And office workers were not the only ones hit. The hospitality industry ground to a halt. Movie theaters closed, as did theme parks. Sporting events were canceled. Restaurants and night clubs were ordered shut. For those businesses, working from home was not an option. Many businesses were closed permanently. For others, the only path to survival would be massive layoffs.
Many well-known corporations did not survive. Hertz Global Holdings, the car-rental company, tried. They laid off 12,000 employees and furloughed and additional 4,000 in March. It was not enough. They filed bankruptcy on May 22nd, ending more than 100 years as an icon in their industry.
Unemployment claims skyrocketed. In February 2020, the national unemployment rate was 3.5%, statistically representing “full employment.” Two months later, the rate skyrocketed to 14.7%. Even with generous additional benefit payments, many families no longer had an income to pay for even the basic necessities. Rents went unpaid, causing a ripple effect hitting landlords. They, in turn, were not able to make mortgage payments
Bad news all around. But what if you had the power to sweep our ineffective Congress aside and enact legislation that would address our country’s needs? (And, yes, we know someone in Washington who thinks that he actually does have that power; but that will have to be the subject of a separate essay.)
What would you do? The challenges we face are staggering. Pandemic illness, loss of life, isolation, civil unrest, economic collapse, the list is seemingly endless.
Consider the following list of options. (Note that these are listed alphabetically and do not reflect the author’s priorities.) Given your imaginary power, what would your priorities be? Put the most urgent goals at the top of your list to accurately reflect those priorities.
1) Personal Protective Measures (mandatory masks and social distancing)
2) Public Awareness Messages
3) Put in place a national testing program to help isolate those infected
4) Provide expanded unemployment (cash grants) benefits to those who were laid off
5) Provide loans to business who agree to forego layoffs
6) Restrict Attendance at All Gatherings. Enforce strict limitations on the number of people allowed to frequent restaurants and night clubs at any given time
a) Apply the same requirements to all sporting events
b) Ditto protest rallies, conventions and worship services
7) Support food distribution centers
8) Suspend tax filing until employment data show recovery
9) Underwrite biopharma research to develop an effective vaccine
Feel free to add any additional priorities that you feel important. Now shuffle your list, putting the most important ones first.
Okay, good. Now flip the switch. You no longer have to power to mandate the measures listed above. You have just returned that power to Congress. What would their priorities be? Would they select from your list and enact measures to get us through this awful time? Or would they put another priority on top of their list? Would their priority be:
1) Forget “Good of the Country.” Instead, use the pandemic, and all of the sufferings that go with it, to destroy your political opponents and gain unassailable power stretching into the future.
2) No need to list other priorities. They have been rendered irrelevant by the above.
If Congress fails to act, what could you do? Vote.
(See my essays “How Much Pain” and “Magic Wand.”) Truth hurts.
]]>Posted on: March 19, 2020 / Written by: Brett Lunger
Why is President Trump reluctant to release his tax returns? Is he hiding something, or is there another explanation?
Many of my friends on the left are absolutely convinced that Trump is desperately trying to hide some nefarious and evil wrongdoing. They envision tax fraud, hotel deals in Moscow, payoffs to unwilling paramours …… the list is long and very, very juicy.
They are convinced that, once revealed, this dastardly crime will, at long last, drive Donald Trump from office and, hopefully, to a long term behind bars. The White House to the Big House in one quick move. Rachel Maddow can’t wait to say, “I told you so!”
My friends on the right firmly believe that their president has committed no crime, that he merely wants to avoid revealing his brilliant business strategies to those who would emulate his spectacular successes.
Could there be a plausible explanation which does not cater to either extreme? Might we find that President Trump’s desire to keep his returns secret is nothing more than a manifestation of a character trait that we have known all along?
What if his tax returns revealed that the size Trump’s personal holdings was far less than advertised, that he was not the successful businessman that he pretended to be? Remember, this is the man who bragged during the 2016 primaries that a certain body part of his was bigger than that possessed by “Little Marco Rubio.”
Donald Trump is obsessed with many things. Being “bigger” than those around him is near the top of the list. Perhaps his tax returns might show that he is not as big as wants us to believe.
]]>Posted on: May 20th, 2020 / Written by: Brett Lunger
Twenty-five years ago, Timothy McVeigh detonated a truck bomb outside the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. His goal was to stimulate a law enforcement response which he hoped would spark an anti-government revolution.
At the time McVeigh earned almost universal condemnation for his horrific act. He was arrested, tried and put to death for his crime.
Today there is a titanic battle brewing in Washington. Trump vs The Resistance (#Resistance). Who wins?
These are two intractable forces. For one, petulant ego dominates. For the other, “gotcha politics” and media manipulation rule. One reacts viciously to any slight, real or imagined. The other will accept nothing short of Trump’s removal from office. “Good of the country?” Definitely not considered by either. Not even for a fleeting moment.
Could one side prevail? Would there be consequences?
If Donald Trump were to gain a second term, The Resistance would not go away. Nothing would be off the table. They would double down and tie the President’s hands with unending litigation, investigation, and condemnation. “Good of the country?” Definitely not. Not even for a fleeting moment.
But what would happen if The Resistance were to succeed? What if the forces aligned against Donald Trump were able to remove him from his position as president or to deny him a second term?
Yes , for those never able to accept Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the 2016 election, there would be joy unbounded …... vindication at last!
But what about the others, the Trump supporters, the deplorable s who unexpectedly put Donald Trump in the White House? What if they believed that Congressional obstruction and media bias were to make a second term impossible? For them Donald Trump was the man that they had so desperately sought, the man who had given meaning to their lives.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. The ghost of Timothy McVeigh dances among-st us. There are some, perhaps many, who have become so disillusioned by Washington that they would see the McVeigh solution as the only way to achieve justice. Blood in the streets. Their rally cry, “Enough is enough. We deserve better. Take back our country or die.”
Who wins? Nobody. Who loses? We, the people. Enough is enough. We deserve better.
See my essay “How Could This Happen?”
Posted on: Nov 4 2019 / Written by: Brett Lunger
“Watch the DNC debate? Naahh, why waste my time? I’ll check MSNBC and the New York Times the next day. They will tell me all I need to know.” Really?
Say what? Are you really going to surrender your intellectual sovereignty to someone else, someone whose reporting might be less than objective, someone who might be seeking an agenda?
Whoa, take a deep breath. I am not saying that the New York Times or MSNBC has any intention of influencing opinions and attitudes. But they might. And if they do, do you really want to be manipulated by those who have a preferred outcome?
Don’t risk it. Don’t be lazy. Go ahead, watch the debate. It is not as painful as you might think. You don’t have to watch it live. You can always record it and then fast forward when questions are directed to the pretenders who have no chance of winning the nomination.
John F Kennedy, in his remarks at Vanderbilt University on May 18, 1963, spoke of the “educated citizen,” saying “He (the educated citizen) knows that only an educated and informed people will be a free people, that the ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.”
Winston Churchill took a more cynical viewpoint. He once said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
Don’t be an “average voter.” Be an “engaged voter.” Make the effort to be informed, not by the opinions of others, but by your own observation and intellect. We will all benefit from that.
]]>Posted on: August 13 2015 / Written by: Brett Lunger
Posted on: May 4 2015 / Written by: Brett Lunger
When I was younger there was a group of runners who would get together for training sessions and races.
The training was organized by one of the more experienced runners. We would meet at a local high school track. After a two mile warm up, we would hit the track to do the prescribed workout. It was fun.
The racing was also great because we knew each other and had our own rivalries to keep things interesting.
One of the runners in our group was Cal Housler (not his real name). What a runner! He seemed to glide around the track while the rest of us would plod along, huffing and puffing. Without a doubt, he was one of the most graceful runners of the day.
When it came to racing, however, Cal had a problem. He never seemed to perform up to expectations. Oh sure, he would start out fine, often leading his age group. But then, within half a mile or so of the finish line, Cal would tie up. His fists would clench, his shoulders would bunch up, his face a grimace of sheer agony. His pace would drop and he would often be passed by less gifted runners.
We began to notice that this was a consistent phenomenon. The race distance did not matter. Put Cal on the starting line of a 10 K (6.2 mile) race and he would fade at around six miles, just two tenths short of the finish line. The same for a half marathon: blazingly fast for the first thirteen miles but the anchor would come out within the last tenth of a mile.
More often than not, Cal would fall apart within sight of the finish line. We called this The Housler Effect.
Do you fade as you near your finish line? The reality is, it is never as bad as you think it will be. Cal’s reality was, it always was as bad as he thought it would be. What is your reality?
Read my blog, “Where Is The Top Of The Hill.” Had Cal been able to do that, the Housler Effect would never have been born.
]]>Posted on: December 3 2014 / Written by: Brett Lunger
Hill training should be an integral part of any serious training program, for both runners and cyclists. This blog will focus on hill training for runners.
Cyclists will use hill workouts differently. Indeed, by varying the structure of the workout (length and intensity), the cyclist can achieve a variety of training objectives. Because of this variety, we will cover hill training for cyclists in separate blog.
As with anything, it is important to understand your objective before beginning. Your objective for hill training is to gain strength and confidence.
You need to find a moderate grade, preferably where there is little vehicular traffic, of between 50 and 200 meters in length. Mark the start and end point. If possible try to find a stretch of road where there is a peak and mark your end point just beyond that peak. This is important. The end point must be ten to fifteen meters beyond the topographic peak. (see my earlier blog for an explanation of this)
Cross your start point at a comfortable pace, slightly faster than your normal running pace. Hold that pace to the end point. This is a strength building exercise. You want to be thinking “strength” not “speed.” Try to maintain form from start to finish.
This hill interval should take between forty five and ninety seconds. Circle back at an easy pace. You want full heart rate recovery. (Wearing a heart rate monitor will insure precision on all of your workouts; more on that in another blog). When you first start hill training, opt for the shorter length.
The first time you do this workout plan to do four repetitions. You want to feel progressively more tired on each one, but you do not want to be so wasted that you cannot maintain form and pace on the last rep. Maintaining form from start to finish is important. As you gain in strength, you will be able to increase your reps to six or even eight.
Be sure to allow recovery days after hill training. Doing so will maximize muscle adaptation and will insure that your next hard workout will be productive.
Remember that your objective is to build both strength and confidence. As you become stronger, you will become more confident. (See my earlier blog, “What is Hill Training?”)
]]>Posted on: October 22 2014 / Written by: Brett Lunger
Hill training? What is that? If you thought that it meant obedience training for your hills, you would be wrong. Hills cannot be trained to sit, to woof, or to roll over. If you thought so, please skip this and go to my next blog.
In fact, hill training embodies the spirit of what I wrote for the letter “E” in the Youth Version of my workbook.
Hill training is a training regimen that uses an uphill grade to achieve a targeted training objective. It is a vital component of any decent training program. It is a tremendous strength builder and it works for cyclists as well as for runners.
As with anything, it is important to understand your objective before beginning. For both runners and cyclists, it is pretty simple. Your objective is to gain strength and confidence.
Don’t skip over that “confidence” thing. It can make the difference between 1st and 2nd place.
Have you ever run with a group on a hilly course? Did you notice how it got quiet just before hitting the hills? Why? Hills suck; that’s why. No two ways about it and everybody knows that.
By doing effective hill training, you will gain strength and confidence. Having done effective hill training, you will start any uphill section knowing that you are strong, that you have done this many times before.
Of course, your training will not make the hill less steep. It will not be shorter. But if you approach each hill with an attitude of strength and confidence, you will soon gain a reputation for being dominant on what most people fear. The edge you will have gained through your hill training will live not only in your own mind, but in the minds of those around you. You know it and they know it! How sweet is that?
We will examine the details of hill training for runners and cyclists in separate blogs.
]]>Posted on: September 10 2014 / Written by: Brett Lunger
Before we talk about hill training answer this question: where is the top of the hill?
No, for our purposes it is not where the hill stops going up and starts going down. It is twenty meters beyond that point. Understand this concept and you will grasp the essence of hill training.
Why twenty meters beyond the crest? What is gained by continuing beyond the topographic peak? You guessed it. By pushing twenty meters beyond the topographic peak, you gain what might prove to be a critical psychological advantage.
How will this happen? Simple. If you do decide to incorporate hill training into your routine, you will quickly learn that hill training does, indeed, suck. Oh and, by the way, racing on hills also sucks.
That is why every time you do hill repeats you must push to that painful point twenty meters beyond the topographic peak. Do that in training and it will become second nature when you race. I guarantee that any opponent who has not trained that way will cave. You win. Of course, if he has been following this blog, you might have a problem.
But there is more. This entire, sadistic, concept has real life value beyond athletic performance. It is relevant to anything you choose to do in life.
Ask yourself, do you want to win? Fine, we all should strive to win. But that alone is not enough. Winning is, well, just winning. But do you want to dominate? Ah, now we are getting somewhere.
If you accept this concept, the concept that the top of the hill is twenty meters beyond the crest, no matter what it is that you have chosen to do, you stand a pretty good chance of being dominant.
Try it. Learn to push beyond the top. Make the effort (see the letter “E” in the youth version of my workbook). You will be glad that you did.
]]>