Celebrity

What is our fascination with celebrity?  I understand that we are not necessarily unique in this, but I still don't understand the fascination.

Oh, I'm sure for a long time people have turned out to see kings and queens, etc.  Folks have sought autographs and other memorabilia.  Look at Beatlemania and even the bobby soxers with Frank Sinatra before that.  That's all fine and good for some people.  I admit to saving a handful of baseball cards and even an autograph or two, but only of two players with whom I have a personal connection.  But I'm not sure I could find them without a lengthy search.

More to my point is why does it seem people think the opinions of celebrities matter more than any other person's opinions?  Look at the television shows, the talk shows.  And how often do the Hollywood-types and hippy rock stars make the headlines for their views?  I don't begrudge them their opinions.  I just wonder why someone could think an entertainer of whatever sort has an opinion more worthy than anybody else's--just because he/she is an entertainer.  In fact, I sometimes hear or read of one of them and just shake my head.  Of course, they, like everyone, are entitled to opinions.  That doesn't necessarily make it a good one or even a valid one.

In the same vein, I received an e-mail the other day (joking I hope!) about a possible Oprah Winfrey run at the Presidency.  Thinking about it, I came to the conclusion why couldn't she be nominated and, perhaps, even elected?  I certainly wouldn't vote for her, but I think a lot of people just might.  Why?  It has to do with celebrity I think far more than her accomplishments, which are many.  Would most who might support her think of what she has achieved rather than merely, "It's Oprah?"

An old Jewish proverb goes, "Opportunities neglected can never be recovered."  Although "never" is a word that should be used with caution, I frequently think of "missed opportunities."  Some of those thoughts reflect what an Amherst buddy asked me 50 years ago.  "What if you'd gone to the University of Michigan instead of Amherst?"  It wasn't a rhetorical question and it sparked some interesting discussions back when.  And I've thought of that many times since.  I don't regret and never have regretted going to Amherst.  It was, although it took me more than a few years to figure it out, the formative experience of my life.

I thought of this when I was reading Dennis Prager's chapter on Exodus, from his book The Rational Bible.  He brings the first five books of the Old Testament, the Torah, to life and demonstrates their relevance to today.  Perhaps some of the lessons can form the basis of a future blog.  My immediate thought was of "opportunities neglected."

More than once over the years I have regretted not taking one or two religion courses at Amherst, The Old Testament and The New Testament.  I don't remember why I didn't take them.  I took a number of courses from the religion department--two on Islam, one each on Buddhism, the Western Tradition, and the introductory course, among a couple of others.  But I shied away from the OT and NT.  I wish I hadn't and Prager's writing reminds me of that.

Perhaps it/they would have done me more good than, say, the sociology course or education course at UMass (What a waste!  Although I didn't mind at the time that there was little if any work.) I took.  In the long run, the OT or NT course or both would have served me better.  "Opportunities neglected......"

The world is a changing place.  Of course, as history shows us, the world is always changing, sometimes for the better and sometimes not.  Perhaps this is the sentiment of one who (or is it the pretentious "whom?") Karen calls "an old curmudgeon," but I don't like many of them.  Some I just don't understand and never will.  Several sources, including Prager, reported that a Cornell University student presented her honors thesis in her underwear!  Some honor!  Yep.  It's a convoluted story, but apparently she opted to give her dry run in short shorts and a beach-wear top.  Her adviser suggested that clothing was not appropriate.  So, the student, in her formal presentation, showed up in the same or similar clothes, but while presenting, proceeded to strip down to her bra and panties.  Apparently there is some You Tube video of this.  (There's probably a You Tube video of me while grocery shopping!)  This was a formal thesis presentation!!!!!!  I'm not sure of her point, maybe that "I'm more than what I wear?"  Who knows?  I'm as disturbed over the reaction as much as this student's grossly inappropriate behavior.  First, her thesis adviser apologized!  For what?!?!?!  Second, of the several dozen students at the presentation, a majority stood and applauded her strip show.  Third, her thesis advisory committee didn't walk out.  I, for one, had I been on the evaluation board, would have left.  I'm assuming, but could be wrong, that a full committee would be required for a passing grade.  I'd have said, "Come back dressed appropriately and I'll listen."  So, why didn't these professors walk out?  Their behavior condoned her behavior.  Why did the students rise and clap?  Did they know what she was doing and approve?  Or were they just enjoying the strip show?  This student showed a great deal of disrespect toward her professors, toward the process, and toward academia, not to mention her own thesis (whatever its topic).  Oh, no doubt she, like the students who applauded, thought she was cool and making a dramatic statement.  Yep, "It's all about me!"  I wonder, if indeed this episode is on You Tube, what her parents thought of it, seeing her daughter strip down in front of others.  Imagine if they, too, were in the audience!  I'm sure they were proud......

Sun Thoughts

This AM's newspapers carried several stories that attracted my attention.  First, "61 people shot in Chicago since Monday."  "61?"  At least 15 of them were hit with bullets from Friday evening to early Saturday morning.  The police chief said "We have to get some common sense gun control laws in this country......"  He added, "...not just this city, not just this state, but this country to stop this from happening."  Hmmm......  He might be right; who knows?  But if I have read correctly, Chicago and Illinois have some of the strictest gun control laws in the US.  It seems to me Chicago doesn't have a gun problem, but a people problem.  Too many folks have no value for human lives, except perhaps for their own.  I know I've asked this before, but what leads a person to believe he can just pull out a gun and shoot someone for his car or shoes or jacket, or because he was "dissed," or for whatever reason?  What kind of animal randomly shoots into a house no knowing who is sitting in the living room just watching the boob tube, doing homework, etc.?  Ninety-nine percent of the gun owners in the US don't shoot people.  Maybe someone ought to point that out to the police chief and suggest he look at the Chicago people who do.  Maybe......

Second, Cal Thomas wrote a column that reads like a number of blogs and e-mails I've written in the distant and not-so-distant past.  Sometimes Thomas is a bit too far out there for me, but not this day.  "Vulgar goes mainstream."  He cited that unfunny comedienne at the White House Correspondents' Dinner--her vile words and lack of civility.  I thought I was reading my own words.  Thomas asked why people didn't walk out.  He noted more examples, too.  Language that used to be found only in the locker room has made it to movies, television, newspapers, video games, and more.  It seems nobody is shocked to hear such talk, "blue language" my college coach called it as he didn't permit it.  Nobody is ashamed to use it.  I chuckled at Thomas's "...having his mouth washed out with soap."  My mother used to put soap on a wash rag and then clean out my filthy mouth.  Oh, she didn't have to do it often and as bad as that was, it was better than her telling my dad when he got home from work.  How can we punish kids for language that parents accept as normal on prime time television, in popular movies (even the kids' cartoons!), etc.?  I know, I know......  "They're only words."  Yeah, right.

I'm still not a fan of Don Trump, not at all.  He shouldn't be President, at least in my view.  If he's the best we can do, we are pathetic.  That's not an endorsement of Obama or Clinton or anyone else.  I find them equally disgusting.  Another article, I think one day last week in the Wall Street Journal, wrote of Trump's accomplishments, that, because of them, we should ignore everything else he does.  I remember what people said of Mussolini, of his accomplishments in Italy.  "He makes the trains run on time."  (Now, he really didn't, but that's not my point.)  Because he "made the trains run on time," everything else he did could be overlooked.  And, because I know a little bit about Hitler and his early days as the Fuhrer in Germany, I could make some other comparisons.  (I know, I know......  He who resorts to "Hitler" in an argument loses by default.)  But from 1933 on to when the tides of war turned against Germany, he was very popular.  He turned the economy around.  He created jobs.  He made it so Germany was feared again.  He made Germany great again, after the humiliation of the loss of the First World War and the "diktat," the Treaty of Versailles.  (Now, not all of that is so, but it was the general perception.)  Things were, as they always are, a bit different.  In Germany, opposition was silenced and people were imprisoned and even disappeared.  Almost immediately Jews were targeted.  But as long as the economy began to boom and the massive unemployment of the Depression dissipated, these things were ignored or, at least, overlooked.  I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler or even Mussolini, not at all.  I am concerned that Trump's accomplishments (and I think they are underrated by his opponents and overrated by his supporters) lead many to overlook and ignore what shouldn't be overlooked and ignored.  (And I could cite more examples/comparisons.)   As usual, I concede that I might be all wrong on this.

How Deep Is......

Wasn't it the Bee Gees or some such group that sang, "How deep is the Swamp," er "your love?"  I was reminded of that, the deepness of the Swamp in DC this week with the announcement from Paul Ryan that he wouldn't seek re-election. 

My initial reaction was, "Good!  Let's get rid of another one of those guys who stabbed his constituents in the back."  But I took a measure of my reaction and have a different, somewhat different, take on this.  Again, I might be wrong, but......

I think Ryan is a good man, a decent guy who intended to do what's right.  No doubt he made some difference.  For instance, it was Ryan not Trump who brought about the recent tax cuts.  (My mind is still not made up about that one.  I see many folks and businesses who have apparently profited from the coming tax cuts.  So far I don't appear to be one of them.  I'll know more this time next year.)  Ryan's plans (beginning in 2011) to balance the federal budget were well-thought, if not universally popular.

Paul Ryan is a smart guy, very intelligent.  But I think he was caught in the wrong place--that is the Swamp.  Ryan is an idea guy, a policy wonk.  But, esp in his position as Speaker, he was required to forgo his strengths and become, well, a politician.  He began to try to form consensus, coalitions, etc.  Those terms resurfaced, "reach across the aisle," "bipartisanship," etc.  It remained, though, that such efforts were incumbent on just one of the two parties, not the other.  

So Ryan, as Speaker, was forced to abandon his strengths.  A good man, a bright one, was swallowed up by the Swamp and became a liability, a detriment.  

Do I buy his reasons for resigning?  Maybe.  Surely life as a Congressman is not particularly conducive to family life.  It's even less so as Speaker.  I understand Ryan's explanation.  But I also think he realizes, although he'll never admit it, that he became part of the Swamp.  And he found that to be very troublesome.  (Of course, I'm speculating.  I have no pipeline to Ryan's innermost thoughts.)  It's as if he asked himself, "What have I become?" and he didn't like the answer.  There is also some talk that he also knows the mess that has been created, in part by him, and he doesn't want to be around when it really hits the fan.  Maybe.  Perhaps, too, he doesn't want to be associated with a political party which has as its nominal head one such as Don Trump.  Again, I'm speculating.

But the lesson is this.  The DC Swamp is deep.  We have allowed it to become so.  There's nobody "draining" it.  I'm not sure at this point if it can be drained.  Ryan's exit tells me that he sees neither party willing to try to get rid of the morass.  And the Swamp has swallowed a good man in Paul Ryan. 

When are people going to get tired of being lied to?  I was sent a clip from the movie Network (which I've never seen) in which some newscaster on air pleads with viewers to go to their windows and doors and scream, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more."  I wonder when people today will, if ever, reach that point with all of the lies they are told.  We are bombarded with lies, from politicians and other government-types, from the media, from corporations.  The lies come on a grand scale, the national level, and on lesser, state and local, levels.  I wonder if some of the liars realize they are lying or if they are just following the script/agenda they are told to follow.  But some of them are bold enough to admit they lie, but, of course, for a greater good, at least greater in their eyes.  It's not just the morality of lying (If our leaders lie, lie, lie, what sort of role-modeling is that for others, esp our young?  "Hey, our President(s) lie(s). Why can't I?"), but the detriment of no longer knowing who and what to believe.  I suppose the liars have learned as long as people get their "stuff," what the Romans provided as "bread and circuses," the lies can continue.

I never heard of that so-called comedienne who ripped on the President's press secretary at the recent dinner for the press corps.  She was certainly out of order and, if the little bit I heard is representative, I wonder how she makes a living in comedy.  In my view, when she started in on that, it was time for everyone to walk out.  That few if any did tells me a lot about that press corps, esp the big-names.  Perhaps I expect too much, integrity from people.  After all, shame has disappeared for many, if not most, people.  What I also found interesting was that the people who seemed to be most upset at all of this are Trumpsters!  Ha Ha Ha......

That Fresno State professor who made those cruel and nasty comments about Barbara Bush upon her death should be fired--post haste!  No, tenure doesn't and shouldn't protect her.  Some ding-a-ling from the U of M had a letter-to-the-editor defending the twits/tweets as an extension of tenure.  He is all wet.  Tenure protects--and should protect--professors in the classroom, not their personal rants.  I've read about professors on some college campuses who are conservatives and even voted for Trump, but are leery, if not afraid, to publicly admit it.  They fear shunning, ostracism from their colleagues.  How interesting that this loon from California is defended, not shunned and ostracized, by fellow professors.  Like the press corps that didn't walk out, they tell me a lot about themselves.  I can't believe they would want to have someone like her in their profession.  We live in strange times.