Gimme Shelter

By Patrick F. Cannon

As someone who has written several books on architecture, I am familiar with man’s ongoing struggles to seek shelter from the storm. Since our species emerged in Africa, we have progressed from shaky lean-tos and caves to the sophisticated dwellings of today. With their computer-controlled heating and cooling systems, and stout walls and roofs, they are proof against almost anything Mother Nature might wish to assail us with.

Yet, among us are folk who seek to return to a more primitive past. I refer to the restless wanderers who hoist upon their backs a pack containing a tent and other necessities and venture forth in search of the woods and mountains that ennoble our sacred land. This despite the undoubted fact that all of our majestic sites can be easily reached from a nearby hotel (free breakfast included).

I must admit that my own distaste for roughing it may be based on my experience as a proud member of the United States Army. As part of its basic training, the Army feels obligated to march you – with a 65-pound pack on your back and a rifle on your shoulder – some 20 miles into a remote corner of one of its properties, in my case, Fort Benning, Georgia. Once in an area chosen for its dampness and venomous creature infestation, you were instructed to pitch your pup tent. Now, in those days, you carried only half the tent. Officially called a shelter half, it required you to pair up with a fellow soldier to create a tent, which you would then share (see illustration).

The material for the tent was a kind of canvas, ingeniously designed by the Quartermaster Corps to be waterproof until you touched or poked it by accident. Through a fortunate twist of fate, I was paired with a young man from central Illinois who had been an Eagle Scout. Jim not only warned me never to touch the tent roof, but made certain that we pitched our tent on a slight incline, whereupon he conspired a series of trenches designed to direct water away from the tent. As you might expect, it rained that night and most of the next day. We remained blissfully dry, while all around us we heard the curses of the tent pokers. I should also mention that, once wet, an army sleeping bag takes several years to dry. To add to the general gloom, they decided to treat us to an overdone steak dinner that day. It was still raining, and you had to carry your meal back to your tent. Needless to say, dinner went swimmingly.

My next camping experience came more than a year later, when the signal company of which I was then associated was flown, along with its vehicles, in C-130 cargo planes to Fort Hood, Texas. We were there to support a corps headquarters directing armored troop maneuvers. Our company commander, a fine and typical graduate of West Point, choose a likely-looking flat spot for our tents – still of the same classic pup variety. For the officers and sergeants, he chose a site on higher ground, no doubt so he could admire the admirably straight rows of tents below.

As you might have guessed, it rained, this time a torrent for which the Texas hill country is justly famous. No ingenious trenching system could have saved us from the torrent that came rushing down the hill. The next morning was pure misery, until a stroke of good fortune came my way. Just while I was choking back tears, an unknown sergeant appeared and asked me if I would be interested in returning to the post, where they had need of a cryptographer for special duty. It turned out it was related to the looming Cuban missile crisis, and even the threat of nuclear annihilation seemed preferable to another night camping in the Texas wilderness.

I did some years later buy a nice tent, which I pitched in the back yard for my children. It never occurred to me to fold it up, put in a pack and wander off into the woods. By the way, if you chance to wander into the woods yourself, watch your step. Not all campers bother to dig a hole and cover it over after doing the necessary.

Copyright 2020, Patrick F. Cannon

Favorite Things 

By Patrick F. Cannon

The Rogers and Hammerstein musical, The Sound of Music, is despised by sophisticates like me as being excessively sentimental and cheerful. A case in point would be the song “My Favorite Things,” which extols the virtues of “Raindrops on roses, And whiskers on kittens, Bright copper kettles, And warm woolen mittens.” Yikes!

Nevertheless, the musical may be the most popular of all time, and contains some of Richard Roger’s most beautiful melodies. The heirs of the composer and lyricist are happily counting their royalties and could care less about the “tut tuts” of people like me.

While “whiskers on kittens” isn’t one of my favorite things (I don’t hate cats, but I could happily live without them), the song got me to thinking.  So, from time to time, in this space, I’ll let you know about some of the things that I prize most highly.

One is Bach’s Goldberg Variations. Originally written for the harpsichord as a series of exercises for the 13-year-old Johann Gottlieb Goldberg, who must have been quite the prodigy, it consists of an aria and 30 variations. It runs to about 80 minutes, give or take. While there are many recordings on the original instrument, it is now most often played on the piano. The most famous recordings are the two versions done by the wonderfully eccentric Canadian virtuoso, Glenn Gould. He was given to humming along with his playing, which must have driven recording engineers crazy; and was so adverse to cold that he wore a hat, coat and mittens even when visiting Florida. He was only 50 when he died in 1962.

I own both of his recordings and listen to them often, usually during long car rides. How many times? I’ve lost count, but it must be over 100. While that may make me seem as eccentric as Gould himself, I have a simple defense: the Goldberg Variations is one of the greatest musical accomplishments of all time. If you haven’t heard it, you can find various versions, including Gould’s, on the internet. What can it hurt to give it a listen?

One of my pet peeves (one of many) is that the majority of people simply never listen to so-called Classical music. And not only that – the audience for it is dwindling. Now, you might hear about sold-out houses when Ricardo Muti, the music director of the Chicago Symphony, is conducting, but “sold out” doesn’t mean what it used to. The total audience for Classical music has stayed roughly the same while the population continues to increase. Thus, in real terms, the audience is declining. A sold-out audience at Symphony Center totals 2,500, while a sell-out at a rock concert at Chicago’s United Center totals 23,500. I believe the Rolling Stones sold it out three times recently. And no doubt would continue to do so even when they have to be rolled on to the stage.

With due respect to the Stones, their lifetime musical output doesn’t equal the Goldberg Variations. It doesn’t bother me that people like the Rolling Stones – I like a good deal of popular music myself – what amazes me is that they dismiss Classical music without actually ever listening to it  Do they think it’s too hard? It’s music, for God’s sake! All you have to do is listen. For most of it, you don’t even have to worry about the words. It doesn’t require thought. It is the purest of all the arts because it reaches us most directly.

That’s why the Goldberg Variations is one of my favorite things.

#####

Copyright 2016, 2020, Patrick F. Cannon

The Cost of Being Healthy

By Patrick F. Cannon

Insurance companies do not pay for health care. The Federal Government does not pay for health care. We – you and me – pay for the nation’s health care, along with the stockholders and members of corporations and associations.

I’m always amused when politicians talk about free health care. I have Medicare coverage now. For it, and a supplemental policy, my wife and I pay $11,184 a year in premiums. Before we retired, we paid about 1.5 percent of our income in Medicare withholding tax. These, by the way, are just basic costs; out-of-pocket expenditures are not included.

Although it’s constantly increasing, it was estimated that the total cost of health care in the United States was $3.65 trillion in 2019. The latest per capita figures I could find were for 2017, when the US spent $10,224. The next highest amount was in Switzerland, with $8,009. The average for developed countries was $5,280. Administrative costs in the US were approximately 8-percent, as opposed to from one- to three-percent in comparable countries. Finally, before I bore you to tears, the average physician here makes $218,173 per year; the next highest is Germany, with $150,000.

While the breakdown can vary slightly year to year, private health insurance pays 34-percent of the total healthcare bill. Medicare has a 20-percent share; and Medicaid, 17 percent. Other sources, including out-of-pocket, make up the balance.

Were we to go to a single payer system – i.e., “Medicare for All” – presumably reliable sources tell us that one trillion dollars a year would be added to a Federal deficit that is already running at that level. Politicians like Bernie Sanders don’t see a problem here. You simply tax the rich. In this, he has been remarkably consistent throughout his career. He is on record as believing that there should be no such thing as a billionaire. And as a committed Marxist, he has been perfectly happy to ignore its long and persistent history of failure.

Here’s what I think. Except for some pockets in rural America, we have the finest health care in the world, as I have recently personally experienced. Nothing we do to “reform” it should jeopardize that. It’s also clear that we cannot trust the current political parties to solve the health care funding problem, since they have been obviously unable to agree on ways to even fund the government we currently have. The Republicans, who once could be counted upon to at least try to hold the line on spending, are now as profligate as the Democrats. Indeed, they lowered taxes just when tax revenues from a growing economy might have significantly lowered deficits.

We have smart people in this country, experts in health care and economics who could study the problem in detail and devise a system that would provide a high level of care at a cost the country would be willing to pay. None of these people are politicians. As reluctant as I am to turn over the government to experts, in this case I believe that only a non-partisan commission would be able to study the problem in detail and recommend a way forward.

What we have now is a Republican Party whose only idea is to repeal Obamacare; and a Democratic Party whose increasingly radical base thinks only of a Federal government-run single-payer system, funded by the rich. I frankly don’t know what a workable system would look like, except I’m certain it’s neither of those. It’s perhaps a vain hope, but what this country really needs is a new political party, which I would name the Pragmatic Party. The current failed ideologies of the right and left will not solve any of our problems.

Copyright 2020, Patrick F. Cannon

After Every Meal!

By Patrick F. Cannon

Because it is such a traumatic experience, I’m sure you remember your first trip to the dentist. My own first dentist was a leading practitioner of the South Shore neighborhood of Chicago, Peter Potter, know to all as “Painless Peter.”

Dr. Potter, who somewhat resembled the famed actor Lawrence Olivier, ended every visit with a booming “remember, you must brush after every meal!” I’m certain that your dentist did – and perhaps still does – utter this admonishment. Indeed, you may have only recently brushed your own teeth after a hearty breakfast, but did you ever wonder when this practice began, and who was responsible for bringing a modicum of cleanliness to the mouths of the world?

The world is full of people who seek to understand the workings of the universe; or to seek cures for dread diseases; or even to understand the labrynthian minds of politicians. But, as you must know by now, it has been largely left up to me to delve into the more commonplace. Who, but me, would undertake to discover the inventor of the toothbrush?

Strangely, it is of surprisingly recent invention. If you were, as I am, an expert on the history of art, you would have noticed that portraits of past notables never showed them with open mouth. Even with the advent of photography, this remained the case. And no wonder. If you actually reached middle age, what teeth you actually had left were likely to be discolored and snaggley. To clean them, your only recourse would have been a twig, which, with enough use, rather resembled a tooth pick.

(It should be pointed out that the Chinese had actually invented the toothbrush in 1498, but limited its use to the Forbidden City, giving the emperor and his court sparkling chompers, but letting the peasants make do with the aforementioned sticks.)

In the West, it was only in 1749 that the handy tool was finally invented. For this boon to mankind, we have Sir Algernon Gascoyne-Dithers (Bart.) to thank. As a baronet, he was a member of the minor nobility. He was, as was common in those days, land poor. While he was able to generate enough income from his holdings to live fairly comfortably, it wasn’t sufficient to buy himself an actual barony. This was, however, to change.

In addition to alfalfa and wheat, Sir Algernon raised hogs. Every year, when they reached the proper size, off to market they went. To ensure that they fetched the best price, his hogmaster, Willy Honker, doused them liberally with water, then brushed them with a broom of – strangely enough – hog bristles. While he was watching this annual ritual, Sir Algie was trying to dislodge some bacon rind from his teeth.  Regular readers of the space will know that civilization often advances after a flash of inspiration. So, you must imagine the baronet picking at his teeth and watching the hogs being scoured. Only genius could have put the two together and imagine a smaller brush to get rid of the pesky rind and any other debris from one’s mouth!

The rest of the story can be quickly told. In total secrecy, he experimented with various combinations of bristles and handles until he came up with something that looked very much like today’s Oral B. He was granted a patent by His Majesty’s government, and was soon selling toothbrushes by the thousands, then millions. As the money rolled in, he was able to bribe the relevant ministers and receive his seat in the House of Lords. When he was asked how he wished to be ennobled, he thought to honor his home village, thus became Baron Algernon of Fuller.

######

Copyright 2020, Patrick F. Cannon

Hail to Thee, Noble Clip!

By Patrick F. Cannon

It is to our shame that so many of mankind’s greatest inventions lie near to hand, things we use almost every day, yet the great men or women responsible for making life on this benighted planet just a bit more bearable are largely forgotten.

In this regard, I give you the noble paper clip, and its inventor, Shepworth Clipper. Now, a great many people believe to this day that the term “paper clip” comes from the ancient Druid word, clippe. How absurd! It is a far, far journey from a word that denoted – and still does – the action of cutting things in twain to our subject word. We can clip a hedge, or a nose hair, but what does this word have to do with the implement that gathers two or more pieces of paper together? Nothing, I say!

Now, to the true derivation. It seems that young Shepworth – “Shep” to his intimates – was employed as a clerk for one of the underwriters who made up the legendary Lloyds of London. It was the 1840s, and the young man was tasked with making handwritten copies of insurance policies. Just as is the case today, the policies were many pages long; so long, in fact, that it was nearly impossible to read them without dozing, which many policy holders did before getting to the exclusions.

Shep was fastidious about keeping his pages in order, but one of his fellow clerks, by name of Augustus Finknottel, was a fresh air fiend, and was given to throwing open a window without warning, turning the office into a maelstrom of flying papers. Occasionally, Shep had prudently put a paperweight on the accumulating papers, but was apt to forget. Even when the copying was done, one had to find a way to keep them together and in order.

One method was to punch a hole in the corner and tie the pages together with a length of ribbon or string. Or one could place the pages in a folder and tie it together with a ribbon. Alas, with this method, the pages were inclined to fall out the bottom if one wasn’t careful. With the other, if you wanted to correct a page, you had to undo the ribbon, remove the offending page, then tie the document back together. Bothersome, you must admit.

Then one day, quite by accident – think Newton’s apple if you will – the problem was solved in a moment of inspiration. It seems Shep had wire baskets on his desk for incoming and outgoing documents. On one of them, a length of wire had come asunder. As young men are wont to do, he began bending it back and forth until – predictably – it came apart. He bent it back and forth and – in one of those eureka moments that changes the course of history — put the ends of the wire over the papers and pressed. It was a moment he never forgot, a moment that has entered the lore of the office supplies business, a moment still remembered at their annual conventions with the Shepworth Clipper Award for Innovation.

The rest of the story is quickly told. Realizing that he would never be able to make sufficient of his new invention by himself to satisfy demand, he went to one of the numerous workshops that employed idle boys as a way of keeping them off the streets. Working with the headmaster, Mr. Fagin, he devised a simple jig that the young hands could use to form the clips. Soon, they were working like the dickens to keep up with demand. Eventually, the little tykes were put out of work by automation as word of the new inventions spread around the world. Indeed, the now wealthy Mr. Clipper designed special ships to speed the product to his waiting customers.

So, the next time you use a paper clip, please think of Shepworth Clipper, unsung benefactor of the toiling office drudge.

######

Copyright 2020, Patrick F. Cannon

Hide and Seek

By Patrick F. Cannon

David E. McCraw, the in-house lawyer who advises the newsroom of the New York Times on legal issues that could impact their coverage, has written an interesting book – Truth in Our Times – about the trials and tribulations of his job.

As you might imagine, Donald Trump looms large, both before and after his election. He has long been famous for threatening to sue for libel, but for never actually following through. The bar for libel is particularly high for public figures, which Trump knows, but I suspect he loves the publicity he gets for yelling about it.

As amusing as the instances McCaw cites are, much of the book discusses more serious matters. One is the presumed liberal bias of the Times. He frankly concedes that the newsroom staff is largely liberal in their politics, but that reporting standards mostly work to prevent obvious bias. I think they generally do succeed on a day to day basis; it’s more in the choice of what is covered that bias creeps in. No newspaper, not even the Times, can cover everything. But they obviously do a better job than Fox News and MSNBC.

McCraw pointed out something I hadn’t thought of that unintentionally feeds the perception that his newspaper has a liberal bias. Many people only know the Times from their web site. I hadn’t noticed it before, but if you open it, the left side features straight news stories, with opinion columnists at the right. Now, the paper’s editorial board and most of the opinion columnists have a liberal slant (David Brooks is one exception). In the paper, opinion pieces are grouped in the last pages of the first section. Since I suspect that most readers rarely or never see the print edition, the web layout would certainly reinforce the liberal bias perception.

But whatever their bias, almost all newspapers have to battle governments at all levels to gain access to public information. In case you think liberals are innocent of this chicanery, the Obama administration brought more indictments for “leaking” than the previous three combined. And you might recall Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server when she was Secretary of State, a clear violation of the law. It was the Times who relentlessly covered her arrogant disregard for the public’s right to know. I think every serious journalist should wake up in the morning with the assumption that all politicians are liars and scoundrels, and act accordingly.

Let me leave you with some sobering statistics, then some words of wisdom (not mine, alas). During the Obama administration, 790,000 people in government had top secret clearances (I once had one, but for good cause). Over-classification of documents was then, and still is, epidemic. In 2016, a congressional committee discovered that an average of $10 billion a year was spent on classification activities, and that more than 50 percent of materials were improperly classified. In 2011, there were 92 million separate decisions to classify material.

In the 1971 Pentagon Papers case (was it really that long ago?), in which the Times sued the government for the right to publish the secret documents they had obtained, Justice Potter Stewart wrote:

“I should suppose that the moral, political, and practical considerations would dictate that a very first principle of that wisdom would be an insistence upon avoiding secrecy for its own sake. For when everything is classified, then nothing is classified, and the system becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the careless, and to be manipulated by those intent on self-protection or self-promotion. I should suppose, in short, that the hallmark of a truly effective internal security system would be the maximum possible disclosure, recognizing that secrecy can best be preserved only when credibility is truly maintained.”

Of course, the New York Times is sometimes biased in its coverage. So are the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe and Baltimore Sun. But if we didn’t have them, bias and all, who then would keep a jaundiced eye on governments at all levels?  Would no news really be good news?

######

Copyright 2020, Patrick F. Cannon

Things are Great, Aren’t They?

By Patrick F. Cannon

I was born in 1938 and many people born then often wax poetic about how things were better in the “good old days.” Now, I’m sure I was a bright little fellow, but I doubt I was bright enough to realize that unemployment had risen to 19 percent the year I was born; and that the frightened leaders of Britain and France had managed to buy only one more year of peace by betraying the Czechs at Munich. My “good old days” also included World War II, Korea, Viet Nam, and the numerous smaller wars we seem addicted to.

In many ways – sorry about that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – these are the good old days. Instead of 19 percent, unemployment is at 3.5 percent, and real income continues to rise. The homeless population has declined every year since 2007, when it was 643,258, to 553,830 at the end of 2018.  Worldwide, extreme poverty is now below 10 percent. Economies in Africa and Asia are experiencing much faster growth than Europe and North America. Although there are worrying pockets, child mortality rates have fallen to record low levels.

I have said this before, but it’s worth repeating – farmers can easily feed the world now, and for the foreseeable future. Indeed, advances in agricultural science – most of which came from the United States – will enable large areas of land to be taken out of production and added to the expanding forests. News on the health front continues to be good, with great progress being made in the eradication of polio; and the steady decline of deaths from malaria, heart disease and cancer.

Advances in communications technology have been astonishing, if sometimes a mixed blessing. I type this on a laptop, which cost me about $550, or $30 in 1938 money. That might have bought you a radio then. I can search the world with my computer. Next to the laptop is my cell phone, which would have set me back about six bucks in 1938. I can do almost everything with it that I can do with my laptop, and call just about anyone in the world on a whim, whether at my desk or strolling down Michigan Avenue in Chicago.

Yet, we also live with a continuing sense of dread, most of which we can blame on our elected officials. A significant number of our fellow citizens voted for a totally unqualified man to be their president. In the three years he has been in office, he has brazenly proven just how unqualified. He ended the year deservedly impeached by the House of Representatives, in an action that was admittedly as much political as judicial; and will be disposed of the same way in the Republican Senate. That he retains the support of his “base” in the face of his outright lies and vindictiveness says as much about his supporters as himself. It also says much about Republican senators, whose wish to be re-elected trumps their obligation to serve their country.

The general rot reaches closer to home too. Tuesday’s Chicago Tribune rang out the old year by reporting that Illinois had lost more residents – 159,700 – than any other state since 2010. In the same period, every state that borders Illinois had gained population. Yet, in the face of constantly growing pension debt, no Democratic politician – not Governor Pritzker nor Chicago’s touted reform mayor Laurie Lightfoot – supports the only way it can be addressed: a constitutional amendment that would permit sensible changes in the future. Instead, they do what modern politicians are seemingly born to do: they raise taxes.

Oh well. As with most years, 2019 was a mixed bag. Against all logic and experience, I will hope for a better 2020. I know it’s better here in the Cannon household. And I can certainly wish it for you. Happy New Year!

######

Copyright 2020, Patrick F. Cannon

Don’t Feed the Monster!

By Patrick F. Cannon

It would be difficult to make the case that the more government we have, the better off we are. In Illinois, it would be impossible to make that case – indeed, you could make the case that Illinois is in the mess it is largely because it has more governmental units than any state in our debt-ridden Union.

But Illinois isn’t unique. Let’s face it; if they were corporations, the Federal government and most states would have to declare bankruptcy. The ability to find ever-new ways to tax us is the only way they can survive. And when they grab our cash, the inefficiency with which they spend it only compounds the problem.

U.S. Welfare Programs (that’s how they’re described on the government’s web site) total at least 13, not including Medicaid. All are designed to provide benefits to low-income families and individuals. I won’t list them all, but they include the negative income tax (also called the earned income tax credit), which provides cash to employed people who actually pay no income tax; the SNAP nutritional assistance program, often called “food stamps”; school nutrition programs, which provides free meals to low-income students; Pell Grants for college students; Head Start; and various housing assistance programs, one of which provides vouchers that lower rent payments.

Although I might not have them all, Federal agencies that administer them include the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and Labor; and the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration, and Federal Communications Agency. Each of these departments and agencies have staffs dedicated to these programs. And, in almost every case, state and local agencies are created to assist the Federal government in deciding who qualifies, and for how much.

Most of the families and individuals who receive assistance probably deserve it (and when was the last time the government actually eliminated one?). Of course, there is fraud, human nature and greed being what they are. Because of the occasional report uncovering instances of chicanery, many of our fellow citizens think the poor should be made to shift for themselves. After all, “nobody ever gave me anything – I earned it all.” Nonsense. There is almost certainly more fraud in the commercial arena than in the public (again, with human nature and greed being what they are).

Since the programs are unlikely to be eliminated, why not at least try to make them more efficiently and economically administered?

I believe that all welfare-related programs should be consolidated into one department. Let’s say a family qualifies for income, food and housing assistance. Depending on where they live, a total dollar value would be decided. Then, instead of multiple agencies issuing checks and vouchers, and each deciding on eligibility, a single monthly check would be issued to the head of household. Simply put, a single agency would review your income tax return. The amount of the check would be based on the family’s income, the number of dependents, and the cost of living in the city or town of residence.

The argument I hear most against such a plan is that recipients can’t be trusted to spend the money properly. Really? Upon what evidence do they base this? I doubt if the number of people gaming the system would be any higher than currently. But think of the hundreds of thousands of Federal, state and local salaries we would no longer have to support with our tax dollars? I have no idea how much would be saved, but I do know that those savings would go back to the general economy, instead of disappearing into the insatiable maw of Leviathan.

######

Copyright 2019, Patrick F. Cannon

Happy Holidays, Folks!

By Patrick F. Cannon 

Well, another year has passed, so I thought I’d bring you all up to date on the family as the holidays approach. As usual, there wasn’t a dull moment for our relatives. First the bad news: old Uncle Abner won’t be with us this year – once again, the Parole Board turned him down. I guess he’ll have to serve the full sentence. Heck, he’ll only be 70 when he gets out. If he watches his health, he ought to be able to enjoy some of the cash he has stashed away.

He still refuses to tell me where it’s hid, despite me telling him inflation is eating away at it, and I’d be happy to invest it for him. Oh, well, he’s as cantankerous as ever. He did tell me though that he still enjoys singing, and he’ll be doing caroling again on Death Row with the Sing Sing Singers. Says it’s nice to have a new audience every year.

Daisy Mae is pregnant again. Not sure who the father is this time either. As you know, all her kids look just a little different. I call them the rainbow coalition. She’s a worker though. Taking an online course in beauty culture, using money borrowed from the government. She says no one every pays off them loans, so it’s like a free education. Aren’t these young folks smart?

As you know, young Georgie is in the army. He made it all the way to corporal before he got busted back to private for drinking on duty. At least they didn’t give him a dishonorable discharge like his brother Amos. I guess they treat drunkenness and attempted murder different.

You probably heard that Aunt Nellie got married again. You kinda lose track, but I think this might be number six. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that her former husbands all died suddenly.  At least they all left her some money. Maybe she’ll have better luck this time. The new husband looks healthy enough.

I’m proud that the family remains on the cutting edge of social change. Cousin Charlie announced that he was changing his name to Charlene. Guess we’ll all have to bone up on our pronouns. I suggested to Charlene that the beard might be considered odd for a lady, but he’s (she’s?) quite fond of it, reminding me that the carnival that comes through town still features a bearded lady. So, it looks like a career change might be in the offing too.

I’m sure you’ve seen all the media stories about son Ralphie. As you know, he’s the only member of the family to graduate from college – and Harvard no less. He’d already graduated by the time they found out he’d phonied up his transcripts and ACT scores to get in, and by then they were too embarrassed to go public. Ralphie says the trick is to get in. After that you don’t have do much, since they think you’re already smart enough.

Anyway, Ralphie’s now holds the record for the greatest Ponzie scheme in history. Unlike old Madoff, he got away to Russia with the dough before it was discovered, so all that education sure paid off.  That picture of him and Putin riding those white horses bare-chested made all the papers. Funny though, when we tried to get a passport to visit him, we got turned down. I complained to our Congressman, and he told me he was surprised too, since he thought they would be happy to see us leave the country. Not sure what he meant by that.

Finally, I hope you won’t believe that story about wife Rosie being found naked with the preacher. She told me it was just a new way or praying; something about going back to the innocence of Adam and Eve before they ate the apple. She said it made her feel so good she might try it again.

Oh, and don’t worry, I’ll still be making my famous fruit cake, laced with my home-made white lightening. Believe me, Santa prefers it to milk and cookies!

Well, that’s all for this year. You have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. As for me, I can’t wait to see what the future has in store for Yokum family.

######

Copyright 2019, Patrick F. Cannon

Is No News Good News?

By Patrick F. Cannon

(This piece was occasioned by the news that Alden Global Capital had bought 31 percent of the Chicago Tribune’s stock. They have drastically cut the editorial staffs of every paper they control, most recently the Denver Post. I believe in Capitalism to my core, but groups like Alden dishonor it, for they gut rather than build companies.)

When I moved to Chicago in 1946, there were 5 daily newspapers – Herald-American (the Hearst paper), Daily Times, Sun, Daily News and Tribune.  The Sun and Times merged and survive, as does the Tribune. When I began riding the bus to work in the Loop in 1956, almost everyone was reading either the Sun-Times or Tribune; on the way home, they picked up either the Herald American or Daily News. Newsstands were common and convenient.

            Now, when I ride the train downtown, as I do two or three times a month, it is rare to see anyone reading a newspaper; almost everyone, however, is staring at their phones. Are they reading a digital edition of a newspaper? No doubt a few are. While its print circulation has tumbled, the Tribune has seen increases in digital subscribers, as have The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, among others. And it’s easy to see a future when only digital editions of these and other newspapers will be available. Frankly, I’ll miss turning those pages every morning, but I guess people missed the town crier too.

But what about local news? Between 2004 and 2018, 516 rural newspapers closed, as did 1,294 in urban areas. And almost every surviving newspaper has seen cuts in its editorial staff. In hundreds of counties, there are no newspapers of any kind. Which means no one to regularly keep tabs on the activities of local governments. Perhaps you live in Shangri La, where the politicians always have your best interests at heart; but I live in Illinois, where ex-governors and aldermen spend their declining years in prison.

Although actual figures are difficult to come by, the total daily circulation of the Tribune – print and digital – is now about 550,000; the Sun-Times less than half that. In their heyday, their print circulations were about 850,000 and 450,000 respectively.  Where then are the missing readers getting their news?

Network news programs make some effort to cover national news, but can only scratch the surface in the 30 minutes they have (actually, more like 22 after you deduct the commercials and promos). As you’ve probably noticed, I think local TV news is laughable. Of course, there is no lack of “news” available on the cable channels and on-line. Thus, consumers are able to shop for the point of view about news that agrees with their own. While both Fox News and MSNBC give us a bit of straight news, most of their content panders to the existing biases of their viewers. No rational person would watch either.

There are any number of paid sites that cover politics exclusively, but most people aren’t interested in diving that deeply. In the end, only the daily newspapers have the staff and resources to broadly cover the news, both local and national. Let’s say right here that none of them is perfect. Let’s also concede that most of their staff members tend to the liberal side of the spectrum. They make mistakes, sometimes serious ones that lead their critics to discount the great majority of their coverage that is actually accurate and unbiased.

With a few exceptions, mainly Fox News, President Trump accuses most of them of trafficking in “fake news.” I define “fake news” as the news you don’t want to hear, whether you’re on the left or the right. The President is notably adverse to the truth. He has lied so often that it’s probably pointless to any longer keep track of them, as the Washington Post does (for the record, they stood at 13,435 in October).

As for me, I’ll continue to read the paper every day. If it goes all digital, I’ll read it that way (as I already do when travelling). If I want an up-to-date weather forecast, and breaking entertainment news, I’ll tune in to the local news, whose news directors read the newspapers to see what’s actually going on around town. So should we all.

######

Copyright 2019, Patrick F. Cannon