It was another gorgeous day yesterday and we had a lot of things to do. Who knew November 8th….or 7th, for that matter….would be sunny with highs in the 70’s? We had a lot of running around to do both days, so we couldn’t just sit on the deck and enjoy the unbelievable weather.
One of the items on the checklist was buying a high-quality pair of hiking shoes for my wife, who’s discovered some wonderful nature trails in our suburban neighborhood. There are streams and mud and rocks involved, so she needed something sturdy, with good ankle support, and good traction. Waterproofing was critical.
So we’re talkin’ a hundred bucks here.
We decided to go to a big sporting goods store on the west side of Madison, since we had other stops out there anyway. I won’t name the store, but just to give you a clue, the name on the front of the store is a common nickname for a man named Richard.
We went in, a young man pleasantly greeted us, and asked what he could help us find. My wife said “hiking boots”, and he pointed us to the back of the store, a couple hundred feet away, under the huge overhead sign that said “footwear”.
She soon discovered that this area had lots of running shoes and basketball shoes and tennis shoes, but no hiking shoes. She was able to flag down a young fellow dressed in store apparel who was nearby, and he said “oh, no, hiking shoes are upstairs, in the back, under a sign that says ‘rugged footwear’”. OK.
Up the escalator.
She found a couple pairs she liked, but they were display shoes, and apparently the stock was somewhere else. We wandered the entire area of the upper floor of the store, looking for someone to help us. No luck. I even went back into the area marked “employees only”, hoping to make contact with a human that way.
Nope.
My wife found a “floor manager” and he said he’d send somebody right over.
Finally a store employee showed up, with a customer in tow. He pointed out a pair of rugged boots he’d like to try on, and the employee didn’t even acknowledge us, even though we were obviously there to buy something. By now, we were 25 minutes into this mission, and we’d both had it.
As we walked to the front door to leave, there were three young men, all store employees, congregated around the door, visiting with each other. I said as we left “you just lost a sale because nobody would come and help us”. I didn’t wait to hear a response.
We drove a few blocks to another shoe store… I won’t give you the name, but it rhymes with “Hogan’s”. We were greeted immediately upon entering, and taken right to the women’s hiking shoes area by another young man. Twice during the trying-on phase, a store employee came up and said “you guys doin’ OK?”.
We dropped a hefty amount of money in the store. We’ll go back there again. We’ll never go back to that other store.
If only the Packers had performed as well yesterday as the young men in that second store……
Monday, November 9, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Modern Economics (An Internet Tale)
There’s an interesting e-mail going around the internet this week called “Smoke and Mirrors”. It’s supposed to be a slam on President Obama’s economic policies, I guess, but it’s fascinating nonetheless.
The little story is set in a small resort town in August. It’s tough times, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit. A rich tourist happens upon the town, and stops at the only hotel.
He lays a $100 bill on the reception counter, and tells the innkeeper he wants to go upstairs and thoroughly inspect all the rooms. If he likes one of them, he’ll stay a few days.
As soon as the tourist goes upstairs, the innkeeper takes the $100 bill and runs across the street to pay his debt to the butcher, who’d been carrying him through the hard times.
The butcher sees the rancher get out of his pickup truck across the street. He takes the $100 bill and gives it to the rancher, to pay his meat bill.
The rancher takes the $100 bill and goes a couple doors down the street to pay his debt to the supplier of feed and fuel, who’d given him credit in the tough times.
The supplier of feed and fuel takes the $100 bill, slips out the back door, crosses the street, and knocks on the door of the town prostitute. He pays her the debt he owes her for rendering her services “on credit” during these tough times.
The town prostitute quickly walks to the hotel, and uses the $100 bill to pay the innkeeper for the rooms she rented on credit during the tough times, when she brought her clients there.
The innkeeper then lays the $100 bill back on the counter, so the rich tourist won’t suspect anything when he completes his inspection of all the rooms.
A few moments later, the rich tourist comes down the stairs, says he doesn’t really like any of the rooms, takes the $100 bill, gets back in his car and drives out of town.
Everybody’s paid off, and the town now looks to the future with optimism.
The story, of course, is based on a number of very shaky assumptions, such as the innkeeper knowing he could “cover” the missing $100 bill, if the rich tourist decided not to stay there. There’s no way the innkeeper could have predicted the chain of events that would end with the $100 bill back on the counter, and in such short time.
But it’s a fascinating story that gets you thinking about how money and credit work. Most of it’s imaginary…like the stock market.
The little story is set in a small resort town in August. It’s tough times, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit. A rich tourist happens upon the town, and stops at the only hotel.
He lays a $100 bill on the reception counter, and tells the innkeeper he wants to go upstairs and thoroughly inspect all the rooms. If he likes one of them, he’ll stay a few days.
As soon as the tourist goes upstairs, the innkeeper takes the $100 bill and runs across the street to pay his debt to the butcher, who’d been carrying him through the hard times.
The butcher sees the rancher get out of his pickup truck across the street. He takes the $100 bill and gives it to the rancher, to pay his meat bill.
The rancher takes the $100 bill and goes a couple doors down the street to pay his debt to the supplier of feed and fuel, who’d given him credit in the tough times.
The supplier of feed and fuel takes the $100 bill, slips out the back door, crosses the street, and knocks on the door of the town prostitute. He pays her the debt he owes her for rendering her services “on credit” during these tough times.
The town prostitute quickly walks to the hotel, and uses the $100 bill to pay the innkeeper for the rooms she rented on credit during the tough times, when she brought her clients there.
The innkeeper then lays the $100 bill back on the counter, so the rich tourist won’t suspect anything when he completes his inspection of all the rooms.
A few moments later, the rich tourist comes down the stairs, says he doesn’t really like any of the rooms, takes the $100 bill, gets back in his car and drives out of town.
Everybody’s paid off, and the town now looks to the future with optimism.
The story, of course, is based on a number of very shaky assumptions, such as the innkeeper knowing he could “cover” the missing $100 bill, if the rich tourist decided not to stay there. There’s no way the innkeeper could have predicted the chain of events that would end with the $100 bill back on the counter, and in such short time.
But it’s a fascinating story that gets you thinking about how money and credit work. Most of it’s imaginary…like the stock market.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Stopped by the Presidential Motorcade
When you’re in the business of broadcasting, as I was for over 30 years, time is everything. The six o’clock news happens at 06:00:00, not “around six”. Commercials, which pay the bills, are sold in precise increments of time. A one-minute commercial is sixty seconds. Broadcasters are keenly aware of time.
I wouldn’t wear a watch on vacation, because I didn’t WANT to know what time it is. At work, everything was time and timing. At one point a few years ago, I was doing morning drive newscasts for five radio stations, and I had to keep very precise timing constantly. So, when on vacation, I didn’t want to think about time.
Obviously I’ve gotten far from being a slave to time in the past year. Yesterday afternoon, as I left home to run a number of errands, I ran smack dab into a roadblock for the Presidential motorcade. Coming up Rimrock Road and headed for the Beltline Freeway, I saw the big black Yukon (maybe it was a Suburban) swing crosswise into the intersection, and I knew I was in for a wait.
Eastbounders could get on, but nobody was getting onto the overpass to go west.
I was about the fifth vehicle in the line. I realized immediately that my timing couldn’t have been worse. But, I run my own clock these days, so no big deal. It soon became apparent that several people in line had no clue why access to the Beltline was blocked.
The huge green military helicopter circling Wright School, just a mile or so away, might have been a clue. But clearly a few folks were agitated. They were out of their cars and looking around. It was 48 degrees, so I ran my window down. The guy who was two cars ahead of me had gotten out of his car and was talking to the guy in the car between us.
I overheard him saying he didn’t know why they had the road barricaded. I stuck my head out of the window and said “it’s for the Presidential motorcade”. The guy came over to my SUV and said “the President is here?”.
Even though I’ve been a news anchor most of my life, it still does not surprise me that no matter how big an event, there are always people who are clueless. I told the fellow that the President was making a speech about education at Wright School, and pointed to the huge military helicopter circling the school.
“So the President is here, huh? How about that. How long you think we’re gonna be here?” I said my guess was about 10 or 15 minutes at the most. He went up to tell his pal in the car ahead of us what was going on. I could hear just enough of the conversation to tell that his buddy didn’t believe him right away, and he pointed at me as he was explaining the situation.
Before long, we saw the State Patrol cruisers come whistling up the westbound Beltline, all lit up with the red and blue lights flashing. Behind them, a bunch of big, black cars and SUV’s…one of them, of course, with the President aboard, tailed by three more State Patrol cruisers, one in each lane, lights on, movin’ fast, bringing up the rear.
It was sort of cool. Well worth the brief delay.
On the way home from making my stops on the west side, I got off the Beltline at Verona Road and came home through Fitchburg. Fool me once….er, what was it the other President said about that?
I wouldn’t wear a watch on vacation, because I didn’t WANT to know what time it is. At work, everything was time and timing. At one point a few years ago, I was doing morning drive newscasts for five radio stations, and I had to keep very precise timing constantly. So, when on vacation, I didn’t want to think about time.
Obviously I’ve gotten far from being a slave to time in the past year. Yesterday afternoon, as I left home to run a number of errands, I ran smack dab into a roadblock for the Presidential motorcade. Coming up Rimrock Road and headed for the Beltline Freeway, I saw the big black Yukon (maybe it was a Suburban) swing crosswise into the intersection, and I knew I was in for a wait.
Eastbounders could get on, but nobody was getting onto the overpass to go west.
I was about the fifth vehicle in the line. I realized immediately that my timing couldn’t have been worse. But, I run my own clock these days, so no big deal. It soon became apparent that several people in line had no clue why access to the Beltline was blocked.
The huge green military helicopter circling Wright School, just a mile or so away, might have been a clue. But clearly a few folks were agitated. They were out of their cars and looking around. It was 48 degrees, so I ran my window down. The guy who was two cars ahead of me had gotten out of his car and was talking to the guy in the car between us.
I overheard him saying he didn’t know why they had the road barricaded. I stuck my head out of the window and said “it’s for the Presidential motorcade”. The guy came over to my SUV and said “the President is here?”.
Even though I’ve been a news anchor most of my life, it still does not surprise me that no matter how big an event, there are always people who are clueless. I told the fellow that the President was making a speech about education at Wright School, and pointed to the huge military helicopter circling the school.
“So the President is here, huh? How about that. How long you think we’re gonna be here?” I said my guess was about 10 or 15 minutes at the most. He went up to tell his pal in the car ahead of us what was going on. I could hear just enough of the conversation to tell that his buddy didn’t believe him right away, and he pointed at me as he was explaining the situation.
Before long, we saw the State Patrol cruisers come whistling up the westbound Beltline, all lit up with the red and blue lights flashing. Behind them, a bunch of big, black cars and SUV’s…one of them, of course, with the President aboard, tailed by three more State Patrol cruisers, one in each lane, lights on, movin’ fast, bringing up the rear.
It was sort of cool. Well worth the brief delay.
On the way home from making my stops on the west side, I got off the Beltline at Verona Road and came home through Fitchburg. Fool me once….er, what was it the other President said about that?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Faux News Bends EVERYTHING! (A fair and balanced rant.)
Early Sunday morning, my body clock maladjusted by the end of Daylight Saving Time, I woke up “early”, grabbed a cup of coffee, and began scanning the TV band to find some news. I landed on Fox News, and there were the three weekend newsies, sitting on the couch, doing an interview with two “authorities” about Swine Flu.
One was a parish priest from Boston, the other the head of the Public Health Department for Boston. Hmmm…why Boston? Why not go with a “national” source in D.C.? Or the CDC? Soon I would learn why.
The public health lady was talking about recommendations her department had made, at the request of the Boston Roman Catholic Diocese, on things it could do to help stop the spread of the flu.
She enumerated a short list: don’t have the parishioners drink from a common chalice; suspend the communal “handshakes” during mass; a few other items. The priest confirmed that the Diocese had followed the advice.
Then it came - the FOX QUESTION!!!
One of the anchor-boys said “Father, conservatives are concerned that the H1N1 recommendations of the Boston Public Health Department may be an attempt to alter their sacred rituals. How do you respond to that?”
I didn’t hear the priest’s response. I was busy mopping up the coffee that had spewed from my nose. The coffee went down the wrong pipe as I reacted physically to the inane question.
Fox News bends everything. Everything. Even the most seemingly innocuous interview about H1N1 is bent to the “conservative” point of view. Even the most paranoid among us would find it a stretch that the public health department is trying to alter Catholic rituals. Only the most slanted, bent, spun, sold-out “news person” would even ASK such a question.
Is it any wonder our President won’t give Fox the time of day? Isn’t it somewhat disgusting to you that other “mainstream media” take the President to task under the guise that a slight to one media outlet is a slight to them all? Sort of like the Hollywood crowd that defended Roman Polanski’s “right” to drug and rape a 13-year-old girl. Disgusting.
From sunup to sundown and all night, it’s a constant drumbeat of derision concerning President Obama, an unending parade of hatred for anything that might be construed as “liberal”, all dished up under the guise of “we report, you decide”.
Madisonian Thomas Dixon Jr. wrote a letter to the Capital Times decrying the “gutless media”, saying “you don’t search for the truth but rather seek two contrasting opinions, no matter how crazy one of them may be. You seek controversy over insight. And you do it in a world that depends on you to get it right now more than ever before.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
One was a parish priest from Boston, the other the head of the Public Health Department for Boston. Hmmm…why Boston? Why not go with a “national” source in D.C.? Or the CDC? Soon I would learn why.
The public health lady was talking about recommendations her department had made, at the request of the Boston Roman Catholic Diocese, on things it could do to help stop the spread of the flu.
She enumerated a short list: don’t have the parishioners drink from a common chalice; suspend the communal “handshakes” during mass; a few other items. The priest confirmed that the Diocese had followed the advice.
Then it came - the FOX QUESTION!!!
One of the anchor-boys said “Father, conservatives are concerned that the H1N1 recommendations of the Boston Public Health Department may be an attempt to alter their sacred rituals. How do you respond to that?”
I didn’t hear the priest’s response. I was busy mopping up the coffee that had spewed from my nose. The coffee went down the wrong pipe as I reacted physically to the inane question.
Fox News bends everything. Everything. Even the most seemingly innocuous interview about H1N1 is bent to the “conservative” point of view. Even the most paranoid among us would find it a stretch that the public health department is trying to alter Catholic rituals. Only the most slanted, bent, spun, sold-out “news person” would even ASK such a question.
Is it any wonder our President won’t give Fox the time of day? Isn’t it somewhat disgusting to you that other “mainstream media” take the President to task under the guise that a slight to one media outlet is a slight to them all? Sort of like the Hollywood crowd that defended Roman Polanski’s “right” to drug and rape a 13-year-old girl. Disgusting.
From sunup to sundown and all night, it’s a constant drumbeat of derision concerning President Obama, an unending parade of hatred for anything that might be construed as “liberal”, all dished up under the guise of “we report, you decide”.
Madisonian Thomas Dixon Jr. wrote a letter to the Capital Times decrying the “gutless media”, saying “you don’t search for the truth but rather seek two contrasting opinions, no matter how crazy one of them may be. You seek controversy over insight. And you do it in a world that depends on you to get it right now more than ever before.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
El Rushbo - Racist?
Rush Limbaugh, after being dropped publicly by a group of investors seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams, was mad. The head of the group, Dave Checketts, said the Limbaugh involvement became “a complication and a distraction to our intentions”.
Rush told the Wall Street Journal he’s colorblind, not a racist, and said “These intimidation tactics are working and spreading, and they are a cancer on our society”.
Well, he oughtta know.
Jay Leno weighed in. On his show, he said Rush wants to know if he’s a racist, why would he want to be part of a business that’s 70% African-American. Leno said “So he can OWN them!”
My friend Holland Cooke, who is probably the best and most sought-after News-Talk Radio consultant in the world, put together a montage of Rush quotes in his monthly newsletter. Holland’s summary is a cautionary tale for anybody who’s in the talk-show-host business. Rush is fond of saying “words mean things”. Cooke points out “words have consequences”.
Anyone who’s listened to the Rush Limbaugh show more than a couple times knows that up until he joined the group trying to buy the Rams, he played a parody song called “Barack, The Magic Negro” every few days. Oh, but that’s not racist. That’s Limbaugh humor.
Cooke has pulled some quotes including this very-much-on-topic one: “The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips”. Or how about this one: “We are being told that we have to hope [President Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles…because his father was black”. No race-card-playing there.
Or how about Limbaugh’s frequent references to the President as being “Halfrican-American”. More humor, huh? Rush has also said “Obama’s entire economic program is reparations”. Just run-of-the-mill hyperbole, the kind of stuff you might hear on any right-wing talk show.
But I’m sure you’re seeing a pattern here.
Rush also said “in Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering”.
These are just a handful of actual Limbaugh quotes that Holland Cooke put together. Rush indeed was misquoted several times by the national media, in the coverage of the story surrounding his failed attempt to get a piece of the Rams. There’s no excuse for such sloppy work by what’s left of the (as Rush would say) “state-controlled drive-by media”.
All they would have had to do is turn on his radio show and listen for an hour. They’d have had plenty of “ammunition” to make the point that Limbaugh is everything he accuses Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson of being.
My friend Holland Cooke is right: words do have consequences.
Rush told the Wall Street Journal he’s colorblind, not a racist, and said “These intimidation tactics are working and spreading, and they are a cancer on our society”.
Well, he oughtta know.
Jay Leno weighed in. On his show, he said Rush wants to know if he’s a racist, why would he want to be part of a business that’s 70% African-American. Leno said “So he can OWN them!”
My friend Holland Cooke, who is probably the best and most sought-after News-Talk Radio consultant in the world, put together a montage of Rush quotes in his monthly newsletter. Holland’s summary is a cautionary tale for anybody who’s in the talk-show-host business. Rush is fond of saying “words mean things”. Cooke points out “words have consequences”.
Anyone who’s listened to the Rush Limbaugh show more than a couple times knows that up until he joined the group trying to buy the Rams, he played a parody song called “Barack, The Magic Negro” every few days. Oh, but that’s not racist. That’s Limbaugh humor.
Cooke has pulled some quotes including this very-much-on-topic one: “The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips”. Or how about this one: “We are being told that we have to hope [President Obama] succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles…because his father was black”. No race-card-playing there.
Or how about Limbaugh’s frequent references to the President as being “Halfrican-American”. More humor, huh? Rush has also said “Obama’s entire economic program is reparations”. Just run-of-the-mill hyperbole, the kind of stuff you might hear on any right-wing talk show.
But I’m sure you’re seeing a pattern here.
Rush also said “in Obama’s America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering”.
These are just a handful of actual Limbaugh quotes that Holland Cooke put together. Rush indeed was misquoted several times by the national media, in the coverage of the story surrounding his failed attempt to get a piece of the Rams. There’s no excuse for such sloppy work by what’s left of the (as Rush would say) “state-controlled drive-by media”.
All they would have had to do is turn on his radio show and listen for an hour. They’d have had plenty of “ammunition” to make the point that Limbaugh is everything he accuses Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson of being.
My friend Holland Cooke is right: words do have consequences.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Mars, Venus, and Favre
It was essentially another home game for Brett Favre. Four more touchdown passes in a stadium he called home for 16 years. It was the 21st time he threw four TD passes, tying Dan Marino’s record.
But in a purple uniform with horns on his helmet?
I was born and raised in the Fox Valley, and have been a Packers fan all my life. My wife and I are Packers shareholders. So, when Brett departed, I was sad - but, that’s the way it works in sports. The days are pretty much gone when a truly outstanding athlete plays an entire career for one team. It’s obvious Brett is not ready to be put out to pasture, and that was evident long before yesterday’s game.
Most of the guys I know were pretty disgusted with Brett’s soap opera, that became regular fare the past few years when he was deciding, in a very public way, about whether he’d come back for another year. So after his year with the Jets, when he maneuvered things to skip training camp (which he always hated) and became a Vikings player, I was more than moderately annoyed.
Even my wife, a reconstructed Bears fan from Chicago, informed me she was DONE with Brett when he went to work in Minnesota. She’d proudly worn her Packers #4 home jersey to New York City a year ago when she was there for a week on business, and enjoyed all the “Hey - thanks for Brett!” comments on the streets and subway of the Big Apple.
This year, when she was in New York City for a week in October, she took her Packers gear, but NOT the Favre Jersey. Apparently, when Favre was a Jets player, he was OK. But when he became a Vikings player - that’s IT.
As I checked the Facebook posts this morning, I noticed a lot of my female friends seem to hold a different position on Brett. There were the posts on the News Feed, made before kickoff yesterday afternoon, that said essentially “I hope Brett plays well but I want the Packers to win”; there were the ones that said “I don’t know who to cheer for”; and similar posts.
There was not much ambiguity whatsoever among my male Facebook friends. They wanted him to taste that frozen tundra in a very personal way.
One post, from a lady who’s been a friend a long time, clarified the issue for me. She put up a post during the game saying “Why does my family get mad at me when I cheer for Brett Favre?”. And there were comments on the post, from other women, who said essentially they like Brett but don’t like the Vikings.
The snarky Tim joined the thread by posting “Because your family are PACKERS fans”. I couldn’t resist.
The thing is, it seems clear to me and my male friends, that we can still appreciate Brett’s skill, but we can’t cheer for him. He’s a member of the team we like the least and hate the most, an NFC North rival. Just as Brewers fans can, if they want, cheer for C C Sabathia. He’s with the Yankees, and they’re in the American League. If he ever signs with the Cubs - or the Cards - no more cheering for the big guy.
It’s really very simple. We can’t cheer for Brett because now he’s using his skills against us. Can’t you ladies see that? We may be from different planets, but it's all so......tribal.
But in a purple uniform with horns on his helmet?
I was born and raised in the Fox Valley, and have been a Packers fan all my life. My wife and I are Packers shareholders. So, when Brett departed, I was sad - but, that’s the way it works in sports. The days are pretty much gone when a truly outstanding athlete plays an entire career for one team. It’s obvious Brett is not ready to be put out to pasture, and that was evident long before yesterday’s game.
Most of the guys I know were pretty disgusted with Brett’s soap opera, that became regular fare the past few years when he was deciding, in a very public way, about whether he’d come back for another year. So after his year with the Jets, when he maneuvered things to skip training camp (which he always hated) and became a Vikings player, I was more than moderately annoyed.
Even my wife, a reconstructed Bears fan from Chicago, informed me she was DONE with Brett when he went to work in Minnesota. She’d proudly worn her Packers #4 home jersey to New York City a year ago when she was there for a week on business, and enjoyed all the “Hey - thanks for Brett!” comments on the streets and subway of the Big Apple.
This year, when she was in New York City for a week in October, she took her Packers gear, but NOT the Favre Jersey. Apparently, when Favre was a Jets player, he was OK. But when he became a Vikings player - that’s IT.
As I checked the Facebook posts this morning, I noticed a lot of my female friends seem to hold a different position on Brett. There were the posts on the News Feed, made before kickoff yesterday afternoon, that said essentially “I hope Brett plays well but I want the Packers to win”; there were the ones that said “I don’t know who to cheer for”; and similar posts.
There was not much ambiguity whatsoever among my male Facebook friends. They wanted him to taste that frozen tundra in a very personal way.
One post, from a lady who’s been a friend a long time, clarified the issue for me. She put up a post during the game saying “Why does my family get mad at me when I cheer for Brett Favre?”. And there were comments on the post, from other women, who said essentially they like Brett but don’t like the Vikings.
The snarky Tim joined the thread by posting “Because your family are PACKERS fans”. I couldn’t resist.
The thing is, it seems clear to me and my male friends, that we can still appreciate Brett’s skill, but we can’t cheer for him. He’s a member of the team we like the least and hate the most, an NFC North rival. Just as Brewers fans can, if they want, cheer for C C Sabathia. He’s with the Yankees, and they’re in the American League. If he ever signs with the Cubs - or the Cards - no more cheering for the big guy.
It’s really very simple. We can’t cheer for Brett because now he’s using his skills against us. Can’t you ladies see that? We may be from different planets, but it's all so......tribal.
School-Building in Afghanistan
There was a piece on one of the national news broadcasts this weekend about how our troops are building schools in Afghanistan. You would think they’re doing this in their “spare time”, but apparently it’s a “job” they’ve been ordered to do.
At the end of World War Two, we rebuilt western Europe under the European Recovery Program, which everybody called “The Marshall Plan”, named after a wartime general who became Secretary of State. Most people don’t remember that we offered the same deal to Russia, but they weren’t interested.
It was very nice of us to help rebuild nations like France and Germany after the war. And we built lots of schools. And factories, and homes, and businesses. But this was done after our enemies in the big war had surrendered unconditionally.
I’m one of these people you run into every so often who hold the apparently unusual idea that our military, especially our overseas combat forces, shouldn’t be building schools, or directing traffic, or doing anything except combat and combat support.
Why on earth would we send combat troops to Afghanistan to build schools?
I know, I know. Some people say we’re making a lot of friends over there by building schools and fixing the roads (oh, wait -there aren’t that many roads) and doing other stuff that doesn’t involve blowing things up or hunting down Al-Qaida, or the Taliban, or whoever we’re hunting down over there.
There’s still quite a bit of public sentiment, apparently left over from the days when Dick Cheney was calling the shots, that we have to go over there and make a lot of friends, so the young folks there don’t grow up to hate us and want to blow us up.
The big general in charge over there, Stanley McChrystal, is apparently asking President Obama to send thousands and thousands more soldiers to Afghanistan. If ten soldiers can build one school in a hundred days, imagine how many schools could be built by ten thousand soldiers. And so on. You get the idea.
Excuse my snarkiness, but we’ve been over there eight years now. We should decide if we’re going to hunt down bin Laden, hunt down Al-Qaida, hunt down the Taliban, or train the locals to do that; or, if we’re just going to build schools or grocery stores or whatever.
If we decide the latter, then let’s just have “civilian contractors” do it, and have Blackwater provide security for them, and bring the soldiers home.
That would seem the “friendly” thing to do, to me.
At the end of World War Two, we rebuilt western Europe under the European Recovery Program, which everybody called “The Marshall Plan”, named after a wartime general who became Secretary of State. Most people don’t remember that we offered the same deal to Russia, but they weren’t interested.
It was very nice of us to help rebuild nations like France and Germany after the war. And we built lots of schools. And factories, and homes, and businesses. But this was done after our enemies in the big war had surrendered unconditionally.
I’m one of these people you run into every so often who hold the apparently unusual idea that our military, especially our overseas combat forces, shouldn’t be building schools, or directing traffic, or doing anything except combat and combat support.
Why on earth would we send combat troops to Afghanistan to build schools?
I know, I know. Some people say we’re making a lot of friends over there by building schools and fixing the roads (oh, wait -there aren’t that many roads) and doing other stuff that doesn’t involve blowing things up or hunting down Al-Qaida, or the Taliban, or whoever we’re hunting down over there.
There’s still quite a bit of public sentiment, apparently left over from the days when Dick Cheney was calling the shots, that we have to go over there and make a lot of friends, so the young folks there don’t grow up to hate us and want to blow us up.
The big general in charge over there, Stanley McChrystal, is apparently asking President Obama to send thousands and thousands more soldiers to Afghanistan. If ten soldiers can build one school in a hundred days, imagine how many schools could be built by ten thousand soldiers. And so on. You get the idea.
Excuse my snarkiness, but we’ve been over there eight years now. We should decide if we’re going to hunt down bin Laden, hunt down Al-Qaida, hunt down the Taliban, or train the locals to do that; or, if we’re just going to build schools or grocery stores or whatever.
If we decide the latter, then let’s just have “civilian contractors” do it, and have Blackwater provide security for them, and bring the soldiers home.
That would seem the “friendly” thing to do, to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)