A Commoner’s View

I think that, with respect to many things, you can divide the human race into two clear categories.  Those who care deeply about professional sports and those who think it’s weird that people are so passionate about grown-ups playing what are obviously children’s games.  Those who like heavy metal music and those who think it’s a secretly devised form of eardrum torture.

180519-royal-carriage-mc-1322_2___825391-nbcnews-ux-1080-600And those who care about things like today’s royal wedding, and not only will watch broadcasts of it from beginning to end but will drink tea and eat crumpets and display Union Jack flags and wear the kind of silly hats that our friends across the pond will happily don on such august occasions, and those who scratch their heads in bewilderment that anybody in America would refer to a complete stranger in a different country as a “royal” or speak knowingly about “Prince Harry” and “the Queen” or pay any attention whatsoever to their nuptials or to anything else they might do or say.

I’m in the second category.  I’ve never understood the fascination that some people have with the British monarchy, and when something like a wedding happens the attention that it draws seems to me like lunacy.  I’m not one of those people who thinks that Americans who are interested in this stuff are betraying their democratic roots or high-society wannabes, I just find it mystifying that anybody cares about it.  I suppose some people just like the pomp and pageantry that the Brits do so well, and enjoy talking about dresses and hats and the uniforms that the men wear.

Me?  I’d really rather watch sports.  In this world, I think, it takes all kinds.

Advertisements

Special Wedding Guests

You’d expect a wedding in the Bahamas to be different from a wedding in the Midwest, so it shouldn’t have come as a surprise when two bottlenose dolphins showed up after the ceremony. The dolphins and their trainers, from the UNEXSO facility next door, entertained the wedding guests with some precision acrobatics, flips, and well-crafted maneuvers. It was pretty amazing stuff.

Aside from a first-class dolphin show, other significant differences between midwestern weddings and Bahamian weddings would include lots of blue water, bright sunshine, guests in sunglasses, conch fritters during the cocktail hour, and potent rum drinks. It’s a good place for a wedding.

Reporting With A P.O.V.

When I attended the School of Journalism at the Ohio State University in the late ’70s, journalistic objectivity was the standard.  We were drilled in the Dragnet approach to reporting — i.e., “Just the facts, ma’am.”  Sure, the facts could be presented in a vigorous, colorful way — that’s what made for good reporting — but the personal opinions or views of reporters were strictly reserved for “opinion” pieces that would go on the op-ed page, and probably would be labeled “opinion,” to boot.

The approach of the professional journalism community to objectivity has changed a lot since then.  I thought about the changes when I read the lead paragraphs of this news article by AP reporter Foster Klug about the meeting between the North Korean and South Korean leaders today:

180425155911-north-korea-south-korea-meeting-2-exlarge-169“In a historic summit more striking for its extraordinary images than its substance, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in set aside a year that saw them seemingly on the verge of war, grasped hands and strode together Friday across the cracked concrete marking the Koreas’ border.

“The sight, inconceivable just months ago, may not erase their failure to provide any new measures on a nuclear standoff that has captivated and terrified millions, but it allowed the leaders to step forward toward the possibility of a cooperative future even as they acknowledged a fraught past and the widespread skepticism that, after decades of failed diplomacy, things will be any different this time.

“On the nuclear issue, the leaders merely repeated a previous vow to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons, kicking one of the world’s most pressing issues down the road to a much-anticipated summit between Kim and U.S. President Donald Trump in coming weeks.”

We’ll never know how the story of this historic meeting would have been written in the old, studiously objective days, before point of view journalism was accepted as the new normal.  It’s safe to say, though, it would not have suggested that the meeting lacked “substance,” stated that the meeting involved a “failure to provide any new measures on a nuclear standoff” and was viewed with “widespread skepticism,” and reported that the leaders “merely repeated a previous vow” and “kick[ed] one of the worl’s most pressing issues down the road.”  Imagine that kind of reporting at the U.S.-Soviet summit meetings of the ’60s, or Nixon’s visit to China!  It just didn’t happen.

Is the new journalism better than the old?  Proponents of point of view reporting say it simply recognizes reality, and that forcing reports to be mindlessly objective dehumanizes the reporter and fails to acknowledge that reporters bring a perspective to the story when they report it.  Perhaps, but I’m old school — in this case, literally.  I’d be much more comfortable if Foster Klug, whoever he is, left his perceptions, fears, and other baggage behind and simply gave us the facts — leaving it to us to draw our own conclusions.

The Syria Dilemma

There’s news this morning that the United States, Great Britain, and France have launched air strikes against the Assad regime in Syria.  The strikes are in response to what the three Western allies call a chemical weapons atrocity committed by the Assad regime on its own people, and are targeting laboratories, production facilities, storage facilities, and other elements of the regime’s chemical weapons capabilities.

5ad199560f2544131873fb90Nobody wants to see civilians assaulted by chemical weapons, of course, and I agree with President Trump that anyone who uses chemical weapons is a “monster.”  The problem is that the Assad regime denies any use of chemical weapons, and its allies — namely, Russia and Iran — are backing the regime.  Indeed, at one point Russia claimed that Great Britain had, for some elusive reason, staged the chemical attack.  The outlandishness of that claim gives us a pretty good idea of how to assess the relative credibility of the charges and countercharges concerning who did what.

But in the curious arena of international affairs, questions of credibility and truth, and right and wrong, often don’t mean much.  Attacking Syria will have consequences for our relations with Russia and Iran, such as they are, and might put other American allies, like Israel, at increased risk.  Of course, it could also risk drawing the United States deeper into the quagmire of internal disputes in a foreign nation, a la Afghanistan and Iraq.  On the other hand, do countries like the United States, France, and Great Britain, which have the ability to take concrete steps to try to stop the use of chemical weapons, have a moral obligation to do something like launching these attacks when international organizations like the United Nations prove to be incapable of protecting innocents from monstrous and barbaric attacks?

It’s a dilemma that is above my pay grade, and one which I hope our leaders have thought through thoroughly and carefully.  I’m all for stopping the use of chemical weapons, but it is the unpredictable long-term consequences that give me concern.

Threading A Needle

Is anything more frustrating and time-consuming than trying to thread a needle?  You squint, and try and miss, and feel like a clumsy idiot because your fine motor skills just aren’t capable of doing such detail work without enduring dozens of failures before you achieve success.  It’s such a pain in the ass that people use the phrase “trying to thread the needle” to convey something that is especially challenging and difficult.

But what if there is a better way to thread a needle — like the simple method shown in this Chinese language YouTube video?  We’ve been let in on an ancient Chinese secret!  This is the kind of thing that just might make me do more sewing!

Bracing For The Weirdest Summit Ever

According to news reports and a tweet from President Trump, there will be a summit meeting in the next two months between President Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un.  The agreement to set up a meeting was brokered by the South Korean government, and the place and time of the summit is currently being determined.  In the meantime, North Korea has agreed that it will not engage in any more missile testing until after the summit occurs.

Whenever and wherever it happens — if it happens at all — the meeting promises to be the weirdest, most closely watched, most unpredictable summit in history.

donald-trump-kim-jong-un-ap-mt-171101_16x9_992Viewed solely from the standpoint of normal diplomacy, this meeting will be highly unusual.  North Korea and the United States have no diplomatic relations of any kind, and no American President has ever met a North Korean leader.  In fact, the United States and North Korea technically remain in a state of war, because the Korean War ended in an armistice, not a peace treaty.   Even President Nixon’s famous trip to China, which reopened relations between America and China, was built upon a prior period of thawing relations and more diplomatic prep work than would occur before this summit.

Add to that the fact that President Trump and Kim Jong-Un have been trading venomous barbs about each other and engaging in lots of saber-rattling talk until now, and are two of the most unpredictable leaders in the world besides, and you have to wonder what the talks between the two of them will be like.  The diplomats and underlings who will be present, from both sides, will no doubt be desperately hoping that Kim Jong-Un and President Trump follow whatever scripts their respective sides have prepared — all the while knowing that history teaches that they probably won’t.  And the media, which carefully analyzed a handshake between President Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin when they first met, will have a field day examining and breathlessly reporting on every wink, nod, and offhand comment.

North Korea has long been a problem that has been ignored by world leaders, hoping it would just go away — but the provocative, destabilizing conduct of North Korea has gotten more and more dangerous as it has worked to develop nuclear weapons and tested long-range missiles.  Something needs to be done to get North Korea off the path of confrontation and into more normalized relations with the United States and the rest of the world.  Will The Weirdest Summit Ever be able to achieve that?  The world will be watching the weirdness, and holding its breath.

Cashless

Sweden is generally viewed as the most cashless country on the planet — so cashless, in fact, that authorities are getting a little worried about it.

newcollage_20sek_high_150210

In that Scandinavian land to the north, fully 36 percent of the people never pay for anything with cash — in Sweden, the currency is called the kronor — or use it only once or twice a year.  In 2017, only 25 percent of Swedes pay with cash at least once a week, down from 63 percent in 2013.  The amount of cash in circulation, generally, has fallen precipitously.  Some restaurants and shops don’t accept cash under any circumstances and post “no cash” signs in their windows, and even some bank branches don’t carry cash.  (Bank branches without cash?  What do tellers do?)

So, what’s the concern?  It centers on the elderly, who are accustomed to paying with cash and who might not be comfortable with paying with plastic or their cell phones — or even have access to those payment methods.  The decline in cash acceptance and cash use generally is being examined by Swedish government and the Swedish central bank to determine whether steps should be taken.

Will America eventually reach a similar point?  I hope not.  I like the idea of having a little cash in my pocket, in case the technology breaks down.  Sometimes it’s just easier to pay with cash, too.  And if you are an advocate for personal privacy, cash is a nice option because of its anonymity and untraceability compared to, say, a credit card swipe.  And there are some things that are always done with cash, and presumably always will be:  how would people looking for a handout or bus fare get along in a cashless society?