RSS

Monthly Archives: November 2012

Rescue Worthiness

 

The local 24-hour news coverage has ceased and regularly scheduled programming has resumed. Field reporters are back to their irregular but predictable sleep schedules. The discerning viewer will notice that reporter and reader’s roots have been touched up and in some cases; skin re-bronzed. Television is letting us know that the immediacy has ended. Soon the ads imploring people to give to a nationally recognized relief organization will ebb. The crisis of Hurricane Sandy will quickly become one that is long-term and far more complicated to remedy.

Soon people will have the first tier of their needs met (clothing, food, water, and some form of shelter.) In a few months, shuttered hospitals and schools will reopen, and the last of the storm damage refuse will be removed. Temporary housing will have to be erected or reconfigured out of empty space. Health issues, both mental and physical will arise and hopefully be addressed. Soon the long-term problems will be more than any well-organized and well-meaning band of traveling volunteers could possibly remedy.

After the sodden drywall and molded carpeting is hauled away what is there for a volunteer to do? Once people can cook and store food once again, the hot meal preparations and delivery will end. When the mud and sand have gone away, the cleaning supply donations will cease and the tired and dirty shovel wielding helpers will go home. And that is good.

But what of the people that did not have access to food (hot or cold) or shelter before the hurricane? One of the more (morally) troubling stories to be reported after the storm was that of the evacuation of Bellevue. The evacuation was long and arduous and two patients were left behind (intentionally; they weren’t able to make it down the stairs.) Many of the residents of the Men’s Shelter (located in the section of Bellevue previously used as a psychiatric facility) were now living in a high school with other storm evacuees. (You may have heard of this particular temporary shelter, as the sanitary conditions were horrific.) When it came time to reopen the school the sheltered were escorted out. It is not entirely clear where the former residents of the Bellevue Men’s Shelter went. Nor do we know where the couple, previously living in the evacuated Penn Station, went. But the issues raised are clear and difficult to ignore.

During the crisis period, it’s doubtful that anyone was turned away from food, water and clothing distribution. But as we move into the next phase, when housing must be found for as many as 30,000; not everyone will be welcome. It’s doubtful that those without benefit of housing prior to the storm will be offered housing after the storm. People who were in need of food, water, clothing and shelter prior to the storm will still be in need after the volunteers go home. If anything their access to scarce resources will be diminished, as no doubt those who were previously teetering on the edge of homelessness were pushed full force by the surge of the storm.

There are no easy solutions. We’ve witnessed the enormity of people’s generosity during what is packaged as a crisis. Living as if we are in perpetual crisis is neither sustainable nor desirable. But broadening our definition of crisis would help us channel the very best of humanity to help those most in need. Yes, it is simpler and far more manageable to restore people to their stasis after an external wallop. Perhaps if we shifted our focus from cause to solution, we would find it all less daunting. Why someone is residing in Penn Station is somewhat beside the point. If we agree that all people should have access to safe housing, food, mental and physical health care then back story is beside the point. No one is more or less worthy of stability and care. We know that and during our best moments we feel it.

We have seen an impressive (and functional) collaboration of; state, federal, local, private, public, religious and corporate efforts during the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. We now know it can be done. We are left wondering why it isn’t done everyday.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 15, 2012 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

This Just In

There is much to love about new media and greater access to information. The average person (with high speed internet access) can view primary source news in real time throughout the day. If a consumer chooses to, he/she can avail him or herself to messaging from politicians or experts who fly somewhat below the mainstream radar. This level of accessibility democratizes the flow of information for both the source and for the user.

There is a downside to the immediacy and the abundance of the information. Lack of (or flawed) fact checking has become a serious issue both in legitimate journalism and in the blogosphere. Some of these slips are no doubt due to the speed of the news cycle. A certain percentage of slips are a product of ignorance of the very concept of fact checking. (There are a significant number of people who actually consider wikipedia to be a primary source.) It’s also worth a mention that the editing profession ain’t what it once was. One need only pick up a book published (by self or house) in the past few years to witness the change.

Another unfortunate fallout from the glut of information is all the information! It is challenging to weed through so much noise to get to what matters. Rumors or sensational (baseless) accusations turn into news; because quite frankly legitimate news outlets cannot afford to ignore a story everyone is talking/tweeting about. Stories that were once the purview of the National Enquirer, People or any other tabloid, now find themselves in the evening news and newspapers of record. These distasteful ‘stories’ diminish the news source for some viewers/readers. Consumers who have made a point of avoiding the magazines in doctor’s offices and television monitors in airports now find their sensibilities offended in new and distressing ways.

There was a time when people would read the local newspaper for which they felt an affinity. There were New York City newspapers in the double-digits and with multiple daily editions! The network evening news choices were dry and authoritative (the monkey was only on in the morning.) Consumers received their news via a highly filtered process. Somewhere between processed news and raw news lies a happy medium. The consumer is now the editor and very few of us are equipped to do our own fact checking or redlining.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 14, 2012 in Media/Marketing

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Parent’s Student Debt

During the past few years parents have been borrowing money for their children’s education with increasing frequency. Consumer loans, credit card loans (and the scariest of all) home equity loans are taken to provide higher education to children. Presumably much of this debt is incurred due to a sense of obligation to one’s children. In theory it’s hard to fault such sentiment but in actuality it’s terribly flawed.

  • Higher Education is not a birthright
  • Incurring debt for someone else’s asset is risky
  • Parents (by definition) are older than their children & have less time to rebuild assets

It can be a dreadful feeling to discover you cannot give your child everything you wish for them. It is the rare parent who has not had his Bob Cratchit moment at one time or another. If we were to redefine what we wish for our children we might be able to assuage those Cratchit moments. Do we really wish for our children to attend a four-year private college, and study whatever they choose without cost consciousness? If so, why? Why would we think that shielding a young adult from making realistic decisions about economics and their future is ‘giving them everything?’ Isn’t giving them a realistic understanding of dollars and sense and the world at large, a gift that will last a lifetime? College isn’t (or shouldn’t be) summer camp. It’s not a protected and posh enclave where our adult children should experience life. If it ever wasn’t it simply isn’t anymore. College is a commodity and should be treated as such. Higher education is not one size fits all. We spend a lot of energy trying to match a student’s interests and personality with an institution. Affordability is the starting point for the selection process. If a four-year private college is not affordable, the value to a student of a community college+public college is far higher than a private college.

Public college still costs money and the person to incur that debt (if there must be debt) is the student. If the parent can help the student repay the loan, wonderful. Besides the obvious very real economic risks to a parent in incurring debt on behalf of a child, there is risk to the child as well. Being shielded from the realities of financial life does not help anyone make practical decisions. Being aware of the burden a parent has taken on also affects decisions. Attending college without contributing in a significant manner (i.e., summer jobs, scholarships, loans, work-study, etc.) is no longer the norm, and hasn’t been for quite some time. College is not finishing school and it’s not a series of laurel wreath opportunities. It’s a means to an end and a significant number of students don’t achieve that end. (Imagine losing one’s house or retirement without even a child’s bachelor’s degree to show for it!) Nothing helps a person (especially a young person) take something more seriously when it’s his or her own money at stake.

College has become crucial for future workers; as such we need to rid ourselves of our romanticism about the experience. Getting ready for the big great world is a process. It shouldn’t start after tossing one’s cap in the air. Putting one’s home or future security in jeopardy to delay that process is simply unwise.

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 12, 2012 in Education

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

An Affair To Dismember

Just hours apart the head of the C.I.A. and the president (& C.E.O. elect) of Lockheed Martin have resigned. These leaders of national security organizations were driven to resign after their adulterous activities were uncovered. If you are a reader from another country you may be scratching your head at this point and wondering why people feel forced to resign because of betraying their wives. How could such a personal failing have any bearing on professional competence? Both men are reported to have had relationships with willing and of age partners. How does this become the concern of anyone, besides the aggrieved spouse?

A good place to start would be with the word; ‘security.’ The C.I.A. is pretty clear about which behaviors could compromise employees and potentially national security. Of course the very notion that an individual could be compromised by their own adultery is predicated on the assumption that the canoodling spouse believes what they are doing is Top Secret. That’s a rather illogical assumption. There are some people who conduct affairs in the open, but for most people it is more of a dark shadow, sunglasses kind of endeavor. There are mental health professionals who would suggest that the slinkiness is part of the appeal. Assignations happen in out of the way spots at odd hours because people fear being caught. If one fears being caught how can being caught a) come as a surprise or b) have the power to compromise? The very notion that discovery of adultery, in 2012, still has the power to cause someone to spill state secrets is almost quaint. The pain an adulterer causes to his spouse has not diminished in the least. But the power to scandalize has.

Is it incredibly bad judgment to engage in an extra-marital affair when your employer has made clear it’s ground for dismissal? Most certainly. But the puzzlement is that it is grounds for dismissal at all. Adultery in and of itself is destructive and hostile, but very personal. We all make terrible judgments in our personal lives from time to time. Sometimes we engage in actions or neglect that are as destructive as adultery. But shouldn’t we be allowed to weave our web of personal misery in peace?

There are jobs that by their very nature compromise our personal life. Certainly leading the C.I.A blurs the line a bit between personal and professional. A person knows that by taking a certain job they will almost always be “on.” They should probably stayed clothed in public and avoid public debauchery. But being a good spouse or parent or adult child shouldn’t be a job requirement. Cheating on your spouse is no more of a moral failing than divorcing your wife of forty years (who put you through school) to marry your 25-year old intern. How is adultery a lack of judgment but neglecting your aging parent is not?

We’ve decided that elected officials and government appointees agree to a higher degree of scrutiny and lack of privacy. But what of corporate leaders? Would anyone stop going to Best Buy because the (former) C.E.O. stepped out on his wife? Is Lockheed Martin’s ability to perform inextricably linked to their C.E.O.’s adherence to his marriage vows? Maybe. But in a world of multiple corporate misdeeds and seemingly endless political corruption it can all seem like a bright and shiny diversion.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 10, 2012 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Dateline: Twitter

If the 2008 election was the first grassroots get out the vote campaign (in recent memory) than 2012 was the first social media campaign. Since the dawn of the electoral process candidates (and their supporters) have said outrageous things. These statements, either patently false or a scathing truth about a candidate’s character, would mostly go unnoticed. Conversations or speeches made at fundraisers, or other “invitation-only” events might leak out but rarely with any consequence. Candidates making outrageous (if not flat out insane) misinformed statements regarding reproductive biology might be quoted in local media. If the statement or story was sensational enough perhaps national media would have picked up the story. But there was always still a chance that a whispered conversation or two might be able to quash a story.

But today all bets are off and there are few places to hide. Advances in hardware and software have created an everyman press corps. Audio and visual recording can be made with phones. Social media has created a souped-up uber-grapevine. The more outrageous the statement the higher it will trend. A statement made in public, which might have been reported in print, now can become a catchphrase/punchline in 24 hours.

Tradition media is influenced by all of this. Every candidate and his or her cadre of spin machinists know this. Which means that when a candidate utters something worthy of a hardcore Scooby Doo “huh?” reaction we can only guess what he/she has been trained not to say.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 8, 2012 in Cultural Critique, Media/Marketing

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,