90 Second Commentaries that have aired or will air on KUSP, public radio
by Meade Fischer
Whatever your views on current events and politics, the events of 9/11/01 likely had a hand in shaping them. How you read the destruction of the World Trade Center will color your opinion of the war, the Patriot Act, and how you will probably vote.
The Bush administration saw this as an act of war and launched into a war mode. They also convinced the majority of Americans to agree that it was war.
There are many of us who saw 9/11 as much of Europe saw it, as a criminal act. Although it was, admittedly, a big and destructive criminal act, war is when another country attacks.
Terrorism is perpetrated by individuals or groups with a real or imagined grievance, usually people who don't play by the same civilized rules as the rest of us.
The Oklahoma City bombing was a act of terrorism and a criminal act, as were the actions of the SLA and the Unibomber. Besides the scope of the acts, perhaps they are perceived differently because they were done by Americans to Americans. But is it that simple?
If the people responsible for 9/11 were English or Canadian, would we have declared war on England or Canada? I sincerely doubt it. We would have gone after the criminal organization behind it.
However, they were Middle Eastern Muslims, so we attacked two middle eastern countries, but not Saudi Arabia, where most of the terrorists were from. The truth is drowning in confusing terminology and mixed messages.
Each day when I pick up the morning paper, it never gets any better. Wars, terrorism, unrest and general mayhem are the norm. It was that way long ago, and it'll be that way year from now.
Some people say it'll all be fine with a new president, a kinder religion, cleaner air, brotherly love, meditation. I don't think so. There's only one way to fix things.
We can't be allowed to run things any longer. By we, I mean my gender, men. We are so busy raising our legs to mark our territory, shopping for the biggest, fastest car, loudly claiming that we are the baddest on the block, that we end up practicing leadership by the sword.
Sure, some of us don't act that way, but we're not the ones who rise to power. It's the alpha males that run things, those whose mode of argument is a cultural variation of who has the brightest tail feathers or the longest antlers.
While I don't completely understand how women lead, they can do it without all the head butting and bullying. Can they lead all the world's powers and bring peace and prosperity? I don't know, but it's quite clear that we haven't and can't. For the sake of the continuation of our species, we need to move over and let them try.
We can still be legislators, middle manageres, and all the rest. But, at the top, behind the desk where the buck stops there'll be a woman.
Oddly enough I see a weird connection between Arnold Schwarzenegger's election and my efforts as a writer. There are best selling writers who are wonderful and deserve their fame and fortune. There are others whom I've tried to read, only to give up on, thinking that I could have handled the material far better.
Arnold has had a successful career. Was he the best body builder in the world? The judges obviously thought so. Was he one of our best actors? Not even close. Of the 135 candidates for governor, was he the most qualified? Certainly not. He has no real qualifications or experience, yet, he won by a large margin.
What, you may wonder, does that have to do with an obscure writer whose books sell monthly in the single digits? Ability or talent, while useful, aren't necessarily the best barometers of success. Often those who are the most talented artists, writers, statesmen, or businessmen are not highly successful. At least as important is the talent for self promotion. The person who can market and sell himself often can rise to the top with only a modicum of ability. Sometimes the ability to predict transient trends and fads and play to those is enough.
One old expression that seems to fit this election is "The triumph of style over substance." The state that gave us Hollywood, has given us a Hollywood recall. Now, we will see if style alone is enough to fix California's economic woes.
Daily reports of war causalities reminds me of an uncomfortable truth: war has always been with us and will always remain with us unless we make some very major changes to our ways of thinking.
One obvious change is our culture's type of obsession with material things that leads us to take by force what we can't buy at rock bottom prices.
Less obvious is our attitude toward leaders. This isn't just political. We tend to idolize, follow and try to mimic people we consider to be bigger than life. These can be sports figures, movie stars, rock singers, business leaders, and politicians. By placing these people on a pedestal, we attribute some vague kinds of superhuman qualities to them and therefore take what they say or do with little or no critical examination. In short, we adopt heroes and leaders and fixate on them to the point of following them into the wars which will likely kill us.
We can reverse this dangerous trend by taking a first step, one which I took many years ago. I recognize no heroes or leaders. Sure, there are people I admire and respect and whose examples have given me insights into my own path--in my case, iconoclasts all-- but I've always seen these people as just people, excellent in some respects, but with feet of clay.
Great leaders are rare. One of our best, George Washington, rejected many hero worshipers' desires to make him a king. He was an exception.
At the recent Santa Cruz County Fair, as I walked past the Republican Party booth, one of the people manning the booth came out and stopped me. He asked, in a voice that invoked the sharing of some great injustice, if I knew about the County's tax on our phone bill, which I believe he claimed was one and a half percent and had been passed without being put to a popular vote.
The man was well dressed in casual clothes, and he didn't give the impression of being near the poverty line. While looking at him, I made a quick calculation. On a $50 phone bill, the extra tax would amount to 75 cents, the price of a candy bar. Yet, the man felt it should be put to a vote, and by implication, voted down. My response was that I'm willing to pay more taxes, not less, to get the services a civil society wants and needs. He clearly didn't believe me.
This stand against taxes struck me as much the same attitude that stymied the State legislature and led to our budget woes. Our elected officials, after all, are required to pay the bills.
I find it hard to imagine the pettiness of not wishing to pay a small amount in taxes to keep County programs viable, regardless of which programs the tax funds. Unless we are hermits, we all dip into the common well, and we should all gladly pay our fair share.
Meade Fischer
Watching our new kitten brought some insights into our society's attitudes. At an age when he should still have the security of him mother, the kitten cried when ignored and purred when held. Letting him sleep with us is making him seem more secure.
This made me think about how we treat our infants, consigning them to a crib, which at best is in a corner of the parent's bedroom or at worst in a different room altogether.
Anything young and helpless necessarily feel vulnerable, and the night is the scariest time off all, a time when nameless predators are on the prowl. No wonder we all grow up feeling very insecure.
So, is it any wonder that when a band of fanatics perpetrate a heinous criminal act on one of our cities, we collapse into a spiral of fear and anxiety.
Sept. 11, 2001 is still on everyone's lips, especially President Bush. Even though it's a three year old event, it's being thought of as current. The mention of this date is meant to excite our deepest fears and insecurities, and it is often invoked as a way to capture public support.
Much of the American public, subconsciously recalling those frightening nights as an infant, are afraid there is a terrorist behind every tree, even though we don't have the weekly terrorist attacks that are part of life in many countries.
Realistically, we'll never be perfectly safe, but we are so much safer than most people in this world.
People become upset when reminded that the U.S. government spends $750 for a screwdriver, but no one seems to mind California spending 15 billion for a band aide.
With the unfortunate defeat of prop. 56, which would have ended a minority of legislators' stranglehold on the budget and those unmet deadlines, we are left with the Governor's big borrowing option. We'll spend borrowed billions to pay for running state programs and covering salaries, and when it's gone we'll be back where we started plus having a major repayment problem. Ask anyone who is in debt up to their ears, borrowing doesn't solve financial problems or balance check books.
We can close our schools, lay off police and firemen, stop fixing our roads, and refuse care for our elderly and infirm, or we can raise taxes.
We cannot run the country's most populous state on chump change. We have a big, thriving economy, but it won't thrive long if we fail to provide the basics that people have come to expect from state government.
People cite waste as reasons to deny tax increases, but a certain amount of waste is unavoidable. When a member of your family grocery shops, a candy bar or bag of cookies is likely to materialize in the basket. Waste! But does that mean you shouldn't let that person shop again?
There is a misconception that taxes are imposed upon us. Actually, we tax ourselves to provide services we require and which we can't purchase individually.
Michael Jackson is charged with a serious crime, not one that many would ignore, but in fact would want to see prosecuted. I don't want to second guess the legal system by declaring him guilty or innocent. What has my attention is the similarities in the public response to the O.J. Simpson trial and the celebrations that followed his acquittal. Fans are now rallying, and holding vigils in Jackson's behalf.
It seems to me that there are a couple of mindsets that would cause people to take that kind of action. One is similar to the idea that rank has its privilege. Laws are made for the common folk, but famous people are somehow above the law. This is perhaps why people excuse the current administration's abuse of our constitution.
Another mindset seems to maintain that a celebrity who is worthy of the adoration of fans must be morally and ethically impeccable. They love him and follow his work, therefore he must be innocent and incapable of criminal action.
There is a third possibility, one that is almost too horrible to contemplate. Perhaps people are rallying to Michael Jackson's defense without any reason at all. Like the mob mentality, these people might just be reacting without framing a justification, thoughtlessly and purely emotionally.
I shudder at this extreme version of pure democracy, the wave of blind emotion that elevates criminals to heroes and lynches people who seem somehow different. Groups of people in this state turn quickly into a weapon.
People at De Anza Mobile Home Park are worried and angry at the loss of rent control, which may make it nearly impossible to sell their homes.
There is a simple solution to the plight of these mobile home park residents and their problems stemming from loss of rent control. We need a new law on the books, preferably at the state level, that states that a residential building and the land it sits on cannot be owned by different parties. This law would need a five year phase out schedule, during which the residents could buy out the park owner, or the park owner could buy, at fair market price, the coaches. This would effectively turn all mobile home parks into either resident owned (coops) or the equivalent of apartments.
Even if the park owners elect to spend millions to buy out the residents, the $200,000 plus sale price would pay the increased rent for over a decade. However, the price of buying dozens of pricey coaches would likely cause many park owners to consider selling. The residents could then negotiate the price and collectively obtain a loan.
The present arrangement worked well when the typical mobile home was cheap , cheaply made, and actually fairly mobile. Now they are expensive , built to last, and built to stay put. However, without land to place them on, they are almost worthless, leaving many people's biggest investment vulnerable.
Perhaps we should suggest this solution to our elected officials.
When people talk about diversity, they usually mean various ethnic groups. But, what about diversity in the urban landscape?
Until recently I've been on the mailing list of a group that opposes the expansion of the Watsonville airport. I've worked with the leader of this group on a school board campaign, and we both oppose the war in Iraq. That doesn't, however, mean we see eye to eye on everything. I asked him what his perfect scenario for the airport would look like, and he said something about houses and retail. Well, on my side of town housing is going up daily, and we've had many retail development recently. Cookie cutter houses, chain box stores, and fast food strip malls make a very uniform and boring cityscape.
This gentleman claims the airport is losing money, and the city says it makes money, and I find sub atomic physics easier to understand than accounting, so depending on how you juggle the numbers, they are likely both right. But that's not the important point.
There is only one airport in Santa Cruz County. It's used by business, rich hobbyists, and even working people who go in with groups of friends to afford a plane. Then there are the businesses that lease airport land, business that offer items I may rarely need but are available nowhere else.
Watsonville Aviation, United Flight Service, Curtis Shaw Aircraft Sales, the aviation education center, and Zuniga's on the runway, add diversity to an otherwise monotonous town.
Driving I-80 through Nevada, cruise control set at 75, CD in the changer, bag of chips and soda in the lap, and feeling relaxed: that's what comes to mind when we think about building or widening a highway. Reality isn't quite so charming.
I recall living (if you could call it that) in Southern California in the 70s. I lived in Long Beach and the San Gabriel River Freeway was just being completed and connected to the San Diego Freeway. Day one, scarcely a soul on the road, doing almost 80, scattered houses surrounded by fields on both sides of the road. Day 200: traffic almost stopped, cars inching down the ramps, houses as far as the eye could see.
The dream of unrestricted travel lasted only months. No matter how often this scenario is played out, planners always offer more, bigger, wider freeways as the solution to our traffic problems. Truthfully, you can build houses much faster than freeways, so you never catch up.
These same planners say that public transportation is under utilized. If we put the effort, money and planning into public transportation that we put into freeways, it would attract loads of people. Put in a commuter train that will take people all the way from Watsonville to the Boardwalk, and you have that train packed on weekends an in the summer. Put surfboard holders on the sides of the cars, and I'll ride the train.
With a bit of vision and imagination, no more traffic problem.
Two little words, "Under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance about the time I entered junior high. I've never really cared for that addition, and I care less for it now as the political clout of organized religion has increased. Now, the Supreme Court will decide if these words stay or go.
These two words fail to further the point of our Pledge--addressed to the flag as a symbol of our Country--which is to affirm our support for the Nation's guiding principles of unity, liberty, and justice. However, if congress wishes to expand the scope of the Pledge to include beliefs implicitly held by most Americans, more additions may be necessary.
Americans are strong supporters of capitalist economics, so we should add, "With unlimited business opportunities for all." We also love our TV, radio, movies, and magazines, so let's include, "Under continual media onslaught."
Since ads are inseparable from media, "With freedom to advertise anything at any time." While we're at it, we need to address America's love of professional sports, fast foods, instant communication, and massive public works projects.
I'm afraid I'm enough of a cynic that I need to propose that we include statements supporting political hypocrisy and hyperbole, unfounded allegations, and advocating untenable positions.
To get it right, congress will take a few years hammering it all out. Unfortunately, the final version will be so long that by the time students recite it, there will be no time left for academics.
This sounds odd from an environmentalist, but it seems the only solution. I'm trading in our economy vehicles for a Hummer and a motor home. Also, since fossil fuel generates our electricity, we'll be running the air conditioner and leaving the lights, computer, TV, etc, on continually.
I haven't lost my mind nor become a Bush neo-conservative. Our society is hopelessly in love with motor vehicles, and big oil won't give alternative energy a real chance. So, we're stuck with oil, its pollution and politics as long as the stuff lasts.
Luckily the supply is finite. Once the last drop is gone, we'll have no choice but to investigate other energy sources. But, how long can it last? If we conserve, this situation could persist for many decades. If we waste it even faster than we're doing, oil could be history in a generation.
Earth will heal itself, starting the moment we stop injuring it. When no smoke pours from factories or cars, the planet can start cleaning itself. Also, oil politics lurk behind wars and international manipulations. Once no nation has oil, we'll have little reason to meddle in others' affairs or to colonize them. Besides, without oil, we'd find it difficult to attack a small town.
Rather than warring, we'll be mixing up biodiesel, erecting windmills, and installing solar panels. Rather than smoggy freeways, we'll have electric cars on country lanes. Best of all, those who now get massive tax cuts will be lobbying for larger welfare checks.
Apparently, reincarnation doesn't always progress chronologically, as I'm beginning to discover. I'm starting to realize that I was somehow born into a primitive, dark age. Although I'd always suspected, I understand now that I've been thrown back almost to the dawn of awareness. Therefore this will be placed in a time capsule to amuse people in the civilized future.
Many consider themselves sportsmen, not by participating, but by watching sports in front of a TV while consuming high calorie snacks.
They choose their leaders, not by detailed analysis, but through short, often repeated slogans known as sound bites. Usually, they know nothing substantial about the people who will run their societies.
They break these societies into arbitrary groups and obsess over minor differences in customs and language. "Ethnic" is the term for these minor differences, which produce friction that sometimes grows into international incidents, and erupts into violence and war, even though an outsider can see no differences between these groups.
.
The strangest thing about these people is religion. That's right, most of these people still believe that whatever force or intelligence created the vast universe is personally concerned with the little details of their lives and has devised intricate sets of arbitrary rules for each ethnic group to follow in order to curry divine favor. Not only do they believe this, but they slaughter each other by the millions over it, all of this in the name of a loving god.
And I've got to live with these people.
Meade Fischer
I suspect that Andy Rooney is God. Yes, the curmudgeonly 60 Minutes commentator.
Let's compare this venerable newsman with any reasonable conception of divinity. God's been around a long time, and Rooney seems old enough to qualify.
Also God is infallible. I've listened to Rooney for years, and he's on the mark every time, grabbing the essence of each topic and telling it exactly as it is.
Look at God's attributes, we assume He is knowledgeable about any subject. Rooney's comments cover every part of our lives, from the organization of our work space, to junk mail, to selecting the President. He hasn't skipped a subject, and he always uncovers the truth.
Despite claims of ancient prophets, it's unlikely that God would trust his message to one person. No individual is that special. It's an ineffectual way of getting the word out, ineffectual and untrustworthy, as people's memories aren't perfect. "What was that?" The prophet muses. "Don't eat meat on Friday, or beets on Tuesday?" To avoid confusion, God needs to address everyone. How better than on a weekly news show.
Besides addressing everyone, He would have to phrase his comments as gentle suggestions, because man does have that free will thing. Rooney almost makes these dictums to the humanity seem like humorous observations. How deviously holy of him.
I could be wrong, but as a pragmatist, I should cover the possibilities. So, after thanking Ahuru Mazda, the Great Spirit, and Allah, I'll add an extra prayer to Andy Rooney.
Meade Fischer
The daily paper contains endless accounts of atrocities, people beaten, arrested, or killed for speaking out against the powers that be. Where does this happen? Pick a country, any country.
It's not surprising that those in charge, the leaders, generals, and money interests would do these things. After all, they have a vested interest in maintaining their wealth and power. They are also on the privileged side of the great social divide. What seems odd is that regular people, those without money or power would be the willing instruments of these atrocities. Quite often those people are the police and military.
You read accounts of people in uniform crushing the skulls of neighbors. Generally, these people are told to keep order, to stop a demonstration, to keep people behind a certain line. It's doubtful, even in the most oppressive country, that individuals are given detailed instructions about how they should interact with the populace. Rather, they seem to be able to regard their fellow citizens as something less than human, vermin to be eradicated.
Clearly, we're not going to solve man's inhumanity to man just by focusing on those in charge. We need to work on educating everyone about tolerance of other's views and beliefs. People have to look behind another's politics, religion, or customs to see simply another human being.
Everyone has basic human rights, including the right to speak out when they've been dealt with unfairly, even the demonic, sicko, space aliens who disagree with me.
All the debate about gay marriage has gotten me thinking about something I'd never thought about before and had never wished to think about, what goes on behind people's bedroom doors. Once these things were personal, but now they're the public's business, and they need to be addressed by responsible citizens everywhere.
Obviously, many people are put off by the idea of gay intimacy, but I can't help thinking about other off-putting, unnatural couples. The idea of a democrat marrying a republican is frightening to picture, as is the union of a Muslim and a Christian, or a Hindu and a Jew. Imagine, if you have the stomach for it, the marriage of an Armenian and a Chinese, a Canadian and an American, or perhaps a banker and a hippie. Picture an intimate scene between a miser and a spendthrift, or a religious fundamentalist and a new ager. There clearly is perversion everywhere you look.
Ever since the whole San Francisco gay marriage flap, these images have been popping up in my mind, and quite frankly, they are making me quite ill. I wish I could stop imagining these unnatural couples in the privacy of their scandalous bedrooms. No wonder people protest.
Perhaps the whole concept of marriage needs to be reconsidered. Or maybe the government should require a 500-item questioner from marital candidates, coupled with an extensive background check and perhaps wire-tapping. It's really important that we make sure marriage is kept between absolutely normal people.
Meade Fischer
It's the 49ers and Raiders competition for the political types. I'm talking about supporting your team and calling the other team bums. Except these teams are the Isrealies and the Palestinians, and to them it's not a game. Like people around northern California who are loyal to their football team even if they don't live in San Francisco or Oakland, people who have never lived in the middle east and aren't Arab nor Jew have joined the ranks of loyal fans.
To these folks one group is fighting for freedom and their commendable way of life, while the other are murderous barbarians. The accusations are the same whether they are directed at the Isrealies or the Palestinians. One side can do no right, the other, no wrong.
The pro Isreal fans tend to be conservative, while Palestinian cheer leaders tend to be liberals. It's as if this middle east war is mearly a football in a game between our two political poles, and every bombing or shelling scores a point for either the left or the right.
I'm sure these people aren't blowing each other up for the benefit of our political process. I'd even bet they are more concerned with their own pressing problems, such as survival, than our lively debates in trendy wine bars.
So who are the good guys? It's the age old story about a small parcel of land with two very different groups who want it, need it and are willing to fight for it.
Meade Fischer
Protesters at UCSC managed to stop military recruiters from selling military service on campus. That may seem a good or a bad thing, depending on your view of the armed services. However, this speaks to more than one's point of view.
If the university had established a policy, with an appropriate rationale, that kept recruiting off campus, that would be reasonable. Accomplishing these goals through disruptive protests may not be reasonable.
Personally, I'm not fond of the military. I think we use it to push our agenda on other countries far more than for our own defense. I also believe in free speech and the right of people to express their disapproval of things military. But, the problem with free speech is that if you claim it for yourself, you can't deny it to others. There are, like it or not, others who see the military as a great career move or who long for the chance to go shoot at the bad guys. They have the same rights we do.
If at this place and this time, you shout down others and stop them from having their say, another place and time will come when you are shouted down and silenced. I certainly don't like to hear Bill O'Rielly or Rush Limbaugh, but if I demand their silence, someone will certainly come along and demand mine. For this reason I applaud free speech from all fronts. However, I caution the listener to beware.
Meade Fischer
It's called a consumer's culture! One Sunday we drove over the hill to a new shopping sprawl: all the chain stores. It was one of those mazes designed so you almost have to drive to each store by passing almost every other store, including the steel and plastic fast food purgatories. I walked between two areas, dodging cars and taking my life in my hands.
While my wife was shopping, I went into a book store that has a coffee bar. I ordered a medium coffee, about a buck and a half's worth. The gal asked if I had a discount membership frequent shopper card. I didn't. "Ok, then that'll be $139.95 plus tax. Want a $50 donut with that?"
The worst part was the purchase that drove us over the hill. A door we wanted was on sale at one of those huge home improvement stores, one that dwarfs the Oakland Sports Arena. The employee physical fitness program is walking from one end to the other.
Winded, we finally found the doors, but there was no one to help us. Desperate, I jumped in front on an employee, forcing him to slow. "I have a question about a door." "Sorry," he says, "I work in plumbing." I cornered another guy, cutting off his escape route. When I asked my question, he responded, "That's a metal door. I'm in wood doors."
We spent six hours to buy five things and save 20 bucks, plus all the stress. What a bargain.
A few years ago I became an ordained minister on line. I didn't attend a seminary, but it's legal none the less. It's spured my spiritual growth to the point where I think I should start my own religion. I'll call it The Church of ongoing Creation.
Basic tenets will be:
1.Long ago God created a really wonderful universe.
2.Since then God has departed (died, been reabsorbed into the creation, whatever--gone).
3. Our way of remembering and showing respect for God is to continue Her good work, to keep the process of creating a great universe going.
A religion should have ten commandments. How are these?
1. Thou shalt not trash the Earth.
2. Thou shalt not put politics above the lives of living things.
3. Thou shalt not argue with other religions over who is right or wrong.
4. Thou shall make up new religious rituals each year, discarding the old ones.
5. Thou shalt not use money as an excuse to act like swine.
6. Thou shalt not use poverty as an excuse to act clueless or helpless.
7. Thou shalt not think your group deserves any more than any other group.
8. Thou shall respond to all important current issues with humor.
9. Thou shall remember that thou are carrying on where God left off.
10. Thou shalt not take thyself seriously.
Whenever things are going poorly, our members will remember a basic truth: God is gone; these are our problems and our responsibility.
Dictators and a question of balance