Category: Commentary Page 15 of 16

When you come to a fork in the road, take it.

-Yogi Berra                                                                                                            

One of the things that we’ve all done during COVID is to develop new pastimes that we pursue at home while maintaining social distance. One of the things that I did was to start maintaining bird feeders. At last count I have three seed feeders and two suet feeders. At one time I had two window mounted feeders attached with suction cups. However, squirrels continuously jumped at the window feeders, knocking them off and scratching the windows in the process. They were soon retired.

Of course, it was a short trip from bird feeding to bird watching. I have become quite interested in the different types of birds and often sit on the deck with my binoculars, spotting scope and bird books (and of course a martini or glass of wine). One day while watching the birds swarming the feeders, fighting each other for perch space and eating everything in sight, Margie and I were talking about a friend who just picks at their food. I commented that the person “eats like a bird”. Suddenly, watching how the birds really eat I got to thinking it made no sense to compare a picky eater to a bird, because birds seem to eat continuously and eat everything you put out.

Well, this got me thinking about other such sayings. The first one that came to mind was “work like a dog.” I’ve had a lot of dogs in my lifetime and most of them spent about 18 hours a day asleep, so I don’t know when all this proverbial work was supposed to have taken place. And the animal sayings just get better. How about “happy as a clam”? Are clams really happy? Would we even know? Would it make you happy to be buried in mud in cold water? Consider “fine as frog hair”.  I mean really, how does that even begin to make sense?  And then there’s “ bee’s knees”.  Even if we assume that bees have knees, why would that represent something cool or hip?

And the animal sayings that make no sense go on from there: “wise as an owl”, “sly as a fox”, “memory like an elephant”.  I’m sure you have many more of these that you can add as well.

A saying that has always bewildered me is “the exception that proves the rule”.  If there’s an exception is there really a rule or is it more likely a suggestion. And, why would an exception actually prove it? It would seem to me it would disprove it.

A friend recently reminded me of another nonsensical saying that has always left me scratching my head. I’m sure you all know: “in a New York minute”. So, is time faster in New York? Are New Yorkers too busy for a 60 second minute and need a shorter one? Just how long is a New York minute anyway? What if we discover a New York minute really is longer?

I’m working on this post on Thanksgiving Day while Margie is making a pumpkin pie. And that of course leads to the inevitable recalling of that great nonsensical saying “easy as pie”.  While eating pie might be pretty easy, making pie is not. Particularly, if you’re making a homemade crust. I once tried to make a pie crust. It proved to be far more difficult I had expected. And it certainly was not “easy as pie”.

As long as we’re talking about cooking, “a watched pot never boils”.  Of course, it’s going to boil.  It just seems like it won’t if you’ve got nothing better to do than sit and stare at it.

And “pardon my French”.  Why did French become a euphemism for profanity?  Why not German or Italian or maybe “pardon my Norwegian“?

Now on the surface it would seem that “ugly as sin” makes sense.  But with further thought, it’s the result of sin that is ugly.  Sin itself has to be pretty attractive for us to be so drawn to it.

“Cold as hell”.  No further discussion needed.

I’m sure everyone has their own favorite nonsensical saying.  Please share them with us. 

And, if you can explain why a mess has to be hot, I will be very grateful.

Finally, why do people say grumpy like it’s a bad thing? That’s the ultimate nonsense.

There was a time when people were able to disagree without being disagreeable. There were no “lines in the sand”. People were able to reach accommodation and agreement for the common good. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill were two vastly different politicians who were usually on opposite sides of issues. Somehow, they always found a way to work together for the benefit of the country.  As Reagan famously said, “We’re always friends after six o’clock.” What happened to that ability to cooperate?

Just think about traditional marriage. It’s become set in stone that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of American society while divorce rates continue to skyrocket. So, what is important, a traditional marriage or a stable relationship?  Any relationship that provides people with a loving and supportive home life should be recognized as valuable.  Your choice of relationship does not affect me and should not be my business or the business of law.

There are no longer any gray areas. Let’s look at abortion. In the political realm you are either for abortion on demand or you’re opposed to a woman’s right to choose.  Most people are not that dogmatic in their personal lives, yet our political parties have staked out the extreme positions.

Why can’t we have a middle ground in politics? Why can’t people believe that abortion in the case of incest or rape is appropriate but that abortion as a birth control choice is not.  But more importantly, why do these issues of personal belief have to be enforced by law?

 I should be able to hold personal beliefs that don’t infringe on other people and at the same time they should recognize my right to those beliefs.  Religious or moral beliefs are difficult to quantify and vary greatly among different groups.  They are a poor basis for governing a diverse society.   

One thing that has been of long-term concern to me is gun control. Most of you who know me, know I was a Marine. I have no problem with gun ownership. I am a gun owner.  If gun owners are responsible citizens, their rights should be respected. Having said that, I believe that the unstable or the criminal have no right to own weapons. I also believe hunters or people concerned with home protection have no need for automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines. These are weapons of war and have no place in a civil society.

The argument about the second amendment and the right to bear arms was appropriate in the 18^th century when there was a well-regulated militia. In today’s world no one brings their own weapon when they join the military. But this is an issue where little accommodation is made. The diehard supporters of the Second Amendment believe they should have the right to any type of weapon they so choose. At the same time, the opponents of guns not only wish to control ownership, but to confiscate all weapons as well. To fail to recognize the middle ground is to fail as a society.

If we’re going to ever move forward on these or many other issues, we need to find a middle ground that will benefit society while causing the least impact on those involved.  We need to do away with the mindset that if you are for it, I must be against it. No single issue is all good or all bad yet that has become our way of addressing any controversial problem.  The question we must ask ourselves is this: “Why do I feel the need to control your behavior?”  Until we can answer this question in a reasoned and dispassionate manner, we are doomed to failure.

I’m sure I’ve made nobody happy, left or right.  That, to me, means I’m probably in the right spot.  And that is my grumpy opinion.

Fake News

Recently I started reading a series of articles from The Associated Press entitled Not Real News: A Look At What Didn’t Happen This Week.  There was a time when purveyors of “creative news” were never taken seriously.  Tabloids such as The National Enquirer were read for humor and entertainment not for serious news. I fondly remember the “Bat Boy Found In West Virginia Cave” published with genuine drawings (who can dispute that?). 

With the advent of the Internet all of that has changed. We no longer seem to be able to differentiate between real news, satire, humor, and just plain bull shit.  It has become necessary for reputable news organizations to attempt to debunk the more outrageous claims that circulate under the guise of news. 

Everyone is familiar with the now common place phrase “fake news”.  It is generally used in an attempt to discredit a news story.  But do we ask ourselves, is the story is factually incorrect or is it just something with which we disagree?

 Rather than causing a reflex response, either in agreement or disagreement, the label should get us thinking.  What makes it fake?  What are the facts behind the story?  Do we trust the reporting, or the person making the claim and how have we arrived at that conclusion?  We should use this as an opportunity to think critically about the news and the people involved.

 Numerous studies have shown the Internet to be a vast reservoir of misinformation, incomplete data, and downright fabrication.  This would not be a problem if the same studies did not also show the more outrageous or unlikely the claims on the Internet, the more likely they are to be shared.

Why is this?  Studies have been done about how and why people share Internet data. The most common reason is that they think that their friends would find them to be interesting, fun or just plain crazy. One problem with this is people are more likely to give credence to information on websites shared by friends.

So, what this means is: I read something on a website that I think is just outrageous and I sent it to you because I think you will get a laugh. Because you think that I’m a reasonable person and respect my opinion, you believe that I accept it as true. Therefore, you are more likely to accept it as true. This leads to a cascade a false information entering common perception.

A large part of this is due to the breakdown of critical thinking in our society as a whole. So just what is critical thinking? According to a commonly accepted definition:

“Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.”

OK, this is a long-winded way of saying think for yourself. Before you forward any outrageous, funny or just plain crazy website or email to friends be sure and let them know your opinion about it. If you’re forwarding it just because you think it’s crazy, tell them that. They’ll be less likely to accept it as your opinion and less likely to adopt it as their own. We all need to be responsible for what we do or don’t accept. Unfortunately, we also must accept responsibility for passing on false information to friends who may accept it based on what they think is our recommendation.

Is it true or is it false? You need to decide that for yourself. But don’t fall into the trap of just accepting everything that shows up in your inbox as being truthful. Make the effort and take the time to look for the truth behind the headline. And that includes this post as well. 

The most reliable method is to evaluate the source.  Is it an acknowledged expert or organization?  If it relates to scientific information, does it contain verifiable data or reference to published, peer reviewed studies?  If it is opinion, is it clearly labeled as such?

One final piece of advice for evaluating Internet information; be very suspicious of anything from an anonymous source or from a site attributed to a group with a vague name such as The Institute for the Advancement of My Opinion.  It is likely that the institute is located in his parents’ basement.  Finally, always be suspicious about anything that begins: “The Truth About….”.  You’re unlikely to find much truth there.

So, to end this post, The Grumpy Doc says think for yourself, know what you believe, and you won’t go wrong.  (Unless, of course, you disagree with The Grumpy Doc.)

We have become a society consumed by the concept of fairness. Things of which we disapprove or perceive to be to our disadvantage are unfair. Things we perceive as being to our advantage or of which we approve are fair. What is fair to me may be unfair to you and vice versa. I’ve given a lot of thought to this whole concept of fairness and in many ways have struggled with an answer that satisfies me.

The first time I really started thinking about it was when my children were young.  They frequently declared that things were unfair.  Of course, these were generally things they didn’t like, such as dad telling them they couldn’t go certain places or do certain things. They could never explain what they meant by not fair other than they didn’t like it. But in their defense no one else seems to be able to adequately describe it either.

Denouncing something as unfair has become a socially acceptable way of saying “I don’t like it.”  It seems to say that fairness has some intrinsic value like good or evil. These are two other concepts which also are difficult to explain but have a more intuitive meaning than fairness. Is it fair that one person works harder than another and so makes more money? Is it fair that one person was born with musical ability? Is it fair that another person is born with natural athletic talents?  (If it were up to me, I’d say it is unfair since I have neither musical nor athletic ability.)

For many, the natural inequities of life create a perceived issue of fairness or unfairness. The beneficiaries of natural gifts will of course consider it fair that they are able to benefit from those gifts. Those who perceive themselves without such gifts will deem it unfair and ask for special considerations to allow them to be equal with those they consider more advantaged. 

So, what is The Grumpy Doc’s opinion about fairness. Well, I’ll tell you what I told my kids. There is no absolute fairness. You cannot define fairness to the satisfaction of all people. Things are the way they are. If you don’t like them, work hard to change them. If you do like things, work hard to keep them the same.

If there is any fairness, it is that we should all have an equal opportunity to work for the things that we want.  That doesn’t mean we all start from the same place and those who have been disadvantaged by society in the past must be give equal opportunity with consideration of past inequalities.  To those who say they have never benefitted from special consideration: “What’s your golf handicap?”

Do I know how to achieve these things?  Sadly, no.  That is for people smarter than me.  Do I consider it unfair that there are people smarter than me? No, I’m glad.  If The Grumpy Doc were the smartest guy around, we would all be in trouble. 

Memorial Day began to honor those who died in defense of our country.  Over time we also recognized the sacrifice of police and fire fighters.  Now, in the face of the latest threat to our nation, let us add to the list of honor those in health care, education, and other vital industries whose lives were lost providing for our safety and security.  May God bless them and their families.