Category: Commentary Page 5 of 8

This is the home of grumpy opinions.

In Search of a Bench

On July 28, 2023

Margie and I just returned from 10 days in Florida. We combined my SAR conference with a few days of vacation. We got to spend the vacation days with our grandson (and his parents, of course).

We took him for a day at Disney World and a day at Universal Studios. He had a great time and we enjoyed watching him have fun. But for us old folks, it was extremely hot. It was also a lot of walking. We consider ourselves doing well if we get in a mile and a half for a daily walk. At Disney we covered over 7 miles, which left us drained. For the next day at Universal we drafted his parents to go with us so they could do some of the high-speed keeping up with an active 11 year old. We only covered about four miles at Universal but that’s still more than our average.

There was one thing that caused us to tire out more than we should have. That’s the lack of any place to sit in either park. They must think all seniors will be in wheelchairs. What few benches we found were in the direct sun or were occupied. Any shaded place to sit almost inevitably required purchase of food or drink.

Neither Disney nor Universal can be considered senior friendly.

“Disney! Universal! If you want older folks to continue bringing their grandchildren to your parks and spending money, you need to be sensitive to our needs. We need some place to sit! In the shade! It’s the least you can do in return for our spending money at your parks.”

And that is my grumpy opinion!

Full disclosure: the bench shown above is not in either park…But Margie found it!

The Times They Are A Changin’

By John Turley

On July 3, 2023

In Commentary

To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven: Ecclesiastes.

I never expected I would be quoting Bob Dylan and the bible in the same post. But I’d like to talk a little bit about change. We’ve all heard the old saying, “the only things that are certain in life are death and taxes.” But there is one other thing that is certain and that’s change.

Without change there is no life. We are born, we grow, we raise families and eventually we die. The whole cycle of life is a cycle of change. That doesn’t mean it’s easy.

Change is stressful whether it be change for the better or change for the worse. Even change that brings joy such as the birth of a new child or starting a new job can be stressful.

Will we raise our children the way they should be raised? Will they have a good life? Will they be successful?

Will we like our new job? Will we do as well as the person before us? Will we meet expectations?

Change is never without stress. Even those of us who think that we like change, place our own personal limits on it. While we want change and we want things that are new, innovative, and exciting, we still want them to be pretty much the way they are now. Too often we think of change as wanting things to be the same but somehow better.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way of life.

I think about the small changes in life that become major stressors. You buy a new car and discover that the owner’s manual is two inches thick because of all the high tech options. I’ve had my car for 10 years and I’m still discovering features I didn’t know about.

We all know what it’s like when you get a new cell phone and you can’t even figure out how to answer a call, much less use all the other features that the kids take in stride.

Don’t even get me started on television. Those of us with a certain level of life experience (you can insert old here) remember when there were only three networks, and we had to get up and walk across the room to change the channel. Now we work our way through the myriad of remote controls, streaming services, viewing options, and who knows what else just to watch a show.

But if you stop and think about it, those things that we are comfortable with now, that we wish wouldn’t change, are those same new things that just a few years ago caused us so much stress. Eventually we adapt to all these changes and incorporate them into our comfort zone. Then, having achieved familiarity with those changes, we try to preserve them from the next wave of new ideas.

The older I get, the more I find myself inclined to resist change. Particularly if it involves learning a whole new set of rules or procedures. I think it’s because I have nostalgia for a past that probably was never quite as rosy as I imagine it to have been. When I look back honestly, as much as I would like to have a 1966 Corvette Convertible, I have to admit that it wouldn’t drive anywhere near as well as even the most inexpensive new car today.

And do I really want to live without Google, e-mail, cell phones and GPS? Well, sometimes yes, but for the most part I’m happy about technology, even the dreaded Zoom.

So, what do we do about change? We jump right in and get started. It may be messy; it may be stressful; it may be confusing. But if we are positive and persevere, the result will be beautiful, and we will be blessed by embracing change.

The first step is to recognize that change is inevitable. We must stay flexible and focus on the positive. We need to set realistic expectations. Every transition involves a stressful start as we attempt to reconcile competing ideas into a single coherent and uniform plan.

We need to look on change as a learning and growth experience from which we will gain valuable insight into ourselves and our values. If we get overwhelmed, we need to stop focusing on the details and look at the broader picture of life.

Change is what makes life interesting. It’s what helps us continue to grow as we get older. Keep living and keep changing. It makes it all worthwhile. I’m even willing to change my opinions on occasion (maybe).

Things You May Not Know About George Washington

By John Turley

On June 18, 2023

In Appalachia, Commentary, History

We all know a lot about George Washington. Or do we really? And is everything we think we know true? We all know he was the first president, but was he really? He was the commander in chief of the Continental Army, and there is no question about that. He is often called the father of his country. But did you know that he never had any children?
The fanciful tales about George Washington began to circulate while he was still alive. Everyone has heard the story of the chopping down of the cherry tree and how the young George Washington could not tell a lie and that he did it with his little hatchet. Did you know that this story was created for one of the first biographies circulated about George Washington? It was a best seller written by Parson Mason Weems who was more interested in promoting morality than in historical accuracy. We also have the story of how Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac. Even though money went further in those days, it is unlikely since the river is about a mile wide at that point.

Presidential Dentures

We’ve all heard how Washington had wooden false teeth. It’s true that he had false teeth; he suffered with dental problems his entire life. But they weren’t made of wood. Washington began to lose his teeth in his early 20s. He had several sets of dentures made throughout his life, including one that incorporated hippopotamus ivory. He also had a set that incorporated human teeth. In the 18th century dentists were known to purchase healthy teeth from living donors who were in need of cash. The dentist would then incorporate these teeth into dentures for their clients. The dentures were cumbersome things that involved metal plates and gold wiring. Can you imagine having these in your mouth?

The First Entrepreneur
George Washington owned and operated one of the largest commercial distilleries in the early United States. Following his presidency, he began work on his distillery at Mount Vernon. He produced mostly rye whiskey, and it was quite profitable. So, not only was Washington first in war and first in peace but he was first in cocktails as well. (That makes him even more of a hero to me!) Margie and I visited Washington’s distillery as recreated at Mount Vernon. I even bought a bottle of his Mount Vernon whiskey that you can see below on my bookcase.

I haven’t yet tried it. The distiller told me it was considered to be very smooth for its day. When I asked him what we would consider it in our day, he said “Pretty rough.” Perhaps some year, on the anniversary of the Battle of Brooklyn Heights, I’ll use it to make a Mount Vernon Manhattan (or not).
Even though Washington owned a major distillery, rye whiskey was not his favorite drink. When at dinner or sitting around the fire with friends he enjoyed a glass of Madeira. It is a fortified wine made on the Portuguese island of Madeira. Washington began ordering Madeira from his London agents in 1759 and continued ordering throughout his life. He usually ordered wine in “pipes” of 150 gallons. He seldom traveled without a large supply of Madeira.
We’ve all been taught to think of George Washington as a planter. But now we know he was distiller as well. Will it surprise you to learn that he was also a commercial fisherman?
When tobacco prices started to fall, Washington looked for ways to diversify his income. He had almost 10 miles of shoreline on the Potomac River. He bought boats and nets and set his enslaved workers to the task of catching shad, herring, perch, and sturgeon. The fish were cleaned, packed in salt, and sold all over the colonies and even shipped to Europe. He went so far as to buy a sailing schooner that he used to ship his fish to such places as Portugal and Jamaica.

A Mountaineer?

Would you believe that George Washington was once a major landowner in what is now West Virginia? Washington received major land grants for his service in the French and Indian war and he also purchased grants from others who were not interested in developing their wilderness land. He owned land at the mouth of the Kanawha River in the area that is now Point Pleasant, West Virginia. He also owned land along the Kanawha River from the mouth of Coal River up to the area that now includes Charleston. So, we can honestly say George Washington was a West Virginian.

The Traveler?
George Washington only made one trip out of what would become the United States. He had been largely raised by his older half-brother Lawrence after his father died. Lawrence had been suffering from tuberculosis and was advised to spend the winter in the tropics. Nineteen-year-old George agreed to go with him on a trip to Barbados. Two important things happened while he was there. He had the opportunity to meet British Army officers and study fortifications and learn about British military armaments and drill. This was the beginning of his lifelong love of all things military.
But perhaps the most important and least well-known portion of this trip was that Washington contracted and recovered from smallpox, leaving him with lifelong immunity. Smallpox had ravaged the colonies for several years and was devastating many units of the Continental Army. Imagine the fate of the revolution had Washington died of smallpox in 1777.
As a result of the epidemic, he issued one of the first public health orders from the American government. He ordered that all recruits arriving in Philadelphia for the Continental Army be inoculated against smallpox. This practice was soon spread across all colonies and even veteran soldiers who had not yet had smallpox were inoculated.
There are many more fascinating things about George Washington, and I will include them in a future post entitled Even More Things You May Not Have Known About George Washington.

The First Question and Final Answer
In case you think I’ve forgotten my question about the first president, Washington was the first president, under the constitution. However, prior to the adoption of the Constitution, while under the Articles of Confederation there were eight men who held the title of President of the Congress and whom some historians consider to be Presidents of the United States. But, unless you’re a true history nerd, you’ve never heard of John Hanson, first president under the Articles of Confederation. It’s The Grumpy Doc’s opinion that his lack of accomplishments earned him his well deserved obscurity.

For even more interesting facts about Washington, see the website www.MountVernon.org.

A Requiem for Our Newspapers

By John Turley

On June 11, 2023

In Commentary

Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.
Thomas Jefferson

When I was growing up in Charleston WV in the 1950s and early 1960s, we had two daily newspapers. The Gazette was delivered in the morning and the Daily Mail was delivered in the afternoon. One of my first jobs as a boy was delivering The Gazette. It worked out to be about 50 cents an hour, but I was glad to have the job. (It was good money at the time.)

Ostensibly, the Gazette was a Democratic newspaper, and the Daily Mail was a Republican one. However, given the politics of the day there was not a significant difference between the two, and most people subscribed to both.

There weren’t a lot of options for news at the time. Of course, there were no 24-hour news channels. National news on the three networks was about 30 minutes an evening with local news at about 15 minutes. By the late 1960s national news had increased to 60 minutes and most local news to about 30 minutes. Although, given the limitations of time on the local stations, most of the broadcast was taken up with weather, sports, and human interest stories with little time left to expand on hard news stories.

We depended on our newspapers for news of our cities, counties, and states. And the newspapers delivered the news we needed. Almost everyone subscribed to and read the local papers. They kept us informed about our local politicians and government and provided local insight on national events. They were also our source for information about births, deaths, marriages, high school graduations and everything we wanted to know about our community.

In the 21st century there are many more supposed news options. There are 24-hour news networks as I’ve described in my previous post Too Much Time and Too Little News. And of course, there are Twitter, Facebook and the other online entities that claim to provide news.

There has been one positive development in television news. Local news, at least in Charleston, has expanded to two hours most evenings. There is some repetition between the first and second hour and it is still heavily weighted to sports, weather, and human interest, but there is increased coverage of local hard news. However, this is somewhat akin to reading the headlines and the first paragraph in a newspaper story. It doesn’t provide in-depth coverage, but it is improved over what might otherwise be available to those who don’t watch a dedicated new show. Hopefully, it motivates people to find out more about events that concern them.

But it’s still been the local newspapers that have provided the detailed news we want about local and state events. Here in Charleston our newspapers were consolidated into a single daily paper several years ago. Despite reduced staffing and subscribership, they still make a valiant effort to cover our local news. Eric Eyre provided Pulitzer Prize winning coverage of the opioid epidemic. Currently Phil Kabler continues to provide outstanding coverage of the legislature and state government. Mike Tony, another reporter deeply involved in the community, provides coverage of West Virginia energy issues and the governor’s ongoing business foibles.

Will TV news be able to provide the details about our community? The format of the newspaper allows for more detailed presentations and for a larger variety of stories. The reader can pick which stories to read, when to read them and how much of each to read. The very nature of broadcast news doesn’t allow these options.

I worry about the future of newspapers. More than 360 newspapers have closed nationally since the beginning of the COVID pandemic. Since 2005 over 2500 newspapers, more than 25% of the nation’s total, have closed. It would be a tragedy to continue losing newspapers at this rate.
I beg everyone to please subscribe to your local newspapers. I prefer the hands-on, physical newspaper. I understand many people prefer to keep up with the digital age. If so, please subscribe to the digital editions of your local newspaper and don’t pretend that the other online sources, such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram will provide you with local news rather than just gossip.
If we lose our local news, we are in danger of losing our local freedom and if we lose our local freedom, we’re in danger of losing our country. For those of you who think I’m fear mongering, countries that have succumbed to dictatorship have first lost their free press (More about that in a later post. If you know anything about The Grumpy Doc, you know he’s never short of opinions.)

I believe that broadcast news will never be the free press that print journalism is. The broadcast is an ethereal thing. You hear it and it’s gone. Of course, it is always possible to record it and play it back, but most people don’t. If you have a newspaper, you can read it, think about it, and read it again. There are times when on my second or third reading of an editorial or an op-ed article I’ve changed my opinion about either the subject or the writer of the piece. I don’t think a news broadcast lends itself to this type of reflection. In fact, when listening to the broadcast news I often find my mind wandering as something that the broadcaster said sends me in a different direction.

Also, in my opinion, broadcast news is controlled by advertising dollars and viewer ratings. News seems to be treated like any entertainment program. I recognize that this can be the case with newspapers as well, but it seems to me that it’s much easier to detect bias in the written word than in the spoken word. Too often we can get caught up in the emotions of the presenter or in the graphics that accompany the story.

With that in mind, I recommend that if you want unbiased journalism, please support your local newspapers before we lose them. Once they are gone, we will never get them back and we will all be much the poorer as a result.

I will leave you with one last quote.

A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny.
Winston Churchill

The only way to preserve freedom is to preserve the free press. Do your part!
And you can quote The Grumpy Doc on that!!!!

Presidential Trvia

By John Turley

On May 29, 2023

In Commentary, History

Who Am I?

Two of my favorite subjects are American history and trivia. When Margie and I first got married one of our favorite ways to spend time with friends was to play the then popular game Trivial Pursuit. That’s when I discovered that I am the master of useless information, the repository of all things that will never earn me any money. But it’s still fun and when I can combine my love of trivia with my love of American history, so much the better. This is the first of what I hope will be a series of posts about American history trivia. We’ll start with the presidents. A subject that most of us know a fair amount about but maybe not as much as we think.

Before I go into the questions, we’ll start with the mystery man above. That’s James Buchanan, the 15th president of the United States. Now The Grumpy Doc must admit that he did recognized this fellow. If you did, bonus points for you. However, no prize for beating The Grumpy Doc beyond a sense of satisfaction that comes from besting the master. Did I mention that not only am I grumpy, but I’m also cheap?

The first question should be an easy one.

Who was the first president to have a full beard while in office?
Who was the last president to have a full beard while in office?
What president had the first telephone installed in the White House?
What two presidents had only a letter for a middle name?
What president established the first National Park?
Who was the first president to serve in the Navy?
Who was the first president to write a best seller?
Who was the only president to remain a bachelor throughout his life?
Who was the first divorced president? (Should be another easy one.)
What president had the most children?
Who was the first president to ascend to the presidency from the vice presidency upon the death of the president?
Who was the first president to have impeachment charges filed against him?
Who was the only president to commit treason against the United States?
And now, a question of great national significance. What president installed the first bathtub in the White House?
Who was the first president born in a hospital?
What presidents attended military academies?
Who was the last president not to have a college degree?
A final question with significance to current events. Who was the only president to have completely paid off the national debt during a period of his administration. I don’t mean balance the budget; I mean zero national debt.

ANSWERS

Abraham Lincoln was the first president to have a full beard while in office.
Benjamin Harrison was the last president to have a full beard throughout his term of office. However, there is a slight trick to this question. Harry Truman, during a vacation in 1948, briefly sported a goatee. However, it was gone by the time he returned to Washington.
Rutherford B. Hayes had the first telephone installed in the White House. Not only did he have it installed, he was so fascinated by it he frequently answered it himself.
Both Ulysses S. Grant and Harry S. Truman had S for a middle name. However, the story behind the S is significantly different. Grant was born Hiram Ulysses Grant. The congressman who signed his recommendation for West Point mistakenly listed his name as Ulysses S. Grant. Grant never disputed it and retained the S throughout his life. Biographers have reported that this was because he did not like the initials that spelled HUG. The rumor spread that the S stood for Simpson, his mother’s maiden name, but it never really stood for anything. Harry Truman’s middle name at birth was S. Both his maternal and paternal grandfathers had names that began with S and a significant family conflict arose about who he would be named after. The compromise was the initial.
Although it is widely believed that Teddy Roosevelt established the first National Park, it was Ulysses S. Grant who signed the legislation creating Yellowstone. The National Park Service was created by legislation signed by Woodrow Wilson.
The first US president to serve in the Navy was John F. Kennedy. Interestingly, the next four presidents also served in the Navy, three of them in World War Two.
Teddy Roosevelt was a best-selling author before he became president. He wrote histories, biographies, essays, and memoirs. His books were widely distributed and very popular. And this was in the era before presidents “wrote” their memoirs as a way of supplementing their post presidential income.
This was our mystery man, James Buchanan who never married.
The first man elected president who had previously been divorced was Ronald Reagan.
John Tyler had 15 children with two wives.
Once again, John Tyler. He was elected as vice president with William Henry Harrison. He became president when Harrison died shortly after assuming office. At the time, no one was sure if the vice president would become president or simply assume the duties. Tyler solved the problem by quickly having himself administered the oath of office. Tyler was never popular with his party and was referred to as “His Accidency”. He was not nominated for an independent term of office and left after his first term.
This is one The Grumpy Doc missed. I thought it would be Andrew Johnson. But, once again it was John Tyler. The charges were not successful, although surprisingly they were brought by his own party, and he completed the term.
You may have noticed a trend here; this was our old friend John Tyler. He was elected to the Confederate House of Representatives but died before actually taking office.
The first permanently installed bathtub was during the administration of Millard Fillmore. This may be the most significant thing that happened during the administration of this otherwise undistinguished president.
Jimmy Carter, born in 1924, was the first president born in a hospital.
Both President Grant and President Eisenhower graduated from the U. S. Military Academy at West Point and President Carter graduated from the U. S. Naval Academy at Annapolis.
President Truman was the last president without a college degree. He attended business school and law school but did not graduate from either. At that time, it was possible to attend law school without an undergraduate degree.
Andrew Jackson achieved his campaign promise of completely paying off the national debt on January 8th, 1835. However, this proved not to be a good thing. The practices he implemented to pay off the debt led directly to the panic of 1837, one of the worst recessions in U.S. history and a significant increase in national debt.

There is a lot more presidential trivia, but this is enough for our first go around. Please send me comments about your success in answering these questions. My score was right around 70%. Hopefully some of you can do better. But of course, if you do, The Grumpy Doc will never admit to having been beaten.

The Best President Ever

By John Turley

On May 16, 2023

In Commentary, History

As we get closer to the upcoming presidential election, I’m looking forward to the latest round of articles about “the best president ever”. These lists usually include Abraham Lincoln, FDR and Thomas Jefferson somewhere in the top three or four depending on where in the cycle of historic popularity their reputations happen to be. Other presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan will go on and off the list depending on the whims and the political orientations of the list makers. JFK has occasionally been on the list of best presidents since shortly after his assassination. The more recent a president, the more likely he is to show up on these lists. This is due partly to the fact that we tend to give higher regard to those things about which we have firsthand knowledge. Any list done over the last 15 to 20 years may include Clinton or Obama or Trump, although, given the polarization of the political process today it’s unlikely that all three would be on the same list.

But what exactly does “best president” mean? How would you come up with quantitative measures that can be used to grade presidents and create a reproducible list? Of course, being “best “ largely depends on the severity of the problems faced by the president and the success of his solutions. It also seems to me that all such lists must be subjective and influenced by the political ideology, social position, financial status, education, and region of the country of the list maker. Personally, I don’t know how to even begin to rate a best president.

While I may not know who the best president was, I strongly believe I can tell you who the most important president was and always will be, that is George Washington. To borrow a phrase from historian James Flexner, Washington was the indispensable man. He had the combination of experience, strength and dignity that was necessary to guide this country through those first critical years. Without his initial leadership it’s possible that the country may have disintegrated it into several smaller bickering independent states that likely would have been annexed by the European powers. George Washington is the man who turned These United States with an emphasis on States into The United States with an emphasis on United.

George Washington’s importance began before there was a presidency or even a formal government. Without his leadership as the commanding general of the Continental Army there likely never would have been a United States at all.

Washington was never a great tactical general. He had very few battlefield victories, although his victories at Trenton and Princeton came at an important time for the fledgling revolution. They might even be considered strategic victories and it was his role as a strategic general that led to eventual victory.

Washington recognized that he did not have to win on the battlefield but only had to maintain the Continental Army as a field force and outlast the British will to conduct an overseas war. At a time when others were urging him to meet the British in a large European style battle, he recognized that losing decisively on a battlefield may have been enough to shatter the Continental Army and with it the entire Revolution. If you are not familiar with the many attempts early in the Revolutionary War to oust Washington from command, it will be well worth your time to read more about it.

At the end of the Revolution, Washington returned his Commission to the Continental Congress and retired to Mount Vernon. He expected to spend the rest of his days managing his estates. But his country was not yet done with him.

After the Revolution, the country was governed under the Articles of Confederation, a document that Washington called …” a rope of sand.” Multiple attempts were made to revise the articles, including a failed convention in Annapolis in 1786, to which only five states sent representatives.

When another convention was called in Philadelphia in 1787, Washington initially declined to participate, believing it would be no more successful than the Annapolis convention had been. Finally, James Madison and Henry Knox persuaded him to attend.

Washington arrived in Philadelphia and was promptly elected president of the convention. It was his presence that largely influenced every state except Rhode Island to send delegates. His presence also emboldened the delegates to embark on the creation of a new Constitution, rather than a simple revision of the articles as they had been tasked by their states.

As president of the convention, Washington maintained a non-partisan role. He seldom participated in debate and generally joined in the voting without comment. He felt it was his role to maintain the decorum of the convention, something he could do only by remaining above the fray.

Currently, there is much debate about the three-fifths clause and the role of slavery in the shaping of the Constitution. At the time, this was not the only contentious issue being debated. The role of a chief executive had the potential to be equally divisive.

Having just fought a revolution against a monarchy, many of the delegates had a strong distrust of centralized power. An initial proposal was to place executive power in a three man board. Prolonged discussion revolved around how to choose the board and how it would function. As it became clear that Washington could be the first president under a new constitution, support solidified behind the single chief executive. Without his presence, there may never have been a presidency at all.

Much has been made about the role of the Federalist Papers in the ratification of the Constitution. While they undoubtedly influenced the wealthy and the well-educated, the knowledge that Washington supported the Constitution and would be, without doubt, the first president was more important to the average citizen.

Washington was so popular at the time that some even suggested he be made “King of America”; an idea he would never even acknowledge.

In sum, even before he took the oath of office, George Washington was indeed our most important president.

Further reading:
Washington: A Life, Ron Chernow.

George Washington: The Political Rise of America’s Founding Father, David O. Stewart.

Washington: The Indispensable Man, James Thomas Flexnor.

George Washington’s Journey: The President Forges a New Nation, T. H. Breen.

The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution, David O. Stewart.

George Washington: A Biography, Douglas Southall Freeman. This seven-volume set is the gold standard of Washington biographies.

The 24 Hour News Cycle: Too Much Time, Too Little News

By John Turley

On April 18, 2023

In Commentary

And That’s The Way It Is.

Growing up I can remember anxiously awaiting the news. Either a newspaper arriving twice a day on our doorstep or a well-known news anchor at 6 o’clock on the television. Either way, we trusted we would receive a detailed and thoughtful analysis of current events to give us a basis for understanding what was going on.

I would like to think that those journalists, both print and electronic, were careful about their facts, that they checked sources, that they double checked, that they confirmed wherever possible, and that they didn’t publish a story until they knew they had it right. Newspapers were known to hold back stories, sometimes for weeks, until they could verify all the sources before putting the story on the pages of the paper. They stood behind what they said and had to issue very few retractions. Editorial opinions remained on the editorial page and were seldom ever reflected in the news stories. Walter Cronkite always said when he reported a story “That’s the way it is”. It wasn’t the way it might be or the way he wanted it to be, but it was the way it was.

CNN launched the 24 hour news cycle when it went on the air in 1980. Fox News and MSNBC followed in 1996. They all seemed to present a fairly straight forward reporting of names, places and events, with the major difference being their approach to political stories. I remember during the 2000 political conventions, I enjoyed switching back and forth between CNN and Fox to get a simultaneous view from both sides of the political aisle. But they were the types of differences I expected from differing political parties.

With few exceptions, these were the networks I turned to for the latest update on breaking news like hurricanes, earthquakes, and airplane crashes. It didn’t matter which network I watched because there didn’t seem to be any editorializing of the stories. I usually watched the one that wasn’t showing a commercial when I turned it on.

It seems to me that this changed after 9-11. I had started to notice an increase in partisanship with the coverage of the controversy of the 2000 election, but I expected that would pass after the court cases were settled. However, post 9-11 coverage of the debates over weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq war seemed to increase the polarization, something that has continued to worsen.

With TV 24-hour news channels in constant competition, can reporters take time to check their sources and to verify their stories or must they rush to get on the air? Is it more important to be first than to be correct? Or, are the ratings, and more importantly, the advertising dollars just following the desires of the viewers? Have people come to care less about being informed than about having their preexisting opinions reinforced? Or, do they simply want to be entertained?

It seems to me the news networks now present stories the way they believe the viewers want the story to be, not what is actually true. The founder of a major news network recently admitted in court that his reporters selectively edited stories to create misleading conclusions and at times they reported stories they knew to be false.

Fortunately, there are still print journalists and local broadcast journalists who value integrity over notoriety. Unfortunately, judging by the diminishing number and size of daily newspapers, this option, limited though it is, may not be around much longer. To paraphrase Gresham’s Monetary Law that “Bad money drives out good”, we now have The Grumpy Doc’s Broadcast News Law, “Sensational news drives out accurate news.”

I don’t want to be entertained by the news; I want to be informed. I don’t want to be indoctrinated; I want to get the facts. I don’t want a news reporter to tell me what to think; I want them to give me information so I can make my own decisions.

I’m concerned about the future of news. Will the 24 hour news networks become little more than the province of those who yell first and yell the loudest without regard to the truth of their stories? If they do, where will we go to find out the way it is?

Walter Cronkite would be ashamed.

Ramps Redux

By John Turley

On April 12, 2023

In Appalachia, Commentary, Food and Drink

The advent of spring in Appalachia brings about another ramp season and with it all things ramp. I’ve decided to get lazy today and repost my blog from May 2021.

What Is It About Ramps?

Continuing my reminiscences about growing up in West Virginia I’m going to visit the subject of ramps. For those of you who haven’t been blessed to live in Appalachia, ramps are a type of wild leek in the onion family. They have a very pungent flavor that is like a highly garlicky, sulfureous onion. They have a short season in the spring and are highly prized by those who enjoy them.

If you think politics can be contentious, you haven’t seen anything until you’ve seen the disagreements about ramps. You either hate ramps or you love ramps. There is no middle ground and almost no one is neutral on the subject.

Those unfamiliar with ramps might think, “If you don’t like them, just don’t eat them.” Well, it’s just not that simple. If you think garlic or onions can give you bad breath, just standby.

Ramps may give you the harshest breath that you’ve ever experienced. But that’s not the worst part. The odor of ramps will radiate from your body for several days. Despite much folklore about the best ways to rid your body of the odor, the only thing that works is the passage of time.

I can remember many years ago when I was in school, kids who would eat too many ramps sometimes would be sent home because the odor was just too much to bear in a closed classroom. There were times when I thought eating ramps might be worth it if I got a day off school. Ultimately, I decided maybe school wasn’t so bad.

The spring of my senior year in high school a buddy and I decided to go to Richwood for the annual ramp festival. Richwood sits in a river valley and as we started down the hill, we could see a haze hanging over the town. As we got closer to the festival site I was almost driven back. I grew up in a town with several chemical plants so I thought I was used to bad odors in the air, but was I ever wrong. The only thing that kept us going was free beer. We had both just turned 18 and could legally drink.

Even the federal government has declared ramps to be a public nuisance. The editor of the Richwood weekly newspaper once mixed ramp juice with the ink for a special edition. The smell was so bad the post office refused to deliver the paper and destroyed all the copies in its possession.

People who love ramps talk about the many ways to cook them. In the spring in West Virginia restaurants seem to continuously look for new ways to present ramps during the few weeks that they are available. They have ramp burgers, ramp pimento cheese, ramp jelly and ramp omelets. There has even been the misguided ramp infused wine. It seems to me that most recipes involve ways to disguise the flavor of ramps.

It’s not just when they’re cooked that they put off this objectionable odor. Even raw they can be hard to deal with. I was out in the country with my brother and his wife when she decided to pick some ramps (leaves only, the bulb is left to grow next year’s crop). Let me say I was glad we drove out separately. He said it was at least three days before the smell of ramps was cleared from the car. He joked that while ramps may not be grounds for divorce, they certainly could be grounds for temporary separation.

If you love ramps, I hope you enjoy them. Just make sure everyone else has enough warning to avoid you during ramp season. And that is The Grumpy Doc’s opinion about ramps. Be sure and leave a comment with yours.

By Any Other Name: An Obsession with Titles

By John Turley

On March 31, 2023

In Commentary

Titles are everywhere and they likely have existed since humans began forming groups larger than the individual family. Almost all societies in every part of the world have evolved titles of one form or another. The Europeans, however, have raised titles to a whole new level. Kings, queens, princes, dukes, duchesses, lords, ladies, barons, viscounts, the list is endless. It seems almost everyone in Europe has a title of one type or another.

The European fascination with titles followed the colonists to America. As an American elite arose, they too began to award themselves titles, from the political such as burgess to the religious such as deacon and to the title of master in the slavery system. Some southern planters liked to refer to themselves as “a simple farmer,” though they were far from simple and I doubt that any of them dirtied their hands in the fields. Also, they were also quite fond of the title squire.

Two of my favorite titles are from colonial New England. Elite men were referred to as Worthy, as in Worthy Jones. I wonder if common men were considered unworthy. Married women were referred as Goodwife, often shortened to Goodie.

From the beginning of the United States, we were involved in creating new titles. After the adoption of the constitution, titles, specifically a title for the new chief executive, took up a portion of the first meetings of Congress.

Vice President John Adams suggested the following titles: “His Elective Majesty”, “His Mightiness”, and even “His Highness, the President of the United States of America and the Protector of their Liberties”.

Adams, who might kindly be described as portly, was mockingly referred to as “His Rotundancy”. Fortunately for succeeding generations, Adams’s recommendations were ignored, and Mr. President became the accepted title.

The use of titles, real or imagined, seems to have become particularly widespread in the times of the Internet. We constantly receive emails that include the name of the sender followed by multiple titles, often in the form of abbreviations and strings of letters that we seldom understand. These are meant to add an air of importance to the message. Often, we are impressed without really understanding why.

Some titles are honorary such as those awarded by universities or other such honorary titles as Kentucky Colonel. Others are just for fun such as the title I recently received, Admiral of the Cherry River Navy, the world’s only navy where every member is an admiral.

Please don’t think that I am mocking or dismissing the importance of titles. It’s their misuse and overuse that concerns me. Professional titles have an important place in professional situations. They help establish the expertise and credentials of people who will be working together but may not know each other. In this professional situation they can also help to establish educational accomplishments, political or social authority, or even honorary positions.

I’ve heard the argument’ “I’ve worked hard for that title and I’m going to use it.” I have some sympathy for that position, particularly for someone newly graduated with an advanced degree. But in general, use of professional titles in a nonprofessional setting strikes me as bragging.

Like everyone else, I have a title. However, unless you are seeing me in a professional situation or we are in a situation where all people are expected to use their professional titles, you won’t see an MD after my name. Occasionally when I’m having my name listed in a program or on a group roster, I tell them not to add the title, and I’ll be asked why. My standard response is that it isn’t relevant to the group.

Occasionally I’ll be working on a committee or other group with another professional and invariably they will list all their credentials in all our correspondence. For example, recently I was working with a group completely unrelated to medicine that also included another physician. We are well known to each other and know each other’s credentials. I signed all my emails with a simple John. In his emails, his full name was always followed by MD, MPH, FAAP. I know all about the automatic signature block and use it in professional correspondence, but there is a time and a place for everything. Perhaps he thinks I forgotten who he is since we talked last week.

The Grumpy Doc, HSE, AKMU

For those who don’t recognize my newly self-awarded titles, they are His Serene Excellency, All Knowing Master of the Universe. I will expect appropriate deference from now on.

The Contradictory Life of Thomas Jefferson

By John Turley

On March 18, 2023

In Commentary, History

Part I, Liberty and Slavery

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These stirring words that Thomas Jefferson used in the Declaration of Independence put forth a clear statement of his political philosophy. Unfortunately, the man behind the words is not nearly so self-evident. To borrow a phrase from Winston Churchill, he is a riddle wrapped in a mystery, wrapped in an enigma. Biographer Joseph Ellis referred to him as The American Sphinx.

He was a man of the enlightenment, but he was also a man clearly bound to the brutal slave economy. He dreamed of a bucolic America peopled by hardworking yeoman farmers while he lived the life of a wealthy British aristocrat. He abhorred the thought of banks and bankers but spent his entire life mired in debt. He wrote and spoke often of the need to avoid factionalism in politics but was a skillful practitioner of political intrigue. He constantly argued against expansion of governmental power but as President, without having the authority, he undertook to expand the United States to more than double its size.

So, how do we reconcile the words with the man? Perhaps we don’t. Perhaps the best we can do is try to understand the world in which he lived and the circumstances that led him to take such contradictory positions in his political and personal life. Tens of thousands of pages have been written trying to understand and explain Thomas Jefferson. Now, I’m only going to look briefly at his relationship to slavery. In a later post I’ll be looking at Thomas Jefferson as the master of political manipulation.

Of the many contradictions in Thomas Jefferson’s life, his relationship to slavery is the most difficult to reconcile. One of his first cases after becoming a lawyer was to represent a slave seeking his freedom on the grounds that his grandmother was a mulatto which would require him to be in bondage only until age 31. In an argument to the Virginia court Jefferson said, “Everyone comes into this world with the right to his own person, this is what is called personal liberty and is given them by the author of nature, under the law we are all born free.”

Both the judge and the jury were outraged that Jefferson would propose freeing a slave. The judge refused to hear any further such talk and ruled against Jefferson’s client. According to historian Winston Groom the fact that Jefferson had such a position at that time (1770) is considered significant and was a milestone in the evolution of his thought.

About that same time Jefferson was elected to the House of Burgesses and he introduced an act that would allow masters to govern emancipation of their slaves rather than having to seek the permission of the courts and the royal officers. This was met with strong opposition and did not pass. It is significant that Jefferson did not pursue either the court case or the legislation.

As a member of the Continental Congress, Jefferson prepared an amendment to the Ordinance of 1784 (a precursor to the Northwest Ordinance) stipulating the freedom of all children born to slaves after a certain date but requiring that they be deported to either the Caribbean or Africa. This amendment failed by a single vote in Congress. Reflecting on the decision Jefferson wrote: “Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man and heaven was silent in that awful moment”. But Jefferson was to remain silent as well!

To Jefferson it was unimaginable that free whites and free blacks could live together peaceably. Even years later when writing about it he said that it was “inconceivable [then] that the public mind would bear this proposition, nor will it bear at this day”. He also wrote “Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it or worse will follow, nothing is more surely written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.” According to Jefferson’s biographer Jon Meacham, he was never able to move public opinion on slavery and his powers failed him and they failed America.

As president, Jefferson signed a law making it a crime to import slaves. But at the same time, he believed that if slaves were set free, they must be deported to Africa or the Caribbean. Most of his contemporaries agreed; they felt that American slavery was equivalent to “holding the ear of a tiger”, but they saw no way to let go.

So again, we return to the question of how to reconcile Jefferson the philosopher with Jefferson the enslaver. Jefferson was a man who enjoyed luxury and the finer things in life. Today he is viewed as a wealthy planter. However, he was what we would now consider cash poor. All his wealth was tied up in property and his slaves were a large portion of that property. His land was heavily mortgaged, and his slaves were his collateral. Jefferson’s wife was the daughter of a wealthy man and when her father died Jefferson inherited his 135 slaves and his land, which was also heavily mortgaged. He also inherited his father-in-law’s other considerable debts. He worried constantly about his financial status, yet he could not control his lavish spending. Freeing his slaves would have lost him the collateral against which his many loans were guaranteed.

Jefferson recognized the evil of slavery but also benefited greatly from it. He was unable to give up his comfortable life even while bemoaning the institution which made it possible. His relationship with Sally Hemmings has been a subject of much debate and is beyond what I can address here but if you are familiar with her story, you know that this a singular example of Jefferson’s inability to subordinate his desires to his principles.

During his lifetime he freed only two of his slaves and in his will, he freed only an additional three. This compares to some other founders who freed all their slaves in their wills. Perhaps he recognized that freeing his slaves would have resulted in an immediate foreclosure on his beloved Monticello.

It is long been axiomatic among historians that people should be judged by the time in which they lived. Jefferson was a man of his times, an exceptional man without doubt. However, his was a time that was consumed by one of the great evils of history. And that evil will always reflect on his memory. Each of us will have to make our own decision about Thomas Jefferson.