“Winning is no fun without the possibility of losing.” Just ask Larry Blyden on The Twilight Zone in the aptly titled episode, “A Nice Place to Visit”.
EZ - How long does it usually take for the winning ToTW to settle into its winning position? It seems to me that the leader "out of the gate" (during the first hour? minutes?) hangs on to win almost every time. Rarely, it seems, is there a neck-and-neck battle during the week for one to edge out another. Or is my observation incorrect?
Thank you for running Mr. Feder's career story. I had thought he had ended his newspaper career, when he had to leave the Sun-Times, and did not recall him being with the Tribune 2013-16 (don't know why), and did not know about his Daily Herald beat. So glad he had that opportunity to collect his Social Security and Medicare.
I read your response to John B. in the July 5 PP several times. I was struck by the generally morose tone and extreme reactions imagined. So, I wanted to share a different perspective.
First, I am optimistic about the country, the polity, and the structure and durability of the nation. None of the current political issues is beyond the reach of our existing political processes. No political minority is capable of blocking the desires of the majority for any length of time. Our history is one of continuous, occasionally halting, progress in our striving for freedom, equality, opportunity and prosperity.
Second, there is nothing unique about the dissatisfactions in your list. While these things seem particularly pointed and painful to those that are unhappy with the immediate political effect, they are neither unusual nor insurmountable. They are certainly far short of the types of things that lead to insurrection or civil war. The national popular vote has been recorded since 1824. Nineteen of the forty presidents since 1824 have been elected with a minority of the popular vote. This is due to more than two candidates in the race, so that neither of the top two has more than 50%. And in five of those, the winner won the electoral vote with less than an opponent in popular votes. Without a two-person run off, the winner in the popular vote would have had more votes against them than for them. Gerrymanders, deadlocked Congresses, and unpopular Courts have been common recurrences in our history. Political parties have also risen and fallen. We are not in the ‘end times’ of American politics or democracy. Proclaiming the ‘end times’ encourages political violence.
Third, regardless of how difficult and time consuming it may be to achieve significant change within our system, it is certainly far less costly, difficult, disruptive, and bloody than any of the nonsense about secession, revolution, or restructuring of the government. It is farcical to imagine a ‘peaceful’ process of secession. Those that would espouse any such ideas as possible alternatives are on the verge of joining their fellows on the far left and far right that already promote revolution as the solution to an unsatisfactory government.
People in a position to influence public opinion and motivate action should promote and encourage use of the many tools that are available to us within our very successful political institutions as the most effective way to achieve improvement and preservation of our very successful society. They should also stop undermining confidence in our institutions, stop espousing anti-democratic quick fixes and work arounds, and stop undermining the value of individual votes (by telling people the system is rigged against them). A diligent electorate committed to electing Legislators is able to support the desires represented by Executives and obtaining the laws and rights that they desire.
I’m with you, Eric. Good journalism can take many forms if it serves readers, as your interview does. And Q and A’s are fundamentally different than news stories and features, where the subject should not have veto power over the story. With Q and A’s, as I’ve decided on my substack newsletter Old Goats, it makes sense to reflect accurately what the subject wants to say. It’s not a gotcha game. https://oldgoats.substack.com/
Congratulations to Robert Feder on his successful career and on having taken the high road. He’s definitely the opposite of a sleaze bucket.
Maybe the utopia of heaVen is like the euphoria of a continuous drug high
“Winning is no fun without the possibility of losing.” Just ask Larry Blyden on The Twilight Zone in the aptly titled episode, “A Nice Place to Visit”.
“It requires contrast to experience bliss. “
You’ve never tried a bowl of pure Lucky Charms marshmallow bits.
https://www.bestproducts.com/lifestyle/a37351725/general-mills-lucky-charms-just-magical-marshmallows-cereal-2021/
I found Mr. Feder astute and fascinating, especially when he wrote about that brilliant radio whiz, Mary Dixon. Thank you, kind sir.
A cartoon in today’s WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/pepper-and-salt-11657166401?st=49oiboatx4mare0&reflink=share_mobilewebshare
I guess there’s one thing you can say about a heaven that never changes: “Same as it ever was!”
Nobody is going to make it up all those stairs to heaven.
I stole and improved the joke about the BIG 0x10.
Unrelated question: if anecdotes don’t prove anything, how important is it for them to be true?
EZ - How long does it usually take for the winning ToTW to settle into its winning position? It seems to me that the leader "out of the gate" (during the first hour? minutes?) hangs on to win almost every time. Rarely, it seems, is there a neck-and-neck battle during the week for one to edge out another. Or is my observation incorrect?
Thank you for running Mr. Feder's career story. I had thought he had ended his newspaper career, when he had to leave the Sun-Times, and did not recall him being with the Tribune 2013-16 (don't know why), and did not know about his Daily Herald beat. So glad he had that opportunity to collect his Social Security and Medicare.
I will miss Feder's Robservations. The loss is sad because he'll never be replaced, like so many others who've left the news media the past few years.
I read your response to John B. in the July 5 PP several times. I was struck by the generally morose tone and extreme reactions imagined. So, I wanted to share a different perspective.
First, I am optimistic about the country, the polity, and the structure and durability of the nation. None of the current political issues is beyond the reach of our existing political processes. No political minority is capable of blocking the desires of the majority for any length of time. Our history is one of continuous, occasionally halting, progress in our striving for freedom, equality, opportunity and prosperity.
Second, there is nothing unique about the dissatisfactions in your list. While these things seem particularly pointed and painful to those that are unhappy with the immediate political effect, they are neither unusual nor insurmountable. They are certainly far short of the types of things that lead to insurrection or civil war. The national popular vote has been recorded since 1824. Nineteen of the forty presidents since 1824 have been elected with a minority of the popular vote. This is due to more than two candidates in the race, so that neither of the top two has more than 50%. And in five of those, the winner won the electoral vote with less than an opponent in popular votes. Without a two-person run off, the winner in the popular vote would have had more votes against them than for them. Gerrymanders, deadlocked Congresses, and unpopular Courts have been common recurrences in our history. Political parties have also risen and fallen. We are not in the ‘end times’ of American politics or democracy. Proclaiming the ‘end times’ encourages political violence.
Third, regardless of how difficult and time consuming it may be to achieve significant change within our system, it is certainly far less costly, difficult, disruptive, and bloody than any of the nonsense about secession, revolution, or restructuring of the government. It is farcical to imagine a ‘peaceful’ process of secession. Those that would espouse any such ideas as possible alternatives are on the verge of joining their fellows on the far left and far right that already promote revolution as the solution to an unsatisfactory government.
People in a position to influence public opinion and motivate action should promote and encourage use of the many tools that are available to us within our very successful political institutions as the most effective way to achieve improvement and preservation of our very successful society. They should also stop undermining confidence in our institutions, stop espousing anti-democratic quick fixes and work arounds, and stop undermining the value of individual votes (by telling people the system is rigged against them). A diligent electorate committed to electing Legislators is able to support the desires represented by Executives and obtaining the laws and rights that they desire.
What can we write to you about, that you might publish?
I’m with you, Eric. Good journalism can take many forms if it serves readers, as your interview does. And Q and A’s are fundamentally different than news stories and features, where the subject should not have veto power over the story. With Q and A’s, as I’ve decided on my substack newsletter Old Goats, it makes sense to reflect accurately what the subject wants to say. It’s not a gotcha game. https://oldgoats.substack.com/