Coronavirus

By: John C. Lesher

I regard myself as a logical person and sometimes that leads to problems—like now. We are painfully aware of the growing effect the Corona pathogen is having on our lives. At the moment the government has announced the discovery of about 2,000 cases in our nation of 325 million, with 40 or 50 deaths. My sense of logic tells me that something is wrong here, but I am not sure what it is.

A short digression: For many years I was a suburban commuter. I retired in 2013, and from late 1978 to retirement my daily schlep was into Manhattan. My typical day was from my home in Westfield, NJ, to Newark, NJ, by train; switch trains in Newark; train ride to New York Penn Station and from there into the labyrinth of New York’s subway system. It’s important for a reader of this blog to understand the daily impositions attendant to a New York commute. The trains are crowded, the commuter hubs such as Penn Station in New York are crawling with humans and the subways often make the first two seem like a walk in open country.

A recent article in the Newark Star Ledger noted that well over 300,000 workers commute to NYC every day on New Jersey transit trains. Some other large number takes New Jersey Transit buses into the City. Supplement this mix with passengers from other suburban train and bus lines, such as The Long Island Railroad and the Metro North system, and you will see that something like one million workers somehow squeeze into New York every day from suburban locations, most of whom end up in Manhattan.  Inter-borough traffic adds tens of thousands more.  Once in the City, subways and buses become the preferred modes of transit. The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) has claimed a daily 2019 volume of 7,200,000 subway and bus rides (not individuals, but rides, because one person often takes more than one ride per day). Recent newspaper articles indicate that ridership on the MTA system has dropped about 20% in the past two to three weeks, but that still leaves millions of daily human-to-human contacts.

The sheer volume of commuting ridership, coupled with the intense crowding of buses, trains and subways, is where my problem in logic is centered. As noted, we have roughly 2,000 reported coronavirus cases documented in the US as of today, 13 March 2020. Given the extensive co-mingling among commuters, why don’t New York, Northern New Jersey, Long Island, southwest Connecticut and the counties just north of the City have hundreds of thousands of cases?

We are advised every day to avoid crowds. Civic engagements, museums, schools and venues for sports and entertainment have been cancelled or postponed. In spite of that, the commuting systems into and throughout New York continue to operate, even if people out of concern have reduced their use of public transit.  Surely someone at some point in a commute coughed on someone else. Why haven’t pandemic numbers of coronavirus cases been discovered among the commuting population? Is it possible that untold thousands of these commuters did get sick and contracted “the flu” many weeks or even months ago, when the cause of their ailments was actually coronavirus?  Has coronavirus been with us, unrecognized, far longer than supposed?

Right now we have a dearth of objective, fact-based information on coronavirus-19 and I don’t believe the anxiety and uncertainty dominating our headlines will go away until some reputable pharmaceutical company announces that it has an effective vaccine. This might seem like a completely unrealistic thought, but would it be crazy to have our political and medical authorities request those among the commuting public who “had the flu” this winter to volunteer to give a blood sample for analysis? My sense is that coronavirus-19 is not the new kid on the block and that many commuters unknowingly contracted this disease over this winter season and fought their way through it. A blood sample will indicate the presence or absence of antibodies formed when our immune systems resist disease. Those anti-bodies will give our health officials strong indications of the extent of the virus, as well as its potency. More importantly, the antibodies will show the way to a vaccine. As noted earlier, my belief is that only a vaccine will end the disruptions we are currently experiencing.

Amateur vs. Pro

By: John C. Lesher

The NY Times had a sports section article about a growing controversy concerning collegiate athletics. In simplest terms: should the NCAA drop its insistence that college athletes be uncompensated amateurs while competing for their respective institutions? The question is pretty much moot when it comes to sports such as volleyball, crew and wrestling—sports that lack successful professional leagues or have a low probability of an athlete signing a lucrative endorsement contract. However, for collegiate athletes participating in the Big 3 of football, basketball and baseball, as well as golf and professional track and field, the question takes on a new dimension. College is where young athletes develop their skills to a level where highly paid professional careers become viable. Should those college years be an unpaid apprenticeship for the future?

Many states are debating the right of an athlete to receive remuneration for playing on a college varsity that goes beyond the traditional scholarship trinity of room, board and books. Some, such as California, already have passed legislation advancing the rights of their athletes to be compensated for representing state institutions in athletic contests and using the athlete’s likeness or speech to do so. The reasoning is hard to dismiss. College athletics has become a multi-billion dollar business, with money being received from numerous TV venues, equipment suppliers and corporate bowl game sponsors, as well as the traditional ticket sales, parking fees and concession stand receipts. Successful college coaches in major sports throughout the United States make seven figure salaries supplemented by product endorsements and radio and TV shows. Why shouldn’t the performers in these entertainments—the athletes—be given a slice of this very large pie?  Why shouldn’t they receive salaries and be permitted to seek endorsements?

Evidence that money has come to dominate collegiate athletics is not hard to find. In the 2019/2020 football bowl season, star players from several bowl-qualified teams refused to play in the bowl games, fearing that a possible injury would shorten or terminate a lucrative career.  The NCAA seems to have given up on stopping the movement toward compensating athletes and has begun to take the posture that this is a federal issue that needs a uniform, nation-wide standard. The NCAA argues that having 50 separate states pass compensation laws will only lead to a chaotic recruitment process and, possibly, restrict inter-state competition. By this reasoning, Congress must get involved and bring order to a confusing set of facts and claims. 

The arguments just noted look at one side of an issue: the fairness of having large sums of money being earned by institutions and employees of those institutions while the individuals who are largely responsible for earning that money are given a virtual pittance as compensation. That is a relevant debate, but this blog asserts that there is a second matter that must be evaluated. 

For many decades professional baseball has sponsored minor leagues and development leagues throughout the United States and other areas of the world, notably the Caribbean. The National Basketball Association has its international developmental leagues (approximately 50 current NBA players are foreign-born); the National Football League has flirted with sponsoring football programs in Europe and has scheduled multiple games in London. Regardless of those efforts at producing and evaluating raw talent, the truth is that new entrants into professional athletics come, in the main, from America’s collegiate ranks. Professional interests contribute very little to the development of those collegiate athletes.

To the businesses that collectively represent professional sports this is the equivalent of free research and development. Pharmaceutical companies can make billions in profits from a hot new drug, but only after spending huge sums and many years in developing and testing a new product, followed by a lengthy federal approval process. The “pros” have no R & D budgets in the mode of industry. For the most part they can watch their future assets mature without cost and with an ample pipeline of future supply. Is there something wrong with that picture?

Why aren’t America’s professional sports franchises contributing more to the enhancement of the athletic skills of their future employees? Granted, only a modest percentage of college athletes signs a pro contract and makes the huge money constantly flaunted by our newspapers and other media. But the percentage isn’t the point. The issue is that professional sports leagues and franchises get a free ride when it comes to player development. The colleges of the United States are, in effect, a cost-free minor league system, primarily for the NBA and the NFL and, to a lesser degree, to Major League Baseball. Many of these colleges are state-affiliated, which means taxpayers are funding to some degree the cost of doing business for professional sports.

This blog suggests that pro sports open their ample wallets and give something back to the institutions from which their assets evolve. Try this on: when a player makes a pro team, the league will make a one-time payment to the institution for which the athlete played of $50,000 for each year the athlete competed for that college or university. In the case of “one and done” basketball players, the cost to the league would be $50,000 for each one and done player. For a five year redshirt footballer, the cost would be $250,000. 

Good idea? Maybe. Really bad idea? That too. The point is to talk about this and accept the fact that all bastions of collegiate amateurism have been breached. Once a payment for services concept gets adopted by university athletic departments who knows what the recruiting rules and payment schedules for linebackers or point guards will be. At the very least, the professional sports businesses that benefit from this new world should contribute to its cost.

The Electoral College

By: John C. Lesher

Yes, an Anachronism

Much debate is being joined over the concepts of direct or indirect election of America’s chief executive, The President. Because of a complicated compromise made during the debates in the 1780’s over Constitutional provisions, citizens were given the right to cast a vote during a Presidential election, but not for the President. These votes by citizens were for “electors” chosen by each state who would elect the President in a separate ballot. In spite of the tens of millions who go to the polls every four years and vote—so most believe-- for their preferred Presidential candidate, the fact is that these millions of first round votes only empower 538 individuals, the electors, to engage in a subsequent round of voting. This second round of voting actually elects the president.

Each state is given a certain number of votes by electors and each state sets its own rules as to how electors are appointed and how the electors from that jurisdiction must vote during the second round. The 538 number is the total of seats in the House of Representatives (435), plus the number of federal Senators (100), plus 3 electors representing the District of Columbia. As examples, New Jersey has 12 Members of the House of Representatives and two Senators.  It therefore has 14 electors. Delaware has one House member and two Senators. Delaware therefore has three electoral votes. If a candidate garners 270 electoral votes, that individual becomes President, regardless of the public’s “popular” vote total for any candidate. 

Those few sentences were a very broad-brush summary of an arcane process, but they serve to give sufficient purpose to a questioning of the electoral college system.  A case can be made that 230 years ago the adoption of an indirect electoral process made sense. American democracy, and its national voting for a chief executive, was a new concept, untested and uncertain. Mass education and mass communication were many years in the future and the Founders wondered whether the “average” or “typical” citizen had the background and insight to cast a meaningful ballot. Would the unsophisticated voter be inclined to listen to the siren song of a charismatic demagogue? An Electoral College presumably populated by better educated and politically sophisticated citizens was presented as a guardian against rash judgment.  Elitist? Completely out of sync with current thinking? Yes, definitely, but for its day, it can be argued that it was a rational decision to a perceived problem. 

But this is not 230 years ago. This is 2020 and we have universal suffrage, instant global communications, high levels of literacy and decades of political experience, including a seemingly never-ending Presidential primary season. So why do we keep the electoral college? It is difficult to argue against the claim that the electoral college is an anachronism and its value as a balancing force has dissipated. Simple  fairness would seem to indicate that a candidate receiving the most votes for an office should be awarded the position sought. After all, the Presidency is the only elected position in our federal system where popular vote does not dictate the winner. 

The Clinton v. Trump contest in 2016 is the most recent example of the popular vote leader not becoming President, but this is not a new occurrence. As far back as 1824, Andrew Jackson won the mass vote by a wide margin in a four candidate field but was denied the Presidency. These historical facts beg the question of whether or not we should change the system, but before rushing into a permanent alteration of policy and process, we should step back and think a bit.

Beware of Unintended Consequences

When the Electoral College was conceived, The United States of America was an east coast entity of 13 former colonies and approximately three million citizens represented in the House of Representatives by 65 members, 10 of whom were from Virginia. The Founders had the wisdom to recognize that the original House set-up was somewhat unbalanced and arbitrary. It needed to be modified periodically to reflect the assumed growth of the nation’s population and the possible shift in that population’s geographic locations. Expanded House seating and the addition of new states also were considerations. 

The method chosen to address these matters was the requirement of a national census every 10 years followed by the re-allocation of seats in the expanding House based on the results of each census. Voting power in the “People’s House” was to be shared by the states in proportion to each state’s population relative to the national population. If your state had four percent of the nation’s census population, your state would be allocated four percent of the seats in the House, subject to the rounding of fractional seats. 

In the subsequent centuries the House of Representatives has grown to 435 members; we now have 50 states, over 3,000,000 square miles of land mass and our census population is well over 300 million. More importantly, the nation has seen dramatic shifts in geographic concentrations of that population. The demographics of today’s America were not contemplated by the Founders and those demographics must be considered in any effort to change the Electoral College system to a direct election of the President by popular vote of the people. 

John Kasich understands America’s population demographics. Kasich, a nine term Member of the House from Ohio and a former governor of that state, as well as a Republican presidential candidate in 2016, was on network television in December of 2019 and was asked whether he would favor direct presidential election by the people. His answer was a simple, but emphatic, “No.” Asked to explain, he smiled and said “because I don’t want California to tell me what to do.”

What was Kasich Thinking?

Through the census cycle of 2010, four states dominate membership in the House of Representatives: California, Florida, New York and Texas. Collectively, these four have 143 of the 435 seats (32.8%).  This percentage should increase somewhat after the 2020 census, with preliminary estimates indicating that California is expected to retain its 53 seats, New York to lose at least one seat, and Florida and Texas to gain several. Eight percent of the states therefore will have more than one third of the voting power in the House. They also have approximately one third of the nation’s census population and, presumably, one third of registered voters.

Kasich, the experienced politician, intuitively grasped the two fundamental realities of switching from an Electoral College system to a popular vote mandate. Under a popular vote system, states with very large populations will dominate any electoral campaign and, just as importantly, have outsized influence over any congressional legislative initiatives, particularly those initiatives proposed by a sitting president seeking re-election. The delegations from large population states will demand favorable consideration in such legislation in return for support during election cycles. Congressional “pork” will therefore be rationed disproportionately to the large-population states.

Under popular voting, presidential candidates will focus their campaign efforts on a relatively few jurisdictions. For example, California is an overwhelmingly Democratic Party state where Hillary Clinton won almost 62% of the popular vote in 2016. The Democratic presidential candidate will visit to raise money but will have little need to do intensive campaigning. The votes for Democrats are secure and attracting more votes is not an efficient use of time or money. Under the all-or-nothing electoral college system utilized by most states, all 55 of California’s electoral votes went to Clinton in 2016 and would have done so whether she had spent significant resources there or not. Her time was better spent in smaller, marginal states where the predicted Democratic/Republican vote split was relatively close. 

The lack of campaigning is also true for Republicans in California, but for different reasons. Republican presidential candidates assume they will not win the state’s electoral votes and do not mount intensive campaigns. Like Clinton, they concentrate on states where the chance of gaining voting majorities is feasible. 

Now, consider the change that will occur if a switch to popular voting is adopted. Keeping California as an example---Since popular vote totals would rule, each Party will pour resources into California and its near-forty million residents: Democrats to protect what they already have and Republicans to woo converts. The all-or-nothing Electoral College rules no longer apply and each candidate would get its portion of the vote. This attention is good for residents of California, but it comes at the cost of having a greatly reduced presence by candidates in states that formerly received campaign attention. This scenario will be repeated in a few large states and much of the American public will be on reduced rations when it comes to attention by candidates and the distribution of federal monies. 

A pragmatic negative factor is the process by which the required constitutional amendment would be adopted. If the process is the standard one whereby 75% of the 50 state legislatures must approve an amendment, the possibility of ratification of a switch to popular voting is very problematic. Seven of our states have only one seat in the House of Representatives because of small populations. Five others have only two votes and three more have only 3 Members in the House. Why would these 15 small-population states (with a collective 26 votes in the House) ever vote to ratify an amendment giving power to large states such as Texas and Florida with their combined 63 House votes? Thirty-eight ratifying votes are needed for passage of a Constitutional amendment and 15 votes against such an amendment presumably will be cast by those small states.

Does this mean that we should keep the Electoral College? Not at all.  Much depends on the individual voter’s view of democracy. How important is the popular will when it comes to an election? Intuitively, the collective will of the people should decide who represents us, but the pragmatic reality is that a switch to a popular vote system in the face of twenty-first century demographics will have negative consequences. Legislative dominance by a few states and a fall-off in campaigning in all but the largest states is the prediction of this blog. What do we, as a people, want and what consequences are we willing to accept?

The Census and Citizenship

By: John C. Lesher

The Census and the Matter of Citizenship 

Headlines concerning the House impeachment inquiry have pushed most news from the front page, but a significant issue will reassert itself in the very near future: the decennial Census of the United States will be conducted in 2020. OK—you can yawn now. 

The typical American is aware of this exercise in counting our residents, but lacks an in-depth understanding of how government uses the data compiled during the census year. The most easily understood effect on all of us is program-based at the local level: federal funds for many activities such as school lunches and highway construction are allocated to the many states based on population within a state. State governments then distribute these tax dollars among their departments, institutions, local governments and constituents. Less understood are the electoral consequences of a census tabulation, as noted below.

An Abbreviated Census Primer

The fundamental point to be remembered is that the census is not a count of citizens, or registered voters, or homeowners, or of anything other than residents of the United States at a moment in time. The term “resident” is broadly interpreted by the Census Bureau and includes, in addition to citizens of all ages, both documented and undocumented non-citizens. Tourists staying for short periods are not included, but anyone residing in the U. S. for any appreciable time is eligible to be counted.  The Census Bureau rules for who gets counted and who doesn’t are somewhat puzzling. For example, approximately 4,000,000 citizens of the U.S. are business executives and their dependents stationed overseas. These individuals pay annual taxes to the US Treasury, own property in the States and accumulate annual Social Security benefits, but, because of temporary overseas residence, are not included in the census.

Once fully compiled, the census becomes the basis for all electoral politics in America for the subsequent ten years. The Census Bureau tabulates a national population, breaks that population down by state and completes a process known as apportionment. The Constitution requires that every 10 years the 435 seats in the federal House of Representatives be apportioned among the states according to relative population. If your state has 3% of the nation’s population, your state will get 3% of House memberships, subject to the rounding of fractional seats. That apportionment by the Census Bureau will remain in effect until the next census when the process of census count and relative apportionment will be repeated. Currently, California (53 seats) and Texas (36 seats) lead in congressional representation because of their large populations relative to other states.

Once the state populations and House of Representatives apportionment numbers are determined they are given to the President, the Clerk of the House and to the Governor of each state. At this point the individual states use the population and apportionment data to form geographic electoral units for both federal and state legislative offices according to the procedures contained in each state’s constitution. These geographical units from which office holders are elected are known as “districts” and the process by which they are formed is referenced as “redistricting.” The population numbers tabulated by the Census Bureau are the central element in any redistricting process because a series of United States Supreme Court decisions requires that states form federal electoral districts within their borders that are rigorously equal in population.  State legislative districts have slightly more latitude regarding equality of population, but the starting premise of all redistricting exercises is that Census Bureau population statistics are the fundamental data base. From start (April 1, 2020) to finish the census count/district formation process should take approximately two years; the goal will be to have all electoral units in place well before the November, 2022 elections.

Why is “Are You a Citizen” So Problematic?

The 2020 census data will be used for funds distribution and electoral redistricting in a manner no different from prior decades, but in 2020 the census has engendered a controversy. In decades past a census question was asked: “Where were you born?” If the answer was a location other than the US and its territories a second question requested you to name your place of birth. This two-part inquiry didn’t directly say “are you a citizen,” but it accomplished the same end. In 2020 the Administration has proposed that “are you a citizen” wording be included in the census forms.

Nominally, there should be no controversy over what appears to be an innocuous inquiry. Why shouldn’t a sovereign state be able to determine how many citizens it has? The problem stems from the fact that so much economic and political power flows from the primary census statistic--the population of a given jurisdiction. In our federal system, the greater or lesser a state’s population, the greater or lesser its congressional representation and share of federal tax distributions will be. Anything that can be conceived as reducing a state’s population is a threat to both power and money and will be opposed by the negatively affected parties.

The concern of those in opposition to the citizenship question is that many residents who are here illegally will refuse to be counted out of fear that those admitting to non-citizen status will be turned over to immigration authorities, regardless of assurances that their responses are confidential. This is supposition, but if it happens, states with large undocumented populations (notably California, Texas, Florida and New York) will see their census populations reduced, and will experience a concomitant reduction in congressional apportionment and federal tax distributions. 

At the moment this is a problem more for Democrats than for Republicans. The primary example is California, where the nation’s largest population of undocumented residents is found. If wide-spread refusal to answer the citizenship question were to occur, California could see several congressional seats allocated to other states because its census population would decline. Since California’s congressional delegation is overwhelmingly Democratic (approximately 85%), the Party’s fear is that the seats lost would be held by Democrats and would be gained by Republicans in other states. If that process were repeated in Texas, Florida and New York, a major shift in Party power in Congress could occur. This is all “ifs and maybes,” but the opponents of the question take this potential loss of power quite seriously. In June, 2019 the Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from adding the citizenship question to the census forms, but the Court’s reasoning left open the possibility that the matter could be reopened.

Will Total Population Continue To Be the Standard?

In early 2016 the Supreme Court settled a controversy in Texas by stating that Texas could go forward with its redistricting and use census data as the basis for the formation of electoral districts that were equal in population. However, the court also said that whether some state at a future date could assert the right to redistrict based on a methodology other than Census Bureau population was an open question. No decision on such an assertion would be forthcoming until a state actually attempted to redistrict without using census statistics and a new formula and procedure were presented to the Court for approval. What would happen if the count of citizens in a given state were that new standard?

America’s population after the 2010 census was approximately 308 million. The number of non-citizens in that population is difficult to determine, but wildly varying and unverified estimates as high as 50 million are proffered. Eliminating non-citizens from the census count would create very real dislocations far in excess of the theoretical fears expressed by opponents of a citizenship question on a census, as discussed earlier in this essay.

In this case, when the apportionment exercise is conducted, only citizens would be included in the formula calculating the apportionment of congressional seats to the states; states with large non-citizen populations (regardless of proper documentation) would lose House membership and states with low non-citizen populations could gain seats. The distribution of legislative power and tax dollars could be altered significantly. As such, a citizenship standard will be resisted fiercely. It would also leave unanswered the question of whether tax distributions to the states should continue to be based on total population because citizenship counts do not necessarily correlate with the number of students receiving lunch aid or the miles of highways within a state needing repair. 

For now, the status quo will be maintained, but these issues of asking a citizenship question on a census and the use of either citizenship or total population as the data base for the formation of electoral districts are not about to disappear.

Gerrymandering

By: John C. Lesher

What is gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering represents the drawing of electoral districts by a state’s politicians in a manner that maximizes the politicians’ chances of re-election and/or maximizes the power of a Party in a state or federal legislature.

The federal Constitution requires that a census of the American population be taken every 10 years and that the 435 seats in our federal House of Representatives be reapportioned immediately subsequent to each census. Seats in Congress are distributed by the Census Bureau to the states according to the relative population of each state. Once each state receives its quota of congressional seats, each state goes through a process of forming the districts from which candidates for office are elected. Thus, every 10 years state and federal district boundaries are “remapped,” in large measure to comply with the legal requirement that each district within a state be equal in population to every other district. As populations ebb and flow among the states, or within a state, the need to balance populations requires a redrawing of district boundaries.

Why is Gerrymandering Criticized?

The sarcastic phrase among political commentators is that the redistricting process results in politicians picking their voters, rather than the other way around. Viewed in isolation, the redistricting process every 10 years makes sense. The problem arises when the politicians who redraw the districts do so for purely political ends, with little or no thought given to logic or to the needs or wants of the electorate. Far too often the redistricting process has been used solely for the allied purposes of incumbency protection and Party dominance.

Redistricting by politicians for politicians is a clear instance of a conflict of interest, but it is a constitutionally-enshrined power taken most seriously by elected officials. Court decisions can mitigate possible redistricting abuse, but the basic power to redistrict is controlled by elected state office-holders and that power is often exercised by them with as much effect on electoral results as is possible. Getting elected or re-elected, and not public service, is the priority. Redistricting consultants, with their census tabulations and voting rolls and computer algorithms, advise politicians where voters live and draw district lines that concentrate or dilute voting power according to perceived political advantage.

It is well established in American law that gerrymandering for racially discriminatory purposes will not be tolerated. However, gerrymandering for political ends is a common practice with little legal oversight. In the past two decades the electorate has awakened to this misuse of power and steps are slowly but surely being taken to curtail abuses. Historically, federal courts, notably the Supreme Court, have been reluctant to involve themselves in what is regarded as a purely political matter, thereby avoiding the accusation of being an arbiter of elections by taking the power to elect away from voters. However, in the past four or five years, activist federal district courts in several locations have begun to take a critical look at gerrymandering.

At the state level, courts in several jurisdictions, Pennsylvania being a salient example, have issued rulings abrogating a state’s redistricting. Advocates for the reform of America’s redistricting process are hopeful that the Supreme Court will declare extreme partisanship in electoral district formation to be a constitutional violation, and issue standards and tests that will stop, or greatly restrict, the ability of legislators to select their voters. Through the end of 2019, that has not happened.

So How Do We Get Out Of This Mess?

The way out is simple to state but difficult to accomplish. There are two choices. The first is to take the redistricting authority out of the hands of elected politicians and place it under the control of a commission whose members are independent of a state legislature’s override or of a gubernatorial veto. In a system featuring true independence from political interference, where incumbency and Party dominance are not considerations, gerrymandering and its accompanying litigation would be minimized and the electorate’s needs would be paramount.

The second method is to keep the redistricting authority in the hands of a state’s legislature, but restrict the legislature’s power to “wheel and deal” by passing constitutional amendments that detail with specificity what the legislature can and cannot consider in a redistricting exercise. This is the method chosen by Florida voters shortly before the 2010 census.

Many states have some form of a commission to either accomplish redistricting or to assist a legislature in its redistricting duties. However, only five states—Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho and New Jersey—have commissions that are fully independent of their legislatures and governors for both state and federal redistricting. In the 2018 election cycle, voters in four additional states (Colorado, Michigan, Missouri and Utah) passed legislation to either form commissions or to restrict gerrymandering by their legislators. As is always the case in instances where the voters have taken power from politicians, legal challenges to these new enactments have been filed and it will take many more months before the finality of the enactments in Michigan, Missouri and Utah is determined. Washington has a commission that is quasi-independent: no gubernatorial veto, although the legislature can override the commission map, but only with a 2/3 majority of both houses. In early 2020 Virginia’s State House of Delegates voted to place on the November, 2020 ballot a referendum measure to establish a redistricting commission for that state.

Florida has reformed its redistricting process, and has chosen to do so by means of constitutional amendments that maintain the Florida legislature’s right to redistrict, but which forbid consideration of many things. The operative part of Florida’s constitutional amendments is as follows:

“…(districting maps) may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible, must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.”

Language similar to that placed into Florida’s constitution is a crucial element in controlling gerrymandering abuse. Adopting an independent commission structure for redistricting will lose much of its effectiveness if a state fails to incorporate into the adopting legislation unambiguous rules as to what is permitted in redistricting matters.

It is easy to talk about these potential fixes to the problem of gerrymandering, but actually adopting a potential solution is far harder. The likelihood of politicians voluntarily relinquishing a constitutionally-granted redistricting power is low. To effect change, citizens have forced the issue and resorted to the device of direct democracy. Ballot initiatives by citizens have been responsible for almost all of the recent instances of significant changes in redistricting authority. Unfortunately, only 26 states and the District of Columbia have constitutional provisions granting direct democracy to citizens.

These citizen-driven initiatives were fiercely resisted by political elites and litigation lasting for a decade or more was experienced. The right of citizens to remove constitutionally-based redistricting power from elected officials was adjudicated in 2015 by the Supreme Court in the case of Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The Court ruled in a 5-4 split decision that voters have such a right. Now-deceased Justice Antonin Scalia in a scathing dissent said that the Court’s decision defied any logical reading of the constitution.

It is now 2020. The Supreme Court has a more conservative cast that might agree with Justice Scalia. It is possible that new litigation will be filed attempting to overturn the entire concept of citizen initiatives usurping power from a legislature. If such a suit is successful, the commissions adopted by several states would be disbanded and have no further authority. In that event, the path taken by Florida---leaving to the legislature the authority to redistrict, but doing so under restrictive rules of procedure adopted by voters---probably will be the required fallback position if gerrymandering is to be curtailed.

If America is to limit self-interested manipulation of redistricting by its elected politicians, the power to control the process of district formation must either be taken from political elites or have that power greatly circumscribed by the incorporation into state constitutions of plainly stated boundary lines around redistricting exercises. The adoption of independent redistricting commissions or rule-altering amendments to state constitutions would be powerful correctives to an inherently onerous situation.

Seven Decades Later: John Gets His Dad's Flag!

By Tina Lesher

Several weeks ago, our daughter Melissa received a message through Facebook from a Deborah Townsend who asked if Melissa was the granddaughter of Christian Lesher, who was killed in February 1945 in the Philippines.

Melissa immediately replied that indeed her father, my husband John, is the son of Christian C. Lesher who was killed in battle in Luzon during World War II when John was 16 months old. Christian Lesher, who died on his 29th birthday, never had a chance to see his only child.

Deborah is married to my husband John’s first cousin, Gerry Townsend. In September, Gerry’s mother, Georgia Lesher Townsend, passed away at age 98.  She was the younger sister of John’s father.

The Lesher family resided in Reading, Pa., where John was born in late 1943. But he and his mother moved out to other Pennsylvania towns when John was young and his connections to the Lesher side of the family plummeted over the years    So he really did not know his Aunt Georgia or her children.

Deborah Townsend was in search of John’s contact numbers to inform him that Aunt Georgia for years had been in possession of the American flag given to Christian Lesher’s family after he died in the line of duty.  Now his cousins wanted John to have that flag.

John was a bit flummoxed as he recalled that the government had presented his mother with a flag shortly after her spouse’s death.  She gave that flag to St. Joseph’s School in Ashland, Pa. when John was a student there in the early grades. The flag flew over the school.

So how could there still be a flag, wondered John.

Then he remembered that, at the request of the Lesher family, his father’s body was disinterred and brought back from the Philippines for burial in Reading. John was about 4 years old at the time and has vague memories of being at the cemetery for the ceremonies. No doubt the casket was covered with a U.S. flag that apparently was given to John’s grandmother, Anna Brennan Lesher. When she died, the flag wound up with her children, eventually in the hands of her daughter Georgia, and after the latter’s recent death, with her offspring.

Indeed John was thrilled that he would have the flag that represented the sacrifice made by his father, who served in the Medic Corps and was helping others when he lost his life. 

Thus, earlier this week Melissa and I accompanied John to the Hotel Bethlehem in Pennsylvania where three long-lost cousins---children of Aunt Georgia—hosted a luncheon and presented John with the flag that they had encased in a traditional triangular box.  John brought along some memorabilia that he had inherited from his late mother, including medals and a letter from a chaplain who knew Christian Lesher. The cousins gave John photos of his dad and a book detailing the history of the military unit in which he served. They all swapped stories they knew about the family, too.

 John was grateful for the chance to reconnect with cousins and to receive, 73 years after his father’s death, such a special flag.

Since we have a 25-foot flag pole outside our Westfield home, John plans to fly that flag on appropriate occasions like Memorial Day or Veterans Day, in memory of the father he never knew and the many thousands who have died for this country.

No doubt it will be the lone 48-star flag flying in town.

Congratulations, Dr. John C. Lesher!

When John and I married in 1970, he was immersed in graduate studies at the highly regarded  Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.  I toiled on the staff of the Philadelphia Inquirer to help pay the rent, and was thrilled when he completed his MBA in 1971. He said he could not be bothered attending the graduation ceremony but I hosted a party for him that afternoon at the rooftop lounge at our Philadelphia apartment building.

Then off we went to northern New Jersey and his job with the real estate division of Prudential. After nine years there---and transfers that resulted in our three children being born in different states---John hightailed it to Manhattan and a position at Madison Equities, a real estate development firm.

The trappings of academia eluded him for years except for several semesters when he taught as an adjunct at NYU. I would love to have taken his graduate classes in the Real Estate Development program as he was the most prepared instructor I ever knew. His course outlines should have been turned into a textbook.

Years Later...

Fast forward to 2009 and John, whose interest in history is exhibited in the scores of books that line shelves in our abode, said he might like to take a night class in history. We checked out universities in the commuting area, and he decided on Montclair State. So that fall, he went to MSU one night a week for an initial class that really impressed him. So he took another class the following semester. Since our state universities mandate that you must be enrolled in a formal program after completing two courses, John officially entered the master’s program and took one or two classes a year while he continued to work.

When he retired from Madison Equities in January 2013, he became a fulltime student at Montclair and was awarded his MA in history later that year. Again, he skipped graduation.

More Studies???

He then decided he wanted to go on for a doctorate---sort of an amazing goal for someone who was about to be 70. I figured he might consider programs in English because he had a bachelor’s degree in the field, or business or history, the areas in which he had received master’s degrees.  But no---he told me he wanted to pursue a PhD in political science.

I laughed and said: “You have never had one course in political science.  I sincerely doubt you can get into a doctoral program with zero background in the field. And the fact that you are a senior citizen probably cannot help.”  Yet he was keyed into poli sci because his objective, he said, was to study the fall of the British Empire and compare it to what might be happening in America. It was something that had drawn his interest for years and he figured it eventually would make a good dissertation topic.

He applied only to one program---at Rutgers, our state university.  A gifted writer, John penned an extraordinary essay to accompany his application.  Sure enough, next thing I know John became a fulltime doctoral student in political science at Rutgers in September 2013 and we were again sending tuition checks to the institution where I earned a doctorate in English education when I was 44.

Exemplary Student

John did not miss classes, no matter what time they were held in New Brunswick. He became proficient with the computer keyboard as he banged out paper after paper with his two-finger typing method. When he made his first in-class presentation, he was a picture of sartorial splendor in a dark suit and cufflinked shirt.  (The professor complimented him, probably because such professional dress unfortunately is not quite common in higher education these days).   He finished every assignment on time, and wrote an impressive so-called “second-year paper” centered on the Voting Rights Act and its implications.

For months, after completing his required classes, he studied for two tests: a 12-hour exam in his major, American Politics, and an eight-hour exam in International Relations, one of his minors. Frankly, he was a bit nervous in preparing for those tests, not because he feared he would not know the material but he was afraid that his newfound typing skills might not allow him to finish in the assigned time.  But he passed the exams and, per department rules, he then had to face a faculty panel that quizzed him about the essay-type answers he had written.

One panel member was Dr. Ross Baker, a distinguished professor who is widely recognized for his research about Congress. Dr. Baker earlier had read John’s second-year paper and encouraged him to continue researching the Voting Rights Act for his doctoral dissertation.

John said No. He explained that he already had a dissertation committee in place and planned to write about the Fall of the British Empire, etc.

Later, at home, John mulled the idea of switching topics. I encouraged him to think about it. After all, he had enjoyed writing about voting rights and Congressional majority-minority districts, and such subjects were more aligned to his major.  So he made a decision to heed Dr. Baker’s suggestion and secured a new dissertation committee, with Baker as chairman.

 So much for the British Empire. It really did fall---out of John’s plans.

Master's Degree Number 3

At that point in his studies John was informed that he had completed the requirements for a master’s in political science.  So last May, while John was already on his dissertation path, he graduated again---and skipped the ceremony, as usual.

John worked day and night on his dissertation research about majority-minority districts, voting rights, gerrymandering and whatever else he was studying.  He used more than the Internet and libraries---we ran up a big bill on Amazon as books arrived several times a week at our Westfield home. (He read them all).  At one point he asked me to edit his writing, so I took out the red pen.  But I had little use for it. After all, John has always been a superb writer and I attribute that to his love of reading, and his early education with the nuns.  This week, I had a chance to read the lengthy, completed dissertation and I must admit it is truly impressive! The ideas he puts forth in a prescriptive addendum will make good reading for those involved in Congressional redistricting.

The end of his academic journey basically came today at Rutgers where, at age 73, he defended his dissertation and became Dr. John C. Lesher. Thus he enters an unusual demographic: the few people over 70 who complete doctoral programs.  What an accomplishment!

This time, though, John WILL make the Rutgers convocation ceremony where doctoral students are hooded and receive their official degrees. I will be there on May 12, along with our children. And yes--- we will be throwing a party!

Congrats to John C. Lesher, Ph.D.

Melissa: How Could I Forget the Day You Were Born?

Today marks the birthday of our oldest child, Melissa, whose arrival at Elizabeth General Hospital proved to be a happy and sad day for yours truly.

Surely giving birth to a child heralds a happy time for any mother. But in this case, it came on the day MY mother was buried.

Missing my mother’s funeral proved to be only part of the story.

Melissa was born on a Thursday, Jan. 6, actually the Feast of the Epiphany. The previous Sunday night I had a lengthy phone conversation from my Elizabeth, N.J. apartment, with my mother, Alice Rodgers, who was hospitalized in Scranton because she had been fighting some pneumonia-like symptoms.  She was interested in knowing how the final days of my pregnancy were going, and I was glad to say that I prayed that I gave birth before the due date a week or so later as I was outgrowing my maternity clothes. I had not seen my feet in weeks and wondered if I might be giving birth to quadruplets. Mom laughed and said she hoped to be out of the hospital so she could help out if need be.

The doorbell of my apartment rang the next morning at 6 o’clock and my husband, John, and I stared as my older brother, Hugh J., arrived. I took one look at him and said: “Is it Mom?” He said Yes,  that she had died at 3 a.m. We were both shocked.

Under doctor’s orders not to travel to Pennsylvania, I spent the next few days in a haze as people phoned me constantly from all over the country to extend their condolences. Since I would not be able to make the funeral, I arranged for a priest at the parish church in Elizabeth to say a Mass on Jan. 6, when the actual funeral was being held in Scranton. Upon hearing that, a number of my high school friends decided that they would come to Elizabeth instead of to Scranton so they could attend the Mass with me; I then arranged for a lunch for all of us at a nearby restaurant.

The night before, shortly after having dinner with yours truly and my sister-in-law, Meg, who had come to stay with me, John left (at my request) for Scranton to attend the funeral the next day. He was gone for less than a few hours when I started having contractions.  Thankfully, Meg is a nurse so she was able to decide that I had to go to the hospital. She accompanied me as we were driven by an apartment neighbor who first put his gambling/bookie money on my five-dollar coffee table.  He headed the wrong way as he assumed we were going to Irvington General when, in fact, I was to give birth at Elizabeth General. (You cannot make these things up).

After we got to the right hospital and I was put in a bed, I asked to make a phone call as I wanted to alert my spouse in Pennsylvania that I was in labor in New Jersey. So I called my family’s home where John was staying.

“Detective Mecca,” said a voice.

I said: “Oh, I am trying to get the Rodgers home. Guess I dialed the wrong number.”

He said: “No, this is the Rodgers home on Adams Avenue.”

Then one of my brothers grabbed the phone to tell me the house had been burglarized while everyone was at the funeral home. The break-in had been discovered by John when he arrived from New Jersey and the police were seeking evidence.

I was incensed, angry at myself for not reminding the family to make sure the house was covered during the wake and funeral.  As a former newspaperwoman in Scranton, I knew that these burglaries were common when homes might be empty.

Gone were my mother’s beautiful jewels that, had they not been stolen, certainly would be worn these days by yours truly and Melissa.  My mother also had a large collection of Indian pennies and they also had been taken. My father was so upset by mother’s unexpected death that he never even claimed these losses from the insurance company. But he did remove my mother’s diamond engagement ring from her body and gave it to me. Years later, I gave it to Melissa who had it made into a lovely necklace.

John could not hurry back to New Jersey that night as snow was falling in Scranton and the trip through The Poconos would have been dangerous. Besides, I thought he should represent me at my mom’s funeral.

For hours, and I mean hours, I writhed in pain in the hospital.  This went on all morning on Jan. 6 after Meg left to meet my friends who came for the Mass I had set up.

I remember the nurses moved me at one point and a discussion ensued about a possible Cesarean section. Meg had returned and informed me that my friends were in the hospital waiting room and that John reportedly was enroute from Pennsylvania. 

And that is all I remember until 8 p.m. on Jan. 6 when I awoke in a room with John sitting at the bottom of the bed while reading Time magazine. He looked up and said: “Girl.  Ten pounds,  one ounce. I arrived right after you got out of the delivery room. I saw them weigh her and I swear it said 11 pounds.”

I asked if it was a natural birth and he mumbled “Yes.”

“Is she okay?”

He said “Fine. In the nursery down the hall.”

I fell asleep again.

In this day and age, when women exit the hospital about an hour after giving birth, this is hard to believe: I never saw my baby until noon on Jan. 7, 21 hours after she was born.  Then she was presented to me by five---repeat five---nurses.

Why?

Well, probably because my baby was, well, unusually dark with black hair sticking straight up in the air.  No one would think that this child was the product of an Irish-American, freckled mother. This quintet of hospital staffers apparently wanted to see my reaction.

Admittedly, I was a bit surprised. She surely did not resemble my nieces and nephews when they were born. I made sure that her bracelet said Lesher and was amazed at how she was smiling with those big, brown eyes. John arrived, picked her up, took a bottle from a nurse, and fed her. He had spoken to the doctors who explained that the baby had some sort of a blood reversal that resulted in a temporary darkening of her skin and that would change over the coming days.  

Then my siblings and father arrived. They were all exhausted from the funeral activities, but they came to Jersey to support me after I could not make my mother’s burial. My brothers never said anything at the time, but now they regale in telling Melissa how shocked they were at the sight of her. They laugh as they describe telling my father, who had been drowning his sorrows in Dewars, not to say anything to me about the skin tone of his newest grandchild.

John came every day to help with the feedings and was happy to bring the bambino home so he could show off his ridiculously expensive purchase: a Baby Butler high chair that could be converted to a bathtub. You read that right. Some shady guy in New Jersey is still smiling over making that sale to my spouse.

For weeks, I received sympathy cards and congratulations cards---sometimes in the same envelope. Interestingly, people just assumed I would name the baby Alice after my mother. But Alice is MY legal name and my mother called me Tina so we would not have two with the same name in the same abode. So I scrapped any idea of naming my daughter after my mom, and opted for the name Melissa. John and I attended a pre-Baptismal meeting for parents and the priest said we could not baptize  her Melissa as it was not a saint’s name so he suggested we give her a middle name after a saint. I said: “How about Alice?”

And that explains why I have a daughter named Melissa Alice Lesher.

Say that three times and thank God she did not have a lisp.

Happy Birthday, Melissa!

Why Did the NY Post Publish the Photo of the Hoboken Victim?

Imagine you were the spouse or parent of the young woman who was the lone fatality in this week’s Hoboken train crash.

Already overwhelmed by grief marked by the shocking tragedy, you open up the New York Post the next day to see the coverage of the crash. Then, as you turn to page 3, you cannot believe what you see.

There, in a large photo, lies the body of your loved one, Fabiola deKroon.

The body is not covered.

Talk about sensationalism.

WHAT WAS THE REASON??

What were the editors thinking?  Is it more important to sell papers or respect the family of the deceased?

Or was The Post simply adding to the discussions that take place in journalism classes about such editorial choices?

Give the paper credit for publishing a letter to the editor today from a reader who questioned the decision to publish that photo. I assume a lot of other letters were sent to The Post.

For years, in the realm of journalism education where I labored as a professor, we put a lot of emphasis on media ethics and discussed cases where decision-making was questioned.

OK TO PUBLISH PHOTO OF A PERSON ABOUT TO DIE??

I lived in the Boston suburbs in 1975 when the Boston Herald published a photo of a woman and her grandchild falling from a burning building. The woman died but the child survived. Critics called the photo an invasion of the family’s privacy but the photo took the coveted Pulitzer Prize in photography. More than three decades later the photographer, Stanley Forman, pointed out that those in the photo were not dead when the picture was taken, apparently arguing that, were they already dead, they should not be in published photos. So I assume he would have criticized the NY Post photo this week.

WHAT IS GOOD NEWS PHOTOGRAPHY?

I cannot figure out how the New York Post determines good photography. About five years ago it was under fire after publishing a photo of a man hanging on a subway platform and about to get hit by a train. Readers wondered why the paper’s photographer did not go and help to save the person as opposed to taking the photo.

It was simply upsetting for NY Post readers to see the victim’s body in a photo this week, and I am betting that the person who snapped the photo probably was a bystander who sold the image for a few bucks.

No matter what, I doubt if any editor with a sense of ethics would have allowed the photo to be published. It was an example of media insensitivity.  DeKroon’s family should be outraged.

Comment

Share

0 Likes

You must select a collection to display.

Website by Jaclyn Antonacci

To Save Two-Party System: End Closed Primaries

By: John C. Lesher

 It is common in liberal democracies governed by parliamentary procedure to see voting rates of 70% or more of eligible voters. A few such governments have a legal requirement for voting, but even if the voting-mandate nations are not considered, parliamentary-based nations experience voluntary participation rates 15-25% higher than in America. With rare exceptions, voting rates by Americans peak at 50-55%  of eligible voters during our quadrennial Presidential election cycles and fall off from those low levels by, roughly, a further 20% in mid-term general election cycles. Our primary election performances are even worse—much worse. This obviously begs two questions: why? and ,what effect does this have on our electoral future?

Make Electoral Politics Attractive

In the opinion of this author, the three P’s of polarization, participation and primaries comprise a witches’ brew that will spell the death knell of the two-party system that has served Americans so well for so many years unless steps are taken to make electoral politics more attractive and meaningful to the voting public. Parliamentary-style electoral processes have much to teach us that can be applied to American elections with very positive effect. Parliamentary systems often have candidates contesting for office from a diverse selection of political parties; there are no tightly grouped and antipodal “liberal” or “conservative” blocs with a vacuum in between, as is often the case in an ideologically-polarized American contest. In a parliamentary election, most often there is a continuum of political thought that has a significant centrist element, in addition to leftist liberal and rightist conservative factions. Also, parliamentary systems frequently have small, fringe parties that appeal to single-issue constituencies. This combination of a candidate/party structure that appeals to a very broad base of political opinion, as well as to those who have strong single-issue agendas, gives voters an eclectic mix of choices and frequently has the dual effect of producing high levels of voter participation along with a moderation of ideological extremism among candidates.

 Lowered polarization and high voting participation rates are desirable attributes in any democracy, and are particularly needed in today’s America. Citizen disgust with uncompromising ideology and polarization is evident in voter registration statistics. Americans are registering without party affiliation at rapidly increasing rates; depending on source, anywhere from one-third to 40% of currently-registered voters opt for non-affiliated (AKA “Independent") status. My belief is that parties are in decline and the two-party system is endangered by this unwillingness to register with a party affiliation, although this is a controversial and disputed topic.

How can we, as a society, reverse the tendency of Americans to be indifferent to voting and electoral participation, and simultaneously mitigate the extreme partisanship in our elected assemblies? I believe the key is our primary system. We must end closed primaries.

You Can Vote Only in the Party Primary for Which You are Registered

A closed primary is one in which the only votes cast are by party-registered voters. A voter can vote only for candidates running on the slate of the party for which the voter has registered. Independents in closed primary states can vote in general elections, but have no right to participate in the primary election process by which candidates get on the general election ballot in the first place.

There is a causal chain started by this primary election disenfranchisement. Since only Party registrants can vote in closed primaries, only those committed to some degree to that Party’s ideology have a say in candidate selection for the general election. The consequence is that candidates in closed primaries appeal to the Party’s base. That base is quite liberal for Democrats and quite conservative for Republicans.  Primary candidates compete to show their ideological colors by announcing themselves as more liberal (Democrats) or more conservative (Republicans) than their primary opponents. The tendency is to move farther and farther to the right or the left and abandon the center. The moderate center has been lost because the Independents who do not choose to be ideologically-based voters cannot exercise the vital democratic right of voting in a closed primary. Rightist-dominated and leftist-dominated party slates for general elections are the result. With few centrist victors in primary contests in closed primary states, the inevitable next step in the causal sequence is legislatures filled with leftist and rightist ideologues who are inflexible in legislative and social policy matters.

This is a recipe for instant polarization and legislative inertia and explains in great measure the wide-spread reluctance of American citizens to participate in the electoral process. Political scientists often assert that the typical American voter is a “median” voter—a centrist who evaluates issues one at a time and who does not have ideological rigidity. However, if the closed primary set-up restricts centrist candidates from being included on general election ballots, why bother to vote if you are a registered Independent and centrist who has no appealing general election choice?

Open Primary Systems Needed

 What to do? States, which have the constitutionally-based right to enact their election protocols, must adopt “open” primary systems if we are ever going to have any semblance of comity and bi-partisanship in our legislative chambers. As of the 2016 election cycle, there were 31 states that had closed primaries; the remaining 19 had some variant of an “open” primary where, depending on the system adopted, independent voters could cast ballots in primary elections and/or voters could “cross-vote” (Dems voting for Repubs or visa versa). Since then, several additional states have moved closer to open primaries, but the number is still far too low. Also, uniformity of rules is not present.

The only state with a truly wide-open primary in which all registrants can vote for any candidate is California and its “top two” system. In “top two” the party elites can select candidates to run for office, but individual citizens also can get themselves listed on the ballot by meeting certain qualification standards. The mix of candidates—party-backed and citizens who are self-promoted—are placed on a single ballot which lists all candidates for all state and local offices. This primary makes no distinction by Party or Independent status.  All registered California voters go to the polls on a single primary election day and vote for candidates for each contested office. Within each office, the “top two” vote-recipients, regardless of Party, compete in the general election. Yes, the general election could have two Democrats or two Republicans opposing each other. Nine of California’s 53 House of Representative contests in 2014 had same-party general election candidates.

Decades ago, when almost every registered voter selected one of the two major parties, and when Democrats had a conservative wing and Republicans had a moderate wing (remember Nelson Rockefeller?), voters had broad choices and the closed primary system of candidate selection worked fairly well. Voting participation rates were high, relative to today, and polarization was far lower. However, once our obsession with ideology took hold, and polarization became its consequence, party loyalty among registrants declined and the contemporary result is a restricted primary system that produces polarization and discourages participation and endangers the two-party system.  We need to have all states adopt fully open primaries whereby all voters, regardless of Party affiliation, can vote for any candidate on a single primary election day. This is nothing more than the application of the eligibility rules for a general election to a primary election.

Open primaries aren’t a silver bullet that will increase participation to 100%, eliminate polarization and single-handedly resuscitate the two-party system, but to paraphrase liberally Churchill’s comment about Democracy, “open primaries are the worst form of selection, except for all the others.”

Keep Bill Out of the White House

 Since I host a Newsies group that discusses topics of interest in the media, I often am asked for whom I will vote in the November election and my reasoning for the choice.

  Actually, I have avoided the political realm since getting more serious about my blog and posting entries every other week. But a few friends have encouraged me to focus a bit more on the news cycle, since I do have an interest in journalism.

Frankly, I am not sure who will secure my vote, but I do know that it will not be Hillary Clinton.

This is not to say that she is incompetent or inexperienced. After all, after a stint as First Lady she did represent New York well as a senator, I think, even though she was a carpetbagger who ran in a state where she never resided.  I thought she was doing a fairly decent job in the Secretary of State post; that is one of the most demanding government jobs, with an enormous amount of travel in addition to the responsibility of overseeing the work of thousands.  

NOW WE GET THE STORY

Since she has entered the presidential race, though, we have found out a lot about Clinton’s “interesting” ways of handling her State Department activities. Her staffer, Huma Abedin, not only got a government salary but was a consultant at the Clinton Foundation, Teneo Holdings (with strong connections to the Clintons) and she was paid as a personal assistant to Hillary Clinton. Apparently the whole thing was legal, but it deserves to be assessed in the context of how Secretary Clinton played the political game. 

The situation in Benghazi that resulted in the loss of American Embassy staffers’ lives also has played havoc with Clinton’s reputation.

And the monies flowing into the Clinton Foundation? I cannot see on any level why a high-ranking American official, whose main job was to deal with foreign countries, would allow the same countries to give monies to a foundation tied to her family. It smacks of poor decision-making and a potential conflict of interest.

REASON I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER

Even if I could put aside all of the aforementioned questionable actions, the main reason that I do not wish to see Hillary Clinton in the White House is this:

If she wins, her spouse, Bill Clinton, gets to reside in The White House.

Good God. This is a former president who was impeached! (OK, maybe not convicted but he is in the history books along with Andrew Johnson).   His law license was suspended because of the Monica Lewinsky case. Why? Because he sullied the reputation of the nation’s highest office by conducting a sexual relationship with an intern and then lying about it.

The argument that the intern was of legal age is bogus, in my opinion.  I was in charge of an internship program where collegians flocked to New York media sites for internships. Most of the students were seniors and 21 years of age. Yet, if one of them ever returned to me and said that some important media figure or mogul had made any type of a sexual advance against her, I would have marched into Manhattan, and insisted that action be taken to remove the offensive party. If I were rebuffed after providing some evidence, I would start a writing campaign to unveil the situation. Fortunately, I never had to deal with such nonsense.

But we Americans allowed Bill Clinton, the President no less, to remain in office. Seriously, how bad is that?  If he worked for any decent company, he would have been canned for his relationship with an intern. And, please remember that he paid $850,000 while President to settle a case of sexual harassment brought by Paula Jones.  

HIS REPUTATION IS STAINED

Now, if his spouse is successful in her bid to claim the nation’s highest office, Bill will once again be living in the storied building where his reputation was stained (an interesting choice of words, huh?).  As the President’s spouse, he will get an office and perhaps even an intern!  Seriously: think about this!

 His wife already has said she will put him in charge of the economy. Why not?  Smart play on her part. Old Bill can figure out how to help her in many situations, even if it means engaging in conversation with the attorney general in a plane to make sure the latter has to remove herself from inquiries like those related to the Clinton emails. (And I have avoided even discussing those.)

It is unfathomable to me to think that this country would believe it is a good thing to have Bill Clinton back in The White House.  

So does that mean I will push the button for Trump in the polling booth?  Maybe. Or maybe not. I could opt for a write-in vote. That’s a whole other discussion and I am sure I will focus on that in an upcoming blog.

As for Hillary: why she remained with her womanizer spouse, I cannot figure out. But she will have to dump him before yours truly even considers voting for her and allowing that flawed ex-President to take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Deer Me...What is Sleeping on My Lawn?

“Do, a dear, a female deer…”

Every time I hear those words from the popular Sound of Music score, I think of the not-so-dear deer that have taken up suburban living.

Smack in our front lawn.

Mind you, we are quite a bit away from a county park or woodlands that might normally harbor these animals, but they apparently want to forgo their natural habitat for a more enjoyable lifestyle in the yards of suburban householders.

ON THE LAWN!

The other night---at about 8:15 p.m., no less---we walked out of our front door to find FIVE deer sleeping in our yard. A few were on the sidewalk.  Just envision a few neighbors walking down the street to come upon this quintet of animals blocking the sidewalk.  

Mind you, just a few days previously I opened the door at about 5:30 a.m. to walk down the front sidewalk and retrieve the newspapers and what do I see? Three of those creatures having breakfast on our grass. I tried to shoo them away and they did not bother to move, as if they are paid tenants on the property.

Deer…deer…they are all over the place.  And their droppings (are they called pellets?) are littering our lawns.

Ironically this was far from the case in Pennsylvania where I grew up. My father and his friends actually had a hunting lodge in the Poconos and every year went off with their guns in search of deer. They would return with NONE. Then one day a deer walked down the road while the men were sitting on the porch and one shot brought that animal down---and after work by a local taxidermist, that deer head became the prime focus of the small lodge.

I lack a hunting rifle, or any other weapon that could take down my lawn “visitors.” Even if I were so inclined to shoot a deer, the local paper would be shooting photos of me as I appeared in some court.

THEY CAUSE DAMAGE

Hey, Bambi may look cute, but the rise in the deer population causes real problems: damages to forests and crops, and vehicular crashes. In 2013, New Jersey recorded more than 26,000 deer-related accidents.  

At least once a year a deer-culling operation takes place in our county-owned parks.  Off-duty law enforcement personnel make up the majority of those who participate in killing the deer whose meat is donated to shelters, etc. Of course, every year some deer-lovers group makes a stink about the demise of those animals.

MY SUGGESTION

My suggestion is for the county to “round up” the deer who have moved into suburbia and put them in trucks and then return them to the park right before the culling operation.

Or drop them on the lawns of those deer lovers. Then get the reaction of those people when their lawns and bushes are wrecked by their dear deers.

Jersey Dirt: Recipe for Fame!

Credit this dessert tale NOT to my culinary artistry but rather to my instincts to make my daughter a “winner.”

That might explain why, more than two decades ago, I read with interest a letter sent to parents of students at the University of Richmond, where my daughter, Melissa, was enrolled. The communique called for parents to send in a recipe for their child’s favorite food;  if the recipe were selected as one of the best entries, the food would be placed on the menu of the UR Dining Hall in a week devoted to the contest.

I decided to make sure that Melissa claimed a win in this event, so that translated to my finding a recipe that would garner some attention. To this day I do not really know what Melissa’s favorite food is, but it might be the macaroni salad that I still prepare for her when she visits.

But no way was macaroni going to make the cut at Richmond, I figured.

GET OUT THE RECIPE BOOK

So I perused my book of recipes, gathered not from my years of sweating over the stove but mostly from articles I had cut out of newspapers or from copies of recipes given to me from those individuals I had featured in stories I published as a food writer. Please understand that I did not make a significant mark in that area of journalism, but I wrote a lot of food stories as a freelancer/columnist for daily newspapers; a few articles made it to a national news service. In fact, I won an award from the NJ Press Women for my food writing and, when my name was announced, everyone chuckled because they knew I was not proficient as a cook. (The prize-winning story was about agriculture, not about cooking).

As I leafed through my scores of printed recipes for the Richmond competition, my eyes focused on a dessert that I actually had made. It was called Kansas Dirt or some other state dirt and was a tasty offering made with Oreo cookies and other delightful ingredients. The UR contest did not call for an original family recipe, but just one favored by the student.  So I chose this “dirt” one, typed it up, and sent it off as Melissa’s favorite!

Since we reside in New Jersey, I called the recipe Jersey Dirt.

A WINNER!

Sure enough, Melissa emerged as a student whose favorite recipe was among those selected so her name was revealed along with those of other winners. As I recall, Jersey Dirt was to be served as a dessert on a Friday lunch or dinner at the D Hall.

Melissa was infuriated. She called and wanted to know “what the devil” Jersey Dirt was and how it got to be her favorite food.

“You mean your winning food,” I reminded her as I laughed.

She was so incensed that she came home for the weekend in lieu of being present as her NEW favorite food, Jersey Dirt, was served in the dining hall at Richmond.

For the past quarter century, Melissa has regaled her friends and relatives with the story about Jersey Dirt, noting that she never did pick up the prize (a mug, I believe).

  But now, in the past week, the Jersey Dirt tale has risen to new heights.

GETTING FAMOUS

The other day, the UR Facebook showed a photo of a bowl of Jersey Dirt with a message” “It’s Back!” The reaction was swift…comments on Facebook and Instagram from all over the country, especially after Melissa noted for social media users that she and I could claim ownership for the entry.  Respondents admitted that they LOVED Jersey Dirt as a main staple of their diet in their years at Richmond.

A link to the website of a national food directors site showed Jersey Dirt as one of the top 50 popular campus foods. But the accompanying recipe, reportedly provided by UR, had been tweaked. The word Oreos is gone and crème-filled cookies are now the primary ingredient. And milk---real milk---has given way to 2 percent milk (who are they kidding?)  Is this some sort of political food correctness?

Nevertheless, Jersey Dirt is LOVED by UR alumni as the many social media commenters have noted. The university even wrote that the food is “legendary” in its Dining Hall.

Wow—legendary!

After years of verbal criticism of her mother, Melissa has to admit that the Jersey Dirt phenomenon is a direct result of my entering the recipe in her university’s contest. The link to the recipe is even on her Facebook page.  I think she might be proud of our newfound fame.

Now how can she continue to rail about Jersey Dirt and her contest win?

And for all the notoriety UR is getting, you'd think the university would send along the prize mug. LOL

Jersey Dirt Recipe 

1 large pkg. Oreo or Hydrox cookies, crushed

1 (8 oz.) pkg. cream cheese

I stick butter

I C. powdered sugar

3 C. milk

2 pkgs. Instant vanilla pudding

1 t. vanilla

1 (12 oz.) carton of Cool Whip

Put half the crushed cookies in the bottom of 9 x 13-inch cake pan.

Cream together cream cheese, butter, and powdered sugar. Add milk, pudding, vanilla, and Cool Whip; blend well. Pour mixture over crushed cokes and top with other half.

Freeze or refrigerate until firm.

Serves 8-12

What Did You Say, Justice Ginsbug?

In the midst of an almost unsettling battle for The White House, some well-known members of the distaff element are adding to the craziness of the times.

Take Ruth Ginsburg.  What would prompt a Supreme Court member to make remarks about a presidential candidate of any ilk? Say what you want about her intellect, but she certainly demonstrated that she lacks common sense when she ridiculed Donald Trump in an interview and continued her harangue a few days later.

If that is the mindset of an individual making key decisions for the nation, then no wonder that Americans decry the political appointments to the courts?  You know what preceded her appointment to the highest court?   A campaign instigated by her (late) spouse, Martin, who asked important people to write letters to The White House and support her “candidacy” for a seat on the Supreme Court. Just read about that in Sisters In Law, a book that focuses on the lives of Ginsburg and retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Interesting that President Bill Clinton made the appointment and how Ginsburg now thinks it okay to comment as she sees fit about the opponent of Hillary Clinton.

OK, maybe Donald Trump deserves some flak, but justices should not be involving themselves in the political arena.

Maybe it is time for Ginsburg to withdraw from her post. She could follow in the footsteps of another interesting woman who gave up her post…Cong.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz.  Oh, she did not quit her elected position, but withdrew as head of the Democratic National Committee after emails showed that her organization played favorites with those in the primary elections.  Her actions did not exactly elevate the reputation of women in responsible posts.

Government and politics aside, it has not been a good time in the sports category, either. As a golfer, I relish watching top tourneys but the U.S. Women’s Open this year yielded another interesting moment that made viewers wonder: how did she get that job?  The USGA head, Diana Murphy, could not even remember the name of the winner, Brittany Lang, who was introduced as “Bethany.”  I thought I was hearing things, as this came a few weeks after Murphy’s televised appearance at the men’s U.S. Open award ceremony where she stumbled with her words.

Most people probably have no interest in the aforementioned women and their individual plights. But making bad decisions/remarks  on a national stage is not something that enhances anyone’s reputation, man or woman!

We Got to Eat at Noma, the famous Copenhagen restaurant!

          While perusing sites several weeks ago about things to do on a planned trip that included a few days in Copenhagen, I came across a number of references to Noma, a restaurant that had earned No 1 in the World status a number of times in the past decade. Although I recall having read at one time about Noma and heard that it had been the subject of a documentary, I truly knew little about the eatery or its offerings.

            After reading a score of on-line reviews about the place, though, I discovered that the unusual fare is what attracts diners. Anywhere from 15 to 20 courses (small) are served, with much of the food having been foraged within hours of the dining experience.

             Unfortunately, information I read about Noma revealed that it takes months to get a reservation at the restaurant whose chef, Rene Redzepi, has been the subject of documentaries and many articles.  In fact, Noma had a pop-up restaurant last year in Australia for about six weeks, and 28,000 people remained on the waiting list.

                So, after reading about the restaurant, I went to its website and clicked on reservations. I discovered it is a months-long process to secure reservations and we were due in Copenhagen within a few weeks, but I saw an option to apply for the waiting list for a shared table at the famed restaurant. So I filled in the info, noting the dates we would be staying in the beautiful city in Denmark.

LUCKY US!

                Frankly, I sort of forgot about the whole thing until I received an email from Noma that it had a cancellation for two persons on a day we would be in Copenhagen and asking me if I might beinterested in filling in. The email arrived while my husband John and I were cruising The Baltic on the Serenade of the Seas.  So I tried to describe Noma to John, noting its frequent ranking as the top restaurant in the world and its attraction for those chalking up places on their bucket lists. I casually mentioned that our Nordic meal probably would cost more than our hotel bill would be for three nights in Copenhagen, and John was not amused. He said: “Forget it.” I ignored his opinion and replied YES to the email. As requested, I provided credit card information (MY credit card as that way John might be more amenable to accompanying me to a meal for which he was not paying---a first in 46 years of marriage).  

                That night, I mentioned to a few people on the ship that John and I had a chance to dine at Noma and I was besieged in a humorous way with offers to buy me out by people who had tried for months to get reservations and had been rebuffed.  John was beginning to feel a bit more enthused about the whole thing, even after I informed him that we would be eating a lot of small courses of food that might include ants as well as vegetables culled from forests and other places in the Copenhagen area. Noma is known for its offerings of foods picked from wooded sites in the area as well as delicately prepared small portions of meats, fish, etc.

                Thus we arrived at the appointed time to a restaurant that is well-appointed without fancy tablecloths or the trappings of some exclusive establishment. The staff greeted us as we entered and we accepted an offer of a glass of champagne (not free) as we waited with others in a small lounge. We then were brought into the main section that seats 45 people per meal.  We dined at the lone shared table with three other couples, all young enough to be our offspring. They included a Turkish couple now residing in London, another couple from London, and an American who works in Saudi Arabia with his companion, a Korean woman living in Germany. Being with others, in my opinion, made the experience more delightful as we discussed each dish, and used our cellphones to take photos of the food.

                Diners can choose to pair the meal with wine or juice. John chose the wine option and I selected the juices; thus we could share each other’s drinks and see exactly what comes with both choices. As each course was served, a waiter explained what we were to eat; the wines and juices were described by another waiter. Staffers were all over the place, being attentive to the lucky people dining at that time.

WHAT DID WE EAT?

                First course?

                Rhubarb and seaweed. Not exactly fare we eat at our beloved New Jersey diners. Then a three-in-one vegetable offering that featured a black currant berry, a pickled quail egg and flatbread with ant paste.  That’s right---ant paste. (Actually, ants often are part of the Noma menu and I was prepared to taste them if offered---and then hand off the rest to John!)  These foods, incidentally, came on a bed of not-to-be-eaten moss, in which one of our tablemates discovered a worm. (She did not eat it!).

                Sometimes the waiters put down appropriate silverware for us to use for a course---and, in some cases, as for the aforementioned platter, it was a “use your hands and eat in one bite” suggestion for us patrons.

                What else did we enjoy during our two-hour-plus experience?

                Radish pie…asparagus with whipped cream and white asparagus with elderberry leaves…sweet lobster with lavender and rose oil…fresh green garlic shoots, etc.  How about charred ramson?  It’s a  green from the garlic family that was accompanied by a sharp knife as it is hard to cut. (And chew, in my opinion).  Oh, it came with a scallop paste, by the way. Teamed king crab in egg yolk sauce and turbot with sweet shrimp were also among the menu items.

                One of the dessert selections proved most fascinating to yours truly: Moss cooked in chocolate with egg liqueur. Yes, this moss was to be eaten---and it really was quite good!

                The wine selections looked good to me, but John, who is knowledgeable about such things, was not overly impressed. As for the juices ---well, two of them were green and I heard the waiter say something about wood sorrel! Not your everyday orange juice…

                After the meal concluded, we all were taken on a tour of the kitchens and learned about how the food is gathered (staffers hit the forests for some of the selections) and then delicately “hand-prepared” for extraordinary presentation at the tables.   

BRING YOUR WALLET

                John and I have had the fortune of eating an array of foods at some interesting restaurants in our years of overseas travels (I was less than enthusiastic to discover I was eating pigeon one night in Morocco) but the Noma meal certainly garners a special place in our culinary undertakings.

                Yes, our meal cost plenty as in PLENTY but we were on vacation and I chalked it up to a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

                After all, I doubt if we will be chewing on ramson in Westfield N.J.  in the near future…

                So if you ever plan to head to Copenhagen, look up Noma and see if you can grab a reservation--or go on a waiting list. You will be enthralled…

                            (See picture of chocolate-covered moss under PHOTOS)

I'm Sick of Those Phone Calls!!

Every day, without fail, our home phone rings five to 10 times a day with calls from people I do not know.

Often the caller says the following: “Hi, it’s Janet. Are you there?”

Before I can answer, Janet starts railing on about the need for me to buy solar panels or something else for which I have no use.

It’s a recording and I am supposed to give out information before some real person gets on and tries to recruit me to buy something that I do not need. Just today, I received about the 20th call from a LA number wherein some woman on a recording asks me about a warranty for my Mercury.  We are on our second car since we turned in that Mercury, but I stayed on the phone to speak to a real person. I asked him what company he represented and he hung up. I assume I will get a call from the same number within a day or two.

These calls, many coming around dinnertime to my New Jersey home, drive me crazy and I have no idea how to halt them. Yes, I signed up (more than once) for the Do Not Call registry. It should be renamed the Don’t Bother to Call registry as it apparently has no effect on incoming sales calls.

America needs an all-out effort to halt this invasion into one’s lives. Why can’t a governmental body simply legislate a stoppage to this nonsense?

Maybe I could become involved in this call-anyone undertaking? I should start making cold calls to phone numbers and say: “I am sorry to both you at dinner time. I am taking a survey of how many others have bothered you tonight?”  Then, after a week of this informal study, I will forward the numbers to the White House and ask what can be done about unsolicited calls.

Of course, Barack Obama probably will not believe me.

After all, how many of these calls are made to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue at dinner time?

Newspaper Writing: What's Happened??

By Tina Rodgers Lesher

Perhaps I am not the usual newspaper reader, as my background as a copy editor and editing instructor suggests I might look a bit too carefully at stories to see how they were written.

Of late, I have been cutting out articles to show in the event that I ever return to the classroom to teach News Editing. Just this week I read about a football player who suffered a hand injury when he punched an equipment manager. I wondered whether the equipment guy was hurt or not. But no reference was made to that in the articles I read.

How about the Zika virus that has generated so much press of late? First thing I want to see is a list of countries to be avoided by pregnant women and others who are worried about the outbreak. But no, many stories simply ignore a listing of those places. Talk about lousy reporting!

I actually chuckle at articles in daily papers in New Jersey, where I reside. If a reporter wants to get a quote from an expert on a political topic, he/she always seems to go to one professor, Dr. Brigid Harrison, from Montclair State. What about profs at other educational institutions? Are reporters taking the easy route by going to the same source all the time?

What fascinates me, too, are the obituaries carried in papers these days. In the journalism days of old, a newbie reporter would be assigned to the “obit desk” to learn how to write obituaries in a formulaic manner. The deceased individual was described basically in resume terms, from his academic and working background to a list of his survivors and information about funeral services. The obits were published free by the newspaper as the stories were viewed as official records. Now, families can pen the obits of their loved ones because the newspapers charge for the articles. So I read almost every day that someone died “surrounded by her loving family,” and I know that some of these families have been estranged for years. Then an obit might tell the reader that “Mom was the best cook, particularly turkey dinner, everyone loved her meals.”  These words of someone grammatically challenged often do not even pass the editor’s desk.  I get upset at this new style of obits, but I admit I laugh at some of the comments. Somehow, that does not seem to be the objective in the world of obituaries!

So here is my plea to newspaper editors: remember that your publications represent the last bastion of good writing, editing and reporting in America.

Well, they used to…

FORD: Is it Farther or Further in Your Ads???

               Go Further!

Every time I see those words on a TV ad for Ford, I cringe.

What does that phrase mean?  Is it telling the viewers to dig deep into their mindsets and consider the beauty of a new auto?

Or is it geared to distance? If it is, then the words should be Go Farther!

I have no idea but I hate to think that a large U.S. automaker would direct millions of dollars to some advertising firm that did not consider the potential questioning from those who are into good grammar and usage.

But America appears to have little interest in such topics these days.

 How many times do you see sports articles refer to the AMOUNT of players on a team? Did they weigh them? It should be the NUMBER of players.

Or you often see this in an article: The Jones Company will relocate to Mexico. They will replace many of the employees with robots.  But a company is not a THEY.

What about this? She liked walking on the beach, collecting seashells, and sunshine.  That sentence has a lack of parallel construction. It would be correct to say: She liked walking on the beach, collecting seashells, and enjoying the sunshine.

Why do such problems exist in writing?

I put the blame on the introduction of process writing and whole language into the educational  systems in our country. Students apparently do not learn the basics---they are taught to start writing from Day One and God knows when they get to learn about everything from parts of speech to proper usage of words. The death of sentence diagramming has contributed greatly to the decline of writing skills. 

After decades as a college professor, I became stymied in my teaching of journalism by the need to teach grammar!   In a field where accuracy is paramount, a student must not make grammatical errors. So instruction in grammar and usage became a main focus of my instruction. And students would complain constantly that they had not learned the principles of good grammar in their earlier schooling.

I know I am not alone in my frustration relative to grammar. But where are the voices of those who demand good writing?

                Should we go FURTHER in our discussion?

                I wonder what Ford executives think???  LOL    

Brian Williams: What He Might Have Learned in College

“Accuracy, Accuracy, Accuracy.”

Those words, printed on his newsroom wall by famous publisher Joseph Pulitzer, were repeated frequently by yours truly in my years as a journalism professor.

In effect, I was making it clear to students that being accurate is a prime objective for those who want to engage in the field of journalism.

Brian Williams apparently never heard those words. 

Of course, NBC did not care that its highly-compensated news anchor failed to finish college where he just might have immersed himself in case study-based media ethics classes (or in other journalism courses in which students cannot get away with false reporting).

It may not be a perfect analogy, but I recall being in a bad car accident 60 years ago—as a matter of fact, to this day I can cite every detail. Veterans of World War II can paint a picture of things that happened to them seven decades after the fact.  And just about any mother can describe, even years later, everything that happened on the day she gave birth.

Is it only Williams whose memory is blotted by time? Or is he a victim of  journalistic narcissism?

And now the debate begins. What should NBC do about an anchor who makes up stories as if they are real?

Well, he has put a permanent stain on the reputation of the Nightly News show.  His once-stellar reputation has taken a big hit for himself and the network.

NBC will have to make a decision...

But whether he survives in the anchor’s chair or not, he will be going back to college.

Oh, not as a student. His failure to deal in ACCURACY will be a major case study in media ethics classes.

You Call Yourself a Meteorologist?

In my next life, I am going to be a meteorologist for a television station.

That way, I can make a lot of mistakes and still have a job.

Most of those good-looking television “meteorologists” have no academic background in the field that is the scientific study of the atmosphere.

But still many stations introduce these employees  as meteorolgists.

Sam Champion? Give him credit for having a degree in broadcast journalism, but not in meteorology.

Those of us in the senior category might recall Tex Antoine, who started at NBC as a page and wound up as America’s beloved weathercaster/meteorologist. But an errant remark he made following a story related to rape did him in---and perhaps some broadcast journalism education would have helped him realize what one says and does on the air.

Remember Dr. Frank Field? He was an optometrist. Apparently he was able to SEE how the weather was going to be. Then he brought in his son, named Storm Field  if you can believe any parent would do that to a child. Heck, Amy Freeze is handling the weather for WABC-TV in New York, and that is her real name---her married name in Arbuckle. But Freeze is the name she chose to pursue meteorology, and not only does she have a degree in the geosciences but she is a certified broadcast meteorologist. Go Amy!

Willard Scott studied religion and philosophy---probably a good preparation to deal with God’s part in storms, but he has made a name for himself as the one who salutes the centenarians on their natal days. Al Roker wins plaudits for his weight-losing ventures, and he has been doing weathercasting since he was an undergraduate, so he probably has a good read on what to say.

Let’s face it: most media buy their forecasting data from Doppler or mimic what it is being reported on The Weather Channel. And with the ability of everyone to take pictures on their phones, a lot of info comes from viewers. So it really is a matter of being able to cover the weather beat. Sounds like a good deal to me. You screw up, and you blame it on nature.

But I hesitate to call most of these people true “meteorologists.”

So if you want to get on TV and tell us that you are a meteorologist and you are forecasting a HUGE winter storm (that never materializes)  in my New Jersey neighborhood, then go right ahead.

But don’t get upset when I laugh.