Archive for the ‘Commentary’ Category
BARACK OBAMA ON THE REPUBLICAN’S ATTEMPT TO RE-WRITE AMERICA’S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
Posted on: June 23, 2017
- In: Commentary | Health Care | Politics
- Leave a Comment
…if there’s a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family – this bill will do you harm.
Yesterday President Obama posted his thoughts on the Republican bill currently on the floor of Congress that would radically change what we know as health care in this country.
I know this post has been widely circulated. But I believe it is important, and hopefully helpful, to isolate a few of his thoughts from the post. The entire post is included below.
“We didn’t fight for the Affordable Care Act for more than a year in the public square for any personal or political gain – we fought for it because we knew it would save lives, prevent financial misery, and ultimately set this country we love on a better, healthier course.”
“For the first time, more than ninety percent of Americans know the security of health insurance. Health care costs, while still rising, have been rising at the slowest pace in fifty years. Women can’t be charged more for their insurance, young adults can stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26, contraceptive care and preventive care are now free. Paying more, or being denied insurance altogether due to a preexisting condition – we made that a thing of the past.”
“I still hope that there are enough Republicans in Congress who remember that public service is not about sport or notching a political win, that there’s a reason we all chose to serve in the first place, and that hopefully, it’s to make people’s lives better, not worse.”
“The Senate bill, unveiled today, is not a health care bill. It’s a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class and poor families to the richest people in America. It hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else.”
“Simply put, if there’s a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family – this bill will do you harm. And small tweaks over the course of the next couple weeks, under the guise of making these bills easier to stomach, cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation.”
POSTED June 22, 2017; on FaceBook by President Barack Obama
Our politics are divided. They have been for a long time. And while I know that division makes it difficult to listen to Americans with whom we disagree, that’s what we need to do today.
I recognize that repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act has become a core tenet of the Republican Party. Still, I hope that our Senators, many of whom I know well, step back and measure what’s really at stake, and consider that the rationale for action, on health care or any other issue, must be something more than simply undoing something that Democrats did.
We didn’t fight for the Affordable Care Act for more than a year in the public square for any personal or political gain – we fought for it because we knew it would save lives, prevent financial misery, and ultimately set this country we love on a better, healthier course.
Nor did we fight for it alone. Thousands upon thousands of Americans, including Republicans, threw themselves into that collective effort, not for political reasons, but for intensely personal ones – a sick child, a parent lost to cancer, the memory of medical bills that threatened to derail their dreams.
And you made a difference. For the first time, more than ninety percent of Americans know the security of health insurance. Health care costs, while still rising, have been rising at the slowest pace in fifty years. Women can’t be charged more for their insurance, young adults can stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26, contraceptive care and preventive care are now free. Paying more, or being denied insurance altogether due to a preexisting condition – we made that a thing of the past.
We did these things together. So many of you made that change possible.
At the same time, I was careful to say again and again that while the Affordable Care Act represented a significant step forward for America, it was not perfect, nor could it be the end of our efforts – and that if Republicans could put together a plan that is demonstrably better than the improvements we made to our health care system, that covers as many people at less cost, I would gladly and publicly support it.
That remains true. So I still hope that there are enough Republicans in Congress who remember that public service is not about sport or notching a political win, that there’s a reason we all chose to serve in the first place, and that hopefully, it’s to make people’s lives better, not worse.
But right now, after eight years, the legislation rushed through the House and the Senate without public hearings or debate would do the opposite. It would raise costs, reduce coverage, roll back protections, and ruin Medicaid as we know it. That’s not my opinion, but rather the conclusion of all objective analyses, from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which found that 23 million Americans would lose insurance, to America’s doctors, nurses, and hospitals on the front lines of our health care system.
The Senate bill, unveiled today, is not a health care bill. It’s a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class and poor families to the richest people in America. It hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else. Those with private insurance will experience higher premiums and higher deductibles, with lower tax credits to help working families cover the costs, even as their plans might no longer cover pregnancy, mental health care, or expensive prescriptions. Discrimination based on pre-existing conditions could become the norm again. Millions of families will lose coverage entirely.
Simply put, if there’s a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family – this bill will do you harm. And small tweaks over the course of the next couple weeks, under the guise of making these bills easier to stomach, cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation.
I hope our Senators ask themselves – what will happen to the Americans grappling with opioid addiction who suddenly lose their coverage? What will happen to pregnant mothers, children with disabilities, poor adults and seniors who need long-term care once they can no longer count on Medicaid? What will happen if you have a medical emergency when insurance companies are once again allowed to exclude the benefits you need, send you unlimited bills, or set unaffordable deductibles? What impossible choices will working parents be forced to make if their child’s cancer treatment costs them more than their life savings?
To put the American people through that pain – while giving billionaires and corporations a massive tax cut in return – that’s tough to fathom. But it’s what’s at stake right now. So it remains my fervent hope that we step back and try to deliver on what the American people need.
That might take some time and compromise between Democrats and Republicans. But I believe that’s what people want to see. I believe it would demonstrate the kind of leadership that appeals to Americans across party lines. And I believe that it’s possible – if you are willing to make a difference again. If you’re willing to call your members of Congress. If you are willing to visit their offices. If you are willing to speak out, let them and the country know, in very real terms, what this means for you and your family.
After all, this debate has always been about something bigger than politics. It’s about the character of our country – who we are, and who we aspire to be. And that’s always worth fighting for.
- In: Commentary | Education | Learning | Politics | Self-Discovery | Social policies
- Leave a Comment
I have long been a fan of the short story form. In fact, the short story form is far harder than longer forms of writing. Making your intention clear in a limited amount of words is not an easy task. There is a long line of authors whose work I enjoy but top of the list in this regard has always been Harlan Ellison. There are many reasons I am a life-long, die-hard Ellison fan, but chiefly, my admiration is for his ability to select just exactly the right word for every moment in his stories with never a word wasted.
Here’s a favorite example:
“A foot was planted between my shoulder blades and the fist let go of my shirt, and I was booted forward onto my suitcase, which slid a few feet, carrying me as on a raft.
I fell off, rolled over and tried to sit up. Conquest, Slaughter, Famine and Death were staring down at me.”
Quoted from All the Lies That Are My Life by Harlan Ellison
There is no need to give the reader any more detailed description of the four guys who are about to beat up our protagonist. The phrase “Conquest, Slaughter, Famine and Death” tells you everything you need to know.
Another master at choosing just the right words is Theodor Geisel, better known as Dr. Seuss, who sums up this thought beautifully:
“So the writer who breeds more words than he needs is making a chore for the reader who reads.”
And another famous author offers clarity on the subject. When asked his opinion on cursing Mark Twain had this to say:
“The English language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. I figure we ought to use all the words we got.”
Notice here that he did not advise using MORE words than needed at one time but choosing the RIGHT words for what you are trying to convey at that moment.
Words matter. They can offer great kindness but also great sorrow. They can build relationships or tear down entire communities. Words have weight and meaning and sometimes great consequences.
When you are attempting to evaluate someone’s character listen very closely to the word they choose to use. Their choices are not casual. They are a result of a lifetime of attitudes and perceptions and are evidence of the state of their inner psychology.
The speaker is telling you something about who he is and how he chooses to participate in this thing called Life.
Words matter. Listen closely.
- In: acting | artist's rights | Commentary | Theater | Unions | worker's rights
- Leave a Comment
There has been so much misinformation and misunderstanding about the 99 Seat situation that it boggles the mind.
As a 37-year member of Actor’s Equity Association I have been a working member on many of AEA’s contracts as both performer and stage manager. I have also served – as a volunteer, mind you – as a Councilor, Chair of the Western Advisory Committee on Chorus Affairs, and as a member of a handful of AEA committees. (These are the people who discuss details and make recommendations to Council and the union negotiators for wages and working conditions for the various contracts that protect actors and stage managers working in professional theater.)
Twenty-some years ago I was on the committee that met with, and wrestled with, the Waiver Theater Operators, the Actors who made themselves into Producers so they could produce theater while asking their fellow actors to work without pay. In that process I learned much about the history of what was originally called “Waiver Theater” which after 16 years became “99-Seat Theater” and has now become a collection of three plans; one of which is the new Agreement that controls working conditions for AEA members working in small theater.
So, I know a little something about all this. And, I gotta tell ya, if you don’t know the history, and the real facts behind this issue, you are likely to come to the wrong conclusion about what is rapidly turning into a lawsuit by the 99-Seat producers against Actor’s Equity. Those who do not know their history are bound to repeat it.
Twenty-Some Years Ago this exact same scenario happened. And wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars of YOUR dues money so that the union could continue to do what it is, by design, meant to do: PROTECT THE ACTOR FROM ABUSIVE PRODUCERS!.
As you read the following press release sent today by Actors Equity I ask you to put aside emotional responses and remember: Actor’s Equity Association is a Labor Union. Not your psychologist. Not your acting teacher. Not your means of creative expression. Their mandate is to negotiate and monitor wages and working conditions so that their members can actually make a living in professional theater.
⇒ Read on.
MOVING 99-SEAT THEATRE TO LEGITIMATE PAYING PRODUCTIONS
Equity Puts Forth the Actual Facts
Los Angeles, June 30, 2016 – Actors’ Equity Association Executive Director Mary McColl issued the following statement:
Actors’ Equity Association (Equity) remains disappointed that the facilitated discussions with the plaintiffs in the Asner vs. Actors’ Equity lawsuit were unsuccessful.
If the end of the facilitated talks brings the service of the lawsuit, Equity will stand up for its members and will immediately file for a dismissal of all claims brought in the suit. Equity, a labor union representing more than 50,000 stage actors and stage managers across America, was founded upon the belief that actors should be paid for their work and treated fairly. Actors on Broadway. Actors in Kansas City. Actors in Los Angeles. All actors.
The lawsuit, which is procedural in nature, claims that Equity did not follow the steps outlined in a 1989 settlement agreement to alter the terms and conditions by which 99-seat theatre is produced in Los Angeles. Some producers and actors in Los Angeles, however, claim that the goal of the lawsuit is to retain a system that allows producers to cast actors in productions without paying for their services. And the plaintiffs have been talking about it.
Absent the facts, confusion is created. The plaintiffs have been generating misinformation while at the same time releasing insupportable “data” as their rationale for why actors should not be paid.
Let’s look at the facts.
More than 7,000 Equity members live and work in Los Angeles County. Despite being the “entertainment capital of the world,” with actors flocking from around the globe to Southern California, Equity’s data reveals that LA County actually provides less paid work for stage actors than markets such as Baltimore/DC, Boston, Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul.
Incredibly, in the most recent period where data is available (2014-2015), LA County (with 7,000 members) had 6,500 paid work weeks for Equity members; whereas, Baltimore/DC (with 854 members) had more than 8,700; Boston (with 845 members) had over 7,900; Chicago (with 1,589 members) had more than 15,800 paid work weeks; and Minneapolis/St. Paul (with 437 members) had more than 6,700.
The fact that these far smaller markets eclipsed LA in paid work weeks confirms the fact that a theatrical community can thrive and still pay the performers.
As you drill further into the data, more interesting facts about the plan become apparent. During the same period (2014/2015), there was a total of 11,013 unpaid work weeks for actors in Los Angeles County. If those unpaid work weeks were actually paid work weeks, then 99-seat theatre would represent the second largest source of paid employment in the Western Region – second only to LORT.
In markets from Seattle to Chicago, unpaid work weeks are below 1%. This begs a simple question: How is it that the rest of the nation can afford to pay its actors who perform in small theatres, yet Los Angeles cannot? Equity takes great pride in the diligence with which its producing partners nationwide work toward adding contracts. It’s time LA producers — some of whom are incorporated as not-for-profits, but all of whom sell tickets to their productions — play by the same rules as everyone else.
Another argument often cited is that the system results in creating productions that go to Broadway. While it’s true that some shows have made the move, the path is not a direct one. Generally, years of work in multiple productions on paying contracts occur before a production that began in a 99-seat theatre makes it to a Broadway production. Along the way, there may be productions in LORT or other theatres, changes are often made and enhancement money may be made available for development. The data shows that when a 99-seat production is staged again, the actors in the original cast — who were not paid a wage to develop the work — seldom move on with the production. One production, SMALL ENGINE REPAIR, has been cited as an example of a 99-seat production that moved to New York, but, of the actors in the original cast, only one (who was also the playwright) made the move, which was two years later.
The old 99-Seat Theatre Plan represents an unnecessary and avoidable roadblock for actors in Los Angeles attempting to make a living in live theatre. An ecosystem has been allowed to develop where even midsize theatre suffers because it is competing with a small theatre system that pays actors little, if anything at all. This has created a downward spiral, or race to the bottom, where the real losers are the actors, the stage managers, the audience and the theatre industry overall.
It is one of the founding principles of Actors’ Equity Association that those who work in live theatre deserve to be paid for the work that they do. Every actor and stage manager who has joined this union has agreed to work under conditions that, to the best of Equity’s knowledge, are most beneficial to the whole. This is one of the fundamental definitions of a union. When an actor works through a rehearsal break, he or she contributes to an expectation that everyone else will give up that break as well. When an actor develops work without ever expecting any return on that development, he or she makes it more difficult for colleagues to ask for developmental compensation. Finally, when a member — any member — works for a few dollars a show, with no pay for rehearsals, he or she damages the earning power of every other member, both monetarily and philosophically. This has not been an easy process, but Equity is committed to doing the right thing.
It is for these and many other reasons that Equity stands behind its decision to bring Los Angeles County in line with the rest of the nation, and defend its members’ right for fair compensation.
The Artist As Widget
Posted on: January 19, 2014
- In: artist's rights | Commentary | Education | Music | Politics | worker's rights
- 2 Comments
So I am one of the few oddballs who actually watches C-SPAN. I find it to be a window into a very distant world. But a world whose actions and decisions affect us in ways we only begin to comprehend. And sometimes those decisions have consequences that we, down here on the ground, only feel after it is too late to do anything about it.
In yesterday’s House Sub-committee Hearing on Copyright Regulations and Intellectual Property Law I had a moment of clarity that revealed why, when it comes to legislation about the arts, those mountain-top decision makers so often get it wrong.
The House panel was asking questions of a number of “experts” including Professor Glynn Lunney of Tulane University Law School. The question of the moment had to do with copyright restrictions applied to the music industry that used to exist but that had been recently eliminated. The Professor was asked if the elimination of the copyright laws had any effect on “content producers” (meaning song writers, composers, music producers, etc.).
The professor cited a study that charted the amount of content produced before and after the elimination of those restrictions. The study showed that the amount of content produced by the industry before and after the lifting of those artist protections had not changed. So the conclusion the professor and his ilk have come to is that those protections must not have been necessary!!
WOW!! Talk about a major misunderstanding of your intended subject!!
The inference here is that the additional protections the laws had been providing would motivate artists to produce more because income from your work is more likely. And conversely, without those protections artists will produce less music.
This is stunningly wrong.
These conclusions are based on a business model that, I suppose, works for shoes or driveway pavers or plumbing pipe. But artists produce because we HAVE TO! Not just because we are getting paid to do it. Don’t get me wrong, here. Getting paid for what you create is important. I have always felt the creator of the art should be fairly compensated for each creation. But it is also true that we do not choose to become artists. We are called to it by something greater than ourselves. And it is a demanding calling.
Whether you are a musician, a writer, a painter, a poet, a sculptor, a clothing designer, a novelist, a choreographer or any other type of creative spirit there is something within you that demands to be expressed. Those who ignore that demand will pay the price, one way or the other, in personal anguish.
Artists will create whether or not we are fairly treated by society. And that is the crux of the misunderstanding of the politicians and industry experts who are creating the laws that either protect us or leave us to be taken advantage of.
As long as the politicians treat art the same way they treat widgets we will never have a system that truly understands why we create art or that values what artists contribute to society.
If any of you out there are brave enough to contact Professor Lunney, please explain this to him.
Tara Sitser, Proud Singer/Songwriter
Los Angeles, CA
January 19, 2014
- In: Books | Commentary | Nature of Reality | Politics
- 4 Comments
This is a very large, complicated topic. And I am grateful for the chance to air some thoughts. I have been baffled and frustrated for many years by what I hear people say about Ayn Rand. She is made out to be the heroine of the Conservative, Right-wing, Free-market, Libertarian, Trickle-down, Supply-side economics proponents. But, in fact, I believe, those who profess to be her followers are doing exactly the opposite of what she herself would have wanted.
I started reading Ayn Rand when I was 17. I have read all of her novels; most of them several times. I am not a Libertarian. In fact I have objections to many Libertarian views. But I have been frustrated for many years by, what I perceive to be, a massive misinterpretation of what Ayn Rand wrote and believed.
As a matter of fact, she did not call herself a Libertarian. She created her own philosophy that she called Objectivism. The basis of which is that no one should live their life for the sake of another without regard to their own personal value. A direct push-back against the communist oppression she experienced growing up in Soviet Russia where the State is everything and the individual doesn’t count.
Her writings about enlightened self-interest are often twisted into accusations of selfishness but are actually more in line with the what they tell you on an airplane: Put your own oxygen mask on first. Then you can help others. In point of fact, there are many instances in her novels of characters making enormous personal sacrifices for others in order to live up to the obligations they have committed to.
Ayn Rand grew up in Russia and rebelled against the control of the Soviet government. So It is understandable that she would talk about being free of governmental control. But the heroes in her novels are quite different from the industrialist and CEOs of our present day reality even though they claim to be aligned with her beliefs. Ayn Rand was an Atheist, pro-choice and a firm believer in a rational view of reality that permitted no deviation from actual facts.
In Ayn Rand’s novels the heroes are people who create real value – not financial manipulators who just amass more and more money. I see a major difference between her characters and the conservative business owners of today in that her heroes value the contributions of everyone, at every level , who contribute to their success. And her industrialists take care of their employees and their customers, treat them fairly and take full responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
The ethics of her main characters is such that no regulation is necessary because they would never choose to do anything unethical or take advantage of anyone. No unions are necessary because the employers take such good care of their employees that an outside agency to control wages and working conditions is not needed. I do not think I am putting words in her mouth when I say that Ayn Rand’s “free market” does not the take the shape of today’s conservative notion where anyone is free to abuse ethical standards, cheat their customers and employees and destroy the environment in pursuit of wealth and power.
Ayn Rand’s heroes are copper magnates and architects and owners of railroads, yes. But also janitors and gardeners and assembly line workers who do their jobs in an excellent way. Employer and employee trade value for value and the employer always acknowledges the contribution of the smallest cog in the wheel that allows their businesses to run.
In her novel “Atlas Shrugged” two of the main characters are Dagny Taggart and her brother James Taggart who co-own the railroad. Dagny is the brains 
behind the operation and the one who runs the business. James is the moocher who doesn’t want to put out any effort and wants to live the high life off the company’s earnings. James almost gets away with it until, near the end of the story, it is his secretary who finally realizes his true nature and takes him down. The secretary is one of the novel’s true heroes.
Ayn Rand’s heroes would never play the financial gambling games that have brought us to the brink of economic ruin because – and she is quite clear about this – money is only a tool to be used for the creation of goods and circumstances. She says this over and over: Money is not evil. It is the love of money that is destructive and to be avoided.
The villains of Ayn Rand’s novels are the moochers who think the world owes them whatever they want without any effort of their own. Her villains try to get away with not doing any of the work themselves and expect others to supply them with whatever they want. These moochers believe they are entitled to whatever they want simply because they want it. That is very different from the category of people in our country being called “moochers” and “welfare mothers”, etc. When your own government has allowed your jobs to be outsourced overseas and Wal-mart has destroyed your cities’ economy to such a degree that there are no jobs to be had in your town it is not “mooching” to accept help from governmental safety-net programs. Our current business model has created a system where no other options are available to help you feed your family. And it is not “mooching” to collect social security after you have spent a lifetime paying a portion of each and every pay check into that system.
The richest, most conservative among us believe that humans are only valuable if they are creating more wealth. That is why politicians like Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan are so callous about the poor and elderly. THOSE people, the poor, the elderly and the infirm, can’t create wealth anymore so, in the view of the wealthy conservatives, they have no value and don’t deserve any respect or consideration.
Rand would not have aligned herself with today’s conservative movement which has chosen to air only bits and pieces of her philosophy in order to rationalize their own positions. The following quote is from Jennifer Burns, history professor at Stanford University and author of Goddess of the Market : Ayn Rand and the American Right:
“Libertarians who borrowed her political ideas but didn’t buy her epistemology were “a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people,” “plagiarizers,” and “scum.” Conservatives were far, far worse. “Futile, impotent and culturally dead,” conservatives could only “accelerate this country’s uncontested collapse into despair and dictatorship.” Despite their agreement on capitalism, unlike most conservatives Rand was a forthright atheist who supported abortion rights and opposed the Vietnam War. After her death, her philosophy was liberated from its origins; it was now possible to mix and match bits and pieces of Rand’s ideology to better fit the emerging conservative worldview. “
In the worlds of Ayn Rand’s novels it is excellence that is valued and rewarded whether that comes in the form of a railroad, a piece of art or the ability to care for a child. Everyone’s contribution is valued and the ideals to be aspired to are not limited to financial wizardry.
Another false parallel that is being drawn between Rand’s writings and the actions of today’s conservative power structure is the intention behind, and the consequences of, the growing, gaping separation of uber-wealthy and lower-income populations. What we see happening in our society is a massive grab by the wealthiest among us for as much wealth, power and as many resources as they can take regardless of the consequences to the rest of the world. The rich surround themselves with comfort and luxury while allowing the cities around them to suffer.
Again, a reference to Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” comes into play. The main character of this novel is John Galt. Galt sees that the true producers and creators of the world are being used by those around them. People with no talent or desire to achieve have come to believe that they have a claim on those that do and are making victims of the creators without any regard for their rights and needs. Galt decides to create a civilization apart from the world at large where the producers can be free of the moochers and be properly acknowledged and rewarded for what they produce. He approaches each person who is being drained and shows them how they are being victimized. He then gives them an alternative: Stop supporting your own destruction. Quit. Leave the moochers behind and live in Galt’s Gulch, hidden from the world, among only those who will also live honorably as responsible creators.
One by one the “brains of the world” disappear and the outside world falls apart because there is no one left who will take the time and effort to reason out how to fix anything.
That is quite different from the power and resource grab we are witnessing today by the wealthy moochers who believe the world is theirs to drink from without ever refilling the pool.
The notion that Ayn Rand would approve of what today’s conservative, right wing, corporate CEOs and Industrialist Republicans are doing is just plain wrong. I believe her views are being twisted and used in ways she never intended.
I lost a friend this week. His name was John Glass and he was a hero in the very real sense of the word.
John and his wife, Judy Glass, are well-known in the progressive community in Los Angeles. They are, and she will still be, staunch supporters of organizations that work for peace and social justice. John’s central cause for the past handful of years was the single-payer health care movement. He believed that health care is a right, not a priviledge, and should be available to everyone without the constraints of a particular employer or the limitations of insurance companies dictating what doctors can provide based on their own self-serving priorities.
I have known John for almost 40 years. He was a giver from the word “go” and never stopped focusing on making the world a better place for us all. Throughout his career John was a sociologist, a professor, a volunteer coordinator for non-profit organizations, a therapist, a published author and a friend to the working man. Every choice he made was in the service of others and with the true intention of helping and healing the world and the human heart.
Talk to anyone who knew John and practically the first thing they will recall is his enthusiasm about the social causes and political candidates he supported. He always carried fliers with him for whatever rally or event was coming up and would invariably offer the fliers to whoever was within earshot with a bold statement encouraging his audience to attend. Show up! Make your voice heard! Make a difference!
John died Tuesday night, May 9, 2012, at the age of 76, after a week-long battle with pneumonia and a lifetime battle against the dragons that seek to diminish the individual spirit. He will be missed by many and our work to regain the dignity of the common man will be made harder for his absence.
Of all the responses we received to our announcement of John’s death this was the one that hit me the hardest and is, I believe, the perfect statement of how John’s life affected the world in which he lived:
The average person lost a friend this week. The people John Glass helped the most will never know who John Glass was. That was John Glass.Jeff Bornstein
tsitser
True Public Service
Posted by: tsitser on: November 22, 2017
I published this post six years ago. It has gotten only more relevant as time passes. As we reach this year’s Thanksgiving celebration I give thanks for those in public service who actually understand that their jobs exist to serve the public.
George Bernard Shaw (26 July 1856 – 2 November 1950) was a playwright, journalist, public speaker and champion of the working class. He wrote more than 60 plays in his lifetime and was the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938), for his contributions to literature and for his work on the film Pygmalion (adaptation of his play of the same name).
Many of us may be surprised to learn that he was also a co-founder of the London School of Economics. No slouch he.
In stark contrast to the attitudes of so many of our currently elected officials, here is his statement about public service:
Share this:
Like this: