#564 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Monday January 23)
Good morning,
Two completely unrelated Musings this morning…
ENCYCLOPEDIAS
A number of years ago, I was in Friday evening Shabbat services and Rabbi Ron Stern was making a point about the ubiquity of information on the Internet, noting that we have more information at our fingertips (or thumbs…?!) than in an entire Encyclopedia Britannica. He then said, “By show of hands, how many people here even still own an encyclopedia?” One hand went up—mine… He then responded, “I mean, how many normal people…”
I share this story because the moment finally has arrived to bid adieu to my set of encyclopedias. It has been a long run, but with the expanding stacks of books looking for shelves to house them, these multiple volumes, untouched for years, must cede space.
THE LEGACY OF ENCYCLOPEDIAS
Many of us have fond memories of encyclopedias. They were, after all, the bulwark of “quick information” or the needed background for a high school term paper. Different teachers had different rules about the use of citations from reference works (generally prohibited or severely limited). Encyclopedias were the “Google” of our time; they were a starting point for research, which helped direct us to other sources.
The encyclopedia of choice was the World Book. I, however, derived perverse pleasure from the Britannica—the articles were longer and more in depth. One could read an article that went on for pages and pages of information (much of it useless to a kid doing their homework, but fascinating). Then there were the “Year Books.” These annual wonders had a detailed timeline of all the events of the year. The balance of the book covered new discoveries, advances in science, medicine and technology, and periodic updating of earlier articles to bring them current. Some of us might have read these from cover to cover…
So I packed up the encyclopedias, together with other books (generally paperback), clothing, and kitchen items for donation to the Veterans. They came last week and took everything—refusing, however, to take the encyclopedias. After all, they noted, “who would want them?”
TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE
The other day, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed admonishing the January 6th Committee’s work, in that they believe the committee missed a key piece of “good news.” The Journal said the Committee should have noted how many members of President Trump’s cabinet, many of his confidantes, and many Republican Senators and Governors did not buy into the “big lie” of the stolen election. Fair enough. Many people did not buy into the craziness and dangerous behaviors after the election. I’m not exactly sure how the WSJ determines that this is newsworthy. Imagine that: a bunch of people decided to certify a valid election or didn’t actively state publicly that a demonstrably fair election was stolen.
Many of these people the WSJ would like us to admire said nothing for years. Many served in Mr. Trump’s cabinet or otherwise gave him cover in his repeated attacks on our institutions and our society. But, hey, at least they didn’t openly endorse overturning an election or marching on the Capitol. Apparently, that’s news.
Somehow, the WSJ seems to forget the Senators that didn’t vote for impeachment, and the overwhelming majority of the House (who are not cited in the article at all)—146 of them—did not vote to certify the election results.
And then there are the election-denying candidates that ran for office in the last election, as well as the many state legislators and Republican governors, who have used the President’s lies as pretense to disenfranchise voters. They argue, among other things, that counting mailed-in votes after election day, even though the only way they can be counted (in many states, these votes legally can’t be counted until the polls close) is evidence of fraud.
OHIO KEEPING ELECTIONS SAFE
As to disenfranchisement, without a scintilla of evidence of fraud, Republican-controlled legislatures are doing their part to restrict access to voting. In an effort ostensibly to better control the elections, the Ohio legislature intends to allow only one drop off location per county, without regard for population. Ohio’s counties vary in population from 13,000 to 1,300,000. Not surprisingly, the largest county, which contains Columbus, is largely Democratic and includes many minorities. The smaller counties predominantly are Republican-leaning. Through the genius of some sort of twisted logic yet to be made clear, to provide more than one polling place somehow is a risk to American democracy…
We are not out of the woods yet. Donald Trump—under investigation, indicted, or not—is the Republican front-runner. Given the Republican “winner take all” bias of the primaries, he may well be the candidate. Meanwhile, election deniers, those wanting to reduce voter access, and expert gerrymanderers are working overtime. The Wall Street Journal doesn’t seem to get it.
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: