In an old Seinfeld show, Friday night on TV, Jerry’s wondering how Kramer can possibly have a hot tub in his apartment, when he has no running water. George Constanza, masquerading as a marine biologist to impress a potential girlfriend, saves a beached whale by pulling a golf ball from its blowhole, and a renowned track star almost oversleeps on the morning of the big marathon. The comedy still resonates, some 22 years after the sitcom’s finale on May 14, 1998.
I’m not sure why, but in my mind, early Saturday morning, I’m hearing a 1957 Jerry Lee Lewis song, and I’m recalling the lyric…
You shake my nerves and you rattle my brain…
The 63-year-old song – “Great Balls of Fire” — was about love. Too much love could break one’s will, “but what a thrill…”
What a difference, back then, when love, mostly, was shaking nerves and rattling brains. Nowadays, it’s polarized politics, polarized people, the pandemic, racial inequality, natural disasters, climate change, increasing authoritarianism, and such.
I’m following current events, probably more than I should, to see how things are playing out. Even though current events surely can shake nerves and rattle brains, observing prominent people in the news is fascinating. Even amusing, sometimes. But also, frequently disturbing. I keep wondering why newsworthy people seem so unaffected by terrible publicity. Even when they’re caught lying and cheating, they seem unfazed by bad press.
Like checks and balances in government, where the branches of government, the House and Senate, for example, keep the Executive Branch under control – or vice versa — the news media, traditionally, have played a role in keeping politicians – and just about everyone else – somewhat under control.
Back in the day, the fear of getting bad press, in a way, kept politicians and business leaders on their toes. Fear was a check on potentially bad behavior. Let’s hope this isn’t changing.
When characters in old western movies were annoyed about something, they’d say they had a burr under their saddle. I’ve got one under my saddle, right now, when I hear people speaking in generalities.
On a talk show, a few nights ago, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was asked about the Trump Administration’s growing federal budget deficit. Christie immediately suggested that the deficit would be much bigger if the Democrats were in charge.
That seemed odd. Wasn’t the deficit fairly low when Democrats were in the Oval Office? As a matter of fact, according to PolitiFact, Bill Clinton got the deficit to zero, when he was the nation’s chief executive. Former President Barack Obama “halved the deficit to $600 billion.” According to an article in Forbes, when “Obama entered office… in the teeth of the Great Recession… Not surprisingly, the deficit exploded from $459 billion in calendar 2008 to over $1.4 trillion in calendar 2009. As the economy recovered” – during the Obama presidency – “the deficits shrank to a low of $442 billion in 2015 and was $585 billion his last year in office.”
The 2020 deficit – in President Trump’s fourth year in the Oval Office – is projected to be $1.02 trillion, according to reports in a number of media.
I could not understand why former Governor Christie wasn’t challenged more, as he was speaking in generalities about the nation’s deficit. The show’s host did ask Christie some tough questions on a number of issues, but I did not hear follow-up questions about the deficit. Like, for example: Governor Christie, do you have statistics supporting what you just suggested? What is the basis for assuming that the deficit would be higher, with Democrats managing the nation’s economy?
What a flaming burr under my saddle, when I hear people speaking in generalities!