Dudes. The sky is not falling.


Omaha Beach, Normandy, 2010 photo by c. sabraw

by cheri sabraw

Sometimes elections do not go our way. Sometimes they do. It’s the ebb and flow of our democracy in which, unfortunately, Maturity and Critical Thinking are not mandated by our Constitution.

I remember when Obama secured his second term: I opened my eyes on the day after the election, felt a pang of concern about the future of the Republic and of the Supreme Court, got out of my bed, readied myself for the day, and went to my office.

To work.

Even though the election had not gone my way, even though we had elected a president who would, at times, ignore the law and write his own executive orders, I trusted the system to purge when needed.

Oh sure.

I felt like looting that day. I even considered running into the middle of the Sunol Grade on Highway 680 and stopping cars. Topless.

I felt like kicking a stick or swatting a fly—Obama’s rhetoric had been as hollow as  Daisy Buchanan’s—but I had students to teach, employees to guide, and parents to counsel.

Besides, I’d give Mr. Obama another chance because that is type of girl I am.

Life went on as it always does.  You know how that goes:

You want to make a quesadilla and find a package of shredded cheese with an appropriate expiration date at the bottom of the meats and cheese drawer in your refrigerator only to discover that it has begun to mold.

So you improvise and use hummus instead. You move on.

Of course. (Now get a grip)

There have been times in history when staying in bed over an outcome, hand-wringing until your knuckles are raw, popping tranquilizers, or moving out of your home country to Jupiter  (Cher and Streisand, you idiots)–might seem appropriate. Serious times in history or in your own life. I, myself, can think of a hundred examples.


Can you imagine this type of hyperbole during World War II? Can you visualize the Greatest Generation stopping traffic on 680?

Or better yet, can you visualize the millenials who vandalized the Pearl District of Portland storming the beaches at Normandy?


Omaha Beach as seen from the American Cemetery, Normandy, France 2010

Dudes. The sky is not falling. Only your entitlements are going away.

As someone I know said, “They (the Millenials) just want their binkies.”











About Cheri

Writer, artist, cable television host, grandmother to four!
This entry was posted in Life, Parenting and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Dudes. The sky is not falling.

  1. shoreacres says:

    As a mother I know once said, over the wails of her emotionally distraught 13-year-old daughter, “One of these days, a whole generation is going to learn that not everyone passes out participation trophies, and sometimes, someone loses. When it happens, there’s going to be hell to pay.”

    Ain’t that the truth? It’s more complex than that, of course, and there’s plenty of responsiblity to be shared among voters, non-voters, liberals, conservatives, and people who just woke up from a decades-long nap. Still, if this election does nothing more than nudge children of every age toward a greater maturity, it could be a good first step.

    • Cheri says:

      I hope your last sentence is prescient but do not have much faith. “Becoming mature…” those seeds are sown in the family. The school environment (think of your schools in Iowa!) builds respect and thus, maturity.

  2. Paul Costopoulos says:

    Of course, you do realize, that Mr Trump has lost the popular vote and is elected by a system thought of by your founding Fathers to “correct” the populace’s errors?

    • Brig says:

      and I thank God, and those founding Fathers, that they had the foresight to put that system in place.

    • Cyberquill says:

      It seems inaccurate to say that Trump has “lost” the popular vote, for neither he nor Hillary Clinton ever competed for the popular vote. Presidential campaigns are entirely structured toward the goal of winning the majority of electoral votes. If their goal had been to win the popular vote, both Trump and Clinton would have run very different campaigns, and one cannot know how a contest would have turned out if the contestants had focused on an different objective and allocated their time and resources accordingly.

    • wkkortas says:

      With due respect, the Electoral College may be one of the Founding Fathers’ most brilliant inventions–imperfect, yes, but much preferable to either election by untamed plurality or endless run-offs and coalition governments.

  3. cpartner@comcast.net says:

    love this blog post sis! Cindy

  4. Cyberquill says:

    The sky’s not falling but the coastlines may flood a little sooner under a Trump administration.

  5. Sharon says:

    As you know, I just came back from Normandy, and I was/am so profoundly in awe of those who stormed the beaches and fought for OUR freedom. No blankies or pacifiers for them! Just a job to do, a love of country and desire for freedom. It should be a mandatory field trip to all who want to take a knee during the Anthem or pledge. End of the soap box! Thanks for the post:)

    • Cheri says:

      Thanks for this comment, Sharon. A holy site like Normandy, where so many gave their lives, puts so much in perspective. Great idea! Mandatory field trip!!!

  6. Christopher says:

    “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both” – Louis Brandeis

    • Richard says:

      There are problems concerning the source of this quote (although the idea is thought to be in line with Brandeis’ thinking).


      A corollary, based on the words you provide, is that wealth concentrated in the hands of the many is compatible with democracy. Few good capitalists disagree.

      How it’s acquired does matter.

      • Christopher says:

        “……..wealth concentrated in the hands of the many is compatible with democracy…….” is so less elegant than the words Louis Brandeis is alleged to have said, whose arresting truth is slowly being revealed in present-day America.

        All too many choose conveniently to forget that Eisenhower’s America – the America that today’s aging Boomers look weepingly back on through swirling mists of nostalgia as a Golden Era – was economically the most egalitarian in America’s history, enabled by a top marginal income tax rate of 91%.

        • Richard says:

          The rate for the top 0.01% of income-earners during the period of 91% income tax was actually 45%. Given the top bracket is much lower today, the top marginal rate probably yields more, according to the Congressional Research Service.

          By way of comparison – I have not yet found the precisely corresponding figures – in 2014 those earning over $250,000 – 2% of households – paid 51.85% of income tax.

          I agree, though, if this is what you are saying, that there must be fair treatment of wealth-producers, or everything dries up.

          • Christopher says:

            “………The rate for the top 0.01% of income-earners during the period of 91% income tax was actually 45%……..”

            May I assume you don’t dispute that the top marginal Income Tax rate in the Age of Eisenhower was 91%? If so, you’ll surely agree that this stopped most anyone from becoming obscenely rich, unlike how it is today.

            These potentially obscene riches were, instead, paid substantially to the Government as Taxes, which the Government then spent on the programmes that put money in the hands of the Poor, who then went out and bought all the stuff that producers wanted to sell.

            The greater this purchasing power, the more stuff the producers produced because of this increased demand. I feel I don’t need to expatiate further on the consequent beneficial effects of this dynamic because I’ll assume this is all old hat to you, as an educated gent.

            You’ll therefore know why the three immediate postwar decades became the Golden Era, that today’s aging Boomers weep about over their beers.

            I need hardly remind you that up until 1980 – before the top marginal tax rate was suddenly more than halved – everyone percentage-wise shared equally in the productivity gains brought about during the Golden Era.

            It was only in the very early 1980s – after Genial Ron drastically cut the top marginal tax rate – that the earnings gap between Rich and Poor began to grow,. This state of affairs continues unabatedly and exponentially. .

            I need hardly remind you why this is……..

            • Richard says:

              You are full of compassion, and I commend you for that, but we have to be fair to wealth-producers as well as those unable for one reason or another to produce wealth. Wealth-producers may or may not be ‘obscenely’ rich; some may be poor.

              We must not, however, delude ourselves. Taxation does not of itself generate wealth, it merely changes who is entitled to spend it. That admits of a variety of moral approaches as well as economical ones.

              Yes, the top rate was nominally 91% (though it was falling and there was hope it would fall further) but we have to see it in the light of the Research Service report I mentioned.

              All these are complex cosiderations for the general good.

            • Richard says:

              As for a ‘Golden era’ this certainly was not the case in Britain until after the Conservative victory in 1951. It was that government, for example, that finally ended food rationing and the process of nationalisation. But who knows?

        • Cheri says:

          I wish the Boomers looked back on this decade with nostalgia.

  7. Christopher says:

    @Richard – “…….we have to see it [91% marginal rate] in the light of the Research Service report I mentioned…….”

    Is this the same “Research Service report” that allegedly came up with “…..in 2014 those earning over $250,000 – 2% of households – paid 51.85% of income tax……..”?

    If so, you may wish to check it out further, since, according to this *tax calculator* a Californian earning $250,000 a year pays on this income a maximum of 38% of tax (ie Federal Income Tax + California State Income Tax + Social Security Tax + Medicare Tax).

    “……..there must be fair treatment of wealth-producers, or everything dries up………”

    What’s your definition of a “wealth producer”?

  8. Christopher says:

    @Richard – “…….As for a ‘Golden era’ this certainly was not the case in Britain until after the Conservative victory in 1951……..that finally ended food rationing and………nationalisation. “

    That Attlee’s government imposed rationing and nationalisation shouldn’t have been surprising after five years of a world war out of which Britain emerged completely broke (penniless).

    Attlee’s policies paved the way for the “you’ve never had it so good” era that Macmillan’s government was the beneficiary of. Consider also that the economic and social policies of Macmillan’s Conservative government, would be considered “socialist” today.

    • Richard says:

      Yes, I think you are right about the Macmillan government, though his greatest success was in housing, based on the Conservative principle of freeing up the rental market, so tied up by the Attlee government.

      Still, I shall not be lured further into a political boxing ring. 🙂

    • Richard says:

      You’ll recall that food rationing was, in fact, imposed in WW2 as a necessary consequence of u-boat action against merchant shipping in the Atlantic. It was continued by the Attlee Government for five years after the war ended, as I well remember. Those were years of true austerity with no prospect of relief.

      • Christopher says:

        Wasn’t rationing continued even after Attlee? I ask this because I still remember as a young boy (circa 1953-54) going with my father to the local post office, where he posted off bags of sugar to his own father, who lived overseas in distant England.

        I thought then, as young as I was, how odd it was to mail off bags of sugar. I’m going to assume sugar was among the foods rationed in Britain. But, as I said, this would have been 1953-54, when Churchill was again in Downing Street.

        • Richard says:

          Yes. It had to be phased out. I have taken the following timeline from Wikipedia.

          26 May 1950: Petrol rationing ended.
          25 October 1951: UK general election 1951. The Conservatives came back into power.
          February 1953: Confectionery rationing ended.
          September 1953: Sugar rationing ended
          4 July 1954: Meat and all other food rationing ended in Britain.

          After the war, the Attlee government introduced bread rationing for two years in July 1946. In 1956, the Conservatived reintrduced petrol rationing as a result of the Suez crisis.


          • Christopher says:

            “…….September 1953: Sugar rationing ended……..”

            I had said it was circa 1953-54 when I watched my father mail off the sugar. It appears I should more felicitously have said “circa 1952-53”. My faulty memory is unforgivable. I must do better.

            • Richard says:

              Memory? You’re joking. First it was names used on an almost daily basis, then it was words I’d used all my literate life, then it was urgent trips upstairs for seemingly no purpose. Goodness knows what all this foreshadows. I’ll let you know, – er – er. What’s yer name?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s