What's Wrong with Being Rich?

Well, nothing, actually. Nothing wrong with being rich.

What is hard to take for the more "average" folks, is the situation that surrounds some of the very rich.

When four of the top 10 richest people in America are the owners of a retail chain that is known for paying employees poorly after hiring people too dumb to catch shoplifters and bad check artists and sells crap made my slave labor in East Asia, there's something wrong with that.

When people become millionaires by pushing paper around rather than actually making something, there's something wrong with that.

When attorneys get one-third of an obscenely huge settlement granted by jurors for lawsuits filed by people who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives, there's something wrong with that.

When people are paid huge sums for playing a sport but not for educating our children, there's something wrong with that.

There's nothing wrong with Warren Buffett being rich. Or Bill Gates -- well, there's a lot wrong with Windows. . .

I do know people who have a problem with the rich in general. I don't get that. Sure, if they got rich building ticky-tacky houses. Or if they stole their money. But just for being rich.

People who won't watch the TV show, "Royal Pains" because it's set in the Hampton's, without even finding out what it's about.

Or hate books like The Great Gatsby or Gone with the Wind because they are about the "moneyed" classes without thinking about the other characters. Or the story.

People are people. I know a very wealthy man who sells his wares on QVC who is one of the most generous, decent people I have ever known. I know people who are struggling who are just as decent. Of course there are rich folks who are real creeps and poor people who beat up their kids and dogs. The amount of money doesn't correlate with what's in people's hearts. 

Connecting

Ohio gets a bad rap.

Oh, in some ways it deserves it. The river did catch on fire, but that was a long time ago. And people of my general can never think "Ohio" without thinking "four dead in Ohio." 

But, to be honest, Kent State is a beautiful campus, albeit with a lousy connotation. 

And all of Ohio isn't shabby and run down. A high school friend of mine lives in Ravenna which is pretty close to Pennsylvania. It's flat there, but not quite as flat as much of the mid-West. And when you move north and east of Ravenna, toward where the little piece of New York touches Ohio, (Who knew?) it's even almost hilly.

There are wineries in that part of Ohio. I traveled to two of them with my friend Cece. I was doing stories for Country Folks Wine and Grape and she came along for fun. It is always fun to do stories on wineries, only partly because you have to taste the wine. 

Most small vintners are enthusiastic about talking about their businesses. They are especially proud of the innovations they need to attempt to keep business flowing. 

Some have lots of events on their vineyards. They play host to Renaissance Festivals and music fests. Some allow weddings on their property, although others find they are too disruptive to the regular tours and tastings. 

Cece and I were pleasantly surprised at how good the wine was, across the board. Not a bad or overly sweet wine in the bunch. That's what we had expected.

 The wineries are lovely, too. Ambiance means a lot.

The rest of my trip was pleasure.

Cece and I went to the West Side Market in Cleveland. There may well be more portions of Cleveland you wouldn't want to walk through unarmed than in most cities, but there are also some cool things, including the market which has a large green market and an inside area with bakeries, meat markets and pretty much everything else. Of course, we went on a Saturday which was probably not a good idea. It was about as crowded as it could get. 

The market is in what was probably an old factory building.

That night we went to hear the Cleveland Symphony in it's summer home. Beautiful outdoor venue. Excellent music.

And lots of people who wanted to hear classical music. Which is comforting. Many of the people under the pavilion were older, but plenty of those sitting on the grass were young.

Much of what we did was connecting. Re-connecting. It's nice to get together with an old high school friend once in a while. 

And the Winner Is. . .

 

 

Journalism awards are controversial.

Some people feel it's unseemly to turn a professional action into a competition. Of course, journalists are notoriously competitive. Or at least they were in days when there were several newspapers covering the same city. Reporters would throw red herrings in each others path. Sometimes leaving false clues in the courthouse pressroom. Or faking a phone conversation another reporter is sure to overhear. 

 Yes, we are that bad. Every bit that bad. 

But should we be competitive about who wrote the best story in a given category? Or should that be reserved for students? 

Some folks say yes, but I disagree.

When readers say they like something we've written, it may mean they were mentioned in it. Or that they interpret it as being on their side of a story. Maybe they just like it. And maybe they are discerning enough to deserve an opinion. But it's not the same as recognition by one's peers. 

That's not saying journalism organizations don't like the money they make from contests. Although it's not easy money. Contests are complicated, probably more so now that they are totally online. Like many other things supposedly made easier by computers, this wasn't. 

The organization has to determine if the categories needs tweaking, then advertise the contest, they check over the entries and handle the money, which may come in by check or credit/debit card or through Pay/Pal. Then we have to round up judges: people in the business with a certain amount of expertise in a certain area of journalism. 

That may not sound too difficult, but journalists are busy people. We don't work 40-hour weeks. Even when we have part time jobs they take up more time than most full-time jobs. We also have families and some of us are involved in professional organizations. So finding a few of our colleagues willing to take even more time out of our busy schedules can be, um, challenging.

Sometimes we cajole. Sometimes we remind them of the time we got them out of a major cluster-foxtrot with an editor. Sometimes we outright bribe. Usually with pizza, but occasionally with other things. Then, once we have the judges, and the judging, we have to get the award certificates printed. Get plaques made for special awards and get them to the awards reception.

That's a chore in and of itself. First, we have to get the entire board of the organization to agree on a proper venue. Is it big enough? Can everybody see/hear the speakers? Can you get kosher meals? Can you get vegan meals (it's a darn good thing most journalists don't eat real healthy, more than one vegan in a group is grounds for felonious assault)? Is it easy to get to by public transportation? Then we have to decide about serving alcohol.

The booze question used to be easy. Of course you serve booze. These are reporters. 

 But today, even reporters think about liability. So there is an argument about booze. About hard liquor or wine only. About cash or open bar. Generally the answer is provide something alcoholic. 

On the day of the event, though, we all know it was worth it. 

Even the most seasoned reporter or editor or graphic artist knows the best recognition is an accolade from one's peers. It may not be a Pulitzer. It may just be a Spujie (the NJProfessional chapter of the Society of Professional Journalist). But it was chosen by our peers. 

Like finally being appreciated by the family.