Dying Rich

It strikes me as curious and absurd that two of the richest men in the world haven’t attached their names to any kind of charitable, philanthropic agency/foundation/effort. It would certainly seem their only agenda is to accumulate more wealth than anyone else on the planet. Way back when, wealth came in the form of railroads and oil. Today, it takes on a myriad of forms.

We’ve all read about these billionaire’s 500-million-dollar yachts, various homes around the globe, foolish expenditure of money for any number of frivolous toys. But helping other human beings doesn’t seem to be on any of their radar screens. We now celebrate billionaires instead of mere millionaires. What the hell is going on here?

Considering their collective wisdom to attain such a fortune, how did they all seem to miss the bigger picture? We remember John D. Rockefeller as being the richest man in America at the turn of the century because he owned all the oil wells in the country. But we celebrate Andrew Carnegie because he built several thousand libraries around the country with his money. Both made the history books, both were pillars in their own community but only one left an indelible mark on the American landscape.

Steve Jobs, the creator of Apple Computer, for whom I have a great deal of respect, didn’t seem to ‘get it’ until the end of his life. His comments made to the 2005 Stanford Commencement address seemed to sum it all up:

“Remembering that I’ll be dead soon is the most important tool I’ve ever encountered to help me make the big choices in life. Because almost everything – all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure- these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important.”

Why is it that so many people admire the rich and famous but can’t see the emptiness of their lives and accomplishments? That’s certainly not always the case but, it seems, so often the good gets pushed aside for the glitz and glamor and gold. Worshipping at the altar of wealth seems so foolish.

While I believe in the American Dream, I fear there is something missing in that fable of happiness ever after if wealth accumulation is the only symbol of happiness. I’m not talking about mandatory tithing or annual charity drives or fund-raisers of every form and fashion. It’s the idea that sharing one’s good fortune doesn’t have to break your bank or throw you into poverty. It’s simply lending a helping hand where and when you can. It’s giving a little of what you have to someone or something else that doesn’t have as much.

In this country and around the world, one’s level of wealth is often the social, economic standard that most Americans use to categorize other folks. It’s often how we judge other people even though we lie and say we don’t.

In my other hometown, there have been a number of world-famous figures from the world of entertainment who have made their mark on this community. Many have stood out for their philanthropic endeavors, some more than others. One was incredibly generous with his time, talent and money. His reputation was a sterling example of what a ‘classy’ person should be like.

The other, just as wealthy, was known within his circle as the most money-grubbing cheap skate on the planet. It was so bad, he was a joke even to his ‘closest’ friends. Years later, the old timers still talk about the two of them. Two towering icons of entertainment. Both died very rich, one with a legacy of generosity; the other, a skinflint. Go figure?

As I’ve tried to postulate in past blogs, I’ve read enough obituaries to understand what most folks want to remember about someone else after they’ve passed. It’s seldom their fancy cars or house on a lake. More often than not, it’s family, friends, faith and the ‘little things’ most remembered by others.

The true legacy of a person’s time here on earth isn’t counted in dollars and cents and cybercurrency, it’s about how they spent their time and if they were a benefit to mankind. The pursuit of success doesn’t have to exclude others less fortunate. We can all be a benefit to and learn from other generations.

Just sayin.

Guilded Age Revisited

Over the years, I’ve written several blogs about the loss of and challenge to attain the ‘American Dream.’ Flipboard recently came out with an article from Politico entitled: ‘The Gilded Age is Back – and that should worry conservatives.’ I would add a subtitle: ‘And Suffragettes would be aghast…again.’

The gist of the article is that today’s administration in Washington bears striking resemblance to that of the Gilded Age of the late 19^th century when business and industry dominated American life as never before or since. It’s relevance to today’s social and political climate is striking in so many ways.

The debate between a conservative slant on life in America and a more liberal posture would take up volumes and still wouldn’t find an answer. It’s a deep fundamental divide that only the bravest among us is willing to venture over in hopes of finding a comprise there. It’s a deeply insightful and fascinating article to read if you want to get a handle on what the hell is happening in Washington today.

There was one paragraph in that excellent article that struck me as particularly disturbing. It brought to mind a conversation I had with a girl; name and face long since forgotten. We were in our teens and talking about dating. She explained to me that women (young girls like herself) wanted the man (I assume she was talking about me) to decide what to do and where to go on a date. I argued, in turn, that it should be a joint-decision or at least a choice made with the woman’s input included. NO, she was adamant, that was the role of the man.

One of the golden cufflinks of the Gilded Age was the subordination of women to their male counterparts. Reflecting back on that soda fountain salon, I found again the concept of women as second-class citizens frightening and absurd. Yet, here we are, seemingly going in that direction once again.

Now granted, after many miles traveled down this worn road called life, I can understand the mood, morals, and mindset of the times of my youth. It was the late Fifties and early Sixties. The Greatest Generation knew how their kids should act when socializing. It was understood that the ‘man’ was the head of the family, main provider, and overall task master. Surely, there was no question then who would decide where and what to do on a date.

I thought this whole concept of the man being the pride of the pack was misguided, foolish and just plain stupid. Fortunately, I was able to find and date women who had that willpower, know power and self-confidence to see themselves as equal and didn’t treat me as a eunuch in the process. All of which goes back that enlightening (frightening) paragraph in the article.

Quoting from the article: “The modern conservative movement’s fascination with hypermasculinity reflects a similar response to shifting gender norms, economic instability and perceived cultural decline. Vice President JD Vance’s musing about ‘childless cat ladies’ – he seems to share Musk’s obsession with natalism – are of a kind with Josh Hawley’s book, ‘Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs’, and even Tucker Carlson’s concerns about declining sperm counts. The intense interest in masculinity even shaped the presidential election: To many young men who heard him on his tour of the pro-podcast circuit, Trump himself represents a restoration of masculine authority.”

While perusing a box of books a friend gave me, I came across several pamphlets from Hillsdale College. OMG, what an insightful look into the philosophy of today’s current conservative thoughts and trends. It was like breaking the enigma code and being able to better understand the thinking behind so many of Washington’s current actions, steps, missteps, and ‘what the hell are they thinking?’ way of doing things.

While some of my friends will disagree with me, including my very astute wife, this tells me why so many folks chose to either not vote or to vote with their testosterone or lack thereof. It also goes back to my fascination with men who are afraid of women. The article seems to include in that threatening group: gays, lesbians, trans, minorities, immigrants, intellectuals, and anyone else who doesn’t fit their pre-conceived white notion of what makes for a ‘real man.’

Setting Marvel comic book characters aside, most folks I know don’t see caring and concern, humility, and humanity as signs of weakness. Many of our so-called leaders today would be wise to recognize that the size of one’s tire treads and other kahunas are not the sign of a real man.

But, hey, I’m just a writer. I see what I see and I write about it. That sometimes puts me in a category all of its own. Truth can be harsh sometimes but then you see the light.