What Color Are You?

 

Jeff--Saturday

 

In one way or another, that’s a question being asked all over the world—or if not spoken aloud, is certainly front and center in the minds of those aware of current events.

 

Are you red, orange, or green? In other words, are you from a region or country where individuals are at a high risk of Covid infection (RED), at a moderately elevated risk (ORANGE), or at a low risk (Green).  The European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has its map that’s updated every Wednesday.

 

In the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention  (CDC) employs five colors to warn of the level of community transmission by county—not country.  High (Red), Substantial (Orange), Moderate (Yellow), Low (Blue), and Insufficient Data (Grey).

 

On top of that, many states in the US have their own color charts for coding Covid matters within their borders. Confusing?

 

Covid Color Coding Chaos in US

I don’t know what the talk is in your neighborhoods, but over here, Covid and its variants overwhelmingly dominate virtually every conversation.  “Are we still orange?”  “Is there a chance at being classified yellow?” “What happens if we’re red?”  “What should we do if our home country (or county) is red or headed that way?”

 

You get the idea.

 

Europe is beginning to take things seriously. That’s good.

 

The US…not so good, at least not yet, but much of the rest of the world is in far worse shape; and as long as that is so, we all remain at risk.

 

Frankly, I’m tired of the conversation…tired of the ridiculous postulations put out there for resisting vaccinations…and fed up with those who say why get a vaccination when you can still contract the disease?  That’s like asking a cop why do you wear a ballistic vest if you can still get shot, or a driver, why do you wear a seat belt if you still can get in an accident? 

 

How’s this for an answer: TO GREATLY REDUCE MY CHANCE OF DEATH OR CRIPPLING INJURY SHOULD I BE SHOT, CRASHED, OR INFECTED.

 

Bottom line, I don’t care what color you are, just get vaccinated so that the maps move away from the red, portending futures a hell of a lot ROSIER for all of us.

 

‘Nuf said, stay safe, and be sensible.

 

--Jeff

 

PS. A big shout out to our blogmate Kwei Quartey on winning the Shamus Award for Best First Private Eye novel, “The Missing American.”

 

Jeff’s upcoming events

Wednesday and Thursday, August 11& 12
Fish & Olive Gallery—Halki, Naxos Island, Greece
European presentation of A Deadly Twist on the island where it is set
Learn more

Thursday, August 26, 5:00-5:50 p.m.
Bouchercon 2021—New Orleans, LA
New Orleans Marriott—La Galeries 2, 2nd Floor
Moderator, Mystery of Crafting Thrillers Set in Foreign Lands

Friday, August 27, 11:00-11:50 a.m.
Bouchercon 2021—New Orleans, LA
New Orleans Marriott—La Galeries , 4-5. 2nd Floor
Panelist, Thrillers in the World of Politics

What We Can Learn From Pinocchio

Jeff—Saturday

For those of you who want to know what’s happening in the world today, just shut your eyes. Your ears too, because what you see and what you hear doesn’t really seem to matter much anymore. What counts these days is whatever turns agendas—political and otherwise—into realities.

All of which brings me around to the subject of this week’s post: Pinocchio.

An epic character, perhaps the most well known character in children’s literature, who stands as a universal symbol of the perils of prevarication to one’s proboscis.

Carlo Collodi

It all began with The Adventures of Pinocchio (1883) a children’s novel by the Italian writer Carlo Collodi, in which a kindly old carpenter, Geppetto, carves a marionette in the image of a little boy who lives a literal wooden existence dreaming that someday he’ll be human.  But between him and his dream stand a series of trials and a singular moral defect: Pinocchio’s penchant for lying and bad behavior.

Though some literary types have equated Pinocchio’s journey with that of epic literary heroes such as Odysseus, I think for purposes of today’s post it’s better described by Jack Zipes in an introduction to a book on Pinocchio, titled Carlo Collodi.  To him, it’s a story about those who venture out into the world naively unprepared for what they find, and get into ridiculous situations.

Enter the “nose knows.”

Alas, if only we had as ready a way of separating truth tellers from charlatans today.

But there’s another lesson to be drawn from Pinocchio.

The list of Pinocchio productions and knock-offs is endless, but undoubtedly Walt Disney’s 1940 version, praised as one of the greatest animated films of all time, is the most well known. 

What isn’t as well known is that, as originally written, Pinocchio was an obnoxious boor, whose end was not intended to be pleasant.  Disney though didn’t see that sort of character as appealing to the masses, and so he turned him into a more likeable, innocent mischief-maker, who ultimately achieved his dream of becoming real.

Today’s opinion-shapers still turn the obnoxious into the likeable, and far-fetched cinematic dreams into realities, but they’ve have added something else to the mix.  They’ve turned the common sense adage for truth—“As plain as the nose on your face”—on its ear (so to speak) by libeling any nose other than their own as a Pinocchio protuberance, not to be believed.

In other words, we now live in a world where up is down and down is up.  But that’s from another children’s book, for another time.

Assuming we get there.

—Jeff

I'm Confused.

Could someone out there please tell me what’s really happening in our world?

Put differently, who can you truly believe?  Remember that 1957 movie with Andy Griffith, A Face in the Crowd, in which he played a beloved TV personality who one day unknowingly let his true feelings toward his adoring fans leak out across a live mike to a stunned the nation?   Well that’s sort of how I feel after this week, though I doubt I’ll ever find resolution in the form of hearing the truth from the lips of the many who so confuse me.

Let’s start with Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s situation.  She’s been up to her eyeballs spinning out explanations over her private email server and the September 11, 2012 Benghazi tragedy, but was thrown a lifeline this week by the (now less likely) next Republican Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy when he boasted on Fox News that the House’s Benghazi investigations were put together to cripple her presidential bid.  I doubt many were shocked to learn politics played a part in the investigation, but I’d bet the ranch virtually all were amazed at the public admission by its claimed architect.

On the side of the more classic form of political behavior, we have Vladimir Putin’s brilliant performance this week in his interview by iconic American television talk show host and journalist, Charlie Rose.   Putin and President Obama have been butting heads (to say the least) all week before the UN and the World over Russia’s decision to provide aggressive boots on the ground support to the Syria regime.  Putin acquitted himself quite well on the Rose show with a masterful command of body language, gestures, and unassuming answers, taking care as he did all week to wrap his intentions in the blanket claim of Russia engaging in Syria for the high purpose of fighting worldwide terrorism in the form of ISIS.

Then, as his nation’s first subsequent military act in Syria, Russia bombed the hell out of anti-Assad government forces having nothing to do with ISIS.  All of which goes to show how very adept Putin is at manipulating his image and the media while doing whatever he damn well pleases.  He gives credence to the quip often credited to Will Rogers that a sure fire way to tell if a politician is lying is to watch if his lips are moving.

I’m not even going to talk about the monumental betrayal of trust and fraud perpetrated upon the world of car owners by Volkswagen.  German industry will reel from that for quite some time.

Then we have the latest rage circulating in Greece. Newly re-elected Prime Minister Alexis Tripras came to New York City this week, along with practically every other world leader, for the opening of the new United Nations session.  He appeared on a video taped interview conducted by former President Clinton (still only one of those) as part of his Clinton Global Initiative.  The interview lasted a little over a half-hour, but what quickly circulated around Greece was a one-minute doctored version of the interview intended to make the Prime Minister look an inarticulate fool unable to speak or understand English.

I couldn’t think of something more ridiculous for his opponents to have done than that. When the doctored tape is compared with the real one, the Prime Minister emerges as a quite different sort of person, with an exceptional command of a language he just recently began to learn.  Whether or not one believes what he said is quite a different issue, but the obvious misrepresentation of his appearance gives unintended credence to his performance.

And the saddest news to me personally came in the form of Pope Francis’s clandestine meeting in Washington with Kim Davis, the Kentucky County Clerk who went to jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I do not know what the thinking was behind holding that meeting, but it most certainly changed the thinking of many who learned of it.

These are troubling times for those desperately looking for someone or something to believe in.  Or, at the very least, to tell them the truth. I’m beginning to get a better understanding of why so many have flocked to Donald Trump, and that realization frightens me.

Hope to see you next week at Bouchercon in Raleigh, where I expect you to help me take my mind off all of this.

Jeff—Saturday

Why Be Nice?

This post was written two days before the horrors in Paris...

It’s a bit early, or late, for bah humbug, but from the way the year is starting off I can’t help but wonder whether it pays to be nice.  I’ve always felt being called a “nice guy” was an accolade, not a sign of weakness.  But sometimes it can be a burden being nice. Just ask Annamaria.  Not Everett.

So here’s what has me rethinking my philosophy.  I’ve heard the following recently: “Don’t talk about US politics on your blog.  It’s not nice.”  “Don’t talk about Greek politics on your blog. It’s not nice.”  “Don’t talk about anything but murder.  That’s nice.”

Ya gotta be kidding me folks.  I just finished killing off a few folks—including one Michael C. Dillman––but they all deserved to check out in my fictional world.  The question is, if we’re prepared to say a mortal bye-bye to bad guys in fiction, why do we accept the continued political existence of real life bad guys each time they’re up for office?

Perhaps it’s because of the way the stories are told.  For example, if we had a real life narrator objectively putting the facts of our world out there before us, I wonder how we would vote on reelecting those who serve us?   Of course that will never happen.  Au contraire, there are far too many paid to spin the truth (and lies) for profit and political power.  There will never be an honest narrator of our lives—beyond ourselves.

How about our free press?  And I’m talking about objective media. How many of you who actually knew first-hand the details of a story you later read about or viewed, scratched your head in wonder at how far from the actual facts and their true import the reported story had drifted?  That’s not to say the media intentionally misstated events, just that in real life there is no accurate, omniscient narrator, no matter how much our media may like to claim that role.

So, where does that leave us?  Are we to be victims of our own predilections, prejudices, biases, and knee-jerk reactions?  Those who manage public opinion for power and profit sure as hell hope so.  They make careers out of knowing how to mine and exploit those tendencies.

Is there an answer to our dilemma?   If I knew one, I just might have to sell out to the dark side and use what I knew to bring all of you around to my way of thinking—which of course is the only right way to think.

But I don’t know the answer.  One thing I do know is that instinct is not a good measure when it comes to judging candidates, much as I wish it were.  There’s no way to make a decision based upon images crafted by consultants.  Nor based upon how much one sweats before cameras, a practiced smile, a macho gesture, a stammer, a stumble, or a gift of eloquence.  Hearsay is no better from one who met the candidate for a minute or even ten somewhere along the way.  After all, how has trusting your instincts worked out for you so far in picking winners?

I guess that leaves us with only one thing to go on: How have those who ask you to trust them with the future of your nation done in keeping their word along the way?  What have they promised in past campaigns, and how did their promises measure up once they got what they wanted from you? And I’m not talking about the courtesy of flowers or chocolates after the deed is done.

We all know most politicians will say whatever it takes to get and stay elected, but why must we accept such prevarication as inevitable?  Yes, the next ones may be just as big liars, but then vote them out, too.  Let it be known that character counts.  It’s up to the electorate to establish in the minds of the candidates that the electorate has a long memory and will hold them accountable, no matter if they switch parties or labels.  As the old adage goes,  “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

What I’m suggesting is that voters take off their rose-colored, Mister Nice guy glasses, and start taking names and kicking asses.

After all, being sheepish won’t work in these times, because for sheep the future offers only two choices:  Shearing or Slaughter.

Jeff—Saturday