Alternative title, "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
This will be brief, but I wanted to share it.
My job is very seasonal, with crazy busy hours half the year and relative calm the other half. (And when I say relative calm, I mean it. I have 5 hours of work obligations this week!)
But the busy season is about to start and I've been in a flurry of activity all day cleaning and reorganizing my office for the onslaught. I've set aside about 25 books to donate, unearthed the shell of an ancient laptop (I swear the thing weighs 20 lbs), shuddered at my performance reviews from 1996, and filed my son's pre-k class photograph (he's finishing second grade).
At the bottom of one box was a fairly yellowed newspaper page, just one page. Follow me to see the ironic juxtaposition of headlines.
It's from the Sunday Boston Globe from January 27, 2008. I don't live in Boston but I grew up there and my parents remain there, so clearly my mom sent it to me. As with many moms, she frequently sends me newspaper articles. I rarely can immediately identify which article on the page she wants me to read. This is no exception. Was it "Two lives, reclaimed" (about sisters shot during their mother's murder)? "Seasonal worker shortage threatens regional tourism"? I can't see why.
I'm still not quite sure why she sent it to me. But I smiled at the biggest headline: "Obama wins S.C. by wide margin".
Then I looked down at the article immediately beneath it and my eyes widened. "As Bain slashed jobs, Romney stayed to side".
There's only a couple of paragraphs before the continuation onto a page she didn't send me:
In early 1995, as the Ampad paper plant in Marion, IND., neared its shutdown following a bitter strike, Randy Johnson, a worker and union official, scrawled a personal letter to Mitt Romney, pouring out his disappointment that Romney, then chief executive of the investment firm that controlled Ampad, had not done enough to settle the strike and save some 200 jobs.
"We really thought you might help," Johnson said in the handwritten note, "but insted we heard excuses that were unacceptable from a man in your prominent position."
Romney, who had recently lost a Senate race in which the strike became a flashpoint, responded that he had 'privately' urged a settlement, but was advised by lawyers not to intervene directly. His political interests, he explained, conflicted with his business responsibilities.
Now, Romney's decision to stay on the sidelines...
And that's where it ends. I read it and thought first, what an ass. Then, "I'm running for President for Pete's sake". That's who this man is. Shallow, focused on expediency, out for Mitt and Mitt only.
It's not like I, or anyone here, needed a reminder. But I find it a bizarre time capsule to stumble across these same issues.
I hope such contrasting headlines, Obama wins, Mitt's a jerk, continue for a long time.
ETA: thanks to Marigold in the comments for the article link.