I have watched “60 Minutes” for a long time. I have found that the selections of subjects are usually interesting. And, I think, that because its correspondents seem to be serious and sincere, I probably gave it more credibility than it deserves. In case you have forgotten, or never learned, the show is a “TV magazine.” It usually covers three stories. Often they deal with scandals and white-collar crime. In case you have forgotten white-collar crime involves stealing dry cleaning.
The show begins with a brief preview of each of the three stories. Recently the first story showed a backhoe (this is a tool used by white-collar criminals to steal clothing) destroying a house. The voice over told us that this house was “perfect” (the exact word!) good, useful, serviceable, etc. So why are houses being destroyed in Cleveland, Ohio?
First, the story did not only with Cleveland, but also with the area outside the city. The reason was this. When a family is evicted from a house, because of non-payment of mortgage, the house becomes vacant. This does not “look good” for the other local homeowners. That is the value of their houses is reduced. And, apparently, as everyone in the Cleveland area is trying to get out (is an asteroid on its way?), everyone gains if these “problems” are removed. And the “final solution” is to exterminate these otherwise “prefect” residences.
It seems stupid, no? The story then went on to show us that these houses were NOT perfect. A typical example was shown. The siding had been removed. The windows had been removed. The plumbing had been removed. The furnace had been removed. Apparently the local residents, who lose their own residence investments when these places are looted wall to wall, do not bother to call the police when they see a moving van being loaded with a big finance! My point here is that the story was the EXACT opposite of what the story was supposed to be.
A “perfectly serviceable house is one that is, essentially, a not nice looking cave? By the way (part one), the entire problem is caused by “the banks.” No banker was given an opportunity to defend himself. There was no mention of the decade long government “policy” (i.e. threats) to the banks to grant mortgages to people who could not pay. By the way (part two), several owners who were not evicted and did not “walk away” were interviewed. They said that they felt honor bound to pay their mortgages because they had signed the papers. The show presented them as foolish and hopelessly old fashioned.
So, to destroy a home that can not be used, that does harm to innocent people, that is a cosmetic disgrace, that is a physical hazard and that is a harvest for thieves, etc, is tragic. The reason is that the house is perfect. However, “60 Minutes” did not make a “perfect” presentation. The story forgot to blame George Bush for everything. I am certain that it will not make that mistake again.
Books by the author, both humorous and religious in cause and effect, are available on Amazon and Lulu. com.
Comments