Many people write or speak to tell us what we should think. Some want to be believed because they are experts, or think they are. Some want to be believed because they claim to speak for us. Some have had revelations. Others want us to trust them because they communicate through prominent media outlets. Many tell us what we should think. I write to encourage my readers to think for themselves. I write to ask you to inquire. Question me. Have fun.

Comment of the Day
The Editorial Board should have no opinion

Jul 11, 2020

The WSJ Editorial Board expressed its opinion about the case of Michael Flynn. It does not matter what they said; in my book, the Editorial Board should have no opinion on any topic. Editorial boards’ job is not to lecture, but to facilitate views from individuals who can present valid arguments. The Editorial Board's job at the WSJ is to guarantee to me, a subscriber, that the different opinions presented are fact-checked. I pay a subscription for the WSJ because I do not have the time nor the means to fact-check whatever is written and posted on the internet. I do not pay for the subscription to be brainwashed by whatever the self-anointed authority of the Editorial Board believes is right. I can make my judgment based on the facts and their interpretation by other individuals.

More parenting is needed
Aug 01, 2019
Peter Gray in Psychology Today advises for less parenting. The problem is exactly the opposite: There is not enough parenting. In the past, when most of our ancestors lived in self-supporting households, often a farm, out of necessity, children were an integral part of whatever adults needed to do during their daily life, and they learned that way. Now, we do not need to do as much at home. Work is outside the home, food is brought in, heat is turned on and off, and mysteriously magical, colorful screens are the center of most activities. If we leave children free to explore what they find the most attractive, they will play video games. There might be some educational value in it, but one needs to learn much more. Hence, we need more effort in parenting, with parents doing more in the home than is otherwise required, and spending more time with children outside in order to introduce them to the real world. This realization hit home after I witnessed the surprise of a 7-year old seeing apples on my apple tree.
Less fight more work
Jul 30, 2017

The fight over Obamacare repeal is over, at least for now. The GOP can start to work on a new proposal that each of us can look at it, and then compare how my particular health care solution would play in it, as compared to Obamacare. In a television interview, HHS Secretary Tom Price said that Obamacare “may be working for Washington, it may be working for insurance companies, but it’s not working for patients.” Maybe it is time to consider patients’ involvement in the preparation of an Obamacare alternative? It could be that Obamacare repeal failed just because it has been prepared by Washington with consultation from insurance companies. Let us start with addressing 19 health care issues that politicians avoid talking about.

How to pay for the wall?
Apr 04, 2017

If you want to build the wall, pay for it with your own money. How much of your own money are you willing to donate? Trump received 62,979,879 votes. If each of Trump’s supporters voluntarily donates at least $1,000, which corresponds to about $42 per month for the next two years, and if we encourage those who are more affluent to double their donations, then Trump can have on hand about $100 billion, which may suffice for a substantial piece of the wall. Hence, all of you who are talking loudly about spending my money on building this wall, stay away from my wallet, but open your own wallet and send money to the “Build the Wall Fund.” Put your money where your mouth is.

What is wrong with Russia?
Dec 22, 2015

It appears that Russian leaders cannot free themselves from the medieval concept of regional influence, where weaker neighbors were subdued into becoming serf states. Is anyone capable of explaining to them that in these times of a global economy, any influence comes from economic strength? Russia, thanks to its size, natural resources and well-educated labor force, has everything that it takes to maintain a dominant position in the region, just by maintaining free trade with all its neighbors. It can do so without military interventions in Georgia and in Ukraine. Russia has everything that it takes to be a respected wealthier neighbor, to whom everyone in the region would turn for help when needed. Instead, it is a bully and a hooligan. It would take so little to change that. But it is so hard for Russia to do it. 

Closed mind for closed borders
Nov 19, 2015

Known to some as a libertarian, Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. speaks against open borders. His argument is that it is an infraction against private property. He misses the point that most people migrate just because Mr. Rockwell’s neighbors want them on their private property – for picking apples, washing the dishes or writing a computer code. Then, Mr. Rockwell wrongly laments that those foreigners invited by his neighbors violate his private property rights by loitering in the public spaces that he frequents. He wants the government to deny the rights of his neighbors to do on their private property whatever they wish, so he will not need to face immigrants in the public spaces. Mr. Rockwell left the train called “liberty” at the station called “xenophobia.”    

They do not know…
Sep 14, 2015

Mr. Trump says: “A lot of what I’m doing is by instinct.” I prefer that our President would make decisions based on systematic due diligence. The instinct that guides Mr. Trump in his professional life arrives from his vast experience, starting when he was growing up under the mentoring of his successful father, followed by a solid education and years of practice. Mr. Trump's confidence is misguiding, as it gives his supporters the illusion that someone who mastered real estate dealing can be equally skillful as President. It is similar to the illusion surrounding Dr. Carson, that he can be as good a President as he is a brain surgeon. If both gentlemen were humbler, they would realize that they qualify to be President equally as much as Mr. Trump qualifies to conduct brain surgeries and Dr. Carson to run Mr. Trump’s real estate empire. The problem is not that they do not know many things they should; the problem is that they do not realize that.

More Comments

What did I learn from the world’s best editor?

Photo of Juliusz Rawicz by Marzena Hmielewicz. Courtesy of © Agencja Gazeta.

It is an open question who is or was the best editor in the world. For me, Juliusz Rawicz, Julek (pronounced: Yulek, it is Polish) to his friends, was the best newspaper editor I ever knew. His coworkers at Gazeta Wyborcza, the Polish newspaper, called him the world’s best editor.

My first journalistic experiences are half a century old. I studied electronics at that time. To vent my interest in politics, I started writing for the Polish students’ nationwide biweekly. A few months later, they offered me a monthlong internship at the best Polish political periodical. Editors there extended it to the whole 10 weeks of my vacations and kept me around until a year later, when the apparatchiks had enough and fired them all. In the process, my journey into journalism became a serious matter.

The historical context

At that time, Poland was a socialistic country. There was no freedom of the press. It affected writers in three ways. First, editors were asked to publish a rosy picture of the socialistic reality and avoid news and opinions suggesting otherwise. If they did not, they were fired.

Second, on top of that often vague political pressure, the censors’ office read carefully every publication before printing. Censors had very detailed directives of what could or could not be published. Certain names, facts or phrases could not even be mentioned. Some events could be reported in the middle of the paper in fine print, but not on the front page. Editors knew most of the censors’ directives and tried to be proactive; too many censors’ interventions were a way to lose a job.

Lastly, authors aware of that system self-censored their writings. In Polish, being politically correct is often expressed as sticking to a vertical line of a doctrine. We joked that it was an art to keep writing (politically) plumb while maintaining the level (of writing quality).

Such a handcuffed system never could work as intended. There always were editors and authors trying to outsmart it and wink at readers. The press cannot stay credible when devoid of all information considered arbitrarily inconvenient by the rulers; hence, it needed to maintain a space for a “constructive critique.” We called it “safety vents.” Lastly, there were differences in opinions among the ruling elite. Individuals there used their influence to advance their causes in the press.

Yeast’ in the Polish politics

Życie Warszawy (Life of Warsaw), now defunct, was the major newspaper in the capital region. On every Thursday, there was a four-column insert called Życie i Nowoczesność, ŻiN, (Life and Modernity). For about three years (1970 -73), this tiny publication, under the leadership of its founder, Stefan Bratkowski, was the most intellectually daring in the nation.

Formally ŻiN was an apolitical forum for the exchange of ideas on how to adopt the newest inventions in technology and science to modernize the nation. The moment was perfect. A quarter-century after WWII, Poland had rebuilt, and there was a lot of joy and optimism. The baby boomers like me, mostly well educated, were entering adulthood. Computerization, which had just started, embodied the sense of great opportunities. By exploring these prospects and appealing to the energy of the youth, ŻiN brought a breath of hope that Poles could do almost anything.

In the spring of 1972, the small team of ŻiN received recognition as intellectual “yeast” in media from Polityka, the most prominent Polish periodical. The reasoning was that it takes many ingredients to make bread, but without that pinch of yeast, the dough does not grow. They were the ones that made things grow.

In the summer of 1972, I walked into the center of it.

Polityka, on Feb 26, 1972 announces the Yeast Award to ŻiN for the activity that became the leaven of thinking. Courtesy of Polityka.

Julek’s dominion

Bratkowski, the founder and the team leader, still in his mid-30s, was already a figure bigger than life. Besides articles, he had already published a few popular books; he was known for his creativity and optimistic temperament. His team contained similar high achievers. The core crew was about 10 to 15 people, with a few full-time editors and a few part-time writers, including interns.

Anyone who has ever worked with temperamental high achievers knows how hard it is to manage them. The clearly defined purpose of the publication and its spectacular success mitigated those passions, but sparkles were a daily routine. Julek, shorter than most, with an unintimidating posture and a disarming smile, was the glue holding the team together.

Julek’s dominion was not impressive. Six worn-out desks clustered in one room, with barely any space to pass. Julek was the editor at large, the only one who was not a writer. During the meetings, usually, with about 10 people attending, most of us were standing or sitting on desks, almost touching each other. The door was always open to the hallway where other offices of Życie Warszawy were located. The door had been closed only for short periods when discussions turned loud and unruly.

Julek’s drawer

Publishing good articles was not the goal. They were on the mission to modernize Poland. The staff identified issues important to readers. When getting a manuscript addressing an important issue, they looked at how it related to articles published before, and other aspects and related views. Often, someone from the team had some expertise and interest in writing another article on the subject. Then, Julek was asked what he had in his drawer.

Julek, a working bee, scrupulously reviewed every submission and kept in his drawer manuscripts with some potential. As a result, readers received a comprehensive set of articles about the subject in question, often with brief editorial notes. Accustomed to being lectured, readers found it refreshing to receive multifaceted information and left to make their own judgment.

Polityka on Mar 11, 1972 writes why they gave ŻiN the Yest Award. On the picture the office of ŻiN. Stefan Bratkowski is on the far left, Julisz Rawicz is on the far right. Courtesy of Polityka.

A relentless hunt for talent

A few days into my internship at ŻiN, they accepted my first submission and, soon after, the second one. I was happy, but it felt uneasy for me to see how much other team members were excited about my success. It took me a while to realize that they were not celebrating my success; they expressed their joy at capturing a new talent.

Stefan repeated almost daily that we had several people employed, about 100 regular contributors, and more than 1,000 experts writing occasionally. In his view, that broad spectrum of contributors was the core of the value that ŻiN offered its readers. It stuck in my memory how often Stefan bragged about bringing an excellent article from an unknown author.

Criteria for acceptance of texts

I mentioned earlier the team’s excitement with the publication of my first text. By the end of the day it was published, I was just about to leave when a former intern and an aspiring writer walked in. He had degrees in Polish literature and journalism; I was just a student in an engineering college. Hence, I was curious about his opinion. I was genuinely happy when he said that he had found a serious problem. Then he started talking about a syntax issue in one of the sentences in my article. I reread that sentence and could not see a problem. Julek, diplomatic as always, said that it was not a big problem. Then, I asked this fellow if he had comments on the merit of my article. He insisted that writing correctly in Polish was crucial. I thanked him and left because the more he talked, the less I could understand, as my Polish language education ended in high school.

My friend who stayed in the room told me later that after I had left, that fellow intensified his critique of the sentence in question. The chief editor cut him short: “We do not publish Mr. Henryk for the excellence of his grammar but for what he has to say. For grammar, we have editors.”

It took me a while to realize how deeply this reflected the mission of ŻiN. One morning on Julek’s usually empty desk, there was a manuscript. At that time, anyone from the street could walk into our office. We guessed it was a submission, and Julek asked me to review it. I started by noticing that there was no title nor an author’s name. Then, in the first paragraph, punctuation was missing, and I found a few spelling errors. Julek smiled. He recognized the author, who writes that way, but “he has some good ideas, and we publish him sometimes.” That manuscript went into Julek’s drawer.

On another occasion, Julek tasked me with condensing to five pages a 15-page-long manuscript poorly written by a university professor. It was about the advantages of the trimester system over the conventional two semesters. This way, more baby boomers could get an education in the same buildings. The professor approved the edit, and ŻiN was the first mainstream media publication in Poland to introduce the trimester concept. Being the first with a new idea was far more critical than the quality of writing in the submission.

In my second stint as an intern during the 1973 vacations, Julek trusted me more to work with new submissions. I spent hours talking with all sorts of strangers, realizing how hard it is to find people who have something original to say. It surprised me how many trained young journalists had all the technical skills to write the best articles in the world but were devoid of critical thinking. They were infatuated with getting their name in print in a major newspaper, but they could not figure out why I was not impressed with their submissions. They had nothing original to say.      

Authors are the stars; editors are promoters

Working with Julek was fun, but not for everyone. It was easier for me because I clicked with the team quickly. Julek was a language purist, meticulously polishing all imperfections. My prior experiences were with editors in a student periodical who were self-taught older colleagues. Often, I questioned their interventions, accusing them of butchering my articles. The most annoying was the tendency to add their ideas to twist my message.

I looked over Julek’s shoulder with the same combative attitude when he was editing my first few submissions. He was crossing out a few words, a line, or the whole paragraph, praising the text and adding comments such as: “it sounds better without this,” “you said it better a few lines above,” or “this is an unnecessary distraction.” To my disbelief, I agreed with his changes. He took time to understand the author’s message and then used his craft to master the delivery.

Working as Julek’s assistant, I realized that superb editorial work is crucial to the success of any publication. Very few authors have the skills, discipline, and patience to bring their texts to perfection as editors like Julek could do.

A few years after being fired from ŻiN, Julek got a job with another reputable publication. They published my articles. But there was one piece they had not used for a few months. On one occasion, I asked Julek if it was not good. He claimed it was OK, but he was waiting for the right moment to publish it. But when I pushed a little, he acknowledged, “We got used to getting better texts from you.” He never published that article. I think about this incident whenever I read columns by renowned authors in reputable publications which do not have editors equally good as Julek was.

A front column of ŻiN, on Sept. 7, 1972. An article by the author in the left bottom corner. Courtesy of the Public Library of the Capital City of Warsaw.

An editor needs to separate wheat from weeds

One may say that all editors do their best in selecting good texts for publication; hence, there is nothing special about the way we did it at ŻiN. The key is in distinguishing the wheat from the weeds. In the case of a political publication, it is even harder because we all have our ideological leanings, and some differences of opinion probably will never be resolved to the end of our days. 

A cheap shot for many editors is in associating a publication with this or that bias. Usually, it is called a noble mission of spreading ideas that matter. Readers may cluster around publications they identify with, but even the most zealous ones occasionally can see the lack of objectivity. The skeptic would trust no one.

The success of ŻiN was in doing for the readers what most of them had no time and resources to do themselves. Editors identified issues of public concern, and then in front of their readers, they looked for workable solutions. They asked and tried to answer questions that most readers had. What are the experts saying, what are historical analogies, how did others solve similar problems, and are there any new technological or scientific advances? To do it competently, they needed to be intellectual giants. They were. Besides having an expert knowledge in some areas, they all were erudite.

Julek was known for his encyclopedic memory. Whatever the issue was, he could recall a book about it, an article, a scientific study, or a historical fact. I was an avid reader interested in a broad spectrum of subjects, but next to Julek, I felt like I barely read anything. 

ŻiN was an insert in the daily newspaper. On every Thursday, they sold 450,000 copies. About one million people had our publication in their hands for at least a minute. It was up to us to make that reader spend more time on our pages. They were academics, line workers, and everybody in between. The ongoing mantra in the editorial room was that someone with only a grammar school education should be able to understand our articles, but a university professor should find them worth reading as well.

The influence of ŻiN was increasing. It became too troublesome for the apparatchiks. By the fall of 1973, they fired the key people at ŻiN. A few writers got a so-called “wolf ticket,” which was a notification to the censors’ office that no one should publish any writing by that person in the whole of Poland.

Under the new docile leadership, ŻiN lost its appeal. But the genie was already out of the bottle. Journalists in Poland felt the power of the written word. About 100 of them, including me, experienced that personally. Many Poles saw more clearly the political system’s infirmity and realized that things easily could be better with a little common sense. In the following years, Solidarity burst out. The Soviet Union was due to collapse for its own reasons, but events in Poland triggered its demise. For their determination to advance Poland, the editors at ŻiN were recognized as yeast. They lost their jobs, but the leaven they sowed can be traced to the events that changed the world.    

The future has the great past

Erudition has consequences. One of the most common illusions of dunces is believing that our times are exceptional, and that whatever happened before is irrelevant. The more we know about the past, the more we realize that everything has already happened before. The technology has changed, but human nature stays the same for millennia.

Bratkowski’s favorite motto was that the future has the great past. Whatever problem we face today, in some variation, it has already been resolved for better or worse by someone. By knowing the past, we can be smarter in shaping the future.

In that spirit, I share my experiences, which occurred before many readers of this article were born. I hope that what I learned can inspire others today, when we have so many controversies and a lot of confusion about the print media.

Leave a Reply

About me

I was born in 1951 in Gdansk, Poland.
Since my high school years, I have interest in politics and love for writing. During my college years, I started writing to student papers and soon became freelance author to major Polish political magazines.

In 1980 I wrote a book “Czy w Polsce może być lepiej?” (“Could it be better in Poland?” – this book is available only in Polish) analyzing major problems in Poland at the time and outlining possible solutions.

I was among those Polish political writers who by their writings contributed to the peaceful system transformation that finally took place in 1989. Since 1985, I live in the Chicago area. I went through the hard times typical of many immigrants. Working in service business, I have seen the best and the worst places, I met the poorest and the richest. I have seen and experienced America not known to most of politicians, business people, and other political writers. For eleven years, I ran my own company. Presently, I am an independent consultant.

My political writing comes out of necessity. I write when I see that the prevailing voices on the political arena are misleading or erroneous. Abstract mathematics and control theory (of complex technological processes) strongly influenced my understanding of social phenomena. In the past, my opponents rebuked my mathematical mind as cold, soulless, and inhuman. On a few occasions I was prized for my engineer’s precision and logic.

I have a master’s degree in electronic engineering with a specialization in mathematical machines from Politechnika Gdańska (Technical University of Gdansk).

... more