A neighbor called me at work telling me my parent’s apartment had been broken into when they were in Europe. I called the police to come inside with me as I was afraid to enter alone. I’ll never forget the feeling of violation. Sadly, now all Americans know how this feels.

I am similarly shaken and appalled at the cavalier betrayal and destruction of a wall*** of The People’s House. I can’t shake my sadness, nor can I understand the action. I take it personally. ***When I started the post it was a wall. Now it’s worse: It’s the East Wing.

Where are the landmarks people? The Jackie Kennedy equivalents—she helped save the handsome Grand Central Terminal which makes New Yorkers and visitors proud. Did the guardians of our heritage fall for this promise about the pointless ballroom: “It won’t interfere with the current building. It’ll be near it but not touching it.”

I can’t imagine, for example, an extension to the Taj Mahal, Eiffel Tower or Buckingham Palace or any so-called improvement that involved destroying part of the originals–anything that would impact the iconic silhouettes.

Americans go abroad by the plane and boatload to honor and explore cultural history, artifacts and antiquity yet it appears many have little respect for ours and little appreciation of old things these days–even people [but I digress].

Yet friends with zero interest in antiques are beside themselves at this demolition.

Here are some reasons that amplify the architectural and historic abuse for me.

I remember my excitement after buying my first significant antique, an English gateleg tavern table dated 1690 [photo above]. I envisioned the elbows of 17^th century men sharing the top with playing cards and tankards of brew. When I bought it some thought “how can you be so excited about a secondhand table?” and “I hope you didn’t pay much. It’s just old.” Lucky I bought something I loved because brown furniture has no value today. I’d probably have to pay someone to cart it off.

As I tended to the garden at my house, I thought how I needed to take the best care of the property as I could as I’d be only one of its many owners and my responsibility was to do nothing to spoil it. It was just a house on 10 acres in Dutchess County–nothing special in a historic sense.

I’ve previously shared my shock and dismay visiting a significant American city that had bulldozed most of its downtown wiping out any and all architectural charm leaving a measly square block with the older structures. The commercial tenants–a high-end restaurant, elegant flower shop and Starbucks–took advantage of architectural embellishments and sturdy plaster walls to enhance their spaces.

Can you think of a good reason for destroying the profile of the White House with a gargantuan, out of proportion appendage and for demolishing a wing of this precious structure to satisfy a frivolous whim? Should there be punishment for the construction company? Can the People’s House be saved? Are other monuments in need of protection?

   

Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? –Mathew 7: 3-5

Fr James Martin interviewed Trappist monk, poet and author Isaac Slater, OCSO, in his podcast “The Spiritual Life.” It was jampacked with information and concepts that stayed with me. The subject that haunted me most concerned judging others, which is something I’m guilty of in spades. The topic was timely since Fr Isaac just published a book “Do Not Judge Anyone: Desert Wisdom for a Polarized World.”

I recommend listening to the podcast because I learned more each time I did.

Fr Martin asked “Why are we so quick to see the faults of other people?”

Fr Slater answered: Most often we’re disowning something in ourselves that is too painful to look at. We tie up heavy burdens for the other person and don’t lend a finger to help ourselves. Judgement puts others down to build oneself up, he said. He gave a hypothetical example.

A group of monks see a woman going into a brother’s cell. They rush to the abbot and tell him what they saw. The abbot says, “When I catch that monk, I’m going to string him up!” He follows the monks into the chamber of the monk they’re accusing, and he sits on a basket, ordering the brothers to search the room for the woman. They can’t find her. Abba gives them a stiff penance for setting up a fellow monk, gets off the basket and turns to the accused monk and says, “be careful.”

Abba, another word for abbot, had skillfully navigated and deescalated the lynch mob said Fr Slater, while acknowledging the bad monk’s behavior.

Fr Martin asked if it is a question of overlooking things. Fr Slater replied that there are very few things that need to be changed or argued about. We can let go of 99.9 percent of things we get agitated about.

Take an employee complaining about a viciously mean co-worker. The employee says she can’t stop thinking about how mean the woman is. Fr Slater would advise “Why are you giving this woman so much power over you?” He suggests that like the hypothetical abbot you can come up with creative ways of addressing the transgressor.

People who judge themselves harshly tend to judge others harshly….show empathy to others and don’t feel fear. If we don’t feel fear, we won’t be tempted to judge.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux said “If you’re stingy with yourself to whom will you be generous?” Our approach shows in the way we behave with other people, said Fr Slater. Others pick up if we feel critical and defensive and unconsciously treat us poorly if we don’t have self-respect.

While much of the discussion makes sense, I question the concept that we’re judgmental because “Most often we’re disowning something in ourselves that is too painful to look at.” If the woman who is agitated by the nasty co-worker is a sweetheart who has been treated like gold by friends and family, where’s her pain that triggers her judgment of her colleague?

If you are judgmental, does any of this resonate with you?

   

I was charmed by what I consider the best part of the impressive “Dear New York” art installation that has taken over Grand Central Terminal. It was the photography by NYC students exhibit and accompanying dedications in Vanderbilt Hall. I’d expected to take a look and walk on but ended up immersed and time evaporated.

The inspiration for “Dear New York” came from photographer Brandon Stanton. In The New York Times James Barron wrote “Stanton arranged for the 150 digital screens in Grand Central that usually show ads to run ‘a very choreographed piece of video art’ until ‘Dear New York’ closes on Oct. 19. It is, by all accounts, the first time in memory that Grand Central has been ad-free.”

Laura Ratliff wrote in Timeout.com, “Funded entirely by proceeds from Stanton’s forthcoming book, Dear New York represents an unusual model for public art: one not underwritten by corporate sponsorships, but by a single creator reinvesting back into the city.”

Barron described my favorite part: “There is also a more conventional exhibit in Vanderbilt Hall, with images from around the city taken by 10 professional photographers. Three walls surrounding their display stands are filled with photographs taken by students in public schools in the city.”

I didn’t keep count but it seemed that moms, dads, grandparents and sisters received the most attention. There was admiration and love for an English as a Second Language teacher and a nanny.

A fifth grader at Corlears School, Nayan, honored her coach Scot Bobo who runs the program for the Sunday Baseball Warriors. It is “a free baseball program for kids on Roosevelt Island on Sundays throughout the year. I am 10 years old and I have been in the program for 2 years…..Instead of payment Coach Scot asks each kid to do a community service event once each season, which he calls ‘Serve All and Play Ball.’” She credits the coach with making her a better player. She adds that he “taught me that helping other people and serving the community are the most important things.”

A first grader, Zephoniah Long from Central Queens Academy  wrote about Mr. Sewell: “Mr. Sewell is an artist. He teaches us drawing and coloring. I don’t like Art but Mr. Sewell lets me sit with my best friend. When I get off the school bus Mr. Sewell talks to me and helps me have a good day.”

Fifth grader Hana Bjornnson, who goes to PS376Q Bayside Hills School of Excellence, wrote: “Father Byrne should be honored because he led me to Christianity.” She described him as “kind, religious, trustful, joyous, a bit old, has grey and orange hair, and funny,” [He always tells jokes.]

Leave it to me to most appreciate the low-tech part of a fantastic show of love for one of my favorite cities. Have you been enchanted by an exhibition lately?

   

Flipping channels one night on TCM I found “Bachelor Mother” a movie starring Ginger Rogers, David Niven and James Coburn that was made 86 years ago. Did it have any relevance to the first quarter of the 21^st century?

Some similarities between 1939 and 2025 are eerie. Prices were rising as was global fascism and the country was in for a life-changing innovation thanks to technology: New York broadcast the first TV program.

I asked Google about the country’s mood during the New Deal under FDR: “The mood in America in 1939 was one of wariness and anticipation. The nation was at a critical inflection point, balancing isolationist tendencies with the escalating crisis in Europe.” Pearl Harbor and WWII were two years away.

“The Neutrality Act of 1939 formalized the U.S. policy of neutrality, but the escalating situation forced a re-evaluation of the country’s strategic posture and technological preparedness. The year was marked by significant technological advancements, political maneuvering, and looming global conflict.”

In some ways, the film was way ahead of itself. Ginger noticed a baby on the steps of a foundling home and the staff determined it was hers, which it wasn’t. She meets David who is the son of the department store owner where she works. She ends up keeping the baby and both David and his dad, James, who also believe that the infant is hers, don’t blink twice. In ’39 I doubt they would have been that accepting of a woman having a baby out of wedlock.

Today the screen writer would have had to address the fact that the baby had no papers, no birth certificate and that his mom could afford daycare while she worked as a department store clerk. The foundling home staff or someone from the state would have checked into Ginger’s background and ability to feed and care for the infant.

Wardrobes in some films both then and now baffle me. Characters with no money sport amazing clothes and these days they arrive at a destination with a small suitcase and countless changes of day and eveningwear.

I love a cheery ending and there was one. Wealthy David falls in love with Ginger and even wealthier grandpa/father James adores the baby and they all live happily ever after.

Would the Hallmark Channel produce such a film today? Is an unwed mother such a yawn these days that the screenplay wouldn’t pass muster? Do you enjoy vintage films? Can you overlook the conveniences and innovations we enjoy today that are missing from the oldies?

   

Employees must stick to the rules even if they conflict with a boss, client or relative’s request. That’s what rules are for. A tragic result of making an exception happened years ago when a doorman let the son of a tenant upstairs when the instruction was that nobody was to be let in without first checking with the residents. The son killed his father that day.

Challenging a boss or client is uncomfortable. New at a PR agency years ago my boss asked me to copy an image from a book that featured Chinese symbols and not to credit the source. It was for what is now a relic—a press kit. I objected. She said it wouldn’t matter. I said without the credit I would remove my name as contact from the material in the kit. We did credit the book and artist. The boss and I were friends for years after I left the agency and until her death.

I counsel clients even if what I suggest to them from my experience they may not want to hear.

I was never fired for speaking up.

Todd Arrington, director of the Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum, wasn’t so lucky. He’d been asked to give the President a sword that had belonged to Ike. It was to be a gift for King Charles.

Arrington refused, according to Margaret Carrigan in an article on artnet.com, “Museum Director Forced Out Following Clash Over Trump Gift for King Charles.” She wrote that the sword “is property of the U.S. government, which the library is obligated by federal law to preserve for the American public.”

The museum director, who was appointed to his job last year, told The New York Times that he was “pressured to resign,” wrote Carrigan, “and told only that he ‘could no longer be trusted with confidential information.’” He’d worked for the government for three decades. Carrigan concluded that “he was shocked by his removal: ‘I never imagined I would be fired for this.’”

If you were the museum director, what would you do—hand over the sword to the president or keep it in the museum’s collection? Have you lost a job because you refused to do something you knew was wrong or did nothing happen?