I realize it’s dangerous for me to write about football when those of you who are reading this article surely know more about the sport than I do.

In my defense, I became a football fan when I lived in Green Bay during Brett Favre’s glory days. I then followed Aaron Rodgers rise to fame and fall from grace. I’m from Michigan and followed Tom Brady’s career from the time he played at the University of Michigan until his final quarterbacking with Tampa Bay. I was thrilled with the Detroit Lions success this year. And, of course, I’m a huge Lamar Jackson fan. The quarterback I loved the most this season is the Commanders’ Rookie of the Year Jayden Daniels. I found his grace under pressure during the final minutes of so many games this season to be truly amazing. 

But what I want to write about today is how irritating I find Tom Brady and Tony Romo to be as football commentators. I know sports writers claim that Romo has an “uncanny” ability to predict plays. And I have read that it’s “early days” for Brady. In his first commentating game, he said very little. He has improved. And he was given all kinds of kudos for being the first to recognize that the Lions had 12 players on the field when they last played against the Commanders. 

But why do I find Romo and Brady so irritating? I think it’s because it is more about them than what’s going on in the field. And they both tend to flaunt their knowledge as opposed to giving true next-level insights. 

It’s the same reason President Trump drives me to distraction. Because it’s always about him. Last week at a prayer breakfast, he spoke about the tragic plane crash in DC. Within a nanosecond, he made it about the assassination attempt against him and then proceeded to talk about himself for the next 10 minutes. 

Trump was at the Super Bowl yesterday. On Truth Social, he posted that he got cheered while Taylor Swift got booed. Not that different from talking about crowd size at inaugurations, rallies, etc. 

Truly great sports commentators provide a soundtrack to the game, enhancing the experience without being consciously noticeable or calling unnecessary attention to themselves or distracting the viewer from the game itself. 

That is more difficult than you might realize. Giving the viewer insights and perspectives that widen the aperture to include aspects not yet considered, and when appropriate, adding humor to an ironic turn of events is a skill that requires honing and experience.

We live in a narcissistic society. Narcissism has seven traits: authority, self-sufficiency–belief that you achieved everything on your own–, superiority, exhibitionism, exploitativeness, vanity, and entitlement. Experts say that if you want to become less narcissistic, there are five principles to work on for self-improvement: gratitude, modesty, compassion—for yourself and others–, mindfulness and community. 

In the original myth, Narcissus is punished with a terminal fascination for his own reflection in revenge for his treatment of Echo, whom he despises for loving him. 

Freud once wrote, “Whoever loves becomes humble. Those who love have, so to speak, pawned a part of their narcissism.” Something to think about. 

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature.

 

 

 

 

In today’s complex world, assigning blame before the facts are in can result in dangerously inaccurate conclusions. Many accidents that occur have numerous levels of complexity which include human error, technology, timing, weather, communications, and endless permutations of each of these dimensions. 

Before having a handle on the facts regarding last week’s catastrophic airplane crash, President Trump blamed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. He then blamed Obama, Biden, the Democrats in general, and former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg. 

Trump said, “I put safety first. Obama, Biden, and the Democrats put policy first, and they put politics at a level that nobody has seen because this was the lowest level. Their policy was horrible, and their politics were even worse.” 

Then Trump recommended that the most brilliant people with the most supreme mental superiority and fitness must be in these life-or-death positions. How do you know if you have the best people? Get rid of the diverse, the women, the disabled, the mentally challenged and stock up with capable white males. 

Here’s what Maryland Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, said: “We’ve just experienced a great tragedy, and the President of the United States has already rushed to politicize it—jumping to outrageous conclusions and undermining ongoing investigations.”

Former Secretary of State Pete Buttigieg suggested that Trump should look at some of his own actions before condemning others. Buttigieg noted that shortly after Trump took office one of his “first acts was to fire and suspend some of the key personnel who helped keep our skies safe.”  He continued, “As families grieve, Trump should be leading, not lying. We put safety first, drove down close calls, grew Air Traffic Control, and had zero-commercial airline crash fatalities out of millions of flights on our watch.”

Trump tends to lash out in fear when he isn’t in control of a situation. When Covid was rampant, at one of his press conferences he suggested harebrain cures off the top of his head. After last week’s tragedy, his answer was to get rid of diverse people and replace them with superior white males. 

So, what is the right way to communicate in a crisis situation? I have helped many clients with these issues. Here are just a few suggestions.

Focus on what you know for sure.

Communicate honestly, openly, and consistently. 

Listen to the experts and let the experts speak on complex issues. 

Whatever you do, don’t jump to conclusions before all the facts are in. and don’t pretend that you have all the answers.

Monitor and engage with public feedback.

Designate a key spokesperson (in this case, the administrator of the FAA might make sense).

Use multi-channel communication systems. 

Ensure that you have an empathetic and trustful set of communications for those primarily affected by the crisis. Identify all target audiences and develop communication plans and appropriate vehicles for each of them. Repeat and reinforce key information.

Stress that the goal will be to ensure that after the facts are in, a team will be put in place to develop protocols and processes to ensure that this tragedy never happens again. 

Conduct post-crisis evaluations and develop follow-up communication plans.

John F. Kennedy once said, “Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame on the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.”  Sounds like a good idea. 

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature.

 

Two song lines have been reverberating in my head all week: Bruce Springsteen’s, “Bring on your wrecking ball,” and Miley Cyrus’ “I came in like a wrecking ball.” 

A week into Trump’s second term and the U.S. is a much more dangerous place. On Day One of his second term, the self-described “Law and Order President” pardoned 1,500 of his supporters at the Capitol, pretty much cancelling the Department of Justice’s largest prosecutions in history. 

These so called “patriots” smashed windows, defecated in hallways, and brought nooses to hang Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence. Three hundred of them pleaded guilty to brutally assaulting police officers.

Had they served their terms, the perpetrators would not have been allowed to purchase firearms after their release. Already, one perpetrator, Daniel Ball, has been arrested since his release on federal gun charges.

On Pro-Trump websites many people said they hoped judges would be executed and police would be “pummeled to death.” 

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio have both said they are now free to pursue revenge and they “want it.” A son who testified against his father and the family of Stuart Rhodes are afraid for their lives.

In the midst of all this, Trump put on paid leave all Federal Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Federal workers. That’s right, U.S. taxpayers are now paying these workers not to go to work. 

And then the Senate, thanks to Vice President’s Vance’s tie-breaking vote, confirmed Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense. Thank God we got rid of DEI so qualified candidates like Hegseth can serve. Now he can rid the department of “woke generals” and replace them with more people of his caliber. You know, people like Tulsi Gabbard, Kristi Noem, Kash Patel, and RFK, Jr. 

Couple that with Trump firing at least 17 inspectors general that same week. No need to worry that Hegseth might need guardrails as unlikely as he is to get drunk on his own power. (These dismissals appear to violate federal law which requires 30 days’ notice to Congress in an intent to fire a Senate-confirmed inspector general.) 

And wait, more breaking news, Trump cancelled security protection for former officials John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Dr. Fauci. I guess they deserve to die because all three of them have been critical of Trump’s knowledge and intelligence in the past.

In the midst of all this chaos, the Trump team suspended research grant reviews indefinitely at the National Institute of Health which includes vital cancer research and clinical trials—perhaps until vaccine-denier RFK Jr can take the helm. And oh, by the way, avian flu is raging and has recently surfaced in dairy cows. No need to research how to stem that tide. 

Yesterday stock futures dropped sharply because of China’s much less costly Deepseek AI announcement and egg prices have cracked $6 per dozen. Well done, American voters. 

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music and nature. 

 

 

 

When did expertise and knowledge become dirty words in the USA? I was disheartened listening to the hearings for Trump’s cabinet picks. Clearly, Republicans put little value in candidates’ abilities, experiences, or expertise for the very complex cabinet posts at hand.

Instead, I heard questions and statements such as:

“How many pushups can you do?” 

“How many genders are there?” 

“Tell me why you love your wife.” 

Seriously? Many questions about the detailed aspects of these cabinet positions received perfunctory non-answers. Secretary of Defense cabinet nominee Pete Hegseth’s most common response to any question was, “anonymous smears” –even when names were attached to statements. Tulsi Gabbard had difficulty explaining the responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence. None of the cabinet nominees last week ruled out sanctioning illegal actions if Trump asked them to perform them. 

 Recent Pew Research studies indicate that the respect Americans have for subject-matter experts has dropped from 87 percent to 73 percent. Other research around anti-intellectualism indicates that one in three Americans harbors some resentful attitudes towards experts.

Both Trump campaigns doubled down on doubting the validity of experts on issues such as climate change, health policy, and the economy.

In general, Republicans tend to favor limiting government which, in some cases, means limiting the influence that experts in various fields have on our day-to-day lives. In essence, we are dealing with the backlash or resentment over so-called experts telling you how to live your lives. Today there’s a kind of arrogance that basically says my ignorance has just as much value as your knowledge.

In dangerous times such as these, authoritarian leaders instill fear in the populus and insist that only they are the messiahs who will save the country, and they must be obeyed. This approach also emphasizes racism and bigotry, often stressing the point that if you don’t fight back, you will lose your current place in the hierarchy. History has repeatedly shown that succumbing to such authoritarian leaders only leads to great unhappiness and upheaval in the end. 

So, how do we combat this dangerous anti-intellectual movement? Here’s what the experts say. 

Be OK with realizing you cannot know everything and become motivated and excited about ongoing growth and learning. 

Understand that it’s OK to change your mind or point-of-view when new sound information becomes available. 

Read about subjects that may not necessarily pertain to you or your work. 

Carefully evaluate arguments in your reading and analyze whether such arguments are based on truth and fact. 

Discover practical applications to theoretical ideas. 

Welcome difficult conversations with friends and family to understand various positions. 

In the meantime, here’s hoping the ridiculous conversations about windmills, sharks, and space lasers can be kept to a minimum. 

The scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson once said, “There is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” 

Something to think about. 

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature. 

 

 

 

.

I’m thinking about starting a new political movement–one with the goal of starting to bridge the political gap that often appears to be the forerunner of the next civil war. I call the movement “Stop Calling America Stupid” or SCAS. I am putting SCAS on grey baseball hats that I will sell online and hand out at SCAS rallies. SCAS is not a new political party or an effort to take over an existing one. It is a movement to encourage people to stop calling each other names. Nothing more.

In my opinion, America made a mistake on November 5. I worry about America’s future. For the next hundred years, historians will write about what led to Trump winning the election. Depending on what the next four years brings, MAGA voters will be credited with being prescient in bringing about much-needed change in American government or dismissed as voters who brought the wrong candidate to power. Some historians will make the same mistake many opinion leaders are making today—they will call MAGA voters stupid. The more charitable anti-Trump writers will call them “mistaken” or “misled.”

I like the later analysis because many Trump supporters, including a few who stoop to calling me a lunatic or “deranged,” are not stupid people. Some went to good colleges, have important jobs, and are solid family members. They look nothing like the beer-swigging, gun-toting militia members who are sometimes credited as being “Trump’s base.”

So, let’s acknowledge that you don’t have to be stupid to be glad Trump won the election. That means that there is hope. There is hope because it may be impossible to change the mind of a stupid person, but you can reason with an intelligent one. The problem is not the intelligent MAGA supporting understanding you but getting them to engage in discussions with you. And they will never engage in discussions with you if you are calling them stupid or if they are calling you deranged or suggesting that you be deported along with “migrant criminals.”

That is why America needs a cease-fire on the supercharged political rhetoric that has Made America Ugly Again. A case in point, we must stop calling the President-Elect a “NAZI.”

Like every ceasefire in history, this cannot happen unless one side takes the first step by stowing away its anger and hate. It needs to turn the other cheek when Donald Trump calls progressives communists, utters what they consider to be racial slurs, and makes proposals best described as acts of war—things like sending the army to Greenland to “take” it.

The Trump transition has made it difficult for those of us who might join my SCAS movement with his questionable presidential appointments, plans to pardon offensively named “January 6 patriots,” and his continued threats of retribution against his perceived enemies. Trump and MAGA are in the middle of a Dionysian dance of celebration that will not end for at least a few months. During this time, it will be unlikely for SCAS to make much progress, which is not to say that the effort to launch a civil dialogue should not begin now. Rather, it is urgent that it begins right now. Remember that a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

I will not wish Donald Trump “God Speed,” like Judge Merchan did as he handed Donald Trump his sentence in the “hush money” case. I don’t want to see his policies become the law of the land. Joining SCAS doesn’t mean abandoning principles or empathy for people whom you believe will be harmed by Trump’s policies. Instead, good SCAS members believe that Trump’s agenda will eventually fail, or will fail to be enacted and implemented and that America will be left with the need to Return America to What it Was Before Trump or Make America Something Different from What Trump Wants to Make It.

America is not lost. America is not in decline. And America has not repudiated democracy by electing Trump. We are on a detour, not an elevator descending to hell. There is hope. And the way to turn that hope into a change in policy is to stop calling America stupid and begin setting the stage to work with others on a new and improved path.

J.E. Dean writes on politics, government, and, too infrequently, other subjects. A former counsel on Capitol Hill and public affairs consultant, Dean also writes for Dean’s List on Medium and Dean’s Issues & Insights on Substack.

 

On the campaign trail for Trump, Elon Musk waxed eloquently about the need to cut government spending and regulations. To do so, Trump announced that he planned to appoint Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead an outside task force called the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE. 

Before the election, Musk claimed he planned to cut $2 trillion from federal government spending. Last week Musk changed his tune and said he probably would be able to cut less than $1 trillion. Why? Because it’s much more difficult to cut government spending than you might imagine. More than two-thirds of the federal budget goes to defense, Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits and interest payments on the nation’s $36 trillion debt—all areas which Trump has promised not to cut.

So where does the irony come in with Musk and cost-cutting? Let’s take a brief look at how much money Musk has received from government contracts and subsidies over the last 14 years. 

Space X has secured contracts for approximately $20 billion for crew and cargo resupply missions to the International Space Station and Starship development for lunar missions.

Tesla has received several types of government support, including a $465 million low-interest loan from the Department of Energy. He also has received significant income from environmental regulatory credits. These credits resulted in a substantial part of Tesla’s revenue, contributing more than $517 million by 2015, and an additional $10 billion since 2015. And don’t forget the Federal $7,000 tax credit that each Tesla owner received simply for buying an electric vehicle at a time when Tesla had a near monopoly on the electric vehicle market.

Solar City, which Tesla acquired, has received direct grants, tax credits and other subsidies including a $497 million direct grant from the U.S. Treasury Department. 

In short, a prime reason that Musk is the richest man in the world is because of the money he has received from the federal government. 

In the past, Musk has also had several adversarial knock-down drag outs with government regulators over the safety of his Teslas and environmental issues over his rockets. In his new role, Musk will potentially have control over government regulators who are regulating his companies. 

There is no question that Elon Musk is a brilliant entrepreneur. He has been declared an engineering and managerial genius. His IQ is estimated to be around 155, right up there with Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. His accomplishments to date are beyond impressive. But he also is driven to get to Mars as soon as possible and wants nothing to stand in his way—including regulators who care about safety and the environment—and competitors, such as Boeing and Jeff Bezos—his biggest competitors in the Space race. (Bezos and Musk both have rockets scheduled to launch this week.) 

In his new position, Musk potentially will have the ability to get rid of some regulations and put the kibosh on some of his competition in the space race. Such conflicts used to be stifled at the outset. But in this brave new world, they seem to be alive and well and living in the USA. (In addition to exerting major influence on the U.S. and outer space, Musk is now endorsing the far-right candidate for Germany, has inserted himself into British politics encouraging the most conservative option, and has cozied up to Italy’s conservative prime minister Giorgia Meloni whom he has bonded with over their mutual affection for the Lord of the Rings trilogy.)

Jeff Bezos just announced a $40 million Amazon deal for a Melania Trump documentary. James Carville, who is well versed in the documentary market, claims that you can make an A-plus documentary for $2 million. 

The concept of buying favor for personal gain, now front and center, is a distressing turn of events.

There is no question that there is government waste that can be pared down. But there’s also no question that regulations are needed to protect our environment and the safety of our citizens. There’s also no question that it is wrong to award government contracts to the entrepreneur with the deepest pockets—especially when the ultimate grifter, Donald Trump, is leading the charge. 

It’s time for government watchdogs to do their jobs. It’s also time that we put limits on the amount of money these entrepreneurs can put forth to get the go-ahead on their pet projects and line the pockets of the Commander-in-Chief. 

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature. 

 

I worked in federal government consulting in DC for several years. During that time, I worked with nine different government agencies, three of which were intelligence agencies that required a top-secret full-scope poly clearance. As a partner in charge of a practice, I received notifications when practitioners in our firm and several other smaller firms that we partnered with were approved or denied clearances, or had their clearances revoked. 

The most common reasons for denial or loss of a security clearance are  illegal drug use and excessive alcohol consumption; personal conduct issues such as dishonesty, associating with criminals, sexual harassment; financial issues such as excessive debt, fraud, tax evasion; and international issues such as possessing  dual citizenship, sharing a house with a person who is connected with a foreign government, or having substantial financial interests in other countries.  

So, here’s why I’m having difficulty sleeping at night. There’s no way that several of Trump’s picks to run government agencies, serve as ambassadors or top administrators could qualify for a secret clearance—let alone a top-secret one. So how weird is it that Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence—the umbrella agency for all intelligence agencies; Kash Patel, for FBI Director; Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick to run the largest government agency—Defense—; Kristi Noem for Department of Homeland Security; and Charles Kushner, for Ambassador to France, are under consideration for these extremely sensitive, high-powered posts?  (The misdeeds of RFK Jr. for Health and Human Services Secretary would require a whole separate column.) 

And then there is Donald J. Trump himself—a man who will have access to the nuclear codes—who checks three out of four boxes for most common denials of security clearances.

For many years, I witnessed the complexity, sophistication and expertise high-level officials in these agencies possessed. I saw the detail and extreme care they used when discussing tradecraft and highly sensitive matters. And I saw time after time the importance they gave in ensuring that individuals in their employ understood their commitment to telling “truth to power.”

Now let’s take a cursory look at the cast of characters who are being considered for high level posts in Trump’s second administration.

Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s choice for Director of National Intelligence, would oversee 18 intelligence agencies with a total budget of $100 billion dollars. In the past, Gabbard has blamed the U.S. for the war in Ukraine, and she has met twice with Syrian’s authoritarian leader Bashar al-Assad. She has claimed that she doubts Assad used chemical weapons even though the U.S. has overwhelming evidence that he has done so. There is no way that Gabbard could get a security clearance. Add that to the fact that she has no intelligence experience.

Kash Patel, Trump’s pick for FBI Director, was formerly a government lawyer in the Justice Department and rose to some top national security positions inside the Pentagon and White House. He also helped Trump try to overturn the 2020 election. In his memoir, Patel accused the FBI and 60 specific people of being part of the “deep state.” He has made clear that he is on Trump’s retribution train to seek out and prosecute Trump’s perceived adversaries. Patel has no experience managing large groups of people. The FBI has approximately 35,000 employees. Many former FBI officials project that dozens of career FBI employees will take early retirement or resign should Patel be confirmed as FBI Director. 

Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick to head the Department of Defense, also has never managed large groups of people. The Department of Defense has more than a million employees and a budget of approximately $776 billion. Through poor financial mismanagement, Hegseth has run two small nonprofits into the ground. For sure he checks at least three of the four boxes for security clearance denials, including drug and alcohol abuse, sexual harassment, and financial mismanagement. In the past, he has said he wants to get rid of “woke generals,” doesn’t think women belong in combat, and mocks LGBTQ and transgender members of the military. 

Kristi Noem, Trump’s pick for Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, is currently governor of South Dakota. She has been accused of misusing her position to help her daughter which resulted in a settlement of $200,000. She is banned from nine tribal reservations because she accused them of running drug cartels. She used taxpayer money to send the National Guard to the Mexican border at least five times as a publicity stunt. Her office has experienced massive turnover, and the state government is involved in a massive corruption scandal involving former employees. And then there is, of course, the fact that she killed her dog. And oh, by the way, she has no law enforcement experience. 

Trump has selected Charles Kushner, a major donor to his 2024 campaign and his son-in-law’s father, as his pick for Ambassador to France—a highly coveted prize. Kushner pleaded guilty to 16 counts of tax evasion and admitted to hiring a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law. Trump pardoned Kushner after he served two years in prison. There is no way this guy could get a security clearance. And his reward for all his wrongdoings—serving in one of the most coveted ambassadorial stations in the world and living in a stunningly lavish estate. What kind of message does it sent to France when the U.S. sends a convicted felon as its representative? (You may also remember that Kushner’s son, Jared Kushner, was denied a security clearance in Trump’s first administration but Trump overruled the rejection. During Trump’s first administration, Kushner took several trips to Saudi Arabia. Six months after Trump left the White House, Kushner secured a $2 billion investment from a fund led by the Saudi crown prince.)  

I’ve never understood why it’s not a requirement for people who decide to run for senator, representative, governor, president, etc., to first be required to undergo a background check similar to the one thousands of government employees must pass to qualify for certain government positions. If we did so, it might have prevented the George Santos (R-NY) debacle and so many others. 

Who among this ragtag team do you think will tell “truth to power?”  How will America learn the truth of what’s really happening around the world? (Should you think I’m overreacting about the upcoming difficulty of knowing the true story, just this weekend, Trump blamed the Texas-born U.S. veteran terrorist who killed 14 people in New Orleans on illegal immigrant invasions. He also hosted a documentary screening at Mar-a-Lago—a film about asking Congress to overturn the 2020 election results where Peter Navarro, Michael Flynn, John Eastman, and Rudy Guiliano were present—all of whom continued to tout the stolen election lie.)  

Keep in mind that the General Miley’s and John Kelly’s of the world will be long gone in this next Trump administration. The band of sycophants who remain is frightening to say the least. And how likely is the Republican-led Senate to vote against these nominees? I’m not holding my breath. 

All in all, to say I’m disappointed in America is an understatement. The first time around, I gave us a pass. Trump’s win was a bit of an adventure into the unknown. Not this time. This time it’s on us.

Maria Grant was the principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature. 

 

I wish all Spy readers a wondrous holiday and a new year filled with peace and joy. As the year winds down, I find myself reflecting on these past months. Here is a poem I wrote about such reflections.

Still life  

So many rooftops, tabletops, stovetops have I claimed
Rooms measured, chairs arranged for conversations fraught with nuance
Walls painted, changed from light to dark, shadow striped and glazed
Gardens tilled, planted, weeded, and refigured
Endless bouquets of flowers in tall vases
Fresh fruits and vegetables in bowls,
Arranged by color and size, cast in shadow and light
Books on shelves erudite and deep
Too much poetry?  Too little prose?
A bit of theater in repose
A glass of sherry, a spot of port
To which political topic shall we resort in a year
Filled with division, destruction, and retort
Recycled thoughts like papers shredded and reconstituted
So much pretension, wasted time
Revisions turn from reductions to deductions
A denouement or yet another variation on a theme
Decisions made may bode more danger than first seen
Photographs flash freeze upon my screen.
Still life. 

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature. 

Last week, I got an email that fraud had been detected on my credit card, and a new card had been sent to me. But wait, I thought, perhaps you should have informed me before you cancelled my card and mailed me a new one to an address where I don’t currently reside. 

I called the credit card company, a chatbot responded, asking me for my card number which had been cancelled so it no longer existed, my social security number, etc. About 15 minutes later, I got to a real person. I explained that I wasn’t at the address where the card had been sent. She told me I had to receive a link, send a copy of my driver’s license and my photo and a new card would be sent overnight. I did as she requested, she then said it didn’t come through, please send again, which I did. 

The card did not arrive. I called back. Got another chatbot. At least 10 minutes later, I got to a real person. I explained that my card never arrived. She checked and said they had tried to reroute it, and then were informed that it was too late to reroute. Something must have gotten lost in the shuffle. The company would overnight another card to my current address. I’m still waiting. It should arrive soon.

The next day, we received a gift sent from Amazon with no gift card. We had no idea who sent the gift. I started my search with Amazon chat, got nowhere, and then made a phone call, which required a call back. About 20 minutes later, a person called me back. I explained the situation. He told me that there is no way they could trace who sent the package and suggested that I call every person I know and ask if they sent us a gift. I said thank you, and no, that won’t be happening. 

The following day we went to dinner with another couple at an expensive restaurant. A waiter appeared and asked if we would like a glass of wine. About 15 minutes went by, and the wine appeared. Then about 20 more minutes went by and there was no waiter in sight. We asked a member of the waitstaff—many of whom were standing around chatting with each other–if he could locate our waiter. Finally, our waiter reappeared, we ordered and waited another half hour for our dinners. Two of the orders were not right, but we said that’s okay. When the bill came, a 20 percent tip had been added and there was another line for “extra gratuity.” 

The next day I went to a large department store. I had to walk through three departments to find a salesclerk to ask a question about whether an item was available in a different size. She said she didn’t think so.

The following day I went to a store, picked something off a shelf (talked to no clerks—asked for no advice). I simply picked up an item and took it to a cashier. When I put my credit card (a different one) into the machine as the cashier looked over me, the bill appeared and asked me if I wanted to add a tip to the transaction. 

What is going on? Please know that I appreciate the service industry and try to tip generously. I give holiday gifts to service workers and treat them with respect and dignity. I understand the frustrations of income inequality. (And trust me, with this new administration, this inequality will get worse—not better. Anyone who thinks the cute kid’s clothes at Target that are made in China are going to get cheaper under Trump and his tariffs is smoking something.)

So, what has happened to impressive customer service in this country? When we were in Europe this summer, there was a marked difference in the quality of service. Service was great. There was pride in doing a job well done. Waitstaff were solicitous and helpful. 

Just read some Yelp reviews about customers’ frustrations with stores, restaurants, mistaken orders, etc. I am not alone in my frustrations with poor customer service.

Experts say there are many reasons for this dissatisfaction with customer service. They include a labor shortage of service workers, higher customer expectations, lack of competition (think about how many choices you have for internet providers on the Eastern Shore), rising use of automation which often results in increased time and having to repeat the same information to a real person, and the fact that many companies are struggling to meet demands as opposed to looking for new customers.

Experts say that companies that want to improve customer service should do a better job of understanding customer needs, seek and promote customer feedback, set customer service standards, try to exceed customer expectations, and share examples of great service.

Yes please. I’m begging you, please do. I seriously can’t take another week like this one.

P.S. As I’m writing this column, I just got a message that my credit card is out for delivery. Hallelujah! Let’s hope it comes to the right address.

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature. 

Lord knows this has been one stressful year! The election, wars, hurricanes, wildfires, killers on the loose, and more. Movies, series, and documentaries have provided a much-needed escape from present-day reality. Here are some of my favorites this year in no particular order.

Leonardo da Vinci. This two-part PBS documentary directed by Ken Burns, his daughter, and son-in-law, makes the case that Da Vinci is the greatest painter who ever lived and convinces the audience that da Vinci was so ahead of his time that he would have done well living in today’s modern world. The four-hour series reviews da Vinci’s skills as a painter (particularly his 13-year struggle with the Mona Lisa), a botanist, an inventor, and a philosopher. It’s a fascinating documentary and well worth the time spent watching it. 

The Bear. Now in its third season, The Bear tells the story of a Chicago restaurant and deals with grief, family and colleague drama, and, of course, the stress of owning a restaurant. Most critics loved the first two seasons but not so much the third. All three seasons worked for me, although I have no idea why on the Emmy roster, The Bear is listed as a comedy—not even close. 

Slow Horses. It’s a spy series set in London about a bunch of outcast intelligence agents. It is both thrilling and, at times, hilarious. Gary Oldman, Kristin Scott Thomas, and Jack Lowden are excellent. Season Five of the series is scheduled for late summer 2025.

The Diplomat. Just completed its second season, a career diplomat, played by Keri Russell, has been appointed ambassador to the United Kingdom and is secretly being considered as a vice-presidential candidate, amid an international crisis, a troubled marriage with a shrewd manipulative husband, played by Rufus Sewell. It’s the perfect watch for today’s political climate. 

A Gentleman from Moscow. Based on the novel by Amor Towles, this series is a period drama about a 1920s Russian aristocrat, played by Ewan McGregor, who is being kept in a hotel by the Bolsheviks. The series does justice to the absolutely splendid novel and is a true delight to watch.

Only Murders in the Building. The fourth season of Only Murders in the Building is still TV worth watching with lots of whodunit intrigue and great generational jokes among Steve Martin, Martin Short and Selena Gomez. Hollywood wants to adapt the podcast onto the silver screen and hilarity ensues with Eva Longoria and Eugene Levy acting and Molly Shannon producing. Meryl Streep is also back in town. 

The Agency. All episodes of The Agency have not yet dropped, but so far, The Agency works. Based on the French program, The Bureau, The Agency is about a spy, played by Michael Fassbender, who must adjust to life after being undercover for a long time. Richard Gere plays his boss, and the complicated plot smacks of a well-written John Le Carre spy novel. I look forward to the remaining episodes.

Ripley. I was skeptical about watching Ripley after seeing The Talented Mr. Ripley based on Patricia Highsmith’s wonderful novel which I loved. But the 2024 Ripley, shot in black and white, did indeed deliver. Andrew Scott plays Ripley and his portrayal is disturbing, intense and sharp.

Disclaimer. It’s a seven-part series that is more intriguing than enjoyable to watch but it’s on my list because I’m such a huge Cate Blanchett fan, and she does not disappoint in this story about a woman who has a secret from many years ago that is revealed by actor Kevin Kline’s character. There are clues galore, and it’s a bit of a morality tale with a surprise ending.

A Man on the Inside. This series stars Ted Danson who becomes a private investigator in a retirement community. It’s one of those cozy mysteries which seems just right for this stressful year. And it’s a special treat that one of the retirement community residents is Sally Struthers from All in the Family fame. It’s one of those wrap-yourself-in-a-blanket series that deals lightly with the human condition. I found it refreshing and surprisingly touching. 

Three more on my list that I have not yet watched but look forward to doing so are Shogun, Pachinko, and Enclave. 

Dear Readers, I would love to hear your recommendations. Please share them in the comments. It’s going to be a long and lonely winter.

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature.