There will be a billion words written about the Libby pardon, so let's make this simple: anyone who still thinks Al Qaeda is a greater threat to this country than the Bush crowd is an idiot.
diderot
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Too Delicious
For nearly two presidential terms, the loyal sheep of the Republican party swallowed their reservations. The offset was too enticing. If they remained perfectly loyal to the sometimes irrational dictates of the Bush administration...the Bush administration would remain loyal to them. A permanent GOP majority was the goal--wasn't that what Herr Rove promised? Surely a little capitulation...a few chips off the Constitution...a few war deaths...were worth that prize.
But guess what. As those sheep now recognize their inevitable path to another electoral slaughter, they are attempting to jump the fence. Question the torture...worry now about the forfeit of individual rights...even belatedly withdraw your previously unfailing support for the Iraq fiasco. Senators now are rising...one after another...to acknowledge what the President would never concede--any sign of fallibility with George and Dick's Excellent Adventure. As if their 'courage' now could bring back the tens--maybe hundreds of thousands of deaths that this abortive decision wrought.
Well, my GOP friends, you now understand the not-so-hidden underside of the Bush omerta. Loyalty is essential. But it works only one way.
You pay homage to him.
He walks out on you--just like he did his military obligation to the country.
diderot
But guess what. As those sheep now recognize their inevitable path to another electoral slaughter, they are attempting to jump the fence. Question the torture...worry now about the forfeit of individual rights...even belatedly withdraw your previously unfailing support for the Iraq fiasco. Senators now are rising...one after another...to acknowledge what the President would never concede--any sign of fallibility with George and Dick's Excellent Adventure. As if their 'courage' now could bring back the tens--maybe hundreds of thousands of deaths that this abortive decision wrought.
Well, my GOP friends, you now understand the not-so-hidden underside of the Bush omerta. Loyalty is essential. But it works only one way.
You pay homage to him.
He walks out on you--just like he did his military obligation to the country.
diderot
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Ruled by the Mob
For the sake of argument, let's say you're one of the few remaining citizens who believes in George Bush--that his intentions were honorable, his patriotism pure, his fiasco in Iraq a simple mistake, his true nature sincere and divinely guided and quintessentially American.
Then you should be asked to explain this: the vast majority of his White House employees, bound by the laws of the land, including post-Watergate mandates for transparency, virtually ignored the governmental email system--instead choosing to communicate almost exclusively via their personal Republican party accounts.
This is criminal. This is illegal (see the Hatch Act). This is something to make even Tony Soprano blush.
Now a semi-honest Congressional investigation says it would like to see exactly what those governmental employees were doing at our expense on their party emails.
Guess what. Of the 81 employees whose records are sought, 55 somehow can find no record of how they corresponded. Nothing.
Remember that Nixon was impeached esssentially for erasing one single tape recording.
You remaining Bush supporters can call your President incompetent, or clueless, or simply stupid. But in any case, a crime is a crime. He should spend his remaining time in a jailyard full of stocky inmates named Bluto.
Then the could do to him what for almost seven years he has done to all of us.
diderot
Then you should be asked to explain this: the vast majority of his White House employees, bound by the laws of the land, including post-Watergate mandates for transparency, virtually ignored the governmental email system--instead choosing to communicate almost exclusively via their personal Republican party accounts.
This is criminal. This is illegal (see the Hatch Act). This is something to make even Tony Soprano blush.
Now a semi-honest Congressional investigation says it would like to see exactly what those governmental employees were doing at our expense on their party emails.
Guess what. Of the 81 employees whose records are sought, 55 somehow can find no record of how they corresponded. Nothing.
Remember that Nixon was impeached esssentially for erasing one single tape recording.
You remaining Bush supporters can call your President incompetent, or clueless, or simply stupid. But in any case, a crime is a crime. He should spend his remaining time in a jailyard full of stocky inmates named Bluto.
Then the could do to him what for almost seven years he has done to all of us.
diderot
Sunday, June 10, 2007
What's Wrong With America?
It's not often you can find out the answer to that question in a single hour's time. And all you have to do is sit yourself in front of the computer and watch Sunday's replay of Meet the Press. The proceedings lay bare the roots of what's poisoning our political discourse, protecting our pimping press, and accelerating the disintegrating state of our national character.
The initial pas de deux features Colin Powell and Tim Russert, not simply rewriting history, but effectively ignoring it as they attempt to pirouette past the damning evidence that proves the role of each in the disastrous killings of nearly 3,500 unwitting U.S. service people in Iraq. Powell, attempting to exonerate himself, instead displays what a weak, pathetic, puerile and cowardly lion he really is. Yes, he admits, 'we were wrong'--but it wasn't his fault. It was the intelligence community--and the Congress--and the administration--and, in fact, 'all of America' who believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Utter and treasonous bullshit.
Before the invasion, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest, not because they were troublemakers or anarchists or Bush-haters. But because they were Americans. They were patriots. They were willing to wait for facts...willing to protect our Constitution...willing to speak truth to power.
On that last point, enter the weasel Russert.
Now...after the bloodshed; after the unmasking; after the weeping widows and children...he can act the role of the still pandering inquisitor, putting to Powell all the questions, now faux, that would have been so helpful, so responsible, so demonstrative of at least the minimal journalistic competence had he the honesty and cojones to ask them when it mattered. He, like Powell, continues to walk in the inextinguishable light of his own ego, capable of wishing away the dark alleys of his own malfeasance.
Then, after the break, ushered in on cue is the great antidote for the lunatic right threatened by any uncomfortable truth--yet another attack on Hillary Clinton. Its mad doctors are current and former reporters for the New York Times, partners in profiteering on yet another helping of putrid slime for the uncaged neocon cannibals. Foremost is Jeff Gerth, possibly the worst, and certainly the most damaging journalist in the history of our republic. He is the author of one delusional and ultimately discredited fabrication after another, from Whitewater to Wen Ho Lee to Loral Communications--each of which sailed inexplicably past the would be editors of that would be left wing newspaper. This man should be behind bars--not continuing to soil the national fabric with his filthy game of make believe.
But instead, see how much easier it is for the 'insiders' of journalism and the body politic to pretend none of their sins ever happened...exculpated by the holy water of their own self-righteousness...cozy in the comfort that the vast legions of Beltway co-conspirators will protect them from the slightest taint of wasted American blood and tears that so decidedly stains their souls...if not their consciousness.
diderot
The initial pas de deux features Colin Powell and Tim Russert, not simply rewriting history, but effectively ignoring it as they attempt to pirouette past the damning evidence that proves the role of each in the disastrous killings of nearly 3,500 unwitting U.S. service people in Iraq. Powell, attempting to exonerate himself, instead displays what a weak, pathetic, puerile and cowardly lion he really is. Yes, he admits, 'we were wrong'--but it wasn't his fault. It was the intelligence community--and the Congress--and the administration--and, in fact, 'all of America' who believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Utter and treasonous bullshit.
Before the invasion, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets to protest, not because they were troublemakers or anarchists or Bush-haters. But because they were Americans. They were patriots. They were willing to wait for facts...willing to protect our Constitution...willing to speak truth to power.
On that last point, enter the weasel Russert.
Now...after the bloodshed; after the unmasking; after the weeping widows and children...he can act the role of the still pandering inquisitor, putting to Powell all the questions, now faux, that would have been so helpful, so responsible, so demonstrative of at least the minimal journalistic competence had he the honesty and cojones to ask them when it mattered. He, like Powell, continues to walk in the inextinguishable light of his own ego, capable of wishing away the dark alleys of his own malfeasance.
Then, after the break, ushered in on cue is the great antidote for the lunatic right threatened by any uncomfortable truth--yet another attack on Hillary Clinton. Its mad doctors are current and former reporters for the New York Times, partners in profiteering on yet another helping of putrid slime for the uncaged neocon cannibals. Foremost is Jeff Gerth, possibly the worst, and certainly the most damaging journalist in the history of our republic. He is the author of one delusional and ultimately discredited fabrication after another, from Whitewater to Wen Ho Lee to Loral Communications--each of which sailed inexplicably past the would be editors of that would be left wing newspaper. This man should be behind bars--not continuing to soil the national fabric with his filthy game of make believe.
But instead, see how much easier it is for the 'insiders' of journalism and the body politic to pretend none of their sins ever happened...exculpated by the holy water of their own self-righteousness...cozy in the comfort that the vast legions of Beltway co-conspirators will protect them from the slightest taint of wasted American blood and tears that so decidedly stains their souls...if not their consciousness.
diderot
Friday, June 8, 2007
John Drury
For some reason, I woke up this morning thinking about John Drury, probably the most kind, decent, caring and self-effacing co-worker I've ever known. That claim is all the more noteworthy because John was a TV anchorman in the 70's, a job where an outsized ego and self-centeredness were almost prerequisites.
We worked together for WLS-TV in Chicago, an 'owned-and-operated' station, meaning the network itself held the keys, rather than some independent local concern. And for them, this was an extremely lucrative proposition; their five 'O and O's' generated far more profit than the network itself. We were among the first 'Eyewitness News' formats, derided accurately by competitors as a 'happy talk' substitute for real news. And indeed, the nature of our product was kinetic, and often nearly vaudevillian in nature.
Against this, John was as comfortable and welcoming as your grandpa's Barcalounger.
In those days, Channel 7 dominated the local news ratings. The competitors vainly tried to copy the format, to no avail. Eventually WBBM, the CBS station in town, figured out it might as well do something different, and began presenting itself as the 'hard news' alternative. Same actors, different play. But following classical marketing theory, it worked. When you can't compete doing the same thing, doing something different is frequently helpful. (Think Volkswagen in the same era, putting the lowly Bug up against all those behemoth U.S. models). And thus, WBBM went from being a blip on the ratings meters to two blips.
Enter the dramatic conflict. The network's roving band of 'outside consultants' arrived in town, and began a presentation with their trusty foam-core boards (yes, Virginia, there was a time before Powerpoint). What those graphs showed was that, IF THE TREND CONTINUED, WBBM could indeed catch WLS in the ratings race in a couple of years! Whatever will you do?
(It should be noted that WBBM's small increase came largely at the expense of the other station in town, not WLS. The ratings and other research showed that people still loved the WLS product and people as much as ever.)
The droll and disgusted news director of the station put the question right back to the consultants--'well, what would you do?'
Unfortunately, they were ready with an answer. "In order to show the market that you're not complacent, you've got to shake things up. Show some aggression."
"OK," the news director said distractedly. "Exactly how do we do that?"
"We think you've got to fire one of you main anchors. Doesn't make any difference which one. Just fire someone."
No one was distracted anymore.
The news director lasted about 60 seconds more before getting up, proclaiming this 'the stupidest f**king idea I've ever heard", and walking out of the room.
You can guess the rest. A couple months later John Drury was out of a job...and the news director departed not long after.
There was a flood of protest after Drury's departure. "How could you take him off the air? We love him!", was the general tenor of the thousands of respondents. Unfortunately, the consultants were not around to advise exactly how to answer that question.
But when the news director...the guy who built the ratings powerhouse from the foundation up...was ushered out the door for his insubordination, those same consultants were quick to begin collecting additional fees for 'finding' his successor. The man they chose arrived with a decent resume...and a nasty cocaine habit.
And thus did one of the dynasties in the history of local news begin to dismantle itself.
John Drury rebounded nicely. He became the iconic anchor for the independent WGN TV for years...poetically returned to WLS to finish his anchor career...and was inducted into the Chicago Journalism Hall of Fame.
Sometimes nice guys do finish first.
diderot
We worked together for WLS-TV in Chicago, an 'owned-and-operated' station, meaning the network itself held the keys, rather than some independent local concern. And for them, this was an extremely lucrative proposition; their five 'O and O's' generated far more profit than the network itself. We were among the first 'Eyewitness News' formats, derided accurately by competitors as a 'happy talk' substitute for real news. And indeed, the nature of our product was kinetic, and often nearly vaudevillian in nature.
Against this, John was as comfortable and welcoming as your grandpa's Barcalounger.
In those days, Channel 7 dominated the local news ratings. The competitors vainly tried to copy the format, to no avail. Eventually WBBM, the CBS station in town, figured out it might as well do something different, and began presenting itself as the 'hard news' alternative. Same actors, different play. But following classical marketing theory, it worked. When you can't compete doing the same thing, doing something different is frequently helpful. (Think Volkswagen in the same era, putting the lowly Bug up against all those behemoth U.S. models). And thus, WBBM went from being a blip on the ratings meters to two blips.
Enter the dramatic conflict. The network's roving band of 'outside consultants' arrived in town, and began a presentation with their trusty foam-core boards (yes, Virginia, there was a time before Powerpoint). What those graphs showed was that, IF THE TREND CONTINUED, WBBM could indeed catch WLS in the ratings race in a couple of years! Whatever will you do?
(It should be noted that WBBM's small increase came largely at the expense of the other station in town, not WLS. The ratings and other research showed that people still loved the WLS product and people as much as ever.)
The droll and disgusted news director of the station put the question right back to the consultants--'well, what would you do?'
Unfortunately, they were ready with an answer. "In order to show the market that you're not complacent, you've got to shake things up. Show some aggression."
"OK," the news director said distractedly. "Exactly how do we do that?"
"We think you've got to fire one of you main anchors. Doesn't make any difference which one. Just fire someone."
No one was distracted anymore.
The news director lasted about 60 seconds more before getting up, proclaiming this 'the stupidest f**king idea I've ever heard", and walking out of the room.
You can guess the rest. A couple months later John Drury was out of a job...and the news director departed not long after.
There was a flood of protest after Drury's departure. "How could you take him off the air? We love him!", was the general tenor of the thousands of respondents. Unfortunately, the consultants were not around to advise exactly how to answer that question.
But when the news director...the guy who built the ratings powerhouse from the foundation up...was ushered out the door for his insubordination, those same consultants were quick to begin collecting additional fees for 'finding' his successor. The man they chose arrived with a decent resume...and a nasty cocaine habit.
And thus did one of the dynasties in the history of local news begin to dismantle itself.
John Drury rebounded nicely. He became the iconic anchor for the independent WGN TV for years...poetically returned to WLS to finish his anchor career...and was inducted into the Chicago Journalism Hall of Fame.
Sometimes nice guys do finish first.
diderot
Thursday, May 31, 2007
May 31
I've always liked this day. First, my brother's birthday--and believe me, he's had a lot of them to remind me. Second, a signal to the start of summer. Some even contend May 31 is the true birthday for baseball, since the Philadelphia Athletics were formally founded on this date in 1859 to play a game then called 'town ball'--20 years before Abner Doubleday 'invented' the game. Personally, I can't comment one way or the other. But you could ask my brother--I think he was there.
At any rate, May 31 should also have a special meaning this year. It may even be an historic watershed. Because on May 31, 2007, two seemingly incompatible events did, indeed, occur. Word came from the Associated Press that in the first quarter of the year, our economy almost tanked. In the sense that economic growth, as such, was reported at an almost-invisible 0.6 percent in the United States. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan says there's a one-in-three chance that we'll actually slide into a recession this year. This is not good.
And on this same morning, the New York Stock Exchange, the Grand Arbiter of all things economic, opened at the highest point in its history.
Think about that--we're about to go under, and everyone is partying on the top deck. Welcome to the Titanic Economy.
Do you think that maybe--just maybe--we've reached the point where the wealthy may have taken a piece of the pie too big for even their swollen jowls?
diderot
At any rate, May 31 should also have a special meaning this year. It may even be an historic watershed. Because on May 31, 2007, two seemingly incompatible events did, indeed, occur. Word came from the Associated Press that in the first quarter of the year, our economy almost tanked. In the sense that economic growth, as such, was reported at an almost-invisible 0.6 percent in the United States. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan says there's a one-in-three chance that we'll actually slide into a recession this year. This is not good.
And on this same morning, the New York Stock Exchange, the Grand Arbiter of all things economic, opened at the highest point in its history.
Think about that--we're about to go under, and everyone is partying on the top deck. Welcome to the Titanic Economy.
Do you think that maybe--just maybe--we've reached the point where the wealthy may have taken a piece of the pie too big for even their swollen jowls?
diderot
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Vive la France
In his book, Paris in the 50's, former Time magazine correspondent Stanley Karnow describes the status of an intellectual class,
"...venerated as authorities on everything from art, literature and music to politics, economics, religion and complex social issues. Their Olympian status mirrored the respect long shared by the French for the power of ideas and for the elite caste that shaped and spread them. Their books and essays...triggered squabbles that, judging from the endless reports in the newspapers, enthralled the public."
Contrast that with a recent column in Fortune magazine:
"...are some American parents actually hostile to education? In my travels I'm seeing evidence that the answer is yes. I was talking some time ago with a group of school superintendents from Maryland. The dominant mood was frustration--a sense that they weren't making the progress with our kids that they wanted. A few...surprised me by saying they had received complaints from parents who were angry because their kids were being made to learn algebra: 'What do they need algebra for? It's hard!' A middle-school vice principal...in Nebraska...reported the same thing: parents angry over kids having to learn algebra. Until recent years you wouldn't...complain to school administrators that your kids were getting too much education. Now parents evidently feel it's safe to do so."
Granted, the comparison is made across an ocean, a cultural divide, and half a century, but I wonder if we Americans will ever come to grips with a cancerous fault on our body politic--the mistrust and (increasingly) outright hostility to fact-based knowledge. Ours is a culture in which what is believed is gaining significant market share over what is known. Ours is a faith-based intelligence.
A very small but telling example is the case of Monica Goodling, an underling at the Justice Department who admitted this week in her Congressional testimony that she 'stepped over the line' in applying tests of political fidelity to the Republican party in judging the merits of what were, by law, supposed to be apolitical civil service appointments. Not included in her testimony, but reported earlier by one of her superiors, was her tearful, near hysterical private reaction upon discovering she would be called on the carpet: "All I ever wanted to do was serve this President!" As if that were a defense. In her mind, apparently honoring what you truly believe trumps what is legally mandated. And this person is a lawyer.
For at least a generation, we have heard the disapprobations: "elitist snobs", "pointy-headed liberals", or for that matter, just plain "liberals". These are people to be mistrusted; they are out of touch; they flaunt their intelligence--their facts. Their ideas are dangerous. Fear them. Fight them.
In truth, speaking of those Paris intellectuals of the 50's, a good case can be made that for all their learning and pretense, they were sometimes not just out of touch, but in fact, wrong. Many of them were so blinded by their fervor for the tenets of the Communist Manifesto that they refused to accept the savagery of Stalin--until they were forced to confront the facts. They were not omnipotent.
But that's not the point. The enduring vision is of a French society where intelligence was and is honored, challenged, debated and observed, all as a matter of course. Opinions matter--but facts do more. Thinking is an assumed part of existence.
Compare that to this place where America has come...where facts are denied...where allegiance to one dogma is the sole path to both power and salvation. In so doing, we can only ponder our nation in terms of the French during World War II.
Do we see ourselves in the role of their valiant patriots, who formed a Resistance to a cult-based occupier?
Or are we to become more like the occupier itself?
-diderot
"...venerated as authorities on everything from art, literature and music to politics, economics, religion and complex social issues. Their Olympian status mirrored the respect long shared by the French for the power of ideas and for the elite caste that shaped and spread them. Their books and essays...triggered squabbles that, judging from the endless reports in the newspapers, enthralled the public."
Contrast that with a recent column in Fortune magazine:
"...are some American parents actually hostile to education? In my travels I'm seeing evidence that the answer is yes. I was talking some time ago with a group of school superintendents from Maryland. The dominant mood was frustration--a sense that they weren't making the progress with our kids that they wanted. A few...surprised me by saying they had received complaints from parents who were angry because their kids were being made to learn algebra: 'What do they need algebra for? It's hard!' A middle-school vice principal...in Nebraska...reported the same thing: parents angry over kids having to learn algebra. Until recent years you wouldn't...complain to school administrators that your kids were getting too much education. Now parents evidently feel it's safe to do so."
Granted, the comparison is made across an ocean, a cultural divide, and half a century, but I wonder if we Americans will ever come to grips with a cancerous fault on our body politic--the mistrust and (increasingly) outright hostility to fact-based knowledge. Ours is a culture in which what is believed is gaining significant market share over what is known. Ours is a faith-based intelligence.
A very small but telling example is the case of Monica Goodling, an underling at the Justice Department who admitted this week in her Congressional testimony that she 'stepped over the line' in applying tests of political fidelity to the Republican party in judging the merits of what were, by law, supposed to be apolitical civil service appointments. Not included in her testimony, but reported earlier by one of her superiors, was her tearful, near hysterical private reaction upon discovering she would be called on the carpet: "All I ever wanted to do was serve this President!" As if that were a defense. In her mind, apparently honoring what you truly believe trumps what is legally mandated. And this person is a lawyer.
For at least a generation, we have heard the disapprobations: "elitist snobs", "pointy-headed liberals", or for that matter, just plain "liberals". These are people to be mistrusted; they are out of touch; they flaunt their intelligence--their facts. Their ideas are dangerous. Fear them. Fight them.
In truth, speaking of those Paris intellectuals of the 50's, a good case can be made that for all their learning and pretense, they were sometimes not just out of touch, but in fact, wrong. Many of them were so blinded by their fervor for the tenets of the Communist Manifesto that they refused to accept the savagery of Stalin--until they were forced to confront the facts. They were not omnipotent.
But that's not the point. The enduring vision is of a French society where intelligence was and is honored, challenged, debated and observed, all as a matter of course. Opinions matter--but facts do more. Thinking is an assumed part of existence.
Compare that to this place where America has come...where facts are denied...where allegiance to one dogma is the sole path to both power and salvation. In so doing, we can only ponder our nation in terms of the French during World War II.
Do we see ourselves in the role of their valiant patriots, who formed a Resistance to a cult-based occupier?
Or are we to become more like the occupier itself?
-diderot
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Dads
I've never really figured out exactly how I feel about Joe Morgan, the Hall of Fame second baseman and now national ESPN announcer. But I do feel he is has hit on something fundamental in this quote:
"I hear a lot of people talk about their Dads being their best friends. In fact just the other day I heard Tiger Woods in an interview talking about his Dad being his best friend. Well, my Dad wasn't my best friend. He was my Dad. My Dad taught me responsibility and he taught me how to be a man. My friends are my friends, and my Dad was my Dad. I understand that a lot of people think that way about their father, but I never did. He had a responsibility to me and I had one to him, and I don't always find that with friendships. I always had the belief that he was above my friends. And he was."
diderot
"I hear a lot of people talk about their Dads being their best friends. In fact just the other day I heard Tiger Woods in an interview talking about his Dad being his best friend. Well, my Dad wasn't my best friend. He was my Dad. My Dad taught me responsibility and he taught me how to be a man. My friends are my friends, and my Dad was my Dad. I understand that a lot of people think that way about their father, but I never did. He had a responsibility to me and I had one to him, and I don't always find that with friendships. I always had the belief that he was above my friends. And he was."
diderot
Overwhelming...
Sometimes the tentacles of audacity, stupidity, manipulation and sheer criminality of Bush Inc. are simply too much to comprehend at one time. Like the giant octopus of Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, it comes from every direction and devours everything in its wake.
It seems beyond the imagination of even a Jules Verne that all of these things could be exposing themselves at the same time:
diderot
It seems beyond the imagination of even a Jules Verne that all of these things could be exposing themselves at the same time:
- James Comey, a former deputy to Alberto Gonzalez, testifies that he had to personally intervene in 2004 to prevent Gonzalez and Chief of Staff Andrew Card from coercing a sickbed signature from Gonzalez' predecessor, John Ashcroft. Ashcroft had been in intensive care for several days in a D.C. hospital when someone at the White House dispatched Card and then White House counsel Gonzalez to force him to sign off on continuation of the domestic wiretapping program. Ashcroft, then F.B.I. director Robert Mueller and Comey all threatened to quit if Gonzalez and Card didn't back off. They did, but Bush intervened by ruling that the program could continue even without the consent of his own Attorney General
- Last week, Gonzalez was subpoenaed and ordered by Congress to turn over emails pertaining to any role Karl Rove might have had in the U.S. attorney firings. The deadline was yesterday. Not only did Gonzalez not deliver the goods, he didn't even bother offering an explanation, or responding in any way. The nation's top law enforcement official does not obey the law
- An investigation by the World Bank itself concludes that Paul Wolfowitz, "...did not accept the bank's policy on conflict of interest, so he sought to negotiate for himself a resolution different from that which would be applied to the staff he was selected to head."
- As has been the custom, Bush has chosen a senior lobbyist for the National Association of Manufacturers to lead the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is responsible for monitoring the deeds of people like the National Association of Manufacturers. As a going away present, the Association gave him a $150,000 bonus. The lobbyist explains that even though ethics guidelines would prevent him from ruling on matters concerning the association itself for two years, it doesn't mean he'll stop involvement with issues pertaining to individual members of the association, or even similar trade groups involving the same companies
- Two years ago, when she was 31, Monica Goodling was given responsibility for screening potential U.S. attorneys. Her requirements consisted of a law degree from Pat Robertson's Regents University (somewhat worse than a mail order medical diploma). In her role, she asked candidates deep legal questions like, "who is your favorite President?", and "have you ever cheated on your spouse?" She kicked out anyone suspected of being a Democrat
- As described in the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City, "...Americans recruited to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad were chosen, at times, for their loyalty toward Republicanism rather than expertise on Islamism. The coalition government relied heavily on...a large cadre of eager young neophytes whose brashness often gave offense in a very age- and status-conscious society. One young political appointee (a 24-year-old Ivy League graduate) argued that Iraq should not enshrine judicial review in its constitution because it might lead to the legalization of abortion."
diderot
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Jerry Falwell
Would love to listen in on the conversation at the pearly gates. I wonder what Falwell is saying in response to the question of how his actions really spread the word and deed of his maker here on Earth.
diderot
diderot
Monday, May 14, 2007
Objectivity
Many years ago I was a guest lecturer at a prestigious journalistic think tank in Florida. On one occasion, they invited me to come and share my thoughts on reporting.
I stood up and delivered a lengthy monologue entitled, "The End of Objectivity", or something to that effect. Of course, the title itself set teeth to grinding. After all, if there were a Holy Grail to the reporter's quest, it is the elusive 'objectivity'.
I made two observations. First, even in those pre-Fox News, pre-Limbaugh, pre-Internet days, it was already evident that there was money to be made in partisanship, and thus it was inevitable that media owners would move to that money.
But more important was my attempt to try to draw the distinction between the terms 'objectivity' and 'balance'. Having run newsrooms, I knew the temptation to conflate the two.
Here's a hypothetical example, but one that happened every day. A reporter is sent out to do the classic time or space-filler known then as 'man on the street'. In other words, walk up to random citizens and ask their opinion on a certain hot issue, and record their answers with either your notepad or microphone.
Back then, a typical topic may have been the Equal Rights Amendment for women. Now, as a reporter, you obviously have no control over what people will say. And maybe that day, for whatever reason, 80% of the people you interviewed opposed the Amendment. But you know that if you proportion your story in the paper or on the newscast that way, you're going to be accused of being biased--or, not objective.
So what you put on your newscast are three respondents supporting, and three opposing. Nice, neat, safe, and by definition balanced...but it is not a reflection of the survey you conducted that day, no matter how unscientific it may have been. It does not reflect the objective truth of what happened that day.
The essence of objectivity in journalism is to try to ferret out the truth--not to make people happy or unhappy with your approach. But that's not how it was practiced then--or is now. A classic example is how the mainstream media feels like it has to 'balance' all the 'bad' coverage of the Bush Administration by also showing their 'objectivity' in reporting charges that malign his critics, no matter what the underlying truth of those charges might be.
In fact, the evidence of this misplaced objectivity is still evident every day.
And to finish the story of my enlightening lecture to those reporters those many years ago: I was never invited back.
diderot
I stood up and delivered a lengthy monologue entitled, "The End of Objectivity", or something to that effect. Of course, the title itself set teeth to grinding. After all, if there were a Holy Grail to the reporter's quest, it is the elusive 'objectivity'.
I made two observations. First, even in those pre-Fox News, pre-Limbaugh, pre-Internet days, it was already evident that there was money to be made in partisanship, and thus it was inevitable that media owners would move to that money.
But more important was my attempt to try to draw the distinction between the terms 'objectivity' and 'balance'. Having run newsrooms, I knew the temptation to conflate the two.
Here's a hypothetical example, but one that happened every day. A reporter is sent out to do the classic time or space-filler known then as 'man on the street'. In other words, walk up to random citizens and ask their opinion on a certain hot issue, and record their answers with either your notepad or microphone.
Back then, a typical topic may have been the Equal Rights Amendment for women. Now, as a reporter, you obviously have no control over what people will say. And maybe that day, for whatever reason, 80% of the people you interviewed opposed the Amendment. But you know that if you proportion your story in the paper or on the newscast that way, you're going to be accused of being biased--or, not objective.
So what you put on your newscast are three respondents supporting, and three opposing. Nice, neat, safe, and by definition balanced...but it is not a reflection of the survey you conducted that day, no matter how unscientific it may have been. It does not reflect the objective truth of what happened that day.
The essence of objectivity in journalism is to try to ferret out the truth--not to make people happy or unhappy with your approach. But that's not how it was practiced then--or is now. A classic example is how the mainstream media feels like it has to 'balance' all the 'bad' coverage of the Bush Administration by also showing their 'objectivity' in reporting charges that malign his critics, no matter what the underlying truth of those charges might be.
In fact, the evidence of this misplaced objectivity is still evident every day.
And to finish the story of my enlightening lecture to those reporters those many years ago: I was never invited back.
diderot
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Earth Friendly
Do you want to do your part to fight global warming, and protect the earth? If you're like me, aside from those squiggly light bulbs, it's hard to know exactly where to start.
Someone on the radio the other day had an interesting breakdown. Most Americans consume half of their energy to heat and cool their dwellings. A quarter goes to transportation--everything from filling up the Hummer to that weekend flight to Reno. And the final quarter goes to everything else--from the morning expresso machine to the squiggly light bulbs.
Cut down accordingly.
There, wasn't that easy?
diderot
Someone on the radio the other day had an interesting breakdown. Most Americans consume half of their energy to heat and cool their dwellings. A quarter goes to transportation--everything from filling up the Hummer to that weekend flight to Reno. And the final quarter goes to everything else--from the morning expresso machine to the squiggly light bulbs.
Cut down accordingly.
There, wasn't that easy?
diderot
How Left Is Left?
You know, it's virtually impossible these days to state any coherent definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative'. Why is that? Subject of another post someday.
But here's a test to tell where you might actually stand along the political landscapee.
If you think this is distinctly 'leftist', you're a conservative.
If you agree with it, you're a moderate.
diderot
But here's a test to tell where you might actually stand along the political landscapee.
If you think this is distinctly 'leftist', you're a conservative.
If you agree with it, you're a moderate.
diderot
Mudville
For months, there has been a blight on the grand game of baseball. No, not steroids. No, not the injuries. And not even that evil incarnate (at least to NFL fans), Bud Selig.
The pox has been Barry Bonds. Now, you may love him or you may hate him, but I just can't stand the idea that he sucks so much attention from what is otherwise the world's best sport. The media that doesn't understand baseball can only talk about Bonds. It's something you can do without any knowledge at all...like commenting on politics for the Fox News Channel.
But today, things got even worse. Roger Clemens is back. That ideal of American sports...the guy who won't agree to go to spring training...won't agree to play with any team until he's ready...won't even travel with his teammates on the road unless he's pitching. He's too important.
Now, Bonds may or may not be a cheater. I vote for cheater.
Clemens may or may not be mentally ill (remember the broken bat javelin throw at Mike Piazza?) But even if he's not clinically nuts, he is the poster child of the truly broken foundation of our society. Clemens is the self appointed Pope of the Unified American Church of It's All About Me.
If baseball can withstand the nauseating coverage of these two morons, I assume it can survive anything.
But there is no joy in Mudville.
diderot
The pox has been Barry Bonds. Now, you may love him or you may hate him, but I just can't stand the idea that he sucks so much attention from what is otherwise the world's best sport. The media that doesn't understand baseball can only talk about Bonds. It's something you can do without any knowledge at all...like commenting on politics for the Fox News Channel.
But today, things got even worse. Roger Clemens is back. That ideal of American sports...the guy who won't agree to go to spring training...won't agree to play with any team until he's ready...won't even travel with his teammates on the road unless he's pitching. He's too important.
Now, Bonds may or may not be a cheater. I vote for cheater.
Clemens may or may not be mentally ill (remember the broken bat javelin throw at Mike Piazza?) But even if he's not clinically nuts, he is the poster child of the truly broken foundation of our society. Clemens is the self appointed Pope of the Unified American Church of It's All About Me.
If baseball can withstand the nauseating coverage of these two morons, I assume it can survive anything.
But there is no joy in Mudville.
diderot
Friday, May 4, 2007
Those GOP Debaters, Part 3
I'm not a big fan of the Democratic consultant Donna Brazille. Way to inside the Beltway (and Beltway conventional wisdom--plus, she shouldn't have caved in for Gore in Florida in 2000). Anyway, she did have a great comment on the Republican debaters: "they decided they're not out to succeed Bush--they're out to succeed Reagan."
The genuflections to St. Ronnie truly were nauseous.
diderot
The genuflections to St. Ronnie truly were nauseous.
diderot
Those GOP Debaters, Part 2
I didn't watch the whole debate last night, but I did see the section where Matthews asked the candidates their thoughts on the prospect of having Bill Clinton living in the White House again. They all laughed.
Nothing could demonstrate how out of touch these clowns are with the American electorate. Perhaps their pollsters didn't have the nerve to inform their candidates of Clinton's incredible lingering popularity among voters. If he could run again, he'd win in a landslide.
Come November of next year, the joke will be on them.
diderot
Nothing could demonstrate how out of touch these clowns are with the American electorate. Perhaps their pollsters didn't have the nerve to inform their candidates of Clinton's incredible lingering popularity among voters. If he could run again, he'd win in a landslide.
Come November of next year, the joke will be on them.
diderot
Those GOP Debaters, Part 1
This sounds like a nasty diatribe, but seriously, they're honest questions.
I coach a soccer team with four girls from Mormon families. Great kids, great players. But when we have games on Sundays, they can't play, because that's a day for family only (and other Mormons).
OK, so if Mitt Romney gets elected, what happens on Sunday? Is he only President of the Mormons? Does he take every Sunday off, no matter who attacks us?
And if not, why not? Where is the line drawn? How does that faith decide who gets to associate with the outside world on Sundays, and who doesn't?
diderot
I coach a soccer team with four girls from Mormon families. Great kids, great players. But when we have games on Sundays, they can't play, because that's a day for family only (and other Mormons).
OK, so if Mitt Romney gets elected, what happens on Sunday? Is he only President of the Mormons? Does he take every Sunday off, no matter who attacks us?
And if not, why not? Where is the line drawn? How does that faith decide who gets to associate with the outside world on Sundays, and who doesn't?
diderot
Monday, April 30, 2007
Filthy Rich
The single most important columnist in America, Paul Krugman in the New York Times, raises an important issue today--how the gusher of profits in corporate America is not having the promised effect, namely increasing the amount those companies spend on research, production capacity, and God-forbid, their employees. Instead, it appears a disproportionate amount of those profits is being used to 'buy back' a company's stock from current shareholders. What this does, among other things, is increase the value of executive stock options.
At the same time, another feature article last week pointed out that the beleaguered Japanese giant, Sony, continues to suffer a 'crisis of the week', but still has seen its stock grow at a healthy pace. Buried in the report was the acknowledgement that most of the people buying that stock are Americans.
These two issues are related in this way: they both indicate how the richest of Americans simply have more money than they know what to do with. The deck has been stacked so heavily in their favor that they really have run out of safe and sound outposts for their wealth, so they artificially prop up troubled concerns like Sony.
For the last five years and more, our economy has run on two very powerful cylinders. The first was housing, which had the advantage of not only creating jobs, but also creating something tangible--even if we have now reached the point where we've built more Florida condos than can ever be used.
The second cylinder is more cynical--it's simply the transfer and handling of money. It requires very few jobs (even though those who have those jobs tend to be excessively well rewarded), and this part of the engine produces nothing. When a stock or a company is bought or sold, nothing really makes our economy or our nation inherently better.
With the decline of the new housing market, faux wealth is now even more reliant on just shifting money around. And when an economy relies on creating something out of nothing, a bad ending draws nearer.
The rich get richer, and the rest of us will be left again paying the price.
diderot
At the same time, another feature article last week pointed out that the beleaguered Japanese giant, Sony, continues to suffer a 'crisis of the week', but still has seen its stock grow at a healthy pace. Buried in the report was the acknowledgement that most of the people buying that stock are Americans.
These two issues are related in this way: they both indicate how the richest of Americans simply have more money than they know what to do with. The deck has been stacked so heavily in their favor that they really have run out of safe and sound outposts for their wealth, so they artificially prop up troubled concerns like Sony.
For the last five years and more, our economy has run on two very powerful cylinders. The first was housing, which had the advantage of not only creating jobs, but also creating something tangible--even if we have now reached the point where we've built more Florida condos than can ever be used.
The second cylinder is more cynical--it's simply the transfer and handling of money. It requires very few jobs (even though those who have those jobs tend to be excessively well rewarded), and this part of the engine produces nothing. When a stock or a company is bought or sold, nothing really makes our economy or our nation inherently better.
With the decline of the new housing market, faux wealth is now even more reliant on just shifting money around. And when an economy relies on creating something out of nothing, a bad ending draws nearer.
The rich get richer, and the rest of us will be left again paying the price.
diderot
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Unity 08
If its backers have their way, you're going to be hearing a lot more about this organization over the next year and a half. It's a new political party, one supported entirely by online participation and donations, and one which aims to split the difference between the radical polarization and bitterness effected by both parties. The net will elect its presidential candidate, and he or she must only agree to name a running mate from the other party. Harmony, unity and common sense from the middle.
Sounds good, doesn't it?
It's not. And here's why.
While net power is here to stay, the idea of currently 'splitting the difference' between radical wings of both parties is a false remedy. Look at it this way.
Think about two teams pulling on a rope in a tug of war. Consider them on a football field, with the center of the rope right on the 50 yard line, and extending to the 25 yard line on either side. Each party has its moderate members more toward the middle, and its 'radical fringe' on either end.
When George W. Bush and his band of incompetent crooks were wrongfully granted power, they started tugging with all their might. 'Bipartisanship?', some asked. They just laughed and pulled harder. Before long, the 'radical left' found itself still at the end of its rope (pun intended), but now standing almost at midfield. The midterm elections stopped the pulling for the time being, but the left hasn't retaken any ground. So while Unity 08 is sweet talking Americans into splitting the difference, the middle of the country can read the hash marks.
They see that the center now stands at about the conservative 25 yard line--that's how much ground they've gained at the expense of the middle class, the military and the U.S. Constitution.
The moderates of America don' t like where they're at. They overwhelmingly oppose Bush, his policies and his folly in Iraq. They realize there are seven years of surrendered turf to be reclaimed. And if Unity 08 wants to lure and satisfy them, they're going to have to help move the middle back to the true center of our nation--legally, economically and morally.
To paraphrase Yeats, the center will not hold.
diderot
Sounds good, doesn't it?
It's not. And here's why.
While net power is here to stay, the idea of currently 'splitting the difference' between radical wings of both parties is a false remedy. Look at it this way.
Think about two teams pulling on a rope in a tug of war. Consider them on a football field, with the center of the rope right on the 50 yard line, and extending to the 25 yard line on either side. Each party has its moderate members more toward the middle, and its 'radical fringe' on either end.
When George W. Bush and his band of incompetent crooks were wrongfully granted power, they started tugging with all their might. 'Bipartisanship?', some asked. They just laughed and pulled harder. Before long, the 'radical left' found itself still at the end of its rope (pun intended), but now standing almost at midfield. The midterm elections stopped the pulling for the time being, but the left hasn't retaken any ground. So while Unity 08 is sweet talking Americans into splitting the difference, the middle of the country can read the hash marks.
They see that the center now stands at about the conservative 25 yard line--that's how much ground they've gained at the expense of the middle class, the military and the U.S. Constitution.
The moderates of America don' t like where they're at. They overwhelmingly oppose Bush, his policies and his folly in Iraq. They realize there are seven years of surrendered turf to be reclaimed. And if Unity 08 wants to lure and satisfy them, they're going to have to help move the middle back to the true center of our nation--legally, economically and morally.
To paraphrase Yeats, the center will not hold.
diderot
Friday, April 20, 2007
Roundtable: Virginia Tech
An email thread from the past couple of days:
diderot:
My following of the coverage so far has been almost exclusively the Today Show, and as is their history, they always go for the potentially most emotional interviews possible. Nothing communicates the sorrow of the moment like people being sorrowful on TV (which doesn't hurt their ratings, either, but that's another story). Anyway, I've seen about 6-10 classmates interviewed either live or on tape the past couple of days--and none of them--not one--showed any tears or real emotion. And this isn't a criticism--they were all clearly somber and concerned and caring and sad...but they didn't show emotions the way I would expect young people in that situation to.
Is this just a coincidence? Did the 'together' ones just happen to show up on camera? Maybe. But it also seems like maybe we've created a new generation of young people that are so used to shock and violence and tragedy that this stuff (kind of) rolls off their backs?
hortense:
I agree with your assessment on the lack of emotion, and it IS because they have been de-sensitized. Great observation and something I've been saying for years. Even in car accidents their response is, well, that's really bad but life goes on. Ask my wife, a high school counsellor, she has seen over the years a complete change when a death occurs to a fellow student. We had that kid die in an accident earlier in the year, the same kids when asked do they need some time to talk, reflect, console? Nope, life goes on. I'm gonna scream. I thought I was the only one who noticed that, glad I wasn't. We have created a bunch of "this happens everyday" children. Oprah had three people on yesterday and they were all great. See if you can't watch that show. The one kid from Columbine, who lost his sister in that tragedy was more insightful than anybody else. He goes around the country trying to talk to HS kids about the very stuff that puts some of them in those "places" from where there is no escape. He and his father have a massive program that reaches 50 - 60 thousand kids a week. Now that's doing something. The one administrator she had on was very good also pointing out all the legal hoops you have to go through before any pro active measures can be taken. What part does the media play? Scary to have to leave it in their hands.
oketo:
I just talked to (daughter in college) and she said a couple of things that may or may not reinforce. First she said that nothing has been obvious to make her campus safer. You would think that there would at least be a show of added security for a few days. She also said that in her Lit class the teacher said that the class needed to talk about VT. She said that she and another boy are the kids that talk the most in the class. She said no one spoke. The teacher asked her what she thought since she must have something to say---chip of the old block--she said that she did not know what to say. She did not know where to begin. So, are they numb from shock and fear or are they numb from overexposure to violence? I don't know.
I watched MSNBC for about 3 hours last night...reporters that I like. But I was discouraged that they spent so much time on the killer and his mailed pictures and text. Did that exposure make him into a media star? Was it necessary to keep showing the as--ole with his two guns? I don't know where you draw the line. What I kept saying is that I wanted to see them talk about the kids and teachers that were killed. They had been lumped into the "name" 32 killed. It is my belief that if we want to sensitize the culture we need to tell their stories. Dwell on their lives and what we are losing with their deaths. Many of the kids were wonderful kids who had already done wonderful things and their future was ahead of them. I think we need to put a face and a story to the number 32. That makes Americans sensitive! Instead we put a face on the killer and his ramblings. So there will now be thousands of kids who will have the killer's picture taped up in their school lockers but I bet no one will ever remember any of the dead students. The teacher who blocked the door so his students could jump out the window and was then killed, his name should be the household word not Cho.
hortense:
Now, where does it go from here? Cannot agree with Oketo more about the coverage and focus on the killer. I don’t care anymore, tell me about the families and how they cope with this grief, tell me about the teacher, tell me about how these kids came to be in college. There is a story, in fact there are 32 stories. The media is so full of shit because they believe we focus on the person responsible. The only people who are interested in the killer are the same people who watch Jerry Springer and professional wrestling. In other words, uneducated individuals who have no interest in anyone but their own. Profiling, you bet, cause that’s what’s true.
oketo:
The talking heads were so predictably into that attack mode minutes after the killings were announced. Who are the "they" that everybody assumes is keeping watch over all of America? It usually falls on teachers, counselors, social workers--any counsellor can verify how hard it is to get parents to accept that their kid has issues, then try to find open beds in psych wards or hospital programs for young people and then try to get insurance companies to accept diagnosis and pay for hospitalization and then have a 3-5 day limit for hospitalization. It is almost impossible to get insurance companies to pay. Parents that do accept responsibility and have their kid hospitalized many times go broke trying to pay for all the things the insurance company will not. Cho was hospitalized while at VT, but I also heard that he was released after a day or two. Insurance??
diderot:
Could this guy have killed 32 people, even with a machete? No way. He was that lethal because he had guns. The media and politicians are so cowered by the NRA and the gun culture that they won't even bring up this subject anymore. In England, a smaller country but a pretty similar society, they ban handguns. I don't remember the government there suddenly turning England into a forced police state, as the gun nuts claim would happen here. Rifles and shotguns remain there for hunting, but no handguns are legal. The last full year on record, they recorded 163 deaths nationally from firearms (including suicides). A total of 12 policemen were wounded by firearms (including their own), none fatal. The same year, there were 993 gun deaths--JUST IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS! Overall, 30,000 Americans a year die from guns. That's like 10 different 9/11 attacks put together. Twelve times all the people we've lost to date in Iraq. Every year. And no one even talks about it anymore.
oketo:
Guns. Yeah. Where is the debate? I read in the Trib yesterday that Americans have 90 guns for every 100 people in the country. The most in the Western world. A typical number is 15, 18 etc. Some are higher, but the teens is a typical number. A gun story. After the polls closed on Tuesday a Repub-lick-an Poll watcher arrives. He is entitled to our unofficial results once we are done. Well it takes about an hour to finalize the precinct results so he is hanging out. Now remember there are two Dems and two Pub heads at each precinct. So this guy, and he looked pub, starts ranting on how the "stupid Democrats are trying to make an issue about automatic weapons due to VT". (Which had happened hours before. He was, as with most pubs, not concerned about the people affected but about the politics.) Well he then realizes there are two Dems in his forced audience and he backtracks that it is, "not all Dems". So I was not about to let this go and if I did not speak I would have had to hurt him. So I asked him if HE thought it was OK for "this guy" to be able to obtain two guns and then kill 32 people? Was that a good thing? These kids are just a trade off? He walked to a different corner of the gym. This is a side point but I get so tired of the arrogance of the right. They feel very free to vent at any moment, in any audience as if no one could possibly disagree with them unless that person is sooo stupid.
diderot:
My following of the coverage so far has been almost exclusively the Today Show, and as is their history, they always go for the potentially most emotional interviews possible. Nothing communicates the sorrow of the moment like people being sorrowful on TV (which doesn't hurt their ratings, either, but that's another story). Anyway, I've seen about 6-10 classmates interviewed either live or on tape the past couple of days--and none of them--not one--showed any tears or real emotion. And this isn't a criticism--they were all clearly somber and concerned and caring and sad...but they didn't show emotions the way I would expect young people in that situation to.
Is this just a coincidence? Did the 'together' ones just happen to show up on camera? Maybe. But it also seems like maybe we've created a new generation of young people that are so used to shock and violence and tragedy that this stuff (kind of) rolls off their backs?
hortense:
I agree with your assessment on the lack of emotion, and it IS because they have been de-sensitized. Great observation and something I've been saying for years. Even in car accidents their response is, well, that's really bad but life goes on. Ask my wife, a high school counsellor, she has seen over the years a complete change when a death occurs to a fellow student. We had that kid die in an accident earlier in the year, the same kids when asked do they need some time to talk, reflect, console? Nope, life goes on. I'm gonna scream. I thought I was the only one who noticed that, glad I wasn't. We have created a bunch of "this happens everyday" children. Oprah had three people on yesterday and they were all great. See if you can't watch that show. The one kid from Columbine, who lost his sister in that tragedy was more insightful than anybody else. He goes around the country trying to talk to HS kids about the very stuff that puts some of them in those "places" from where there is no escape. He and his father have a massive program that reaches 50 - 60 thousand kids a week. Now that's doing something. The one administrator she had on was very good also pointing out all the legal hoops you have to go through before any pro active measures can be taken. What part does the media play? Scary to have to leave it in their hands.
oketo:
I just talked to (daughter in college) and she said a couple of things that may or may not reinforce. First she said that nothing has been obvious to make her campus safer. You would think that there would at least be a show of added security for a few days. She also said that in her Lit class the teacher said that the class needed to talk about VT. She said that she and another boy are the kids that talk the most in the class. She said no one spoke. The teacher asked her what she thought since she must have something to say---chip of the old block--she said that she did not know what to say. She did not know where to begin. So, are they numb from shock and fear or are they numb from overexposure to violence? I don't know.
I watched MSNBC for about 3 hours last night...reporters that I like. But I was discouraged that they spent so much time on the killer and his mailed pictures and text. Did that exposure make him into a media star? Was it necessary to keep showing the as--ole with his two guns? I don't know where you draw the line. What I kept saying is that I wanted to see them talk about the kids and teachers that were killed. They had been lumped into the "name" 32 killed. It is my belief that if we want to sensitize the culture we need to tell their stories. Dwell on their lives and what we are losing with their deaths. Many of the kids were wonderful kids who had already done wonderful things and their future was ahead of them. I think we need to put a face and a story to the number 32. That makes Americans sensitive! Instead we put a face on the killer and his ramblings. So there will now be thousands of kids who will have the killer's picture taped up in their school lockers but I bet no one will ever remember any of the dead students. The teacher who blocked the door so his students could jump out the window and was then killed, his name should be the household word not Cho.
hortense:
Now, where does it go from here? Cannot agree with Oketo more about the coverage and focus on the killer. I don’t care anymore, tell me about the families and how they cope with this grief, tell me about the teacher, tell me about how these kids came to be in college. There is a story, in fact there are 32 stories. The media is so full of shit because they believe we focus on the person responsible. The only people who are interested in the killer are the same people who watch Jerry Springer and professional wrestling. In other words, uneducated individuals who have no interest in anyone but their own. Profiling, you bet, cause that’s what’s true.
oketo:
The talking heads were so predictably into that attack mode minutes after the killings were announced. Who are the "they" that everybody assumes is keeping watch over all of America? It usually falls on teachers, counselors, social workers--any counsellor can verify how hard it is to get parents to accept that their kid has issues, then try to find open beds in psych wards or hospital programs for young people and then try to get insurance companies to accept diagnosis and pay for hospitalization and then have a 3-5 day limit for hospitalization. It is almost impossible to get insurance companies to pay. Parents that do accept responsibility and have their kid hospitalized many times go broke trying to pay for all the things the insurance company will not. Cho was hospitalized while at VT, but I also heard that he was released after a day or two. Insurance??
diderot:
Could this guy have killed 32 people, even with a machete? No way. He was that lethal because he had guns. The media and politicians are so cowered by the NRA and the gun culture that they won't even bring up this subject anymore. In England, a smaller country but a pretty similar society, they ban handguns. I don't remember the government there suddenly turning England into a forced police state, as the gun nuts claim would happen here. Rifles and shotguns remain there for hunting, but no handguns are legal. The last full year on record, they recorded 163 deaths nationally from firearms (including suicides). A total of 12 policemen were wounded by firearms (including their own), none fatal. The same year, there were 993 gun deaths--JUST IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS! Overall, 30,000 Americans a year die from guns. That's like 10 different 9/11 attacks put together. Twelve times all the people we've lost to date in Iraq. Every year. And no one even talks about it anymore.
oketo:
Guns. Yeah. Where is the debate? I read in the Trib yesterday that Americans have 90 guns for every 100 people in the country. The most in the Western world. A typical number is 15, 18 etc. Some are higher, but the teens is a typical number. A gun story. After the polls closed on Tuesday a Repub-lick-an Poll watcher arrives. He is entitled to our unofficial results once we are done. Well it takes about an hour to finalize the precinct results so he is hanging out. Now remember there are two Dems and two Pub heads at each precinct. So this guy, and he looked pub, starts ranting on how the "stupid Democrats are trying to make an issue about automatic weapons due to VT". (Which had happened hours before. He was, as with most pubs, not concerned about the people affected but about the politics.) Well he then realizes there are two Dems in his forced audience and he backtracks that it is, "not all Dems". So I was not about to let this go and if I did not speak I would have had to hurt him. So I asked him if HE thought it was OK for "this guy" to be able to obtain two guns and then kill 32 people? Was that a good thing? These kids are just a trade off? He walked to a different corner of the gym. This is a side point but I get so tired of the arrogance of the right. They feel very free to vent at any moment, in any audience as if no one could possibly disagree with them unless that person is sooo stupid.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Sanctity of Life
Nice to see that George Bush could take time out from his busy schedule destroying America to comment positively on the Supreme Court's legal back flip (defying both existing law and lower court rulings) to uphold a ban on the charmingly titled 'partial birth abortion'. He called it a victory for the 'sanctity of life'.
This is the same man who has sent more than two thousand Americans...and somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 Iraqis...to needless deaths because of his insane cowboy diplomacy. The same puppet-in-the-pocket of the NRA, whose reckless disregard for public safety results in the accidental gun deaths of another 30,000 Americans every year. The same dimwitted former governor who laughed while sending one of his record-setting number of inmates to the death chamber.
This is a man who knows as little about the sanctity of life as he does running the United States of America.
diderot
This is the same man who has sent more than two thousand Americans...and somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 Iraqis...to needless deaths because of his insane cowboy diplomacy. The same puppet-in-the-pocket of the NRA, whose reckless disregard for public safety results in the accidental gun deaths of another 30,000 Americans every year. The same dimwitted former governor who laughed while sending one of his record-setting number of inmates to the death chamber.
This is a man who knows as little about the sanctity of life as he does running the United States of America.
diderot
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
God Is In the Derails
Maybe you believe in the separation of church and state.
Maybe you believe the state would be a much better place with a healthy dose of some religion.
If you're among the latter, I offer Bill Maher's closing comment last week on Real Time:
"Whenever there's a Bush Administration scandal, it always traces back to some incompetent political hack appointment, and you think to yourself, where are they getting these screw-ups from? Well, now we know. From Pat Robertson. I'm not kidding.
"Take Monica Goodling, who, before she resigned last week, because she's smack in the middle of the U.S. Attorneys scandal, was the third-ranking official in the Justice Department of the United States. She's 33 years old. And though she never even worked as a prosecutor, she was tasked with overseeing the job performance of all 93 U.S. Attorneys.
"How do you get to the top that fast? Harvard? Princeton? No, Goodling did her undergraduate work at Messiah College. You know, Messiah, home of the Fighting Christ-ies? And then went on to attend Pat Robertson's law school. Yes, Pat Robertson, the man who said that the presence of gay people at Disney World would cause earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, has a law school.
"And what kid wouldn't want to attend? It's three years, and you only have to read one book. U.S. News & World Report, which does the definitive ranking of colleges, lists Regent as a Tier Four school, which is the lowest score it gives. It's not a hard school to get into. You have to renounce Satan and draw a pirate on a matchbook.
"This is for people who couldn't get into the University of Phoenix.
"Now, would you care to guess how many graduates of this televangelist's diploma mill work in the Bush Administration? 150. And you wonder why things are so messed up. We're talking about a top Justice Department official who went to a college funded by a TV host. Would you send your daughter to Maury Povich U.? And if you did, would you expect her to get a job at the White House?
"In 200 years, we've gone from "We, the people," to "Up With People." From "the best and the brightest" to "dumb and dumber." And where better to find people dumb enough to believe in George Bush than Pat Robertson's law school?
"The problem here in America isn't that the country is being run by "elites." It's that it's being run by a bunch of hayseeds. And, by the way, the lawyer Monica Goodling just hired to keep her a$$ out of jail, went to a real law school."
diderot
Maybe you believe the state would be a much better place with a healthy dose of some religion.
If you're among the latter, I offer Bill Maher's closing comment last week on Real Time:
"Whenever there's a Bush Administration scandal, it always traces back to some incompetent political hack appointment, and you think to yourself, where are they getting these screw-ups from? Well, now we know. From Pat Robertson. I'm not kidding.
"Take Monica Goodling, who, before she resigned last week, because she's smack in the middle of the U.S. Attorneys scandal, was the third-ranking official in the Justice Department of the United States. She's 33 years old. And though she never even worked as a prosecutor, she was tasked with overseeing the job performance of all 93 U.S. Attorneys.
"How do you get to the top that fast? Harvard? Princeton? No, Goodling did her undergraduate work at Messiah College. You know, Messiah, home of the Fighting Christ-ies? And then went on to attend Pat Robertson's law school. Yes, Pat Robertson, the man who said that the presence of gay people at Disney World would cause earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, has a law school.
"And what kid wouldn't want to attend? It's three years, and you only have to read one book. U.S. News & World Report, which does the definitive ranking of colleges, lists Regent as a Tier Four school, which is the lowest score it gives. It's not a hard school to get into. You have to renounce Satan and draw a pirate on a matchbook.
"This is for people who couldn't get into the University of Phoenix.
"Now, would you care to guess how many graduates of this televangelist's diploma mill work in the Bush Administration? 150. And you wonder why things are so messed up. We're talking about a top Justice Department official who went to a college funded by a TV host. Would you send your daughter to Maury Povich U.? And if you did, would you expect her to get a job at the White House?
"In 200 years, we've gone from "We, the people," to "Up With People." From "the best and the brightest" to "dumb and dumber." And where better to find people dumb enough to believe in George Bush than Pat Robertson's law school?
"The problem here in America isn't that the country is being run by "elites." It's that it's being run by a bunch of hayseeds. And, by the way, the lawyer Monica Goodling just hired to keep her a$$ out of jail, went to a real law school."
diderot
Virginia Tech
Someone close to me has been a hunter and meticulous gun owner all his life. He gladly joined the NRA because he pictured it as an organization populated and led by people just like himself.
But in 2004 he quit his membership, when he found it impossible to support that organization's effort to prevent renewal of the ban on semi-automatic assault rifles. In this case, the NRA parted company with the vast majority of law enforcement officials who wanted the ban maintained. My friend could not reconcile the disparity.
My career as a journalist demonstrated to me that the NRA is both the most rabidly aggressive special interest group in promoting its interests, and the most paranoid in the face of any opposition or criticism.
Today, most of the rest of the world is asking, again, 'what the hell is wrong with America?' They properly cite the psychotic gun culture that permeates much of our country. John Howard, prime minister of Australia (and no screaming liberal), said, "“We took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country."
In England, the Times of London editorialized, "“Why, we ask, do Americans continue to tolerate gun laws and a culture that seems to condemn thousands of innocents to death every year, when presumably, tougher restrictions, such as those in force in European countries, could at least reduce the number?”
Indeed.
In our media, you won't even see the gun issue debated seriously anymore. They cower in fear of the gun nuts. It doesn't matter how many die. It doesn't matter how many survivors and relatives are scarred for life. It doesn't matter that the blood is on the hands of the NRA.
This is a happy day for the NRA. They have won.
diderot
But in 2004 he quit his membership, when he found it impossible to support that organization's effort to prevent renewal of the ban on semi-automatic assault rifles. In this case, the NRA parted company with the vast majority of law enforcement officials who wanted the ban maintained. My friend could not reconcile the disparity.
My career as a journalist demonstrated to me that the NRA is both the most rabidly aggressive special interest group in promoting its interests, and the most paranoid in the face of any opposition or criticism.
Today, most of the rest of the world is asking, again, 'what the hell is wrong with America?' They properly cite the psychotic gun culture that permeates much of our country. John Howard, prime minister of Australia (and no screaming liberal), said, "“We took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country."
In England, the Times of London editorialized, "“Why, we ask, do Americans continue to tolerate gun laws and a culture that seems to condemn thousands of innocents to death every year, when presumably, tougher restrictions, such as those in force in European countries, could at least reduce the number?”
Indeed.
In our media, you won't even see the gun issue debated seriously anymore. They cower in fear of the gun nuts. It doesn't matter how many die. It doesn't matter how many survivors and relatives are scarred for life. It doesn't matter that the blood is on the hands of the NRA.
This is a happy day for the NRA. They have won.
diderot
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
Imus
Why was it that this one single comment, among all the others, brought down Imus' kingdom? I really don't know. It doesn't seem so different from what he and his fellow broadcasting hate-mongers have been doing for years.
His defense was that he did a comedy show--he wasn't a journalist. But that leaves the central question not only unanswered, but not even addressed--why would anyone think that was funny?
diderot
His defense was that he did a comedy show--he wasn't a journalist. But that leaves the central question not only unanswered, but not even addressed--why would anyone think that was funny?
diderot
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The Dog Ate My Homework
Yes, they're incredibly incompetent. Yes, they've always gone to great extremes to cover up that incompetence and deflect blame. But at some point, doesn't stuff like this rise to the level of obstruction of justice?
diderot
diderot
Mexico
"Oh, Mexico, I've never really been, so I don't really know..."
So wrote James Taylor in a lyric years ago. Until last week, that applied to me, as well. I've seen a lot of the world, but never been across the border to the south. A kind invitation from my wife's brother to visit his vacation home on the beach at Puerto Penasco changed that. And life there definitely begins on that beautiful beach. Unfortunately, it pretty much ends there as well. Days are pretty much spent waiting for that first Margarita.
By coincidence, we were waiting in an endless line to cross back over only few hours in advance of Bush's visit to the border at Yuma, an hour's drive or so to the west. On the illegal immigration issue, I really can't figure out a coherent position. And reading through the latest proposed legislation, I can see that I'm not alone.
My sister-in-law is a nurse in Arizona, and she informed me how the illegals work the system in order to become eligible for the state's low-income free health care program. It's this kind of stuff that drives the locals nuts. But on the other hand, having now seen life in Mexico, I have to say that if I had been born in their position, I'd be doing exactly what the illegals are. Who doesn't want a better life for their families?
My smart brother-in-law says that the only way to really fix the problem is to improve the Mexican economy so they won't need to flee here. But he's also smart enough to know there's no logical path to doing that.
So for now, while many Americans wish they could snap their fingers and make all the illegals disappear back to where they came from, others privately dread that possibility. The degree to which these people support the lower levels of our economy is probably impossible to calculate. And for every vote in Congress representing beleaguered border communities, there's another backed by U.S. businesses who rely on the cheap, benefit-free labor those workers provide.
So I think we're doomed to a permanent war of words, but no solutions.
Pass me another Margarita...
diderot
So wrote James Taylor in a lyric years ago. Until last week, that applied to me, as well. I've seen a lot of the world, but never been across the border to the south. A kind invitation from my wife's brother to visit his vacation home on the beach at Puerto Penasco changed that. And life there definitely begins on that beautiful beach. Unfortunately, it pretty much ends there as well. Days are pretty much spent waiting for that first Margarita.
By coincidence, we were waiting in an endless line to cross back over only few hours in advance of Bush's visit to the border at Yuma, an hour's drive or so to the west. On the illegal immigration issue, I really can't figure out a coherent position. And reading through the latest proposed legislation, I can see that I'm not alone.
My sister-in-law is a nurse in Arizona, and she informed me how the illegals work the system in order to become eligible for the state's low-income free health care program. It's this kind of stuff that drives the locals nuts. But on the other hand, having now seen life in Mexico, I have to say that if I had been born in their position, I'd be doing exactly what the illegals are. Who doesn't want a better life for their families?
My smart brother-in-law says that the only way to really fix the problem is to improve the Mexican economy so they won't need to flee here. But he's also smart enough to know there's no logical path to doing that.
So for now, while many Americans wish they could snap their fingers and make all the illegals disappear back to where they came from, others privately dread that possibility. The degree to which these people support the lower levels of our economy is probably impossible to calculate. And for every vote in Congress representing beleaguered border communities, there's another backed by U.S. businesses who rely on the cheap, benefit-free labor those workers provide.
So I think we're doomed to a permanent war of words, but no solutions.
Pass me another Margarita...
diderot
King Felix and Dice-K
If you don't understand the title of this post, don't bother reading on.
If you do, I wish every fan could have seen that ballgame. The Fenway Faithful literally rocked their house in anticipation...but King Felix 'reigned' on their parade. A one hit masterpiece. He's now gone 17 innings, 18 strikeouts, four hits, four walks, no runs, and only five balls hit out of the infield. He's not Koufax--but right now he looks exactly like Bob Gibson.
diderot
If you do, I wish every fan could have seen that ballgame. The Fenway Faithful literally rocked their house in anticipation...but King Felix 'reigned' on their parade. A one hit masterpiece. He's now gone 17 innings, 18 strikeouts, four hits, four walks, no runs, and only five balls hit out of the infield. He's not Koufax--but right now he looks exactly like Bob Gibson.
diderot
Friday, March 30, 2007
Bob Woodward
Like a lot of young journalists in the 70's, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were heroes to me because of their work meticulously piecing together the Watergate crimes. So it was particularly disheartening in the first half of this decade to see Woodward take on the role of commentator/courtier for the Bush administration in his two mostly glowing books describing preparations for the Iraq invasion.
Improbably, he became a confidant, calmly reporting all the grandiose claims and little white lies that built The Grand Mistake. What in the world happened to him?
Well, it looks like one of two things. Either he was duped by those people and now wants to salvage his reputation; or he slyly used the first two volumes of his Bush At War trilogy in order to gain their confidence so that he could write the third: State of Denial.
As a book, it reads like an endless newspaper article--and I mean that in a good way. There is a shocking void of judgement in his account. Instead, he uses quotes and anecdotes from all of the principals involved to simply let them savage themselves. The roles become pretty clear: Powell is the scorned 'appeaser' for suggesting anything other than full scale warfare; Tenet is well meaning but sometimes bumbling, allowing himself to fall on the sword of both misused and misguided intelligence; Rumsfeld is petty, domineering and in the end incompetent; Rice is unflatteringly described by almost everyone, including one who calls her "clearly the worst National Security Advisor in modern times". And of course, Bush himself, who apparently has long since ceased talking to Woodward directly, is the parenthetical pseudonym for the title of this final volume.
For those like me who have long wondered how this administration could get so many things dead wrong, Woodward paints what seems to be the most plausible explanation. Bush believes in his heart that if he shows any wavering, any doubt whatsoever, everyone underneath him will 'go wobbly' on him. Thus, he never expresses doubt, never admits a mistake, and takes whatever steps necessary to remain a positive force field at all times. (And we all saw how well that leadership style worked for the followers of Jim Jones). In response, his staff feels reluctance and even fear to bring him anything to upset his vision of victory and perfection.
The consequence, of course, is denial. A refusal to consider reality. One misguided decision piled on top of all the previous ones. In the end, resolute does not trump wrong.
If you want to know what it's been like on the inside, I don't know that anyone will offer a better analysis any time soon.
diderot
Improbably, he became a confidant, calmly reporting all the grandiose claims and little white lies that built The Grand Mistake. What in the world happened to him?
Well, it looks like one of two things. Either he was duped by those people and now wants to salvage his reputation; or he slyly used the first two volumes of his Bush At War trilogy in order to gain their confidence so that he could write the third: State of Denial.
As a book, it reads like an endless newspaper article--and I mean that in a good way. There is a shocking void of judgement in his account. Instead, he uses quotes and anecdotes from all of the principals involved to simply let them savage themselves. The roles become pretty clear: Powell is the scorned 'appeaser' for suggesting anything other than full scale warfare; Tenet is well meaning but sometimes bumbling, allowing himself to fall on the sword of both misused and misguided intelligence; Rumsfeld is petty, domineering and in the end incompetent; Rice is unflatteringly described by almost everyone, including one who calls her "clearly the worst National Security Advisor in modern times". And of course, Bush himself, who apparently has long since ceased talking to Woodward directly, is the parenthetical pseudonym for the title of this final volume.
For those like me who have long wondered how this administration could get so many things dead wrong, Woodward paints what seems to be the most plausible explanation. Bush believes in his heart that if he shows any wavering, any doubt whatsoever, everyone underneath him will 'go wobbly' on him. Thus, he never expresses doubt, never admits a mistake, and takes whatever steps necessary to remain a positive force field at all times. (And we all saw how well that leadership style worked for the followers of Jim Jones). In response, his staff feels reluctance and even fear to bring him anything to upset his vision of victory and perfection.
The consequence, of course, is denial. A refusal to consider reality. One misguided decision piled on top of all the previous ones. In the end, resolute does not trump wrong.
If you want to know what it's been like on the inside, I don't know that anyone will offer a better analysis any time soon.
diderot
Friday, March 23, 2007
Chicago Story: Spring Training
For the Three Guys, it's impossible to go through March without talking about what spring training meant when we played high school baseball together.
First of all, 'practice' in Chicago always started as a fresh coating of sleet was falling on the five inches of dirty snow still on the ground. So into the gym we went.
It is somewhat possible to successfully play catch across a basketball court, but not much else. We would take faux infield practice on the gym floor...a surface that created bounces so true that they were of absolutely no use once the real season began, since we never played on an infield without pebbles...and rocks...and sometimes, downright boulders.
We would spend endless hours on sliding practice--on a gym floor. There were some 'sliding pads' available, but they were generally of no use. As Oketo (our stolen base king) always comments, during the regular season he would only attempt a steal if he knew he could swipe the bag standing up. His haunches were still pocked with strawberries that never seemed to heal until fall.
We would run pretend infield cutoff plays indoors, with the second baseman intercepting a throw to second in order to return it to the plate before a runner could score from third. On one of these plays, Oketo was felled by a peg to the head--with no helmet to intercede. On another, a throw glanced off the tip of my webbing and cost me half of my left front tooth.
Hitting practice? That was a hoot. Think of a basketball court, and someone hitting live fastballs from one corner. When someone like Hortense was up, this was like trying to dodge live AK-47 rounds. Most of the fielders hid behind the gym mats hanging along the walls, and none of us will ever forget the sound of those line drives pounding against the leather. One day, evicted from the full gym, we retreated up to the 'girl's gym' on the second floor, where we pummeled the ceiling tiles of that little room with fly balls. On a reunion trip back last summer, we confirmed that the dents and divots are still up there.
Eventually, of course, we did get outside. No small number of our early games were played in snow flurries. I still fondly remember getting two line drive hits in a game where the snow flakes were so thick you could hardly see across the infield. (Unfortunately, I didn't hit nearly as well in the sunshine).
And if every dirt surface in the area were underwater, we would finally retreat to a place called LaBagh Woods, where we could set up a field on the all-grass pasture of a Forest Preserve. True, there were no puddles, but the grass was so mushy that it would often take half a minute just to run to first base.
These are conditions that were miserable. Unbearable. Sometimes almost inhumane.
And every spring...we wish we could go back. Even for a day.
diderot
First of all, 'practice' in Chicago always started as a fresh coating of sleet was falling on the five inches of dirty snow still on the ground. So into the gym we went.
It is somewhat possible to successfully play catch across a basketball court, but not much else. We would take faux infield practice on the gym floor...a surface that created bounces so true that they were of absolutely no use once the real season began, since we never played on an infield without pebbles...and rocks...and sometimes, downright boulders.
We would spend endless hours on sliding practice--on a gym floor. There were some 'sliding pads' available, but they were generally of no use. As Oketo (our stolen base king) always comments, during the regular season he would only attempt a steal if he knew he could swipe the bag standing up. His haunches were still pocked with strawberries that never seemed to heal until fall.
We would run pretend infield cutoff plays indoors, with the second baseman intercepting a throw to second in order to return it to the plate before a runner could score from third. On one of these plays, Oketo was felled by a peg to the head--with no helmet to intercede. On another, a throw glanced off the tip of my webbing and cost me half of my left front tooth.
Hitting practice? That was a hoot. Think of a basketball court, and someone hitting live fastballs from one corner. When someone like Hortense was up, this was like trying to dodge live AK-47 rounds. Most of the fielders hid behind the gym mats hanging along the walls, and none of us will ever forget the sound of those line drives pounding against the leather. One day, evicted from the full gym, we retreated up to the 'girl's gym' on the second floor, where we pummeled the ceiling tiles of that little room with fly balls. On a reunion trip back last summer, we confirmed that the dents and divots are still up there.
Eventually, of course, we did get outside. No small number of our early games were played in snow flurries. I still fondly remember getting two line drive hits in a game where the snow flakes were so thick you could hardly see across the infield. (Unfortunately, I didn't hit nearly as well in the sunshine).
And if every dirt surface in the area were underwater, we would finally retreat to a place called LaBagh Woods, where we could set up a field on the all-grass pasture of a Forest Preserve. True, there were no puddles, but the grass was so mushy that it would often take half a minute just to run to first base.
These are conditions that were miserable. Unbearable. Sometimes almost inhumane.
And every spring...we wish we could go back. Even for a day.
diderot
Elizabeth Edwards
During any presidential election, we get the chance to draw conclusions, based on almost no facts, about the candidates' spouses. In 2004, we had the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Kerrys and the Edwards. Among those eight humans, I wonder if other people had the same reaction I did: the best human being of the bunch--not necessarily the best politician--was clearly Elizabeth Edwards.
The news about her recurring cancer? Man, what do you say?
diderot
The news about her recurring cancer? Man, what do you say?
diderot
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Unraveling (continued)
- Bush claims he can't let his people testify under oath, because that would prevent them from giving him 'unvarnished' counsel
- His spokesman today said Bush has 'no recollection' of them ever having discussed the Attorney General issue with him
- Therefore, why can't they testify? What are they afraid of if they never talked to him?
diderot
Monday, March 19, 2007
Starbucks
Howard Schultz founded Starbucks. When he was seven, living in a subsidized apartment complex in Brooklyn, one day his mother suddenly called him back to their apartment. There lay his father, a deliveryman, who had fallen on the ice and broken his ankle.
Instantly fired--no job, no paycheck, no health care. Schultz' mother couldn't work--she was seven months pregnant.
For months, they lived hand-to-mouth, borrowing from friends, fending off bill collectors.
Today Howard Schultz employs 140,000 people. Not one of them is paid just the minimum wage. Even working 20 hours a week, those employees are eligible for full health benefits.
Howard Schultz is who he is because of what he learned as a child.
What are our children learning?
diderot
Instantly fired--no job, no paycheck, no health care. Schultz' mother couldn't work--she was seven months pregnant.
For months, they lived hand-to-mouth, borrowing from friends, fending off bill collectors.
Today Howard Schultz employs 140,000 people. Not one of them is paid just the minimum wage. Even working 20 hours a week, those employees are eligible for full health benefits.
Howard Schultz is who he is because of what he learned as a child.
What are our children learning?
diderot
Barack's Problem
Very simple. He's tired. Dog tired.
Pulled-an-all-nighter tired.
Drank with the boys until dawn when I knew I had an 8am meeting tired.
He's off his game. On Larry King Live tonight, there were too many 'uhs', too many, 'wells...'.
The guy has got to take four or five days off. Recharge. But how do you do that without the press immediately asking what took him away from the campaign trail?
The most impressive guy at the party...isn't very impressive right now.
diderot
Pulled-an-all-nighter tired.
Drank with the boys until dawn when I knew I had an 8am meeting tired.
He's off his game. On Larry King Live tonight, there were too many 'uhs', too many, 'wells...'.
The guy has got to take four or five days off. Recharge. But how do you do that without the press immediately asking what took him away from the campaign trail?
The most impressive guy at the party...isn't very impressive right now.
diderot
It's a Crime
The ability of the Bush Administration to frame an issue is beyond reproach. All politics aside for a moment, this is truly a skill honed to a fine edge by its practitioners both inside and outside the White House. If there were not so much at stake, it could even be called a marvel. In my mind, it's certainly something the historians will cite as a hallmark of these eight years...long after we're all gone.
The current uproar over the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys has been countered with three standard answers from the right wing, each designed to reframe the argument:
-- Those are political appointments--they serve at the 'pleasure of the President'
-- Thus, no law was broken
-- Clinton did it too
(Yes, that last one is pretty much a standard response to anything, and a proven winner in that it never fails to distract the media).
However, the real issue has nothing to do with politics. The point is not what Bush did--but why he did it. And when you fire a U.S. Attorney for refusing to pursue political opponents on charges he does not think are justified...or when you fire another for pursuing charges against political cronies who she does think warrant presecution...that's called obstruction of justice.
And it's a crime.
diderot
The current uproar over the firing of the eight U.S. Attorneys has been countered with three standard answers from the right wing, each designed to reframe the argument:
-- Those are political appointments--they serve at the 'pleasure of the President'
-- Thus, no law was broken
-- Clinton did it too
(Yes, that last one is pretty much a standard response to anything, and a proven winner in that it never fails to distract the media).
However, the real issue has nothing to do with politics. The point is not what Bush did--but why he did it. And when you fire a U.S. Attorney for refusing to pursue political opponents on charges he does not think are justified...or when you fire another for pursuing charges against political cronies who she does think warrant presecution...that's called obstruction of justice.
And it's a crime.
diderot
Four More Years?
Today is the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Today the clueless Condi Rice was on the Today Show attempting to explain what has gone well. Saddam is gone--that was her key message. Yes, he was a maniacal nut job. But so is her boss. The invasion has left at least 60,000 Iraqis dead--and maybe multiples of that. Anyone Iraqi with enough money to afford it has left. Would you stay there and risk you family's safety?
The need to get out by next year is now a majority opinion in America. Except in Congress. Except inside the Beltway, where the right wing manipulators continue to sway the pundit class.
How much longer will it take for the obvious to be acted upon? Four more years?
diderot
The need to get out by next year is now a majority opinion in America. Except in Congress. Except inside the Beltway, where the right wing manipulators continue to sway the pundit class.
How much longer will it take for the obvious to be acted upon? Four more years?
diderot
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Great Unraveling
You can argue all night about the best baseball player, the best actor, the best tuba player. But in my mind, there is no argument about who possesses the single best insight into the crimes of the Bush administration--Sidney Blumenthal (who does Chicago proud).
His latest, on what may well be the final unraveling of the Bush era (courtesy of Salon.com)...
His latest, on what may well be the final unraveling of the Bush era (courtesy of Salon.com)...
All roads lead to Rove
The White House political director was clearly at the center of the partisan plot to fire U.S. attorneys, despite the administration's clumsy attempts to pretend otherwise.By Sidney Blumenthal
Mar. 15, 2007 | The Bush administration's first instinct was to shield Karl Rove from scrutiny when Congress began inquiring about the unusual firings of eight U.S. attorneys. Among the replacements, the proposed new U.S. attorney for Arkansas happened to be one of Rove's most devoted underlings, his head of opposition research, Tim Griffin, who boasted during the 2000 presidential election about the effectiveness of the negative campaign against Al Gore: "We make the bullets!" Griffin also posted a sign in his department at Bush headquarters: "Rain hell on Al!" A letter written by the Department of Justice in late February informed Congress: "The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin." Despite this categorical disavowal, a sheaf of internal Justice Department e-mails released this week to Congress under subpoena revealed Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff, writing in mid-December 2006, "I know getting him appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc." Harriet, of course, was Harriet Miers, then the White House legal counsel.
The Justice Department's statement on Karl Rove was simply one part of its coverup. The department's three top officials -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty and William E. Moschella, principal associate deputy attorney general -- all testified before Congress under oath that the dismissed U.S. attorneys had been removed for "performance" reasons, not because they had been insufficiently partisan in their prosecution of Democrats or because they would be replaced by those who would be. Yet another Sampson e-mail, sent to Miers in March 2005, had ranked all 93 U.S. attorneys on the basis of being "good performers," those who "exhibited loyalty" to the administration, or "low performers," those who "chafed against Administration initiatives, etc."
The day before the e-mails were made public Sampson resigned, offering a classic fall-guy statement, claiming that he was the one who failed to inform Gonzales and other officials about the firings. Sampson, who was Gonzales' closest aide, accompanying him from the White House Counsel's Office to the Justice Department when Gonzales was appointed attorney general, had sought to become a U.S. attorney himself through the purge. And Sampson was considered to be politically adept enough to be considered a stand-in for the supposedly indispensable Rove. When it was rumored that Rove might be indicted in the Valerie Plame case, the Washington Post reported that Sampson was likely to replace him.
Sampson's abrupt departure was followed by Gonzales' bizarre press conference on Wednesday. Speaking in a passive voice that "mistakes were made," he pleaded ignorance of "all decisions" at his department, explained that it has 110,000 employees, appealed to his modest origins, and promised to oversee the investigation of his own misfeasance. His defense was the very grounds used to fire the U.S. attorneys: poor performance. He used his failure as a shield.
But the day before, Gonzales' ignorance defense had already been punctured. A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, acknowledged that the U.S. attorneys' dismissals were preceded by a conversation between President Bush and Gonzales last October in which Bush complained that some prosecutors were not pursuing voter fraud investigations. These were, in fact, cases that Rove thought were especially important to Republicans.
Rove was the conduit for Republican political grievances about the U.S. attorneys. He was the fulcrum and the lever. He was the collector of information and the magnet of power. He was the originator, formulator and director. But, initially, according to the administration, like Gonzales, he supposedly knew nothing and did nothing.
Even after the administration alibis had collapsed, the White House trotted out Dan Bartlett, the cool and calm communications director, to engage in a bit of cognitive dissonance. There was no plot, and maybe Rove was involved in the thing that didn't happen. "You're trying to connect a lot of dots that aren't connectible," Bartlett said, adding, "It wouldn't be surprising that Karl or other people were receiving these complaints." Thus the "dots" are invisible and Rove is at their center.
To the extent that the facts are known, Rove keeps surfacing in the middle of the scandal. And it is implausible that Sampson, the latest designated fall guy, was responsible for an elaborate bureaucratic coup d'état. Nor is it credible that Gonzales -- or Harriet Miers, who has yet to be heard -- saw or heard no evil. Neither is it reasonable that Gonzales or Miers, both once Bush's personal attorneys in Texas, getting him out of scrapes such as his drunken driving arrest, could be the political geniuses behind the firings. Gonzales' and Miers' service is notable for their obedience, lack of originality and eagerness to act as tools. The scheme bears the marks of Rove's obsessions, methods and sources. His history contains a wealth of precedents in which he manipulated law enforcement for political purposes. And his long-term strategy for permanent Republican control of government depended on remaking the federal government to create his ultimate goal -- a one-party state.
"We're a go for the US Atty plan," White House deputy counsel William Kelley notified the Justice Department on Dec. 4, 2006, three days before seven of the eight U.S. attorneys were dismissed. "WH leg[islative affairs], political, and communications have signed off..."
From the earliest Republican campaigns that Rove ran in Texas, beginning in 1986, the FBI was involved in investigating every one of his candidates' Democratic opponents. Rove happened to have a close and mysterious relationship with the chief of the FBI office in Austin. Investigations were announced as elections grew close, but there were rarely indictments, just tainted Democrats and victorious Republicans. On one occasion, Rove himself proclaimed that the FBI had a prominent Democrat under investigation -- an investigation that led to Rove's client's win. In 1990, the Texas Democratic Party chairman issued a statement: "The recurring leaks of purported FBI investigations of Democratic candidates during election campaigns is highly questionable and repugnant."
A year later, Rove received a reward. Gov. Bill Clements, a Rove client, appointed him to the East Texas State University board of regents. Appearing before the state Senate's Nominations Committee, a Democratic senator asked Rove about how long he had known the local FBI chief. "Ah, Senator," replied Rove, "it depends. Would you define 'know' for me?"
Rising to the White House as Bush's chief political strategist, Rove well understood the power of U.S. attorneys to damage Democrats and protect Republicans, and he paid close attention to their selection. When U.S. senators, who recommend the U.S. attorneys for their districts, wanted a more independent-minded professional, Rove leaned on them. In 2001, he instructed Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill., to sponsor a safe choice from within Republican state circles. Rove "just said we don't want you going outside the state. We don't want to be moving U.S. attorneys around," Fitzgerald told the Chicago Tribune on March 12. But Sen. Fitzgerald would not relent, and his nominee, Patrick Fitzgerald, an assistant U.S. attorney from New York, became the U.S. attorney in Illinois, where he successfully prosecuted Republicans, including the incumbent governor, George Ryan, for corruption, and went on to be appointed special prosecutor in the Plame case. "That Fitzgerald appointment got great headlines for you, but it ticked off the base," Rove told Sen. Fitzgerald.
In 2002, the first midterm elections of the Bush presidency, Republicans systematically raised charges of voter fraud involving Native Americans in the hotly contended U.S. Senate race in South Dakota. Though the accusations were never proved and the GOP failed to depose the Democratic senator, Tim Johnson, the campaign served as a template.
By the election of 2004, Rove became a repository of charges of voter fraud across the country, from Philadelphia to Milwaukee to New Mexico, all in swing states. In the campaign, unproven voter fraud charges, always aimed at minority voters, became a leitmotif of Republican efforts.
In Washington state, when the Democrat won the governorship by 129 votes, the state Republican Party chairman, Chris Vance, demanded that U.S. attorney John McKay tell him the status of his investigation. At that time, Vance was in constant contact with Rove. "I thought it was part of my job, to be a conduit," Vance told the Seattle Times. "We had a Republican secretary of state, a Republican prosecutor in King County and a Republican U.S. attorney, and no one was doing anything." McKay refused to have any conversation about an investigation. And he found no basis for charging anyone with voter fraud. In a Sept. 13, 2006, e-mail, Kyle Sampson identified McKay as one of those "we should now consider pushing out" -- and he was among the eight attorneys fired.
In 2006, Rove addressed the Republican Lawyers Association on the "growing problem," as he put it, of voter fraud. Every instance he cited was in a swing state. New Mexico was one of them.
Rove had heard complaints from the New Mexico Republican Party chairman, Allen Weh, about David Iglesias, the state's U.S. attorney, for his supposed refusal to indict Democrats for voter fraud. Iglesias appeared to be a dream figure for local Republicans -- the model for the movie "A Few Good Men," Hispanic and evangelical. "Is anything ever going to happen to that guy?" Weh asked Rove at a White House Christmas party. "He's gone," Rove replied. Indeed, Iglesias' firing was already a done deal.
In California, it was time for payback against U.S. attorney Carol Lam, who had prosecuted Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in the most flagrant corruption case involving a member of Congress. Her probe was expanding to encompass the dealings of Rep. Jerry Lewis, another California Republican. On May 11, 2006, Sampson e-mailed the White House Counsel's Office regarding "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam." Soon, she was axed, one of the eight.
Those fired were not completely "loyal," as Sampson's e-mails emphasized. But to what policies should a prosecutor be "loyal"? Two academics, Donald C. Shields of the University of Missouri and John F. Cragan of Illinois State University, studied the pattern of U.S. attorneys' prosecutions under the Bush administration. Their conclusions in their study, "The Political Profiling of Elected Democratic Officials," are that "across the nation from 2001 through 2006 the Bush Justice Department investigated Democratic office holders and candidates at a rate more than four times greater (nearly 80 percent to 18 percent) than they investigated Republican office holders and seekers." They also report, "Data indicate that the offices of the U.S. Attorneys across the nation investigate seven times as many Democratic officials as they investigate Republican officials, a number that exceeds even the racial profiling of African Americans in traffic stops." Thus what the 85 U.S. attorneys who were not dismissed are doing is starkly detailed.
If the Democrats hadn't won the midterm elections last year there is no reason to believe that the plan to use the U.S. attorneys for political prosecutions -- as they have been used systematically under Bush -- wouldn't have gone forward completely unimpeded. Without the new Congress issuing subpoenas, there would be no exposure, no hearings, no press conferences -- no questions at all.
The replacement of the eight fired U.S. attorneys through a loophole in the Patriot Act that enables the administration to evade consultation with and confirmation by Congress is a convenient element in the well-laid scheme. But it was not ad hoc, erratic or aberrant. Rather, it was the logical outcome of a long effort to distort the constitutional framework for partisan consolidation of power into a de facto one-party state.
This effort began two generations ago with Richard Nixon's drive to forge an imperial presidency, using extralegal powers of government to aggrandize unaccountable power in the executive and destroy political opposition. Nixon was thwarted in the Watergate scandal. We will never know his full malevolent intentions, but we do know that in the aftermath of the 1972 election he wanted to remake the executive branch to create what the Bush administration now calls a "unitary executive." Nixon later explained his core doctrine: "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." Karl Rove is the rightful heir to Nixonian politics. His first notice in politics occurred as a witness before the Senate Watergate Committee. From Nixon to Bush, Rove is the single continuous character involved in the tactics and strategy of political subterfuge.
diderot
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Tony Soprano Says...
"You know my feelings. Every day is a gift. It's just, why does it always have to be a pair of socks?"
Traitors
In physiology, the word, 'accommodation' has a special meaning. It's what a nerve does when it's constantly stimulated--say, by a paper cut. It hurts like hell right away...and certainly keeps hurting for a long while...but not as severely as at first. The nervous system is 'accommodating' the pain to make it more manageable.
This is a lot like the response of the body politic to the Bush Administration. After a while, you're simply dulled to more outrage in what those people are doing to destroy our country. But even amidst the nightmare of Iraq, the lingering sorrow of Katrina, the endless hypocrisies and outright lies, we need to marshall strength to fully internalize the danger represented by the firings of U.S. Attorneys who were deemed insufficiently political.
One of the hallmark boogeymen of the radical right is the 'activist judge'--someone who will put his own personal political views above the law. As with so many other of their yelps, this is pure projection--assigning to others the exact thing which you, yourself, are guilty of.
A case in point is the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., longtime clubhouse for activist judges of the radical right. Two members with impeccable whack-job credentials, David Sentelle and Laurance Silberman (now retired), have been vital instruments for attack dog conservatives. Sentelle was a full co-conspirator in the costly and fruitless Ken Starr follies. Silberman served as co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, where he helped fully shift blame from the White House to the intelligence community for the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Other current and former GOP appointees to this panel include Robert Bork ('high executioner' for Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate era), Clarence Thomas (steadfast supporter of 'states rights' until he flip-flopped in order to deliver the throne to Bush in 2000), Antonin Scalia (see description for Thomas), Ken Starr (raised as the son of a Texas Church of Christ minister, which fueled a lifelong obsession with other people's sex lives), and current Chief Justice John Roberts (the 'good one', who claimed no intent to overturn Roe v. Wade, despite being married to a member of the oxymoronically named Feminists for Life).
These 'jurists' define the danger of the 'activist judge'. Historically, they will bend or break the law in any way required to make sure that their particular beliefs are served. These are the kind of people who voice no concern when a delegation of right wing congressional aides is dispatched to Palm Beach County to bang long enough and hard enough on glass windows until the court-mandated recount of a presidential election by terrified workers is permanently ended. Scalia is the one who explained his vote on that same election issue as necessary, or '...candidate Bush might be deprived of his victory'. Not an activist bone in that body, is there?
Anyway, if you're clued in at all to the controversy over the U.S. Attorneys General, the White House now admits its role in a plan to replace certain of those prosecutors based on criteria that included those who, "...exhibited loyalty" to the administration, or those conversely who, "...chafed against administration initiatives". The U.S. Attorney in Arkansas was dumped in order to make room for an assistant to Karl Rove. The young, 30-something aide at the Justice Department assigned to carry out this plan was himself lobbying for appointment to the prosecutor's job in his home state of Utah.
The story gained momentum when it was revealed over the weekend that a prosecutor in New Mexico had received phone calls from a GOP member of the U.S. Senate...and a GOP Congresswoman...to make sure indictments of key Democrats were announced before the 2006 elections. When he refused to make that promise, he was hung up on. And soon thereafter, he was gone.
How can this be possible? Be legal? Actually, it wasn't--until a provision allowing it passed through unnoticed as part of the Patriot Act. At the time, many Americans trusted these people to keep us safe. But what happens when the people protecting you...are the ones you need protection from?
The simple paper cut may mend over time. But the Bush crew slices deeper every day. There is no accommodation. Their incision has now reached muscle, and threatens bone. How do we make the pain go away?
diderot
This is a lot like the response of the body politic to the Bush Administration. After a while, you're simply dulled to more outrage in what those people are doing to destroy our country. But even amidst the nightmare of Iraq, the lingering sorrow of Katrina, the endless hypocrisies and outright lies, we need to marshall strength to fully internalize the danger represented by the firings of U.S. Attorneys who were deemed insufficiently political.
One of the hallmark boogeymen of the radical right is the 'activist judge'--someone who will put his own personal political views above the law. As with so many other of their yelps, this is pure projection--assigning to others the exact thing which you, yourself, are guilty of.
A case in point is the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., longtime clubhouse for activist judges of the radical right. Two members with impeccable whack-job credentials, David Sentelle and Laurance Silberman (now retired), have been vital instruments for attack dog conservatives. Sentelle was a full co-conspirator in the costly and fruitless Ken Starr follies. Silberman served as co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, where he helped fully shift blame from the White House to the intelligence community for the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Other current and former GOP appointees to this panel include Robert Bork ('high executioner' for Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate era), Clarence Thomas (steadfast supporter of 'states rights' until he flip-flopped in order to deliver the throne to Bush in 2000), Antonin Scalia (see description for Thomas), Ken Starr (raised as the son of a Texas Church of Christ minister, which fueled a lifelong obsession with other people's sex lives), and current Chief Justice John Roberts (the 'good one', who claimed no intent to overturn Roe v. Wade, despite being married to a member of the oxymoronically named Feminists for Life).
These 'jurists' define the danger of the 'activist judge'. Historically, they will bend or break the law in any way required to make sure that their particular beliefs are served. These are the kind of people who voice no concern when a delegation of right wing congressional aides is dispatched to Palm Beach County to bang long enough and hard enough on glass windows until the court-mandated recount of a presidential election by terrified workers is permanently ended. Scalia is the one who explained his vote on that same election issue as necessary, or '...candidate Bush might be deprived of his victory'. Not an activist bone in that body, is there?
Anyway, if you're clued in at all to the controversy over the U.S. Attorneys General, the White House now admits its role in a plan to replace certain of those prosecutors based on criteria that included those who, "...exhibited loyalty" to the administration, or those conversely who, "...chafed against administration initiatives". The U.S. Attorney in Arkansas was dumped in order to make room for an assistant to Karl Rove. The young, 30-something aide at the Justice Department assigned to carry out this plan was himself lobbying for appointment to the prosecutor's job in his home state of Utah.
The story gained momentum when it was revealed over the weekend that a prosecutor in New Mexico had received phone calls from a GOP member of the U.S. Senate...and a GOP Congresswoman...to make sure indictments of key Democrats were announced before the 2006 elections. When he refused to make that promise, he was hung up on. And soon thereafter, he was gone.
How can this be possible? Be legal? Actually, it wasn't--until a provision allowing it passed through unnoticed as part of the Patriot Act. At the time, many Americans trusted these people to keep us safe. But what happens when the people protecting you...are the ones you need protection from?
The simple paper cut may mend over time. But the Bush crew slices deeper every day. There is no accommodation. Their incision has now reached muscle, and threatens bone. How do we make the pain go away?
diderot
Media Sins: Sex Sells
I don't know that I've ever been called a prude, but even I have my limits.
I enjoy prime time dramas that can present issues revolving around sexuality in an intriguing or even humorous manner--the new NBC show Friday Night Lights is a good example, I think. But as we've all seen, too often sex presented in a purely exploitative light is the last refuge of a desperate TV executive producer.
A case in point is the Today Show--once the indomitable force of morning TV. But recently, ratings have declined. Consequently, we get a pre-show tease this morning promoting the following stories:
This is the same Today Show that will regularly lament ever-earlier sexual experimentation by teens, and the pornographic dangers that loom on the Internet.
Sophocles is generally credited with first writing the words, 'look to thyself'.
Maybe he had just finished watching Matt and Meredith.
diderot
I enjoy prime time dramas that can present issues revolving around sexuality in an intriguing or even humorous manner--the new NBC show Friday Night Lights is a good example, I think. But as we've all seen, too often sex presented in a purely exploitative light is the last refuge of a desperate TV executive producer.
A case in point is the Today Show--once the indomitable force of morning TV. But recently, ratings have declined. Consequently, we get a pre-show tease this morning promoting the following stories:
- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff calls homosexuality 'immoral'
- Presidential candidates with histories of infidelities--can they be elected?
- 'Victim' of a sexual liaison with a (hot, blond, young female) teacher in Colorado on set for an 'exclusive' interview (!)
- New research showing that men's sperm count may decrease with age (!)
This is the same Today Show that will regularly lament ever-earlier sexual experimentation by teens, and the pornographic dangers that loom on the Internet.
Sophocles is generally credited with first writing the words, 'look to thyself'.
Maybe he had just finished watching Matt and Meredith.
diderot
Monday, March 12, 2007
Blame Baseball
Even the nation's sportswriters sometimes get tired of writing about baseball and its steroid 'scandals' (while somehow ignoring the fact that the average size of NFL players mysteriously increases by about 25 pounds of muscle every two weeks).
So, as a change of pace, these writers have now picked up a new fungo to beat MLB ownership about its collective head--the multi-market game broadcast license granted exclusively to DirecTV.
Now, off the top, I'm not saying this is a good thing. Even though I don't know how any of the traditional networks, or even ESPN, could ever devote enough bandwidth to give you access to virtually every game played. Would cable systems even agree to add to, or 'borrow' enough of, their existing channel menu to allow this? I don't know--and again, that's not my point.
What needs to be underscored is that this scenario--giving all-game rights exclusively to DirecTV--is actually not newsworthy at all. Because the NFL has been doing exactly the same thing for the last five years or so.
Have you ever heard a peep of complaint about that? No. Because it's the NFL. Deep in the recesses of the sportwriter mind is simple contrast: "Baseball ownership--bad. All other sports ownerships--good."
I worked in print and broadcast news for 20 years. I can assure you that sports reporters are not highly regarded among their peers on the basis of pure intellect.
This opinion is not unwarranted.
diderot
So, as a change of pace, these writers have now picked up a new fungo to beat MLB ownership about its collective head--the multi-market game broadcast license granted exclusively to DirecTV.
Now, off the top, I'm not saying this is a good thing. Even though I don't know how any of the traditional networks, or even ESPN, could ever devote enough bandwidth to give you access to virtually every game played. Would cable systems even agree to add to, or 'borrow' enough of, their existing channel menu to allow this? I don't know--and again, that's not my point.
What needs to be underscored is that this scenario--giving all-game rights exclusively to DirecTV--is actually not newsworthy at all. Because the NFL has been doing exactly the same thing for the last five years or so.
Have you ever heard a peep of complaint about that? No. Because it's the NFL. Deep in the recesses of the sportwriter mind is simple contrast: "Baseball ownership--bad. All other sports ownerships--good."
I worked in print and broadcast news for 20 years. I can assure you that sports reporters are not highly regarded among their peers on the basis of pure intellect.
This opinion is not unwarranted.
diderot
Friday, March 9, 2007
Bill Walsh
Good story in Sports Illustrated this week on Bill Walsh, the former 49ers coach and his bout with leukemia. It had a little special meaning for me.
Way back in 1986 I was at a clinic in Chicago at the O’Hare Hyatt. Bill Walsh was one of the guest speakers and of course the room was full. He did a nice job speaking on the West Coast Offense but a little too sophisticated for most of the high school coaches (especially the ones with huge bellies who wouldn’t know a dig route from a stalk block). He thanked the audience and with Dennis Green left the podium stating he had to catch a plane back.
About 20 minutes later, after trying to explain some of what he said to a couple other guys, I was going back to my room. In a corner of the lobby were Walsh and Green, pretty much hidden out of sight, but it wouldn’t have mattered anyway because the free beer for the coaches was on another floor. I just wanted to go over, introduce myself, thank him for his insight and leave him alone. I pumped up, walked over, introduced myself as a HS head coach down in the Peoria area and so forth. It turned out that his plane was delayed and rather than waiting at the airport they decided to wait at the hotel.
I started to walk away and Walsh said, “Coach, if you’ve got a couple minutes I could go into a little more detail on the offense because with the time I had we just scratched the surface”.
'No Coach, I have to go drink beer with a bunch of high school guys up on level 3 can you wait'? He looked at me, saw that I was being my usual sarcastic self and started to laugh. So there I was in the seat next to Dennis Green and Bill Walsh in the time it takes to say, 'mother may I'. I was there for exactly 46 minutes--I know it was 46 because I looked at my watch and timed it. When a concierge came to tell them their car was waiting we got up, shook hands and he complimented me on the quality of my questions and my overall comprehension. Now he could have been lying through his teeth but I don’t think so, not at all. So here is what I learned (other than football X’s and O’s) from Bill Walsh:
--NEVER overestimate your opponent--not underestimate but overestimate. His theory was that too many coaches worry about situations that will probably never happen instead of practicing their own stuff to make the opposition burn practice time in needless preparation. Boy, is that one true. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen defensive coaches change everything they are trying to do so that they can “cover” your formations and motion. My defensive guys would always worry about motion here and motion there and I would tell them, “What do they run from all these motions?” And they would say, "the same stuff they always run." So what are you worried about? And they would always give me the, “what if”. Screw the what if--nobody has that much time to do all that stuff. Consequently I learned to use lots of formations and motion but very few actual plays. Worked for me and for Walsh.
--Never stop tweaking what you do, especially when you are successful; keep finding ways to disguise and misdirect.
--Attitude and effort are more valuable than talent. He said, 'now when you have Jerry Rice you have both which is ideal', but always take effort and attitude over talent.
--Just because no one is doing it, don’t be afraid to try something innovative and new because from that you get your best ideas. He made the comparison to surgery and told me that almost every major surgical procedure has come from what was learned treating the wounded in war. Interesting.
--Treat your assistants with respect and dignity and always help them to be upwardly mobile if that’s what they want to do. This line is the main subject in the article. No one in football history has had a greater influence on the number of coaches now working in the NFL and college.
Hortense
Way back in 1986 I was at a clinic in Chicago at the O’Hare Hyatt. Bill Walsh was one of the guest speakers and of course the room was full. He did a nice job speaking on the West Coast Offense but a little too sophisticated for most of the high school coaches (especially the ones with huge bellies who wouldn’t know a dig route from a stalk block). He thanked the audience and with Dennis Green left the podium stating he had to catch a plane back.
About 20 minutes later, after trying to explain some of what he said to a couple other guys, I was going back to my room. In a corner of the lobby were Walsh and Green, pretty much hidden out of sight, but it wouldn’t have mattered anyway because the free beer for the coaches was on another floor. I just wanted to go over, introduce myself, thank him for his insight and leave him alone. I pumped up, walked over, introduced myself as a HS head coach down in the Peoria area and so forth. It turned out that his plane was delayed and rather than waiting at the airport they decided to wait at the hotel.
I started to walk away and Walsh said, “Coach, if you’ve got a couple minutes I could go into a little more detail on the offense because with the time I had we just scratched the surface”.
'No Coach, I have to go drink beer with a bunch of high school guys up on level 3 can you wait'? He looked at me, saw that I was being my usual sarcastic self and started to laugh. So there I was in the seat next to Dennis Green and Bill Walsh in the time it takes to say, 'mother may I'. I was there for exactly 46 minutes--I know it was 46 because I looked at my watch and timed it. When a concierge came to tell them their car was waiting we got up, shook hands and he complimented me on the quality of my questions and my overall comprehension. Now he could have been lying through his teeth but I don’t think so, not at all. So here is what I learned (other than football X’s and O’s) from Bill Walsh:
--NEVER overestimate your opponent--not underestimate but overestimate. His theory was that too many coaches worry about situations that will probably never happen instead of practicing their own stuff to make the opposition burn practice time in needless preparation. Boy, is that one true. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen defensive coaches change everything they are trying to do so that they can “cover” your formations and motion. My defensive guys would always worry about motion here and motion there and I would tell them, “What do they run from all these motions?” And they would say, "the same stuff they always run." So what are you worried about? And they would always give me the, “what if”. Screw the what if--nobody has that much time to do all that stuff. Consequently I learned to use lots of formations and motion but very few actual plays. Worked for me and for Walsh.
--Never stop tweaking what you do, especially when you are successful; keep finding ways to disguise and misdirect.
--Attitude and effort are more valuable than talent. He said, 'now when you have Jerry Rice you have both which is ideal', but always take effort and attitude over talent.
--Just because no one is doing it, don’t be afraid to try something innovative and new because from that you get your best ideas. He made the comparison to surgery and told me that almost every major surgical procedure has come from what was learned treating the wounded in war. Interesting.
--Treat your assistants with respect and dignity and always help them to be upwardly mobile if that’s what they want to do. This line is the main subject in the article. No one in football history has had a greater influence on the number of coaches now working in the NFL and college.
Hortense
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
A Chicago Story: Cheeseburgers
The Three Guys were emailing yesterday and I mentioned my strong memory of the first time I ever ordered something by myself in a restaurant: a cheeseburger when I was about 10 or 11. It was a single-counter, bowling-alley shaped greasy spoon in my neighborhood. What I remember most is how quickly I finished that and paid, absolutely petrified I was doing something wrong.
Oketo answered with a similar, but much better story:
'It was a place called Brown's, after its owners, Dickie Brown (who went to my grammar school) and his older brother (whose name escapes me), who was killed years later drag racing on Dee road when it still known as Forest Preserve Drive. Anyway, same thing, I took my 59 cents and ordered a cheeseburger.
Now, I was afraid that I would be seen doing this since 59 cents was a lot of money to my family and they would not want it wasted on a burger. Like you, I can still remember how afraid I was of ordering wrong or being seen. Once they gave me the burger I took it out of the store and road my bike to Oriole Park to eat it. Theory being it was natural for me to be at the park but not on Harlem avenue--if seen.
So, I get to the park but by the time I get there the grease has eaten through the paper bag and the cheeseburger falls on the ground. The bun opens and the meat lands on the ground. It picks up stones, cinders, dirt etc. However, I was not about to throw away this watershed moment so I scraped off the crap and ate it. It's funny. That incident is so ingrained in my head I can still remember the fear of being seen and the actual taste of that burger with all the sidewalk condiments. Why would those experiences be so vivid for each of us after all this time?'
Oketo answered with a similar, but much better story:
'It was a place called Brown's, after its owners, Dickie Brown (who went to my grammar school) and his older brother (whose name escapes me), who was killed years later drag racing on Dee road when it still known as Forest Preserve Drive. Anyway, same thing, I took my 59 cents and ordered a cheeseburger.
Now, I was afraid that I would be seen doing this since 59 cents was a lot of money to my family and they would not want it wasted on a burger. Like you, I can still remember how afraid I was of ordering wrong or being seen. Once they gave me the burger I took it out of the store and road my bike to Oriole Park to eat it. Theory being it was natural for me to be at the park but not on Harlem avenue--if seen.
So, I get to the park but by the time I get there the grease has eaten through the paper bag and the cheeseburger falls on the ground. The bun opens and the meat lands on the ground. It picks up stones, cinders, dirt etc. However, I was not about to throw away this watershed moment so I scraped off the crap and ate it. It's funny. That incident is so ingrained in my head I can still remember the fear of being seen and the actual taste of that burger with all the sidewalk condiments. Why would those experiences be so vivid for each of us after all this time?'
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Two Sets of Books
Amid the fallout this week over the conditions endured by some rehabilitating war veterans at the Walter Reed Medical Center, there is an admission that should not be ignored--in fact, it should be shouted from the rooftops.
ABC News anchorman Bob Woodruff--himself a casualty in the Iraqi theatre--reported that there are actually 'two sets of books' recording the number of wounded U.S. service people in this pointless war. The first, for public consumption, puts the count at about 23,000. The second, the one we've never seen, says 205,000.
205,000.
Why the discrepancy? One spokesman explained that a lot of those additional patients are just seeking dental treatment.
Remember, the people who launched this war--those hideous, delusional, treasonous liars--are the ones who tout their concern for our 'brave people in uniform'. But they are, in reality, the ones who ignore them.
Shame on them.
diderot
ABC News anchorman Bob Woodruff--himself a casualty in the Iraqi theatre--reported that there are actually 'two sets of books' recording the number of wounded U.S. service people in this pointless war. The first, for public consumption, puts the count at about 23,000. The second, the one we've never seen, says 205,000.
205,000.
Why the discrepancy? One spokesman explained that a lot of those additional patients are just seeking dental treatment.
Remember, the people who launched this war--those hideous, delusional, treasonous liars--are the ones who tout their concern for our 'brave people in uniform'. But they are, in reality, the ones who ignore them.
Shame on them.
diderot
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Who am I?
Let's face it. We're Americans. Nothing fascinates us nearly as much as ourselves.
But are we who we think we are?
Here's another way to test yourself...and your loved ones, if you can make them promise to reveal their profile (scroll down to the questions).
diderot
But are we who we think we are?
Here's another way to test yourself...and your loved ones, if you can make them promise to reveal their profile (scroll down to the questions).
diderot
Friday, March 2, 2007
17%
When I was in the news business, we aired a lot of stories about 'first woman this', and 'first woman that'. Couldn't get enough of those landmark accomplishments.
You don't hear nearly as many of those anymore. Maybe this is why.
While equality is still some distance away, there's no disputing how far the world has come, on a number of fronts. Progressives are winning.
Now, if we could just get those poor women out of their burkas...
diderot
You don't hear nearly as many of those anymore. Maybe this is why.
While equality is still some distance away, there's no disputing how far the world has come, on a number of fronts. Progressives are winning.
Now, if we could just get those poor women out of their burkas...
diderot
Thursday, March 1, 2007
In Defense of Baseball
In spring, a young man's fancy turns to thoughts of...spring training.
And I have no doubt this baseball season is going to be a trying one, with attention all season long perversely tuned in to Barry Bonds' pursuit of the career home run record. Sort of like the sporting version of the Anna Nicole Smith decomposition. (And how ironic that Bonds reportedly is subjected to constant death threats because his accomplishments are 'tainted' by drug use. It wasn't too many years ago that Hank Aaron, the man who holds the record, was himself subjected to similar treatment because his efforts were 'tainted' due to the color of his skin.)
In any case, this will only ratchet up the complaints of trouble-makers like hortense who proclaim, "baseball is NOT the national pastime anymore!" To which I can only reply, "duh!"
Baseball was dominant in the first half of the last century for a lot of good reasons. First of all, it was effectively the only sport. The NFL was in its infancy. College sports were mainly the concern of the few who went to college. The NBA and NHL and, amazingly, even snowboarding didn't even exist yet.
What's more, the game was woven into the fabric of life. Everyone played in the afternoon. You would probably take your break from the factory floor and run into the sales office, where they had a radio, to get an update on the score. On the way home on the streetcar, you might hear, "yeah, Appling doubled his first two times up, drove in three runs, and we held on, 4-2." At dinner, especially if there were sons in the family, information would be shared on exactly what had happened...and, "by the way, did you hear the darn Yankees won again?" Even a disinterested wife or daughter could not avoid being exposed to the names and the lingo of the game. It had no competition; it did not divide on the basis of politics or religion (and eventually, even on race); and in most places, it was as safe as talking about the weather, even if Cubs/Sox or Yankee/Giant/Dodger loyalties did generate more lively discussion in some cities.
Yes, those days are gone. And in that sense, obviously baseball is no more the national pastime than churning your own butter. But this is different--FAR DIFFERENT--from the erroneous accompanying claim that baseball is no longer America's favorite sport. The elevation of this myth to accepted fact is largely backed by the assertion, "football has better TV ratings." Like a White House spinmaster standing behind his podium, this is a distracting, fallacious claim designed to deflect attention from the actual truth.
Yes, on a Sunday afternoon in Cincinnati in the middle of October, more people are going to be watching the Bengals game on TV than were viewing the Reds play on a Tuesday night a couple months before. But so what? The NFL plays one day a week. The NBA and NHL a couple times a week. Colleges follow a similar schedule. Baseball plays virtually every day for six months. Detractors claim that makes for an 'unfair' comparison. So what? You want fair? Have the NFL play six times a week.
It seems obvious to the point of absurdity to compare how many people actually buy tickets to attend sporting events in a season--period. (And total TV ratings follow in lockstep). Isn't this the way leadership is judged anywhere else? Is the nation's 'number one' automobile determined by how many vehicles are sold after 7pm? Do corporations report their sales and earnings just based on what happened south of the Mason-Dixon line? "Top" is the equated with "total".
So stop for just a second and guess how many total people annually pay to attend (or view on TV) the following sports: Major League Baseball; minor league baseball; the NFL; college football; the NBA; and college basketball. Rank them in order in your mind.
Then take a look at this and understand who unquestionably is #1:
diderot
And I have no doubt this baseball season is going to be a trying one, with attention all season long perversely tuned in to Barry Bonds' pursuit of the career home run record. Sort of like the sporting version of the Anna Nicole Smith decomposition. (And how ironic that Bonds reportedly is subjected to constant death threats because his accomplishments are 'tainted' by drug use. It wasn't too many years ago that Hank Aaron, the man who holds the record, was himself subjected to similar treatment because his efforts were 'tainted' due to the color of his skin.)
In any case, this will only ratchet up the complaints of trouble-makers like hortense who proclaim, "baseball is NOT the national pastime anymore!" To which I can only reply, "duh!"
Baseball was dominant in the first half of the last century for a lot of good reasons. First of all, it was effectively the only sport. The NFL was in its infancy. College sports were mainly the concern of the few who went to college. The NBA and NHL and, amazingly, even snowboarding didn't even exist yet.
What's more, the game was woven into the fabric of life. Everyone played in the afternoon. You would probably take your break from the factory floor and run into the sales office, where they had a radio, to get an update on the score. On the way home on the streetcar, you might hear, "yeah, Appling doubled his first two times up, drove in three runs, and we held on, 4-2." At dinner, especially if there were sons in the family, information would be shared on exactly what had happened...and, "by the way, did you hear the darn Yankees won again?" Even a disinterested wife or daughter could not avoid being exposed to the names and the lingo of the game. It had no competition; it did not divide on the basis of politics or religion (and eventually, even on race); and in most places, it was as safe as talking about the weather, even if Cubs/Sox or Yankee/Giant/Dodger loyalties did generate more lively discussion in some cities.
Yes, those days are gone. And in that sense, obviously baseball is no more the national pastime than churning your own butter. But this is different--FAR DIFFERENT--from the erroneous accompanying claim that baseball is no longer America's favorite sport. The elevation of this myth to accepted fact is largely backed by the assertion, "football has better TV ratings." Like a White House spinmaster standing behind his podium, this is a distracting, fallacious claim designed to deflect attention from the actual truth.
Yes, on a Sunday afternoon in Cincinnati in the middle of October, more people are going to be watching the Bengals game on TV than were viewing the Reds play on a Tuesday night a couple months before. But so what? The NFL plays one day a week. The NBA and NHL a couple times a week. Colleges follow a similar schedule. Baseball plays virtually every day for six months. Detractors claim that makes for an 'unfair' comparison. So what? You want fair? Have the NFL play six times a week.
It seems obvious to the point of absurdity to compare how many people actually buy tickets to attend sporting events in a season--period. (And total TV ratings follow in lockstep). Isn't this the way leadership is judged anywhere else? Is the nation's 'number one' automobile determined by how many vehicles are sold after 7pm? Do corporations report their sales and earnings just based on what happened south of the Mason-Dixon line? "Top" is the equated with "total".
So stop for just a second and guess how many total people annually pay to attend (or view on TV) the following sports: Major League Baseball; minor league baseball; the NFL; college football; the NBA; and college basketball. Rank them in order in your mind.
Then take a look at this and understand who unquestionably is #1:
diderot
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Fog of War
Maybe you were on an email list and received a series of these pictures from the Pearl Harbor attack, hidden inside a Kodak Brownie camera for 63 years. It's hard to do a better job of showing 'the fog of war'--what it's like when you're under attack and don't really know what to do. It's the same in Iraq...and was the same for me in Vietnam.
Those pictures of Pearl Harbor, I've scanned them a few times now, even printed a couple up. Can you imagine what was going through those guy's heads when it hit? Yeah, goin' home in a couple weeks for X-mas, get to see the family and so forth, BAM, not now, holy shit, I'm helpless. Now that's the tone I imagine went through each and every person on the island. A feeling of total helplessness.
I only had that experience once, when the Huey I was in got shot down. Going in circles (auto rotate) you have this feeling like whatever is going to happen, make it happen now--I'm scared to death and don't know what to do. Training helps in a fire fight when you expect to be in one and your mind gets prepared so that when the shit happens it's not a surprise and then you can react and counter. It's not unlike a big game situation in football because the physical aspect of the game is there, and you could get your ass kicked big time. It's much more about survival and, if you have leadership responsibilities, protecting those you are fighting with. It is the ultimate us against them mentality.
No one, and I mean no one, in a fire fight stops to think of the possible political/geopolitical outcome of the situation. It's just, "how do I get my ass out of this and prevent my guys from getting killed?" That's it. Survival.
I did know this: I did not want to be taken prisoner under any circumstance. The stories we heard about that stuff were probably exaggerated but they still made me sick. No, I would have been one of those guys who took it before surrender, down with the ship type. Thank goodness I never had to make that decision.
I could tell who to trust, count on, respect (regardless of rank) as soon as the shooting started. Or even as little as 10 minutes after meeting a guy. I had 2 lieutenants, both great, never took needless chances, weren't gung-ho and asked questions. When the second guy came in, the first thing he did was ask me what the hell this (war) was all about. In other words, 'I've been in the states training and I don't know shit about live combat so tell me the real story'. This was good as it gave us the confidence that this guy wasn't gonna march us into a blood bath. We were lucky, there were plenty of the other types of officers and if the VC didn't get them, their own men sometimes did. Like the 1st part of "Band of Brothers" where the guy who played Ross on Friends is put in command. That guy wouldn't have lasted a week in the Nam'.
War is hell.
hortense
Is anyone listening?
How much money can we spend on a war that will never, ever work? 30 billion, 50 billion, why not 500 billion I mean it's only our future we're gambling with. Are people sincerely that stupid? We have, at this time the most incompetent president in our brief 200+ year history running the show and the show needs to close. There is no way to get out of this "war" with honor, none. Investing young human lives and billions of dollars is abhorent and immoral. I was there, in the front lines in 71', I feel a complete sense of deja vu surrounding me and it makes me sick.
hortense
hortense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)