Fight or Flight?

I really didn’t want to talk about Iraq since there are several thousand blogs talking about that topic, but there’s been a lot of partisan sniping flying around with people being called unpatriotic, chicken hawks, warmongers, Nazis, etc., and those are the polite words. I rose above this name calling when I was about 9 and it’s dispiriting to the troops with their lives on the line to hear this. When debate is framed around schoolyard insults, it’s no wonder people tune into Entertainment Tonight for some erudite discussions.

It’s a shame because buried beneath the finger pointing is a good general debate about what should happen next. I’ve previously stated here that I strongly supported the war in Iraq and still do because our goals there are so important to the Middle East and spreading democracy is the best way to end terrorism. But I also understand why so many people in and out of Congress think it’s time to bring the troops home, because Iraq has degenerated into a completely avoidable quagmire that could have been prevented with a Marshall-type plan. That nobody in the administration anticipated the anarchy that would arise if Iraq fell symbolizes the incompetence of so many at the highest levels of our government. The current debate demonstrates democracy in action – talk that would get many of the war’s dissenters beaten or murdered under Saddam Hussein and many Arab governments.

The other irony about our discussion is that every side is almost correct in their assertions. Anti-war demonstrators are correct in stating our presence is helping to fuel the insurgency, that prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib have undermined the moral mission of ousting a dictator and the reasons for going to war look at best deceptive and at worst dishonest. Pro-war demonstrators are correct in stating U.S. troops are all that is keeping Iraq from becoming a full-blown civil war of Yugoslavian proportions, Iraq has undergone two successful elections and now has a civilian government and measuring success should be done not by how quickly we get out, but by how quickly we can help build a functional Iraq.

It’s tempting to throw in the towel when terrorists murder innocent Iraqis and U.S. troops alike because everyone to Bush and Rumsfeld on down bungled the whole post-war rebuilding process so badly. But as the sign in the stores say, “You Break It, You Bought It.” We broke Iraq and it is now our job to fix it. That is why, with all due sympathy and respect to the get-out-now-and- bring-them-home crowd, it is important to stay until the job is done and Iraq can defend itself. This thought has been correctly discussed by the more even-tempered and open-minded Republicans, including John McCain and Condoleeza Rice, and by most of the generals and soldiers who are actually in Iraq and know best.

As a PR flack, I think it’s unconscionable that the President and the Pentagon are not giving more information on where things are going well in Iraq and where they are not going well. They’re spending too much time on partisan name-calling and labeling anyone who disagrees with them unpatriotic and cowardly. The President is not losing his popularity battle in Iraq – he is losing it here at home because he has not sold Iraq to the American people, let alone to foreign nations. Where are the war heroes we can cheer on? Where are the visits to injured soldiers, which Rep. Murtha does every week? Why do we need to seek out obscure blogs and third-party web sites to find any trace of progress?

I’ll post some further ideas on that last paragraph soon.


An Opposing View from a Columnist I Greatly Respect

What's Wrong with the Republicans

These should be salad days for the Republicans. They control all three branches of the government, have 28 state governors and a majority of the state legislatures. They have gerrymandered Congressional districts to make their incumbents almost invulnerable, and the bulk of the social issues they espoused in the last elections, particularly opposition to gay marriage, passed with wide margins.

Why then, does this increasingly feel like a party under siege?

Decades need to pass before we can properly assess how presidents and their parties have changed our country. But if the 2004 elections represented the height of Republican power, it also signals a finale. There are too many cracks in the foundation, and Bush’s second term is succumbing to what many called “second-term-itis,” marked by the scandals and infighting that have always plagued second-term presidents.

A fish rots from the head, and the president is partly to blame for not keeping his house in order. Originally elected on a platform of compassionate conservatism, Bush’s tenure has been marked by the largest increase in government spending and fiscal unrestraint this side of The Great Society. Government is bigger than ever. Republicans are wasting more money than Paris Hilton at Neiman Marcus, with bills so laden with special interest perks and pork you can smell the methane here in Boston. The massive governmental growth and unchecked spending, combined with tax cuts and a war in Iraq costing millions each day, has brought our budget deficit to new heights. We are also billions of dollars in debt, mainly to China, who will one day stop buying our bonds and move on to a stronger currency if things don’t stop. The GOP can no longer realistically position itself as the party of fiscal restraint and smaller government. The current administration has completely squashed that notion.

Bush would never have been elected and re-elected without massive support from the evangelical community, and he certainly owes them his support. What is alarming is how they appear to be hijacking the center of the party and not only pushing it farther to the right, but dancing on the edge of the church/state abyss. There have been alarming messages of intolerance and bigotry sent by the Republicans on homosexuals and ignorance disseminated by the ridiculous “intelligent design” theory vs. evolution. American schools do a bad enough job teaching biology and science as is. I find it very difficult to believe that someone as educated and erudite as President Bush truly believes that intelligent design (remember when it was fobbed off as creationism?) should trump evolution as a school standard. There is also no way a medical doctor like Bill Frist could have diagnosed Terry Schiavo and said the evangelicals’ medical assessment was correct (he was wrong). Both are obviously pandering to this wing of the party.

The recent fiasco over Harriet Miers illustrates how GOP infighting is drawing to a head. Evangelicals, dead-set on overturning the abortion issue, attacked Miers for not being conservative enough. Miers was obviously not the most qualified or brightest candidate for the job, but when religious groups have more sway over a nominee than the Senate, it’s a good sign that your party is too beholden to outside influence.

With the president’s low popularity, you can see how the GOP is beginning to splinter. Fiscal conservatives are now demanding action on spending. Moderates are spending more time with Democrats. Republican Congressmen and Senators up for re-election next year are tracking the polls and are strategically shifting their policies away from an increasingly unpopular war and president.

So what will happen to the Republicans in 2006 and 2008? Of course, it’s too early to tell. But the party’s leadership is losing too much Independent voter support on wedge issues like abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage by kowtowing to the religious right wing of the party, which is likely a minority of the overall party but overabundant in the party’s leadership.

But don’t forget what I mentioned first – the Republicans are in full control, and you don’t get that way by making mistakes. Republican congressmen and women are ensconced by redistricting, and won’t lose many seats (if any). And the Party is smart enough to sense that if the President is poison and seen as beholden to a radical fringe, the party can easily nominate a centrist candidate like John McCain and Rudy Guiliani who will appeal to those Independents and swing voters like me who decide elections. Frankly, I think the Party is now so far to the right that it has no choice but to steer back toward the middle to get votes it needs. The whole idea is so crazy it just might work.

Come back in the next week or two when I tear the Democrats a new one!

The Deserted Canyon of Heroes

Whenever I’m in New York on business, I always have a late afternoon meeting at One State Street Plaza, which is practically the southernmost building in Manhattan (you can catch the Staten Island Ferry across the street). When I’m done and bid my colleagues goodbye, I walk north up the very beginning of Broadway, where the charging bull statue sits poised to charge, divert west to pay my respects at Ground Zero and then return to Broadway.

This southern end of Broadway up to City Hall Plaza is known as the Canyon of Heroes, and is where the legendary ticker tape parades began when the city wanted to honor those who were deemed worthy of the city’s ultimate affection. If you walk up Broadway from here, there are plaques in the sidewalk that note the date of the earliest parades and who they honored. The first parade was in 1889 in honor of the 100th anniversary of George Washington’s inauguration. Parades occurred regularly from 1919 (General Pershing, King Albert of Belgium and Edward Albert, Prince of Wales) through the twenties, thirties, forties, fifties and sixties.

What’s remarkable in this period, besides the sheer number of parades held each year, is who the city honored. The vast majority of recipients were foreign leaders and war heroes. Reading them is a who’s who of 20th century foreign and U.S. military history. In no particular order, New York honored everyone from legends like Winston Churchill to leaders of disparate countries like France, Italy, Romania, Korea, Pakistan, Turkey, Chile, Liberia, Indonesia and even Ethiopia, where Rastafarian demigod Haile Selassie received TWO parades in different decades. Even dictators (albeit U.S. allies) like the Shah of Iran and South Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diem were honored with parades. Did every foreign leader who visited New York receive a parade? I don’t know, but think of the pride they must have felt, and the impression they took home of America, after everyday New Yorkers showered them with ticker tape and affection.

Military heroes also received kudos. Following World War II, Eisenhower, Nimitz, Halsey, Clark and other top generals and admirals were honored. Extraordinary heroes like astronauts and icons like Amelia Earhart, Pope John Paul II, Howard Hughes and Nelson Mandela received parades. And of course veterans and athletes have been honored as well.

The odd thing is when you get to the 1970s, the parade lineup changes. First, while the fifties and sixties featured dozens of ticker tape parades, the 1970s feature just two. The 1980s had four, the 1990s had nine, and the last parade happened on October 30, 2000, to honor the New York Yankees’ World Series championship. And the honoree also changes – since the 1970s, parade recipients have overwhelmingly been athletes. There are some exceptions – John Glenn, Mandela, the Pope – but New York also seems to have deemed foreign leaders unworthy of parades after President Chung Hee Park of South Korea in 1965.

I can speculate on several reasons for this change. Even before 9/11, the security, sanitation and logistical costs to stage these parades impacted their frequency. New York almost went bankrupt in the 1970s and could barely afford to pay its employees, let alone eat the cost of a parade. And there are plenty of other parades in Manhattan and the other boroughs for almost every race, ethnic group and sexual nature. These parades also tie up traffic and parking for miles, and can be a real pain if you want to cross Fifth Avenue without going miles out of your way. And one minor point – ticker tape doesn’t exist anymore with the advent of technology, but the name “ticker tape parade” has stuck.

But instead of spending resources on the April Fool’s Day Parade or the Brazilian Independence Day Parade, I think the city should get back to honoring real heroes. And don’t limit heroes to local sports teams – that sends the wrong impression that only athletes are worthy of great admiration and accolades. More than ever today, people need to appreciate the unsung heroes around us and kids can learn you don’t have to be an athlete to be considered great. Here are my recommendations for people who are worthy of a ticker tape parade today:

· The New York Fire Department – Heroes not just of 9/11, but every day.
· The New York Police Department – Ditto
· Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain – Our greatest friend and ally and a true world leader. This would be a nice throwback to the old days of honoring foreign leaders who have assisted us.
· Rudolph Giuliani – One of the greatest mayors not just of New York, but anywhere. Imagine where New York would be today if he was not there to lead the city’s 90s renaissance, and help it through its darkest day. His legend will grow in time.
· The Human Genome Project Architects – A slew of U.S. and international scientists who have identified every gene in human DNA, which has the potential to revolutionize the medical, scientific and social science worlds for decades.

More information:

Chronological List of New York's Ticker Tape Parades

Ranking the Baseball Re$ult$

On Opening Day I made my fearless baseball predictions. Click on the link to see how I did. Unlike the stock pundits who tell you to put your life savings in established companies like Pfizer and Worldcom, and the tabloid psychics who predict Britney Spears' marriage will last forever, I actually check back to see how smart I am (or was).

I also pontificated the day earlier that a baseball team's chance of success was directly linked to how much money they have. Now when it comes to business and issues like world trade, capitalism rules. But in sports a team with either cheap owners or zero new revenue streams is screwed. I don't want to repeat myself (click on the link to see my rant again) but I said if your favorite team has a small payroll you shouldn't waste adrenalin worrying because there is no way they will ever win their division, let alone pass .500.

I was questioned on that strategy by some people in my work and leisure life who are too lazy to post a comment on the blog, so let's see how my payroll theory worked out.

TOP AMERICAN LEAGUE PAYROLLS

1) NY Yankees -- Won AL East
2) Boston Red Sox -- Won AL Wild Card
3) Anaheim/LA Angels -- Won AL West
4) Seattle Mariners -- Last place, AL West
5) Chicago White Sox -- Won AL Central

The low-salaried and hyped Cleveland Indians and Oakland A's were good teams but didn't make the post-season, proving the Moneyball approach still doesn't work.

TOP NATIONAL LEAGUE PAYROLLS

1) NY Mets -- Third place, NL East
2) LA Dodgers -- Fourth place, NL West
3) Philadelphia Phillies -- Second Place, NL East
4) Atlanta Braves -- Won NL East
5) Chicago Cubs -- Fourth Place, NL Central

Interesting! However, there are a glut of teams in the $80-$100 million range. The winners, all close behind the top five, were the Cardinals ($83 million, sixth place); the Astros ($75 million, seventh place) and the Padres (the fluke this year at a puny $55 million). The NL West was pretty much a wash with nobody wanting to win. Also, the NL East also has the most teams in the top of the payroll ladder than any other baseball division, and all of those teams obviously can't make the playoffs. I'm not using that as an excuse, but it's worth noting.

The NHL learned the hard way what happens without parity and a salary cap. One day baseball will too. I'm going to hold my breath until Bud Selig and Don Fehr figure it out.

There, I'm done.

More Info:

Baseball Prospectus on the salary cap and Why there's no middle class in baseball

Why People Can't Trust the Media

Public perception of the press tends to rise following terrible events like 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, and subsequently plummets back to its typical nadir somewhere between Al Qaeda and child molesters. Big events make the public understand the importance and necessity of the media, and answering this need helps the media rediscover its goal of informing the public. But why does the public hate the media so consistently?

I always get a chuckle whenever the media is forced to do a story on itself, especially when they’ve just been outed as scumbags in any public opinion poll. Why do a story on why people hate you? The answers lie in how the media operates and how it affects overall media credibility.

· First, most of the media is not issues-driven. It is events-driven. Reporters could do an ongoing investigation and explanation into how City Hall works, or they could cover a breaking news story on the one mid-level manager who is arrested for embezzlement. Guess which one makes the news?

· In newsrooms across America, conflict is king. An inner city neighborhood can spend years getting cleaned up and revitalized without any press mention, but if there’s a single shooting on that street once a year it makes the news and will be stigmatized thereafter. Many local newsrooms have a mantra: If it Bleeds, it Leads.

· While some journalists are excellent and knowledgeable about the topics they cover, most are as lazy as the rest of us, and don’t bother digging into a story to discover what has led to the conflicts they cover. A journalist might cover a strike, but not bother going into details or specifics on why the two sides could not work out an agreement.

· A lot of news, particularly local news, needs to be “easy” so the general population will understand it. Most newspapers and newscasts are written at a sixth grade reading level, with exceptions being well-regarded publications like The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. People tend to read newspapers quickly and stories are getting shorter in most publications as newsrooms are cut.

· Reporters should maintain objectivity. Many don’t. Some news organizations such as Fox and The New York Times barely disguise most of their coverage slanting left or right, offending independent readers no matter how good the coverage may be. There’s another side to objectivity; on news magazine shows like Dateline, reporters often go overboard to report divergent views on any topic, often interviewing extremists whose absurdity undermines the entire show. This happens every day.

· The media often acts with a mob mentality. If one reporter is covering something, the odds are good that several reporters are there too, and you can get the exact same report from any of them, although sometimes these events are truly newsworthy.

· There’s fierce competition to be the first with “breaking news” among reporters. Unfortunately, being first also means you have the least amount of time to get your facts checked, and wrong information is often reported. This happened in last year’s election when Dan Rather issued a false report about the President’s National Guard duties, which cost Rather his job. Recent reports about widespread crime in the Superdome during Hurricane Katrina were also exaggerated by the media.

If the press is at its best during times of crisis, I would say the press is at its worst when covering elections and politics. Many voters get their political information from the news, and it’s unsurprising that even blanket coverage is unable to get a majority of voters to the polls on Election Day.

· Events, Not Issues: The press rarely covers political issues because campaign events like stump speeches are visual and makes better TV. An event is usually fast and – here we go – easy to cover and report.

· The Horse Race: The media tends to cover the race on who is winning – in votes, popularity and fundraising – rather than what the candidates’ platform is or the issues that affect voters. In fact, the whole campaign gets screwed because the media has a serious addiction to poll numbers. Why? Because it’s easier to do than reporting on substance.

· Scandalmania!: When a scandal hits, all bets are off and a media feeding frenzy ensues. The media can easily and quickly destroy a candidate over an issue that most voters will find irrelevant, such as Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky or Bush’s National Guard record. Political candidates are unfairly held to higher standards because of the media’s scandal scrutiny, and I am positive many fine potential candidates have eschewed public office because of a very minor and explainable lapse in their past. The focus on scandals has also helped undermine trust in political institutions and the media in general. Reporters also routinely ask candidates personal and controversial questions they would never ask private citizens.

The media, of course, would retort that it is giving the public what it wants. And that is partly true. The media wouldn’t focus on the superficial if the public wasn’t watching it. While I’m sure the average person who reads The New York Post and tabloid-style local news would agree how vapid it is, the bottom line is that is still how they are getting their information. And while high quality media outlets exist, the people who read and view them tend to be better educated and informed than the masses who don’t. It’s a chicken and egg situation.

With the Internet and additional news sources permeating all the time, people have a wider choice than ever to get new information. If you complain about the news or hate the media, try to find alternate ways to get your information. And if you’re a member of the media, stop taking the easy and acceptable way out. People want to know more than you think, and providing that is the key to regaining trust.

More Information:

Arthur Chrenkoff’s Blog – “Good News from Iraq.” An Australian, wondering if anything good was happening in Iraq that wasn’t being reported, starts his own blog and finds remarkable progress going unmentioned in the mass media. He claims he has stopped publishing, but we’ll see. Somewhat right wing, but still has good stuff.

Frontline: Why We Hate the Media – Old (1987) and long, but interesting. Includes comments from Mike Wallace and Peter Jennings about combat reporting that will make your jaw drop.

The Era of Our Discontent

Was Katrina the straw that broke America’s back?

The first decade of our new millennium is becoming one of our country’s most turbulent – ever. We entered 2001 (the millenium’s real start) with a contested presidential election, where the Supreme Court needed to intervene and the candidate who received fewer votes ended up as the winner. Although the procedure adhered to the Constitution, many cried fraud and never recognized the president as our leader.

Then we entered into one of the steepest and deepest recessions in modern times, with millions losing their jobs. The stock market crashed and crashed again, wiping out billions in savings. Many had to defer retirement or come out of it altogether. College savings and 401Ks were decimated, and the market has yet to fully recover. Some industries like technology and marketing were utterly squashed, with once-successful companies folding overnight.

September 11 was one of the worst days in our country’s history, and ushered in terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism as the evil of our age, just as communism was for our parents and the Third Reich was for our grandparents. We had lived in relative peace without an enemy since the Berlin Wall fell. The attacks ushered in a new war for our times and fear re-entered the American psyche, where it continues to lurk. This was not a battle between soldiers on the battlefield – this was a battle with a culture of death that wants us utterly destroyed and could strike anywhere and at anytime.

Corporate malfeasance and fraud at Enron, Worldcom, HealthSouth, Adelphia, Tyco and scores of other companies brought down Fortune 100 giants. The public’s attitude toward big business changed as well – from respect to suspicion and mistrust. Corporate earnings and governance remain under a cloud and the public is almost inured to seeing corporate fines, layoffs and other mismanagement as the market remains flat.

Then we invaded Iraq. It’s your call whether this war was a necessary battle to oust the world’s worst dictator and bring democracy to the Middle East to flank our war on terror, or an oafish attempt by a misguided leader on a personal vendetta who was relying on faulty intelligence. But one thing is universally accepted: Iraq is a mess right now. Anarchy has engulfed the region and there are not enough troops to quell it. The military brass totally flubbed, if not outright ignored, how the country would be remade. There was never a Marshall Plan for Iraq and it shows. Most tragically, American troops and innocent Iraqis who want to help rebuild are dying there. The administration’s Iraq misdirection and the rising fatality list are rapidly undercutting support for the war at home.

And the last year has seen two horrific natural disasters – the tsunami in Asia that killed over 200,000 and Hurricane Katrina, which leveled and flooded the cities of New Orleans and Biloxi. Katrina once again displayed bureaucratic overlapses, as local, state and federal officials completely bungled repeated efforts to either repair levees in advance or administer aid afterward, both of which likely condemned the city and its residents. The damage to Louisiana’s refineries caused gas prices, already sky high to begin with, to record breaking heights at over $3 and $4 a gallon with no relief in sight.

When you look at the president’s paltry approval rating, consumer confidence index and the country’s overall psyche after riding through the last five years, it’s apparent we are entering a character crisis. Not an energy crisis or recession, but a crisis of confidence where American optimism is eclipsed by resentment and unease. The terrible performance by all levels of government in New Orleans could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back – a breakdown of faith in our infrastructure and overall direction of how America should be.

Unlike September 11, when our country united in strength and bipartisanship, the country now posts a sinking morale by the cumulative effects of the events described above. While some were unavoidable and some were not, how the government reacted to each one has led to a growing disgust that the government cannot protect its citizens or execute imperative needs – winning the war in Iraq, saving lives in New Orleans, getting gas prices under control and so on.

I believe we are now in the midst of one of the darker periods in our history, similar to the Great Depression of the 1930s and the so-called “National Malaise” of the 1970s. Like those decades, Americans are currently under a cloud of doubts about an uncertain future and the national optimism is tempered by an ugly reality and faith in the government to help or protect us. You can sense a simmering beneath a surface, like when a teakettle is about to boil and let a torrent of steam out.

I don’t think there will be mass riots and upheaval like the 1930s and 1970s, but public backlash from both eras did generate massive changes in the political system. The Great Depression brought a governmental revolution in Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal, and the counterattack of the Seventies delivered Ronald Reagan and the resulting era of conservatism. Both men were dynamic leaders who made America stronger and restored faith in the government and confidence in the American people.

It’s far too early to predict the 2006 elections, let alone 2008. But whichever party produces a candidate that delivers a whole new message of self-reliance, optimism and independence from the status quo has got a head start.

More info:

Ether Zone: Katrina and the End of Illusions -http://www.etherzone.com/2005/raim090705.shtml

Jim Lehrer – Politics After Katrina (transcript) –
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/political_wrap/july-dec05/bop_9-2.html

NFL Forecasts and Football Pool Cheat Sheet - 2005

Why is football the most popular sport in our great country? Let us quickly review:

1) Parity. Unlike baseball’s rich team/poor team conundrum that alienates small city fans and makes the same teams win over and over, the NFL encourages competition by ensuring every team gets the same money to spend on player salaries and from TV contracts. A level playing field means every team gets a chance to win. A team may be lousy one year and great the next year (or vice versa) but you can never blame the league or finances. It keeps the game fresh and exciting.

2) Game infrequency. Unlike the 162 games of baseball or 10-month NBA season, there are only 16 NFL games a year, excluding playoffs. Each game becomes an event, even at the collegiate and high school level in some places (rent “Friday Night Lights” to get a better idea of this).

3) Betting. Yes, unlike the confusing over/under baseball spread, it is insanely easy to bet on football. Legal and illegal football pools span across the country, and due to parity it’s possible for any team to beat another on any given Sunday.

4) Labor Happiness: Compare the NFL owners’ relationship with the NFL player union to baseball and the NHL. Everybody is happy. There hasn’t been a work stoppage in almost two decades. Regular non-sports unions that are dying on the vine should look the NFL player’s union for tips on relevance and keeping members priorities in line.

Bottom line is that the NFL is an extremely well-run and smart organization that deserves credit for making football America’s national pastime. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue probably never played a snap in his life, but mad props to him for being a genius.

My NFL 2005 picks are below, along with my “dark horse” pick as most improved team from last year. Picks are in the order of finish.

NFC EAST

1) Philadelphia Eagles: Last year I predicted Terrell Owens would be an unselfish team player as much as I trusted OJ to search for the real killer, or words to that effect. Turns out I was only off by a year. Philly will benefit from being the only good team in this division, and expect T.O. to be trade bait in the offseason, if not earlier.

2) Dallas Cowboys: Is it me or is Parcells just not angry anymore? A mellow Parcells means a mellow football team. Dallas has a good running game with Julius Jones, but the defense needs to step up and be, well, angrier.

3) NY Giants: The Giants missed the memo that most NFL franchise QBs are developed, not drafted first (see: Brady, Tom, Theisman, Joe and Montana, Joe). Even successful first-round choice QBs do not always lead their teams to Super Bowls (see: Manning, Peyton and Vick, Mike) or victories (see: Bledsoe, Drew). So the Giants’ season rides completely on the arm of one person. They could be 10-6 or 3-13. I’ll split the difference at 7-9. The Giants also must do much better defending against the run.

4) Washington Redskins: Think Joe Gibbs wishes he was back in the NASCAR pit? At least he can always blame Most-Hated NFL Owner Dan Snyder, who puts the coal into the reverse Midas touch.

NFC NORTH

1) Minnesota Vikings: Addition by subtraction. Take away talented but petulant WR Randy Moss and watch a good team get better without distractions. Plenty of WRs (Nate Burelson and Troy Williamson) left for Culpepper to throw to, and a good defense helps top another weak division.

2) Green Bay Packers: I like Brett Farve – hey, everyone likes Brett Farve – but this is the least talented team he’s fronted since coming to the Bay. The team didn’t do much to improve the spotty defense and the offense is getting older for Farve’s probable last season. If it is, watch for Green Bay to plummet in 2006.

3) Detroit Lions: GM Matt Millen makes the head of FEMA look like a genius. In four years as GM, his Lions have yet to post a winning record, have won three road games and have one of the league’s worst defenses. So after drafting nothing but a QB and several WRs for the last few drafts what does he do this year? He drafts ANOTHER RECEIVER, meaning underachieving QB Joey Harrington now has four starting receivers, including three number one draft choices and another second round choice. Millen wouldn’t even last a week as a federal employee. He’s lucky Chicago is in the same division.

4) Chicago Bears: This team still has no idea who the starting QB will be this Sunday, but it’s looking to rookie Kyle Orton, with 35-year-old Jeff Blake backing him up. Shemp Howard is available if Blake falters, which should happen by the sixth game. Talk about the Bad News Bears.

NFC SOUTH

1) Carolina Panthers: Last year I picked the Panthers to win the division. By the second game, their six best players on offense and defense (especially Julius Peppers, Steve Smith, Stephen Davis, DeShaun Foster, Kris Jenkins, etc.) got injured and the team fell to 1-7. Halfway through the season, they started coming back and the Panthers finished 7-9. If everyone stays healthy, this is the team to beat in the NFC. Carolina also made some great free agent pickups on the offensive line and cornerback, and now start the two CBs who led the league in pickoffs. Look out!

2) Atlanta Falcons: Wild Card Team. Call me nuts (go ahead, you can) but I think Atlanta overachieved last year. Vick’s health is always iffy and he still lacks a big-time receiver to throw at. The Falcons also have a rough schedule, with games against Philadelphia, New England and the Jets in the first month. If they come out of that at 2-2 or better, they’re the real deal.

3) New Orleans Saints: Rough times ahead. The Saints burn me every year because they look so good on paper but choke when the game is on the line. Now they have a crisis at home and may have to play 16 road games. While the offense can put up points, the D is not as tight in the no-longer Big Easy.

4) Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Take your QB choice – Brian Griese, Brad Johnson or Chris Simms, who has played one game and promptly got injured. While you’ve got to like a RB named Cadillac Williams, the offensive line is stacked with Hyundais. Are there any leaders here?

NFC WEST

1) Arizona Cardinals: My NFC Dark Horse Team. Last year great coach Denny Green came to the desert and doubled the team’s win total. OK, it was from 3 to 6 games, but the Cardinals no longer officially sucked. The team has also drafted extremely well and has a great defense with Bertrand Berry and Chike Okeafor. The big question is starting QB Kurt Warner, who is certainly past his prime but showed signs of life in NY last year. But Green has brought in veteran QBs before in Minnesota – remember Randall Cunningham and Jeff George? – and all produced for him.

2) St. Louis Rams: Wild Card Team. The Rams seem to have their groove back on offense with new RB Steven Jackson, and Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce are still there. St. Louis played well enough to make it to the playoffs last year with a shoddy defense, and their free agent pickups (Dexter Coakley!) won’t make them worse.

3) Seattle Seahawks: Last year was Seattle’s golden opportunity and they blew it. Seattle’s receivers drop more passes than I do in pickup games. They tried to improve their toast defense by drafting Lofa Tatupu. Guess whose kid he is?

4) San Francisco 49ers: The good news is that everybody has written off this team as the NFL’s worst this year and has given them a free pass to next year’s first round choice. The bad news is that the team and its fans have to suffer through 16 games to get there.

AFC EAST

1) New England Patriots: Well duh. Have the Jets or Bills built up enough to dethrone the champs? Nope. Tom Brady will never start on anyone’s fantasy team, but would you want anyone else as your real starter? Of course not. That said, I don’t see the Patriots as a juggernaut this year. There’s a new defensive coordinator and Belichik will be the de facto offensive coordinator, and toughman LBs Tedy Bruschi and Ted Johnson are gone. But the Patriots should still win 10 or 11. Interesting fact: No team has EVER won three Super Bowls in a row. The 49ers, Cowboys and Steelers won four or five, but not consecutively. Hmmmm.

2) NY Jets: Wild Card Team. Similar to their Meadowlands roommates, the Jets’ season will rise or fall based on their starting QB. There have been special team upgrades and Ty Law and Lavarneaus Coles are interesting pickups. They may even best the Patriots at one of their meetings as long as Curtis Martin keeps outrunning Father Time.

3) Buffalo Bills: The Bills are not a bad team, but they’re in a punishing division and won’t go higher than 9-7. Buffalo also axed Bledsoe in favor of rookie J.P. Losman, who costs a lot less but has only thrown five passes in his career. Good defense and pretty good running game, but not enough to win the AFC East.

4) Miami Dolphins: Last year Miami was the best bad team in football, which is about the same as being the smartest bum in the gutter. It says something when the most talented guy on the team is the head coach. Saban needs a QB as good as his LSU players before the Fins are ready to compete.

AFC NORTH

1) Pittsburgh Steelers: Did anyone guess Ben what’s-his-name would win 15 last year? Of course not. Will he win 15 this year? Nope. Teams are ready for him now provided they do what the Patriots did in the playoffs – break down The Bus and force him to make mistakes. Since the AFC North isn’t football’s premier division, that won’t happen too often. Pittsburgh does boast a tough defense and my favorite RB with Jerome Bettis, still plowing through lines at 37.

2) Baltimore Ravens: Another solid team that just didn’t make enough improvements in the off season. QB Kyle Boller is OK – not great and not bad. Definitely not good enough to get them past the wild card if they make it that far. RB Jamal Lewis is out of jail but has a gimpy ankle. The defense is still money, but Ray Lewis is starting to coast on his reputation and isn’t the threat he once was.

3) Cincinnati Bengals: I’d love to rate the Bengals higher as they’ve finished at 8-8 the last two years, have a good QB in Carson Palmer and a good coach with Marvin Lewis. But to win those extra two or three games you’ve gotta up the defense and there wasn’t enough done in the offseason to improve here. They might get to 9-7 and even second in the division, but that’s all – for now.

4) Cleveland Browns: Best of luck to new coach Romeo Crennel, a longtime Bill Parcells and Bill Belichik sidekick who finally gets the chance to run his own team. Unfortunately it’s the Cleveland Browns. This is his mulligan year.

AFC SOUTH

1) Indianapolis Colts: Why can’t the talented Colts win the big one? Here’s my theory. Head coach Tony Dungy is really smart and a nice guy. QB Peyton Manning is really smart and a nice guy. That’s why. This team needs more killer instinct – more Dick Butkuses. The Colts need the eye of the tiger! When a finesse offensive team (Colts) meets a smashmouth defensive team (Patriots), the defensive team almost always wins. The offense won’t always score enough if the nice guys are getting their asses kicked by the bigger boys.

2) Jacksonville Jaguars: Wild Card Team. The Jaguars were my sleeper pick last year and they got to 9-7 by beating the Colts twice. Not many people know about them but they have a truly scary defense and a great QB in Byron Leftwich. He needs better WRs and RB Fred Taylor’s knee is iffy, but there’s no excuse for this team if they can’t make the wild card.

3) Houston Texans: By the time any coach is in his fifth year, he should have his team in the playoffs, expansion team or no expansion team. Dom Capers has got the Texans to .500 but that’s it. No secondary and no offensive line will hurt Houston. QB David Carr is pretty good but won’t win many games if he spends the whole time in the backfield running for his life.

4) Tennessee Titans: The unfortunate part of parity is that every seven or eight years, a team must cut a bunch of players loose to meet the salary cap, and the program goes under water for a year or two. This is what is happening to the Titans this year. I love QB Steve “Air” McNair who always plays tough, but this is what the P.C. police would call a “rebuilding year.”

AFC WEST

1) San Diego: Last year I said the Chargers couldn’t win at kickball. They responded by going 11-5, but trust me, they still couldn’t win at kickball. The guys who made me look dumb were QB Drew Brees (finally, a San Diego first round QB comes through!), LaDanian Tomlinson, the best RB in football, and defensive coach/guru Wade Phillips who turned the once-crappy defense into a 3-4 wall. They could be better on pass rushing, but the Chargers should have enough to make the playoffs again.

2) Kansas City Chiefs: A really weird team. They have an offensive powerhouse with QB Trent Green and RB Priest Holmes who can put up 40 points a game, and a Swiss Cheese defense that can give up 45 points a game. They actually made some steps to improve the defense this offseason, drafting Derrick Johnson and signing Patrick Surtain and Sammy Knight. If it all clicks, they could go far. If it doesn’t, Dick Vermeil can challenge Richard Simmons to a crybaby contest.

3) Oakland Raiders: My AFC Dark Horse Team. The Raiders won’t make the playoffs and might not make .500, but they only won five games last year and will upset some better teams. QB Kerry Collins has a howitzer in his arm, and he now has Randy Moss and Jerry Porter to throw at. RB Lamont Jordan ran for 1500 yards last year. And the defense…well, let’s just say they’re a “mature” bunch that should keep them from winning more than eight. Randy Moss and Al Davis certainly deserve each other. The whole team is so crazy it just might work.

4) Denver Broncos: For years, I refused to jump on the Jake Plummer bandwagon. I believe I have finally been vindicated, as Jake The Fake is still doing all the stupid things he used to do in Arizona. And while Denver keeps finding unknown RBs to rush for 1500 yards each year, what were they thinking signing Ron Dayne and Maurice Clarett? Denver isn’t a bad team and may even finish above Oakland, but this is a tough division and there’s no way they’re making the playoffs this year.

Taking Natural Disasters Personally

Disasters – natural and man-made – have a habit of bringing out the best and worst of everyone. Most of the time, it tends to be the former. Donations and condolences are pouring into the Gulf Coast, and I have complete confidence that the cities of New Orleans and Biloxi will be rebuilt. New Orleans is one of my favorite cities. My wife and I traveled there about five years ago and fell in love with the cuisine, the music and some of the friendliest Americans we’ve ever encountered. Everyone called us “honey,” the drinks were great and we still plan on returning some day.

And for bringing out the worst in people? Looters, gas price gougers and insurance scam artists are well known and have earned their special place in jail, if not hell itself. But while most of the world is looking to help and heal, political partisans seize the opportunity to promote and exploit their own interests by demonizing anyone who disagrees with them and absurdly linking their opponents to disasters. The attacks are so loopy and illogical they should be hilarious, but the virulence of the accusers wipes the smiles from our faces. Sadly, these attacks happen all too often and help destroy any bipartisan efforts. It’s also disconcerting and a huge turn-off to independents like myself.

Newt Gingrich ended his political career by blaming a hideous murder of a pregnant mother and the kidnapping of her unborn child on the welfare state, and then ended his hari-kari by urging everyone “to vote Republican.” Long before he helped re-elect the president, Michael Moore said the 9/11 terrorists erred by killing people who didn’t vote for George W. Bush. And today, with entire Louisiana and Mississippi towns and cities washed away, we have another hateful group of partisans rising from sewers and mudholes to advance their causes at the expense of victims, and trying to plant a political reason upon a natural disaster. Here’s the worst I’ve seen so far, but don’t worry – there will be more:

· Huffington Post: Nobody outside of California had even heard of Ariana Huffington before she ran for governor of California two years ago (and dropped out of the race after mustering a whopping 2% support). But her web site is well-known and somewhere to the left of Cuba. One of her bloggers says the Republicans have left all of us “raped, pillaged and terrorized” and says the president scares her more than terrorists. Another blogger claims that the hurricane would not have been so devastating if Carter had beat Reagan in 1980. And Ms. Huffington herself excoriates the president for not being in New Orleans already, somehow overlooking that the N.O.P.D. may be busy with things like saving lives and stopping looters to stop what they’re doing and provide a security detail for the president. Keep in mind that unlike me, many of the bloggers here consider themselves professional writers.

· Religious Right: When evangelicals and some so-called people of God aren’t hating homosexuals, advocating assassinations and claiming that life on earth began 6,000 years ago, they’re telling the rest of us how to live our lives. They’re also claiming New Orleans deserves what it got because of the city’s penchant for decadence. RepentAmerica.com says “This act of God destroyed a wicked city. From 'Girls Gone Wild' to 'Southern Decadence', New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin.” Another web site called Abominations (I can’t tell whether this one is a joke or not) says “Due to the hand of God the (Labor Day Weekend Gay Parade) in New Orleans and "May this act of God cause us all to think about what we tolerate in our city limits, and bring us trembling before the throne of Almighty God."

Nice, huh? There are also a bunch of people blaming the president and his environmental policies for the hurricane, just like they did for the tsunami last year. These are undoubtedly the same people who blamed Theodore Roosevelt for the San Francisco earthquake and President Chester Alan Arthur for the 1883 Krakatoa eruption. Most of these people are so partisan they can’t think straight and believe Republicans are the source of natural disasters, the boogeyman in the closet and the common cold.

Global warming is also being tossed around a bit. The jury’s obviously still out on global warming (I invite anyone who thinks the planet is getting warmer to spend the winter in Boston, where we had over 100 inches of snow last year and had to keep our heat on until Memorial Day). I’ve met a few meteorologists and climatologists who said it is absolutely natural for weather to be cyclical, even in 20- and 50-year cycles, but I don’t even pretend to be well-informed on this subject. Nobody can definitively say whether global warming exists or, if it does, whether it exacerbated the situation.

While sane people focus on how to help the victims of this tragedy, there are three items that I may revisit in this space, because each brings up important non-partisan issues.

1) Did federal budget cuts curtail improvement on New Orleans levee protection and improvement? Yes, you can read it here. Would this have stopped or cut down on the flooding? That’s another definite maybe, but whoever ordered those budget cuts has something to answer for.

2) New Orleans is a largely African-American city. In a cruel twist of fate, the upper class (and mostly white) French Quarter and Garden District have been spared the worst of the damage, while poorer, minority neighborhoods have been obliterated. It will be very interesting to see which neighborhoods are rebuilt first and where FEMA, relief and cleanup dollars go. How quickly, efficiently and fairly New Orleans is remade and how displaced refugees are compensated for their losses will speak volumes about how far this Southern city has come in race relations, political cronyism and civics.

3) Despite being the most generous nation on earth, the U.S. has been called “stingy” in its foreign and disaster relief efforts. This is nonsense. Last year, the U.S. gave over $1 billion to tsunami relief (and billions more in private donations) and spent an additional $19 billion in foreign aid, which included over $1 billion in loan write-offs to corrupt countries like the Democratic Republic for the Congo that squander the money. While the U.S. may not require foreign and disaster aid from abroad the way the Asian countries did, it will be very interesting to see how much foreign aid helps the poor people of New Orleans from foreign countries and individuals who said we do not enough for the world.

More info:

American Red Cross Hurricane Relief Donations

Salvation Army Hurrican Relief Donations

Missing in Action: Attractive Young White Women

Every day in the United States, hundreds of adults and children disappear. Many of these are runaways, who often return, and others are fleeing abusive situations and want to start over in secrecy. But scores of these people are never, ever seen again.

When people vanish, you usually never hear about it. Law enforcement certainly does its best, but they lack the resources to find every person who disappears. And if this missing person and their family are lucky, the media may cover it – for one or two nights.

But if the missing person is an attractive young white female, you can bet the media will cover it. In fact, you can bet the farm that the media will obsess over it with exclusive after exclusive, regardless of progress, until the case is solved.

Think back to all the famous missing persons cases over the last year or two: Natalee Holloway; Jennifer Wilibanks; Laci Peterson; Lori Hacking; Elizabeth Smart; Chandra Levy. What do these people have in common? All happen to be female, attractive, young and white.

Most of these women ended up dead and I do not want to belittle that fact. I’m sure the unprecedented attention reassured their families that their missing wives or daughters would not be forgotten, and the blanket coverage may have provided leads that helped crack the case. But what about the middle aged African American woman who goes out to work one day and disappears? How about the pretty Hispanic girl who is eight months pregnant and vanishes? And the elderly Indian man who disappears on vacation? Where are their stories? How come they are not profiled in the media? These people disappear every day too; why are they not considered newsworthy?

I can speculate why the media only focuses on missing attractive white women, and while I am treading onto dangerous territory here, I also want to be honest. Race and appearance is definitely a factor with the media – not law enforcement, but the media. Most of the news directors in this country are older white men. While this may be subliminal and not intentional or racist, they may relate to these missing white women as being the equivalent of their girlfriends, wives and daughters. They are also driven by some marketing or demographic gobbledygook that says missing attractive white women means higher ratings. This may very well be a sad reality about our culture and TV viewership, and is of little comfort to the families of minorities that disappear.

There are other lurking cultural issues at work. Virtually everyone on TV – the news, celebrities and even reality shows – is fit and attractive. Most people in the real world are not fit and are not as attractive as the people generally seen on TV. I’m willing to bet that overweight and ugly people also go missing, but will never be seen on the Today Show or an evening news show. And the overweight, ugly people that vanish outnumber the attractive white women that vanish any day.

Another question: Why are attractive, young white men ever featured as a famous missing person, or any man for that matter? Is this because a missing man could conceivably take care of himself, but national alarms must only sound for missing women because women are unable to save themselves and need rescuing? I don’t know if these answers are definitively yes or no, but nobody seems to be asking them.

And here’s the kicker: More men than women in this country go missing each year. Of the almost 50,000 active adult missing person cases tracked by the FBI, 53 percent were men and almost 30 percent are African-American. But you would never, ever know this from watching the news.

I’m not the only one ranting about this. In fact, this comes up every time the national media picks up the case of another attractive missing white woman. Then the media gets criticized so often they do stories on how they’re being criticized, and trot out the news president to say age, race and sex are not a factor in their news coverage. Say what?

Fortunately there are a handful of media who focus on missing people of all types. A story about three missing Hispanic boys in Camden, NJ, received national attention (the boys tragically suffocated in the trunk of a nearby car). The Lost Children’s Network is available online and on some satellite and cable station, and is color blind. And while FOX’s Greta van Sustern seems to have moved to Aruba to cover Natalee Holloway, she has thrown a few bones to covering some other missing people as well, and FOX’s “America’s Most Wanted” spotlights missing people of all ages, sexes and races. That’s not exactly fair and balanced, but it’s a start.

Links:

Amber Alerts: http://codeamber.org/
FBI Kidnapping and Missing Persons Investigations: http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/kidnap/kidmiss.htm
Lost Children’s Network: http://lostchildren.org/
National Center for Missing Adults: http://www.theyaremissed.org/ncma/

The Flack Dissects the Cindy Sheehan Situation

I am coming out of the closet by disclosing my current day job: Public relations flack for a company that I won’t reveal because I’d like to keep my current day job. But I’ve been doing this long enough that I feel I can comment on the current Cindy Sheehan situation, which the press has coined a “PR Nightmare” for the President.

PR is basically a marketing function and marketing has two objectives. The first is drive sales (or votes and donations, if you’re in public affairs). The second is branding or establishing an identity for a company, candidate, cause, etc., and making sure the entity you represent is correctly and fairly represented in the media or the all-important “buzz” on the streets and water coolers of our country.

You obviously answer to your employer (or client). If you’re working for an obscure company competing with a Microsoft, Citigroup, ExxonMobil or similar giant, you’ll take any press that you can get. But if you work for one of those three companies or the President, your job changes a bit. Getting press isn’t the problem – the problem is making sure that company’s or person’s image is held in high regard and doesn’t change for the worse. Some things you won’t have control over (i.e. Raffi Palmeiro’s press person didn’t know their client was a basehead), which leads to crisis situations you need to manage. But for the most part, you need to ensure the dog is wagging the tail instead of vice versa.

When you represent a big company, celebrity or politician, there will be a core group of press and people who will hate you no matter what. While you need to monitor what’s being said about your employer or client, you are not under obligation to address or even acknowledge everything that is said about you. For example, last year documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock made “Super Size Me,” his odyssey about eating at McDonald’s for a solid month while watching his body fat rise and health diminish. He asked if someone from McDonald’s would answer his questions and be part of his movie.

McDonald’s declined, which was perceived as the company ducking the situation. But from a PR perspective, it was the correct response. The movie was obviously anti-McDonald’s and the company would have achieved nothing from participating. It could even be seen as giving the movie a tacit endorsement or acquiescing to its claim that McDonald’s makes you fat and sick. If you worked for Greenpeace and a publication called “Oil Refineries Rule!” contacted you for an interview you knew would be a hatchet job, would you participate? Probably not, because you knew you’d be setting yourself up for a fall.

With that long-winded background information, let’s turn back to Cindy Sheehan. I am heartbroken over her loss and agree that the administration’s negligence has turned Iraq into a completely avoidable quagmire. But there she is, camped near the President’s ranch, and not going anywhere until she gets her meeting with the President. Is this a “PR Nightmare?” I think Iraq is more of a nightmare, and the woman is more of what I would call a “situation.” She’s not hurting anyone (bothering anyone is another story), but August is a slow news time and the press is following her cause with a fervor that is surprising. So should the President meet her to stop this “PR Nightmare?”

I’m not going to go into all the facts of the case since they’ve been well documented everywhere else, so I’ll just go through the highlights here. Right-wing partisans have predictably gone on a character assassination against Ms. Sheehan, as they tend to do when someone has the nerve to disagree with them. These have ranged from accusing her of being a traitor to parroting anti-Israel and anti-American views often embraced by ultra-liberals like Michael Moore. It’s also true that the President already met her last year after terrorists murdered her son and the media attention is being partly bankrolled by True Majority, a public interest group that wants to decrease the Pentagon’s budget.

While I’m as weary of mudslinging as everyone else, I sincerely hope this woman is not being used by left-wing partisans who seem to have coached her, because every interview she gives is becoming increasingly political and less personal. The personal story is far more compelling and likely to get her the meeting she wants. Die-hard Republicans also accuse her of supporting the President and now being an anti-war activist, but so what? Look at the opinion polls – plenty of people have turned against the war lately.

So, putting on the PR hat again, would the President gain anything by meeting with Ms. Sheehan again? If I was on the president’s staff, here’s what I would recommend (Note: This is not the day job I was referring to earlier.)

I would suggest that the President meet with Ms. Sheehan, but set the agenda as much as possible. Have someone bring her in without warning and have it take place on the ranch where he’s in control. This way, if she is being coached, she doesn’t have time to prepare a diatribe. Have no more than one aide present. Keep the meeting short – 10 or 15 minutes. But most of all, stay personal and reassuring – something the President is quite good at. Focus on the loss of her son. Don’t discuss policy, or fit a war into a bigger picture of a war on terror because that is not appropriate here. Do one fast photo and then let her go. If she doesn’t leave the ranch, starts bashing his politics again, or is disrespectful she validates the kooky right-wing conspiracy theory and the President looks all the better.

The President’s staff would say there are PR risks here – you validate your enemy’s position, capitulate to their demands, look weak, etc. Those are valid. But you also nip the situation in the bud and prevent further escalation. If the press got tired of this woman after a few days, you could ignore it. But it’s not happening and you need to control the agenda again. One of the great things about America is that you have the right to ask the president of the country or a company whatever you want without getting thrown in jail. And looking at the President’s approval numbers, these are the sort of things he should be doing to improve his overall PR image.

More info:
How the Right Wing is Smearing Cindy Sheehan (left-wing site, but this is accurate): http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009

An Opposing View from Slate’s Chris Hitchens: http://slate.msn.com/id/2124500/

Abraham Lincoln’s Letter to Mrs. Bixby, whose sons died in battle during the Civil War (this letter was read in Saving Private Ryan) http://www.americancivilwar.info/pages/mrs_bixby_letter.asp

Why Do I Hate Rafael Palmeiro? Let Us Count the Ways

Rafael Palmeiro used to be – until this week – one of my favorite baseball players. He never had the biggest salary, the biggest mouth, the biggest ego or the biggest bat on the many teams he played. He just showed up every day and did his job better than almost anyone else.

He never hogged the media spotlight. He never asked for any big demands and he almost never put up the biggest numbers. He just quietly and effectively produced for 19 seasons and soon became one of the league’s respected elder statesmen, amassing 3,000 hits, 569 homers and four All-Star appearances.

What finally made him a household name to non-baseball fans was his testimony before Congress on the anti-steroid hearings last winter. While other players like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa came off worse for the wear with evasive answers, Palmeiro was a model of credibility: “I have never used steroids. Period. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never.”

Well, we all know what happened this week. And now we can substitute new words to describe this so-called athlete: Phony. Stupid. Cheater. Busted. And those are the polite ones. Palmeiro must think we’re as dumb as he is with his lame “I don’t know where the steroid came from!” excuse. While not as creative as “Barry Bonds spiked my Viagra,” most people are aware of everything that enters their body.

There’s always a domino effect when big athletes are caught with their hands in the stanozolol jar. Sure, Palmeiro will lose a whopping 10 days pay. He will now be better known for this charade no matter what his final hit or home run total will be. Yes, he may not get into the Hall of Fame now. But there are additional punishments in store.

First, from this day forward I will refer to Rafael Palmeiro as “Raffi,” because his crybaby excuses remind me of the unbelievably annoying Raffi who sings for children. If you do not have small children, you have been spared a five-year prison term of listening to music that makes Clay Aiken sound hardcore.

Second, and most unforgivably, Raffi has made Jose Canseco into a respectable, honorable person. Canseco, the classic kid who tells on the kid who doesn’t do his homework, is bizarrely redeemed through this whole sorry affair. His claim of injecting Raffi and others with steroids now holds water, and he’s been transformed from clubhouse rat to courageous whistleblower. In a sleazy side note, Canseco’s ex-wife bares more in next month’s Playboy.

Raffi may have taken the heat off his fellow baseheads Jason Giambi and the other players caught under the new steroid rules, and I’ve still got my eye on Barry Bonds. But here’s hoping he’s hauled back before Congress to explain why he lied under oath. His magnificent performance in Washington last March has now replaced Pete Rose’s “I never bet on baseball” as the biggest lie to cripple a sport that’s already weak in the knees.

A Wake Up Call to the World (and Me)

One of the dangers of being a part-time blogger is that work and life tends to cut into your blogging time. So I have temporarily put aside my job, house search, estate closing, house selling and child-raising time to finally post something new. Does Instapundit have a real job?

It would be remiss not to mention the dual terrorist attacks (or as the BBC refers to them, “militants”) that Britons are now enduring. While our hearts and unmitigated support goes out to London, it is oddly reassuring to note the stoic yet determined nature of the city’s residents. Unlike Americans, who alternately sow sorrow and vengeance, the British always keep their game face on. I have family in Britain (my mother was English) and I am well aware of the pluck character that is on display. Remember that this was the nation mercilessly bombed by the Nazis every night during the Blitz, and then emerged from the Underground every morning, went on about its business, stopped at the pub for a pint or two and calmly returned to the subways as the bombs began to rain down again. We are fortunate to have them as our closest allies.

We are also fortunate that after so many years, Tony Blair is still the British prime minister. As a self-declared genius, I don’t throw the “genius” term around too loosely, but I will go on the record here: Tony Blair is a genius, hands down the smartest, most eloquent and populist politician today on either side of the Atlantic. The British are extremely lucky to have him as their leader. His comments today that most of the world had dropped its guard on terrorism and not one inch would be given to terrorist demands were magnificent. While France, Germany and much of Western Europe remains stuck in an economic and rudderless morass, Britain continues to be an economic powerhouse and worldwide leader.

Blair also effectively silenced critics who claim Britain would not have been attacked if it had not helped the U.S. attack Iraq. Prime Minister Mubarak of Egypt, who has zero troops in Iraq and opposed the war, could have said the same thing. So could the leaders of Morocco, Russia, Turkey and other countries without a single soldier in Iraq. The London bombings are a wake up call – we are still at war with an enemy that does not negotiate, does not care about your politics or religion, and does not care whether it lives or dies. It uses Islam as an excuse to conduct a monstrous homicidal rampage and will not stop until you, me and everyone else is DESTROYED.

There is no justification, excuse or mitigating factor for saying “Yes, but America/Britain is partly to blame because…” There is no political or moral justification for blowing up people on a subway car just as there is no justification for killing Iraqi schoolchildren who are getting candy. As Tony Blair says, consider this event a wake up call for the world, and a wake up call to myself to get back on the blogging bus.

Play Ball! 2005 Baseball Forecast Part II

How do you predict pennant winners for Major League Baseball in 2005? Follow the money.

If whoever dies with the most toys wins, then whichever team has the highest salary generally wins their division and makes the playoffs. Once you get to the playoffs things might get a bit interesting with the choke factor and pressure on guys who only make a lousy $5 million a year.

For the last few decades, the Yankees have had the highest payroll in baseball (last year was $184 million, this year over $200 million). But last year they were bested by Boston, a team that coincidentally had the SECOND highest payroll ($127 million). Boy, was I surprised! Then Boston swept St. Louis, which everyone saw coming since the Cardinals only had a puny $83 million payroll. The Red Sox broke the curse, pigs flew and Satan skated all day.

OK, so money doesn’t guarantee a championship. X factors like injuries, bad management and being part of the Mets can sink a team no matter how fat the checkbook is. But if you look at the 2004 payroll, you will notice a striking similarity between a team’s payroll, their standing, and their playoff chances. And that’s why almost all the teams who made the playoffs last year will make them this year. And people wonder why baseball is our fourth most popular sport and TV ratings keep sliding.

Oh yeah, there’s one more factor: pitching. In football, defense wins championships. In baseball, defense is pitching. So whoever has the best pitchers generally wins. Whoever has the most money can afford the best pitchers. If there’s a good pitcher on a bad club, he’ll usually be traded to a club who can afford him in due time so the bad team has no way to improve. Get the picture?

Teams are listed in their order of finish, along with their 2004 payroll to keep proving some kind of point.

AL EAST

1) NY Yankees ($200 million plus): Something weird is happening in the Bronx. Joe Torre hasn’t won in five years but he’s still managing. Carlos Beltran was available last year, but Steinbrenner realized he already had four outfielders and two DHs. Therefore, the Yankees actually spent money on PITCHING. Furthermore, the Yankees got Randy Johnson, a lefthander to combat the Red Sox’s fearsome array of left-handed batting. What the hell is going on here? Oh wait, Kevin Brown is getting paid $15 million. That’s more like it.

2) Boston Red Sox ($127 million): Boston retained its lineup but had some inevitable shuffling in the starting rotation. Wells replaces Martinez (good), Clement replaces Lowe (hmm) and Wade Miller might replace Wakefield (uh oh). There’s still no reason this team can’t make the wild card.

3) Baltimore Orioles ($51 million): The rest of the AL East is kind of a wash because the teams don’t have the cash to keep up with the Sox and Yankees. I’ll pick Baltimore next because they have a decent lineup and they have two pitchers (Ponson and Lopez) that should win about 12 games.

4) Toronto Blue Jays ($50 million): The only team left in Canada, but I won’t hold that against them.

5) Tampa Bay Devil Rays ($30 million): It won’t surprise me if Tampa claws through to fourth again, but that’s as far as they’ll go. It says something when Lou Pinella is the most entertaining Devil Ray.

AL CENTRAL

1) Minnesota Twins ($54 million): Surprisingly, the Twinkies are NOT the highest payroll team in the division. Chicago is, but the White Sox appear to be run by the Keystone Cops. While the Twins also benefit from playing in a truly horrible division, they also are loosening the purse strings to re-sign Johan Santana to a $40 million contract. The Twins also have a talent for finding amazing closers out of thin air. Just where did Joe Nathan come from? Unfortunately, the Twins are going to have to get more money and aggression before dethroning the Yankees or Red Sox anytime soon.

2) Chicago White Sox ($65 million): This is a weird team. It’s actually got a decent starting rotation filled with ex-Yankee Cuban defectors (Contreras and Hernandez). But while pitching is the most important thing, you do need someone to swing a bat and nobody in Chicago’s lineup can hit over .300 with Ordonez and Carlos Lee gone. Also, pitching extends to the bullpen, and the bullpen is putrid.

3) Cleveland Indians ($34 million): Coco Crisp? I’m cuckoo for Cleveland! I’m cuckoo for Cleveland! Ha ha, sorry I couldn’t resist that one…Cleveland appears to have studied Moneyball pretty closely, as it boasts a young team with few stars that actually have a good attitude and hustle toward the game. Unfortunately, it missed the part of the book that read having a low payroll means you have no chance at a championship. I also can’t trust a club that has C.C. Sabathia as its top starter.

4) Detroit Tigers ($47 million): The offense is shaping up and the Tigers curiously have two closers (Urbina and Troy Percival), which is strange for a club that only won 72 games. If they can trade one of those guys for a legitimate starter, they could reach .500.

5) KC Royals ($47 million): I like manager Tony Pena, but he’s stuck in the mud with these chumps. 100 losses is possible.

AL WEST

1) Anaheim/Los Angeles/Orange County Angels ($101 million): Ah, this is more like it. A club with deep pockets that coincidentally can afford great players. If the Angels’ batting order stays healthy, they can actually keep up with Boston and the Yankees. Look at this – Erstad, Guerrero, Garrett Anderson, Finley, Molino, Cabrera. Muy fantastico! Their starting five includes Bartolo Colon, Washburn and Escobar, who should do well if they don’t miss any Weight Watchers meetings. Francisco Rodriguez is the new closer, and he is truly amazing. He could be the next Mariano Rivera.

2) Oakland A’s ($59 million): Rebuilding year for Billy Beane. I expect him to make some good pickups and contend for the wild card like he always does, but losing Hudson and Mulder was too much for him. Jason Kendall and John Harden were good signings.

3) Texas Rangers ($55 million): I’ll admit the Rangers played better than I expected last year. I thought Blalock and Teixiera would be trade bait in August, but the Rangers hung tight as KENNY ROGERS WON 18 GAMES. Texas (including Houston) may be where old pitchers get reborn. Cordero is a great closer, but with Chan Ho Park still in the starting rotation, the Rangers are still two good starters away from challenging the Angels.

4) Seattle Mariners ($81 million): No pitcher in Seattle won more than nine games last season. So they signed Adrian Beltre and Richie Sexson to pump up the offense. What do you think the Mariners could get when they trade Ichiro in July?

NL EAST

1) Atlanta Braves ($91 million): This team always finds a way to win. Last year they turned into a hitting machine. I’m not concerned about John Smoltz starting, but would you want Raul Mondesi as your starting right fielder? And did anyone notice that Mike Hampton won 13 games last year? With Tim Hudson now pitching in Turner Field, I just don’t see the other teams here having enough to challenge the perennial winner.

2) Florida Marlins ($42 million): I’m going with my gut in saying if the Marlins stay healthy (which didn’t happen last year), they could even be a wild card team. Everyone forgot the Marlins won it all in 2003 and even though they looked like a nursing home last year they still won 83 games. Delgado signed here in the offseason and Luis Castillo and Miguel Cabrera are good. If Leiter still has gas in the tank, if Dontrelle Willis regains his 2003 form and if the bullpen settles down the Marlins will scare people (yeah, yeah, that’s a lot of ifs).

3) NY Mets ($97 million): I think Omar Minaya believes he’s the Yankee GM, because the long-term deals he’s signed bring back those truly horrible overpaid 1980s Yankee clubs to mind. Four years for Martinez? Seven for Beltran? Yikes. I really want to give the Mets a chance because I like Willie Randolph, a childhood hero who finally gets a chance to prove himself. While few will question signing Martinez and Beltran, $21 million to KRIS BENSON over three years doesn’t strike me with the same confidence. While the Mets are certainly better than last year, a weak bullpen and overall chemistry won’t overcome some big holes. However, if the Mets are still contending come August, I do think Minaya will pay a key player whatever it takes to sign him.

4) Philadelphia Phillies ($93 million): Last year’s underachievers become this year’s mediocre team. Generalissimo Bowa is gone but last year’s bad pitching remains. Jon Lieber can’t do it alone.

5) Washington Nationals ($42 million): The Nationals finally escaped from their Canadian captors and are welcomed with open arms to our nation’s capital. However, the team is still last year’s Montreal Expos.

NL CENTRAL

1) St. Louis Cardinals ($83 million): The lack of a big time starter finally caught up to the Cardinals once they no longer had to play in the truly awful NL Central. Houston took them to seven games and then they got swept in the World Series. Anyone who doesn’t think Mark Mulder is better than Woody Williams can go to the head of the stupid line. Except for the shortstop shuffle, the rest of the team is intact. Think Chris Carpenter and Larry Williams will stay healthy all year? Me too.

2) Houston Astros ($75 million): Speaking of health, imagine what the Astros could have done if Pettite stayed healthy all year. Clemens and Roy Oswalt carry the pitching load. If Adam Everett and Lance Berkman pick up Beltran’s production, this team should get the wild card again.

3) Chicago Cubs ($90 million): Speaking of health, the Cubs can walk away with this division if Kerry Wood and Mark Prior and Nomar Garciaparra could stay uninjured for more than seven games. If they do and Dempster fills Clement’s shoes, the Cubs should make the playoffs. Of course, we all know what happens to Chicago when success beckons.

4) Cincinnati Reds ($46 million): I think Ken Griffey Jr. used to play on the Reds. Boy, he was a great player. Whatever happened to him?

5) Pittsburgh Pirates ($32 million): It doesn’t really matter who finishes fifth and sixth in this division. Pittsburgh is the perfect example of what’s wrong with baseball. Once a powerhouse as recently as a decade ago, the Pirates have lost a slew of all-stars because the team can’t afford to re-sign them. Last year, the Pirates had two bona fide new stars in lefty starter Oliver Perez and Rookie of the Year Jason Bay. But everyone knows that by June the Pirates will be worse than Courtney Love’s parenting skills and both of them will be on the trade block. In return, the Pirates will get washed up players like Benito Santiago and Jose Mesa who they can get cheap. Bleah.

6) Milwaukee Brewers ($27 million): Hard to believe that Bud Selig, who has helped run baseball into the ground, still owns this team (through his family). Easier to believe that the team has been for sale for over five years and nobody wants it.

NL WEST
1) LA Dodgers ($93 million): Most teams have good bats and no pitchers. The Dodgers have the opposite problem. True, Dodger Stadium is a pitcher’s park, but couldn’t the team fork out a few bucks for Ordonez, Garciaparra or the hundred other .325 hitters that signed up last season? Despite this, pitching wins championships and the Dodgers won the West last year. The Dodgers did sign some .285 hitters in Jeff Kent and JD Drew. New pitchers Derek Lowe and Brad Penny will do fine in the cavernous field, where even Jeff Weaver is a .500 pitcher.

2) San Diego Padres ($55 million): If Bonds is out all season, the Padres could sneak right into the wild card spot. It’s been a long rebuilding project, but the Padres aren’t too bad this year. Jake Peavy and Brian Lawrence are good pitchers and the offense is efficient, although there’s no big name stars. Trevor Hoffman seems to have his groove back.

3) San Francisco Giants ($82 million): As the Yankees keep learning, never tie too much of your franchise on one guy. My gut says Bonds is out for the season. Jason Schmidt is a good starter, but the geriatric lineup and mediocre pitching won’t carry the rest of the team.

4) Arizona Diamondbacks ($70 million): Arizona won’t lose 111 games this year, but they won’t lose much less. What do Shawn Green, Sean Estes, Javier Vazquez, and Troy Glaus have in common? They’re all new Diamondbacks and they’re all three years past their prime.

5) Colorado Rockies ($65 million): I truly can’t say where the $65 million goes in Colorado. The good news is the thin air means you can get drunk in Coors Field faster than any other ballpark.

Play Ball! 2005 Baseball Forecast Part I

I love baseball and I love capitalism. But the two mix together like two cats in a sack.

When the Patriots won the Super Bowl, I briefly mentioned how financial parity – notably a salary cap on player payrolls and equal TV profit sharing between all 32 teams – has brought joy and hope to NFL fans everywhere. Because of parity, every NFL team has a chance to sign the same players and small market teams like Green Bay are on the same footing as big market teams like New York. Free agent players can sign with the team that offers them the best financial package (if they wish) but careful bookkeeping will assure owners that no player eats too much of the salary cap. With each club having equal share of the pot, every team has a chance of making the playoffs each year, and worst-to-first scenarios happen every year.

Not so in Major League Baseball. While there is a luxury tax in place for teams with sky-high payrolls that are supposed to be allocated to other teams, baseball is a case of haves and have-nots. If you support a team like New York, Boston, Anaheim or another team that has deep pockets from local TV contracts and other revenue sources, your team has a chance. But if you like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay or a similar team, you’re out of luck. There is no way your team will ever compete in an environment where richer teams – almost all in larger cities – have the resources to sign the best players and you don’t. And when you’re watching games that take place in Pittsburgh, Detroit and other cellar dwellers, nobody is at the game. Fans won’t come out to see a bad team, and owners won’t raise their payroll because they’re not getting cash from ticket sales, concession stands and TV ratings. It’s a vicious Catch-22.

MLB has reaped what it has sown. When I was a kid, baseball was the most popular televised sport. Now it is the fourth most popular, behind the NFL, NASCAR and basketball. Yes, people would rather watch cars drive in a circle for three hours than watch baseball. But if you live in Pittsburgh, your team stinks and ALWAYS WILL STINK, unless a rich owner buys the team or MLB changes its payroll disparity. The former will happen long before the latter.

Every year I make baseball picks because I like baseball and it’s fun. To be honest, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Every year, there’s almost no change in the final standings. Last year a book called “Moneyball” came out about the small-market, low payroll Oakland A’s, who always managed to field a competitive team thanks to their great General Manager Billy Beane. While Beane is a smart guy with a good eye for talent, I won’t subscribe to his philosophy until one of those teams wins the World Series. And last year Oakland lost their two star pitchers because they couldn’t afford them, and probably won’t make the playoffs this year because the Anaheim Angels are outspending them on player salaries.

I haven’t even talked about steroids, but baseball will ultimately weather that scandal while a few players go down in flames. The lack of a salary cap and huge financial disparity between teams is a much more serious issue that will only exacerbate in the coming years.

I’ll have my annual baseball predictions tomorrow, but here’s some information to chew on:

Largest Team Payroll: New York Yankees – $204 Million

Smallest Team Payroll: Milwaukee Brewers – $27 million

Why Baseball Teams are Facing a Big League Payroll Debt

Complete 2004 Team Payroll and Player Salaries

Freedom of Speech - Just Watch What You Say

Another week, another contretemps over freedom of expression. As usual, this First Amendment assault is not limited to the right or left wing. While the courts almost always end up affirming free speech rights, watching both sides of extremists grapple over words they find unacceptable is painful to watch and witness.

Here in Massachusetts, Harvard President Larry Summers is under siege from students, faculty and self-appointed politically correct police because of some disparaging comments he made about women in math and science. In Washington, Republican Senator Ted Stevens made a complete fool of himself when he wanted to extend indecency standards to satellite and cable television. Both of these attacks, and these narrow-minded assaults happen all the time, share a puritan obsession of not only imposing the dissenters’ viewpoints on others, but a thin-skinned intolerance to any differing opinion. I wish I could remember who said this quote that I heard in college and never forgot: “Liberals and conservatives are all for another point of view, until someone comes up with one.”

Harvard first. Harvard has always been portrayed as a left-wing hotbed, although I never think it was more liberal than other university towns (most of Cambridge, Mass., is actually a blue-collar neighborhood). Summers made some well-documented remarks about genetics possibly being a reason why there are few women in research science. Disparaging? Perhaps. Controversial and worth investigating? Maybe. Worthy of widespread protest and a non-binding no confidence vote? No way.

A university, especially one as esteemed as Harvard, should be an exchange of ideas and a place where research and debate are encouraged. If Summers’ theory is wrong (and he prefaced his comments by hoping he was), it can then be logically disproved. But I’m surprised at the knee-jerk hostility and lingering vitriol to Summers’ comments. He was discussing science and genetics, not political or social issues where gender equality is a right in this country. And in this country, President Summers, you and I have the right to hypothesize and pontificate whatever we want without fear of reprisal.

Even if you completely disagree with his comments, there is absolutely no reason to crucify Summers with a no confidence vote. Any faculty member who voted yes is basically saying, “You’re not fit to run this university because we don’t like what you said.” This wasn’t hate speech – it was a theory (arguably based in scientific fact that there are mental differences between men and women). But when you’re dealing with a rabidly partisan liberal body that values emotion over reality and science, you’re not going to get a rational reaction. They are welcome to protest Summers without fear of punishment – just as he should be welcome to present an important subject for debate without fear as well.

As for Senator Stevens, this is another example of an extreme viewpoint – in this case the right-wing – pushing for government censorship against free speech. I’ve ranted below in this column about Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who turned his regulatory agency into a nanny state that is deciding for you what is and is not indecent. Now the Republicans, who are supposed to be for less government interference are asking why cable is unregulated. Stevens, who is from Alaska, must have hit his head on the top of his igloo. Cable is SUPPOSED to be unregulated, you dope. That’s why people pay for it. It’s a voluntary service. Even Powell said the FCC shouldn’t touch cable or satellite radio, but don’t think this is over.

You would think that having been burned by trying to regulate the Internet in the 1990s, Congress would have learned more about the First Amendment, not to mention how not to waste taxpayer dollars in court. But what both the Summers and Stevens episodes illustrate is how overzealous and hyper-emotional partisans on both sides of the political aisle want to slice free speech off at the knees and punish anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their narrow viewpoints. You may not always agree with the ACLU, but at least they don’t discriminate when it comes to upholding your right to speak your mind no matter what you may say. Free speech means free speech for everyone.

Voltaire said, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That’s what Freedom of Speech is all about. And it’s in the First Amendment as a non-partisan issue. Case closed.

Independent Minded vs. The Sheep

I started this blog for a few reasons. One is I have two wonderful young children who have robbed me of any social life, so I’m now online as much as the guys in my company’s web development staff on Friday nights. But the second is that I appear to be a freak of nature. I have the nerve to think Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are both full of shit. Am I all alone here?

I can’t seem to read any other blog or listen to any so-called pundit who is incapable of shilling their respective party line. Is everyone a Democratic or Republican sheep who thinks the other side is the root of all evil? I can’t tell you how many liberals I’ve met who think all the people that live in “red” states are gun-toting, wife-beating, chew-dipping yahoos that haven’t changed since the 50s – the 1850s! And there are plenty of conservatives who think the exact same way.

I have news for all you partisans: START THINKING FOR YOURSELVES. If you’re so impressionable that you parrot everything you just heard in Fahrenheit 9/11 or Fox News, DON’T WATCH IT. And show some respect for anyone who doesn’t tow the party line you’re clinging to, for God’s sake.

Here’s an example of how people latch onto partisan ideas instead of just the ideas. In 1992, a presidential candidate proposed a flat tax idea. I’d just suffered through doing my taxes myself and I thought it was a great idea. What candidate proposed this? None other than Jerry Brown, former California left-wing governor (and budget hawk). When Jerry actually started doing OK in the primaries, Republicans shouted down his flat tax as wacky. Then in 1996, Steve Forbes runs and starts plugging the flat tax. LO AND BEHOLD, the Republicans have changed their tune. And wouldn’t you know it, the Democrats are bitching about the flat tax. Did it occur that having Jerry Brown and Steve Forbes pitch the flat tax together would make truly bipartisan viewing?

In my home state of Massachusetts, it’s been fascinating to watch Governor Mitt Romney walk this tightrope of listening to his constituents and do about-faces when it comes to the national Republican party, where he clearly has higher ambitions. Romney won the election by being a typical moderate Northeast Republican governor – the same type that run or have recently run states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and New Hampshire. They’ve all been socially liberal and accepting while fiscally conservative. But while this adheres to the Northeastern and New England mindset, it’s totally out of whack with the big boys in D.C. Romney has been caught in some “contradictions,” to use a polite word, on stem cell research and other issues, which you can read about when you scroll down to some of my earlier essays.

And guess what? If Romney truly wants to run for national office, this is necessary. It doesn’t matter that he’s a Republican (or that Massachusetts has elected a Republican to the corner office since 1990). In today’s Globe, a conservative group has said Romney will never be endorsed by them because he comes from Massachusetts – a blue state. How myopic.

Anyone else think this is crazy?

Democracy Rising in the Middle East

It's nice to be correct. Scan down to my January 28 column ("A Great Day for Iraq") and you'll see how I believed that the war in Iraq was correct because a democratic Iraq could be the catalyst for democracy throughout the Middle East. And when Middle Eastern people see they have the power to change their government, they're less likely to get corrupted by radical Islamis and try to change their own system.

The successful Iraqi election has done just that -- a slow but steady toppling of dominoes that has already caused ripples of democracy across the region.

First, the Palestinians democratically elect a leader who is truly committed to the peace process and neutralizing terrorist organizations. Then Egypt allows opposition leaders to run for the first time in modern history. And now, demonstrators have brought down Syria's puppet government in Lebanon after former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated.

A quick aside about Hariri: He was also a former trustee of my alma mater, Boston University. President Hariri was a decent man who started a scholarship fund that helped thousands of Lebanese students receive a BU education, and also helped finance a new business school that BU desperately needed. He understood the importance of attracting business and investment to his country that was necessary in reconstruction. And he also knew Syria was another Baathist dictatorship whose occupation of his country destroyed the infrastructure and economy of his once-vibrant nation.

What's happening here? Arab leaders across the board have seen the writing on the wall. People are not only willing and able to vote, but also rejecting terrorists in their midst by doing so. The Middle East won't fall overnight like Eastern Europe did, but we are starting to see real change here. And, like it or not, it was all made possible by toppling Saddam Hussein.

RIP Democratic Party

While I was out of town an interesting thing happened to the Democratic Party. It committed suicide.

The trigger was pulled when Howard Dean became party chairman. Rumors of Hunter Thompson killing himself when he heard this horrible news could not be confirmed.

It’s hard to believe that just over a decade ago, the Democrats owned the White House and both branches of Congress. The party’s declining relevance and deterioration has been painful to witness, especially when compared to how the Republicans have transformed the federal government into a one-party state. I’m not a Republican, but have marveled at how well organized and focused they have been in establishing a grass roots organization, creating a clearly defined message, locking onto the key concerns of their constituents and presenting charismatic candidates who bring out the votes.

Of course, none of this would be possible without an escalating series of severe Democratic blunders. How ironic that the party which began grass roots politics with the unions and farmers in the 1950s completely overlooked the growing concern with values in America’s heartland and South. Now “values” is an enigmatic buzzword that will be a subject of a future brain dump from yours truly – who here is against values? – but the Democrats still missed the boat. When it came to identifying what concerned voters and signing up candidates who address these issues, the Republicans won in a landslide.

Speaking of candidates, John Kerry – with all due respect – was terrible. As a longtime Massachusetts resident I liked Kerry as a Senator, but he clearly did not have what Tom Wolfe called “the right stuff” to be a presidential candidate. On the national stage he was stiff, wishy washy and just not endearing. Kerry was clearly smarter and better prepared than Bush, and he won all the debates. But there is a likeability factor that pundits overlook, and Kerry was just not a likeable guy to your average Kansan or Cajun. Everyone I know who voted for Kerry did so not because they liked him, but because they didn’t approve of Bush. That’s not going to win the Democrats any swing voters. Kerry’s personal mannerisms and immense wealth let Karl Rove successfully paint him as an elitist, out-of-touch liberal.

This elitism showcases another Democratic gaffe – their leaders, candidates and attitudes still resemble the 1980s or early 1990s when upscale urban and suburban votes were critical. Well, the Upper West Side, Cambridge and Berkeley are now safely Democratic. What the Democrats haven’t noticed is that the rest of the country has deserted them because of this focus. Who are the Democratic leaders? John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi. Are they reaching out to blue collar Midwesterners or suburban Colorado voters? Are they connecting with these Americans on values or terrorism, the two issues that still define the political landscape?

And into this quagmire steps Howard Dean, another polarizing figure who won one state in the primaries (his home state of Vermont) and whose Godzilla impression forever tarred him as loopy. Republicans are either tapping kegs in celebration or scratching their heads in disbelief over Dean’s victory. Honestly, I think the reason is less Dean’s personal platform and more of his fundraising skills. Dean did grow a small but vocal grassroots organization that raised an impressive amount of money. But fundraising isn’t the Democrats’ problem. The problem is they are not addressing the issues that are important to Southern, Midwestern and Heartland voters and they cannot produce a charismatic, non-polarizing candidate who can espouse them. Dean is part of this problem, not the solution.

While the Republicans have a slew of candidates waiting in the wings for 2008 – McCain, Guiliani, Jeb Bush and others – the Democrats can only muster Hilary Clinton, another polarizing elitist who will continue to sink the Democratic boat. Dr. Dean certainly has his work cut out for him, but I have a simple suggestion to help change attitudes toward Democrats in some red states.

Be nice.

By being nice, try to avoid blasting the President at every opportunity and try to find some new issues of your own to develop. Right now, no voter can define what your party stands for. Whether it’s values, Social Security or health care, find something where you can put a stake in the ground.

Be nice by soul searching. Don’t dismiss all the red state voters as uneducated, intolerant and uninformed rednecks. Frankly, that’s part of your problem. Your national platform is so poor that local elections aren’t going your way either. Tom Daschle’s defeat is a perfect example.

Be nice by asking voters why they seemed to vote against their better judgment, not by telling them how morally superior you are because you disagree with them. Plenty of unemployed, in-debt families in Ohio voted for a party that gives huge tax breaks to billionaires because they didn’t think you connected with them. Find out why, politely.

Be nice by finding candidates who don’t lecture or talk down to voters, even if that’s not their intent. Bush is almost as rich as Kerry, yet he comes across as an average guy that average Americans can relate to. That’s not unfair, that’s just the way it is.

Be nice by bringing the party more in step with average America, instead of allying yourself with celebrities. The president was absolutely right when he said Hollywood is not the heart and soul of America. Everyone likes to be entertained, but in reality values does not equal entertainment.

Being nice is a start. If you don’t believe me, go visit the Upper West Side and Berkeley, and then visit anywhere in the Midwest or South. I guarantee you the people are nicer.