When we were looking for a house in the Boston area last year, we looked at some houses in Needham. It’s a typical suburban town west of Boston with a train going through the middle of town square and lots of smaller, seriously overpriced Levittown-style houses, many of which are being bulldozed for McMansions as yuppies move in to take advantage of the close access to Boston and good school system. Lord knows it’s not the most exciting place to live and the town doesn’t have much identity, but it’s a perfectly respectable town to middle- and upper-middle-class families.
But now Needham has an identity: The town that discourages academic achievement.
For decades the town’s weekly newspaper, The Needham Times, has published the names of high school students who have made the honor roll. No longer. Stung by four student suicides in the last three years, Needham High School Principal Paul Richards has decided to take the kill-the-mosquito-with-a-bazooka approach and will no longer submit student honor roll names for publication. His reasoning is that publishing the names has created an overly competitive culture, causing stress and presenting “an unhealthy focus on grades.”
Ergo, by this logic, if the school does not publicize academic achievements, then all student stress will magically disappear. Then the school can focus on publicizing its equally important athletic achievements, which will still be covered by the local papers. Of course, publishing the names of the kids who scored touchdowns might upset and cause stress to those who didn’t make the team, or even the kids who decided studying might be more important than football, but that’s another bridge to cross.
Well, how does one choose to respond? Are we happy that underachievers and slackers now won’t be stigmatized because they won’t feel inferior to kids who work hard and get good grades? Was a thorough study taken to verify that it was the newspaper that was sending all these kids and their hypermotivated parents over the edge? Did anyone bother to ask the students who had earned the right to see their names in the paper for reasons other than delinquency and athletics whether they minded being omitted to appease the handful of parents who had suggested the idea to the principal in the first place.
There is a certainly a problem with stress and growing teenagers that need to live up to high parental expectations in better-off communities like Needham. But this overkill and ill-advised remedy is not the answer, and gives more ammunition to the perception of a PC-saturated world that seeks to remove all vestiges of competition and achievement in the well-intentioned but ill-advised idea of placing everyone on a level playing field. However noble that idea is, it doesn’t match up to reality where the bulk of Needham’s high school graduates will be entering a competitive and capitalistic world where achievement and hard work are the way to success.
Here’s my personal note to some disappointed Needham overachievers: I am disappointed for you, but at least you are aware of the importance of success in a world where standards count. And you are much smarter than your principal.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Friday, November 24, 2006
KKKramer?
We’ve all read about celebrities from Charles Lindbergh to Mel Gibson become infamous because of their racist or anti-Semitic ramblings, but thanks to today’s technology we can all witness these fascinating meltdowns ourselves. If you’re one of the few who have not witnessed Michael Richards’ career self-destruct before your very eyes, make sure you check it out here.
It’s all a shame, really. Like you, I was a big Kramer fan. He was by far the goofiest and most likeable member of the whole Seinfeld ensemble. I’d first seen Richards in a dumb movie called UHF, a Weird Al vehicle that didn’t even become a cult classic. But Richards, playing a dimwitted janitor, was the highlight, using his lean body and bizarre facial contortions for good laughs. Then he had a guest role on Night Court as a defendant who tries to convince Harry Anderson that he’s invisible. His dues finally paid off in the Kramer role he was born to play. I still watch the reruns and even though I’ve seen all the episodes plenty of times, he still makes me laugh. He’s one of the best physical comedians ever – not quite Belushi, but better than Chris Farley.
And now we watch the sad and pathetic racist tirades, all because of him being bothered by a heckler! You’d think someone like Richards would have developed thicker skin after all the years of hard work and obvious rejection that every struggling comic must go through. It also shows how tough it is to be a truly great stand up comedian. Someone like Lenny Bruce or George Carlin, whose talents lie with using language and twisting it to both reflect and belittle societal norms in a humorous way, could have taken “those words” as Richards calls them, and not only made them into a Teflon joke but also gotten the crowd behind the comedian and against the hecklers. Sacha Baron Cohen’s Borat character is a current master at this very tricky type of humor. Unfortunately, Richards’ talents lie more with scripted and physical performances, and he was too far out of his element here.
And if the stand up routine sent Richards’ career down in flames, the Late Show mea culpa on Monday night was even more awkward and painful to watch (which is why it was such great television). Richards was obviously still rattled and unprepared for a public apology, and he should have rehearsed his performance with a good publicist beforehand.
The American public tends to forgive its celebrities, but the forgiveness is often dependent on both the celebrity’s stature and what they did wrong. Sexual scandals like Hugh Grant’s, Marv Albert’s and Kobe Bryant’s are quickly forgotten. Drug and alcoholic binges that result in public humiliation are overlooked too, although not as quickly. But when racism or anti-Semitism is involved, the road back is much longer because the transgressions move from self-inflicted wounds to offending a large portion of the population. Fans can quickly become alienated. This is why Mel Gibson tried to spin his anti-Semitic rants into an alcoholic problem. Time will tell if the public will forgive him.
But Richards’ road back will be much more difficult, and not just because he is a smaller star than Gibson. To watch the hipster doofus we all loved as the goofy next door neighbor scream racial epithets, even in botched jest, may have been too much of a character shock for many of us to forget or forgive.
It’s all a shame, really. Like you, I was a big Kramer fan. He was by far the goofiest and most likeable member of the whole Seinfeld ensemble. I’d first seen Richards in a dumb movie called UHF, a Weird Al vehicle that didn’t even become a cult classic. But Richards, playing a dimwitted janitor, was the highlight, using his lean body and bizarre facial contortions for good laughs. Then he had a guest role on Night Court as a defendant who tries to convince Harry Anderson that he’s invisible. His dues finally paid off in the Kramer role he was born to play. I still watch the reruns and even though I’ve seen all the episodes plenty of times, he still makes me laugh. He’s one of the best physical comedians ever – not quite Belushi, but better than Chris Farley.
And now we watch the sad and pathetic racist tirades, all because of him being bothered by a heckler! You’d think someone like Richards would have developed thicker skin after all the years of hard work and obvious rejection that every struggling comic must go through. It also shows how tough it is to be a truly great stand up comedian. Someone like Lenny Bruce or George Carlin, whose talents lie with using language and twisting it to both reflect and belittle societal norms in a humorous way, could have taken “those words” as Richards calls them, and not only made them into a Teflon joke but also gotten the crowd behind the comedian and against the hecklers. Sacha Baron Cohen’s Borat character is a current master at this very tricky type of humor. Unfortunately, Richards’ talents lie more with scripted and physical performances, and he was too far out of his element here.
And if the stand up routine sent Richards’ career down in flames, the Late Show mea culpa on Monday night was even more awkward and painful to watch (which is why it was such great television). Richards was obviously still rattled and unprepared for a public apology, and he should have rehearsed his performance with a good publicist beforehand.
The American public tends to forgive its celebrities, but the forgiveness is often dependent on both the celebrity’s stature and what they did wrong. Sexual scandals like Hugh Grant’s, Marv Albert’s and Kobe Bryant’s are quickly forgotten. Drug and alcoholic binges that result in public humiliation are overlooked too, although not as quickly. But when racism or anti-Semitism is involved, the road back is much longer because the transgressions move from self-inflicted wounds to offending a large portion of the population. Fans can quickly become alienated. This is why Mel Gibson tried to spin his anti-Semitic rants into an alcoholic problem. Time will tell if the public will forgive him.
But Richards’ road back will be much more difficult, and not just because he is a smaller star than Gibson. To watch the hipster doofus we all loved as the goofy next door neighbor scream racial epithets, even in botched jest, may have been too much of a character shock for many of us to forget or forgive.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Some Free Advice for Gay Marriage Advocates
I live in Massachusetts, the only state where people of the same sex can legally wed. The issue was decided by the courts, not the people, and after the initial surprise most people here honestly couldn’t care less about the issue. I opined about this in one of my first blog entries and my views haven’t changed. If you’re a man and want to marry another man, have a blast. Same for the ladies.
But most people around the country don’t feel the same way. They believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. The issue mobilized religious partisans from black churches to fundamentalist Baptists, and they were joined by plenty of other, mainly older, people who were more open-minded and not even homophobic, but didn’t feel comfortable about the whole idea. The Republicans pounced on it in 2004, and it was one of several issues that led them to victory that year.
If you look at the state-by-state vote tally (about halfway down the page) you’ll see that when put to a popular vote, gay marriage didn’t even come close to a victory in any state, even the states that Kerry won, like Michigan and Oregon. Moreover, virtually all Democrats, including Kerry and both Clintons, have rejected the idea. Clearly, most Americans are not ready for gay marriage.
So if you’re a gay marriage advocate, what do you do? I think the problem is that they’re trying to hit a home run when they can win the game with base hits. They’re overreaching their goals and overestimating what the public accepts. That’s not fair, but that’s the way it is, and they need to play the game better.
If you look back at the top of the Wikipedia page, which I hope is accurate, you’ll notice that many legislatures or courts have permitted the “civil union” compromise to proceed. This is marriage in all but name, with more legal and estate rights than most common-law marriages, although it varies a bit with each state. Polls have also consistently shown that voters are more tolerant of civil unions than the marriage proposal.
So my advice would be to step back and stop with the “M” word. Try civil unions first, preferably through the legislature or courts instead of the ballot box. Then a few years later after everyone has settled down and understand their marriages haven’t changed, then you try the marriage route. But only if the civil unions are in place and established first, because then you have your fallback option.
Some people may read this and think that civil unions are not enough – they want to be just as happily married as Elizabeth Taylor and Larry King are. And don't forget that meeting of the minds with Britney Spears and Kevin Federline. That’s understandable, but as an old geezer once said, you can’t always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need. When you’re rolling out a radical new concept, caution and patience are sometimes the way you pull things off. Things like integration and third world independence didn’t happen overnight either, but they were also done slowly and through the courts or governments instead of the popular vote.
The best advice I ever heard about negotiating came from Ronald Reagan. Reagan said if you’re negotiating and the other side makes an offer that gives you at least 51% of what you want, take the deal. Then, six months later or whenever the time is right, go back to the other side, show them the results to prove how right you were, and you’ll get the other 49%. Civil unions offer quite a bit of what gay marriage advocates want. Take the deal, and come back to the table later.
But most people around the country don’t feel the same way. They believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. The issue mobilized religious partisans from black churches to fundamentalist Baptists, and they were joined by plenty of other, mainly older, people who were more open-minded and not even homophobic, but didn’t feel comfortable about the whole idea. The Republicans pounced on it in 2004, and it was one of several issues that led them to victory that year.
If you look at the state-by-state vote tally (about halfway down the page) you’ll see that when put to a popular vote, gay marriage didn’t even come close to a victory in any state, even the states that Kerry won, like Michigan and Oregon. Moreover, virtually all Democrats, including Kerry and both Clintons, have rejected the idea. Clearly, most Americans are not ready for gay marriage.
So if you’re a gay marriage advocate, what do you do? I think the problem is that they’re trying to hit a home run when they can win the game with base hits. They’re overreaching their goals and overestimating what the public accepts. That’s not fair, but that’s the way it is, and they need to play the game better.
If you look back at the top of the Wikipedia page, which I hope is accurate, you’ll notice that many legislatures or courts have permitted the “civil union” compromise to proceed. This is marriage in all but name, with more legal and estate rights than most common-law marriages, although it varies a bit with each state. Polls have also consistently shown that voters are more tolerant of civil unions than the marriage proposal.
So my advice would be to step back and stop with the “M” word. Try civil unions first, preferably through the legislature or courts instead of the ballot box. Then a few years later after everyone has settled down and understand their marriages haven’t changed, then you try the marriage route. But only if the civil unions are in place and established first, because then you have your fallback option.
Some people may read this and think that civil unions are not enough – they want to be just as happily married as Elizabeth Taylor and Larry King are. And don't forget that meeting of the minds with Britney Spears and Kevin Federline. That’s understandable, but as an old geezer once said, you can’t always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need. When you’re rolling out a radical new concept, caution and patience are sometimes the way you pull things off. Things like integration and third world independence didn’t happen overnight either, but they were also done slowly and through the courts or governments instead of the popular vote.
The best advice I ever heard about negotiating came from Ronald Reagan. Reagan said if you’re negotiating and the other side makes an offer that gives you at least 51% of what you want, take the deal. Then, six months later or whenever the time is right, go back to the other side, show them the results to prove how right you were, and you’ll get the other 49%. Civil unions offer quite a bit of what gay marriage advocates want. Take the deal, and come back to the table later.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Conservatives? What Conservatives?
These are very, very strange political times we’re living in. Make sure that when we’re older we tell our children and grandchildren about the middle of this decade when the ideologies of both parties were going down the drain.
The Democrats have no platform, no new ideas, no leaders and absolutely no clue about what will happen should they gain control of Congress. Their most likely leaders are so far left of the mainstream that their ideas would be considered loopy in what’s left of socialist Europe. And these are the guys that people want to run the country right now.
Why? Because the GOP, once a bedrock of classical conservatism, is even worse. I grew up in the time of Ronald Reagan, who was hailed as a model of the Goldwater small government, Jefferson-style individualist, so perhaps I’m biased. But neither Ronnie nor Barry would recognize the Party today. Read some of these statements from Goldwater to realize how low the GOP has sunk and why Election/Judgment Day cannot come soon enough.
What used to be the national Republican party has sunk to a theocratic bully pulpit that advocates prejudice against homosexuals, a usurpation of the Constitution by the executive branch, an out-of-control deficit spurred by GOP-sponsored pork spreads, laws that suspend habeas corpus for prisoners, etc, etc. I don’t need to go on. Unless you are a religious fanatic or a blind GOP partisan, this party does not represent you and is not worthy of your respect.
How telling that just a decade ago, conservative sages were intellectuals like George Will and William Buckley, who used their intelligence to calmly refute their detractors. Today, hacks like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity spew hateful vitriol at anyone who has the nerve to think differently from them. They have even turned against many of their own party, including many of the Northeastern Republicans who continue to advocate keeping the religion out of government and the government out of your home. Reagan worked hard to bring the suburban moderates into the party – people who just want the government to do basic services, take less of their money in taxes and not give them a hard time if they had to go to Town Hall to apply for a work permit.
David Brooks (another classic conservative who has been called a liberal(!) by these bullies) has it right again – these educated suburbanites go to church and synagogues, but don’t want religion in their government. They read The New York Times and The Washington Post, but for the caliber of writing rather than the ideology. They get their frappuccinos at Starbucks, but understand the coffee chain’s dominance is due to capitalism, marketing and consumer choice instead of exploitation and corporate tax breaks.
How telling that what has finally given the GOP a spring in its step is not Iraq, deficit spending, fixing America’s perception to other countries or even the Taliban resurgence. It is the specter of gay marriage in New Jersey. Again, dogma trumps reason and freedom for the individual in today’s GOP. And don’t forget that whole competence issue I brought up last week.
Six months ago I thought the Republicans could never lose Congress due to the power of incumbency, their fundraising strength and the utter incompetence of the Democrats to offer an alternative. The Democrats are still incompetent, but to America incompetence is better than utter failure. Yes, times are strange today. On November 8, things just may start to look a bit more normal.
More Info: Looks like even big business and the lobbying industry is reading the tea leaves.
The Democrats have no platform, no new ideas, no leaders and absolutely no clue about what will happen should they gain control of Congress. Their most likely leaders are so far left of the mainstream that their ideas would be considered loopy in what’s left of socialist Europe. And these are the guys that people want to run the country right now.
Why? Because the GOP, once a bedrock of classical conservatism, is even worse. I grew up in the time of Ronald Reagan, who was hailed as a model of the Goldwater small government, Jefferson-style individualist, so perhaps I’m biased. But neither Ronnie nor Barry would recognize the Party today. Read some of these statements from Goldwater to realize how low the GOP has sunk and why Election/Judgment Day cannot come soon enough.
What used to be the national Republican party has sunk to a theocratic bully pulpit that advocates prejudice against homosexuals, a usurpation of the Constitution by the executive branch, an out-of-control deficit spurred by GOP-sponsored pork spreads, laws that suspend habeas corpus for prisoners, etc, etc. I don’t need to go on. Unless you are a religious fanatic or a blind GOP partisan, this party does not represent you and is not worthy of your respect.
How telling that just a decade ago, conservative sages were intellectuals like George Will and William Buckley, who used their intelligence to calmly refute their detractors. Today, hacks like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity spew hateful vitriol at anyone who has the nerve to think differently from them. They have even turned against many of their own party, including many of the Northeastern Republicans who continue to advocate keeping the religion out of government and the government out of your home. Reagan worked hard to bring the suburban moderates into the party – people who just want the government to do basic services, take less of their money in taxes and not give them a hard time if they had to go to Town Hall to apply for a work permit.
David Brooks (another classic conservative who has been called a liberal(!) by these bullies) has it right again – these educated suburbanites go to church and synagogues, but don’t want religion in their government. They read The New York Times and The Washington Post, but for the caliber of writing rather than the ideology. They get their frappuccinos at Starbucks, but understand the coffee chain’s dominance is due to capitalism, marketing and consumer choice instead of exploitation and corporate tax breaks.
How telling that what has finally given the GOP a spring in its step is not Iraq, deficit spending, fixing America’s perception to other countries or even the Taliban resurgence. It is the specter of gay marriage in New Jersey. Again, dogma trumps reason and freedom for the individual in today’s GOP. And don’t forget that whole competence issue I brought up last week.
Six months ago I thought the Republicans could never lose Congress due to the power of incumbency, their fundraising strength and the utter incompetence of the Democrats to offer an alternative. The Democrats are still incompetent, but to America incompetence is better than utter failure. Yes, times are strange today. On November 8, things just may start to look a bit more normal.
More Info: Looks like even big business and the lobbying industry is reading the tea leaves.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Last Legs for the Last Prejudice?
You know things are looking bad for the Republicans when I actually agree with everything Frank Rich said this weekend (subscription required – bleah.) Now don’t get me wrong – I think Rich is the Rush Limbaugh of the Left, although he’s much a better writer. But the points he makes in conjunction with David Kuo’s new book are valid: There are just as many homosexuals in the GOP as anywhere else and they are widely accepted, all of which is completely contradicted by the anti-homosexual platform the GOP espouses to win elections with evangelical backings.
The intolerance isn’t surprising. Homophobia is pretty much the last acceptable cultural prejudice in our society. But the Republicans decided to drum up support with a gay-bashing crusade without checking to see if their own house was in order. True evangelicals are probably feeling dumbfounded and hoodwinked as the air slowly begins to seep out of their self-righteous bubble.
Why am I having flashbacks to Kathie Lee Gifford, who repeatedly placed her perfect marriage and husband on a pedestal only to witness the public delight when her husband was caught cheating on her? It shows how tenuous the so-called moral values issue can be. It also makes the inevitable fall from grace irresistible to the masses who are so aware of their own flaws and secretly seethe at anyone who professes to not only be perfect, but also has the gall to position themselves as an example of what an acceptable lifestyle should be. Would the Democrats do the same cover-up and spinning of a Mark Foley scandal if they were in power? Of course, and they have. But they never ran on a moral values and gay-hating agenda.
The chickens have come home to roost here. Using a demographic group for political gain is nothing new, but I will be very interested in seeing how evangelicals use this information about Mark Foley and David Kuo on Election Day. Hell may have no fury like a Holy Roller scorned.
The intolerance isn’t surprising. Homophobia is pretty much the last acceptable cultural prejudice in our society. But the Republicans decided to drum up support with a gay-bashing crusade without checking to see if their own house was in order. True evangelicals are probably feeling dumbfounded and hoodwinked as the air slowly begins to seep out of their self-righteous bubble.
Why am I having flashbacks to Kathie Lee Gifford, who repeatedly placed her perfect marriage and husband on a pedestal only to witness the public delight when her husband was caught cheating on her? It shows how tenuous the so-called moral values issue can be. It also makes the inevitable fall from grace irresistible to the masses who are so aware of their own flaws and secretly seethe at anyone who professes to not only be perfect, but also has the gall to position themselves as an example of what an acceptable lifestyle should be. Would the Democrats do the same cover-up and spinning of a Mark Foley scandal if they were in power? Of course, and they have. But they never ran on a moral values and gay-hating agenda.
The chickens have come home to roost here. Using a demographic group for political gain is nothing new, but I will be very interested in seeing how evangelicals use this information about Mark Foley and David Kuo on Election Day. Hell may have no fury like a Holy Roller scorned.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Some Free Advice for the GOP
As little as three months ago I still believed the Republicans would hold onto the House and Senate because of the three most important factors in midterm elections – incumbency, gerrymandering and fundraising prowess – three items that are never acknowledged by the mainstream until after the fact. I also believed the Republicans would prevail because of the complete vacuum of any new ideas from the Keystone Kops running the Democratic Party. Sure, the Republicans have the wrong ideas, but at least they have ideas.
Now I’m not so sure. It truly is looking like 1994 again – a one-party government featuring an unpopular president with a do-nothing Congress that can’t get anything accomplished without fear of alienating its minority base or shooting itself in the ass. Congressional leadership is barren and Hastert’s cover-up in the Foley scandal has undermined the moral values train that evangelical partisans could always cling to. Imagine their horror at finding homosexuals in the Republican Party! But I digress.
Like Chauncey Gardner in Being There, the Democrats may have just lucked into an opportunity they are neither qualified nor quite ready for. Many of the more open-minded Republicans have announced they are either staying home or holding a protest vote for a Democrat. But they are not voting for Democrats because of their ideals or great leaders, they may be voting Democrat because that’s the only option available. Such a vote is not ironclad and can easily be changed.
I’m not a Republican, but I’m going to give the GOP a little free advice. The blogosphere is amuck with plans to fire Rumsfeld, ramp up troops in Iraq to where they should be, announce a withdrawal plan, kick Hastert to the curb and other big steps to occur after the election, no matter what happens on Election Day. My advice: Why wait?
Nip the Foley scandal in the bud by letting Hastert step down as majority leader but keep his seat. Announce a plan for Rumsfeld to step down at the end of 2006. Have the next Defense Secretary announce a withdrawal plan to bring troops home in the next year or two. Do one or all of these things now, and you control the agenda again and sap the opposition of any ammunition.
After all, it’s not like the Democrats have proposed anything of their own. Why let them walk over you? Call their bluff. It’s so crazy it just might work.
Now I’m not so sure. It truly is looking like 1994 again – a one-party government featuring an unpopular president with a do-nothing Congress that can’t get anything accomplished without fear of alienating its minority base or shooting itself in the ass. Congressional leadership is barren and Hastert’s cover-up in the Foley scandal has undermined the moral values train that evangelical partisans could always cling to. Imagine their horror at finding homosexuals in the Republican Party! But I digress.
Like Chauncey Gardner in Being There, the Democrats may have just lucked into an opportunity they are neither qualified nor quite ready for. Many of the more open-minded Republicans have announced they are either staying home or holding a protest vote for a Democrat. But they are not voting for Democrats because of their ideals or great leaders, they may be voting Democrat because that’s the only option available. Such a vote is not ironclad and can easily be changed.
I’m not a Republican, but I’m going to give the GOP a little free advice. The blogosphere is amuck with plans to fire Rumsfeld, ramp up troops in Iraq to where they should be, announce a withdrawal plan, kick Hastert to the curb and other big steps to occur after the election, no matter what happens on Election Day. My advice: Why wait?
Nip the Foley scandal in the bud by letting Hastert step down as majority leader but keep his seat. Announce a plan for Rumsfeld to step down at the end of 2006. Have the next Defense Secretary announce a withdrawal plan to bring troops home in the next year or two. Do one or all of these things now, and you control the agenda again and sap the opposition of any ammunition.
After all, it’s not like the Democrats have proposed anything of their own. Why let them walk over you? Call their bluff. It’s so crazy it just might work.
Friday, October 06, 2006
The Competence Question
Some people are to-the-death Democrats who will vote for any Democratic candidate from Marion Barry to Ted Kennedy. Others are die-hard Republicans who have no problem pulling the lever for someone like Mark Foley or Tom DeLay just because they’re Republican. This naïve and blind faith is almost quaint to me. These otherwise rational people would agree that unquestioning devotion to just about anything would be dangerous in any other fashion, but not politics or ideology.
To the rest of us, including many who don’t follow public affairs as passionately as I do, politics comes down to a matter of competence mixed with your personal and cultural mores and ethics. For me, it can come down to intelligence. Who’s the smarter candidate? Which empirical, not ideological, argument makes the most sense? I can’t work for anyone dumber than me, so I wouldn’t want to vote for someone who’s dumber either.
But as we approach the 2006 elections, competence is up for the public to decide. Republicans have been in charge for six years – long enough to develop a track record. And for me, the past six years have been marked by a steady decline in competence and a startling rise in mismanagement, buck passing and decisions that have true nonpartisans wondering when the real conservatives left the Republican Party.
If you take a pure, non-partisan, competence-only look at what the Republicans have presided over during the last six years, you find a downward spiral of incompetence and incomplete efforts that leave you wondering who’s steering the ship. Of course, Iraq has deteriorated into a civil war that could have been easily prevented with some forward thinking and the equivalent of a Marshall Plan. Every week another book comes out or military leader comes forward that emphasizes the administration’s incompetence. This is especially painful for me because people are dying and I strongly supported the decision to go to war because a democratic Iraq would be the best anti-fundamentalist medicine you could have. With the exception of Saddam Hussein’s capture and trial, we have the opposite – an anarchic Iraq that could drag additional countries into a larger conflict. This is completely preventable incompetence of the highest order, and Donald Rumsfeld, the man in charge of this, is still employed.
Afghanistan is not much better. Last week’s Newsweek story seriously depressed me. The advice they give to “stay the course” in these conflicts again belies incompetence – look at where this course has brought us! If anything, now is the chance to change and possibly get things right! If the Republicans want to make the war on terror the centerpiece of their campaign, then the voters need to assess how competently they have waged this war.
I’ll weigh in with thoughts on various other issues over the next few weeks, but Republicans everywhere should be assessing the competence of their leaders. Are you satisfied with the way the leaders have dealt with other critical issues, like Mark Foley, finding new sources of energy so we don’t help rogue states like Venezuela and Iran by buying their oil? When you look at conservative canards like smaller government, less spending and limits on executive power, has the party served you well? Is this the best the Party can do? Does their track record earn them another two years in power? And finally, if they were not Republicans, how would they vote?
To the rest of us, including many who don’t follow public affairs as passionately as I do, politics comes down to a matter of competence mixed with your personal and cultural mores and ethics. For me, it can come down to intelligence. Who’s the smarter candidate? Which empirical, not ideological, argument makes the most sense? I can’t work for anyone dumber than me, so I wouldn’t want to vote for someone who’s dumber either.
But as we approach the 2006 elections, competence is up for the public to decide. Republicans have been in charge for six years – long enough to develop a track record. And for me, the past six years have been marked by a steady decline in competence and a startling rise in mismanagement, buck passing and decisions that have true nonpartisans wondering when the real conservatives left the Republican Party.
If you take a pure, non-partisan, competence-only look at what the Republicans have presided over during the last six years, you find a downward spiral of incompetence and incomplete efforts that leave you wondering who’s steering the ship. Of course, Iraq has deteriorated into a civil war that could have been easily prevented with some forward thinking and the equivalent of a Marshall Plan. Every week another book comes out or military leader comes forward that emphasizes the administration’s incompetence. This is especially painful for me because people are dying and I strongly supported the decision to go to war because a democratic Iraq would be the best anti-fundamentalist medicine you could have. With the exception of Saddam Hussein’s capture and trial, we have the opposite – an anarchic Iraq that could drag additional countries into a larger conflict. This is completely preventable incompetence of the highest order, and Donald Rumsfeld, the man in charge of this, is still employed.
Afghanistan is not much better. Last week’s Newsweek story seriously depressed me. The advice they give to “stay the course” in these conflicts again belies incompetence – look at where this course has brought us! If anything, now is the chance to change and possibly get things right! If the Republicans want to make the war on terror the centerpiece of their campaign, then the voters need to assess how competently they have waged this war.
I’ll weigh in with thoughts on various other issues over the next few weeks, but Republicans everywhere should be assessing the competence of their leaders. Are you satisfied with the way the leaders have dealt with other critical issues, like Mark Foley, finding new sources of energy so we don’t help rogue states like Venezuela and Iran by buying their oil? When you look at conservative canards like smaller government, less spending and limits on executive power, has the party served you well? Is this the best the Party can do? Does their track record earn them another two years in power? And finally, if they were not Republicans, how would they vote?
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
A Pin Drops in Fenway Park
If you don’t live in Boston, you have no idea how devoted local Bostonians are to their Red Sox. No matter how successful the other teams may be, this is first and foremost a baseball town. In the dead of winter, a Red Sox free agent pickup will run at the top of the sports pages over a Celtics or Patriots victory.
The Red Sox have the payroll to put a competitive team in the American League East for years, and of course the long championship drought ended in 2004. But despite the league’s second highest payroll, injuries and an underachieving bullpen have devastated the Red Sox this year, and the team will not make the playoffs.
The Red Sox jumped the shark after the Yankees swept a five-game series at Fenway in August, and since then the team has vanished. It’s bizarre. The team is a non-entity here, with game summaries disappearing into the back pages. No traffic jams at Kenmore Square. Tickets are easy to obtain, and scalpers aren't making a dime. Fans aren’t even talking about next year. The team and its owners are being treated like jilted lovers – completely erased from Bostonian lives.
I didn’t make any baseball predictions this year, but last year I said baseball’s steady decline in popularity was due to its financial structure that places rich teams in large markets like New York an advantage over many of the small market teams, and the best bet to succeed in baseball is to be able to afford the best stars money can buy. Of course I’m a capitalist, but the NFL, the NBA and, belatedly, the NHL learned that a salary cap is the best financial solvent for sports and the best way for every team to have a shot at a championship.
For small market and small payroll teams like Kansas City and Pittsburgh, there is no way they will ever compete with the large payroll teams. This has caused baseball TV ratings (and subsequent revenues) to plummet and baseball now ranks behind football, NASCAR and basketball in popularity. What is the point of following baseball in a place like Tampa Bay or Milwaukee knowing your team never has a chance of competing?
Here in Boston, the Red Sox’s disappointing season has brought this point home. It’s bizarre to be in a place where baseball has practically ceased to exist. Unfortunately, this is the case in most of the country, and baseball has reaped what it has sown.
The Red Sox have the payroll to put a competitive team in the American League East for years, and of course the long championship drought ended in 2004. But despite the league’s second highest payroll, injuries and an underachieving bullpen have devastated the Red Sox this year, and the team will not make the playoffs.
The Red Sox jumped the shark after the Yankees swept a five-game series at Fenway in August, and since then the team has vanished. It’s bizarre. The team is a non-entity here, with game summaries disappearing into the back pages. No traffic jams at Kenmore Square. Tickets are easy to obtain, and scalpers aren't making a dime. Fans aren’t even talking about next year. The team and its owners are being treated like jilted lovers – completely erased from Bostonian lives.
I didn’t make any baseball predictions this year, but last year I said baseball’s steady decline in popularity was due to its financial structure that places rich teams in large markets like New York an advantage over many of the small market teams, and the best bet to succeed in baseball is to be able to afford the best stars money can buy. Of course I’m a capitalist, but the NFL, the NBA and, belatedly, the NHL learned that a salary cap is the best financial solvent for sports and the best way for every team to have a shot at a championship.
For small market and small payroll teams like Kansas City and Pittsburgh, there is no way they will ever compete with the large payroll teams. This has caused baseball TV ratings (and subsequent revenues) to plummet and baseball now ranks behind football, NASCAR and basketball in popularity. What is the point of following baseball in a place like Tampa Bay or Milwaukee knowing your team never has a chance of competing?
Here in Boston, the Red Sox’s disappointing season has brought this point home. It’s bizarre to be in a place where baseball has practically ceased to exist. Unfortunately, this is the case in most of the country, and baseball has reaped what it has sown.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
The Unimportance of a Top-Ranked College
Many college freshmen are starting their university lives in colleges they didn’t want to enter. Either they didn’t quite qualify for that Ivy League degree or, more likely, they couldn’t afford to get into the higher-rated school. If they come from a wealthy suburb and an upper-middle-class home, their parents are apoplectic and almost apologize to their friends for their failure to motivate their children into a school with a better U.S. News & World Report ranking.
While things like money and a family fortune can start you at first or second base in the game of life (instead of starting in the batter’s box), the importance of a name-brand prep school or a top-tier education are grossly overrated when it comes to defining tomorrow’s leaders. A recent Wall Street Journal column illustrates the relative unimportance of top schools with later success. Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott attended Pittsburg State University. ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson went to the University Texas. Warren Buffet graduated from the University of Nebraska. Current Intel and Costco CEOs attended local state schools nobody 50 miles away from the college has heard of, including me. If you scan the Fortune 500, only 10% of their CEOs attended an Ivy League school, and more attended the University of Wisconsin than Harvard.
Intelligence and connections are nice to have, and it will certainly never hurt to have that Ivy League degree, but ambition and drive trumps everything else. Whether you want to run a Fortune 500 or be an entrepreneur or even a professional athlete, the people who work the hardest and try the hardest are the ones who typically end up succeeding. They don’t let the lack of a big-time and expense-laden Ivy League education hold them back. I didn’t attend an Ivy League school, but my friends and I used to joke every time we walked through Harvard Square we were probably walking past bums who were smarter than we were. The will to succeed, plus an old-fashioned work ethic, will always overcome IQ and what it says on your diploma.
Many of our business leaders didn’t even finish college. The exploits of people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Ted Turner and Michael Dell are legendary in business circles. They didn’t let their education or mediocre grades slow them down. And don’t forget – after your first job, your education goes from the top of your resume to the bottom. You will learn more about business and reality in the first six months out of school than the four or more years you spent in it. And if you talk up your SAT scores or college GPA on your first job interview, you’ll be tarred as foolish and unready for a career. And if you try to impress future dates or make new friends by impressing them with what you learned in school or your inclusion in the honors society, you’ll be alone every Saturday.
When I look back on my prep high school, I recall that many of the people who got A’s basically regurgitated whatever the teachers told them on tests and papers. That probably got them into good colleges, but when you enter the business world, doing everything by the book will probably get you stuck in middle management. The real leaders challenge rules, and find new ways to solve problems – they take risks by not doing what they’ve learned in school or even on the job. Sometimes they fail, but more often they’ll be more happy and successful than those who continue to do it the rote way.
So if you are reading this and didn’t get into the college of your choice, or blame your lot in life on your job or education, stop fretting. You’re smarter than you think, and you find smart people at every job and college. Take a look at some of them, learn where they went to school, and you’ll understand why the name of your college or what it says on your diploma does not predict your future. None of the people I mentioned above would let their lives be foretold by a dippy high school guidance counselor or college admissions officer, and neither should anyone else.
While things like money and a family fortune can start you at first or second base in the game of life (instead of starting in the batter’s box), the importance of a name-brand prep school or a top-tier education are grossly overrated when it comes to defining tomorrow’s leaders. A recent Wall Street Journal column illustrates the relative unimportance of top schools with later success. Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott attended Pittsburg State University. ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson went to the University Texas. Warren Buffet graduated from the University of Nebraska. Current Intel and Costco CEOs attended local state schools nobody 50 miles away from the college has heard of, including me. If you scan the Fortune 500, only 10% of their CEOs attended an Ivy League school, and more attended the University of Wisconsin than Harvard.
Intelligence and connections are nice to have, and it will certainly never hurt to have that Ivy League degree, but ambition and drive trumps everything else. Whether you want to run a Fortune 500 or be an entrepreneur or even a professional athlete, the people who work the hardest and try the hardest are the ones who typically end up succeeding. They don’t let the lack of a big-time and expense-laden Ivy League education hold them back. I didn’t attend an Ivy League school, but my friends and I used to joke every time we walked through Harvard Square we were probably walking past bums who were smarter than we were. The will to succeed, plus an old-fashioned work ethic, will always overcome IQ and what it says on your diploma.
Many of our business leaders didn’t even finish college. The exploits of people like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Ted Turner and Michael Dell are legendary in business circles. They didn’t let their education or mediocre grades slow them down. And don’t forget – after your first job, your education goes from the top of your resume to the bottom. You will learn more about business and reality in the first six months out of school than the four or more years you spent in it. And if you talk up your SAT scores or college GPA on your first job interview, you’ll be tarred as foolish and unready for a career. And if you try to impress future dates or make new friends by impressing them with what you learned in school or your inclusion in the honors society, you’ll be alone every Saturday.
When I look back on my prep high school, I recall that many of the people who got A’s basically regurgitated whatever the teachers told them on tests and papers. That probably got them into good colleges, but when you enter the business world, doing everything by the book will probably get you stuck in middle management. The real leaders challenge rules, and find new ways to solve problems – they take risks by not doing what they’ve learned in school or even on the job. Sometimes they fail, but more often they’ll be more happy and successful than those who continue to do it the rote way.
So if you are reading this and didn’t get into the college of your choice, or blame your lot in life on your job or education, stop fretting. You’re smarter than you think, and you find smart people at every job and college. Take a look at some of them, learn where they went to school, and you’ll understand why the name of your college or what it says on your diploma does not predict your future. None of the people I mentioned above would let their lives be foretold by a dippy high school guidance counselor or college admissions officer, and neither should anyone else.
Friday, September 15, 2006
What's the Matter with Beverly Hills?
One of the Democrats’ biggest brouhahas about the 2004 elections (and 2002, and 2000, and maybe 2006) is that too many Midwesterners and Southerners were voting against their class interests and common sense by pulling the GOP lever. Why aren’t these people using their brains and voting for the party that would better help them?
This conundrum has truly baffled the Democratic partisans who are trying to crack the red state barrier (states are only red and blue in the electoral college, not in any other election, but that’s another blog.) Nowhere are these grapes sourer than the elite liberal enclaves of Beverly Hills, the Upper West Side, Harvard Square and similar wealthy bastions around the country where people need to look in the mirror – for they are just as badly voting against their best interests!
Think about it. Don’t these super rich, white, ultra-privileged celebrities, scholars and investor-savvy folks understand the huge tax breaks they’ve received under the Republicans? Why are they so against the war in Iraq, when there is less than a zero chance that any of their sons and daughters will volunteer to fight among the misguided soldiers from the red states? How could they be against the plans to tighten our borders when hordes of illegal aliens raise their children, mow their lawns and clean their penthouses so they can get a table at Nobu, play squash and hit the day spa?
Why, the same people wonder, do so many red staters think only of moral issues when casting their vote? Why do they rely on the Bible when there’s The New Yorker and Vanity Fair? How could they live in a backwater like Nebraska where there’s no Four Star Szechuan restaurants around the corner? Why do they head to Branson or Las Vegas for vacation when it’s quicker to fly to Paris or take the helicopter to the Hamptons? And just how can they possibly enjoy these mainstream, big budget Hollywood movies when The New York Times gave a four star review to this artsy French film on the Renaissance?
Hey, I think they’re right. If the Republicans have lost the Upper West Side, then they might lose Malibu next. Maybe a Barbra Streisand film festival at the White House could help, before it’s too late.
More info:
What's the Matter with Kansas? -- A very good, although not completely flawless, book about how the Democrats lost the blue collar, Midwestern vote to the Republicans. I goofed on its flaws with my lame jokes in this post, but you should read it anyway.
This conundrum has truly baffled the Democratic partisans who are trying to crack the red state barrier (states are only red and blue in the electoral college, not in any other election, but that’s another blog.) Nowhere are these grapes sourer than the elite liberal enclaves of Beverly Hills, the Upper West Side, Harvard Square and similar wealthy bastions around the country where people need to look in the mirror – for they are just as badly voting against their best interests!
Think about it. Don’t these super rich, white, ultra-privileged celebrities, scholars and investor-savvy folks understand the huge tax breaks they’ve received under the Republicans? Why are they so against the war in Iraq, when there is less than a zero chance that any of their sons and daughters will volunteer to fight among the misguided soldiers from the red states? How could they be against the plans to tighten our borders when hordes of illegal aliens raise their children, mow their lawns and clean their penthouses so they can get a table at Nobu, play squash and hit the day spa?
Why, the same people wonder, do so many red staters think only of moral issues when casting their vote? Why do they rely on the Bible when there’s The New Yorker and Vanity Fair? How could they live in a backwater like Nebraska where there’s no Four Star Szechuan restaurants around the corner? Why do they head to Branson or Las Vegas for vacation when it’s quicker to fly to Paris or take the helicopter to the Hamptons? And just how can they possibly enjoy these mainstream, big budget Hollywood movies when The New York Times gave a four star review to this artsy French film on the Renaissance?
Hey, I think they’re right. If the Republicans have lost the Upper West Side, then they might lose Malibu next. Maybe a Barbra Streisand film festival at the White House could help, before it’s too late.
More info:
What's the Matter with Kansas? -- A very good, although not completely flawless, book about how the Democrats lost the blue collar, Midwestern vote to the Republicans. I goofed on its flaws with my lame jokes in this post, but you should read it anyway.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The Dumb Get Dumber
Just when you thought Harvard couldn’t sink any lower, along comes a speaking invitation to former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, the previous “reformer” president who didn’t do much reforming. While Khatami isn’t the reactionary Holocaust denier that current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is, he makes no apologies for backing Hezbollah, shutting down all anti-government newspapers and flagrant human rights abuses that occurred under his tenure.
It is equally sad that Harvard’s once-esteemed Kennedy School of Government scheduled Khatami to speak on September 10, the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11. Governor Mitt Romney was so furious that he ordered the State Police not to provide security, standard protocol for any visiting head of state. And Khatami was greeted by over 200 protesters from Harvard’s Democratic and Republican student clubs (yes, there are Republicans there), who had united in solidarity to protest both the former president and the university’s inane decision to let him speak.
Kudos to Governor Romney and also to Boston College, who rejected a visit by Khatami. After Hezbollah started the latest Middle Eastern war and helped set Lebanon back a decade in its redevelopment, inviting a man who helped terrorism prosper is stunning in both naiveté and ignorance. It would be nice to extend an invitation to the real reformers in Iran, many of whom are either imprisoned or in exile. Maybe they could teach the guys at Harvard something.
It is equally sad that Harvard’s once-esteemed Kennedy School of Government scheduled Khatami to speak on September 10, the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11. Governor Mitt Romney was so furious that he ordered the State Police not to provide security, standard protocol for any visiting head of state. And Khatami was greeted by over 200 protesters from Harvard’s Democratic and Republican student clubs (yes, there are Republicans there), who had united in solidarity to protest both the former president and the university’s inane decision to let him speak.
Kudos to Governor Romney and also to Boston College, who rejected a visit by Khatami. After Hezbollah started the latest Middle Eastern war and helped set Lebanon back a decade in its redevelopment, inviting a man who helped terrorism prosper is stunning in both naiveté and ignorance. It would be nice to extend an invitation to the real reformers in Iran, many of whom are either imprisoned or in exile. Maybe they could teach the guys at Harvard something.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
2006 NFL Forecast and Football Cheat Sheet
Welcome to another year of AFC domination.
As I was going through these teams, absorbing the free agency signings and draft choices one thing became clear: The AFC is a much better division. While the NFC has some very good teams, you generally see a lot of 12-4 records or 4-12 records there. The AFC has many potential juggernauts, and there are always a couple of teams that come out of nowhere to surprise you (my Dark Horse picks).
Also, Seattle didn’t lose many players and should repeat as NFC West Champions, but they could just as easily fall into the dreaded Super Bowl Loser Curse. For the last few years, the previous year’s Super Bowl loser has failed to even make the playoffs the following year. It shouldn’t happen, but would you have picked the Eagles to finish 6-10 last year?
As you can see, making these picks is like trying to guess what the price of oil will be in December. But that’s what make those office football pools so much fun.
NFC EAST
1) Washington – The NFC Beast is almost back, with three good (but not great) teams here making it tough to call a winner. Tiebreakers and unfortunate injuries will probably determine the winner. I’m going to go with Washington just over the Giants, because of Washington’s truly scary defense and a smart guy like Joe Gibbs running the show. Unfortunately, Washington has an unsettled QB situation and RB Clinton Portis’ shoulder is iffy. I hate Daniel Snyder as much as the next guy, but if the QB works out, the Skins can do it.
2) NY Giants – Wild Card Team. Solid team, but too many question marks. Will Eli Manning play the way he did in the first half or second half? Will Plaxico Burress stop dropping passes and give Tiki Barber a break? Will the secondary pick off a pass once in a while? The Giants do have a great pass rush that will keep them over .500, and if some of those questions are answered they shouldn’t miss the playoffs.
3) Dallas – Wild Card Team. Lots of people are picking Dallas as their NFC Super Bowl rep this year. I don’t buy it. Terrell Owens is a nitwit, Drew Bledsoe is iffy and RB Julius Jones is not at the same level as Portis and Barber. The defense is good, but you gotta move the ball too.
4) Philadelphia – No offensive improvement and the defense is two years older. I’m two years older as well, but I don’t have to go past a wall of 300 pounders to sack a QB for a living.
NFC NORTH
1) Chicago – Not a great team, but if you were in the same division as Detroit and Green Bay you wouldn’t have to do much to win either. Lovie Boy has a nasty defensive team and a putrid offense that is so inept Brian Griese won the QB battle.
2) Minnesota – New owner. Check. New coach (Brad Childress). Uh, OK, check. New RB (Chester Taylor?!). Uh….check, I guess. New quarterback (Brad Johnson). Check please!
3) Detroit – All hail Matt Millen, HERO OF THE STUPID. Even President Bush laughs at Millen’s idiocy and incompetence. Millen, who lost 38 more games than he’s won since becoming GM, also has a new coach, quarterback and offensive coordinator. Unfortunately a fish rots from the head. Detroit and Millen’s sub-.500 lifetime winning percentage is safe for another year.
4) Green Bay – About the time he’s been sacked for the umpteenth time around Week 10, Brett Farve will say, “You know, Jerome Bettis sure looks comfortable on that sideline.”
NFC SOUTH
1) Carolina – Last year I predicted the Panthers would go to the Super Bowl, and they made it to the NFC Championship. They better go this year since I don’t want to look dumb again. The Panthers’ only problem was their running game, which seems to be fixed with DeShaun Foster staying healthy and top draft choice DeAngelo Williams. And how cool is John Fox?
2) Tampa Bay – I don’t know. I want to like Chris Simms since I was such a big fan of his dad, but I only see the Bucs as a .500 team. There’s some good young offense with Cadillac Williams and Joey Galloway, but the defense is almost unchanged since the Super Bowl, when the entire defensive line was older than me.
3) Atlanta – The Falcons defense is OK and they had some good offseason signings. But Vick is the Josh Beckett of the NFL – too impatient and quick to run before checking his receivers. I see another .500 season.
4) New Orleans – At least this year the Saints will play a few games at home. They are still not a good team, but Drew Brees and Reggie Bush will get them up to five or six wins.
NFC WEST
1) Seattle – The Super Bowl loser curse notwithstanding, Seattle should still win their division for the same reason the Panthers and Bears should win theirs – most of the other teams suck. On paper they look good, but I don’t envision another Super Bowl appearance against Carolina or the NFC East winner. The Seahawks just seem too, I don’t know – finesse? Maybe it’s the matching pants and jerseys.
2) Arizona – My NFC dark horse team. Getting to .500 would be cause for celebration in the desert. Last year the Cardinals were weird – they had a top 10 offense and defense but finished 5-11. The good parts – a great field goal kicker in Neil Rackers, two great wideouts in Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin and killer defense with Bert Berry and Chike Okeafor – returns. This year, Arizona also signed Edgerrin James from the Colts and has a new stadium. QB Kurt Warner is a question mark, but USC’s Matt Lienart is on the bench.
3) St. Louis – Not having a defense will catch up to you when Mike Martz leaves. QB Marc Bulger and RB Steve Jackson are good, but no names on D will doom the Rams.
4) San Francisco – One year, all these high draft choices will pay off. Unless Matt Millen comes back.
AFC EAST
1) New England – The weakest Patriots team in five years benefits from the weakest AFC division, just like last year. This year, Tom Brady returns with no Adam Vinatieri, no Willie McGinest, no David Givens (actually, nobody at all at WR) and no Ted Johnson. On the plus side, Rodney Harrison and the entire secondary are finally healthy, new RB Laurence Maroney looks good, and when you play Buffalo and the Jets twice each year you already have four wins.
2) Miami – Wild Card Team and my AFC dark horse team. Did you notice that Miami went 2-14 in 2004, and won its last six games last year to finish 9-7? This year a healthy Daunte Culpepper is leading the Dolphins and they don’t have to deal with that basehead Ricky Williams anymore.
3) Buffalo – I can’t get excited about a team that has named J.P. Losman as their starting QB. Willis McGahee will probably wear out faster than any other RB in football.
4) NY Jets – Bleah. All the Jets good defensive players left in free agency, former coach Herman Edwards served them, and Curtis Martin is out for the first half of the year. QB Chad Pennington has talent, but goes out for a month if he has a paper cut.
AFC NORTH
1) Pittsburgh – The champs return with most of the team intact, although Ben Roethlisberger proved he’s not as bright off the field. If he finds his helmet and stays healthy the Steelers should repeat. Fast Willie Parker can fill the Bus’ parking spot.
2) Cincinnati – Wild Card Team. I love what Marvin Lewis has done in Cincinnati, but now the roster reads like America’s Most Wanted. They should be OK if their good players stay out of jail and Carson Palmer’s knee is OK. The Bengals also must do much better on defense.
3) Baltimore – Not a bad team, but not a great one. Sounds like .500 to me. Does Ray Lewis scare anyone anymore? Will RB Jamal Lewis ever have another good year? Can Steve “Air” McNair do his magic again? Too many questions.
4) Cleveland – The Browns can’t catch a break (oops!) with their number one draft choices. They can’t settle on a QB either (the immortal Charlie Frye will start) and LeCharles Bentley, their top offensive free agent signing, went down for the season in minicamp. The defense is OK, but this is a tough division for a rebuilding team.
AFC SOUTH
1) Indianapolis – I seem to be the only one worried about the Colts’ running game. Substituting Dominic Rhodes and Joseph Addai for Edgerrin James is not a lock. The Colts defense is finally solid and Peyton Manning is still great, although he’s worse than Dan Marino at winning the big one – so far. I feel like the Colts think they deserve to win the Super Bowl, but to quote Clint Eastwood, deserve’s got nothing to do with it.
2) Jacksonville – Wild Card Team. Last year I picked Jacksonville as my Dark Horse and they surprised lots of teams by going 12-4. This year they’re still good but teams are ready for them. The Jaguars’ D is frighteningly good. If QB Byron Leftwich can move the ball a bit more and RB Fred Taylor keeps pounding, the Jaguars will go far.
3) Tennessee – Still rebuilding, especially at QB. McNair left, so backup Billy Volek was named the starter. He sucked so bad in minicamp that Kerry Collins was brought it, and Texas’ Vince Young sits on the bench, waiting. But with too many defensive holes and nobody for whoever the QB is to throw to, Vince may start sooner than he expects. Just be careful what you wish for.
4) Texas – Three wins would be an improvement over last year. Houston has no RB (after they passed on Reggie Bush) and an offensive line that has led the league in sacks allowed since the team started.
AFC WEST
1) Denver – The Broncos feature their best defense in years, but the X factor is the offense. Last year QB Jake the Fake Plummer finally learned he had to throw to the guys on his own team, and Denver went 13-3. Then in the playoffs he remembered he sucked and the Steelers smacked him all over the field. RB Mike Anderson is gone, and two guys named Bell are replacing him. Thousand-yard rushers appear to grow on trees in the Rockies, but Plummer’s consistency is the test.
2) San Diego – Lots of people have ripped the Chargers a new one for letting Drew Brees go. It was a stupid move, but if Philip Rivers does OK the Chargers could go over .500. LaDanian Tomlinson is the best RB in football and the defense is tight. Of course if Rivers blows, then they’re chumps.
3) Kansas City – Herman Edwards is a good guy with a big problem. For about 10 years, the Chiefs have had the best offense in football and have made the playoffs once. Perhaps the problem could be on the DEFENSE? What was done to improve the defense in the offseason? Oh, nothing? Then let’s move on.
4) Oakland – Now I’m not saying Kerry Collins is the best quarterback, but why would you replace him with Aaron Brooks, whose mistakes led the Saints to three wins last year? Remember Warren Sapp? He’s starting on the Raiders. Enough said.
As I was going through these teams, absorbing the free agency signings and draft choices one thing became clear: The AFC is a much better division. While the NFC has some very good teams, you generally see a lot of 12-4 records or 4-12 records there. The AFC has many potential juggernauts, and there are always a couple of teams that come out of nowhere to surprise you (my Dark Horse picks).
Also, Seattle didn’t lose many players and should repeat as NFC West Champions, but they could just as easily fall into the dreaded Super Bowl Loser Curse. For the last few years, the previous year’s Super Bowl loser has failed to even make the playoffs the following year. It shouldn’t happen, but would you have picked the Eagles to finish 6-10 last year?
As you can see, making these picks is like trying to guess what the price of oil will be in December. But that’s what make those office football pools so much fun.
NFC EAST
1) Washington – The NFC Beast is almost back, with three good (but not great) teams here making it tough to call a winner. Tiebreakers and unfortunate injuries will probably determine the winner. I’m going to go with Washington just over the Giants, because of Washington’s truly scary defense and a smart guy like Joe Gibbs running the show. Unfortunately, Washington has an unsettled QB situation and RB Clinton Portis’ shoulder is iffy. I hate Daniel Snyder as much as the next guy, but if the QB works out, the Skins can do it.
2) NY Giants – Wild Card Team. Solid team, but too many question marks. Will Eli Manning play the way he did in the first half or second half? Will Plaxico Burress stop dropping passes and give Tiki Barber a break? Will the secondary pick off a pass once in a while? The Giants do have a great pass rush that will keep them over .500, and if some of those questions are answered they shouldn’t miss the playoffs.
3) Dallas – Wild Card Team. Lots of people are picking Dallas as their NFC Super Bowl rep this year. I don’t buy it. Terrell Owens is a nitwit, Drew Bledsoe is iffy and RB Julius Jones is not at the same level as Portis and Barber. The defense is good, but you gotta move the ball too.
4) Philadelphia – No offensive improvement and the defense is two years older. I’m two years older as well, but I don’t have to go past a wall of 300 pounders to sack a QB for a living.
NFC NORTH
1) Chicago – Not a great team, but if you were in the same division as Detroit and Green Bay you wouldn’t have to do much to win either. Lovie Boy has a nasty defensive team and a putrid offense that is so inept Brian Griese won the QB battle.
2) Minnesota – New owner. Check. New coach (Brad Childress). Uh, OK, check. New RB (Chester Taylor?!). Uh….check, I guess. New quarterback (Brad Johnson). Check please!
3) Detroit – All hail Matt Millen, HERO OF THE STUPID. Even President Bush laughs at Millen’s idiocy and incompetence. Millen, who lost 38 more games than he’s won since becoming GM, also has a new coach, quarterback and offensive coordinator. Unfortunately a fish rots from the head. Detroit and Millen’s sub-.500 lifetime winning percentage is safe for another year.
4) Green Bay – About the time he’s been sacked for the umpteenth time around Week 10, Brett Farve will say, “You know, Jerome Bettis sure looks comfortable on that sideline.”
NFC SOUTH
1) Carolina – Last year I predicted the Panthers would go to the Super Bowl, and they made it to the NFC Championship. They better go this year since I don’t want to look dumb again. The Panthers’ only problem was their running game, which seems to be fixed with DeShaun Foster staying healthy and top draft choice DeAngelo Williams. And how cool is John Fox?
2) Tampa Bay – I don’t know. I want to like Chris Simms since I was such a big fan of his dad, but I only see the Bucs as a .500 team. There’s some good young offense with Cadillac Williams and Joey Galloway, but the defense is almost unchanged since the Super Bowl, when the entire defensive line was older than me.
3) Atlanta – The Falcons defense is OK and they had some good offseason signings. But Vick is the Josh Beckett of the NFL – too impatient and quick to run before checking his receivers. I see another .500 season.
4) New Orleans – At least this year the Saints will play a few games at home. They are still not a good team, but Drew Brees and Reggie Bush will get them up to five or six wins.
NFC WEST
1) Seattle – The Super Bowl loser curse notwithstanding, Seattle should still win their division for the same reason the Panthers and Bears should win theirs – most of the other teams suck. On paper they look good, but I don’t envision another Super Bowl appearance against Carolina or the NFC East winner. The Seahawks just seem too, I don’t know – finesse? Maybe it’s the matching pants and jerseys.
2) Arizona – My NFC dark horse team. Getting to .500 would be cause for celebration in the desert. Last year the Cardinals were weird – they had a top 10 offense and defense but finished 5-11. The good parts – a great field goal kicker in Neil Rackers, two great wideouts in Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin and killer defense with Bert Berry and Chike Okeafor – returns. This year, Arizona also signed Edgerrin James from the Colts and has a new stadium. QB Kurt Warner is a question mark, but USC’s Matt Lienart is on the bench.
3) St. Louis – Not having a defense will catch up to you when Mike Martz leaves. QB Marc Bulger and RB Steve Jackson are good, but no names on D will doom the Rams.
4) San Francisco – One year, all these high draft choices will pay off. Unless Matt Millen comes back.
AFC EAST
1) New England – The weakest Patriots team in five years benefits from the weakest AFC division, just like last year. This year, Tom Brady returns with no Adam Vinatieri, no Willie McGinest, no David Givens (actually, nobody at all at WR) and no Ted Johnson. On the plus side, Rodney Harrison and the entire secondary are finally healthy, new RB Laurence Maroney looks good, and when you play Buffalo and the Jets twice each year you already have four wins.
2) Miami – Wild Card Team and my AFC dark horse team. Did you notice that Miami went 2-14 in 2004, and won its last six games last year to finish 9-7? This year a healthy Daunte Culpepper is leading the Dolphins and they don’t have to deal with that basehead Ricky Williams anymore.
3) Buffalo – I can’t get excited about a team that has named J.P. Losman as their starting QB. Willis McGahee will probably wear out faster than any other RB in football.
4) NY Jets – Bleah. All the Jets good defensive players left in free agency, former coach Herman Edwards served them, and Curtis Martin is out for the first half of the year. QB Chad Pennington has talent, but goes out for a month if he has a paper cut.
AFC NORTH
1) Pittsburgh – The champs return with most of the team intact, although Ben Roethlisberger proved he’s not as bright off the field. If he finds his helmet and stays healthy the Steelers should repeat. Fast Willie Parker can fill the Bus’ parking spot.
2) Cincinnati – Wild Card Team. I love what Marvin Lewis has done in Cincinnati, but now the roster reads like America’s Most Wanted. They should be OK if their good players stay out of jail and Carson Palmer’s knee is OK. The Bengals also must do much better on defense.
3) Baltimore – Not a bad team, but not a great one. Sounds like .500 to me. Does Ray Lewis scare anyone anymore? Will RB Jamal Lewis ever have another good year? Can Steve “Air” McNair do his magic again? Too many questions.
4) Cleveland – The Browns can’t catch a break (oops!) with their number one draft choices. They can’t settle on a QB either (the immortal Charlie Frye will start) and LeCharles Bentley, their top offensive free agent signing, went down for the season in minicamp. The defense is OK, but this is a tough division for a rebuilding team.
AFC SOUTH
1) Indianapolis – I seem to be the only one worried about the Colts’ running game. Substituting Dominic Rhodes and Joseph Addai for Edgerrin James is not a lock. The Colts defense is finally solid and Peyton Manning is still great, although he’s worse than Dan Marino at winning the big one – so far. I feel like the Colts think they deserve to win the Super Bowl, but to quote Clint Eastwood, deserve’s got nothing to do with it.
2) Jacksonville – Wild Card Team. Last year I picked Jacksonville as my Dark Horse and they surprised lots of teams by going 12-4. This year they’re still good but teams are ready for them. The Jaguars’ D is frighteningly good. If QB Byron Leftwich can move the ball a bit more and RB Fred Taylor keeps pounding, the Jaguars will go far.
3) Tennessee – Still rebuilding, especially at QB. McNair left, so backup Billy Volek was named the starter. He sucked so bad in minicamp that Kerry Collins was brought it, and Texas’ Vince Young sits on the bench, waiting. But with too many defensive holes and nobody for whoever the QB is to throw to, Vince may start sooner than he expects. Just be careful what you wish for.
4) Texas – Three wins would be an improvement over last year. Houston has no RB (after they passed on Reggie Bush) and an offensive line that has led the league in sacks allowed since the team started.
AFC WEST
1) Denver – The Broncos feature their best defense in years, but the X factor is the offense. Last year QB Jake the Fake Plummer finally learned he had to throw to the guys on his own team, and Denver went 13-3. Then in the playoffs he remembered he sucked and the Steelers smacked him all over the field. RB Mike Anderson is gone, and two guys named Bell are replacing him. Thousand-yard rushers appear to grow on trees in the Rockies, but Plummer’s consistency is the test.
2) San Diego – Lots of people have ripped the Chargers a new one for letting Drew Brees go. It was a stupid move, but if Philip Rivers does OK the Chargers could go over .500. LaDanian Tomlinson is the best RB in football and the defense is tight. Of course if Rivers blows, then they’re chumps.
3) Kansas City – Herman Edwards is a good guy with a big problem. For about 10 years, the Chiefs have had the best offense in football and have made the playoffs once. Perhaps the problem could be on the DEFENSE? What was done to improve the defense in the offseason? Oh, nothing? Then let’s move on.
4) Oakland – Now I’m not saying Kerry Collins is the best quarterback, but why would you replace him with Aaron Brooks, whose mistakes led the Saints to three wins last year? Remember Warren Sapp? He’s starting on the Raiders. Enough said.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
The Very Busy Blogger Returns
Hi, remember me?
It’s funny how having a full-time job, being a full-time father of two wonderful yet demanding children, working on your house and going to graduate school part time can eat away at one’s blogging schedule. I knew when I started I was going to do this part time, but I have certainly been guilty by absence.
I like writing the long essays and editorials posted here, but writing them takes a while and I don’t have the time to write these long features anymore. So I’m going to take a page from the Daily Koses and Instapundits of the world and go for shorter, and more frequent, updates.
There’s lots going on right now from national elections to a bizarre looking gubernatorial race here in Massachusetts. I don’t normally follow celebrity news, but I have become fascinated with the Britney Spears/Kevin Federline dance of the nitwits, and want to write something on that once I figure out which one is the brain behind that relationship. Click here to see these fascinating minds at work.
So I’ll post my football thoughts tomorrow, and more frequent updates in the future. I promise.
It’s funny how having a full-time job, being a full-time father of two wonderful yet demanding children, working on your house and going to graduate school part time can eat away at one’s blogging schedule. I knew when I started I was going to do this part time, but I have certainly been guilty by absence.
I like writing the long essays and editorials posted here, but writing them takes a while and I don’t have the time to write these long features anymore. So I’m going to take a page from the Daily Koses and Instapundits of the world and go for shorter, and more frequent, updates.
There’s lots going on right now from national elections to a bizarre looking gubernatorial race here in Massachusetts. I don’t normally follow celebrity news, but I have become fascinated with the Britney Spears/Kevin Federline dance of the nitwits, and want to write something on that once I figure out which one is the brain behind that relationship. Click here to see these fascinating minds at work.
So I’ll post my football thoughts tomorrow, and more frequent updates in the future. I promise.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Energy Blues, Part I
Watching Democrats and Republicans alike grapple with $3-$4 a gallon gas is like watching “Dumb and Dumber” and “Groundhog Day” back to back. It’s tough for anyone with half a brain to slog through the half-assed pandering, partisan finger pointing and quick-fix remedies that the geniuses in Washington are offering to people that are paying $50 or more to fill up their car for the unforeseeable future. But hey, there’s no IQ test to run for public office, right?
Here’s some of our more dimwitted politicians showing their fascinating minds at work:
· "Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!" charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. "They are too cozy with the oil industry."
· "Energy independence is our Democratic vision and our goal, and we intend to achieve it within 10 years," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stated.
· Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist said, “The Republican plan will help people who are emptying their wallets at the pump with a $100 rebate check … but we’ll do it the right way.”
The goofball $100 rebate is thankfully dead, but the remaining bad ideas, quick fix ideas and Congressmen are still around. The sound bites are to be expected, but basic supply and demand economics – for everything from oil to beer and diamonds – is pretty much out of Congress’ control. I’ll fill the tank of the first elected official who honestly admits, “What can we do to lower gas prices? Basically nothing.”
Thank goodness for smart guys like Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, who conveniently pointed out this simple fact that anyone who has taken Economics 101 can figure out. The easy answer is not to blame President Bush, ExxonMobil or gougers at the pump, but to simply look at ourselves and repeat: Supply and Demand.
First, let’s look at demand. We demand more energy than ever for our gas-guzzling SUVs and minivans, our myriad of electrical appliances, air conditioners for our homes and offices, planes to get us everywhere and…well, you get the idea. Americans used to be alone in their titanic demands for oil and fossil fuels, but we are now joined by growing populations and economies in emerging giants like China and India, the two most populous nations on earth. Ten years ago when gas was about $1.25 a gallon, nobody in those countries even had a toaster oven. Now emerging middle classes there want just as many cars, refrigerators and electric dryers as we do.
Now, the supply issue. As we know, most of our oil comes from countries that are extremely unscrupulous, if not outright hostile, to American and Western interests. The first is our so-called phony “ally” Saudi Arabia, who continues to fund anti-Western and anti-Israeli madrasas that teach terrorism. Iran is an unapologetic terrorist state that wants nuclear weapons and has a radical president that wants to wipe Israel off the map. Nigeria is in the midst of a civil war with rebels blowing up pipelines. Venezuela has a leftist president who is nationalizing its oil industry and hates America. Iraq is in shambles thanks to a non-existent Marshall Plan. Think all of this would have an effect on oil prices? Congress apparently doesn’t.
Environmental mandates, while necessary, also contribute to the rising price of oil. The 2005 Energy Policy Act, besides being laden with tax breaks for large oil companies, also included some environmental caveats. One of these was stating that more ethanol (MBTE) must be integrated into gas this year to make it cleaner burning and more environmentally friendly. Sounds good, and it is good. Unfortunately, it also mandated that it must be American-made ethanol, which – thanks to subsidies – is some of the most expensive ethanol available. The transition was so sudden it has contributed to short-term gas shortages and higher prices across the board.
If you look back over the last 40 years, every gas price hike was followed by typical partisan posturing, finger-pointing, price gouging investigations and howls of execration at oil companies who are recording high profits (Note to Barbara Boxer: If the price of my commodity tripled over five years, I would have record profits too). But supply and demand explains everything quite simply.
Here’s some information from April 27’s Washington Post, that sums up the problem in a nutshell. After a Congressional press conference to discuss how Washington would knock down gas prices, the Senators went back to their offices:
As for Barbara Boxer, after her photo opp denouncing big oil for causing the problem, she got into her Chrysler LHS (18 mpg) which drove her back to her Senate office – one block away.
More Info:
50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth: 16 years old and more important than ever.
Here’s some of our more dimwitted politicians showing their fascinating minds at work:
· "Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!" charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. "They are too cozy with the oil industry."
· "Energy independence is our Democratic vision and our goal, and we intend to achieve it within 10 years," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi stated.
· Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist said, “The Republican plan will help people who are emptying their wallets at the pump with a $100 rebate check … but we’ll do it the right way.”
The goofball $100 rebate is thankfully dead, but the remaining bad ideas, quick fix ideas and Congressmen are still around. The sound bites are to be expected, but basic supply and demand economics – for everything from oil to beer and diamonds – is pretty much out of Congress’ control. I’ll fill the tank of the first elected official who honestly admits, “What can we do to lower gas prices? Basically nothing.”
Thank goodness for smart guys like Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post, who conveniently pointed out this simple fact that anyone who has taken Economics 101 can figure out. The easy answer is not to blame President Bush, ExxonMobil or gougers at the pump, but to simply look at ourselves and repeat: Supply and Demand.
First, let’s look at demand. We demand more energy than ever for our gas-guzzling SUVs and minivans, our myriad of electrical appliances, air conditioners for our homes and offices, planes to get us everywhere and…well, you get the idea. Americans used to be alone in their titanic demands for oil and fossil fuels, but we are now joined by growing populations and economies in emerging giants like China and India, the two most populous nations on earth. Ten years ago when gas was about $1.25 a gallon, nobody in those countries even had a toaster oven. Now emerging middle classes there want just as many cars, refrigerators and electric dryers as we do.
Now, the supply issue. As we know, most of our oil comes from countries that are extremely unscrupulous, if not outright hostile, to American and Western interests. The first is our so-called phony “ally” Saudi Arabia, who continues to fund anti-Western and anti-Israeli madrasas that teach terrorism. Iran is an unapologetic terrorist state that wants nuclear weapons and has a radical president that wants to wipe Israel off the map. Nigeria is in the midst of a civil war with rebels blowing up pipelines. Venezuela has a leftist president who is nationalizing its oil industry and hates America. Iraq is in shambles thanks to a non-existent Marshall Plan. Think all of this would have an effect on oil prices? Congress apparently doesn’t.
Environmental mandates, while necessary, also contribute to the rising price of oil. The 2005 Energy Policy Act, besides being laden with tax breaks for large oil companies, also included some environmental caveats. One of these was stating that more ethanol (MBTE) must be integrated into gas this year to make it cleaner burning and more environmentally friendly. Sounds good, and it is good. Unfortunately, it also mandated that it must be American-made ethanol, which – thanks to subsidies – is some of the most expensive ethanol available. The transition was so sudden it has contributed to short-term gas shortages and higher prices across the board.
If you look back over the last 40 years, every gas price hike was followed by typical partisan posturing, finger-pointing, price gouging investigations and howls of execration at oil companies who are recording high profits (Note to Barbara Boxer: If the price of my commodity tripled over five years, I would have record profits too). But supply and demand explains everything quite simply.
Here’s some information from April 27’s Washington Post, that sums up the problem in a nutshell. After a Congressional press conference to discuss how Washington would knock down gas prices, the Senators went back to their offices:
Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) hopped in a GMC Yukon (14 mpg). Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) climbed aboard a Nissan Pathfinder (15). Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) stepped into an eight-cylinder Ford Explorer (14). Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) disappeared into a Lincoln Town Car (17). Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) met up with an idling Chrysler minivan (18).
Next came Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), greeted by a Ford Explorer XLT. On the Senate floor Tuesday, Menendez had complained that Bush "remains opposed to higher fuel-efficiency standards."
As for Barbara Boxer, after her photo opp denouncing big oil for causing the problem, she got into her Chrysler LHS (18 mpg) which drove her back to her Senate office – one block away.
More Info:
50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth: 16 years old and more important than ever.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Stacking the Supreme Court Ain't Easy
Many partisans are either aghast or ecstatic that John Roberts and Samuel Alito have become the newest Supreme Court justices. Both men come with thin paper trails but conservative ideologies, and interest groups are calling this either manna from heaven or Armageddon, depending on whatever side you’re on.
The two justices represent more than two new faces. They represent the president’s efforts to remake the Supreme Court in his image and install at least two justices who meet with his views on how ideological justice is meted out in America. In fact, every president who makes a Supreme Court appointment tries to do the exact same thing.
What these presidents end up realizing is that picking the right judge that will perfectly meet their expectations is like picking the right person to be your spouse. You always think you’ve made the perfect choice, and sometimes you have, but you never know what someone will really be like five years down the road. Times change and people change, and what you thought was gospel five years ago you now regard as immaturity, if not outright idiocy. And just as big events like marriage, a new job and a new child make you see things differently, I would imagine being named one of the nine most powerful people in the government with a job for life gives Mr. Roberts and Mr. Alito a perspective that I can only imagine.
And that’s the main reason why handpicking justices is not like shooting judicial fish in a barrel. Many presidents have suddenly found that their perfect judicial soulmate either doesn’t have the ideology they expected or underwent an uncharacteristic change of heart upon assuming the bench. That’s why partisans shouldn’t be passing out champagne or hemlock with our new Supreme Court makeup. The Court’s decisions are maddeningly arbitrary depending on the strength of lawyers arguing the case and the legal merits and parameters of the case itself, all viewed by nine people who have disparate views of the Constitution.
Here’s a roundup of some twentieth century Supreme Court justices that came in with apparently rock-solid credentials and ideologies. Each President who selected them did so because they wanted to extend their respective beliefs and governing style to the Judiciary long after they were gone from office. Each President was extremely surprised and probably very unhappy with the way things turned out.
David Souter
Appointed By: George H.W. Bush
Track Record: Souter was one of the most recent “stealth” nominees who got the nomination because he didn’t have a paper trail or reputation. Smarting from the Robert Bork rejection, Republicans believed Souter was a solid conservative who would fly in under the radar.
Surprise!: A New Hampshire native, Souter was a Republican but actually retained the socially libertarian, independent streak typical to Northeastern Republicans. On abortion and the government’s right to seize private property, he has been giving Republican partisans angina since joining the Court.
Harry Blackmun
Appointed by: Richard Nixon
Track Record: A lifelong Republican and a background in tax-related cases helped Nixon after two previous nominees (Haynsworth and Carswell) fell through. He was also Chief Justice’s Warren Burger’s best friend and the two were called the “Minnesota Twins” because of their background and similar voting record.
Surprise!: Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade and became one of the court’s foremost liberals, championing gay rights, affirmative action and an anti-death penalty spokesman. By the end of his tenure, Burger was no longer speaking with the Twin who was best man at his wedding.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Appointed by: Theodore Roosevelt
Track Record: His father was a famous poet, and Holmes was one of the first judges to recognize the rights of trade unions and workers, and was known for balancing property rights with majority rule.
Surprise!: Holmes steadily relied on morality over due process, and endorsed sterilizing retarded adults with his words, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” He was extremely disparaging to lower class and minorities, and voted to weaken the Sherman Antitrust Act. Trustbusting Teddy was probably not amused.
Felix Frankfurter
Appointed by: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Track Record: Founded the ACLU, tried to save Sacco and Vanzetti and one of America’s first Zionists. Also one of FDR’s closest advisors.
Surprise!: Frankfurter became the poster boy for judicial restraint, repeatedly voting against decisions that would limit the authority of the executive and legislative branches of government. Except for ending segregation, he repeatedly was in the minority on many of the progressive Warren court votes. He retired in 1962, unfortunately ruining the possibility of a Frankfurter/Burger Court.
Hugo Black
Appointed by: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Track Record: Former KKK member who had never been a judge. Enough said?
Surprise!: The biggest surprise of all. Black served 34 years on the Supreme Court and became one of its most erudite members and intellectual powerhouses. Wrote majority opinions that championed civil rights and civil liberties, wrote eloquent decisions that denounced McCarthyism and his views on free speech and due process became court dogma, and are still practiced today.
More information:
FDR’s Court Packing: No president was more blatant about stacking the Supreme Court than FDR. After the Court threw out much of his New Deal legislation in his first term, FDR called the institution “Nine old men waiting to die.” He introduced a bill that would allow him to appoint a new justice for each sitting justice that was over 70 (six of them at the time). The Democratic Party, including Roosevelt’s VP, attacked it as an abuse of presidential authority, and the bill went nowhere. But the older justices started retiring, and by the end of his tenure, FDR had appointed eight associate justices and one chief justice.
The two justices represent more than two new faces. They represent the president’s efforts to remake the Supreme Court in his image and install at least two justices who meet with his views on how ideological justice is meted out in America. In fact, every president who makes a Supreme Court appointment tries to do the exact same thing.
What these presidents end up realizing is that picking the right judge that will perfectly meet their expectations is like picking the right person to be your spouse. You always think you’ve made the perfect choice, and sometimes you have, but you never know what someone will really be like five years down the road. Times change and people change, and what you thought was gospel five years ago you now regard as immaturity, if not outright idiocy. And just as big events like marriage, a new job and a new child make you see things differently, I would imagine being named one of the nine most powerful people in the government with a job for life gives Mr. Roberts and Mr. Alito a perspective that I can only imagine.
And that’s the main reason why handpicking justices is not like shooting judicial fish in a barrel. Many presidents have suddenly found that their perfect judicial soulmate either doesn’t have the ideology they expected or underwent an uncharacteristic change of heart upon assuming the bench. That’s why partisans shouldn’t be passing out champagne or hemlock with our new Supreme Court makeup. The Court’s decisions are maddeningly arbitrary depending on the strength of lawyers arguing the case and the legal merits and parameters of the case itself, all viewed by nine people who have disparate views of the Constitution.
Here’s a roundup of some twentieth century Supreme Court justices that came in with apparently rock-solid credentials and ideologies. Each President who selected them did so because they wanted to extend their respective beliefs and governing style to the Judiciary long after they were gone from office. Each President was extremely surprised and probably very unhappy with the way things turned out.
David Souter
Appointed By: George H.W. Bush
Track Record: Souter was one of the most recent “stealth” nominees who got the nomination because he didn’t have a paper trail or reputation. Smarting from the Robert Bork rejection, Republicans believed Souter was a solid conservative who would fly in under the radar.
Surprise!: A New Hampshire native, Souter was a Republican but actually retained the socially libertarian, independent streak typical to Northeastern Republicans. On abortion and the government’s right to seize private property, he has been giving Republican partisans angina since joining the Court.
Harry Blackmun
Appointed by: Richard Nixon
Track Record: A lifelong Republican and a background in tax-related cases helped Nixon after two previous nominees (Haynsworth and Carswell) fell through. He was also Chief Justice’s Warren Burger’s best friend and the two were called the “Minnesota Twins” because of their background and similar voting record.
Surprise!: Blackmun wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade and became one of the court’s foremost liberals, championing gay rights, affirmative action and an anti-death penalty spokesman. By the end of his tenure, Burger was no longer speaking with the Twin who was best man at his wedding.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Appointed by: Theodore Roosevelt
Track Record: His father was a famous poet, and Holmes was one of the first judges to recognize the rights of trade unions and workers, and was known for balancing property rights with majority rule.
Surprise!: Holmes steadily relied on morality over due process, and endorsed sterilizing retarded adults with his words, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” He was extremely disparaging to lower class and minorities, and voted to weaken the Sherman Antitrust Act. Trustbusting Teddy was probably not amused.
Felix Frankfurter
Appointed by: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Track Record: Founded the ACLU, tried to save Sacco and Vanzetti and one of America’s first Zionists. Also one of FDR’s closest advisors.
Surprise!: Frankfurter became the poster boy for judicial restraint, repeatedly voting against decisions that would limit the authority of the executive and legislative branches of government. Except for ending segregation, he repeatedly was in the minority on many of the progressive Warren court votes. He retired in 1962, unfortunately ruining the possibility of a Frankfurter/Burger Court.
Hugo Black
Appointed by: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Track Record: Former KKK member who had never been a judge. Enough said?
Surprise!: The biggest surprise of all. Black served 34 years on the Supreme Court and became one of its most erudite members and intellectual powerhouses. Wrote majority opinions that championed civil rights and civil liberties, wrote eloquent decisions that denounced McCarthyism and his views on free speech and due process became court dogma, and are still practiced today.
More information:
FDR’s Court Packing: No president was more blatant about stacking the Supreme Court than FDR. After the Court threw out much of his New Deal legislation in his first term, FDR called the institution “Nine old men waiting to die.” He introduced a bill that would allow him to appoint a new justice for each sitting justice that was over 70 (six of them at the time). The Democratic Party, including Roosevelt’s VP, attacked it as an abuse of presidential authority, and the bill went nowhere. But the older justices started retiring, and by the end of his tenure, FDR had appointed eight associate justices and one chief justice.
Monday, March 06, 2006
The Dummies at Harvard
Last year, I ranted my politically incorrect thoughts about the problems now-outgoing Harvard President Larry Summers was having. The elevator pitch was that Summers had been unfairly excoriated for suggesting the reason women are underrepresented in scientific circles is because there may be genetic differences between men and women. The PC Mafia seized upon this statement to force an unnecessary apology from Summers, and the arts and science faculty (a very small minority at Harvard, given the plethora of colleges, students, alumni and staff) issued a non-binding no confidence vote.
Now that this saga has come to a regrettable conclusion, the PC Mafia is glowing in their successful revolution, completely ignorant to how this situation has tarnished the reputation of the university they think they run. If Summers is guilty of anything besides a brusque manner and some ill-advised public commentary (which is backed up by scientific fact), it is acquiescing to the wishes of a minority that has somehow dictated the behavioral rules and political attitudes that are acceptable in ZIP Code 02138.
It was irrelevant to this group that Summers was an extremely smart, financially astute and well-connected Democrat who was Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. It is unimportant that he was committed to growing Harvard’s already-elephantine endowment, making the university a center for stem cell research, expanding operations across the Charles River into Allston and reinvigorating the science department, which has seen prestigious professors leave for other institutions during the last 10 years. All that mattered to this group was that Summers had made public comments that did not adhere to their ultra-liberal views on religion, race, sex and the government.
Summers’ problems actually started in 2002. This same group of faculty, along with a similar minority of students, was repeatedly calling on Harvard to divest from Israel because of its treatment of Palestinians. I have long felt an undercurrent of anti-Semitism from liberals who call for such action, and Summers, who is Jewish, said such talk was “Anti-Semitic in its effect, if not its intent.” You can decide for yourself if that is accurate, but to the PC Mafia it was a call to arms, and the war began.
Another problem arose with Cornell West, one of Harvard’s noted African Studies professors. I read West’s excellent book Race Matters just after college, and it should be required reading for anyone studying social sciences. But that was over a decade ago, and West was getting more recent notoriety for appearing on hip hop albums, acting in The Matrix Reloaded and publicly supporting vapid charlatan Al Sharpton’s presidential campaign. Summers said that West should put more effort into academic endeavors instead of rapping and acting. But the bogus racism cries began and West left for Princeton in a huff. And the subsequent talk of gender in scientific studies and the problems installing a new Arts and Science Dean have been well documented.
It would be one thing if Summers had misappropriated funds or Harvard had begun a slide toward mediocrity in one or more of its schools. It also would be noteworthy if more than one college of Harvard’s faculty expressed no confidence in Summers, or alumni spending was drying up due to his actions, or applications were going down because of the struggle. But none of these were true. The entire situation emanated because Summers had offended the PC Mafia’s sensibilities and it’s ultra-liberal ideology – and woe to the Democrat who does not completely toe the ultra-liberal line in 02138.
The original concept of a university is not just a place of higher learning – it is supposed to be an open exchange of ideas, inquiry and debate. Sadly, this is not always the case in many corners of academia. Diversity cannot be limited to matters like race and gender; it must also include ideology and freedom of expression. Ralph Waldo Emerson expressed this at Harvard in “The American Scholar” in 1837, and Emerson would surely shudder at the lack of academic speech and freedom at the university today. If a university allows a single, radical group from any ideology mandate the terms of debate it will undermine the very tenets it requires to be an independent center of higher learning.
So while the PC Mafia chortles, it can dwell on the following: Harvard has a vacancy at the presidency. It also has deans who are leaving or have left from the business, education and engineering schools – some of these were announced before Summers’ resignation and some have been recent announcements; we may never know if they left as a result of the fiasco. Harvard’s CFO has also given notice, and a member of the university’s governing board left shortly after Summers gave notice. Pretend you are looking for a deanship or higher position in academia, bring great leadership and fundraising skills to the table, but your political views are not 100% in line with the contingent that ousted Summers. Would you apply there?
More information:
A Defense of Larry Summers by Former Boston University President John Silber: If you haven’t heard of John Silber, he is basically the Rudy Guiliani of academia. On one hand, he took a mediocre university awash in red ink in 1971 and turned it into a powerful and esteemed institution that now has several excellent colleges and a large endowment. On the other hand, his people skills were horrific and he also experienced no-confidence votes from the faculty. An interesting read from someone with a good perspective.
A roundup of opinion pieces by the Harvard Crimson: Get ready to be surprised.
Now that this saga has come to a regrettable conclusion, the PC Mafia is glowing in their successful revolution, completely ignorant to how this situation has tarnished the reputation of the university they think they run. If Summers is guilty of anything besides a brusque manner and some ill-advised public commentary (which is backed up by scientific fact), it is acquiescing to the wishes of a minority that has somehow dictated the behavioral rules and political attitudes that are acceptable in ZIP Code 02138.
It was irrelevant to this group that Summers was an extremely smart, financially astute and well-connected Democrat who was Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. It is unimportant that he was committed to growing Harvard’s already-elephantine endowment, making the university a center for stem cell research, expanding operations across the Charles River into Allston and reinvigorating the science department, which has seen prestigious professors leave for other institutions during the last 10 years. All that mattered to this group was that Summers had made public comments that did not adhere to their ultra-liberal views on religion, race, sex and the government.
Summers’ problems actually started in 2002. This same group of faculty, along with a similar minority of students, was repeatedly calling on Harvard to divest from Israel because of its treatment of Palestinians. I have long felt an undercurrent of anti-Semitism from liberals who call for such action, and Summers, who is Jewish, said such talk was “Anti-Semitic in its effect, if not its intent.” You can decide for yourself if that is accurate, but to the PC Mafia it was a call to arms, and the war began.
Another problem arose with Cornell West, one of Harvard’s noted African Studies professors. I read West’s excellent book Race Matters just after college, and it should be required reading for anyone studying social sciences. But that was over a decade ago, and West was getting more recent notoriety for appearing on hip hop albums, acting in The Matrix Reloaded and publicly supporting vapid charlatan Al Sharpton’s presidential campaign. Summers said that West should put more effort into academic endeavors instead of rapping and acting. But the bogus racism cries began and West left for Princeton in a huff. And the subsequent talk of gender in scientific studies and the problems installing a new Arts and Science Dean have been well documented.
It would be one thing if Summers had misappropriated funds or Harvard had begun a slide toward mediocrity in one or more of its schools. It also would be noteworthy if more than one college of Harvard’s faculty expressed no confidence in Summers, or alumni spending was drying up due to his actions, or applications were going down because of the struggle. But none of these were true. The entire situation emanated because Summers had offended the PC Mafia’s sensibilities and it’s ultra-liberal ideology – and woe to the Democrat who does not completely toe the ultra-liberal line in 02138.
The original concept of a university is not just a place of higher learning – it is supposed to be an open exchange of ideas, inquiry and debate. Sadly, this is not always the case in many corners of academia. Diversity cannot be limited to matters like race and gender; it must also include ideology and freedom of expression. Ralph Waldo Emerson expressed this at Harvard in “The American Scholar” in 1837, and Emerson would surely shudder at the lack of academic speech and freedom at the university today. If a university allows a single, radical group from any ideology mandate the terms of debate it will undermine the very tenets it requires to be an independent center of higher learning.
So while the PC Mafia chortles, it can dwell on the following: Harvard has a vacancy at the presidency. It also has deans who are leaving or have left from the business, education and engineering schools – some of these were announced before Summers’ resignation and some have been recent announcements; we may never know if they left as a result of the fiasco. Harvard’s CFO has also given notice, and a member of the university’s governing board left shortly after Summers gave notice. Pretend you are looking for a deanship or higher position in academia, bring great leadership and fundraising skills to the table, but your political views are not 100% in line with the contingent that ousted Summers. Would you apply there?
More information:
A Defense of Larry Summers by Former Boston University President John Silber: If you haven’t heard of John Silber, he is basically the Rudy Guiliani of academia. On one hand, he took a mediocre university awash in red ink in 1971 and turned it into a powerful and esteemed institution that now has several excellent colleges and a large endowment. On the other hand, his people skills were horrific and he also experienced no-confidence votes from the faculty. An interesting read from someone with a good perspective.
A roundup of opinion pieces by the Harvard Crimson: Get ready to be surprised.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Nuthin' Funny About These Cartoons
Hundreds of thousands of Muslims are taking to the streets in protest. What are they so mad about? How fanatics have usurped their great religion and unfairly demonized them to the West? That terrorists murder innocent civilians and children in Baghdad, Chechnya, Afghanistan and across the Middle East in the name of Allah? That their governments permit them almost no freedom of speech, freedom of the press or even the right to choose their own leaders?
No. The widespread protests, which have resulted in arson, murder and vandalism are over a cartoon that defames the prophet Muhammad. You probably haven’t seen the cartoon (you can see it here), and it’s quite obvious very few of the protesting Islamic radicals have seen it either. The cartoon is obviously in poor taste, but nothing compared with what President Bush and other political figures get on a daily basis in editorial cartoons and in print around the world.
Many of these protests are whipped up by authoritarian regimes in Iran, Syria and other Arabic despot states to detract their citizens from their own failures. But even with that in mind, the fanaticism and intolerance shown by these protests illustrates a troubling ethical and judgmental divide that the West should heed. Nobody protests an unarmed reporter being murdered or beheaded, or a group of Chechen rebels killing schoolchildren. But if a cartoon unbecoming to Muhammad is buried in a small paper in a small Western country? Look out!
You may remember a few years ago, an artist made a picture of the Virgin Mary partially composed of elephant dung. And the famous photographer Andres Serrano had a work of art called “Piss Christ” of a crucifix in a bottle of urine. It’s your call on whether these were part of the American freedom of expression or an offense to Christianity. There were protests and outcries, but nothing that approached what we’re seeing in the radical Muslim community. And other religions from Judaism to Buddhism have been the recipient of some truly heinous words and artwork through the centuries, yet did not respond with the violent and intolerant. In fact, many Muslim countries routinely run cartoons or editorials calling for the extermination of Jews and the destruction of Israel. Yet you don’t see Jews, Israelis or even Germans burning flags, destroying embassies or threatening Muslim lives in response.
Another thing is equally troubling; the self-censorship of many American and European media outlets in response to this virulent double standard. They are refusing to run these rather tame cartoons. A French paper even fired its editor after he chose to run them. If anything, every newspaper and television news source should show the cartoon to demonstrate its commitment to freedom of expression and refusal to kowtow to the demands of Muslim extremists, whose so-called “protests” are just a cover for their prejudice and justification for jihad.
No. The widespread protests, which have resulted in arson, murder and vandalism are over a cartoon that defames the prophet Muhammad. You probably haven’t seen the cartoon (you can see it here), and it’s quite obvious very few of the protesting Islamic radicals have seen it either. The cartoon is obviously in poor taste, but nothing compared with what President Bush and other political figures get on a daily basis in editorial cartoons and in print around the world.
Many of these protests are whipped up by authoritarian regimes in Iran, Syria and other Arabic despot states to detract their citizens from their own failures. But even with that in mind, the fanaticism and intolerance shown by these protests illustrates a troubling ethical and judgmental divide that the West should heed. Nobody protests an unarmed reporter being murdered or beheaded, or a group of Chechen rebels killing schoolchildren. But if a cartoon unbecoming to Muhammad is buried in a small paper in a small Western country? Look out!
You may remember a few years ago, an artist made a picture of the Virgin Mary partially composed of elephant dung. And the famous photographer Andres Serrano had a work of art called “Piss Christ” of a crucifix in a bottle of urine. It’s your call on whether these were part of the American freedom of expression or an offense to Christianity. There were protests and outcries, but nothing that approached what we’re seeing in the radical Muslim community. And other religions from Judaism to Buddhism have been the recipient of some truly heinous words and artwork through the centuries, yet did not respond with the violent and intolerant. In fact, many Muslim countries routinely run cartoons or editorials calling for the extermination of Jews and the destruction of Israel. Yet you don’t see Jews, Israelis or even Germans burning flags, destroying embassies or threatening Muslim lives in response.
Another thing is equally troubling; the self-censorship of many American and European media outlets in response to this virulent double standard. They are refusing to run these rather tame cartoons. A French paper even fired its editor after he chose to run them. If anything, every newspaper and television news source should show the cartoon to demonstrate its commitment to freedom of expression and refusal to kowtow to the demands of Muslim extremists, whose so-called “protests” are just a cover for their prejudice and justification for jihad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)