More Presidential Musings

Things are not looking good for the GOP right now. With Alan Greenspan jumping on the anti-Bush bandwagon, 60% of Republicans now opposing free trade, social conservatives threatening to leave if Giuliani is the nominee, and the leading candidates pledging to continue with an unpopular war, you could certainly handicap the race against the Republican Party right now. What could possibly stop the Democrats from winning next year?

Two words: Hillary Clinton. Clinton continues to have tremendously high negative and unfavorable ratings, with over 40% of all respondents claiming they would never vote for her. With Clinton appearing to be the likely nominee at this point, you can just see the Rove-tutored GOP strategists tapping kegs in glee. They probably can’t believe their good luck. Already Clinton is providing GOP fundraisers with fodder for cash. Despite any upcoming schism in the Republican ranks, nothing will bring them all together faster than another Clinton presidency. Especially a Clinton who has little of the talent or charisma of her husband.

Here’s a completely unscientific but true story that speaks volumes to me. I know several young, liberal die-hard Democrats who are currently doing grassroots work for Obama in New Hampshire. I asked how their work was going and why they decided to help Obama instead of Clinton. Their answer was unanimous – they know making Clinton the nominee will be throwing red meat to the lions. They consider her unelectable, but will reluctantly support her if she wins. If a candidate can’t inspire the people in her own party, how on earth will she win the support of the undecided voters in Florida and Ohio that decide the election?

Mission for Burma

The mainstream media has, of course, moved on from the democracy crackdown in Burma to more important news like Britney Spears’ custody battle. But the Internet is still humming with plenty of sites and bloggers despite the military dictatorship’s attempts to black out the country. The sites urging everyone to do more in Burma are on the political left and the right, and I’ve listed some of the best-known blog sites below. Please check them out and drop them a line to let them know they are not forgotten.

You can really see how much technology has changed our lives since the last Burmese uprising against its ruling military junta 20 years ago. With the advent of everything from blogs to cell phone cameras, news about these types of revolutions and abuse can be seen by all. While small citizen uprisings might go unnoticed, it is now impossible to keep a mass revolt or upheaval suppressed by the state any longer. Imagine how much faster the Iron Curtain could have fallen with today’s technology.

It’s also startling to see just how brutal the military dictators are in Burma, and how much they have set their country back. A generation ago, Burma was pretty much on par with its neighbors. Now the countries surrounding Burma – China, India and Thailand, plus neighboring countries like Singapore and Vietnam – are booming, with thriving economies and a much higher standard of living for their citizens. Burma remains as it was – possibly the second least advanced and poorest country in Asia after North Korea.

Here's some smuggled video of protesters being beaten. Here's to one Burmese blog that includes links to some others, including photos that are quite gruesome. Here's the blog of Ko Htike, who is very good and also writes in English. In line with how technology is aiding Burmese monks and dissidents, here's a story about how satellite technology (similar to Google Earth) is going around the military's blackout.

Finally, here's an online petition you can sign to protest what is happening. I don't know if it will actually accomplish anything, but it's better than doing nothing and it will send you periodic updates if you wish.

2007 NFL Predictions, Determined by Dave (and My Magic 8 Ball)

This looks like another great football season. In the AFC you have the Patriots, the Colts, the Ravens, the Chargers, the Broncos, the Jaguars and a couple of surprises as top-notch teams and Super Bowl contenders. In the NFC you have the Saints and, uh, well, maybe the Bears and, uuuuhhhhhhh…I guess the Eagles are OK if McNabb stays healthy. Errr…did I mention the Saints already?

It’s not easy making picks when free agency and salary caps give every team a fighting chance. It’s even tougher when you look at the super-talented AFC North (except Cleveland) and the talent-challenged NFC South (except New Orleans) and try to determine who’s going to be on top in 17 weeks. But that’s what makes the NFL so great and the office pools so maddening.

Here goes nothing, including my playoff picks along with two Dark Horses for surprising and most improved teams in each conference (that would have been the Saints last year, if I knew what I was doing).

NFC EAST

1) Philadelphia – If McNabb stays healthy, the Eagles are a lock. What is not a lock is McNabb staying healthy. Some good additions (Takeo Spikes) and weird subtractions (Jeremiah Trotter) should shore up the defense as well.

2) Dallas – Wild Card Team. If the Eagles falter, nothing should stop Dallas from taking the division as well. Tony Romo was the spark Dallas needed last year, and new coach Wade Phillips can only improve a porous defense. In the AFC, Dallas would be lucky to go .500, but in the NFC they’re a shoo-in for the wild card.

3) NY Giants – Boy Eli has talent but lacks his brother’s accuracy and eye of the tiger. Tiki Barber’s retirement will put even more pressure on Eli, and the Giants’ horrendous secondary will squash their third consecutive playoff bid.

4) Washington – I see flashes of hope with QB Jason Campbell, but the Redskins’ defense has toast written all over it. Somewhere, Darrell Green weeps. But everyone will see Joe Gibbs weeping soon.

NFC NORTH

1) Chicago – This division is so putrid that the Bears’ practice squad could tap dance all over it. The 2007 Bears’ defense isn’t as good as the Ravens, but it’s not half bad either. Lance Briggs, Brian Urlacher and Tommie Harris are rocks. The big question is QB Rex Grossman. He stunk last year, but the NFC competition was so bad it wasn’t a factor. Will he get past the Saints and Eagles this year?

2) Green Bay – Brett Farve’s last hurrah. The Packers surprised everyone last year by going 8-8, but management did nothing to improve the team and lead RB Ahman Green left town. The Packers should get 7 or 8 wins with a decent defense, and that will be more than enough to contend in the NFC North.

3) Detroit – Here’s my annual shoutout to GM Matt Millen, HERO OF THE STUPID. Since hiring Millen, Detroit has gone 24-72. He has drafted three receivers in the last four years with the first pick, two of whom are warming the bench. Guess what he did this year? He drafted ANOTHER RECEIVER! Perhaps he could have paid attention to the offensive line, which will not keep QB John Kitna off injured reserve, or the defense that has been consistently among the league’s worst? As long as Millen has a job, your employment future is gonna be OK.

4) Minnesota – Battling Detroit for the basement will be the once-mighty Vikings, who will be led by mighty QB Tavaris Jackson. The starting RB is a rookie. I can’t name anyone on defense. That just about wraps up the team.

NFC SOUTH

1) New Orleans – Goodbye Aints! Believe it – the Saints are the best team in the NFC. Last year new coach Sean Payton, QB Drew Brees and RBs Reggie Bush and Deuce McAllister led the best offense in football. And, in a brilliant move, New Orleans spent its free agency money on defense, signing a new secondary including CB Jason David from the Colts. Defensive ends Charles Grant and Will Smith are angry and hungry. There may just be a new NFC Super Bowl representative this year.

2) Carolina – The challenge with the rest of the NFC North is deciding which team sucks least. I’ll take the Panthers who, despite WR Steve Smith, have a pretty lame offense. The defense is reliable but apart from Julius Peppers lacks big names and is getting near my age. It won’t be hard to go .500 in the NFC South, but the Panthers won’t do much better than that.

3) Tampa Bay – Were you asked to try out for QB in Tampa this summer? The Bucs will start with four quarterbacks, with Jeff Garcia throwing to, uh, somebody. Cadillac Williams tailed off last year, and long-starting DE Simeon Rice was cut after failing his physical.

4) Atlanta – The good news is Michael Vick won’t be a distraction. The bad news is Joey Harrington is the new starting quarterback. Things kind of go downhill from there.

NFC WEST

1) Seattle – I’m less sure about this pick than any other. Seattle seems good, as long as QB Tim Hasselbeck and RB Shaun Alexander stay healthy and the defense is decent, but I don’t sense a passion or urgency behind them. Even if I’m wrong, they lack the talent to get past Chicago or New Orleans if they make the playoffs.

2) San Francisco – Wild Card and my NFC Dark Horse. When you’re as bad as the 49ers are for a long time, you accumulate a lot of high draft choices. Unless your team is run by Matt Millen, eventually this should make you good. San Francisco now has enough talent accumulated to make a run at the Wild Card. Last year they went 7-9 and QB Alex Smith and RB Frank Gore showed improvement. This year they spent money like drunken sailors on free agency and signed four good defensive starters (including LB Tully Banta-Cain and CB Nate Clements) and had two first round picks. Next year they could be really good, but this year they should be good enough.

3) St. Louis – I love RB Steven Jackson (who put Marshall Faulk on the bench) and QB Mark Bulger, and acknowledge the Rams are an offensive machine. But there wasn’t much upgrade to the defense, which is last against the run. Unless there’s a lot of 35-31 victories, they’re stuck at .500 again.

4) Arizona – I’m getting tired of being burned by these guys. On paper they’re great and have good players but fall apart at game time. If they ever get an offensive line I’ll take another look.

AFC EAST

1) New England – Well, duh. Not sure what made the Patriots change their character image, but Randy Moss should be well-behaved for most of the year. But the real steal was LB Adalius Thomas who anchored the Ravens’ mighty defense. The absences of CB Rodney Harrison and DE extraordinaire Richard Seymour might make the first month tough, but the Patriots bench is mighty deep and they will be sitting on top by the end of the year.

2) NY Jets – Last year’s Cinderella becomes this year’s wannabes. The Jets have a better rushing game with Thomas Jones and two good WRs with Jerricho Cotchery and Lavarneus Coles and two new defensive draft picks will contribute, but it’s gonna take more than that to knock the Pats off their perch. Also, will QB Chad Pennington stay healthy all season?

3) Buffalo – I am slowly gaining respect for QB JP Losman, but losing the best three defensive players in free agency (London Fletcher, Nate Clements and Takeo Spikes) won’t help stop the run anytime soon. Looks like the Bills remain stalled at 7-9.

4) Miami – New coach Cam Cameron has his work cut out for him trying to make a Swiss Cheese offensive line protect 37-year-old QB Trent Green, who has never been especially mobile. Anyone know who’s starting at RB?

AFC NORTH

1) Baltimore – The Ravens played better than I thought last year as the defense was banging and QB Steve “Air” McNair proved he still had gas in the tank. The Ravens’ D-line is the NFL’s best, their secondary is the league’s best and the LBs are at least the second-best. If RB Willis McGahee does what he used to do in Buffalo, the Ravens will take off.

2) Cincinnati – I never thought that Marvin Lewis, the original architect of the Ravens defense, would run a team that played so loosy goosey on defense. Nobody doubts Lewis, QB Carson Palmer, WR Chad Johnson and the TE whose name I’m not even going to try and spell. But what’s with the defense? You’re never going to beat the Patriots and Colts without some upgrades there.

3) Pittsburgh – I’m sure new coach Mike Tomlin will be here for a while, and he’ll need a year or two to get Pittsburgh set straight. Pittsburgh is not a bad team but made too many mistakes (Roethlisberger had 23 interceptions last year). CB Troy Polamalu is still my man.

4) Cleveland – The Browns finally got the QB they wanted and their top draft picks got through the preseason without ending on IR. There’s too many gaps on defense and the Browns will probably win around six games, but this could be next year’s dark horse.

AFC SOUTH

1) Indianapolis – Well, duh take II. No Super Jinx here as the Colts should have no trouble repeating as division champs. Peyton, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark are the best throwing/receiving team in the NFL. But trouble may lurk as the Colts lost six starters to free agency or injury so far, none more telling than LT Tarik Glenn. A second-year player will now be protecting Peyton’s blind side. Look out!

2) Jacksonville – Wild Card Team and my AFC Dark Horse. I’m taking a chance here, like coach Jack Del Rio is taking by dumping Byron Leftwich for David Garrard. If Garrard works out, he’s the last piece in the puzzle as Jacksonville has a ferocious defense and a great RB in Maurice Jones-Drew. The receivers are iffy, but a good QB is all that’s holding this team back from greatness.

3) Tennessee – QB Vince Young was exciting last year but he can’t do it all, especially when the team lost its starting RB and both starting WRs to free agency and its best defensive player was Pacman Jones.

4) Houston – Dumping David Carr and signing QB Matt Schaub and RB Ahman Green were good steps. The defense has potential but is young. The Texans are still in a holding pattern.

AFC WEST

1) San Diego – Many people are anointing the Chargers as the next Super Bowl champs. I have two words for you – Norv Turner. This guy is the Matt Millen of head coaches, with a 58-82-1 record despite inheriting teams with great talent. It would be tough to mess up San Diego with names like Philip Rivers, LaDanian Tomlinson, Shawn Merriman and Antonio Gates, but I’m fully confident Norv can do it right around playoff time. San Diego also has a truly punishing schedule.

2) Denver – Wild Card Team. Now that Jake the Fake Plummer has been banished again, Jay Cutler will get a chance to shine. Should he do so, the Broncos will do well. Good signings like CB Dre Bly (a killer secondary combo with Champ Bailey), TE Daniel Graham and RB Travis Henry should bring normalcy back to Mile High again, where the Broncos were oddly 4-4 last year.

3) Kansas City – The Chiefs made the playoffs last year but will stay home in 2008. Running the show will QB Damon Huard, who will make way for rookie Brodie Croyle, who will have a very long season.

4) Oakland – The Raiders actually have a good defense and I toyed with making them my Dark Horse team because they could double their win total from last year. But that would still make them 4-12. Note to Al Davis: If you take the top pick in the draft and name him the future of your franchise, try to have him signed by Opening Day.

Moral Values: Larry Craig vs. Paris Hilton

“I believe he (Larry Craig) should resign because I believe character is an
extremely important qualification for public service," said Bryan Fischer of the
Idaho Values Alliance. "And I believe the senator, by his own admission, has
acknowledged that he has fallen short of the standard that we should expect from
public servants."

Yesterday, I talked about the hypocrisy of using moral values as a platform when you are living either an immoral life, or engage in activities that do not conform to what you preach (and the triumph many of us feel when people who want to impose their “ideal” lifestyles on others are caught doing what they claim to despise).

But “moral values” is one of those nebulous terms that mean different things to different folks. Nobody can truly say they are against moral values, but whose moral values should be held as a model?

We live in a society that follows every move of someone like Paris Hilton, who can hardly be described as having moral values, yet we scorn and despise people like Larry Craig and Bill Clinton for their indiscretions. Clinton and Craig’s immorality caused them to lose respect and (almost) their jobs. But when celebrities like Paris Hilton, Britney Spears or tomorrow’s petulant teen musician is caught on video or breaking the law, they tend to get additional exposure, a higher Q score and new fans. Why is this?

Moreover, if an ordinary person with an ordinary job like you or I were caught doing what Larry Craig had done, we would obviously not make the papers but an arrest would probably not cause us to lose our jobs. We would certainly have to answer to our families and friends, but we would not have to find a new career. Ditto for celebrities.

So if the public has such little regard for politicians, why are they held to the highest of ethical standards? It seems that if you are considering running for public office, anything in your past can be held against you, no matter how long ago it was or how irrelevant it currently is. Somewhere in America, a bunch of 30-something people who would make excellent senators or presidents have opted not to run for office because there is a picture of him or her drinking a beer in college before they turned 21. Any whiff of a scandal can produce an unprovoked media feeding frenzy that can overwhelm the most thick-skinned candidate. Except for places like Louisiana and Rhode Island where corruption and politics are synonymous, the days when politicians like Ted Kennedy could openly flout his drinking, womanizing and ability to be above the law are long over.

And maybe that’s the answer. People have a low opinion of politics and politicians, but they expect a lot from them and do hold them to a higher standard. While celebrities are worshipped and followed, people do not consider them very important. And while many celebrities should not be role models, at least they are not moralizing to others or advocating their values as a moral compass. Maybe politicians can learn something from celebrities after all.

More Info: Here's three people to look at for moral values

Socrates

Jesus

David Hume

And a politician without too many moral values:

News Flash: Another Gay Male Exposed as Family Values Republican

Yes, I ripped off the headline from The Onion. But the long list of GOP scandals tramples on and on, from financial scandals like Jack Abramoff (and folks under investigation like Ted Stevens and Rick Renzi) to a growing line of sexual scandals. Mark Foley, David Vitter, once-trusty ally Ted Haggard and now men’s room denizen Larry Craig are digging the hole deeper.

What the Republicans really need now is some kind of leader who can unite them and set them straight, similar to the tough love “coach” approach John Feehery discusses in this story. With an unpopular president, an equally unpopular war and religious firebrands as a base, it’s getting increasingly difficult for the GOP to defend its position and relevance to mainstream America. It’s been distressing and fascinating at the same time to watch the once-disciplined party unwind.

At the same time, there’s a schadenfreude aspect to watching Bible-toting, homosexual-hating and moralizing firebrands like Foley and Craig get their just desserts as we learn what their real family values are. The same people who denigrated both Bill Clinton and gays for their sexual exploits are now ironically caught in their own moral web. Americans are aware they are imperfect people, and tend to resent anyone from Kathie Lee Gifford to Martha Stewart and Larry Craig who presents themselves as perfect and infallible. Resentment at these so-called perfect people can quickly turn to glee when they suffer misfortune, often by their own doing.

Perhaps it’s because I’ve lived my entire life in the Northeast, but I also believe Americans do not want to be told how to live their lives and will rebel against anyone who tries to limit or take away their freedoms. If someone in Washington starts railing about family values and morality, their own house had better be in order. Nothing will ruin a public figure faster than exposing them as a straw man, especially if their now-phony platform threatened a liberty that people cherish.

Karl Rove's Legacy

What shall be The Architect’s legacy? Depends on where you look.

Rove’s skill and genius as a campaign manager cannot be denied. When you can get George W. Bush elected governor twice and the president twice – especially given the circumstances surrounding the latter – you are a genius. An evil genius perhaps, but still a genius.

It’s surprising so little has been said in the press about Rove’s incredible transformation of the Texas Republican Party. When he arrived in Texas, Democrats had long controlled state government. In two decades, the GOP owned the entire state government, and Rove helped get Kay Bailey Hutchinson elected senator and also helped numerous Republican judges win election as well. It was in Texas that Rove honed his legendary campaign skills of appealing to the base, get out the vote drives and attacking the core strengths of the opponent (seen later in the “Swift Boating” of John Kerry), not to mention the numerous times he raised homosexual rumors and anti-gay prejudice to help win elections.

You may be saying that the Rove-based approach has denigrated political campaigning and made negative attack ads standard today, and you certainly have a good point. But when you are a campaign manager, your job is to win the campaign at any cost short of breaking the law or telling outright lies. You do not worry about votes you can’t possibly win. Your only concern is to get that 50% plus 1 vote total to ensure victory. James Carville has repeatedly said this, and Rove’s campaign tactics will be studied and used by candidates and their teams on both sides of the aisle for years to come.

But what tainted Rove’s legacy – and where he got into serious trouble – is when he left the partisan campaign manager role and entered the White House. The president and his team should put politics aside to determine what is best for the country. It seems that Rove never checked his partisanship at the door and remained on a pro-GOP vendetta, regardless of how that may affect the White House or the country in the end. This has caused serious internal conflict within the party and has alienated millions of moderate Republicans and independents who once backed the war and the president, and now back neither. If anything, they are considering the opposition.

In political campaigns there are “wedge issues.” These are black and white issues that tend to divide the electorate into for-it or against-it camps, such as abortion, gay marriage, civil rights, war, etc. Rove, who had been so successful at studying polls to find what wedge issues would win campaigns in the past, turned the Bush White House into a series of never-ending wedge issues. They cumulatively divided most of the population against the president, and have now divided the GOP against itself. It’s amazing that the Democrats, a loosely-banded coalition party with no identity or central platform, are now in a better position than ever. The 2006 elections could be the first step on a long road for Republicans, and Rove’s tactics as presidential advisor is largely to blame.

So what will be Karl Rove’s legacy? The successful campaign manager who continually delivered victory for the party he loved, or the White House advisor who did everything possible to continue serving the party at the expense of the country? History will have to answer that.

More Info: Dave Frum's opinion

Farewell, Scooter

When I grew up in New Jersey in the 1980s, the Yankees were still on free TV. All I remember from those games are some really bad teams and some hilarious comments by Rizzuto, who was probably approaching senility at that time. But although he would spend entire innings ignoring the game while talking about his wife Cora's manicotti recipes, you bizarrely kept watching and listening. I didn't have an older brother so Scooter was the weird but nice old guy down the street who introduced me to baseball.

Here's some other weird facts I remember. He always called his co-announcers by their last names: "Hey White! Hey Murcer! Hey Seaver!" Anytime a rookie came up, he always called "The Kid" for the first couple of months until he distinguished himself. And he would always leave after the seventh inning stretch during a home game. Later I found out this was because he wanted to beat the traffic home back to Jersey. It didn't matter if it was an important game or a blowout.

I saw the Scooter once. A friend and I were walking by his house and he was just standing in the driveway. We yelled, "Hey Scooter!" He smiled and waved. I didn't even think of shaking his hand or anything. I was struck by how small he was. Naturally I never saw him play, but I've been reading the tributes and knew about his bunting DiMaggio home during a botched squeeze play and his defense. Is it true Ted Williams said if Scooter had been on the Red Sox they would have won something? That's gotta hurt Johnny Pesky.

The last game I remember Scooter calling was when I was home sometime in the mid 1990s. He was rambling even more than ever. After a commercial, they showed a live shot of the George Washington Bridge and the Hudson. Scooter said, "Boy, look at that beautiful shot of the Atlantic Ocean."

His partner (maybe Mercer) said, "Phil, that's the Hudson River."

"Oh gee, is it the Hudson River? Well, how about that," said Scooter. He seemed oblivious that he failed to recognize the bridge and river he had driven over every day for the last 40+ years. But nobody cared. A fitting finale.

More Info:
The Day Phil Rizzuto Got a Holy Cow
A Few Phil Rizzuto Quotes and Jokes
O Holy Cow: The Poetry of Phil Rizzuto

Thanking Barry Bonds

There’s been a lot of venom and vitriol written in the last few weeks about Barry Bonds. But I would actually like to spend a moment thanking (in order) Mr. Bonds, the cream, the clear, Greg Anderson and George Mitchell, whose investigation length is beyond interminal. They have helped the world focus on a true baseball hero and worthy role model – Hank Aaron.

It has been said that hitting a home run off a major league-caliber pitcher is the hardest accomplishment in any sport. That is why I have spent the last few days in unbelievable awe at what Aaron accomplished. For 22 years, Aaron was the standard of what can be accomplished by discipline, determination, God-given talent and grace. Aaron not only holds the major league home run record (in my opinion and everyone else’s), but also still holds the record for RBIs, extra-base hits and total bases. It was also not revealed until a few years ago that Aaron endured an enormous amount of bigotry, racism and death threats because he was an African American about to break a famous white man’s record. Aaron would not reveal this during the chase because he was a gentleman, and he did not allow the hatred to distract him from his goal.

Aaron has continued to show his class by refusing to comment on Bonds’ accomplishments, let alone showing up to witness the feat. I continue to be awestruck by this decision, which is far more mature than anything I would have done. While Bud Selig putters and frets, reaping the steroid scandal both he and Don Fehr sowed by ignoring the problem for years, Aaron continues on his business speaking out for more minority ownership in baseball and running his Chasing the Dream Foundation to help inner-city children.

If my kids need a role model one day, I will point them to Hank Aaron. And if they need an example for cheating and the danger of drugs, then I will thank Barry Bonds again. See you at the Grand Jury, Barry!

For the record, here's Barry in his rookie year (21 years old) and today (43 years old):

More Info: SI's excerpts from Game of Shadows

Compassion and Conservatism

I’ve been thinking about the “compassionate conservative” mandate that President Bush used to win election in 2000. Like campaign promises everywhere, it withered as soon as the election was determined. We also know that traditional conservatism – in terms of smaller government, individualism trumping the state and fiscal prudence – no longer exists in the Bush Administration and much of the Republican Party. But what about the compassion?

Since traditional conservatism in the current administration has been trumped by social and religious conservatism, one would think that this administration would be more compassionate than most. Compassion denotes a strong sense of ethics, and President Bush is a born-again Christian who has repeatedly noted the War on Terror as a battle of good against evil, thus placing the U.S. as the force of good. Ethics is a highly subjective area, but by the repeated use of the compassionate conservative mandate, the recurring use of religious themes in his work and the growing adherence of his party platform to a theocratic base the president deserves to be held to the highest of ethical standards. His power, if anything, compounds this scrutiny.

The President often casts his decisions in a moral framework. So far he has vetoed just one bill (stem cell research) and is threatening a veto on another (increasing funds on children’s health insurance, funded by a 61 cent tax on cigarettes). He vetoed the stem cell bill by saying it “crossed a moral boundary…if this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would, for the first time in our history, be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos.” His threatened veto of the Children’s Health Bill (SCHIP) is due to “expanding (government) health care through the SCHIP program - a huge tax increase for the American people.”
It is difficult to determine the compassion in those actions. The benefits of stem cell research are well-documented, and Bush’s concern for the embryos is not without merits. But as noble as that is, how does the respect he holds for the human life in embryos contrast with the innocent human life that has been destroyed through the war we started in Iraq? Or the numerous felons who were executed on Death Row when Bush was governor?

There is a serious disconnect in the president’s compassion and logic here. I’m not saying that all human action must follow a logical or utilitarian pattern, but the President’s action and reasoning deserves our judgment, particularly by his insistence on morally framing his decisions. And as I’ve said before, morality and ethics are not interchangeable. The same can be said for the health care veto. Wouldn’t a true compassionate and ethical person do what was necessary to increase funds for children’s health care? Especially one that drew its own source of funding?

More of the president’s actions also show his platform of compassion (and conservatism) to be on shaky ground. Consider the compassionate, moral and ethical implications of the following actions:

· Suspending habeas corpus for prisoners, and instructing the attorney general to find a way to make it pass Constitutional muster
· Endorsing torture as an acceptable interrogation technique
· Cutting scores of social program budgets, especially in the first term, that would most benefit those who need them
· The 2001 tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest Americans most (and the so-far unsuccessful attempt to abolish the Estate Tax), although the wealthy have little need for additional income
· Endorsing free trade, then continuing subsidies for numerous industries like steel and agriculture so developing countries cannot compete in American markets
· Relaxing scores of environmental laws and mandates, which will have detrimental impact on the climate for generations and force billions to fix or alleviate
· Not being forceful enough to try and stop the current holocaust and genocide occurring in Darfur

If anything, reviewing these actions should certainly make one question not only the president’s compassion and morality, but just how deep “moral values” and religious compassion run in the dwindling number of core Bush supporters. It is a deeply theocratic force that has appointed itself the judge of morality and acceptability in the Republican Party. Is that the compassion and values the GOP wants?

I’m sure President Bush truly believes he is doing the right thing, and does not wish to cause undue harm with his actions. And some of his actions, such as dramatically increasing AIDS funding to Africa, does pass the compassion and ethical test. And while he has not done much on the Darfur genocide, it is already far more than Bill Clinton ever did in Rwanda. But by presenting himself as the defender of good and repeatedly using morality and religion to make his case, President Bush – more than any other President before him – deserves to have his actions judged by how moral and compassionate they are in the world around him. Because of this, his actions need to be judged by how his moral philosophy is weighed against its consequences.

The Democrats Still Don’t Get It

Did you fall asleep yesterday watching the Democratic candidates give canned answers to original questions submitted by ordinary citizens through YouTube videos? Don’t worry, you were not alone.

Once again, an upcoming Presidential election is playing right into the Democrats’ hands, and once again they’re ready to fumble the ball at the goal line. The frontrunner has sky-high negative and unfavorable ratings among the independents who decide the election. The guy in second has passion, money and is the people’s choice but is unloved by the party insiders and diehard liberal partisans that control the party, and can’t summon the courage to knockout the leader. None of the other candidates has a chance.

And once again, the Democrats are trying to win an election on issues and intellect. It’s noble, but you’d think enough presidential losses on that platform would get them to reconsider. When you’re working with a population that is materialistic and image-driven as the United States is, you’re not going to win an issues campaign. When you’re working with a mass media that’s married to soundbites and values catchy words and easy solutions to complex problems (which the media will never fully investigate), you need to adjust your messaging. It’s Political Marketing 101, which the Republicans have down pat. It’s a long way to Election Day 2008, but I’m betting the Republicans will have a better message more attuned to the people who follow Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton instead of our soldiers in Iraq or Anderson Cooper – and these are the people who decide elections in this country.

I’m certainly not saying this is fair or correct, but this is the way it works. The Democrats are like Lisa Simpson, vainly arguing for what is right and logical to an oblivious audience composed of Homer Simpsons. Does Lisa ever win those arguments?

Here’s case study number one. John Edwards, he of the three-figure haircuts and 6,000 square foot mansions, has made poverty his top campaign issue, still sticking to the “Two Americas” theme that didn’t work for him last time. Obama is also speaking directly to the poor. But poverty isn’t even a top issue among Democratic voters. Furthermore, polls show over and over again that poor people are the least likely to vote. Poverty is certainly an important issue, but has it helped Edwards climb in the polls?

Why don’t Democrats make a simple adjustment to something like, “There is no longer a middle class in this country. There is an upper class and an underclass, and the underclass is growing too fast. As president, I’m going to do everything possible to help your children get the education and every opportunity they can to become rich and live the American Dream.” That gets it out of the poverty angle, which everyone ignores and makes it into an easy-to-understand mainstream speech that people will pay attention to. The Republicans have been great at this spin, and the Democrats need to fix this.

And here’s case study number two. Dick Polman says everything here much better than I could. Even in its current doldrums, the one place Republicans still trump Democrats is on defense and national security, and no matter what happens in Iraq that will still be our number one issue next fall. The key here is what Polman labels “the gut-level issues,” and gut level issues are always won by emotion and trust. Not a single candidate said anything like this last night. That will not go unnoticed by the GOP.

Bill Clinton was the one successful Democratic presidential candidate in my lifetime (I still regard Jimmy Carter as an anti-Watergate fluke) and he won with successful gut-level appeals to voters, backed by a strong likeability factor. If the Democrats are going to nominate another Clinton with none of her husband’s likeability, charisma or ability to capture gut-level, emotional appeals that work with Independent voters, they will never capture the White House.

More Info: An interview of Republican pollster and consultant extraordinaire Frank Luntz, who gets it and has helped the Republicans win election after election (except last year). He is the answer to "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

Turning the Tables: Let’s Praise Massachusetts’ High Cost of Living

I’ve devoted – and will devote in the future – deserved scorn to Massachusetts’ high cost of housing, taxes and march toward gentrification. I chose to live here after graduating college in the early 1990s, and could not afford to do the same today. The Commonwealth’s high cost of living has driven scores of middle class families west of Route 495 or out of the state altogether and it is becoming increasingly hard for families with less education to remain here.

But while I wasn’t born here, perhaps I am becoming a jaded New Englander who only sees the glass half empty. There is a bright side to all this. Massachusetts would not be moving into the upper echelon of pricing, rents and cost of living unless it was a highly desirable and attractive place to live. The Commonwealth has continually reinvented itself over the centuries – from maritime shipping to industrial manufacturing and technology hub – and may be doing so yet again with a strong biotech push, buttressed by traditional Massachusetts pillars like financial services and defense.

For decades the most expensive places to live in America – New York, San Francisco, Southern California and Chicago – could cost what they wanted without reservation because people would pay a high premium to live, work and shop there. It’s basic supply and demand. It is not a complete negative that Boston may be entering into the elite status of these cities. The transformation of the greater metropolitan area has been remarkable over the last 15 years, and prices and rents would not be rising unless Boston was considered an attractive and successful place to live and work.

You can look at two places – Kenmore Square and the former Combat Zone – for a perfect example of what Boston has become. When I came to Boston, Kenmore Square was a dodgy area at best, and the Combat Zone was best avoided altogether unless you wanted a prostitute or drugs. Today the Combat Zone is no more – just two strip bars remain, hidden in alleys. That part of Washington Street is home to Chinese restaurants and the new Ritz Carlton Hotel. Kenmore Square, once home to the legendary Rathskeller and Narcissus nightclubs and greasy spoons like Pizza Pad and Charlie’s, now sports four-star hotels (Hotel Commonwealth) and restaurants (Great Bay). Yes, the neighborhoods are far less interesting and the rents there are now sky-high, but that’s another blog posting. Today’s point is Boston gains far more recognition and revenue from being a high-end destination, and that is better for the city and state as a whole. The same scene repeats itself in places from South Boston to the South End.

And if Boston and Massachusetts have become places where the rich thrive, it’s also because we have developed a high-skilled, knowledge-based economy. Unlike the shipping and manufacturing trades, finding work in industries like biotech, finance and health care requires a college degree and an old-fashioned Puritan work ethic. Did the middle class leave Boston behind or did Boston leave them behind? Perhaps the answer is both.

It appears that the Massachusetts of the 21st century has evolved and innovated into a metropolis that attracts the brightest and the wealthiest. That is quite an accomplishment. With such a strong crop of universities turning out knowledge workers, strong funding and networks help entrepreneurs and the current national leaders in medicine, health care and finance continue driving the economy upward. You could even argue that the serious problems caused by the high cost of living are problems that places like Wyoming and Alaska would be happy to have.

More Info: MassINC's Report on New Skills for a New Economy

How Boston has Continually Innovated to Drive its Economy

Some Lamenting for the Old Kenmore Square

Ted Nugent Just Says No

You gotta love it when Ted Nugent attacks hippies in The Wall Street Journal. If you don't have a subscription, here's the best part:

(1967) climaxed with the Monterey Pop Festival which included some truly virtuoso musical talents such as Jimi Hendrix and Janis Joplin, both of whom would be dead a couple of years later due to drug abuse. Other musical geniuses such as Jim Morrison and Mama Cass would also be dead due to drugs within a few short years. The bodies of chemical-infested, braindead liberal deniers continue to stack up like cordwood...I often wonder what musical peaks they could have climbed had they not gagged to death on their own vomit.

The 1960s, a generation that wanted to hold hands, give peace a chance, smoke dope and change the world, changed it all right: for the worse. America is still suffering the horrible consequences of hippies who thought utopia could be found in joints and intentional disconnect.

The Motor City Madman goes on to blame hippies for the rising rates of divorce, abortion and crime. Sure, it's funny. But it would be more convincing coming from someone whose musical career didn't peak with "Cat Scratch Fever" and "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang."

Viva Schadenfreude!

So people like you and me who don't follow celebrity gossip are finally thrilled that a judge has locked up Paris Hilton. But I'm not going topile on someone who's as deep as a puddle. I'm here to say get ready, because when she figures out how to open the exit door she will be a bigger celebrity than ever. If anything we'll have to endure her even more.

The only thing that fascinates our celebrity-obsessed culture more than acelebrity is a celebrity behaving badly. And in the United States today -- a country with citizens dying in an unpopular war, troubled public schools,outsourced blue- and white-collar jobs and an upcoming Boomer retirement glut that few people are prepared for -- nothing gets more media and public attention than a troublemaking celebrity! How many trust-fund princesses have been to jail? Paris is a G now!

Expect her newfound fascination with God and desire to better the world to last as long as the next Middle East ceasefire. Or until her next DUI.

The media apocalypse awaits. Get ready for all Paris all the time!

Random Musings on the Presidential Field

I’ve purposely resisted saying anything about the 2008 election yet because, like most of America, I don’t have the intestinal fortitude to remotely ponder it yet with any clear thought. But with the media, in all its ADD-glory, anointing Michael Bloomberg our next leader before a single vote has been cast I feel I must bloviate.

So here are some scattergun thoughts:

· Michael Bloomberg is a smart guy who may make a good Independent candidate. He will not be president. No Independent candidate – from Teddy Roosevelt to John Anderson to Ross Perot to Ralph Nader to whoever comes next – has been president nor will ever be president. The two parties are far too ensconced in our political culture and provide far too much money and organizational support to let an Independent get in the way. I’m actually a big fan of third party candidates and while they can succeed on a local level with the right candidate, a national race is way too vast for a candidate without a party to manage.
· Don’t be fooled by Bloomberg’s war chest. Steve Forbes and Ross Perot had just as much cash. In fact, people who donate money to a candidate are far more likely to volunteer, fundraise or promote him or her to other people in order to make their investment work out. The candidate with the most money generally does win, but it’s not a sure thing.
· States are tripping over each other to have the first primary. Unfortunately, New Hampshire isn’t giving up its prize and the New Hampshire Constitution states it must have the first primary in the nation. And if that means New Hampshire has its primary in December 2007, then that’s what it will have. If all the other states line up behind it, we’ll have our nominees by Valentine’s Day (if not earlier).
· Love her or hate her, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. She is the establishment candidate and the Democratic establishment candidate always wins. Obama has a nice RFK/Gary Hart in 1984 buzz about him, but Clinton will do whatever possible to sabotage his candidacy. The notoriously unreliable early polls have Clinton first or a close second in many states, but each one has uniformly given her whoppingly high negative and unfavorable numbers. Could the Democrats damn the torpedoes and choose a candidate that is completely unappealing to large numbers of independent voters? Well gosh, I truly have no idea.
· The GOP race is more up in the air, but my gut tells me Mitt Romney is running for the VP slot. Here’s what I think of Romney, and if I had more time for the blog I would link to some sites like this one you’ve seen.

The Jihad Cancer

The civil war we’re watching in Iraq is now paralleled by the civil war we’re watching in Gaza. It’s safe to say the huge escalation in violence in Gaza was made possible by Israel ending its occupation and withdrawing its troops. Will the same thing happen in Iraq once we finally leave, with violence expanding beyond the Sunni triangle to the stable areas of Kurdistan and Basra? I don’t know. And don’t forget that long-running civil war in Somalia, with a central government that has effectively ceased to exist for over a decade.

There is a serious cancer in the Arab world, with no foreseeable way out. As Tom Friedman keeps pointing out, the Islamist groups from Al Qaeda to Hezbollah and Hamas have no central philosophy that involves state-building or helping citizens. Their sole M.O. is war and death – war and death for Israel, America, the West and other Arabs and Muslims. And it doesn’t matter who is running those particular countries or who gets in their way. They care so little about their own lives that they are more than happy to kill themselves if it gives them a better chance to kill you.

There are some success stories in the Middle East (besides Israel): United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait have progressive economies, better social standards than most and do not hate outsiders. They have learned to diversify their economies beyond oil and educate their citizens beyond merely standing behind the Koran as a justification for jihad. But these are exceptions. Most countries are run by despotic rulers or teeming with extremists who know nothing but jihad, for that is all they have been taught. And I sense there is a silent majority of Arab citizens who are good people that hate the jihadists but are trapped in the middle, either quietly suffering or leaving their countries behind.

The Passion of Al Gore

In 2000 I hated, hated, HATED Al Gore. Like much of the public and most of the media, I regarded him as an inauthentic, plastic automaton who was quick to claim credit for developments he had little or no control over (inventing that Internet, creating the strategic petroleum reserve, etc.). Gore was a terrible campaigner, lost two of three debates to George W. Bush and couldn’t even win his home state of Tennessee in 2000. Winning that would have given him the Electoral College and the presidency.

After conceding, Gore disappeared. In hindsight, I believe he had a midlife crisis. Like a Kennedy, he had been groomed for public office and the presidency and when he didn’t get it he was adrift. But I never thought Gore looked, well, comfortable when he was a public servant. Remember the cracks about him being a phlegmatic robot? He was like the kid whose overbearing parents molded him from Day One to be the ballplayer or the doctor, when inside there was an artist or writer bursting to get out, but dutifully following orders nevertheless.

Then he finally emerged with “An Inconvenient Truth.” Gore had been talking about climate change for years, mostly to complacent audiences. The media called him “Ozone Man.” But he was ahead of his time then, and now with high gas prices, rising seas and a population weary of its wartime leader, his time had come. What a change! Gore was hailed as an environmental messiah, and the once-scorned VP was now adored by the public and the media, who implored him to run for president again, all inconveniently forgetting how dispassionately and poorly he ran last time.

I think much of Gore’s resurgence is due to Bush’s unpopularity and that nostalgic look back at choices made that we now regret, much like wishing we really hadn’t broken up with that college girlfriend when a marriage turns bad. But I also think much of it is that Gore, who never seemed happy in the role he was somewhat forced to play, is finally doing what he wants to do. He evangelized about the environment long before it was fashionable to do so, and it clearly is something he is passionate about. That passion, combined with his celebrity, is the true reason for his renaissance. He will not run for public office again – this is the role he was born to play.

And his new book? I read the Time excerpt and was intrigued. I haven’t read the entire book, but did flip through it and came back to earth a bit. Blaming today’s problems on the media (I rip the media at least once a month, but don’t blame it for collective idiocy) is a bit too easy. I actually find it fascinating the same media that was so harsh on Gore when he was in office now worships him, a sure sign that the media is overly negative on politicians and politics in general.

The book also reminds me of his turgid, flat speaking style with passages like:

“The remedy for what ails our democracy is not simply better education (as important as that is) or civic education (as important as that can be), but the re-establishment of a genuine democratic discourse in which individuals can participate in a meaningful way — a conversation of democracy in which meritorious ideas and opinions from individuals do, in fact, evoke a meaningful response.”

I don’t know about you, but that run-on sentence brings back the terrible speeches and debates Gore would make on the campaign trail. I am fully confident this book was not ghost-written.

Would I change my 2000 vote today if I had the chance? No. Gore has already achieved more for the environment than he ever could as President, especially with the Republican Congress he would have inherited. The new book, while guised as either a wannabe dissertation on American Society or a logical blueprint to fix the systems that run it, looks like a slog. But the guy has finally found his calling and is living his life the way he wants, and that is what I truly admire.

More Info:
An interesting review by the New York Observer, by a media person that somehow takes offense that the media is to blame.

Divine Justice for Jerry?

Today we're going to look at bigotry, closed-mindedness and hatred of other human beings...from both sides of the political aisle.

As you know, Jerry Falwell died this week. Rarely has there been a more polarizing figure in American life, especially one who supposedly spoke for Jesus. Falwell, more than anyone else, helped deliver the formerly apathetic evangelical vote into the Republican party, giving that party a strong theocratic base. Of course, Falwell himself showed far less sympathy than Jesus ever did. Whether it was blaming homosexuality and abortion for September 11, equating Jews with the Antichrist, supporting apartheid in South Africa, equating fundamentalist beliefs with political acceptability and doing anything possible to smite gays, Falwell became a catalyst for bigotry and prejudice that has germanated in numerous other religious movements and figures.

Now I try not to speak ill of the recently dead and it takes a lot to startle me. But I was blown away by the venemous vitriol to Falwell's passing by the liberal blogs and many of the message boards on places like The New York Times. Here's a sampling:

• "He’ll be remembered as a hatemonger who helped destroy the Republican Party and his work to try to destroy the entire country. Falwell was neither moral or the majority.
  Long may he burn…."
• "Falwell occupied one end of a dark spectrum, Osama at the other end. Believe it or not, they share the same ideology “hate and kill that which is not part of you.”
• "I am trying HARD not to be happy that he is dead, because he was such a sick delusional psycho….preaching hate, creating division, & generally just a power hungry VERY deluded person…. I say good riddance!"

Well, well. You can look at DailyKos, HuffingtonPost and numerous other blogs and message boards for more rejoicing and insults far worse than these. Now I certainly didn't like Falwell either, but the blind hatred and intolerance I'm seeing from liberals is equally as bad as anything Falwell ever said.

Even though Falwell was a bigot and hatemonger, at least he didn't embezzle, cheat on his wife and family or do anything as morally wrong as the Jim Bakkers, Jimmy Swaggarts and Ted Haggards did. Falwell at least practiced what he preached and didn't stray from his version of the Bible (as wrong as I think it was) and his ultimate judgement and resting place will be decided by God (if that's what you believe).

His passing should be a final reminder that morality does not equal ethics, and blind hatred of other people and beliefs will continue on the right and the left.

More Info:

Chris Hitchens, an atheist, wishes hell exists for Falwell.

NY Times messageboard on Falwell's death

Karl Rove: It's Business, Not Personal

It's not well-known -- but not a secret -- that Karl Rove's stepfather and the man who raised him was gay. If you're surprised that the man who has so often resorted to anti-gay prejudice to win elections for his clients has a father who came out of the closet, don't be. Whether it was insinuating Ann Richards was a lesbian and she would appoint homosexual activists to her cabinet, or using anti-gay marriage amendments to drive get out the vote efforts for fundamentalists in 2004, Rove likely believed his efforts were business-related, not based on his personal beliefs. Just like Michael Corleone, he was able to separate the business and personal to do his job. Rove had a good relationship with his stepfather (who was very aware of his stepspon's actions) and had no problems accepting his lifestyle.

The same book stated that Rove was agnostic and raised in a non-religious home. Now a slightly larger bombshell drops that Rove is actually a confirmed atheist. Again, Rove's devotion to the Christian evangelicals is for business reasons, although it would be VERY interesting to see how they interpret this news.

We may have a black president, female president or Jewish president in my lifetime, but I doubt America would ever elect an atheist. We are far too moral of a country to ever have the tolerance to accept someone who has no faith. How ironic.

Rocket Gun for Hire

Roger Clemens has become baseball’s Man With No Name. Like Clint Eastwood, Clemens is an iconic Gun For Hire who drifts from town to town to assist whichever ball club offers him the most money. Like Eastwood, Clemens is the best at what he does, mowing down baffled hitters with a split-fingered shooter of ruthless efficiency. And when the season is over and his work is done, he collects his paycheck and wanders off, ready to offer his services to the next town that can ante up for him.

I actually don’t have a problem with Clemens becoming a mercenary in the twilight of his baseball career. If he can find a ballclub willing to pay for his services and he produces, more power to him. And Lord knows the Yankees could use him. New York has a pitching staff that resembles a MASH unit with a collective age that is almost AARP eligible. Not to mention an ERA that is worse than Tampa Bay’s.

The only thing I object to is Clemens’ self-professed desire to work for a team that will give him a shot at the World Series. That is bunk. Clemens signed with New York over Boston and Houston because they gave him the most money and a chance to start right away (which would also give him more money). Prorated for a June 1 beginning, Clemens will make $28 million a season, eclipsing Alex Rodriguez’s $27 million salary. The signing puts the Yankees another $7.5 million in the hole on luxury tax issues. Clemens will also enjoy the perks the Yankees said they would never give him last year, including private travel apart from his teammates and not having to accompany the team on road trips if he doesn’t want to. So much for Brian Cashman’s pledge to make the Yankees younger and more of a team.

Even though the Red Sox have a more recent World Series victory and are 5 ½ games in front of New York right now, Red Sox diehards will always have a serious case of Yankee Envy. The mood up here is a “Who needs him anyway?” attitude, mired in the perennial Boston sour grapes. I advise all Sox fans to just wait until next year, when Schilling’s contract is up and Clemens’ services are for hire again. Who knows where the gunslinger may turn up next spring?

Our Princess-Free House and Daughter

Like parents with young children everywhere, we belong to the Disney Movie Club and our house is stocked with Disney DVDs. Finding Nemo? Check. Toy Story? Check. Cinderella?

Nope, no Cinderella. And no Sleeping Beauty, Little Mermaid or Snow White either. To promote my young daughter’s long-term self-esteem, we are keeping our house princess free.

If you look at the classic Disney titles I’ve mentioned here, they all involve a princess heroine. And this heroine is the most passive and dependent person in the entire movie, who is unable to do much of anything until she finds a prince, gets married and lives happily ever after in a land of sunshine and unicorns. How sexist and antiquated, especially in 2007 when women are running countries, curing diseases and (too) slowly become CEOs of leading international companies.

I don’t blame Disney for this. Many of these movies were made decades ago when a woman was expected to stay home, raise the children and have a warm dinner waiting for her husband, who she also relied on for money. Women rarely went to college or had any chance of careers outside of teaching or administrative work. Thankfully this era has passed, but way too many women today (especially those with less education or poor role models) still consider their lives incomplete unless they’ve found a rich man.

But the films, which of course are well-made classics, have remained and now the princess bridal gowns and the chance to have a princess wedding in Disney World. It goes beyond Disney too. Mattel now has a Princess Barbie line, and lots of hotels and restaurants have “princess packages” for girls under 10.

Do I sound like an overreacting ultra-feminist? I probably do, but even if this is a phase young girls will grow out of, I’m leery of my impressionable young daughter being marketed a lifestyle where nothing is more important than marriage and good looks. Girls today have enough bad role models with Britney Spears, the Pussycat Dolls and Paris Hilton already. Right near us in Natick, Massachusetts is a Club Libby Lu, a store billed as a girl’s secret club where girls can get makeovers, clothes (miniskirts and tube tops appear to be popular) and “have their own princess party!!!” The store’s target market? Five- to 12-year-olds.

So for as long as possible, my wife and I are keeping our house princess-free. As for Disney, they got the message in the 1990s and recent movies like Aladdin and Pocahontas feature independent women who don’t run away with a man to live happily ever after. Even better is Mulan, where the heroine is told girls need to stay at home and subsequently disguises herself as a boy to lead an army and save her father. Curiously, Mulan appears in the Princess line in a kimono, which she hated wearing in the movie because she was told that’s what women had to wear.

And when someone recently told my daughter she was a princess she said, “I’m not a princess! I’m a big girl!!” I have already congratulated myself on my parenting.

More Info: A feature in The New York Times on this subject (subscribers only - bleah)

Kicking the Media While It's Down, Continued

Here's two nice follow-ups to yesterday's post. The celebrity/gossip rag In Touch decided to go legit last week and focus on the Virginia Tech tragedy. Today it reported the substance issue flopped, giving it horrendously low sales. So much for that. I remember about 10 years ago the Boston Herald, which I would place on a journalistic par with Newsday, also opted to go with a more journalistic redesign and focus less on the tabloid style front page and gossip. About two months later they switched back after circulation fell. Also worth noting is that while many daily newspapers and traditional substantive print media are suffering declining advertising and circulation, most gossip magazines are doing just fine. After all, they're giving the public what it wants.

Second, tonight the great Bill Moyers will have a special on how the media was duped into selling the Iraq War to the public on bogus, if not ouright false, pretenses. I could write a long post about this, but here's some quick thoughts. First, the so-called "legitimate" news media is supposed to do investigatory work and act as a watchdog against the government. This obviously did not happen. Far too many media outlets simply regurgitate whatever the government (or anyone else) tells them without proper fact checking or verification. You can attribute this to laziness, budget cuts in investigatory teams, a rush to be the first out with the news for ratings reasons or a combination of all three plus some other things I've omitted.

Second, and this is one of those strange, twisted compliments, you've got to hand it to the Bush Administration for doing such a masterful job of selling the war. Their messaging was tight, their spokespersons for selling the war were compelling (at the time) and the media bought it hook, line and sinker. As a PR flack, I can vouch for how important it is to be proactive with the media and set the agenda as much as possible so you get the message out that you want. Watch the documentary Weapons of Mass Deception to learn more about how this was accomplished.

News Flash: The Media Screw Up Again

In light of last week’s Virginia Tech tragedy, there has been an awful lot of disrespect and bad behavior by various interest groups who have sought to manipulate this terrible event to advance their own agenda. On the left you have gun control advocates and on the right there are anti-immigration supporters who jumped on the bandwagon to ignore the bodies and flaunt their grandstanding before the crime scene was secured.

But let’s reserve our highest scorn for the media, which continues to eat through the bottom of the barrel. NBC shamelessly used the killer’s paranoid and deranged video and photos to get attention for its flagging MSNBC franchise, and made sure the NBC slug (the logo on the bottom corner) was present so anyone could see which media source got the exclusive. Many of the victim’s family members correctly cancelled interviews with NBC to protest its poor taste, and NBC later pulled back on showing the video. Naturally that led to one of my favorite topics – the media doing an expose on itself to ponder if it has morals. The flak and backlash spilled into the newspapers as well, proving that no matter what you think of the American public, its morals are higher than the media that cater to them.

2007 is truly shaping up to be a banner year for the media to go beyond the realm of decency and highlight the importance of entertainment over substance. First, there were four funerals without a wedding – Gerry Ford, Saddam Hussein, James Brown and Anna Nicole Smith. That’s three people who changed the world and a gold digging bimbo. Who got the most coverage and attention?

Before it backtracked, NBC said the video and photos would have reached the public anyway. That’s true, but nobody would be surprised if a tabloid or anonymous web site broadcast the images first. Also, were the images newsworthy? That can and should be debated, but popular opinion and hindsight have now proven that airing a photo of a mass murderer pointing a gun at the newspaper reader or television viewer is not the way to start your day. Also, the killer's only desire was to immortalize himself by sending the pictures and video to the media and they played right into his hands, giving him exactly what he wanted.

By highlighting a killer’s deranged manifesto over showing respect for the victims, the media once again proves that entertainment and sensationalism trumps ethics and journalism. Get used to it and accept it, because it’s not changing.

More Info:

An opposing view by Jack Shafer

Alberto on the Hill

As Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who I never thought deserved his job, takes the stand to testify on Capitol Hill today, we may finally see the new Congress acting like a real legislative body by being an effective check to the legislative branch.

One of the nicer things about having a divided government (Republican executive and Democratic legislative) is that Congress will no longer act as a rubber stamp to the President and let him act above the law. From suspending habeas corpus to wiretapping without a warrant and that little war in Iraq started under dubious – if not false – pretenses, the president and his entire branch of office has been unchecked by Congress. Part of Congress’ job is acting as a buffer to the president when he breaks the law or extends executive power beyond the limits of the Constitution.

Depending on Gonzales’ performance in this bungled and mismanaged affair involving the attorney firings, we may see the first appropriate use of Congressional oversight on this issue since Bush came to office. There were no Congressional hearings (serious ones, anyway) on any of the issues I described above. The last president to act so boldly with executive power and privilege was Nixon, and we all remember how that turned out.

News Flash: Imus Exposed as Talentless Racist

I couldn’t care less about Don Imus. Not because he’s a racist, or he’s a grumpy curmudgeon, or he’s way too old to pretend to be a cowboy. I couldn’t care less because Imus has never been anything more than a third-rate Howard Stern imitator with an anemic audience.

I grew up in New Jersey where Imus started on WNBC-AM. He was a typical DJ who spun 8-10 records an hour, and somehow got an irreverent reputation by saying things like, “Quack quack, who loves you baby?” between songs. When Stern started on WNBC in the afternoon, Imus began stealing Stern’s bits and became legendary as the first, and probably the best known, Howard Stern rip-off artist. Imus started the truly horrible trend of “shock jocks” that steal Stern’s attitude and material, but lack not only Stern’s wit and humor but also his ability to draw and keep an audience. Whatever you think of Howard Stern, he is truly an original that changed radio. Stern moved to another station in Imus's air time and knocked Imus and his bastard progeny down in the ratings, where they have pretty much stayed.

Both Stern and his African American sidekick, Robin Quivers, detailed how Imus was extremely racist in real life since they met him. In fact, despite Imus’s bizarre ability to draw politicians and intellectuals to his tawdry show, he kept up a running commentary of racist comments throughout the last few years. Since Imus had no sense of humor and little intelligence, these rants repeatedly came across as the rantings of a bitter old man who had never changed his attitude. When last week’s “nappy headed ho’s” comment finally got him fired, I wasn’t shocked or outraged. I just thought, “What took so long?”

Imus also showed his idiocy by going to fellow racist Al Sharpton to beg forgiveness. The mind reels at this vapid decision. Who named Al “Tawana Brawley” Sharpton and Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson as the race police? Did anyone appoint them spokespersons for the black community? Does anyone outside the media take them seriously? Having long lived past their usefulness, these two have become the equivalent of racist ambulance chasers, pinning deserved and undeserved racism charge on anyone who allegedly affronts African Americans. Their recorded comments on the now-exonerated Duke lacrosse team belies their self-declared legitimacy. Imus gained nothing except further scorn for appearing on Sharpton’s show. Even showing up on Sharpton’s turf probably alienated Imus’s tens of real fans. Why not appear on someone like Tavis Smiley’s show, or just invite the Rutgers basketball team to his studio so he could have apologized on familiar ground to the only people that truly deserved an apology?

Besides the foolishness of kowtowing to Sharpton and Jackson, much has been written about how these two completely ignore the fusillade of far, far worse language that emanates from hip hop lyrics on urban radio on a daily basis. This criticism is well-deserved and is a serious problem in the African American community. There is a serious violent and misogynistic streak in rap lyrics that nobody is dealing with right now. It also shows the vacuum of a true moral compass in the black community when its two so-called “spokespersons” have numerous racial and ethical transgressions.

But Imus? Who cares? He was an unoriginal and unfunny hack who was caught doing what he has always done for years.

More Info:

Hypocrisy Toward Sharpton and Jackson from all sides of the political aisle. Here's Black Athlete, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker, Princeton University and The Washington Times, to name just a few.

Also, scroll down to see my earlier post on Imus' fellow racist Michael Richards.

Real Moral Values

Finally there is a presidential candidate that is a true believer in family values and a role model in preaching how you should live your life. That candidate is John Edwards. His admirable press conference with his ailing wife, who is terminally ill with cancer, was a refreshing example of what real moral values are all about.

It’s unfortunate that moral/family values have been co-opted by a bunch of strident and virulent charlatans on the right who don’t even have their own values in order. Whether it’s Newt Gingrich hypocritically lambasting Bill Clinton’s extramarital affair while having one on his own, Ann Coulter calling Edwards a faggot to rounds of applause, or the slew of firebrand theocrats that are destroying the Republican party by using religion to divide and spread prejudice in our country, it is clear that morality does not equal ethics with this motley crew.

Some people will say Edwards should quit the campaign to attend to his wife, and that is certainly a valid point. But they jointly said they want to soldier on and not let her illness stop their campaign, and that is their decision. Best of luck and to them, along with thanks for reminding all of us what true values are.

In Massachusetts, Not Working Can Pay Off

Like many Massachusetts white collar workers, I had the misfortune of being downsized a few years ago through no fault of my own. But there was a silver lining – I collected more money while unemployed than I did as a salaried worker. And it was all completely legal.

While new Governor Deval Patrick is looking for ways to close corporate tax loopholes and adjust massive corporate subsidies to help benefit the Commonwealth, he can also look for ways to adjust state spending in ways that will also benefit society. And one of those is in the way Massachusetts assists its unemployed residents. Now I’m not calling for an end to unemployment – I was very happy to get those checks and the state should be of assistance to people trying to find new jobs. But there are massive plugs in the system as people get paid who don’t need, or deserve, to get it.

First, take yours truly. When I was laid off, I got a decent severance package in exchange for signing a legal document not to sue my former employer. It’s a scam, but you gotta sign it if you want your severance. Well according to Massachusetts employment law, signing that qualifies you to full unemployment benefits while you're still getting your severance. So you can collect an unemployment check AND get your severance until it runs out. You’re getting more money for not working. Nobody is going to refuse free money, and I’m betting it’s mainly going into the pockets of skilled, white collar workers who can get a new job easily and do without the money fairly quickly.

Does your job depend on the weather? Roofers can legally collect unemployment during the winter and ski instructors can collect in the summer. If you own your own business or are self-employed in a tourist-driven location like Martha’s Vineyard, you can lay yourself off in the off-season and legally collect unemployment. The state’s Division of Unemployment Assistance calls people like this “frequent fliers” because they have legally collecting unemployment while employed for several decades.

Here’s another problem. How much you get in unemployment benefits is based on your salary before you got laid off (plus an additional stipend for every child). That means the white collar executive who makes $100,000 collects more than the blue collar guy who makes $35,000, even though the blue collar guy probably needs the money more. And I’ll bet the executive got a nice severance package as well and is more skilled to find a new job faster.

Moreover, unemployment taxes only apply to the first $14,000 of taxable wages, so the executive’s company (and his future company) is taxed proportionally less than the blue collar guy’s previous and future company. Unemployment insurance is one place where Massachusetts is still “Taxachusetts.” Massachusetts businesses pay $637 per employee in unemployment insurance, while the national average is $315. Since this is unfairly biased toward smaller businesses, these taxes – along with the rampant abuse and high unemployment benefits paid to workers who either don’t need or don’t deserve them – are a large part of what is causing the current exodus of middle class workers and the businesses that employ them from the state. And it’s also causing many businesses who can afford the high cost of unemployment insurance, such as Fidelity and Staples, to find new jobs outside Massachusetts as well.

I am not advocating ending unemployment checks. It is a necessary benefit for people who are between jobs. But if Governor Patrick is serious about easing the fiscal burden of doing business in Massachusetts with both the state and its businesses, he needs to get the Commonwealth’s eligibility requirements, benefits and tax burden to close the loopholes. This would best help people who need the money most and end the widespread abuse of the system.

More Info:

Mixed Benefits – A fantastic article on abuse in the unemployment industry by the former director of the Division of Unemployment Assistance. I got most of the figures from this story.

NFIB Call to Action – A small business trade group details how the current unemployment benefit system is strangling small businesses in Massachusetts.

U.S. Backed Overthrows are an Old, Old Story

Once upon a time, United States troops entered a foreign country half a world away under the guise of liberation. They were initially welcomed and regaled with thanks. But tensions soon developed. U.S. troops became resented, and denounced as imperialists and colonialists. Fighting soon erupted between the U.S. and that country. U.S. forces sometimes fought with established armies, but soon the other country started resorting to guerilla-style combat, prolonging hostilities and taxing both the country and our troops. Well over 100,000 U.S. forces were soon fighting and dying in what was supposed to be an easy mission, which ran for years after the president formally declared an end to large-scale hostilities. As the situation dragged on, U.S. troops were accused of war crimes and torturing prisoners and opposition to both the war and the president claimed a heavy political toll.

Is this Iraq today? Nope. It was the War in the Philippines that was happening exactly a century ago. The parallels are eerily familiar, but the similarities don’t stop at the Philippines. Since becoming a world power, the United States has had a long history of toppling foreign governments or invading other countries when it serves our interests. Sometimes this has been correct and justified, like overthrowing Hitler in World War II, Milosevic in Kosovo or the Taliban in Afghanistan. Sometimes U.S. troops are involved (Iraq, the Philippines, Panama in 1989). Sometimes we are a behind-the-scenes player (Iran in 1953, Hawaii in 1893). Sorry, but Iraq was not instigated by Bush’s buddies at ExxonMobil. And of course, there’s that whole Vietnam/Cambodia thing.

All of these endeavors were executed by people who claimed to have America’s best interests at heart. Not all of them turned out to be successful, and some had disastrous consequences, either right away or a decade or two down the road. It is inevitable that given America’s power, it will become involved in other country’s domestic affairs and get its hands dirty. And this is certainly not limited to America either, given Ethopia's recent invasion of Somalia to topple the fundamentalist Muslim government. In fact, the last decade alone of regime change and government overthrows in Africa, by African nations makes the U.S. look like the U.N.

But I’m willing to bet people aren’t learning from past mistakes, and don’t take proven historical facts like nationalism and sectarianism into account when deciding how much intervention or force is necessary. And overthrowing governments have been U.S. success stories too. Countries like Panama and Afghanistan are much better off today than they were beforehand. But the U.S.-backed Iranian coup that placed the Shah of Iran in power sowed the seeds for disastrous consequence two decades later, Vietnam forever scarred us, and Iraq certainly looks grim.

In the Philippines, U.S. troops were involved in full-scale war for three years until Teddy Roosevelt declared hostilities over and made the Philippines a U.S. colony. However, U.S. troops continued fighting a guerilla war (with the official Philippine army they trained) for another 11 years. The Philippine War is barely mentioned in U.S. history books today. How long will the Iraq parallels continue? Nobody knows.

More info: Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change – An overview of the last 100 years or so of American-designed coups gone bad. Focuses too much on the negative, but still worth checking out.

Why Anna Nicole Smith's Death is So Incredibly Important

If I had more money, I’d like to pay a media clipping and monitoring service to see whose death received more notice and attention during the last two months: Saddam Hussein’s, Gerry Ford’s or Anna Nicole Smith’s. I know who I’d bet on.

Why is this so? I’ve seen a few pundits and bloviaters using this as yet another excuse to bemoan the dumbing-down of America, and the media focusing on the sensational instead of the substantial, etc. etc. These same media outlets, after beating us senseless with every development on this admittedly juicy post-mortem speculation on her cause of death, paternity dispute, inheritance battle and conspiracy theory, then take a step back and ask if their tabloid focus reflects well on themselves.

That always makes me chuckle. But the simple fact is that most people in America know more and care more about Anna Nicole Smith than a former president, and more people in America followed her life and will watch the struggle over her remains than those who know how Saddam Hussein’s capture, trial and death will affect the entire Middle East. Nobody would argue that the Middle East is more important, but most Americans simply can’t or won’t follow those traces. After all, a Playmate of the Year who may have several hundred million dollars is dead.

You may think that sardonic paragraph is an indictment on our celebrity-obsessed culture that values appearance and tabloid news over intelligence and ethical, political debate. You’re probably right. But guess what? That is what most people value. More people watch Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood than Frontline and Meet the Press. I used to say this was wrong and people should be more discriminating. But I sounded like one of those elitists who decry the drop in our moral values while everyone else is drinking the superficial Kool Aid.

So I no longer rail against the masses’ choice in news and entertainment. I merely observe and comment on it. And so do the media. In a perfect world, Frontline and Entertainment Tonight’s ratings would be reversed, but they’re not. The media wouldn’t keep feeding us bland entertainment and trivial news if we were not eating it up in the first place. Why eat your vegetables when candy tastes so sweet?

This is one of those unfortunate facts about how the world works. As much as the elites complain about how the media is dumbing down America, the fact is the media needs to make a buck at the end of the day just like you do. And if smart news and entertainment aren’t selling and the celebrity shows are, what are they gonna do? Gerry Ford’s funeral was televised. Did you watch it? Of course not. But if Anna Nicole Smith’s funeral is televised, and you hear that all the warring paternal suitors, family members and people who want part of her estate would be together, would you be at least a little curious? Of course you would. It could be a train wreck, but it would also be great TV. Just like her many media interviews, Playboy photo spreads and reality show.

RIP Anna Nicole Smith, or whatever your real name was. Your untimely death has showed us what really matters to people after all. And it also proves why the media keeps giving most of us exactly what we want.

More Info:

A similar, though slightly different take from the L.A. Times on how the Internet is telling mainstream media what the public wants

My earlier post on why you can't trust the media

Guerilla Marketing Bombs in Boston

There was some panic in Boston Wednesday as two local idiots took the fall for Turner Broadcasting’s guerilla marketing campaign for Aqua Teen Hunger Force, which shut down two bridges, the Charles River, parts of the MBTA and put the city under a terrorist scare before the hoax was fully revealed.

The whole thing made me feel a bit old because I have never heard of, let alone watched, the show. Judging by the reaction of the show’s message boards, this means I’m an old fart (well, that’s true) who completely overreacted to a marketing campaign that wasn’t aimed at me. It makes me feel a bit better to realize that 98% of the population here is probably with me, and the defendants’ immature reactions to their indictments didn’t do the show’s fans or supporters any favors. Turner has also published a full apology and says it will reimburse the city for expenses (except for items like lost T fares, businesses that had to close, people who missed flights and appointments due to mass transit shutdowns, etc.)

On one hand, if the campaign was aimed to boneheads like the defendants, the campaign was a wild success. Fines and potential jail terms are small potatoes compared to the reams of free publicity the show received, and its ratings will rise in the near term as curiosity will pique interest in Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

But as usual, Boston Mayor Tom Menino is right. In the world we now live in, security and public safety are paramount, and an overreaction is better than ignorance. The people on message boards and elsewhere who dismiss Bostonians as being out of touch because we haven’t seen the show and don’t get the guerilla marketing campaign have either very short memories, very loose morals, or just were not here to see a city completely on the edge. And sorry, but a mysterious package under a bridge with protruding wires and visible electronic components sticking out of it is going to start a panic and security issue, even if it is adorned by Ignigokt flipping the bird.

Menino said he wants to find who at Turner Broadcasting was behind this and see if he can press charges. No matter what further chuckles this brings from people who say we don’t get the joke, I won’t stand in the mayor’s way.

More Info: This isn't the first time guerilla marketing has crossed the line. Hopefully it will be the last.