Death of the Dapper, and More

If you don’t live in Boston, today’s death of Albert “Dapper” O’Neil at 87 means nothing to you. I’ll address more on Dapper himself in a moment, but no matter where you live there is a Dapper O’Neil in your city or town.

Your version of Dapper is someone who has been involved with city or town politics his or her entire life. They are correctly labeled as “old school” and often espouse personal and political views that may have been fashionable when your parents or grandparents were young, yet are now hopelessly outdated. While time and politics have evolved, your Dapper O’Neil continues to act as if nothing has changed and is often excoriated for his or her beliefs, and is often labeled a nuisance at best or a roadblock to progress (to be polite) at worst. Yet despite their firebrand and polarizing personalities, your Dapper O’Neil has legions of devoted fans and constituents. These people see your Dapper O’Neil as a throwback to what they consider the golden days and are fiercely loyal, knowing that without their beloved representative (who is often everyone else’s headache) there would be no bastion of decency or contact in City Hall, the town meeting or even Capitol Hill.

Dapper O’Neil, whose obituary is here, served on the Boston City Council from 1971 to 1999. Nobody typified the old Irish Catholic Boston political stereotype better. On one hand if you approached O’Neil for help with a problem, or you happened to be a blue collar Caucasian, you had a friend for life. If you were anybody else, God help you. There was no bigger foe of school integration or gays marching in Southie’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade. If you thought hippies, liberals and abortion were ruining America, Dapper was your man. If you hated political correctness and didn’t think it was inappropriate to say “Nice gams!” to a woman as she walked by, Dapper would like you. Think of Archie Bunker as a city councilor, and you’ve got Dapper in a nutshell.

And yet, despite all this, Dapper also had a heart. He openly acknowledged he could not and would not change with the times. Here is Kevin Cullen’s tribute, which also mentions the Archie Bunker angle. It seems that everyone has two memories of Dapper, and they tend to be one of him screaming at blacks during the busing riots of the 1970s and the other one of his admiration of fellow city councilor David Scondras, who happened to be openly gay.

Dapper’s hero was legendary Boston Mayor James Curley, another Irish Catholic who served time as mayor and in jail (including part of one mayoral stint in jail). Like other legendary Boston politicians – including Billy Bulger, Ray Flynn and Kevin White – he was Catholic first and was extremely socially conservative. And as the 90s went on, Dapper was seen more as an anachronism and throwback. When he finally lost his election in 1999, it was seen as a sign of progress and moving the deadwood out of City Hall. You could hear liberals and immigrants alike sigh with relief.

Dapper’s death, of course, has set off well-intentioned tributes and some additional longing for the good old days when councilors knew all their constituents by name. It’s easy to remember Dapper’s faults. For every chuckle (O’Neil once rented a truck in the early 1970s and threw soap at hippies) there’s a worse embarrassment (the crack about Vietnamese immigrants in Dorchester was disgraceful). But then you also read Cullen’s story about O’Neil helping a Haitian immigrant navigate through Boston zoning laws, and you start changing your mind. You also get the feeling by now that if you had asked City Hall to fill the pothole on your street for a month with no avail, you could get fed up and call Dapper. And you know that Dapper would not only have the crews out there in an hour, but he would also show up, apologize profusely to you and then scream at the crew for your amusement the entire time.

So the reality about these old school politicians, especially as the tributes pile up, is a bit more complicated. Consider the Dapper in your neighborhood. You probably wish he or she would just go away. But if they did, what would happen to the interests of the middle class town residents they champion? And who would you call to get your street plowed or pothole filled?

More Info: How Dapper Got Out the (Female) Vote

Comments on Howie Carr's Tribute: Far better than the tribute itself

GOP Desperation

Frank Luntz said the Democrats were in trouble when they became known as the angry party. They were way too serious, ran dour campaigns on gloom and doom platforms, and just never, ever smiled. The media still doesn’t get that likeability is a huge issue in any election – people won’t vote for someone they don’t like or who talks down to them, and that probably explains why Huckabee is starting to make inroads. He’s the only Republican candidate that seems like a legitimately nice guy.

But how times have changed! The GOP is now the party of hate. They hate immigrants. They hate homosexuals. They hate Mormons. They hate the poor. They hate the environment. In short, they seem to hate everyone who thinks differently from them. The one thing they all seem to like is war, whether it’s in Iraq or against Iran or elsewhere. No wonder the GOP electorate is undecided and the leading candidates are having trouble breaking away from the pact.

I’m not a Republican but watching this has been like watching a has-been athlete trying to make an ill-advised comeback. For years the GOP has been so good on messaging and communicating with voters. When you can get George W. Bush elected president twice and a Republican Congress in power for 12 years, you don’t have a superior product as much as you have good messaging. And it’s amazing how fast it has all come to an end.

I never thought I would see Rudy Giuliani, a man who I greatly respected and admired this time last year shaking hands with Pat Robertson, a virulent demagogue who said America deserved what it got on 9/11 because of its support of homosexuality and abortion. I knew three people who were murdered that day, and for Giuliani to shake hands with someone like that destroyed any credibility he once had with me. It doesn’t matter if he did it to pander to evangelicals who have assumed control of the GOP base. Anyone with integrity who lived through that day like Giuliani did would never stoop so low. That was beyond the realm of decency and a deal breaker for me.

And did you catch Mitt Romney’s appearance on Today this morning? While I watched it, all I could think of was the following: Romney ran Bain Capital for years. Then he ran for Senate in 1994, guided the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, successfully ran for governor in Massachusetts in 2002 and stayed for one term. Not once in that entire time was his religion a problem. Nobody brought it up his entire tenure – not one Democratic opponent. But once he moved onto the larger GOP stage it suddenly became an issue, and he is increasingly forced to defend his religious beliefs right here in America. He’s not being attacked on his politics or the issues. And yesterday a poll reported that 33% of Republican voters said most people would not vote for a Mormon candidate. What do you think that figure would be among Democratic or Independent voters?

Karl Rove originally tapped evangelical Christians because they would deliver a solid voting block. But somehow over the last two years the nonstop spending, a mismanaged war and an unpopular president have erased the GOP’s traditional voting base. A new batch of candidates all trying to out-hate the others and run on a gloom and doom platform isn’t driving in new voters or doing Frank Luntz any favors. And the new base now appears to be rejecting one of its leading candidates on religious grounds and making another sell his soul in a shameless display of pandering that independent voters will see right through. The GOP had a nice run, but it has now reaped what it has sown.

Words of Wisdom from David Gergen

I was fortunate enough to hear David Gergen speak this week at the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce. Gergen was an advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, and is currently a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. This guy knows what he’s talking about, and what he talked about this week was leadership. Specifically, what kind of leader do we need to elect in 2008?

Gergen firmly believes that our next president will face the most challenging and troubling world any new president has faced since 1932. For foreign policy, there is the question of what to do in Iraq. Pull out or stay the course, and what is the timetable? Next, what will be done about Iran and the potential for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East? How about Pakistan, an increasingly unstable region in the midst of a leadership crisis? These issues, which are also intertwined with the ongoing War on Terror, must be dealt with.

Problems on the home front are no less pressing, although Gergen’s experience has shown that presidents spend about 75% of their time on foreign issues. We are also entering a critical time period in regards to energy policy and global warming. Even though the U.S. never signed the Kyoto Treaty (which, Gergen noted, was rejected by a 95-0 vote in the Senate) it will expire for the countries that did sign it soon. There are also critical questions that must be dealt with concerning the tax codes (Bush’s tax cuts, which include the estate tax, are due to expire in 2011). Health care costs and Social Security, both compounded by the upcoming demographic shift in retiring Baby Boomers over the next 10-20 years, are also dealt with.

While every new president has challenges, Gergen noted that the timing and urgency of all of these challenges are what makes this situation dire. All of these issues, without exception, must be dealt with in the next four years. Furthermore, Gergen noted that nothing proactive gets accomplished in the first year of any president because they are always busy cleaning up the mess left by the president who came before them.

In short, our next president needs to be a visionary – someone with big ideas and the charisma to convince both a skeptical public and other countries to step up and meet the challenges. A partisan and polarizing leader (like the one we have now, or quite a few who are trying to be president) will accomplish nothing and is not what the U.S. needs to maintain its superiority.

Compare these issues to what was discussed in last night's debate – gun control, immigration, abortion and The Bible – and suddenly things don’t look too promising for one party anymore.

More Presidential Musings

It’s getting even worse for the now-not-quite-predetermined front runner, which is good news for the Democratic Party. Hillary now polls behind every GOP frontrunner, and they didn’t even compare her to Mike Huckabee, who is gaining fast in Iowa. Huckabee may think the world is just 6,000 years old, but don’t discount his likeability and aw-shucks manner that work well in rural states. Plus he definitely has the coolest ad so far.

In more bad news for Clinton, both Obama and Edwards polled far better than her among GOP leaders. Plus her latest endorsement isn’t going to impress many undecideds and independents, let alone Democrats.

You can sense the hostility building between Obama and Clinton as the debates go on, the race tightens and the primaries edge closer. My personal feeling is that Romney and Clinton are very much alike. Both will shift their positions to whichever way the polls tell them. Both have no trouble changing their ideologies and flip-flopping their viewpoints in a flash if they think it will get them elected. And both have a respectable chance of being their parties’ nominees. Good grief.

So far, I’ve actually been most impressed with people like Ron Paul, John McCain and Barack Obama, all of whom have stuck to their ideological guns and are appealing to the voters with new ideas for what promises to be an increasingly dangerous world and very challenging times for America. Not all of their solutions are correct, but none of them will sink to the levels of a Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney to win. Can you picture Ron Paul planting questions at a press conference like Clinton’s team did?

One last thing: Should Clinton win the election, two families will have run our country for 24 years. This is a democracy, not a monarchy or even Dynasty. It should be stopped.

Why (Independent) Media Matters

I am a capitalist by religion and believe unnecessary government interference or regulation can burden businesses with often gratuitous costs and delay innovation. But when a business operates in a monopoly-like setting with a small set of large players stifling competition and making it impossible for independent, middle-market players to survive, then the government should step in. One of these examples was Major League Baseball, where a luxury tax has helped level the playing field so smaller budget teams like Cleveland, Colorado and Arizona can compete (OK, so it wasn’t the government, but you get the idea).

But one market that is indeed being squeezed by larger players is the media. In fact, thanks to some boneheaded FCC decisions (that were championed by both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush), the media in this country is now dominated by four players – GE, Disney, News Corp., and Viacom. Virtually every major TV broadcast, cable network, top Internet information site and radio show is owned by one of these four players. The result has been a homogenization of the airwaves from a disparate choice of independent choices and voices to an industry dominated by the four big companies of today. While there is an undercurrent of underground and alternative newspapers and web sites, they largely represent extreme political viewpoints that would not find a widespread audience or are constricted to local audiences.

The real trouble began with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 when the large media companies won an FCC ruling deregulating the industry. Media companies were now allowed to own any number of stations and outlets in a market provided their reach did not exceed 35% of the available audience. What followed was consolidation on an enormous pace. Radio companies like Clear Channel and Infinity Broadcasting gobbled up independent stations, who were then given set playlists (for music) and syndicated DJs who could not contribute on local issues (if you tune into an R&B or rock station in Boston, Atlanta and Los Angeles, all three will probably be playing the exact same songs). It also erased the line between the broadcast networks and their syndication partners, meaning the networks were not obligated to work with independent production studios. This finally set off alarm bells when Viacom – CBS’ syndication partner – bought CBS in 2000.

Besides the public, the losers have been independent, local outlets who are best equipped to provide their local communities with the information they need. Local media outlets are a disappearing breed. The four players will say there are plenty of choices for viewers on cable, satellite radio and the Internet. But the majority of large choices on these mediums are also owned by the big four. For example, News Corp. owns everything named Fox, FX Network, DirecTV, TV Guide, Dow Jones and scores of other newspapers, Harper Collins, myspace.com, and a slew of other highly-trafficked web sites. Disney, Viacom and GE’s lists of holdings are equally vast. In fact the top 20 Internet news sites are owned by one of these four companies. They don’t care if their broadcast networks are losing audiences when they’re only going to the cable or Internet sites they also own.

In 2003, with the blessing of former FCC Bonehead Michael Powell, the FCC raised the audience reach-cap to 45%. The backlash was huge. Lobbying (by everyone from the NRA to NOW) was almost unnecessary due to the bipartisan pushback, spurred by grassroots efforts to the FCC. Powell ended up with a compromise and raised the cap to 39%. Now new FCC head Kevin Martin, who appears just as bright as Powell, is now considering removing the longstanding cross-ownership rules. This would permit a media company to own a newspaper and a radio or TV station in the same market. Martin wanted to ram these rules through before the end of the year, but now a bipartisan group of senators (including Byron Dorgan and Trent Lott) are pushing for a 90-day delay to amass opposition.

When an issue unites people as diverse as Ted Turner and William Safire, let alone the senators we mentioned, it means it has widespread support and the FCC is in the minority. If you care about independent, minority and local freedom of expression in this country, please write your senators and congressmen and ask them to stop this new FCC proposal. It is bad for capitalism and worse for democracy.

More Info: A timeline of FCC mismanagement

Scarier than President Romney

You think The Shining is scary? How about dressing as Hillary Clinton for Halloween? Thirty-seven percent voted her the scariest candidate. Giuliani was a distant second at 14%, with nobody else higher than 6%.

Here’s the kicker:

Clinton was the choice of four in 10 men and one-third of women. While a
predictable two-thirds of Republicans picked her, she also was the choice of 18
percent of Democrats. Among members of her own party, that made her second only to Giuliani as the scariest costume. About one-third of independents, nearly
half of whites and just over half of conservatives and white evangelicals
selected her.

Eighteen percent of Democrats and 33% of women and independents picked Hillary?! Only 10% of evangelicals picked Giuliani as frightening. Sheesh.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Nobody will unite the disorganized, disaffected and demoralized right-wingers faster than Hillary Clinton. She will even accomplish the impossible: Get Southern Baptists to vote for a Mormon. Not even the most hardened right-wing radical is this polarizing. If the Democrats nominate someone this unfavorable they will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Hey Joe

In all the writings and musings about Joe Torre’s dismissal from the Yankees, the one word that keeps coming up is class. Few have mentioned Torre’s four World Series victories (and two additional trips there) or his inevitable and well-deserved trip to Cooperstown. Most people today are talking about Torre’s character and people skills, which speak volumes about the respect he has earned as a manager. It also leaves quite a bit unsaid about the class and character of the Yankee front office that made him an offer he could, and should have, refused.

Even here in Boston, the heart of blind and knee-jerk Yankee hating, people are actually upset for Torre and wish him well. That speaks volumes to the kind of competitor he is. While he didn’t quite leave on his own terms, it always looks good when you’re able to leave a job with your dignity intact and character uncompromised. What he said in his press conference today says it best: “It’s not the money that’s going to be the determining factor,” Mr. Torre said. “It’s the commitment and trust. You can’t have one without the other.”

A year from now, after invaluable longtime Yankees like Jorge Posada are gone and the Yankees still have that overpaid and over-the-hill payroll they seem to always end up with, whichever Steinbrenner is running the team will then realize – too late – how valuable Torre was. They will see how he always managed to get a high-ego team focused and productive. They’ll understand how he was able to coax wins out of teams that were not as good as their record, either by forcing high pitch counts from opponents or loading up on runs because he knew the Yankees could only win by scores like 9-7. Can you see Don Mattingly, Joe Girardi or Larry Bowa simultaneously juggle the Yankee roster, front office, media pressure and rabid fan base and deliver 12 straight playoff appearances?

It’s been said people don’t appreciate the best things in life until they’re taken away. The Steinbrenner family is about to discover that the hard way. The Bronx will soon be burning again.

Base of Extremists

There are Democratic and Republican partisans who will always vote the party line but will admit it when their party or party’s candidates screw up. But there are also people who partisans also loathe – party extremists, who often comprise the “base” or core of the party’s faithful. Extremists on both sides often represent the very top of a party leadership or the very grassroots – but both believe they represent the views of the entire party, and woe to the Republican or Democrat who dares to have a different opinion.

Because these extremists are very loud and crass, the mass media gives them way more attention than they deserve. Because they claim to represent the party, people who don’t follow politics get a warped view of how the whole process works. And because the extremists can’t open their mouths without sticking their entire feet inside, ordinary people with normal views get disgusted and turned off by politics. And the media keeps giving us more and more, whether we want it or not.

There’s been a few extremists making fools of themselves and discrediting both the parties they claim to represent today. I am going to give the first, Ann Coulter, as little time as possible because she really is the most virulent sort of extremist around. It also shows the media keep falling for what I scientifically call, “The Hot Famous White Chick Syndrome.” This means that if anybody else did what a hot famous white chick does (think Britney, Anna Nicole, Ann C., plus others) we would have banished that person from our subconscious and the airwaves long ago. Her anti-Semitic diatribe can be read here. My favorite line isn’t even the “Jews need to be perfected” but “You have to obey.” So far the extremists – many who fall under the guise of fundamentalists – have alienated African Americans, homosexuals, Hispanics and now Jews from the GOP.

It wasn’t just right-wing radicals today. Barney Frank, the only openly gay member of Congress and head of the House Finance Committee, is also receiving scorn from left-wing extremists because he has removed “gender identity” language from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The bill would protect homosexuals from discrimination in the workplace, but extremists and some gay rights advocates say the bill is unacceptable because it does not cover transsexuals and transgender individuals. They now regard Frank as a Benedict Arnold.

What extremists do not understand is that compromise is the way things get done, not just in Washington but in life. I’ve met some of these extremists on both sides and they tend to have pretty poor people skills and just don’t understand that sometimes 80%, or even 51% of what you want is the best you’re going to get. Extremists have no ability to grasp this – anything else is a sell-out.

Most politicians are smart and reasonable people who understand this. But they need to continually balance keeping their so-called “base” happy with actually getting things done for all Americans. The real danger is when some of these “base” people become politicians and then become leaders of the party. George McGovern was one of them, but was so extreme even Nixon trounced him. But some of them – like Tom DeLay or Dick Cheney – have attained power, and it is only then that we see how far away from the mainstream they really are.

All's Fair in Baseball?

Don’t look now but parity might be returning to Major League Baseball. Seven of the eight teams that qualified for the postseason this year didn’t make the playoffs in 2006, and I even see signs of life in perennial cellar dwellers like Milwaukee (with baseball’s best infield) and Seattle.

Looking at payroll, it’s unbelievable to see the rank of underachievers at the top and the surprising surge of good teams closer to the bottom. It’s also interesting to see something else in the payroll stats – a middle class. Are owners finally ponying up for good free agents or is the luxury tax finally evening the spread across the board? Or is good scouting and the new trend of small-market teams not trading emerging stars when they can’t afford them finally paying off? Perhaps the answer is all of the above.

The end result is a better, fairer game for all involved. I’m genuinely excited to watch Arizona and Colorado, two teams I know nothing about, fight hard to get to the World Series. It’s almost like politics. The folks with more money usually win, but money alone does not guarantee victory. Sometime money can reach a saturation point, and that’s where the intangibles tend to kick in. It’s the intangibles that make other sports like football more exciting, and baseball might finally be learning its lesson.

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)