Every day in the United States, hundreds of adults and children disappear. Many of these are runaways, who often return, and others are fleeing abusive situations and want to start over in secrecy. But scores of these people are never, ever seen again.
When people vanish, you usually never hear about it. Law enforcement certainly does its best, but they lack the resources to find every person who disappears. And if this missing person and their family are lucky, the media may cover it – for one or two nights.
But if the missing person is an attractive young white female, you can bet the media will cover it. In fact, you can bet the farm that the media will obsess over it with exclusive after exclusive, regardless of progress, until the case is solved.
Think back to all the famous missing persons cases over the last year or two: Natalee Holloway; Jennifer Wilibanks; Laci Peterson; Lori Hacking; Elizabeth Smart; Chandra Levy. What do these people have in common? All happen to be female, attractive, young and white.
Most of these women ended up dead and I do not want to belittle that fact. I’m sure the unprecedented attention reassured their families that their missing wives or daughters would not be forgotten, and the blanket coverage may have provided leads that helped crack the case. But what about the middle aged African American woman who goes out to work one day and disappears? How about the pretty Hispanic girl who is eight months pregnant and vanishes? And the elderly Indian man who disappears on vacation? Where are their stories? How come they are not profiled in the media? These people disappear every day too; why are they not considered newsworthy?
I can speculate why the media only focuses on missing attractive white women, and while I am treading onto dangerous territory here, I also want to be honest. Race and appearance is definitely a factor with the media – not law enforcement, but the media. Most of the news directors in this country are older white men. While this may be subliminal and not intentional or racist, they may relate to these missing white women as being the equivalent of their girlfriends, wives and daughters. They are also driven by some marketing or demographic gobbledygook that says missing attractive white women means higher ratings. This may very well be a sad reality about our culture and TV viewership, and is of little comfort to the families of minorities that disappear.
There are other lurking cultural issues at work. Virtually everyone on TV – the news, celebrities and even reality shows – is fit and attractive. Most people in the real world are not fit and are not as attractive as the people generally seen on TV. I’m willing to bet that overweight and ugly people also go missing, but will never be seen on the Today Show or an evening news show. And the overweight, ugly people that vanish outnumber the attractive white women that vanish any day.
Another question: Why are attractive, young white men ever featured as a famous missing person, or any man for that matter? Is this because a missing man could conceivably take care of himself, but national alarms must only sound for missing women because women are unable to save themselves and need rescuing? I don’t know if these answers are definitively yes or no, but nobody seems to be asking them.
And here’s the kicker: More men than women in this country go missing each year. Of the almost 50,000 active adult missing person cases tracked by the FBI, 53 percent were men and almost 30 percent are African-American. But you would never, ever know this from watching the news.
I’m not the only one ranting about this. In fact, this comes up every time the national media picks up the case of another attractive missing white woman. Then the media gets criticized so often they do stories on how they’re being criticized, and trot out the news president to say age, race and sex are not a factor in their news coverage. Say what?
Fortunately there are a handful of media who focus on missing people of all types. A story about three missing Hispanic boys in Camden, NJ, received national attention (the boys tragically suffocated in the trunk of a nearby car). The Lost Children’s Network is available online and on some satellite and cable station, and is color blind. And while FOX’s Greta van Sustern seems to have moved to Aruba to cover Natalee Holloway, she has thrown a few bones to covering some other missing people as well, and FOX’s “America’s Most Wanted” spotlights missing people of all ages, sexes and races. That’s not exactly fair and balanced, but it’s a start.
Links:
Amber Alerts: http://codeamber.org/
FBI Kidnapping and Missing Persons Investigations: http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/kidnap/kidmiss.htm
Lost Children’s Network: http://lostchildren.org/
National Center for Missing Adults: http://www.theyaremissed.org/ncma/
Friday, August 26, 2005
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
The Flack Dissects the Cindy Sheehan Situation
I am coming out of the closet by disclosing my current day job: Public relations flack for a company that I won’t reveal because I’d like to keep my current day job. But I’ve been doing this long enough that I feel I can comment on the current Cindy Sheehan situation, which the press has coined a “PR Nightmare” for the President.
PR is basically a marketing function and marketing has two objectives. The first is drive sales (or votes and donations, if you’re in public affairs). The second is branding or establishing an identity for a company, candidate, cause, etc., and making sure the entity you represent is correctly and fairly represented in the media or the all-important “buzz” on the streets and water coolers of our country.
You obviously answer to your employer (or client). If you’re working for an obscure company competing with a Microsoft, Citigroup, ExxonMobil or similar giant, you’ll take any press that you can get. But if you work for one of those three companies or the President, your job changes a bit. Getting press isn’t the problem – the problem is making sure that company’s or person’s image is held in high regard and doesn’t change for the worse. Some things you won’t have control over (i.e. Raffi Palmeiro’s press person didn’t know their client was a basehead), which leads to crisis situations you need to manage. But for the most part, you need to ensure the dog is wagging the tail instead of vice versa.
When you represent a big company, celebrity or politician, there will be a core group of press and people who will hate you no matter what. While you need to monitor what’s being said about your employer or client, you are not under obligation to address or even acknowledge everything that is said about you. For example, last year documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock made “Super Size Me,” his odyssey about eating at McDonald’s for a solid month while watching his body fat rise and health diminish. He asked if someone from McDonald’s would answer his questions and be part of his movie.
McDonald’s declined, which was perceived as the company ducking the situation. But from a PR perspective, it was the correct response. The movie was obviously anti-McDonald’s and the company would have achieved nothing from participating. It could even be seen as giving the movie a tacit endorsement or acquiescing to its claim that McDonald’s makes you fat and sick. If you worked for Greenpeace and a publication called “Oil Refineries Rule!” contacted you for an interview you knew would be a hatchet job, would you participate? Probably not, because you knew you’d be setting yourself up for a fall.
With that long-winded background information, let’s turn back to Cindy Sheehan. I am heartbroken over her loss and agree that the administration’s negligence has turned Iraq into a completely avoidable quagmire. But there she is, camped near the President’s ranch, and not going anywhere until she gets her meeting with the President. Is this a “PR Nightmare?” I think Iraq is more of a nightmare, and the woman is more of what I would call a “situation.” She’s not hurting anyone (bothering anyone is another story), but August is a slow news time and the press is following her cause with a fervor that is surprising. So should the President meet her to stop this “PR Nightmare?”
I’m not going to go into all the facts of the case since they’ve been well documented everywhere else, so I’ll just go through the highlights here. Right-wing partisans have predictably gone on a character assassination against Ms. Sheehan, as they tend to do when someone has the nerve to disagree with them. These have ranged from accusing her of being a traitor to parroting anti-Israel and anti-American views often embraced by ultra-liberals like Michael Moore. It’s also true that the President already met her last year after terrorists murdered her son and the media attention is being partly bankrolled by True Majority, a public interest group that wants to decrease the Pentagon’s budget.
While I’m as weary of mudslinging as everyone else, I sincerely hope this woman is not being used by left-wing partisans who seem to have coached her, because every interview she gives is becoming increasingly political and less personal. The personal story is far more compelling and likely to get her the meeting she wants. Die-hard Republicans also accuse her of supporting the President and now being an anti-war activist, but so what? Look at the opinion polls – plenty of people have turned against the war lately.
So, putting on the PR hat again, would the President gain anything by meeting with Ms. Sheehan again? If I was on the president’s staff, here’s what I would recommend (Note: This is not the day job I was referring to earlier.)
I would suggest that the President meet with Ms. Sheehan, but set the agenda as much as possible. Have someone bring her in without warning and have it take place on the ranch where he’s in control. This way, if she is being coached, she doesn’t have time to prepare a diatribe. Have no more than one aide present. Keep the meeting short – 10 or 15 minutes. But most of all, stay personal and reassuring – something the President is quite good at. Focus on the loss of her son. Don’t discuss policy, or fit a war into a bigger picture of a war on terror because that is not appropriate here. Do one fast photo and then let her go. If she doesn’t leave the ranch, starts bashing his politics again, or is disrespectful she validates the kooky right-wing conspiracy theory and the President looks all the better.
The President’s staff would say there are PR risks here – you validate your enemy’s position, capitulate to their demands, look weak, etc. Those are valid. But you also nip the situation in the bud and prevent further escalation. If the press got tired of this woman after a few days, you could ignore it. But it’s not happening and you need to control the agenda again. One of the great things about America is that you have the right to ask the president of the country or a company whatever you want without getting thrown in jail. And looking at the President’s approval numbers, these are the sort of things he should be doing to improve his overall PR image.
More info:
How the Right Wing is Smearing Cindy Sheehan (left-wing site, but this is accurate): http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009
An Opposing View from Slate’s Chris Hitchens: http://slate.msn.com/id/2124500/
Abraham Lincoln’s Letter to Mrs. Bixby, whose sons died in battle during the Civil War (this letter was read in Saving Private Ryan) http://www.americancivilwar.info/pages/mrs_bixby_letter.asp
PR is basically a marketing function and marketing has two objectives. The first is drive sales (or votes and donations, if you’re in public affairs). The second is branding or establishing an identity for a company, candidate, cause, etc., and making sure the entity you represent is correctly and fairly represented in the media or the all-important “buzz” on the streets and water coolers of our country.
You obviously answer to your employer (or client). If you’re working for an obscure company competing with a Microsoft, Citigroup, ExxonMobil or similar giant, you’ll take any press that you can get. But if you work for one of those three companies or the President, your job changes a bit. Getting press isn’t the problem – the problem is making sure that company’s or person’s image is held in high regard and doesn’t change for the worse. Some things you won’t have control over (i.e. Raffi Palmeiro’s press person didn’t know their client was a basehead), which leads to crisis situations you need to manage. But for the most part, you need to ensure the dog is wagging the tail instead of vice versa.
When you represent a big company, celebrity or politician, there will be a core group of press and people who will hate you no matter what. While you need to monitor what’s being said about your employer or client, you are not under obligation to address or even acknowledge everything that is said about you. For example, last year documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock made “Super Size Me,” his odyssey about eating at McDonald’s for a solid month while watching his body fat rise and health diminish. He asked if someone from McDonald’s would answer his questions and be part of his movie.
McDonald’s declined, which was perceived as the company ducking the situation. But from a PR perspective, it was the correct response. The movie was obviously anti-McDonald’s and the company would have achieved nothing from participating. It could even be seen as giving the movie a tacit endorsement or acquiescing to its claim that McDonald’s makes you fat and sick. If you worked for Greenpeace and a publication called “Oil Refineries Rule!” contacted you for an interview you knew would be a hatchet job, would you participate? Probably not, because you knew you’d be setting yourself up for a fall.
With that long-winded background information, let’s turn back to Cindy Sheehan. I am heartbroken over her loss and agree that the administration’s negligence has turned Iraq into a completely avoidable quagmire. But there she is, camped near the President’s ranch, and not going anywhere until she gets her meeting with the President. Is this a “PR Nightmare?” I think Iraq is more of a nightmare, and the woman is more of what I would call a “situation.” She’s not hurting anyone (bothering anyone is another story), but August is a slow news time and the press is following her cause with a fervor that is surprising. So should the President meet her to stop this “PR Nightmare?”
I’m not going to go into all the facts of the case since they’ve been well documented everywhere else, so I’ll just go through the highlights here. Right-wing partisans have predictably gone on a character assassination against Ms. Sheehan, as they tend to do when someone has the nerve to disagree with them. These have ranged from accusing her of being a traitor to parroting anti-Israel and anti-American views often embraced by ultra-liberals like Michael Moore. It’s also true that the President already met her last year after terrorists murdered her son and the media attention is being partly bankrolled by True Majority, a public interest group that wants to decrease the Pentagon’s budget.
While I’m as weary of mudslinging as everyone else, I sincerely hope this woman is not being used by left-wing partisans who seem to have coached her, because every interview she gives is becoming increasingly political and less personal. The personal story is far more compelling and likely to get her the meeting she wants. Die-hard Republicans also accuse her of supporting the President and now being an anti-war activist, but so what? Look at the opinion polls – plenty of people have turned against the war lately.
So, putting on the PR hat again, would the President gain anything by meeting with Ms. Sheehan again? If I was on the president’s staff, here’s what I would recommend (Note: This is not the day job I was referring to earlier.)
I would suggest that the President meet with Ms. Sheehan, but set the agenda as much as possible. Have someone bring her in without warning and have it take place on the ranch where he’s in control. This way, if she is being coached, she doesn’t have time to prepare a diatribe. Have no more than one aide present. Keep the meeting short – 10 or 15 minutes. But most of all, stay personal and reassuring – something the President is quite good at. Focus on the loss of her son. Don’t discuss policy, or fit a war into a bigger picture of a war on terror because that is not appropriate here. Do one fast photo and then let her go. If she doesn’t leave the ranch, starts bashing his politics again, or is disrespectful she validates the kooky right-wing conspiracy theory and the President looks all the better.
The President’s staff would say there are PR risks here – you validate your enemy’s position, capitulate to their demands, look weak, etc. Those are valid. But you also nip the situation in the bud and prevent further escalation. If the press got tired of this woman after a few days, you could ignore it. But it’s not happening and you need to control the agenda again. One of the great things about America is that you have the right to ask the president of the country or a company whatever you want without getting thrown in jail. And looking at the President’s approval numbers, these are the sort of things he should be doing to improve his overall PR image.
More info:
How the Right Wing is Smearing Cindy Sheehan (left-wing site, but this is accurate): http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009
An Opposing View from Slate’s Chris Hitchens: http://slate.msn.com/id/2124500/
Abraham Lincoln’s Letter to Mrs. Bixby, whose sons died in battle during the Civil War (this letter was read in Saving Private Ryan) http://www.americancivilwar.info/pages/mrs_bixby_letter.asp
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Why Do I Hate Rafael Palmeiro? Let Us Count the Ways
Rafael Palmeiro used to be – until this week – one of my favorite baseball players. He never had the biggest salary, the biggest mouth, the biggest ego or the biggest bat on the many teams he played. He just showed up every day and did his job better than almost anyone else.
He never hogged the media spotlight. He never asked for any big demands and he almost never put up the biggest numbers. He just quietly and effectively produced for 19 seasons and soon became one of the league’s respected elder statesmen, amassing 3,000 hits, 569 homers and four All-Star appearances.
What finally made him a household name to non-baseball fans was his testimony before Congress on the anti-steroid hearings last winter. While other players like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa came off worse for the wear with evasive answers, Palmeiro was a model of credibility: “I have never used steroids. Period. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never.”
Well, we all know what happened this week. And now we can substitute new words to describe this so-called athlete: Phony. Stupid. Cheater. Busted. And those are the polite ones. Palmeiro must think we’re as dumb as he is with his lame “I don’t know where the steroid came from!” excuse. While not as creative as “Barry Bonds spiked my Viagra,” most people are aware of everything that enters their body.
There’s always a domino effect when big athletes are caught with their hands in the stanozolol jar. Sure, Palmeiro will lose a whopping 10 days pay. He will now be better known for this charade no matter what his final hit or home run total will be. Yes, he may not get into the Hall of Fame now. But there are additional punishments in store.
First, from this day forward I will refer to Rafael Palmeiro as “Raffi,” because his crybaby excuses remind me of the unbelievably annoying Raffi who sings for children. If you do not have small children, you have been spared a five-year prison term of listening to music that makes Clay Aiken sound hardcore.
Second, and most unforgivably, Raffi has made Jose Canseco into a respectable, honorable person. Canseco, the classic kid who tells on the kid who doesn’t do his homework, is bizarrely redeemed through this whole sorry affair. His claim of injecting Raffi and others with steroids now holds water, and he’s been transformed from clubhouse rat to courageous whistleblower. In a sleazy side note, Canseco’s ex-wife bares more in next month’s Playboy.
Raffi may have taken the heat off his fellow baseheads Jason Giambi and the other players caught under the new steroid rules, and I’ve still got my eye on Barry Bonds. But here’s hoping he’s hauled back before Congress to explain why he lied under oath. His magnificent performance in Washington last March has now replaced Pete Rose’s “I never bet on baseball” as the biggest lie to cripple a sport that’s already weak in the knees.
He never hogged the media spotlight. He never asked for any big demands and he almost never put up the biggest numbers. He just quietly and effectively produced for 19 seasons and soon became one of the league’s respected elder statesmen, amassing 3,000 hits, 569 homers and four All-Star appearances.
What finally made him a household name to non-baseball fans was his testimony before Congress on the anti-steroid hearings last winter. While other players like Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa came off worse for the wear with evasive answers, Palmeiro was a model of credibility: “I have never used steroids. Period. I don't know how to say it any more clearly than that. Never.”
Well, we all know what happened this week. And now we can substitute new words to describe this so-called athlete: Phony. Stupid. Cheater. Busted. And those are the polite ones. Palmeiro must think we’re as dumb as he is with his lame “I don’t know where the steroid came from!” excuse. While not as creative as “Barry Bonds spiked my Viagra,” most people are aware of everything that enters their body.
There’s always a domino effect when big athletes are caught with their hands in the stanozolol jar. Sure, Palmeiro will lose a whopping 10 days pay. He will now be better known for this charade no matter what his final hit or home run total will be. Yes, he may not get into the Hall of Fame now. But there are additional punishments in store.
First, from this day forward I will refer to Rafael Palmeiro as “Raffi,” because his crybaby excuses remind me of the unbelievably annoying Raffi who sings for children. If you do not have small children, you have been spared a five-year prison term of listening to music that makes Clay Aiken sound hardcore.
Second, and most unforgivably, Raffi has made Jose Canseco into a respectable, honorable person. Canseco, the classic kid who tells on the kid who doesn’t do his homework, is bizarrely redeemed through this whole sorry affair. His claim of injecting Raffi and others with steroids now holds water, and he’s been transformed from clubhouse rat to courageous whistleblower. In a sleazy side note, Canseco’s ex-wife bares more in next month’s Playboy.
Raffi may have taken the heat off his fellow baseheads Jason Giambi and the other players caught under the new steroid rules, and I’ve still got my eye on Barry Bonds. But here’s hoping he’s hauled back before Congress to explain why he lied under oath. His magnificent performance in Washington last March has now replaced Pete Rose’s “I never bet on baseball” as the biggest lie to cripple a sport that’s already weak in the knees.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
A Wake Up Call to the World (and Me)
One of the dangers of being a part-time blogger is that work and life tends to cut into your blogging time. So I have temporarily put aside my job, house search, estate closing, house selling and child-raising time to finally post something new. Does Instapundit have a real job?
It would be remiss not to mention the dual terrorist attacks (or as the BBC refers to them, “militants”) that Britons are now enduring. While our hearts and unmitigated support goes out to London, it is oddly reassuring to note the stoic yet determined nature of the city’s residents. Unlike Americans, who alternately sow sorrow and vengeance, the British always keep their game face on. I have family in Britain (my mother was English) and I am well aware of the pluck character that is on display. Remember that this was the nation mercilessly bombed by the Nazis every night during the Blitz, and then emerged from the Underground every morning, went on about its business, stopped at the pub for a pint or two and calmly returned to the subways as the bombs began to rain down again. We are fortunate to have them as our closest allies.
We are also fortunate that after so many years, Tony Blair is still the British prime minister. As a self-declared genius, I don’t throw the “genius” term around too loosely, but I will go on the record here: Tony Blair is a genius, hands down the smartest, most eloquent and populist politician today on either side of the Atlantic. The British are extremely lucky to have him as their leader. His comments today that most of the world had dropped its guard on terrorism and not one inch would be given to terrorist demands were magnificent. While France, Germany and much of Western Europe remains stuck in an economic and rudderless morass, Britain continues to be an economic powerhouse and worldwide leader.
Blair also effectively silenced critics who claim Britain would not have been attacked if it had not helped the U.S. attack Iraq. Prime Minister Mubarak of Egypt, who has zero troops in Iraq and opposed the war, could have said the same thing. So could the leaders of Morocco, Russia, Turkey and other countries without a single soldier in Iraq. The London bombings are a wake up call – we are still at war with an enemy that does not negotiate, does not care about your politics or religion, and does not care whether it lives or dies. It uses Islam as an excuse to conduct a monstrous homicidal rampage and will not stop until you, me and everyone else is DESTROYED.
There is no justification, excuse or mitigating factor for saying “Yes, but America/Britain is partly to blame because…” There is no political or moral justification for blowing up people on a subway car just as there is no justification for killing Iraqi schoolchildren who are getting candy. As Tony Blair says, consider this event a wake up call for the world, and a wake up call to myself to get back on the blogging bus.
It would be remiss not to mention the dual terrorist attacks (or as the BBC refers to them, “militants”) that Britons are now enduring. While our hearts and unmitigated support goes out to London, it is oddly reassuring to note the stoic yet determined nature of the city’s residents. Unlike Americans, who alternately sow sorrow and vengeance, the British always keep their game face on. I have family in Britain (my mother was English) and I am well aware of the pluck character that is on display. Remember that this was the nation mercilessly bombed by the Nazis every night during the Blitz, and then emerged from the Underground every morning, went on about its business, stopped at the pub for a pint or two and calmly returned to the subways as the bombs began to rain down again. We are fortunate to have them as our closest allies.
We are also fortunate that after so many years, Tony Blair is still the British prime minister. As a self-declared genius, I don’t throw the “genius” term around too loosely, but I will go on the record here: Tony Blair is a genius, hands down the smartest, most eloquent and populist politician today on either side of the Atlantic. The British are extremely lucky to have him as their leader. His comments today that most of the world had dropped its guard on terrorism and not one inch would be given to terrorist demands were magnificent. While France, Germany and much of Western Europe remains stuck in an economic and rudderless morass, Britain continues to be an economic powerhouse and worldwide leader.
Blair also effectively silenced critics who claim Britain would not have been attacked if it had not helped the U.S. attack Iraq. Prime Minister Mubarak of Egypt, who has zero troops in Iraq and opposed the war, could have said the same thing. So could the leaders of Morocco, Russia, Turkey and other countries without a single soldier in Iraq. The London bombings are a wake up call – we are still at war with an enemy that does not negotiate, does not care about your politics or religion, and does not care whether it lives or dies. It uses Islam as an excuse to conduct a monstrous homicidal rampage and will not stop until you, me and everyone else is DESTROYED.
There is no justification, excuse or mitigating factor for saying “Yes, but America/Britain is partly to blame because…” There is no political or moral justification for blowing up people on a subway car just as there is no justification for killing Iraqi schoolchildren who are getting candy. As Tony Blair says, consider this event a wake up call for the world, and a wake up call to myself to get back on the blogging bus.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Play Ball! 2005 Baseball Forecast Part II
How do you predict pennant winners for Major League Baseball in 2005? Follow the money.
If whoever dies with the most toys wins, then whichever team has the highest salary generally wins their division and makes the playoffs. Once you get to the playoffs things might get a bit interesting with the choke factor and pressure on guys who only make a lousy $5 million a year.
For the last few decades, the Yankees have had the highest payroll in baseball (last year was $184 million, this year over $200 million). But last year they were bested by Boston, a team that coincidentally had the SECOND highest payroll ($127 million). Boy, was I surprised! Then Boston swept St. Louis, which everyone saw coming since the Cardinals only had a puny $83 million payroll. The Red Sox broke the curse, pigs flew and Satan skated all day.
OK, so money doesn’t guarantee a championship. X factors like injuries, bad management and being part of the Mets can sink a team no matter how fat the checkbook is. But if you look at the 2004 payroll, you will notice a striking similarity between a team’s payroll, their standing, and their playoff chances. And that’s why almost all the teams who made the playoffs last year will make them this year. And people wonder why baseball is our fourth most popular sport and TV ratings keep sliding.
Oh yeah, there’s one more factor: pitching. In football, defense wins championships. In baseball, defense is pitching. So whoever has the best pitchers generally wins. Whoever has the most money can afford the best pitchers. If there’s a good pitcher on a bad club, he’ll usually be traded to a club who can afford him in due time so the bad team has no way to improve. Get the picture?
Teams are listed in their order of finish, along with their 2004 payroll to keep proving some kind of point.
AL EAST
1) NY Yankees ($200 million plus): Something weird is happening in the Bronx. Joe Torre hasn’t won in five years but he’s still managing. Carlos Beltran was available last year, but Steinbrenner realized he already had four outfielders and two DHs. Therefore, the Yankees actually spent money on PITCHING. Furthermore, the Yankees got Randy Johnson, a lefthander to combat the Red Sox’s fearsome array of left-handed batting. What the hell is going on here? Oh wait, Kevin Brown is getting paid $15 million. That’s more like it.
2) Boston Red Sox ($127 million): Boston retained its lineup but had some inevitable shuffling in the starting rotation. Wells replaces Martinez (good), Clement replaces Lowe (hmm) and Wade Miller might replace Wakefield (uh oh). There’s still no reason this team can’t make the wild card.
3) Baltimore Orioles ($51 million): The rest of the AL East is kind of a wash because the teams don’t have the cash to keep up with the Sox and Yankees. I’ll pick Baltimore next because they have a decent lineup and they have two pitchers (Ponson and Lopez) that should win about 12 games.
4) Toronto Blue Jays ($50 million): The only team left in Canada, but I won’t hold that against them.
5) Tampa Bay Devil Rays ($30 million): It won’t surprise me if Tampa claws through to fourth again, but that’s as far as they’ll go. It says something when Lou Pinella is the most entertaining Devil Ray.
AL CENTRAL
1) Minnesota Twins ($54 million): Surprisingly, the Twinkies are NOT the highest payroll team in the division. Chicago is, but the White Sox appear to be run by the Keystone Cops. While the Twins also benefit from playing in a truly horrible division, they also are loosening the purse strings to re-sign Johan Santana to a $40 million contract. The Twins also have a talent for finding amazing closers out of thin air. Just where did Joe Nathan come from? Unfortunately, the Twins are going to have to get more money and aggression before dethroning the Yankees or Red Sox anytime soon.
2) Chicago White Sox ($65 million): This is a weird team. It’s actually got a decent starting rotation filled with ex-Yankee Cuban defectors (Contreras and Hernandez). But while pitching is the most important thing, you do need someone to swing a bat and nobody in Chicago’s lineup can hit over .300 with Ordonez and Carlos Lee gone. Also, pitching extends to the bullpen, and the bullpen is putrid.
3) Cleveland Indians ($34 million): Coco Crisp? I’m cuckoo for Cleveland! I’m cuckoo for Cleveland! Ha ha, sorry I couldn’t resist that one…Cleveland appears to have studied Moneyball pretty closely, as it boasts a young team with few stars that actually have a good attitude and hustle toward the game. Unfortunately, it missed the part of the book that read having a low payroll means you have no chance at a championship. I also can’t trust a club that has C.C. Sabathia as its top starter.
4) Detroit Tigers ($47 million): The offense is shaping up and the Tigers curiously have two closers (Urbina and Troy Percival), which is strange for a club that only won 72 games. If they can trade one of those guys for a legitimate starter, they could reach .500.
5) KC Royals ($47 million): I like manager Tony Pena, but he’s stuck in the mud with these chumps. 100 losses is possible.
AL WEST
1) Anaheim/Los Angeles/Orange County Angels ($101 million): Ah, this is more like it. A club with deep pockets that coincidentally can afford great players. If the Angels’ batting order stays healthy, they can actually keep up with Boston and the Yankees. Look at this – Erstad, Guerrero, Garrett Anderson, Finley, Molino, Cabrera. Muy fantastico! Their starting five includes Bartolo Colon, Washburn and Escobar, who should do well if they don’t miss any Weight Watchers meetings. Francisco Rodriguez is the new closer, and he is truly amazing. He could be the next Mariano Rivera.
2) Oakland A’s ($59 million): Rebuilding year for Billy Beane. I expect him to make some good pickups and contend for the wild card like he always does, but losing Hudson and Mulder was too much for him. Jason Kendall and John Harden were good signings.
3) Texas Rangers ($55 million): I’ll admit the Rangers played better than I expected last year. I thought Blalock and Teixiera would be trade bait in August, but the Rangers hung tight as KENNY ROGERS WON 18 GAMES. Texas (including Houston) may be where old pitchers get reborn. Cordero is a great closer, but with Chan Ho Park still in the starting rotation, the Rangers are still two good starters away from challenging the Angels.
4) Seattle Mariners ($81 million): No pitcher in Seattle won more than nine games last season. So they signed Adrian Beltre and Richie Sexson to pump up the offense. What do you think the Mariners could get when they trade Ichiro in July?
NL EAST
1) Atlanta Braves ($91 million): This team always finds a way to win. Last year they turned into a hitting machine. I’m not concerned about John Smoltz starting, but would you want Raul Mondesi as your starting right fielder? And did anyone notice that Mike Hampton won 13 games last year? With Tim Hudson now pitching in Turner Field, I just don’t see the other teams here having enough to challenge the perennial winner.
2) Florida Marlins ($42 million): I’m going with my gut in saying if the Marlins stay healthy (which didn’t happen last year), they could even be a wild card team. Everyone forgot the Marlins won it all in 2003 and even though they looked like a nursing home last year they still won 83 games. Delgado signed here in the offseason and Luis Castillo and Miguel Cabrera are good. If Leiter still has gas in the tank, if Dontrelle Willis regains his 2003 form and if the bullpen settles down the Marlins will scare people (yeah, yeah, that’s a lot of ifs).
3) NY Mets ($97 million): I think Omar Minaya believes he’s the Yankee GM, because the long-term deals he’s signed bring back those truly horrible overpaid 1980s Yankee clubs to mind. Four years for Martinez? Seven for Beltran? Yikes. I really want to give the Mets a chance because I like Willie Randolph, a childhood hero who finally gets a chance to prove himself. While few will question signing Martinez and Beltran, $21 million to KRIS BENSON over three years doesn’t strike me with the same confidence. While the Mets are certainly better than last year, a weak bullpen and overall chemistry won’t overcome some big holes. However, if the Mets are still contending come August, I do think Minaya will pay a key player whatever it takes to sign him.
4) Philadelphia Phillies ($93 million): Last year’s underachievers become this year’s mediocre team. Generalissimo Bowa is gone but last year’s bad pitching remains. Jon Lieber can’t do it alone.
5) Washington Nationals ($42 million): The Nationals finally escaped from their Canadian captors and are welcomed with open arms to our nation’s capital. However, the team is still last year’s Montreal Expos.
NL CENTRAL
1) St. Louis Cardinals ($83 million): The lack of a big time starter finally caught up to the Cardinals once they no longer had to play in the truly awful NL Central. Houston took them to seven games and then they got swept in the World Series. Anyone who doesn’t think Mark Mulder is better than Woody Williams can go to the head of the stupid line. Except for the shortstop shuffle, the rest of the team is intact. Think Chris Carpenter and Larry Williams will stay healthy all year? Me too.
2) Houston Astros ($75 million): Speaking of health, imagine what the Astros could have done if Pettite stayed healthy all year. Clemens and Roy Oswalt carry the pitching load. If Adam Everett and Lance Berkman pick up Beltran’s production, this team should get the wild card again.
3) Chicago Cubs ($90 million): Speaking of health, the Cubs can walk away with this division if Kerry Wood and Mark Prior and Nomar Garciaparra could stay uninjured for more than seven games. If they do and Dempster fills Clement’s shoes, the Cubs should make the playoffs. Of course, we all know what happens to Chicago when success beckons.
4) Cincinnati Reds ($46 million): I think Ken Griffey Jr. used to play on the Reds. Boy, he was a great player. Whatever happened to him?
5) Pittsburgh Pirates ($32 million): It doesn’t really matter who finishes fifth and sixth in this division. Pittsburgh is the perfect example of what’s wrong with baseball. Once a powerhouse as recently as a decade ago, the Pirates have lost a slew of all-stars because the team can’t afford to re-sign them. Last year, the Pirates had two bona fide new stars in lefty starter Oliver Perez and Rookie of the Year Jason Bay. But everyone knows that by June the Pirates will be worse than Courtney Love’s parenting skills and both of them will be on the trade block. In return, the Pirates will get washed up players like Benito Santiago and Jose Mesa who they can get cheap. Bleah.
6) Milwaukee Brewers ($27 million): Hard to believe that Bud Selig, who has helped run baseball into the ground, still owns this team (through his family). Easier to believe that the team has been for sale for over five years and nobody wants it.
NL WEST
1) LA Dodgers ($93 million): Most teams have good bats and no pitchers. The Dodgers have the opposite problem. True, Dodger Stadium is a pitcher’s park, but couldn’t the team fork out a few bucks for Ordonez, Garciaparra or the hundred other .325 hitters that signed up last season? Despite this, pitching wins championships and the Dodgers won the West last year. The Dodgers did sign some .285 hitters in Jeff Kent and JD Drew. New pitchers Derek Lowe and Brad Penny will do fine in the cavernous field, where even Jeff Weaver is a .500 pitcher.
2) San Diego Padres ($55 million): If Bonds is out all season, the Padres could sneak right into the wild card spot. It’s been a long rebuilding project, but the Padres aren’t too bad this year. Jake Peavy and Brian Lawrence are good pitchers and the offense is efficient, although there’s no big name stars. Trevor Hoffman seems to have his groove back.
3) San Francisco Giants ($82 million): As the Yankees keep learning, never tie too much of your franchise on one guy. My gut says Bonds is out for the season. Jason Schmidt is a good starter, but the geriatric lineup and mediocre pitching won’t carry the rest of the team.
4) Arizona Diamondbacks ($70 million): Arizona won’t lose 111 games this year, but they won’t lose much less. What do Shawn Green, Sean Estes, Javier Vazquez, and Troy Glaus have in common? They’re all new Diamondbacks and they’re all three years past their prime.
5) Colorado Rockies ($65 million): I truly can’t say where the $65 million goes in Colorado. The good news is the thin air means you can get drunk in Coors Field faster than any other ballpark.
If whoever dies with the most toys wins, then whichever team has the highest salary generally wins their division and makes the playoffs. Once you get to the playoffs things might get a bit interesting with the choke factor and pressure on guys who only make a lousy $5 million a year.
For the last few decades, the Yankees have had the highest payroll in baseball (last year was $184 million, this year over $200 million). But last year they were bested by Boston, a team that coincidentally had the SECOND highest payroll ($127 million). Boy, was I surprised! Then Boston swept St. Louis, which everyone saw coming since the Cardinals only had a puny $83 million payroll. The Red Sox broke the curse, pigs flew and Satan skated all day.
OK, so money doesn’t guarantee a championship. X factors like injuries, bad management and being part of the Mets can sink a team no matter how fat the checkbook is. But if you look at the 2004 payroll, you will notice a striking similarity between a team’s payroll, their standing, and their playoff chances. And that’s why almost all the teams who made the playoffs last year will make them this year. And people wonder why baseball is our fourth most popular sport and TV ratings keep sliding.
Oh yeah, there’s one more factor: pitching. In football, defense wins championships. In baseball, defense is pitching. So whoever has the best pitchers generally wins. Whoever has the most money can afford the best pitchers. If there’s a good pitcher on a bad club, he’ll usually be traded to a club who can afford him in due time so the bad team has no way to improve. Get the picture?
Teams are listed in their order of finish, along with their 2004 payroll to keep proving some kind of point.
AL EAST
1) NY Yankees ($200 million plus): Something weird is happening in the Bronx. Joe Torre hasn’t won in five years but he’s still managing. Carlos Beltran was available last year, but Steinbrenner realized he already had four outfielders and two DHs. Therefore, the Yankees actually spent money on PITCHING. Furthermore, the Yankees got Randy Johnson, a lefthander to combat the Red Sox’s fearsome array of left-handed batting. What the hell is going on here? Oh wait, Kevin Brown is getting paid $15 million. That’s more like it.
2) Boston Red Sox ($127 million): Boston retained its lineup but had some inevitable shuffling in the starting rotation. Wells replaces Martinez (good), Clement replaces Lowe (hmm) and Wade Miller might replace Wakefield (uh oh). There’s still no reason this team can’t make the wild card.
3) Baltimore Orioles ($51 million): The rest of the AL East is kind of a wash because the teams don’t have the cash to keep up with the Sox and Yankees. I’ll pick Baltimore next because they have a decent lineup and they have two pitchers (Ponson and Lopez) that should win about 12 games.
4) Toronto Blue Jays ($50 million): The only team left in Canada, but I won’t hold that against them.
5) Tampa Bay Devil Rays ($30 million): It won’t surprise me if Tampa claws through to fourth again, but that’s as far as they’ll go. It says something when Lou Pinella is the most entertaining Devil Ray.
AL CENTRAL
1) Minnesota Twins ($54 million): Surprisingly, the Twinkies are NOT the highest payroll team in the division. Chicago is, but the White Sox appear to be run by the Keystone Cops. While the Twins also benefit from playing in a truly horrible division, they also are loosening the purse strings to re-sign Johan Santana to a $40 million contract. The Twins also have a talent for finding amazing closers out of thin air. Just where did Joe Nathan come from? Unfortunately, the Twins are going to have to get more money and aggression before dethroning the Yankees or Red Sox anytime soon.
2) Chicago White Sox ($65 million): This is a weird team. It’s actually got a decent starting rotation filled with ex-Yankee Cuban defectors (Contreras and Hernandez). But while pitching is the most important thing, you do need someone to swing a bat and nobody in Chicago’s lineup can hit over .300 with Ordonez and Carlos Lee gone. Also, pitching extends to the bullpen, and the bullpen is putrid.
3) Cleveland Indians ($34 million): Coco Crisp? I’m cuckoo for Cleveland! I’m cuckoo for Cleveland! Ha ha, sorry I couldn’t resist that one…Cleveland appears to have studied Moneyball pretty closely, as it boasts a young team with few stars that actually have a good attitude and hustle toward the game. Unfortunately, it missed the part of the book that read having a low payroll means you have no chance at a championship. I also can’t trust a club that has C.C. Sabathia as its top starter.
4) Detroit Tigers ($47 million): The offense is shaping up and the Tigers curiously have two closers (Urbina and Troy Percival), which is strange for a club that only won 72 games. If they can trade one of those guys for a legitimate starter, they could reach .500.
5) KC Royals ($47 million): I like manager Tony Pena, but he’s stuck in the mud with these chumps. 100 losses is possible.
AL WEST
1) Anaheim/Los Angeles/Orange County Angels ($101 million): Ah, this is more like it. A club with deep pockets that coincidentally can afford great players. If the Angels’ batting order stays healthy, they can actually keep up with Boston and the Yankees. Look at this – Erstad, Guerrero, Garrett Anderson, Finley, Molino, Cabrera. Muy fantastico! Their starting five includes Bartolo Colon, Washburn and Escobar, who should do well if they don’t miss any Weight Watchers meetings. Francisco Rodriguez is the new closer, and he is truly amazing. He could be the next Mariano Rivera.
2) Oakland A’s ($59 million): Rebuilding year for Billy Beane. I expect him to make some good pickups and contend for the wild card like he always does, but losing Hudson and Mulder was too much for him. Jason Kendall and John Harden were good signings.
3) Texas Rangers ($55 million): I’ll admit the Rangers played better than I expected last year. I thought Blalock and Teixiera would be trade bait in August, but the Rangers hung tight as KENNY ROGERS WON 18 GAMES. Texas (including Houston) may be where old pitchers get reborn. Cordero is a great closer, but with Chan Ho Park still in the starting rotation, the Rangers are still two good starters away from challenging the Angels.
4) Seattle Mariners ($81 million): No pitcher in Seattle won more than nine games last season. So they signed Adrian Beltre and Richie Sexson to pump up the offense. What do you think the Mariners could get when they trade Ichiro in July?
NL EAST
1) Atlanta Braves ($91 million): This team always finds a way to win. Last year they turned into a hitting machine. I’m not concerned about John Smoltz starting, but would you want Raul Mondesi as your starting right fielder? And did anyone notice that Mike Hampton won 13 games last year? With Tim Hudson now pitching in Turner Field, I just don’t see the other teams here having enough to challenge the perennial winner.
2) Florida Marlins ($42 million): I’m going with my gut in saying if the Marlins stay healthy (which didn’t happen last year), they could even be a wild card team. Everyone forgot the Marlins won it all in 2003 and even though they looked like a nursing home last year they still won 83 games. Delgado signed here in the offseason and Luis Castillo and Miguel Cabrera are good. If Leiter still has gas in the tank, if Dontrelle Willis regains his 2003 form and if the bullpen settles down the Marlins will scare people (yeah, yeah, that’s a lot of ifs).
3) NY Mets ($97 million): I think Omar Minaya believes he’s the Yankee GM, because the long-term deals he’s signed bring back those truly horrible overpaid 1980s Yankee clubs to mind. Four years for Martinez? Seven for Beltran? Yikes. I really want to give the Mets a chance because I like Willie Randolph, a childhood hero who finally gets a chance to prove himself. While few will question signing Martinez and Beltran, $21 million to KRIS BENSON over three years doesn’t strike me with the same confidence. While the Mets are certainly better than last year, a weak bullpen and overall chemistry won’t overcome some big holes. However, if the Mets are still contending come August, I do think Minaya will pay a key player whatever it takes to sign him.
4) Philadelphia Phillies ($93 million): Last year’s underachievers become this year’s mediocre team. Generalissimo Bowa is gone but last year’s bad pitching remains. Jon Lieber can’t do it alone.
5) Washington Nationals ($42 million): The Nationals finally escaped from their Canadian captors and are welcomed with open arms to our nation’s capital. However, the team is still last year’s Montreal Expos.
NL CENTRAL
1) St. Louis Cardinals ($83 million): The lack of a big time starter finally caught up to the Cardinals once they no longer had to play in the truly awful NL Central. Houston took them to seven games and then they got swept in the World Series. Anyone who doesn’t think Mark Mulder is better than Woody Williams can go to the head of the stupid line. Except for the shortstop shuffle, the rest of the team is intact. Think Chris Carpenter and Larry Williams will stay healthy all year? Me too.
2) Houston Astros ($75 million): Speaking of health, imagine what the Astros could have done if Pettite stayed healthy all year. Clemens and Roy Oswalt carry the pitching load. If Adam Everett and Lance Berkman pick up Beltran’s production, this team should get the wild card again.
3) Chicago Cubs ($90 million): Speaking of health, the Cubs can walk away with this division if Kerry Wood and Mark Prior and Nomar Garciaparra could stay uninjured for more than seven games. If they do and Dempster fills Clement’s shoes, the Cubs should make the playoffs. Of course, we all know what happens to Chicago when success beckons.
4) Cincinnati Reds ($46 million): I think Ken Griffey Jr. used to play on the Reds. Boy, he was a great player. Whatever happened to him?
5) Pittsburgh Pirates ($32 million): It doesn’t really matter who finishes fifth and sixth in this division. Pittsburgh is the perfect example of what’s wrong with baseball. Once a powerhouse as recently as a decade ago, the Pirates have lost a slew of all-stars because the team can’t afford to re-sign them. Last year, the Pirates had two bona fide new stars in lefty starter Oliver Perez and Rookie of the Year Jason Bay. But everyone knows that by June the Pirates will be worse than Courtney Love’s parenting skills and both of them will be on the trade block. In return, the Pirates will get washed up players like Benito Santiago and Jose Mesa who they can get cheap. Bleah.
6) Milwaukee Brewers ($27 million): Hard to believe that Bud Selig, who has helped run baseball into the ground, still owns this team (through his family). Easier to believe that the team has been for sale for over five years and nobody wants it.
NL WEST
1) LA Dodgers ($93 million): Most teams have good bats and no pitchers. The Dodgers have the opposite problem. True, Dodger Stadium is a pitcher’s park, but couldn’t the team fork out a few bucks for Ordonez, Garciaparra or the hundred other .325 hitters that signed up last season? Despite this, pitching wins championships and the Dodgers won the West last year. The Dodgers did sign some .285 hitters in Jeff Kent and JD Drew. New pitchers Derek Lowe and Brad Penny will do fine in the cavernous field, where even Jeff Weaver is a .500 pitcher.
2) San Diego Padres ($55 million): If Bonds is out all season, the Padres could sneak right into the wild card spot. It’s been a long rebuilding project, but the Padres aren’t too bad this year. Jake Peavy and Brian Lawrence are good pitchers and the offense is efficient, although there’s no big name stars. Trevor Hoffman seems to have his groove back.
3) San Francisco Giants ($82 million): As the Yankees keep learning, never tie too much of your franchise on one guy. My gut says Bonds is out for the season. Jason Schmidt is a good starter, but the geriatric lineup and mediocre pitching won’t carry the rest of the team.
4) Arizona Diamondbacks ($70 million): Arizona won’t lose 111 games this year, but they won’t lose much less. What do Shawn Green, Sean Estes, Javier Vazquez, and Troy Glaus have in common? They’re all new Diamondbacks and they’re all three years past their prime.
5) Colorado Rockies ($65 million): I truly can’t say where the $65 million goes in Colorado. The good news is the thin air means you can get drunk in Coors Field faster than any other ballpark.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Play Ball! 2005 Baseball Forecast Part I
I love baseball and I love capitalism. But the two mix together like two cats in a sack.
When the Patriots won the Super Bowl, I briefly mentioned how financial parity – notably a salary cap on player payrolls and equal TV profit sharing between all 32 teams – has brought joy and hope to NFL fans everywhere. Because of parity, every NFL team has a chance to sign the same players and small market teams like Green Bay are on the same footing as big market teams like New York. Free agent players can sign with the team that offers them the best financial package (if they wish) but careful bookkeeping will assure owners that no player eats too much of the salary cap. With each club having equal share of the pot, every team has a chance of making the playoffs each year, and worst-to-first scenarios happen every year.
Not so in Major League Baseball. While there is a luxury tax in place for teams with sky-high payrolls that are supposed to be allocated to other teams, baseball is a case of haves and have-nots. If you support a team like New York, Boston, Anaheim or another team that has deep pockets from local TV contracts and other revenue sources, your team has a chance. But if you like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay or a similar team, you’re out of luck. There is no way your team will ever compete in an environment where richer teams – almost all in larger cities – have the resources to sign the best players and you don’t. And when you’re watching games that take place in Pittsburgh, Detroit and other cellar dwellers, nobody is at the game. Fans won’t come out to see a bad team, and owners won’t raise their payroll because they’re not getting cash from ticket sales, concession stands and TV ratings. It’s a vicious Catch-22.
MLB has reaped what it has sown. When I was a kid, baseball was the most popular televised sport. Now it is the fourth most popular, behind the NFL, NASCAR and basketball. Yes, people would rather watch cars drive in a circle for three hours than watch baseball. But if you live in Pittsburgh, your team stinks and ALWAYS WILL STINK, unless a rich owner buys the team or MLB changes its payroll disparity. The former will happen long before the latter.
Every year I make baseball picks because I like baseball and it’s fun. To be honest, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Every year, there’s almost no change in the final standings. Last year a book called “Moneyball” came out about the small-market, low payroll Oakland A’s, who always managed to field a competitive team thanks to their great General Manager Billy Beane. While Beane is a smart guy with a good eye for talent, I won’t subscribe to his philosophy until one of those teams wins the World Series. And last year Oakland lost their two star pitchers because they couldn’t afford them, and probably won’t make the playoffs this year because the Anaheim Angels are outspending them on player salaries.
I haven’t even talked about steroids, but baseball will ultimately weather that scandal while a few players go down in flames. The lack of a salary cap and huge financial disparity between teams is a much more serious issue that will only exacerbate in the coming years.
I’ll have my annual baseball predictions tomorrow, but here’s some information to chew on:
Largest Team Payroll: New York Yankees – $204 Million
Smallest Team Payroll: Milwaukee Brewers – $27 million
Why Baseball Teams are Facing a Big League Payroll Debt
Complete 2004 Team Payroll and Player Salaries
When the Patriots won the Super Bowl, I briefly mentioned how financial parity – notably a salary cap on player payrolls and equal TV profit sharing between all 32 teams – has brought joy and hope to NFL fans everywhere. Because of parity, every NFL team has a chance to sign the same players and small market teams like Green Bay are on the same footing as big market teams like New York. Free agent players can sign with the team that offers them the best financial package (if they wish) but careful bookkeeping will assure owners that no player eats too much of the salary cap. With each club having equal share of the pot, every team has a chance of making the playoffs each year, and worst-to-first scenarios happen every year.
Not so in Major League Baseball. While there is a luxury tax in place for teams with sky-high payrolls that are supposed to be allocated to other teams, baseball is a case of haves and have-nots. If you support a team like New York, Boston, Anaheim or another team that has deep pockets from local TV contracts and other revenue sources, your team has a chance. But if you like Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay or a similar team, you’re out of luck. There is no way your team will ever compete in an environment where richer teams – almost all in larger cities – have the resources to sign the best players and you don’t. And when you’re watching games that take place in Pittsburgh, Detroit and other cellar dwellers, nobody is at the game. Fans won’t come out to see a bad team, and owners won’t raise their payroll because they’re not getting cash from ticket sales, concession stands and TV ratings. It’s a vicious Catch-22.
MLB has reaped what it has sown. When I was a kid, baseball was the most popular televised sport. Now it is the fourth most popular, behind the NFL, NASCAR and basketball. Yes, people would rather watch cars drive in a circle for three hours than watch baseball. But if you live in Pittsburgh, your team stinks and ALWAYS WILL STINK, unless a rich owner buys the team or MLB changes its payroll disparity. The former will happen long before the latter.
Every year I make baseball picks because I like baseball and it’s fun. To be honest, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Every year, there’s almost no change in the final standings. Last year a book called “Moneyball” came out about the small-market, low payroll Oakland A’s, who always managed to field a competitive team thanks to their great General Manager Billy Beane. While Beane is a smart guy with a good eye for talent, I won’t subscribe to his philosophy until one of those teams wins the World Series. And last year Oakland lost their two star pitchers because they couldn’t afford them, and probably won’t make the playoffs this year because the Anaheim Angels are outspending them on player salaries.
I haven’t even talked about steroids, but baseball will ultimately weather that scandal while a few players go down in flames. The lack of a salary cap and huge financial disparity between teams is a much more serious issue that will only exacerbate in the coming years.
I’ll have my annual baseball predictions tomorrow, but here’s some information to chew on:
Largest Team Payroll: New York Yankees – $204 Million
Smallest Team Payroll: Milwaukee Brewers – $27 million
Why Baseball Teams are Facing a Big League Payroll Debt
Complete 2004 Team Payroll and Player Salaries
Friday, March 18, 2005
Freedom of Speech - Just Watch What You Say
Another week, another contretemps over freedom of expression. As usual, this First Amendment assault is not limited to the right or left wing. While the courts almost always end up affirming free speech rights, watching both sides of extremists grapple over words they find unacceptable is painful to watch and witness.
Here in Massachusetts, Harvard President Larry Summers is under siege from students, faculty and self-appointed politically correct police because of some disparaging comments he made about women in math and science. In Washington, Republican Senator Ted Stevens made a complete fool of himself when he wanted to extend indecency standards to satellite and cable television. Both of these attacks, and these narrow-minded assaults happen all the time, share a puritan obsession of not only imposing the dissenters’ viewpoints on others, but a thin-skinned intolerance to any differing opinion. I wish I could remember who said this quote that I heard in college and never forgot: “Liberals and conservatives are all for another point of view, until someone comes up with one.”
Harvard first. Harvard has always been portrayed as a left-wing hotbed, although I never think it was more liberal than other university towns (most of Cambridge, Mass., is actually a blue-collar neighborhood). Summers made some well-documented remarks about genetics possibly being a reason why there are few women in research science. Disparaging? Perhaps. Controversial and worth investigating? Maybe. Worthy of widespread protest and a non-binding no confidence vote? No way.
A university, especially one as esteemed as Harvard, should be an exchange of ideas and a place where research and debate are encouraged. If Summers’ theory is wrong (and he prefaced his comments by hoping he was), it can then be logically disproved. But I’m surprised at the knee-jerk hostility and lingering vitriol to Summers’ comments. He was discussing science and genetics, not political or social issues where gender equality is a right in this country. And in this country, President Summers, you and I have the right to hypothesize and pontificate whatever we want without fear of reprisal.
Even if you completely disagree with his comments, there is absolutely no reason to crucify Summers with a no confidence vote. Any faculty member who voted yes is basically saying, “You’re not fit to run this university because we don’t like what you said.” This wasn’t hate speech – it was a theory (arguably based in scientific fact that there are mental differences between men and women). But when you’re dealing with a rabidly partisan liberal body that values emotion over reality and science, you’re not going to get a rational reaction. They are welcome to protest Summers without fear of punishment – just as he should be welcome to present an important subject for debate without fear as well.
As for Senator Stevens, this is another example of an extreme viewpoint – in this case the right-wing – pushing for government censorship against free speech. I’ve ranted below in this column about Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who turned his regulatory agency into a nanny state that is deciding for you what is and is not indecent. Now the Republicans, who are supposed to be for less government interference are asking why cable is unregulated. Stevens, who is from Alaska, must have hit his head on the top of his igloo. Cable is SUPPOSED to be unregulated, you dope. That’s why people pay for it. It’s a voluntary service. Even Powell said the FCC shouldn’t touch cable or satellite radio, but don’t think this is over.
You would think that having been burned by trying to regulate the Internet in the 1990s, Congress would have learned more about the First Amendment, not to mention how not to waste taxpayer dollars in court. But what both the Summers and Stevens episodes illustrate is how overzealous and hyper-emotional partisans on both sides of the political aisle want to slice free speech off at the knees and punish anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their narrow viewpoints. You may not always agree with the ACLU, but at least they don’t discriminate when it comes to upholding your right to speak your mind no matter what you may say. Free speech means free speech for everyone.
Voltaire said, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That’s what Freedom of Speech is all about. And it’s in the First Amendment as a non-partisan issue. Case closed.
Here in Massachusetts, Harvard President Larry Summers is under siege from students, faculty and self-appointed politically correct police because of some disparaging comments he made about women in math and science. In Washington, Republican Senator Ted Stevens made a complete fool of himself when he wanted to extend indecency standards to satellite and cable television. Both of these attacks, and these narrow-minded assaults happen all the time, share a puritan obsession of not only imposing the dissenters’ viewpoints on others, but a thin-skinned intolerance to any differing opinion. I wish I could remember who said this quote that I heard in college and never forgot: “Liberals and conservatives are all for another point of view, until someone comes up with one.”
Harvard first. Harvard has always been portrayed as a left-wing hotbed, although I never think it was more liberal than other university towns (most of Cambridge, Mass., is actually a blue-collar neighborhood). Summers made some well-documented remarks about genetics possibly being a reason why there are few women in research science. Disparaging? Perhaps. Controversial and worth investigating? Maybe. Worthy of widespread protest and a non-binding no confidence vote? No way.
A university, especially one as esteemed as Harvard, should be an exchange of ideas and a place where research and debate are encouraged. If Summers’ theory is wrong (and he prefaced his comments by hoping he was), it can then be logically disproved. But I’m surprised at the knee-jerk hostility and lingering vitriol to Summers’ comments. He was discussing science and genetics, not political or social issues where gender equality is a right in this country. And in this country, President Summers, you and I have the right to hypothesize and pontificate whatever we want without fear of reprisal.
Even if you completely disagree with his comments, there is absolutely no reason to crucify Summers with a no confidence vote. Any faculty member who voted yes is basically saying, “You’re not fit to run this university because we don’t like what you said.” This wasn’t hate speech – it was a theory (arguably based in scientific fact that there are mental differences between men and women). But when you’re dealing with a rabidly partisan liberal body that values emotion over reality and science, you’re not going to get a rational reaction. They are welcome to protest Summers without fear of punishment – just as he should be welcome to present an important subject for debate without fear as well.
As for Senator Stevens, this is another example of an extreme viewpoint – in this case the right-wing – pushing for government censorship against free speech. I’ve ranted below in this column about Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who turned his regulatory agency into a nanny state that is deciding for you what is and is not indecent. Now the Republicans, who are supposed to be for less government interference are asking why cable is unregulated. Stevens, who is from Alaska, must have hit his head on the top of his igloo. Cable is SUPPOSED to be unregulated, you dope. That’s why people pay for it. It’s a voluntary service. Even Powell said the FCC shouldn’t touch cable or satellite radio, but don’t think this is over.
You would think that having been burned by trying to regulate the Internet in the 1990s, Congress would have learned more about the First Amendment, not to mention how not to waste taxpayer dollars in court. But what both the Summers and Stevens episodes illustrate is how overzealous and hyper-emotional partisans on both sides of the political aisle want to slice free speech off at the knees and punish anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their narrow viewpoints. You may not always agree with the ACLU, but at least they don’t discriminate when it comes to upholding your right to speak your mind no matter what you may say. Free speech means free speech for everyone.
Voltaire said, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That’s what Freedom of Speech is all about. And it’s in the First Amendment as a non-partisan issue. Case closed.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Independent Minded vs. The Sheep
I started this blog for a few reasons. One is I have two wonderful young children who have robbed me of any social life, so I’m now online as much as the guys in my company’s web development staff on Friday nights. But the second is that I appear to be a freak of nature. I have the nerve to think Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are both full of shit. Am I all alone here?
I can’t seem to read any other blog or listen to any so-called pundit who is incapable of shilling their respective party line. Is everyone a Democratic or Republican sheep who thinks the other side is the root of all evil? I can’t tell you how many liberals I’ve met who think all the people that live in “red” states are gun-toting, wife-beating, chew-dipping yahoos that haven’t changed since the 50s – the 1850s! And there are plenty of conservatives who think the exact same way.
I have news for all you partisans: START THINKING FOR YOURSELVES. If you’re so impressionable that you parrot everything you just heard in Fahrenheit 9/11 or Fox News, DON’T WATCH IT. And show some respect for anyone who doesn’t tow the party line you’re clinging to, for God’s sake.
Here’s an example of how people latch onto partisan ideas instead of just the ideas. In 1992, a presidential candidate proposed a flat tax idea. I’d just suffered through doing my taxes myself and I thought it was a great idea. What candidate proposed this? None other than Jerry Brown, former California left-wing governor (and budget hawk). When Jerry actually started doing OK in the primaries, Republicans shouted down his flat tax as wacky. Then in 1996, Steve Forbes runs and starts plugging the flat tax. LO AND BEHOLD, the Republicans have changed their tune. And wouldn’t you know it, the Democrats are bitching about the flat tax. Did it occur that having Jerry Brown and Steve Forbes pitch the flat tax together would make truly bipartisan viewing?
In my home state of Massachusetts, it’s been fascinating to watch Governor Mitt Romney walk this tightrope of listening to his constituents and do about-faces when it comes to the national Republican party, where he clearly has higher ambitions. Romney won the election by being a typical moderate Northeast Republican governor – the same type that run or have recently run states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and New Hampshire. They’ve all been socially liberal and accepting while fiscally conservative. But while this adheres to the Northeastern and New England mindset, it’s totally out of whack with the big boys in D.C. Romney has been caught in some “contradictions,” to use a polite word, on stem cell research and other issues, which you can read about when you scroll down to some of my earlier essays.
And guess what? If Romney truly wants to run for national office, this is necessary. It doesn’t matter that he’s a Republican (or that Massachusetts has elected a Republican to the corner office since 1990). In today’s Globe, a conservative group has said Romney will never be endorsed by them because he comes from Massachusetts – a blue state. How myopic.
Anyone else think this is crazy?
I can’t seem to read any other blog or listen to any so-called pundit who is incapable of shilling their respective party line. Is everyone a Democratic or Republican sheep who thinks the other side is the root of all evil? I can’t tell you how many liberals I’ve met who think all the people that live in “red” states are gun-toting, wife-beating, chew-dipping yahoos that haven’t changed since the 50s – the 1850s! And there are plenty of conservatives who think the exact same way.
I have news for all you partisans: START THINKING FOR YOURSELVES. If you’re so impressionable that you parrot everything you just heard in Fahrenheit 9/11 or Fox News, DON’T WATCH IT. And show some respect for anyone who doesn’t tow the party line you’re clinging to, for God’s sake.
Here’s an example of how people latch onto partisan ideas instead of just the ideas. In 1992, a presidential candidate proposed a flat tax idea. I’d just suffered through doing my taxes myself and I thought it was a great idea. What candidate proposed this? None other than Jerry Brown, former California left-wing governor (and budget hawk). When Jerry actually started doing OK in the primaries, Republicans shouted down his flat tax as wacky. Then in 1996, Steve Forbes runs and starts plugging the flat tax. LO AND BEHOLD, the Republicans have changed their tune. And wouldn’t you know it, the Democrats are bitching about the flat tax. Did it occur that having Jerry Brown and Steve Forbes pitch the flat tax together would make truly bipartisan viewing?
In my home state of Massachusetts, it’s been fascinating to watch Governor Mitt Romney walk this tightrope of listening to his constituents and do about-faces when it comes to the national Republican party, where he clearly has higher ambitions. Romney won the election by being a typical moderate Northeast Republican governor – the same type that run or have recently run states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and New Hampshire. They’ve all been socially liberal and accepting while fiscally conservative. But while this adheres to the Northeastern and New England mindset, it’s totally out of whack with the big boys in D.C. Romney has been caught in some “contradictions,” to use a polite word, on stem cell research and other issues, which you can read about when you scroll down to some of my earlier essays.
And guess what? If Romney truly wants to run for national office, this is necessary. It doesn’t matter that he’s a Republican (or that Massachusetts has elected a Republican to the corner office since 1990). In today’s Globe, a conservative group has said Romney will never be endorsed by them because he comes from Massachusetts – a blue state. How myopic.
Anyone else think this is crazy?
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Democracy Rising in the Middle East
It's nice to be correct. Scan down to my January 28 column ("A Great Day for Iraq") and you'll see how I believed that the war in Iraq was correct because a democratic Iraq could be the catalyst for democracy throughout the Middle East. And when Middle Eastern people see they have the power to change their government, they're less likely to get corrupted by radical Islamis and try to change their own system.
The successful Iraqi election has done just that -- a slow but steady toppling of dominoes that has already caused ripples of democracy across the region.
First, the Palestinians democratically elect a leader who is truly committed to the peace process and neutralizing terrorist organizations. Then Egypt allows opposition leaders to run for the first time in modern history. And now, demonstrators have brought down Syria's puppet government in Lebanon after former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated.
A quick aside about Hariri: He was also a former trustee of my alma mater, Boston University. President Hariri was a decent man who started a scholarship fund that helped thousands of Lebanese students receive a BU education, and also helped finance a new business school that BU desperately needed. He understood the importance of attracting business and investment to his country that was necessary in reconstruction. And he also knew Syria was another Baathist dictatorship whose occupation of his country destroyed the infrastructure and economy of his once-vibrant nation.
What's happening here? Arab leaders across the board have seen the writing on the wall. People are not only willing and able to vote, but also rejecting terrorists in their midst by doing so. The Middle East won't fall overnight like Eastern Europe did, but we are starting to see real change here. And, like it or not, it was all made possible by toppling Saddam Hussein.
The successful Iraqi election has done just that -- a slow but steady toppling of dominoes that has already caused ripples of democracy across the region.
First, the Palestinians democratically elect a leader who is truly committed to the peace process and neutralizing terrorist organizations. Then Egypt allows opposition leaders to run for the first time in modern history. And now, demonstrators have brought down Syria's puppet government in Lebanon after former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated.
A quick aside about Hariri: He was also a former trustee of my alma mater, Boston University. President Hariri was a decent man who started a scholarship fund that helped thousands of Lebanese students receive a BU education, and also helped finance a new business school that BU desperately needed. He understood the importance of attracting business and investment to his country that was necessary in reconstruction. And he also knew Syria was another Baathist dictatorship whose occupation of his country destroyed the infrastructure and economy of his once-vibrant nation.
What's happening here? Arab leaders across the board have seen the writing on the wall. People are not only willing and able to vote, but also rejecting terrorists in their midst by doing so. The Middle East won't fall overnight like Eastern Europe did, but we are starting to see real change here. And, like it or not, it was all made possible by toppling Saddam Hussein.
Friday, February 25, 2005
RIP Democratic Party
While I was out of town an interesting thing happened to the Democratic Party. It committed suicide.
The trigger was pulled when Howard Dean became party chairman. Rumors of Hunter Thompson killing himself when he heard this horrible news could not be confirmed.
It’s hard to believe that just over a decade ago, the Democrats owned the White House and both branches of Congress. The party’s declining relevance and deterioration has been painful to witness, especially when compared to how the Republicans have transformed the federal government into a one-party state. I’m not a Republican, but have marveled at how well organized and focused they have been in establishing a grass roots organization, creating a clearly defined message, locking onto the key concerns of their constituents and presenting charismatic candidates who bring out the votes.
Of course, none of this would be possible without an escalating series of severe Democratic blunders. How ironic that the party which began grass roots politics with the unions and farmers in the 1950s completely overlooked the growing concern with values in America’s heartland and South. Now “values” is an enigmatic buzzword that will be a subject of a future brain dump from yours truly – who here is against values? – but the Democrats still missed the boat. When it came to identifying what concerned voters and signing up candidates who address these issues, the Republicans won in a landslide.
Speaking of candidates, John Kerry – with all due respect – was terrible. As a longtime Massachusetts resident I liked Kerry as a Senator, but he clearly did not have what Tom Wolfe called “the right stuff” to be a presidential candidate. On the national stage he was stiff, wishy washy and just not endearing. Kerry was clearly smarter and better prepared than Bush, and he won all the debates. But there is a likeability factor that pundits overlook, and Kerry was just not a likeable guy to your average Kansan or Cajun. Everyone I know who voted for Kerry did so not because they liked him, but because they didn’t approve of Bush. That’s not going to win the Democrats any swing voters. Kerry’s personal mannerisms and immense wealth let Karl Rove successfully paint him as an elitist, out-of-touch liberal.
This elitism showcases another Democratic gaffe – their leaders, candidates and attitudes still resemble the 1980s or early 1990s when upscale urban and suburban votes were critical. Well, the Upper West Side, Cambridge and Berkeley are now safely Democratic. What the Democrats haven’t noticed is that the rest of the country has deserted them because of this focus. Who are the Democratic leaders? John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi. Are they reaching out to blue collar Midwesterners or suburban Colorado voters? Are they connecting with these Americans on values or terrorism, the two issues that still define the political landscape?
And into this quagmire steps Howard Dean, another polarizing figure who won one state in the primaries (his home state of Vermont) and whose Godzilla impression forever tarred him as loopy. Republicans are either tapping kegs in celebration or scratching their heads in disbelief over Dean’s victory. Honestly, I think the reason is less Dean’s personal platform and more of his fundraising skills. Dean did grow a small but vocal grassroots organization that raised an impressive amount of money. But fundraising isn’t the Democrats’ problem. The problem is they are not addressing the issues that are important to Southern, Midwestern and Heartland voters and they cannot produce a charismatic, non-polarizing candidate who can espouse them. Dean is part of this problem, not the solution.
While the Republicans have a slew of candidates waiting in the wings for 2008 – McCain, Guiliani, Jeb Bush and others – the Democrats can only muster Hilary Clinton, another polarizing elitist who will continue to sink the Democratic boat. Dr. Dean certainly has his work cut out for him, but I have a simple suggestion to help change attitudes toward Democrats in some red states.
Be nice.
By being nice, try to avoid blasting the President at every opportunity and try to find some new issues of your own to develop. Right now, no voter can define what your party stands for. Whether it’s values, Social Security or health care, find something where you can put a stake in the ground.
Be nice by soul searching. Don’t dismiss all the red state voters as uneducated, intolerant and uninformed rednecks. Frankly, that’s part of your problem. Your national platform is so poor that local elections aren’t going your way either. Tom Daschle’s defeat is a perfect example.
Be nice by asking voters why they seemed to vote against their better judgment, not by telling them how morally superior you are because you disagree with them. Plenty of unemployed, in-debt families in Ohio voted for a party that gives huge tax breaks to billionaires because they didn’t think you connected with them. Find out why, politely.
Be nice by finding candidates who don’t lecture or talk down to voters, even if that’s not their intent. Bush is almost as rich as Kerry, yet he comes across as an average guy that average Americans can relate to. That’s not unfair, that’s just the way it is.
Be nice by bringing the party more in step with average America, instead of allying yourself with celebrities. The president was absolutely right when he said Hollywood is not the heart and soul of America. Everyone likes to be entertained, but in reality values does not equal entertainment.
Being nice is a start. If you don’t believe me, go visit the Upper West Side and Berkeley, and then visit anywhere in the Midwest or South. I guarantee you the people are nicer.
The trigger was pulled when Howard Dean became party chairman. Rumors of Hunter Thompson killing himself when he heard this horrible news could not be confirmed.
It’s hard to believe that just over a decade ago, the Democrats owned the White House and both branches of Congress. The party’s declining relevance and deterioration has been painful to witness, especially when compared to how the Republicans have transformed the federal government into a one-party state. I’m not a Republican, but have marveled at how well organized and focused they have been in establishing a grass roots organization, creating a clearly defined message, locking onto the key concerns of their constituents and presenting charismatic candidates who bring out the votes.
Of course, none of this would be possible without an escalating series of severe Democratic blunders. How ironic that the party which began grass roots politics with the unions and farmers in the 1950s completely overlooked the growing concern with values in America’s heartland and South. Now “values” is an enigmatic buzzword that will be a subject of a future brain dump from yours truly – who here is against values? – but the Democrats still missed the boat. When it came to identifying what concerned voters and signing up candidates who address these issues, the Republicans won in a landslide.
Speaking of candidates, John Kerry – with all due respect – was terrible. As a longtime Massachusetts resident I liked Kerry as a Senator, but he clearly did not have what Tom Wolfe called “the right stuff” to be a presidential candidate. On the national stage he was stiff, wishy washy and just not endearing. Kerry was clearly smarter and better prepared than Bush, and he won all the debates. But there is a likeability factor that pundits overlook, and Kerry was just not a likeable guy to your average Kansan or Cajun. Everyone I know who voted for Kerry did so not because they liked him, but because they didn’t approve of Bush. That’s not going to win the Democrats any swing voters. Kerry’s personal mannerisms and immense wealth let Karl Rove successfully paint him as an elitist, out-of-touch liberal.
This elitism showcases another Democratic gaffe – their leaders, candidates and attitudes still resemble the 1980s or early 1990s when upscale urban and suburban votes were critical. Well, the Upper West Side, Cambridge and Berkeley are now safely Democratic. What the Democrats haven’t noticed is that the rest of the country has deserted them because of this focus. Who are the Democratic leaders? John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi. Are they reaching out to blue collar Midwesterners or suburban Colorado voters? Are they connecting with these Americans on values or terrorism, the two issues that still define the political landscape?
And into this quagmire steps Howard Dean, another polarizing figure who won one state in the primaries (his home state of Vermont) and whose Godzilla impression forever tarred him as loopy. Republicans are either tapping kegs in celebration or scratching their heads in disbelief over Dean’s victory. Honestly, I think the reason is less Dean’s personal platform and more of his fundraising skills. Dean did grow a small but vocal grassroots organization that raised an impressive amount of money. But fundraising isn’t the Democrats’ problem. The problem is they are not addressing the issues that are important to Southern, Midwestern and Heartland voters and they cannot produce a charismatic, non-polarizing candidate who can espouse them. Dean is part of this problem, not the solution.
While the Republicans have a slew of candidates waiting in the wings for 2008 – McCain, Guiliani, Jeb Bush and others – the Democrats can only muster Hilary Clinton, another polarizing elitist who will continue to sink the Democratic boat. Dr. Dean certainly has his work cut out for him, but I have a simple suggestion to help change attitudes toward Democrats in some red states.
Be nice.
By being nice, try to avoid blasting the President at every opportunity and try to find some new issues of your own to develop. Right now, no voter can define what your party stands for. Whether it’s values, Social Security or health care, find something where you can put a stake in the ground.
Be nice by soul searching. Don’t dismiss all the red state voters as uneducated, intolerant and uninformed rednecks. Frankly, that’s part of your problem. Your national platform is so poor that local elections aren’t going your way either. Tom Daschle’s defeat is a perfect example.
Be nice by asking voters why they seemed to vote against their better judgment, not by telling them how morally superior you are because you disagree with them. Plenty of unemployed, in-debt families in Ohio voted for a party that gives huge tax breaks to billionaires because they didn’t think you connected with them. Find out why, politely.
Be nice by finding candidates who don’t lecture or talk down to voters, even if that’s not their intent. Bush is almost as rich as Kerry, yet he comes across as an average guy that average Americans can relate to. That’s not unfair, that’s just the way it is.
Be nice by bringing the party more in step with average America, instead of allying yourself with celebrities. The president was absolutely right when he said Hollywood is not the heart and soul of America. Everyone likes to be entertained, but in reality values does not equal entertainment.
Being nice is a start. If you don’t believe me, go visit the Upper West Side and Berkeley, and then visit anywhere in the Midwest or South. I guarantee you the people are nicer.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Romney's Stem Cell Runaround
Here I am in my home state of Massachusetts, explaining on occasion to out-of-blue-state friends that Governor Mitt Romney gets a bad rap. He ended the archaic blue laws here which forbade liquor sales on Sunday (yes, that was in Massachusetts), refused to eat cheesesteaks from Pennsylvania in a Super Bowl bet for health reasons and has actually held federal employees to account for their job performance, having the nerve -- nerve I say! -- to fire more than one supervisor who screwed up the Big Dig.
It seemed that Romney fit the Northeast Republican model to a T -- a social moderate who refused to let religion turn him into a Puritan. He fit the mold set by George Pataki, Rudolph Guiliani, John Rowland, Christie Todd Whitman and others who were palatable to educated urban young adults and older suburban Republicans. These governors and mayors certainly had their faults, but by and large wouldn't let their personal religious beliefs dictate how they should enforce the Constitution and protect individual liberties.
But yesterday, Romney did a flip-flop John Kerry would envy. He announced he now wants to ban a specific type (not all) of stem cell research on the grounds it is unethical and destroys human life. Further Kerry-fying the issue, he added he supports all other kinds of stem cell research.
The whole contretemps is actually quite confusing. Since running for office in 2002, Romney has pushed hard to make Massachusetts a biotech nirvana. Just last month he was on record saying he would help the State Legislature pass laws to promote research, just like California is doing. There is speculation that Romney has national ambitions and this is a lame attempt to curry favor in the far-more conservative national Republican party, which is against almost all stem cell research. The very fact that Romney announced this in The New York Times instead of The Boston Globe or Boston Herald favors this. In the color-blind partisan Washington world, the word "republican" and "Massachusetts" don't mix, despite the fact that Republicans have held the corner office here for 15 years.
Romney hasn't backtracked yet but said embryos for stem cell research created by cloning cross an ethical line. To watch Romney's stem cell ideas evolve see this site.
Like abortion, stem cell research has very serious moral and ethical issues. Nobody should arrive at a decision on either subject without careful considering the consequences. As you can guess, I'm a fan of individual freedom and choice and even if stem cell research only achieves half of its potential, we would be foolhardy not to exploit its benefits. And speaking for Massachusetts -- a state still recovering from the technology depression and with world-class biotechnology colleges and businesses -- investing in stem cell research should be a no-brainer. You are destroying a living embryo; once those two little cells meet, you've got life. But if what we learn from the research helps prolong life in sick people and finds a cure for a single disease, those embryos have not been destroyed in vain.
Governor Romney is a smart guy who, maybe to suck up to the partisan national GOP, had to backtrack on his official policy. Or maybe he had given real thought to the issue and reconsidered his position, and offered a half-assed compromise to try and please everyone. Either way, he comes across as either pandering to the right or backstabbing the biotech community he worked so hard to court. If he gets his way, the new sucking sound in Massachusetts will be the biotech community fleeing to California, Europe or wherever scientific and economic progress and dollars won't be hindered by a leader's personal beliefs.
It seemed that Romney fit the Northeast Republican model to a T -- a social moderate who refused to let religion turn him into a Puritan. He fit the mold set by George Pataki, Rudolph Guiliani, John Rowland, Christie Todd Whitman and others who were palatable to educated urban young adults and older suburban Republicans. These governors and mayors certainly had their faults, but by and large wouldn't let their personal religious beliefs dictate how they should enforce the Constitution and protect individual liberties.
But yesterday, Romney did a flip-flop John Kerry would envy. He announced he now wants to ban a specific type (not all) of stem cell research on the grounds it is unethical and destroys human life. Further Kerry-fying the issue, he added he supports all other kinds of stem cell research.
The whole contretemps is actually quite confusing. Since running for office in 2002, Romney has pushed hard to make Massachusetts a biotech nirvana. Just last month he was on record saying he would help the State Legislature pass laws to promote research, just like California is doing. There is speculation that Romney has national ambitions and this is a lame attempt to curry favor in the far-more conservative national Republican party, which is against almost all stem cell research. The very fact that Romney announced this in The New York Times instead of The Boston Globe or Boston Herald favors this. In the color-blind partisan Washington world, the word "republican" and "Massachusetts" don't mix, despite the fact that Republicans have held the corner office here for 15 years.
Romney hasn't backtracked yet but said embryos for stem cell research created by cloning cross an ethical line. To watch Romney's stem cell ideas evolve see this site.
Like abortion, stem cell research has very serious moral and ethical issues. Nobody should arrive at a decision on either subject without careful considering the consequences. As you can guess, I'm a fan of individual freedom and choice and even if stem cell research only achieves half of its potential, we would be foolhardy not to exploit its benefits. And speaking for Massachusetts -- a state still recovering from the technology depression and with world-class biotechnology colleges and businesses -- investing in stem cell research should be a no-brainer. You are destroying a living embryo; once those two little cells meet, you've got life. But if what we learn from the research helps prolong life in sick people and finds a cure for a single disease, those embryos have not been destroyed in vain.
Governor Romney is a smart guy who, maybe to suck up to the partisan national GOP, had to backtrack on his official policy. Or maybe he had given real thought to the issue and reconsidered his position, and offered a half-assed compromise to try and please everyone. Either way, he comes across as either pandering to the right or backstabbing the biotech community he worked so hard to court. If he gets his way, the new sucking sound in Massachusetts will be the biotech community fleeing to California, Europe or wherever scientific and economic progress and dollars won't be hindered by a leader's personal beliefs.
Virginia's Unbelievably Important Underpants Law
I was going to do a whole goof on the Virginia state congressman who wanted to fine people who wear low-riding pants that expose their boxers, but a state committee killed the bill after everyone realized the guy who proposed the law was a nitwit.
Now the lawmaker who proposed this, Algie T. Howell, can turn to less important matters like crime, taxes and jobs.
I'm always repelled and fascinated by legislators who have never read the Constitution and have nothing better to do than to dictate what their constituents should wear, what TV and radio they should watch and what music is good for them. At least stupidity is non-partisan -- Mr. Howell is a black Democrat.
Note to Mr. Howell: If seeing underpants offends you, I would avoid going to Virginia Beach.
The planet eagerly anticipates his next bill banning fat people from spandex.
Now the lawmaker who proposed this, Algie T. Howell, can turn to less important matters like crime, taxes and jobs.
I'm always repelled and fascinated by legislators who have never read the Constitution and have nothing better to do than to dictate what their constituents should wear, what TV and radio they should watch and what music is good for them. At least stupidity is non-partisan -- Mr. Howell is a black Democrat.
Note to Mr. Howell: If seeing underpants offends you, I would avoid going to Virginia Beach.
The planet eagerly anticipates his next bill banning fat people from spandex.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Moving to Canada? Be Careful What You Wish For
I read The New York Times every day but that doesn’t make me a left-winger, and the bulk of this blog is dedicated to skewering die-hard partisans on both sides of the political aisle. But it was tough not to laugh at the people who are emigrating to Canada because they claim President Bush is destroying this country and making it impossible for them to stay here.
Before the election was decided, Hollywood types from George Clooney and Barbara Streisand to Cher and Rob Reiner declared that if Bush were re-elected, they were all moving to Canada. Of course, these phonies have reconsidered their decision and we can now only dream of a country without George Clooney. We’re so fortunate to still have millionaire celebrities like Cher who can share her well-thought-out political views with us.
I’ve got news for anyone seriously considering a move to Canada: Canadians are still lining up by the thousands to emigrate here. While Alec Baldwin decided not to deprive us of his company, Jim Carrey, Paul Shaffer, Peter Jennings, Mike Myers, Celine Dion and a slew of others figured out that America might be a slightly better place to succeed no matter who is in the White House.
Alec may also have flinched at that tax bracket he would have entered. An average person not even close to his income loses at least 50% of their income to Canadian taxes each year. And that’s Canadian dollars.
You hear a lot about cheap Canadian drugs. What you don’t hear about the Canadian health care system is how recipients of the free, publicly funded system can wait weeks or months for consultations when they have chest pains or other “minor” problems. Many of these Canadians have found a way around this – they come to America for prompt treatment.
Here’s a personal story. Last year my doctor ordered me to the hospital for an emergency appendectomy. When I met the surgeon I asked if they could give me drugs instead of surgery at 3 a.m. He rolled his eyes and said, “Well Dave, if we were in Canada and my job was to keep medical costs down I would give you drugs. And they might even work for a few days or weeks. But you know what? Appendixes are funny things and when they swell as big as yours is right now, they tend to cause trouble. And my job as a U.S.-based doctor is to get you better.” Thank you, Dr. Republican (and my HMO that picked up the tab).
Back to the potential Canadian émigrés. The main reason they’re moving is because they don’t like what George Bush says. Wait until they see the free speech laws in Canada – better yet, the complete lack of a Canadian First Amendment. Howard Stern was on in Canada a few years ago, but three people wrote the government to say they were offended so he was taken off the air. Here’s a Canadian definition of defamation of character, courtesy of the Media Libel web site: “A defamatory statement exists if the publication tends to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the estimation of those who are commonly referred to as ‘right thinking’ members of society.” You can say whatever you want about me or the president on this side of the border, but we can’t sue you or throw you in jail if we don’t like it.
Are you a sports fan? Then forget about following baseball unless you love the Blue Jays. Montreal was so uninterested in and unsupportive of the Expos that they fled to Washington. The Vancouver Grizzlies of the NBA also fled south due to complete disinterest from Canada and after every player demanded a trade when they saw how much tax was taken out of their paycheck. But don’t worry, there’s plenty of hockey! Oh, wait a second….
Now Canada does have its merits. If you’re in love with frigid temperatures and find Minneapolis too balmy, Canada’s Arctic blasts and eight-month winters are right up your ally. Most of the Canadian beer I’ve had is pretty good, although you can get Moosehead and Molson right here in the U.S. Caribou lovers will be in heaven. And most Canadians I’ve met have been extremely friendly people. All of them moved from Canada to the U.S., but we’ve already covered that.
All kidding aside, it does bother me when people want to leave this country because they equate Republicans with fascists and call George Bush a Nazi. The Nazis murdered many of my relatives who I never got to meet and I have talked with dozens of Holocaust survivors about their experiences over the years. I urge anyone who thinks this country is moving too far to the right to meet with these people, or any recent immigrants from places like Iraq, Cuba or even someone who lived in Eastern Europe before 1989. They will learn what it’s like to really live under fascism, and will appreciate the freedoms they may be taking for granted.
But don’t leave the country just because you don’t like the President. It’s not quite the same as leaving your job if you don’t like your boss. And did I mention all the people that speak French up there…
(Thanks to Alex Beam, who gave me the idea and some info for this rant.)
Before the election was decided, Hollywood types from George Clooney and Barbara Streisand to Cher and Rob Reiner declared that if Bush were re-elected, they were all moving to Canada. Of course, these phonies have reconsidered their decision and we can now only dream of a country without George Clooney. We’re so fortunate to still have millionaire celebrities like Cher who can share her well-thought-out political views with us.
I’ve got news for anyone seriously considering a move to Canada: Canadians are still lining up by the thousands to emigrate here. While Alec Baldwin decided not to deprive us of his company, Jim Carrey, Paul Shaffer, Peter Jennings, Mike Myers, Celine Dion and a slew of others figured out that America might be a slightly better place to succeed no matter who is in the White House.
Alec may also have flinched at that tax bracket he would have entered. An average person not even close to his income loses at least 50% of their income to Canadian taxes each year. And that’s Canadian dollars.
You hear a lot about cheap Canadian drugs. What you don’t hear about the Canadian health care system is how recipients of the free, publicly funded system can wait weeks or months for consultations when they have chest pains or other “minor” problems. Many of these Canadians have found a way around this – they come to America for prompt treatment.
Here’s a personal story. Last year my doctor ordered me to the hospital for an emergency appendectomy. When I met the surgeon I asked if they could give me drugs instead of surgery at 3 a.m. He rolled his eyes and said, “Well Dave, if we were in Canada and my job was to keep medical costs down I would give you drugs. And they might even work for a few days or weeks. But you know what? Appendixes are funny things and when they swell as big as yours is right now, they tend to cause trouble. And my job as a U.S.-based doctor is to get you better.” Thank you, Dr. Republican (and my HMO that picked up the tab).
Back to the potential Canadian émigrés. The main reason they’re moving is because they don’t like what George Bush says. Wait until they see the free speech laws in Canada – better yet, the complete lack of a Canadian First Amendment. Howard Stern was on in Canada a few years ago, but three people wrote the government to say they were offended so he was taken off the air. Here’s a Canadian definition of defamation of character, courtesy of the Media Libel web site: “A defamatory statement exists if the publication tends to lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the estimation of those who are commonly referred to as ‘right thinking’ members of society.” You can say whatever you want about me or the president on this side of the border, but we can’t sue you or throw you in jail if we don’t like it.
Are you a sports fan? Then forget about following baseball unless you love the Blue Jays. Montreal was so uninterested in and unsupportive of the Expos that they fled to Washington. The Vancouver Grizzlies of the NBA also fled south due to complete disinterest from Canada and after every player demanded a trade when they saw how much tax was taken out of their paycheck. But don’t worry, there’s plenty of hockey! Oh, wait a second….
Now Canada does have its merits. If you’re in love with frigid temperatures and find Minneapolis too balmy, Canada’s Arctic blasts and eight-month winters are right up your ally. Most of the Canadian beer I’ve had is pretty good, although you can get Moosehead and Molson right here in the U.S. Caribou lovers will be in heaven. And most Canadians I’ve met have been extremely friendly people. All of them moved from Canada to the U.S., but we’ve already covered that.
All kidding aside, it does bother me when people want to leave this country because they equate Republicans with fascists and call George Bush a Nazi. The Nazis murdered many of my relatives who I never got to meet and I have talked with dozens of Holocaust survivors about their experiences over the years. I urge anyone who thinks this country is moving too far to the right to meet with these people, or any recent immigrants from places like Iraq, Cuba or even someone who lived in Eastern Europe before 1989. They will learn what it’s like to really live under fascism, and will appreciate the freedoms they may be taking for granted.
But don’t leave the country just because you don’t like the President. It’s not quite the same as leaving your job if you don’t like your boss. And did I mention all the people that speak French up there…
(Thanks to Alex Beam, who gave me the idea and some info for this rant.)
Monday, February 07, 2005
Praising the Patriots
Bill Belichick, the head coach of the New England Patriots, constantly reads Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. The book (a quick- and must-read, if you haven’t read it) focuses on how 90% of the battle is won before you step on the battlefield, the importance of discipline and having your soldiers behind you and how deception is key in achieving victory.
Nowhere in the book does it dwell on superstar soldiers or making special concessions to high-salaried lieutenants with different rules. There is nothing to deal with petulance or mid-level captains who feel they are disrespected and deserve more. There is no quarter given for showboating or trash-talking (at least off the field).
As the Patriots celebrate their third championship in four years, there is no team that is more deserving of the “champion” moniker. Anyone who follows football can document the team’s achievements. But what makes the Patriots the very best champions in any sport is commendable to anyone seeking to develop a champion-caliber team of any sort.
There is a cliché so overworked it has almost lost its effectiveness: There’s no I in team. Tell that to the Philadelphia Eagles, whose talented receiver Terrell Owens spent every day making sure everyone knew the game was all about him. Tell that to Pedro Martinez, another gifted athlete who left the Red Sox because they didn’t give him the “respect” he deserved in his new contract. (Memo to Pedro: Respect is a two-way street.) There are an ugly rash of athletes whose scorn for teamwork and hubris are only eclipsed by the attention the media pays to them, giving them a soapbox they have neither earned nor deserved.
In contrast, look at the Patriots. Apart from Tom Brady, Adam Vinatieri and maybe Tedy Bruschi, can you name any of them? From Belichick on down, there is a startling lack of superstars, and nobody has a me-first or money-first attitude among them. Players sign for less money for an opportunity to play with General Belichick and what Sun Tzu has taught him, along with reams of game film and decades of football experience. Nobody complains if they don’t start, have high stats, have to play special teams or need to learn a new position.
The players, rookies and veterans alike, know that when you sign with the Patriots you’re joining a team where selfishness and ego are banned. Belichick’s word and edicts are the law and not meant to be bent or tested. Belichick’s staff even does homework on prospects’ character to see if they’ll accept this environment. Randy Moss may be a great player, but do you think he’d work out on this team? Or that his demands and behavior would be tolerated here? No way, and that makes the team better.
In the first Super Bowl against the highly favored St. Louis Rams, the Rams were introduced first before the game started. One by one they were introduced and ran out to the field. When it was the Patriots’ turn, they all ran out together because they wanted to be introduced as a team. Rams LB Don Davis saw that and knew there was going to be trouble. Today, Davis plays for the Patriots and is a rabid adherent to Belichick’s team-first philosophy, which he had previously disdained.
The closest thing to a team superstar is QB Tom Brady. When you consider what Brady has accomplished, you could still accept his achievements if he was a showboating, arrogant asshole who had the richest contract in the league, the most endorsements and the hottest girlfriend. But guess what? Brady doesn’t showboat and he’s not an asshole. In fact, he’s remarkably down to earth and doesn’t have the contract that Peyton Manning has (although it’s not shabby). The few endorsements he’s done include some of his teammates because that’s one of his “demands” when doing endorsements. He doesn’t have Manning’s stats or notoriety, but he does have a few things Manning doesn’t – three Super Bowl rings. All the guy does is study hard, win football games, and makes sure he thanks his teammates in public for their help. And if the top player on the team follows this path, that’s why the third receiver isn’t going to complain if he doesn’t get the ball thrown his way every time. OK, Brady has the hot girlfriend too, but he deserves her.
Of course, none of this would matter if the Patriots didn’t win. But they do win. All the Sun Tzu talk and team-first attitude wouldn’t work if Belichick wasn’t a football mastermind. But he is, and his accomplishments and learning from his mistakes have been well-documented. The NFL is also the toughest league to repeat as a champion because of the salary cap, free agency and other financial factors that make it very difficult to keep a team together. But it also keeps every team even and has saved the NFL from the financial disasters that plague Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League. Sports are the one industry where capitalism is not the best solution.
In a world where many athletes are better known for their salary, rap sheet or big mouth than their accomplishments, the Patriots are the best example of leadership, sacrifice and championship any city could have. Charles Barkley was wrong about one thing – athletes are role models, and a team like the Patriots are the best you could ask for.
Nowhere in the book does it dwell on superstar soldiers or making special concessions to high-salaried lieutenants with different rules. There is nothing to deal with petulance or mid-level captains who feel they are disrespected and deserve more. There is no quarter given for showboating or trash-talking (at least off the field).
As the Patriots celebrate their third championship in four years, there is no team that is more deserving of the “champion” moniker. Anyone who follows football can document the team’s achievements. But what makes the Patriots the very best champions in any sport is commendable to anyone seeking to develop a champion-caliber team of any sort.
There is a cliché so overworked it has almost lost its effectiveness: There’s no I in team. Tell that to the Philadelphia Eagles, whose talented receiver Terrell Owens spent every day making sure everyone knew the game was all about him. Tell that to Pedro Martinez, another gifted athlete who left the Red Sox because they didn’t give him the “respect” he deserved in his new contract. (Memo to Pedro: Respect is a two-way street.) There are an ugly rash of athletes whose scorn for teamwork and hubris are only eclipsed by the attention the media pays to them, giving them a soapbox they have neither earned nor deserved.
In contrast, look at the Patriots. Apart from Tom Brady, Adam Vinatieri and maybe Tedy Bruschi, can you name any of them? From Belichick on down, there is a startling lack of superstars, and nobody has a me-first or money-first attitude among them. Players sign for less money for an opportunity to play with General Belichick and what Sun Tzu has taught him, along with reams of game film and decades of football experience. Nobody complains if they don’t start, have high stats, have to play special teams or need to learn a new position.
The players, rookies and veterans alike, know that when you sign with the Patriots you’re joining a team where selfishness and ego are banned. Belichick’s word and edicts are the law and not meant to be bent or tested. Belichick’s staff even does homework on prospects’ character to see if they’ll accept this environment. Randy Moss may be a great player, but do you think he’d work out on this team? Or that his demands and behavior would be tolerated here? No way, and that makes the team better.
In the first Super Bowl against the highly favored St. Louis Rams, the Rams were introduced first before the game started. One by one they were introduced and ran out to the field. When it was the Patriots’ turn, they all ran out together because they wanted to be introduced as a team. Rams LB Don Davis saw that and knew there was going to be trouble. Today, Davis plays for the Patriots and is a rabid adherent to Belichick’s team-first philosophy, which he had previously disdained.
The closest thing to a team superstar is QB Tom Brady. When you consider what Brady has accomplished, you could still accept his achievements if he was a showboating, arrogant asshole who had the richest contract in the league, the most endorsements and the hottest girlfriend. But guess what? Brady doesn’t showboat and he’s not an asshole. In fact, he’s remarkably down to earth and doesn’t have the contract that Peyton Manning has (although it’s not shabby). The few endorsements he’s done include some of his teammates because that’s one of his “demands” when doing endorsements. He doesn’t have Manning’s stats or notoriety, but he does have a few things Manning doesn’t – three Super Bowl rings. All the guy does is study hard, win football games, and makes sure he thanks his teammates in public for their help. And if the top player on the team follows this path, that’s why the third receiver isn’t going to complain if he doesn’t get the ball thrown his way every time. OK, Brady has the hot girlfriend too, but he deserves her.
Of course, none of this would matter if the Patriots didn’t win. But they do win. All the Sun Tzu talk and team-first attitude wouldn’t work if Belichick wasn’t a football mastermind. But he is, and his accomplishments and learning from his mistakes have been well-documented. The NFL is also the toughest league to repeat as a champion because of the salary cap, free agency and other financial factors that make it very difficult to keep a team together. But it also keeps every team even and has saved the NFL from the financial disasters that plague Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League. Sports are the one industry where capitalism is not the best solution.
In a world where many athletes are better known for their salary, rap sheet or big mouth than their accomplishments, the Patriots are the best example of leadership, sacrifice and championship any city could have. Charles Barkley was wrong about one thing – athletes are role models, and a team like the Patriots are the best you could ask for.
Friday, January 28, 2005
A Great Day for Iraq
Only a die-hard Bush hater could not call this weekend's elections in Iraq a victory for democracy and the Iraqi people. Expatriates were voting this weekend around the world with tears in their eyes, saying they now know what freedom really means.
I strongly supported invading Iraq, but not for the reasons you may think. Islamic fundamentalism is the evil of our age as communism was to our parents and the Third Reich was to our grandparents. There are many causes of militant Islam, all of which I won't get into here, but the core is virtually every Middle Eastern country except Israel is run by an autocracy or theocracy. The world's Muslims, except for those who live in countries like the U.S., do not have democratic governments or a democratic press. Living conditions are execrable -- education is non-existent and community leaders, often paid by their governments, routinely blame society's ills on America or Zionist causes. Women are often treated worse than animals.
Iraq was clearly one of those countries, and it was run by a madman who had gassed thousands of his own people, started wars with two of his neighbors and tortured and murdered many, many more. In fact, Saddam Hussein probably killed more Muslims than anyone else in recent history. I understand when people said they were against invading Iraq, but I always ask them: So you'd rather have Saddam Hussein back in power?
No, I supported the Iraq war because I believe that, if done right, we could set up a democratic government in the heart of the Arab world. And once that government gains a foothold, the ripple effect would be tremendous. Middle Easterners would stop worrying about ways to destroy America and Israel and start thinking about ways to make their countries better. They would start demanding the same rights that Iraqis have. With the freedom democracy brings, a mullah's call for holy war and suicidal/homicidal jihad would have far less appeal to a drifting young Muslim male than the opportunity to change his country for the better, or even the desire to make a lot of money for himself.
It has pained me to see how badly the Bush Administration has bungled Iraq since winning the war. The criticisms -- from not enough boots on the ground to restoring basic necessities like electricity to underestimating terrorist resistance to the occupation -- are all valid and on-point. Thousands of our troops and Iraqis have died, almost all at the hands of terrorists who have no doubt been egged on by the mullahs and leaders I have just discussed.
But in the midst of the chaos there is real hope in the form of these elections. This is the seed that can do so much to help end the scourge of home-grown terrorism in the Middle East. Ironically, even the terrorists in Iraq know how much is at stake here. This is the "Freedom" part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Voting in Iraq will surely not be easy, but I anticipate that turnout will be better than we all think.
Several people have drawn a parallel between Iraq and El Salvador. El Salvador was in the middle of a civil war in the early 1980s and rebels were routinely blowing up utilities and murdering civilians. As the first election day (helped, in part, by the U.S.) approached, the rebels threatened death to anyone who voted. But turnout on election day was over 80% despite random attacks on polling places. Turnout at the next election was even higher as the people understood that the rebels were not promoting any method other than violence, and today the rebels have vanished and El Salvador is a fully democratic country.
Even if there is a good turnout, will Iraq change overnight? Of course not. It takes a while for the roots of democracy to grow. But this will begin the first steps to an Iraqi representative government and constitution, and spur the rest of the Middle East to start demanding the same rights from their leaders who were never elected.
I strongly supported invading Iraq, but not for the reasons you may think. Islamic fundamentalism is the evil of our age as communism was to our parents and the Third Reich was to our grandparents. There are many causes of militant Islam, all of which I won't get into here, but the core is virtually every Middle Eastern country except Israel is run by an autocracy or theocracy. The world's Muslims, except for those who live in countries like the U.S., do not have democratic governments or a democratic press. Living conditions are execrable -- education is non-existent and community leaders, often paid by their governments, routinely blame society's ills on America or Zionist causes. Women are often treated worse than animals.
Iraq was clearly one of those countries, and it was run by a madman who had gassed thousands of his own people, started wars with two of his neighbors and tortured and murdered many, many more. In fact, Saddam Hussein probably killed more Muslims than anyone else in recent history. I understand when people said they were against invading Iraq, but I always ask them: So you'd rather have Saddam Hussein back in power?
No, I supported the Iraq war because I believe that, if done right, we could set up a democratic government in the heart of the Arab world. And once that government gains a foothold, the ripple effect would be tremendous. Middle Easterners would stop worrying about ways to destroy America and Israel and start thinking about ways to make their countries better. They would start demanding the same rights that Iraqis have. With the freedom democracy brings, a mullah's call for holy war and suicidal/homicidal jihad would have far less appeal to a drifting young Muslim male than the opportunity to change his country for the better, or even the desire to make a lot of money for himself.
It has pained me to see how badly the Bush Administration has bungled Iraq since winning the war. The criticisms -- from not enough boots on the ground to restoring basic necessities like electricity to underestimating terrorist resistance to the occupation -- are all valid and on-point. Thousands of our troops and Iraqis have died, almost all at the hands of terrorists who have no doubt been egged on by the mullahs and leaders I have just discussed.
But in the midst of the chaos there is real hope in the form of these elections. This is the seed that can do so much to help end the scourge of home-grown terrorism in the Middle East. Ironically, even the terrorists in Iraq know how much is at stake here. This is the "Freedom" part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Voting in Iraq will surely not be easy, but I anticipate that turnout will be better than we all think.
Several people have drawn a parallel between Iraq and El Salvador. El Salvador was in the middle of a civil war in the early 1980s and rebels were routinely blowing up utilities and murdering civilians. As the first election day (helped, in part, by the U.S.) approached, the rebels threatened death to anyone who voted. But turnout on election day was over 80% despite random attacks on polling places. Turnout at the next election was even higher as the people understood that the rebels were not promoting any method other than violence, and today the rebels have vanished and El Salvador is a fully democratic country.
Even if there is a good turnout, will Iraq change overnight? Of course not. It takes a while for the roots of democracy to grow. But this will begin the first steps to an Iraqi representative government and constitution, and spur the rest of the Middle East to start demanding the same rights from their leaders who were never elected.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Ding Dong - Mike Powell is Gone!
My grandmother, a classy British lady still spry at 86, has a saying that goes, "Good riddance to bad rubbish." It was my first polite thought when I heard FCC Chairman Michael Powell was stepping down. My personal opinion is more Americanized: Don't let the door hit your fat ass on the way out.
There are moralizing demagogues on both sides of the political aisle. The politically correct ultra-left and moralizing religious right have much in common, although they'll never admit it. One of their paranoid goals is to eviscerate any democratic dialogue they disagree with or that fails to conform to their personal standards, and with Michael Powell they found a champion. Powell will go down in history as a case study of how nepotism and government censorship can produce a completely unqualified candidate who was unable to fairly oversee the nation's airwaves. He is a man who over-regulated free speech that offended very few and under-regulated media conglomerates to stifle small business.
Powell's first megablunder -- appointing himself censorship police, judge and jury -- are completely at odds with his first news conference, where he declared the public and sponsors should decide what is on the airwaves without government watchdogs. His draconian indecency enforcement, the rules of which were never defined, have broadcasters running scared when they should have the First Amendment to protect them. When network TV affiliates in major markets are unable to show "Saving Private Ryan" because they fear the FCC fines, you have a government agency out of control. When a popular broadcaster like Howard Stern is called indecent because one organization with a minute membership writes thousands of identical form letters, you have a bureaucracy that fails to account for the public's preferences. And when Powell holds the NFL and CBS responsible for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" and uses it as a springboard to launch a morality and censorship crusade, you have everything a Republican pro-individual administration should not be - injecting the government and it's (not your) standards into what you should listen to and what is acceptable.
It's bad enough I have so-called peaceniks and preachers telling me what should and should not be allowed on the airwaves. Thank God and our founding fathers we have the First Amendment, which saves these pundits from any lawsuits I could file because I'm offended by what they say. I find Michael Moore and Michael Savage offensive, but I'm not going to ask the government to say they are because I, like most fourth graders, understand that free speech is free speech. Too bad the guy in charge of our public airwaves doesn't.
Powell's other megablunder is deregulating the media companies to an extreme, stifling competition and giving consumers almost no choice in where to get the entertainment they want. Now I am not a regulation hawk. I understand that regulations can stifle innovation and overburden companies that need to turn profits for their employees and investors. But even conservatives like William Safire are alarmed at how Powell has opened the floodgates and made it virtually impossible for smaller and independent media companies to exist in the current climate of mega-corporations and mergers.
It is vital to capitalism and democracy that people have a choice of where and how they get their information. Monopolies aren't fair in baseball and they're not fair in other businesses. It's well-known that Clear Channel is an entertainment juggernaut that has monopoly control over radio stations, entertainment venues and TV stations across the country. How can a small, independent business compete against it? Powell's do-nothing preferences here speak volumes.
As happy as I am to see him go, don't be complacent. Many on the FCC applaud Powell's views, especially how he can define his vague "decency" notions for the country. It's almost certain his successor will continue his views.
But for now, good riddance.
There are moralizing demagogues on both sides of the political aisle. The politically correct ultra-left and moralizing religious right have much in common, although they'll never admit it. One of their paranoid goals is to eviscerate any democratic dialogue they disagree with or that fails to conform to their personal standards, and with Michael Powell they found a champion. Powell will go down in history as a case study of how nepotism and government censorship can produce a completely unqualified candidate who was unable to fairly oversee the nation's airwaves. He is a man who over-regulated free speech that offended very few and under-regulated media conglomerates to stifle small business.
Powell's first megablunder -- appointing himself censorship police, judge and jury -- are completely at odds with his first news conference, where he declared the public and sponsors should decide what is on the airwaves without government watchdogs. His draconian indecency enforcement, the rules of which were never defined, have broadcasters running scared when they should have the First Amendment to protect them. When network TV affiliates in major markets are unable to show "Saving Private Ryan" because they fear the FCC fines, you have a government agency out of control. When a popular broadcaster like Howard Stern is called indecent because one organization with a minute membership writes thousands of identical form letters, you have a bureaucracy that fails to account for the public's preferences. And when Powell holds the NFL and CBS responsible for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" and uses it as a springboard to launch a morality and censorship crusade, you have everything a Republican pro-individual administration should not be - injecting the government and it's (not your) standards into what you should listen to and what is acceptable.
It's bad enough I have so-called peaceniks and preachers telling me what should and should not be allowed on the airwaves. Thank God and our founding fathers we have the First Amendment, which saves these pundits from any lawsuits I could file because I'm offended by what they say. I find Michael Moore and Michael Savage offensive, but I'm not going to ask the government to say they are because I, like most fourth graders, understand that free speech is free speech. Too bad the guy in charge of our public airwaves doesn't.
Powell's other megablunder is deregulating the media companies to an extreme, stifling competition and giving consumers almost no choice in where to get the entertainment they want. Now I am not a regulation hawk. I understand that regulations can stifle innovation and overburden companies that need to turn profits for their employees and investors. But even conservatives like William Safire are alarmed at how Powell has opened the floodgates and made it virtually impossible for smaller and independent media companies to exist in the current climate of mega-corporations and mergers.
It is vital to capitalism and democracy that people have a choice of where and how they get their information. Monopolies aren't fair in baseball and they're not fair in other businesses. It's well-known that Clear Channel is an entertainment juggernaut that has monopoly control over radio stations, entertainment venues and TV stations across the country. How can a small, independent business compete against it? Powell's do-nothing preferences here speak volumes.
As happy as I am to see him go, don't be complacent. Many on the FCC applaud Powell's views, especially how he can define his vague "decency" notions for the country. It's almost certain his successor will continue his views.
But for now, good riddance.
Thursday, January 20, 2005
God Bless American Idol
I do hope you're tuning in to watch the best TV of the year -- the open audition casting calls for American Idol.
For all who have suffered while being forced to listen to a tone deaf family member or drunken karaoke warbler who loudly declared they were God's gift to music, this is payback time.
For those of you have suffered by the off-key screeching of people who are oblivious to their monumental lack of talent, your wounds will now heal.
And for anyone who has suffered in silence while others around you, either kind-hearted or seriously misjudged, offered further encouragement to these so-called singers, sit back and enjoy while all these hacks get ripped a new asshole and make complete fools of themselves before the biggest audience they could ever wish for.
99% of American Idol's success is due to Simon Cowell, who has probably never sung a note in his life but is dead-on accurate in predicting beauty school or cruise ship fates for those who think becoming the next Mariah Carey requires no vocal lessons or practice. His honesty makes him both loved (by me) and hated (by many others), but he happens to almost always be absolutely right.
Some say that ridiculing these people is cruel theater. Of course it is. But it's also extremely funny. Who couldn't laugh when that Mary Roach ("Scary Mary") proceeded to completely destroy a Carole King standard, dance worse than me, tell the judges she had voices talking to her in her head, and then completely ignore their feedback and scream that all her friends said she was a great singer? I laughed so hard I almost had to run to the bathroom.
Reality TV is not the end of creativity. This is delusional people MEETING reality. Now that's entertaining. It's Must-See TV!
For all who have suffered while being forced to listen to a tone deaf family member or drunken karaoke warbler who loudly declared they were God's gift to music, this is payback time.
For those of you have suffered by the off-key screeching of people who are oblivious to their monumental lack of talent, your wounds will now heal.
And for anyone who has suffered in silence while others around you, either kind-hearted or seriously misjudged, offered further encouragement to these so-called singers, sit back and enjoy while all these hacks get ripped a new asshole and make complete fools of themselves before the biggest audience they could ever wish for.
99% of American Idol's success is due to Simon Cowell, who has probably never sung a note in his life but is dead-on accurate in predicting beauty school or cruise ship fates for those who think becoming the next Mariah Carey requires no vocal lessons or practice. His honesty makes him both loved (by me) and hated (by many others), but he happens to almost always be absolutely right.
Some say that ridiculing these people is cruel theater. Of course it is. But it's also extremely funny. Who couldn't laugh when that Mary Roach ("Scary Mary") proceeded to completely destroy a Carole King standard, dance worse than me, tell the judges she had voices talking to her in her head, and then completely ignore their feedback and scream that all her friends said she was a great singer? I laughed so hard I almost had to run to the bathroom.
Reality TV is not the end of creativity. This is delusional people MEETING reality. Now that's entertaining. It's Must-See TV!
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
John Kerry -- Crybaby?
John Kerry really came across like sour grapes today when he shamelessly used Martin Luther King Day to whine about alleged voter suppression. Of course, Kerry didn't (or couldn't) specify any evidence to support his claim. If this is true, why did he agree with his legal team and secede the race the following day? Whining about these things after you lost the election doesn't make him sound genuous or gracious in defeat.
John Kerry lost the election because he was a terrible candidate that didn't arouse passion in anyone except Democratic partisans. Bush was the most beatable incumbent president in my lifetime and the election was Kerry's to lose. He lost, notably because he lacked the character and passion of a true leader like Dr. King. End of story.
John Kerry lost the election because he was a terrible candidate that didn't arouse passion in anyone except Democratic partisans. Bush was the most beatable incumbent president in my lifetime and the election was Kerry's to lose. He lost, notably because he lacked the character and passion of a true leader like Dr. King. End of story.
Alberto Gonzales - No Del Voto
I'm feeling pretty political today since this is my third political post in an hour. Like most of America, not to mention the Bush Administration, I was no fan of outgoing Attorney General John Ashcroft. Remember how he couldn't beat a dead person in his 2000 senatorial election?
So he leaves and everyone is happy. Now this guy Alberto Gonzales has been nominated and should be America's next top lawyer. After viewing part of his confirmation hearings, I am extremely disappointed with this choice. While Gonzales does not have a religious morality chip on his shoulder, it appears he had no problem with green lighting torture and harsh interrogation techniques that were on display at Abu Ghraib and other places.
You don't need me to tell you that what happened at Abu Ghraib was vile and has seriously undermined our efforts in Iraq throughout the world. It doesn't matter that we still treated our prisoners better than Saddam Hussein did -- Gonzales intentionally skewed the Geneva Conventions and made us appear no better than the deposed dictator.
The FBI and the military investigations have said these techniques Gonzales greenlighted were improper. The Supreme Court has ruled indefinite detention without a trial or right to counsel is wrong. Whoever approved these changes has no business enforcing the Constitution of the United States.
I didn't see the entire Senate hearings, but Gonzales gave poor answers to easy questions, even from Republicans. He condoned torture but made no excuses for his misjudgements before. Is this the person we want representing America to the world, especially if we have extensive diplomacy to accomplish during the next four years?
Gonzales is certainly not a bad candidate -- his rags to riches story is inspiring and Hispanics should take great pride in his nomination. If he is confirmed, he will further enrich the most racially diverse Cabinet in American history. But a vote for him is a vote for the techniques that were on ugly display in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. I'm not a senator, but I will be writing both of mine and telling them I cannot approve of his nomination.
So he leaves and everyone is happy. Now this guy Alberto Gonzales has been nominated and should be America's next top lawyer. After viewing part of his confirmation hearings, I am extremely disappointed with this choice. While Gonzales does not have a religious morality chip on his shoulder, it appears he had no problem with green lighting torture and harsh interrogation techniques that were on display at Abu Ghraib and other places.
You don't need me to tell you that what happened at Abu Ghraib was vile and has seriously undermined our efforts in Iraq throughout the world. It doesn't matter that we still treated our prisoners better than Saddam Hussein did -- Gonzales intentionally skewed the Geneva Conventions and made us appear no better than the deposed dictator.
The FBI and the military investigations have said these techniques Gonzales greenlighted were improper. The Supreme Court has ruled indefinite detention without a trial or right to counsel is wrong. Whoever approved these changes has no business enforcing the Constitution of the United States.
I didn't see the entire Senate hearings, but Gonzales gave poor answers to easy questions, even from Republicans. He condoned torture but made no excuses for his misjudgements before. Is this the person we want representing America to the world, especially if we have extensive diplomacy to accomplish during the next four years?
Gonzales is certainly not a bad candidate -- his rags to riches story is inspiring and Hispanics should take great pride in his nomination. If he is confirmed, he will further enrich the most racially diverse Cabinet in American history. But a vote for him is a vote for the techniques that were on ugly display in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. I'm not a senator, but I will be writing both of mine and telling them I cannot approve of his nomination.
Gay Marriage -- Yawn
Full disclosure: I live in Massachusetts, currently the only state where gay marriage is legal. Opponents made a big deal about this the first few days it was enacted, but since then it's fallen off the radar screen. My guess is when they saw the sun rise the next day and saw that their own marriages didn't really get undermined by some couples in Provincetown and Northampton, they settled down.
Now an article in today's Boston Globe (1/18/05) shows that their one trump card -- a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage -- is on the rocks because of the turnover at the state house. A few gay marriage opponents left office or were voted out (although I doubt for that reason) and now those opponents doubt they have the votes. Even Governor Mitt Romney has barely brought it up since he realized that most state residents just plain don't care.
Massachusetts is a "blue state" but exhibits that New England trait of strong individualism and personal independence that non-residents don't grasp. Regardless of political affiliation, most people here consider gay marriage a non-issue. Quite a few wondered what all the fuss was about.
Now an article in today's Boston Globe (1/18/05) shows that their one trump card -- a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage -- is on the rocks because of the turnover at the state house. A few gay marriage opponents left office or were voted out (although I doubt for that reason) and now those opponents doubt they have the votes. Even Governor Mitt Romney has barely brought it up since he realized that most state residents just plain don't care.
Massachusetts is a "blue state" but exhibits that New England trait of strong individualism and personal independence that non-residents don't grasp. Regardless of political affiliation, most people here consider gay marriage a non-issue. Quite a few wondered what all the fuss was about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)