If you only had one choice on the ballot for every election, would you think you live in a democracy? Unfortunately this describes the Commonwealth of Massachusetts when it comes to local elections.
After I moved in the summer of 2006, I went to vote in the September primaries and found with the exception of the governor’s race, it appeared that every incumbent in my district, all of whom happened to be Democrats, were running unopposed. When I checked the statewide results the next day, it appeared that not only had many Democrats not faced any opposition, but also more races were being contested by Green Rainbow party candidates than Republican candidates. This trend repeated itself in the 2006 general election, the 2008 primaries and the 2008 general election. In fact, six of Massachusetts’ 10 U.S. Congressmen, all of whom are Democrats, did not face a challenger and the rest had token opposition. Numerous empirical studies have shown that Massachusetts is one of the least contested states in the country when it comes to local races. The 2008 state House and Senate results are notable for the dearth of any contested seats – in fact most challengers to Democratic seats were other Democrats.
The curious thing about this is while Massachusetts is a blue state in presidential elections, most registered voters are Independents and Republicans have a long history of inhabiting the Governor’s office. Deval Patrick ended a 16-year Republican run (1990-2006), and notable former governors like Francis Sargent and John Volpe were Republicans. Also if you look at the history of ballot questions, Massachusetts voters have voted to roll back income taxes, abolished rent control, approved term limits, rejected universal health care and rejected a bid for supermarkets to sell alcohol. Clearly Massachusetts voters are not all blind liberal partisans when it comes to social and economic issues.
If voters have just one candidate to choose from in repeated elections, it does more than give a tenure-like quality to Massachusetts legislative members. It also undermines the very idea of a democracy, where voters are expected to select the best of two or more candidates for office. The degree to which voters are not offered choices on the ballot raises significant questions about the health of a democracy and additional questions about the vitality and efficacy of the Republican Party providing voters with an alternative to the Democratic-dominated legislature. Currently Democrats control 141 out of 160 seats in the Massachusetts House, and 35 of 40 seats in the State Senate. That is not just a majority – it’s virtually a monopoly.
How could this have happened? Standard variables like the power of incumbency, gerrymandering and redistricting and the lack of the legislature to enact the term limits that voters wanted are part of the reason. But much of the blame must go to the state Republican Party, which never capitalized on its success in the 1990 election to build up a grassroots farm system of next-generation candidates. I doubt that even many Massachusetts Republicans could discuss what the party’s platform entails or how they can help end the tide of GOP failure at the Legislative level.
Another issue is the stigma the national Republican Party has made not just in Massachusetts, but across the Northeast. When you look at notable Republican governors and Senators across the Northeast – Maine’s Olympia Snowe, Vermont’s Jim Jeffords, Massachusetts governors from Bill Weld to the first Mitt Romney (hold that comment for a minute), Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chaffee, Connecticut’s Jodi Rell, New York’s George Pataki, New Jersey’s Christie Whitman and Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter – a pattern begins to emerge. That is the classic fiscally conservative, socially liberal (almost Libertarian) northeast Yankee Republican. Because the national GOP has moved so far to the right on social issues, this species has been almost rendered extinct. The last two elections have not been easy for any Republican, but the shift in GOP attitudes coupled with their recent electoral failures have definitely trickled down to the state level. Romney won the governorship in the classic Northeast Republican mode, but he had to flip-flop his social positions to even be considered by the national GOP, making him appear disingenuous and costing him the nomination. Currently there are no Republican members of the House of Representatives in the entire Northeast.
Recently noted Republican Charlie Baker announced he would challenge Deval Patrick in the Massachusetts governor's race in 2010. I’m sure local Republicans are thrilled with the news, but they should devote the bulk of their time and energy to recruitment and winning more elections on Beacon Hill. Even the most diehard liberal Democrat in the Bay State would agree that having one choice on the ballot undermines the very concept of a democracy.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Supreme Diversity
A minority goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee as a Supreme Court nominee. The nominee has an amazing personal history – born into poverty, a parent who died while they were young, the other parent persevering and a family who wouldn’t let them give up and who believed in the American Dream. The nominee became the first in their family to attend college and eventually graduated from an Ivy League law school. Clerkships and a legal career follow and soon the nominee becomes a judge, heading up the ladder to a Court of Appeals and is finally tapped by the president.
But wait. Accusations begin to fly about the nominee being a “token” because of race. Interest groups on all sides begin trading accusations and making projections. They worry because the nominee’s race, sex and background may affect their decisions in cases. Cries of racism and sexism become common. Soon partisans are lined up on both sides, and the vote tends to go largely down party lines as expected.
Is this the scenario for Sonia Sotomayor? Well, yes, but I was actually describing the life and nomination of Clarence Thomas. Thomas’ personal background is strikingly similar to Sotomayor’s. This shows you why the cries about diversity on the Court is largely a crock. If you dislike Thomas or Sotomayor, you really don’t give a hoot about their backgrounds or how they will diversify the Court. And once again, I find it illuminating how those who claim one nominee inspires them can be disgusted by another nominee, even if their backgrounds are the same. Cultural diversity is one thing, but diversity of opinion? Forget it. This goes for partisans on both sides.
And for those of you who think Sotomayor will definitely change the ideology of the Court for better or worse, I recommend reading my last post on this subject.
But wait. Accusations begin to fly about the nominee being a “token” because of race. Interest groups on all sides begin trading accusations and making projections. They worry because the nominee’s race, sex and background may affect their decisions in cases. Cries of racism and sexism become common. Soon partisans are lined up on both sides, and the vote tends to go largely down party lines as expected.
Is this the scenario for Sonia Sotomayor? Well, yes, but I was actually describing the life and nomination of Clarence Thomas. Thomas’ personal background is strikingly similar to Sotomayor’s. This shows you why the cries about diversity on the Court is largely a crock. If you dislike Thomas or Sotomayor, you really don’t give a hoot about their backgrounds or how they will diversify the Court. And once again, I find it illuminating how those who claim one nominee inspires them can be disgusted by another nominee, even if their backgrounds are the same. Cultural diversity is one thing, but diversity of opinion? Forget it. This goes for partisans on both sides.
And for those of you who think Sotomayor will definitely change the ideology of the Court for better or worse, I recommend reading my last post on this subject.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Decency and Credibility
When Matt Groening, creator of The Simpsons, was in high school he decided to run for class president. In what was likely a very clever goof, he ran on a platform called Teens for Decency and his slogan was, “If you’re against decency, what are you for?” His classmates, who were likely impressed and confused at the same time, elected Matt president.
I bring this up because I continue to be flabbergasted at the Republicans. Just five years removed from the height of their powers, they now wander aimlessly – against everything the president wants, but for absolutely nothing. You can look at the so-called “leaders” of the party like Limbaugh, Steele, Gingrich, Cheney and Palin to quickly see why – all of them have horrendously high unfavorable ratings, are polarizing figures and haven’t offered a single good idea to move the country forward. I’m not surprised there was a bloodless purge in the GOP after the election, but I was surprised that they haven’t rallied around a single likeable figure that may have appeal to people outside the Ozarks and Smokey Mountains.
Having the right leader would also help the GOP with its credibility. You can’t accuse a president of fiscal recklessness when the last Republican president spent money hand over fist and expanded government more than any president since Johnson. You can’t call a Supreme Court nominee racist when you’ve opposed anything that might help minorities. If an independent or someone with a better reputation mentioned some of these points, they may hold water. But if someone with no credibility and is unlikable to boot says them, forget it. You always need to consider the source.
As for South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, the GOP is probably relieved to have a heterosexual scandal for once. But once again, here’s what Sanford said about Bill Clinton when he was in Congress. If Sanford wanted impeachment for what Clinton did, he’d best step down himself. That is, if he still holds an ounce of credibility. Wasn’t the GOP damaged enough already before he blew it too?
I bring this up because I continue to be flabbergasted at the Republicans. Just five years removed from the height of their powers, they now wander aimlessly – against everything the president wants, but for absolutely nothing. You can look at the so-called “leaders” of the party like Limbaugh, Steele, Gingrich, Cheney and Palin to quickly see why – all of them have horrendously high unfavorable ratings, are polarizing figures and haven’t offered a single good idea to move the country forward. I’m not surprised there was a bloodless purge in the GOP after the election, but I was surprised that they haven’t rallied around a single likeable figure that may have appeal to people outside the Ozarks and Smokey Mountains.
Having the right leader would also help the GOP with its credibility. You can’t accuse a president of fiscal recklessness when the last Republican president spent money hand over fist and expanded government more than any president since Johnson. You can’t call a Supreme Court nominee racist when you’ve opposed anything that might help minorities. If an independent or someone with a better reputation mentioned some of these points, they may hold water. But if someone with no credibility and is unlikable to boot says them, forget it. You always need to consider the source.
As for South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, the GOP is probably relieved to have a heterosexual scandal for once. But once again, here’s what Sanford said about Bill Clinton when he was in Congress. If Sanford wanted impeachment for what Clinton did, he’d best step down himself. That is, if he still holds an ounce of credibility. Wasn’t the GOP damaged enough already before he blew it too?
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Revolution Will Not be Televised
Leave it to the brave people of Iran to not only find a legitimate use for Twitter, but also to kick the mainstream media to its knees. Remember how the first Gulf War brought CNN and 24-hour cable news into the forefront by showing how antiquated the old network news broadcasts were? The current situation in Iran will go down in history as the first one to be brought to homes around the world through viral video, tweets, blogs and cell phones while traditional media fiddles around with Palin vs. Letterman. When you don’t cover such a volatile, important election in a critical part of the world, especially because you’ve carelessly cut your overseas bureau, expect to be caught flat-footed when the world passes you by.
It’s amazing how far things have progressed, not just in Iran but in the power of technology to empower people to take matters into their own hands. State-run media, clamping down on foreign correspondents and censorship count for nothing under these circumstances. Imagine what could have happened in China 20 years ago if the technology of today was around. Who needs the media to broadcast your message when you can do it even better by yourself?
Another variable few are mentioning is one even I am beginning to believe. The democracy that still has a fragile hold in Iraq is starting to sow seeds across the Middle East, hands down the most undemocratic region on Earth (except Israel). Recent elections in Lebanon went well and we could very well see be seeing the green shoots emerging here. It may be time to read this post again.
We are certainly hopeful in Iran that the people will prevail. You can see plenty of coverage in Iran across the Web (except the mainstream media sites) but here are three that show the marches:
Iran Protest March I
Iran Protest March II
Iran Protest March III
And here are three that show the government cracking down (some are graphic).
Iranian Police Cracking Down
Iranian Police Shooting Civilians
Protesters Rioting and Police Shooting Them
It’s amazing how far things have progressed, not just in Iran but in the power of technology to empower people to take matters into their own hands. State-run media, clamping down on foreign correspondents and censorship count for nothing under these circumstances. Imagine what could have happened in China 20 years ago if the technology of today was around. Who needs the media to broadcast your message when you can do it even better by yourself?
Another variable few are mentioning is one even I am beginning to believe. The democracy that still has a fragile hold in Iraq is starting to sow seeds across the Middle East, hands down the most undemocratic region on Earth (except Israel). Recent elections in Lebanon went well and we could very well see be seeing the green shoots emerging here. It may be time to read this post again.
We are certainly hopeful in Iran that the people will prevail. You can see plenty of coverage in Iran across the Web (except the mainstream media sites) but here are three that show the marches:
Iran Protest March I
Iran Protest March II
Iran Protest March III
And here are three that show the government cracking down (some are graphic).
Iranian Police Cracking Down
Iranian Police Shooting Civilians
Protesters Rioting and Police Shooting Them
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thoughts from a Grumpy Old Man
As I approach 40 I remember back to over half my lifetime ago and recall how aghast I would be when older people would have no clue what shows young people were watching (back then it was Miami Vice), music they were listening to (Depeche Mode for goth kids, Springsteen for regular kids, The Replacements for punk kids) and which celebrity was considered cool and a teen role model at the time. Of course back then there was no Internet and cable was only about 40 channels so there were basically two groups – the kids and few adults who knew this stuff and were “with it,” and the many adults and few kids that didn’t know what was happening in the mass market. I remember thinking that as an adult I would do my best to try and stay connected to popular trends so the next generation wouldn’t consider me an old fart.
Naturally, I was unsuccessful but guess what? I’m not ashamed; in fact, I’m proud of my pop culture ignorance. I think the turning point was just this past week when the brouhaha over the parents of “Jon & Kate Plus 8” came out and my first thought was: I’ve never heard of this show, I have no idea who Jon and Kate are and I DON’T CARE. And I felt much better about myself.
Part of this metamorphosis is the unavoidable fragmenting of the way we receive entertainment. Back in the 80s and early 90s you could watch TV, go to the movies, see a band, listen to the radio or buy a cassette. You knew where to get this information because there were only so many places to go. Now of course, the plethora of choices is too vast for any pop culture aficionado to simultaneously track. As choices proliferate, so too do the multiple audiences that find them fascinating. Shows like “American Idol” used to be the norm to find new entertainment to emulate (my generation’s was MTV); but now mass market shows like this are the exception.
Entertainment itself has also changed. While musical or acting talent is always in the eye of the beholder, you used to have to show at least some talent to achieve fame. Now of course, everyone has the means to be a celebrity and talent is less important. You can be famous for simply being famous. While I have never seen Jon & Kate’s show, I doubt there is anything on that show that only they can do. Most reality TV is resplendent in its ordinariness. We used to watch TV to see interesting characters or exciting scenarios. Now many watch TV and see ordinary people doing ordinary things. Does simply being on TV make the ordinary interesting or fascinating? Future anthropologists can decide that. I wonder what people like Margaret Mead or Andy Warhol would think of how popular culture is established today.
And me? I used to eat up popular culture when I was younger too. But as I got older and started a family I inevitably got busier with work, kids, grad school, blogging (sometimes) and other more important things. In essence, I got a life. And if doing that takes time away from keeping track of TMZ, then I can very easily accept that. Instead of watching life I am living it. Just like Jon & Kate!
Naturally, I was unsuccessful but guess what? I’m not ashamed; in fact, I’m proud of my pop culture ignorance. I think the turning point was just this past week when the brouhaha over the parents of “Jon & Kate Plus 8” came out and my first thought was: I’ve never heard of this show, I have no idea who Jon and Kate are and I DON’T CARE. And I felt much better about myself.
Part of this metamorphosis is the unavoidable fragmenting of the way we receive entertainment. Back in the 80s and early 90s you could watch TV, go to the movies, see a band, listen to the radio or buy a cassette. You knew where to get this information because there were only so many places to go. Now of course, the plethora of choices is too vast for any pop culture aficionado to simultaneously track. As choices proliferate, so too do the multiple audiences that find them fascinating. Shows like “American Idol” used to be the norm to find new entertainment to emulate (my generation’s was MTV); but now mass market shows like this are the exception.
Entertainment itself has also changed. While musical or acting talent is always in the eye of the beholder, you used to have to show at least some talent to achieve fame. Now of course, everyone has the means to be a celebrity and talent is less important. You can be famous for simply being famous. While I have never seen Jon & Kate’s show, I doubt there is anything on that show that only they can do. Most reality TV is resplendent in its ordinariness. We used to watch TV to see interesting characters or exciting scenarios. Now many watch TV and see ordinary people doing ordinary things. Does simply being on TV make the ordinary interesting or fascinating? Future anthropologists can decide that. I wonder what people like Margaret Mead or Andy Warhol would think of how popular culture is established today.
And me? I used to eat up popular culture when I was younger too. But as I got older and started a family I inevitably got busier with work, kids, grad school, blogging (sometimes) and other more important things. In essence, I got a life. And if doing that takes time away from keeping track of TMZ, then I can very easily accept that. Instead of watching life I am living it. Just like Jon & Kate!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Yankees to NY Fans: Drop Dead
It gives me zero pleasure as a lifelong Yankee fan to say this, but I am extremely happy not to live in New York and say that my tax dollars went to subsidize the most expensive baseball stadium in history that gives fans views like this:
And if that’s not enough, the Steinbrenners are shocked – shocked, I say! – to find people unwilling to shell out $2,500 for seats behind home plate. Today they cut prices 50%, as if that will make any difference. The result has been constant views like this on TV:
Just as politicians in Massachusetts may follow Herbert Hoover’s suicide example of raising taxes during a recession, the Yankees fleeced New York’s taxpayers out of $1.5 billion with a subsidized stadium. Then they fleeced their fans by charging four figures for a single seat or $5 for an obstructed view seat. An obstructed view seat is not worth five cents. And if all that wasn’t enough, this money is going to the highest payroll in baseball that boasts Chien-Ming Wang with a 34.50 ERA and Mark Teixeira with a .220 batting average. Why isn’t Joba back in the bullpen already?Like all diehard sports fans, Yankee fanatics follow their team through good and bad. But occasionally something really, really stupid happens that sends fans in an uproar. This time, there were about 20 stupid things that have happened. It’s likely the Steinbrenners lowered the premium seating prices because they were embarrassed by the empty seats on TV. I happen to think people not paying for these seats is absolutely justified. You reap what you sow and you get what you pay for, and nobody is going to fork over four figures for a team that treats their fans this poorly, no matter what the economy is or what place the team is in.
The Steinbrenners still haven’t learned that you can’t buy a championship. It appears they also haven’t learned you can’t build a stadium at the taxpayers’ expense, overcharge them on everything from a $9 beer to a $1,250 plastic seat, and expect them to keep their blind devotion. It appears New Yorkers, never known for their patience, have finally had enough.
More Info: My earlier post on keeping George Steinbrenner the hell away from the Hall of Fame.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
The Photo-Op Tea Party
As a PR flack, I like the concept of the anti-tax, anti-bailout tea parties that took place today. We all lost money in our retirement plans last year, our wages are frozen and those of us lucky enough to have a job are hunkered down, but we still have to cut a check to the government. The government will then take much of this money and offer it to banks and investment firms that made dumb decisions on mortgage default swaps and CDOs, or auto makers that made dumb decisions on SUVs and continuing the mighty Buick brand.
Who wouldn’t be a little aggrieved by these decisions? The whole idea has a nice populist ring to it, and it appears the folks behind the tea parties (hold that thought for a minute) spread the word online through viral video and Twitter, showing the overhyped online service has another use besides telling everyone who’s not listening to the radio right now what song you’re hearing and hating.
But while the tea parties make good theater and the clueless media will eat it up, the whole thing came across as staged and phony. The idea did not match the execution. No American, regardless of their politics, likes to pay taxes, but what will be the outcome from these protests? Are people going to refuse to pay taxes? The colonists in 1773 had a plan – no unjust taxation without representation – and they stuck to their plan. To borrow a working phrase, what are the action items coming out of this protest?
Then there’s the tea party organizers. It’s no secret this was the brainchild of CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, and then was spurred on by organizations like Freedom Works (Dick Armey’s group) and Top Conservatives on Twitter. Fox News has breathlessly overhyped the event, with live coverage across the nation. All of this is perfectly legitimate, of course.
But once again, where the hell were these so-called “conservatives” when our last president was spending money and expanding government hand-over-fist for the last eight years? If you don’t like the tax-and-spend policy, fine. But what is your answer for the current situation? If you don’t want a big stimulus package, how would you get the economy moving again? If you don’t want to bail out AIG or GM, what’s your answer for safeguarding the American jobs and industries that would vanish if both of them disappear like Lehman?
It’s natural for an opposition party to say it’s against something. But if you don’t offer an alternative, forget anyone on the fence jumping on board with you for long. And if you claim to be a “conservative” but didn’t flinch when Bush was doing the same things as Obama, you’re nothing but a partisan weather vane, as mindless as the partisans in Berkeley and Harvard Square that you claim to despise. You’ve actually got more in common with them than you think.
So while the tea parties might make you feel good for a week and will get you a photo op or two on Fox News, in a week it will all be forgotten without a real platform. They are full of sound and phony fury, signifying nothing.
Who wouldn’t be a little aggrieved by these decisions? The whole idea has a nice populist ring to it, and it appears the folks behind the tea parties (hold that thought for a minute) spread the word online through viral video and Twitter, showing the overhyped online service has another use besides telling everyone who’s not listening to the radio right now what song you’re hearing and hating.
But while the tea parties make good theater and the clueless media will eat it up, the whole thing came across as staged and phony. The idea did not match the execution. No American, regardless of their politics, likes to pay taxes, but what will be the outcome from these protests? Are people going to refuse to pay taxes? The colonists in 1773 had a plan – no unjust taxation without representation – and they stuck to their plan. To borrow a working phrase, what are the action items coming out of this protest?
Then there’s the tea party organizers. It’s no secret this was the brainchild of CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, and then was spurred on by organizations like Freedom Works (Dick Armey’s group) and Top Conservatives on Twitter. Fox News has breathlessly overhyped the event, with live coverage across the nation. All of this is perfectly legitimate, of course.
But once again, where the hell were these so-called “conservatives” when our last president was spending money and expanding government hand-over-fist for the last eight years? If you don’t like the tax-and-spend policy, fine. But what is your answer for the current situation? If you don’t want a big stimulus package, how would you get the economy moving again? If you don’t want to bail out AIG or GM, what’s your answer for safeguarding the American jobs and industries that would vanish if both of them disappear like Lehman?
It’s natural for an opposition party to say it’s against something. But if you don’t offer an alternative, forget anyone on the fence jumping on board with you for long. And if you claim to be a “conservative” but didn’t flinch when Bush was doing the same things as Obama, you’re nothing but a partisan weather vane, as mindless as the partisans in Berkeley and Harvard Square that you claim to despise. You’ve actually got more in common with them than you think.
So while the tea parties might make you feel good for a week and will get you a photo op or two on Fox News, in a week it will all be forgotten without a real platform. They are full of sound and phony fury, signifying nothing.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Media Keeps Circling the Drain
Did you notice who did and did not get picked for a question in last night’s presidential press conference? Here are the winners:
Associated Press
NBC
ABC
CBS
Univision
Stars and Stripes
CNN
Fox News
Politico
Ebony
ABC Radio
Washington Times
AFP
Note who did NOT get called: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, etc – not a single leading daily paper. That’s gotta hurt these places, many of whom are already on life support. I’ve blogged many times about the media’s problems, including here and here.
When a president does a press conference, he usually has a chart stating who is attending and where they are sitting so he can choose who to ask. Remember this was a one hour conference with 13 selected questions, and since Obama likes to give long answers you’ve got a little over 4½ minutes per question. He can freely decide who to ask and who to ignore. Did Obama decide to ignore the daily papers because of their growing obsolescence, or was it an accidental oversight? May the conspiracy theories begin, but you know what I think.
I actually like some of these choices – Univision is the network of choice for the country’s fastest growing minority, Stars & Stripes is a wise selection and Politico is one of the rare media outlets that is actually growing because they're on to something. And by including Fox News and the Washington Times you can’t say he only chose places that would throw softballs. And except for Ann Compton at ABC Radio, all the questions were pretty good.
I am confident predicting that in the next couple of years the president will return to his high-tech outreach that worked well during the campaign, and conduct some webcasts and online-only exchanges with the public. I know I disparaged Twitter below, but grassroots mobilization for elections lends itself well to online social media as more industries realize you don’t need the media to be the messenger anymore. Everyone but the daily papers get that.
Associated Press
NBC
ABC
CBS
Univision
Stars and Stripes
CNN
Fox News
Politico
Ebony
ABC Radio
Washington Times
AFP
Note who did NOT get called: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, etc – not a single leading daily paper. That’s gotta hurt these places, many of whom are already on life support. I’ve blogged many times about the media’s problems, including here and here.
When a president does a press conference, he usually has a chart stating who is attending and where they are sitting so he can choose who to ask. Remember this was a one hour conference with 13 selected questions, and since Obama likes to give long answers you’ve got a little over 4½ minutes per question. He can freely decide who to ask and who to ignore. Did Obama decide to ignore the daily papers because of their growing obsolescence, or was it an accidental oversight? May the conspiracy theories begin, but you know what I think.
I actually like some of these choices – Univision is the network of choice for the country’s fastest growing minority, Stars & Stripes is a wise selection and Politico is one of the rare media outlets that is actually growing because they're on to something. And by including Fox News and the Washington Times you can’t say he only chose places that would throw softballs. And except for Ann Compton at ABC Radio, all the questions were pretty good.
I am confident predicting that in the next couple of years the president will return to his high-tech outreach that worked well during the campaign, and conduct some webcasts and online-only exchanges with the public. I know I disparaged Twitter below, but grassroots mobilization for elections lends itself well to online social media as more industries realize you don’t need the media to be the messenger anymore. Everyone but the daily papers get that.
Friday, March 20, 2009
The AIG Bonus Dilemma
In the days after 9/11, an almost unanimous Congress passed the Patriot Act. While most of the Act was indeed important and deserved to be passed – especially parts that improved border security, tracked foreign assets and allocated money to improve surveillance technology – debatable items like indefinite detentions without trial for suspected terrorists and the ability for the FBI to search personal records without a warrant have come under criticism by those who believe the Act violates the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. In its haste to respond to such an unbelievable act of terror, Congress may have rushed to judgment on some actions that should not have overlooked the Constitution.
Yesterday, the House fast-tracked a bill that would place impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to any AIG employees and employees of other financial companies that accepted at least $5 billion from the TARP bailout. It was approved by a vote of 328 to 93. I am having déjà vu all over again.
I am in no way defending the boneheads at AIG who destroyed the world’s largest insurance company by their over reliance on collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities. And I’m sure Congressional phones are ringing off the hook with outraged constituents gathering torches and pitchforks. The pressure for the government to act, after they may have overlooked this payment, must be enormous.
But in the heated mode to act fast and ask questions later, serious mistakes can be made. I call this the “ready-fire-aim” plan of action that I try to avoid on a personal level. By changing an existing contract – unfair as that contract may be – the government is setting a dangerous precedent as an unreliable and capricious business partner; one that can quickly change any written contract based on popular opinion, as opposed to the rules of law and the Constitution itself. That occurred with part of the Patriot Act and I feel it happening again.
Unfortunately the government needs the insurance companies and hedge funds of the world to fix this problem, especially if it unveils some kind of public/private sector combination of buying troubled assets from banks. If I ran a hedge fund (and still had a job) this would show me that the government cannot be trusted if it has the right to change the plans and redo compensation and benefit laws at will. This is a dangerous precedent that I doubt would stand up in a court of law.
Andrew Ross Sorkin of the NY Times stated this very fact a few days ago, along with the possibility that the AIG people receiving these bonuses may be the only ones who know how to clean up their mess. I’m skeptical about the last part, and Sorkin has been raked over the coals for this. But he’s right about the contractual obligations and the knee-jerk response it has understandably and unfortunately set. In our rush to punish wrongdoers, we cannot overlook the law, even when it comes to detaining terrorists or suddenly taking bonuses away from people who have not deserved it.
UPDATE: Look who agrees with me -- Nate Silver, Henry Blodget and Paul Krugman. Holy crap!
Yesterday, the House fast-tracked a bill that would place impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to any AIG employees and employees of other financial companies that accepted at least $5 billion from the TARP bailout. It was approved by a vote of 328 to 93. I am having déjà vu all over again.
I am in no way defending the boneheads at AIG who destroyed the world’s largest insurance company by their over reliance on collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities. And I’m sure Congressional phones are ringing off the hook with outraged constituents gathering torches and pitchforks. The pressure for the government to act, after they may have overlooked this payment, must be enormous.
But in the heated mode to act fast and ask questions later, serious mistakes can be made. I call this the “ready-fire-aim” plan of action that I try to avoid on a personal level. By changing an existing contract – unfair as that contract may be – the government is setting a dangerous precedent as an unreliable and capricious business partner; one that can quickly change any written contract based on popular opinion, as opposed to the rules of law and the Constitution itself. That occurred with part of the Patriot Act and I feel it happening again.
Unfortunately the government needs the insurance companies and hedge funds of the world to fix this problem, especially if it unveils some kind of public/private sector combination of buying troubled assets from banks. If I ran a hedge fund (and still had a job) this would show me that the government cannot be trusted if it has the right to change the plans and redo compensation and benefit laws at will. This is a dangerous precedent that I doubt would stand up in a court of law.
Andrew Ross Sorkin of the NY Times stated this very fact a few days ago, along with the possibility that the AIG people receiving these bonuses may be the only ones who know how to clean up their mess. I’m skeptical about the last part, and Sorkin has been raked over the coals for this. But he’s right about the contractual obligations and the knee-jerk response it has understandably and unfortunately set. In our rush to punish wrongdoers, we cannot overlook the law, even when it comes to detaining terrorists or suddenly taking bonuses away from people who have not deserved it.
UPDATE: Look who agrees with me -- Nate Silver, Henry Blodget and Paul Krugman. Holy crap!
Friday, March 13, 2009
Zero Credibility
Representative John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell, the top
Republicans in the House and the Senate, said they strongly opposed the massive
spending that the Democratic-controlled Congress has approved so far this
year. "Most of my constituents are wondering how long the spending binge
is going to go on here in Washington," Boehner, the House Minority Leader, told
reporters.
"We're spending the first 50 days of this new administration at the rate of
one billion dollars an hour," said McConnell. "At the rate we're going,
we're going to double the national debt in five years and triple it in 10
years," he said. "I don't think anybody seriously thinks that that's a good
idea."
I love, absolutely LOVE, those statements. The leaders of the party that stood by and supported the massive spending binge and bloated federal growth of the prior eight years have suddenly remembered they are supposed to be the ones preaching fiscal restraint and small government.
Much has been written about the leadership drift of the GOP – is it Michael Steele, Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner or someone else? What is most troubling is that nobody can now specify exactly what the GOP stands for, or who exactly a “Republican” is right now. You can’t preach fiscal prudence when you’ve spent the last eight years spending like gamblers at a craps table. You can’t talk about removing government from people’s lives when you embrace social policies and leaders that place religion and intolerance front and center.
And most importantly, you cannot keep saying “no” to the new president’s policies without proposing some new ideas of your own. The old cutting taxes mantra is getting a bit stale by now. When the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, they had big, populist ideas that everyone could understand and get behind, and the Democrats lost out because they kept saying “no” without offering a policy of their own. It took 15 years, but the tide has finally turned. Nobody knows whether Obama’s policies will work, but at least he’s not offering the same old recipe. Americans are giving him credit for empathizing and understanding the situation. This is a true crisis; an economic 9/11. And just as that date day begat an unusual and extraordinary response, so does the current situation.
If the GOP wants to restore their credibility and really make us believe they’ve ditched their holy roller wagon and are reborn with the true conservative religion, they need to stop yelling and badmouthing the president (and each other). They need to come up with some constructive ideas that will restore consumer confidence and help rescue the finance and auto industries. By treating this crisis as a crisis and dropping the mad-as-hell and sour grapes attitude, they may just score some sympathy votes and the public would at least give them a listen.
But when you’ve got Boehner and McConnell saying those ridiculous things, and polarizing firebrands like Limbaugh saying more ridiculous things, your biggest problem is credibility. And that's the first thing the GOP needs to restore before it can even think about proposing any new ideas. You’d think someone here would step up and take responsibility and declare what the party stands for. But with the current infighting and lack of focus, don’t plan on it happening anytime soon.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Not Atwitter Over Twitter
Last year a couple of people I know told me I should start using Twitter, so I did. I almost lasted a whole day before junking it.
I was being completely overwhelmed with Tweets back and forth regarding traffic outside the office, lunch plans that I wasn’t even part of, what they should have for dinner, deadlines they weren’t ready for, songs they were listening to on the radio and other parts of their unremarkable day that I had zero interest in. While it seemed to be a good time waster if you didn’t feel like working, and a good way to keep in touch with someone if you had no cell phone, I saw no difference between Twitter and instant messaging.
Now, of course, I’ve got everyone from the media to other fellow PR flacks telling me I should get on the Twitter bandwagon. This is a temptation I can resist. I am not a luddite – I can’t work without a laptop and BlackBerry and push hard in my company to enhance our communications with RSS, XHTML, XBRL and everything in between. But when a fellow old fogey like Jon Stewart says he can’t stand Twitter, it is comforting to know that I’m not alone.
I often wonder how many of these people using Twitter – likely college-educated 20- and 30-somethings who often whine about the public and the media’s short attention span and focus on the superficial – notice how they are limiting their interaction with each other to 140 characters. And I’m reminded of the other thing I wondered about some other “hot” tech startups around a decade ago (or Second Life last year, or MySpace the year before, and so on)…exactly how is Twitter going to make money? And how smart could the twits at Twitter be to have turned down $500 million from Facebook in today’s economy? That doesn’t make me confident there’s a business plan or exit strategy at work here.
Twitter is the latest technology wave of social networking, which will never EVER replace real networking as a way to meet people and form lasting personal or business relationships. Ask anyone if it’s better to have a date or sales meeting in person or over the phone or Web. This is why it is especially difficult to hear public relations consultants say Twitter should become a mandatory part of my job. I will continue to maintain that there will never be a substitute for pounding the pavement and making the time to personally meet and establish a relationship with the influencers in media, the public, the government and the analyst communities that can help drive sales and enhance a company’s reputation.
Perhaps there will be a way to change Twitter into a more useful tool. Publishing your @Twitter address guarantees you will be bombarded with filler you couldn’t care less about and ingrates trying to sell you something you don’t need. And there may be room for it in either grassroots mobilization or marketing toward people whose lives are tuned out to other forms of communication. There are probably a handful of people who are currently doing it right. But by the time the folks at Twitter figure that out, there will be another technology to waste everyone’s time.
I was being completely overwhelmed with Tweets back and forth regarding traffic outside the office, lunch plans that I wasn’t even part of, what they should have for dinner, deadlines they weren’t ready for, songs they were listening to on the radio and other parts of their unremarkable day that I had zero interest in. While it seemed to be a good time waster if you didn’t feel like working, and a good way to keep in touch with someone if you had no cell phone, I saw no difference between Twitter and instant messaging.
Now, of course, I’ve got everyone from the media to other fellow PR flacks telling me I should get on the Twitter bandwagon. This is a temptation I can resist. I am not a luddite – I can’t work without a laptop and BlackBerry and push hard in my company to enhance our communications with RSS, XHTML, XBRL and everything in between. But when a fellow old fogey like Jon Stewart says he can’t stand Twitter, it is comforting to know that I’m not alone.
I often wonder how many of these people using Twitter – likely college-educated 20- and 30-somethings who often whine about the public and the media’s short attention span and focus on the superficial – notice how they are limiting their interaction with each other to 140 characters. And I’m reminded of the other thing I wondered about some other “hot” tech startups around a decade ago (or Second Life last year, or MySpace the year before, and so on)…exactly how is Twitter going to make money? And how smart could the twits at Twitter be to have turned down $500 million from Facebook in today’s economy? That doesn’t make me confident there’s a business plan or exit strategy at work here.
Twitter is the latest technology wave of social networking, which will never EVER replace real networking as a way to meet people and form lasting personal or business relationships. Ask anyone if it’s better to have a date or sales meeting in person or over the phone or Web. This is why it is especially difficult to hear public relations consultants say Twitter should become a mandatory part of my job. I will continue to maintain that there will never be a substitute for pounding the pavement and making the time to personally meet and establish a relationship with the influencers in media, the public, the government and the analyst communities that can help drive sales and enhance a company’s reputation.
Perhaps there will be a way to change Twitter into a more useful tool. Publishing your @Twitter address guarantees you will be bombarded with filler you couldn’t care less about and ingrates trying to sell you something you don’t need. And there may be room for it in either grassroots mobilization or marketing toward people whose lives are tuned out to other forms of communication. There are probably a handful of people who are currently doing it right. But by the time the folks at Twitter figure that out, there will be another technology to waste everyone’s time.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Octomom Backlash
I was going to resist delving into gossip with my two or three cents on the feeding frenzy surrounding our newest media whore Nadya Suleman (hereafter referred to as “Octomom”), but I can no longer hold out.
When multiple births occur, most companies from Procter & Gamble to GM and Disney shower the overwhelmed family with gifts from diapers to minivans and clothes to vacations. This has notably not happened here. Why? Is it the stigma of single motherhood? Are companies less able to provide these freebies in the current economy? Is it because she’s considered a shady and possibly unstable character that may be addicted to pregnancy, or unethical and unreliable because of her reliance on government assistance while her house is in foreclosure? I find it interesting how much character and circumstance plays into such decisions on a corporate level.
It’s also fascinating how these play into the popular backlash as well. This is a bit less surprising, since as a society we help those who are victims of chance and reward those who have an independent work ethic, and frown upon people whose work ethic may be compromised or who willfully make choices society dislikes. Both of those instances apply to Octomom. We’re currently in a time and place where responsibility – especially at the government and corporate level – has vanished and ordinary people who played by the rules are left holding the bag and are understandably angry. When they see another example of someone who is not “responsible,” charity will not be their first reaction. What a surprise that the media is the only one giving this woman what she wants!
There has also been a call to better regulate fertility clinics since they did not stop her from implanting all those embryos. But that is dangerous ground – doctors often need to give patients what they ask for with voluntary medical procedures. They can take doctors to court if they refuse.
This is also a good time to note – especially to those of us who are pro-choice – that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t support a woman’s right to choose, but then try to legally restrict how many babies she can choose to have (naturally or artificially). If a “normal” unmarried executive or lesbian wanted to get pregnant through a fertility clinic and was refused, pro-choice people would be outraged. The same rules apply here. You can’t support a woman’s right to choose and then try to restrict access to fertility or have a law stating who is or is not capable of having a baby (or eight babies).
When multiple births occur, most companies from Procter & Gamble to GM and Disney shower the overwhelmed family with gifts from diapers to minivans and clothes to vacations. This has notably not happened here. Why? Is it the stigma of single motherhood? Are companies less able to provide these freebies in the current economy? Is it because she’s considered a shady and possibly unstable character that may be addicted to pregnancy, or unethical and unreliable because of her reliance on government assistance while her house is in foreclosure? I find it interesting how much character and circumstance plays into such decisions on a corporate level.
It’s also fascinating how these play into the popular backlash as well. This is a bit less surprising, since as a society we help those who are victims of chance and reward those who have an independent work ethic, and frown upon people whose work ethic may be compromised or who willfully make choices society dislikes. Both of those instances apply to Octomom. We’re currently in a time and place where responsibility – especially at the government and corporate level – has vanished and ordinary people who played by the rules are left holding the bag and are understandably angry. When they see another example of someone who is not “responsible,” charity will not be their first reaction. What a surprise that the media is the only one giving this woman what she wants!
There has also been a call to better regulate fertility clinics since they did not stop her from implanting all those embryos. But that is dangerous ground – doctors often need to give patients what they ask for with voluntary medical procedures. They can take doctors to court if they refuse.
This is also a good time to note – especially to those of us who are pro-choice – that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t support a woman’s right to choose, but then try to legally restrict how many babies she can choose to have (naturally or artificially). If a “normal” unmarried executive or lesbian wanted to get pregnant through a fertility clinic and was refused, pro-choice people would be outraged. The same rules apply here. You can’t support a woman’s right to choose and then try to restrict access to fertility or have a law stating who is or is not capable of having a baby (or eight babies).
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Worst Part of the Stimulus
It appears we may have a stimulus package that nobody likes and nobody thinks will fix the country. With all the partisanship gift packages in there – it appears the Democrats are trying to ram through everything they couldn’t do in the last eight years – there is one part of the package that is extremely unnerving that the media, naturally, has ignored. This is the noble but very badly flawed “Buy American” clause in the Stimulus Bill, which has an excellent potential of making the recession far steeper and deeper than it already is.
Introduced by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), this would give “preference to American-produced materials and products,” especially commodities like raw materials and agriculture. In other words, if a new bridge is built preference would be given to American steel, cement, machines, etc. Sounds good? A nice payback against companies that outsource jobs? WRONG.
If the recession has taught us anything, it is that Tom Friedman was right. The world is truly flat and our economy is global. The recessions that whacked Japan and Russia 10 years ago barely registered elsewhere. But we have brought down the entire global financial system. When a financial crisis in the U.S. indirectly destroys the economy of Iceland, you’ve got a global problem.
Companies and cities that build bridges have as much right to find the best and most economical commodities they can. And many of them have been going overseas to find things like steel to build their bridges. This is one of the biggest benefits of the global economy and global trade. You don’t need me to tell you how vital exports and free trade are to American companies. “Buy American” would be a huge step backward to the days of isolationism and protectionism. In fact the last time the economy was this bad, protectionism boosters succeeded in passing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, one of the worst laws ever passed in modern history and something that prolonged the Great Depression for years.
Shutting off the trade flow to other countries will guarantee one thing – other countries will respond in kind. The result would cost far more American jobs than the stimulus could ever produce. Dorgan’s clause is not nearly as far-reaching as Smoot Hawley, but the global economy is far more linked than ever and a tit-for-tat closing of foreign markets to U.S. goods (and vice versa) would make the recession worse than it already is.
To his credit, President Obama has already stated he doesn’t like the clause. And I’ve got to hand it to John McCain, who has been all over Dorgan’s mistake. But it’s possible Obama will overlook it just to get the thing signed. Let’s hope he reconsiders, or the stimulus will be far less underwhelming than many already fear.
More Info:
The Organization for International Investment: A trade group my company belongs to lists the reasons why Buy American would be horrible for America.
Buy American Debate: A listing of op-eds from economists and union bosses who dread having Buy American as part of the Stimulus
My earlier post on why foreign trade and investment is good for U.S. companies and workers
Introduced by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), this would give “preference to American-produced materials and products,” especially commodities like raw materials and agriculture. In other words, if a new bridge is built preference would be given to American steel, cement, machines, etc. Sounds good? A nice payback against companies that outsource jobs? WRONG.
If the recession has taught us anything, it is that Tom Friedman was right. The world is truly flat and our economy is global. The recessions that whacked Japan and Russia 10 years ago barely registered elsewhere. But we have brought down the entire global financial system. When a financial crisis in the U.S. indirectly destroys the economy of Iceland, you’ve got a global problem.
Companies and cities that build bridges have as much right to find the best and most economical commodities they can. And many of them have been going overseas to find things like steel to build their bridges. This is one of the biggest benefits of the global economy and global trade. You don’t need me to tell you how vital exports and free trade are to American companies. “Buy American” would be a huge step backward to the days of isolationism and protectionism. In fact the last time the economy was this bad, protectionism boosters succeeded in passing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, one of the worst laws ever passed in modern history and something that prolonged the Great Depression for years.
Shutting off the trade flow to other countries will guarantee one thing – other countries will respond in kind. The result would cost far more American jobs than the stimulus could ever produce. Dorgan’s clause is not nearly as far-reaching as Smoot Hawley, but the global economy is far more linked than ever and a tit-for-tat closing of foreign markets to U.S. goods (and vice versa) would make the recession worse than it already is.
To his credit, President Obama has already stated he doesn’t like the clause. And I’ve got to hand it to John McCain, who has been all over Dorgan’s mistake. But it’s possible Obama will overlook it just to get the thing signed. Let’s hope he reconsiders, or the stimulus will be far less underwhelming than many already fear.
More Info:
The Organization for International Investment: A trade group my company belongs to lists the reasons why Buy American would be horrible for America.
Buy American Debate: A listing of op-eds from economists and union bosses who dread having Buy American as part of the Stimulus
My earlier post on why foreign trade and investment is good for U.S. companies and workers
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Thanking Alex Rodriguez
And so it has come to this. Whether you now call him A-Roid, A-Fraud or (my favorite, thanks to the NY Post) A-Hole, Alex Rodriguez has done one great thing. He has just made life an even bigger hell for Bud Selig, Don Fehr and Gene Orza – the three men who destroyed baseball. What was once the world’s most popular and greatest sport has sunk under these three men’s ineptitude and unwillingness to confront what the NFL and NBA did long ago. Their collective buck passing on cheaters and baseheads has once again alienated millions of fans and destroyed the credibility of an entire generation of players.
Rodriguez was supposed to be the Great Hope of these three. After Barry Bonds’ fiasco, they hoped A-Roid would help shatter the home run record and restore baseball’s reputation. Even Rodriguez’s haters in Boston and the Bronx would applaud him knocking Bonds off his pedestal. No longer. Now there may be another asterisk next to a record holder who will hopefully never enter the Hall of Fame.
And it’s another kick in the teeth for Yankees fans. Why do all the abusers end up in pinstripes? Whether it’s Clemens, Giambi, Sheffield, Pettitte or Rodriguez, the Yankees are amassing a reputation as the See-No-Evil team that rolls out the welcome mat for baseball’s worst role models. All baseball managers have tough jobs, but Joe Girardi’s just got even harder. At least they only have to deal with Rodriguez for another nine years.
Putting on my PR flack hat for a moment, it sure was one curious interview that Rodriguez gave the other day. The good news is that by at least admitting his guilt and apologizing, Rodriguez already showed he’s smarter than Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens (not that that’s difficult). He also chose the vaunted Peter Gammons as his interviewer, and Gammons helped by throwing softballs without any follow up questions. Peter, you’re a great journalist, but why didn’t you ask A-Rod to specify which “banned substance” he took? How could Rodriguez not possibly know what substance he was taking? Was it injected or not? How many times did he take it in three years? Does he think he will still make the Hall with the Babe Ruths and Hank Aarons, or wallow in disgrace with Bonds and Pete Rose? What about the 60 Minutes interview where he lied about steroids?
You could tell Rodriguez had tried to memorize a speech for his mea culpa, which he couldn’t quite pull off without saying the word “uh” about 200 times. He never used the word “steroids” once. He also looked like he had on way too much makeup and lip gloss for the TV cameras. Bet he won’t hear about that in the Yankee locker room.
At this point, it doesn’t look like an insurrection is going to topple Selig or Fehr from their perches, so baseball can continue losing fans, respect and advertising dollars while the ship keeps sinking. They probably won’t listen to advice from anyone who can help them save the game. But since you’ve been kind enough to read this, baseball is in dire need of a “Truth Commission” where players can come forward and offer some kind of confession in return for some sort of amnesty. Maybe they don’t get prosecuted and are eligible for the Hall, but all the statistics and records they set during the years they used PEDs are voided from their record. Until the truth comes out, prepare for more A-Rod scandals to emerge and for many of today’s best players to continue deceiving America.
More Info:
My earlier post on Thanking Barry Bonds
Rodriguez was supposed to be the Great Hope of these three. After Barry Bonds’ fiasco, they hoped A-Roid would help shatter the home run record and restore baseball’s reputation. Even Rodriguez’s haters in Boston and the Bronx would applaud him knocking Bonds off his pedestal. No longer. Now there may be another asterisk next to a record holder who will hopefully never enter the Hall of Fame.
And it’s another kick in the teeth for Yankees fans. Why do all the abusers end up in pinstripes? Whether it’s Clemens, Giambi, Sheffield, Pettitte or Rodriguez, the Yankees are amassing a reputation as the See-No-Evil team that rolls out the welcome mat for baseball’s worst role models. All baseball managers have tough jobs, but Joe Girardi’s just got even harder. At least they only have to deal with Rodriguez for another nine years.
Putting on my PR flack hat for a moment, it sure was one curious interview that Rodriguez gave the other day. The good news is that by at least admitting his guilt and apologizing, Rodriguez already showed he’s smarter than Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens (not that that’s difficult). He also chose the vaunted Peter Gammons as his interviewer, and Gammons helped by throwing softballs without any follow up questions. Peter, you’re a great journalist, but why didn’t you ask A-Rod to specify which “banned substance” he took? How could Rodriguez not possibly know what substance he was taking? Was it injected or not? How many times did he take it in three years? Does he think he will still make the Hall with the Babe Ruths and Hank Aarons, or wallow in disgrace with Bonds and Pete Rose? What about the 60 Minutes interview where he lied about steroids?
You could tell Rodriguez had tried to memorize a speech for his mea culpa, which he couldn’t quite pull off without saying the word “uh” about 200 times. He never used the word “steroids” once. He also looked like he had on way too much makeup and lip gloss for the TV cameras. Bet he won’t hear about that in the Yankee locker room.
At this point, it doesn’t look like an insurrection is going to topple Selig or Fehr from their perches, so baseball can continue losing fans, respect and advertising dollars while the ship keeps sinking. They probably won’t listen to advice from anyone who can help them save the game. But since you’ve been kind enough to read this, baseball is in dire need of a “Truth Commission” where players can come forward and offer some kind of confession in return for some sort of amnesty. Maybe they don’t get prosecuted and are eligible for the Hall, but all the statistics and records they set during the years they used PEDs are voided from their record. Until the truth comes out, prepare for more A-Rod scandals to emerge and for many of today’s best players to continue deceiving America.
More Info:
My earlier post on Thanking Barry Bonds
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Your Pork, My Earmarks
There was a lot of discussion over earmarks in the presidential campaign, with McCain singling out an Obama earmark for $3 million for Illinois’ Adler Planetarium, ostensibly to buy some new equipment. McCain, who has not requested any earmarks since he was involved in the Keating Five Scandal, cited this earmark as an example of government waste and frivolous spending. Why, he asked, should the U.S. government pay for a new planetarium projector system in Illinois?
Fair enough. And you’d also be correct in citing most earmarks as non-essential projects that are uninvolved with running the country. No earmark illustrates that better than the legendary Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere – which Sarah Palin was for before she was against – and was seen as a classic example of pork spending purely for now former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens.
But the Bridge to Nowhere is unusual for a few reasons. The only reason it got noticed was because of its price tag – $398 million, which caused the Congressional Committee to actually take a look at it and see what a travesty it was. Most earmarks are overlooked because they cost far, far less than that. Despite McCain’s opposition, earmarks only count for 0.5% of the FY 2008 budget. Granted, that was $16.5 billion but it consisted of 11,524 earmarks – an average of $1.4 million each if my math is correct. Hiding $1.4 million in the mountain of appropriation bills that comprise almost a $3 trillion budget is nothing.
I can understand the frustration if someone doesn’t want the U.S. giving $3 million for projector equipment in Illinois. But what if you live in Illinois and your kids are taking a field trip to the Adler Planetarium? What if your kid sees the cool pictures of the universe the projector provides and becomes interested in science? What if the projector makes Adler one of the leading planetariums in the Midwest and the planetarium and local businesses reap in new money? Then you’d consider that money well-spent and you’d like to thank the government for the money, and Senator Obama for sneaking it into an anonymous bill that wasn’t vetted too carefully.
The truth about earmarks is that while they may be wasteful to most, it is one of the best ways for Congressmen and Senators to prove their worth to their constituents. Bringing home the bacon isn’t just the goal of family breadwinners; it’s also the goal of elected officials at the local and national level. Barney Frank is my Congressman, and he publishes a list of earmark requests on his Web site, although the cost is not included. Scanning them you see everything from Fall River sewer improvements to Taunton nursing home renovations. And yes, those two towns are part of his district. Part of his job is to get businesses, colleges and citizens the money they need to complete projects. To them, this is not pork – they are vital improvements that will benefit Massachusetts residents. Of course, if you’re not in Frank’s district you probably think they’re wasteful spending. Some will pass and some will not.
Are some earmarks unnecessary pork? Yes. Do they benefit friends and financial supporters of elected officials? Sometimes. Should there be better transparencies in the earmark process, including their full cost and what bills they are slapped onto? Absolutely. Should they be banned outright? No. While earmarks can be infuriating, they remain one of the best ways for members of Congress to send benefits and money directly to their districts. It helps them tout their accomplishments in re-election campaigns. And ironically if a Congressman isn’t bringing home enough earmarks, even their fiscally hawkish constituents may vote them out of office for not helping their towns enough and forgetting about the citizens they represent.
Fair enough. And you’d also be correct in citing most earmarks as non-essential projects that are uninvolved with running the country. No earmark illustrates that better than the legendary Alaskan Bridge to Nowhere – which Sarah Palin was for before she was against – and was seen as a classic example of pork spending purely for now former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens.
But the Bridge to Nowhere is unusual for a few reasons. The only reason it got noticed was because of its price tag – $398 million, which caused the Congressional Committee to actually take a look at it and see what a travesty it was. Most earmarks are overlooked because they cost far, far less than that. Despite McCain’s opposition, earmarks only count for 0.5% of the FY 2008 budget. Granted, that was $16.5 billion but it consisted of 11,524 earmarks – an average of $1.4 million each if my math is correct. Hiding $1.4 million in the mountain of appropriation bills that comprise almost a $3 trillion budget is nothing.
I can understand the frustration if someone doesn’t want the U.S. giving $3 million for projector equipment in Illinois. But what if you live in Illinois and your kids are taking a field trip to the Adler Planetarium? What if your kid sees the cool pictures of the universe the projector provides and becomes interested in science? What if the projector makes Adler one of the leading planetariums in the Midwest and the planetarium and local businesses reap in new money? Then you’d consider that money well-spent and you’d like to thank the government for the money, and Senator Obama for sneaking it into an anonymous bill that wasn’t vetted too carefully.
The truth about earmarks is that while they may be wasteful to most, it is one of the best ways for Congressmen and Senators to prove their worth to their constituents. Bringing home the bacon isn’t just the goal of family breadwinners; it’s also the goal of elected officials at the local and national level. Barney Frank is my Congressman, and he publishes a list of earmark requests on his Web site, although the cost is not included. Scanning them you see everything from Fall River sewer improvements to Taunton nursing home renovations. And yes, those two towns are part of his district. Part of his job is to get businesses, colleges and citizens the money they need to complete projects. To them, this is not pork – they are vital improvements that will benefit Massachusetts residents. Of course, if you’re not in Frank’s district you probably think they’re wasteful spending. Some will pass and some will not.
Are some earmarks unnecessary pork? Yes. Do they benefit friends and financial supporters of elected officials? Sometimes. Should there be better transparencies in the earmark process, including their full cost and what bills they are slapped onto? Absolutely. Should they be banned outright? No. While earmarks can be infuriating, they remain one of the best ways for members of Congress to send benefits and money directly to their districts. It helps them tout their accomplishments in re-election campaigns. And ironically if a Congressman isn’t bringing home enough earmarks, even their fiscally hawkish constituents may vote them out of office for not helping their towns enough and forgetting about the citizens they represent.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Jett Travolta's Death and Scientology - The Missing Link?
Am I the only one who finds the tragic death of John Travota’s 16-year-old son suspicious? And am I the only one who believes the media is once again not doing its job in reporting and investigating it?
First, I am not a doctor. There are no autopsy reports (yet). But initial reports that the boy died from falling and hitting his head in the bathroom after a seizure seems too suspicious to accept at face value. But even if that is the case, reports are now filtering in that the boy was not on any medication even though he seemed to suffer one big seizure every week.
The Travoltas have also said their son suffered from Kawasaki Syndrome, which he got from inhaling carpet cleaner when he was a toddler. Here’s some links to Kawasaki here and here, and in NONE of these places does it list an environmental cause like carpet cleaner. It largely affects the heart and arterial systems and does not cause seizures, although a heart attack could cause one, and that would show up in an autopsy.
But the 800 pound gorilla here that nobody is discussing is Scientology. Travolta and his family are Scientologists and largely disdain medicine, especially pharmaceutical drugs. Tom Cruise, another prominent Scientologist, is now more famous for disparaging medicine in a famous interview than his acting. How someone with only a high school could know more about medicine and biotechnology than the world’s top doctors and the entire pharmaceutical industry is a topic you can judge for yourself, but his views are largely in agreement with other Scientologists.
If it is discovered that Jett Travolta’s death could have been prevented by medication that his parents refused to give him, expect the contretemps on religion and Scientology to erupt again. And if that is indeed the case, I believe Travolta and his wife should be prosecuted.
More Info: At least The New York Post is thinking the same way I am. I don't think we're alone either...
First, I am not a doctor. There are no autopsy reports (yet). But initial reports that the boy died from falling and hitting his head in the bathroom after a seizure seems too suspicious to accept at face value. But even if that is the case, reports are now filtering in that the boy was not on any medication even though he seemed to suffer one big seizure every week.
The Travoltas have also said their son suffered from Kawasaki Syndrome, which he got from inhaling carpet cleaner when he was a toddler. Here’s some links to Kawasaki here and here, and in NONE of these places does it list an environmental cause like carpet cleaner. It largely affects the heart and arterial systems and does not cause seizures, although a heart attack could cause one, and that would show up in an autopsy.
But the 800 pound gorilla here that nobody is discussing is Scientology. Travolta and his family are Scientologists and largely disdain medicine, especially pharmaceutical drugs. Tom Cruise, another prominent Scientologist, is now more famous for disparaging medicine in a famous interview than his acting. How someone with only a high school could know more about medicine and biotechnology than the world’s top doctors and the entire pharmaceutical industry is a topic you can judge for yourself, but his views are largely in agreement with other Scientologists.
If it is discovered that Jett Travolta’s death could have been prevented by medication that his parents refused to give him, expect the contretemps on religion and Scientology to erupt again. And if that is indeed the case, I believe Travolta and his wife should be prosecuted.
More Info: At least The New York Post is thinking the same way I am. I don't think we're alone either...
Friday, January 02, 2009
YOU are a Special Interest!
One of the Pavlovian buzzwords that politicians and activists alike use to fire up the masses is “special interests.” Examples include, “Senator X is beholden to special interests,” or “As president, I will not answer to special interests,” and “It’s time we take Washington out of the pockets of special interests and give it back to the people!” The term special interests is rarely defined, but is generally meant to invoke shady back room deals by lobbyists, or paint a sinister insider group or association that controls the government while ignoring the people.
If you don’t follow politics or your democratic participation is limited to voting, then it all sounds good – take back the government and kick the special interests out of Washington! But guess what? You are not only a special person, but YOU are also a special interest! That’s right, the term “special interests” is not limited to unknown organizations and CEOs with deep pockets. If you write a letter to your Congressman or Senator telling them if they should vote for or against a bill, YOU are a special interest. If you belong to any group that tries to impact public policy – from a Chamber of Commerce to a union, and the NRA to the Sierra Club – YOU are a special interest. And if you speak out at your town’s Board of Selectmen meeting or call the mayor’s office to tell them your street is still unplowed, then YOU are being a special interest again.
Thanks to the First Amendment, anyone from a U.S. citizen to a Fortune 100 company has the right to address the government and tell it just how it feels about an issue. Do you want your neighbor to knock down his house and build a mega-mansion? If not, you have every right to request a change in zoning laws. You can even try and get your other neighbors to join you and start an organization, as strength in numbers make special interests even more special. If you are the CEO of a Fortune 100 company, and Congress is considering a bill that will force you to lose millions in revenue and lay off thousands of workers, you have every right to request a meeting with the chairman of the appropriate Congressional committee and tell them just that.
It’s easy for politicians and the media to deride special interests as what is ruining politics. Nothing could be further from the truth. “Special interests” sounds ominous, but addressing government from Washington to Town Hall is Democracy 101 in action. Any bill that is aimed at limiting special interests is doomed to fail on First Amendment grounds, as it well should. You may disagree with the NRA and want to limit their access to politicians, but would you also want to limit organizations like AARP or Greenpeace? Free speech is not discriminatory, and we are fortunate to live in a country where anyone has the right to address the government.
Perhaps another reason we hear about only certain types of special interests is because they are the ones most busy trying to influence the government. A new administration is coming to town in three weeks. It is going to do things much differently than the last one. It will make decisions that will impact every organization, company and person in America. Do you want to tell your Congressmen and Senators (who are representing YOU) what you think about this? They will correctly interpret your silence as neutrality or acquiescence. Or you can be a Special Interest, just like the ones you hear about, and tell them what they should know.
If you don’t follow politics or your democratic participation is limited to voting, then it all sounds good – take back the government and kick the special interests out of Washington! But guess what? You are not only a special person, but YOU are also a special interest! That’s right, the term “special interests” is not limited to unknown organizations and CEOs with deep pockets. If you write a letter to your Congressman or Senator telling them if they should vote for or against a bill, YOU are a special interest. If you belong to any group that tries to impact public policy – from a Chamber of Commerce to a union, and the NRA to the Sierra Club – YOU are a special interest. And if you speak out at your town’s Board of Selectmen meeting or call the mayor’s office to tell them your street is still unplowed, then YOU are being a special interest again.
Thanks to the First Amendment, anyone from a U.S. citizen to a Fortune 100 company has the right to address the government and tell it just how it feels about an issue. Do you want your neighbor to knock down his house and build a mega-mansion? If not, you have every right to request a change in zoning laws. You can even try and get your other neighbors to join you and start an organization, as strength in numbers make special interests even more special. If you are the CEO of a Fortune 100 company, and Congress is considering a bill that will force you to lose millions in revenue and lay off thousands of workers, you have every right to request a meeting with the chairman of the appropriate Congressional committee and tell them just that.
It’s easy for politicians and the media to deride special interests as what is ruining politics. Nothing could be further from the truth. “Special interests” sounds ominous, but addressing government from Washington to Town Hall is Democracy 101 in action. Any bill that is aimed at limiting special interests is doomed to fail on First Amendment grounds, as it well should. You may disagree with the NRA and want to limit their access to politicians, but would you also want to limit organizations like AARP or Greenpeace? Free speech is not discriminatory, and we are fortunate to live in a country where anyone has the right to address the government.
Perhaps another reason we hear about only certain types of special interests is because they are the ones most busy trying to influence the government. A new administration is coming to town in three weeks. It is going to do things much differently than the last one. It will make decisions that will impact every organization, company and person in America. Do you want to tell your Congressmen and Senators (who are representing YOU) what you think about this? They will correctly interpret your silence as neutrality or acquiescence. Or you can be a Special Interest, just like the ones you hear about, and tell them what they should know.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
The Yankees Do it Again
It is alarming and comforting at the same time that as we continue sliding through the worst recession of our lifetime, the New York Yankees are now on the hook for spending $805 million on four, yes FOUR, salaries. Alarming because while the rest of us fear for our retirement and our jobs, the Yankees are still lavishing their overpaid players with salaries that have nothing to do with performance (remind you of anyone else in New York?) while most other baseball teams continue to lament and fume in mediocrity with no hope of ever improving. And it’s comforting that the Yankees and the Steinbrenners in particular still have not learned that money and payroll can’t always buy you a championship and a collection of great stars does not guarantee a great team. Just ask a Mets fan about that last fact. And the Yankees still have no clue why the rest of the baseball world loathes them.
Many blame Scott Boras for these signings (Teixeira, A-Rod and Johnny Damon are just three high-profile Boras clients who recently signed with New York), but Boras is just trying to get the best deal for his clients. Others will blame the Red Sox for blinking or not upping the ante, but I actually admire Boston’s steadfast rules with player contracts – namely no contract longer than four years and a reluctance to engage in a bidding war with Boras or any other agent. And while Boras did represent Daisuke Matsuzaka last year, he was only dealing with Boston and if Boras did not complete a deal Dice-K was heading back to Japan.
No, Teixeira only got this obscene contract because Boras knew the Yankees would do what they always do – offer the most money and the longest-term contract, and with a no-trade clause to boot! Ever since the Steinbrenners came aboard, this has been the Yankee M.O. – how much do you want and for how long? This worked in the 70s when free agency was in its infancy, but the Yankee free agent track record in the last decade or so has not been stellar. Kevin Brown, Jason Giambi, Bobby Abreu, Damon, Carl Pavano, Andy Pettite’s second turn are just some of the higher profile busts. Others were a bit better – Mike Mussina and Roger Clemens (steroids notwithstanding) – but they certainly haven’t produced a championship. And as teams like Boston and Tampa Bay have recently shown, there’s still something to be said for a good farm system and solid prospects. Posada, Jeter, Rivera and Joba Chamberlain are fine examples.
But what is most disturbing is what I have ranted about long before – how baseball’s class system is contributing to the long-term decline of baseball’s relevance today. Baseball still ranks fourth in popularity of all professional sports. The luxury tax has helped a bit, but the Teixeira signing could finally be the straw that breaks the Pittsburgh and Kansas City’s fans backs. Every other sport has a salary cap to prevent these inequities, and perhaps this could finally pave the way for this to happen in baseball.
And something else is lost too. When I was a kid, my dad would often take me to games at Yankee Stadium, where we would often sit near first base. Total costs for transportation from Jersey, parking, hot dogs, tickets and souvenirs would be less than $30 for both of us. Now, as this great Sports Illustrated article illustrates, attending professional sports games is practically impossible for a middle class family.
It has also been disgraceful to see a team with the Yankees’ wealth fleece the City of New York for another $259 million in tax-exempt bonds on top of the $940 million they were already given to build their new billion dollar stadium. No city, especially one with New York’s budget issues, deserves to lavish public subsidies on a team that does not pay property taxes.
Perhaps Teixeira and Sabathia are the missing pieces the Yankees need to win a championship. But even if that is the case, there is still something artificial and greedy about the whole affair. I recently read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with my kids, and I realize the Yankees have become Veruca Salt – getting whatever they want no matter what the cost is to them, to their fans who ultimately pay for it, or whatever they sacrifice in respect and class along the way.
Many blame Scott Boras for these signings (Teixeira, A-Rod and Johnny Damon are just three high-profile Boras clients who recently signed with New York), but Boras is just trying to get the best deal for his clients. Others will blame the Red Sox for blinking or not upping the ante, but I actually admire Boston’s steadfast rules with player contracts – namely no contract longer than four years and a reluctance to engage in a bidding war with Boras or any other agent. And while Boras did represent Daisuke Matsuzaka last year, he was only dealing with Boston and if Boras did not complete a deal Dice-K was heading back to Japan.
No, Teixeira only got this obscene contract because Boras knew the Yankees would do what they always do – offer the most money and the longest-term contract, and with a no-trade clause to boot! Ever since the Steinbrenners came aboard, this has been the Yankee M.O. – how much do you want and for how long? This worked in the 70s when free agency was in its infancy, but the Yankee free agent track record in the last decade or so has not been stellar. Kevin Brown, Jason Giambi, Bobby Abreu, Damon, Carl Pavano, Andy Pettite’s second turn are just some of the higher profile busts. Others were a bit better – Mike Mussina and Roger Clemens (steroids notwithstanding) – but they certainly haven’t produced a championship. And as teams like Boston and Tampa Bay have recently shown, there’s still something to be said for a good farm system and solid prospects. Posada, Jeter, Rivera and Joba Chamberlain are fine examples.
But what is most disturbing is what I have ranted about long before – how baseball’s class system is contributing to the long-term decline of baseball’s relevance today. Baseball still ranks fourth in popularity of all professional sports. The luxury tax has helped a bit, but the Teixeira signing could finally be the straw that breaks the Pittsburgh and Kansas City’s fans backs. Every other sport has a salary cap to prevent these inequities, and perhaps this could finally pave the way for this to happen in baseball.
And something else is lost too. When I was a kid, my dad would often take me to games at Yankee Stadium, where we would often sit near first base. Total costs for transportation from Jersey, parking, hot dogs, tickets and souvenirs would be less than $30 for both of us. Now, as this great Sports Illustrated article illustrates, attending professional sports games is practically impossible for a middle class family.
It has also been disgraceful to see a team with the Yankees’ wealth fleece the City of New York for another $259 million in tax-exempt bonds on top of the $940 million they were already given to build their new billion dollar stadium. No city, especially one with New York’s budget issues, deserves to lavish public subsidies on a team that does not pay property taxes.
Perhaps Teixeira and Sabathia are the missing pieces the Yankees need to win a championship. But even if that is the case, there is still something artificial and greedy about the whole affair. I recently read Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with my kids, and I realize the Yankees have become Veruca Salt – getting whatever they want no matter what the cost is to them, to their fans who ultimately pay for it, or whatever they sacrifice in respect and class along the way.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Song of the South: Disney's Great Unknown
One of Disney World’s most popular rides is Splash Mountain, which is based on the 1946 Disney movie “Song of the South.” When my kids asked about the movie, I couldn’t tell them anything because I’ve never seen it. It has never been on video or DVD in the U.S., has only been sporadically re-released in theaters (the last time was in 1986) and Disney has no current plans to change this policy.
While the ride focuses on the animated parts of the film with Brer Rabbit, Brer Bear, Brer Fox and the rest of the Briar Patch crew, Song of the South was actually Disney’s very first foray into films that combined live action with animation, decades before Mary Poppins. Fans of Southern literature also may know the movie is based on the Uncle Remus tales of Joel Chandler Harris that were published after the Civil War. Harris based his (fictional) Uncle’s tales on stories told by freed slaves in the South at that time.
There’s a few web sites that are dedicated to the movie, most of which are petitioning Disney to finally release it. The movie’s animated sequences are told outside of the live action sections, where Uncle Remus tells Chandler’s stories to both black and white children. Allegedly Remus and other African Americans live as sharecroppers on a huge, white-owned plantation where they are extremely happy with their lives and work. And that appears to be the main reason why Disney has kept Song of the South in its vault despite growing requests to release it, most likely spurred by the ride. When released, the NAACP condemned the movie for its sugarcoated master/slave depiction and the alleged happy subservience of African Americans to their white landowners. I say “alleged” and “appears” a few times here since I haven’t seen the movie and can’t say whether this is accurate.
Perhaps when it was released in 1946, Song of the South was a product of its time and Disney did not think it was racist. And it was depicting the Reconstruction-era South, (which did not have slavery but life was not much better for African Americans then either). But the film won two Oscars – a special one for James Baskett, who plays Uncle Remus and another for best song (Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah). Baskett was the first African American man to ever win an Oscar and Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah remains one of Disney’s most popular songs. You can see and hear clips and songs from the movie on Disney compilation DVDs and CDs, and videos of the whole movie have been released overseas. But nothing in America.
Should Song of the South be released, or kept in the vault because of its (potentially) racist undertones? I have two ideas. The first would be to remake the movie. There is more than enough demand and new interest thanks to Splash Mountain for Disney to make an updated Song of the South with new animation while keeping the classic songs. At the same time, I’m quite sure Disney could do a much better and updated job with handling the racial climate of Reconstruction in the 21st century, and I bet lots of today’s big African American celebrities would jump at the chance to either be in the movie or do voice-over work.
The second idea would be to finally issue the movie on DVD, but use the occasion to properly frame the movie in its context of both 1946 and the time it represents. Disney can have plenty of material on the DVD that could address the film’s history and its reluctance to reissue it. Confronting the issue properly could start very useful dialogue with kids regarding our past.
When we have America’s first African American president about to take office, I vote that it’s time for the public to finally view Song of the South and determine either if the movie was truly racist in the first place or if it has been a lost and misunderstood classic. If that never happens, the movie will eventually enter the public domain in 2039.
More Info: Song of the South Fan Site, including info about the film, pictures and how to petition Disney to rerelease it.
Urban Legends on the Movie from Snopes
A Two Minute YouTube clip from the movie - Short, but judge for yourself
While the ride focuses on the animated parts of the film with Brer Rabbit, Brer Bear, Brer Fox and the rest of the Briar Patch crew, Song of the South was actually Disney’s very first foray into films that combined live action with animation, decades before Mary Poppins. Fans of Southern literature also may know the movie is based on the Uncle Remus tales of Joel Chandler Harris that were published after the Civil War. Harris based his (fictional) Uncle’s tales on stories told by freed slaves in the South at that time.
There’s a few web sites that are dedicated to the movie, most of which are petitioning Disney to finally release it. The movie’s animated sequences are told outside of the live action sections, where Uncle Remus tells Chandler’s stories to both black and white children. Allegedly Remus and other African Americans live as sharecroppers on a huge, white-owned plantation where they are extremely happy with their lives and work. And that appears to be the main reason why Disney has kept Song of the South in its vault despite growing requests to release it, most likely spurred by the ride. When released, the NAACP condemned the movie for its sugarcoated master/slave depiction and the alleged happy subservience of African Americans to their white landowners. I say “alleged” and “appears” a few times here since I haven’t seen the movie and can’t say whether this is accurate.
Perhaps when it was released in 1946, Song of the South was a product of its time and Disney did not think it was racist. And it was depicting the Reconstruction-era South, (which did not have slavery but life was not much better for African Americans then either). But the film won two Oscars – a special one for James Baskett, who plays Uncle Remus and another for best song (Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah). Baskett was the first African American man to ever win an Oscar and Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah remains one of Disney’s most popular songs. You can see and hear clips and songs from the movie on Disney compilation DVDs and CDs, and videos of the whole movie have been released overseas. But nothing in America.
Should Song of the South be released, or kept in the vault because of its (potentially) racist undertones? I have two ideas. The first would be to remake the movie. There is more than enough demand and new interest thanks to Splash Mountain for Disney to make an updated Song of the South with new animation while keeping the classic songs. At the same time, I’m quite sure Disney could do a much better and updated job with handling the racial climate of Reconstruction in the 21st century, and I bet lots of today’s big African American celebrities would jump at the chance to either be in the movie or do voice-over work.
The second idea would be to finally issue the movie on DVD, but use the occasion to properly frame the movie in its context of both 1946 and the time it represents. Disney can have plenty of material on the DVD that could address the film’s history and its reluctance to reissue it. Confronting the issue properly could start very useful dialogue with kids regarding our past.
When we have America’s first African American president about to take office, I vote that it’s time for the public to finally view Song of the South and determine either if the movie was truly racist in the first place or if it has been a lost and misunderstood classic. If that never happens, the movie will eventually enter the public domain in 2039.
More Info: Song of the South Fan Site, including info about the film, pictures and how to petition Disney to rerelease it.
Urban Legends on the Movie from Snopes
A Two Minute YouTube clip from the movie - Short, but judge for yourself
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Nepotism Factor
Before we collectively marveled in revulsion at Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich offering Barack Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder, I seemed to be one of the few equally perturbed that Caroline Kennedy, a respectable woman with absolutely zero interest and experience in politics or public affairs until a few months ago, was being considered as a front-runner for a New York Senate seat that was also to be filled by special appointment.
I have always been allergic to nepotism in public and private practice. Maybe it’s because my parents didn’t have a business where I could start as a vice president right out of college because they told me I had to earn my career the hard way. And there certainly was no political seat they kept warm for me either. And unlike Caroline, Paris and others, the Jacobson name doesn’t open many doors or ensure you’re born on third base or home plate either. But when many deride the special interests that consume politics, they should make room for the most special interest of all – families from the Bushes to the Kennedys on down trying to form oligarchies to govern plebians like us.
I’m not from Massachusetts and I don’t buy into the Kennedy mystique. In my home state of New Jersey, voters recently denied Tom Kean Jr., son of a former governor who had amassed an unspectacular record as a state senator, a U.S. senate seat in 2006. And I don’t think they would re-elect any senator who had gone through the driving and drinking trials of Ted Kennedy either. But if you look around at the recent political families that run so much of our country, you find little to assure you that these families are winning elections because of their brains. From the slew of Kennedys here to the Landrieus of Louisiana and the Daleys of Chicago, the overall track record of these families is pretty mediocre. While that may be no better or worse than your average politician, it’s safe to say that Hillary Clinton was Hillary Smith and Caroline Kennedy was Caroline Jones, do you think either of them would be considered for or elected to Congress with their track records?
And guess who may take over Joe Biden’s seat in Delaware? That’s right – Joe Biden III! In a move that Blagojevich would approve, Delaware Governor recently appointed Vice President-Elect Joe Biden’s chief of staff to fill his seat while Biden III prepares for a quite obvious run when he returns from Iraq. At least Biden has currently served almost 18 months as Delaware’s attorney general, giving him far more experience than Caroline Kennedy.
Nepotism is nothing new in American politics. The Adams of Massachusetts, the Roosevelts of New York and the Tafts of Ohio existed long ago and more families will arise. Name recognition is always important when running for office. But it’s a shame that so many voters and governors who must appoint members to Congress never look beyond pedigree or last name.
I have always been allergic to nepotism in public and private practice. Maybe it’s because my parents didn’t have a business where I could start as a vice president right out of college because they told me I had to earn my career the hard way. And there certainly was no political seat they kept warm for me either. And unlike Caroline, Paris and others, the Jacobson name doesn’t open many doors or ensure you’re born on third base or home plate either. But when many deride the special interests that consume politics, they should make room for the most special interest of all – families from the Bushes to the Kennedys on down trying to form oligarchies to govern plebians like us.
I’m not from Massachusetts and I don’t buy into the Kennedy mystique. In my home state of New Jersey, voters recently denied Tom Kean Jr., son of a former governor who had amassed an unspectacular record as a state senator, a U.S. senate seat in 2006. And I don’t think they would re-elect any senator who had gone through the driving and drinking trials of Ted Kennedy either. But if you look around at the recent political families that run so much of our country, you find little to assure you that these families are winning elections because of their brains. From the slew of Kennedys here to the Landrieus of Louisiana and the Daleys of Chicago, the overall track record of these families is pretty mediocre. While that may be no better or worse than your average politician, it’s safe to say that Hillary Clinton was Hillary Smith and Caroline Kennedy was Caroline Jones, do you think either of them would be considered for or elected to Congress with their track records?
And guess who may take over Joe Biden’s seat in Delaware? That’s right – Joe Biden III! In a move that Blagojevich would approve, Delaware Governor recently appointed Vice President-Elect Joe Biden’s chief of staff to fill his seat while Biden III prepares for a quite obvious run when he returns from Iraq. At least Biden has currently served almost 18 months as Delaware’s attorney general, giving him far more experience than Caroline Kennedy.
Nepotism is nothing new in American politics. The Adams of Massachusetts, the Roosevelts of New York and the Tafts of Ohio existed long ago and more families will arise. Name recognition is always important when running for office. But it’s a shame that so many voters and governors who must appoint members to Congress never look beyond pedigree or last name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)