Dave's Mighty 2009 NFL Predictions

Has it only been seven months since the great sport of football last graced our televisions? Do you remember looking back on my predictions that stated the Arizona Cardinals would be NFC Champions at 9-7? That Kerry Collins would come off the bench and lead Tennessee to a 13-3 record? You don’t? Well, how about where I compared Matt Millen to a box of rocks and said Detroit had nothing to be proud of? I nailed that one.

If you haven’t done so, it’s time to stimulate the economy like I did and start watching football on a REALLY BIG TV. I can even read the player’s tattoos.
So here we go, along with my dark horse picks. Just a warning: My political musings are usually more accurate than my NFL ones.

NFC EAST
1) NY Giants: You’re going to notice a trend this year. Good teams have good defenses and good running games. Bad teams have neither. The Giants are a study in the former. Is there a better offensive or defensive line in football? Brandon Jacobs loves to hit people, and he’s not even on defense. Eli Manning is streaky, but tends to just squeak through in the clutch.
2) Philadelphia: Wild Card Team. I’ll say this for Philly this year – they won’t be boring. I don’t think the players have the slightest idea what’s going to happen if McNabb enters a funk and Vick is on the bench. That said, I’m not sure how much gas Westbrook has left, and Jim Johnson’s death leaves a mighty big void.
3) Dallas: There’s no T.O., but they’re not getting younger, especially on the offensive line. They’ve got some talent at RB with Marion Barber and Felix Jones (when Barber’s healthy) and DeMarcus Ware is great, but after Ware the defense kind of slacks off. Look out Wade!
4) Washington: The good news is they have Albert Haynesworth, although Dan Snyder overpaid as usual. But it’s not good when Snyder tries to dump the QB that the coach is trying to build around. If Jason Campbell heats up the Skins might surprise us, but there’s not enough pop in the team.

NFC NORTH
1) Green Bay: Surprise! The Packers were 6-10 last year but Aaron Rodgers played well and the offense is great, with Greg Jennings and Ryan Grant. They’ve switched to the 3-4 defense which might take a game or two to settle in but will provide more flexible to LBs Nick Barnett and AJ Hawk. And as nice as the people in Wisconsin are, don’t you just know what’s going to happen when Farve shows up?
2) Minnesota: Wild Card Team. Yes, Farve makes the Vikings better. Yes, everyone has forgotten how he single-handedly destroyed the Jets late last year with bad mistakes. The defense is actually pretty good, provided their best player – Pat Williams – doesn’t get suspended.
3) Chicago: Lots of people are picking the Bears as their NFC Champion because of Jay Cutler. This is the same Jay Cutler that led the Broncos to a mighty 8-8, and that’s when he actually had someone good to throw to. Cutler won’t solve the Bears’ defensive and injury woes either.
4) Detroit: For years I laughed at Detroit because of Matt Millen’s bonehead mind, decisions, leadership, scouting and overall football knowledge. But when the Lions finally got what they deserved and threw him out, now I actually feel bad for them and want them to win. I’m tempted to make them my Dark Horse team because if they win three games, they’re the most improved. I’ll resist the temptation, but three wins sounds right.

NFC SOUTH
1) Atlanta: It will be tougher this year and this is a good division. But there are too many new stars on this team; Matt Ryan, Michael Turner, Roddy White on offense (plus Tony Gonzalez joined), plus John Abraham, Mike Peterson and Curtis Lofton on defense. Atlanta just seems hungrier than the other teams here.
2) New Orleans: No problem on offense with Drew Brees gunslinging, but the defense stinks more than a Bourbon Street gutter. And their best defensive players – Will Smith and Charles Grant – will likely be suspended for four games. That’s too big a hole to climb out of.
3) Carolina: Tough ride for QB Jake Delhomme. He’s solid, but I think the beating they took in the playoffs last year still stings. A great RB with DeAngelo Williams and a mean defensive line, but they lack the eye of the tiger.
4) Tampa Bay: It’s not a good sign when I couldn’t remember the last team in this division. When I did, I also remembered the new offensive coordinator got fired last week, longtime defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin is gone and Byron Leftwich is the starting QB. Next!

NFC WEST
1) Arizona: True, I did not pick the Cardinals to win the division last year but they were my dark horse team. And in what could be the weakest division, another 9-7 season could clinch it again. Offensively the Cards are fun to watch and Kurt Warner is the perfect QB for the spread offense they use, although the running could be better. Defense is another story, but when your division opponents are the three teams below how good do you need to be?
2) San Francisco: Dark Horse Team. I’m picking the Niners to surprise a few teams and finish around .500 because of coach Mike Singletary. If he is half as scary on the sidelines as he was on the field, the Niners will not only fear for their lives but he will become the meanest player to become a good coach since Jack Del Rio. He’s not afraid to bench starters and probably screams louder than anyone else in the locker room. It’s not good when the starting QB is someone named Shaun Hill, but Frank Gore is the RB and there’s signs of life on defense.
3) Seattle: No team got hurt more last year than the Seahawks. QB Matt Hasselback returns and can throw to TJ Houshmandzadeh. The defense is good. But the starting RB is Julius Jones.
4) St. Louis: Best of luck to former Giants defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo on his new gig. It’s good there’s no pressure on him this year, because turning the Rams defense into something respectable is at least 365 days away. RB Steven Jackson can’t do it all, and I think Marc Bulger has been quarterback since Kurt Warner left town.

AFC EAST
1) New England: Not a tough pick, but methinks trouble looms ahead on defense. Longtime leaders Mike Vrabel, Richard Seymour, Rodney Harrison, Teddy Bruschi and Junior Seau are gone. That said, Belichick is good at making lemonade and Brady is back with Wes Welker, Randy Moss and Joey Galloway. The league’s best offense should overcome.
2) Miami: Two reasons they won’t repeat. First, they went from a last place schedule to a first place schedule, and second, everyone’s ready for the Wildcat now. But the offensive line is good and Ronnie Brown is a great RB.
3) NY Jets: The focus is on new QB Mark Sanchez (who, by the way, only has WR Jerricho Cotchery to throw at. Hello, double coverage?). But look at the rest of the Jets team; they’re…good. Not great, but good. RB Thomas Jones got 1500 yards but is 31. DT Kris Jenkins is good but won’t start anyone’s fantasy league.
4) Buffalo: Everyone is excited about T.O. and the no-huddle offense. When Buffalo last run a no-huddle, they had the league’s best offensive line and Jim Kelly was QB. This time they have the league’s worst offensive line and Trent Edwards is QB. RB Marshawn Lynch is suspended for three or four games. Looks like another long winter.

AFC NORTH
1) Pittsburgh: Not a tough pick, part two. Everyone is back from last year, but I’m curious to see if teams try to spread the Steelers mighty defense across the field this time after the Cardinals almost pulled it off in the Super Bowl. How cool are James Harrison and Troy Polamalu?
2) Baltimore: Wild Card Team. Ferocious defense? Check (Haloti Ngati, Ed Reed, Terrell Suggs). Good QB? Check (Joe Flacco). Good RB? Maybe (Ray Rice and Laron McClain, no relation to the Arizona senator). If one of those RBs shines, look out Pittsburgh.
3) Cincinnati: Well, there’s Carson Palmer and that Ochocinco guy and then, uh, who’s on defense? Wasn’t Marvin Lewis supposed to fix that five or six years ago?
4) Cleveland: I understand that new head coaches usually start with a bad team, but not even Bill Walsh could turn this team around. Besides the QB debacle, can you name one player? And if you can, does he impress you?

AFC SOUTH
1) Indianapolis: This was a tough pick, because Tony Dungy and Marvin Harrison are gone. But Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Adam Vinatieri and Dwight Freeney are still there. But the Colts are no longer elite and I don’t see them going far in the playoffs, let alone against New England or Pittsburgh.
2) Tennessee: Wild Card Team. I just can’t see the Titans going 13-3 again, especially without Albert Haynesworth and Jim Schwartz on defense. And as much as I like Kerry Collins, his age and streakiness don’t bode well in the long run.
3) Houston: Dark Horse Team. In a weaker division, the Texans would be in the playoffs this year, and they may sneak in if the Titans or Colts screw up. Matt Schaub has become a solid QB and Andre Johnson is one of the best WRs in football. The defense is great with future stars DT Mario Williams and LB DeMeco Ryans. If they can cut the turnovers and get a good divisional record, they could pull it off.
4) Jacksonville: Two years ago Jacksonville was 11-5 and I thought 2008 was their year. Then their best offensive lineman got shot the first week of the season and injuries flattened the rest of them. The new GM has cleaned house and while everyone likes RB Maurice Jones-Drew, this is what they call a “rebuilding year.” Eh.

AFC WEST
1) San Diego: This is how bad this division is. The Chargers won with an 8-8 record. As predicted, Coach Norv Turner has underachieved as usual, although it would be tough to mess up a club with Philip Rivers, Antonio Gates, LaDanian Tomlinson and Shawne Merriman.
2) Kansas City: Look at this way – when you have four games against Denver and Oakland you can go 4-12 and in this division, 4-12 is good enough for second. The Chiefs seem to have the fewest problems among the three doormats here provided QB Matt Cassell gets healthy fast, and with Dwayne Bowe and Larry Johnson the offense could show signs of life.
3) Denver: Let’s see. New coach Josh McDaniels got rid of the starting QB for…Kyle Orton. The best remaining player, WR Brandon Marshall, wants a trade. Except for new CB Champ Bailey, there is no defense to speak of, and I’ve never heard of the RB. Apart from that, everything’s peachy.
4) Oakland: Richard Seymour just got traded here and he has refused to report to the team. Can you blame him? Oh, and the team got rid of QB Jeff Garcia so JaMarcus Russell can keep up his good work.

Why I'll Miss Ted Kennedy

“While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which much be recognized--the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old…When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.”

Ted Kennedy, August 3, 1971

I am not from Massachusetts and never bought into the Kennedy mystique. He was, at the end of the day, a politician – and one who, like the example above shows, flip flopped as much as any other. He cared about the environment, but opposed putting a wind farm off Nantucket Sound. When his fellow Massachusetts senator John Kerry was close to winning the presidency in 2004, he got his home state to change the law to make sure the then-Republican governor couldn’t appoint anyone to the position, but on his deathbed tried to change the very law he championed when a Democrat was governor. His drinking and sexual indulgences lasted into his 50s. And you could argue that Kennedy’s crusade against Robert Bork in 1987 set the stage for the hyperpartisan gnashing and voting that greets any Supreme Court nominee today.

Why then, will I miss Ted Kennedy? Well, first as a selfish Massachusetts resident Kennedy certainly had the chops to bring both the pork and bacon home to his constituents. But most importantly – and unlike his late brothers – Kennedy spent his career in the Senate and understood the art of compromise and the importance of deal-making in order to get things accomplished. The best advice I ever heard on negotiating was if someone offers you at least 51% of what you want, take it. Kennedy grasped this, and was unafraid to cross the aisles to work with Republicans to get him at least more than halfway to his eventual goal. I would divide Kennedy’s life in half. The first is pre-1980, when he literally got away with murder, was more known for boozing than legislating and embarked on a truly misguided presidential campaign and one of the most liberal convention speeches in history that gave Reagan the election on a silver platter.

But afterward, Kennedy became the new Henry Clay. He never renounced his liberalism but always strove to get things accomplished. Instead of going for the Hail Mary touchdown pass of liberalism he described in his convention speech, perhaps the 1980 campaign and election seemed to awaken the understanding that going yard by yard was a better way to get things done. Much has been written about how universal health care was his lifelong goal. That was never achieved – and it seems increasingly unlikely it will be achieved again this year. But look at Kennedy’s incremental health care accomplishments – Americans with Disabilities Act, SCHIP, COBRA, the National Institute of Health and the National Cancer Institute. Those are impressive accomplishments that not only extend the liberal notion of health care access but are causes that nobody could refute.

And if you look not only at those accomplishments, but also at Kennedy’s more recent achievements like No Child Left Behind and the immigration bill that did not become law, you notice they were all bipartisan. Most were also achieved with people like John McCain, Bob Dole and Nancy Kassebaum – Republicans who also understood the art of the deal and the importance of compromise.

It’s a sad comparison to the state of Congress today, where both parties are headed by rabid hyperpartisans unversed in dealmaking and wanting an all-or-nothing approach. Much has been said that if Kennedy were still able to attend Senate hearings the last few months, a health care bill would have been passed. I would say that if Kennedy were still around, he’d be working on a compromise with Republican colleagues that would ensure something effective would be passed. It would probably not be everything the president wants, but it would be at least 51% of it.

More Info: Some people have said Kennedy is burning in hell. I haven’t seen such blind partisan hatred for the departed since, well, since liberals hoped Jerry Falwell was burning in hell.

It's the Message, Stupid!

How can the Obama team, which did such a good job staying on message during the campaign, have lost the messaging war in the health care debate? Let us count the ways.

First, simplicity is always important. Selling a simple message like “Change” is easy. Selling a tough message like “health care reform” is a lot tougher. Just as many people dislike Congress but like their Congressman, many people think health care should be reformed but the 90% of people with health care insurance seem largely satisfied. They also seem to like their doctors and seniors with Medicare also don’t want things to change. Perhaps they could have used something like health care cost reform or health insurance reform, but it’s a bit late for that now.

Second, know your audience. You don’t have to convince all the people in an election, but if you’re president you need to speak to the people who didn’t vote to you. Since we all know what the Republican base is like and what most Americans value, it shouldn’t surprise many that getting Americans to understand the specifics of health care reform isn’t easy. This recent poll about American beliefs on health care reform says it all:

· 45% believe the government will decide when to stop providing medical treatment to senior citizens
· 55% believe the bill will extend health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants
· 54% believe the overhaul will lead to a “complete” government takeover of the health care system

All three of those items are absolutely wrong and have been debunked by those on the right and left alike. But people still believe them. Clearly the administration is not controlling the debate.
Finally, in PR we have what is called the “elevator pitch.” The story goes that if you’re riding in an elevator with an editor or Congressman, you have to clearly state what you want or what makes your company great, and get him to understand it before the elevator door opens. When the opposition says things like “death panels” and “costing over one trillion dollars,” it’s got the elevator pitch down cold. Average Americans understand elevator pitches. They will not understand long, drawn-out points. This is an unfortunate but standard fact of life that the President seems to have forgotten.

There are also three health care reform bills in Congress, which makes it complicated for people who understand long, drawn-out points. Mr. President, what is your ultimate goal with this bill? Lower costs? Coverage for all? A government-run system for people who can’t get or afford coverage? Making insurance companies accept all comers regardless of the risk? I don’t think anyone is quite sure. It may be all of that.

So if the president is reading, I advise him to regroup and repackage a single bill that has three or five easy to understand points that any American can grasp in about 60 seconds. And something about how he would pay for it would be nice too.

More Info: I’ve never blogged about Massachusetts’ universal health care law, but it was championed by former Governor Mitt Romney before he started flip flopping. An excellent NGO is Health Care for All, whose former leader (John McDonough) has a Ph.D. on health care costs and was instrumental in putting this important legislation together. Oh yeah, and he’s a very liberal Democrat who hates single-payer coverage. Here’s an old interview with him just before the Mass. law was passed.

Health Care Reform Will Not Cure Ignorance

I recently had breakfast with Jim McGovern, Democrat from Massachusetts’ 3rd District by Worcester. He told a story of how he stopped by a McDonald’s near his home and five old men in a booth yelled at him to come over. They then accosted and berated him on the new health care bills in Congress, screaming how they didn’t want the government to get into the health care business (only in terms more crude than that).

McGovern then asked how many of them were on Medicare. They all said they were. He then asked if they had any major problems with it. Nope, they said, and they wanted it to stay that way. McGovern then asked, “Did you know Medicare is a government-run, single-payer health care system?” Blank stares were the only reply.

I know plenty of liberal partisans who blindly repeat whatever the New York Times says, but at least most of the Times’ articles and editorials are well-written and have a cursory basis in facts. But McGovern’s Mickey Dee’s moment, which is being played in town halls across the country, shows what happens when the opposing army sends their soldiers into battle without a plan or at least a few talking points. It doesn’t help when the topic is as byzantine and esoteric as health care, and there are currently three different health care bills circulating in Congress to confuse people who are actually trying to pay attention.

As with the prior phony “tea party” anti-tax protests in April, I like the whole idea of asking Congressmen and women tough, challenging questions at town hall meetings – Jefferson himself would have loved the concept. But Jefferson would also be floored at the lack of civility and utter ignorance showcased at these events. The irony of old people on Medicare hollering against a government-run health care system is to put it mildly, bizarre, and those who are just regurgitating whatever the so-called conservative firebrands tell them are going to miss that forest for the trees. It’s also interesting as an observer who watched liberals and progressives shriek apoplectically about anything George W. Bush did for eight years see the exact opposite crowd doing the exact same thing about Obama. Both types of these people seem so driven by rage that they can’t even think straight.

It’s a shame because there is a problem with health care in this country and a civil dialogue could get some important steps accomplished. Both sides could probably agree quickly to get something done about costs, particularly malpractice tort reform, excessive outlays and tests charged by hospitals, and how each state has a few dominant healthcare providers that charge what they want and extort fees from insurance companies and consumers alike. If the Republicans wanted to battle Obama on reining in health care costs instead of sending clowns and seniors to spew nonsense about euthanizing old people, then they’d actually be on to something. I also know far too many Canadians and Europeans who moved here for health reasons because of bureaucratic boondoggles in the foreign, single-payer health care systems Obama spotlights. But that would require arming foot soldiers and Congressmen alike with a plan and encourage them to discuss things rationally, so don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

More Info: Now this is how the Republicans should argue.

...And That's The Way It Is (Back Then)

Walter Cronkite was lucky to live to 92, and even luckier to live when he did – at a time when everyone got their news from the same television station at the same time, and anchors were still required to be objective journalists. It didn’t matter if they wore glasses or spoke in a gravelly voice or appeared on TV in their sixties. Back then, it was OK to spend several minutes on a story to make sure viewers received all the facts, and the story never was influenced by ideologies or pressured by major advertisers.

If Walter was graduating today, he probably wouldn’t think of journalism as a career, and even if he did he would never be picked to anchor a local broadcast, let alone a national one. Too dour, people would say. Too much of a perfectionist. Walter is remembered today not so much for who he was, but what he represented. Some would say his editorial on Vietnam following the Tet Offensive was a switch from journalism to editorial, but to reach that conclusion he had the nerve to actually travel to Vietnam and find out the facts first. And when you watch him and listen to his voice, there is none of the condescension and taunting that flows from so many so-called news anchors and bloviators today. He spoke with absolute authority, for he had actually bothered to do his homework. The nerve of him.

Walter also had the politeness and the class to wait until he was retired (actually, forced into retirement) to begin making his true political feelings known. That was perfectly acceptable – he was no longer an anchor or journalist. I’m sure he was disappointed in many things concerning journalism and the media, especially the partisan sniping that masquerades as debate and the downfall of the once-mighty CBS News. But if I had the audacity to guess, I think what bothered him the most was both the move from reporting the news to editorializing the sensational and the trivial. President Obama recently said he was surprised the media made the recent “beer summit” the top story instead of the meeting he had with the president of the Philippines. He had to have been joking, but Cronkite would have said, “And right there…that’s why the mighty Fourth Estate has fallen.”

Massachusetts is not a Democracy

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.

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.

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?

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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).

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

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

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.