I love CNN, but ENOUGH already with the frigging touch-screen machine. Did they really need to use it to tell the story of the balloon-boy incident? Maybe it’s useful for elections. I suppose if I had spent a gazillion dollars on such a device, I’d be compelled to use it, too. But are you really going to watch CNN because they have a touch screen and can interview holograms?
I guess I’m getting old. When it rains, the weather coverage on some of the major-market stations gives me a headache. All that zooming in and out to tell me that it’s raining right down on my neighborhood. When I was in Florida a few years ago during an approaching hurricane, the TV stations didn’t just have satellite views; they could slice and dice the clouds sideways. But they still couldn’t forecast intensity correctly – the hurricane fizzled out before it reached Miami. The headache was the same, though.
I saw one of my favorite high-tech TV devices more than 40 years ago. The female weathercaster in Hartford, Conn. used to write the information in chalk on a clear plastic screen in front of her. But because (or so I was told) the station could reverse the polarity of the TV picture so the viewer could read what she was writing, I was really impressed by that girl’s ability to write backwards. The fact that her wedding ring was on the wrong hand kind of gave it away, but still…
In the really old days, the weather people used Magic Markers or something similar. There was a weathercaster at the station I worked for in Washington, D.C. who would begin his show by saying “Getting oriented,” and drawing a big circle on the map around the Washington area. That was on the 6 o’clock news. After the show was over, the weathercaster would go out and have his usual well-lubricated dinner. So when the 11 p.m. news rolled around and he said “Getting oriented,” he was successful at drawing the circle around Washington only about 60 percent of the time, hitting Richmond or Charlotte instead.
But at least he was the one with the headache.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
OK Dave, We Heard You
I don’t know about you, but I’ve kind of reached my limit on people apologizing on the air for things. And of course, it’s usually men, and it’s usually about the same thing. Maybe it’s a real ratings booster when you hear that some public figure is about to issue a mea culpa, but it’s turned into a channel switcher for me – especially when it comes to men apologizing for the usual thing.
It’s unclear to me whether David Letterman helped or hurt himself by all this very public activity. I know two things: First, it’s going to limit his material for a while. He won’t have the standing to make jokes about the sexual misadventures of other public figures, especially politicians, and when you’re a comedian, that’s a problem. Second, most of us will forget about it in relatively short order.
You would think this lesson would have been learned by now: certain kinds of celebrity come with a price, There are just some things you can’t do anymore in the modern media environment, and your responsibility as a celeb is to a) not do them, or b) at the very least, get away with them. I’ve said many times that what President Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky was a security risk of the first magnitude – just my opinion. We all laughed at President Carter when he revealed that he had lusted in his heart – but he shouldn’t he get a little credit for not proceeding on to the next step?
Look – faced with the same temptations as some of these people, I don’t know whether I’d be able to resist -- but I’d sure as hell try.
In the meantime, I just wish some of those household names would go into their closets, as the Bible suggests, say a few Hail Marys or whatever is appropriate, and spare us the public spectacle.
It’s unclear to me whether David Letterman helped or hurt himself by all this very public activity. I know two things: First, it’s going to limit his material for a while. He won’t have the standing to make jokes about the sexual misadventures of other public figures, especially politicians, and when you’re a comedian, that’s a problem. Second, most of us will forget about it in relatively short order.
You would think this lesson would have been learned by now: certain kinds of celebrity come with a price, There are just some things you can’t do anymore in the modern media environment, and your responsibility as a celeb is to a) not do them, or b) at the very least, get away with them. I’ve said many times that what President Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky was a security risk of the first magnitude – just my opinion. We all laughed at President Carter when he revealed that he had lusted in his heart – but he shouldn’t he get a little credit for not proceeding on to the next step?
Look – faced with the same temptations as some of these people, I don’t know whether I’d be able to resist -- but I’d sure as hell try.
In the meantime, I just wish some of those household names would go into their closets, as the Bible suggests, say a few Hail Marys or whatever is appropriate, and spare us the public spectacle.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Flying Down to Rio
Why the long faces about Chicago losing the 2016 Olympics? OK, I’m not from Chicago. And I suppose there are more than a few red faces now that Oprah, Michelle, and the President couldn’t make it happen. But isn’t it time South America had the Games?
South America is a continent. Yet the rest of the world generally seems to ignore it. How many news stories do Norte Americanos hear on a daily basis about South America? OK, there’s Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and the Colombian drug cartels. And, oh yeah, the Falklands war, going back a ways. But South America gets so little respect, the rest of us don’t even bother to stereotype it anymore.
It’s been pointed out that a South American Olympic venue might be less subject to terrorism than a U.S. location. And who can argue with Rio as a physical backdrop? Brazil in general is considered one of the hemisphere’s leaders when it comes to energy independence. No doubt the country has problems, though they will now get more than passing attention from the rest of the world. Good heavens, we might even learn something.
And finally, who wants the Olympics anyway? They’re expensive, and often considered a giant pain in the rear end by many in the chosen community. I say, let the South Americans have their turn.
South America is a continent. Yet the rest of the world generally seems to ignore it. How many news stories do Norte Americanos hear on a daily basis about South America? OK, there’s Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and the Colombian drug cartels. And, oh yeah, the Falklands war, going back a ways. But South America gets so little respect, the rest of us don’t even bother to stereotype it anymore.
It’s been pointed out that a South American Olympic venue might be less subject to terrorism than a U.S. location. And who can argue with Rio as a physical backdrop? Brazil in general is considered one of the hemisphere’s leaders when it comes to energy independence. No doubt the country has problems, though they will now get more than passing attention from the rest of the world. Good heavens, we might even learn something.
And finally, who wants the Olympics anyway? They’re expensive, and often considered a giant pain in the rear end by many in the chosen community. I say, let the South Americans have their turn.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Hit the Reset Button
I’m probably contradicting myself here. I told you earlier that health care was the angel that we had to wrestle with, like Jacob in the Bible, until we got the blessing out of it. The angel, though, may not be Senator Baucus and his bill. Or maybe he’s Jacob and the bill is the angel. I’m confused.
The bill does good things and bad things -- but if it’s hundreds of pages long, it’s doing too many things. It’s just going to be another big game to play, like the tax system. But the bottom line is, this country isn’t ready for full health care reform.
We’re just too used to putting up with abusive systems, on the grounds that it’s the way life is. Most of us just aren’t dissatisfied enough. We’re not mad as hell, and we’re still OK with taking more of it. While insurance companies screw a lot of people, they perform a great service for others – they shield them from having to deal with costs. If your insurance company pays off on the $40 your hospital charges for a toothbrush, it’s not your problem – that’s what you pay premiums for. As long as you have a job and you’re covered, other people’s problems aren’t yours.
This will only be solved comprehensively when enough people demand that it be solved. We’re just not there yet. If we begin from the premise that there is a moral obligation to provide health care for all with a reasonable set of rules, we can make it happen, but most Americans just don’t feel that way about it yet.
The President is trying to argue that reform can be accomplished without raising taxes. It’s beginning to rhyme with READ MY LIPS, and he’s painted himself and this effort into a corner. If we really want reform, it will likely involve raising taxes. If there’s a real commitment to reform, that wouldn’t be an obstacle. But we’re not ready. The declaration “We can’t afford it” can be easily translated: that’s not a priority now.
The perfect doesn’t have to be the enemy of the good, but with all due respect to the legislators who have worked so hard on trying to reach a compromise, it certainly should be the enemy of the s—tty. I say, hit the reset button and start over on this, and bite off what we can really chew.
The bill does good things and bad things -- but if it’s hundreds of pages long, it’s doing too many things. It’s just going to be another big game to play, like the tax system. But the bottom line is, this country isn’t ready for full health care reform.
We’re just too used to putting up with abusive systems, on the grounds that it’s the way life is. Most of us just aren’t dissatisfied enough. We’re not mad as hell, and we’re still OK with taking more of it. While insurance companies screw a lot of people, they perform a great service for others – they shield them from having to deal with costs. If your insurance company pays off on the $40 your hospital charges for a toothbrush, it’s not your problem – that’s what you pay premiums for. As long as you have a job and you’re covered, other people’s problems aren’t yours.
This will only be solved comprehensively when enough people demand that it be solved. We’re just not there yet. If we begin from the premise that there is a moral obligation to provide health care for all with a reasonable set of rules, we can make it happen, but most Americans just don’t feel that way about it yet.
The President is trying to argue that reform can be accomplished without raising taxes. It’s beginning to rhyme with READ MY LIPS, and he’s painted himself and this effort into a corner. If we really want reform, it will likely involve raising taxes. If there’s a real commitment to reform, that wouldn’t be an obstacle. But we’re not ready. The declaration “We can’t afford it” can be easily translated: that’s not a priority now.
The perfect doesn’t have to be the enemy of the good, but with all due respect to the legislators who have worked so hard on trying to reach a compromise, it certainly should be the enemy of the s—tty. I say, hit the reset button and start over on this, and bite off what we can really chew.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Choose Your Words
In a recent post, a fellow blogger I know expressed concern about “defeatist” Democrats in Congress who favored a U.S. pullout from Afghanistan. Personally, I don’t care for terminology like “victory” and “defeat” in the kinds of conflicts we find ourselves involved in today. Even “mission accomplished” has a bad sound now.
When it comes to Afghanistan, it seems to me there are two reasonable goals. The little one is whacking Osama bin Laden. I’ve heard all the arguments about how Al-Qaeda is a hydra-headed entity and that taking him out wouldn’t accomplish anything. I disagree. Such an act would have a tremendous symbolic impact around the world. Of course, it would have had a much greater impact if we’d done it in, say, 2002.
This can be done with relatively few operatives. When the Israelis want to track down international terrorists who have done bad things to them, they put teams together, send them into whatever countries their targets are living in, kidnap them or kill them, and apologize for it later (if they even bother).
The big goal in the region is keeping the terrorists away from the nukes in Pakistan, and the question is, how do you do that? Is it by nation-building in Afghanistan – or should we really be nation-building in Pakistan – or both?
So how many troops does it take to destroy the terrorist elements in those places and help stabilize the governments involved? I’m no military strategist, but based on what’s happened historically, the U.S. is not going to accomplish these ends with 10,000 or 20,000 more troops. This is a commitment that would seem to involve hundreds of thousands – a Vietnam-level commitment at least.
And as I’ve said before, if you really want to go to war, the whole country has to be involved – basically every American family – and that involves re-instituting the draft. It’s not fair to be sending the same people over for five our six tours. With a draft, if the President and Congress really wanted to fight a war, they’d have to bring the country with them.
I don’t envy the President having to make a decision about how to proceed. But instead of dealing with “victory” and “defeat” and all the emotional baggage packed into those terms, I hope he works with colder terms like “cost-benefit ratio.
In the end, “victory” means, to me at least, that we can answer yes to the question, “Are we safe now?”
When it comes to Afghanistan, it seems to me there are two reasonable goals. The little one is whacking Osama bin Laden. I’ve heard all the arguments about how Al-Qaeda is a hydra-headed entity and that taking him out wouldn’t accomplish anything. I disagree. Such an act would have a tremendous symbolic impact around the world. Of course, it would have had a much greater impact if we’d done it in, say, 2002.
This can be done with relatively few operatives. When the Israelis want to track down international terrorists who have done bad things to them, they put teams together, send them into whatever countries their targets are living in, kidnap them or kill them, and apologize for it later (if they even bother).
The big goal in the region is keeping the terrorists away from the nukes in Pakistan, and the question is, how do you do that? Is it by nation-building in Afghanistan – or should we really be nation-building in Pakistan – or both?
So how many troops does it take to destroy the terrorist elements in those places and help stabilize the governments involved? I’m no military strategist, but based on what’s happened historically, the U.S. is not going to accomplish these ends with 10,000 or 20,000 more troops. This is a commitment that would seem to involve hundreds of thousands – a Vietnam-level commitment at least.
And as I’ve said before, if you really want to go to war, the whole country has to be involved – basically every American family – and that involves re-instituting the draft. It’s not fair to be sending the same people over for five our six tours. With a draft, if the President and Congress really wanted to fight a war, they’d have to bring the country with them.
I don’t envy the President having to make a decision about how to proceed. But instead of dealing with “victory” and “defeat” and all the emotional baggage packed into those terms, I hope he works with colder terms like “cost-benefit ratio.
In the end, “victory” means, to me at least, that we can answer yes to the question, “Are we safe now?”
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Wrestling With the Angel
From all appearances, this health care debate is a giant boondoggle. The bills to reform it are thousands of pages long and nobody really knows what’s in them. Lobbyists are swarming over Congress. Fist fights break out at town hall meetings, where “ordinary people” are outnumbered by members of interest groups. And of course, it’s the wrong time to be thinking about this, many say, in the middle of a deep recession when so many have no jobs.
But is it the wrong time? I submit that if everything in the economy was going swimmingly, there would be less interest in reform, not more. When things are good, who’s interested in changing anything? Success is something you don’t generally feel like messing with.
As for the town halls, fist fights at least show that citizens are involved in this debate. The difference between a member of a political interest group and an “ordinary” participant is as thin as the color of the T-shirts being worn. And can you think of a time in recent memory when there were town halls around the country about a particular issue? Wouldn’t it be nice if we’d had them in advance of, say, our invading Iraq?
This debate is forcing the populace to pay a lot more attention to the influence of lobbyists in Congress, and is prompting individuals to mobilize -- and no lobbyist can outweigh the influence of an engaged electorate.
If you’ll pardon me for going biblical on you, there’s the well-known story of Jacob wrestling with the angel. The match went on all night, and the angel tried everything to escape Jacob’s grasp, including knocking his hip out of joint, but old Jake would not let go until he got his blessing. I believe that’s the attitude we need to solve the health care problem. We have to resist the pressure to meet some artificial deadline or just let go completely. If we wait for a time when things are better, well, they’re just never going to be good enough, so let’s finish what we’ve started.
But is it the wrong time? I submit that if everything in the economy was going swimmingly, there would be less interest in reform, not more. When things are good, who’s interested in changing anything? Success is something you don’t generally feel like messing with.
As for the town halls, fist fights at least show that citizens are involved in this debate. The difference between a member of a political interest group and an “ordinary” participant is as thin as the color of the T-shirts being worn. And can you think of a time in recent memory when there were town halls around the country about a particular issue? Wouldn’t it be nice if we’d had them in advance of, say, our invading Iraq?
This debate is forcing the populace to pay a lot more attention to the influence of lobbyists in Congress, and is prompting individuals to mobilize -- and no lobbyist can outweigh the influence of an engaged electorate.
If you’ll pardon me for going biblical on you, there’s the well-known story of Jacob wrestling with the angel. The match went on all night, and the angel tried everything to escape Jacob’s grasp, including knocking his hip out of joint, but old Jake would not let go until he got his blessing. I believe that’s the attitude we need to solve the health care problem. We have to resist the pressure to meet some artificial deadline or just let go completely. If we wait for a time when things are better, well, they’re just never going to be good enough, so let’s finish what we’ve started.
Monday, May 4, 2009
The P Word
PANDEMIC! Doesn’t that sound awful, like WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE? It’s just one of those words whose definitions we think we understand, but don’t. The dictionary says pandemic means “occurring over a wide geographic area and affecting an exceptionally large proportion of the population.”
There’s nothing in there about severity. In other words, if hangnails were contagious, and all of North America got them at the same time, that would qualify as a pandemic.
Did the authorities and the media panic the population? In the beginning, they did not know what they were dealing with in swine flu, and it was the fear generated by the uncertainty that caused the problem. Many media outlets that I watched bent over backwards to avoid blowing this out of proportion, but the little P word kept coming up.
A couple of years ago, my wife had a business trip to Miami, and I went with her. It was in August, and a tropical storm named Ernesto was bearing down on South Florida. The TV stations pre-empted all their programs and went into 24/7 disaster mode, as the storm was forecast for a direct hit on Miami at Category 3. Are you impressed that your local TV station has Doppler radar and neighborhood zoom graphics in its weather segment? You should live in Miami. You’d see each cloud bisected and trisected every way from Sunday. Their weather graphics would blow you away a lot faster than the hurricane.
At the Cuban restaurant Café Versailles, where we went for lunch, the whole building was boarded up, and we almost left until I saw a little sign saying “Abierto” (open) near the door. At our hotel, the staff took all the blades off the ceiling fans in the open-air bar. People scrambled into stores to buy water, batteries, etc. I have always been fascinated by hurricanes, and I was thrilled to be in Miami at that time (cheap adrenaline thrills at the expense of others, as described in an earlier post).
So along came Ernesto, but he miraculously fizzled to a weak tropical storm within the space of three hours. The TV stations no longer had anything to talk about, The NBC affiliate news staff said, “We’ll keep you updated on Ernesto, but now we return you to our regularly scheduled program: Fear Factor.”
As one local Miami ham radio operator put it on the weather net, “Well, they’re real good at tracking, but they suck at intensity.”
So were all these preparations and media warnings a waste of time? Ernesto could easily have intensified to a Cat 4 or 5 as quickly as it weakened. And that 3.2 earthquake that woke you up last week could have been a 6.9. The swine flu could just as easily have been 1918 all over again. Nothing wrong with a little fire drill now and then. And one of these days, we’ll just about get it right.
There, now I've said it.
There’s nothing in there about severity. In other words, if hangnails were contagious, and all of North America got them at the same time, that would qualify as a pandemic.
Did the authorities and the media panic the population? In the beginning, they did not know what they were dealing with in swine flu, and it was the fear generated by the uncertainty that caused the problem. Many media outlets that I watched bent over backwards to avoid blowing this out of proportion, but the little P word kept coming up.
A couple of years ago, my wife had a business trip to Miami, and I went with her. It was in August, and a tropical storm named Ernesto was bearing down on South Florida. The TV stations pre-empted all their programs and went into 24/7 disaster mode, as the storm was forecast for a direct hit on Miami at Category 3. Are you impressed that your local TV station has Doppler radar and neighborhood zoom graphics in its weather segment? You should live in Miami. You’d see each cloud bisected and trisected every way from Sunday. Their weather graphics would blow you away a lot faster than the hurricane.
At the Cuban restaurant Café Versailles, where we went for lunch, the whole building was boarded up, and we almost left until I saw a little sign saying “Abierto” (open) near the door. At our hotel, the staff took all the blades off the ceiling fans in the open-air bar. People scrambled into stores to buy water, batteries, etc. I have always been fascinated by hurricanes, and I was thrilled to be in Miami at that time (cheap adrenaline thrills at the expense of others, as described in an earlier post).
So along came Ernesto, but he miraculously fizzled to a weak tropical storm within the space of three hours. The TV stations no longer had anything to talk about, The NBC affiliate news staff said, “We’ll keep you updated on Ernesto, but now we return you to our regularly scheduled program: Fear Factor.”
As one local Miami ham radio operator put it on the weather net, “Well, they’re real good at tracking, but they suck at intensity.”
So were all these preparations and media warnings a waste of time? Ernesto could easily have intensified to a Cat 4 or 5 as quickly as it weakened. And that 3.2 earthquake that woke you up last week could have been a 6.9. The swine flu could just as easily have been 1918 all over again. Nothing wrong with a little fire drill now and then. And one of these days, we’ll just about get it right.
There, now I've said it.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Saying What You Mean
I think we should cut Joe Biden a little slack – his superiors certainly haven’t. Asked on the Today Show whether he’d advise family members to avoid air travel to Mexico because of the swine flu, the Vice President said he’d advise them, and Americans in general, to avoid unnecessary air travel, or travel in “confined spaces” like subways, altogether. The White House, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and even Biden’s staff spent the rest of the day making woefully inadequate explanations of what he “really meant to say.” It was perfectly clear to me.
This is not a new concept. I know people who travel frequently on business, and they maintain that they catch more colds during the winter months due to their time in airplanes. It’s not just one person coughing on a plane, but usually multiple people if there’s a full flight, and you’re dealing with recirculated air. This wouldn’t keep me from flying, but I can understand my friends’ concerns, and Biden’s. I don’t think it was “fear-mongering.” He was asked for his advice – he didn’t issue an executive order. And let’s face it, the explanations of what he “meant to say” just dug the Administration into a much deeper hole than he did.
Then there’s Carrie Prejean, Miss California. During the Miss USA pageant, this young lady was asked a question about same-sex marriage, and said she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. She deserves – and received from some quarters -- praise for saying what she believes. But last night on Fox News, when Greta van Susteren asked her a few follow-ups, like how she felt about civil unions, she said those involved should have “some rights,” and when van Susteren asked if that included adoption, Prejean said she didn’t want to get into politics.
OK -- I have defended beauty pageants, making the point that many pageant contestants are not the airheads they’re often taken for. In the case of Ms. Prejean, however, while she’s to be commended for telling us her true feelings, she clearly hasn’t thought about this whole issue very deeply, and she’d better start doing so if she’s going to be a national spokeswoman for heterosexual marriage (or at least learn some lines). I’m not going to call her an airhead. But after last night’s performance, it’s safe to say that she isn’t exactly a Rhodes Scholar, either.
There, now I've said it.
This is not a new concept. I know people who travel frequently on business, and they maintain that they catch more colds during the winter months due to their time in airplanes. It’s not just one person coughing on a plane, but usually multiple people if there’s a full flight, and you’re dealing with recirculated air. This wouldn’t keep me from flying, but I can understand my friends’ concerns, and Biden’s. I don’t think it was “fear-mongering.” He was asked for his advice – he didn’t issue an executive order. And let’s face it, the explanations of what he “meant to say” just dug the Administration into a much deeper hole than he did.
Then there’s Carrie Prejean, Miss California. During the Miss USA pageant, this young lady was asked a question about same-sex marriage, and said she believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. She deserves – and received from some quarters -- praise for saying what she believes. But last night on Fox News, when Greta van Susteren asked her a few follow-ups, like how she felt about civil unions, she said those involved should have “some rights,” and when van Susteren asked if that included adoption, Prejean said she didn’t want to get into politics.
OK -- I have defended beauty pageants, making the point that many pageant contestants are not the airheads they’re often taken for. In the case of Ms. Prejean, however, while she’s to be commended for telling us her true feelings, she clearly hasn’t thought about this whole issue very deeply, and she’d better start doing so if she’s going to be a national spokeswoman for heterosexual marriage (or at least learn some lines). I’m not going to call her an airhead. But after last night’s performance, it’s safe to say that she isn’t exactly a Rhodes Scholar, either.
There, now I've said it.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Ghost Stories in the Dark
A lot of our modern news reporting reminds me of sitting around a dying campfire on a summer night telling ghost stories, each storyteller challenged to raise the fright level over the last.
Take Melissa Huckaby, charged with the murder of 8-year-old Sandra Cantu, which on its face, may qualify for the crime of the century – but that’s not quite enough. Reporters have dug up information suggesting that Huckaby has kidnapped children before and given them drugs. She also may be an arsonist. She did have past convictions for petty theft and also had a nasty divorce. Oh, did I hear them say that the Cantu murder occurred in a church?
I’m sure if they shave the back of Huckaby’s head, they will find the number 666 neatly tattooed above her right ear. Someone better get on the phone to Wes Craven – there’s definitely a movie here. I’m curious, however, in what country this woman is going to get a fair trial. If little green invaders come to Earth, let’s hope they’re available for jury duty.
What is the take-away from this reporting? Even your next-door neighbor from a respected church family could be a monster waiting to strike. You can change the scenery – make it Wall Street, and there you have Bernie Madoff. It all happened without warning, the story goes, until we get to the part about the obvious signs being there that were ignored – or no one listened to those few would who were trying to give us the heads-up.
It’s not that we shouldn’t hear about this stuff. It’s just seems to me that the media enjoy it a little too much, and so does the audience (My name is Mike, and I’m an adrenaline junkie….)That’s why horror movies have always done so well at the box office. But the stories that used to scare us aren’t good enough anymore, so the next camper has to tell us a better one. We all need to have our world rocked once in a while, but when does the rocking stop?
SARS and the bird flu didn’t quite cut the mustard, but now we have the swine flu. This could be the greatest pandemic to sweep the globe since 1918. Or not – we won’t know for a while yet. I do agree that most health authorities are taking the precautions they need to take. But in the meantime, it looks like we all get to share a good shiver.
Take Melissa Huckaby, charged with the murder of 8-year-old Sandra Cantu, which on its face, may qualify for the crime of the century – but that’s not quite enough. Reporters have dug up information suggesting that Huckaby has kidnapped children before and given them drugs. She also may be an arsonist. She did have past convictions for petty theft and also had a nasty divorce. Oh, did I hear them say that the Cantu murder occurred in a church?
I’m sure if they shave the back of Huckaby’s head, they will find the number 666 neatly tattooed above her right ear. Someone better get on the phone to Wes Craven – there’s definitely a movie here. I’m curious, however, in what country this woman is going to get a fair trial. If little green invaders come to Earth, let’s hope they’re available for jury duty.
What is the take-away from this reporting? Even your next-door neighbor from a respected church family could be a monster waiting to strike. You can change the scenery – make it Wall Street, and there you have Bernie Madoff. It all happened without warning, the story goes, until we get to the part about the obvious signs being there that were ignored – or no one listened to those few would who were trying to give us the heads-up.
It’s not that we shouldn’t hear about this stuff. It’s just seems to me that the media enjoy it a little too much, and so does the audience (My name is Mike, and I’m an adrenaline junkie….)That’s why horror movies have always done so well at the box office. But the stories that used to scare us aren’t good enough anymore, so the next camper has to tell us a better one. We all need to have our world rocked once in a while, but when does the rocking stop?
SARS and the bird flu didn’t quite cut the mustard, but now we have the swine flu. This could be the greatest pandemic to sweep the globe since 1918. Or not – we won’t know for a while yet. I do agree that most health authorities are taking the precautions they need to take. But in the meantime, it looks like we all get to share a good shiver.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The Fickle Media Spotlight
By now, you have heard the tragic story of Sandra Cantu, the 8-year-old from the California Central Valley city of Tracy, who had been missing for 10 days. Sandra’s story led the evening news in the San Francisco Bay Area almost every night since her disappearance. Hundreds of volunteers came from all over the region to help authorities search for her. There were tearful nightly appearances by family members and neighbors, and there were candlelit prayer vigils. How did it end? The little girl’s body was found by farmworkers in a suitcase pulled from an irrigation pond.
The Cantu case provides a disturbing parallel to a 1997 case I covered as a radio reporter in Southern California. Anthony Martinez was 10 years old when he disappeared from the town of Beaumont, not far from Palm Springs. While he was missing, his story led TV newscasts all over the region. Volunteers turned out in droves to look for him. There was a “prayer circle” one weekend in a local park, attended by Beaumont’s mayor. This story also ended badly. Anthony’s body was found about two weeks later in the foothills near what is now the Joshua Tree National Park.
These stories always bother me, for reasons apart from, or in addition to, the tragic circumstances involved. Exactly how do these cases become media events? Why do certain kids get the attention, when there are probably hundreds of other missing children around the country whose stories don’t make that level of news? Do they have better PR, with more media-savvy relatives? Are they cuter than other missing kids?
True, the media have to cover these stories, and it’s clear that the best way to dramatize any story is to focus on individual examples instead of statistics. But what conclusions are we to draw? Does this coverage teach a valuable lesson about adults doing a better job of watching kids, or does it just make parents more paranoid?
Does the coverage pump up false hope? When the tragic end is revealed, are all those volunteers feeling as if they wasted their time? And most disturbing: is all that praying a waste of time?
In the case of Anthony Martinez, a suspect is in custody and the wheels of justice are grinding away. As of this writing, the facts in the case of Sandra Cantu have yet to come out. But I wish I could come to a conclusion about all of this. Maybe that’s part of the pain we feel after these cases – caused by the inability to wrap them up and file them away under some neat philosophical heading. At least, that seems to be my problem.
There, now I’ve said it.
The Cantu case provides a disturbing parallel to a 1997 case I covered as a radio reporter in Southern California. Anthony Martinez was 10 years old when he disappeared from the town of Beaumont, not far from Palm Springs. While he was missing, his story led TV newscasts all over the region. Volunteers turned out in droves to look for him. There was a “prayer circle” one weekend in a local park, attended by Beaumont’s mayor. This story also ended badly. Anthony’s body was found about two weeks later in the foothills near what is now the Joshua Tree National Park.
These stories always bother me, for reasons apart from, or in addition to, the tragic circumstances involved. Exactly how do these cases become media events? Why do certain kids get the attention, when there are probably hundreds of other missing children around the country whose stories don’t make that level of news? Do they have better PR, with more media-savvy relatives? Are they cuter than other missing kids?
True, the media have to cover these stories, and it’s clear that the best way to dramatize any story is to focus on individual examples instead of statistics. But what conclusions are we to draw? Does this coverage teach a valuable lesson about adults doing a better job of watching kids, or does it just make parents more paranoid?
Does the coverage pump up false hope? When the tragic end is revealed, are all those volunteers feeling as if they wasted their time? And most disturbing: is all that praying a waste of time?
In the case of Anthony Martinez, a suspect is in custody and the wheels of justice are grinding away. As of this writing, the facts in the case of Sandra Cantu have yet to come out. But I wish I could come to a conclusion about all of this. Maybe that’s part of the pain we feel after these cases – caused by the inability to wrap them up and file them away under some neat philosophical heading. At least, that seems to be my problem.
There, now I’ve said it.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Making Folks Whole
A key feature of the Obama administration’s plan for reviving the economy involves making the banks whole, but what about consumers? As some top economists have been telling us, until the federal help gets down to the household level, it won’t be enough to start the nation’s economic engine.
Much of this unwholeness has to do with credit cards. Comedian Jon Stewart recently proposed that the feds give consumers enough money to pay off their credit card debt. They’d be whole, and the banks would be, too, at least as far as that segment of their balance sheets goes.
But how do you give consumers the money while ensuring they actually use it to deal with their debt? You could offer them a choice: The feds could say, we’ll pay off your credit card, but in return, you agree to hold only a single card with a credit limit of $1,000. Or, the card becomes a charge card only – you have to pay the balance off at the end of the month. Those cardholders with existing credit lines who don’t need the help and want to continue with their card companies could do so under their current terms. Simply put: If you accept government help, you live with the conditions imposed. But you don’t have to accept that help.
This would not preclude the banks from loosening up the restrictions on the bailed-out consumers after, say, one year. But the banks would have to hang on to those deals they make.
The other leg of this stool is revising the whole credit score system so that it’s based on individual creditor performance. A bank’s relationship with the cardholder should be based on that relationship only, not on how that debtor is performing with other creditors. If a debtor accepts direct federal help, perhaps one of the conditions could be the imposition of a baseline credit score, which would go up as the consumer responsibly deals with debt going forward.
Once consumers are made whole, they will resume spending, because they’ll feel better. Will it be at the same level as the old days? No. The nation’s economic engine will be running at much lower RPMs.
But really, would that be so bad? Does reality have to bite?
There, now I’ve said it.
Much of this unwholeness has to do with credit cards. Comedian Jon Stewart recently proposed that the feds give consumers enough money to pay off their credit card debt. They’d be whole, and the banks would be, too, at least as far as that segment of their balance sheets goes.
But how do you give consumers the money while ensuring they actually use it to deal with their debt? You could offer them a choice: The feds could say, we’ll pay off your credit card, but in return, you agree to hold only a single card with a credit limit of $1,000. Or, the card becomes a charge card only – you have to pay the balance off at the end of the month. Those cardholders with existing credit lines who don’t need the help and want to continue with their card companies could do so under their current terms. Simply put: If you accept government help, you live with the conditions imposed. But you don’t have to accept that help.
This would not preclude the banks from loosening up the restrictions on the bailed-out consumers after, say, one year. But the banks would have to hang on to those deals they make.
The other leg of this stool is revising the whole credit score system so that it’s based on individual creditor performance. A bank’s relationship with the cardholder should be based on that relationship only, not on how that debtor is performing with other creditors. If a debtor accepts direct federal help, perhaps one of the conditions could be the imposition of a baseline credit score, which would go up as the consumer responsibly deals with debt going forward.
Once consumers are made whole, they will resume spending, because they’ll feel better. Will it be at the same level as the old days? No. The nation’s economic engine will be running at much lower RPMs.
But really, would that be so bad? Does reality have to bite?
There, now I’ve said it.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
About Face
I changed my mind, bit the bullet and joined Facebook.
Concerns about privacy caused me to hesitate, but as I often tell anyone who will listen, the privacy horse left the barn a long time ago in this country, so why not?
As of this writing I have a dozen Facebook friends, most of whom I used to work with. What amazes me is how much these people have to share. Particularly the women. They all seem to have hundreds of pictures of themselves. Now I’m three times their age in many cases, and I have a only a third as many photos. And no small number of those are from film, so I’d have to convert them into jpgs for posting. That’s a lot of work. If I wanted to make Facebook a full-time job, I’m sure it would be easy. I think it must be a consuming occupation with some of these folks. And I see how this amoebic acquisition of friendships can become addicting.
But here’s my problem. My life just isn’t all that interesting, and I have no way of holding up my end in the sharing department. I was a journalist for a long time, and spent most of it concerned with what was happening to others, not to me. In this profession, we’re often so involved with others’ lives that we sometimes substitute that for living our own. But maybe that says more about me than about the profession.
I do hope my newfound friends forgives my lack of production. There will be very little to post on the wall for a while -- just for perspective, I have about enough for a Twitter a month, or a Christmas letter every couple of years. As for Facebook, I enjoy reading about what’s happening to people I know, although I’m still partly at the “What’s the point?” stage of the whole experience. I think there is one, which I expect to fully grasp in time. For now, though, please be patient.
There, now I’ve said it. Your friend, Coughswitch.
Concerns about privacy caused me to hesitate, but as I often tell anyone who will listen, the privacy horse left the barn a long time ago in this country, so why not?
As of this writing I have a dozen Facebook friends, most of whom I used to work with. What amazes me is how much these people have to share. Particularly the women. They all seem to have hundreds of pictures of themselves. Now I’m three times their age in many cases, and I have a only a third as many photos. And no small number of those are from film, so I’d have to convert them into jpgs for posting. That’s a lot of work. If I wanted to make Facebook a full-time job, I’m sure it would be easy. I think it must be a consuming occupation with some of these folks. And I see how this amoebic acquisition of friendships can become addicting.
But here’s my problem. My life just isn’t all that interesting, and I have no way of holding up my end in the sharing department. I was a journalist for a long time, and spent most of it concerned with what was happening to others, not to me. In this profession, we’re often so involved with others’ lives that we sometimes substitute that for living our own. But maybe that says more about me than about the profession.
I do hope my newfound friends forgives my lack of production. There will be very little to post on the wall for a while -- just for perspective, I have about enough for a Twitter a month, or a Christmas letter every couple of years. As for Facebook, I enjoy reading about what’s happening to people I know, although I’m still partly at the “What’s the point?” stage of the whole experience. I think there is one, which I expect to fully grasp in time. For now, though, please be patient.
There, now I’ve said it. Your friend, Coughswitch.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Go Figure
The current economic downturn offers many reminders that we shouldn’t take things too personally. I was really offended about a notice I received until I found out that many others are having the same experience -- but it still doesn’t compute.
I have been dealing with a particular credit card company for more than 25 years. I have never had a late payment in that time. On rare occasions I could only make the minimum payment; other times I have been able to pay the balance down to zero at the end of the month.
Recently, I received a notice that as of mid-April, my annual interest rate would be increased to almost 18 percent. “Extraordinary changes in the economic environment,” they said. This particular company received federal bailout funds, and the major federal interest rates are almost zero, so where does the company come by the 18 percent figure?
That’s only half the story. The same company sent me a promotional offer saying that if I transferred a balance over from another card, I would enjoy zero percent interest on that amount for an entire year. So times are so tough that my regular rate will be 18 percent, but they can still offer zero percent on transfers.
Then there are the penalty rates. If for some reason I am late on a payment, the company has the right to raise the rate to almost 30 percent. Now in these extraordinary times, it might not be unusual that someone would be late on a payment or unable to meet a minimum. So if the company can’t get the regular payment out of a debtor in that situation, where do they think they’re going to get the 30 percent interest from? And you’re trapped: If you cancel your account, your credit score could be damaged, so the personal finance gurus say.
One of these, Suze Orman, is telling us that paying the minimum amount on your card each month isn’t good enough to protect your credit score or your credit line. Which sounds to me like the minimum payment the credit card companies want isn’t a minimum at all. It would be nice, then, if they told us what the real minimum is. Please don’t get me started on the whole FICO score thing – that’s a whole ‘nother discussion.
Many of these credit card issues will go away when new federal regulations take effect – but they don’t until 2010, so how are the card companies going to be treating customers between now and then?
In a much earlier post we speculated about the end of the credit card. The cards won’t go away, but put me down for this prediction: within 10 years, the revolving balance thing will disappear, going the way of credit default swaps and other such instruments. Either the banks will eventually conclude that revolving balances are bad business, or more likely, they will be flat-out illegal. There will be cards, but you’ll have to settle up every month, just like in the old, old days. Junkies, the street will be dry before you know it.
There, now I’ve said it.
I have been dealing with a particular credit card company for more than 25 years. I have never had a late payment in that time. On rare occasions I could only make the minimum payment; other times I have been able to pay the balance down to zero at the end of the month.
Recently, I received a notice that as of mid-April, my annual interest rate would be increased to almost 18 percent. “Extraordinary changes in the economic environment,” they said. This particular company received federal bailout funds, and the major federal interest rates are almost zero, so where does the company come by the 18 percent figure?
That’s only half the story. The same company sent me a promotional offer saying that if I transferred a balance over from another card, I would enjoy zero percent interest on that amount for an entire year. So times are so tough that my regular rate will be 18 percent, but they can still offer zero percent on transfers.
Then there are the penalty rates. If for some reason I am late on a payment, the company has the right to raise the rate to almost 30 percent. Now in these extraordinary times, it might not be unusual that someone would be late on a payment or unable to meet a minimum. So if the company can’t get the regular payment out of a debtor in that situation, where do they think they’re going to get the 30 percent interest from? And you’re trapped: If you cancel your account, your credit score could be damaged, so the personal finance gurus say.
One of these, Suze Orman, is telling us that paying the minimum amount on your card each month isn’t good enough to protect your credit score or your credit line. Which sounds to me like the minimum payment the credit card companies want isn’t a minimum at all. It would be nice, then, if they told us what the real minimum is. Please don’t get me started on the whole FICO score thing – that’s a whole ‘nother discussion.
Many of these credit card issues will go away when new federal regulations take effect – but they don’t until 2010, so how are the card companies going to be treating customers between now and then?
In a much earlier post we speculated about the end of the credit card. The cards won’t go away, but put me down for this prediction: within 10 years, the revolving balance thing will disappear, going the way of credit default swaps and other such instruments. Either the banks will eventually conclude that revolving balances are bad business, or more likely, they will be flat-out illegal. There will be cards, but you’ll have to settle up every month, just like in the old, old days. Junkies, the street will be dry before you know it.
There, now I’ve said it.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Stimulate This
According to the experts, much of this country’s wealth – what’s left of it – is concentrated in the hands of relatively few. How do you pry those funds out of the death grip of those gotrocks who have them? They’re hanging on to it for fear they’ll lose it. Of course, if the economy collapses altogether, whatever they have will be worthless. The wealth has to be put into circulation somehow.
What’s needed is a broad-based incentive program for people to spend money. Apparently, lower prices aren’t good enough, nor are appeals to patriotism. There needs to be a bonus for parting with cash. How about tax credits for buying a car, or big home appliances? Is a flat-screen TV a qualifying home appliance? What would be the harm? How about credits for travel or eating out?
The private sector has been doing things like this for decades, maybe centuries, and it works. I just signed up for a program whereby a company gives me airline miles for using my credit card to eat at participating restaurants. Some of my favorites are on the list. I’m already hearing you: a) I shouldn’t be using a credit card, and b) I shouldn’t be eating out in these times. But with the airline miles I might be able to take a nice trip someday – or not. I’m at least thinking about the deal, though – why? Because I’m getting something extra. The bonus in these programs is often unrelated to the product they’re based on. The kicker with the restaurant rewards program is that there’s a time limit to qualify for extra airline miles – if I don’t spend within a certain period, I lose those miles. So there’s both a carrot and a stick.
What about all these executives that got their zillion dollar bonuses when their companies were failing? You can’t take their millions away from them. But is there a way to basically force them to spend it? That’s a penalty you’d think they could live with. Get them to put their money in circulation somehow. Whether we like it or not, much of our economy is based on consumption. Hold guns to their heads and make them consume.
Here’s something to think about. What happens if all of us conspicuous consumers get used to the idea of living with less? Then I guess we’ll be in real economic trouble.
There, now I’ve said it.
What’s needed is a broad-based incentive program for people to spend money. Apparently, lower prices aren’t good enough, nor are appeals to patriotism. There needs to be a bonus for parting with cash. How about tax credits for buying a car, or big home appliances? Is a flat-screen TV a qualifying home appliance? What would be the harm? How about credits for travel or eating out?
The private sector has been doing things like this for decades, maybe centuries, and it works. I just signed up for a program whereby a company gives me airline miles for using my credit card to eat at participating restaurants. Some of my favorites are on the list. I’m already hearing you: a) I shouldn’t be using a credit card, and b) I shouldn’t be eating out in these times. But with the airline miles I might be able to take a nice trip someday – or not. I’m at least thinking about the deal, though – why? Because I’m getting something extra. The bonus in these programs is often unrelated to the product they’re based on. The kicker with the restaurant rewards program is that there’s a time limit to qualify for extra airline miles – if I don’t spend within a certain period, I lose those miles. So there’s both a carrot and a stick.
What about all these executives that got their zillion dollar bonuses when their companies were failing? You can’t take their millions away from them. But is there a way to basically force them to spend it? That’s a penalty you’d think they could live with. Get them to put their money in circulation somehow. Whether we like it or not, much of our economy is based on consumption. Hold guns to their heads and make them consume.
Here’s something to think about. What happens if all of us conspicuous consumers get used to the idea of living with less? Then I guess we’ll be in real economic trouble.
There, now I’ve said it.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Properly Placed Pride
A few months ago, before Michelle Obama became First Lady, she got into trouble with some folks for saying that her husband’s candidacy for President represented the first time in her adult life that she had been proud of her country. So how did you feel before that, the critics asked.
Well, I’m proud to be an American, but it’s a little hard to be proud of some of our recent behavior. Let’s face it, folks – the current world economic crisis is basically our fault. Wasn’t it we who invented credit default swaps and sub-prime mortgages? Didn’t more than a few of us lie on those home loan apps? Didn’t our regulatory system fail miserably, with Bernard Madoff as the poster boy? Haven’t our auto companies been making vehicles with no future, and haven’t we been buying them? If you want to expand the view somewhat, don’t our baseball players take steroids and our Olympic gold medalists smoke pot? And single mothers have 14 children? And not long ago, wasn’t torturing prisoners of war OK?
But the good news is, we can still be a role-model for the rest of the world, as we admit our mistakes and work ourselves out of the hole we find ourselves in. Those are hallmarks of being American. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.
And of course, there’s pilot Chesley Sullenberger and his crew. So we still have a few things left to be proud of.
There, now I’ve said it.
Well, I’m proud to be an American, but it’s a little hard to be proud of some of our recent behavior. Let’s face it, folks – the current world economic crisis is basically our fault. Wasn’t it we who invented credit default swaps and sub-prime mortgages? Didn’t more than a few of us lie on those home loan apps? Didn’t our regulatory system fail miserably, with Bernard Madoff as the poster boy? Haven’t our auto companies been making vehicles with no future, and haven’t we been buying them? If you want to expand the view somewhat, don’t our baseball players take steroids and our Olympic gold medalists smoke pot? And single mothers have 14 children? And not long ago, wasn’t torturing prisoners of war OK?
But the good news is, we can still be a role-model for the rest of the world, as we admit our mistakes and work ourselves out of the hole we find ourselves in. Those are hallmarks of being American. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.
And of course, there’s pilot Chesley Sullenberger and his crew. So we still have a few things left to be proud of.
There, now I’ve said it.
Monday, February 9, 2009
In Crises, We're All Local
In an earlier post, I mentioned how the Christmas gift of an Internet radio had changed my life -- or at least my media consumption habits. It has reinforced my faith in the value of local radio.
I have spent the past few days listening to the live stream of 3AW 693 in Melbourne, Australia. The station has been providing continuous coverage of the devastating brush fires which, as of this writing, have taken more than 170 lives. As is the practice with many American news/talk stations, the usual programming has been suspended to devote full attention to the fire coverage. The only difference, perhaps, is that the station is running its full load of commercials, including spots for car dealerships, real estate companies and even funeral parlors. If that seems insensitive, it doesn’t seem to bother the audience, who recognize their local station as a vital resource.
While cell phone, messaging and Twitter might otherwise be a source of competition in newsgathering, communication out of the worst fire-affected areas has been difficult. Callers to the station who are put on the air ask about the fate of loved ones in the disaster zone with whom contact has been lost, and often, other callers phone in to report that this one or that one is safe.
While the news reports have been full of compounding tragedy, the fact that the station is there and doing its job is a calming community influence. All of the talk-show hosts are filling their regular shifts. Even the weekend specialty hosts who normally deal with gardening and other subjects have shifted gears and turned into news moderators.
Admittedly, the BBC, CNN and other major news outlets have been offering full and accurate coverage of the disaster, but there’s no substitute for hearing how the locals do it. And with live Internet streaming, this local coverage is now available worldwide.
While the accents of those on the air are different, the coverage strategies are the same – as, at bottom, are the stories: the tears, the heroism, the generosity toward those most impacted. The next phase, of course, will include the effort to catch arsonists and to make a review of evacuation policies and brush clearing rules in residential areas. Welcome to California.
We have a lot to learn from each other and a lot to share, and Internet streaming shows just how critical traditional local sources of news are to a community. The method of distribution may be new, but there’s no question in my mind that what we call local radio is here to stay.
And let’s let the Australians know that we may be on the other side of the world, but we hear them.
There, now I’ve said it.
I have spent the past few days listening to the live stream of 3AW 693 in Melbourne, Australia. The station has been providing continuous coverage of the devastating brush fires which, as of this writing, have taken more than 170 lives. As is the practice with many American news/talk stations, the usual programming has been suspended to devote full attention to the fire coverage. The only difference, perhaps, is that the station is running its full load of commercials, including spots for car dealerships, real estate companies and even funeral parlors. If that seems insensitive, it doesn’t seem to bother the audience, who recognize their local station as a vital resource.
While cell phone, messaging and Twitter might otherwise be a source of competition in newsgathering, communication out of the worst fire-affected areas has been difficult. Callers to the station who are put on the air ask about the fate of loved ones in the disaster zone with whom contact has been lost, and often, other callers phone in to report that this one or that one is safe.
While the news reports have been full of compounding tragedy, the fact that the station is there and doing its job is a calming community influence. All of the talk-show hosts are filling their regular shifts. Even the weekend specialty hosts who normally deal with gardening and other subjects have shifted gears and turned into news moderators.
Admittedly, the BBC, CNN and other major news outlets have been offering full and accurate coverage of the disaster, but there’s no substitute for hearing how the locals do it. And with live Internet streaming, this local coverage is now available worldwide.
While the accents of those on the air are different, the coverage strategies are the same – as, at bottom, are the stories: the tears, the heroism, the generosity toward those most impacted. The next phase, of course, will include the effort to catch arsonists and to make a review of evacuation policies and brush clearing rules in residential areas. Welcome to California.
We have a lot to learn from each other and a lot to share, and Internet streaming shows just how critical traditional local sources of news are to a community. The method of distribution may be new, but there’s no question in my mind that what we call local radio is here to stay.
And let’s let the Australians know that we may be on the other side of the world, but we hear them.
There, now I’ve said it.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Clearing the Raised Bar
No, Michael, they won’t let you do it: puff away on a bong, like thousands of other people your age. You might squeak into a Cabinet post if you didn’t figure your taxes right – but only after a considerable dose of red-face time. But when you’re up on a pedestal, it comes with the territory.
How many of us lower lights would pass a drug test, or survive a tax audit? Relatively few, I expect. But some of the laws have become so complicated or even hypocritical that beating them is kind of a game. Pot is a no-no, but if someone took a picture of Michael sipping a vodka tonic, that wouldn’t be held against him – even though alcohol is many times worse than marijuana in terms of the number of lives lost. And with our tax laws as complicated as they are, does the average bear compute the consequences of everything that happens in life before filling out a return?
But those are the perks of being a lower light: You can get away with stuff, and no one is really going to care. It all may not seem fair, on the surface, but I submit that it is. Smoking pot may be a peccadillo down here below, but if you’re a star and you take big money from those who think it’s a big deal, you have to play by their rules. When it comes to Cabinet positions, the consequences of not doing so fall not only on the nominees, but also on those doing the nominating and the vetting.
The fact is, role-models are more of a necessity today than ever before. If you don’t think we value them – think about all the attention we’re giving pilot Chesley Sullenberger and his crew for their heroism after the Hudson River airline accident. Or just look again at the pictures of almost two million people who stood out for hours on a recent cold winter morning in Washington, D.C. to watch something extraordinary happen.
If you find yourself up on that pedestal, the world will give you a lot – but get used to the idea that the world expects a lot in return, too.
There, now I’ve said it.
How many of us lower lights would pass a drug test, or survive a tax audit? Relatively few, I expect. But some of the laws have become so complicated or even hypocritical that beating them is kind of a game. Pot is a no-no, but if someone took a picture of Michael sipping a vodka tonic, that wouldn’t be held against him – even though alcohol is many times worse than marijuana in terms of the number of lives lost. And with our tax laws as complicated as they are, does the average bear compute the consequences of everything that happens in life before filling out a return?
But those are the perks of being a lower light: You can get away with stuff, and no one is really going to care. It all may not seem fair, on the surface, but I submit that it is. Smoking pot may be a peccadillo down here below, but if you’re a star and you take big money from those who think it’s a big deal, you have to play by their rules. When it comes to Cabinet positions, the consequences of not doing so fall not only on the nominees, but also on those doing the nominating and the vetting.
The fact is, role-models are more of a necessity today than ever before. If you don’t think we value them – think about all the attention we’re giving pilot Chesley Sullenberger and his crew for their heroism after the Hudson River airline accident. Or just look again at the pictures of almost two million people who stood out for hours on a recent cold winter morning in Washington, D.C. to watch something extraordinary happen.
If you find yourself up on that pedestal, the world will give you a lot – but get used to the idea that the world expects a lot in return, too.
There, now I’ve said it.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Halfway Meetings
No one can say that our new President hasn’t been breaking new political ground, schmoozing the Republicans in Congress. Cocktails and Super Bowl parties are just part of the process. It’s behavior we haven’t seen from the White House, at least in a very, very long time.
But the Republicans, while they appreciate the respect being shown, aren’t budging, at least publicly, when it comes to the economic stimulus. Mr. Obama’s plan didn’t get a single GOP vote in the House. So what’s missing?
Compromise has to go further than a cocktail party or a meaningful chat. To many, the word compromise means, we’ll get along just fine if you just do it my way. But it all comes down to: What is my side going to give up to get your support? The congressional Republicans genuinely appreciate President Obama for his outreach, and he has loads of popular support, but it doesn’t mean they’re going along with something they don’t believe will work. What are the Democrats willing to give up?
We all agree that sacrifice in these times is a good idea, as long as we don’t have to do the sacrificing. Wall Street may be largely responsible for tubing the entire world’s economy, bur when it’s suggested that compensation limits be imposed on firms taking bailout money, what we get back is, you don’t understand the Wall Street pay structure, that bonuses are like the tips waiters get in restaurants. In like manner, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to save a billion or two by calling on California state workers to swallow two unpaid furlough days a month, their unions head for court.
So while the boat is sinking, most of the passengers expect the other guy to pick up the bailing can – after all, wasn’t it the other guy who punched the hole in the boat in the first place? Everyone’s ankles are wet now – soon, it will be their knees.
The problem is, all those things we believe we’re absolutely entitled to are only there by mutual agreement and based on conditions that may not apply at this moment. Are we all prepared to give a little – give up a little – to get something back, like survival? You’d think when you consider the alternative, the choice would be clear.
There, now I’ve said it.
But the Republicans, while they appreciate the respect being shown, aren’t budging, at least publicly, when it comes to the economic stimulus. Mr. Obama’s plan didn’t get a single GOP vote in the House. So what’s missing?
Compromise has to go further than a cocktail party or a meaningful chat. To many, the word compromise means, we’ll get along just fine if you just do it my way. But it all comes down to: What is my side going to give up to get your support? The congressional Republicans genuinely appreciate President Obama for his outreach, and he has loads of popular support, but it doesn’t mean they’re going along with something they don’t believe will work. What are the Democrats willing to give up?
We all agree that sacrifice in these times is a good idea, as long as we don’t have to do the sacrificing. Wall Street may be largely responsible for tubing the entire world’s economy, bur when it’s suggested that compensation limits be imposed on firms taking bailout money, what we get back is, you don’t understand the Wall Street pay structure, that bonuses are like the tips waiters get in restaurants. In like manner, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to save a billion or two by calling on California state workers to swallow two unpaid furlough days a month, their unions head for court.
So while the boat is sinking, most of the passengers expect the other guy to pick up the bailing can – after all, wasn’t it the other guy who punched the hole in the boat in the first place? Everyone’s ankles are wet now – soon, it will be their knees.
The problem is, all those things we believe we’re absolutely entitled to are only there by mutual agreement and based on conditions that may not apply at this moment. Are we all prepared to give a little – give up a little – to get something back, like survival? You’d think when you consider the alternative, the choice would be clear.
There, now I’ve said it.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Following the Rules
A number of states now have laws prohibiting drivers from using hand-held cell phones in vehicles. But researchers are saying even that’s not good enough -- that any use of a cell phone by a driver increases the chance of an accident, so more restrictions may be coming some day.
Why does this behavior need to be regulated? Because of abuse. Those who use their heads know that engaging in a long or complicated phone conversation while driving can be a distraction. If people limited the use of cell phones to necessary communication while operating heavy machinery, there wouldn’t be a need for these laws.
Not everyone needs the penalty imposed by a law to do the right thing, or avoid doing the wrong thing. Sad to say, most of us do need these rules and regulations, and the people who think laws weren’t made for them still need the protection they afford. No one is above the law.
For decades, conservatives have been trying to convince us that free markets regulate themselves. Indeed, they would if some people weren’t dishonest or greedy. Seems like these economic systems are all foolproof – too bad that human beings have to be involved.
Former President Bush and some in his administration were pretty good at coming up with reasons why the laws didn’t apply to them. One of President Obama’s challenges will be restoring respect for the law. The best way to accomplish that is through leadership by example.
But I do hope Obama’s new Secretary of the Treasury gets his taxes right this year.
There, now I’ve said it.
Why does this behavior need to be regulated? Because of abuse. Those who use their heads know that engaging in a long or complicated phone conversation while driving can be a distraction. If people limited the use of cell phones to necessary communication while operating heavy machinery, there wouldn’t be a need for these laws.
Not everyone needs the penalty imposed by a law to do the right thing, or avoid doing the wrong thing. Sad to say, most of us do need these rules and regulations, and the people who think laws weren’t made for them still need the protection they afford. No one is above the law.
For decades, conservatives have been trying to convince us that free markets regulate themselves. Indeed, they would if some people weren’t dishonest or greedy. Seems like these economic systems are all foolproof – too bad that human beings have to be involved.
Former President Bush and some in his administration were pretty good at coming up with reasons why the laws didn’t apply to them. One of President Obama’s challenges will be restoring respect for the law. The best way to accomplish that is through leadership by example.
But I do hope Obama’s new Secretary of the Treasury gets his taxes right this year.
There, now I’ve said it.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Deserved Leadership
We often hear after an election that we get the leadership we deserve. Those saying this are usually on the losing side, blaming the stupidity of those who made the wrong choice. But the expression works both ways. We always deserve effective leadership, and many are ready to say that as of January 20th, we have it.
Not to get religious on you, but the Bible, whether you believe in it or not, is full of stories of seemingly unlikely people being elevated to positions of authority. The most famous example is Moses, who was tending his father-in-law’s sheep when he saw the burning bush. When the Lord told him he would be leading the Jews out of Egypt, his reaction was, “Who am I?” He didn’t have President Obama’s oratorical gifts. I guess that’s why the Lord needed the stone tablets to get the Ten Commandments across. David didn’t look nearly as much like a king as his brothers, but he was the one chosen by the prophet to reign over Israel. And Jesus was just a carpenter. He had a lot of trouble convincing others that he had been anointed.
During the presidential election campaign it was pointed out that Barack Obama lacked experience; his work as a community organizer was demeaned, and, of course, he is black, or half-black, to be precise. Many probably still feel that Hillary Clinton and John McCain would have made fine presidents. But it just didn’t happen that way.
The jokes about Obama’s election representing the second coming abound. But the fact that 2 million people stood out hours in the cold to watch him take the oath shows how many believe that that’s what we deserve. Did we get it?
Of course, we won’t know the answer to that for a while, and in a year from now, many of us may have very different feelings about Mr. Obama. As for comparisons to Jesus, well, it seems a very good bet that our new president won’t be ascending into heaven before our eyes anytime soon. At least not before the end of his second term.
There, now I’ve said it.
Not to get religious on you, but the Bible, whether you believe in it or not, is full of stories of seemingly unlikely people being elevated to positions of authority. The most famous example is Moses, who was tending his father-in-law’s sheep when he saw the burning bush. When the Lord told him he would be leading the Jews out of Egypt, his reaction was, “Who am I?” He didn’t have President Obama’s oratorical gifts. I guess that’s why the Lord needed the stone tablets to get the Ten Commandments across. David didn’t look nearly as much like a king as his brothers, but he was the one chosen by the prophet to reign over Israel. And Jesus was just a carpenter. He had a lot of trouble convincing others that he had been anointed.
During the presidential election campaign it was pointed out that Barack Obama lacked experience; his work as a community organizer was demeaned, and, of course, he is black, or half-black, to be precise. Many probably still feel that Hillary Clinton and John McCain would have made fine presidents. But it just didn’t happen that way.
The jokes about Obama’s election representing the second coming abound. But the fact that 2 million people stood out hours in the cold to watch him take the oath shows how many believe that that’s what we deserve. Did we get it?
Of course, we won’t know the answer to that for a while, and in a year from now, many of us may have very different feelings about Mr. Obama. As for comparisons to Jesus, well, it seems a very good bet that our new president won’t be ascending into heaven before our eyes anytime soon. At least not before the end of his second term.
There, now I’ve said it.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Real Minorities
I’m distressed to report that someone I know who was upset about the election of Barack Obama refused to watch his inauguration on TV. I don’t know whether the motive involved was political or racial, but on a day when most minority groups are celebrating, this individual must be a member of a tiny minority indeed.
The networks told us that this presidential inauguration was the most viewed or listened to media event in the world -- ever. Billions experienced it. Those who couldn’t consume it live – because of work or lack of access to TV, radio, or other modes of transmission -- would see or hear it as soon as they could. But those who could consume it and simply chose not to – that group should be fairly easy to count, if anyone wants to.
There are some critics who have expressed concern about how much this inauguration cost, especially in light of the economic crisis. This is another minority group. The country really wanted to have a party, and you know, we really deserve it. We did something we haven’t been able to do in more than two centuries: elect a black person President. And it may seem uncharitable to say this, but much of the party mood has to do with showing Mr. Bush the door.
Those who think we’re partying too hearty can take comfort: Wednesday is coming, and everyone agrees the party will be very much over. Whatever glow we may be feeling now, it’s safe to say that the next few months, or years, won’t be any fun. So we need our moment, and for you party-poopers out there, please poop somewhere else, thank you.
There, now I’ve said it.
The networks told us that this presidential inauguration was the most viewed or listened to media event in the world -- ever. Billions experienced it. Those who couldn’t consume it live – because of work or lack of access to TV, radio, or other modes of transmission -- would see or hear it as soon as they could. But those who could consume it and simply chose not to – that group should be fairly easy to count, if anyone wants to.
There are some critics who have expressed concern about how much this inauguration cost, especially in light of the economic crisis. This is another minority group. The country really wanted to have a party, and you know, we really deserve it. We did something we haven’t been able to do in more than two centuries: elect a black person President. And it may seem uncharitable to say this, but much of the party mood has to do with showing Mr. Bush the door.
Those who think we’re partying too hearty can take comfort: Wednesday is coming, and everyone agrees the party will be very much over. Whatever glow we may be feeling now, it’s safe to say that the next few months, or years, won’t be any fun. So we need our moment, and for you party-poopers out there, please poop somewhere else, thank you.
There, now I’ve said it.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Stretch for the Tag
At the risk of demeaning the august and historic nature of this week’s presidential inauguration, one of the images that comes to mind for me is tag-team professional wrestling.
The analogy breaks down even before I can get started, but I’ll plow ahead anyway. It’s like this: One wrestler, a member of a two-man tag team, is in the ring. He started out the round OK, but now he’s getting the snot beaten out of him by his opponent. Maybe even both members of the opposing tag team are in the ring, beating on him, even though that’s not allowed. But the referee does nothing to stop it.
Meanwhile, the victim’s tag-team partner is standing on the ropes in their corner with his arm stretched out, straining to make the tag with his downed colleague. He plays by the rules and won’t go in to the ring to relieve his partner until the tag is made. The fans are straining along with him. They want to replace the other battered wrestler yesterday.
Somehow the tag is made, and finally, the victim’s team member comes to the rescue, using all his pent-up energy to reverse the team’s fortunes. He delivers a flurry of punches, drop-kicks and body slams in quick succession, stunning his opponents. For the audience, it’s a tremendous feeling of exhilaration. But can he keep up the momentum and win the match?
The way these bouts are scripted, the wrestler to the rescue rarely scores a quick victory, in spite of an impressive start – and his team may not even win in the end.
We can hardly wait to see what Barack Obama is going to do on his first day in office – which unpopular Bush policy will get the first boot. But this country’s problems are not going to fall like dominoes -- many of them took a lot longer to create than eight years, and some may not be solved in the next eight.
It’s not just about whether Mr. Obama has the right stuff. It’s really about whether we have the patience to let the necessary changes be made.
There, now I’ve said it.
The analogy breaks down even before I can get started, but I’ll plow ahead anyway. It’s like this: One wrestler, a member of a two-man tag team, is in the ring. He started out the round OK, but now he’s getting the snot beaten out of him by his opponent. Maybe even both members of the opposing tag team are in the ring, beating on him, even though that’s not allowed. But the referee does nothing to stop it.
Meanwhile, the victim’s tag-team partner is standing on the ropes in their corner with his arm stretched out, straining to make the tag with his downed colleague. He plays by the rules and won’t go in to the ring to relieve his partner until the tag is made. The fans are straining along with him. They want to replace the other battered wrestler yesterday.
Somehow the tag is made, and finally, the victim’s team member comes to the rescue, using all his pent-up energy to reverse the team’s fortunes. He delivers a flurry of punches, drop-kicks and body slams in quick succession, stunning his opponents. For the audience, it’s a tremendous feeling of exhilaration. But can he keep up the momentum and win the match?
The way these bouts are scripted, the wrestler to the rescue rarely scores a quick victory, in spite of an impressive start – and his team may not even win in the end.
We can hardly wait to see what Barack Obama is going to do on his first day in office – which unpopular Bush policy will get the first boot. But this country’s problems are not going to fall like dominoes -- many of them took a lot longer to create than eight years, and some may not be solved in the next eight.
It’s not just about whether Mr. Obama has the right stuff. It’s really about whether we have the patience to let the necessary changes be made.
There, now I’ve said it.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Friends Don't Let Friends Massacre
How many Israelis does it take to change a regime?
A companion question is: With all the fancy high-tech weapons Israel has (many of which are made in the U.S.A.), why can’t they hit the side of a barn door? I guess if they just blow up the whole barn, they don’t have to bother answering that one. Whoops, I guess we hit another hospital. Sorry, we weren’t aiming for those foreign journalists.
At the risk of repeating myself, if the Israelis want regime change in Gaza, they should just go ahead and do it and stop pretending they have other goals. But couldn’t they get it done without this level of carnage?
We’ve often heard it said that the definition of insanity is doing something painful over and over again and expecting a different result. Hamas can unrecognize Israel all it wants, but there is no scenario under which Israel is going to disappear. Similarly, Israel can’t expect Hamas to disappear, either. Trying to make it disappear hasn’t worked; it has simply given Hamas legs. What about trying another approach, if there are any left?
So there likely will be a unilateral Israeli cease-fire worked out with the help of the U.S., if there isn’t one already by the time you consume this. It will happen very conveniently just before Tuesday’s inauguration of a new American president, and before Israeli elections. And everyone will pretend that Hamas isn’t in the room.
But no one can pretend that 1,100-plus Palestinians haven’t died. Nor can anyone with an ounce of reason blame it all on Hamas. The United States and Israel are, in theory, friends and allies. But aren’t their times when you have to tell your friends they’re behaving badly?
There, now I’ve said it.
A companion question is: With all the fancy high-tech weapons Israel has (many of which are made in the U.S.A.), why can’t they hit the side of a barn door? I guess if they just blow up the whole barn, they don’t have to bother answering that one. Whoops, I guess we hit another hospital. Sorry, we weren’t aiming for those foreign journalists.
At the risk of repeating myself, if the Israelis want regime change in Gaza, they should just go ahead and do it and stop pretending they have other goals. But couldn’t they get it done without this level of carnage?
We’ve often heard it said that the definition of insanity is doing something painful over and over again and expecting a different result. Hamas can unrecognize Israel all it wants, but there is no scenario under which Israel is going to disappear. Similarly, Israel can’t expect Hamas to disappear, either. Trying to make it disappear hasn’t worked; it has simply given Hamas legs. What about trying another approach, if there are any left?
So there likely will be a unilateral Israeli cease-fire worked out with the help of the U.S., if there isn’t one already by the time you consume this. It will happen very conveniently just before Tuesday’s inauguration of a new American president, and before Israeli elections. And everyone will pretend that Hamas isn’t in the room.
But no one can pretend that 1,100-plus Palestinians haven’t died. Nor can anyone with an ounce of reason blame it all on Hamas. The United States and Israel are, in theory, friends and allies. But aren’t their times when you have to tell your friends they’re behaving badly?
There, now I’ve said it.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
No Apology Necessary
Some of you may have been disappointed at not hearing more mea culpas from President Bush at his final news conference this week. Not that you’re going to get a sitting President to apologize for mistakes – but sometimes it’s better to leave things alone.
Did you really want to hear him admit the Iraq war was a mistake? He did express disappointment that there were no weapons of mass destruction there. But for Mr. Bush to actually admit the war was a mistake would have been hard to take for many. If I were a member of a family that had lost a loved one over there, I certainly wouldn’t want to hear the President say he screwed up – even if I were absolutely convinced he had. It wouldn’t make me feel even a little bit better.
You could pile on a lot of other things: “Mission Accomplished” (he admitted to that one), Gitmo, torture. FEMA after Katrina, the stem-cell decision, even No Child Left Behind. But even when he was dead wrong, he believed he was acting according to his best light, so you can go only so far in faulting him. I never believed that selfish motives were involved, other than self-defense.
History is always the best judge, and there hasn’t been quite enough of that yet, of course, to give us a crystal-clear video of Mr. Bush’s years as President. And as the saying goes, when you point the finger of blame at someone, three are pointing right back at you. You can fool me once, another old saying begins, but a majority of us did elect him to a second term.
The President says don’t plan on seeing that much of him after next week – he’s happy to leave the stage, and I say, let him go in peace. The challenges ahead of us will need every bit of our energy and attention. Looking backward will only slow us down.
There, now I’ve said it.
Did you really want to hear him admit the Iraq war was a mistake? He did express disappointment that there were no weapons of mass destruction there. But for Mr. Bush to actually admit the war was a mistake would have been hard to take for many. If I were a member of a family that had lost a loved one over there, I certainly wouldn’t want to hear the President say he screwed up – even if I were absolutely convinced he had. It wouldn’t make me feel even a little bit better.
You could pile on a lot of other things: “Mission Accomplished” (he admitted to that one), Gitmo, torture. FEMA after Katrina, the stem-cell decision, even No Child Left Behind. But even when he was dead wrong, he believed he was acting according to his best light, so you can go only so far in faulting him. I never believed that selfish motives were involved, other than self-defense.
History is always the best judge, and there hasn’t been quite enough of that yet, of course, to give us a crystal-clear video of Mr. Bush’s years as President. And as the saying goes, when you point the finger of blame at someone, three are pointing right back at you. You can fool me once, another old saying begins, but a majority of us did elect him to a second term.
The President says don’t plan on seeing that much of him after next week – he’s happy to leave the stage, and I say, let him go in peace. The challenges ahead of us will need every bit of our energy and attention. Looking backward will only slow us down.
There, now I’ve said it.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Enraged Elephant
I remember a line from a Bruce Willis movie, to the effect that military force is a blunt instrument, not a surgical tool. I’m sure that idea wasn’t original with that movie, but that’s where I heard it. And Israel has been especially blunt in applying such force.
It’s clear that Hamas started this round by firing rockets. While these are lethal weapons, their range was limited and they did relatively little harm – I said relatively little. To add a metaphor to the mix, it’s like a wasp stinging an elephant. A single wasp is not capable of causing the elephant much grief, but repeated stinging prompts the elephant to do something about it – and you don’t want to be in the neighborhood when that happens.
The question is, when the enraged elephant starts stomping, do the wasps get killed and does the stinging stop – and what else gets stomped on? I said in an earlier post that if what the Israelis really want is regime change in Gaza, they should go for it and stop pretending they have lesser goals. But have hundreds of deaths really been necessary? Is it good PR to be shooting at schools or U.N. convoys? Was a humanitarian crisis a necessary step to Israel’s security? After all the harm that’s been done, one would hope that the Israelis would be satisfied. But how many new enemies has Israel created?
A blockaded territory like Gaza looks an awful lot like a ghetto, and Israel, of all countries, should know what that means.
There, now I’ve said it.
It’s clear that Hamas started this round by firing rockets. While these are lethal weapons, their range was limited and they did relatively little harm – I said relatively little. To add a metaphor to the mix, it’s like a wasp stinging an elephant. A single wasp is not capable of causing the elephant much grief, but repeated stinging prompts the elephant to do something about it – and you don’t want to be in the neighborhood when that happens.
The question is, when the enraged elephant starts stomping, do the wasps get killed and does the stinging stop – and what else gets stomped on? I said in an earlier post that if what the Israelis really want is regime change in Gaza, they should go for it and stop pretending they have lesser goals. But have hundreds of deaths really been necessary? Is it good PR to be shooting at schools or U.N. convoys? Was a humanitarian crisis a necessary step to Israel’s security? After all the harm that’s been done, one would hope that the Israelis would be satisfied. But how many new enemies has Israel created?
A blockaded territory like Gaza looks an awful lot like a ghetto, and Israel, of all countries, should know what that means.
There, now I’ve said it.
Monday, January 5, 2009
To Israel: Just Do It
I'm getting a little tired of hearing the statements of Israeli officials justifying the bloody military invasion of the Gaza Strip – but it’s not about the justification.
If someone were firing rockets at my country, I certainly wouldn’t want to sit around and take it. But stop trying to tell me how surgical this response has been or that you’re paying attention to the humanitarian situation in Gaza. By now, these explanations sound pretty hollow.
It looks an awful lot like what the Israeli leaders really want is regime change. Can you blame them? Hamas has never admitted Israel’s right to exist, and it’s just a little too friendly with Iran. Further, Israel maintains that Hamas took over Gaza by coup and that the group’s mismanagement of the enclave and disregard for the average citizen is the real reason Gazans are suffering. Sounds like a good formula for regime change to me.
So go for it, Israel! Destroy Hamas. But if you believe the Palestinians in Gaza would have a better life, then you have some obligation to supply a reasonable -- meaning humane and fair -- alternative. If the people of Gaza aren’t willing to allow themselves to be governed by Fatah – well, Israel, it’s your job to solve this problem. As they say, if you break it, you own it.
You owe the world no explanation for changing the regime in Gaza – but don’t sugar-coat it, just do it. But I hope you’re better at the regime-change business than we have been in Iraq.
There, now I’ve said it.
If someone were firing rockets at my country, I certainly wouldn’t want to sit around and take it. But stop trying to tell me how surgical this response has been or that you’re paying attention to the humanitarian situation in Gaza. By now, these explanations sound pretty hollow.
It looks an awful lot like what the Israeli leaders really want is regime change. Can you blame them? Hamas has never admitted Israel’s right to exist, and it’s just a little too friendly with Iran. Further, Israel maintains that Hamas took over Gaza by coup and that the group’s mismanagement of the enclave and disregard for the average citizen is the real reason Gazans are suffering. Sounds like a good formula for regime change to me.
So go for it, Israel! Destroy Hamas. But if you believe the Palestinians in Gaza would have a better life, then you have some obligation to supply a reasonable -- meaning humane and fair -- alternative. If the people of Gaza aren’t willing to allow themselves to be governed by Fatah – well, Israel, it’s your job to solve this problem. As they say, if you break it, you own it.
You owe the world no explanation for changing the regime in Gaza – but don’t sugar-coat it, just do it. But I hope you’re better at the regime-change business than we have been in Iraq.
There, now I’ve said it.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Time On Their Hands
What’s wrong with me? Why am I not morally outraged at the idea that Roland Burris could be seated as a U.S. Senator from Illinois?
The way I understand it, the governor of Illinois tried to “sell” the seat vacated by President-elect Obama to the highest bidder, or so the accusation goes. Finally, the governor, Rod Blagojevich, appoints the state’s former attorney general, Roland Burris, to fill the seat. Burris has never been accused of involvement in the Blagojevich scandal, but because Blagojevich is the villain of the piece, his very appointment must be tainted.
The really fair way to solve this, of course, would be to hold a special election, but that takes time, and good heavens, a Republican might win. Barring that, the governor has the authority to make the appointment, and he made it; the person he chose is clearly qualified for the seat and isn’t accused of any wrongdoing himself. Why isn’t this the end of the story?
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wasn’t having any of this, and the opposing sides in the battle are waving copies of constitutions in each other’s faces. There’s room for negotiation, they say, but it could still end up in court. It seems to me that unless someone digs up some real dirt on Burris himself, then he should be allowed to take his seat. If he’s a bad guy, he can be kicked out of the Senate; if he performs poorly, the voters will have a future opportunity to replace him – maybe even with a Republican, for heaven’s sake.
Don’t all these magnificently principled people in Washington have a few more important things to worry about right now? Before they draw lines in the sand, shouldn’t they first be thinking about how to pull us out of the quicksand we’re all sinking into?
There, now I’ve said it.
The way I understand it, the governor of Illinois tried to “sell” the seat vacated by President-elect Obama to the highest bidder, or so the accusation goes. Finally, the governor, Rod Blagojevich, appoints the state’s former attorney general, Roland Burris, to fill the seat. Burris has never been accused of involvement in the Blagojevich scandal, but because Blagojevich is the villain of the piece, his very appointment must be tainted.
The really fair way to solve this, of course, would be to hold a special election, but that takes time, and good heavens, a Republican might win. Barring that, the governor has the authority to make the appointment, and he made it; the person he chose is clearly qualified for the seat and isn’t accused of any wrongdoing himself. Why isn’t this the end of the story?
But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wasn’t having any of this, and the opposing sides in the battle are waving copies of constitutions in each other’s faces. There’s room for negotiation, they say, but it could still end up in court. It seems to me that unless someone digs up some real dirt on Burris himself, then he should be allowed to take his seat. If he’s a bad guy, he can be kicked out of the Senate; if he performs poorly, the voters will have a future opportunity to replace him – maybe even with a Republican, for heaven’s sake.
Don’t all these magnificently principled people in Washington have a few more important things to worry about right now? Before they draw lines in the sand, shouldn’t they first be thinking about how to pull us out of the quicksand we’re all sinking into?
There, now I’ve said it.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Life-changing Toys
I’m much too old to be getting toys for Christmas, but I got a terrific one this year (or should I say last?) from Santa: an Internet radio.
Now I think this is way cool, though geeks would probably call it primitive. With this device you can hear audio streams without a computer. Thousands of radio stations in the U.S. and around the world put their live audio on their Web sites, and the Internet radio allows you to search for your favorites and set them up on pushbuttons, just like a car radio. If there’s breaking news in a particular city, you can “tune” in a station there and hear how the locals cover it. The really interesting part is listening to the same stations that local listeners hear, not available on short wave. I can listen to the radio station where I used to work in a distant city. To expand horizons a little, I have taken to listening to a newscast on Jamaica’s Nationwide News Network. Just hearing the accents makes me warm – it was about 82 degrees there the other day. In addition to that, the country’s prime minister recently announced all kinds of tax breaks for businesses and individuals, if I heard the story correctly. Maybe that makes you feel warm.
Sure, you can find all this stuff on your laptop, but I’m old enough to want to work with a box with a speaker and knobs on it. Another nice part is that no keyboard is required. So much enjoyable software involves having to use a mouse and a keyboard, so it feels like you never leave the office. The Internet radio involves new technology installed in an old, familiar package. I recall someone saying that the only reason we have been using CDs and DVDs is that they are discs with holes in the middle, just like the old vinyl records, and that the disc design was the only way to make a successful transition from the old to the new.
This could all get me started on why we need radio and TV stations with expensive transmitters consuming power and radiating energy, or why we need an FCC to license and regulate them, since the ability to “broadcast” is no longer a limited resource. But we’re barely into the New Year, and I wanted to put off the axe-grinding till at least the next post.
There, now I’ve said it.
Now I think this is way cool, though geeks would probably call it primitive. With this device you can hear audio streams without a computer. Thousands of radio stations in the U.S. and around the world put their live audio on their Web sites, and the Internet radio allows you to search for your favorites and set them up on pushbuttons, just like a car radio. If there’s breaking news in a particular city, you can “tune” in a station there and hear how the locals cover it. The really interesting part is listening to the same stations that local listeners hear, not available on short wave. I can listen to the radio station where I used to work in a distant city. To expand horizons a little, I have taken to listening to a newscast on Jamaica’s Nationwide News Network. Just hearing the accents makes me warm – it was about 82 degrees there the other day. In addition to that, the country’s prime minister recently announced all kinds of tax breaks for businesses and individuals, if I heard the story correctly. Maybe that makes you feel warm.
Sure, you can find all this stuff on your laptop, but I’m old enough to want to work with a box with a speaker and knobs on it. Another nice part is that no keyboard is required. So much enjoyable software involves having to use a mouse and a keyboard, so it feels like you never leave the office. The Internet radio involves new technology installed in an old, familiar package. I recall someone saying that the only reason we have been using CDs and DVDs is that they are discs with holes in the middle, just like the old vinyl records, and that the disc design was the only way to make a successful transition from the old to the new.
This could all get me started on why we need radio and TV stations with expensive transmitters consuming power and radiating energy, or why we need an FCC to license and regulate them, since the ability to “broadcast” is no longer a limited resource. But we’re barely into the New Year, and I wanted to put off the axe-grinding till at least the next post.
There, now I’ve said it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)