Hoodie Hysteria

So now a member of Congress was asked to leave the chamber for wearing a hoodie. At what point do we get to say ENOUGH already?

The Trayvon Martin case has brought some serious issues to light that we all need to discuss, but geez Louise, can’t we inject a little reason back into all this? I don’t care how many people walk around with hoodies; I don’t care what Geraldo said and has since apologized for. I only wish I had bought stock in companies that make hoodies.

I’m also tired of hearing about million-dollar bounties for the arrest of George Zimmerman, who shot Trayvon. And Anderson, I hope you’re finished playing that altered tape that has Zimmerman uttering a racial slur. All it takes is someone in real authority to agree with you, not all your various attorneys and ex-prosecutor-turned-pundits. Otherwise, it’s all speculation.

Of course, it’s going to take a thorough investigation to sort things out. Now we have witnesses who say that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, not the other way around. We have reports that Zimmerman was a fine upstanding human being and that Trayvon was not a perfect teenager. Then there’s the part about the Sanford police wanting to arrest Zimmerman, but higher authorities turning them down.

Is this really about hoodies, or race? Or is it about Florida’s stand-your-ground law? Or is it about the proliferation of handguns and the vetting required for neighborhood watchers who may want to be cops? Is it about a flawed legal system? Or Is it about social media, and our seemingly desperate need to come up with nightly heroes and villains for the 24-hour news cycle?

I thought I knew, but I don’t know anymore. I’m beginning to wish everyone would just shut up until the investigation is completed. And even then, it’s going to be about who believes whom.

Do you blame me if I feel like spending more time on Turner Classic Movies than CNN et al?

Rabid Neighborhood Watchdogs

I don’t dispute the idea that Neighborhood Watch programs can be effective in preventing crime, as long as the watch-ers don’t have wannabe cop delusions.

We live in a nice neighborhood in a suburban area. A couple of years ago, I needed some exercise but didn’t want to stray too far from the house, so I started walking around the block (a fairly large one with some steep climbs). On about my third lap, a red sports car pulls up and a young man asked me if I lived in the area. His tone clearly had more than just curiosity – he wanted to know what business I had there. It seemed he had appointed himself a guardian of the neighborhood.

Of course, I had never seen him before either, and took a little umbrage at being confronted in my own neighborhood by a stranger, so I informed him that yes, I lived there, and so what was his name and where did he live? Fortunately, this encounter ended peacefully, but I could easily see how it might have escalated. I don’t think our town issues concealed-weapons permits, so neither of us was “packing.”

Suppose a police officer had pulled up in a marked car and asked me the same questions? While such encounters aren’t usually enjoyable, I would have answered them. It’s the officer’s job to do that, and I would have had no problem complying.

The cops in our town are pretty good about responding to “suspicious person” calls. There probably aren’t a lot of those, even though scores of people pass by daily, jogging, walking dogs, etc., including people of different colors. There are obviously times when we’re in a heightened state of alertness, say, if the police warn about a rash of burglaries in the area – but those instances are also relatively rare.

I don’t know why the case of Trayvon Martin should be legal brain surgery. The reputed Sanford neighborhood watch captain in this case, George Zimmerman, called the police and said he was following a suspicious person, and law enforcement told him specifically NOT TO DO IT. Is disobeying a directive from a police agency against the law? You would think so. He certainly is liable for every action beyond that point.

If folks want to be cops, what they should do is apply, go through the training, graduate from the academy, and get hired. If folks want to be neighborhood watchdogs, they should clearly understand their role (usually, they get training from police) and keep it in mind when confronting other civilians on the street.

Mr. de Niro, So Shut Up Already

Actors are supposed to be sensitive people. They have to be, in order to create characters. So it’s truly amazing that some of the best have tin ears.

Robert de Niro got into trouble for asking an Obama fundraising audience if the country was “ready for another white first lady,” a reference to the wives of the Republican presidential hopefuls. Not surprisingly, the remark hasn’t struck everyone as funny.

Mr. de Niro has since apologized -- not good enough for Newt Gingrich, who is demanding that President Obama apologize, too. It was a Democratic fundraiser, but the Republican candidates just got one big free political gift. It’s a wonder Gingrich doesn’t slip and say thank you.

It’s not the first time de Niro has said something questionable. At a Golden Globes dinner, he joked that some members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association were absent because they had been deported, along with the waiters.

When will they ever learn this simple rule: Determine first what your role is, and then think long and hard before you switch hats.

Critics will say, why can Bill Maher et al get away with material like that, and others can’t? Well, because he’s Bill Maher, and that’s what you expect – what you want – from him when you choose to watch him. Don Rickles’ acts were full of ethnic slurs, but he was a successful comedian for decades – still is. As for Joan Rivers, well, don’t ask. It’s not fair, but it’s life.

Successful comedians know what their audiences want, and they deliver – and what they deliver is usually funny. And funny is a function not only of the delivery, but the deliverer, and the appropriateness for particular audiences.

In addition, successful comedians know when the punch line has been delivered, and they move on to the next joke. Rush Limbaugh was being satirical when he made fun of Sandra Fluke, but it took him three days to do it – and it wasn’t funny.

So Mr. de Niro (or is it Rupert Pupkin), we are talking to you. You are not the King of Comedy. Please leave standup to the professionals.

Let's Get Ready to Rumble

The title is the signature of ring announcer Michael Buffer of HBO boxing fame. So if the presidential race were a boxing match, for which match-up would I buy a ticket? Would it be Obama v. Romney? Nope. Obama v. Santorum? Guess again. Obama v. Paul? Way off.

It would be Obama against Gingrich! I say this in spite of a visceral dislike for Newt Gingrich – but there’s no question in my mind he’d be the biggest problem for the President in a head-to-head policy debate.

Gingrich, as we know, has challenged Mr. Obama to a series of seven 3-hour debates (or is it three 7-hour debates?) in the style of Lincoln-Douglas. An interesting idea, but it won’t happen. In the first place, people are a lot busier now than they were in the mid-1800s. Second, there’s not that much to talk about, and I don’t think even Newt is that big a windbag. Even so, in a head-to-head match, he would clearly give Obama the most trouble.

Romney doesn’t have nearly the command of the range of issues Gingrich does. As for Santorum, I could see him as president of the Chamber of Commerce, but not of the United States. And with Paul, it wouldn’t be a debate -- it would be two guys making excellent points, perhaps, but talking past each other.

This isn’t championship boxing, of course, but even in boxing, when it goes to the scorecards, the winner not only has to beat the other guy, but bring the judges with him. It’s even possible to NOT clearly beat the other guy and win – if you get the judges to agree with you.If it ends up being Obama v. Romney, well, it might be hard to get me to pay-per-view.

Not in Line for the New iPad

So you’re in the long line outside the Apple Store, hoping to become the fourth on your block to own the new iPad. Enjoy.

Hey, I have nothing against iPads. I just don’t do lines anymore, unless it’s necessary. If we start running out of food or water, OK. But electronics? I don’t think so.

I did stand in line often, in the past, for movies. It started when I was young, when I lived in New York. The big movies would open, like live shows, on or around Broadway. I was literally the first among my friends to see “Lawrence of Arabia” and “Cleopatra.” For the latter, I had to be there for Elizabeth Taylor’s much-touted bath scene. But the movie was four hours long (it cost $40 million to make, an absolutely shocking amount in those days) and to my mind, was rather slow-moving – so I slept through the scene, a fact I didn’t share with my friends anxious for my review.

About 20 years ago, I stood in line to buy a ticket for “Jurassic Park,” but that was mostly to accompany a friend who absolutely had to be the first on his block to see it. It was good, and I’m glad I saw it, but all that cool creature technology may not be enough to stifle a yawn these days..

Where did all this come from? Advertising, of course, which makes you feel deprived if you don’t have the latest and greatest. But the people standing in line for iPads now are probably those whose parents or grandparents got into fist fights over the last Cabbage Patch doll or Tickle Me Elmo to bestow on overly expectant children during the holidays.

I have a relative who gets in line at 3 a.m. outside his favorite store on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, to snap up bargains. It’s almost a holiday tradition with him now, but I think it’s just a little dangerous.

Impressive as the newest iPad is, Apple fans are going to have to do this line thing without me. BTW, I would think it’s probably wise not to drink too much fluid before you get in one of these lines – or do they have a system for that? Just another thing I’m not up to speed on.

Hit Syria Now

None of the choices in Syria is good, but there’s really only one real choice left: military intervention.

It will probably require unilateral action on the part of the United States, but it may not be unilateral for long. I believe other nations will step in to assist, once they are relieved of having to take the first step. Still others will be in the cheering section – some cheering audibly and some silently.

American officials continue to say they prefer a diplomatic solution. That sounds good, but it could be said that all parties prefer a diplomatic solution. However, none has worked so far; in fact, the regime’s attacks on civilians seem to be spreading. Diplomatic language is clearly not one that it understands.

The initial intervention need not take the form of a massive bombing campaign. As I said in an earlier post, a simple targeting of military assets surrounding one besieged town would get the message across. At the very least, it would be a distraction from the regime’s murderous campaign. Assad et al would have to think about the consequences of picking on someone their own size.

The Syrian regime is doomed – it’s just a question of time. But it need not also be a question of thousands more innocent lives lost. The numbers already exceed the losses in Srebenica almost two decades ago.

But then, we did something about it.

Taking Credit and Fixing Blame

It’s nice to see that the economy is coming back. President Obama is likely hoping he can take the credit for it (that is, the voters give him credit for it); while Mitt Romney et al are blaming him for killing jobs. I’m no economist, but I just don’t think presidents have all that much control over job creation or loss.

For most of us, depression is part of a cycle. I believe it’s almost impossible for the average – and mark that I said “average” – person to stay depressed for very long. Optimism eventually comes back – almost because we can take only so much pessimism. I think we’re all just a little bit bipolar by nature, whether we want to admit it or

As a nation, we are not poor, no matter what you hear. Collectively, quite the opposite. Corporations and many individuals are sitting on enormous piles of cash – again, mark that I said “collectively” – and the floodgates are sure to open. That money is going to begin circulating through the economy, and money, of course, is worthless unless it circulates. But it requires confidence.

We’re unlikely to find any presidential candidate with a magic bullet; nor can we successfully pin the blame for our current problems on candidates’ or former presidents’ policies, and that’s not really the issue anyway. What we really want out of presidents is leadership. We don’t expect the captain of the ship to control the ocean’s waves -- it’s the captain’s job to sail us through them.

So far, our choices aren’t the best. It seems many doubt that President Obama’s hand is firmly on the tiller. Mitt Romney, meanwhile (should he be the Republican nominee), wouldn’t have a problem grabbing the tiller. His problem is motivating the crew.

Thankfully, November’s still a ways off yet. There’s still time a candidate to show us something. We’ll know that quality when we see it.

The World's Most Wanted

You know how big a hit “America’s Most Wanted” was and how successful its efforts were to ferret out bad guys by making it almost impossible for them to hide. But now we have the Internet, so it’s time for “The World’s Most Wanted.”

And the first suspect appears to be Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army. A video on Kony issued by a group called Invisible Children has gone viral, and if you’d never heard Kony’s name before, chances are, you know it now. The LRA has been on a murderous rampage for decades in central Africa, kidnapping children, teaching them to fight and leading them to kill their parents.

There has been some criticism of this campaign by those who say the world is a little late getting on this train. The LRA is much smaller and more fragmented than it once was, and Kony may be hiding out somewhere in southern Sudan. The question is, will all this attention lead to his capture?

It certainly can’t hurt. Nothing focuses the world’s attention faster than two things: disasters and villains.

If there’s a problem with this, it’s that the world seems to be able to focus on only one villain at a time. A spotlight has a narrow beam, and while it’s shining on one bad guy, it draws attention away from others. In addition, the spotlight shining on the leaders sometimes ignores the fact that they are supported by many others and are part of a system.

Does Kony-mania mean we’ll be distracted from the deeds of other prime suspects, say in Syria or Iran? I hope not.

Send a Message to Assad

In a previous post, I listed about a dozen reasons given for why the U.S. should not intervene militarily in Syria. In spite of all of them, Sen. John McCain has called for air strikes. He, like many of us, find it unbearable to sit by and watch a mechanized army slaughtering civilians, with no effort to stay its hand.

It has been repeatedly pointed out by top U.S. defense officials that Syrian air defenses are many times more sophisticated than Libya’s were, making a coordinated air campaign difficult. But we have drones over Syria, and part of me wonders why just one drone can’t be sent over Homs – or another similarly besieged city – to knock out one tank or one artillery battery.

Perhaps I’m succumbing to the need for a feel-good strategy just to relieve frustration. A large-scale bombing campaign a la Serbia or Libya might not be advisable right now. But I’m wondering what would happen if the West just did one little thing to send a message to Mr. Assad, to show him we’re not completely paralyzed. Something that says, “We don’t want a war with you, but here’s a little taste of what we could do, and there could be more where that came from. Just stop the murder.”

What’s really sad about Syria is that a year ago, none of the protesters was calling for the removal of Assad, whom many actually considered something of a reformer. All they wanted was a few changes. Assad’s response now has most of the world, in addition to a large proportion of the Syrian people, calling for his removal, and his days are numbered. But how many more civilians will have to die before that happens?

While we keep talking about all options being on the table for Iran – which would obviously require a much more serious military commitment – let’s not be so quick to take them off the table in Syria.

Rush-ing 3 (and Hopefully, Last)

For the First Amendment purists who are alarmed about the movement to censor Rush Limbaugh, well, don’t worry about Rush! He will survive.

Let’s assume the most extreme scenario is played out -- that Rush is forced off the air. The keywords here are “off the air” – a broadcast network comprised of federally licensed media outlets. What happens when personalities like this go off the air? Cable! Satellite! The Web!

Example: Comedian Bill Maher is on cable, where he was picked up after being forced off the air for saying the wrong thing. On platforms such as this, personalities don’t have to worry about sponsors. They can use S words, C words, P words and F words until their faces (or our ears) turn blue; they can make almost any outrageous political statement. Subscribers have to pay for access to their shows – sponsors are not involved -- and the last time I looked, most performers on these platforms are not having fan base problems.  Rush Limbaugh won’t have trouble finding a home.

Then there is Sandra Fluke. As I have already noted, Rush did her a big favor, making her famous and opening up a wide range of potential opportunities for this articulate young woman.

In reality, sponsor cancellations and talk about pulling Rush’s show from broadcast are economic decisions just as much as moral ones. This will all be sorted out in the days to come. But the bottom line is, Rush is not going away – nor is Sandra Fluke.  

This flap has been a distraction, and Rush is clearly responsible for derailing the train. But the tracks will be repaired, and not too much time will pass before we get back to policy – and politics.

Rush-ing for the Exit, Part 2

Where’s the needle on your “sincerity meter” today, following Rush Limbaugh’s apology to Sandra Fluke for calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute” on his show the other day? Fluke, of course, is the student who wants Georgetown University to cover birth control in its health plan (I guess I’ve dated myself here, in that meters don’t generally use needles anymore).

Clearly, we have no ability to enter Rush’s head or heart and measure his sincerity with much accuracy. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But were his statements made in the heat of passion? I would submit that with decades of experience as a radio personality, he has full control over his choice of words. He knew exactly what he was saying, and was using satire to make a point, which he frequently does; in this case, it blew up in his face.

Limbaugh admitted that his statement was beneath him – my sentiments exactly. I have not always agreed with him politically, but I always respected him as a broadcaster. I like both conservative and liberal hosts who do their jobs well, and many of those I hear and see on the air or on cable now are simply Rush wannabes. Sadly, even Rush is a Rush wannabe these days.

It’s been pointed out to me by my conservative friends that I’m not being fair, in that a long list of other hosts have used similar offensive language. Ed Schultz of MSNBC called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut” at one point. So what’s the difference? You may remember the old Saturday Night Live “Point-Counterpoint” spoof in which Dan Aykroyd assailed his opposite number with , “Jane, you ignorant slut!” Unpleasant as it is, “slut” in such cases is a general insult. Limbaugh’s use of the word on Ms. Fluke, however, was about her presumed sexual practices and moral conduct – real character assassination.

At least now, we’re going to return to the issues at hand, including: Should employers be forced to provide insurance for things they’re morally opposed to? Does insurance treat male and female sexual issues unequally, and are women being left out of the debate? Beyond that, do matters falling under the heading of sexual choice belong in health insurance plans at all? (As an aside, does a healthy sex life fall under the heading of “wellness” and require encouragement through insurance?) There’s plenty to talk about.

Oh, BTW, if birth control pills have all kinds of other health benefits for women, as Ms. Fluke points out, shouldn’t we be calling them something other than “birth control” pills?

And now, if you’ll permit me, a little dose of reality. Rush Limbaugh did Sandra Fluke a great big favor, which should satisfy any desire she may have for retaliation. She is now famous. She is also articulate, and if you’ll permit me again, not unattractive, and we will likely be seeing a lot of her during the presidential campaign. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if some day she has her own talk show or TV anchor slot. Nothing works quite like karma.

Rush-ing for the Exit?

If there’s a deep end, Rush Limbaugh has finally gone off it.

The deep end is a “bright line,” but admittedly, it’s not in the same place for everyone. Many of you have concluded that he went off it a long time ago. But I worked at a radio station which aired the very first Limbaugh show back in the 1980s. He was always conservative, of course, but he was intelligent, articulate, clever – and yes, even logical. You could disagree with him, but there was often a smile on your face, and he forced you to think.

That was then, as they say, and this is now. For Rush to have used the “s” word to characterize the young woman barred from testifying before Congress on birth control coverage in insurance is shocking, inexcusable, and way, way beneath him. I expect that kind of talk from the Michael Savages of the world, but not from Rush. A number of his sponsors are pulling the plug; will some radio stations be far behind?

Has Rush finally caught a fatal strain of the Republican virus – a compulsion to throw a bomb to blow up his own argument? Like Rick Santorum’s “snob” and “throw up” comments?

Once the bomb is thrown, the explosion drowns out the argument – and there may be issues worthy of some discussion. For example, some may ask what birth control is doing in insurance policies in the first place, on the grounds that having sex is a choice. But even the “choice” argument has a major problem. Eating red meat is a choice, yet we don’t question insurance coverage for cardiovascular issues. You can continue down this moral rabbit hole if you want, but I think I’m going to pass.

To return to the matter at hand here, though, the 1980s Rush would have made his points without the megatonnage heaped on that Georgetown student. Out of respect for his audience, which he needed to grow in the early days, it wouldn’t have happened. He didn’t become the No. 1 radio talk host in the country so quickly for no reason – and for the liberal readers here, there just weren’t – and still aren’t -- that many morons around to provide that audience, so at least a few people with brain cells must be listeners. Could it just possibly have been real talent?

Which makes the whole thing especially sad.

Time to Intervene in Syria?

There is a long list of reasons why Western powers have resisted military intervention in Syria during the current uprising. Here are a few, in no particular order:

1. The situation is too complex.
2. Russia and China voted against the Security Council resolution.
3. The opposition to the Assad regime is splintered.
4. Assisting the opposition would lead to civil war, and perhaps regionwide war.
5. An attack which leads to the ouster of Assad will open the door to Al Qaeda.
6. Americans are weary of war; besides, the U.S. can’t afford another one.
7. Involvement would spark a new round of terrorism against the West.
8. Iran, Syria’s ally, might close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation, causing an oil crisis.
9. Further instability in the region would threaten Israel.
10. It’s none of the West’s business; it's an Arab issue.

Against all these – and perhaps others which haven’t been mentioned here -- there’s only one argument for intervention: STOPPING THE MURDER OF CIVILIANS.

Which of these reasons is the most compelling?

The Privacy Horse Has Left the Barn

Google’s new privacy policy takes effect today, and the way I understand it, Google will now combine information gleaned from the users of its products into coherent profiles. These are to be used to create better targets for advertisers – and make Google more money. Allegedly, Google isn’t interested in collecting the info on the user as a person, only as an advertising target.

I typically take offense at companies like these imposing changes on users without their consent, where the only escape is to disconnect from the service. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sworn up and down that I would pull the plug on Facebook, as an example. But these services are provided for free – meaning, they don’t charge us money, but they collect information on us.

We Americans have libertarian (with a small L) instincts in our DNA. We think we’re in control of stuff that we don’t control at all. Most of us like capitalism (with a little C), whereby we can start with nothing and become zillionaires through imagination, gumption, persistence and fair play (at least in theory). But God deliver any entity that charges us for something we’ve been accustomed to getting for “free.”

As one commentator put it today, we users of services like Google and Facebook think we’re the consumers, but actually, we’re just the product that these services make available to advertisers. As the services improve what they sell to advertisers, we pay a higher and higher price in the form of incremental losses in privacy. It might be more straightforward if Google would calculate how much it costs for us to use the service and give us an option between surrender and pulling the plug: paying cash in return for not creating our profiles. But so far, that’s not a choice we have.

The real problem is that we can’t have all this modern connectedness and privacy at the same time – they’re virtually antithetical concepts now. If we want real privacy, we can stay off the Internet, turn off our smart phones and move to the most sparsely populated county in Idaho. Oh, and we can’t forget to cut up all those credit and debit cards. It would also help if we gave up our driver’s licenses and stopped voting. In the measure that we withdraw from the world, we reduce our exposure to exploitation, the same way minimizing face-to-face contact with others protects us from contagious disease.

But as I’ve often said, the privacy horse – with us on it -- left the barn long ago. The most we can do right now is keep track of where it’s going, and if we don’t like it, dismount.