The Big Thaw

Spring is only a few weeks away. The ice, still solid enough on northern lakes to support heavy trucks, is imperceptibly weakening as the sun angle increases a few degrees each day. When the ice finally starts to break up and water reappears, it will seem as if it happened all of a sudden, but the process will have started much earlier – we just couldn’t detect the evidence of it.

It’s my feeling that thaws are breaking out all over. Take immigration reform – an insoluble problem for decades. But Romney lost the election, many say, because of the Latino vote. It wasn’t some wild political swing. For decades, Latinos have been having more children than folks of other ethnicities – there are simply more of them, but the evidence is only now making headlines. True, not all Latinos are Democrats, but a lot voted that way. So now even Republicans are talking about immigration reform. Positions frozen for decades are unfreezing.

The same is happening with gun control, although it took a terrible tragedy to spur the breakup of long-frozen positions on that score. The NRA is no longer a solid block of immovable ice, or at least the block is smaller than it once was. Women will be officially allowed combat roles in the military – unthinkable until this month. Will widely accepted gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana be next? I wish the big thaw would extend to tax reform, but that ice is pretty thick yet.

Then there’s the economy. The struggling stock market has actually been improving for years, but it seems like it happened just last week, when the Dow closed above 14,000 for the first time in recent memory. Home sales are increasing; money is flowing again.

Even internationally, I hear ice cracking. Iran has agreed to return to the talks on its nuclear program. Is this simply deception, or is a hard frozen position melting? Even some members of the Syrian opposition are no longer ruling out talks with the brutal Assad regime.

Is common sense actually starting to bloom? I don’t know about you, but I’m convinced something is going on. Spring is a hard season not to like.

Two Minds

It may not be a surprise to some of you, but it was to me, how small-minded Mitt Romney is. For him to suggest that President Obama bought re-election by providing “gifts” to certain portions of the electorate is more than just poor sportsmanship. It’s offensive on multiple levels, and it’s exactly the message the GOP doesn’t want to be putting out right now. It’s no secret that the Obama campaign targeted women, minorities and young people to bring them to the polls. But it’s also no secret that Romney simply didn’t have the ground game to win. And Mr. Romney himself is apparently unable to grasp the fact that minority votes may very well have been bought with ideas, not gifts. Slip of the tongue? Poor choice of words? I think not.

There are small minds, but then there may be deceptive ones. I think most of us still haven’t sorted out this Benghazi business. Now we’re hearing sources say that General Petraeus, as head of the CIA, knew instantly that the U.S. ambassador was killed in a pre-planned al-Qaeda attack on Sept. 11, not by some angry mob. Whom did Petraeus tell? If U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was given bad information about the Benghazi incident before she talked about it publicly, who gave her that information, and why? Who benefited – and what exactly was the benefit? Nothing seems to compute, so far.

If lipstick’s being put on a pig here, who’s the makeup artist? Perhaps the congressional hearings on all this will clear things up. It’s impossible to come to a conclusion about it, based on what’s out there right now, but there are two choices, neither of them good. Either this thing was handled incompetently -- or flat-out deceptively. Guess we just have to stay tuned.

I Want It Done Yesterday

It never fails. The power goes out for tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or even millions – it doesn’t matter what the size of the thing is – and frustrated folks start taking it out on the evil power companies for not working hard enough to get the lights back on.

But let’s be clear. In terms of the geographic scope of the damage, the results of the Eastern weather phenomena this month rival what happened after the Japanese earthquake. Power line crews had to be brought in from all over the country to help with repairs. Some people had power restored pretty quickly; others still don’t have it. Some are without it while neighbors in the next block have it back. All recipes for frustration. As soon as the power line techs get the lights back on, they’re heroes. What were they when the customers were still in the dark? Can’t we cut the power companies a little slack in these situations? Easy for me to say, of course, as I sit in a heated home typing this.

Cut to this past week’s elections. A friend complained about how slow election officials were in counting ballots in a close congressional race and wondered who was running the show. Perhaps he forgot that in order to make things more convenient for people to vote, the absentee voting privilege was widely extended some time back. Here in California, many people waited till the last minute to return those ballots, not because they were undecided about Romney and Obama, but because of a long list of critical propositions. Though county staffs were beefed up way ahead of time, it still wasn’t enough to deal with the last-minute crunch of these mail-in ballots, which take longer to count. So convenience at the front end of the process meant inconvenience at the back.

Even for those voting at polling places on Election Day, lines were long, partly because, at least in this state’s case, the average voter spent a long time in the booth for the same reason – a long and complicated ballot. We’re all shocked by the stories about people waiting in line six hours to vote. You can already hear the sound of some politician pounding his fist on a podium demanding a full investigation of who dropped the ball. They shoulda done this, they shoulda done that.

At least it wasn’t the Middle East, where some voters stand in line never quite sure whether a bomb isn’t going to go off at the polling place. And God deliver us if we ever get a 90 percent turnout in this country.

No doubt, balls were dropped in some cases. But let’s say you’re on the receiving end of people’s frustrations. There’s always someone out there ready to judge you about how you do your business, and how they could do it much more efficiently than you if only they were in charge.

All I can say is that if there’s a new story in all of this, I haven’t heard it yet. Patience is not an American trait.

No Change of Horses

In 1864, when President Abraham Lincoln was at his most unpopular and running for re-election, his campaign slogan was “Don’t change horses in the middle of the stream.” Whether you think invoking Lincoln here is appropriate or not, it appears the country has decided to hang on to Mr. Obama for another four years.

Even for Obama-haters, there are certain advantages to this situation. There’s no reasonable cause anymore for congressional Republicans to refuse to deal with him. For the next four, he’s what they’ve got. For Mr. Obama, there’s no reason for political timidity. He doesn’t have to worry about re-election. It opens the door to compromise – a relatively short time before the mid-term election for Congress – where the two parties could actually get something accomplished. President Obama did not win anything resembling a mandate; the Republicans didn’t substantially improve their position in Congress. It’s a wash, so there’s nothing to crow about, and crowing is a waste of time, anyway.

I have some requests for things both sides can work on going forward – after they pull us back from the “fiscal cliff.”

TAX REFORM. Mitt Romney had the germ of a great idea. The issue isn’t just about taxing the rich, which would only be a Band-Aid on top of old Band-Aids. Simplify the tax code! In the end, it will benefit everyone, taking a huge monkey off the backs of individuals and businesses alike. This is one of the keys to dealing with the deficit.

I heard a horror story on NPR this morning about something called the Alternative Minimum Tax, a regulation adopted in the 1980s to make sure wealthy people were paying their fair share of taxes. Apparently, the story said, this regulation was never indexed to inflation, and Congress has to “patch” it each year. If they fail to do so, the AMT could apply to incomes as low as $75,000 – which could mean an instant tax hike as much as 20 percent for the average middle-class family. This is one of the poster children for why the tax system needs to be overhauled – and soon.

IMMIGRATON. Solve this one once and for all. Do the best job you can sealing the borders. Then, come up with a national system that both recognizes realities and is fair to the people who’ve been playing by the rules. Mr. Obama, you promised to deal with this in your first term. You have another opportunity to make good on your promise.

HEALTH CARE. Just because Obamacare is the law, it doesn’t mean Congress and the President have to stop working on this issue. How about tort reform, for one thing? And maybe some real controls on insurance charges?

OTHER STUFF. If there’s time, why not work on getting rid of the Senate filibuster, abolishing the Electoral College, and take a whack at campaign finance reform so we don’t have to endure another election like this one?

These are all very difficult, but they can be solved if elected officials make up their minds to work together to solve them instead of posturing. The President – and the Congress -- have a real opportunity to leave a legacy.

Mr. President, if I may address you directly, enough of the electorate has decided that you are the more effective leader than Mitt Romney. So LEAD already! Get out IN FRONT of issues instead of letting them beat down your door. Put plans on the table before your opponents do. And hold more news conferences -- keep us updated; bring us along with you as you deal with these problems. We just told you we're on your side -- as long as it's the side of getting things done.

Horror Films I Like

Well, it’s getting to be that time again, when you decide on your favorite Halloween rentals. I prefer the classics, both vintage and recent. These are some of my faves, NOT ranked, BTW, in any kind of order. My only rule for good horror flicks is, scare me, don’t terrorize me or excessively gross me out. Leave the knives, hatchets and chainsaws in the garage. Teeth are OK, though.


1. THE MUMMY (1932)
2. DRACULA (1931)
3. FRANKENSTEIN (1931)
4. THE WEREWOLF OF LONDON (1935)

(The first four are almost obligatory).

5. DRACULA (1979) – Good production, not sure about Langella as the Count.
6. THE BLACK CAT (1934) – Lugosi and Karloff, an interior decorator must-see.
7. THE OMEN (1976) –The girl’s suicide haunted me for weeks. LOUSY sequels.
8. THE EXORCIST – Get the uncut one with the spider walk.
9. THE EXORCIST III – Surprisingly good sequel, Geo. C. Scott & Ed Flanders.
10. GHOST STORY – Very creepy with wonderful cast.
11. CAT PEOPLE (1982) – Sexy, and the cats are nice, too.
12. THE SHINING (1980) -- Here’s Johnny.
13. SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE – Is it a movie project or for real?
14. THE HUNGER -- Catherine Deneuve a vampire. I’ll stop there.
15. THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT – They shoulda had a cell phone with them.
16. THE RITE – I’m the only one who likes this, but it does have Anthony Hopkins.
17. PSYCHO – Showers or baths?
18. ROSEMARY’S BABY – It may give you morning sickness.
19. POLTERGEIST – Talk about homes being underwater!
20. ANGEL HEART – Back when Mickey Rourke was…Mickey Rourke.
21. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS – Join me in a nice chianti, Clarice.
22. THE DESCENT -- For those of you who think caves are fun. They’re not.
23. 30 DAYS OF NIGHT – Why vampires prefer winter.
24. VAN HELSING -- Not great, but I love the flying bat-girls.

SCI-FI (not exactly horror, but close enough for Halloween)

1. ALIEN and the folo, ALIENS (not the later two).
2. THE FLY (Jeff Goldblum version)
3. INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS – the 1978 remake was shot in SF.
4. MIMIC – If in NYC, you’ll think twice about ever taking the subway.
5. THE THING (1982) – Much better than the original (or later) versions.
6. PITCH BLACK – Before Vin Diesel was a star.
7.  THE FOURTH KIND -- Alien-abduction thing, very creepy.

I know I’ve left a lot out, but these should get you started. And if you really need a fright, you can always watch Romney-Obama debate reruns.

Verbal Minefield

Today we have the story of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock of Indiana saying that he’s opposed to abortion in the case of pregnancy due to rape, because if the pregnancy occurred, it must be “what God intended.” Putting rape, pregnancy, and God together is not a successful mixture, especially for a Republican.

The fur, as you might expect, is flying, with President Obama’s spokespeople calling the pregnancy remark “outrageous.” Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who was to make a campaign appearance with Mourdock, canceled, and GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, while continuing to support Mourdock’s candidacy, said through a spokesman that he disagrees with Mourdock’s view.

While Mourdock was concerned that his statement would be misinterpreted and offered an apology for any offense caused, he also said that when he gave voice to his conviction about pregnancy, he was speaking from his heart.

To be honest, part of me admires Mourdock for standing by his basic conviction instead of trying to weasel-word his way out of it or saying that his tongue slipped. But he has no business interpreting God’s intentions to women. It’s up to the woman in that situation to hear from God directly, if she’s even listening for such guidance. Under the law as it stands, the period goes after the fifth word in the last sentence here.

Look, I am no fan of abortion; in fact, there are probably very few of those who are. The notion that a woman might consider this as a last-resort form of birth control is ridiculous on its face. The only way, it seems to me, that an individual can begin to be comfortable with abortion is by considering a fetus just a hunk of biological matter. If it’s life, well then, abortion is homicide, and no other conclusion is possible. But abortion is not something we’re supposed to be comfortable with. It’s one of those cases, again under the present state of the law, where we permit homicide under certain extenuating circumstances.

BTW, don’t read Roe v. Wade back to me or talk about viability. I’m sure I’ve stepped on a verbal land mine of my own somewhere in here. When all is said and done, words don’t work very well in this area. As a practical matter, we need lawyers – more than theologians and certainly more than politicians -- to define “life” and “death” for us so we can move on to more mundane matters.

But the take-away for any politician, especially a Republican, is you'd better practice your lines before you start talking about this stuff. And if you really believe what you’re saying, don’t back away from it. The voters need to hear someone running for office who actually speaks from the heart, even if it’s wrong. That’s where the phrase “courage of convictions” comes from.

Talked Out

Well, that’s it, the debates are done. Now, it’s pretty much our turn.

The only thing that made me watch the final debate instead of the World Series is that the debate was closer – but not by much.

President Obama clearly “won” it – but then again, he was supposed to, right? The guy on the outside – Romney – can’t very well compete with the guy on the inside, who has all the answers the challenger doesn’t. Mr. Romney seemed to be reaching for it, while Obama was scoring points the whole time. It was only when Romney was able to pivot the discussion from foreign policy to the economy that he was able to make much ground, except for the fact that we’ve heard his arguments before.

Romney did score a couple of points, in one case reminding us of the President’s off-mike remark to the Russian president that he could be more “flexible” after the election. He called Latin America a real opportunity (nobody EVER talks about Latin America) and blasted the President for failing to support the Green Revolution in Iran. But most of the time, Romney had to agree with the President’s policies.

So Obama won, and he may be scoring points in the final rounds. But what about the earlier rounds, and I’m not only talking about election season. His big failure all along, in my own estimation (and long before mine, in Bill Maher’s) is that he hasn’t made an effort to communicate with us. He holds almost no news conferences. He doesn’t bring the American people into the discussion – except at election time. Doing what you think is the right thing is only half the battle, Mr. President; you have to bring the rest of us along with you, and this you haven’t done.

Romney has all kinds of problems. He’ll say almost anything to please an audience, and he has trouble connecting with people. But when it comes to business, he definitely has a skill set the President doesn’t. Likewise, Mr. Obama has expertise built up over four years that Romney clearly lacks.

Do I sound like an undecided voter? I’m not. As I’ve told my friends, I’ve made up my mind whom I’m going to vote for. But you better talk to me again next week; I might feel differently.

My position is, we’re really ALL undecided voters until we actually cast that ballot. And fortunately, that moment is just about here.

In the Top of the News...

My radio listening this morning brought three stories worthy of comment.

Malala, the 14-year old Pakistani girl shot in the head by a Taliban militant for having the temerity to advocate education for women, stood up for the first time in a British hospital today, and now they’re saying she could make a full recovery.

I take a little offense at the notion that religion prompted this shooting. While I’ve long contended that religion often gives God a bad name, Islam doesn’t go this far off the rails. While it would be nice if Jesus comes back, I think he should wait in the wings and let the Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace be upon him) return first and straighten some of these crazies out.

BTW, while fundamentalist Islam displays its low opinion of women by forcing them to wear burkas, that policy doesn’t say much about men, either. Why do women have to wear burkas? Is it because men can’t control themselves at the sight of a female?

************************************

Today marks the 25th anniversary of the 1987 event known as Black Friday, when the stock market dropped 22 percent in one day. I was working in radio, and we had to take our business/stock reporter out for at least one drink to calm him down. I remember that his tie was loosened at the neck, sort of like what Jerry Lewis used to do on those charity telethons to denote long hours of stress.

Could a similar thing happen today? Not in a single day, the experts say, thanks to automatic trading curbs that would kick in. It would just be elongated. Like four years, maybe? Well, it is nice to see the market coming back.

***********************************

And finally, it’s also great to see Mitt Romney and Barack Obama having fun with each other at the Al Smith dinner in New York. The boxing analogy fits like a glove over the debates we’ve seen so far – that’s how we “score” them, by jabs, power punches, etc. The dual appearance at the dinner reminds me of what we often see in the ring, when two boxers who have furiously beaten each other up for 11 rounds come out for the 12th – and the first thing they do is touch gloves.

Draw!

The "boxing" analysts are at it again: number of jabs, power punches thrown and connect percentages. I think Jim Lampley and Max Kellerman could score the Romney-Obama debate just as well as any of these cable TV folks or political science professors with all those letters after their names. The process, when all is said and done, is exactly the same.

The President redeemed himself after the first debate, and it may be that many observers are scoring him higher just because he outperformed himself after being knocked down in the last contest. But Romney didn’t do poorly.

What’s the takeaway? Debates measure debating skills. They tell us to what lengths the candidates will go to play to particular audiences. Were they talking to all of us, or just Ohio?

But as I’ve said before, these events do tell us how the candidates behave under stress; how they treat each other, the questioners and the moderator are all little pieces of the puzzle that contribute to their portraits as human beings.

I’ve always believed that whether we like it or not, we are electing human beings to office, not just five-point plans or positions on issues. And they are human beings with particular knowledge bases and skill sets, and as voters, we have to decide the urgency of various issues facing us and who has the best tools to deal with them. If the economy is No. 1, the businessman’s skill set is paramount; if foreign policy is our thing, then it’s no time for a “rookie” in that department. And who offers the better balance?

I also always try to remember that Presidents are rarely able to deliver on all the promises they make to get elected, and today’s problems, in their specifics, may not be tomorrow’s. If a particular issue goes away, we’re still left with a human being in office. The fact is, neither of these guys has the degree of control over things he’s trying to convince us he has. But what we do have the right to expect is, whatever challenges surface, we have someone at the top who can lead us through them.

If someone puts a gun to my head and says that I have to vote today, I know which one I’ll pick. But I’m NOT voting today. I may very well have a different answer in a couple of weeks.

A Republican President

I am loath to make predictions, but I think there’s a better-than-even chance we’re going to have a Republican president.

A lot of it has to do with timing. The Obama forces made plenty of hay with Romney’s “47 percent” remark. But remember – that statement was made to a closed group of supporters last May, and only surfaced fairly recently. Many pundits called it a fatal error. It may have hurt, but it wasn’t fatal. That was then, and this is now, and Americans live in Short Attention-Span Theater, to borrow a title from Comedy Central.

Mr. Obama has had some significant victories: killing Osama Bin Laden, bailing out the auto industry – even getting his healthcare plan passed. The first two are clear victories, the last win is a matter of debate – but again, those were then.

Now, we have his perceived loss in the last debate, coupled with the strange scenario over what happened in Benghazi, Libya, when Ambassador Chris Stevens and several others were killed. I still don’t get this one. First, there was an angry mob, then there was no angry mob, now it’s a terrorist attack, and Stevens was insufficiently protected, even though he or someone in his camp requested more help. It’s a total mystery to me why the administration can’t get a better handle on how to manage the public relations of this thing. The mother of one of the victims says she has been assured by Messrs. Obama and Biden personally that she will get answers – and she’s had none. And the Republicans are successfully beating up the administration with it.

Mr. Romney will say almost anything to get elected, true – but he says it with absolute confidence, whether it’s right or wrong. I used to work in radio, and we had a rule for reading copy. If you encountered something you didn’t know how to pronounce, like the name of some foreign dignitary, you had to pick a pronunciation and deliver it with confidence. Even if you were wrong, only half the audience – actually, much less – would know you were an idiot. If you stumbled, everyone would know it.

Vice President Joe Biden’s “these kids today don’t know anything” pose may have worked for him in his debate with Paul Ryan, but it wasn’t the clear victory that Romney scored over the President. Now we have another debate coming between the top two. Will Obama overcompensate by being too aggressive an attack dog? If he’s perceived as “losing” this next one, in my view, he’s done. There are too many people taking advantage of absentee ballots and early voting. They’re not going to wait around for the third debate.

The first bit of good news in all this is that, in my view at least, this country will probably be no worse off if either man wins next month. If President Obama is re-elected, the issue of Republicans in Congress stopping at nothing to defeat him will go away. He won’t be able to run for another term, and the Republicans will figure out they have to work with him, or lose their own seats if gridlock continues. If Romney wins – and this again is my personal view – whatever you think about Mormons, they are terrific managers. Every Mormon I know who runs a business – without exception -- does it successfully. And a little management from the top – with an eye on perceptions – wouldn’t be such a bad thing right now.

The second bit of good news, for those of you who have read this far and don’t like it, is that my predictions are usually wrong.

Miles to Go Before We Sleep

“It ain’t over till it’s over,” quoth Yogi (did he really say that?). According to the “copybox numbers” most of the pundits are scoring the debate in Mitt Romney’s favor. President Obama had rhetorical weapons that he didn’t use, some said. The President is a great orator, but debating is actually a different skill from speechmaking. Romney did a better job of marshaling facts and figures, but Obama actually scored some solid counterpunches. Personally, I was pleased that the two men stuck to the issues and that the discussion was relatively zinger-free. My immediate conclusion is that that these are two very smart people, and in spite of what you may hear, the country is not going to collapse if either one is elected.

The debate really didn’t decide anything, but it sure leaves me wanting to hear the other ones on different topics, such as foreign policy. I feel a little bit sorry for those engaging in early voting. Undoubtedly, some had cast their vote before hearing the debate, which presumably would provide vital information about whom to vote for. I am in favor of early voting, but more like a week, not this early, as in Ohio.

As I said in a previous post, those voting this early may be depriving themselves of those final pieces of the puzzle that would give them a clear picture of these candidates. When it comes to jobs, I am of the firm belief that this is an issue that neither candidate has any real control over, and to pretend that they do is just babble.

Candidates say things in these forums that may or may not reflect their real beliefs. It’s up to us as observers to determine whether they’re being genuine, and whether they give us the feeling that they could lead. One CNN observer said we voters are looking for a Moses who could lead us all out of the mess we’re in. That may be aiming a little high, but the two Presidents whose last name was Roosevelt provided some pretty good models. Yes, I have a preference among the current two, but that preference could still change in the weeks ahead.

One individual who seemed to get universally bad reviews was Jim Lehrer, the PBS news anchor who was the moderator. I think I could solve the moderator’s problem by going down to the trophy shop and spending about $20 on a little thing called a GAVEL. I used to moderate local election debates in the town I lived in, and I found that there is nothing more effective at silencing candidates who are over-babbling. Even if they continue to talk while the gavel is being struck, they look and sound “out of order.” It would make a huge difference, trust me.

The Undecided Idiot

I am a big fan of Bill Maher, but I have to take issue with him on his opinion of undecided voters in this election.

Maher basically characterized the undecideds on a recent show as uninformed idiots. While I’m sure there are quite a few who fit that description, you don’t make it on NPR unless you have a brain cell or two, and I’ve heard their reporters talked to plenty of folks who are still on the fence.

Actually, it’s my belief that there is no such thing as a fence. I can’t stand fences, and I think most thinking human beings hate them. I make up my right away about most things. The only problem is, if you talk to me an hour later, I will likely have made a new decision the other way. What makes me change? Usually, it’s new information.

So here comes the first Presidential debate, which many pundits say may be the ultimate showdown between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. But what do debates accomplish? Detractors will say that they only tell us who’s the better debater. But that is no small skill, as an effective President has to be able to persuade, and persuasion is part of leadership. It’s another piece of information.

Some of us are waiting to see a train wreck: a gaffe, a stumble, an insensitive remark, or the betrayal of something the individual would prefer to hide. The fact is, both President Obama and Mitt Romney have been caught at these things already. Most recently, Romney has had to deal with the “47 percent” remark, but remember when Obama told the Russian he’d be more flexible after the election?

Information is one thing; of course, it’s all about what we do with it. Those who see virtue in having made up their minds for good will look for information in the debate that confirms their decision; otherwise, they’ll have to think of themselves as wishy-washy. Others may receive enough information to change their minds.

Yes, I’ve made up my mind about the man I think would make a better President, but I’m not ready to tell you, and I probably won’t be ready after Wednesday. There’s still time for new information – those final pieces of the puzzle -- to come along, and then I’ll do what I usually do, vote with my gut, which, all things being equal, has a pretty good track record at doing the right thing in these situations.

Romney and the Duchess

They’re still talking about it on cable news – whether Mitt Romney blew his campaign out of the water with his remark about 47 percent of Americans being dependent victims. And then there are the topless photos of Kate Middleton, now the Duchess of Cambridge, which have hit print in Europe.

What’s the relationship here? In Romney’s case, he thought he was speaking to a specialized audience about campaign strategy. The Duchess was just trying to get a little sun, and wasn’t playing to an audience at all, or at least, thought she wasn’t.

The price of fame keeps going up. When you’re really famous, you can run, but it’s almost impossible to hide these days. It’s a reality that those folks find themselves having to learn to deal with. And everywhere they go, whatever they say, they have to wonder whether there’s a data-gathering device nearby. And now, everyone has them. Still, the Duchess did have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and it’s hard to blame Prince William, who saw his mother essentially killed by paparazzi, for being angry.

I of course have less sympathy for Mr. Romney, who is actively seeking as much publicity as he can get. He should know by now that everything that comes out of his mouth is probably going to be within range of a smartphone – and fair game. Did he really blow his campaign up? The thing that will probably keep him viable is our woefully short attention span. We still have those debates yet.

I haven’t seen the pictures of the Duchess, but I think I’m safe in guessing that they offer no anatomical surprises, and that the world will move on.

All that said, these incidents demonstrate to me how increasingly rare safe places are for people with fame, beauty, political power or ambition, and/or money. And with cameras and microphones attached to everyone like new physical appendages, even we common folk are getting a taste of this problem.

Safe places, where we can wear as much (or as little) as we want or say what we want to say, are disappearing faster than the Brazilian rain forest – and I hope we start figuring out how to preserve them in our own lives, because famous or ordinary, we all need them.

A President's Mission in Life

President Obama left no doubt about his mission after getting into office: it was to do something about reforming healthcare. Exactly how he did it or whether he did it well are debatable, but the bottom line is, he did it.

Presidents who have missions usually accomplish them. With Lincoln it was freeing the slaves; with Teddy Roosevelt it was busting trusts; with FDR it was the New Deal; with Johnson it was the Great Society. It doesn’t mean the missions were always good (war in Iraq) – but they were missions.

I want the next President to make tax reform his mission in life (or at least in office, but life would be better). All these discussions about increasing taxes on the wealthy or continuing tax cuts, capital gains rates, you name it, just take us around in very big circles.

The federal income tax code is 100 years old next year. When it started out, it was probably a good idea in concept, like the plans for a simple new home to support a nuclear family. But almost right away, they started adding wings to accommodate great aunts, and upper stories to take care of cousins. After a while, such structures become ugly and unbalanced. The roof starts to leak, then the rats come, and well, there it goes. The owner keeps making simple repairs to keep up, but eventually loses control.

Taxes are an issue at the very heart of our economic crisis. Some may get angry at Mitt Romney for paying only 13 percent in taxes or squirreling money away in the Cayman Islands, but if what he’s doing is legal, he’s only doing what just about all of us would do if we were in his shoes. It’s not his fault. It’s the system.

The other night, CNN reported that while the IRS collects $1 trillion or so a year in taxes, the loopholes and exemptions total about $1.3 trillion. Bill Clinton talks about arithmetic. There’s Lesson One.

So please, Mr. President, whoever you may be next January, make comprehensive tax reform your mission in life. The code doesn’t have to be complicated. All it really has to be is fair. Just decide for yourself that it’s doable, and take us there. The opponents of healthcare reform will be pussycats compared to who’s going to come after you over this issue. That’s why it has to be your mission.

The Reset Button

On Thursday, I was watching the evening news on cable TV. When the first political attack ad came on, I remember how angry I was getting and how I had to switch channels for a minute just to calm down. These ads are supposed to “work,” but at least on Thursday night, they weren’t working on me.

And then there was Friday, and the news from Aurora.

In response, both major presidential campaigns suspended attack ads in Colorado, and, when not canceling campaign appearances altogether, drastically changed their speeches and settings. Why? The shooting in Aurora was as a laser beam exposing the trivial nature of the campaign issues. Do we really care that much about Romney’s tax returns or the promises made by a campaigning or even newly-elected Obama years ago? There are simply more important things to be thinking and talking about.

It occurred to me that instead of suspending the attack ads for one day in one state, the campaigns – and the organizations given new license to spend advertising money by the Supreme Court – have a terrific excuse now to honor the ban for a week, or a month, or – dare I suggest it – make it permanent.

Naturally, the Aurora shooting will revive the issue of gun control – to my mind, a good thing. But instead of the usual grandstanding, can both sides of this debate work on finding a reasonable middle between arming and disarming average citizens?

And could a productive debate over this issue expand into a productive debate about the other big issues that should concern us right now? Does "my way or the highway" seem a little inappropriate at the moment?

Aurora was a hard reboot for our national consciousness. It’s an opportunity to seek a state of balance. We just don’t have to go back to business as usual.

Triple COA

Brilliant.

No we see why lawyers get to charge so much. The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling gives both major parties something to crow about – and saves the Court’s reputation at the same time.

With the majority opinion that the individual must buy health insurance or pay a penalty is essentially taxation, and that taxes, of course, are constitutionally OK, saves the health care law. The time and effort President Obama and others spent on getting it passed wasn’t wasted, or so they will be able to say.

But conservatives have argued all along that it’s a not-so-hidden tax, and the only way you avoid it is by buying health insurance from private suppliers. Which means, the only way to get rid of it, the commentators say, is to elect Mitt Romney and make both the House and Senate Republican in the November election. Far from ending the debate on this issue, the Court’s ruling throws a little gasoline on the fire.

According to the reports, the deciding vote on the Court was cast by Chief Justice John Roberts. So now, the court gets to say, see, we’re not the ee-vil reactionaries you’ve been thinking we are (or at least Roberts gets to say that).

I’ve always thought the general principles of the law are a good thing, and that it solves quite a few problems, but not enough. There’s nothing in it about tort reform – and there should be. It remains to be seen how effective the regulations on transparency will be at holding down health care costs. I have my doubts.

For now, though, the Supreme Court’s ruling may not quite be a perfect game, but it’s definitely a political triple play.

Negative Campaign Ads Work...Don't They?

For decades, this has been the conventional wisdom, and there’s no question they make an impression. But do they really “work” – meaning change minds, or push undecided voters to a commitment?

I think hit pieces are sort of like antibiotics. They’re effective for a while, and then they start to lose their potency. The bacteria simply mutate around them – get too “smart” for them, if you prefer.

Now I’m not exactly an optimist when it comes to this subject. I won’t say that the majority of the electorate are stupid – they’re mostly uninformed, and usually only get informed if they have to. Even so, thanks to the Internet and other channels, the percentage of really uninformed people, in my estimation, is dropping. As this percentage goes down, the effectiveness of negative ads drops as well. Even stupid people, in this information age, can recognize a hit piece for what it is.

I have reached the point where I just don’t care about certain things (though they may be important to you – sorry if you’re one of those folks). I don’t care whether Mitt Romney made his dog ride on the top of the car or whether Mormonism is a cult. I don’t care whether Obama’s preacher was a racist or whether he had radical friends. When it comes to creating – or losing – jobs, neither Romney nor Obama really had all that much to do with it. I’d be happy to see a line drawn under all this stuff.

So what’s going to “work,” message-wise? First, a focus on the future, not the past. And second, messages that clearly lay out the country’s problems and offer realistic – but creative – means of solving them. Herman Cain flew high for a while because he had a plan – it may have been crazy, but at least it was a plan, and voters have a thirst for that sort of thing.

With the billions that will be spend on campaign ads, the news media don’t need to compound the problem by dealing with the back-and-forth and playing them all over again for free. Fact-check, OK, but don’t give the “horse race” more time than it’s worth. The Kentucky Derby only took a couple of minutes.

As an experienced radio operator, I am very good by now at picking out the signals in the middle of the static. The purveyors of negativity will find that the electorate is getting better at it, too.

Campaign Tip: Hands Off the Wife

Democratic consultant Hilary Rosen's remark that Ann Romney has no standing to talk about women’s concerns about the economy because she “hasn’t worked a day in her life” was a singularly unproductive comment. It brought the expected response from Mrs. Romney – that raising five children is real work, and that women should learn to respect each other’s choices, both of which are fair.

This all reminds me of a dust-up in a campaign for Congress a while back in the district I used to live in. The incumbent Republican congressman was considered vulnerable to a strong challenge from a celebrity Democrat (an actor in a popular long-running TV series). The Democrat’s campaign leveled a charge that the Republican incumbent’s wife got favorable terms on a bank loan because of her husband’s membership on a banking committee in Congress.

The actor’s campaign stepped on a land mine with that one. The incumbent’s wife, as it happened,  ran a multimillion-dollar business that had been in her family long before she married the congressman, who was not nearly as wealthy as she. She responded that if she had ever wanted a favorable bank loan, she hardly needed her husband’s help to get it. The charge blew up in the Democratic challenger’s face and very likely cost him the election.

As for not having a “day job,” well, I suspect there are quite a few folks of both sexes who would be just thrilled not to have to work a day in their lives, right?

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.

Sorry Mess

Messrs. Romney and Santorum are off base when they fault the President for apologizing for the burning of the Qu’ran in Afghanistan.

Why must an apology automatically be considered an expression of weakness? Assuming that the burning was an accident, or even some kind of local policy decision (one version is that military authorities were concerned that copies of the Qu’ran were being used to spread messages), was it so wrong for the President to do what he did? In this case, the apology is as much “I feel your pain” as anything else. As children, did we – or our parents – never apologize for the grief we caused someone else – even when whatever we did to cause it seemed to be necessary?

Of course, there’s a much bigger issue here, and that’s religious hypersensitivity. It’s absolutely true that Muslims in Afghanistan are overreacting. There is no excuse for the the level of violence that has occurred, and as for apologies, we practically had to pry one out of the Afghan president with a crowbar. It calls into question what in God’s name (so to speak) we’re still doing in that country. We have two clear choices: stay there until the Taliban is wiped out – or leave.

But let me ask this: Is there a part of some of us that isn’t all that put out about the burning of the Qu’ran?

From my limited knowledge of the Bible, there’s little that upset Jesus (a Jew) more than religious intolerance. In one incident, he talked to a Samaritan woman at a well, and the woman was astonished, because the Jews “had no dealings” with the Samaritans, or weren’t supposed to. I’ve said often that religion has given God a bad name.

I’m just about convinced that this century isn’t going to end without Crusades II. Forgive me, but I’ve forgotten who won the first round.