Facebook: The Place and the Time

Well, here we go. One writer has likened Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to Gandhi or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in their relative impact on society. Before St. Mark (I thought we already had one of those) is assumed into heaven, it’s useful to think about where ideas come from, their often humble beginnings, and the people who take them to great heights.

Thanks to history, we all know that the greatest inventions are really discoveries – and a discovery isn’t something created by the discoverer – it’s there all the time, waiting to be found. Sometimes, discoveries languish because the discoverers don’t understand the significance of what they’ve found. Columbus may have “discovered” America, except he thought it was India (which is why we call them the West “Indies”). And those called the Indians simply called it home.

Discovery can also come by accident. The medical literature is filled with such stories. Penicillin, one of the most hallowed antibiotics of the 20th century, was a suspicious mold found growing on one of Dr. Alexander Fleming’s Petri dishes. Had the good doctor been less than curious, we would never have known about it – and it took him 20 years to see it developed into a useful medication.

My favorite invention, radio, may have been discovered by Marconi, but he considered it primarily as a means of communication with ships at sea. He saw no entertainment value in it – those ideas would come from David Sarnoff and his successors, who would make much more money than Marconi.

Let’s remember what Facebook was originally. You saw the movie. It was used to rate the attractiveness of women in college dormitories. Facebook, of course, wasn’t even the first social network. It’s all about what you do with the ball after you pick it up. Zuckerberg learned quickly how to run with it, focusing on essentials to bring Facebook to where it is today. And yes, he should get credit for that. Certainly, he’ll be counting it on Friday.

Often, the way for the “next big thing” is paved by others. Many had tried flying; the Wright Brothers got the plane off the ground. Part of it is learning from others’ mistakes (or your own), part is persistence, and part is luck. Or, if you prefer, it’s simple evolution – it’s just time for it to happen.

I’m jealous, of course, of all those at Facebook headquarters who will become instant zillionaires this week when the company goes public. The challenge for them is not letting it go completely to their heads. They’re simply the poster children for being in the right place at the right time.

The N Word

The ongoing debate about same-sex marriage is only part of a larger subject: sexual behavior that’s considered “normal.”

When I was in high school, a friend pulled me aside one day and sheepishly told me his mother had caught him perusing a copy of “Playboy” in his room. She took it away from him, but also told him that at least he was “normal.”

Gay vs. straight is only the tip of an enormous iceberg. When it comes to sexual predilections, “common” seems to be a much more accurate, though less comforting term than “normal.” Just read Dr. Kinsey’s and others’ findings. Some people like breasts, others prefer bums. Some like legs, and others, feet. There’s missionary and there’s doggie, as well as daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, and even never. To some, size matters, others could care less. Some like to wear handcuffs, and others like to do the cuffing – you fill in the rest. Accounting for the differences in the wiring of people’s brains, if that’s what we’re talking about here, is a virtually impossible task.

Sadly, there are some predilections that eventually involve victims, such as when adults prey on children. Clearly, such behavior is criminal, and it has to be dealt with in the ways that most effectively protect society.

But what about the attraction to children, for example, in the first place, or other non-standard attractions? It’s easy for those of us who consider ourselves “normal” to label others’ attractions as sinful (“How could those awful people even think that way?”). Perhaps instead, we should recognize -- maybe with gratitude -- that our own brains just aren’t wired in those ways, and that we don’t have to deal with the struggles such attractions can bring.

As I have said before, there are almost as many strokes as there are folks – and as long as no victims are involved – and that’s a very big condition -- what standing do we have on which to judge each other? If you’re looking for “normal” in the sexual proclivities of modern human beings, well, maybe you should ask yourself if you really want to go there at all.

The M Word (Again!)

Some day, the long fistfight over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry will be over. Both sides will have punched themselves out.

If I could write the law, it would come out something like this. For the purpose of rights and responsibilities, there would be no such thing as “marriage” in our legal codes. All willing couples, regardless of gender, would get some kind of certificate of union, with all the rights and privileges –- and I mean all -- currently afforded couples whom we now call married. But issuing that certificate would be all that government could do, and the spiritual and emotional components would be the province of some other entity.

This way, the county clerks wouldn’t be in the position of having to perform any ceremonies, and their sensibilities, or their biases, if you prefer, would not be part of the equation. If a couple wanted to find a church or some other party to perform a ceremony so they could call themselves “married,” that, in effect, would be none of government’s business. The person administering the ceremony would not be able to say, “By the power vested in me…”, because no power (at least no LEGAL power) would be vested in that individual.

We could avoid the insoluble arguments over the definition of marriage, which kinds of couples are more capable of raising children, or whether a same-sex union lasting 20 years is more valid or justified than a heterosexual union lasting only three years. Clearly, if two people of any sex want to make a long-standing or even a till-death-do-us-part commitment to each other, that’s something that society should encourage. And it appears that a certain percentage of human beings, indeed, mammals in general, are gay. They can’t “fight” it; why should others waste time trying?

I know this horse left the barn a few thousand years ago; I’ll leave it to the interpreters of the Bible or other books to tell me how many thousand. But I’m hoping that evolution (whoops, I mean SOCIAL evolution) takes us past this discussion eventually and that we can focus on other issues. How about curing cancer or ending war? Well, those are horses that may never leave the barn, but we can hope, can’t we?

Partying Down...and Down...and Down

The nightly cable news outrage mills have been full of the lavish GSA convention in Las Vegas and the not-so-lavish carousing by Secret Service agents in Cartagena. Generally speaking, to land a supervisory job in either agency, you have to have a brain – so we’re left with the proverbial question, “What were they thinking?”

Many may be shocked at the notion that Secret Service agents, who have the reputation of being the best of the best when it comes to law enforcement, would be caught partying with prostitutes (apparently legal in parts of Colombia). But what exactly gave it all away? It wasn’t about lust – it was about being cheap: one of the agents, or so the story goes, refused to pay one of the women the agreed-on fee. He had been drunk, he said, when he agreed to it earlier.

So now we have members of Congress on TV railing about whether the “culture” in the Secret Service allows all this behavior (we could easily discuss pots calling kettles black at this point, but I won’t go there).

From what little I know of law enforcement, some of these folks party pretty hard, and considering the stresses of those jobs, who would begrudge them a little fun? But it’s a minority who take it to extremes, and it’s usually off the clock. Most Secret Service agents are pretty close to what we expect them to be. At the very, very least, what happened in Cartagena should have been “secret service!”

I don’t have a problem with the concept of GSA people having a convention at a resort. Fox News can complain all day about why they didn’t just sit around a table at a Motel 6. Such events, in the private sector, are part education, part team-building, part reward and part winding down for “mental health.” But $800,000-plus?

Maybe it’s about, “What WEREN’T they thinking?” It’s really about proportion and balance, and asking the question, “How would the folks out there feel if they knew about this?”

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?

Picking Your Poison

Well, it’s starting. A prominent physician at UCSF, Dr. Robert Lustig,  has declared refined sugar to be toxic (you can learn more about that here). I submit this is just the beginning, and predict that before I check out of Hotel Earth (I hope it’s not Express Check Out), the following substances will be designated as controlled or outright illegal:

• Meat, including poultry
• Dairy products
• White bread
• Potato chips, French fries
• Alcohol (illegal)
• Tobacco (illegal)
• Caffeine
• Table salt
• Most soft drinks
• Refined sugar

I can hear some of you cheering and wondering why these things haven’t already happened. Patience, patience. Just give it time.

Actually, time is a big issue, because if you take the long view, things that were once essential to our health are no longer considered so (leeches), while those experts who issued warnings years ago were not always listened to.

When I was growing up in New York, there was a guy on the radio named Dr. Carlton Fredericks, who lectured every Sunday on his show about the evils of cholesterol. He favored a low-carbohydrate diet and promoted the use of vitamins because he said most essential nutrients were lost in food processing. Were he alive today, he would have been elevated to sainthood, bur at the time, more than a few people thought he was a bit of a nut.

I used to drink a popular Coca-Cola product called Tab, the production of which was drastically decreased after its principal sweetener, saccharin, was found to be a carcinogen. Years later, saccharin was un-found to be cancerous, so at least in that regard, Tab is OK. It’s still produced in some areas and has millions of fans, even though not a single word of advertising has appeared for it in decades. I don’t drink it now because it’s hard to find and rather expensive.

As for the evils of meat, poultry and dairy, my solution would be to allow continued consumption of these things on the grounds that consumers produce their own – which means doing their own slaughtering. How many of us would wring the necks of chickens or butcher our own pigs or cows? Speaking of cows, would the average American enjoy getting up in the wee hours and milking one? If stays on farms were mandatory, it would do wonders for the vegan movement (which, as you have probably guessed, I haven’t yet joined).

There is one thing likely to happen relatively soon that will cheer many folks up: something coming OFF the no-no list. MARIJUANA! The only problem is, when you get the munchies, what will your choices be?

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.

To Blog Visitors

This blog’s new statistics report feature shows that there have been numerous visitors from around the world as well as the United States. I of course recognize that clicking on this site doesn’t mean that you want to join, that you have actually read anything, or if you did, that you understood it, should English not be your language. In any case, I still want to express my appreciation to those of you who have visited from other countries, so here goes:

Dutch: Dank je
German: Danke
Russian: спасибо
Hebrew: רב תודות
Farsi: motashakkeram
Hindi: Dhanyavad
Latvian: Paldies
French: Merci
Malay: Terima kasih
Portuguese (Brazil): Obrigado
Spanish (Colombia): Gracias
Korean: kam sah hamnida

And, of course, to our English-speaking friends, thank you!

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.

Heavy Issues

I decided that some of my posts might be thought of as trivial, so today I’m writing about life and death. Really.

It’s the debate in Washington over forced birth control coverage that got my brain going down all kinds of rabbit holes. For starters: If you accept the notion that life begins at conception, shouldn’t we be celebrating conception days instead of birthdays? Perhaps some of you already celebrate both c’days and b’days.

How about contraception? It’s tough to be opposed to abortion and contraception at the same time, because if you oppose contraception, well, aren’t you likely to bump up the number of abortions under the current state of the law? Of course, there is abstinence, but you can see how well that’s worked out for us.

Death is a tough one, too. We can’t seem to agree on when a person is 100 percent dead, especially when there are now so many artificial means of keeping us going at the “end of life.” Death is as much a legal term as it is a medical one. In the past, it was actually defined differently from state to state – perhaps still is. Are you dead when the machine says your brain is no longer sending out signals? What happens if you “die,” see the white light and your departed friends, but then something happens and you’re sent back down here? Does that mean your last will and testament doesn’t take effect after all? Do the relatives waiting to cash in have to pour the champagne back in the bottle?

You can see why I have a splitting headache. It will be a relief to return to more trivial matters.

Syrian Scramble

Like most of you, it’s hard for me to watch nightly TV pictures of a mechanized army killing civilians at an ever-increasing rate. For those of you with a sense of history, it’s awfully reminiscent of the Warsaw Ghetto.

But what are we going to do about it? We already have too many boots on too many grounds. Bombing? That’s OK, except this isn’t Berlin, Baghdad, or Belgrade. Drones? Now there’s a possibility. Drone vs. tank is more than fair.

One commentator was critical of the U.S. for even bothering with the U.N. – he says we should have known that Russia and China were going for a veto, and that it was a waste of time. I disagree – the U.N. was a base we had to touch, and now that we’ve rounded it, we’re free to pursue other options – but what?

Syria isn’t Libya. It’s not all about one ruling family. Unlike Libya, Syria has a business community that doesn’t want the boat rocked. It’s about money. Analysts say the Russians have lost billions in potential weapons sales during the Arab spring. They also want a port on the Mediterranean, available to them in Syria. And then there are the Chinese, and, of course, Iran. Can we deal with Syria without having to deal with the rest of them?

CNN commentator and Stanford fellow Fouad Ajami has what seems like a practical idea: Supply the Free Syrian Army with weapons and let them at least fight the regime on a leveler playing field. The regime is getting its weapons from others. This kind of assistance is nothing new -- remember Lend-Lease during the early days of World War II?

Will many more have to die? Undoubtedly, but personally, I’d rather see them die defending themselves than simply being slaughtered. I’d be curious to find out how much of a stomach the regular Syrian army would have for supporting the regime if they had credible military opposition.

At some point, this situation, at least for the United States, has to go beyond its current status as a nightly cable-news outrage festival.

Rules of the Game

Both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have released their income tax returns, and critics are weighing in on whether both paid their fair share in taxes. Some will say that Romney’s percentage rate was too low, and others that Gingrich used the S corporation regulations to avoid paying Medicare taxes.

But didn’t these two play by the rules? They’re only doing what most of us do – take advantage when it comes our way. And that’s often not fair.

Warren Buffett may not think it’s right that he’s taxed at a lower rate than his secretary, but how many Warren Buffetts are there? Why do people spend money on tax preparers? If a loophole is available to you, wouldn’t you be crazy not to make use of it? I submit that most of us go with the flow when the wind blows in our direction. We use the written – and often the unwritten – rules to get ahead.

Did you ever wangle your way backstage at a big concert because you knew someone in security or in the band? While watching football, did you cheer if the referee made a controversial call in your team’s favor, even when it was wrong? Did you get into a great college ahead of someone with equal qualifications because your dad was a big donor?

Those advantages can be something of a leveling influence. One individual may have access to a perk that’s unavailable to his neighbor, and vice versa – but isn’t that life in the big city? If a rule is inherently unfair, isn’t it usually the rule – or the lack thereof --that’s the problem, more than the individual taking advantage? Which is why rules are tinkered with so often.

Legality is one thing – but fairness, whether we like it or not, is usually quite another. You already know which is easier.

Whose Business Is It, Anyway?

I am no fan of Mitt Romney’s, but there’s something unsavory about bullying candidates for office into releasing their tax returns. I don’t know exactly where this began, but it should be recognized that candidates have the right to say NO when this demand is made of them.

Where exactly does this end? What’s to stop a candidate from agreeing to submit to an audit – and shaming the rest of the field into so doing? And who gets to do the audit?

Romney’s mealy-mouthed admission that he pays maybe 15 percent on his federal taxes – because the vast majority of his income is from investments – does bring to light the inherent inequalities in the current tax system. Hopefully, the cries for a simplification of tax policy, and a reduction of its use for social engineering purposes, will register with our representatives in Washington (we should live so long) – but this is another program I’m not interested in debating here, at least today.

But I wish he would have said, when the demand was made of him, “I’ll think about it, but it’s really none of your business.”

If this is such a big deal, maybe there should be legislation REQUIRING all those who run for public office to release their latest tax returns. At least it would level the playing field and call a halt to this political dance.

These days, thanks to Zaba, Intelius, etc., you can find an awful lot about any individual just by paying the freight and doing one of those “premium” searches. The media – at least those who can afford it – should do that with all candidates running for local offices.

As for Mr. Romney, he would do much better in these debates if he actually answered a question now and then – but again, that’s another program.

The Healing Power of Facebook

We’re all aware of how many use social media to inform us of every twist and turn in their lives – or to foment revolutions – but this week I became aware of its healing power, at least in a small way.

A Facebook friend posted a rather alarming report from the hospital. He had undergone a heart operation a while back, but chest pains had returned, and he was actually wondering if he were going to die. Almost instantly, his friends responded, saying they were praying for him, etc. – but one in particular had been through exactly the same thing and advised him to stay calm, because fear only makes things worse, especially for heart patients. My friend was released from the hospital the next day and was full of gratitude for all the good wishes and advice, which had calmed him down to the point where the doctors (among the best in the country for heart issues) could let him go home.

Another FB friend reported a death in his family. In this case as well, his friends responded quickly with comforting words.

Before social media, these individuals might have had to call their friends one-by-one and relive their woes over and over.

On a more mundane level, I’ve seen people report all kinds of problems trying to fix a broken appliance or navigate paperwork, and in just about every case, one of their FB friends has been there and done it, and shares the wisdom needed for the fix.

Many of us have a love-hate relationship with Facebook. I don’t know exactly what this Timeline business is for, and wish Mr. Zuckerberg would just leave things alone. A young lady I know was hopping mad that Timeline apparently re-published photos from past years of ex-boyfriends, and she had to go back in and delete what she had previously removed.

But for me, FB has had an important benefit. I do most of my work at home now, which means I have no co-workers, and I’d probably have gone batty months ago were it not for the ability to talk with friends and former colleagues. And being an old radio person, I discovered I still have a critical need for something I thought I could do without: an audience.

Real People

Just what does Mitt Romney have to do to convince the population that he’s human?

Many people think his problem is that he’s rich, and the average bear can’t identify with him. What we have heahhh, as the old “Cool Hand Luke” line goes, is a failure to communicate, but it’s not about money.

By the time most people get to the point where they can run for President, they have money – they just about have to have it. In the case of most, they were born into average circumstances and became financial successes. Romney’s a different case, some will say, because he was born into it and has no concept of what it’s like to struggle. But that’s not it, either. FDR’s family wasn’t poor, nor was JFK’s, but both men were effective communicators who were able to convince people to elect them.

Clothing has nothing to do with it. Steve Jobs didn’t wear ties to Apple conferences but was CEO of what now appears to be the world’s most successful company. And then there’s Michael Moore, who shows up for national interviews in T-shirts and baseball caps. He can buy and sell the average bear about 20 times over, but said bear doesn’t hold that against him. But no matter how “down” Romney tries to dress, no matter how far he rolls up his sleeves, he just isn’t going to be “one of us.” At least not that way.

A little story: Many years ago, my wife and I were at a party in another state. A woman we knew distantly was there. She was a very pretty brunette, with nice dress, figure, etc., but for me at least, the “attractor factor” wasn’t quite there -- why, I don’t know. Anyway, about halfway through, she slumped to the floor, and people rushed to her aid. The general conclusion was that she was tired, or had too much to drink. I never knew what the issue was -- she revived quickly, and as I recall, resumed conversations with people. I joked later that her batteries ran out and she just needed a charge.

Which brings us back to Romney. It isn’t wealth. It’s not dress. He’s an articulate speaker. He knows his stuff. He has the qualifications to be President. So if you were one of his handlers, what would you tell him he needed to do to connect with voters?

Don’t look at me, I don’t have a clue.

The Character Thing

Looks like it’s time for the quadrennial discussion about the character of our next President, and whether a track record of marital cheating is cause to conclude a candidate isn’t qualified to run the country. All things being equal, it’s clear to me that a clean record in this area is important. Trouble is, all things aren’t.

Rick Perry says if a man will cheat on his wife, he will cheat on his business partner. The buzzer’s going off on that one – it’s wrong. Those are two entirely different things. There are plenty of examples of swindlers and scam artists who have impeccable family values.

My problem with extramarital behavior on the part of a candidate – or a sitting President, for that matter – is that it’s a security risk. If a President fools around, as Bill Clinton did, he is, by the very act, supplying someone else with damaging personal information about himself. What is the other individual going to do with it? Blackmail? Give it to foreign agents? These are extremes, which – fortunately – Monica Lewinsky apparently wasn’t interested in. But when the information came out, it did seriously limit President Clinton’s effectiveness, and the political fallout wasted a lot of time.

Is a President’s hanky-panky anyone’s business? Absolutely. What would the cable news operations have done with JFK’s activities? Or Eisenhower’s? or FDR’s? Plenty! And how effective would they have been after that?

One of my favorite sayings is, “Every saint has a past and every sinner a future.” Bill Clinton, for example, walks on water now – but are Republicans – or other voters – willing to give Newt Gingrich a pass?

It seems the only way to handle the character thing is to assign a value to it, making it like a credit score element – paying bills on time, 30 percent, proportion of balance to credit line, 20 percent, something like that.

I’ve always believed that we elect human beings to office, not simply positions on issues. The issues that are top-of-mind now may not be there several years from now – but we’re still stuck with our choice till the end of the next term. So we’d best try to get it right.

Howdy, Neighbor

NASA revealed this week that there’s a planet out there that seems to have a really good chance of supporting life. For the moment, at least, it has the unromantic name Kepler 22B. It’s about twice as big as Earth, but lies within a reasonable distance of the star around which it revolves, and the surface temperature is said to average around 72 degrees. The next trick is to find out if there’s water on it, which could be a clue as to whether it supports life.

While this is quite a discovery, it’s not exactly breaking news, cosmically speaking. Kepler 22B is some 600 light-years away from here, which means whatever our space telescopes can see happened about 600 years ago – relatively close, though, in space terms.

If you think about it logically, considering the size of the universe, the odds are much better than even that there is life on other planets. Does it have to look like us? Does it matter?

I have no doubt there are other beings out there, and I don’t have a problem with that. When I was about eight years old and the original version of the movie “Invaders From Mars” was released, many of my friends were running screaming from the theater when the aliens appeared, but I sat there and watched the whole thing without flinching.

We continue to wait for proof of alien contact, but it’s very possible they’ve already been here. After creating a few crop circles, drawing giant figures in the Peruvian desert and helping with a Stonehenge or two, maybe most got bored and moved on. But I wish those still arriving would pick better places to land. A few years ago, when I worked in radio news in Southern California, a guy called me on the phone and said that a UFO had landed in front of him one night on a lonely stretch of Interstate 10 between Indio and Blythe. I had no reason to disbelieve him, except that he had no proof. With everyone armed with smart phones, the aliens couldn’t get away with that now. If we aspire to a little intergalactic tourism, why shouldn’t they enjoy it?

Not to go Biblical on you, but it’s documented in the New Testament that Jesus said, “Other sheep have I that are not of this fold.” Most of you will say, of course, that’s not what he was talking about.

Really?

How About Black SATURDAY?

I’m not one to risk an arm, a leg, an eye or teeth – much less contracting frostbite – just to be the first through the big-box store door on Friday morning to score a flat-screen TV or tablet, but the whole concept of Black Friday still is offensive. This year, of course, some retailers aren’t even waiting till Friday, and we all know what that means for Thanksgiving, which should be one of those sacred holidays (and why they call them “holidays” is a mystery to me, but that’s another program).

The “black” part is supposed to be about retailers kicking off the season so they can be “in the black” at the end, but historically, putting “black” in front of a day of the week has always meant a financial panic or some other disaster. I guess the naming was deliberate, but I’m not sure it has the desired effect.

It’s all just a big game, though, as retailers have to show the huge numbers for Black Friday as an indicator of how the shopping season will go and the overall health of the economy. But I resent the idea that you have to have your will on file somewhere and your life insurance in force before you go shopping.

At the very least, can’t we compromise a little bit and push it all back to Saturday, if only as a Thanksgiving digestion aid? And please, can we eventually go back to celebrating seasons sometime during the actual seasons?

I’m waiting for a kid to show up at the front door next Halloween dressed as Santa – trust me, it’s coming.

Bad Endings

By now, you’ve had more than an earful about the “Wednesday night massacre” at Penn State, and the firing of legendary football coach Joe Paterno. The university’s board of trustees is receiving praise in many circles for the courage it showed in making these decisions, especially about Mr. Paterno.

In a discussion last night, I said that while I didn’t necessarily disagree with the decision to fire him, I was still having a hard time with it. Many aren’t. It was simply a question of a powerful individual failing to use that power in a way that could have avoided a terrible injustice, in this case, to children and their families. End of story, right?

I guess what I’m having a hard time with is this: here’s a man who was still coaching college football at the age of 84 and was called the winningest coach. His career spanned more than 45 years. How many young men’s lives has he helped shape over that period? How much honor – and money – has flowed to that university because of him, enhancing the quality of education at that school for many other students? And poof! – it’s all gone after a little TV coverage. In other news...

If the tragedy involved in Paterno’s situation here hasn’t registered with you, I hope you take a minute to think about it. The easy answer is, what about the children that could have been protected if he had taken more forceful action? Isn’t that more important than college football?

Don’t worry, Joe Paterno will get what many think he deserves, and more. He will likely spend a good portion of the rest of his life as a civil defendant. If it’s shown that he violated the law or participated in an actual cover-up, he should be a criminal defendant.

But as we prepare to flush someone’s life work down the toilet, I hope we take just a little time – at least in our own minds -- before we reach for the handle on the tank.

Let's Make It a Real Holiday

Undoubtedly, you’ve heard people say that Halloween is their favorite holiday – which it isn’t. But let’s face it – Halloween just isn’t a normal business day.

Does anyone in your office dress up for Halloween? Does the management encourage it? I went to the dentist the other day, and they had scary decorations up. I told them, “Hey, this is a DENTAL OFFICE, you don’t need extra fear factors!” Do banks still have tellers wear costumes? Well, bamkers are portrayed as the real monsters these days, right?

I enjoy Halloween for a couple of reasons. I’ve always liked horror movies, but they rarely make them like they used to, with Karloff, Lugosi and Chaney. Knives and buckets of blood don’t do it for me, nor do vampires suffering from discrimination. But Halloween is the one day on which you get a free pass to take a vacation from yourself. Conventional wisdom has it that this is particularly true of women. I do remember some years ago in an office I worked in that a young woman – a rather religious one most of the time -- came to work in an anatomically correct flesh-colored angel’s costume. No, she didn’t wear it all day – she quickly resumed being herself – but she got the point across.

There are some parents who believe Halloween is wrong, but I think children relish the idea of taking on a different persona for at least part of one day a year, and that they shouldn’t be deprived of that experience. I envy actors, who get to do it for a living all the time.

Let’s just bite the bullet and make Halloween a national holiday. If you think you’re going to get something important done, well, best wait till All Saints Day.

The Cowboy and the Alien

Some of you have heard me quip that if Rick Perry is the cowboy among the Republican presidential candidates, then Mitt Romney must be the alien. OK, so you get the cowboy part, but why do I think Romney’s an alien?

Just to be clear about this -- a relative and I occasionally bestow this classification on certain people we run across. All of us have encountered at least one. They’re attractive, competent and sensible, but gosh darn it, there’s something missing. What it is, we don’t know – but we know it’s why the individual so designated has trouble connecting with us, or with others. I have no doubt that Mitt Romney is qualified to be President. So why does he make even Republicans uncomfortable? It’s that thing that isn’t there. With McCain they worried that his heart might give out at his age; with Romney, is there a reasonable fear that his batteries may die?

Romney’s a great backup in case nobody else works out for the GOP. But Republicans want desperately for someone else to work out. They’re attracted to Herman Cain. He’s decisive. He has plans to fix things. Some of them make a certain amount of sense. He makes them sound like they make sense. He’s the CEO of a successful company who knows what success is. He’s a leader. That’s what Republicans want. Heck, that’s what the country wants right now.

Just one problem. Cain’s a nut case. Off the scale on some things. Come on – do you really agree with him that Sharia law is going to take over our judicial system? What about his statement that he won’t have a Muslim in his cabinet, or appoint one to a federal judgeship?

Which brings us back to the alien. I’d have a really hard time voting for an alien, but as long as we’re in the sci-fi/horror genre, I’d easily vote for a zombie if his name were Teddy Roosevelt.

That’s what’s really missing.

It's My Job, Man

When 9/11 happened 10 years ago, I was curiously fortunate. I worked in a newsroom, and I knew exactly where I was supposed to be. Certainly, journalists faced challenges that day, and the weeks that followed, reacting to the shifting and cascading elements of the story, but the job was basically the same.

It was the case during every big event, like the major earthquakes I covered on the radio. Someone asked me why I didn’t seem to get upset or break down. I couldn’t answer right away, but after thinking about it, concluded that I simply didn’t have time for it. Of course, at some point you have to deal with your emotions, but those who have specific jobs at such times, like first-responders, and yes, reporters, instinctively know they have to put all that off. It’s usually better to deal with those issues later, when things calm down a bit.

Deep inside most journalists – and in some cases, not so deep – is a part that actually enjoys cataclysms – we get our cheap little adrenaline thrills at someone else’s expense. But that gets old really fast. Still, perhaps the real reason journalists keep going is that gathering and disseminating information about the event provides the comforting illusion of having some measure of control over it. By putting out the information, journalism is the process of sharing some of that sense of control. After being removed from immediate danger and having basic physical needs met, the next thing the individual must have to survive is information.

One of the benefits of having a home or family disaster plan is that it gives you a sense of control. When disaster strikes, you may find that some parts -- or most parts -- of the plan are useless, and you really don’t have the control you think you have, but at least you have some structure to hang thoughts on. The plan doesn’t have to be perfect. What’s important is that you have a job to do. Trust me, it will help keep your head together.

Overblown?

There are always people who think that the media make too much of things like hurricanes. It must be a hurricane if Anderson and Geraldo have to get their ankles wet, right?

Irene did not disappoint. She followed the path the forecasters said she would, almost slavishly. She wasn’t quite as strong as feared, but strong enough for billions of dollars in damage, power losses in many states, and 18 deaths. She graciously did not make fools of all those mayors, governors and emergency managers – their orders for evacuations and shutdowns seem pretty sensible after the fact.

Of course, it hasn’t always been that way. Case-in-point: My wife and I were in Miami around this time of year back in 2006. A storm named Ernesto had just left Cuba and was on its way, expected to make a direct hit as a Category 2 hurricane, or so I remember. The city boarded up quickly. Even our hotel took down those overhead fans so flying blades wouldn’t decapitate any guests in a hurricane. The TV stations promised their crews would be there with us for the duration of the storm. They had more graphics on that hurricane than I’d ever seen. They showed Ernesto to us up, down and sideways.

But a few hours before Ernesto arrived, it basically dissipated, as some dry air got into the system. The TV anchors who swore never to leave us sheepishly told us there was really nothing more to report, and said “We now return you to our regular program, Fear Factor.” Ernesto made fools out of a lot of people. Interestingly, the storm reconstituted itself and moved up the coast to do actual damage in North Carolina.

All those warnings Easteners heard this past week left a lot of people prepared to fend for themselves – especially those who are now without power for up to a week. The earthquake was a particularly clever touch from Mother Nature.

But let’s not be too hard on the meteorologists and the TV anchors – they’re supposed to supply us with information, and for the most part, they do their best. As for the mayors, governors and emergency managers, they can only work with the information they’re given; they have to make decisions involving thousands of workers and perhaps millions of dollars well in advance of any event, taking a considerable political risk that it won’t look like they wasted money when the storm is just a memory.

While I don’t wish disaster on anyone, part of me feels we have to thank Irene for sending a message many of us need to hear.

Advice, Please

Now that our big debt-ceiling crisis is pretty much (at this writing) over with, the financial gurus have to start telling us what to do next, because it’s generally agreed that a credit downgrade from Moody’s et al is inevitable – and probably well-deserved. The experts are saying, however, that since we have a new debt ceiling, it will only be a small downgrade, not a really serious one. How does that make you feel?

So I want to hear a killer strategy from somebody. Should you buy a house while the interest rates are low? After all, if we’re downgraded, you may never see these rates again in your lifetime. All you have to do is...qualify. So what else? Buy (or sell) stocks, bonds? Buy (more) gold? Acquire yuan? Resume collecting Beanie Babies? If credit card rates go up to 40 percent, what will the Mafia be charging? Personally, I was thinking of screening some “Dynasty” DVDs to breathe some ‘80s air again. Ladies, get out those tops with the padded shoulders. They may be coming back.

But seriously, folks: we’re in the hole for trillions, and it seems today that it’s pretty close to impossible for us to dig our way out of this one, ever. Except for one thing.

Gabrielle Giffords actually made it to Congress yesterday to cast her vote on the debt ceiling bill. If she can make it back after what happened to her, do you think maybe our economy has a chance?

Now I feel just a little better.

Name It and Claim It

It didn’t take very long for someone to come up with a name for new legislation in the wake of Casey Anthony’s acquittal on murder charges: Caylee’s Law, which would make it a felony for a parent to fail to report a child missing (as if this happens all the time). It’s not the law I have the biggest problem with – it’s the fact that they have to name these things after adorable-child crime victims to get our attention. We have Megan’s Law, Jessica’s Law – even Buster’s Law (that’s animal cruelty legislation named after a dog). But in my case, tugging at my heartstrings doesn’t work – it actually has the opposite effect. I’m perfectly happy with AB 2531 or something dry like that, if it’s a good law. Leave my heartstrings alone! But I guess if a name is needed to raise awareness, I should shut up.

You may have heard my theory before, but just to repeat: if Disney had named the insect character Jiminy Cockroach instead of Jiminy Cricket, guess which bugs we’d be kind to and which we’d be stepping on. Most of us really are suckers.

Fortunately, it doesn’t always work. Here where I live, there was a huge eucalyptus tree whose roots were creating a “speed bump” in the street in front of a branch library, nearly causing numerous traffic accidents. The city announced this tree would have to be removed because of the road hazard. So what did the tree huggers do? You guessed it – they gave it a name, and soon there was a movement to Save Tom the Tree. But the city was a little more concerned with saving drivers than Tom. The tree was cut down – and the road resurfaced. A small sapling was planted on the sidewalk in the spot that Tom once occupied, and will eventually grow. Interesting, though, that I don’t hear anybody calling it Tom, Jr. Actually, I do call it that, every time we pass it.

Gross-out Therapy

So now the FDA is going to require unpleasant graphics or photos to cover the top half of cigarette packs sold in the U.S. Some of them are really disgusting. Now, I don’t smoke (I stopped when I was 23), but there’s something wrong with these pictures.

I feel sorry for you if you do smoke. Beside the health issues, it’s just plain difficult. The number of places where you’re allowed to do so is diminishing rapidly. The people pass initiatives to load punitive taxes on cigarettes. Smoking used to make you look sophisticated; those days are over.

But I see a really slippery slope here. If the government is going to start requiring those who put out potentially bad products to post ugly pictures on their packaging, where is that heading? Instead of the fancy label on that $30 bottle of wine you just bought, will there someday have to be a photo of a cirrhosis-scarred liver on the bottle? Or how about pictures of fat kids on Coke cans? Or someone throwing up after eating hamburger meat with E. coli?

Attempts to force physicians to show pictures of aborted fetuses to women opting to get that procedure have been blocked consistently. So why are these cigarette-pack graphics any better?

Gross-out therapy has been tried before. I heard a neurologist, who’s an expert on addiction, interviewed on NPR yesterday. He said that in the short term, such measures do actually work, causing people to want to give up bad habits and discouraging newbies from starting or continuing with them. But after a while, the effect wears off – we humans can adapt to almost anything -- and we’re left with just that extra little bit of required ugliness in our environment, accomplishing very little.

It’s an accepted fact that smoking kills people. Even alcohol, in moderation, is purported to have some health benefits. But tobacco has virtually nothing to recommend it, except that the plants help repel certain insect pests in gardens. So if it’s so awful, why doesn’t government stop fooling around with these behavior-altering schemes and simply ban tobacco outright, maybe after a five-year warning?

Cold turkey is really the only thing that works. And it’s a lot cheaper.

The Madding Crowd

The riot in Vancouver following the Canucks loss to the Boston Bruins in the Stanley Cup hockey contest has turned into a sort of scientific phenomenon that social theorists are trying to figure out. For starters, this was Canada – the last place you’d expect something like that to happen.

The cops and the media struggled with whether this should be called a “riot” or not. Well, “riot” these days has a connotation of humor or enjoyment, and a lot of the participants in Vancouver who were looting stores and burning cars were actually enjoying themselves – which is really sad. It had nothing at all to do with losing the Stanley Cup. So “riot” works fine for me.

The theorists divided the crowd into three main layers. The first were the actual troublemakers; the second stood by cheering them on, and the third were spectators. Layers two and three didn’t have the cojones to actually cause trouble themselves, but they sure enjoyed watching it – and having their own pictures taken in front of scenes of mayhem on their smart phones.

There were probably fourth and fifth layers – the fourth being people who wanted to get out of the crowd and were trapped, and the fifth being the few people who tried to prevent those in the first layer from doing the damage. Some were beaten up for trying.

The Vancouver cops were adhering to a plan, apparently designed to control the crowd without confronting it -- which may be supported by police science, but generally not acceptable to the public, who would have preferred heavy tear gas and clubs swinging. Some say the city should have never invited people to go downtown to watch the hockey game on big screens. There simply weren’t enough cops, it appears, to handle those crowds. They say the city may have been lulled into a false sense of security by the success of the Olympics, crowd-wise, but then, there were 8,000 police on duty. The only good news was that there was no shooting among the crowd – they don’t do handguns in Canada.

Vancouver just happened to have a convention of travel bloggers in town during Wednesday night’s activities – whoops!

It’s my belief that social media and smart-phone technology have become the steroids fueling these events. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against these things at all. But if Facebook and Twitter can cause an Arab spring, what role did they play in Vancouver? With these modern marvels, the human race clearly has a tiger by the tail, and had better figure it out fast.

Patterns

I’d like to join in expressing shock and shaking my head at the revelations about New York Congressman Anthony Wiener’s sexual tweets, but frankly, I’m exhausted. Let’s see, there’s our ex-governor, there’s John Edwards, Tiger, the IMF guy – I’ll let you finish the list. The sad part of these stories, of course, is the damage, not just to the villain du jour, his family and to potential victims, but to our faith in those presumed to be leaders and role-models among us – how many more hits can that faith take?

More often than not, the volcano of publicity erupts following an event that is simply a pattern, perhaps a longstanding one, coming to the surface – and we all have patterns. It doesn’t have to be sexual. It could be about drinking, eating, shopping, gambling or playing videogames. It starts out as a predilection, then becomes a pattern. If we lose control of the pattern and it gets destructive, we call it addiction. What follows are unbelievable lapses of judgment, lies, and the betrayal of those we love. It’s just very easy to say, “How could he…?”(or she) when that isn’t one of our own patterns. There are as many strokes as there are folks.

Congressman Weiner’s resignation is the right course, simply because no one will take him seriously again for a very, very long time. But I wonder: if his problem had been alcoholism, a potentially more debilitating and destructive addiction, would we have been more forgiving?

Before we play the “ain’t it awful” game, maybe we should reflect on our own performance at dealing with patterns. For starters, how about our insatiable appetite for every last sordid detail of these stories, served to us by cable TV reporters breathlessly expressing shock and amazement. They should be sending thank-you notes to these perpetrators, maybe with an expensive bottle of wine. They know very well how much we out here in the audience love train wrecks.

Doomsday is No Joke

So, you’re thinking, “Oh no, now you’ve really gone off the deep end!” That’s a plunge I probably took long ago, but no, I don’t believe today is Doomsday.

The prediction of Harold Camping, the 89-year-old president of Family Radio, has been a gift from heaven for comedians and talk-show hosts. I’ve enjoyed making jokes about this myself. But some aren’t laughing. There are people all over the world who believe this – or have been persuaded by the billboards – and have been prompted to quit jobs, sell property and otherwise trash their lives. It especially upsets me to hear NPR actually providing coverage of this. But they’re kind of stuck: If millions of people are talking about this, don’t the media have to cover it? On the other hand, would fewer people be talking about it if the media didn’t give it the time of day? But the damage has been done. While you’re driving to work, it’s hard to ignore a billboard that screams GAME OVER.

The prophet in this case is just the latest in a series that have popped up periodically for centuries. I’m sure he believes what he says – otherwise, he wouldn’t have spent millions on this billboard campaign. But it’s especially sad when you think about the good that these funds amassed by a religious man could have done in the world.

One spiritual writer has told us that Judgment Day really comes “hourly and continually.” That means we’re being called to account moment by moment for what our own lives have meant so far. If you’re asking me what I believe, it’s that we were put here to do more than just take up space.

I’m writing this ahead of the End, which means in a few hours I may have to eat my words. Fine. But in case I miss it, if you see seven guys in the sky dressed in white with wings and blowing trumpets, I’d appreciate it if you’d give me a heads-up. Thanks!

Let's Make a Deal

Let's tell the Pakistanis the following, kinda like Tony Soprano might put it: "Look, stop breaking our … about not telling you about invading your country to kill Osama bin Laden., and we won't break yours about not telling us he was there -- deal?"

There is no percentage in antagonizing Pakistan. I wish Leon Panetta hadn't told the world we didn't trust them. It would have been better to say, "Well, we decided to tell as few people as possible about this operation to ensure its success," and leave it at that. Let's stop trying to explain this to the world! We invaded a sovereign country to get a real bad guy. We got him. For whatever reason, the Navy Seal shot him to death. End of story. When the full account finally comes out about how we did this, we're not going to have perfectly clean hands. Let's just accept that, and let Pakistan save a little face. Whether we like it or not, we're better off not making them our enemies.

Should we release pictures of the dead bin Laden? NO. We have good proof that he's dead -- we don't need to prove it to anyone. This is not a Mafia hit, and we don't have to put the grisly photos in the Daily News to prove it. Rubbing noses in it accomplishes nothing. That said, don't be surprised if someone releases a new video of bin Laden, shot before his death, just to energize the believers with the idea that he might be still around.

If those who don't believe Barack Obama was born in this country are "birthers", does that mean those who don't believe Osama bin Laden is dead are "deathers"? Just wondering.

Don't Party Too Hearty

At our house, we opened some champagne last night on hearing of the slaying of Osama bin Laden -- but our group didn't finish the bottle.

Revenge is indeed sweet, and as I told friends last night, it's a language that our enemies understand. But it works both ways, and the cycle can go on forever -- perhaps that's why the Lord said we should leave it up to him. Clearly, we are in more danger today than we were on Saturday, as the terrorists are likely already plotting about how to get us back. The killing of bin Laden, as has been pointed out, occurred eight years to the day after President Bush stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier proclaiming "mission accomplished" in Iraq.

It's also clear that President Obama had a few more important things on his mind than dealing with Chief Birther Donald Trump, who should be feeling pretty silly at the moment. Will this translate into an easy victory for Obama next year? Don't count on it. I've often said that President Carter would easily have been reelected if the Iran hostage rescue mission had succeeded -- but that was in April 1980 -- much closer to Election Day. If we have a national disease, it's a short attention span, and there will be plenty to bash Obama with between now and November '12. Suppose, just for starters, that there's a major terrorist revenge attack in this country that we're unable to stop?

It's being reported that some of the intelligence to back up the raid on bin Laden's compound came from detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I haven't heard how that information was obtained -- hopefully, Jack Bauer wasn't involved. We don't need Rumsfeld & Co. shouting, "Ya see?"

But don't get me wrong -- I'm not suggesting in the least that this moment in history isn't worthy of celebration. When I think of how our TV screens have often been filled with crowds in certain other countries jumping up and down when bad things happened to us, I hope their screens are filled with our flag-waving crowds in Washington and New York, if their governments let them see it.

Right now, though, sleeping with one eye open and keeping a finger on the trigger seems like a really good idea.

My 180 on the Wedding, Almost

I hereby announce that I am no longer a Royal Wedding disser. I was one of the estimated 2 billion who watched it, though Circadian rhythm won out, dictating that I pull the plug around 3:30 a.m. But it was really an impressive event -- nobody does the royal thing better than the Brits. And I'm sure we're all grateful for the distraction it provided from other things going on in the world -- it was a real "mental health day" for the soul.

But tell me it wasn't a chick thing. Did the world wait breathlessly to see what Prince William would be wearing? Heck, it wasn't even a secret, right? For those of you men who watched the wedding, how many of you were actually offended by some of the hats worn by audience members? And did you stay up the extra two hours to watch the royal kiss on the balcony? Total speculation on my part, but I think the answer to the last question, in a majority of cases, is no.

All I know is, the world would be a safer place if someone would find out those responsible for keeping pictures of wedding dresses from being leaked (almost the same level of secrecy for Chelsea Clinton, you'll recall) and put them in charge of the CIA and MI6.

OK, so some of the hats were a little over the top, but those women can save them to wear to the Kentucky Derby, which is coming up soon -- more bang for the buck, or the pound, in this case.

Rule Britannia! Britannia doesn't rule much anymore, but at least it "kicked some" today.

Trump Isn't Funny

A few years ago, there was a popular book with a title something like "1,001 Uses for Duct Tape." The 1,002nd could easily be muzzling Donald Trump.

Perhaps some of us have enjoyed laughing at Trump's buffoonery over the past few weeks. At least buffoons are sort of like clowns -- they're funny. Trump just isn't.

We've all contributed to this unfortunate phenomenon in some way. I fault prominent Republicans for failing to denounce Trump's behavior in the strongest possible terms. I fault the media for sticking a microphone in front of this guy. I even fault the President for not releasing his "long form" birth certificate until this week. Now perhaps Republicans enjoyed seeing Trump cause Obama so much grief. Some have argued that Obama himself enjoyed dragging this out because it kept the President from having to deal with criticism over more substantive issues, while Trump blackened the GOP's eye.

But we're to blame, too. We consumed the coverage of this unfortunate affair. When you consider what's going on in the Middle East right now, especially Syria, how did this Trump business make it to the top of the news charts?

If I were a sponsor of Trump's TV show, I'd seriously reconsider my association with him. How he can have any credibility as the host of the show from this point forward is beyond me, but then again, it's not a sphere where credibility is required.

The best treatment for Mr. Trump right now is obscurity. It would be great if we could all make sure he gets it.

It's a Chick Thing

I just don't care a jot about the Royal Wedding, convinced that it's a chick thing. Just to be sure, I asked Facebook friends about it. Most of those responding, as you might expect, were women -- some of whom said they didn't care about the Royal Wedding either. But for those who do care, there's no holding back. One friend plans to enjoy cupcakes and cucumber sandwiches early Friday morning while watching the coverage. Others are planning parties. Is it Super Bowl revenge? As for my attitude, one woman asked if I were dead inside. I think she was only half joking.

So what is it about this fascination with the British royal family? I suspect it's probably jealousy -- many Americans wish we had one. You can talk about the Kennedys and Camelot all you want, for instance, but it's just not the same thing. Our political system, on average over time, has probably produced better leaders, but none of them was a king. "Hail to the Chief" just doesn't quite cut it.

But back to the question at hand: is my attitude a guy thing, and does this event seem more important to women? Sorry for the generalization, but of course it does. It's simple, really. If the "royal" part doesn't get 'em, the "wedding" part does. Weddings, at least traditionally, are regal events for women. The bride's gown is typically many, many times more expensive than the groom's clothes, and if there's a long train, well someone has to carry that. It may be the only time in life when the commoners among women get to feel like royalty. On their wedding day, as happy as they may be, men just aren't breathing quite the same air.

Anyway, I told my friends they'd have to watch the royal wedding live without me. Those who were worried that I might miss a life-changing event reminded me I could DVR it, but I'm thinking I’ll just settle for the highlight reel.

It's Only Fitting

I hope we do all we can to help Japan deal with its nuclear power plant emergency -- especially seeing as we caused them so much trouble with radiation in the last century.

Obama Come Lately?

The Obama administration is taking no small amount of heat for being slow to react to the Libya crisis. At least it's reacting now, and it's likely Mr. Wacko over there in Tripoli will be gone fairly soon by one means or other.

The President chose to wait until there was some kind of international consensus about what to do. Many of us would have preferred that we just send in the Marines and kick a little butt -- I felt that way, too. But if you look back in history not so very far, you can see where doing it the other way got us. You do remember Bush's "coalition of the willing" before we went to Iraq, right?

Jumping in late is kind of how we do things. How many people did Hitler and the Japanese kill in their respective marches of occupation before we got involved in World War II? It feels good, in a perverse sort of way, to have a clear villain like Gaddafi to hate -- but there are quite a few more around the world who mistreat whole populations, but manage to do it very effectively under the radar.

What's going to be very interesting is what happens after Gaddafi is removed and the finger-pointing begins. After World War II, liberated populations in Europe shaved the heads of collaborators in public -- many of them women who had slept with the enemy. There are a lot of dirty hands this time around. Just for starters, Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Usher and others have 'splainin' to do after reportedly taking big bucks to perform at private Gaddafi parties. But who rehabilitated Gaddafi in the first place and welcomed him back into the civilized world? Libya served on the U.N. Human Rights Council, for heaven's sake. Gaddafi ordered an airliner shot down and later, he wasn't such a bad guy after all? And who's been supplying his regime with weapons? The West in general would do best to stay out of the collaborator hunt. One concern for the U.S. going forward is what side the newly emerging governments in the Middle East are going to perceive we were on.

Yes, we were late getting into the game, but at least we're in it now. You can still turn things around, even after the two-minute warning.

Insanity's Poster Boy

Mr. Gaddafi has just delivered a speech lasting more than an hour. Yesterday I hated him; today, it's more about sadness. If you need a definition of insanity, he's it. It's hard to feel hate and pity simultaneously. Libya is waking up from a nightmare -- and the first step in the healing process is to become aware that in the end, scary as it is, it's just a nightmare.

Presidential Love

I watched with interest some of the ceremonies related to what would have been Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday. Why do we love this man so much?

When I say "we," I mean this in a very general sense, because some people hated the Reagan area for various reasons. Mr. Reagan certainly wasn't perfect. Contrary to popular belief, he was not singlehandedly responsible for the fall of Communism in Europe. There was Iran-Contra, and Star Wars. But a lot of people loved him, and if you're a Republican running for office, at some point it's almost required that you invoke him. It may not get you elected, but it certainly can't do you harm.

I can't explain it; I'm not that diligent a student of history and don't have the credentials to debate this issue here, but it must be that we perceive that he made us feel good about ourselves as Americans.

I can think of a lot of Presidents who are respected for accomplishing important, even historic things during their terms, or after their terms. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are both appreciated for what they do. LBJ turned landmark legislation into law. I don't remember what Eisenhower did, but he's associated with the good old days and a time of stability. Harry Truman was praised for his no-nonsense style. JFK faced down the Russians during the Cuban missile crisis, and said, "Ask not…" But we didn't love any of these people the way we loved Reagan.

The last President people felt this for was FDR. And before that, it was Teddy. Americans did not feel this for Woodrow Wilson or Herbert Hoover. Or Grover Cleveland. Or William Howard Taft. No -- you have to go back to Abraham Lincoln for genuine (though not universal) love. It seems we only get one of these every 30 to 50 years.

Clara Bow was the "It" girl back in the 20s. Someone tell me what actually makes an "It" President -- and how long do you think we'll have to wait before the next one comes along?

Safe Speech

The shooting in Arizona has been followed by the expected discussion about right-wing talk radio, Sarah Palin and her map with crosshairs on it and the like. I agree that we'd all benefit from an infusion of civility in our discourse, but what exactly is safe?

The threat of terrorism has caused us to implement all kinds of security measures which have slowed us down and lowered our quality of life. Commercial air travel is now a thoroughly unpleasant experience, but we put up with the inconveniences and embarrassments we wouldn't ordinarily tolerate because they make us safer -- or at least, makes us feel safer. But there always seems to be someone who figures out a way to get around our carefully crafted safeguards, and we have to tighten the cinch still further.

Maybe we can keep most bad guys off airplanes, but what are we going to do about speech? It's very easy to blame the cable channel whose politics you don't agree with or the Internet for rhetoric that seems to give permission to people to do outrageous things. But do we now have to water down what we say in the course of legitimate debate to avoid sending the lowest common denominator of nut case over the edge? Do we have to start tiptoeing around verbal eggshells?

The young man who shot up that Tucson parking lot clearly had a track record of mental instability, and he sent out plenty of signals ahead of time. Is there any way to intervene earlier and more forcefully with people like this, especially before they have access to guns? Talk about "Second Amendment solutions" -- maybe there should be a solution to the Second Amendment.

All I know is, I don't want to live in a world where I have to pass through a full-body scanner before going to see my congressional representative at a public meeting. If we start restricting access to gatherings like the one in Tucson, where is it going to end?

BTW, do you notice that after every one of these shootings, we go through the same struggle trying to make sense of it? Are we going around in big circles, or are we really learning something new, and acting on the information?

Is It Safe to Appear Now, Mr. Gore?

Even though climate change, misnamed "global warming" by Al Gore, has taken a beating as a theory of late (though most respected scientists still accept it), those who think it's a hoax have a little 'splainin to do.

• The Blizzard of 2010, with first snow ever in some areas of the South.
• Three hard freezes in a row in Florida, $100 million plus in crop damage.
• L.A. gets half its annual rainfall in five days.
• Airports closed by snow in the U.K. and much of Western Europe.
• Flooding on Australia's "Sunshine" Coast forces evacuation of entire town.
• Torrential rain and flooding on the Indus River displaces millions in Pakistan.
• October storm in the Midwest has among the lowest non-tropical pressure recorded in the U.S., comparable to Category 3 hurricane.

So are we just doing a better job of reporting on things that have always happened, or is something new happening?