Returning to Earth

The choice of Pail Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate will have an immediate positive impact, whatever your political persuasion: It should bring an end to the silly season.

Personally, I am very tired of hearing about Romney’s taxes. If he has legally avoided paying some or all taxes, he has only been taking advantage of the rules of the game (and the tax system is a great big game, as I have observed in previous posts). And if he declines to release his tax returns, that’s his legal right – I wish he had the cojones to just tell his critics to go fish and be done with it. Romney’s personal wealth is not an issue. Real tax reform, however, certainly is, and that’s part of the Ryan agenda.

Again, many of us may not care for the reforms Ryan has suggested as part of his Republican budget plan. But he’s the first since Herman Cain (remember him?) to actually have a plan. He picked up the ball when nobody – including President Obama – would touch it. Both major parties are now compelled, at least for the short term, to deal with issues instead of personalities. And Romney’s choice makes the voters’ choice even clearer in November.

Ryan is conservative on social issues, too, especially abortion, but I don’t recall his beating us over the head with his morality like Santorum. Again, we’re talking about a clear choice here, and that’s good news for the electorate.

When all is said and done, the vice president, if nothing else, is a spare president – the one who takes over if something happens to the boss, and the bottom-line consideration for voters is whether the candidate has the qualifications to do that. In the case of Ryan, the short answer is yes. We’ll see what the media dig up on him as time goes on.

But at least he’s not a Palin. One of those is quite enough.

Sound Tracks of the Times

So the shooter at the Wisconsin Sikh temple, it’s been reported, was an accomplished hate rock musician. It sounds like a new musical genre – hate rock – and it may come as a shock that it’s out there, but why should it be a surprise to anyone?

Music is about the most effective motivator we humans use. Just think about what a love song or a march can do to your mood. Message music certainly isn’t new. We’ve had Guthrie, Dylan, and Baez stirring our social justice juices. And then, for us flower children, there was Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction," a really cheerful sing-a-long. Did these lead us to vioelnce? Maybe not, but perhaps a demonstration or two.

What about rap? This genre has offered more than its share of misogyny and hatred of police -- and unlike the white supremacist music, this stuff has had much wider mainstream acceptance. We may tolerate some of this material because it’s a way that portions of our culture blow off steam. But it also gives us valuable clues into a mindset.

Persuasive as song lyrics may be, though, it’s relatively rare that they actually constitute the trigger for violence. They could certainly push an individual in that direction, but most of the time, there’s a great gulf fixed between the lyrics and action.

It may indeed have happened in the case of Wade Page. But a more significant issue in these cases, to my mind, is the perpetrators’ weapon of choice. This is America, and it’s a gun, almost every single time.

We may be shocked at hate literature, hate speech and hate music, and may ask why it can’t be regulated or banned. Shouldn’t we be equally as shocked at how easy it is for the unhinged to obtain guns and ammunition?

Total gun control will never be politically palatable in this country, and there’s no need for it. But any little thing we can do to at least slow down the wackos among us in their effort to put their hands on guns and bullets would seem to be something to consider, in light of the events of the past few weeks.

Olympic Spoils

Another NBC network news anchor gave us some Olympic results, but preceded it with a “spoiler alert,” meaning, if you wanted to wait for NBC’s delayed Olympic broadcast to see who won what, you would have to step away from the TV.

When I was in radio news in Southern California, I had to deliver the Wimbledon tennis results every summer, and because of the U.K.’s day starting eight hours ahead of ours, some finals would be in before the end of “morning drive.” I had to preface the report with a warning that those who didn’t want to know who won the matches before the nightly TV broadcast should turn down their volume.

But that was then. In those days, of course, there were relatively few information outlets, so those disseminating it could allow themselves the illusion of actually controlling its release.

I hate to be a spoiler, but the 21st century did in fact arrive, despite the efforts of some media to hold it back. They don’t begin to control the information, and in this interconnected world, people will talk.

It is not a media responsibility to warn consumers that they might actually hear some news if they continue to watch or listen. The Olympics are a lot more than a simple vehicle for entertainment. The mission of the athletes is to win – there’s nothing that requires them to preserve a dramatic impact for the folks at home, side benefit though that may be.

I’ve had enough of media that want it both ways – they want consumers to think them “considerate” by warning you to leave your TV or radio for just a minute. They’re desperately afraid that if you face being deprived of your nightly drama, you won’t come back. Sorry, but if you’re one of those people, Jack Nicholson was right – you can’t handle the truth.

Pedal to the Medal

A Facebook friend recently posted something to the effect of, was it just she, or was enthusiasm for the Olympics just not there this year? I suppose I’ve seen enough of them in the past not to get as excited as I used to – I expect it would help to be British.

That said, some Brits did a surprising amount of grumbling about the Opening Ceremonies show as they called in to local radio talk shows, wondering aloud whether it would be understood by the rest of the world, or whether it was too “lefty” because of the celebration of the National Health Service. But to my mind, it was a great show, substituting imagination for nonstop blow-us-away spectacle. What I don’t understand is why the entire civilized world, except for the United States, got to watch this live on TV, while we had to wait for the delayed, edited, commercial-filled NBC version.

As for Mitt Romney’s comments, I think a little too much is being made of what’s being considered a gaffe. He did provide an honest answer to a reporter’s question about his concerns about the London Olympics; what he could have done is “round it off” with something about how there could be challenges, but it had the potential to be great, etc. Failure to do that was at least undiplomatic.

The latest controversy deals with empty seats at Olympic venues, clearly visible on TV, while many fans were told tickets were sold out. Turns out the seats had been assigned to corporate sponsors, Olympic personnel and the media, some of whom haven’t been using them.  Officials are trying to fill them with off-duty military or schoolchildren and teachers. They’re now talking about possibly imposing a 30-minute limit – if an assigned-seat holder doesn’t have his or her bum in place a half hour after an event begins, the seat will be sold. I have confidence the Brits will get this “sorted,” as they like to say.

OK, so how about the sports, and enthusiasm therefor? I am very proud of our American athletes because of their dedication to their sport, but it’s immaterial to me whether we win more medals than the Chinese (it’s not like the Communist bloc in the old days, eeee-vil).We should do well -- we have one of the biggest teams. And, of course, many American residents compete under the flags of other countries to which they have ties. I was not overly disappointed to see Michael Phelps fail to get a gold on Saturday – nothing wrong with new blood scoring big, especially a fellow American.

As for the events themselves, there are always quirky surprises, like petite Asian women hefting 240 pounds in the weightlifting competition. The fencing was not as satisfying as I thought it might be. I was expecting a long Errol Flynn-type sword-clanging contest; instead, one jab (or whatever they call it in fencing) and the point is scored. At least that’s how it was in the saber competition.

I do hope some of those little countries that only have a few athletes manage to score some medals. Go Nauru!

Choose Your Weapons

The BBC’s call-in radio program, “World Have Your Say,” featured a fascinating pro-and-con about gun control. The pro-gun guests were especially interesting. An American gun shop owner allowed as how he never leaves home without carrying THREE guns on his person. One of the three, he observed, is particularly good for going to the movies with. As you might expect, he believes that if members of the audience in that Aurora, Colorado movie theater had been armed, lives would clearly have been saved, because someone would have quickly dropped the shooter. He was silhouetted against the screen and would have made an easy target. Plus, the gun shop owner added, if the Colorado shooter knew ahead of time that the audience was packing, he would certainly have been deterred from doing his thing.

Unfortunately, that scenario seems a little counter-intuitive to me. What it sounds like is bullets flying in multiple directions fired by a lot of semi-trained individuals. As for an armed populace discouraging a crazy person from launching an attack in the first place, well, uh…he’s CRAZY, right, so would that have stopped him?

Another guest on the BBC show was a woman who decided to train her daughter at an early age how to use guns. The woman said she bought the child two rifles and a shotgun – pink guns, befitting a girl – for her eighth birthday. The daughter was not issued any ammunition until she was adequately trained in the use of the weapons (the family has its own shooting range). The earlier guest on the show, the male gun owner, said children who are trained early on in the use of weapons have much more respect for them than kids whose shooting experience is limited to video games.

Not to change the subject here, but why do I have this sneaking suspicion that some of these kinds of parents are a lot slower on the draw when it comes to sex education? All children are issued “weapons” which often become “loaded” before anybody teaches them responsible usage. True, these weapons don’t generally kill anyone, but improper use can certainly have life-changing consequences.

OK, maybe that’s unfair, but I couldn’t resist.

Unnecessary Roughness

While the late Coach Joe Paterno and several top Penn State administrators appear to be responsible for covering up unspeakable crimes attributed to Jerry Sandusky, I wonder why the NCAA needs to revise history.

On top of huge financial penalties, the organization has stripped the school of its gridiron victories between 1998 and 2011, the years when Paterno and others, according to the Freeh report, agreed to hide Sandusky’s child sex abuse activities to protect the football program from bad publicity. Perhaps someone reading this may have seen one of those games. Did Penn State win, or not?

Typically, colleges are penalized for recruiting violations, unethical favors for star players, letting team members skate on grades, etc. I’m trying to figure out how Sandusky’s alleged offenses, horrible as they were, affected the performance of Penn State teams.

Maybe you could say that if the crimes had been exposed early on, the coaching system would have been disrupted, as Joe Paterno would have been forced to name a new assistant and the school’s ability to field top teams in the wake of the publicity might have been impacted. So, continuing with business as usual would constitute an unfair advantage. That argument may work for you; I’m not sure it does for me.

The school has also been banned from bowl games and will lose scholarships, as well as shared revenue from college football seasons. And current players will be able to take their scholarships to other schools. Observers say it will be the better part of a decade before the football program is back on its feet again. Many are saying, “Fine, football’s too important in what’s supposed to be an academic institution.” Explain that to current students, faculty, alumni, and also the business people in a college town who depend on seasonal income from fans. And, of course, there’s the question of where the money’s going to come from to pay off the lawsuits. How exactly is the school supposed to recover?

All those former Penn State administrators who participated in this scandal should be stripped of all their assets; others who turned their heads in denial of the facts shouold be identified; and whoever’s in charge of hell can turn up the furnace in the section where Joe Paterno may be, and where perhaps Jerry Sandusky may join him. But once the cancer's removed, isn’t it time to stop the radiation?

A Misdirected Gift

I’ve been listening to the live stream of KOA in Denver over the past few days, following the shooting Friday in the suburban Aurora movie theater. The station scrapped its regular programming, including commercials, that day to devote all its energies to covering the news related to the shooting. As the emergency situation subsided, the station shifted to taking on-air calls from listeners to give them a chance to process their reaction to this tragedy. Naturally, there was vitriol directed at the suspected shooter.

One comment, though, was interesting. The male caller said he was praying for the suspect – in its traditional meaning, not a popular point of view at the moment. But the caller then got more specific. He was praying that the suspect suffer. He wanted the suspect to be fed as little as possible, just enough to be kept alive, so that he could suffer.

Those who really want this man to suffer might think about praying for his recovery from mental derangement. He may have no sense at all right now of the horror of what has been done. If and when he returns to his right mind, he can’t help but suffer more intense pain than any physical torture might produce.

One of the tragedies here is the nisuse of a gift. The alleged perpetrator has been described as brilliant. Consider, for example, the level of sophistication of the explosive booby-trap set up in his apartment, and to what good that intelligence might have been applied. If he ever has an opportunity to do good in the future, it will be on a very limited scale, behind prison walls.

Religious leaders often tell us to hate the sin and love the sinner. Since part of our discussion here relates to the movies, I’m reminded of the “The Exorcist,” where the priests, confronted by the taunting, demon-possessed Linda Blair character, are tempted at several points to physically hurt her, a temptation which they have to resist in order to complete the casting out of the devil from the girl. For the average person in Aurora, of course, there will be no loving of this sinner in the near future.

One thing we have to consider in this country is what method those possessed with demons, if you like, are likely to select to iinflict spectacular injury on others for maximum effect. We’re Americans, so it often involves the use of guns – which also means ammunition. When a private citizen suddenly orders 6,000 rounds of ammo, as has been reported in this case, not to mention thousands of dollars worth of tactical combat or law enforcement gear, it might constitute a red flag of some kind. Ya think?

The Reset Button

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guns Are Our Thing

It’s a little amusing to me how quick we are in the United States to bash other cultures for odd or even barbaric behavior -- adulterous women being stoned to death by fundamental Muslims, Chinese eating dogs (or Hindus NOT eating cows), etc., when we have ubiquitous guns. It’s been our little thing for a couple of centuries now, and while it may seem perfectly normal to us, it’s not in many other civilized countries.

As expected, the shooting at the Colorado movie theater is igniting a new debate about gun control. Personally, I still think there are things we can do in this area without depriving citizens of their right to own guns. We probably can’t take away those that are already out there, but we could stiffen the qualifications for purchasing a gun, especially a concealed weapon, with really thorough personal and psychological background checks, including social media postings, etc. If that costs more money, make the buyer pay the freight.

By now, it has been well established that we’re in much more danger from armed wack jobs in this country than we are from international terrorists. BTW, there is NO justification for any private citizen owning a functioning automatic weapon.

Any new control measures at best will only slow things down – they aren’t going to make us instantly safe. That will require a cultural change – and such changes are possible, if we have patience. It has taken hundreds of years, but smoking tobacco, while still tolerated, isn’t cool anymore. In spite of anti-slavery laws, it took more than a century to afford black people their full legal rights, and that change is, in practical terms, still in progress. In the case of other countries, can we expect the Muslim world to instantly give up compelling women to wear burkas? So how long is it going to take for guns to be uncool here?

OK, how about some good news: Initial reports out of Colorado say that police are getting good marks for their response to the Aurora shooting incident. Public safety communications systems there have drastically improved over the years, allowing different agencies to talk to each other when a wide-area response is needed. What spurred these changes? Columbine.

We often learn things the hard way, but eventually, we do learn.

Olympic Outrage?

I must be missing a chip or something, but I can only get angry about the Olympic uniform fiasco up to a point.

I can join the chorus, though, of “What Were They Thinking?” For Ralph Lauren to be allowing U.S. Olympic uniforms to be manufactured in China is the public relations blunder of the century – I feel like I can say that with confidence, even though the century has 88 more years to go. But Sen. Harry Reid wants to burn it all, and now many are calling on Olympic athletes to refuse to wear this stuff – if not for patriotic reasons, at least to show good taste, because many folks feel the uniforms are ugly anyway.

As I have noted in this space before, outrage is very satisfying, and the media thrive on it. OK, I get the message that the money going to Chinese workers should have stayed in the United States. I get that it’s embarrassing, because our Olympic team is a national symbol. This hurts especially because China is involved, of course, and Ralph Lauren allowed our noses to be rubbed in it – or those who decided to contract with Ralph Lauren. But we have only to look around us and see how much material that’s an integral part of our daily lives is from China or somewhere else. How patriotic were we when we stood in line to get the latest iPad or smart 3D TV?

Ralph Lauren will get what it deserves – outraged Americans aren’t going to buy any Olympic stuff it has designed – or perhaps even their non-Olympic products. But if we’re really angry about this, let our athletes express it in the competition, by winning as many medals as possible, especially in those sports that Chinese athletes have excelled at in the past.

Jesse Owens made a real Olympic statement for the U.S. with his spectacular performance in Hitler’s Germany in 1936. By contrast, outrage over uniforms seems just a little misplaced. The Olympics are about the games; the rest, when all is said and done, is about money.

Fair Comepnsation at Penn State

Following the release of that scathing report about the Sandusky sex abuse cover-up at Penn State, CNN legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin observed that “wheelbarrows” would be needed to transport all the money the university would have to pay out to the victims in view of the punishment that angry juries would likely inflict in the inevitable lawsuits.

But what of the “other” victims here -- the students, faculty, administrators and board members who were not involved, and even the local community the university supports? Who is going to compensate them?

Certainly, the minors who were directly abused by Sandusky are entitled to fair compensation for what’s been done to them. But how much of a blow can the university take, especially if its insurance coverage doesn’t apply? Will classes have to be cut, faculty and other workers laid off? How about the vaunted football program, which would seem to be an especially juicy target?

Just to start with that, there are students whose opportunity for a college education depends on their ability to play football, and many have gone on to be productive members of society. Is that program now worthless?

It would clearly be appropriate to remove Joe Paterno’s statue from the campus, or at least cover it with a tarp for a long time. But Paterno and the other villains in this scandal are gone now – in his case, really gone. What more can the school realistically do?

When it comes to damages, it could be argued that no amount of money can fairly compensate Sandusky’s victims, meaning that huge awards to these folks would, in the great scheme of things, serve primarily as a symbol of the terrible things that have happened to them and a warning that such offenses will be have dire consequences in the future. When it comes to the money, though, I hope that a sense of balance prevails among the attorneys seeking compensation for their clients (and themselves) and among the civil juries deliberating cases that go beyond the settlement phase. There are others who will be suffering losses for which they have no remedy.

Anderson, We Hardly Knew Ye

We don’t have to guess at this anymore. CNN anchor Anderson Cooper “came out” to Daily Beast reporter Andrew Sullivan.

Though quite a few people knew this about him, the vast majority of us were dealing with guesswork or rumors. As a minority, gay people differ from most other groups in one critical respect. Members of racial minorities are “outed” at birth, and that status is almost impossible to hide. Gender is another difficult status to conceal, as is age, though less so. But “gayness” isn’t visibly obvious; it can be hidden, unless the individual chooses to reveal it.

In Cooper’s case, it represented an act of courage, because it clearly has an impact on his bread and butter: his audience. Those who believe homosexuality is a sin may now have doubts (or have their doubts reinforced) about the quality of his reporting. Some women fans may be disappointed to find that he’s “off the market.” But I would assume that for most of us in the modern world, it’s something we can accept.

The fact that Anderson is gay doesn’t change in any respect the quality of his reporting, his integrity or his bravery at war or disaster scenes. Those are facts that his audiences have seen with their own eyes. Sexual preference, when reduced to its essentials, “is what it is,” and doesn’t imply political positions or agendas. Blacks and Latinos complain often that they are treated as monolithic blocs by politicians, while the only real common denominator, in the end, is skin color. Culture is a factor, certainly, but that’s a social construct and can change over time. There are plenty of right-wing blacks and Latinos, as well as gay Republicans, whose voices are heard much more often now.

Homosexuality is not unknown, of course, in the rest of the animal kingdom, especially among mammals. Far from being a crime against nature, it actually seems to be part of nature. As for whether it’s “normal,” that word is interpreted by many to mean “correct” when it really should be “most common,” and as I have said in this space before, defining what’s “normal” (if you mean “correct”) in human sexuality is a treacherous road to go down.

So, thank you, Anderson, for clearing things up, and allowing us to move on – most of us, anyway.

If It Quacks Like a Duck...

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts surprised many this week by concluding that the penalty imposed on individuals for failing to obtain health insurance under the new Affordable Care Act is a tax. Taxes, unpleasant as they may be, are constitutional when properly levied by Congress. Roberts’ conclusion kept the law called Obamacare alive.

“Tax” is one of the dirtiest of words in this country, largely because of the perception that the revenues from taxes are wasted by the bodies that levy them or used for unnecessary purposes. It was a conservative, not a liberal, argument that the ACA created a new tax. The Obama administration bent over backwards to assure everyone that there was no “T” word involved.

The complaint about forcing people to buy health insurance through a penalty structure is that they are paying to support something they don’t need. But there are plenty of taxes we accept as necessary. We support fire and police departments, even though we could go decades without ever having to call either one for service. Their existence not only provides peace of mind – they are seen as being something that benefits everyone in the community. To a lesser extent, the same is true of public education – our taxes support it, whether or not we have children in school ourselves, on the grounds that educating children provides a public benefit. The principle behind the Affordable Care Act is the same, the public benefit being that easier access to health care provides for a healthier population, and less, not more, demand on expensive health care services.

Which federal agency gets to collect the penalty in the Affordable Care Act? The Internal Revenue Service, of course. Buying health insurance is a means of avoiding the tax. A common use of our modern tax structure is encouraging, or discouraging, behavior.

But one very American trait is our insistence on results – quick results, if possible. It remains to be seen whether the ACA will fulfill the expectations created by its supporters. There are plenty of us who simply don’t want to take that risk. In any case, that’s not the Supreme Court’s concern. Its job is over. Chief Justice Roberts and the majority have determined that it’s a duck because it quacks like one. It’s our job, and that of our representatives in Congress and the next president, to determine whether the duck should live – and if so, how it should live.

Triple COA

Brilliant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raising, or Sinking, Arizona

The Supreme Court’s long-awaited ruling on Arizona’s controversial immigration law has left some happy, others sad, and still others scratching their heads. The third group is largely populated, as you might expect, by lawyers.

The key provision of the law, which calls on police to verify an individual’s immigration status if that person is stopped for another reason, and the officer has cause to suspect the person is an illegal immigrant, was upheld by the court. Some call this a victory for Arizona, but others say that since the ruling doesn’t prevent litigation if the officer behaves unconstitutionally, the law is toothless. Three other provisions of the law were struck down, mostly on the ground that they’re already covered under federal law – which critics say the federal government isn’t enforcing.

So basically, we’ve got to call in the referee to see if the ball has actually been moved. But at least we’re talking about it.

Immigration is one of those “third-rail” subjects that most politicians seem not to want to address, mainly because it’s too difficult and almost any solution seems unfair. President Obama recently announced a plan to relax enforcement of the law on young people, especially college students, who were brought here illegally by their parents and raised as Americans. It was certainly the right thing to do, but in a political sense, it was a questionable time to do it.

We have to come up with a balanced solution that falls somewhere between deporting all illegal immigrants and declaring amnesty – and it must be clearly understood that it’s going to affect the pocketbooks of everyone who lives here. Already, farmers are complaining that a lack of laborers may force them to grow fewer crops. Replace the illegal farmworkers with American citizens? Good luck. Farmers say the average “ordinary American” who tries to do stoop labor gives up after one or two days in the field. Maybe we need a new bracero program. Fully enforce laws against employers who hire illegals? Sounds good – except how many businesses would be shut down by such actions? How much of a job creator would that be? And if illegals were replaced by presumably more expensive American citizens, how much more would the rest of us be paying for the products and services involved?

Immigration laws aren’t nearly as hard and fast as people say they would like them to be. When we need particular classes of workers, like engineers from India, for example, the laws are tweaked to accommodate the need. And it’s not new. Immediate citizenship was offered to Irish immigrants getting off the boat during the Civil War if they would simply join the Union Army.

We need to recognize that illegal workers are an integral part of our current economy, and if we’re going to make changes, we have to be very clear ahead of time about what we’ll be getting ourselves into.

Sandusky's Other Victims

The conviction of Jerry Sandusky on child sexual abuse charges brings a rightful close to an unhappy chapter in the lives of his victims, but it’s just the first chapter of a long story. There will likely be an appeal, and much more likely, civil litigation, and the victim pool will spread. I wonder what’s going to happen to Penn State University. Will the cover-up, apparently perpetrated by a few, result in the collapse of a respected institution, affecting students, faculty, employees, and in some way, an entire college town?

The good news, though unpleasant, is that thanks to cases like this and those involving the Catholic Church – and with special thanks to those willing to come forward to talk about what’s happened to them -- this form of abuse, which has been shrouded in shame and secrecy, is coming to the surface to be dealt with. One of the “victims” will be our complacency about it. There just isn’t any more room under the rug.

And we’re going to discover how common this sort of thing is. The most difficult point to grasp may be that while the predation involved in these cases is a crime, the mere predilection, while perverted, is not, if there's no overt action that follows. Some men who are subject to it have no victims – they realize what their problem is and seek help for it.

This goes back to what we might call brain wiring. Where does this urge come from? Is it caused by a traumatic sexual experience in childhood? Is there a genetic predisposition to it? What’s the solution for those who have it – treatment, castration, banishment for life to Devil’s Island, or exorcism? In his own way, is Jerry Sandusky himself, at least in some small measure, a victim?

Judgment is the easy part. The criminal justice system can deal effectively and appropriately, as it has in this case, with predatory behavior. Delving into the mystery of what makes human beings tick – especially at the wrong rhythm -- is a lot harder. But if there’s a cure, it’s that process that will help us discover it.

Is Putin's Ego Assad's Nightmare?

News reports coming out of the talks in Mexico indicate that Syrian President Bashir al-Asssad may no longer have Vladimir Putin watching his back.

This shift ties in with a cable commentator’s recent observation about Putin. The same guy who shows off his bare chest to his people, she said, clearly cares what the world thinks of him, and would ideally like to be cast as the hero in this situation.

Heroism might have applied 13,000-plus fatalities ago, but if Putin really is pulling the plug on Assad, at least the ball appears to be moving forward. The question of course is, forward to what?

Personally, I’d be satisfied, as I said earlier, if the Russians offered the Assad family a nice dacha on the Black Sea as an enticement to leave Syria. But in light of what many Syrians and much of the world consider Assad’s war crimes, the challenge, even for Russia, might be getting him and his family out alive.

Which brings us back to “then what?” Removing Assad is only the beginning of the story. There are plenty of Syrians with revenge in their hearts, and many factions will be jockeying for power. I’m reminded of the scenes in the movie “Lawrence of Arabia” in which various Arab tribes are vying for control of Damascus. One tribe has occupied the water works, another the electric power generating system, and very little is working.

That’s quaint compared to the present situation. Rebel forces in Syria now will likely insist on a purge of Alawites – Assad’s sect of Islam – from government. But some of these people clearly are going to be needed to help run whatever new government follows. There are plenty of non-Alawites who have benefited for decades from the current power structure and won’t be happy to see it changed.

Will all these parties have enough sense to sit down and come up with some scheme to share power, or will they insist on fighting it out? Will the rest of the world be compelled to put “boots on the ground” in Syria to keep the factions apart? If that happens, will the West – or the East, for that matter -- be able to resist the temptation to nation-build? As if there aren’t enough concerns, Syria may end up as a sideshow to what could happen in Iran.

No Asterisk for Bradley

Well, my wife, my brother-in-law and I watched the replay of the Pacquiao-Bradley championship fight on HBO. My wife and I had it 115-113 Pacquiao. My brother-in-law had it a draw. We are all experienced fight-watchers.

I did not keep the pledge that I made, which was to watch the fight with the sound turned off, so as not to be influenced by the allegedly biased commentary of the HBO crew. I did disagree with them in spots, and I strongly disagreed with Harold Lederman, who overwhelmingly scored the fight in favor of Manny Pacquiao. Unusual, because I agree with Harold most of the time.

Bradley seemed to score more points in terms of landing punches, but Pacquiao seemed to have more effect when he landed his. There was indeed a power differential. But Bradley showed himself to be, if not the worthiest opponent for Pacquiao so far, at least one of them.

So was the official decision questionable, or worthy of an investigation? ABSOLUTELY NOT! The decision falls well within the parameters of what any reasonable group of judges would have done – the fight was that close.

The bottom line is that we should all allow Timothy Bradley to enjoy his victory. He’s the champ, and there’s no asterisk involved.

Cleaning Up the Syrian Mess: Whose Job Is It?

This week, the U.N. officially declared the situation in Syria a civil war. Which I guess means the Syrian opposition is doing a better job of fighting back against the government that has been murdering civilians with a mechanized army and using militias to slaughter children.

Except maybe it constitutes another excuse for the free world to stand back and let the slaughter continue. Some countries have contented themselves with supplying weapons to the Free Syrian Army and other opposition factions. The United States has limited its support to night-vision and communications equipment.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on Russia to stop supplying the Syrian government with attack helicopters. What color is the pot calling the kettle? Like the United States has never supplied weapons to its allies in the past, right?

In this space a few months and about 4,000 fatalities ago, I suggested the U.S. could send a message to the Assad regime by knocking out one tank or one piece of heavy artillery used by the Syrian army to shell civilian populations – something that says, “We don’t want a war with you, but it’s time to knock it off.” Of course, for every such suggestion, there are 20 analysts who explain why it’s not a good idea.

One expert I heard the other day said that the Obama administration has resisted getting involved militarily because the President doesn’t want to risk a possible foreign policy stumble, which would blemish what many consider his stellar record in this area before November.

There are many who want the Assad regime to remain, only out of fear about what may replace it. But now we have an official civil war. Unlike the one we had here in the 1860s, this will have multiple sides before it's over. Almost everyone agrees there is no scenario under which the Assad family can remain in power – perhaps even remain alive, unless they get out of Dodge. Those standing on the sidelines have resisted involvement for fear of making a mess, but the mess is being made anyway. How has non-involvement helped?

The bottom line is that the rest of the world is going to have to be involved at some level. Unlike Iraq, Syria is said to have real biological and chemical weapon stockpiles. Who’s going to be in charge of those when the current structure collapses?

The U.S. and other Western powers may not have made the Syrian mess, but at some point it will be time to clean it up, and we’re all going to have to get our hands dirty.

In Search of a Clear Win

When I woke up this morning, I was surprised that we were not already at war with the Philippines, following the controversial boxing match in Las Vegas between Timothy Bradley of Palm Springs and Filipino sensation Manny Pacquiao. I did not watch the fight (pay-per-view’s a little steep), but read the comments of many inside and outside the sport. The general consensus: Pacquaio, not Bradley, should have been declared the winner.

While Bradley fought aggressively, the statistics-keepers concluded that Pacquaio scored more points and that Bradley’s punches did not connect as often. But the three judges, at least two of whom were well known and well respected in the sport, came up with a close split decision in Bradley’s favor. So shocking was this that many observers reasoned that the fight – or at least the scoring – was fixed.

We’re all familiar with the phenomenon whereby different people watching the same event can report completely different perceptions of what happened. I always thought that a challenger – in this case, Bradley – had to show clear superiority over the champion to deprive him of his belt. That certainly was not the case here. The bottom line for me is that if Harold Lederman of HBO thought Pacquiao won, he should have. I have disagreed with Harold on individual rounds here and there while watching fights, but we have always agreed on outcomes.

A lot has to be said for Bradley, in that Pacquiao apparently hit him with everything he had during the fight, and Bradley never went down. Much also has to be said for Pacquiao, who reportedly went up to Bradley’s father after the fight and told him his son would be a great champion.

Bradley’s victory is a big deal for Palm Springs – in fact, all of California’s Coachella Valley. He grew up in a very poor area and earned every inch of his way to the top levels of his sport. But a decision like the one in Las Vegas seems not only unfair to Pacquiao, but also to Bradley, whose elevation to champion may be marked with an asterisk in the minds of many until the expected rematch.

Maybe there’s a misalignment in the heavens this week. Pacquiao should still be the champ, “I’ll Have Another” should have won the Triple Crown, and the L.A. Kings should be carrying the Stanley Cup. But hey, it’s only sports, right?

Making the Scene

I have a friend who likes to go where it’s happening. She’s been to the Indy 500 and the Kentucky Derby. She’s been to see Jay Leno in L.A., Kelly and former co-host Regis in NYC (even ran in the annual high-heels race), was a judge in the Nathan’s hot-dog-eating contest, and saw Garrison Keillor in Minnesota and Punxsatawney Phil, the famous groundhog, in Pennsylvania. This month she had a terrible dilemma – whether to go to London for Queen Elizabeth’s Diamond Jubilee or to the Belmont to see a possible Triple Crown winner. She chose the horse race, though, of course, it was to be a disappointment. At least she would get to see “I’ll Have Another” lead the post parade at the start of the event.

Now my friend, of course, could stay home and consume all this stuff on TV like the rest of us – but that’s not good enough. For her, there’s just no substitute for being there.

Theoretically, you would think that the price of admission to all these things would be diluted by the ability to consume them electronically, but it doesn’t work that way. The big events continue to sell out, sometimes in seconds after the tickets are available. Even the pay-per-view tickets for electronic consumption go up in price, not down.

Much has been written about our need to have a collective experience. And I don’t mean those feeble sociial media vehicles like “Jane is reading...” or “Fred listened to…” Personally, I think that’s a little creepy. I don’t necessarily want people knowing what I’m watching or reading, unless I affirmatively want to share it. Some of my friends would approve of what I consume – and others not – so I’m selective about whose business I make it.

But there is no substitute for that live collective event, especially if it’s a competition, like the World Series, the Super Bowl, or even “American Idol” and its spawn, though why they should turn singing and dancing into an Olympic sport with winners and losers is a little beyond me -- but it sells.

For most of us, though, the ultimate experience is actually being there with other human beings, or having some direct participatory experience. It doesn’t have to be a happy thing – it could be a tragedy or a disaster – or even how we avoided a tragedy or a disaster, such as those who missed Flight 93 on 9/11. I had another friend, a reporter, whose flight was cancelled because of snow, forcing him to miss a trip to Jonestown, Guyana, the day of the mass suicide there – he would very likely have been shot to death.

While technological advances over the last half-century have been nothing short of miraculous, even those who consider themselves super-connected and plugged in will discover that there’s just something missing. If you’re there, you really do have something to share. The ultimate need is to tell somebody, “This is what happened to me!”

Admit It: Royalty Is Cool

It’s expensive. It’s frivolous. It changes nothing. So why are many of us fascinated by royalty, especially the British version? And why this particular British monarch?

We’re Americans, you may say, we’ve done just fine without all that. Well, no, we haven’t – done without it, by any stretch. We’re constantly crowning kings and queens, especially in entertainment and sports. The closest we came to it in government, perhaps, involved JFK and Jackie, but somehow, it never quite satisfied.

Sure, we fought for independence from Britain and won it, but our founding fathers started out as British subjects. Much of our legal system follows British traditions. “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee” is really just a cover song (“God Save the Queen”).

When I was a little boy, I collected stamps. American stamps were great, but they didn’t do it for me – I specialized in the British Empire, back when there was one. There was nothing quite as impressive in the philatelic world as the stamps from a British colony, always with the king or queen on the side.

British kings and queens have been far from perfect. Some have been scoundrels, even murderers. In more recent times, even as their power has diminished in the U.K., their public personae have taken a distinct turn for the better. For those who don’t read a lot of history, Hollywood has filled in the gaps with offerings such as “The Queen” and “The King’s Speech,” showing us how the monarchy, useless as it may be portrayed much of the time, has been the rock in periods of great stress.

Elizabeth has been no different. As a child during World War II, she took to the radio airwaves to boost the spirits of displaced British children. More recently, she has been able to maintain her dignity while surrounded by, to put it mildly, some wacky family members. And while from the outside, being born into a royal family may symbolize a life of comfort and privilege, royals are basically condemned for life to a long series of duties in what amounts to a gilded prison. Yet, Elizabeth, at 86, spent hours waving to her subjects at her Diamond Jubilee, much of it standing up.

And she seems to be one of the few British women that have a modicum of sensible taste in hats.

Orgy of Outrage

You remember the old television news adage: “If it bleeds, it leads.” Sorry, but blood doesn’t do it anymore. Nor disasters, nor cute animal/kid stories. Not even cleavage. It’s OUTRAGE.

The most recent example involves the North Carolina preacher who had some really bad things to say about what should happen to gays and lesbians (which I won’t repeat here). You probably remember the Florida minister who was planning to burn the Koran. Then there was the Texas judge caught on video beating his daughter. On a larger scale, you have the reported behavior of Secret Service agents in Colombia and the overspending on the GSA on a conference. If your blood is still at its usual temperature after watching all this stuff, you’d better see you doctor.

The big question for me is, how serious is some of this in the great scheme of things? In the old days of broadcast news, would a couple of crazy clerics have even been given a millisecond on the national stage? The Secret Service thing clearly seems like a more substantial issue, but does the behavior of those agents really appear, in a larger context, all that shocking? Are all business conferences now going to be classified as hedonistic wastes, and should such meetings be held on folding chairs in a local high school gym instead, to keep us all calmed down?

Annoyance or irritation is one thing, but I think outrage should be reserved for issues that are at least worthy of it. I can think of one: Syria, where close to 13,000 people – including children -- have been killed by government troops or militias. Why isn’t there real outrage over the failure of world leaders to do anything about it, instead of their spending time coming up with brilliantly defended reasons why they can’t?

There are plenty of serious events out there that could drive almost all of us up the wall. However, I don’t know about you, but I can only do a finite amount of outrage at once before I have to recharge batteries. Admittedly, outrage is one of the few things in life that gets easier with age, but if I were you, I’d be careful about getting talked into spending it on the wrong things. Someday, your outrage is going to be needed to actually change something.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice Problem to Have

OK, let’s get this out of the way first: I’m envious of all those new Facebook zillionaires half my age. What are they going to do with all their money?

First, I hope they spend it! The economy has been in the toilet in large part because money hasn’t been circulating. If the Facebookers, as an example, insist on building ugly monster homes, at least there will be lots of tradespeople with new gigs.

The first folks to cash in will be financial advisers, who will be swarming over the new wealthy like ants. If you’re young, and all of a sudden you have money, you probably don’t know what to do with it, so it doesn’t hurt to listen to someone who knows more than you.

I’ve never quite had the experience, so am not one to talk, but handling wealth wisely involves time, effort and imagination. I’m reminded of the elementary school teacher who told her students that, for one class, they each had $5 million, and their assignment was to write down 10 things they’d spend it on, not including real estate. The kids, of course, took the whole class period to make their lists, and most didn’t come close to disposing of all the money. Adults might have a little easier time with this game, but it’s not nearly as easy as it sounds.

The good news is, that people who literally have more money than they know what to do with often have little choice left but to invest it in ways that do good for others, whether funding a company that creates jobs or setting up a charitable foundation. It’s almost imperative that they “send it out” in some form.

I’ve never fully understood gold as an investment. Gold is the investment of fear. It’s a gilded mattress. It’s pretty, but it doesn’t do anything or really make anything much. Real wealth comes from ideas – the idea behind Facebook, or the ideas behind Apple’s products. Apple stock has multiplied much faster than gold did, even at the height of the recession.

China has made lots of money putting together products that people want – but many of the ideas for those products have come from the United States. As long as we keep coming up with ideas, we can dig ourselves out of our current financial hole.

But I digress. I’m still envious of those Facebookers. Looks like I’m going to have to postpone my visit to the Porsche dealership – I think it’s going to be a little crowded this week.

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.