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.