Gates Saga Aftermath and Midsummer Thoughts

The part of the Gates episode that will stay with me is the undercurrent of anger, intolerance and racism among some white people that was directed toward Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates -- and, to a lesser, but, striking extent, toward President Obama for his comment on the matter. The reaction of these whites seemed to suggest they felt very offended and fed up by Gates having the gall to lose his temper at a white police officer.

Why were white people so affected? Why were they so "ready" to unload their venom toward Gates?

In addition, why were they "blaming the victim," in a sense? Sgt. James Crowley, the white Cambridge, (Ma.) police officer, had not "suffered" or been "victimized" except for being yelled at by Gates and his police department later being criticized by Obama.
Gates had been the actual "victim" in the central event. He was the one mistakenly suspected for breaking into a house that turned out to be his home! He was the one given little "slack" by Crowley in that, after he did some yelling, he was handcuffed and taken to the police station for several hours. Gates' outburst at Crowley does not explain why I keep hearing white people calling in to radio talk shows -- with bitterness and resentment in their voices - to rip Gates and defend Crowley's right to arrest him.

No. Sadly, I think this incident was, to some extent, a metaphor for the state of race relations in 2009.

These "offended" white people did not suffer anything. They're choosing to view Gates - and Obama - as scapegoats for their own underlying, simmering feelings. They're "dumping" their discontent - probably due to their own personal struggles - onto these two black men. Have you noticed the large percentage of white people who seem to keep "driving" this story? Have you read the "Comment" sections that followed the numerous newspaper stories on this episode? Many of the white commenters do not seem to care much about what really happened. Rather, they just seem fed up with certain issues about race.

My own speculation is that a good-sized segment of white people - including those who expressed outrage at Gates - are just tired of hearing black people complain about all kinds of things. I sense this group does not want to hear a word about racial profiling, for instance. They are angry about "reverse discrimination" that they feel goes on all the time. They have no patience or forgiveness toward a black man like Gates yelling at a white police officer, and, particularly having the nerve to allege the officer was motivated by racism. In short, they don't seem to care much about the plight of blacks.

Unsurprisingly, many, many black people who have been interviewed about this Gates episode have recalled incidents when they've been victims of racial profiling. In some instances, the black journalists doing the interviews have shared their own experiences of being racially profiled. The facts on racial profiling are indisputable and troubling. Whenever I hear a black man tell an anecdote about profiling and I realize the scope of this continuing act of prejudice and injustice, it jars me and depresses me to think of so many blacks still being mistreated like this. It reminds me that the civil rights movement didn't improve things for huge pockets of our society.

• Another striking point that emerged from the Gates episode was the enormous impact of President Obama's spontaneous comment, during his July 23rd nationally televised press conference. When Obama remarked that the "Cambridge police acted stupidly," he pushed all kinds of buttons and elevated the entire episode. Obama later acknowledged his poor choice of words, and, clearly, his mere criticism of a police department was very unusual for a President. However, Obama's "mistake" left lingering impressions. First, if he had used words other than "acted stupidly," would the impact have differed? Secondly, do we dwell too much on Presidents and politicians, generally, "misspeaking"? Michael Kinsley, in a July 31st oped in the Washington Post, wrote, insightfully, about how unfortunate it'd be if Obama became more cautious as a result of this "gaffe." "The people who declare that a president has a special responsibility not to say anything offensive have it wrong," Kinsley wrote. "The president has a special responsibility to address important topics and to say important things. That can't be done in a thin-skinned political culture obsessed with gaffes, and with a citizenry overly quick to take offense.......We complain about politicians who talk in pre-tested and rehearsed sound bites, but we punish anyone who strays too far into his or her own thinking." Obama took SO much heavy, somber criticism and attack for his "mistaken" choice of words that one would have thought he'd made a mistake of large scale that negatively impacted millions. The reaction illustrated, again, another kind of intolerance in our society -- in this case, an intolerance toward criticism of police.
• Obama's drop in public opinion polls received a lot of media attention. It hardly seems a surprise to me that a President who has been in office during the worst recession since the Depression who has been forced to approve of unprecedented intervention by the federal government into economic matters and who also is trying to overhaul the health care system would eventuaally become more vulnerable to public anxiety, doubt and opposition. I think, interestingly, that Obama has reached the point when he should reduce his exposure and stop doing so many "Town Hall" meetings and interviews with the media. I think he has grown a bit over-exposed. He should stay in the White House and focus on steps that will increase the prospects to get a good health care bill passed.
• So far, so good. That's what I feel about the relationship between President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The signs suggest the two former rivals have gotten along well and respect each other. I've been pleased that Hillary, thus far, has appeared to be a "team player" and always signals her deference to the President. At the same time, I've been impressed with Hillary's confidence and firmness in her new role. I knew she'd develop a quick command of her new terrain, but, I think she has brought an energy and heft to this position. Yes, she made a few striking blunders on her recent trip, but, all in all, she seems to have helped Obama in a way he had envisioned.
• Vice President Joseph Biden, on the other hand, made a few significant verbal blunders all within a few weeks recently, and, seems unable to restrain his predisposition to speak before thinking sometimes. First, Biden said the Obama administration had "misread the economy" - a phrase the President quickly corrected. Then, Biden said Russsia had a "withering ecnomy" and "they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years." Secretary of State Clinton quickly did damage control, publicly cleaning up these remarks. Then, Biden hinted that the US would not stop Israel from hypothetically attacking Iran if Israel felt Iran posed "an existential threat." Again, the President had to clarify what the US position was by correcting Biden.
• The ultimate verdict on Obama's attempt for major health care reform remains unclear. However, I think the Obama team has been too "loosey-goosey" in its work with the House and Senate on the package. It seems that every few days, we've heard reports of problems, obstacles and political squabbles that've emerged. While I think much of that has been unavoidable, I agree with critics who have suggested that Obama could have indicated more about which components he believes are most critical in a final bill. Obama has tried to have it both ways by talking in generalities and allowing extensive Congressional participation while still expecting to get his way. At times, he has seemed too removed from the discussion -- as if others hold the fate of reform in their hands. Now, more recently, when he got back from his trip abroad, he got more involved. I just hope Congress and the President can meet in the middle somewhere. If reform effort fails, I fear it'll hurt Obama's Presidency beyond expectations.
• Here's a question: Why does the media keep covering the crazy suggestions by the so-called "birthers" who have suggested that President Obama is not a citizen of the US? Ten Republican members of Congress co-sponsored a bill that would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificate. The bill is all about attracting questions and attention to the phony question of Obama's citizenship --- even though not a shred of evidence has emerged to suggest anything inauthentic about Obama's birth certificate. In other words, it's a total sham that deserves ZERO attention. So, why do I keep seeing television stories about these reckless, phony, laughable allegastions? Answer: The TV networks and cable stations think it's entertaining. So, what they're saying is: "Here's a story that's false, but we think it's titilating to put it on the air, anyway - even though we know it's false - so, we're doing it for ratings. That's how pathetic our news business has become. News = entertainment, period.
• I was upset to learn that one of my favorite Red Sox players, David Ortiz, had tested positively for performance-enhancing drugs back in 2003. I hope Ortiz's use was limited (i.e that he hasn't been using steroids for most of the past six years), but, I have two points: 1) This is not, so far, changing how I feel about the Red Sox two championships. Yes, they might be a bit tainted, but, I feel all of baseball has been tainted by steroids, and, 2) I hope baseball will finally find a way to communicate about players' use of steroids - past, present and future - because I find it impossible to understand the facts and context that go with this topic and what was legal or acceptable or not and when. It's a confusing mess.

Gates Episode Triggers Disturbing Reactions

I was disturbed by many aspects of the recent, controversial incident involving Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge, (MA.) Police Department - including the media coverage and the public reaction to it.

In the end, I believe the incident was elevated into a much more intense, racially charged, negative drama because of the intolerance that the Cambridge Police Department and others displayed toward Gates' angry reaction. The key detail, I believe, was the police's reaction to the content of Gates' venting -- i.e. That he felt he was the victim of racial discrimination.

Sergeant Jim Crowley, the arresting police officer, seemed to disregard these comments of Gates. Instead, he focused on Gates' belligerence to his authority and determined that Gates had yelled at him a bit too long and crossed an imaginary line that defined what amounted to "disorderly conduct." Crowley claims racial issues had no influence on his actions. Assuming that's true, did he have to handcuff Gates, despite his outburst, and take him to the police station for four hours? No way. It was within Crowley's discretion to respond as he saw fit. He could have walked away. So, when Cambridge cops said that Crowley went "by the book," they didn' t add that if he had walked away, he would've also "gone by the book."

I think the cops still don't "get it" because, even if one assumes that Crowley was not at all influenced by Gates' race, Crowley still could and should have shown at least some discretion by acknowledging Gates' sensibility on the racial context was different than his. (He could have apologized for the mistaken investigation, tried to meet him half-way and calmly tried to address his racial concerns) Reinforcing this point was the fact that Crowley, we learned, had led trainings on the topic of racial profiling. He knew the dynamics.

President Obama alluded to this part of the story on Friday, July 24th, when he attempted to ease tensions.

"What I'd like to do then is make sure that everybody steps back for a moment," Obama said, "recognizes that these are two decent people, not extrapolate too much from the facts, but, as I said at the press conference, be mindful of the fact that because of our history, because of the difficulties of the past, you know, African-Americans are sensitive to these issues.
"And even when you've got a police officer who has a fine track record on racial sensitivity, interactions between police officers and the African-American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding."

Obama seems to be suggesting he thinks Crowley could have exercised more discretion toward Gates' race-related sensitivity and given Gates more "slack" given the racial dynamics in play.
The question lingers: Why does Obama, and all of us who agree with him, believe Gates' outburst - however excessive - could have been tolerated while so many other people - including an apparent majority of cops - believe Gates' loud complaints fully warranted his arrest for "disorderly conduct"? Why have so many white people been triggered to attack Gates for even introducing race? Some seem to resent that Gates even showed the nerve to assert himself so vigorously to a white cop questioning him. It seems the image - alone - of an angry black man yelling at a white cop disturbed many white people.

This disparity in tolerance - which has seemed to vary depending on if one is white or black - without question, is at the center of this episode. In fact, I think the public response to this incident suggests something more disturbing: That perhaps many, many people did NOT want to even hear Gates' complaints AT ALL about the racial issues. In addition, I sense people are not as open or sensitive about hearing about racial profiling as they should be. In summary, this incident was a depressing reminder that the state of race relations still has a LONG way to go. Not only did I see intolerance in "Comments" of readers at the end of newspaper articles, but I saw an expression of reactions that amounted to racism directed at Gates and Obama.

• Among several other points that caught my interest were these:
  
• While most have stressed that, of course, the Cambridge police acted appropriately to investigate a "possible break-in" at Gates' address on July 16th, few have dwelled on the unlikelihood of a break-in or burglary being attempted at mid-day, in broad daylight. A woman who didn't know Gates and was not his neighbor made the initial call to the police.
• While noting that Crowley denied race was a factor in the episode, Boston Globe columnist Adrian Walker, in an excellent July 24th piece, that, "of course" race was a part of this. "I don't believe for one second that Alan Dershowitz, in the same situation, would have ended up with a mug shot," wrote Walker. First, his neighbor probably wouldn't have called the police, even if she didn't recognize him. Second, Crowley probably would have gone away..."
• Walker, also, was one of the few journalists to get a comment from Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone, who decided to drop Cambridge's "disorderly conduct" charge against Gates. Walker, in the same column said that Leone believes that no one covered themselves in glory here. "Crowley got his back up," Leone said. "He's saying all he did was respond. I think both of them, privately, are saying, "I could have handled this better"
• Later on, the media and public response to President Obama's brief remarks, at his July 22nd press conference, on the Gates episode triggered an overwhelming response - much of it negative toward Obama for his choice of words when he said: "....the Cambridge police acted stupidly." I paid close attention to the media response to Obama and noticed they "pounced" on his mistake in his choice of words. I mean "pounced." They also criticized him for choosing to give such a strong opinion, when, by his own admission, he didn't have all the facts. Obama, uncharacteristically, chose unfortunate phrases and words to give context to why he was choosing to weigh in on this matter. However, he did express several important points - including his last tangent when he reminded the national audience of how racial profiling continues to be a serious problem for blacks and latinos who are arrested disproportionately. Interestingly, a segment of the public didn't seem to welcome Obama's "joining" this story; in fact, I sensed many people were uncomfortable with Obama stepping out of his normal approach to stay out of racial issues. It seemed Obama felt he did not want to avoid this one - and he said, on Friday, he was glad he had weighed in.
• When I found some incredibly negative comments -including venom-filled ones - directed at Obama in the "Comment" sections following newspaper stories, I found it depressing. It took me back to the 2008 presidential campaign, when Obama had to duck and overcome so many hurdles that related somehow to race relations. During the Rev. Wright controversy or the outcry over Obama's off-the-cuff remark about people getting bitter and "clinging to guns and religion" More than anything, it reminded me of how incredibly vulnerable and fragile I thought Obama was because of his race. It just seemed that people were more ready to pounce on any errors he made. I recall when he attempted a spontaneous joke - in a reply to a question at the end of a lengthy debate with Hillary Clinton. Obama said: "She's (Hillary) likeable enough..." He was trying to be funny, but his delivery didn't work as he hoped. To my amazement, I saw that line played and re-played to illustrate that Obama had a "cold side" or something to that effect on a number of occasions throughout the campaign. It had been a bad, little joke that lasted three seconds. So, Obama has to monitor himself all the time and, yes, I absolutely believe he is granted much less slack because he is black.

I hope, despite the hazards of his situation, that Obama does weigh in on another racial matter like the Gates episode because - without his injecting himself into it - yes, he would've avoided political fallout, but he would not have done something I've never experienced: As the President of the United States, he challenged the approach of police departments on matters of race and brought attention to the important issue of racial profiling -- whether people want to hear it or not. This was a moment when Obama, by dropping his normal predispositions or inhibitions about discussing certain racial matters, gave the American people a radically different, new, constructive perspective on a race relations topic.

I hope it can be a "teachable moment" even in a small way because we have a long, long way to go with race relations. This Gates episode illustrated that.

Obama Must Shake "Big Government" Label

Barack Obama has been President only six months, but, his critics have given him a label that seems to be "sticking" in a troubling way. Republicans and other adversaries keep ripping Obama for "increasing government spending" and running up the federal deficit.

A Washington Post/ABC poll today is showing that 43 percent of respondents now view Obama as an "old-style tax-and-spend Democrat" - up from 32 percent in a previous edition. Also, the poll found that nearly a quarter of moderate and conservative Democrats (22 percent) now see Obama as an "old-style tax-and-spend Democrat" - up from 4 percent in that combined category in March, the Washington Post reported.

It's easy to see why Obama is perceived this way. From the minute he took office, he's presided over unprecedented "government spending," but much of it seemed necessary to aid the economy, which was spiraling downward toward a Depression-scale low point when Obama took office in late January. Obama was forced to approve bailouts of the banking and auto industries. (and use public funds to save firms like AIG) and to fight for passage of a huge government stimulus package. Then, instead of retreating into a more conservative approach due to the sagging economy, Obama launched his push for an overhaul of the health care system that will cost billions, and, potentially cause the federal deficit to soar.

So, some Republicans, in a typically distorted, negative way, have made it their mission to "brand" Obama as a "big spender" -- even though a large chunk of spending was necessary and recommended by economists from across the spectrum. (I think other criticisms of the Obama administration's handling of economic matters have been legitimate - such its "loosey-goosey" collaboration with Congress in developing the stimulus package). I think some of this "branding" of Obama has succeeded - perhaps partly by accident, but, in any event, one large reason is that Obama and his surrogates have failed to offer arguments to counter this image problem.

However, do Obama's actions so far make him a reckless deficit spender, OR, is he taking significant steps he promised on the campaign - that he believes, in the long run, will improve our economy?

Many Americans support Obama's intentions, but are worried about the costs - and, I think the Obama team should start acknowledging these worries a lot more. For the past two or three months, Obama and his people have appeared a bit too casual about the spending part of the health care reform bill, for instance, and, likewise, about the slow, delayed impact of the expensive stimulus package.

I think President Obama should begin to insert phrases into his public remarks about addressing costs to show people that: a) he cares about preventing deficits; b) with the exception of the stimulus package and bailouts to save the economy, he does not support spending huge amounts of public money without clear targets and goals; and, c) he plans to follow through on plans to cut waste from parts of the government and take steps to make it run more efficiently.

Obama should forcefully convey his concern about controlling costs in his health care reform proposal and overall spending during his prime-time press conference on July 22.

I've learned, through the years, just how deep-seated and chronic the taxpayers' anti-government sentiment can be in this often-reactionary country of ours. Many Americans not only dislike government, but strongly prefer that government stay out of matters it can avoid meddling in. Ronald Reagan capitalized on this anti-government impulse for years.

In the past 30 years, we've had only two Democratic presidents (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) and there are reasons for that. First, it's not a coincidence that Carter and Clinton were both from the south and that both ran as "centrists" rather than as "liberals." Secondly, once in office, both were held to a high standard for not allowing government spending to become excessive. (or, too "liberal") One of Clinton's strengths, to the surprise of many, ended up being his capacity to keep the federal deficit down.

Obama, who was probably never as "liberal" as his record suggested, nevertheless came into office with a more left-leaning image and voting record. Thus, if his actions in this first year bring him an image of a "big government spender" it may be very hard for him to shake. In fact, that image could saddle him and hurt him politically so much that it threatens his re-election.

So, as I observe Obama dealing with the health care reform issue, I'm thinking ahead to the rest of his term. I want him to succeed as President. To do that, he will have to demonstrate he is not a knee-jerk supporter of all government spending. (I'm not concerned about this, but, I think a segment of the public is).

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama portrayed himself as a post-partisan President with a "different" approach. He stressed he'd find ways to make goverment work better and try to reduce inefficiency. He implied he didn't care about political parties and politics as much as finding solutions.

The American people, in concept, would probably always support that logic. However, if Obama projects an image that suggests he sees the government as the author and keeper of most solutions - and that a never-ending increase in government spending is simply a necessary part of the process, he'll run into big trouble earlier than he thinks.

There has never been a President who has presided so quickly over such a gigantic amount of spending by the federal government. Further, this President had to approve of the federal government intervening in the auto industry with its bailout of General Motors and with the banking industry. This kind of government intrusion makes many Americans uneasy.

So, what Obama must realize and show that he realizes - is that from now on, he'll be careful and transparent as he announced plans for federal iniatives. He must show that he, too, not only wants to reduce the deficit, but has a specific game plan for doing so. And, if and when, his Administration unveils another stimulus package, Obama team must do a far better job at displaying accountability.

Obama has enormous potential to get some good things done in his first term. I'd hate to see the conventional world of Washington politics - with reactionaries leading the way - succeed in labeling him a "big-spending, big government liberal" who's like all the rest. (Personally, I don't mind the label that much, but, I think American Presidents are more likely to succeed if they at least appear to not have an automatic impulse to support all government spending).

If Obama wants to be truly different, he'll have to keep resisting others' attempts to mis-label him - and keep proving, through his actions, that he is, in fact, an independent, strong post-partisan leader.

More Random Musings on July 8th

I am really tired of coverage of Sarah Palin. Back in March, I complained that Sarah Palin was receiving far too much media attention given that she had discredited herself during the 2008 presidential campaign. The trend continues - now, with her recent resignation as governor of Alaska. On July 3rd, Palin announced she'd resign as governor on July 26th, more than a year before her first term is due to end. This week, her announcement continues to receive enormous attention and commentary. News anchors, reporters and columnists are all speculating about Palin's next move. Will she run for President in 2012? Sorry, but I have to repeat my point from March: Why is everyone devoting so much time and space to Palin when she demonstrated so repeatedly that she is completely unprepared for high office?
Well, the primary explanation, in my view, is that the news business, particularly the networks and cable news stations, know that Palin is entertaining and brings high ratings. Otherwise, this obsession with her makes zero sense. Palin's actions and statements since last November's presidential election have only reinforced just how limited her capabilities are. Todd Purdum's recent Vanity Fair article on Palin notes that former senior members of John McCain's campaign team grew to doubt Palin's readiness to be vice president. "......they can't quite believe that for two frantic months last fall, caught in a Bermuda Triangle of a campaign, they worked their tails off to try to elect as vice presidentof the United States someone who, by mid-October, they believed for certain was nowhere near ready for the job, and might never be.....," said Purdum's article.
If even McCain's senior advisors felt that way, then why does such a large segment of the news media today take Palin so seriously? She has not earned that and I don't think the public rates her that highly. It's all about ratings....but, this is how our political climate gets distorted and tainted. The only way Palin should be taken more seriously, as I said once, is after she pays a lot more dues and proves she has what it takes.

I hope the coverage of Michael Jackson's death can wind down -- at some point. Now that the memorial service was held, one would hope the Jackson story could diminish a bit. Why do I have a sneaky suspicion that new angles to this story will surface and re--surface in the months ahead? I got a bad feeling when I saw the aerial shots of the vehicle carrying Jackson's casket to the service. It reminded me, for a split second, of the coverage of OJ Simpson in the Bronco chase back in 1994. The networks' news divisions went way overboard with the Jackson story, but, we shall see if the story can be covered more in context now. I doubt it. It's too irrestible for the sensational core of cable TV news today.

I hope Joe Biden can somehow suddenly learn to refrain from making impulsive, inaccurate, off-the-cuff remarks that cause potential problems for the Obama administration. We knew Biden had this habit, but, I didn't expect him to have "mis-spoken" on so many occasions in the first six months. Within the past few days, Biden made two verbal blunders back-to-back. First, he said the Obama administration had "misread how bad the economy was." President Obama, in a later attempt to correct the record, said he'd rather say that his administration had had "incomplete information." Then, in a more serious gaffe, Biden said the US would not stand in the way of Israel potentially deciding to bomb Iran's site(s) of its nuclear program. Biden stressed that the US could not dictate to a sovereign nation (Israel) a decision on such a matter. Obama, again, later was forced to clean up Biden's mess by saying the US had NOT given Israel any "go-ahead" and continued to seek a diplomatic solution to the topic of Iran's nuclear capability.
It seems, as time passes, Biden is showing his longtime predisposition for craving headlines and "shooting from the hip" as a way to draw attention. The difference is that now Biden's restlessness and "hot dog" tendencies can undermine the President - and do more damage.

I hope Raphael Nadal's tendinitis in his knees improves so that we all might be treated to a few more terrific Grand Slam finals between Nadal and Roger Federer. After watching the fantastic Wimbledon finals match between Federer and Andy Roddick, the only element missing was Nadal. As someone who just discovered Federer a couple of years ago after many years of not watching tennis, I hope we can all see a few more great Federer-Nadal matches in the next year or two. With Federer "finding himself" again, let's hope Nada returns to full-strength and this incredible rivalry lasts a bit longer.

President Obama may have his flaws, but, every once in a while, I pause and think about the many important ways in which he is a better President than George W. Bush, and, it blows me away. There are a lot of matters for the President to deal with now - both domestically and in foreign policy - and, I think it's helpful to remember what the state of affairs might be if the Bush-Cheney adminstration were still in office.

It will be very interesting to see if Charlie Baker can be a compelling candidate for governor of Massachusetts. Baker, who announced his candidacy yesterday, has very impressive credentials for the job. Unlike many candidates, he has performed impressively in the public and private sector -- having been at the helm of Adminstration and Finance and Human Services when Bill Weld was governor - and as CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. Further, Baker has displayed strength at both big-picture thinking and dealing with details of policy-setting. The question is: Can Baker learn and adjust to the rigors of campaigning and winning over voters in non-stop appearances on the stump? If he can do that, he'll pose a very tough challenge to incumbent Governor Deval Patrick.

I just read a Boston Globe article that suggested many people - including a high percentage of younger individuals - no longer like to use voice mail because it's outmoded and takes too long to play back messages. The article discussed that many people are shifting to using only text messages because it's simply quicker. They feel voice mail is inefficient and limited in what it provides. I guess I'm supposed to accept this, but, I do not. People feel it's a difficult burden to listen to a few voice mail messages? What? What kind of attention span will those under age 30 have as the years go by? I guess "delayed gratification" has given way to "instant gratification" in more & more parts of people's lives. I guess..........

I am amazed that so many big-name rock bands and artists who I grew up listening to in the 1960s are still performing. I'm talking about Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Chuck Berry, Crosby, Stills and Nash, Eric Clapton, John Fogarty and on and on. I just thought more of these performers would have retired. What I'm NOT as surprised by is that I still regard the 1960s as the "Renaissance" of rock and roll. There has never been a period since when original, fantastic songwriting and live music flourished as much.

I'm glad Bill Murray and Harold Ramis have, apparently, "made up" after having a "falling out" years ago --- and, are contemplating making a third edition of the movie, "Ghostbusters" with Dan Ackroyd. Bill Murray is my favorite comic - and Ramis has made some funny movies, himself. I hope they can collaborate more than once because they work well together. (They did in "Stripes" years ago).

Kudos to David Ortiz of the Red Sox, who has come back from the depths of the worst hitting slump of his career and has been more like his old self at the plate in recent weeks. Big Papi looked so bad swinging the bat for the first two months of the season that many people - including me - thought he was "done." Papi may not hit like he did in his prime, but, he has already proved people wrong. He didn't give up and it was inspiring to watch.