AJOffTheCuff

Barack Obama Has Missed Ted Kennedy

2011-11-09T15:36:00.005-05:00

Stop and think about all the ways that President Obama has missed Ted Kennedy.

Imagine the large, consistent impact Kennedy might have had on Obama’s often-too-solitary presidency. Often, this sort of speculation seems like guesswork of limited meaning, but, not in this particular case.

Kennedy epitomizes the kind of political support that Obama has lacked in Washington.

Obama has lacked true, steady political allies. When the President has faced one storm after
another, often, it’s been striking how few political leaders or, strong, bold surrogates have
spoken up to defend him. I think Teddy would have stood with Obama through thick and thin.
It’s not hard to imagine Kennedy’s forceful reaction to some of the unfair, unsubstantiated,
“loaded” criticisms leveled at Obama by Tea Party members or “birthers” or former Vice
President Dick Cheney. Kennedy would have had more than one sharp retort to US Sen. Mitch
McConnell’s ludicrous, ill-intentioned pledge, a year ago, that the Republican leadership’s top priority was to prevent Obama from winning a second term.

Kennedy died in August, 2009, during Obama’s first year in office. But, what if Senator Kennedy had lived on a bit longer? He had already become a unique partner of Barack Obama’s from the moment he endorsed him during the 2008 presidential campaign.

If Kennedy had been around, how would the entire health care reform debate been different? It’s hard to say, but his voice and support would have been welcomed by Obama, who often appeared alone in a storm.

Kennedy would not have sat back and witnessed the negative, damaging distortion caused by the Tea Party-dominated, obstructionist Republican Party. He would have helped Obama and his colleagues hold Republicans accountable.

At the same time, Kennedy could have helped Obama to try to build support and mend fences with members of the US Congress, even with more partisan Republicans.
Kennedy was as effective as anyone at that and Obama has suffered from a failure to maintain a genuine connection to US representatives and senators.

Obama has needed a heavy dose of wisdom from more experienced national leaders. Kennedy could have offered insights that matched some of the difficult hurdles faced by this young President.

The President has needed to hear more candid views and constructive criticisms from those around him. Ted Kennedy could have shared his views directly with Obama, but done so with a tact and context unavailable to others.

Kennedy and Obama were joined, in a very special way, from early in Obama’s inspiring 2008 presidential campaign. It’s hard to forget the extraordinary, ringing endorsement that Teddy gave to Obama at that pivotal moment not long before Super Tuesday in the primary campaign. Kennedy gave one of his roaring, enthusiastic speeches that not only boosted Obama, but knocked down a few campaign barbs that had been thrown at Obama by then-opponent Hillary Clinton. Caroline Kennedy had just written a piece in the New York Times titled “A President Like My Father,” and, indeed, it seemed the Kennedys were “passing the torch” to Obama.

Kennedy’s health began to fail, of course, but he courageously pushed himself to give a short speech for Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Then, during Obama’s first year as President, Kennedy’s health declined further before he died in August, 2009.

President Obama gave memorable remarks at Kennedy’s memorial service about Kennedy’s unique contributions to the country.

What Obama didn’t know then is how much he’d miss Kennedy during his rocky first term as President.

Will Obama Ever Show Us What He Stands For? (Now Would Be a Good Time!)

2011-08-23T20:50:00.026-04:00

Barack Obama created a little stir early in his 2008 presidential campaign when, one day, out-of-the-blue, he went out of his way to praise Ronald Reagan.

"...I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not....", Obama said.

It was during a media interview in January, 2008, at the start of the primary campaign. A few Democrats - including then-opponent US Sen. John Edwards - criticized Obama for citing Reagan as an example given that Reagan's reactionary beliefs were antithetical to Democrats' most basic values.

Right now, Obama should try to follow Reagan's example in another important way: He should
open up and speak more about his most deeply-held political convictions.
What is Obama's "ideology"? Maybe he feels he doesn't have one strong philosophy, but, what are a few positions that he feels most strongly about?

Everyone always knew where Reagan stood. Reagan came in preaching about reducing the size, role and costs of government and he never stopped. He was an anti-communist coming in, and, while he negotiated important treaties with the then-Soviet Union, he always displayed his suspicions about the USSR. (Remember S.D.I.?)

Obama desparately needs to identify and share a few "heartfelt" convictions.
Why is this so urgent right now? Because Obama has damaged his image in recent months by rushing to compromise so much that it hasn't been clear what his original position is.

Usually, a politician starts negotiations by clearly articulating what he feels most strongly about. In the recent debt-ceiling crisis, Obama never really did that. He said a bunch of different things at different times. He appeared more concerned with the "inside strategy" game than showing the American people his firm beliefs. So, for instance, while he spoke, at times. of the importance of raising revenue (taxes) as part of a solution, he also didn't push hard to keep taxes in the final deal. Instead, he gave in on that, and the Republicans got a deal including only spending cuts.

Now, maybe Obama was calculating that he'll make his real push for a "balanced approach" as he approaches the 2012 presidential campaign season and he argues for expiration of the Bush tax cuts. But, why doesn't he understand that it helps his image to show us what he cares about all the time? Even if he fights for his values and loses, Americans would know what he felt was worth fighting for. Right now, Obama's image is that of a guy who is easily pushed around at the negotiating table --- someone for whom talk is too cheap and who doesn't seem able to dig his heels and both say "No" and mean "No."

(Obama would also benefit by simply not talking so much. He's so over-exposed now it's ridiculous. I think when some people see him on television, the impact has been tremendously diminished before he opens his mouth. He should hold far less public appearances, and, when, he does speak, try to say something more substantive)

One thing I've learned about American politics is that people genuinely appreciate and credit a President who says what he stands for --- even if people disagree with that President. Again, the best example is The Gipper.

I hope that Obama learns and applies this lesson in the months ahead. If not, it will likely impact the 2012 presidential election.

From the outset, Obama has seemed surprisingly oblivioius to how his image is impacting his success or failure as President. For example, when he came into office and advocated passage of the economic stimulus, he didn't pay attention to some's concerns about the government spending so much money. When Obama had to help bail out banks, A.I.G. and the auto iindustry, again, he did so without seeming to pay much attention to the impact on the image of the President, the US Congress or the federal government.

Then, the whole way Obama went about pushing his health care reform bill exacerbated this problem enormously. Not only did he and his White House team do a poor job of leading the health care reform effort and allow way too much of a swampy, messy process for Congress to handle, but, again, Obama didn't make much of an attempt to alleviate the reasonable concerns of people about how all the changes would be paid for.

So, now, Obama has gone so far the other way - rushing to cut billions the budget to make sure he appears centrist enough after the 2010 election results --that it's hard to know where he stands.

For instance, wouldn't it help if he told us if he will fight to the end to protect Medicare and Social Security? Or, if he feels that certain aspects of Medicare should be examined for potential savings in the future? Obama appointed a bipartisan commission headed by former Wyoming US Sen. Alan Simpson and former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles to make recommendations for debt-reduction, but, when the commission came out with a report that suggested some cuts to entitlement programs, Obama was silent. He has avoided taking a real stand on entitlements, choosing to allow observers to conclude he wants to avoid really getting into it much before the 2012 election.

Well, that choice of being silent and afraid of risks has hurt Obama. He simply has not learned that people would have more respect for him as a leader if he took chances to fight for what he believed was right. Too often, we've seen Obama fight for a "middle position." Maybe, he'll choose to fight for total protection of Medicare.

On Afghanistan, it's hard to tell if Obama really believes the US should keep troops there or if he's just going along with the generals' position. On the Middle East, at the start of his presidency, it appeared Obama might be a bit tougher on Israel (a welcome change) but, in the past six months or year, he seems to have morphed into taking the same "middle ground" positions of past Presidents.

I could go on, but my point remains the same. Obama, in the end, may want to be the ultimate compromiser, but, he'd be much better at compromising and leading the country, if he first
tells us all where he really stands.

Media's Flawed Approach On Display During Debt Ceiling Crisis

2011-07-28T12:20:00.030-04:00

The nation's debt-ceiling crisis lurches on and nothing is what it appears to be
in American politics.

I say that after being inspired by a timely, insightful July 26th column by Paul Krugman in the New York Times. (http://Krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/the-cult-that-is-destroying-america/) Krugman expressed amazement that the news media has described both the Democratic and Republican sides as being "intransigent" when, obviously, the Tea Party core of Republicans has caused most of the trouble in recent days. Krugman also found it striking that the media continues to portray President Barack Obama as a liberal voice, when, in fact, his position during this crisis has been remarkably conservative. Obama has gone so far out of his way to "compromise" with Republicans that his position could be labled as "moderate" at best and conservative if you consider the voluntary nature of his concessions.

Krugman's column got me thinking about one of my favorite topics: The extent to which large truths are simply not presented in news stories in the media - whether it's television, online or print. We've all grown so used to the incomplete or distorted presentation of the news that we feel resigned, powerless and further removed from our democracy.

What's annoying is that the Republicans seem to take advantage of the deep flaws and omissions of the media far more than Democrats. It's as if they know, in advance, how superficial the coverage will be and, in the case of the debt-ceiling story, I think they knew that even if they drew much criticism, they could damage Obama substantially in the process.

The following are just a few examples of the media's superficial, misleading coverage of the debt-ceiling crisis:

1. Look at the basic frame of this debt-ceiling story. For weeks, we've heard about how "both sides continued to make no progress...." blah, blah, blah. Well, the story could have been presented like this: "The new right-wing Tea Party faction of the Republican Party continued to block any progress in a crisis that it has been most responsible for creating......"

2. The media never places enough weight on the fact that the wealthiest segment of Americans will continue to avoid paying a proportionate share of tax revenue that the US Congress could easily ask to step up and contribute to a solution of the debt crisis. The Bush tax cuts have allowed the nation's richest citizens to avoid paying a proportional share of taxes for years and now, even during this debt ceiling crisis, it appears a final solution will not include any taxes!

3. The media has failed to explain the reasons for the enormous debt. Republicans have spouted the mantra that Obama caused the debt for so long that reporters have neglected to explain not only the huge Bush tax cuts, but, the war in Iraq - with its tremendous costs over years - was a factor, along with the war in Afghanistan under both Bush and Obama. Also, the unusual, costly steps Obama authorized to try to save the economy from spiraling even further downward and the funds spent to save the auto industry, banks, AIG and other entities going broke in 2009. The point is the debt grew a lot under Bush, and some of its growth under Obama was related to Obama's efforts to save the economy from a Depression.

4. The Republicans are responsible for this entire debt ceiling crisis. They calculated to attach their urgent insistence on spending cuts to the deadline for raising the debt ceiling. They refused to give in one inch on including any tax revenue in a proposed solution. Obama, meanwhile, has been extremely willing to compromise to avert the last-minute crisis we face today while Republicans have not been. His offer, more than a week ago, to agree to huge cuts in spending totalling $3-4 trillion as long as tax revenue paid for a relatively small, but substantial share of it was a major compromise. (The Republicans were stupid to not accept it, in my view) It would not have taken much legwork for reporters and their editors/producers to document and "play up" the leading role of Tea Party Republicans in causing this entire mess, but, instead, they've fallen into their usual pathetic role of "presenting both sides" as if they share equal responsibility.

5. The coverage of this story illustrates, in disturbing fashion, how television simply will not make any effort to let opposing parties have a genuine argument on camera. Instead, it's all about sound bites and who's ahead and superficial updating of the "debate." Wouldn't you love to see Obama and Boehner be left alone to have an actual debate on the issues related to the debt for an hour? I think we'd find out how little substance there is behind much of the rhetoric, particularly on Boehner's side. The problem is Obama and other Democrats have failed to find ways to make persuasive, compelling arguments that reach the American people. Perhaps if they singled out how an individual millionaire's tax status has been impacted in recent years vs. a lower-middle class person's tax status, that would help them make their bigger argument.

6. Michele Bachmann, now a Republican presidential candidate, aired a television ad saying she would not vote to increase the debt ceiling, which she said "goes completely contrary to commonsense and how I grew up in Iowa...." I saw this remark displayed on television without anyone challenging Bachmann on how or why she could make such a reckless, thoughtless remark.

7. Some Republicans have been right in pointing out one thing: Prior to this recent crisis, Obama did little or nothing to tackle the huge debt facing the nation. In early 2010, Obama appointed a bipartisan commission led by former US Sen Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles
to develop recommendations for reducing the enormous debt. When the commission released its final report in December, 2010, Obama remained relatively silent. He said nothing about the commission's positions on potential cuts in entitlement programs or other recommendations, and, it appeared obvious he didn't want to alienate anyone in the base of his party. The point is Obama has shown the same lack of leadership as everyone else on making tough decisions to reduce the debt.

8. If Obama has some heart and soul left, now is the time for him to look deeply within himself to find both. He has to stop acting like a leader who cares only about avoiding mistakes for the purpose of getting re-elected. Where is the Obama from the 2008 campaign? That wasn't all an act, was it? If not, Mr. President, it's time for you to stand up to this "small-minded" group of Republicans, tap your oratorical talents and speak up - from your gut - about what's right and wrong as you advocate for the American people. People would love to see that side of you.

The Galling Hypocrisy of Newt Gingrich

2011-06-16T14:13:00.008-04:00

I just wish Newt Gingrich would do us all a favor and end his presidential campaign now.

He's already made a fool out of himself on multiple occasions. He has made comments on large topics like the US role in Libya or Medicare reform and then tried to reverse himself.
He routinely distorts, exaggerates or lies. He takes things out of context so constantly that no one tries to correct him. And, he is one of the most full-fledged, annoying hypocrites I've seen in American politics.

Newt's latest whining about NBC doing such an unfair story about his wife's role in his presidential campaign was very hard to take.

As those of us political junkies know, Gingrich's campaign suffered a major setback recently when 16 of his campaign staffers resigned all at once due to disagreements with the candidate over the overall direction of Gingrich's campaign. In some stories about this embarrassing development, Gingrich staffers told reporters anonymously that they felt Newt's wife, Callista, was part of the problem because she was influencing Newt to make bad decisions. For instance, news reports said, it was at Callista's urging that she and Newt went on a recent vacation to Greece despite Gingrich's campaign getting off to a horrible start. It was very bad timing, his staff felt, according to news reports.

So, Gingrich, being the clever guy he is, made some initial remarks to the effect that, yes, he did have a large disagreement with his staff, but, he explained, he was running a non-traditional campaign, so, it wasn't surprising that campaign consultant types would complain. He claimed he felt fine about the state of affairs despite the incredible mass exodus of his campaign staff.

Then, Gingrich protested later about NBC's story on this topic.

"I believe NBC owes Callista an apology," Newt said, "because the fact is my campaign is my campaign....Yes, we make decisions as a couple, but in the end, I take full responsibility. And I think the program this morning was totally irresponsible, and personally reprehensible, and the kind of thing that makes it hard to get decent people to run for public office..."

Are you kidding me, Newt?

You think the reporting on your wife's role was vicious? Yeah, the news media felt it was a big story that after months of your public exploration of a run for the presidency, most of your top campaign staff decided to resign after only a couple of months. That IS a big story! I can see you reacting if you felt the reporting of your wife's role was described accurately or not, but somehow, certain members of your staff chose to talk to the press about your wife's role.
So, that's the way it goes.

What kills me about this is that Newt, over the years, has been the most unfair, callous, inflammatory, insensitive politician with his own biting, critical remarks about everyone else.
Now, he's barely out of the gate, and he and his campaign have screwed up about 15 ways in two months, and he's whining about NBC!!!!

Poor Newt!! I do NOT feel sympathy for you. And what gall Gingrich has to suggest that this is "the kind of thing that makes it hard to get decent people to run for office.."

Newt, you have not seen anything yet! Barack Obama has taken more criticism and crap in the past few years than you could ever handle. You want to see unfair attacks? Did you listen when Obama's patriotism and very citizenship was questioned during the 2008 campaign? What about the reactionary pack that called for him to produce his "long-form" birth certificate after he was President for two years? (I could list examples for about 24 hours straight...)

Newt, you are not as strong or tough as Obama and many, many other politicians. You are a guy
who belongs on the sidelines. That way, you can hurl your reckless, attention-grabbling, rhetorical "grenades" and avoid responsibility.

You are not a serious candidate. You are not worthy of being treated as such.

As Harry Truman said: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen..."

Please stop whining about NBC reporting facts and spare us your self-absorption and hypocrisy.

If you stay in the race, I hope the media holds you accountable for your falsehoods and irresponsible remarks. Maybe, you'll get more of a dose of the kind of coverage you've deserved for a long time.

Why Can't Republicans Just Give Obama Credit for Getting Bin Laden?

2011-05-03T01:20:00.059-04:00

The night President Barack Obama told the nation that the US had killed Osama Bin Laden, one of my reactions was: "This is a giant accomplishment that no one will be able to take away from him."

Then, the next morning, Rush Limbaugh launched into a weird sarcastic rant about how unique Obama's role was in the mission. Sarah Palin later offered congratulations to the military, and gave prominent mention to former President George W. Bush without mentioning Obama by name. Glenn Beck later said he thought it was "disgusting" for Obama to visit Ground Zero in New York City on Thursday, May 5th, because, apparently, he thought the President was trying to draw extra attention to himself. (In fact, Obama went to meet with 9/11 families, firefighters and police, and, in fact, didn't give a speech there).
Other Republicans who commented on the US raid on Bin Laden seemed determined to give much public credit to Bush, and usually stressed his contributions at least as much as Obama's and often more.
Consider the statement the next morning from "Keep America Safe," an organization run by Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol and Debra Burlingame:

"Today marks a major victory for the people of the United States and the forces of freedom and justice all over the world," the statement said. "We are grateful for the bravery of the Americans who raided the compound near Islamabad and killed Osama Bin Laden. We are also grateful to the men and women of America's intelligence services, who, through their interrogation of high-value detainees, developed the information that apparently led us to Bin Laden.......

How small and cowardly of this group to disregard President Obama, who, indisputably, played a central, commanding role in the planning and order for the raid that led to killing Bin Laden. Of course, Kristol was a big booster of the invasion of Iraq who I've never heard utter any regret for being on the side of such a disaster that killed thousands of human beings.

As the next few days unfolded, the trend became even more clear: Republicans often gave far more emphasis to Bush's contributions even if they praised Obama.
My reaction: When Bin Laden has just been killed nearly ten years after 9/11, any Republican choosing to bring up Bush as someone who should share credit with Obama is either can't face the truth, is stupidly partisan or has a lack of character in more ways than one.

After all, it's the Republicans who are always running over each other to compete for the "most patriotic" label. Why not show a little loyalty to your country, you Republicans, by acknowledging that the current President had a lot to do with the raid on Bin Laden? In fact, it would not have happened if he had not given the order, you turkeys!!!!!

But, even after Obama played an impressive, commanding role in this huge event - the killing of the world's most wanted terrorist and mass murderer - some of his reactionary critics still are unwilling to acknowledge reality. It's embarrassing. Why don't Democrats ever challenge these kind of ludicrous remarks? Why can't they stand up for Obama even when he's pulled off a great achievement the whole country has waited for?
Bin Laden was responsible for the worst mass killing of Americans (nearly 3,000) in the U.S. since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Bin Laden essentially led the Bush Administration to make its disastrous decision to invade Iraq for no good reason. This led to thousands of people dying. Hate for the US intensified and multiplied around the world. Bin Laden has caused a lot of bad things to happen for the US. Now, thanks mostly to Obama and his team, Bin Laden is gone.

Further, it takes a lot of gall for Republicans to push Bush's name out there at all when it comes to Bin Laden. Bush failed in several enormous ways regarding Bin Laden while Obama did much better.

First, 9/11 happened on Bush's watch and while I'm not blaming Bush for that directly, news stories have surfaced through the years about certain reports of an increased likelihood of terrorist activity in the days before 9/11. I won't second-guess it now, but, I'm just stating that the Bush administration was in power.
Second, Bush's outlook toward catching Bin Laden seemed to change dramatically in 2002, when he and his team were planning the invasion of Iraq. I've seen the tape on TV the past week of Bush saying he didn't know where Bin Laden was and it was not a real concern of his. Then, of course, the Bush Administration dragged the US into a completely unnecessary war with Iraq, but, before they did, they attempted to substitute Saddam Hussein in their propagandist rhetoric for Bin Laden, who they seemed to view as less relevant then.
Obama, by contrast, as a presidential candidate, said he'd go after Bin Laden aggressively and said that if he had to go after Bin Laden in Pakistan to get him, he would authorize that.
Third, Bush, by reports and indications, was a President who relied very heavily on VP Cheney and other advisors to make key decisions, including on foreign policy and intelligence matters.
Obama, by contrast, apparently, oversaw at least nine meetings held to discuss the details and ramifications of the raid on Bin Laden. He's been heavily involved in deliberations with his military team about Afghanistan. He comes across as a President who's more knowledgeable, more hands-on, more intelligent, more competent, more able to participate in discussions, and more eager to seek out others' opinions. (You'd think such a leader would deserve a few words of praise after this historic raid)
Fourth, Bush and his team actually caused an increase in Al Qaeda involvement in parts of the world, particularly Iraq, where Al Qaeda men poured in to take part in the war there. Obama, by contrast, from the first months of his presidency, intensified US attacks on Al Qaeda in various locations and sometimes used drones, unmanned vehicles, to fire missile attacks.
Some of these more aggressive attacks have reportedly been successful, and, at times, reports have indicated the killing of various Al Qaeda leaders.

I feel one could write a book documenting why Obama deserves more credit than Bush for this recent raid. Frankly, I think it's sad and discouraging that people are discussing Bush's role
at all. One of the only reasons, I guess, is that supporters of the use of torture (like Liz Cheney's group) claim that the enhanced interrogations used under Bush led to bits of information that proved useful to the Obama team. However, this conclusion is premature and people are still debating what led to what. My bigger point is that even if some intelligence was passed on usefully, how can anyone forget that Bush's main response to Bin Laden and 9/11 was to invade a country and kill thousands of people there along with our own men.
_____________________________________

I'm just tired of Obama never receiving unqualified praise for the good things he's done. I know he's made many mistakes. I disagree with him no some important issues like Afghanistan. But, I believe that people set unrealistic standards for him because he's black. No matter what he does, people seem a bit more eager and a bit more able to voice some grievance. Why is that?

People blame the economy on Obama. That's not really fair, either, because Presidents can only do so much to impact the whole economy, especially with today's complex, interactive global economy. When Obama took the advice of most economists and got a stimulus package passed, he was ripped from all sides that the stimulus didn't work. He helped bail out the auto companies, which were on the verge of collapse. Some ripped him for that. He bailed out the banks, to help the economy, in the longer run. He got criticized. Obama took a lot of heat for his handling of the BP oil spill, which was largely out of his control.I saw journalist Jonathan Alter being interviewed by Chris Matthews on Hardball last week. Alter was asked about the impact of the killing of Bin Laden on Obama as President. Alter said that Presidents are often rightfully held responsible for things that happen on their watch.
"..So, if Obamais going to take blame for the economy, he needs to get credit for this," (killing of Bin Laden) Alter said.

That sounds fairly sensible to me even though some things that happen on a President's watch are truly out of his control.
All I know is I do not recall any President taking on more enormous crises and problems all at once in his first two years than President Obama. That he tried to get a major health care reform bill passed while his plate was so full probably was a mistake. His bill ended up being very flawed. Yet, he'd probably argue that it was a giant step for the country to get something done - to get the ball rolling.

There are reasons Obama gets criticized and it's another blog topic. But, his particular strengths really helped him show leadership in the raid on Bin Laden and if Republicans or others cannot see that in perspective, then we'll have even more meaningless partisan sniping all the way until Election Day in 2012. I predict that, anyway, I guess.

Pondering the Crazy Times We Live In

2011-03-17T15:49:00.026-04:00

Let's see. Which of the 150 or so disturbing things happening in the world should I begin with?
I've chosen just five topics that are bugging me. I'll start with the coverage of Charlie Sheen.

Coverage of Charlie Sheen Shows We Are LOSING. The coverage of Sheen's behavior represents a new "low" of sorts because the television networks, particularly cable and gossip shows, are so openly exploiting Sheen's personal problems to increase their ratings. The context for this is not the least bit subtle. The television industry doesn't give a damn about Sheen's mental health or substance abuse problems. As long as he's outrageous, they keep the limelight on him. What does this say about our society? People are gobbling up reports on Sheen. What's next? Do you think television will give us prime-time coverage of a man setting himself on fire? It seems the door has been kicked further open for almost anything. I recall when the networks, back in 1994, broke to live coverage of O.J. Simpson's Bronco chase away from the Los Angeles police. Helicopters helped bring the country live shots of Simpson's Bronco pulling into his driveway as reporters openly wondered if he'd kill himself then and there. I remember sensing that that had begun a new "era" - a new "low." We've seen many other "lows" since, but, this Charlie Sheen saga is now the newest episode on the list, and, I find it an embarrassing metaphor for the "entertainment-first" culture we live in. I was disgusted to see an article in the March 21st Newsweek by Bret Easton Ellis that actually heaped praise on the unique contributions of Sheen. The headline reads: "Charlie Sheen is Winning - With his tweets, his manic interviews, his insurgent campaign against the entertainment world, the star is giving America exactly what it wants out of a modern celebirty" The author gives his views on why Sheen's one-man "protest" has struck a chord, but he barely mentions the actor's problems that are driving all his behavior. So, this Newsweek article - like Sheen - puts entertainment ahead of all. Forget the truth. Forget context. Forget discretion. We live in a sick society.
It seems fitting, in a negative way, that Newt Gingrich is taking preliminary steps toward running for President in 2012. Why? Because Gingrich knows that in today's crazy media climate, he's much more likely to get away with failing to explain his personal mistakes in the past AND that he can speak in extreme, reckless terms - the way he likes to. Think about it. In today's media landscape, people say outrageous things one day, and they're forgotten a few days later. So, for example, even though Sarah Palin, as a vice presidential candidate, couldn't discuss the most basic issues in 2008, the media has been hyping her every move since because of her entertainment value. Glenn Beck says wacky things on FOX television, but, he keeps his job. Rush Limbaugh spouts wild, negative comments and yet, he retains, mysteriously, enough political "clout" that politicians, particularly Republicans, often remain afraid to challenge him publicly. So, it seems to "follow" that Gingrich has already pulled off an amazing, objectionable move: He blamed his infidelities (that led to his two divorces) on his extraordinary patriotism. Yeah, he actually said words to this effect - in case you missed it. David Brody of the Christian Broadcast Network recently asked him about his past behavior. Newt, in his reply, said: "...There's no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate...I found that I felt compelled to seek God's forgiveness. Not God's understanding, but God's forgiveness. I do believe in a forgiving God. And I think most people, deep down in their hearts hope there's a forgiving God...." Gingrich reportedly chose to discuss his divorce of his first wife while she was sick with cancer recovering from surgery in the hospital. Then, his second wife reportedly found out about his later infidelity right after she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.
The state of Texas is giving serious consideration to a proposed new law that would allow college students and professors to carry handguns on campus. Just a few months after the horrific shooting episode in Arizona when US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others were shot by an unstable man, it is hard for me to fathom why legislators in Texas or any other state would choose to allow more handguns to be in circulation rather than less. It would only increase the chances for someone to be wounded or killed by a gun. Texas allows concealed firearms in most public places, but not in college buildings. Eight other states are considering bills that would allow concealed firearms to be carried on college campuses. Utah is currently the only state in the US that in allows concealed guns on public college campuses. In more than 20 other states, similar proposed bills have been defeated in the past, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. If anything, the Arizona tragedy demonstrated the tremendous need for stricter gun control across the country. After all, the shooter used a gun with a high-capacity magazine that would have been prohibited if the assault weapons ban law had not expired in 2004. It defies common sense that politicians are so fearful of the gun lobby that they do not take action to prevent the needless deaths of so many people due to gun violence.
Politicians - including US congressmen and a potential presidential candidate - continue to stir discussion about whether President Obama was truly born in the US. This false claim should have never been treated as a legitimate topic for media coverage unless some facts had emerged that raised actual doubt or questions about Obama's citizenship. That has never happened. Yet news organizations keep allowing individuals to raise this ludicrous topic without vigorously questioning and objecting to it. Although not one shred of new evidence has surfaced that indicates anything contradictory about Obama's citizenship, we keep hearing about the "birthers." News organizations keep reporting on lies related to Obama's birth. The latest example: 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee recently made the glaring mistake of saying Obama had grown up in Kenya. My view is that anyone who makes his false claim about Obama ought to be aggressively questioned, scrutinized, criticized and held accountable. Obama is two years into his presidency. That this subject is even on anyone's radar is inexcusable and suggests either racism, stupidity or motivation stemming only from ill will.
The coverage of President Obama often suggests that public and/or media expectations of what a US president can do are so far off the charts that it reveals troubling trends. Barack Obama inherited a boatload of troubles when he took office and it seems he's been wrestling with crises during much of his tenure. I'm used to noticing that people expect Presidents to do far more than they can, but, in Obama's case, I feel the expectations have been laughably extreme. He came into office inheriting the worst economic crisis since the Depression. Economists from all sides recommended passage of a stimulus package. Later, Republicans ripped Obama because, they claimed, the stimulus was wasteful and didn't create enough growth. The auto industry failed. Obama's administration stepped in. Banks failed. Obama intervened to bail them out. Later, these actions were part of the Republicans' overall criticism of Obama being a "socialist" proponent of big government. Then, there the BP oil spill and people complained Obama should've done more. (Did they want him to wear scuba gear and clean up the oil himself?) With the latest unrest in countries in or near the Middle East, critics said first that Obama was saying too much about Egypt. Then, they said he wasn't doing enough. Just recently, some critics have suggested that Obama should be doing more to intervene to help the rebels in Libya. Of course, for the US to create a "no-fly-zone" would have required bombing sites in Libya first and such action would stir up incredible hostility from other countries - including Iran, which already urged the US to refrain. Sometimes I wonder how Obama keeps his sanity in the White House. I do notice that he seems to receive far more criticism and scrutiny than George W. Bush received at times. I vividly recall the Bush Administration's long propaganda campaign to create public acceptance for the invasion of Iraq. I recall the media "going along" with much of the campaign and failing to raise nearly enough questions. Can you imagine if Obama tried to launch an invasion of a country like Iraq without justification - and, that thousands of people then died as a result? Unfortunately, it's clear that Obama is held to a different standard due to his race. It's time for people to be more realistic and fair in those expectations.

A Lingering Thought After Tucson Tragedy

2011-01-28T17:05:00.050-05:00

For a few days last month, we witnessed something truly unusual: Some of the country's right-wing talk show hosts received a little scrutiny and criticism for their reckless words. I'm referring to the few days after the tragic shooting of US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 other people in Arizona.

Many people felt that these talk show hosts' (among others) disturbing tendency of using hostile, violent references toward government officials had contributed to an environment that might push the wrong buttons for the killer, Jared Loughner, who clearly suffers from severe mental illness.

The biggest names of the bunch - such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck - immediately became extremely defensive about this viewpoint. They charged that this sentiment amounted to ridiculous scapegoating when, in fact, the killer had been identifed.

Limbaugh, predictably, went on the offensive rather than to attempt any thoughtful reflection about the potentially negative impact of his own "attacking" rants on his show.

"....What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country," Limbaugh said on his show. "He's sitting there in jail. He knows what's going on, he knows that ...the Democrat party is attempting to find anybody but him to blame....."

That was a really stupid comment - even for Limbaugh. He and other right-wingers just couldn't face that maybe the subject of what makes a mentally ill person suddenly commit a violent act is more complex and worthy of thoughtful examination than the same old black and white labeling.

It's true that no one can prove the extent to which Loughner was or wasn't influenced by the "discourse" in the background. However, for a few days, television and radio shows were actually discussing whether the level of "vitriol"in this country had become more dangerous than it should be.

My reaction: It was about time.

It has always struck me how little public criticism is directed at right-wing talk show hosts who routinely spout irresponsible, inflammatory, inaccurate words on the airwaves. I refer to Limbaugh, Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly of FOX-TV and Sarah Palin, who has seemed to assume the role of an "entertainer" more than a serious former governor.

It seems clear that politicians in both parties feel it's not in their interests to take on these controversial talk show hosts publicly. Others might feel it's a no-win scenario because Limbaugh and company will always get the last word.

But I wish so much that more politicians and public figures would publicly criticize these right-wing talk show hosts more often. Why? That's the least they deserve for the many outrageous, unsubstantiated things they say and holding them more accountable would be good for all of us.

I heard some topics discussed after the Tucson shootings that deserve ongoing attention.
Chris Matthews, the host of "Hardball" on MSNBC kept raising the question of: Why have people on the Right, in certain parts of the country, more often been bringing guns to public appearances such as speeches or rallies?
Good question. It's a scary development. People should not be allowed to carry guns to these sort of events - period.

It's also worth worrying about why the threats made against members of the US Congress went way up during the first three months of 2010, according to the Associated Press. A Jan. 8, 2011 A.P. story (following the Giffords shooting) reported that in the first three months of 2010 alone, there were 42 threats made against members of Congress -- nearly three times the number of cases reported during the same three months in 2009. In March of 2010, someone "either kicked in or shot out a window in Giffords' Tucson office just hours after the Arizona Democrat voted for an expansion in government-directed health care," stated an A.P. article by Alicia Caldwell.
As we all know by now, Giffords was one of the 20 House Democratic supporters of the health care bill whose congressional district was put "in the cross hairs" of a gun site on a map that was posted on Sarah Palin's Facebook page asking people to work against those members' re-election. I haven't heard Palin ever apologize for that choice of imagery. Has she?

Interestingly, it was the local sheriff in Arizona, Clarence Dupnik, whose remarks after the Tucson shootings, brought some of the scrutiny of talk show hosts.
Dupnik said: "..It's the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business....The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line...."

Dupnik - like police across the land - must respond to indivuduals who "cross that line"
due to mental illness.

What's a revealing, sad commentary is that the very right-wing talk show hosts who use "loaded" rhetoric on their shows continued - after the Arizona shootings - to exhibit the same ignorance and insensitivity that they display, embarrassingly, all the time in this way: The Limbaughs and Becks of the world simply would not - and could not - discuss possible causes or factors that led Loughner to commit violence. Rather, they followed a pattern I've witnessed for years of conservatives referring to those who commit murders as being fully aware and totally responsible for their actions. They always seem to characterize acts of violence as being about only individuals and their choices. Of course, it's usually much more complicated because so many murderers are mentally ill, disturbed in some way or insane. Many of us are interested in helping mentally ill people in ways that minimize the chances of they're engaging in violence. And, yes, we want our society to try to create an environment that discourages violence - and, yes, maybe even prevents violence. Unfortunately, for many years now, politicians have been afraid to discuss the "causes of crime" out of fear they'd be viewed as "too soft on crime."

Indeed, the Limbaughs and Becks kept this bad habit alive by acting like it was so far-fetched to even imagine that the national "discourse" could contribute to anything. They dismissed the concern voiced by many. They ridiculed it. What a pathetic, unintelligent response at a sensitive moment when people were traumatized by the events in Tucson.

Rush Limbaugh and too many of his "colleagues" on the radio don't take responsibility for what they say. It's about time that Democratic and Republican politicians and the rest of us stopped tolerating that irresponsible rhetoric. People need to speak up in opposition to it - not just for a few days following a national tragedy like Tucson - but, all the time.

Belichick's Incredible Coaching Feat

2010-12-28T19:08:00.061-05:00

Something truly extraordinary has been unfolding with the New England Patriots this season.

It is so extraordinary that even the millions of football fans who despise the Patriots and their coach, Bill Belichick, should take notice. Why? Belichick has taken a very young, inexperienced team that was very flawed and mediocre at the start of the 2010-11 season and coached it into one of the best teams in the NFL - all within a few months.

I know it sounds like I'm embellishing, but, it's true. I've watched all the games. At the start of the year, I told my brother the team was simply not good enough to make it this season. It looks like this will be a "rebuilding" year, I said. "If this team makes the playoffs, it will be one of Belichick's best coaching jobs ever.." I said.

Then, I witnessed the miracle with my own eyes: The team got better and better, and, now, it has not only made the playoffs, but, just clinched the AFC East with a 13-2 record, the best in all of football. I know some of you are thinking: "What's the big deal? The Patriots are always good. They have Tom Brady....And, it's true that Brady has been off-the-charts this season, but, trust me: The more astonishing part is that this team has improved so much - so fast - that it's now contending for a Super Bowl.

Though it's hard to believe, one key explanation appears, convincingly, to be that Belichick and his assistant coaches have taught many of these young players how to play better and better as the season has progressed. The Patriots, with Belichick, have always placed emphasis on instructing each player to "do his own job well" within "the system." If they do that, the players have learned, Belichick will give them a terrific game plan uniquely aimed at the weaknesses of each opposing team each week - and, good execution will often lead to a win.

What's been amazing is that Belichick has pulled this off with so many kids on his team this year!
The Patriots' roster had already been injected with a lot of rookies before last season, and, that 2009-2010 edition ended with the Baltimore Ravens coming to town and kicking the shit out of the Patriots by a score of 33-14. The team made no big moves in the off-season, and added even more young players, but, many football observers still guessed the team might win up to 10 games. Watching the Pats in the first few weeks, it was easy to imagine them winning less than 10 games and failing to make the playoffs.

The improbable aspect of this turnaround has been Belichick's ability to mold and tweak this Patriots team to success despite the glaring weaknesses of its defense. Again, he's found ways to make "the system" work despite the lack of many "star" players. At the start of the year, the defense, particularly, its pass defense, was HORRIBLE. No matter which team they played and who was at quarterback, their opponents could throw pass after pass and just drive down the field. Patriots cornerbacks were either badly beaten, or, in position, but flailing helplessly as the football went into receivers' hands. The Patriots were OK against he run, but flawed in that department too. They had no pass rush, as expected.

The Patriots, reportedly, have the youngest defense in the NFL and one of the youngest (or the youngest) overall teams in the league. Yet, slowly but surely, the defense has played better, and, even, found a large strength of its own by creating a lot of turnovers, particularly a steady number of interceptions. The defense is still not great. The secondary is still very weak at times. All season, the Patriots' pass defense has been one of the worst, or The Worst, of all 32 teams in the NFL. The Patriots have ranked consistently behind most teams at stopping opposing teams on 3rd down. Even now, going into the season's final game on Jan. 2nd, the Patriots' defense is ranked 27th of the 32 teams in overall defense by ESPN.

But, somehow......Belichick has found little ways to get the very most out of the talent he has. He's found a formula for his flawed defense to do just well enough to allow the Patriots offense to carry the team to victory. It is not a coincidence, for instance, that the Pats place so much emphasis on executing great offensive drives early in the game to give them a lead, thereby "setting the dynamics" for the rest of the game, and helping its young defense do its job.

The team has outperformed, or, on occasion, demolished, top-quality opponents with more "stars" or established talent on paper - like the NY Jets, the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Indiannapolis Colts, Chicago Bears and the Baltimore Ravens. Usually, the Patriots play more efficiently - and, appear to play with more mental toughness and focus - than their opponents. With each passing week, the defense has played with more aggressiveness and discipline - and begun to supplement the offense more. For instance, after the first several weeks, it seemed, the pass defenders got a bit more aggressive, in general - on their tackling and getting in position to make interceptions.

The team is using the Patriots' old "bend, but don't break" approach to defense, allowing the shortest passes but tackling receivers very quickly to limit their opponents to short gains. Plus, the team is succeeding at another old Belichick goal of limiting the opposition's Big Plays. This year, after the first few weeks, the defense has gotten very good at this - even though, often, it doesn't look that good as it "allows" opposing teams to march down the field by completing short passes. But, this young Pats team - like its predecessors - gets tougher in the red zone.

Meanwhile, the Pats' offense has been prolific - the most high-scoring, consistent unit in the league. Fittingly, one of the offensive keys has been the fantastic play of the Pats' two rookie tight ends - Rob Gronkowski and Aaron Hernandez, who is the youngest player in the NFL. They both play like veterans. Danny Woodhead, an unknown, practice squad player for the Jets in the preseason, joined the Pats and has been a surprising juggernaut, making one big play after another.

OK, I have to state the other, most obvious part of this story: Brady is performing as well ever at quarterback. He just broke the all-time NFL record for consecutive passes thrown without an interception. When the team traded Randy Moss and Brady began focusing on the short passing game he excells at, everything "took off" for the offense, and, the team as a whole. An overlooked factor has been the terrific play-calling of Bill O'Brien, who plays the role of offensive coordinator though he still doesn't have the title. O'Brien's play-calling suddenly got much better after Moss left too. It was as if the whole offense found its identity with the approach the Patriots had used so well in past glory years - with Brady hitting the open man rather than worrying about hitting Moss for bombs.

Other factors in the team's success have been:

1) The outstanding play of rookie cornerback Devin McCourty.

2) The incredible contributions of offensive tackle Logan Mankins, who, despite missing a bunch of games at the start of the year, was playing in peak form from Day One, and has helped add more fiery aggressiveness to the entire offensive line.

3) The entire offensive line has played well all year, giving Brady time to do his thing.

4) Middlie linebacker Jerod Mayo, who leads the NFL in tackles and always seems to catch an offensive player a split second before he breaks for much more yardage.

5) Vince Wilfork, the nose tackle, who, the team has moved around to keep offensive teams off balance, and has made many "big plays."

6) The great play of two "no-name" running backs, BenJarvus Green-Ellis and Danny Woodhead. Both have been consistent. Both have caught short passes well. Both have surprised the hell out of other teams and the football media.

7) The play of the Pats' special teams, which always seem to leave the team with good field position, and, that has helped Brady and the offense do their thing.

8) Wes Welker, who despite being in his first year back from a serious knee injury, is still a huge contributor to the offense getting in rhythm and moving the chains.

This year's Patriots reminds me, to some extent, of the Pats team that came out of nowhere in the 2001-2002 season and upset the St.Louis Rams in the Super Bowl. That team, like this one, had many players no one had heard of. That team, like this one, was disciplined and mentally tough and played together.

If this Patriots team loses its first game in the playoffs, I will still consider this an amazing season that I will never forget. In an era of big-name, multi-million dollar stars like LeBron James and others, it's refreshing to see a team win mainly because it excells as a group.

Bill Belichick has already received accolades and won enough to go down as one of the greatest football coaches of all time. I think that's one reason his superb coaching this year has gone a bit overlooked. Everyone just assumes his Patriot teams will be good, but, only those of us who have watched the evolution of this 2010 edition know how special this team has been. And so, regardless of Belichick's past achievements, he has demonstrated his unique talents with this particular football team in this particular year.

Belichick is the indisputable Coach of the Year in the NFL.

When Will Obama Fight For His Own Beliefs?

2010-12-15T07:43:00.019-05:00

I've never been more disappointed in President Barack Obama.

Obama's choice to not mount any fight against eliminating former President George W. Bush's
tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans was yet another "new low point" for me. The tax cuts are due to expire Dec. 31st, but, it now looks like the both the U.S. Senate and House will approve the compromise Obama ironed out with Republican leaders to keep tax cuts for all, including the richest.

Yeah, I've heard Obama's arguments about why he had to go along with this to protect keeping a tax cut for the rest of us, along with another round of unemployment benefits and so on....but, come on! Obama had pledged repeatedly to eliminate this tax cut for the richest income brackets. If a Democratic president chooses to not even put up a fight against this most glaring inequity, what does that say about him? Or, the state of our politics?

I have not wanted to face just how little Obama has fought for his convictions for most of his first two years. He keeps getting pushed around. He doesn't draw a line in the sand on big issues. He fails to identify the largest, key issues from the smaller ones. He doesn't seem to have issues that he simply will not give in on.

In fact, I have to ask: what are Obama's convictions? I've recently realized more deeply that he just might remain a centrist compromiser who lacks a clear, strong ideology.

It's true that when he came into office, he already had a reputation as a pragmatic conciliator - a leader who liked to work out compromises in the middle. However, I thought he'd advocate for basic Democratic Party principles fairly well. I thought I could count on that. I still think he believes in ideas I care about, but, to my surprise, he has seemed unwilling and uncomfortable about stating, boldly, what he stands for.

Obama seems to have fallen into a very familiar "trap" that catches other new Presidents. After speaking out more candidly and refreshingly during a long campaign, he got into office and suddenly pulled the reigns in on all his views, feelings and public positioning. He stopped speaking from the heart - with spontaneity and conviction - and, instead, got caught up in the Washington DC whirlwind of day-to-day crisis management, including coping with conflict-oriented news media cycles and responding to critics and polls.

This phenomenon has impacted most Presidents. I recall Jimmy Carter got swallowed up by Washington. Bill Clinton's first year became a nightmare - as the media heaped coverage on every little mistake he made. It's interesting; I think it's tougher for Democratic presidents because, when they start off, they've usually promised to change a few things. Republicans often have pledged to "lower taxes" and "keep defense spending high" -- not exactly courageous principles. In any event, the larger point is that new Presidents often have trouble remaining true to themselves and sticking their necks out on issues. They're new in this biggest job in the world and they tend to want to please everyone.

Well, two years have passed and I'm still waiting to find out what Obama is FOR. I know he tried hard during his first year to keep the economy from falling into a depression. I thought he offered good leadership during a stressful, traumatic national crisis that included the need to pass and push for an unprecedented stimulus package, the failure of the auto industry, bank failures, a foreclosure crisis and on and on. But, that period required "crisis management" and Obama was able to stay in his (comfortable) "middle" much of the time.
Then, he chose to initiate a major effort at health care reform, but, during this battle, Obama showed some of his weaker tendencies; he cut ill-advised deals with players such as the pharmaceutical industry presumably to smooth the way for a bill to get passed, but, by the time the bill emerged, it was - by most accounts - incredibly watered down and didn't force change and sacrifice on the health care industry's dominant players.

So, during the health care debate, we saw Obama fail to take strong stands; in fact, he waffled so much that even his Democratic base, the key allies in the fight, grew dissatisfied with his
vagueness and refusal to dig in his heels. This was illustrated when Obama chose to not support the so-called "public option" even though he had shown support for it during the buildup to the debate.

Yet, despite my disappointment with the health care bill, I tried to focus on the positive: Obama had managed to at least get some good components approved such as much greater protection of coverage of people's pre-existing conditions.

Then, Obama, after holding lengthy deliberations over his Adminstration's policy on Afghanistan, the President emerged with a proposal to increase troops by 30,000 while insisting he'd initiate a withdrawal of those troops in the middle of 2o11. People questioned if he'd be able to stick to his plan for early withdrawal, but Obama insisted he would. Now, in recent weeks, Obama and his team are indicating they're reconsidering the goal for withdrawal, and, insteady, feel it'll probably be necessary to keep American troops in Afghanistan much longer.

That reversal, if it comes true, disgusts me. I'm opposed to American military intervention in Afghanistan altogether, but, I'm so bothered tha Obama, appareantly, can be that cynical toward the public that he advertised this "early withdrawal date" and now thinks he can reverse himself and no one will care?

I followed Obama's handling of the tax cut closely. While I tried to cut him slack initially, the more I heard mention of the unnecessary "waste" of spending that'd help the richest, I grew very disenchanted. It all hit home for me one night as I watched Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show, "The Last Word" one night. O'Donnell had several excellent guests on to comment on the Obama tax cut topic. One guest was Ralph Nader. I've grown increasingly impatient with Nader in recent years, but, he was on the money this night. Nader commented that Obama has acted like the Republicans had the majority the past two years rather than seizing on the Democratic majority he has. Nader said that Obama was "conflict-averse." He said that Obama should have taken the lead on some issues by saying "Here's what we're going to do..." (meaning, or, "Here's what I want to do and here's why you should follow me")

I watched and cringed: I agreed completely with Nader. Why the hell have we all heard so much about John Boehner and Mitch McConnell the past two years? Hell, they haven't even said anything compelling. All they've done is attack Obama and oppose virtually everything he proposes. Why hasn't Obama challenged these leaders and other Republicans to argue the merits of far more issues? I'm convinced that Obama would win most debates. He's superb at arguing his points -- once he has a position, that is!

I think Nader is, at least partly, correct about Obama's conflict-avoidance. There is no reason Obama couldn't attempt more forceful persuasion about issues he cares the most about. Obama doesn't seem to "get it" that the American people like to gain "a sense" about their President's identity, his personality and passions. Look at the unique appeal of Ronald Reagan. No matter what one's view of him was, he always spoke naturally about his ideological convictions - which, conveniently, were supported by most Americans. (reduce the federal government, boost defense spending, etc.)

Obama seems constitutionally unable to articulate what he cares the most about vs. what he is willing to compromise on. I'd love to hear him identify a few things that he'll fight for no matter what -- no matter what the opposition, no matter the impact on his political fortunes.
I'm still waiting for that. Instead, he projects that he cares about everything and every issue in sort of the same voice, context and perspective.

Obama has made matters much worse by making far, far too many appearances on television. He's badly, badly overexposed and many people, I think, are predisposed to tune him out now, automatically, as a result. Sometimes, Obama comes off as another, self-absorbed, narcissistic leader who cares more about being in the limelight than the issues he's supposedly addressing.

Another discouraging example: I had thought Obama and his administration were acting a bit tougher toward Israel by prodding that Israel should really halt all construction of new settlements in designated areas, but, now, the Administration has dropped this precondition. Why? I had hoped Obama was willing to tolerate criticism and resistance on the Middle East - which would have been praiseworthy. Now, I fear that he's "wimping out" on this topic too by avoiding further conflict with Israel.

I'll tell you. After Obama's inspirational 2008 presidential campaign, he at least sounded like he'd try to change a few things in Washington. He was such a gifted orator. He could shine in debates with his opponents. He appeared like someone who could use his strengths to lead by persuasion. Now, halfway through his first term, he's appearing to be "just another President," who cannot overcome the waves of outside influence.
I hope he can rediscover his voice in the next two years. Or, perhaps, to put it more accurately: That he can learn how to articulate and fight for his own convictions more than he has so far in his public life.

Federer Finally Finds A Way to Beat Nadal

2010-11-28T18:45:00.030-05:00

I wasn't sure I'd ever see Roger Federer defeat Rafael Nadal again.

I started closely following Federer sometime in 2006 or 2007 and that was when he began, coincidentally, to lose - consistently - to Nadal in major tournaments. I think I watched part of one match Fed won against the lefty from Majorca, Spain, but, almost all signs during the past few years have suggested that Nadal had Federer's number. Nadal has always dominated Federer on clay, highlighted by his reign of success at the French Open. Plus, in the past two years, when Rafa's overall game has improved amazingly, he caught up to Federer on hard courts, and, even passed him last year, when he won three of the Grand Slam tournaments, including Wimbledon and the US Open, where Roger had been King for years.

Meanwhile, Federer was getting a bit old to remain in "peak" form. He'd won 16 Slams after the 2010 Australian Open. He'd gotten married and had kids. What more could this uniquely talented player from Switzerland do? It seemed his skills were starting to fade a little bit. He seeemed to hit less "winners." His serve was a bit more erratic. Then, strikingly, in 2009 and 2010, Federer began to lose "big" points in pivotal moments -- points he almost always had won in the past. These lapses seemed due to sporadic loss of his tremendous confidence. In the past year, Federer got knocked out of the French Open and Wimbledon before reaching the seminfinals. (Federer, before his loss at the French, previously had reached at least the semifinals in 23 consecutive Grand Slam events dating back to 2004. Remarkable!)

It had gotten to the point where I said to my brother: "Federer either has to adjust the way he plays against Nadal or he may never beat him....."

I remember saying that more than once, but, especially after watching the 2009 Australian Open, when Nadal kept relentlessly hitting the ball deep to Federer's backhand for the entire match and the strategy was key in his winning in five sets.

Then, in the middle of a difficult 2010 - when, Federer was in his rough stretch, he hired tennis coach Paul Annacone, who had previously coached Pete Sampras. This was a Big Deal, to me, because I'd heard, like other tennis fans, that Federer had preferred not having a coach. It seemed, finally, that Fed realized he had to change a few things to stay on top and compete with Rafa and others.

Last Sunday, I was delighted to notice changes in Federer's game as he defeated Nadal in the ATP, year-end finals of the Master's tournament in London 6-3, 2-6, 6-1.

How did Federer do it on Sunday? What was different about his game vs. Nadal?

Federer was more aggressive, overall. He was trying to end rallies with Nadal earlier than in the past, and, he succeeded, to some degree. In fact, commentators noted the match was moving along quicker than most between the two rivals as a result. One reason: Federer hit more "winners" or tried to unsuccessfully, meaning Rafa had far less opportunities to control the outcome. (Other opponents have used this approach vs. Nadal with at least some success.)

Federer tried to return Nadal's second serve noticeably harder. This was striking from the start. In his first game returning serve, Federer hit his first return hard for three unforced errors, but the intent signaled his change in approach. It was a key, pleasant surprise because, unless one takes those kind of chances vs. Nadal, it can be almost impossible to beat him. Nadal wins most long rallies.

Federer tried to hit more backhand winners - and hit a few at key moments. Federer, in past matches with Rafa, has been pinned back on his backhand side, often on the defensive. In this match, Federer kept Nadal off-balance by hitting more backhands cross-court, including a few beautiful shots for winners.

Federer took advantage of moments when he could volley well at net. It's hard to avoid Nadal's terrific passing shots, but, Federer, by coming to the net more often, kept Nadal a bit more off balance, and, he was able to win a number of points from the net. That hasn't always been true in past matches with these two.

Federer didn't hit as many soft shots back in the middle of the court. In the past, Federer's soft returns down the middle have allowed Nadal to tee off, and belt forehands that ended up getting Federer on the run and on the defensive for the rest of the point. In this match Sunday, Federer appeared more focused on the placement of many shots and forced Nadal to move more. This allowed Fed to be the one to belt the winner off an average Nadal return in what was a role reversal.

Federer kept his confidence high for the whole match. There was one point in the match when Nadal was coming on strong to win the second set, and it seemed Federer was losing confidence and focus. In the past year or two, this often was a dynamic that lingered and caused Federer trouble in matches with Nadal or others. This time, Federer came out for the third set on a mission, and stepped up his game, winning 6-1, a surprising, difficult feat vs. Nadal.

Federer's serve was generally excellent. When it was on, he won, and when it wasn't he lost. For Federer to defeat Nadal at this stage of his career, he must serve well - period. Nadal is simply too good, too inexhaustible for Federer to outlast without that strength of his working. Federer, with a good serve, often can cruise through his service games.

Nadal was a bit off his game, giving Federer a good opportunity to win. Nadal had played a tough, three-set match with Andy Murray the day before, and, in certain moments, appeared to play a bit below his normal standards. Nadal didn't keep running in pursuit of a few apparent winning shots Federer hit - a sight we're all unaccustomed to given that he never seems to stop chasing almost every ball. Perhaps he was a bit fatigued.

Hey, I don't know if Sunday's match really will end up signifying real changes in how Federer plays against Nadal in the future. However, I think it suggests that Federer is trying new approaches with Nadal, and, as a result, he should have a greater chance to win. You see, as much as I love watching Federer, no one can dispute Nadal is the better player now. It's a question of whether Federer can compete with Nadal on a handful more occasions - perhaps in a few Slam events - to give the tennis world a bit more sampling of this incredible rivalry.

I wrote months ago that I thought Federer's "window" for potentially defeating Nadal in a major event was narrowing rapidly. I still believe that. In fact, I think by the end of 2011 or early 2012, Federer's chances will have diminished further. However, now, after seeing him try a few improvements that seem inspired by his new coach, I think Federer might have a chance to beat Nadal one more time. I find that exciting and it exemplifies what I love about sports. Just when you think you can predict the outcome, things change unpredictably.

For Roger Federer, at the end of his career, to find new ways to defeat his greatest nemesis, Rafael Nadal, is an unlikely, but intriguing queest that I'll follow very closely.

Content Is Overlooked in Today's National Politics

2010-11-09T18:39:00.036-05:00

The truth, it seems, never mattered less in American politics.

Exhibit One: The Republican Party has done nothing for the past two years but attempt to obstruct progress for President Barack Obama. Yet, the Republicans just won an unprecedented number of US House seats in the mid-term elections, regaining a majority. Now, sure, opponents of Obama might be happy, but should voters on the left or the right ever reward pure obstruction?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, immediately after the election, had the gall to say that his party's top priority will be to work toward the removal of President Obama from the White House in 2012. Again, McConnell is openly indicating that Republicans won't be focused on compromising or trying to get things done (for a change) for the country.

Does anyone care about what McConnell or other top Republicans say? Is anyone listening?

I think it matters a lot that the Republicans have tried to "do nothing" for two years, don't you? Are you out there, American people? I don't know what people are thinking anymore. I swear.
A majority just voted for Republicans with an apparent message against "too much government," but the most thoughtful of those voters should have paid attention to what Democrats were at least trying to do vs. Republicans' intent - which was solely to hurt Obama.

Of course, many voters - perhaps a majority - have grown so disenchanted with Washington that they're fed up with all incumbents. There are good reasons for much disgust. In a time of crisis, politicians have been as cowardly and self-protective as ever. Yet, that's still shouldn't mean that the worst actors - the Republicans - who acknowledged their purely obstructionist motives - should be rewarded in the midterm elections!!! That's nutty. That's discouraging. That suggests our system does not work.

As we've all learned, Obama makes himself too easy - and, too long - a target, at times and that's contributed to his problems, but he DID inherit more crises than any President in my lifetime. People should take that into account. It's a hard time for anyone to be President.

The cowardly behavior in the US House and Senate has not made things easier for Obama. He's had far too few vocal, supportive allies in the Congress. Plus, generally, virtually no one in the US House or US Senate is showing any leadership these days. Almost all public policy discussion is framed by glaring partisan differences. When was the last time a politician stepped forward to take a difficult, unpopular stand? Or a Congressman or senator got rewarded for trying to compromise to get something done?

It takes Jon Stewart to organize a rally in Washington calling for a return to "sanity." Sounds like a one-time joke, but, the truth is that often one can hear more "straight talk" from stand-up comics or hosts like Stewart than from our elected officials.

It seems the whole system has gone bankrupt. The television media is preoccupied with covering the "entertainment" angle to serious topics. So, whenever conflict or hype can be used to frame a story, the news producers write the story that way. The actual content has not only become less important, but, often, it's openly disregarded or downplayed.

Look at former President George W. Bush's television appearances this past week to promote his new book. The network shows played up a few sound bites, but, I would have preferred more emphasis on the fact that Bush spoke a bit more about previously-overlooked truths about the lack of any rationale by his administration to invade Iraq. It's interesting: The news media often tells us what someone like Bush said or didn't say, but, rarely includes raw facts, background and context to major stories. Bush said, in a relatively casual way, he had approved of water-boarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 actions, without prompting much followup, for example. In the end, the coverage presented Bush's sound bites without putting his admissions, omissions and inaccurate remarks together. Bush tried to claim that while he was disappointed when weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq, he never was pushed, aggressively, on how the hell he could justify going to war against Iraq without evidence of WMD.

The television media doesn't even try to identify or emphasize the truth. If they get their "entertainment" from a segment, that's all they care about. And, they never want to have an interviewer get too tough or edgy with a guest - even if they're discussing whether a war had to happen!

I go on this tangent about coverage because it has impacted everything about Obama's first two years. The media has done little or nothing to put the extraordinary spending by the federal government into perspective. And, while the Obama team did a very poor job explaining its health care reform proposals during the long, ugly debate on that, the news media was even worse. The media failed to explain how " watered-down" the bill was. They failed to explain all the money and lobbying that went on behind the scenes and how that altered the context of what unfolded.

What's sad is that Obama inspired people during his 2008 campaign and spoke a lot about rising above partisan politics. He spoke about how he could bring people together. He appeared to care a bit more about principle and "doing the right thing" regardless of partisan details. Now, the Republicans have, at least temporarily, succeeded in re-labeling Obama as a "big-spending liberal" who favors government involvement all the time, no matter what the costs. Obama should have more aggressively warded off his opponents' attempts to tarnish him, but, at the same time, the media failed to separate, label and assess Obama's various decisions.

One would think that President Obama and those around him would have learned by now that they have to speak up and be clear about their goals, their day-to-day responses to developments, defending themselves against unfair attacks and continuing to clarify their positions - all the time - so that the American people and the news media understand.

It's interesting that the Obama team, for all their savvy in the 2008 campaign, has shown poor judgement in how they use the President's appearances on trips and on television. I believe one main mistake has been overexposing Obama. He's been so visible so often in his first two years that I think people tune him out now. To become more effective, in my view, he should limit his media appearances and trips more.

In addition, it'd help if Obama took more risks and offered content that reflected his true convictions a bit more often -- even if it alienates a few more politicians or interest groups.

You see, if the Obama people don't figure this out, the Republicans will keep getting attention by using more "shallow" content and superficial presentation. Sarah Palin is about to launch a new "reality" TV show on Alaska - a move that, to me, will just remind people of how unqualified and ill-fitting she'd be as a potential President. But.....the television networks and cable stations are all over the Palin show. Palin and some of her Republican peers understand how superficial and entertainment-oriented television is. They take advantage of it and no one calls them on their lack of substance.

It's be so easy for reporters, producers and editors help the American people see how unqualified Palin is. They just have to do their old jobs -- to seek and report the truth.

The problem is that the companies that own news organizations today - and the news executives who work for them - don't care as much about truth-seeking today. Content doesn't matter as much. It's an unhealthy climate - and that helps explain why individuals like Palin and Glenn Beck can attract attention rather than scrutiny.

Let's hope we can transition into a better era, when the truth matters a lot more.

Missing Tim Russert And His Approach for 2010 Election

2010-10-21T14:36:00.014-04:00

I'd love to see Tim Russert interview one of these Tea Party candidates running in 2010!

Russert would have been able to pin down someone like the embarrassing Christine O'Donnell and reveal just how ill-conceived, empty and laughable her entire campaign is. He would have exposed many of the shallow, unsubstantiated comments Sarah Palin makes. He would have shown, by using his blown-up quotes and charts, just how little the Republican Party has actually done in the past two years to help govern the country.

It's striking how much Russert is missed right now. His approach as host of Meet the Press - which was to be armed with excellent research on his subjects and then to grill them - is simply not seen often enough in the superficial world of television political coverage today. Russert was interested in exposing the truth about a person while, at the same time, allowing that individual an opportunity to fully respond to any tough question or sensitive issue from the past.

Russert, for instance, would not have been allowed Republicans seeking re-election to the US House or Senate to get away with their record of doing nothing during President Obama's first two years in office. He would have given them their say, but then asked them, relentlessly, what they had proposed or done to improve the nation's faltering economy, for instance. Russert would have repeatedly asked Republicans why "the Party of "No" should deserve to
take over after accomplishing nothing but obstructing the President whenever it could.

I don't mean to build up Russert too much here. He had his flaws and missed his own opportunities, but, he definitely showed more interest in genuine reporting and paying attention to politicians' records and statements than the current crop of TV journalists.

I miss Russert because of that "gap." In today's crazy TV news/entertainment climate, Sarah Palin continues to receive enormous attention and is given a "standing" she does not deserve. Ever since the 2008 presidential campaign, when TV executives witnessed Palin's entertainment value and impact on ratings, they have showered her with TV coverage - whether she's making a speech or preparing her "reality show" for its debut.

What TV news producers have NOT done is pay the slightest attention to the content of Palin's remarks and her amazing lack of factual "backup" for so many of her public assertions. Palin has made so many rhetorical attacks on "big government" and the Obama administration without including facts and figures that substantiate her claims. What would Palin have done back in the winter of 2009, when President Obama inherited an incredible financial crisis and had to make hard choices to prevent the country from slipping into a depression? We don't know because TV and even print reporters never challenge Palin about these matters. I'd love to hear what Palin would have done. She probably would say she'd never have proposed such a big stimulus package. After all, that stimulus represented what typified the bad side of Big Government, she'd argue. Well, that's easy for Palin and the shallow group of right-wing candidates she supports to say. Who can't rip Big Government? Yet, if reporters would challenge her, she might have to offer alternative ideas because, in early 2009, economists from across the spectrum were advising Obama to propose a large economic stimulus package. Many recommended an even larger stimulus than the one passed by the US Congress.

So, there you go, Palin. What would you have done? You see, whenever Palin has been challenged with direct questions (like Katie Couric's relatively easy, direct questions in 2008) it seems she comes off quite poorly. She's unable to offer a thoughtful, substantive, direct response. Why is that? Doesn't that mean a great deal?

No, unfortunately, no one in the serious world of political journalism today seems to pay attention to Palin's flaws or her incapacity to grasp the hard, gray realities facing the nation's leaders. All anyone seems to care about is entertaining TV viewers. So, when President Obama started running into more serious opposition over his health care proposal, the TV decisionmakers were glad to dwell on the "winners" and "losers" in poll after poll without examining either the content of the health care proposals or just why the process got so bogged down.

The problem is that TV journalists never focus on the content! So, while they're saying "Palin said this" or "the Tea Party candidate said that," they fail badly at telling us who these people are. In fact, if they paid more attention, I'd argue they'd realize many of these people - including Palin - do not deserve any coverage at all! I'm completely serious. If a "celebrity" like Palin spouts distorted, loaded, reckless remarks, why does she deserve so much air time? Why is Christine O'Donnell still getting so much air time? She's a joke. She should quietly fade from the scene. Instead, television is so eager to inflate anything "entertaining" that the mission of news divisions has been so lost.

This national Republican Party, in 2010, does NOT deserve anything, if you ask me. They've done a disservice to the country by making it their sole purpose to hurt Obama in any way possible. Yes, I know opposition parties tend to go after opponents, but, this display of DOING NOTHING has broken any record I can recall in my lifetime. All I've heard from US Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and US House Minority Leader John Boehner has been criticism of Obama. Neither offers much beyond attacks on government spending and tax cuts.

Don't get me wrong here: The Democrats deserve some criticism too, mainly for not standing up for their beliefs and opposing the baseless charges of Republicans. Many Democrats have been cowards during the past two years by choosing to let Obama take most of the criticism without trying to defend him nearly enough.

But, back to the Republicans: I'm sorry, in a time of national crisis, we should not be giving support to a Party that openly has been trying to obstruct the President at all costs while offering nothing on its own. Candidates in that Party should be opposed vigorously. Yet, the indications are that in next week's mid-term elections, the Republicans will do very well and possibly re-take the House of Representatives.

If the news media - particularly the television networks and cable news shows - spent more time focusing on truth-telling and holding people accountable - then, maybe the Republicans wouldn't do as well next week. Correction: They definitely wouldn't do as well because shining more light on the truth tends to affect these sorts of things.

Will We See a Federer-Nadal Slam Final Again?

2010-09-17T08:28:00.017-04:00

I think the "window" for tennis greats Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal to meet in a meaningul final of a Grand Slam event is closing more quickly than people think.

I say this after watching Nadal win his first US Open a few days ago following Novak Djokovic's defeat of Federer in the semi-finals. I was like most tennis fans who had hoped Fed and Nadal would meet again and give us a terrific match. I'm a huge fan of Federer's and had hoped to see him beat Nadal in a big match - for a change.

Nadal looks unbeatable right now, however. He's playing superbly - better than I've ever seen.
Federer, meanwhile, though still one of the world's best, looks more flawed and vulnerable than he has in recent years.

So, when might these two rivals meet again in a contest that remains competitive?

Perhaps the 2011 Australian Open - if - if - Federer can make a few key improvements to his game. He'd have to serve better, and make far less unforced errors, for starters, and, he'd have to be far more aggressive against Nadal. He'd have to go for - and get - more winners.
Would he have even a miniscule chance to beat Nadal at the French Open? No way. The 2011 Wimbledon and US Open remain possibilities, but, as the calendar keeps advancing and Federer gets a bit older, Nadal will still be young and in his prime.

This is my main point. The possible occasions for Federer and Nadal to clash in a Grand Slam event while Federer's game remains at a high level - are extremely limited. They are two players going in different directions. Nadal is peaking while Federer is has very limited time. My own sense is that the moment will have to come in the next year, with possibly one more opportunity at the most, in 2012 - at, probably the Australian Open.

It's a shame because at least two of the Federer-Nadal finals matches have been uniquely exciting. I'm thinking of their unforgettable 2008 Wimbledon Finals match, which went to an incredibly close, tension-filled fifth set - as darkness set in. Some consider that the greatest match of all time because of the high level that both men played at. It was so close and exctiing that you felt either could win at the end of the fifth set.
The 2009 Australian Open was also exciting, What made that one interesting was that Federer managed to keep it close until the fifth despite his serve and other parts of his game being sub-par. (I don't think that Nadal, today, would have needed five sets to win that 2009 match!)

The extent to which Nadal has improved his game in the past two years or so is truly remarkable. His serve is much better. While he wins a small number of aces, he often serves balls that are impossible to return well. For instance, he's perfected that one slice serve to his opponent's backhand side that requires his opponent to react with bullet-speed by lunging sideways off the court in order to have a chance.
In addition, Nadal's forehand is more powerful and effective than ever. He hits winners routinely when using his forehand going the opposite way.

Now, with the last Slam event of 2010 over, we've all witnessed the indisputable rise of Nadal to the top of men's tennis as he won the French Open, Wimbledon and the US Open all in the same year. He's the first man to win three of four Slam events like that in many years. If he remains healthy, it's not hard to imagine him winning Slam events repeatedly, and, eventually catching up to Federer's current total of 16. Interestingly, the question of whether Nadal's knees can stay healthy for a few years may be the greatest uncertainty for this multi-talented player.
Many tennis observers have wondered if his punishing style might take a toll on him and force an early retirement. He has already hurt his knees and missed considerable time and he's only 24.

Federer faces different challenges. With 16 Slams, can he stay motivated to keep finding ways to improve his game, or, ward off the decline of certain strengths? He did recently hire new coach Paul Annacone, who formerly coached Pete Sampras, and, this, to me, is not insignificant. Federer seemed to finally realize he needed help if he wants to remain on top. For several years, he had refused to hire a coach despite encountering repeated problems on the court.
I think one of Federer's new weaknesses is not hitting the ball hard enough and hitting too many "soft" returns - particularly with his backhand - that are left too shallow - in the middle of the court for his opponents to belt for winners. We saw Djocovic bash many weak Federer returns all over the court and run Fed from one side to the other. It was a sad, unusual sight to see, and, yet, one I've seen often in the past year or two. Federer allows himself to get into extended rallies, and, while he plays incredible defense, he loses too many of these points by not taking enough chances.
Beyond this, Federer needs a jolt of new confidence. Sometimes, at pivotal moments in matches when he has always been remarkably cool and clutch, he now gets distracted and seems even a bit tentative about where he wants to hit the ball. He makes more uncharacteristic unforced errors in these big moments.

After winning the 2010 Australian Open, Federer had a fairly bad year -- for him. He lost in the quarterfinals at the French Open and Wimbledon before bowing out at the US Open. (He did win a Master's tournament this past summer in Cincinnati, defeating Mardy Fish in the finals).

Don't get me wrong. I think Roger Federer has already had an amazing career - even if he does not win one more Slam event. To me, he plays a more fun, beautiful brand of tennis than any player I've ever seen.

I'd just love to see Federer get one more chance to play at the top of his game against Nadal, while he's on top. Time is running out on this great rivalry and there are not many great rivalries like Nadal-Federer left in all of sports.

Throw the Voters Out Too!

2010-07-18T10:37:00.008-04:00

What's happened to the American people? They seem dissatisfied with just about everything, but, they're almost totally disengaged from American politics. Our political system seems bankrupt. The news media keeps harping on Sarah Palin or the Tea Party - as if these are serious, viable sources of leadership. That shows how low we've sunk.

The Tea Party is a damned joke and I'm sick of hearing about it! It seems every month, we hear about a different "controversy" involving whether some Tea Party activist or participant at a Tea Party demonstration said of did something offensive or racist. We then hear some spokesman from the supposed "national" Tea Party denying that the particular incident had anything to do with the goals of the Tea Party. We witness the networks or cable news shows giving air time to discussion of these conflicts - as if they're important to us all.

Well, you know what? I still haven't seen much evidence indicating the Tea Party should be taken seriously. Yeah, I know that in a couple of states, Tea Party-backed candidates have done well, supposedly, but, my point is that any "party" that is constantly encountering, or, creating an environment that stimulates one offensive or racist incident after another should not only be questioned, but NOT taken seriously! All of the leaders of that party should repudiate any individual or action that is offensive or racist! Instead, we hear debates about how bad incidents are.

This is all pathetic. If the Republican Party cannot strongly disassociate itself from these ugly elements, then they should be held accountable for them. The media, however, keeps giving time to the Tea Party because it is entertaining - and that's what counts the most today.

Of, by the way, I read recently that Newt Gingrich is thinking seriously of running for President in 2012. That's a perfect "fit," don't you see? Gingrich speaks intelligently, but, in "black and white" terms, about issues. He will have an easier time getting crowds fired up between now and 2012. People want simply "answers." People want simple scapegoats.

Recently, people are telling pollsters they're "dissatisfied" with Obama and the state of the country. Well, I wonder why. I guess people expected Obama would waltz in and wave a wand and make problems go away. With people's incredibly limited attention spans and unwillingness to accept the "gray" and the difficult times we live in, it figures they want to put a new person up on stage.

The people wanted Barack Obama, miraculously, to improve the economy in a few months, even though we were headed toward a depression. Then, when Obama and the Congress passed a huge economic stimulus package (recommended by economists of every kind) some people began to bitch and moan that Obama was supporting too much federal spending.

When the banks and large financial entities like AIG failed, and Obama bailed them out in the interests of minimizing harm to the economy, some people whined that Obama shouldn't have done that. He should have let them fail.

Americans want the best health care system in the world - one with, basically, universal coverage - but, one that ensures they have maximum choice and minimum premiums.

They want tough new laws on financial regulation, but, they don't want the President to be "too tough" on banks or businesses.

They want to get tough on illegal immigration; remarkably, a near-majority, I believe, now support the concept behind Arizona's new immigration law, which enables law enforcement officials to be aggressive in new, disturbing ways in order to identify illegal immigrants.

I could go on and on here, but, the theme is clear: The people want a lot, but, they're not prepared to sacrifice much of anything and they don't want to acknowledge how poorly the US economy is doing and how hard it'll be to find a "quick fix."

Americans do not want to worry about the threat of any more acts of terrorism by Al Qaeda, yet, they also want us to remove troops from Afghanistan. I agree with people on this point, but, again, I think there is a cost to pay and a burden to bear if we really want to wage a fight against Al Qaeda - whether in Afghanistan or Pakistan or elsewhere. Do people want to discuss the "tradeoffs" of doing more or less against Al Qaeda OR do they want the goverment to make Al Qaeda go away?

I'm just sick of the American people making no contribution to this mess. It seems the main "involvement" of people is to show up in polling numbers that are read on television, and, often, the polls make people look stupid. The polls reveal that public attitudes change with the wind. One minute, people are up on a topic or leader and the next thing you know, they've lost all patience.

Now, with the mid-term elections a few months away, most agree the Republicans are likely to win some seats. Some think they could even re-take the US House of Representatives. Gee, this makes a lot of sense. The Republicans have done almost NOTHING since Obama became President. Their primary, open objective has been to oppose and damage Obama's image so that he'll be more likely to lose in 2012. They've offered very few ideas on how to improve things in many areas. The "Party of No" earned that nickname.

So, now, the American people, in all their "wisdom" that we hear so much about, are actually thinking of electing Republicans simply because they'll be preferable to Democrats. All they've done is be obstructionists and people want to reward that?

Maybe it's time again for a third party - or two - in this country. People are confused. They're distracted by and mistakenly paying attention to an unthoughtful group like the Tea Party and contemplating electing Republicans?

I think the only answer is for the American people to become more engaged in politics again - so that they can notice the stakes and the true differences between the parties and our leaders.

Maybe things will have to get even worse before they get better. That's what I fear.

July Random Ramblings

2010-07-01T08:57:00.017-04:00

I've been unable to post as many blogs the past few months, so, I'll use this one to weigh in on a few miscellaneous topics that have crossed my mind:

I was disappointed the Boston Celtics didn't quite finish their miraculous run at a championship in June. Unfortunately, the Celts' loss in Game 7 to the LA Lakers has made it a bit easier for basketball writers and fans to overlook their extraordinary accomplishments in the playoffs. People have still not given the Celtics their proper due for transforming themselves into a much, much better team during the playoffs after playing at a far lower level for half of the regular season. The extent to which this particular Celtic team "flipped the switch" was one of the more interesting episodes I've observed in sports. I still maintain that if the Celts had defeated the Lakers, it would have been one of the most incredible feats in B-ball history. When the playoffs began, and, the Celtics were, finally, healthy, they suddenly became more focused for 48 minutes a game and returned to their top-notch defense of old. They knocked off Dwayne Wade & the Miami Heat, LeBron James & the Cleveland Cavaliers and Dwight Howard & the Orlando Magic before finally succumbing to the younger, faster Lakers halfway through the 4th quarter of Game 7 in the Finals. In my view, they simply ran out of gas due to the age of their veteran players and the cumulative toll of all the playoff games. Interestingly, if the Celts had had another day or two off before Games 6 and/or Game 7, they might have won it all. It was all about the Big Three growing increasingly weary.
The fact that the Celts "ran out of gas" due, in large part, to age is why I'm quite surprised and disappointed that the team has re-signed Paul Pierce and Ray Allen to new contract deals that will mean at least two more seasons with both. I like Pierce and Allen, but, I think they played their hearts out in the recent playoffs and their performance will only deteriorate in the coming season - and, the next. They're getting old - in basketball terms - and the team will have to rebuild anyway. It's strange: I heard sports writers all year discuss how the Celtics did not want to repeat the mistake made in the late 1980s with the Celtics' first "Big Three" of Larry Bird, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish. Then, the Celts hung on to those three stars for what many (including me) felt was too long a time, and, when they all left, finally, the team fell apart for a while. It seems Danny Ainge and the current Celts' management team is making the same mistake again. Pierce, Allen and Kevin Garnett cannot maintain their level of play; they'll get worse, slowly, and the Celts will probably suffer a big dip - again.
I applaud the fact that justice appears to have been done in the tragic case of Amy Bishop's alleged murder of her brother, Seth, back in 1986. After Amy was charged in February for murdering three of her colleagues at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, the 1986 death of her brother came under fresh scrutiny. Norfolk County District Attorney William Keating, to his credit, requested that an inquest be conducted, and, 19 witnesses testified before Quincy District Court Judge Mark Coven. A grand jury later heard the evidence and charged Bishop with killing her brother. There had been numerous, troubling unanswered questions about her brother's death and many unanswered questions about Amy's behavior surrounding that event. The Braintree, Ma. police handled the incident irresponsibly, and, for years, no one had forced a re-examination. I think Keating and all other parties involved in making the inquest happen deserve some acknowledgement. This seems a rare case when the truth, no matter how deeply it had been buried, emerged and the right message was sent about our law enforcement system - i.e. That justice can prevail and the truth can be found.
I was so relieved that President Obama fired US General Stanley McCrystal after McCrystal and individuals close to him made an array of criticisms about the Obama team in an article in Rolling Stone magazine. Obama, in my view, had already been a bit lenient toward McCrystal when he elected to not reprimand of fire him for his critical comments many months ago about Obama's deliberations over whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan. First, I feel that Obama desparately needs to convey (more) that he's in charge, in general - and, that he's unafraid of conflict and challenging others, including those around him. Second, I felt McCrystal really deserved to be fired. If he couldn't show more support of his President (by choosing to not rip him publicly!) then, it's preferable to have a replacement.
I am deeply troubled that there is not more unanimous, loud rejection of the Arizona immigration law from every part of this country. The very idea that this crazy law is being taken seriously by right-wingers and even a noisy segment of the news media (like the Fox TV crowd) shows you how far the public's standards and values have dropped over the past 25 years. We never hear any talk about the causes of poverty or how to address homelessness or mental health problems; instead, we hear people like US Sen John McCain and others defend an Arizona law that allows people to be questioned about their residency on occasions when the issue should not be raised. It seems to be the law is all about scapegoating and racism -- trying to spew hatred and intolerance toward minorities and immigrants - legal or illegal.
Speaking of racism, I continue to be among those observers of the President who believe that racism is playing a huge, disturbing role in how Barack Obama is being perceived and treated as our leader. All I know is Obama has been criticized and attacked for a wide variety of flaws and mistakes - including some I do not recall being raised with past presidents.
I hope so very much that President Obama and his team do not begin to "cave in" to Israel on an array of matters relating to tension in the Middle East. I've been so refreshed that Obama has been at least somewhat tougher on Israel over its position on planned construction of housing in the occupied territories, but, when I read the accounts of his meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu recently - and the great lengths that Obama went to to convey a message of conflict-avoidance - it got me nervous that the Administration might have lost its nerve. The longer the Obama team can be firm with Israel, the more credibility it will have with other countries that it can advance peace in the Middle East - and, the more fair its treatment of the Palestinians will be regarded.
I have to give Hillary Clinton credit for continuing to do her job without causing any problems or conflict with Obama. As one who was worried she'd create mischief, I've been pleased so far.
Observing Republican gubernatorial candidate Charlie Baker on the campaign trail so far reinforces the principle that just because a person is intelligent, talented and articulate does not necessarily mean he or she will be a great candidate for public office. Baker is a rare breed; he's excellent with both the "macro" and "micro" aspects of public policy. He's got an unusual combination of strengths. Yet, he has run a poor to mediocre campaign so far, it seems to me. He's taking positions that are simplistic and extreme in order to get support. He's spouting safe, cliched views such as opposition to taxes. Where's the beef, Charlie? I suspect he'll improve quite a bit in the weeks ahead. If not, he'll stand out as one of the more gifted, but un-compelling candidates in many years!

Media and People Are Blaming Obama for Too Much

2010-06-10T09:13:00.020-04:00

Earlier this week, I was disappointed by this headline: "AP Poll: Majority disapprove of Obama on oil spill."

It was one of about 200 headlines recently associating Obama with the oil spill. The news media is at its worst when it takes a very complex topic like this spill and over-simplifies it into a referendum on Obama and tries to assess the extent to which he should be blamed for the whole spill.

So, let me get this straight: Barack Obama has been responsible for the economic disaster he inherited; the flawed, ugly process that produced the economic stimulus package that economists were urging him to get passed; the flaws in the stimulus package itself; the failure of some of the nation's largest banks and financial institutions; the bailout of those institutions; the federal government's intervention to help the auto industry; the bailout of General Motors and the size of federal assistance to the other auto giants; all of the negative aspects of passing a health care reform bill; the increase to the federal debt, the immigration problem....and on and on and on.........

Yes, I'm still rooting for Obama, but I am a realist. I recognize his flaws and mistakes, particularly his handling of the lengthy health care reform debate before the bill finallly passed. However, I'm sick and tired of too many people and organized interests (like Republicans and irrational right-wingers) blaming Obama for everything under the sun. It's ridicolous. It's crazy. It's unfair.

I have not followed the oil spill crisis in much detail, but, I know that if one scans the scope and breadth of media coverage and commentary, it suggests that the President had a much more significant level of personal responsibility for the chain of events than, in fact, he did. I can accept that the Administration could have done more in the days or weeks following the spill. I do not accept that the national coverage and analysis of this spill should be focused so much on Obama. It was not about the President. Obama was not out there letting the oil leak into the Gulf of Mexico and he cannot act like "SuperMan" and go clean it up. The media comments appear to suggest Obama had his hands all over this incident. It's a joke.

This is the news media that had a full year of knowing that the Bush Administration planned to invade Iraq and start an unjustifiable war - and to do so with blatantly false statements about its reasons - and chose to not seek and share the truth with the American people. So, in that instance, the media allowed Bush officials to keep making false links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.

During Obama's tenure, it seems, the news media is still lazy, but has grown far more critical about the President's role and performance than with Bush. The media eventually misleadingly framed the economic stimulus package vote as a simple choice whether to expand the role of the federal government and approve a lot of federal spending. It was not portrayed as much as the real, unique, complicated vote it was - an attempt to follow the advice of econmists to pour federal money into the economy.

Likewise, the Obama administration's moves to intervene in the auto industry or take over banks or move against AIG were later characterized by Republicans as efforts to enhance the role of the federal government. Well, that's poppycock and more journalists and people should be calling out these Republicans for spouting these reckless charges.

So, what has all this wild, inaccurate dialogue done for us? It has helped lead us to pre-election news coverage that is so misleading and simplistic. If one watches TV talk shows, one might get the impression that Democrats support more federal government involvement and spending and Republicans don't. But, it ain't that simple -- at all!!!! For example, the Republicans have offered very, very little in substantive proposals since Obama's election. All they've done is tear Obama down. Have they been held accountable? Not really. Only a tiny, tiny bit. The Republicans have played an enormous role in preventing progress on legislation and in tainting or damaging the image of the Obama administration.

The problem is the media seems to have little or no interest in holding any US Congressmen accountable for their actions. So, the rest of us are left with cheap rhetoric and lies to sort out. So, when the congressional committees have wrestled with financial regulatory reform matters, for instance, all I know is that partisan differences have blocked progress. I'd like to know who has done what to block what -- but, in today's superficial media world, all you get is sound bites and empty rhetoric. Why else do I see Sarah Palin on the cover of my Newsweek again this week? She's covered like she's one of the most serious, important, thoughtful leaders in the world -- a person who we all must be informed about. Yeah right! Palin has not earned any of this. She's a shallow, irresponsible, over-rated woman who completed one term in Alaska to a mixed response. Then, she gave one speech at the Republican convention (reading a script of simple lines to feed the crowd) but, she was labled as a "phenomenon." Then, we witnessed her making a fool out of herself on the campaign trail. She spouted lies, recklessly painted Obama as an "unpatriotic outsider" and revealed herself to not know enough about national affairs to qualify as a vice presidential candidate, but, that didn't stop the media. They still cover Palin because she helps sell newsmagazines or TV ratings.

Well, maybe it helps ratings to constantly poll people about how Obama has handled the oil spill, but, I, for one, not only do not accept this distorted line of coverage, but I object all the coverage.

I wish journalists would return to the traditional role of telling the truth and letting the facts help us know who's accountable....but, instead, the media have ripped Obama for not displaying enough anger in response to the oil spill. They've second-guessed an array of daily actions or omissions by the Obama administration. Again, it was as if Obama had been out on the scene in the Gulf of Mexico for weeks and just disregarded it all. It was easier to frame it that way than to describe the complexities -- many of them not easy or entertaining to explain. Historian Douglas Brinkley told Newsweek that he felt Obama needed a "bullhorn moment" like Bush had in the rubble of the World Trade Center after 9/11.

It's not an easy time to be President. Particularly when you happen to be black, and, unfortunately, many more ignorant, misguided or bigoted people make matters harder than they'd be otherwise. I'm just tired of people blaming Obama for everything. He's made mistakes, but, he's done some good things, and he's smart and energetic and tackling every problem he can.

So, I urge the news media to lower expectations for Obama and raise them for Sarah Palin. Just tell the truth and we'll all be better off.

Can the Boston Celtics Shock the World?

2010-05-21T15:37:00.018-04:00

If, by chance, the Boston Celtics go on to defeat the Los Angeles Lakers in the NBA Finals to win the championship, it will be one of the most amazing sports stories in the past 50 years.

That's right. A Celtics title would be way up there on the list of extraordinary accomplishments for all team sports. I think basketball writers are waiting before they make claims like I just did. Many B-ball observers are still stunned the Celtics knocked off the Cleveland Cavaliers and are playing with a focus not seen for their entire season. Hey, I know millions of basketball fans hate the Celtics. They're still sick of them for assorted reasons.......but, no one can deny that the Celtics are on a unique path right now. They're doing something that happens about once every 20 years: They're playing MUCH better in the playoffs than they did all year - and, that feels like an understatement.

Sure, I've seen baseball teams play mediocre ball in September and go on to win the World Series, (Witness the New York Yankees, who did that about ten years ago) but, I'm sorry, folks: this Celtics' run is unlike anything I can remember as a sports fan. Why?

Because a few short weeks ago, the Celtics stunk. They stunk. They were playing horribly, and, worse, they appeared to be not even trying that hard. In fact, this Celtics team played a lot of bad games in their entire second half of the 2009-10 season. They lost to teams like the New Jersey Nets and had people scratching their heads or just plain disgusted.

Yet, at the same time, their "Big Three" of Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen were never all healthy at the same time. Garnett was a much less effective player for much of the year and talk radio callers were giving up on the Cs' chances. Pierce had an array of injuries and ailments. Rasheed Wallace, acquired in an off-season deal to bolster the team, played badly all year long.

Then, as spring came, there were a few signs that something "different" might be unfolding. Lebron James and the Cavaliers crushed the Celts in a regular season game, and, afterward, James remarked that the Celtics seemed "bored." People speculated they were waiting for the playoffs. They didn't seem to care about their regular-season record.

Coach Doc Rivers spoke about trying to conserve his veteran players's strength. Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy was in a tiny minority when, a couple of months ago, he predicted the Celts would "flip the switch" and end up winning the championship despite all the bad signs.

I don't always agree with Shaughnessy, but, I have to give him credit on that prediction right now.

The Celtics, so far, have defied all the odds. They've jarred the basketball media and fans who said they didn't have a prayer. First, they knocked off the Miami Heat. Then, in an incredible showing, they decisively defeated the Cavaliers and Lebron James. Rajon Rondo, the Celts' point guard, is showing the country what Boston fans have seen all year - i.e. That he's one of the best point guards in the NBA, and, to many, the Celtics' most valuable player -- ahead of Pierce, Garnett and shooting guard, Ray Allen.

I did not watch the Celtics for most of the season. I have not followed the NBA much since the Bird-Magic days. I think that games are often boring - as players make too many one-on-one moves or take three-point shots instead of passing the all around - which is so much more fun to watch. However, I watched enough of the Cs to know they were not that good a team in the second half.

I've been in awe of what the Celtics have showed in the playoffs so far. They look like a different team - and, I mean, different. I've felt like I'm having an hallucination. The Celtics are hungry, hustling and playing together more. How could they be THIS different?

Garnett somehow, some way, is playing by far his best basketball of the year. He improved despite his nagging knee injury. How often does a player improve significantly from the effects of an injury like that? Pierce, while not as consistent as in 2008, looks rejuventated and has played terrifically in some key playoff games. Ray Allen, who the Cs were considering trading a few months ago, is shooting as well as ever. Rondo is emerging as a unique point guard. Not only does he "quarterback" the team with fantastic on-court vision and decisionmaking, but he hustles in special ways: How many 6' 1" guards get as many big rebounds? Answer: I've never seen any guard at Rondo's height do this - ever.

The Celtics are playing with a zeal and focus for 48 minutes a game. They didn't come close to that all year. Obviously, the veterans want another ring badly and their younger teammates have the same "fever."

Reports have surfaced about "chemistry problems" that existed between the younger and older, veteran players on the team during the year. More specifically, the speculation has been that it took the veterans quite a while to hand over control of the team, in earnest, to Rondo.

Not only am I shocked the Celtics are on the verge of playing the Lakers in the Finals, but, I am shocked to be sitting here believing they have a chance. I do believe it now. I think it's still definitely against the odds. I think the Lakers have more talent and should win. But, this Celtic team is on a special mission - and, they may pull off an incredible upset.

That's one reason I love sports. I love when the underdog team wins. Yes, my favorite underdog win was the Red Sox 2004 comeback vs. the NY Yankees after they were down 0-3 and losing going into the 9th against Mariano Rivera.

I loved it when Kirk Gibson came off the bench to hit the heroic home run off Dennis Eckersley in the World Series. I loved it when Muhammad Ali knocked out George Foreman when no one gave him a chance. I loved it when the New England Patriots knocked off the St. Louis Rams in Tom Brady's first Super Bowl. I loved it when the 1967 Red Sox, after finishing in 9th place in 1966, had their "Impossible Dream" year and won the pennant on the last day of the season thanks to the non-stop heroics of Carl Yastrzemski and Jim Lonborg and then took the more talented St. Louis Cardinals, with Bob Gibson, to the 7th game of the World Series before losing.

I won't go on, but, I think people are not "getting it" about this Boston Celtic team. Despite all the Celtics' championships through the years and all their great players, this particular team, in many ways, has no business reaching the moment they're about to --- heading into the Finals.

This team doesn't have the youth, talent or consistency that other teams had in 2009-10. They have suddenly racheted up the quality of their play radically and are shutting down the league's best teams with their old smothering defense. The Celtics seem to be "turning back time."

If they go all the way, it will be one of the most improbable things I've ever seen in sports - period.

Media Continues Its Distorted Coverage of Sarah Palin

2010-04-14T20:14:00.028-04:00

This is how absurd American politics has become: I'm watching Chris Matthews' MSNBC show, Hardball, last Wednesday night. Matthews asked his guest, comedian Bill Maher, for his reaction to Sarah Palin these days.

Maher, in a serious reply, said he doesn't understand why the news media keeps treating Palin so seriously given that she's shown she's so unqualified. (for higher office).

Matthews then displayed his now-familiar contradictory treatment of Palin. First, he said things to imply that Palin was a legitimate story. He asked Maher how MSNBC could not cover Palin if she was drawing crowds to her rallies. (Maher caught Matthews off guard by saying he still thought the media should still not cover Palin).

Matthews laughed - as if Maher had said something outrageous .....but, in my view, Maher was right. Palin is so discredited that I don't care if she draws a crowd of right-wingers or Tea Party members. She's lost her credibility. She's said or done many things along her journey - from the 2008 presidential campaign to quitting as governor of Alaska to planning a "reality" show for FOX TV - that indicate she does not deserve to be taken seriously.

So, here was Bill Maher, a comic, displaying more common sense, truth-detecting, and, a journalistic outlook than Matthews. He seems to see Palin for who she is.

Then, Matthews, in the second part of his posture on Palin, spent the next few minutes sharing laughs with Maher about how paper-thin Palin's knowledge is on just about any topic. He said he got the impression that if Palin were asked any substantive questions on domestic or foreign policy topics, she'd be unable to discuss them in a knowledgeable, serious way. Maher agreed, adding he love to see Palin on the Jeopardy Show. He speculated she'd fail miserably. Matthews laughed away.

This little exchange between Matthews and Maher typifies the schizophrenic, inexcusable coverage of Palin since the 2008 presidential campaign.

The coverage seems to suggest, simultaneously that: 1) Palin is a largely discredited, former politician who a majority of Americans don't believe is qualified for higher office, but, 2) Despite that, Palin is an incredibly important public figure who we have to cover constantly - and, she may run for President someday.

What is this contradiction about? I've written about it before. The primary reason Palin is "covered" is because she attracts higher ratings - period. It's not because of her seriousness, her knowledge, her qualifications or her credibility. It's all about drawing viewers. (Her good looks and attention-grabbing little behaviors don't hurt, either)

So, the message here, in 2010, is: If you can get ratings, you're "in." You're hot. You have to be covered.

Think about others who follow this pattern: Glenn Beck certainly does. I refuse to watch him, but, from news accounts, he seems like an irresponsible jerk. Rush Limbaugh, for years, has been saying reckless, mean-spirited things that keep drawing attention, and, people keep rationalizing his excesses, as if to say "That's just Rush......." I could give other examples here. For example, the coverage of the Tea Party. The media doesn't seem to know what the Tea Party stands for - and, neither does the Tea Party.....but, as long as Tea Party figures - including Palin as a regular "guest spokeswoman," occasionally - provide "extreme" or "sensational" quotes or carry signs with hateful messages, it seems the media feels obligated to keep discussing this "movement."

Our Internet-dominated world - with multi-equipped cellphones and Blackberries and IPods and non-stop "news" -- has become so overloaded with information and "messages" that it seems both the news media and the public have lost perspective on the important distinction between news and entertainment. Sometimes, it seems, we hear more about American Idol than important international developments. There are so many "reality shows" that it makes some viewers, I fear, downplay the relevance of reality vs. fantasy. (No wonder Palin is planning a "reality" show. It makes sense, I guess....)

I believe our collective attention span as a society has gotten so low that people can gloss over or forget almost anything. Maybe that's why I've heard speculation that Eliot Spitzer is already contemplating a comeback in politics. It's been only two years, after all, that he was forced to resign as governor of New York when it was revealed he was a client in a prostitution ring. Former Vice President Richard Cheney regularly lambasted President Obama on his policies toward terrorism despite being a key player in the implementation of the US invasion of Iraq - an action that not only led to the unnecessary killing of thousands, but badly damaged the US' reputation throughout the world. Nevertheless, the media, instead of reminding audiences of Cheney's role in these matters, covered his "loaded" rhetoric in a straightforward way. In the end, Cheney was "entertaining." That was all that mattered.

Sometimes, I feel like collecting 50 or 75 examples of Sarah Palin's remarks or highlights of her actions and listing them chronologically in an article or blog in order to remind people of her flaws and limitations that so clearly disqualify her from serious consideration for higher office. These limitations should lead news media executives to choose to ignore her appearances.

I probably will gather those facts on Palin because I think it'd be a valuable exercise. If current trends continue, you and I will keep hearing about Palin in the years ahead - no matter how unimpressive she is.

One thing is clear, to me, at least: Palin is a creation of the media. She didn't "earn" her image. The media is responsible for her image, and, no matter what news executives or editors or reporters might say, it is the media who have chosen to not hold Palin accountable for all her mistakes, bad decisions, unsubstantiated or false remarks. So, if you're reading "news" stories in two years about how Palin has "emerged" as a compelling figure in American politics, just remember who propped her up and kept the "Palin fantasy" alive.

The days of Walter Cronkite saying "That's the way it is" are over. Things are, in fact, not as they appear to be in 2010.

Obama Should Remain Firm With Israel

2010-03-30T14:09:00.030-04:00

"US, Israel still at odds over Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem"

When I just read that headline on an April 8th A.P. story, I was more glad than upset.

Why? Because it indicates the Obama Administration, so far, is standing its ground in its position against Israel's plans to build new housing in East Jerusalem. That's refreshing because most U.S. presidents, after an episode such as this, give in to Israeli pressure and take the safe, easy way out. History suggests Obama, too, will, eventually, find his own way to be overly accommodating to Israel in the days ahead.

Yet, for the past several weeks, Obama has maintained his position - which appears justified, well-timed and one that sends an appropriate signal to Israel.

It was nearly a month ago that shortly after Vice President Joe Biden arrived in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced plans to build 1600 new housing units in East Jerusalem. Biden condemned Israel's announcement. Other Obama officials ripped Israel's move, thus kicking off a rift between the United States and Israel in recent weeks.

The Obama Administration has tried to persuade Netanyahu to halt new settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem in an effort to lay the groundwork for peace negoatiations with the Palestinians, who view these occupied territories - along with the Gaza Strip - as the site of their future state. Netanyahu disregarded the US wishes pertaining to the West Bank by restraining, but not fully freezing, new settlements, and, in recent weeks, has signaled no change in Israel's plans in East Jerusalem.

There are many reasons why Netanyahu's position is a troubling obstacle to peace. The largest, indisputable reason is that East Jerusalem is an occupied territory that Israel annexed after the 1967 war and that no other country has recognized it as part of Israel.

According to Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the UN Charter and UN Resolution 252, Israel's planned construction in East Jerusalem would be, in fact, illegal, because of East Jerusalem's "occupied" status. The reason many people aren't aware of that is that the mainstream media incorporates a regular bias in its coverage that is slanted toward Israel. Thus, in many references, articles have referred to Netanyahu's claim that Jerusalem is Israel's capital or defenders of Israel have tried to argue, lamely, that the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, passed by the US Congress, essentially states that Jerusalem shall be undivided.

The only problem is that while the US Congress approved the Jerusalem Embassy Act, which recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, that Act is not the foreign policy of the US. It has never been implemented by Presidents Clinton, Bush or Obama - and - as stated previously, it's not the policy of other countries across the world to recognize East Jerusalem as part of Israel.

So, Netanyahu's stubborn stance to build 1600 new units there is obstructionist - period. How can Netanyahu be regarded as interested in peace while he's openly, repeatedly thumbing his nose at the Palestinians, who see East Jerusalem as the potential capital of their new state? He's thumbing his nose at the Obama Administration, which has said, clearly, that Israel must halt its settlement policy as a precondition to peace talks. Further, Netanyahu, is, arrogantly, disregarding international law and policy that applies to East Jerusalem.

What's disturbing is that if one reviews media coverage, you'd never know that the UN and the Fourth Geneva Convention do not recognize East Jerusalem as part of Israel. Those who follow the Middle East know this, but, most people read about Netanyahu's claims and they don't understand how outrageously false and unfair they are. Journalists for many years seem to follow a ridiculous, ill-conceived practice of including "both sides" in their stories - even when there are not two sides. This story of planned new housing in East Jerusalem is a good example of this. Israel is out of line here. Israel has no good defense for its actions - besides dampening any hopes for a peace process. I don't think Netanyahu wants a serious peace process, anyway, do you?

What has troubled me is to witness the extent of criticism of President Obama's stance toward Israel on this housing issue. Apologists have said Obama went "way too far" in his response to Israel. The President met with Netanyahu in at the White House in March, and, reportedly left the discussions to be with his family while Netanyahu conferred with his staff on the lower level of the White House. Later, the two men met only briefly before Netanyahu left, and, apparently, reached no resolution of their dispute.

Good for Obama. Perhaps he can be firmer with Israel than his predecessors. I think he's chosen a good moment to stand up to Netanyahu, who has acted badly and provocatively.

In order to stand his ground, Obama will have to ignore the many irrational, pro-Israeli critics, who whine about every little slight or mistreatment they can identify. It's hard to understand why so many critics of Obama's team have chosen to defend Israel in light of Netanyahu's recent actions.

Some observers say the rift between the US and Israel is one of the worst in many years, but, I'd argue that it's critical for the US to maintain its position -- to send a signal to Israel and the rest of the world that it's trying a new approach in the Middle East.

Politicians and people must end the longstanding habit of remaining silent when Israel does something wrong. If Israel wants peace, it should reverse its housing plans in East Jerusalem.

I hope Obama keeps pushing for that because, while the standoff may delay progress, in the end, the only way genuine peace talks can happen is for Israel to get off its high horse, acknowledge realities on the ground and make a few concessions of its own.

The Cowardly, Ugly Outlook of Republicans

2010-03-23T17:18:00.028-04:00

I don't understand how anyone can be proud to be a Republican in this country today.

It's bad enough that the Republican Party stands for almost nothing good and constructive anymore. It has truly become "the Party of NO." Its leaders in the US House and Senate spend most of their time trying to undermine President Obama's agenda rather than offering proposals to help the country. Republicans are obsessed with attacking the federal government (that they were elected to serve and improve!). One of their only never-ending priorities is to propose cutting taxes -- which exemplifies their lack of leadership, initiative or backbone. Republicans show far too little compassion for people who need the most help.

Unfortunately, this pathetically empty agenda of Republicans is not even their worst feature.

No, their "low point" - on display the past two days - is allowing themselves to be associated with the ugly displays of hate, racism and division that some of their supporters have expressed in protests and demonstrations. Pockets of the Tea Party gathering, in Washington DC to protest the passage of health care reform, were in repulsive form the past few days as they carried signs with hateful messages, including one with President Obama with a Hitler mustache drawn on his face. More than one Tea Party member called Rep. John Lewis, (D-Ga) the n-word. One or more other Tea Party protesters called US Rep. Barney Frank, (D-Ma.) the f-word. Protesters spit on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver on the Capitol steps.

Some Republicans, on this occasion - like others - when asked, gave their opinion that these actions were out of line, but no Republican leader stepped up to a microphone to give important, somber remarks that loudly, clearly condemned the ugly remarks of the protesters. No one seems willing to blast the Tea Party - even though some of the Tea Party members absolutely have deserved to be ripped repeatedly for their outrageous, reckless, ugly actions in some of these protest gatherings during the past year. A chunk of them seem to come just to protest President Obama - period, and, yes, a segment, however small - seems to have had racist inclinations. This repulsive segment of the Tea Party has gotten incredibly soft treatment from the mainstream media, who keep treating the party as if it has serious, noble intentions. The Tea Party can't even seem to even articulate its purpose. All its members seem to know is they show up to put down the federal government and Barack Obama and anything that appears to be " a government takeover" even if, in fact, it is NOT that. They display no intelligence or thoughtfulness whatsoever. Why have they been given so much time on the TV news?

Well, one can find common threads between the narrowminded motives of Tea Party members and the comments of several of the leading, right-wing television and radio commentators since the US House voted to pass health care reform.

"We need to defeat these bastards," said Rush Limbaugh. "We need to wipe them out. Defeat the Democrats, every one of them who voted for this bill."

Yet, you never hear one Republican just rip into Limbaugh and call him the irresponsible windbag that he is. They're afraid of Limbaugh. What a joke! It's also a disgrace because they're seriously afraid of Limbaugh because they fear, criticizing him might lose them votes. All they care about is protecting their jobs and towing the reactionary line.

Limbaugh ripped Bart Stupak, (D-Mich) for reaching an agreement at the 11th hour with the Obama team that led to Stupak and several other anti-abortion US Representatives to vote for the health care bill as the result of Obama agreeing to sign an executive order saying that no federal funds would fund abortions. Limbaugh compared Stupak's vote to Neville Chamberlain's false assurances about winning a peace treaty with Hitler in 1938. That's really accurate, Rush!

Glenn Beck spewed out some typically reckless rants. He remarked, to Democrats, "Our master is common sense and God. I don't think right now you have either one on your side." Then, Beck said, in the fall elections, the choice will be: "Are you an American or are you a mouse? Are you and American or a European?"

Beck, as usual, was filled with words to inspire us and unite as -- in mature fashion.

On the floor of the House, someone yelled out "Babykiller" when Stupak was addressing his colleagues from the podium.

The problem with the Republicans is that there is a thin line between the more wild, crazy hateful behavior outside and the rhetoric used by some Republican members of the House and Senate inside. So, for instance, some Tea Party protesters outside of the Capitol pointedly shouted "You Lie" as a "rallying cry" that honored US Representative Joe Wilson's outburst at President Obama during the State of the Union. They're rallying around a guy who showed gross disrespect for the President in an unprecedented way. What terrific taste, Tea Party members! How stupid you are! How repugnant you are!

Meanwhile, a hanfuld of Republican US congressional members could be seen in television news footage waving to the Tea Party protesters and "urging them on" from the top roof-level at the US Capitol.

So, where were the Republican leaders to condemn these outrageous actions on the periphery of their work in the Capitol? Like I said, they commented only if reporters found them. Meanwhile, Republican leaders were not exactly exhibiting good sportsmanship and class.

Senator John McCain, the Republicans' unsuccessful presidential nominee in 2008, exuded leadership with this remark:

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during a radio interview Monday. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

Gosh, that's great, Senator. At least you're being open and straightforward about your intentions to not try to get anything done now. His constituents should vote McCain out of office for such an irresponsible remark. (No, I'm not expecting that!)

How about Mitt Romney, another Republican presidential candidate in 2008? What did he have to say? Romney, in typical Republican understatement, called the health care reform bill "an unconscionable abuse of power." An abuse of power. No, Mitt, go back to your dictionary on this: The Watergate coverup was an abuse of power. Dick Cheney engaged in more than one "abuse of power," but, the Democrats' winning an open vote is what happens in a democracy.
A democracy that elected Barack Obama, who campaigned to fight for health care reform.

I could go on and on. I could mention the Tea Party signs calling Obama's reforms "Socialism"
Or, the never-ending attempts of Tea Party members and other right-wing nuts, including some racists, to create fear and anxiety around Obama. I wonder why this "new" group of white protesters has appeared out of the blue in the past 18 months to protest any initiative of President Obama's? Why do they have an anger - an inflamed, sour mood as they hold these protests? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that at least a few racists are able to have some influence. Otherwise, why would ugly signs show up? Why would ugly remarks get made?

Enough! I am sick of it. I wish the rest of us could start a movement to put these Tea Party protesters and their Republican "enablers" in their place.

It's time to put the reckless segment among these protesters in their place. The police need to be on alert and prevent any potential violence. And, it'd help if the network news stopped treating them as if they're serious. They have not earned the right to be treated seriously

Obama Seems a Pushover. That Needs to Change

2010-03-11T20:58:00.020-05:00

I have not wanted to believe this about Barack Obama, but, it seems he doesn't know how to assert himself. He surely doesn't act assertive enough publicly for a President of the United States.

Hey, I don't know what goes on behind closed doors at the White House. Maybe Obama sends strong signals to his advisors and all the people he sees every day. I'm still in the first part of Game Change, so, perhaps I'll find get new glimpses of his personality by the time I finish it.

But, I've run out of patience waiting for Obama to show signs that he can tell people off. That he can say "No" - and mean it - to a constituency. That he can strongly disagree with someone or some group - and stick to his guns rather than waffle or backtrack.

When does Obama mean business? When does he show he's so strong in his convictions that he will not give in on principle?

When is there a consequence to someone publicly disregarding Obama, verbally attacking Obama or acting in ways to hurt Obama's presidency? I haven't seen such consequences initiated by Obama.

I'd like to learn, just once, that Obama's response to hearing some unfair, untrue, but damaging remark by a politician is to snap back and call that person on the carpet! Obama knows how to debate. Does he think it's "undignified" for him to defend himself and hold someone else accountable? Whatever his inhibitions are, he simply doesn't do it.

What's troubling is that we saw rather glaring signs of this Obama tendency during the 2008 presidential campaign. Time after time, one of his opponents would make reckless, deceitful remarks about Obama or his record, and Obama would wait.....and wait.....and wait until either several days or a week would pass, and, much damage had been done. If Obama had responded quickly and strongly to some of these attacks - including a regular barrage of misleading content spewed by Hillary Clinton's campaign - he'd have done better, I think. In fact, I'd argue he might have finished Clinton off a bit earlier in the primaries and slowed some of the shallow, unjustified media celebration of Sarah Palin supposedly "lifting" John McCain's campaign.

Obama, instead, plodded along and won a remarkable race - in his own way. He let a lot of the most reckless attacks go. (Remember all the harping about William Ayers, for example?)

But, now, Obama is President and his campaign persona is not serving him as well over time. He seems too soft, too "agreeable," too malleable, more diplomatic than Presidential.

Obama and his team don't "get it" -- yet. Obama has to act more in charge. He has to tell people what to do and what will happen rather than acting so passive - as if he's swept up in Washington forces beyond his control. Plus, he must act like he's unafraid to alienate and anger interest groups, institutions, powerful individuals and people he knows well. He can show that to us by not only being more decisive, but, when he encounters partisan bickering, whining responses or reckless remarks, he can speak up - with force - and say, "I disagree with you and here's why: Boom, boom, boom" If you want to debate it, I challenge you......I'm confident my approach will work and I intend to convince the Congress of that.....Meanwhile, I ask you to stop making unsubstantiated, thoughtless remarks. They help no one."

OK...I'm fantasizing a bit here, but, Obama doesn't seem to realize that if he creates an appearance that other people can push him around, there are damaging ramifications to that image. People like to think their President will stand up for himself, and, refuse to take too much crap from others. Remember Ronald Reagan? Like him or not, the Gipper created an aura that he knew how to say NO and did it his way.

I ask you: During the completely out-of-control health care debate, did Obama display leadership, particularly a capacity to stand up for himself and his beliefs? He was awful in that regard! People, organizations, the right-wing attacked him relentlessly for months - especially last summer, when the Tea Party crowd got intense and ugly. Obama must have thought he'd benefit by taking the "high road" again. He said far too little -- and the health care bill essentially got taken over by others.

Even with simple things, Obama lets himself look weak. Recently, he made a big deal of anouuncing a deadline for the US Senate to take their big vote on the health care bill. Shortly afterward, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicated she didn't agree on the deadline and that more time may be necessary. For several days, this difference lingered publicly. Doesn't the Obama team realize that Pelosi undercuts him by doing that? Why don't they tell her to stop doing that?

I realize Obama's team cannot control everyone and everything, but this sort of disagreement on the timing of health care votes has happened before - and hurt Obama. If Obama does not know how to run a tight ship, then he should bring in some seasoned Washington veterans to help him do it. It's silly to see Pelosi or Reid, who are supposed be "allies," undercut the President's cause.

Obama's failure to assert himself has shown up in virtually every setting and context. First, Obama has not let us see him acting decisively in his own White House. Second, he has come off as a weak pushover in his relationship with the US House and Senate. Obama has allowed a perception to build - probably accurate - that he fails to lead the Congress, that Representatives and Senators often do not take him seriously. They seem to lack respect for him and their loyalty to him seems limited - even in such a short time. Members of Congress seem to feel they can do and say whatever they want - without consequences or fallout from the Obama Administration. They do not fear President Obama.

I'm not advocating government by fear. I just sense that Obama should be concerned about his authority and clout appearing this diminished this early in his first term.

Look at other examples.

Have we heard of anecdotes about the President taking firm positions and holding people accountable with regard to his own Cabinet secretaries or members of his staff? Can somebody tell me when that has happened, in a significant way, during his first 15 months as President?
How can so many stories appear recently that raised questions about Rahm Emanuel and his role as chief of staff without anyone from the Obama team weighing in? Some views associated with Emanuel in these articles made Obama look bad, but, again, there was silence. I think Obama would've benefited by saying something assertive.
I'm not focusing just on his staff. In the debate on financial regulation, has Obama warned banking executives or CEOs of the consequences of they're repeating reckless, selfish activities such as giving themselves bonsues,etc? It seems all I've read about is corporate executives ignoring the Administration and Congress and doing whatever they please - even after the economy was on the verge of collapse last year. And why isn't Obama more vocal in insisting that financial regulation legislation stay strong rather than get watered down and weakened by Congressional committees? Where is Obama's backbone here?
On Afghanistan: I liked Obama's careful deliberations before his decision to send 30,000 additional troops - which I totally opposed, but, what's striking is that Obama - again - didn't let us see how he led on this matter. What we saw was General McCrystal irresponsibly make public remarks about why the Administration had to send troops. Then we heard Obama met with McCrystal, but, Obama team chose to keep that private. Then, Obama made his decision, which pleased McCrystal. Then, within days of Obama's big speech on Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made public remarks about how - in actuality, the troops probably would not come home as soon as the President said. Obama, meanwhile, said nothing. He appeared much weaker than he realized. It seemed Gates and Clinton were speaking with more authority than Obama. How could the President and his team not "get" that?
With Iran, Obama advocated engagement. Then, he talked tough when he learned Iran was proceeding with development of its nuclear capacity, but, in recent months, what has Obama said or done to send a clear, forceful signal of the US position on Iran? Yes, I know Clinton and others have made public remarks, but too long a period has passed, when, again, Obama has created an impression of passivity. Iran, meanwhile, has gotten itself in the news constantly in recent days. The image is that Iran is doing what it wants with no consequence whatsoever.
Obama has allowed this massive anti-government sentiment (in the US) to mushroom partly because he and his team have spent way too little time asserting how and why much of their proposed "government intervention" was necessary and is not a "government takeover." Similarly, the Administration has not asserted or demonstrated sufficiently how it will reduce the incredible debt it is contributing to through its programs.
Obama has been so wishy-washy on the Middle East that Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has taken advantage of him. Netanyahu has ignored US wishes by continuing to allow Israeli settlements to be established in occupied territories. When Israel announced recently that 1600 new homes were to be constructed in east Jerusalem at the same time Vice President Joe Biden arrived for a visit, it showed how unafraid Netanyahu is of Obama. Biden and Clinton have voiced appropriate criticisms of Israel's actions, but, now, with Israel whining that the response was too severe, already, there are signs of the Obama Administration capitulating. When is Obama going to put a stake in the ground and leave it there - even when it angers or disappoints someone like Netanyahu?

Sooner or later, I hope Obama realizes he must become more assertive. If not, I fear he'll lose his effectiveness and be voted out of office after only one term. I realize that Barack Obama may just not have the constitutional make-up to be more of a "street-fighter." But, I think he's trying to succeed in a way that may be impossible. He insists on putting out a publicly "harmonious" image even when there is often disharmony all around him. He keeps insisting on staying "in the middle" on issues and trying to split differences even when one side is more "right" than the other. He keeps talking about bipartisanship when the Republican Party only takes action after action to disrupt and destroy his presidency.

It's time for Obama to make large adjustments. If he doesn't have the personality to take on more of his adversaries, then he should bring in some new allies who can do if for him.

I think that's the way Obama should go -- to hire a new top advisor (or two or three) to help him manage his vast agenda so that he can address "the big picture." Obama is so multi-talented that - like Bill Clinton - he can involve himself in the micro and macro aspects of his job; however, Obama has shown his greatest talents are in handling the "big picture" aspects of leadership. When Obama gave his big speech in Cairo, for example. He is outstanding when he paints in his broadest strokes and looks at how countries and peoples and purpose are all interwoven.

Obama has said he admired how Reagan influenced public attitudes and effected change - even though he differed with him politically. Well, Reagan had some top staff around him that knew how to manage the White House.

I think Obama needs new help in his inner circle. Hell, he needs help in simply learning how to assert himself.

Why didn't Braintree Police tell the rest of the story?

2010-03-04T00:19:00.100-05:00

Two cops who worked for the Braintree police department back on Dec. 6, 1986 have completely different versions of what happened that day, when Amy Bishop was brought in for questioning after she shot and killed her younger, teenage brother, Seth.

One of the cops was involved in capturing Bishop after she fled from her home, the scene of the shooting. His name is Ron Solimini. His version seems believable.

The other cop was the Chief of the Braintree police at the time. His name is John Polio. His version, which has included a few variations in recent news reports, seems very hard to believe.

The extent to which these two cops' stories differ illustrates how large and disturbing a gap remains at the core of the accounts of how the Braintree police responded in 1986. Indeed, it helps explain why Norfolk District Attorney William Keating recently requested that Quincy District Court Judge Mark Coven conduct an inquest into Seth Bishop's death.

Ron Solimini is a Braintree cop who, with fellow cop Timothy Murphy, apprehended and handcuffed Amy Bishop soon after she had shot and killed her younger brother, Seth on Dec. 6, 1986. Minutes earlier, Bishiop had pointed her shotgun at two employees of a nearby auto dealership's auto body shop and demanded a getaway car. Solimini wrote a police report that described how he and Murphy captured Bishop. After Solimini returned to the police station, his lawyer told reporters recently, he recalled that Braintree police Lt. James Sullivan, who was questioning Bishop, had received a phone call and was told by the police chief, or, a commanding officer, to release Bishop without any charges. It appeared that police higher-ups had concluded that Seth Bishop's death was "accidental."

John Polio, now 87, is the former police chief who was in charge that day. He says he didn't know anything about Bishop's wild, gun-wielding actions that followed her killing her brother. In fact, Polio says he knew nothing about that disturbing sequence of events until just recently - in 2010, when he read the police reports for the first time. So, he's claiming, for the past 23 years, he knew nothing about what Bishop did after fleeing from her home. Polio has also denied that he halted the questioning of Bishop back on Dec. 6, 1986 or that he released her. In one account, he said Capt. Theodore Buker released Bishop. Yet, Solimini recalled Amy's mother, Judy, arriving at the station and asking to speak to Polio minutes before Bishop was ordered released.

How could Polio have been unaware of Solimini's account of what happened? It makes no sense.

Polio is suggesting that Solimini and Murphy's catching of Bishop was never communicated to him in any way - either by the two cops themselves or anyone else in his police department. How could, he, the chief, not be updated on the pursuit of Bishop? How could he not be told that Bishop pointed a loaded shotgun at two of his own cops?

Polio was quoted in a February, 2010 newspaper article as claiming he also knew nothing about Bishop pulling her shotgun on Thomas Pettigrew, one of two men at an auto dealership shortly after killing her brother. Pettigrew was interviewed a few weeks ago in Boston television news reports.

"All of this is new to me," Polio told the Patriot Ledger in a Feb. 16th article. "If it did happen, why didn't anyone come forward in 1986?"

Well, that's not only embarrassing, but, astounding given that his own cops "came forward" when they returned to the police department with Bishop in handcuffs. They wrote about what happened in their police report, including Bishop's pulling her gun on the auto shop employees.

Of course, Polio, mysteriously, says he never read the police reports - until just recently (in 2010), when they were found - after a search - by current Braintree cops. They had been "missing" for about 23 years.

Perhaps we'll get a better explanation after the inquest of this case is held. But the potential consequence of the Braintree police "overlooking" Amy Bishop's gun-wielding actions after she fled from her home are enormous. Keating said recently he would have charged Bishop for (her actions at the auto dealership) assault with a dangerous weapon, unlawful possession of a gun and illegal possession of ammunition. Maybe these charges would've impacted Bishop, and, somehow prevented the path that led her to kill her University of Alabama colleagues many years later.

Further, why would the Braintree police not consider what Bishop's post-shooting "rampage," said about her "state of mind" relative to shooting Seth? Maybe she was primarily "troubled mentally," but, then again, she was seeking a getaway car and threatening violence.

Bishop, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, is now in jail after being charged with killing three of her colleagues and seriously injuring three others after opening fire at a Feb. 12th faculty meeting.

The puzzle of how and why the accounts of Solimini and Polio vary to such an extreme was on display when Braintree Police Chief Paul Frazier, held a press conference a few days after Bishop's murder of her colleagues in Alabama.

"I don't want to use the word 'cover-up,' but I don't know what the thought process was of the police chief at the time," Frazier said.

Frazier, in unusually candid comments, said that members of the Braintree police back in 1986 were "not happy" with the decision to release Bishop on Dec. 6, 1986.

Solimini's lawyer, Frank MGee, recently went further when he said Solimini "just feels that looking back on it, even today, nobody would ever walk out of a station having shot and killed somebody without some further investigation."

Yet, under Polio's leadership, the police openly seemed to put the interests of Amy Bishop and her family ahead of seeking and sharing the truth about her shooting her brother. The police seemed in a rush to let Bishop walk away free on Dec. 6, 1986, and then, in no rush at all to continue their interview of Amy. The Braintree police allowed 11 days to pass before asking Amy and her family members more questions about Amy's killing her brother.

One of those participating in that interview was State Trooper Brian Howe, whose "jurisdiction" included being "on call" to assist the Braintree police on a case such as Seth Bishop's shooting. Howe's report, completed in late March, 1987, included no mention of any of Amy Bishop's actions that followed her killing Seth.

Howe said recently he knew nothing about Bishop pulling a gun on people after she shot Seth. He said that despite his requesting Braintree police reports, Braintree P.D. never provided him any. He wrote his report based on "the word" of the Braintree police and concluded Seth Bishop's death was "accidental".

Indeed, Howe's report fails to address many unanswered questions about the shooting and the police response to it. Howe's report, in fact, prompts additional questions. For example, Howe said that a Braintree police captain told him that Bishop was too emotional to answer questions after the shooting, but Keating said his recent probe revealed that Bishop was "calm, collected and answering questions," according to the Feb. 26th Patriot Ledger. Plus, Lt. James Sullivan, who was questioning Bishop, did not mention Bishop's emotional state then, the Ledger reported.

"I think it's a valid conclusion that they did not give me the reports for a reason," Howe told the Boston Globe, in an article published March 2nd.

Many have criticized Howe for not going to the scene of the shooting and for not reviewing the local police reports. Howe, apparently, didn't interview Solimini.

Likewise, the Norfolk District Attorney's office has been criticized for doing virtually nothing to probe the matter.

Frazier, at his February, 2010 press conference, admitted that the story he had just learned was "a far different story" than what was reported back then." (in 1986)

A reporter asked Frazier if one should conclude that the version given (to the press or public) back in 1986 was "fabricated."

"I would have to see the story," Frazier replied, "but, from what I'm hearing, it's not accurate."

That is, unfortunately, an understatement. The Braintree police didn't let the true, full story out back in 1986. Let's hope we get the accurate story someday.

Mystery Abounds in the Amy Bishop Case

2010-02-24T22:05:00.058-05:00

I do not follow 99 out of 100 murder stories, but I'm now following every single development in the bizarre, "Hitchcock-type" case of Amy Bishop. This true tale is as gripping as it is disturbing.

Bishop, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, is charged with killing three of her colleagues and seriously injuring three others after opening fire at a Feb. 12th faculty meeting. This shocking event feels even more tragic when one learns more about Amy Bishop's past, and, gets a real impression that her life might have unfolded very differently if people - particularly certain police officers - had treated her differently many years ago.

I'm referring mainly to the alarmingly inept and mysterious response of the Braintree, MA. police (and the state police detective involved) back in 1986, after Bishop had shot and killed her teenage brother, Seth, at their home in Braintree. The Braintree police made an irresponsibly quick determination that it was an "accidental" death without completing a thorough investigation. They released Bishop a few hours after the shooting even though she had left the scene and pulled her shotgun on two citizens and a Braintreee police officer before, finally, surrendering to police.

On Feb. 25th, Norfolk County district attorney William Keating, thankfully, requested that an inquest be conducted into the death of Seth Bishop and said it's possible the process might lead to a homicide charge against Amy. Hopefully, the inquest will help explain large, inexcusable gaps in the police's public accounting - so far- of their treatment of Amy Biship.
Meanwhile, when I read a few of the public police reports done after Seth Bishop's death in 1986, I was amazed to learn how many puzzling, troubling pieces of the story exist beyond the parts of the story that have become known.

The following are just ten points - among many - about this 1986 incident and the police response to it - that I think are noteworthy, and, have been overlooked in news stories:

1. Amy Bishop, in an interview with Braintree police, said that immediately after shooting her brother, she left her home without knowing she had shot and killed him. According to the March 30, 1987 report written by State Trooper Brian Howe, Amy Biship "thought she had ruined the kitchen, but was not aware of the fact that she had struck her brother with the shotgun discharge."

Huh? I guess Amy could've been traumatized and blotted that out, but, it seems beyond belief that even a mentally ill or shocked human being could be unaware whether her gunshot had hit her brother who was in close proximity.

2. Just prior to killing her brother, Amy apparently fired one shot from the same shotgun while in her room upstairs and later, police found a bullet hole in the wall. In an interview Dec. 17, 1986, Amy's mother, Judy, was asked if she'd heard any shots from the upstairs prior to Amy shooting her brother, and she said no, "but, she believed that the house was relatively well sound-proofed and that such a discharge would not necessarily be heard on another floor of the house."

What? How could anyone NOT hear a shotgun blast from upstairs? And, then choose that moment to assert how "soundproof" the house is?

3. Amy Bishop, immediately after shooting her brother, went to an auto dealership not far away and pointed her gun at two employees and demanded a car. Shortly after that, two Braintree police officers apprehended her near a local store. A police report stated that while one cop tried to reason with Amy and asked her to drop her rifle, the other police officer drew his revolver and "yelled three times for her to 'Drop the rifle' and after the third time, she did." In a Feb. 24th Boston Herald column, one of those two officers recounted how Bishop had pointed her shotgun at him.

4. The police took Amy back to the Braintree police station and were in the process of interviewing her about the shooting of her brother when suddenly their interview was cut short. There are at least two different versions as to exactly how it was stopped.
In one version, one of the cops, Lt. John Sullivan, wrote a report stating that he asked Amy questions, and, then, his report stated: "I asked her if she shot her brother on purpose and she said no." At that point, her mother came into the booking room with Sgt. Brady and mother said she didn't want her to make any further statement or be asked any more questions.." Amy agreed and Lt. Sullivan left to consult with other police. It was determined no charges would be brought against Amy.
In the other version, current Braintree Chief Paul Frazier said he was told recently that the then-lieutenant reponsible for booking Bishop received a phone call from Chief John Polio, or, someone calling on his behalf, requesting the booking to stop. Then, Amy was released to her mother and they left.

This outcome was unacceptable. The police put the Bishops' wishes ahead of their investigation.

5. State Police Trooper Howe, in his March, 1987 report, said that due to the "highly emotional state" of Amy Bishop after she was brought to the police station, it had been impossible to question her; hence, she was released to her mother. Howe, continuing in his report, stated that it was decided to arrange interviews at a later time, "allowing witnesses a sufficient time to stabilize their emotions."

So, allowing Amy (or, perhaps her mother) to calm down was viewed, apparently, as more urgent than getting to the truth and/or, getting Amy an appropriate psychiatric evaluation and treatment. If the police were so struck by and concerned with Amy's emotional state, why would they not try to transport her to a facility where she could receive urgently-needed help, and, they'd be taking an appropriate step to further their investigation.

6. The Braintree police then, for unknown reasons, waited 11 days before interviewing Amy Bsihsop and her mother, the only witness to the shooting.

Was this because the cops simply & blatantly decided to accept Judy Bishop's explanation of Amy's "accidental" shooting without checking facts? Or, were other factors involved?

7. Braintree's chief of police in 1986, Ron Polio, has said recently he was unaware that Amy had pointed her gun toward two auto dealership employees or at his own police officers after she had shot her brother. Polio said he first learned about these actions by Amy when he first read the police reports within the past few weeks -- 23 years later. While Polio has recently spoken to reporters on a few occasions, he has failed to clearly explain how things got so messed up on his watch in Braintree.

How could his own cops - including two who put themselves in jeopardy to catch Amy at gunpoint - know about Amy's reckless actions without him knowing? Or, was he choosing to disregard Amy's behavior - perhaps for reasons not yet known?

8. It turns out Polio isn't the only law enforcement official who's claiming he never knew about Amy Bishop's pointing her gun at others after shooting her brother. The state trooper who wrote the March, 1987 report, Brian Howe, for still-unknown reasons, never included any information about this entire part of Amy Bishop's activities on Dec. 6, 1986.

Howe, now retired, has said virtually nothing in recent weeks. Delahunt said his office didn't know about Amy's other actions, but, this is hard to fathom given that Howe, who was Delahunt's office's liaison to Braintree, had worked with Braintree cops in investigating Seth Bishop's death. Interestingly, the Patriot Ledger, in its initial report of Seth's death, mentioned nothing about Amy's behavior after the shooting.

9) The police reports from the scene later were "missing" for 23 years; they turned up only in recent days in Braintree after Bishop's arrest for murder in Alabama.

10) In the newspaper reporting of recent weeks, there have been at least two references to the point that the decision to release Amy Bishop did not sit well with police in the department back in 1986.

Perhaps certain dissatisfied police officers wanted to talk to the press or public, but were "discouraged" from doing so? No one knows. No one has really opened up on all this.

................................................................................................................................................

There are many more unanwered questions about this 1986 shooting and I hope the inquest will cause more of the truth to surface. Right now, we know that the Braintree police failed to do their job properly. Maybe we'll learn more in the future about why and how that happened. Relatives and friends of the victims of Amy Bishop's Feb., 2010 killing of her colleagues at the University of Alabama in Huntsville might always wonder about what caused the apparent police negligence in Braintree.

Milbank Column On Emanuel Offers Rare Glimpse

2010-02-22T14:56:00.033-05:00

Dana Milbank's February 21st Washington Post column defending White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel must have created a considerable stir among those in the President's inner circle and those who report on it.

Milbank not only makes a provocative argument that, despite his critics, Emanuel has been an invaluable influence on President Obama, who, Milbank says, has been hurt by not following more of Emanuels' advice, but Milbank goes further. Milbank includes a damaging characterization of Obama's other top advisors leaving readers to wonder just what is going on between Emanuel and his colleagues.

First, the column says:

"..Obama's first year fell apart in large part because he didn't follow his chief of staff's advice on crucial matters," wrote Milbank. "Arguably, Emanuel is the only person keeping Obama from becoming Jimmy Carter."

Milbank's piece, titled Why Obama needs Rahm at the top, argues that one reason Emanuel helps Obama is that while Obama is "airy and idealistic," Emanuel is "earthy and calculating."

Milbank says that Obama should have followed Emanuel's advice against trying to close Guantanamo Bay prision within a year; taken Emanuel's advice opposing scheduling a trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York, and, perhaps most significant, followed Emanuel's recommendatation to split the health care reform bill into smaller bills - which would've had a much better chance for passage - rather than combining all elements into a larger less popular bill.

However, the point that likely shook things up in the Obama White House was this Milbank line:

"Obama's problem is that his other confidants - particularly Valerie Jarrett and Robert Gibbs, and, to a lesser extent, David Axelrod - are part of the Cult of Obama. In love with the president, they believe he is a transformational figure who needn't dirty his hands in politics..."

So, what the hell is going on here? Well, first, some perspective is essential. It's important to note that, for whatever the reasons, there have been remarkably few penetrating articles - like this column - about President Obama's inner circle. I refer not to "puff pieces" or features on the individual players, but, rather, articles that attempt to report on the dynamics and interplay between the advisors. During most administrations, by the time the President's first year has passed, there have been many articles that attempt to analyze the President's decisionmaking process and who plays what critical role among his top advisors.

Astonishing as it is, no one, still, really knows how Obama and his team make their biggest decisions. How does Obama get advice? Who does he trust most - across the board? Who does he rely on for various p0licy areas or kinds of situations? How do his top advisors get along?

Further, how does Emanuel fit into all this? Usually, the chief of staff has enormous influence over who gets access to the President; hence, Emanuel's personal relationships with the other top advisors are likely to swing things.

Which brings us back to Milbank's column. Why, after a year of discipline to keep things private, why is Milbank suddenly writing a piece that appears could have been written by Emanuel himself? Milbank denies talking to Emanuel for the column, but, his piece seemed to suggest Milbank had some first-hand familiarity with the subject.

So, I wonder how President Obama reacted to the column. Is it possible that our ever-serene President actually took Rahm to the woodshed over this? I doubt it. I bet Emanuel gave his version to Obama, who listened cooly before making a remark or two indicating his dissatisfaction. But, who knows? I wish we had a sense of this side of Obama. How does he feel about the loyalty of Emanuel or his other top advisors>

Let's face it: If, by chance, Obama cannot handle or lead his top advisors - including Emanuel - effectively - it bodes very poorly for the rest of his Presidency. Let's hope that's not so.

Emanuel had a reputation from Day One; he had a big ego; he could be a jerk at times; he was a no-nonsense, direct talker; he was a sharp strategist who knew Congress extremely well. Some believed he'd be capable of bringing some control and clout to the White House staff.

Who knows how he's fared? The extent to which he agrees of disagrees with Obama day-to-day or week-to week on policy, on approach, on strategy, on which people to work with or not

I've read many stories that suggested Emanuel has played a substantial role in trying to carry Obama's message or signals during the battle over health care reform to his former colleagues in the US House of Representatives or the US Senate. Emanuel has been described as the US Congress' key liaison to the White House, but, each time I've read these references, they've caused me concern. How can Emanuel be a good liaison to Congress while managing his duties as chief of staff? My own answer is: He couldn't do both well, really......and, while I know the White House has had other people performing that liaison function, all the focus has been on Emanuel.

It seems, at times, Emanuel alienates some members of Congress along the way. Should he even be in this role of spending time on Congressional matters? Well, my answer is conditional: He should be doing it only if the President and he have really been on the same page and communicating well about all matters relating to health care. I doubt that has been true.

This brings me my response to Milbank's other major point: That Jarrett, Gibbs and Axelrod have an inflated view of Obama and that this colors their entire treatment of him. My impression of the Obama White House, at this point, is that, yes, in fact, not enough of his advisors are speaking the truth to him about how he comes across and other matters. You get a sense that Obama desparately needs some plain, blunt talk from his advisors, best friends and family. Someone should tell him he's overexposed, for instance. Someone should tell him that when he makes a typical public appearance, he talks too long - period. Someone should tell him to stop making so many appearances across the country and to stop doing media interviews, but, when he does, they should add, he should stop coming across like he's "lecturing" or explaining his positions. He has to loosen up and describe his outlook more - to humanize his image.

I hope there are many more articles and columns like Dana Milbank's in the weeks aheaad. We all should know a bit more about how Obama makes decisions with his inner circle. The less it's a secret, the more it'll let people feel they know Obama a bit better, and he, needs to be better understood right now.

I'll go further by saying I hope Obama and his team leak exchanges from occasional meetings they participate in. Why? To give us examples of how Obama leads and how he runs meetings. People, after one year, still feel they don't know this young President. His irrational, irresponsible right-wing critics have painted a distorted portrait of him.

It's time for Obama and his closest staff to open up more. I give Dana Milbank credit for writing one column that shares his insight and opinions about how things have worked out with Emanuel and Obama. It might inspire more pieces like it - and we'd all benefit from it.

If a bit more reporting on the inner circle happens, I think it'd help the White House. If Obama's team keeps avoiding that coverage, one would have to ask: What are they trying to hide?

Obama Needs to Act More and Talk Less

2010-01-31T23:15:00.028-05:00

To say that President Obama is "over-exposed" now - in Feb. 2010 - feels like a joke. It's an incredible understatement.

When is Obama going to stop talking to us? To reduce his campaign-style appearances each week? To reduce his seeming, non-stop availabilities to the media? To turn down a request for an interview with a network news show?

Obama's very high visibility has not only gotten ridiculous, but, I think it's hurting his presidency. I like Obama and I'm sick of seeing him! He has diminished the value of his public appearances by making them so frequently.

In fact, when I hear a White House correspondent utter a phrase like "Obama will be out pushing for health care reform....," my reaction now is to groan and wish he'd simply stay in the White House. I find it hard to believe that Obama and his team still think his constant appearances crusading for health care do the slightest good; the evidence is to the contrary. Any potential reform bill -- which will be watered-down and unambitious now - is dangling by a thread, with a huge risk of rejection. The Obama White House should de-emphasize their internal polls and apply common sense.

The American people want results right now. It's a rough time. Talk feels even more "cheap" and meaningless than usual.

There's another, more troubling aspect to this: Obama actually does seem too impressed with himself and his impact on people, in general. I didn't want to believe this, but, now, I've seen enough. Obama's top advisors seem to share this outlook, which I will not yet label "delusional," but, the symptoms need to fade away or I'm going to wonder who's perceiving a sufficient dose of reality in the White House.

There are many examples, but I'll cite one: Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. The White House line afterward was that Brown was tapping into the same voter anger that Obama had tapped into during his 2008 presidential campaign. No, sorry, White House folks, but independents in Massachusetts were angry at YOU and how YOU'RE approaching things. You represent "The Government" now and "the country's direction," in general.

Now, I think Obama, David Axelrod, Rahm Emanuel and company are too intelligent to deny realities on the ground - and, perhaps their spin about Brown is strategic, but, it reflects a year-long tendency to be too slow to respond to public concerns that have deepened, and, evolved into anger and disgust with the Administration's approach. Much of the concern, it seems, is that the government is doing too much, spending too much and taking control of too many things.

How can this Administration have NOT picked up more on the obvious anti-government sentiment bubbling across this country? Yes, a chunk of it is unfairly and irrationally being directed at Obama, when, in fact, Obama HAD to get an economic stimulus passed and HAD to oversee government intervention with the banks and auto industry. But the sentiment is real.

I think the White House's overemphasis on the President's role as The Promoter, The Explainer, The Talker Who Can Provide Answers On Every Topic is a large part of the problem. Obama needs to stay in the Oval Office more. His team needs to expand and add some good experts who can also speak publicly on topics. (people NOT like Tim Geithner or Larry Summers) And, this White House - as I've said for a year - needs to find good "surrogates," or allies, who will serve as excellent spokespeople for the Administration's agenda. It should not always be Barack Obama doing the speaking!!!!!

Back in September, I wrote about Obama's overexposure and I quoted a piece by Howard Fineman of Newsweek, who observed that Obama seemed too impressed by the impact of his mere presence on the stage.

Fineman, in the Feb. 8, 2010 Newsweek, is still writing insightfully on this topic.

"...Most Americans like Obama as a person, and most want him to succeed as a president. But he has to remember that he's supposed to be a character in our story -- not the other way around...Unlike his perfectly placed memoirs, Obama's presidency is not a narrative whose plot he can dictate, or even control..."

I think Fineman is on the money. Obama and his team seem to have an inflated view of the President's capacities. When will it sink in with this team that Obama's appearances do NOT help solve real problems that their White House must tackle? I think people are "on" to the fact that Obama's oratory, while often terrific, may or may not be followed up with action.

In fact, it's in the area of taking ACTION that Obama seems to need the most help. He needs some "field generals" making the rounds on Capitol Hill, talking to members of the US Congress, staying in touch, and trying to maintain support for the White House's legislative priorities.

One would think - after the Administration's disastrous approach toward health care reform - that they'd try radically new approaches -- with new people in key assignments - at the start of 2010. The only step resembling this was the Obama team bringing back David Plouffe, former campaign manager in 2008, to oversee the Democratic National Committee's political handling of the 2010 congressional elections. But, I hope Plouffe ends up assisting in the White House more than focusing on elections.

What concerns me about Obama is that, after only a year, he's showing a few signs of distancing himself from the public - from realities in everyone's day-to-day world. I get a sense he's spending so much time around pollsters, policy wonks, military officials, and politicians when, he might benefit from hanging out at some bars, department stores and grocery stores and listen to what real people are saying. Example: Obama waited for months before he spelled out his Afghanistan policy and decision to send in 30,000 additional troops, but, in his announcement speech, he left out some basic, central facts -- as if to suggest "Well, they'll get the idea - It only matters if me and my team know what's really going on..." So, Obama never explained sufficiently why the US was sending all the troops to a country where Al Quaeda was no longer located. He didn't even try to explain large factors relating to Pakistan.

I hope Obama is not on a slippery slope of becoming more and more out of touch. What's ironic though is that when he goes out on his weekly "campaign" appearances to different parts of the country, he'd benefit more by going into the crowd and just listening rather than lecturing from the stage.

Obama needs to get off the stage - and stay off for a while. Then, when he returned, he could talk about what he'd gotten done in the intervening months. His appearance would have more value again.

Howard Zinn's Death

2010-01-30T21:54:00.050-05:00

I haven't had many heroes during my adult life, but Howard Zinn was one of them.

Zinn died from a heart attack last week at the age of 87. The world doesn't feel quite the same without this truly extraordinary man.

A radical with a bold, original, alternative take on American history. An outstanding professor. A longtime, quintessential activist who never stopped fighting for social justice. A naturally captivating speaker - whether at a huge outdoor rally or in a lecture hall. A truth-seeking idealist. A prolific writer of articles and books. A playwright. A man with the courage of his convictions.

Zinn stood out - that's for sure.

In the past 30 years, Zinn attracted much attention for his best-selling book: A People's History of the United States. In fact, he just helped complete a documentary film production based on speeches excerpted from the book that were performed by well-know Hollywood actors. It was called The People Speak and aired on The History Channel in December, 2009.

I became acquainted with Zinn while I was an undergraduate student at Boston University from 1977 - 1979. I didn't know Zinn well on a personal level; I spoke with him one-on-one only a handful of times, including one unusual meeting in his office when I requested his advice. But, he certainly seemed like a decent, thoughtful man. I did grow very familiar with Zinn by observing him - at demonstrations, meetings and his involvement in campus politics.

I enrolled in Zinn's popular, large lecture course called "Law and Justice," and I vividly recall how surprised I was, when, at the start of one of the classes, Zinn suddenly announced that we would all be attending a demonstration, down the street, on the BU campus. I don't recall the subject of the rally, but I recall thinking: "Wow, this Zinn guy IS unusual. That took some chutzpah to just lead our entire, large lecture class to a protest rally without knowing anyone's reaction to his suggestion."

The incident was one of my many glimpses of Zinn's unconventionality. He was determined to give his students a different interpretation of public events and historical episodes. Zinn wanted us to raise questions and think about things from different angles - and he succeeded at it.

Zinn stood out at BU not only for his talents and approach, but, because he was one of only a few willing to publicly criticize the controversial BU President, John Silber. Silber and Zinn were polar opposites. Silber, a brilliant, tough-talking Texan, ran BU like a tyrant. Silber quashed whatever and whoever got in his way. He didn't tolerate dissent - period. Zinn was all about dissent - practicing it and teaching it.
Silber alienated virtually every constituency at BU. Large portions of the BU faculty and staff seemed intimidated by Silber - for good reason. He often fired people he disliked. Zinn, meanwhile, was one of the most popular professors on campus. He had become a "legend" of sorts for his left-wing positions and activism. Zinn had a very good sense of humor and often joked about people or institutions he ripped. (He made teaching his version of history fun and accessible). So, Zinn, on occasion, blasted Silber in spontaneous, candid phrases, but, often, he'd inject a bit of humor as well. To Zinn, Silber was a nearby representation of the kind of injustice he made it his business to oppose elsewhere. Zinn became the advisor to the student radical newspaper called BU Exposure - a newspaper Silber tried to hinder frequently.

Zinn surfaced in a variety of activities and forums to support anti-Silber sentiments that percolated regularly across BU. Zinn, for example, was a loyal, involved member of the BU faculty union and visible, active supporter of other labor unions on campus. For instance, Zinn was a leader in the 1979 faculty strike at BU, but, then, when the clerical workers, represented by District 65 of the SEIU, went out on strike months later, Zinn was one of only a few professors who absolutely refused to cross their picket lines. He held his classes outside or anywhere necessary to avoid crossing pickets. Silber, at times, seemed very annoyed by Zinn.

There were two occasions - once in 1976 and once in 1979 - when there were campus-wide efforts to remove Silber as BU President.
I'll never forget the spring of 1979 at BU. It was a year of tremendous labor unrest at BU (five strikes!), and anti-Silber sentiment had evolved into a "Dump-Silber" movement. Zinn was one of a good-sized "core group" of active participants in the movement. That spring, with "60 Minutes" cameras rolling, a teach-in was held one night in the Morse Auditorium. One speaker after another took the microphone to spill out their group's grievances against Silber. I know Zinn spoke that night and I know he was, in his typically top form, charismatic, persuasive and compelling. I don't recall details of any speeches; it was 31 years ago.....but, it was a moment when Zinn was in his element. He rose to that occasion.

After I left BU, I always kept track of Zinn. I read his articles, year after year, as they appeared in left-leaning periodicals like The Nation, Progressive, Z and others. I could always count on Zinn to express an original, unconventional point of view on current events. Or, I'd catch up on his earlier accomplishments - like his days in the Student Non-violent Coordinatring Committee (SNCC) a civil rights organization Zinn got involved in while a professor at Spelman College in Atlanta, Ga. OR his intensive involvement protesting against the Vietnam War. Zinn usually criticized Presidents - Republican or Democrat - because they implemented the same basic foreign policy principles he opposed. He argued passionately against interventionist wars from US involvement in El Salvador to the invasion of Iraq.

A few years ago, I learned that Zinn was one of the speakers slated to appear at a rally focused on the cause of impeaching George W. Bush for his invasion of Iraq. Cindy Sheehan and others were on the agenda, but, I was motivated to rush a 45-minute drive into Boston to attend only to see Zinn. I recall sprinting across Boston Common, afraid that I had missed Zinn's remarks, but, thankfully, he was just starting as I arrived. Though Zinn was close to his mid-80s, I was amazed at how good he sounded that day and how comfortable he seemed in his familiar role. He ripped into the Bush crowd for the unfounded, insane war they had started. He held nothing back - one harsh, blunt truth after another. It was a joy to hear. I applauded and marveled at how rare a person Zinn was. He spoke no more than 20 minutes, but, I left a few minutes later feeling invigorated and a tiny bit more hopeful that change was possible again.

That recollection reminds me of an earlier moment Zinn impacted me regarding Iraq. It was the winter of 2003 and it seemed the whole country was supporting the Bush Administration's planned invasion of Iraq. I didn't understand why the US was going after Iraq rather than focusing on Al Quaeda. It made no sense, but, I was confused why so many people - including US senators and US representatives - were supporting the war. I had heard so much news about Saddam Hussein's repeated disregarding of UN resolutions and the potential dangers he posed that I recall moments of pausing briefly in uncertainty and questioning my own stand on Iraq. Then, I happened to watch Zinn being interviewed on Bill Moyers' Now on Jan. 10, 2003. It was around the time Zinn had just written a book called Terrorism and War.

When the interview was over, my anti-war impulses felt stronger than ever. In fact, I felt, honestly, that Zinn, in that one interview, had led me to a more full-fledged opposition to war, in general, than I had ever felt in my life. To this day, I'm grateful for hearing Zinn's wisdom on the subject of war.

Consider just a few samples from the Jan, 2003 Moyers' interview.

Moyers asked Zinn if he thought the US planned attack on Iraq was like what the terrorists did by driving airplane bombs into the World Trade Center.

Zinn: Well that's right. "I mean war is a form ot terrorism. I know there are people who don't like to equate - what was done- you know on September 11, 2001, they don't like to equate that with a war that the United States engaged in. Sure, they're different. But they're not different in the - in the fundamental principal that drives the terrorists and that is, they're saying, we're going to kill a lot of people but it will be worth it. We're trying to do something. We're trying to accomplish something. They - the terrorists are not killing people just for the sake of killling people, they have something in mind. To show that the American empire is vulnerable or to make some point about American policy in the Middle East. But they have an end in mind. We are doing the same thing. I mean, as I say, the details are different, but we are willing to kill a lot of people for some political end that we have declared...."

Then, a few minutes later, Moyers asking Zinn for his views on what might deter terrrorists.

Zinn: ".....Are terrorists going to be deterred-- are terrorists going to be scared if we react violently? No. They love it. That's what they dote on. They dote on violence. They dote on having more reasons to commit more terrorism. We solved the problem of the hostages in Iran by negotiations. You know? And there are many situations where we engage in violence and in wars that could be solved by negotiations..."

Zinn, in his book, Terrroism and War, apparently offered more of his thoughts on how to deal with the causes of terrorism.

"If we want to do something about terrorism, Zinn wrote, "we will have to do something about the grievances from which terrorism springs." Zinn made these remarks on C-Span, in an apparent discussion of his book.

In the book, Zinn complained that George W. Bush was ridiculously off-base to suggest that terrorists had attacked the US due to jealousy of Americans' freedom. He pointed out that terrorists had shown more interest in the US external actions - including about US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, the tremendous support the US had given Israel or the US sanctions against Iraq, which had hurt the country.

I grew to believe, through the years, that Howard Zinn was the most eloquent, powerful voice against war I've ever heard in my life. When he speaks about the meaninglessness and harm of war, he frames things beautifully and gives you an honest dose of "common sense" and wisdom that I wish everyone could hear. No one in Washington speaks the truth about war like Zinn.

Many of us go through life with goals and dreams of somehow having a real influence on other people's lives before we die. If our dreams relate to improving the human condition, well, that can feel even better to ponder.

Zinn died knowing he had an overwhelming impact on many people, and, even sweeter, his impact was often on the thinking, outlook and views of people - making his imprint even more likely to endure and live on. I'm sure many of Zinn's former students and his readers or audiences have been significantly influenced by his original outlook on history and humanity.

I'm convinced the best way we can honor Howard Zinn is to keep up his fight for social justice, each in our own way.

Zinn, in an interview, apparently, said he wanted to be remembered as "somebody who gave people a feeling of hope and power that they didn't have before."

Zinn gave me that feeling and I'll always remember how he shared his unique strengths with so, so many people.

Coakley Didn't Go Down Fighting for Her Beliefs

2010-01-23T14:22:00.002-05:00

By now, the whole world knows that Scott Brown won a shocking upset over Martha Coakley.
Yet, not enough has been said about how and why Coakley lost a race that appeared so winnable.
Many have acknowledged Brown ran a good, energetic campaign with good television advertising and an approach that allowed him to "catch the wave" of voter anger toward Washington.
Similarly, many have said Coakley ran a "poor" or "weak" campaign...but, I think the more one looks at the details of what unfolded, the more one can connect Coakley's downfall to: a) her own troubling flaws as a candidate, and, b) the malaise in American politics today, in general.

I think the Democratic Party put itself in a vulnerable position by not having a better candidate to face Brown. I heard Kathleen Townsend Kennedy, RFK's daughter, say candidly after last week's election, that she felt if her brother, Joe, had run, he would have won. I agree. I believe a number of different Democrats could have won. Why? Any one of them would have projected more enthusiasm and confidence while campaigning for votes than Coakley did. In addition, he or she would have had strong, heartfelt convictions about at least several of the major issues and argued for those positions with some passion.

Coakley, meanwhile, openly revealed her distaste for campaigning by simply choosing to do less meeting and greeting voters than expected and by her infamous, off-the-cuff comment about preferring to not greet voters outside of Fenway Park. (Voters hate to hear candidates complain, in any way, about campaigning. Why elect somone who' s whining about that process?)

Coakley showed, in a variety of ways, a lack of hunger or fire on the campaign trail. For instance, when former President Clinton or President Obama came to stump for her, how come we didn't hear anything about the speech or remarks that Coakley gave on those occasions? Usually, when a big name appears to endorse someone, the candidate is inspired to show a little more verve in their own rhetoric or message. Coakely kept allowing herself to play a "secondary" diminished role. Instead of rising to the occasion, she acted like she was either "entitled" or the frontrunner who didn't have to fight for much.

Coakley ran with an aura that reminded some of Mike Dukakis running for President in 1988; she lacked passion, seemed to go through the motions and gave "pro forma" responses to questions instead of showing any spontaneity.

These various points all lead to my largest complaint about Coakley: She was
far, far too CAUTIOUS in her entire approach. She seemed unwilling to take risks in so many ways -- whether it was the "risk" of pressing the flesh with ordinary voters in cities and towns across Massachusetts OR the risk of "fighting back" against Brown's message and his criticisms OR the risk of aggressively truth-telling and presenting arguments to rebut Brown's points.

Even in the primary campaign, Coakley showed an incredible aversion to risk. The difference was, in the primary, she got away with it. Her three male opponents - Mike Capuano, Steve Pagliuca and Alan Khazei - showed a steady reluctance to go on the offensive against Coakley. Capuano did it a bit, but, not enough. Further, Coakey actually scored points repeatedly with the media by avoiding mistakes that would make her lose her "frontrunner status" As I wrote on this blog in the fall, that praise was misguided. Coakley ran a bland, cautious primary campaign. She was not interesting or compelling. The one exception was her stance to not vote for a health care reform bill if it contained restrictive language pertaining to a woman's right to choose. Beyond that, Coakley skated along without seeming to have genuine convictions she'd fight for, if elected.

Apparently, she speculated she could win against Brown using the same bland approach. One of her first very disturbing choices was to avoid scheduling any one-on-one debates against Brown without the Independent candidate Joe L. Kennedy. It was obvious she wanted to avoid the risks of going toe-to-toe with Brown and her lame excuses diminished her standing. In fact, I'd argue, her stubborn refusals to debate Brown foreshadowed her defeat - period. Why should Coakley, an experienced state attorney general, be afraid to go head-to-head against Brown, a relative "lightweight" who gave overly simplistic, flawed responses to questions about his positions?

I don't get it. All I know is Coakley kept showing that fear of taking risks. She repeatedly allowed Brown to come off as the bolder candidate with "stronger" convictions and more passion about his values and beliefs. I believe Coakley had stronger feelings about her positions, but, for some reason - probably related to personality or circumstances - she couldn't express them.

I've long believed one thing about American politics and that is that people respond to a candidate who appears authentic their expressing themselfs about what they really believe. That trait - of being oneself and true to one's convictions - in my view, is often more important to some voters than the candidate's actual positions. Ronald Reagan is the classic example who illustrated this. I think many voters pulled the lever for the Gipper because he seemed to believe in his message. I think, to a large extent, Reagan DID believe in his themes of "less government, a "stronger military" etc, etc.

Massachusetts voters didn't get a sense of what Martha Coakley really believed in or who she really was as a person or potential leader. She was so "contained" and cautious that when one contrasted her to Brown driving around in his truck and interacting enthusiastically with voters or sounding so black and white on issues, to many, it made it easier to choose Brown.

I voted for Coakley because I supported her positions - however poorly she articulated them. I could never - ever - support a reactionary like Brown. However, the election left me disillusioned because it displayed all the troubling trends about the state of politics seen at every level.

Think about it. Every day, US House members and US senators behave like Coakley did in this campaign. They're cautious - cautious - cautious. They don't say or do anything to increase the risk of alienating voters and losing elections. This lack of candor and spontaneity has gotten so pervasive that it represents a crisis, in my view. Politics has become a bore. Politicians don't stand up for their beliefs, for principles, for what's right for this country. (Interestingly, during the one televised candidates' debate, when the candidates were asked their general positions on how to combat Al Quaeda, Independent Joe L. Kennedy gave the most original, direct, thoughtful response by describing the negative impact of the US "occcupying" other countries, and, how that stimulated resentment and hatred toward the US. To me, it's not a coincidence that Kennedy, feeling he had nothing to lose, gave a more "risky" but honest response than the others).

Instead, they stick to their "talking points" and try to run campaigns like Coakley did. What worsens all this, is that reactionary Republicans like Scott Brown fill the void left by cautious, cowardly Democrats. Republicans tend to be more willing to use harsh rhetoric that grabs voters - even if it's reckless or inaccurate.

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see an intelligent, thoughtful, qualified candidate run for a US House seat or a US Senate seat and just speak the truth and give their honest opinion from start to finish -- with the full knowledge that he or she would probably lose the campaign. If we got some candidates like that, we'd be reminded, at least, that it's possible to make politics more interesting, fun, and, yes, meaningful again. We need more candidates who are truly unafraid to lose because that means they'd also want to win only if they could defend their convictions honestly.

I think it's unfortunate that Coakley couldn't find ways to overcome her personal limitations as a candidate and still somehow forcefully project why she should fill Ted Kennedy's seat. Massachusetts DOES desparately need more women to represent us in the US House and Senate. (One last footnote: I sense that if other politicians and organizations and players in the Democratic Party had helped Coakley more, it'd might have helped her edge out Brown. For example, did Boston Mayor Thomas Menino do all he could to unleash his "machine" to get out the vote across Boston for Coakley? I don't think so. I heard MSNBC guest Lawrence O'Donnell, late on Election Night, speculate that Menino's choice to not go all-out for Coakley probably had a real impact. I've seen no stories that have questioned the role that Menino or other incumbent Democrats played in helping Coakley pull out a win).

In the end, though, it was Coakley's responsibility to motivate voters.

I think it would have been much better for Coakley to lose fighting for what she believed than to lose running a timid, passionless campaign. Especially trying to replace Ted Kennedy, who was always a fighter.

Does the truth matter any more?

2010-01-08T21:37:00.023-05:00

Just when I think the state of American political discourse cannot get any worse, it keeps dropping further. This time, I'm referring to recent dialogue about the US response to terrorism, and, primarily, Republicans' criticisms of President Obama's recent handling of matters.

Politicians keep making reckless, false remarks about terrorism and news organizations keep failing to hold them accountable. Meanwhile, the public doesn't seem to care much OR feels too detached and helpless about changing things.

First, Republicans aggressively attacked Obama's initial response to the Christmas Day incident aboard a commercial plane. They wanted him to say more and do more. I actually didn't find Obama's response that disturbing because I think it's more wise for our country to act as low-key as possible - rather than hysterical - after an attempt by terrorists. After all, the objective of terrorists is to cause the most hysteria, fear and distraction. Putting aside a debate about Obama's day-to-day handling of this from his Hawaii vacation, my point is that Republicans didn't hesitate - for one second - to jump all over what they saw as a "political opportunity" to attack the President. They didn't show regard for the sensitive nature of the matter. Even attempted acts of terrorism won't make certain Republicans refrain from their non-stop criticism of Obama.

Some of their criticism continued into this past week. Then, Obama, a few days ago, announced the findings of his Administration's review of the failed airplane bombing and outlined a list of specific changes that would be implemented to improve the country's response to possible terrorist activity. Obama acknowledged that the system had failed and needed improvement. I don't recall former President George W. Bush ever making the kind of strong, specific, reality-based statement about terrorism.

However, in the weeks before and days after Obama's announcement, we heard several remarks by other prominent Republicans, during television interviews, that reached a new "low."

Republican strategist Mary Matalin, who formerly worked for former VP Dick Cheney, in a Dec. 27, 2009 interview on CNN, remarked that the Obama administration had too frequently complained about what it inherited from the Bush administration. She said the Bush Administration "inherited the most tragic attack on our soil in our nation's history," and implied that the 9/11 attack was the result of mistakes by the Clinton administration.

A few weeks before Matalin's line, Dana Perino, the former Bush press secretary, in a Nov. 24, 2009 appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News television interview show, said "...we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's' term...."

Then, finally, yesterday, on Jan. 8, 2010, came former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's turn. Giuliani first said Obama should be "following the right things that Bush did" and went on to say that while Obama's announcement last week "turned the corner" in his understanding of terrorism, that Obama still had much improving to do. Then:

"We had no domestic attacks under Bush, " Giuliani said. "We've had one under Obama."

(Guiliani, later Friday, apologized and acknowledged he had misspoken by omitting the words "since 9/11." His earlier remark had also omitted mention of the failed attempt of shoe bomber Richard Reid, who, in December, 2001, was apprehended on a flight bound from Paris to Miami. In addition, Guiliani didn't mention anthrax attacks that occurred.).

It sounds like Republicans are stooping to an incredible, new low by creating this new line to use against President Obama. We should notice if it gets repeated.

Let's pause to consider the outrageous scope of this new "claim," or, attempt at propaganda by these three Republicans. That's what it is - propaganda. I guess, these three Republicans are telling us that 9/11 didn't really happen when it did. I guess they feel that we Americans are paying so little attention or we're so stupid that they can just manipulate a little change in language and create a new impression - a new "context" for 9/11. Pretty soon, they'll claim that Clinton shared responsbility for the US "having to" invade Iraq. This is all such crap, but, these days, in our current media environment, the truth doesn't seem to matter any more. The Republicans take advantage of that - in the ugliest ways.

Let's face it. This isn't really a new approach. Some Republicans have been in the habit of disseminating falsehoods like this in recent years. Remember all the many lies that comprised the Bush Administration's long propaganda campaign before the US invasion of Iraq? Between Sept. 11, 2001 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Bush Administration officials orchestrated the most extreme propaganda campaign I recall seeing in the US. They made one false statement after another for months and months. The US House and Senate went along. The public bought into it. Now, Iraq, the US and the whole world are worse off as a result of that crazy invasion.

The Bush Administration "politicized" its anti-terror efforts in a variety of ways in the years that followed, using its "war on terror" to justify changing laws and people's rights to privacy and other protections - and on and on. Then, there were occasions when, the Bush administration seemed to change the "terror alert levels" at times that, coincidentally seemed to benefit the President - like during the 2004 presidential campaign. So, Republicans are on the thinnest ice trying to criticize Obama's anti-terrorism efforts.

So, are we going to let a "new" line of propaganda be used again now? Won't any US Senator publicly challenge and demand a response to the kind of comments made by Mary Matalin? Why the hell should she or Dana Perino or Guiliani be allowed to get away with saying anything like they did? Matalin and Perino should publicly retract their remarks. Have they?

I believe the current crowd of Republicans, reactionaries and right-wing nuts will stoop to any new "lows" they choose to attack Obama and score political points --- even when it involves our safety, national security and matters for which they should be held to a higher standard of truth-telling. (Do you recall how Democrats usually went along - in a show of "unity" - with Bush's anti-terrorism efforts? How they, in fact, did refrain from criticizing him at sensitive moments relating to terrorism? It seems Republicans are employing different standards toward Obama)

Today, no one seems to keep track of who - among our highest public officials - and their supporters and critics - tell the truth and who do not. No one seems to be held accountable for what they say anymore. It's a climate that creates fertile ground for propaganda.

On the other hand, people can reject propaganda. The truth does matter. The 9/11 attack happened on George Bush's watch and his Administration was prepared to immediately use the incident as a springboard to go after Iraq and to radically redefine how we deal with terrorism and countries that sponsor it. That's what happened.

In the end, though, it is the people who have to make the truth matter more.

Ten Random Wishes for the New Year

2009-12-31T11:50:00.030-05:00

Instead of New Year's Resolutions, I'm going to list just ten of my many wishes for 2010. They're more like fantasies because they're either impossible or so ridiculously improbable as to be "impossible":

1) That Jennifer Aniston will appear on no magazine covers for the entire year.

2) That the media will not cover Sarah Palin all year because they conclude she's a failed politician with no serious leadership potential. Palin will be treated like just another citizen of Alaska.

3) That former Vice President Richard Cheney will look in the mirror, get some therapy and begin a series of public admissions of wrongdoing and mistakes during his time in office. The "confession period" will culminate in Cheney publicly apologizing to President Obama for his unwarranted, outrageous criticisms and volunteering to do anything humanly possible to support Obama during the rest of his presidency.

4) That Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will all leave their jobs, and FOX TV will cease to exist and transform itself into a serious think tank that studies the potential benefits of socialism.

5) That PBS' Bill Moyers Journal will begin to air in a prime-time slot every week - and that members of the US Congress will be required to watch the show and report on lessons they learn.

6) That President Obama will get more in touch with the deepest convictions that motivated him to become involved in national politics and will speak, with passion, about those convictions to the nation.

7) That we will learn of real anecdotes of President Obama displaying strong leadership at behind-the-scenes meetings at the White House or elsewhere. In these reports, we'll hear of Obama saying "NO" to individuals and groups, getting in conflicts, showing some passion, fighting for his convictions, and, being willing to disappoint others in doing so.

8) That the Republican Party will conclude that it should cease to exist unless it can begin advocating for some principles that relate to improving the nation. As a result, if the Party continues, its members will choose to participate in public debate and action on issues instead of solely trying to defeat every one of President Obama's his initiatives.

9) That Derek Jeter, Mark Teixeira, Alex Rodriguez and Mariano Rivera of the New York Yankees, surprisingly, all will announce their retirement from baseball before spring training in February. In a related story, the Red Sox will win another World Series title in 2010.

10) That a new alternative television network will emerge with a terrific news operation and a commitment to presenting unprecedented OPEN public debate on major issues of the day - from the war in Afghanistan to world hunger to the underlying causes of terrorism. Leading thinkers from all political persuasions will be invited to participate - especially from the Left, which has been unrepresented on mainstream media for so many decades. Among the guests on the first show, which will focus on Afghanistan, will be: Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky.

I Haven't Cared About the Tiger Woods Story

2009-12-27T17:27:00.031-05:00

I guess I'm in a tiny minority, but, I just haven't gotten caught up in the recent Tiger Woods story. Now, it's true the media frenzy has subsided in the past ten days or so, but, any new development would probably cause it to percolate again. The coverage of Woods' extra-marital affairs - which surfaced following Tiger's car accident around Thanksgiving time - was obsessive, sensational and out-of-control.

None of that was surprising in this day and age. Particularly when a sports hero of Tiger's stature ran into these sort of personal problems. (A "perfect storm" for today's entertainment-driven media)

I grew tired of this story after the first few days. Yes, I was surprised and interested, at first, to learn about Woods having so many affairs with different women. That was unusual, but, after his multiple philandering became clear, I lost interest.

Now, I think part of this is because I'm not a Tiger Woods fan, or, even, a golf fan...but, I realized, as the saga unfolded, that there was something else affecting my sensibility around this story.

It was the context that goes with disclosure of adultery by a public figure. I realized I've learned about so many, many public figures - including many politicians - having affairs that the cumulative impact has caused me to have some burnout or indifference on this topic. Nothing surprises me anymore. I mean: What have we not heard at this point? It was hard to top President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky's escapades. Let's see, in the past year or two, we've had stories about former NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer, former US Sen. John Edwards, US Sen. John Ensign, Gov. Mark Sanford. I still recall the media's crushing coverage of Gary Hart's affairs in 1987. So, the "novelty" of the media aggressively exposing someone's affair is a thing of the past, but, other aspects of this phenomenon bother me.

I've grown tired of how the public and media so, so enjoy feasting on the flaws, problems and vulnerabilities of public people, who, after all, are human beings first and celebrities second. The issues around the adultery and marital difficulties and crises of public figures are personal. They have no impact on the rest of us. Our lives are not impacted.

Yet, when you watch the television media, in particular, report on the day-to-day developments relating to a story, or, soap opera such as Tiger Woods' recent struggles, they report the news as if it is something of such magnitude and immediacy that we all should know - we all need to know about all the details. What a farce. They should put a subtitle at the bottom of your TV screen that says: "Covering Tiger Woods' affairs helps our ratings - that's why we're doing this."

I understand that one can argue that a limited amount of reporting on this Woods story might be "justified" on some level, but, no one can convince me that most of the coverage has been necessary or natural or right. I've felt this way more and more about these adultery stories.

The problem is we've all grown accustomed to the blurring of boundaries - which, years ago, used to separate entertainment from news, and, yes, public figures' personal lives from being juxtaposed next to foreign policy developments in newscasts.

I'm always reminded of how the coverage of the OJ Simpson trial in the mid-1990s marked a turning point downward in how the media began to glaringly blur the line between news and entertainment. It began with the networks providing OJ's live Bronco chase to the minute-by-minute reporting of the trial - as if it was all-encompassing news story greatly impacting all of our well-being.

I guess the coverage of Tiger Woods has just reminded me of how disgusted I am with television news coverage in this country. I cannot believe the extent to which attempting to attract higher ratings drives everything from local weather forecasts to excessive coverage of murder stories to repeating reckless public statements of people without identifying they are false. Similarly, I cannot believe how an obsession with ratings has helped create a climate that allows figures like reactionary Glenn Beck to survive, or, succeed on TV despite Beck's irresponsibility and tasteless low standards.

OK, maybe it's a leap to go from the Tiger Woods story to discussing Glenn Beck, but, to me, we live in a media environment that disregards the truth and rewards the sensational at any cost.

The Tiger Woods story, unfortunately, will probably receive coverage for a long time, because it simply attracts ratings too high to be ignored. And, the ratings, unfortunately, are all that counts.

Obama Has Made Mistakes, But Let's Not Forget W.

2009-12-17T10:41:00.021-05:00

The news media and the public need more perspective as they evaluate Barack Obama these days.

Obama and the Democrats have been sliding downward in the polls in the past several months. Of course, the continuing economic recession, the war in Afghanistan and the messy, unproductive struggle over health care reform have contributed to the President's vulnerability. I think Obama deserves serious criticism for his decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and his lack of leadership in the health care debate.

But, you know what? I'm getting tired of the non-stop attacks from the Right and the other whiners and moaners who seem to think Obama is to blame for everything in the universe - including the H1N1 virus.

I just read George Will's Dec. 17th column that ripped Obama, and it was the "last straw." Among Will's complaints about Obama is his observation that Obama, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, used the pronoun "I" 38 times. Will also notes that "...the fruits of the president's policy of "engagement" have been meager. Witness Iran continuing its nuclear program and China being difficult about carbon emissions...."

Is Will suggesting that it's inexcusable for Obama to have not forced Iran to shut down its nuclear program by now? Or, that another president would have gotten China to do whatever the US wished on carbon emissions? Give me a break! This is what I cannot stand about right-wingers, who seem to, sadly, dominate the airwaves far too often: They're routinely selective about which truths to share and which to disregard. Often, they don't bring up Bush's eight years and the tremendous damage his administration did.

Excuse me Mr. Will, but, would you argue that George W. Bush did a better job "managing" the US relationship with Iran? Bush took unnecessary military action by invading Iraq and did enough "sabre-rattling" with Iran to further poison our relationship with Iran. Bush and his White House chose to spew hawkish rhetoric toward Iran and seemed to suggest the US longed to go to war with Iran. Gee, that helped the US and Iran a lot, didn't it, Mr. Will?

Meanwhile, Obama came in and openly spoke of his willingness to try talking with Iran while, at the same time, seeing how Iran behaved. Now, after nearly a year of Iran being unresponsive, Obama is in a much stronger position with countries around the world to pursue economic sanctions against Iran, if necessary, because he handled the relationship carefully and thoughtfully.
Would you dispute that, George Will? You'd probably say - without factual back-up - that somehow, Obama worsened the situation and that you prefer the tough (reckless) talk of Dick Cheney. I don't know. I'm just sick of everyone blaming Obama for everything.

Let's pretend we have an imaginary checklist and let's compare Obama with George W Bush:

Obama is more intelligent. Far more.
Obama is more capable, across the board. Far more.
Obama has demonstrated a greater capacity to listen to others, including those who disagree with him - while Bush failed to do this, particularly in his decision to invade Iraq.
An illustration: Obama presided over a careful, thorough review before his decision on Afghanistan (though I disagree with his conclusion!) while Bush reportedly spoke with very few who dissented (with him) on Iraq.
Obama has done FAR MORE to improve the US' image and relationship with the rest of the world. Bush's actions and policies hurt the US' image in many parts of the world.
Obama is "hands-on." He gives us a sense that he's "on top of things" - In fact, he's similar to former President Bill Clinton in his impressive, sweeping command of facts. Bush was, disturbingly vague about numerous topics and conveyed a sense that without his cue-cards, he'd be LOST, and, I mean LOST. I still believe Cheney and others ran the country more than Bush. Bush was the "puppet" who others manipulated.
Obama is an outstanding speaker who can inspire in prepared remarks AND speak articulately and directly in responding to specific queries on policy. Bush could do neither and often had to defer to others to respond with details.
Obama has shown he can remain "in the fray" on a number of fronts simultaneously while keeping his cool and advancing action and change. Bush did not show a similar capacity - at least in public. He gave the impression he was the "front man" for a group of men who made the real decisions in the corridors of the White House.

I could go on and on - and, you could too. We've forgotten how low our expectations fell during the Bush years. It was a hopeless feeling. You had the sense decisions were made secretly and the Administration was not listening.

Obama has serious flaws - like every President - but, it's all relative. He arrived with the country on the brink of another Depression. His administration helped ward off a Depression, but, it wasn't done easily or without some ugly setbacks. The stimulus bill was flawed and has been implemented with those problems on full display.

Yet, I don't recall a President in my lifetime who had to wrestle with more pressing domestic and foreign policy matters on the fly during his first year. It has been a roller coaster ride for Obama. His decision on Afghanistan, has been, by far, his worst move, in my view. Also, his effort to get a comprehensive health care reform bill passed has unraveled badly. The bill now seems so flawed and watered down that its value and potential impact have diminished. Obama chose to stay in the background during almost the entire debate. He has failed to step up and assert what he believes MUST stay in the health care bill or not. He and his team have failed to lead the US representatives and senators and other involved parties; instead, the debate for months has been out-of-control and created an impression that the White House is not in charge.

In the end, however, I prefer Obama not only over Bush, but, a number of other Presidents because of the strengths he DOES have. What I am tired of is the avalanche of disproportionate criticism and attacks that has been directed at Obama. I believe a sizeable portion of that venom is due to racism. Another portion, I think, is due to the short attention span of the news media and the public. People want problems solved immediately and without making many sacrifices most of the time.

It's not an easy time to be President of the United States. If we're measuring the President's ups and downs constantly, let's do that by comparing him to others who have held the office most recently. I'm delighted Obama is our leader rather than George W. Bush or others who came before, and, also had flaws and made mistakes.

Obama's Disappointing Decision on Afghanistan

2009-12-06T14:16:00.034-05:00

I oppose President Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan for many reasons, but, if I had to identify the most all-encompassing one, it's that I oppose war unless our national security is at risk. I don't think the President came anywhere close to making the case that such a risk exists during his speech at West Point last week.

Like most Americans, I have extremely limited knowledge of what's really going on in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and about developments with the Taliban, Al Qaeda or the reactions of the people who live in those two countries. There is, obviously, an enormous amount of information that Obama's team of military and foreign policy decisionmakers reviewed that the rest of us never saw - so, I base my opinions on the limited coverage I've seen on television or read in newspapers. The media, I think, presents an incomplete, oversimplified, often-confusing picture of what's going on in these countries.

However, I find the new US policy in Afghanistan troubling not only because the Obama Administration failed to justify putting the lives of thousands of US men and women at risk, but, failed to provide adequate answers to so many substantive questions about its escalation of military involvement. In addition, there are factors about how the decision evolved that concern me.

Here are just a few examples of my questions or concerns about Obama's decision:

1) The Obama administration has not sufficiently explained why Al Qaeda's presence in Pakistan and other countries amounts to a threat to our national security warranting 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, where all acknowledge, there are very few Al Qaeda members still located.

It seems the crux of Obama's policy is that by adding US troops, we'll train the Afghan troops, who will then be better-equipped to help prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven to Al Qaeda. However, this is a "hypothetical deterrent" because, in fact, we don't know exactly what Al Qaeda will do if the Taliban presence in Afghanistan grows in power and influence. (We don't know exactly what the Taliban or Al Qaeda will do - period). Perhaps Al Qaeda will linger in Pakistan or go to other locations. So, Obama's policy is a hypothetical premise for war -- which is NOT enough.
Al Qaeda poses an ongoing threat to the US - as do other terrorist groups, but, if we do NOT send these 30,000 troops, does Al Qaeda pose a significantly greater threat? I guess the US generals, military advisors and Obama's team are arguing "they might pose a greater threat in the future," but, that argument is NOT a rationale for escalating a war.

2) Did the US exhaust attempts to use diplomacy and non-military action or moves to address the problems in Afgahnistan?

Tom Hayden, former Chicago 7 leader and former California state senator, wrote a Dec. 1st piece for Nation in which he reported that some elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan might be willing to negotiate a "peace settlement" in the country "without safe havens for Al Qaeda..."
Instead, Hayden concluded, the US chose to pursue military action. Were there signs of potential - as Hayden wrote? I don't know, but, I hope the US pursued any opportunities for negotiating settlements of any kind.

There has been little news about efforts to negotiate anything in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but, does that mean we must assume any resolution will come only through continuous war?

3) Did President Obama provide enough evidence that, in fact, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan will be better in July 2011 (or, later, when our troops will likely leave) as a result of the 30,000 troops going there?

No, he did not. Obama and his military advisors are banking on the Afghan troops being ready to take responsibility after receiving training and assistance from US troops. However, let's face it: we simply don't know how that "training" and "readiness" will work out. It certainly seems very possible that either: a) Events might not evolve as the US predicts in terms of Al Qaeda rushing into Afghanistan if and when an increased Taliban presence evolves and provides a "safe haven;" or, b) Developments in Pakistan might unravel in ways we cannot anticipate given the tremendous instability there now, making our "surge" in Afghanistan less relevant.

4) Does the Obama administration have good reason to believe the corrupt Karzai government will be a "reliable partner" in resisting the Taliban?

Clearly, this is a weak part of the Administration's plan. At the same time, President Obama is hoping for the best from Karzai, he's saying things like "the days of providing a blank check" are over. Repeated reports have document the corruption and ineffectivenss of Karzai's government. How will Obama & the US transform Karzai's approach overnight? How can the US rely on this government for much of anything? Within days of Obama's speech, Karzai was voicing concern about the US withdrawing too early. It seems the US runs a tremendous risk, now, of taking on a role way too invasive and large in trying to implement its "policy" and that US effort is more likely to lead to resentment, resistance, hostility and non-cooperation from Afghan security forces and civilians. People in other countries don't like the US coming in and dictating what they need to do - period.

5) Obama has repeatedly pointed to Pakistan as the real object of US concern; yet, in Pakistan as well, there is much uncertainty over how an increased US military role in Afghanistan will make a difference.

It seems the Administration is trying hard, through the troop increase, to send a loud, clear signal to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan that "You won't be able to come into Afghanistan because we're shoring things up there..." Yet, again, is there enough evidence that we know the impact of this troop increase? Al Qaeda has resided primarily in Pakistan in the past few years, including on the border regions, but can the US really know Al Qaeda's next moves and destinations? A war has been raging much more in Pakistan between the Pakistan Army and Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan.

6) Reports have documented that Pakistan has, until the recent past, been unwilling to take on Al Qaeda in its own country. There is much turmoil in Pakistan. The US needs to work very hard to help Pakistan maintain stability without doing so in the role of "aggressive intervenor."

In my limited attempts to follow this story, I've been intrigued and troubled by the fact that Pakistan has lent its support to the Taliban in the past and often done little to attempt to quell or defeat Al Qaeda forces in its own country. Now, recently, the US has supposedly pressured Pakistan's army to take far more decisive action against Al Qaeda.. Clearly, the US can quietly provide much assistance.
The point is that Pakistan is the place we need to focus more now - not Afghanistan.

7) Therefore, a related point: Why couldn't the US restrict its involvement to: a) A much more focused effort to support Pakistan's "containment" of Al Qaeda in Pakistan; b) Continuing to support Pakistan's targeting of Al Qaeda leaders and halting of any moves by Al Qaeda that pose any threats to the government of Pakistan?

8) In the end, President Obama's action pleased the military and his Defense Secretary, but, was the President perhaps too influenced by the powerful US military, who - let's face it - usually advocate for more troops and more military action rather than the alternatives?

I thought Obama should have publicly scolded General Stanley McCrystal, when McCrystal came out, months ago, and publicly called for a large increase in troops. (He did this by leaking a document to the Washington Post) McCrystal was out of line and deserved a reprimand. Instead, in the end, McCrystal got most of the troops he wanted. What happened to the "Biden plan" - for sending a much, much smaller number of troops and focusing our efforts more on containing Al Qaeda? What happened to Obama, the "peace candidate" in 2008, when he espoused more common sense in our policy toward Iraq? It seems Obama, through this decisionmaking process, has morphed into "another conventional US President," who, in his desire to avoid risks, ends up following the influence of the military - and, in doing so - abandons his principles and good instincts.

9) How - after months of a careful, deliberative "review" of matters relating to his decision - can President Obama be so vague about whether and when the US troops will begin to withdraw in July, 2011?

In the week since his speech, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been asserting, in remarks, that, in fact July, 2011 will just mark the "beginning" of a US assessment of how and when to initiate withdrawal of troops. In his speech, Obama said that the US training of Afghan forces would "allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011..." Yes, Obama said the US would consider "conditions on the ground" in executing the withdrawal, but, if he intended to identify the date, shouldn't he have stood by it? Instead, Gates has been attempting to re-define Obama's words and is, in essence, saying we'll stay longer, if necessary. Who's in charge here, President Obama? Don't you realize this backpedaling makes you look weak?

10) Doesn't it make sense to at least give at least a minute's thought to whether there are any OTHER steps the US might take to reduce the threat of terrorism by Al Qaeda?

Acting in the role of "occupier," in Afghanistan surely helps fan the flames of anger and resistance to United States. The Afghan people, understandably, do not want our troops there. The more the US lingers in other countries - flexing our military muscles - the more the US assumes an image that can stir hatred, resistance, anger and help make enemies out of individuals who might previously be neutral.

I think it'd help to talk to former Al Qaeda members, former Taliban members and people all over the world about what steps they believe would help reduce terrroism.

Why don't we hear more about how leaders of countries are meeting - frequently, for that matter - to discuss strategies, steps and actions - that they might take to address the underlying causes of terrorism? Should the world just give up on that - and go on assuming that a relatively small group of Islamic terrorists should hold the rest of us hostage?

I'm not suggesting we stop trying to identify, or, eliminate those leaders of Al Qaeda we know responsible for the killing of many people. Sometimes, clearly, counter-terrorism, and military action is justified and probably the only effective course. On the other hand, it's time leaders and citizens from across the world try talking about alternative ways to deal with terrorism.

Capuano Needs Super Finish to Catch Coakley

2009-11-30T21:03:00.016-05:00

I'm still waiting for Martha Coakley to give me a reason to vote for her in the Dec. 8th Democratic Primary election for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts.

I've still seen nothing. Coakley has run an overly cautious, bland, uninspiring campaign, particularly when you consider the excitement and honor she must feel about the chance to replace the late US Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Coakley is the state attorney general, after having served for years as a district attorney. She's been around the block. She's got to know how to run a more substantive campaign. Instead, it appears that because she's the frontrunner, she's decided to avoid saying anything with an edge or a risky component to it.

I never like it when any candidate chooses this risk-avoidance strategy. Further, I cannot stand it when political pundits and reporters keep pointing out that Coakley's using this approach and saying, openly, that it's smart, or, makes such wise, strategic sense.

So, let me get this straight. Coakley's risk-avoidance is considered fine and dandy at a time when our country is facing all kinds of crises and important decisions in both the domestic and foreign policy arenas. We desparately need to hear as much as possible from these four Democratic candidates about their views, their passions, their experiences -- and, what, specifically, they'd do in Washington to improve things.

So, what have I heard from all four? I've continued to observe that Mike Capuano is the most bold, outspoken, substantive, clear communicator of the candidates. At the end of an exchange with the four of them, you tend to know where Capuano stands the most clearly. Why is that?

It's no coincidence. It's because Capuano speaks his mind and acts naturally. He's a feisty guy who's fueled by anger at at times, but, his anger is directed at the right targets. He's impatient with the status quo, the bureaucracy and the forces that prevent change. Sure, I wish, at times, that he'd squelch some of the angry intonation in his voice and replace it with a tactful, cool tone, but, in the end, I like what Capuano, an experienced, battle-tested US Representative, brings to the table.

What have the other two major candidates offered>

Steve Pagliuca, the Celtics co-owner, keeps displaying his "novice" qualities as a candidate. He looks, acts and sounds like a rookie. His television and radio commercials continue to sound "bush-league." He sounds bland most of the time. I think the most distinctive thing he's done so far is to produce an advertisement critical of Coakley and Capuano. Have I really learned anything about this guy? No. I learned early on that he supported Mitt Romney in an earlier campaign, and, I haven't even heard him explain why the hell he's even in a Democratic primary. Apparently, he thinks all his has to do is fill the airwaves with his fluffy, empty ads that, essentially, say "I'm Steve Pagliuca and I want to win."

Then, there's Alan Khazei, the co-founder of City Year. Khazei has run an unconventional, original campaign in which he often says something unpredictable or more interesting and thoughtful than his opponents. However, he's completely untested and I still feel there's something objectionable about electing a complete newcomer to such an important post by catapulting him immediately to fill the seat of perhaps the greatest US Senator in the history of the country. Why can't Khazei pay some dues? Shouldn't he have run for another office before seeking the US Senate seat?

Capuano says his much more extensive experience means a lot. I agree with him - especially in these fragile, crazy times we live in. I want to know Capuano is down in DC opposing any additional involvement in Afghanistan. I can't imagine any of the other three voicing that opposition as assertively and effectively than Mike Capuano. That's important.

I hope Capuano does well in the debates this week. It's probably his last chance to mount a surge to pass Coakley. The pollsters have said some of Coakley's support is "soft." I guess we'll find out.

I would like to think that the candidate who displays the most good ideas, has strong stands on issues, a clear statement of purpose, and shows the courage of his or her convictios will emerge by the Dec. 8th Primary. I expect Mike Capuano to be that person.

A candidate should be rewarded for speaking with boldness and candor and lose points for deliberately not saying anything risky out of fear of losing votes. Capuano over Coakley.

The Media Keeps Forcing Sarah Palin on Us

2009-11-16T10:54:00.040-05:00

"Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story".......or so, the line goes.

Well, that quote applies perfectly to "The Sarah Palin Story." It's a media-generated, media-hyped story that doesn't correspond with realities on the ground.

So, for instance, while you'd expect the release of Palin's new book this week to draw coverage,
the disturbing part is we're being bombarded with images and stories about Palin that suggest far more than a book release is going on. The two underlying premises to the Palin story are:
A) That Palin is one of the most compelling, important figures in American politics today, and, B) That Palin is a serious, potential presidentidal candidate in 2012.

The only problem: There are many facts that severely undercut both these premises, making the coverage of Palin story, really, in the end -----all about attracting higher TV ratings.
Palin has done nothing to prove she is an important figure in American politics -- unless you consider her capacity to attract media coverage some kind of "accomplishment." I certainly don't. I've seen too many people - like Oliver North, or, Ross Perot - generate enormous media coverage (as "potential leaders") that was undeserved. Further, in 2008, the most dramatic way she distinguished herself as a vice presidential candidate was in displaying how unqualified she was to serve as VP or president.

The big thing no network tells you is that when Sarah Palin is covered, she consistently attracts good ratings. She creates a "buzz.' When a former politician or entertainer or anyone draws ratings, he or she is likely to be covered in any way possible as often as possible. That's why we keep seeing Palin's face on TV even when there is NO news or no relative importance to what she's doing. No one on television ever discusses this "market research" that drives their decisions about what to cover.

Of course, one reason Palin draws ratings is that she's good-looking - and, again, this is, unsurprisingly, viewed as more significant than the content of what she's saying. By the way, can anyone identify a few important ways that Palin has contributed ideas to our country's public policy agenda since she emerged on the scene in August, 2008 as McCain's "surprise" VP candidate? I cannot think of any Palin contributions. (I've read that while she was governor, Alaska did a few good things in the area of energy, but, even with that, I don't recall being able to conclude she had offered some original idea or proposal).

In fact, I think on can argue that the only way Palin deserves another shot on the national stage is is she pays a lot of dues first. If she had remained as governor, let's say, and learned a lot about national issues and foreign policy and traveled the world for eight or ten years - to the point that she could speak with far more knowledge and experience, well, then, she'd be in a totally different position, wouldn't she?

The reality is, however, that even though Palin's most salient action since Nov. 2008 was to quit as governor of Alaska before her term ended, she's been in the news or discussed on political talk shows A LOT. Now, with Palin appearing on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" and "Barbara Walters" and others, both network news and cable news/entertainment stations are on a HIGH. It's been all Palin - all the time.

Meanwhile, Palin's history as a vice presidential candidate remains what it was: She ran a very poor campaign and, by objective measures, appeared strikingly unqualified. She repeatedly spoke about issues with a striking lack of facts, background or context. She answered questions in nationally televised interviews in embarrassing fashion.
She repeatedly attacked candidate Barack Obama in a reckless, ugly way, saying things like "He's pal-ling around with terrorists" (referring to Obama's acquaintance with Bill Ayers) She inexusably, repeatedly questioned Obama's patriotism.

Then, after the campaign. Palin complained and whined about how McCain's camp had treated her. We kept hearing about her daughter, Bristol's, baby and her fiancee, Levi Johston. We heard about how "Levi said this" and "Levi said that" Who cares?

In the meantime, the news media kept spouting the same crap: "Will Sarah run in 2012?"
"She's an exciting figure"........What will her impact be?" Palin's resignation as governor had zero impact on the speculation and discussion about her future.

I still just don't get it. Do any producers or executive producers who run political talk shows on television or radio even care about the truth anymore? Does it matter that Palin was a BAD candidate for vice president? What will it take for you to STOP covering Sarah Palin so much?

Palin told Oprah yesterday that a run for president in 2012 was "not on my radar screen." Gee, I wonder it that would slow the coverage down?

Last night, I heard CNN report that in a recent poll, 70 percent of the American people said they didn't think Palin was qualified to be President. Does that matter to the top producers of the infotainment we see on TV every night? No, that's no problem. Who cares if Palin is unqualified and most people believe she's unqualified? Let's keep putting her name and face out there!!!

What I find so disturbing is that some people confuse media coverage of a person with that person's authentic contributions. So, some who keep seeing Palin's image conclude: "Wow, that Palin is really important. She must have certain qualities I don't see if the TV people think she's worth covering so much..."

Things have gotten so blurred in this country: The media creates someone or some story and then comments on the person or story as if they have nothing to do with the media.

Look at the "balloon boy" story. The news media went totally bonkers over the story, then, when questions arose about it being a hoax, the media began covering that without mentioning that their crazy, reckless initial coverage of the balloon is what MADE the story!!! If a news executive had restrained its producers from reporting on the balloon until it was verified that a boy was in the balloon, there would have been NO STORY.

So, last night, when I heard Larry King refer to the "Sarah Palin phenomenon," it made me sick. Who believes there is a "Sarah Palin phenomenon"? Who is continuing to fan the flames of that "phenomenon"?

Only the television executives -and the Larry Kings of the world - who want to keep their ratings high. I've seen no evidence of the "Palin phenomenon" outside in Massachusetts today.

You know what's funny? When I watched Palin on "Oprah," yesterday, she seemed more relaxed, and, a bit more likeable than I think I've seen her in all other appearances. Maybe it was because she was NOT a candidate for high office, but, just conversing, as a citizen.

If only Palin could make a Shermanesque statement saying she'll never - ever - run for President. Maybe that'd slow the coverage a bit?

Who am I kidding? Even that wouldn't stop "The Palin Story," a Media Phenomenon.

Obama Needs to Seize Control of Health Care Reform Effort

2009-11-04T17:02:00.015-05:00

Take the wheel, Mr. President. The car is swerving all over the road. Are you going to drive it? or, let it keep swerving and maybe go off the road - as if you're a bystander?

It's not a bad metaphor for how I feel about President Obama's role in trying to close the deal with health care reform. The President has to step up now and be The Leader of health care reform efforts. He has failed to do so for most of this process in 2009, allowing US Senators, Representatives and other parties to knock his proverbial car off the road far too often.

Obama is driving me crazy the way he keeps allowing others to dominate the public debate - even with the stakes getting bigger by the day. He and his top advisors team seem oblivious to the perception that Obama is - still - appearing unclear on what he wants most in the final legislation and that he appears weak. He appears to be getting pushed around by others and far too detached about the actual content of the emerging bill.

The latest bad sign? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Tuesday, Nov. 3rd, suddenly remarked that the Senate might not get a health care bill completed during this calendar year.

What?????

For the past year, all I've read is about the Obama team felt it was essential to get this major legislation done during the President's first year. Remember how President Obama seemed disappointed when the Administration had to accept that the Congress would have to delay action on the bill until after the summer recess - and, instead, wait until the fall?

So, since Tuesday, I've been waiting and hoping that Obama would surprise me and come out with a strong statement correcting Harry Reid and perhaps saying "We WILL take action on this bill by the end of this year." But, NO-OO--OO........Instead, there has been the typical Obama silence. At this moment, (on Thurs, Nov. 5) Obama's silence makes Harry Reid look like the leader on health care and makes Obama seem like a passive, helpless observer.

President Obama and his team cannot sit back and let Reid's statement hang there for another few days. Obama needs to articulate his position on his view of the deadline for a bill OR to explain that he, too, feels legislation may be delayed. (I hope he does not allow delay because, I think it could jeopardize any legislation and hurt his entire presidency)

What baffles me is the Obama team was so skilled in communicating with the public during the 2008 presidential campaign. They didn't allow time to pass before responding to sound bites from their opponents during the primary and the general election. Yet, in the White House, there has been a tremendous drop-off in sensing when the President or a surrogate needs to make a statement or send a signal to convey important messages. With health care reform, in particular, the Obama team has been incredibly passive, allowing months and months to pass without Obama stepping forward and grabbing the bullhorn to declare what he's for and what HAS to be done.

Now, with 2009 winding down, and potential action by the US House on health care legislation approaching within the next few days, will the Obama White House take the initiative and explain what the hell is going on? Where is the President on the public option - bottom-line?
What about the bill's impact on the deficit? Will Obama reassure people that the bill will not amount to runaway government spending without sufficient accountability? I'm not personally worried about that, but, all signs suggest many Americans are - and the White House should wake up and address those concerns.

Obama used to talk about health care reform every day on the 2008 campaign trail. He knows the issue cold. Then, in his early weeks as President - despite the economy being in horrific condition - Obama decided to go forward with a major attempt to reform health care this year. He knew it'd be very risky with the economy as a distraction for all, yet, he did so.

It was puzzling that he chose to let the US Congress play such a major role in developing legislation, but, it has been far more puzzling to observe Obama let month after month go by without asserting himself more in the process. Maybe he knows the bill will be so flawed that he wants a bit of distance, but, it's way too late for that. He's in it up to his neck now.

How Obama handles health care reform in the next several weeks, and, perhaps months, will be an enormous statement about his presidency.

Take the wheel, President Obama. Get out of the passenger seat and start driving.

Why I Support Mike Capuano For the US Senate

2009-10-28T22:35:00.026-04:00

I've been so disappointed, and, at times, disgusted by the silence and cowardice of members of the US Congress in recent years.

Congressmen failed to oppose the US invasion of Iraq. Congressmen allowed former President George W. Bush to use 9/11 as a justification to expand powers to the executive branch. In early 2009, even with our economy in freefall, Congressmen failed to unite in collaborative action. Instead of acting like grown-ups and facing adversity by working with the new President to develop the best economic stimulus package, members of both parties were at their worst, bickering as they acted in their own self-interests before, finally, passing a flawed bill.
The US Senate has not been much better. Actually, I think the House and Senate have been disappointing for many years now. Politicians are so timid and predictable. They avoid conflicts with lobbyists and powerful interest groups. They seem to care only about avoiding any big risks that might jeopardize their re-election.

It is incredibly rare to find any US House or Senate members who display any courage, principle or independence.

With all this in mind, I support US Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Somerville) to fill the seat long held by Sen. Ted Kennedy. Capuano, a Democrat from Somerville, must first defeat three challengers in the Democratic primary, schedule for December. The election is in Jan. 2010.

If Capuano has one trait that stands out, it IS his willingness to say what he believes and let the chips fall where they may. Yes, he seems a bit rough around the edges at times. He doesn't speak in perfect, diplomatic sentences......but, I like the idea that I can imagine Capuano asserting himself down in the Capitol Building in Washington DC. He seems unafraid -- unafraid to fight for or against any piece of legislation and unafraid to sail against the wind. Further, I doubt he's intimidated about getting in difficult conversations with his colleagues or anyone else about his positions.

I'm still learning about Capuano. When he first ran back in 1998, I had voted for Susan Tracy rather than Capuano and the other candidates seeking to represent the Eighth Congressional District formerly held by US Rep. Joseph Kennedy. I recall thinking then that Capuano, who had been mayor of Somerville, was more moderate than most of his progressive challengers.

So far, I like what Capuano is saying on the campaign trail. I thought he was far more impressive than his opponents at their first televised debate on Oct. 26th.

He was the candidate who stuck his neck out the most and gave viewers a good glimpse of who he is and what he stands for. He spoke about his position on Iraq and Afghanistan, on immigration reform and the stimulus package with a candor and directness missing in the others. Capuano raised his voice too much at times and seemed a bit too intense, but, on the other hand, he was more himself - and seemed more authentic and, for me, that was a major strength compared to the others, who were more restrained and "safe" in their responses.

I was bothered by the comments after the debate. Several commentators - including WBZ TV's Jon Keller - said that Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley had probably done the best because she said nothing to alter (hurt) her frontrunner status. Give me a break. That's what's wrong with American politics; we have commentators praising a candidate for not taking any risks, essentially. That's exactly what Coakley did. She said nothing, in my view, that was striking or impressive. She gave "boilerplate" safe answers that lacked content and spontaneity. I've seen her do the same on other occasions. She loses significant points from me for being so cautious, and, as a result, dull.

I say that, regretfully, about Coakley because, a few weeks ago, I had the view that if she impressed me, I'd probably want to support her because we so badly need more women in the House and Senate. Since then, however, I've noticed the same bland rhetoric from Coakley every time I see a clip of her or read about an appearance.

As for the two other candidates, I like Alan Khazei, the co-founder of City-Year. He made some thoughtful points at the Oct. 26th debate and seems more of an original, independent thinker than the other two. However, Khazei has not held elective office and I don't feel we should replace Ted Kennedy with a novice at this point. Stephen Pagliuca, the Celtics co-owner, simply seems ill-suited for politics. His non-stop television advertisements are so empty and boring that I find them embarrassing and humorous.

So, for me, it came down to Coakley and Capuano - and so, far, it has not been close. Maybe Coakley will surprise me in the remaining month or so before the Dec. primary, but, I doubt it.

Meanwhile, I keep liking what I read and hear about Capuano. I'm finding he is the scrappy, independent, outspoken Congressman I've heard about over the years. I've been pleased to find out that his record is more liberal than I anticipated.

I am glad that US Reps. Barney Frank and James McGovern, both liberal Democrats, support Capuano. I think very highly of Frank and McGovern, who I once worked with on a campaign. I am glad that Democratic US Reps. John Tierney and Stephen Lynch also support Capuano.

I worry a bit about Capuano because he seems to have a tendency to speak so spontaneously that he might, occasionally, say things that come out the wrong way and cause a problem later. Yet, overall, I feel this is a minor concern compared to my feelings about Capuano having the courage of his convictions

I hope Capuano pulls an upset over Martha Coakley. In 2010, we need boldness, passion and principle a lot more than we need another cautious politician unwilling to ruffle feathers.

A Different Take on "Balloon Boy" Story

2009-10-14T13:38:00.019-04:00

It really disappoints me that the news media has received no real scrutiny or criticism for its central role in making the "balloon boy" incident into a full-blown, national news story last week.

The media's role, particularly that of cable news stations, was taken for granted in typical fashion. People have reached an unhealthy point of simply expecting news and entertainment to blur constantly, so, they have very low expectations for the media. "Anything goes," is what many feel."

In my view, the entire balloon episode should NOT have been covered as a national story. The news people on the scene had no proof the boy was in the balloon --- So, reporters, editors and producers should have restrained themselves. Of course, what we all saw, in the end, was that it didn' t matter whether the boy was in the balloon. The mere possibility was viewed as sufficient grounds to "go national" with this incident involving one boy and his family. It was ridicolous, if you ask me. There was never a story -- at least not a news story. (It was a good story for supermarket tabloids!)

I happened to turn on my television to MSNBC during the late afternoon of Thursday, Oct. 15th, and I saw the odd, fairly small, gray, helium-filled balloon that, I guess, half the world ended up seeing. I was curious, for a few minutes, to find out what was going on. After all, MSNBC must be showing this live coverage for a reason, I assumed.

A young boy might be on the ballooon and in danger, I learned. Then, seconds later, I heard, the young boy may not be on the balloon.

At that point, I stopped and asked myself: Why is MSNBC providing live, continuous coverage of the possibility - and it was only a possibility, however decent a possibility - that one boy is in that balloon and may be in danger?

My answer, to myself, was: "Well, it's all about entertainment, and I guess, we're at a point now, when -- even if a story is speculative and involves only one human being - it's still considered important enough to plug the entire country in with live, national coverage."

I do NOT accept that standard or the decision to cover the floating balloon with live, national coverage. As I watched it, I thought it was BAD news judgement -- That it was typically sensational coverage offered in the guise of news, when, it really was all entertainment. I could understand the human interest side of the story. It was unusual -- but, I felt: a) TV people should have waited to see if the boy was in the balloon, and, b) radically tamped down the coverage until then.

I kept watching, mainly to analyze the media coverage, frankly. MSNBC kept covering the "balloon boy" story - for at least 90 minutes - as if it were a MAJOR NEWS story impacting millions of people. I guess, MSNBC figured, the entertainment angle should reach millions. (I think CNN was covering it live too)

Then, of course, the boy was found in the attic of his home. MSNBC and the people interviewed seemed pretty shocked the boy in his home the whole time. I was not quite as shocked partly because the station had reported - in a downplayed way - that there was a chance the boy was not on the balloon.

Now, as the story unfolded, David Schuster, who was anchoring for MSNBC, made repeated references to how the story had attracted attention from all over the country. At one point, as the cameras showed people - either local officials or police or someone - going into the family's house to talk to the boy's parents.

"They're talking to them (the parents) about why this became an internatioal event," commented a TV reporter on camera.

I couldn't believe that comment. It disgusted me. This TV newsperson was speculating that the parents were being asked for an explanation for how this could've turned into an international event.

It's because MSNBC and other stations' coverage MADE IT AN INTERNATIONAL EVENT!!!

I cannot stand when the news media acts like it has no role in an event, which it, essentially, helped create!!

In the days that followed, this story - very predictably - stayed in the news when little tidbits kept surfacing about some unusual aspects of the "balloon boy"'s family. Yes, I can accept that perhaps some stories about this family might be interesting to some.

Hoever, my big beef with this episode was in the initial news coverage. Sorry, but, I think there is an ENORMOUS important difference between speculation and reality in terms of how the news business should report on developments. A speculative story often shouldn't even be aired at all, or, if so, it should be qualified and identified as speculative. In the case of "balloon boy," television producers blurred the lines between speculation and reality solely to "entertain" us.

Maybe, the next time, the television business can just make up a story and pretend it's real. That seems to be where things are headed.

Random Musings at Start of October

2009-09-30T23:58:00.020-04:00

While I don't have strong feelings about President Obama's failed plea to get the 2016 Olympics held in Chicago, I do perceive the sequence of events, unfortunately, as a metaphor for some of Obama's struggles lately. Why? As I wrote in my last blog, there is an appearance - whether accurate or not - that the Obama team has an enlarged view of the President's personal powers and charisma. The President is always out making speeches, for example, because, it seems, the White House thinks his performances make SUCH a difference that they have to keep him on that schedule. Well, when Obama's efforts to persuade the International Olympic Committee didn't lead to the desired result, to me, it's a message the White House ought to reflect on for a day - or, a week, or two. It's time for the President and his advisors to come down to Earth. It's time to get more realistic, to re-connect with real people and to look in the mirror more often. The Obama White House has seemed a bit out of touch the past few months. Maybe this Olympics episode will help in the long run.
Talk about bad timing. Obama returns to the White House from the bad Olympics news on the same day that unemployment figures actually got worse. That's bad luck.
I happened to watch David Letterman's weird, confessional "story" he told on his show last night about being the victim of an extortion plot relating to his affairs with women on the "Late Show" staff. He began by trying to mix humor in with the story-telling, but, I wondered immediately: "Why is he trying to be funny at all about something so serious?" When the audience kept laughing, and, clearly didn't understand that Letterman was relating the truth about an awful personal episode, Letterman didn't stop to clarify things. Rather, he kept going, taking turns between disclosing serious facts and jokes. In my view, it was fairly typical for Letterman. For a long time, I've had mixed feelings about Letterman. Sometimes, I just think he's not that funny. (His "Top Ten" list can seem over-rated, to me). Other times, he can be very funny, especially when he's relaxed and joking around with his celebrity guests, who he's refreshingly unfazed by. Still, other times, I find Letterman seems to have sort of a mean streak. He sometimes picks on people. For example, and some will disagree, I'm sure, but, when Joaquin Phoenix was a guest on his show earlier this year and behaved very strangely, acting completely unresponsive to Dave, Letterman turned on Phoenix -- big-time and took some shots at him, and, did nothing to stop the avalanche of criticism leveled at Phoenix in the days afterward. Now, I admit Phoenix wasn't a cooperative guest, but, we never found out why he acted as he did. (Was it part of a practical joke? Was he in an altered state for some reason?) Whatever it was, I didn't like the way Letterman treated Phoenix -- and I don't like it when he picks on people when they're down. He's got a glib, negative aura sometimes -- and acts like he's a bit "above" others. Well, maybe this recent personal difficulty will humble him a bit - in a good way.
I am not a resident of Boston, but, I find it amazing that incumbent Mayor Tom Menino is even allowed to run for a fifth term. I think it's wrong. I think there should be a term limit for the mayor - at perhaps three. While I respect a few things about Menino, (like his resilience) he is not the least bit inspirational and displays no imagination in his vision or leadership for Boston. I'd like to see a mayor more like Kevin White - the EARLY Kevin White, that is, before his ethics spiraled downward as he continued in office for a third and fourth term. You see? (White should've been limited in terms too). Menino is a tremendous favorite to win re-election in Nov.
Speaking of elections in Massachusetts, I am trying to gather information on candidates to replace the late US Sen Edward Kennedy. I'm considering Martha Coakley and Michael Capuano right now. I badly want a woman to become a US senator from this state and I like Coakley, but, she seems a bit centrist and cautious to me. Capuano, who has always seemed a bit rough on the edges; nevertheless, seems to have retained a scrappiness that I admire during his time in Congress. I was struck by Barney Frank's early endorsement of Capuano. I've always liked Frank and if he's endorsing Capuano, that tells me that Barney appreciates Capuano fighting for progressive positions in Congress, and, I must say, Capuano strikes me as being unafraid to take on tough adversaries. We'll see.
I remain bothered that President Obama does not appear to have a better relationship with members of the US Congress - the House and the Senate. I think Speaker Nancy Pelosi has done him few favors. Harry Reid offers little. So, who is Obama's staff person who acts as his main liaison to Congress? I don't know the name or names. I do know that I've read repeatedly about his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, having many "important" meetings with members of Congress - and, that worries me. I know Emanuel, a former Congressman, has many contacts and institutional knowledge, but, I've also read that Emanuel is disliked by many House members, and, that he's an arrogant guy with a style that rubs many the wrong way. So, wouldn't it make sense for Obama to tell Emanuel to spend less time worrying about Congress (He does have a lot to do already) and find some, excellent, high-profile, respected, tough, experienced person to serve as his new liaison to Congress?" I'd say so -- He should do something to build new bridges there.

OK, I'm Convinced: Obama Is Badly "Over-Exposed"

2009-09-27T21:51:00.061-04:00

Even I am getting sick of seeing President Obama so much on television and I'm an enthusiastic Obama supporter.

It's just not natural to see and hear a President as often as we've seen this guy! He's held press "availabilities" with dizzying frequency. Many of his speeches or "town hall forums" have been aired live or highlighted on television. Obama has hosted more press conferences than his predecessors after nine months. And, he's appeared on "60 Minutes" twice, along with Letterman and Leno.

What makes this more striking is the extent to which Obama has been seen in "campaign-mode" - as he does all this speechifying. Why is he still acting like he's in a campaign on so many occasions during his first year as President? I'm tired of seeing Obama making "pitches" - whether for the stimulus package or health care reform . We saw him in that role for his long presidential campaign; now, we need to see Obama take action and make decisions more than make "pleas" for support.

It's time for Obama to take breaks from talking publicly. The constant public "performing" has been hurting him more than helping, I think. Mr. President: How about just working in the White House a bit more often? Maybe lingering in the Oval Office would help in more ways than one. Perhaps you and your staff can show more faith that things will be OK - even if you're not out trying to "sell" your policies.

For quite a while, I thought Obama's "high-visibility" approach made some sense. Obama had walked into an incredible economic crisis. He was new, young - and the nation's first black President. It seemed a good idea to be visible, open and attempting to become more familiar to the American people. I also bought the argument that it was important to keep Obama's "favorability" high during the first months of his first year, when, clearly, his Administration is trying to get so much accomplished when their chances for legislation are highest. I wrote about this in a June 2nd blog, in which I noted that this approach had worked "so far," but I worried then that, in the long term, it could have a down side.

Well, during the summer - which was a poor one for Obama - I began to feel the negatives of the high-visibility approach were outweighing the positives.

Now, I'm afraid this White House may be disturbingly out of touch about the impact and role of the President's appearances. It's as if Obama's advisors view Obama as a "rock star" with a golden touch -- and the only one who can represent the Administration.

Howard Fineman, in his Sept. 26th column in Newsweek, argued that the Obama team should consider the limited value of visibility (alone) for the President. Fineman wrote:

"The president's problem isn't that he's too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer...."

In addition, some related trends have emerged as problems for the President:

First, on a number of occasions, Obama has attracted considerable criticism - sometimes from Republicans or policy critics - and been far too slow to respond to it. I felt this happened most glaringly during the summer of constant attacks on the Obama health care reform efforts. One reason: Obama has lacked allies and surrogates - inside and outside of Congress - who have his back and will passionately support him whenever asked, on short notice.

Second, it seems Obama has not shown - enough - that he has a backbone. That he has deep conviction about certain priorities. That he can and will say "No" more to groups, individuals and other leaders. If he's showing this tendency exclusively in private, then his staff should leak anecdotes that give us a glimpse of it.

Third, Obama talks so much to us that when he doesn't follow through on something, it raises questions about how seriously he takes his own words and the extent to which he thinks we take his words seriously. (He's characterized his support for the "public option" in a variety of ways on different occasions and appeared weaker than necessary). Sometimes, I wonder if he thinks it matters, or, if he can say anything and still talk his way out of it - and, this raises questions about the strength of his own beliefs).

Fourth, Obama, simply, needs to show he's in charge more. Too often, he's been explaining topics to us instead of telling us about tough decisions he's made and what plans he's implementing, going forward - regardless of the opposition. To me, a rare example when President Obama did just that was his decision to not install an anti-missile system in eastern Europe. Obama had said he'd conduct a review of this matter, and his announcement pleased the Russians and prompted criticism from Republicans, but, he appeared to have resolve about it, sure and steady.

While, obviously, none of us know what goes on behind closed doors in the White House, after nine months, you can get a sense of certain dynamics and speculate based on limited observations. Somehow, Obama and his people began placing too much emphasis on using Obama's outstanding talents, speaking, explaining and inspiring and seemed to place too little on his need to lead in other ways daily - to display leadership to House and Senate members, other constituencies, to tap the right talent in his closest staff and oversee and make demands on his Cabinet secretaries.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, in a Sept. 29th piece, spoke to this from another perspective. Cohen's introduction said:

"Sooner or later it is going to occur to Barack Obama that he is the president of the United States. As of yet, though, he does not act that way, appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is. The election has been held, but the campaign goes on. The candidate has yet to become commander-in-chief...."

Cohen's line prompted me to reexamine all of Obama's "campaigning" for health care reform.

One can question the value of the events because they clearly have not swayed many people toward supporting Obama's proposed reforms, but perhaps another lesson for the White House is that they should have invested more time back in the White House developing the content, strategy and arguments they planned to use in presenting their reform proposals AND the steps they'd follow to keep Congress operating under a tighter framework.

If, in fact, the Obama team were to fail in its quest to win approval for a significant health care reform package, it'd probably mean there were flaws in the legislation and the early assessments of what could be won, or not with Congress -- but, surely, the frequency or drama surrounding Obama's performances on center stage will not be viewed as pivotal, I don't think.

I agree with Cohen. It's time for Obama and his advisors to focus more on how the President his leading, or, not leading - - and try to shore up existing weaknesses.

The irony is that if Obama stayed in the White House more and reduced his appearances, the focus of news coverage might shift more to content and his execution of difficult actions, tough policy choices and Obama's leading other important people and groups.

The Obama White House needs to cultivate media attention to these other aspects of Obama's leadership. He should not have to "campaign" so much now. He's the President, and, if he acts more like he's in control and comfortable using his power, the media, and then the public, will notice the difference.

In Praise of Jimmy Carter's Candor on Racism

2009-09-15T09:18:00.040-04:00

I applaud Jimmy Carter for speaking his mind this week about the role of race in some of the disturbing, extremist reactions to President Barack Obama recently. Carter made his comments after US Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst in the middle of Obama's recent health care speech to a joint session of the US Congress. Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, shouted "You lie" at Obama, jarring his colleagues and those of us watching on television. Wilson's behavior was VERY unusual, and, it followed, in disturbing fashion, a summer when Obama's appearances had attracted a variety of other negative, occasionally bizarre responses from some individuals in his audiences.

"I think it's based on racism," Carter said, in reply to a question during an event at his Carter Center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."
Carter also said that Wilson's outburst was part of a troubling trend of harsh criticisms directed at Obama by demonstrators - including individuals who have compared Obama to Nazi leaders.
"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," Carter said. "It's deeper than that."

Carter said what many US senators and Representatives are afraid to say. In fact, afterward, a few Democrats went out of their way to distance themselves immediately from the former president's comments. Those Democratic politicians quoted were totally unconvincing in trying to claim anti-Obama reactions were innocent and issue-driven.

It seems fairly obvious there is "an element" of Obama critics who are motivated by race. I wish more of our elected leaders - Republicans and Democrats - were willing to identify these individuals for who they are. It'd be nice if they had the courage and principle to complain about racist comments or behavior. Instead, most politicians these days avoid any sensitive issues -- so, I guess it's unsurprising they're silent about racism.

Well, I'm tired of it. I wish more people would follow Jimmy Carter's lead. Why the hell were some white individuals showing up with deplorable, hateful messages on posters at some Obama events on health care this summer? Why are right-wing, reckless, obnoxious radio and
television talk show hosts so harshly and crudely ripping President Obama non-stop -- no matter what he's actually doing in office?

We are living in a strange time when it comes to what's tolerated or not. (I wrote about this last week). I criticized TV reactionary Glenn Beck, who had called President Obama " a racist" on a television talk show. Well, this week, Time Magazine decided to put Glenn Beck on its cover. Typical. Today's media organizations - like Time - make their decisions on the entertainment level or ratings potential of a topic rather than whether it's newsworthy, in context or deserves attention at all. Beck does NOT deserve any attention - or, a talk show.

My reaction, when I heard of former President Carter's quote was: "It's about time someone of stature spoke up about this."

I understand that Obama and his advisors do not want to raise the issue of race. Imagine if Obama, himself, argued that racism was a factor in his struggle to increase support for one of his positions or actions. He'd receive overwhelming criticism. HOWEVER, I do not accept the silence of everyone else, particularly elected officials and those with influence and power in all sectors of society who could impact the dialogue on race relations.

I was glad to read a terrific Sept. 13th piece by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who ripped into US Rep. Joe Wilson for his outburst during Obama's speech. Dowd, like Jimmy Carter, waded right into the topic of race, and, took it further by raising questions about Wilson's possible motivations and his record on race-related matters.

Consider this excerpt from Dowd's column:

"...The congressman, we learned, belonged to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, led a 2000 campaign to keep the Confederate flag waving above South Carolina's state Capitol and denounced as a "smear" the true claim of a black woman that she was the daughter of Strom Thurmond, the '48 segregationist candidate for president. Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber."
Then, Dowd commented further:

"I've been loath to admit that the shrieking lunacy of the summer -- the frantic efforts to paint our first black president as the Other, a foreigner, socialist, fascist, Marxist, racist, Commie, Nazi; a cad who would snuff old people; a snake who would indoctrinate kids -- had much to do with race........But Wilson's shocking disrespect for the office of the president -- no Democrat ever shouted "liar" at W. when he was hawking a false case for war in Iraq -- convinced me: Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it....."

Dowd is right on the money. I wish it weren't so, but, I feel that in the past couple of months, we're seeing some more blatant signs of racism against Obama. You can see it in the surprising disgust or venom that shows up in negative comments of Obama critics.

The recent racial dynamics confronting Obama remind me of the obstacles he overcame during the 2008 presidential campaign. I still believe people have overlooked the extent to which Obama had to rise above the constant presence of racism in both the primary and general election campaign. I recall - during Obama's battle vs. Hillary Clinton - how Bill Clinton was often assigned to campaign aggressively for white votes in little rural towns of certain states where racism remained a large factor. I recall how, in my home state of Massachusetts, Hillary won overwhelming margins of victory against Obama in many medium-sized, blue-collar cities where one would have expected Obama to do much better. Race was an important factor, in my view. Then, of course, there were Democratic primaries in states like Kentucky and West Virgina - where Hillary was ahead by 30 points weeks before the event, remained ahead by that margin, and, then, won by the same whopping margin. Many voters there, clearly, had made up their minds about Obama and were not predisposed to change. I wonder why.

And, who can forget some of the despicable tactics used by John McCain and Sarah Palin in the general election campaign against Obama. I can recall Palin, a hopeless candidate who deserved far tougher scrutiny of her own record, trying in repeated appearances, to portray Obama as "an outsider" who couldn't be trusted. Indeed, though I expected even worse, McCain and Palin did little to avoid rhetoric that stirred anxieties about race.

As I observe Obama's presidency, I will never forget the obstacles he overcame to win the election. I still believe that many Americans give him a smaller margin for error as President because he is black. Obama faces more challenges and constraints all the time due to his race. Let's hope that when a minority of his critics display racial prejudice, that others will speak up - like Jimmy Carter did - and help discourage others from doing the same thing.

It's Time for People to Speak Out Against Right-wing Extremism

2009-09-08T10:59:00.042-04:00

How did people in this country get so passive and indifferent about crazy things said or done by extreme right-wingers?

What does it take for someone to stand up and say "Hey, that guy just said something unacceptable to me. I object to it and I want to help stop that person from repeating that crap" ?

I ask this in response to some of the extreme, repulsive remarks or actions by right-wing individuals aimed at President Obama during the past month or two. The ratings-driven television news media has chosen to cover these rants as "news" and failed to present them as the irresponsible acts they are. (The Right, historically, takes advantage of the superficial, entertainment-dominated news the most often).

There are too many examples to cover, but, here are a few that drew my attention:

1) First, the continuing efforts of a tiny, tiny minority of people to raise questions about whether President Obama was born in the United States -- the so-called "birthers" - who, for some puzzling reason, have continued to get covered by the national media. There's NOTHING to the questions - so, there should be NO more stories. Period.

2) The people who inexcusably carried guns outside town hall forum events where Obama spoke on a few occasions this summer. This, apparently, was some sort of sick way of drawing attention and making a point, I guess. I just know I heard too small an outcry of protest about this display of guns. It was a low moment that should've been rejected and criticized more harshly.

3) The ugly, unacceptable comments made by right-wing TV talk show host, Glenn Beck.

4) The ludicrous, incredibly disturbing attention paid to an initially very tiny protest of concern about President Obama's remarks made to the nations' schoolchildren on Sept. 8th. This mushroomed into a large story, thanks to the media coverage. (More on this in a second).

Right-wing radio and TV talk show hosts know, all too well, what drives the nation's news media in 2009: It's ENTERTAINMENT and that means whatever constitutes entertainment - even it the content is false, misleading, distorted or reckless. These entertainers who pretend to be "journalists" know that in this Internet-dominated news arena, the consumers of information have a VERY short attention span. So, if one of them makes an off-the-cuff remark that's inaccurate or offends some group, that's OK, he rationalizes. The specifics will be "forgotten" or will fade a few hours later -- and the initial impact is what counts, anyway.

Well, when I was growing up, it was NOT enough to simply be "entertaining." A news organization felt obligated to have at least some credibility and responsibility. It attempted to show respect and decency for other people in its coverage. These standards don't apply in 2009.

So, I guess this helps explain how an idiot like Glenn Beck can somehow use a fraudulent "shock-jock" formula to attract attention, get a show, and attract ratings. However, when Beck back in late July, called President Obama "a racist" without providing any substantiation, I didn't accept that - and I don't accept that he should even have a show now. Do you recall what he said?

Beck, in a July 28th appearance on Fox and Friends, said that Obama "had a deep-seated hatred of white people or the white culture." He added: "I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people. I'm saying that he has a problem. This guy, is, I believe, a racist.."

Then, Beck's comment was circulated and discussed, when it should have been condemned and dismissed instantaneously. I think he should've been fired for such an off-base, ugly, unacceptable remark ---particularly when he made it so deliberately - with his eyes wide open.

While that Beck comment was "off-the-charts BAD," some of his right-wing peers - Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly, to name only a few examples - tend to routinely attack Obama in excessive, hysterical fashion. Often, these or other right-wing hosts describe "liberals" as if they're dangerous inhabitants of another planet. A number have continued calling Obama or his policies "socialist" even though it's an embarrassingly FALSE label. Is anyone intelligent listening out there? Do members of the audience know or care if this crap is spouted all day long?

These and other right-wing hosts use the most juvenile, stupid approaches to draw attention: Name-calling, exaggerating, lying, distorting, sensationalizing. They cleverly attach their extreme language to real-life news and strands of truth or reality in order to create an appearance of relevance when, in fact, much of their content is so false or out of context that it's serves no good purpose.

Consider the fuss that was made over Obama's remarks to school children on Sept. 8th.

First, some conservative got all up tight about a draft of the plans for Obama's remarks included a proposed "lesson plan" that made a reference to giving students a chance to volunteer ideas or ways to "help the President." It was clear to most that there was no bad intent here -- no effort to score political points; but, soon, right-wingers were spreading claims that Obama was trying to "indoctrinate" children and "promote his agenda" in an inappropriate way. Soon, news stories covering these unsubstantiated claims, fears and speculation began multiplying and a controversy was created out of nothing.

A few public officials actually stirred the pot, including Jim Greer, the Republican Party chairman in Florida, who was said he "was appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread Presiden Obama's socialist ideology." Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who reportedly has presidential aspirations, said the thought Obama's planned remarks were "disruptive."

The White House tried to reassure people the President's remarks were aimed at inspiring kids to be responsible, but, the story was off to the races. I think it was largely a "media-created" episode. I find it hard to believe there were thousands of "concerned parents" out there -- or, at least as many "concerned parents" as suggested by news accounts. For instance, the New York Times ran a Page One story on Sept. 4th headlined: "Obama's Plan for School Talk Ignites a Revolt," but, while the article reported anecdotal responses of concern or protest from citizens, it cited no evidence that large numbers of Americans had been impacted at all by this matter.

More importantly, when Obama actually spoke on Sept. 8th, his remarks were without controversy or politics; rather, his statement was what his advisors had promised -- a pitch to students about the importance of taking responsibility. Obama did a great job, by the way.

After I watched Obama on the 8th, my wish was that all the right-wing talk shows be held accountable for their false, irresponsible claims about Obama's speech. The entire episode illustrated how ridiculous the world of talk shows and media have become. Of course, we've seen evidence of this during public debate over health care reform too.

Right-wingers have leveled many wild, inaccurate charges and criticisms at President Obama as a way to hurt his chances to win a victory over health care. Perhaps the worst claim - taken up by former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin - that, under Obama's plan, there would be "death panels" that would decide the fate of senior citizens at the end of their lives.

President Obama, in his Sept. 9th speech to a joint session of Congress, finally confronted this bluntly by saying the following.

"Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claims, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It's a lie, plain and simple."

Perhaps Obama learned a lesson about the need to respond far more directly and immediately in simple language that ensure everyone will at least hear the truth. (I think one unfortunate reality is that a segment of the right-wing "attacks" on Obama is due to an undercurrent of racism. The prejudice is manifested in negative or hateful rhetoric that, on the surface, targets other Obama-related topics).

In today's world covered by entertainment-driven media, leaders - including President Obama - must be swift and clear about clarifying misunderstandings and lies.

It's time the rest of us did our part to help label and reject irresponsible comments from the Right. Speak up and put an end to irresponsible, right-wing extremism !!

Can Obama Still Get Meaningful Health Care Reform?

2009-08-30T19:12:00.036-04:00

Surely, Barack Obama didn't expect to be stuck in such an awful quagmire over health care reform as he heads into Labor Day weekend in his first year as President. He expected a hard battle, but, probably, not this nightmare.

Much of the resistance goes with the territory. There are too many powerful special interests in health care that can block attempted change at every corner. However, Obama and his team have made the prospects for genuine, large-scale reform much less likely than they had to be. For a President who has excelled in communicating with the public, Obama often has appeared vague and indecisive. He has appeared cautious and passive rather than bold and strong.

It has been extremely difficult to follow the story of health care reform. That's partly due to the fact that so much of the "action" of this story goes on behind the scenes, beneath the radar. It involves lobbying and more lobbying. It involves money and influence. It involves political muscling and dealmaking. What information bubbles to the surface is all that we, the citizens, see, and, usually, it's an incredibly incomplete picture. The typically flawed news reporting on this issue has only increased the murkiness.

Despite this incomplete picture and my limited knowledge of health care policy, I'll attempt to list some central factors that have impacted the evolution of this policy drama.

1. Obama's strategic decision to "let the Congress shape the legislation" has backfired quite a bit. On the one hand, it seemed understandable that Obama didn't want to repeat the Clintons' mistake of attempting to develop a reform package from inside the White House. Obama wanted Congress to help shape, and, later, "own" the product of its work. However, Obama has chosen to avoid asserting his own views and priorities on the significant aspects of health care reform for far too long. This has made him appear weak and directionless on an issue that he harped on - with authority and principle - as a candidate in 2008. Plus, Obama's choice to stay above the fray has allowed the debate to be unnecessarily aimless, unfocused, noisy, reckless, distracted, and, often, unpleasant or obnoxious. The Republicans, the Party of "No" have been allowed to create mischief on a near-daily basis -- partly as a result of the White House "letting the Congress shape the legislation." The Republicans' only mission is to defeat Obama.

2. Obama has failed to explain why we have to have health care reform. He has failed to identify his own largest reasons. Is it to help the uninsured - particularly those millions of people of low or moderate income? If so, one cannot easily conclude this from Obama's town hall forums. Yes, he mentions it, but he mentions A LOT of things and that's the problem. He has desparately needed a "mantra" - a rallying cry -- a few top goals to group together in a slogan or argument.

3. Obama has not clearly identified his allies and opponents. Who is he fighting for? Against? I'm sure he'd reply he's helping "the American people," but, again, his rhetoric has not been clear, strong and focused in that regard. Has he been railing (enough) against HMOs or the pharmaceutical industry? I don't think so. He speaks in generalities about the system, but, surely, he knows, as a former community organizer and communicator, his Administration's argument would be more compelling if it were urging us to stop some opposing force or industry. It helps to rally people against a big, bad target or "enemy."

4. Isn't it a sign of trouble that several of Obama's largest informal "allies" for reform are the most "mainstream" health care entities imaginable -- i.e. the pharmaceutical industry, the AMA, (the largest physicians' organization) or, hospitals? Recently, according to an original, thorough article by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone on health care reform, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America "...announced that the industry would contribute an estimated $150 million to campaign for Obamacare..." (www.rollingstone.com/issue1086) Taibbi details many troubling aspects of the impact of behind-the-scenes lobbying on the ongoing "debate" in Congress.

5. Obama and his team have done a particularly poor job trying to explain "the public option." In a year when the public has grown wary and hostile toward the idea of additional federal government intervention, it became even more important for the Administration to explain "the public option" very clearly, carefully, and patiently. One priority should've been to emphasize that it will NOT result in a harmful intrusion by the government, but, rather, a way of ensuring people get their choice of coverage. Obama and his team have been far too casual about showing the American people how this reform effort will not bankrupt us by creating tremendous new deficits. They'll have to do this in the weeks ahead if they are to succeed.

6. In a closely related way, the Obama team has never shown a sufficient acknowledgement that, in a year of the economic stimulus package - a measure with results that've been hard to see and measure - of course, the public would be skeptical of the federal government playing a much greater role in the provision of health care.

7. There has been a dramatic shortage of strong "surrogates" speaking in support of the Obama Administration's efforts. This has been a weakness that characterized the period before the vote on the stimulus too. Why do I hear so much about Republicans' reactions to every little development on health care without seeing and hearing showings of strong support and rhetoric from Obama supporters? I'm referring, in particular, to Democratic US senators and Democratic US House members, who have been remarkably silent. I don't think that's a coincidence. Many Congressmen base their behavior solely on protecting their own interests. They are, unfortunately, not generally the least bit courageous or bold. They avoid risks at all costs. Too often, this story has presented Obama on one side -- speaking in generalities -- and a wide array of critics on the other side who are all too willing to spout any reckless, irresponsible criticism, attack or distracting remark at the Obama side. Worsening matters is that the Republican Party has become a tiny group of politicians unwilling to engage in thoughtful debate on anything. They should be irrelevant, but, they've had more success at attracting media coverage than their quiet, passive, unimpressive counterparts -- even though the Democrats outnumber them by a tremendous margin and possess strategic advantages.

8. While I mention the failings of Democrats, I must stress that their collective effort was obviously much more needed given the timing that Obama has chosen for this. Obama, understandably, felt if he had a shot at health care, it probably had to come in his first year - after his historic victory and the peaking of good will from the American people. Yet, after he had to grapple with the economic crisis non-stop in his early months, he lost some key momentum and credibility. He needed - but, received very little - outspoken support from Democratic allies to back him up in the uphill - "against-the-wind" effort to reform health care. I believe that even if Obama gets a watered-down bill in 2009, he deserves at least some credit for choosing to take this issue on in a time of tremendous economic stress for the country.

9. Obama seems to have adopted an approach aimed at alienating as few people as possible. He seems to want it both ways. On occasion, he'll speak of the big changes needed, but, at the same time, he fails to identify - specifically - who and what players and entities within the system must change the way they do business. For a "populist" sort of argument, Obama sure hasn't sounded like a populist. A populist has to rally people against something or someone mistreating or hurting them -- whether it's Big Business or whoever. I have not hear Obama rail against any of the "bad players" in the health care world in a way that's as compelling as it could be. I suspect that's because the Obama team has been "working with" some major players in health care AND Obama has tried to keep too many parties in the arena happy, when, in fact, a leader of a reform effort CANNOT keep pleasing everyone; in fact, if that leader is generating momentum, he or she will probably made some real enemies and created deep anger and tension and conflict. How can a major reform drive amount to much WITHOUT that kind of opposition or side-effects?

10. The Obama team has not presented good, clear arguments even to me - and I'm an enthusiastic Obama supporter. I still receive emails from the Obama grassroots group, "Organizing for America" and what I've noticed is the same general presentation that lacks an edge. (They fail to identify often enough what, specifically, needs to be replaced or changed!) If the Obama people - both in the White House and those leading the Obama grass roots machine - have not shared a clear "rallying cry" that has captured my attention, that's a bad sign.

Don't get me wrong. I support major health care reform and I hope the Obama administration will force through as strong a bill as possible. I just want Obama to stand up and show more leadership on this issue - NOW, before it's too late.

Kennedy Endorsement of Obama Was Special

2009-08-12T23:16:00.044-04:00

As US Sen. Edward Kennedy struggles to hang on in his battle with cancer, I've thought back on one of his better days last year. For me, it became perhaps the most memorable moment of Ted Kennedy's career.

It was the moment when Teddy chose to endorse Barack Obama early in Obama's 2008 presidential primary campaign against Hillary Clinton. Obama had just won the South Carolina primary decisively on Jan. 26th, but he was still relatively unknown nationally and faced a steep, uphill fight against Clinton on Super Tuesday. At that moment, he needed all the help he could get - and the Kennedys, Ted and his niece, Caroline, stepped forward.

Ted Kennedy's endorsement "piggy-backed" his niece Caroline's dramatic endorsement of Obama in an op-ed piece in the Jan. 27, 2008 edition of the New York Times. Caroline wrote that Obama could inspire people the way her father had back in the 1960s.

The next day, Jan. 28th, Caroline and Ted Kennedy appeared with Obama at American University in Washington DC, and, Ted didn't just go through the motions in his remarks. He gave a fiery speech that passionately rebutted each of the misleading claims Clinton had been making about Obama. Clinton had been getting away with distortions hurled at Obama, but, on this day, Kennedy took her on and knocked down her false claims. In doing so, Kennedy threw his experience, clout and family name behind Obama with full force at a moment when Obama truly needed it.

Kennedy said Obama was "ready to be President on Day One" -- dismissing Clinton's charge that Obama was inexperienced. Kennedy said "from the beginning, he (Obama) opposed the war in Iraq. And let no one deny that truth..." (Clinton had suggested Obama's opposition was less pure)

Kennedy told the crowd that Obama represented "a new era" and a rejection of "old politics."

I recall, vividly, watching Kennedy's remarks. As an Obama supporter, I was so thrilled. I knew how desparately Obama needed a boost right then and this was like a dream come true. At that time, Clinton had more endorsements in the US House and Senate than Obama, and, more strikingly, she had FAR greater name recognition in the large states at stake in Super Tuesday. Indeed, one could sense that if Obama lost badly to Clinton on Super Tuesday, his candidacy would likely spiral downward. The Kennedys' move stood WAY out in the period before Super Tuesday and attracted a wave of positive media coverage over a number of days.

Hillary and Bill Clinton were jarred by Kennedy's move. Others were surprised, particularly because Kennedy had acted swiftly without signalling his intentions. The Clintons felt they had done much to help Teddy in the past. At the same time, Kennedy reportedly was genuinely upset by Clinton campaign tactics, including using the race card in South Carolina. To me, the fact that Kennedy made the choice in spite of his longstanding relationship with the Clintons made it all sweeter.

Do you remember how vulnerable Obama was at that moment? I doubt it because I've discussed this with many people who had forgotten the dynamics before Super Tuesday. Obama was a newcomer. He was viewed as young, inexperienced and untested. And, let's not forget: He was the nation's first, serious black candidate with a chance to win the presidency - a very different candidate than Jesse Jackson was in 1984 or 1988.

Obama had to thread the needle on Super Tuesday - i.e. win just enough states to minimize the impact of Hillary winning most of the largest states. Yet, without Ted Kennedy's endorsement and a few other key breaks, Obama might have never pulled it off.

Obama ended up winning 13 states on Super Tuesday while Clinton won eight. Yet, to this day, I don't think enough emphasis has been placed on the unlikelihood of how he did this. Many of his 13 states held caucuses - for which the Obama team had outorganized the Clinton campaign. Somehow, some way, the media - which was obsessed, as always, with the delegate totals, zero-ed in on Obama's tiny delegate lead over Clinton after Super Tuesday - even though she had won California, New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts. Even in these big states he lost, Obama won many delegates in districts his campaign had targeted, thus lessening the damage.

Then, later, even after Hillary won primaries in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, Obama hung on by solidifying support among "super-delegates" and holding on to delegates he'd won in caucuses.

In the end, Obama barely beat Clinton. He won because of his margin among delegates and because he gradually convinced US senators and House members, who are super delegates, to support him rather than Clinton.

Would Obama have pulled it off without that critical endorsement of Ted Kennedy back in late January? Probably.....but, I'd still argue that Teddy's endorsement was a pivotal moment in what was the most exciting presidential primary campaign of my life other than perhaps the 1968 Democratic race.

Endorsements usually do not carry the same weight they used to in all kinds of political campaigns; however, I will never forget the way Ted Kennedy came through in the clutch for Barack Obama by passionately endorsing him in early 2008.

Gates Saga Aftermath and Midsummer Thoughts

2009-07-31T22:39:00.029-04:00

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

2009-07-23T17:57:00.090-04:00

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

2009-07-16T23:36:00.051-04:00

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

2009-07-08T16:17:00.029-04:00

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.

Random Musings on June 30th

2009-06-30T12:51:00.024-04:00

I am really tired of........former Massachusetts House Speaker Thomas Finneran whining, in essence, that he deserves to get his license to practice law back from the Board of Bar Overseers. The Board disbarred Finneran in 2007 when he pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice. In January, Finneran tried, unsuccessfully, to be pardoned by outgoing President George W. Bush. In a brief filed last Friday, Finneran sought forgiveness from the state Supreme Judicial Court for his "moment of personal weakness." Finneran lied in 2003 in federal court about his role in a controversial redistricting plan. What does Finneran have to complain about? Though he was convicted of a felony, he got 18 months of unsupervised probation, fined $25,000 and lost his pension and law license. Shortly after that, he got a chance to host a radio talk show on a respected radio station in Boston. My view? Finneran is very lucky to have not been penalized more harshly -- like many others convicted of that felony. Finneran is one of three consecutive Massachusetts House Speakers to get in trouble with the law and that only underscores the need for accountability. He does not deserve special treatment.

I am really tired of......the television media pretending it's covering news when it's indisputably producing its attempt at entertainment. My latest example: The coverage of Michael Jackson's death. Yes, I understand that Jackson was, at one time, very BIG on the music scene and his death affected many people. However, the manner in which the networks and cable television stations literally POUNCED on the Jackson story the moment he died and have stayed on it non-stop - in sensational, gossipy fashion - typifies - in the ugliest way - that in the United States, there is no longer any clear boundary between news and entertainment.

I am really tired of.....Israeli leaders and supporters of Israel complaining about the Obama administration's approach toward old issues in the Middle East being "different" and/or "harder on Israel" when, in fact, Obama is simply trying to initiate more strong, clear parameters between Israel and the Palestinians. The Obama administration has been resolute - so far - in telling Israel to stop constructing any new settlements in the occupied territories, and, unlike past administrations, so far, Obama's team has not allowed exceptions. I applaud Obama for this firmer position and hope he can stick to it despite enormous pressure ahead. It seems the only chance for change is dependent on Israel having to make concessions it has not made in the past AND that the US is the only party to make that happen.

I am really tired of......hearing so much propaganda and confusing bits of news out of Iran without hearing more of the truth. I fully realize that the Iranian regime has literally constrained the press from doing its job in recent days and that it's extremely hard to find more of the truth to share; however, it just makes me angry at the Iranian clerics in control for their crackdown on dissent and more eager to find out what's really been going on. If, in fact, Mousavi really won the election, what kind of continuing tension and discontent will exist? And, won't it worsen over time? I still believe - even with the tremendous obstacles to reporting - that we should know more than we do now.

I am really tired of .....hearing any news or gossip or speculation about Sarah Palin. Unless and until she goes through a radical transformation and becomes a knowledgeable, more articulate, thoughtful public servant after 10 or 15 years of research, hard work and personality changes, I don't think she deserves more than the tiniest bit of further attention.

I am really tired of.......former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney cropping up on television news talk shows as a leading spokesman for Republicans. Romney also does not deserve the attention. Romney ran in primary after primary last year and all kinds of people in very different states rejected him, his positions, approach and style. Why should he be invited on these talk shows? I don't think I should have to see this guy so much.

I am really tired of.....seeing references to "Jon and Kate Plus 8." I am very proud to say that I have not seen one second of that "reality show." In fact, all I know is it's a reality show about a couple and they were reportedly getting divorced? My question: Why have I seen little headlines - repeatedly - about this show that suggested it was very important and why have Jon and Kate gotten more attention than, let's say, North Korea's recent threats against the US?

I am really tired of....reporters practicing "pack journalism" so often. When a theme surfaces, it seems "The Press" cannot get out of the habit of all spouting the same line or opinion -- whether it's to say that "health care reform is in trouble" OR "People are growing concerned about the deficit" OR "People are worried about too much big government" I respect those reporters who seem to think for themselves - like Christopher Hitchens (who I often disagree with) or Bill Moyers. The same "pack journalism" is found in sportswriting - and, is, in some ways, more striking there. I love it when the conventional wisdom is proven wrong.

I am really tired of....... seeing little gossipy items in the newspaper about Tom Brady and Giselle Bundchen. Thought I am a big fan of Brady, why should we - or, they - be subjected to seeing SO many little updates on this couple's whereabouts? Yeah, they're good-looking and "successful" in their fields, but, the coverage grew tired and boring long ago.

I am really tired of..... technological efficiency being regarded as more important than content. I confess I have avoided new technology used by millions - such as cell phones, Blackberries, Twitter, Facebook or the use of text messaging. However, I'm still waiting for someone to give me any reason to rush into the habit of "texting". What is the big deal about writing a little phrase on your phone and sending it to someone? Oh, I guess, it's the enormous benefit of doing it in "real time" if you're in the middle of doing something else. Well, that doesn't sound so great to me. Why not wait until you can give the person a call and have a real human exchange?
It's painful for me to write that I believe, for many, form, method and process are more important than substance. I don't care about reading someone's "Tweet" saying: "We just saw the Grand Canyon. Fabulous!" I'd much prefer to wait until that friend returned from their trip and told me in person how they experienced the Grand Canyon.
It seems the underlying thread to new products is to allow consumers to experience something when they normally, or, naturally, couldn't otherwise -- Part of that seems good, I guess, but, the advance in products brings bad things too -- like, let's say people texting while driving OR talking on their cell phones while they're interacting with people in person. (These trends all started a downhill path with "call waiting" - which I hate, to this day! - which put efficiency and convenience ahead of natural realities and the natural "order" of things.
Then there is the consumption of huge, big-screen TVs and DVRs and every gadget imaginable. Yet, the new technology often transmits mediocre content. I'm thinking of those incredibly loud, obnoxious previews at movie theaters in the impressive "Surround Sound" -- The only problem is the movies previewed seem to get worse and worse over time. Who cares if the sound is great or they have better special effects? I'll take good characters and writing.
I see the overall tendency of people emphasizing form, speed and appearance over content in many different areas of life. I recall, at one particular job, a supervisor who seemed to care a lot more about the appearance of a chart than the subject or substance of the chart. That's not good. Maybe that's different than texting or cellphones, but, it seems related somehow to me!

Reactions to Events Unfolding in Iran

2009-06-18T14:20:00.066-04:00

To me, one of the fascinating undercurrents of the ongoing drama in Iran is how little we've understood what's really going on there - before and during this crisis. Yes, Iran has made it very hard for any news media to keep reporting over the past nine days, but, even so, there are dimensions to this story that we remain quite clueless on.

First, Iran held their presidential election June 12th and the clerics in power decided to disregard the voters and declare incumbent Mahmoud Ahmahdinejad the winner. This incredibly glaring act of apparent corruption was so extreme and visible to the Iranian people that it sparked the enormous outpouring of protest that has gone on ever since. Sadly, to this point, reports have indicated that close to 20 people have died and many more have been injured. Mir Hossein Mousavi, the challenger who appeared to win a majority of Iranian votes, assumed the role of leader of the protesters and called for a new election to be held. Protesters agreed, and, aired their sentiments in the streets with large rallies every day. Then, over this weekend of June 20 & 21, the Iranian authorities cracked down, to a large extent, on any rallies. Significantly less people turned out on Sunday, June 21, and no one knows what lies ahead this week.

As I've followed events quite closely, I've had strong reactions to the following aspects of this story:

1) I think President Obama's position on Iran has been, basically, right most of the time. I refer to Obama's choice, over most of last week, to refrain from making comments that'd appear like the US was "intervening" or "taking sides" on the election process itself or internal matters in Iran. Rather, Obama chose to focus his most recent comments on Iran's government using violence to stop protesters. He called for Iran to halt a "violent and unjust" crackdown on dissent. Obama, typicallly, has been thoughtful, cautious and wise in choosing his words. He has said that if he expressed a more extreme US "stand" on events in Iran, that Iranian elements would likely take advantage of his remarks by using them to stir up anti-US sentiment and intensify complaints of US "meddling" in Iran's affairs. Beyond that, I feel Obama is following a principle he espoused in his Cairo speech when he spoke of the importance of nations showing mututal respect for how they choose to be governed. "No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on another," Obama said. The President, in Cairo, seeemed ready to take a more "equal" seat at the table of nations rather than continuing a warped outlook of phony US "superiority" on these matters followed by George W. Bush.

2) To me, the US should NOT be getting involved at all with events in Iran. It is NOT the United States' business to weigh in on how Iran conducted its June 12th presidential election or the relationship between the cleric-led government and the voters. Part of our non-interventionist stance should include a position of not trying to superimpose any "old" US government tendencies to espouse support for "freedom-loving" people and that kind of rhetoric left over from the Reagan era. We do NOT know what Iranians want and some politicians should stop assuming that they want exactly what we think they should want -- freedom, democracy, and Apple Pie - and the all-American way. I can't stand they way politicians try use a situation like Iran's for their own cheap political gains. It's like running on the American flag -- but, there's no American flags in Tehran and the people are not asking President Obama to get involved. Nevertheless, some Republicans were criticizing Obama over the weekend, complaining that he was not displaying enough "leadership" or making "strong enough" statements. "The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it, " said Sen. Lindsay Graham, (R - S.C.) on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. "He's been timid and passive more than I would like," Graham said. Sen. John McCain, on another show, also called for Obama to make stronger comments on Iran. Other Republicans joined the chorus. They, unsurprisingly, described the Iranian crisis in black and white terms. There are the "good guys" and "bad guys" and the Americans, being the ultimate good guys, have the right to swoop down and declare the "right" side in any conflict, according to this twisted logic.

3) These Republicans are suggesting, with typical vagueness, that Obama should come out and forcefully support the protesters, but, Obama and the rest of the world does not know where events are heading in Iran. The same clerics - with Ahmadinejad - might still be in power in the next two weeks. Or, there could be protest that sparks much more violence and leads to a stalemate and heightend uncertainty and crisis in Iran. Or, the protesters' movement could just keep growing until they force some kind of new goverment to emerge - or, new arrangements for the government. To me, Obama's position seems more practical and responsible. He has to be prepared to open new diplomatic relations with whichever government in in power and discuss the tough topic of how to restrain Iran's development of its nuclear capacity.

4) A group of Republicans helped lead efforts to get the US House to pass a resolution that condemned any official crackdown by Iranian authorities against protesters. The US Senate passed a similar resolution. My reaction: I think the resolutions, if they had any effect, were counterproductive by appearing inconsistent with the President's signals. Plus, they amount to minor "meddling" in Iran. Lastly, they appear to be more about these politicians, who are preoccupied with propping themselves up - It's a sad example of US politicians showing self-absorption and cowardice at a time they should be trying to add creative ideas to help Iran and other countries deal with Iran's crisis.

5) I return to my first point. This crisis illustrates how little we know AND the extent to which Americans have been fed propaganda by George W. Bush's Administration for eight years. Let's recall that immediately after 9/11, Bush included Iran in the "axis of evil" and repeatedly attempted to "demonize" Iran, constantly attacking Iran's motives in just about every aspect of its conduct, particularly in the US War against Iraq -- a war, of course, in which the US was NOT justified to start - so, - therefore, NOT in a position to repeatedly complain about Iran's sporadic support of anti-Iraqi forces. To Bush, labeling Iran as all-evil fit into his political agenda in that part of the world (even if it didn't fit the agenda of people who lived there) The point here is that in the past week, we've seen a very different Iran - a "gray" Iran, where thousands and thousands of people are angry with the cleric-led, dictatorial government - with Ahmaddinejad's as the face of that autocratic regime.

6) One got a sense that with all the communications technology out there - from cell phones, to Twitter, to blackberries to social networking to instantaneous transmission of videos - that the world has seen a radical change in how massive change and potential revolutions might be carried out in the future. How can any government in the world get away with much before some aspect of it is communicated somehow, someway via this new technology? Yes, there are a few countries - like North Korea - where it'd still be impossible, probably, but, the scenes in Iran during the past nine days are evidence that we - as citizens of the world - are in a new era for the reporting of turmoil erupting in a country.

7) As I tried to figure out all the unreported aspects of Iran (Is Mousavi negotiating with the Guardian Council of clerics or, has he cut off communications? Is Mousavi in danger of being killed the next time he joins any public protest or would the authorities view that as too risky in terms of enraging his supporters even more, and inflaming the whole movement? Is there a split among the clerics - first reported as a possibility today - with the report that members of Rafsanjani's family were taken temporarily into custody?) I kept thinking about how OFF our country's perceptions obviously were on Iran. Then, I began to think about how little we really know about what's going on with the US war in Afghanistan and our efforts to contain Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan. In fact, I have about 50 questions on Pakistan alone: Is the country as fragile as has been reported? Was the Taliban presence not far from the capital posing the huge threats that some said? What about North Korea? They're making wild statements every few days, testing missiles and now making threatening statements against the US.

With less international coverage in newspapers and limited coverage on television news, it seems a time I'll have to find new sources of information, and the truth, around the world.

I can highly recommend Bill Moyers Journal on PBS, which airs at assorted times. Moyers and his guests discuss what's really happening and that's refreshing when you're just trying to find more of the truth - in context - about these countries, which we're heard so many misleading things about for so long.

Sox-Yanks Rivalry Is Still Exciting

2009-06-10T16:46:00.093-04:00

I had not attended a Yankee-Red Sox game at Fenway Park since the 2004 ACLS, when I saw David Ortiz hit his "walk-off," game-winning single in Game Five.

So, on this past Tuesday night, June 9th, when my father and I took our seats near home plate, it was good to feel that old electricity in the air that comes only when these two teams meet. Even the light rain didn't diminish the anticipation and fun.

The game itself could not have unfolded more pleasingly: Josh Beckett, who often struggles a bit vs. the Bombers, shut them down for six innings. Big Papi, mired in his worst slump ever, belted a home run to centerfield. Daniel Bard, the Sox' stud rookie reliever, came in and blew the ball by the heart of the Yankee line-up to nail down the win in the 9th. The Sox won 7-0 and the Yankees got only a total of two hits.

That's a very rare thing for the Yankees to manage only two hits! We Red Sox fans, who have suffered through so many drubbings from the Yankees, know we must enjoy these "high" moments when we can.

As I sat at Fenway Tuesday, I felt a special appreciation for all the enjoyment I've gotten from watching Red Sox -Yankee games in my life, but, particularly in the past ten years or so.
So many of the games have been close, tense and exciting. Players on both teams have risen to the occasion. There really is nothing like this rivalry left in sports, in my view.

When I watched Derek Jeter swing a bat in the on-deck circle right in front of me, I thought about how I've loved rooting against this guy for so long. Jeter, in my view, is the best everyday baseball player I've ever seen. The guy has always - always - come through in the clutch -- in the biggest moments, late in the game, and, against tough pitchers. I dread it when Jeter comes to the plate, but, at the same time, his talent and cocky aura keep the game more interesting.
When I saw Jeter and Yanks' catcher Jorge Posada during the game, and then, closer Mariano Rivera, in his post-game walk in from the bullpen, it hit me that these three guys - who I've rooted against for so long - will not be around too much longer.

Don't get me wrong here. I hate the Yankees, but, the intensity of my feelings is directly related to the great players on their team and the extent of pain they've inflicted on me & all of Red Sox Nation. Their teams are always "stacked" with All-Stars -- which, automatically, makes you want them to lose. It's natural to root against a team that almost always has an advantage in talent, but, I've wondered, why do I hate the Yankees SO much? On many occasions in recent years, I've felt a certain glee upon merely learning that the Yankees lost their game on any given night. The Yankees, to me, have symbolized certain, large forces that I resist such as: the Status Quo, conventionality, bullies, having to go to work, or, paying your bills. In fact, sometimes I call the Yankees "The Bankers" because their style of winning has, at times, seemed passionless and businesslike. Maybe, I've joked, they should play the games in gray-flannelled suits.

Just recalling a few of my own personal experiences of this rivalry illustrates its uniqueness.
As a little kid, I saw Mantle and Maris play one game, but it wasn't until years later, as a Boston University student, when I witnessed a "legendary" game between these rivals.

I recall standing in front of the Cask'n Flagon on Oct. 4, 1978, a half-hour before the start of the historic, one-game playoff game between the Sox and Yankees. (later known as "The Bucky Dent Game.") Ticket scalpers were milling around the crowd. I've never held on to a four Sox tickets for my life as I did then. A friend asked me to show him the tickets. I declined, saying I didn't want to take them out of my pocket with scalpers nearby. The atmosphere was intense for every pitch of that game. I remember the "high" I felt, early in the game, when Yaz smashed a line-drive home run off Ron Guidry, the Yankees' ace, who finished with a remarkable 25-3 record that year. To me, it felt like a great omen, a message to the evil Bombers. The game went back and forth, and, then, I'll never forget watching Yaz step to the plate with two outs in the last of the ninth inning, two men on base and the Yankees ahead 5 - 4.
The whole season was on the line and it wasn't hard to fantasize about Yaz smashing a line drive hit that knocked in two runs to win the game. He so deserved that moment to cap his Red Sox career. At that moment, though, Yankee closer Rich Gossage's "live" fastball moved in on Yaz too quickly and he popped up to end the game.

We were among the last fans - literally - to leave Fenway Park that day. We sat in shock, devastated, and, I remember it really did take a LONG time to get over that game.

Years passed without the rivalry peaking as it did until Pedro Martinez arrived on the Sox. First, there was Pedro's masterpiece one-hitter - with 17 strikeouts - against the Yanks in September, 1999. It came against that great Yankee lineup that won the World Series that year. I was so frustrated that night because I was able to see only Pedro's last few strikeouts after having to drive all night, to, of all places, my then-mother-in-law's house. It still bugs me that I didn't see that Pedro game live. (Pedro was my favorite player ever)

Speaking of Pedro, he was linked to other incredible Sox-Yanks playoff moments. First, in Game 3 of the ACLS in 2003, after pitching poorly for a few innings and growing increasingly frustreated, in the top of the 4th, Pedro threw a pitch that went behind Yankee Karim Garcia's head. To some, it looked deliberate, and it stirred immediate controversy. Later, when Roger Clemens threw a pitch inside to Manny Ramirez, both benches emptied and, when Yankee coach , 72-year-old Don Zimmer lunged toward Martinez, Pedro threw Zimmer to the ground - not hard, but to avoid him. Then, back on the mound, amazingly, Pedro suddenly found his good stuff and pitched well for a couple of innings before leaving the game.

In Game 7 of that same ACLS, Pedro pitched superbly for seven innings and the Sox had a 5-3 lead and everyone expected Grady Little to take Pedro out of the game. But, No..........Little left Pedro in in the 8th, the Yankees rallied and Aaron Boone hit the game-winning home run off Tim Wakefield to win the series and dash the hopes of the Red Sox. One thing I'll always associate with that tragic loss is that, the next day at work, I attended an education conference, and many of the attendees were still feeling the after-effects. Attendees sat through a speech, and, then, at the first coffee break, a whole group of people, suddenly, began spontaneous venting toward Grady Little for his mistake the night before. It was the kind of moment when I appreciate being a Red Sox fan in New England. There are always enthusiastic fans nearby.

It felt like the cumulative "last straw" for Red Sox fans - like we'd been hit when we were already down. The only consolation: It set up things, beautifully, for 2004.

What a year that was. Nomar was, shockingly. traded. There was the signature game when Varitek started a fight with Alex Rodriguez, emptying the benches before Bill Mueller hit a game-winning home run to win it for the Sox. That was a good omen for that season.

I know some will disagree with this, but, I believe NOT ENOUGH has been made of the 2004 ACLS Red Sox comeback! I think it is one of those events that truly - truly - warranted any and all attention it received - and more. Why? First, you had the backdrop of the Sox not winning a World Series for 86 years and their longtime battles with the Yanks. Then, after the Sox went down 0 - 3, and, things looked completely hopeless, the Red Sox not only "came back" but they did so with three DRAMATIC wins in a row - first, the two extra-inning, tense, comeback games on back-to-back nights won by David Ortiz' game-winning hits, then, the heroic performance of Curt Schilling in Game Six, pitching with a bad ankle. (The "Bloody Sock" game) It culminated with the Sox, looking relaxed and cocky, blowing out the Bombers in Game 7 in New York. It was called "the greatest comeback in sports history" for all sports. I agree and want to see more books written about it.

After 2004, I worried that the rivalry's dynamics might become less exciting, but, in fact, there have been numerous terrific Sox-Yanks games in the past few years. In fact, as I write this Thursday night, I just watched the Sox win another amazinig comeback against the Pinstripes. These two teams just keep putting on a show.

So, as this 2009 season moves to summer, I look forward to the games ahead between these two teams. Even if they're anticlimatic from this point on, the Red Sox and Yankees have already provided me a lifetime of memories.

I cannot believe we've won eight games in a row against the Yankees this year. It feels too good to be true. Surely, there are more exciting struggles ahead with the Bombers. I hope so.

Obama's Non-stop Visibility Has Worked -- So Far

2009-06-02T14:52:00.077-04:00

Barack Obama continues to be the most visible, media-accessible President ever.

Americans are not accustomed to seeing images of their President all the time; in fact, some argue that a sense of distance is what creates an aura of dignity and importance.

If you have access to a TV during the day, you see this "high-visibility" approach on display even more because one event (or more) in Obama's daily schedule is often open to the press and the cable news shows refer frequently to what's next in the President's schedule. And, while the President says he never watches the cable shows, his staff apparently pays close attention. It seems anytime the White House wants to get the word out on anything, MSNBC and/or CNN are ready to help.

Does more than a day pass when Obama is not on television? People have asked, with good reason: Is he over-exposed?

I believe he is a bit over-exposed, but, it has not hurt him - yet. In fact, Obama's accessibility has been a critical part of his success as President so far and contributes significantly to his high public approval ratings in polls.

So, after four months in office, how much longer will the Obama team stay in "campaign mode" by organizing the President's schedule in such an "open," media-friendly way?

My guess is this dynamic will continue for most of 2009 because Obama views the media coverage as essential to maintaining his popularity and achieving major accomplishments in his all-important first year. Displaying leadership during the nation's worst economic crisis since the Depression was an initial test.

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, in March, was asked by CNN's Larry King if he was concerned about the President's "over-exposure" after Obama had just appeared in a "60 Minutes" interview and on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

"I think in this troubled time...the people expect the President to talk to them, walk them through his thinking," Emanuel told King, " - why he makes the decisions he makes, what are the tradeoffs to those decisions -- and carry them through this process."

I think Emanuel was right, particularly given Obama's strength in explaining complex policies articulately in layman's terms.

Further, it made sense for Obama, a new, young, inexperienced and first African-American President, to be visible and "hands-on" simply to establish his credibility and capabilities to the American people.

This President's team has created a genuinely modern-day White House that's truly compatible with today's technology - the Internet and all that goes with it. You know the young aides wandering the halls of the White House are using the same Blackberries, cell phones and gadgetry they used from Obama's Chicago campaign headquarters. Put it this way: It's not surprising that the "Obama machine" is still cranking out emails to supporters and contributors - with updates and pleas for support of the President's key proposals such as health care reform.

The Obama White House is a "24-7" operation that's always ready to feed the insatiable "Beast" that comprises today's news media - including the Internet, the major blogs and other new players. This White House is not caught off guard; rather, it is in a pro-active mode, always "feeding" the press.

The one common thread I see - operationally - to past administrations is, ironically, the Reagan White House during its first term. Why? That Reagan team - with James Baker as chief of staff and Michael Deaver orchestrating communications - was highly skilled in "managing" daily events and crafting "messages of the day" in disciplined fashion.

Despite its effectiveness so far, I worry a bit about this "all Obama - all the time" approach. Any leader can over-do it and risk reverberations when he or she encounters a rough patch or two in the future. When a President is the public eye too often, said Dee Dee Myers, a former press secretary in the Clinton White House, "at some point, people stop listening," she told Politico in March.

Myers suggested that Obama needed more surrogates to speak in his place some of the time. I strongly agree with her. Who are Obama's regular surrogates? We see David Axelrod, his senior advisor, occasionally, and, Emanuel once in a while, but, we should see members of the US House and Senate who articulate, thoughtful, loyal supporters of the President, speaking on his behalf a lot more.

William Arruda, a personal branding expert, was quoted in the same Politico article, as saying that if Obama remains "the face of everything that happens," it creates a risk for his Administration that when something bad occurs, people will associate it only with the President himself.

Will all this exposure in Obama's first year somehow end up hurting him more in those "down" times? Perhaps. It may compound the magnitude of negative developments. Maybe it won't matter. Either way, I do sense that this White House is quite accustomed to getting its way with media coverage so far. Think about it. It's hard to identify any sustained negative period of coverage so far, but, it's early, still. The White House has not had any real problems with leaks to the press (from within) so far.

Then again, how will this White House react when it does face more criticism? How will its senior staff behave when things go badly or they cannot control "the message"? They'll find new approaches, hopefully.

One gets the sense that the Obama administration is going "all-out" to put together several major policy victories this year. It's a "go-for-broke" strategy. They're working at a fast, furious pace - moving from one task to the next - and, they're doing so with their "star player," Barack Obama, on the court, in the game, for the full 48 minutes.

Bill Russell Has Stood Out

2009-05-26T21:00:00.056-04:00

I've always liked Bill Russell, and, in the past few days, I've been reminded why.

I've heard Russell being interviewed about his new book on his longtime friendship with the late Red Auerbach, and, the former Celtics' star, now 75, has been the same as always - charismatic, funny, interesting. His book is called Red and Me: My Coach, My Lifelong Friend.

Russell is an original. He's his own man - and proud of it. He usually says what he wants and laughs whenever he feels like it. Most of the time, he does not give the "stock answer" that interviewers seek and enjoys being a contrarian. His spontaneous loud, high-pitched laugh is infectious; in fact, sometimes just hearing Russell's laugh triggers me to laugh.

Russell is a man of principle who seems bound to his convictions. Russell always stood out from his peers on and off the court. He was the consummate "team player," helping lead the Celtics to 11 championships in 13 seasons. He was one of the best defensive basketball players in history. Red Auerbach, in 1964, said that Russell "singlehandedly revolutionized the game because he made defense so important."

I remember, as a kid, listening to Johnny Most call the great 76er-Celtic games when Russell dueled with Wilt Chamberlain. I remember taking my little transistor radio to bed so I could enjoy Most' enthusiastic play-by-play calls. I can still hear Most going crazy as he blurted out: "Blocked by Russell!" For some reason, I felt so invested in Russell holding his own against Chamberlain. That rivalry was an early spark that helped light my connection to sports.

Off the court, Russell was a strong, compelling personality during a time of pervasive racism in Boston and elsewhere. He asserted himself, when necessary, against acts of racial prejudice. For example, once Russell refused to play a 1961 exhibition game to honor former Celtic teammate Frank Ramsay in Ramsay's home state of Kentucky after Russell realized he would not be served a meal at the hotel restaurant. Russell and three other black players decided to go home.

Russell joined other black leaders such as Muhammad Ali and Jim Brown in speaking out against racism during the 60s. Russell was among the first celebrities to call himself "black" when "negro" was still the widely-used term. Russell attended the March on Washington in 1963. (Russell had observed, growing up, how his parents were victimized by racism and when he was subjected to it repeatedly, he was not afraid to speak up and follow his conscience).

Unfortunately, Russell's own experience in Boston was clouded by the presence of racism. Even when the Celtics were thriving, fans didn't fill the Boston Garden, and, in city neighborhoods, racial tension was often in the air. Russell seemed to enjoy his teammates and his coach, but, he had a difficult relationship with the media, and, low expectations of his tie with fans. Some recall Russell's "surly" side. He had an edge (that I found interesting) and an enigmatic, aloof side that probably made him less accessible to fans. Russell once said: "You owe the public the same thing it owes you -- Nothing."

Russell, unlike many players - particularly stars, almost never signed autographs despite continuous pressure to do so.

When Red Auerback decided to retire, he named Bill Russell to be player-coach of the Celtics in 1966. Russell was the first black coach in all of professional sports. After a initial, losing season, in 1969, Russell led the Celtics to a last championship for his era. The Celtics had a private ceremony to retire Russell's jersey in 1972. Then, in 1975, the NBA Hall of Fame inducted Russell, but, he, reportedly, chose not to attend either event.

After leaving Boston, Russell later became a coach in Seattle and in Sacramento and worked as a television color commentator during NBA games. He brought his own style to the TV job, including his unique laugh. Often his comments were too lengthy, but, in an odd way, I admired that Russell, was even resisting the conventional "norms" that went with that job.

Many years later - in 1999 - the Celtics held a public tribute to Russell at the Fleet Center, which had replaced the Boston Garden, and re-retired his No. 6 jersey. I attended the event with my brother and was struck by the array of prominent guests who appeared on stage to honor Russell - not only great players like Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, Julius Erving, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar & others, but also, Jim Brown, Bill Cosby, Bryant Gumbel, Aretha Franklin and Johnny Mathis and other national figures.
I sat there and felt so glad for Russell - that he was finally being acknowledged and that he appeared to enjoy it. Yet, I also felt a bit sad because the crowd, while large, in my view, should have - been much larger - and, in an odd way, it seemed that Russell was getting more recognition from this "national" group of guests than from Boston.

In the past ten years, Russell has returned often to Boston and seemed to have developed a new, positive connection to the city, the Celtics and, even, the fans here.
This brings me to my own brief encounter with Bill Russell - an incident I had as an eight or nine-year-old boy that has stayed in my memory to this day.

It was 1963 or 64 and my father took me to a Celtics game at the old Boston Garden. We watched the whole game and, afterward, an old sportswriter friend of my father's brought us down to the Celtics' locker room. It was very exciting for me to get a glance at all my favorite players - John Havilicek, Larry Siegfried, KC Jones, Sam Jones.....and, of course, Russell. After I'd had a chance to get a few autographs, my father and I found ourselves standing next to Red Auerbach, who was sitting in close proximity to Russell. I recall Auerbach, seeing my bright red hair, pointing to his bald head, and saying "I used to have red hair."
My father had met Auerbach before and asked if he'd help get Russell's autograph for me. Red asked Russell, and Russell - in what apparently was an exception - signed his name on a piece of paper for me. Then, my Dad asked Russell - within earshot of Auerbach - if, by chance, he could sign another autograph for my brother. That prompted Russell to pause a second or two. Auerbach remarked: "Go ahead, Russ. Sign it for him" or words to that effect.

Then, Russell, in a partly snappy, but firm, serious tone, replied to Auerbach:

"I'll do it because I want to -- not because you tell me to."

He signed the second autograph and we left. I was in a daze - in disbelief that I had just had this experience. Little did I know that for years, I would remember Russell's impromptu retort to Auerbach. I've told the anecdote to many people through the years and tried to imitate Russell's tone of voice as he said it. And, I found that sometimes, I'd be in moments when I'd think of Russell's remark -- when I didn't like someone telling me what to do. Later, it became a joke with a close friend that - if either I or someone else expressed that same kind of protest, pride and independence at the same time, we'd call it "a Russell"

I later told my daughter about that line and she memorized it.

"I'll do it because I want to -- not because you tell me to."

One-line quotes are rarely good symbols of a person's character, but, somehow, I've always felt that line that I heard Russell say in the locker room more than 45 years ago - was a decent representation of Russell's important traits.

That Russell remark has always stayed with me - as have other aspects of his personality.

Bill Russell is a public figure who has influenced my life from a distance.

We Need More Voices from the Left on Television

2009-05-18T15:22:00.071-04:00

When I first saw Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, appearing one Sunday as a panelist on the "Roundtable" discussion featured on This Week with George Stephanopoulos , I was shocked. In a positive way!

Since when does anyone on the Left get a chance to speak on TV?, I thought.

Then, I saw Vanden Heuvel, a sharp, knowledgeable, articulate woman, on This Week another time as a guest panelist- and another time - and it was almost too good to be true. You see, all of my adult life, I've wanted people with from the Left to be invited - to participate on the Sunday news/talk shows like This Week -- and, until the past year or so, it seemed it would never happen.

For years, I commiserated with friends about the lack of any liberal perspective in television commentary. As years passed, the only constant was seeing conservative George Will - in the same central role on This Week's Roundtable - without ever being challenged by a counterpart from the Left. The hosts of the This Week - from David Brinkley, to Sam Donaldson & Cokie Roberts to Stephanopoulos - were all too deferential to Will, in my view. They allowed Will's intellect and spewing of factoids to intimidate them -- even when they could have found rebutted him with all kinds of facts and alternative perspectives he ignored.

So, yes, it's been a joy to witness Katrina vanden Heuvel arguing with George Will a few times in the past year. Don't you think?

I've also been happy to see that David Corn of Mother Jones has appeared many times on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews. Joan Walsh, editor of Salon Magazine, has been appeared numerous times on Hardball, in adidition to MSNBC's other nightly political shows. Maybe this mini-trend is the result of Baby Boomers gaining more influence in the corporate headquarters overseeing TV news and promoting more open-ness to alternative voices? I'm not sure. I'm still amazed to see The Nation's editor just sitting at the table. (I think Vanden Heuvel probably censors herself from expressing some of her more extreme positions)

I view MSNBC's shows - Hardball, Keith Olbermann's Countdown, and The Rachel Maddow Show - also as an incredible change. We've never before seen shows - back-to-back - offering a talk format from a liberal viewpoint. I understand why conservatives complain about MSNBC's liberal bias, but, it's about time the shoe was on the other foot! It's the only time, literally, I can recall anyone even having the slightest basis for even observing a liberal slant. In addition, conservatives still have Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Fox news shows.

Indeed, the Right is still everywhere. Talk radio is still dominated by extreme right-wingers from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Savage. You still see conservatives from right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation interviewed on television far more often than representatives of the Left. There is still a LONG way to go before we can say the Left is even close to being represented proportionally.

If you think about it, what news/talk shows on television have featured a Left perspective, OR, an "alternative" perspective that challenges the status quo? One that presents content that questions conventional wisdom and/or the power structure, OR, regularly interviews people with "alternative" or left-wing views? There are virtually none. Yes, Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show, challenges the status quo on occasion, but his main goal is entertaining humor. Same with Saturday Night Live, on occasion.

The only shows I can think of that raise serious, large questions about governmental policies or challenge the status quo are Bill Moyers Journal and Frontline. I watched a recent Moyers show that raised original, new questions about the facts on the ground in Pakistan, for example. What would we do without Frontline, one of the best shows ever, always willing to take on the Establishment - particularly US foreign policy decisions like invading Iraq?

Through the years, you can count on one hand the voices of liberal dissent that ever surfaced on TV. Let's see: Forty years ago, The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour questioned - among other things - the US role in Vietnam in the late 1960s and got censored, and, eventually, cancelled. There have been excellent PBS documentaries and occasional shows that raised good questions.

In general, however, television simply has not allowed true dissent or radical alternatives. You still don't see Marxist economists asked to participate on Sunday talk shows, right? I've always wished I could see Howard Zinn, someone I've long admired, voice his views spontaneously in prime time -- Maybe with Noam Chomsky as another guest. (I've heard Zinn only on PBS programs, unsurprisingly) Further, I think it'd be terrific if we could all hear socialists comment on the US economic crisis and related topics.

We'll never see that day, however, because those corporate executives who own and oversee television networks view those voices from the Left as threatening to their very interests - and too outside the mainstream to appeal to the mass audience. That's unfortunate because I think people could "survive" being exposed to alternative viewpoints on the Left.

We still have a conventional news media that usually is predisposed to protect the powers that be and our most powerful institutions. (Usually, the Right, naturally, aligns with "the system" because it includes a capitalist framework they support). The recent economic crisis was proof of a lazy, protective press, which was slow and sluggish in searching for the causes of the crisis. You didn't see anyone questioning the entire structure and underlying philosophy of the US economy. Imagine if we had seen a Marxist or two interviewed on the nightly network news?

I would challenge anyone to show me where all the liberal commentators on television have been in the past 25 years. For that matter, despite conservatives whining for years about "liberal bias" in news coverage, I'd challenge them to prove that bias existed. Yeah, I know that more journalists vote for Democrats in elections. Big deal. I used to be a reporter and I can tell you that reporters care a hell of a lot more about pursuing "the story" - whatever that may be - than hesitating due to the political leanings or affiliations of their subjects.

Where was the "liberal coverage" of Richard Nixon's administration when Nixon escalated the Vietnam war, ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia, and, later, got overwhelmed by the Watergate cover-up for two years? How can anyone look back and complain that "liberal journalists" were just too aggressive in covering Watergate when it took so long for people, politicians, and, the media to hold Nixon responsible for his lies and misconduct?

Where were all the "liberal" reporters during the Iran/Contra scandal? What I recall is that most of the media went very easy on former President Reagan most of the time. I could go on listing scandals, but, my point is that too often, the news media has often defended the powers that be. There has been a need for more journalists challenging the status quo.

Years ago, I used to want Ralph Nader to appear on some of these shows to present his sweeping critique of corporate abuse - whether it was contributing to environmental pollution or circumventing food and drug regulations or whatever. When Nader ran for President in 2000, occasionally, I'd feel delighted simply to witness someone representing such a left-leaning, alternative outlook get a chance to speak.

I recall, in the last days of his 2000 campaign, I happened to catch Nader on C-Span. He was giving an outstanding speech on poverty. He was in the District of Columbia and he cited statistics of poverty in D.C. and elsewhere to make his point. He mixed his facts with passion, and, I thought to myself: Why is this kind of speech never on mainstream television? I knew he was a longshot candidate, but, then, I realized, Nader was touching on just a little too much of the depressing truth about our economic system to draw coverage regular news programs.

I'm tremendously disappointed with Nader in recent years, but, I give him credit for attempting to bring a different viewpoint to American politics. The more different voices we hear, the better our democracy is. (Plus, it's nice to hear one's own viewpoint represented once in a while!) So, I am pleased to see even the marginal progress of the past year or so - when we've heard from writers and editors of left-leaning publications on television talk shows.

I hope to keep seeing Katrina vanden Heuvel on This Week and that she makes all the points she can -- while she can. We need more progressives to counter the pervasive Right-ward tilt in American politics.

I think I'll start a new subscription to The Nation to honor this idea.