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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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?

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!

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

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!