I've always liked Bill Russell, and, in the past few days, I've been reminded why.
I've heard Russell being interviewed about his new book on his longtime friendship with the late Red Auerbach, and, the former Celtics' star, now 75, has been the same as always - charismatic, funny, interesting. His book is called Red and Me: My Coach, My Lifelong Friend.
Russell is an original. He's his own man - and proud of it. He usually says what he wants and laughs whenever he feels like it. Most of the time, he does not give the "stock answer" that interviewers seek and enjoys being a contrarian. His spontaneous loud, high-pitched laugh is infectious; in fact, sometimes just hearing Russell's laugh triggers me to laugh.
Russell is a man of principle who seems bound to his convictions. Russell always stood out from his peers on and off the court. He was the consummate "team player," helping lead the Celtics to 11 championships in 13 seasons. He was one of the best defensive basketball players in history. Red Auerbach, in 1964, said that Russell "singlehandedly revolutionized the game because he made defense so important."
I remember, as a kid, listening to Johnny Most call the great 76er-Celtic games when Russell dueled with Wilt Chamberlain. I remember taking my little transistor radio to bed so I could enjoy Most' enthusiastic play-by-play calls. I can still hear Most going crazy as he blurted out: "Blocked by Russell!" For some reason, I felt so invested in Russell holding his own against Chamberlain. That rivalry was an early spark that helped light my connection to sports.
Off the court, Russell was a strong, compelling personality during a time of pervasive racism in Boston and elsewhere. He asserted himself, when necessary, against acts of racial prejudice. For example, once Russell refused to play a 1961 exhibition game to honor former Celtic teammate Frank Ramsay in Ramsay's home state of Kentucky after Russell realized he would not be served a meal at the hotel restaurant. Russell and three other black players decided to go home.
Russell joined other black leaders such as Muhammad Ali and Jim Brown in speaking out against racism during the 60s. Russell was among the first celebrities to call himself "black" when "negro" was still the widely-used term. Russell attended the March on Washington in 1963. (Russell had observed, growing up, how his parents were victimized by racism and when he was subjected to it repeatedly, he was not afraid to speak up and follow his conscience).
Unfortunately, Russell's own experience in Boston was clouded by the presence of racism. Even when the Celtics were thriving, fans didn't fill the Boston Garden, and, in city neighborhoods, racial tension was often in the air. Russell seemed to enjoy his teammates and his coach, but, he had a difficult relationship with the media, and, low expectations of his tie with fans. Some recall Russell's "surly" side. He had an edge (that I found interesting) and an enigmatic, aloof side that probably made him less accessible to fans. Russell once said: "You owe the public the same thing it owes you -- Nothing."
Russell, unlike many players - particularly stars, almost never signed autographs despite continuous pressure to do so.
When Red Auerback decided to retire, he named Bill Russell to be player-coach of the Celtics in 1966. Russell was the first black coach in all of professional sports. After a initial, losing season, in 1969, Russell led the Celtics to a last championship for his era. The Celtics had a private ceremony to retire Russell's jersey in 1972. Then, in 1975, the NBA Hall of Fame inducted Russell, but, he, reportedly, chose not to attend either event.
After leaving Boston, Russell later became a coach in Seattle and in Sacramento and worked as a television color commentator during NBA games. He brought his own style to the TV job, including his unique laugh. Often his comments were too lengthy, but, in an odd way, I admired that Russell, was even resisting the conventional "norms" that went with that job.
Many years later - in 1999 - the Celtics held a public tribute to Russell at the Fleet Center, which had replaced the Boston Garden, and re-retired his No. 6 jersey. I attended the event with my brother and was struck by the array of prominent guests who appeared on stage to honor Russell - not only great players like Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, Julius Erving, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar & others, but also, Jim Brown, Bill Cosby, Bryant Gumbel, Aretha Franklin and Johnny Mathis and other national figures.
I sat there and felt so glad for Russell - that he was finally being acknowledged and that he appeared to enjoy it. Yet, I also felt a bit sad because the crowd, while large, in my view, should have - been much larger - and, in an odd way, it seemed that Russell was getting more recognition from this "national" group of guests than from Boston.
In the past ten years, Russell has returned often to Boston and seemed to have developed a new, positive connection to the city, the Celtics and, even, the fans here.
This brings me to my own brief encounter with Bill Russell - an incident I had as an eight or nine-year-old boy that has stayed in my memory to this day.
It was 1963 or 64 and my father took me to a Celtics game at the old Boston Garden. We watched the whole game and, afterward, an old sportswriter friend of my father's brought us down to the Celtics' locker room. It was very exciting for me to get a glance at all my favorite players - John Havilicek, Larry Siegfried, KC Jones, Sam Jones.....and, of course, Russell. After I'd had a chance to get a few autographs, my father and I found ourselves standing next to Red Auerbach, who was sitting in close proximity to Russell. I recall Auerbach, seeing my bright red hair, pointing to his bald head, and saying "I used to have red hair."
My father had met Auerbach before and asked if he'd help get Russell's autograph for me. Red asked Russell, and Russell - in what apparently was an exception - signed his name on a piece of paper for me. Then, my Dad asked Russell - within earshot of Auerbach - if, by chance, he could sign another autograph for my brother. That prompted Russell to pause a second or two. Auerbach remarked: "Go ahead, Russ. Sign it for him" or words to that effect.
Then, Russell, in a partly snappy, but firm, serious tone, replied to Auerbach:
"I'll do it because I want to -- not because you tell me to."
He signed the second autograph and we left. I was in a daze - in disbelief that I had just had this experience. Little did I know that for years, I would remember Russell's impromptu retort to Auerbach. I've told the anecdote to many people through the years and tried to imitate Russell's tone of voice as he said it. And, I found that sometimes, I'd be in moments when I'd think of Russell's remark -- when I didn't like someone telling me what to do. Later, it became a joke with a close friend that - if either I or someone else expressed that same kind of protest, pride and independence at the same time, we'd call it "a Russell"
I later told my daughter about that line and she memorized it.
"I'll do it because I want to -- not because you tell me to."
One-line quotes are rarely good symbols of a person's character, but, somehow, I've always felt that line that I heard Russell say in the locker room more than 45 years ago - was a decent representation of Russell's important traits.
That Russell remark has always stayed with me - as have other aspects of his personality.
Bill Russell is a public figure who has influenced my life from a distance.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
We Need More Voices from the Left on Television
When I first saw Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, appearing one Sunday as a panelist on the "Roundtable" discussion featured on This Week with George Stephanopoulos , I was shocked. In a positive way!
Since when does anyone on the Left get a chance to speak on TV?, I thought.
Then, I saw Vanden Heuvel, a sharp, knowledgeable, articulate woman, on This Week another time as a guest panelist- and another time - and it was almost too good to be true. You see, all of my adult life, I've wanted people with from the Left to be invited - to participate on the Sunday news/talk shows like This Week -- and, until the past year or so, it seemed it would never happen.
For years, I commiserated with friends about the lack of any liberal perspective in television commentary. As years passed, the only constant was seeing conservative George Will - in the same central role on This Week's Roundtable - without ever being challenged by a counterpart from the Left. The hosts of the This Week - from David Brinkley, to Sam Donaldson & Cokie Roberts to Stephanopoulos - were all too deferential to Will, in my view. They allowed Will's intellect and spewing of factoids to intimidate them -- even when they could have found rebutted him with all kinds of facts and alternative perspectives he ignored.
So, yes, it's been a joy to witness Katrina vanden Heuvel arguing with George Will a few times in the past year. Don't you think?
I've also been happy to see that David Corn of Mother Jones has appeared many times on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews. Joan Walsh, editor of Salon Magazine, has been appeared numerous times on Hardball, in adidition to MSNBC's other nightly political shows. Maybe this mini-trend is the result of Baby Boomers gaining more influence in the corporate headquarters overseeing TV news and promoting more open-ness to alternative voices? I'm not sure. I'm still amazed to see The Nation's editor just sitting at the table. (I think Vanden Heuvel probably censors herself from expressing some of her more extreme positions)
I view MSNBC's shows - Hardball, Keith Olbermann's Countdown, and The Rachel Maddow Show - also as an incredible change. We've never before seen shows - back-to-back - offering a talk format from a liberal viewpoint. I understand why conservatives complain about MSNBC's liberal bias, but, it's about time the shoe was on the other foot! It's the only time, literally, I can recall anyone even having the slightest basis for even observing a liberal slant. In addition, conservatives still have Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Fox news shows.
Indeed, the Right is still everywhere. Talk radio is still dominated by extreme right-wingers from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Savage. You still see conservatives from right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation interviewed on television far more often than representatives of the Left. There is still a LONG way to go before we can say the Left is even close to being represented proportionally.
If you think about it, what news/talk shows on television have featured a Left perspective, OR, an "alternative" perspective that challenges the status quo? One that presents content that questions conventional wisdom and/or the power structure, OR, regularly interviews people with "alternative" or left-wing views? There are virtually none. Yes, Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show, challenges the status quo on occasion, but his main goal is entertaining humor. Same with Saturday Night Live, on occasion.
The only shows I can think of that raise serious, large questions about governmental policies or challenge the status quo are Bill Moyers Journal and Frontline. I watched a recent Moyers show that raised original, new questions about the facts on the ground in Pakistan, for example. What would we do without Frontline, one of the best shows ever, always willing to take on the Establishment - particularly US foreign policy decisions like invading Iraq?
Through the years, you can count on one hand the voices of liberal dissent that ever surfaced on TV. Let's see: Forty years ago, The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour questioned - among other things - the US role in Vietnam in the late 1960s and got censored, and, eventually, cancelled. There have been excellent PBS documentaries and occasional shows that raised good questions.
In general, however, television simply has not allowed true dissent or radical alternatives. You still don't see Marxist economists asked to participate on Sunday talk shows, right? I've always wished I could see Howard Zinn, someone I've long admired, voice his views spontaneously in prime time -- Maybe with Noam Chomsky as another guest. (I've heard Zinn only on PBS programs, unsurprisingly) Further, I think it'd be terrific if we could all hear socialists comment on the US economic crisis and related topics.
We'll never see that day, however, because those corporate executives who own and oversee television networks view those voices from the Left as threatening to their very interests - and too outside the mainstream to appeal to the mass audience. That's unfortunate because I think people could "survive" being exposed to alternative viewpoints on the Left.
We still have a conventional news media that usually is predisposed to protect the powers that be and our most powerful institutions. (Usually, the Right, naturally, aligns with "the system" because it includes a capitalist framework they support). The recent economic crisis was proof of a lazy, protective press, which was slow and sluggish in searching for the causes of the crisis. You didn't see anyone questioning the entire structure and underlying philosophy of the US economy. Imagine if we had seen a Marxist or two interviewed on the nightly network news?
Since when does anyone on the Left get a chance to speak on TV?, I thought.
Then, I saw Vanden Heuvel, a sharp, knowledgeable, articulate woman, on This Week another time as a guest panelist- and another time - and it was almost too good to be true. You see, all of my adult life, I've wanted people with from the Left to be invited - to participate on the Sunday news/talk shows like This Week -- and, until the past year or so, it seemed it would never happen.
For years, I commiserated with friends about the lack of any liberal perspective in television commentary. As years passed, the only constant was seeing conservative George Will - in the same central role on This Week's Roundtable - without ever being challenged by a counterpart from the Left. The hosts of the This Week - from David Brinkley, to Sam Donaldson & Cokie Roberts to Stephanopoulos - were all too deferential to Will, in my view. They allowed Will's intellect and spewing of factoids to intimidate them -- even when they could have found rebutted him with all kinds of facts and alternative perspectives he ignored.
So, yes, it's been a joy to witness Katrina vanden Heuvel arguing with George Will a few times in the past year. Don't you think?
I've also been happy to see that David Corn of Mother Jones has appeared many times on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews. Joan Walsh, editor of Salon Magazine, has been appeared numerous times on Hardball, in adidition to MSNBC's other nightly political shows. Maybe this mini-trend is the result of Baby Boomers gaining more influence in the corporate headquarters overseeing TV news and promoting more open-ness to alternative voices? I'm not sure. I'm still amazed to see The Nation's editor just sitting at the table. (I think Vanden Heuvel probably censors herself from expressing some of her more extreme positions)
I view MSNBC's shows - Hardball, Keith Olbermann's Countdown, and The Rachel Maddow Show - also as an incredible change. We've never before seen shows - back-to-back - offering a talk format from a liberal viewpoint. I understand why conservatives complain about MSNBC's liberal bias, but, it's about time the shoe was on the other foot! It's the only time, literally, I can recall anyone even having the slightest basis for even observing a liberal slant. In addition, conservatives still have Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck and Fox news shows.
Indeed, the Right is still everywhere. Talk radio is still dominated by extreme right-wingers from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Savage. You still see conservatives from right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation interviewed on television far more often than representatives of the Left. There is still a LONG way to go before we can say the Left is even close to being represented proportionally.
If you think about it, what news/talk shows on television have featured a Left perspective, OR, an "alternative" perspective that challenges the status quo? One that presents content that questions conventional wisdom and/or the power structure, OR, regularly interviews people with "alternative" or left-wing views? There are virtually none. Yes, Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show, challenges the status quo on occasion, but his main goal is entertaining humor. Same with Saturday Night Live, on occasion.
The only shows I can think of that raise serious, large questions about governmental policies or challenge the status quo are Bill Moyers Journal and Frontline. I watched a recent Moyers show that raised original, new questions about the facts on the ground in Pakistan, for example. What would we do without Frontline, one of the best shows ever, always willing to take on the Establishment - particularly US foreign policy decisions like invading Iraq?
Through the years, you can count on one hand the voices of liberal dissent that ever surfaced on TV. Let's see: Forty years ago, The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour questioned - among other things - the US role in Vietnam in the late 1960s and got censored, and, eventually, cancelled. There have been excellent PBS documentaries and occasional shows that raised good questions.
In general, however, television simply has not allowed true dissent or radical alternatives. You still don't see Marxist economists asked to participate on Sunday talk shows, right? I've always wished I could see Howard Zinn, someone I've long admired, voice his views spontaneously in prime time -- Maybe with Noam Chomsky as another guest. (I've heard Zinn only on PBS programs, unsurprisingly) Further, I think it'd be terrific if we could all hear socialists comment on the US economic crisis and related topics.
We'll never see that day, however, because those corporate executives who own and oversee television networks view those voices from the Left as threatening to their very interests - and too outside the mainstream to appeal to the mass audience. That's unfortunate because I think people could "survive" being exposed to alternative viewpoints on the Left.
We still have a conventional news media that usually is predisposed to protect the powers that be and our most powerful institutions. (Usually, the Right, naturally, aligns with "the system" because it includes a capitalist framework they support). The recent economic crisis was proof of a lazy, protective press, which was slow and sluggish in searching for the causes of the crisis. You didn't see anyone questioning the entire structure and underlying philosophy of the US economy. Imagine if we had seen a Marxist or two interviewed on the nightly network news?
I would challenge anyone to show me where all the liberal commentators on television have been in the past 25 years. For that matter, despite conservatives whining for years about "liberal bias" in news coverage, I'd challenge them to prove that bias existed. Yeah, I know that more journalists vote for Democrats in elections. Big deal. I used to be a reporter and I can tell you that reporters care a hell of a lot more about pursuing "the story" - whatever that may be - than hesitating due to the political leanings or affiliations of their subjects.
Where was the "liberal coverage" of Richard Nixon's administration when Nixon escalated the Vietnam war, ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia, and, later, got overwhelmed by the Watergate cover-up for two years? How can anyone look back and complain that "liberal journalists" were just too aggressive in covering Watergate when it took so long for people, politicians, and, the media to hold Nixon responsible for his lies and misconduct?
Where were all the "liberal" reporters during the Iran/Contra scandal? What I recall is that most of the media went very easy on former President Reagan most of the time. I could go on listing scandals, but, my point is that too often, the news media has often defended the powers that be. There has been a need for more journalists challenging the status quo.
Years ago, I used to want Ralph Nader to appear on some of these shows to present his sweeping critique of corporate abuse - whether it was contributing to environmental pollution or circumventing food and drug regulations or whatever. When Nader ran for President in 2000, occasionally, I'd feel delighted simply to witness someone representing such a left-leaning, alternative outlook get a chance to speak.
I recall, in the last days of his 2000 campaign, I happened to catch Nader on C-Span. He was giving an outstanding speech on poverty. He was in the District of Columbia and he cited statistics of poverty in D.C. and elsewhere to make his point. He mixed his facts with passion, and, I thought to myself: Why is this kind of speech never on mainstream television? I knew he was a longshot candidate, but, then, I realized, Nader was touching on just a little too much of the depressing truth about our economic system to draw coverage regular news programs.
I'm tremendously disappointed with Nader in recent years, but, I give him credit for attempting to bring a different viewpoint to American politics. The more different voices we hear, the better our democracy is. (Plus, it's nice to hear one's own viewpoint represented once in a while!) So, I am pleased to see even the marginal progress of the past year or so - when we've heard from writers and editors of left-leaning publications on television talk shows.
I hope to keep seeing Katrina vanden Heuvel on This Week and that she makes all the points she can -- while she can. We need more progressives to counter the pervasive Right-ward tilt in American politics.
I think I'll start a new subscription to The Nation to honor this idea.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Cheney Does Not Deserve Status and Attention
Perhaps many people can shrug off the repeated remarks of former Vice President Dick Cheney suggesting that President Obama's administration has made the country "less safe."
I cannot stand it. I'm disgusted by Cheney receiving sustained attention and deference as he keeps issuing warnings about how the US is more vulnerable to terrorists' attacks because the policies and practices of the Bush-Cheney administration are no longer in effect -- i.e. torture, detention and other actions. Cheney, because of HIS awful record in contributing to the world being LESS SAFE today, does not deserve this recent media attention. He is not credible on terrorism and national security.
If Cheney IS interviewed at all, he should be answering tough questions (that he's never been asked) about his role in shaping the US' failed efforts to fight terrorism and make the world more safe during his tenure. Cheney has a lot of explaining to do. He needs to be held responsible for his misconduct rather than solicited for his opinions. How and why are his views getting attention when he has - so far - evaded any truth-telling about the decision to invade Iraq, his role in the Valerie Plame affair, his administration's role in inspiring Al Qaeda to multiply and go in throngs to Iraq, and, in inflaming people across the globe to hate or mistrust the United States?
Cheney was at it again on Face the Nation, on Sunday, May 10th, spouting his views that the Obama team's repeal of Bush-Cheney anti-terrorist policies has made our country significantly less safe.
Here are several things I want to tell Dick Cheney:
1) It's time to get off the stage. Though I know you see yourself as an all-powerful, uniquely intellligent wise man who can save us all, you're no longer in power. It's time to go home and be quiet now.
2) When a new President takes office, it's not usually the best idea for the previous President or Vice President to begin repeatedly and harshly criticizing the new President constantly - particularly on the most sensitive national security matters. Historically, there is a reason why Presidents and their VPs have chosen to keep a lower profile - at least for a while. You, Mr. Cheney, not only don't "get" this, but your remarks aren't even close to being thoughtful or constructive; rather, they're blatantly political, self-serving and alarmist. They seem designed to scare Americans into thinking that without the Bush-Cheney approaches, terrorist attacks are more likely to happen. You've offered NO substantiation for these hysterical comments.
So, unless you have evidence of pending terrorist attacks to share with President Obama -- which you could always do privately, by the way -- you should "zip it."
3) You still come off as if you're oblivious to the impact of your actions. Your anti-terrorism policies and invasion of Iraq were not some video game or fantasy football league. Thousands and thousands of human beings died - and, yes, many more of them were Iraqi citizens whose lives and deaths were just as important as those of US solidiers. The Iraqis didn't ask for you to send the US military into their backyard to kill them for no reason - and doing that didn't reduce world terrorism, Mr. Cheney.
4) Please tell us the truth - as if you're under oath - about exactly how you, Bush and the neoconservatives in the White House made the decision - before and after 9/11 - to identify any countries that support terrorism in any way as the "axis of evil" - and, therefore, potential targets in new wars. Tell us how you chose Iraq as the target - the prime substitute for Osama Bin Laden. Also, tell us about the propaganda campaign during 2002 and 2003. How did you personally help craft the lies and misleading content used to "sell" the war on Iraq. How did you plan and implement the gradual substitution of Saddam Hussein's name in place of Bin Laden's?
5) How did you think you could justify your large role in enhancing the powers and capacity of the executive branch to replace the role and function of other parts of the government? What made you think you had more power, at times, than the Central Intelligence Agency?
6) You owe us the truth about your role in the Valerie Plame affair. Your man, Scooter Libby, took the rap. Were you not involved, Mr. Cheney? Many news stories and accounts suggest you were heavily involved. Your own statements suggest your knowledge. Why did you support pardoning Libby? Was it only because of your view of the legal case, or, because you and Libby were both involved?
7) Tell us exactly how you interacted with President Bush. Did he tell you what to do, or, did you, in essence, tell him what to do? Did you guide and manipulate him, or, even, push him around, on occasion?
8) Do you believe that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?" If so, please supply us facts that convince us that you were not corrupted or influenced negatively by the power you wielded for eight years.
9) How could you repeatedly suggest Al Qaeda was tied to Saddam Hussein in any way --even long after you and Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq? Please provide facts - not rhetorical phrases - that prove any Al Qaeda link to Hussein's Iraq. (Or, admit there are none).
10) I've long thought you had a lot of gall and arrogance to say and do what you've done. Now, as I watch your behavior in the months after leaving office, I'm revising my view. I think you suffer some kind of extreme "state of denial" -- to borrow from the title of Bob Woodward's book on your Administration's handling of the Iraq war. "Denial" is too mild a term, though. It seems closer to "near-delusional" to me.
That brings me to a final suggestion for you: Instead of appearing on television talk shows, perhaps you can explore getting some therapy to help get you in touch with your feelings --- and, reality.
I cannot stand it. I'm disgusted by Cheney receiving sustained attention and deference as he keeps issuing warnings about how the US is more vulnerable to terrorists' attacks because the policies and practices of the Bush-Cheney administration are no longer in effect -- i.e. torture, detention and other actions. Cheney, because of HIS awful record in contributing to the world being LESS SAFE today, does not deserve this recent media attention. He is not credible on terrorism and national security.
If Cheney IS interviewed at all, he should be answering tough questions (that he's never been asked) about his role in shaping the US' failed efforts to fight terrorism and make the world more safe during his tenure. Cheney has a lot of explaining to do. He needs to be held responsible for his misconduct rather than solicited for his opinions. How and why are his views getting attention when he has - so far - evaded any truth-telling about the decision to invade Iraq, his role in the Valerie Plame affair, his administration's role in inspiring Al Qaeda to multiply and go in throngs to Iraq, and, in inflaming people across the globe to hate or mistrust the United States?
Cheney was at it again on Face the Nation, on Sunday, May 10th, spouting his views that the Obama team's repeal of Bush-Cheney anti-terrorist policies has made our country significantly less safe.
Here are several things I want to tell Dick Cheney:
1) It's time to get off the stage. Though I know you see yourself as an all-powerful, uniquely intellligent wise man who can save us all, you're no longer in power. It's time to go home and be quiet now.
2) When a new President takes office, it's not usually the best idea for the previous President or Vice President to begin repeatedly and harshly criticizing the new President constantly - particularly on the most sensitive national security matters. Historically, there is a reason why Presidents and their VPs have chosen to keep a lower profile - at least for a while. You, Mr. Cheney, not only don't "get" this, but your remarks aren't even close to being thoughtful or constructive; rather, they're blatantly political, self-serving and alarmist. They seem designed to scare Americans into thinking that without the Bush-Cheney approaches, terrorist attacks are more likely to happen. You've offered NO substantiation for these hysterical comments.
So, unless you have evidence of pending terrorist attacks to share with President Obama -- which you could always do privately, by the way -- you should "zip it."
3) You still come off as if you're oblivious to the impact of your actions. Your anti-terrorism policies and invasion of Iraq were not some video game or fantasy football league. Thousands and thousands of human beings died - and, yes, many more of them were Iraqi citizens whose lives and deaths were just as important as those of US solidiers. The Iraqis didn't ask for you to send the US military into their backyard to kill them for no reason - and doing that didn't reduce world terrorism, Mr. Cheney.
4) Please tell us the truth - as if you're under oath - about exactly how you, Bush and the neoconservatives in the White House made the decision - before and after 9/11 - to identify any countries that support terrorism in any way as the "axis of evil" - and, therefore, potential targets in new wars. Tell us how you chose Iraq as the target - the prime substitute for Osama Bin Laden. Also, tell us about the propaganda campaign during 2002 and 2003. How did you personally help craft the lies and misleading content used to "sell" the war on Iraq. How did you plan and implement the gradual substitution of Saddam Hussein's name in place of Bin Laden's?
5) How did you think you could justify your large role in enhancing the powers and capacity of the executive branch to replace the role and function of other parts of the government? What made you think you had more power, at times, than the Central Intelligence Agency?
6) You owe us the truth about your role in the Valerie Plame affair. Your man, Scooter Libby, took the rap. Were you not involved, Mr. Cheney? Many news stories and accounts suggest you were heavily involved. Your own statements suggest your knowledge. Why did you support pardoning Libby? Was it only because of your view of the legal case, or, because you and Libby were both involved?
7) Tell us exactly how you interacted with President Bush. Did he tell you what to do, or, did you, in essence, tell him what to do? Did you guide and manipulate him, or, even, push him around, on occasion?
8) Do you believe that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?" If so, please supply us facts that convince us that you were not corrupted or influenced negatively by the power you wielded for eight years.
9) How could you repeatedly suggest Al Qaeda was tied to Saddam Hussein in any way --even long after you and Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq? Please provide facts - not rhetorical phrases - that prove any Al Qaeda link to Hussein's Iraq. (Or, admit there are none).
10) I've long thought you had a lot of gall and arrogance to say and do what you've done. Now, as I watch your behavior in the months after leaving office, I'm revising my view. I think you suffer some kind of extreme "state of denial" -- to borrow from the title of Bob Woodward's book on your Administration's handling of the Iraq war. "Denial" is too mild a term, though. It seems closer to "near-delusional" to me.
That brings me to a final suggestion for you: Instead of appearing on television talk shows, perhaps you can explore getting some therapy to help get you in touch with your feelings --- and, reality.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Coverage of Swine Flu, Predictably, Lacks ANY Context
The loss of context.
If I had to summarize what's happened to news coverage, particularly on television, over the past 25 years, that's what I'd say. The driving force in television news has been to entertain viewers and that means entertain - at all costs.
So, if it takes a news anchor or correspondent another few minutes to provide "background" or "perspective" on a story, that option is usually rejected. The choice is to use black and white - not gray - to tell the story. Attempting to include context is the lowest of priorities.
Clearly, the priority in television news - local and national - is to grab and hold onto viewers by using any means to enliven the broadcast and make it as "easy" as possible for them. That's why national news anchors, at the start of the news, read catchy, little headlines to forecast upcoming stories. It's a little gimmick to get your attention -- and based on the assumption that most of us have no attention span and may grab our remote control any second.
If I had to summarize what's happened to news coverage, particularly on television, over the past 25 years, that's what I'd say. The driving force in television news has been to entertain viewers and that means entertain - at all costs.
So, if it takes a news anchor or correspondent another few minutes to provide "background" or "perspective" on a story, that option is usually rejected. The choice is to use black and white - not gray - to tell the story. Attempting to include context is the lowest of priorities.
Clearly, the priority in television news - local and national - is to grab and hold onto viewers by using any means to enliven the broadcast and make it as "easy" as possible for them. That's why national news anchors, at the start of the news, read catchy, little headlines to forecast upcoming stories. It's a little gimmick to get your attention -- and based on the assumption that most of us have no attention span and may grab our remote control any second.
So, these dynamics help explain coverage of the swine flu story. When the story broke, reporters, anchors, and, news executives chose to dwell too much on worst-case scenarios and "signs of death and disaster" rather than to present the hard facts - with less frequency and with important qualifiers and contingencies. The swine flu was covered initially like it posed imminent, scary, out-0f-control threats to people everywhere. However, as each day passed, it became increasingly clear that the inital frenzy was unjustified and irresponsible.
The story picked up its first steam on Sunday, April 26, with the wild coverage peaking on April 27 and 28th as cable news gave it non-stop, "TOP STORY" status. The mere time and weight suggested the flu constituted a national crisis. The tabloid Boston Herald's April 30th Page One headline typified the continuing tone: "Killer Flu Stalks Mass."
Well, neither the Herald or other news outlets mentioned often enough that, in fact, 36,000 Americans die from flu-related (REGULAR flu, that is!) causes each year. The mere mention of that fact instantaneously gave the swine flu story a different context, so, I wish it had been mentioned much more often rather than only once in a while. As I write this, on May 4th, "no deaths and a few serious cases" have been reported outside of Mexico, where this flu outbreak originated and, even in Mexico, the spread of this swine flu has slowed, according to Time magazine's website.
Accurate context is part of the truth. We've just grown so accustomed to ratings-crazy, sensational, shallow news coverage that we accept either distorted context or no context. Television, and now, the Internet, have, unfortunately, dragged down the quality of much news coverage. Truth has been a casualty.
The treatment of the swine flu story was, unfortunately, very predictable. The TV & Internet-dominated media had to choose whether to hype the dramatic, black and white qualities vs. the more bland, gray realities about the illness. The hype sizzles and "sells" while the sober, more accurate version does not. Too many chose approach of the Herald characterization: "Killer Flu Stalks Mass."
For many years now, context has been disappearing from TV news, and, to a lesser degree, often from reporting in newspapers and magazines, which have been trying to compete with television.
The coverage of the OJ Simpson trial, back in 1995, was confirmation that we had entered a new era of "news" coverage. Coverage of the trial shattered any historic boundaries relating to how much attention a story should receive national "news-like" attention driven by entertainment rather than by hard news.
Since then, the examples of "context omission" multiplied to the point of absurdity. Do you recall the extent of attention given to the Monica Lewinsky saga during Bill Clinton's second term? If an alien from outer space reviewed the sheer scope of that episode, he might conclude that Monica Lewinsky was some important, international figure involved in a world crisis. Of course, that story brought incredible entertainment, so, it qualified as a major "news" story when, in fact, it did not deserve more than a tiny fraction of the attention it received.
The O.J. Simpson story opened the door for individual murder stories to be regularly treated as national entertainment stories. It's routine now to turn on cable news and find someone re-hashing the details and speculative angles of some murder story - usually one with a sensational element. (Years ago, individual murders were mostly covered in the place they happened)
Then, there is the variety of ways context is distorted in the day-to-day news. We keep hearing about Madonna's attempts to adopt a baby in Malawi, for example. I'd rather see a story about adoption in Massachusetts, its impact on families and how it's working out or not for children in different circumstances.
I have to mention coverage of weather (once again) because it so disregards reality and context. If there is a chance of a storm, that's the only rationale a local news station needs to inject an overdose of speculation and chatter about "possible" weather contingencies three days away. The good ratings resulting from that attention to weather are treated as more important than the actual weather outside!
That observation is entirely relevant to the swine flu coverage. Several days ago, I was watching a rare television discussion about the media coverage of the swine flu outbreak and one person commented, in essence, that this was a case, at least initially, when "the interests of the media were not the same as the interests of the public. "
Yes. The lack of context in media coverage is SO bad that even when there's a public health threat, decisionmaking about how to convey the news is influenced to a very disturbing degree, by how to attract ratings rather than how to present the truth -- in context. That's pretty bad.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Boo-ing Is Usually Stupid
I remember a moment, growing up, when a boy on my brother's baseball team was waiting for a pop fly to fall down into his glove, and the adult coach of the opposing team, suddenly, began to scream at the boy to distract him and make him miss it.
The boy caught the pop-up, anyway. The coach of my brother's team yelled at his counterpart - the out-of-line, "juvenile" coach, - saying, in essence: - "What's the matter with you? - a grown man yelling at a kid like that!"
That anecdote sort of sums up my feelings about fans booing pro athletes. I realize my example is overdramatic and that there are many kinds of booing - some boos more intensely negative and others of a lighter nature. Yet, in both my old anecdote and general point, the behavior on the sidelines is, more than anything, just a release of negative energy that brings nothing good to the event -- particularly when directed at one player repeatedly.
So, my objections do not apply to the sort of playful booing fans engage in when they hear the introduction of the opposing team or a star player on that team - which, I know, some view as "part of the game." But, what about the other kinds of booing -- when fans vent non-stop not only at opposing players, but members of their home teams who are not performing well?
To me, booing players on the team you're rooting for is the variety that bugs me the most -- especially when those players happen to be good, decent people off the field.
OK, that brings me to my latest example. About ten days ago, I was watching the Red Sox game, and I heard TV analyst Jerry Remy observe that, after David Ortiz had made an out, a small minority of fans could be heard booing Ortiz. That really disappointed me.
How can any Red Sox fan ever - ever - boo David Ortiz ?
Yeah, Ortiz has been struggling at the plate so far this season, but.....if there has ever been any Boston athlete who does not deserve one solitary boo, it is Ortiz. In 2004, Big Papi carried the Red Sox on his back to their first World Series victory in 86 years - with his heroics most displayed against the New York Yankees during the ACLS playoffs. With the Sox down 3-0 in games, Ortiz hit a walk-off home run in extra innnings to win their first game. Then, 24 hours later, Ortiz hit another game-winning hit in extra innings to get the Sox their second win.
From the second half of 2003 until he was affected by injuries in 2007 and 2008, Ortiz has been the greatest clutch hitter in the history of the Red Sox. He's hit so many dramatic home runs and BIG, clutch hits that he's brought countless thrills and joy to fans. Ortiz - with Manny Ramirez hitting behind him - was part of one of the greatest hitting duos in baseball history -- a modern-day version of Gehrig and Ruth. Beyond this, Ortiz has been one of the most likeable, respected athletes - off the field - to come through this city.
Nevertheless, in this young 2009 season, coming off a wrist injury that hobbled him last year, Ortiz has hit very poorly, often striking out. His timing has been way off. It has been one of his worst stretches. Some have speculated his skills are in decline. Others think it's in his head.
In recent games, Ortiz has improved a bit, and I've heard of no more booing, but, I cited his brief experience with booing to make a larger point.
First, Ortiz could be in a slump until he retires and I would never boo him. I would never boo any player. What good does booing do?
For those doing the booing, it's really just a momentary "release" of energy that has little to do with the game. People booing get a second of self-absorbed amusement by venting negative impulses - a little "escape" from their lives - but, if they're booing their own players, the noise only reminds their "targets" in the case of Ortiz or other Sox players - of their struggles. It does not add to their confidence or help them focus. It's not likely to help them!
To the contrary, sometimes, booing can hurt players' performance. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude it's a bit easier to concentrate without the negative noise. It can add to a player's self-doubt, anxiety or ill feelings.
Further, does it really add to the game to boo opposing players? I'd say "No" every time and in every circumstance. What is the booing about, really? The fans do not really care about many of the players they're jeering. It's just a cathartic release.
I'd love to see the minority of fans who still yell "Yankees Suck" to knock it off. That chant doesn't exactly help promote the image of Boston fans. Indeed, there have been some embarrassing moments at Fenway when a moronic minority of fans have displayed obnoxious behavior. I recall a few years ago, in the middle of a Red Sox-Yankee game, fans were throwing stuff on the field - and I winced when classy Yankee manager Joe Torre was asked about it after the game.
I've witnessed too many negative moments at Fenway Park when booing detracted from the game. I recall once in the late 1970s when some fan or fans did far worse by throwing metal slugs in the direction of centerfielder Mickey Rivers, and, then-Yankee manager Billy Martin yanked his team off the field until order could be restored. I didn't blame Martin.
Booing can be accompanied by an ugly, venom at times. Unfortunately, in the past, I've witnessed moments at Fenway when I believed a small, but noticeable segment of fans appeared to be motivated partly by racism -- in addition to the baseball-related happenings -- when they booed certain players. Booing allows these cowards to hide in the masses.
I recall, when Barry Bonds of the San Francisco Giants played in an interleague game at Fenway two summers ago, the booing was awfully loud for an out-of-town player -- even one alleged to have used steroids.
I know some have already anticipated that when A-Rod plays his first game at Fenway Park this year, he'll be boo-ed very loudly due to the off-season revelations of his past steroid use. I would never join that chorus of boos. Is it going to help Bonds or A-Rod to boo them? Are they going to somehow want to "change" after hearing the boos?
In 2006, a few Red Sox relief pitchers - Keith Foulke, Rudy Seanez and Julian Tavarez - were all booed at different times. Foulke, who, like Ortiz, made a huge contribution to the Sox winning the championship in 2004, must have felt fans had short memories. Tavarez, in September of 2006, commented on the booing to the Fall River Herald-News, when, after a good appearance, fans had cheered him.
"I can't say I don't care about our fans. I love our fans," Tavarez said after the game. "but I've never played for a city that boos the players even though you're five, six games ahead, in first place. "If we go out and don't get the job done, we get boos from the fans. That doesn't make me happy, and I'm sure a lot of players are very concerned about that."
The boy caught the pop-up, anyway. The coach of my brother's team yelled at his counterpart - the out-of-line, "juvenile" coach, - saying, in essence: - "What's the matter with you? - a grown man yelling at a kid like that!"
That anecdote sort of sums up my feelings about fans booing pro athletes. I realize my example is overdramatic and that there are many kinds of booing - some boos more intensely negative and others of a lighter nature. Yet, in both my old anecdote and general point, the behavior on the sidelines is, more than anything, just a release of negative energy that brings nothing good to the event -- particularly when directed at one player repeatedly.
So, my objections do not apply to the sort of playful booing fans engage in when they hear the introduction of the opposing team or a star player on that team - which, I know, some view as "part of the game." But, what about the other kinds of booing -- when fans vent non-stop not only at opposing players, but members of their home teams who are not performing well?
To me, booing players on the team you're rooting for is the variety that bugs me the most -- especially when those players happen to be good, decent people off the field.
OK, that brings me to my latest example. About ten days ago, I was watching the Red Sox game, and I heard TV analyst Jerry Remy observe that, after David Ortiz had made an out, a small minority of fans could be heard booing Ortiz. That really disappointed me.
How can any Red Sox fan ever - ever - boo David Ortiz ?
Yeah, Ortiz has been struggling at the plate so far this season, but.....if there has ever been any Boston athlete who does not deserve one solitary boo, it is Ortiz. In 2004, Big Papi carried the Red Sox on his back to their first World Series victory in 86 years - with his heroics most displayed against the New York Yankees during the ACLS playoffs. With the Sox down 3-0 in games, Ortiz hit a walk-off home run in extra innnings to win their first game. Then, 24 hours later, Ortiz hit another game-winning hit in extra innings to get the Sox their second win.
From the second half of 2003 until he was affected by injuries in 2007 and 2008, Ortiz has been the greatest clutch hitter in the history of the Red Sox. He's hit so many dramatic home runs and BIG, clutch hits that he's brought countless thrills and joy to fans. Ortiz - with Manny Ramirez hitting behind him - was part of one of the greatest hitting duos in baseball history -- a modern-day version of Gehrig and Ruth. Beyond this, Ortiz has been one of the most likeable, respected athletes - off the field - to come through this city.
Nevertheless, in this young 2009 season, coming off a wrist injury that hobbled him last year, Ortiz has hit very poorly, often striking out. His timing has been way off. It has been one of his worst stretches. Some have speculated his skills are in decline. Others think it's in his head.
In recent games, Ortiz has improved a bit, and I've heard of no more booing, but, I cited his brief experience with booing to make a larger point.
First, Ortiz could be in a slump until he retires and I would never boo him. I would never boo any player. What good does booing do?
For those doing the booing, it's really just a momentary "release" of energy that has little to do with the game. People booing get a second of self-absorbed amusement by venting negative impulses - a little "escape" from their lives - but, if they're booing their own players, the noise only reminds their "targets" in the case of Ortiz or other Sox players - of their struggles. It does not add to their confidence or help them focus. It's not likely to help them!
To the contrary, sometimes, booing can hurt players' performance. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude it's a bit easier to concentrate without the negative noise. It can add to a player's self-doubt, anxiety or ill feelings.
Further, does it really add to the game to boo opposing players? I'd say "No" every time and in every circumstance. What is the booing about, really? The fans do not really care about many of the players they're jeering. It's just a cathartic release.
I'd love to see the minority of fans who still yell "Yankees Suck" to knock it off. That chant doesn't exactly help promote the image of Boston fans. Indeed, there have been some embarrassing moments at Fenway when a moronic minority of fans have displayed obnoxious behavior. I recall a few years ago, in the middle of a Red Sox-Yankee game, fans were throwing stuff on the field - and I winced when classy Yankee manager Joe Torre was asked about it after the game.
I've witnessed too many negative moments at Fenway Park when booing detracted from the game. I recall once in the late 1970s when some fan or fans did far worse by throwing metal slugs in the direction of centerfielder Mickey Rivers, and, then-Yankee manager Billy Martin yanked his team off the field until order could be restored. I didn't blame Martin.
Booing can be accompanied by an ugly, venom at times. Unfortunately, in the past, I've witnessed moments at Fenway when I believed a small, but noticeable segment of fans appeared to be motivated partly by racism -- in addition to the baseball-related happenings -- when they booed certain players. Booing allows these cowards to hide in the masses.
I recall, when Barry Bonds of the San Francisco Giants played in an interleague game at Fenway two summers ago, the booing was awfully loud for an out-of-town player -- even one alleged to have used steroids.
I know some have already anticipated that when A-Rod plays his first game at Fenway Park this year, he'll be boo-ed very loudly due to the off-season revelations of his past steroid use. I would never join that chorus of boos. Is it going to help Bonds or A-Rod to boo them? Are they going to somehow want to "change" after hearing the boos?
In 2006, a few Red Sox relief pitchers - Keith Foulke, Rudy Seanez and Julian Tavarez - were all booed at different times. Foulke, who, like Ortiz, made a huge contribution to the Sox winning the championship in 2004, must have felt fans had short memories. Tavarez, in September of 2006, commented on the booing to the Fall River Herald-News, when, after a good appearance, fans had cheered him.
"I can't say I don't care about our fans. I love our fans," Tavarez said after the game. "but I've never played for a city that boos the players even though you're five, six games ahead, in first place. "If we go out and don't get the job done, we get boos from the fans. That doesn't make me happy, and I'm sure a lot of players are very concerned about that."
Kevin Youkilis of the Red Sox, was asked his opinion of fans booing and said he didn't like their treatment of Tavarez.
"I'd rather have no one at the field than people booing me all day," Youkilis told the Herald-News. When asked if he felt, however, that booing might mean that fans care, Youkilis replied, (rhetorically):
"Do they really care? "They care about the team, but when they boo a specific individual, do they really care about that person? No, If you boo somebody, it's like you despise them."
Youkilis also told the Herald-News, "....nothing positive can come out of booing. Zero. Zero percent."
I agree with Youkilis. Cheering - or not cheering - allows fans to express their sentiments fully and spontaneously at games. Booing individual players adds nothing, and, is usually a stupid exercise.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Why Is Jay Severin Still On the Air?
Why should we have to hear a radio talk show host say reckless, offensive, inaccurate things on the air every day? Why should such a host not be fired?
I raise these questions in reference to Jay Severin, the right-wing, "shock-jock" whose show is on in Boston on weekdays from 3 - 7 pm on WTTK-FM (96.9) the "talk station."
And I raise them because, to me, this is not about Severin's politial views, but whether he makes remarks that can be considered "acceptable" or "responsible" - or not. I'm in no way advocating censorship. I'm asking you - potential consumers of his show - and WTTK's station management to re-examine if this talk show host - who regularly spouts objectionable, unsubstantiated content - should have his job. And, do you - the public - care what he says?
I have found that many of Severin's remarks are "irresponsible" and warrant his removal from the airwaves. But I'm curious what you think and I want to give you a tiny, but recent, revealing sampling to consider.
On April 6, when discussing President Obama's foreign policy, including his response to North Korea's test missile launch, Severin said:
"...I think Barack Obama in his heart of hearts is an anti-Semite who wants the Iranians to attack Israel and give it to the Palestinians. I really believe he believes that. And one of the problems here is that he is expected to act on a life and death basis to pretend that he doesn't believe those things whereas I am sure he would sleep much better at night if North Korea overtook the South (Korea) if, uh, China took back Taiwan and Iran flattened Israel. He'd be fine with that..."
On April 7, Severin offered these additional comments:
"...Given the choice of doing something affirmative like going out and stopping the North Koreans or going out and stopping the Iranians - Barack Obama would rather - and will rather - one million Americans die before he does anything. There is no question in my mind that this President of the United States would and will prefer to wait for the mushroom cloud rather than do anything. And when he responds, if God forbid we are attacked, Barack Obama's response will be beyond limp, beyond lame, beyond un-American. We have someone who doesn't want to defend us. We have someone who believes we are evil..."
I do not think it's OK for Severin or any talk show host to make claims like these without any substantiation, sensible context or reason. And, merely attempting to be sensational to attract higher ratings is no grounds for accusing the President of preferring that a million Americans die instead of taking military action.
Then, also recently, came Severin's extreme reaction when Somali pirates were holding captain Richard Phillips hostage and a suspenseful standoff was going on. Severin repeatedly lambasted President Obama, for, responding (in Severin's view) so weakly.
On his April 8th show, Severin suggested that a "real President" of the United States would "...recapture our guys, kill all the pirates, and, as far as I'm concerned, please, please drop a nuclear weapon on Mogadishu -- for revenge, for deterrence, and, just a public service to the rest of the world..."
On April 9th, Severin was still ripping Obama.
"He is a coward," Severin told a caller. "He's an ignoramus. He is weak. He is un-American. He is unpatriotic...He is the Manchurian candidate...And I'll tell you this - all - all of the evidence available - both from the things he's said and the things he's done - I'm talking about Rev. Wright. I'm talking about Bill Ayers. I'm talking about ACORN. I'm talking about the Black Panthers. I'm talking about various radical groups and philosophies to which he signed his name and stood up for...and now, finally, we have elected one of the American haters to the Presidency and we're trying to deal with it..."
Shouldn't a radio talk show host with a good-sized audience in Boston be required to back up these kinds of comments OR not make them at all?
I certainly expect a more responsible performance. I hope you do too.
I raise these questions in reference to Jay Severin, the right-wing, "shock-jock" whose show is on in Boston on weekdays from 3 - 7 pm on WTTK-FM (96.9) the "talk station."
And I raise them because, to me, this is not about Severin's politial views, but whether he makes remarks that can be considered "acceptable" or "responsible" - or not. I'm in no way advocating censorship. I'm asking you - potential consumers of his show - and WTTK's station management to re-examine if this talk show host - who regularly spouts objectionable, unsubstantiated content - should have his job. And, do you - the public - care what he says?
I have found that many of Severin's remarks are "irresponsible" and warrant his removal from the airwaves. But I'm curious what you think and I want to give you a tiny, but recent, revealing sampling to consider.
On April 6, when discussing President Obama's foreign policy, including his response to North Korea's test missile launch, Severin said:
"...I think Barack Obama in his heart of hearts is an anti-Semite who wants the Iranians to attack Israel and give it to the Palestinians. I really believe he believes that. And one of the problems here is that he is expected to act on a life and death basis to pretend that he doesn't believe those things whereas I am sure he would sleep much better at night if North Korea overtook the South (Korea) if, uh, China took back Taiwan and Iran flattened Israel. He'd be fine with that..."
On April 7, Severin offered these additional comments:
"...Given the choice of doing something affirmative like going out and stopping the North Koreans or going out and stopping the Iranians - Barack Obama would rather - and will rather - one million Americans die before he does anything. There is no question in my mind that this President of the United States would and will prefer to wait for the mushroom cloud rather than do anything. And when he responds, if God forbid we are attacked, Barack Obama's response will be beyond limp, beyond lame, beyond un-American. We have someone who doesn't want to defend us. We have someone who believes we are evil..."
I do not think it's OK for Severin or any talk show host to make claims like these without any substantiation, sensible context or reason. And, merely attempting to be sensational to attract higher ratings is no grounds for accusing the President of preferring that a million Americans die instead of taking military action.
Then, also recently, came Severin's extreme reaction when Somali pirates were holding captain Richard Phillips hostage and a suspenseful standoff was going on. Severin repeatedly lambasted President Obama, for, responding (in Severin's view) so weakly.
On his April 8th show, Severin suggested that a "real President" of the United States would "...recapture our guys, kill all the pirates, and, as far as I'm concerned, please, please drop a nuclear weapon on Mogadishu -- for revenge, for deterrence, and, just a public service to the rest of the world..."
On April 9th, Severin was still ripping Obama.
"He is a coward," Severin told a caller. "He's an ignoramus. He is weak. He is un-American. He is unpatriotic...He is the Manchurian candidate...And I'll tell you this - all - all of the evidence available - both from the things he's said and the things he's done - I'm talking about Rev. Wright. I'm talking about Bill Ayers. I'm talking about ACORN. I'm talking about the Black Panthers. I'm talking about various radical groups and philosophies to which he signed his name and stood up for...and now, finally, we have elected one of the American haters to the Presidency and we're trying to deal with it..."
Shouldn't a radio talk show host with a good-sized audience in Boston be required to back up these kinds of comments OR not make them at all?
I certainly expect a more responsible performance. I hope you do too.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Obama, in Move with Iran, Setting His Own Path
It is, in many ways, Barack Obama's most bold, distinctive move as President so far.
Obama, in recent days, has confirmed that his Adminstration will participate - along with five other countries - in talks with Iran about its nuclear program. The Obama Administration also has "plans to start reaching out to Iran on a one-to-one basis," US officials told the NY Times last week. The US has also agreed to a partial lifting of "a general ban on face-to-face talks between senior State Department officials and their Iranian counterparts," according to an April 8th "Political Intelligence," report in Boston.com.
The Obama Administration, in March, already invited Iran to join other talks among leaders of countries discussing ongoing challenges in Afghanistan.
The news last week that the US has agreed to join Iran at the table with Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China to discuss Iran's development of nuclear material follows other actions by the Obama Administration toward Iran that signal a radically new direction for US in its relations with Iran. The Bush Administration, in 2002 identified Iran as part of the "axis of evil" and kept a hostile approach (toward Iran) for eight years without ever trying to negotiate about anything.
Obama, as a presidential candidate, said he'd consider talking to Iran without pre-conditions. Now, he's doing it. In March, Obama sent a videotaped message to the Iranian people seeking a fresh start in US-Iran relations and stressing his interest in diplomacy and mutual respect.
Yes, it's possible this initiative with Iran will bring little or no concrete results.
This "opening" may start only a short-lived phase and be quickly forgotten if events unfold negatively. It's unlikely Iran will suddenly reverse course on developing its nuclear capacity, for instance. Iran will not suddenly start reaching agreements with the US or its allies.
However, I think the mere decision by Obama to start communicating with Iran is a big deal -- in several ways. First, US-Iranian relations have been bad for nearly 30 years, so, Obama's moves are unlikely to make things any worse on that score, but, beyond that, it appears Obama is trying to "change the equation" in the Middle East. At a moment when Israel is now threatening that it may be forced to take military action against Iran if Iran does not halt its nuclear ambitions, this is a very delicate moment. Obama, by entering the picture, is changing the dynamics, giving diplomacy with Iran a chance and muzzling Israel's aggressive impulses.
Consider how Benjamin Netanyahu, who just become Israel's new prime minister, has already chosen to express his view on what he wants from Obama in the most extreme, hyped fashion.
"The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said in the Atlantic Monthly's March edition.
These and other rumblings from Israel make me even more pleased that Obama has taken his stand to talk to Iran.
We'll see how Obama interacts with Israel in the weeks and months ahead, but, I'd argue that his opening with Iran must be stirring a negative reaction inside Israel. How can Israeli leaders not be angry or disappointed by Obama's moves given their increasingly impatient, hostile tone toward Iran? Plus, if Israel were ever to decide to strike Iran, wouldn't the Israelis want and need the support of the US?
I think Obama has probably already taken considerable heat from Israel and its supporters for his overtures to Iran - and, I think he's showing some real leadership by charting his own course on this matter.
How many US Presidents - after only three months - have begun down a road that is this much at odds with Israel's position? It seems most Presidents in my life, except for Jimmy Carter, have "towed the line" by, generally, doing what Israel wants. Obama is challenging Israel more and showing he's willing and able to disagree with Israel.
Obama's moves with Iran represent an exception for his first three months as President. He is showing us his hand more on this. He's taking a new path that some see as controversial or ill-advised.
Remember: This is a new President who, remarkably, has kept his deliberations and reactions on policy topics quite private. He and his advisors have not revealed how Obama makes decisions or the role his temperment and inner biases play in his decisionmaking.
Yet, unlike with most issues, on Iran, Obama is sticking his neck out. He's taking a risk and he's trying to lead people in a new direction.
I applaud Obama's initiative with Iran. I realize fully that it may yield no striking results for quite a while. However, if nothing else, it has shown me that he's willing to assert himself, invite and deal with conflict and be able to withstand substantial pressure from opposing forces.
It would be helpful if members of Congress supported Obama's initiative, but, they are usually silent cowards when it comes to taking any stand that might upset the influence of the "Israeli Lobby."
Obama, in recent days, has confirmed that his Adminstration will participate - along with five other countries - in talks with Iran about its nuclear program. The Obama Administration also has "plans to start reaching out to Iran on a one-to-one basis," US officials told the NY Times last week. The US has also agreed to a partial lifting of "a general ban on face-to-face talks between senior State Department officials and their Iranian counterparts," according to an April 8th "Political Intelligence," report in Boston.com.
The Obama Administration, in March, already invited Iran to join other talks among leaders of countries discussing ongoing challenges in Afghanistan.
The news last week that the US has agreed to join Iran at the table with Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China to discuss Iran's development of nuclear material follows other actions by the Obama Administration toward Iran that signal a radically new direction for US in its relations with Iran. The Bush Administration, in 2002 identified Iran as part of the "axis of evil" and kept a hostile approach (toward Iran) for eight years without ever trying to negotiate about anything.
Obama, as a presidential candidate, said he'd consider talking to Iran without pre-conditions. Now, he's doing it. In March, Obama sent a videotaped message to the Iranian people seeking a fresh start in US-Iran relations and stressing his interest in diplomacy and mutual respect.
Yes, it's possible this initiative with Iran will bring little or no concrete results.
This "opening" may start only a short-lived phase and be quickly forgotten if events unfold negatively. It's unlikely Iran will suddenly reverse course on developing its nuclear capacity, for instance. Iran will not suddenly start reaching agreements with the US or its allies.
However, I think the mere decision by Obama to start communicating with Iran is a big deal -- in several ways. First, US-Iranian relations have been bad for nearly 30 years, so, Obama's moves are unlikely to make things any worse on that score, but, beyond that, it appears Obama is trying to "change the equation" in the Middle East. At a moment when Israel is now threatening that it may be forced to take military action against Iran if Iran does not halt its nuclear ambitions, this is a very delicate moment. Obama, by entering the picture, is changing the dynamics, giving diplomacy with Iran a chance and muzzling Israel's aggressive impulses.
Consider how Benjamin Netanyahu, who just become Israel's new prime minister, has already chosen to express his view on what he wants from Obama in the most extreme, hyped fashion.
"The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said in the Atlantic Monthly's March edition.
These and other rumblings from Israel make me even more pleased that Obama has taken his stand to talk to Iran.
We'll see how Obama interacts with Israel in the weeks and months ahead, but, I'd argue that his opening with Iran must be stirring a negative reaction inside Israel. How can Israeli leaders not be angry or disappointed by Obama's moves given their increasingly impatient, hostile tone toward Iran? Plus, if Israel were ever to decide to strike Iran, wouldn't the Israelis want and need the support of the US?
I think Obama has probably already taken considerable heat from Israel and its supporters for his overtures to Iran - and, I think he's showing some real leadership by charting his own course on this matter.
How many US Presidents - after only three months - have begun down a road that is this much at odds with Israel's position? It seems most Presidents in my life, except for Jimmy Carter, have "towed the line" by, generally, doing what Israel wants. Obama is challenging Israel more and showing he's willing and able to disagree with Israel.
Obama's moves with Iran represent an exception for his first three months as President. He is showing us his hand more on this. He's taking a new path that some see as controversial or ill-advised.
Remember: This is a new President who, remarkably, has kept his deliberations and reactions on policy topics quite private. He and his advisors have not revealed how Obama makes decisions or the role his temperment and inner biases play in his decisionmaking.
Yet, unlike with most issues, on Iran, Obama is sticking his neck out. He's taking a risk and he's trying to lead people in a new direction.
I applaud Obama's initiative with Iran. I realize fully that it may yield no striking results for quite a while. However, if nothing else, it has shown me that he's willing to assert himself, invite and deal with conflict and be able to withstand substantial pressure from opposing forces.
It would be helpful if members of Congress supported Obama's initiative, but, they are usually silent cowards when it comes to taking any stand that might upset the influence of the "Israeli Lobby."
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Hoping the Boston Globe Survives
I cannot believe the Boston Globe is struggling to survive now.
It's one thing to read about various out-of-town newspapers folding, reducing staff or filing for bankruptcy, but, it's something else when you might lose YOUR newspaper.
I had thought the Globe was somehow immune to these gloomy developments. So, I was jolted to read that the New York Times, which owns the Globe, has just threatened to shut it down unless its unions quickly agree to $20 million in concessions in the form of various cuts.
Even if the Globe wards off this threat, its future looks much more bleak. Some say it's only a matter of time before it evolves into an online publication.
Now, suddenly, I'm feeling the potentially awful loss that would be felt without the Globe.
I cannot even imagine the Boston area without the Globe. It seems like a nightmare -- some bizarre, awful version of "the future," when the online world becomes even more dominant.
Yes, I'm one of those people who feels that newspapers play a vital role in creating a "sense of community" in a world that has become disturbingly impersonal and focused on THE INDIVIDUAL at all costs. People live, to a troubling degree, in their own worlds and feel disconnected from their hometowns, neighbors, and, often, the rest of society.
A good newspaper - like the Globe - is one vehicle that still ties us together in a special way. For generations, conversations have begun with one person saying "I saw in the paper that........"
The Globe has always been my newspaper. For most of my life, it has been my favorite paper.
I confess that, in the past few years, I've felt the Globe has gone a bit downhill, but, that has come as it has lost terrific reporters, cut back some coverage and made repeated changes.
I've enjoyed the ritual of reading the Globe every day - from seeing its familiar logo to going to the sports page first to appreciating its enthusiastic, detailed coverage of politics. The Globe has brought me so many huge news developments my whole life -- and sparked so many reactions and conversations that I can't begin to highlight its impact.
I still possess my copy of the Boston Globe's 1978 edition with the front-page headline that appeared the day after the Blizzard of '78 struck: "Worst Storm of Century." Who can forget that!
I recall vividly the June morning in 1968 when I went downstairs very early to find the Globe left at our back door. It was the day after the June presidential primary, and, though I was only 12 years old, I was closely following the Democratic primary race between Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. I was hoping so, so much the Globe would tell me of a Kennedy victory. It turned out the results weren't in that early edition - and, sadly, a short while later, I learned - by television reports - of Kennedy's assassination the night before.
I recall, after the incredibly thrilling Red Sox-Yankee playoff game in Oct. 1978, which ended with Yaz popping up on a Rich Gossage fastball, reading a front-page Mike Barnicle story titled "A Man Called Yaz." I attended that game, the most exciting sports event I ever attended. I still have that Globe too.
I recall, in high school, following the Watergate scandal by reading the Globe every day. The Globe always used to cover politics exhaustively. I used to love following presidential campaigns covered by outstanding "original" Globe staffers like Curtis Wilkie.
When the Boston University faculty went on strike in 1979, I once offered - as a student reporter - to string for the Globe, and, when I got a story published, it was an unforgettable thrill. I also have loved writing letters to the Editor of the Globe, especially when a fair number got published.
I remember when I first began to appreciate the unique baseball reporting of Peter Gammons when he used to cover the Red Sox for the Globe. It took me years to fully realize just how original and extraordinary Gammons' close-up reporting really was.
When national stories broke, the Globe usually put their own stamp on the subject somehow.
I recall, the day after 9/11, the Globe did some unique reporting on who was on one of the hijacked airplanes.
I've loved reading Globe columnists - Marty Nolan, Robert Turner, Ellen Goodman and Scott Lehigh - just to name a few. And, whether I agreed or disagreed with sports columnist Dan Shaughnessy, I've always wanted to see his column. (I loved that lengthy Will McDonough
article on the rift between Bill Parcells and Robert Kraft. Remember that?)
It's one thing to read about various out-of-town newspapers folding, reducing staff or filing for bankruptcy, but, it's something else when you might lose YOUR newspaper.
I had thought the Globe was somehow immune to these gloomy developments. So, I was jolted to read that the New York Times, which owns the Globe, has just threatened to shut it down unless its unions quickly agree to $20 million in concessions in the form of various cuts.
Even if the Globe wards off this threat, its future looks much more bleak. Some say it's only a matter of time before it evolves into an online publication.
Now, suddenly, I'm feeling the potentially awful loss that would be felt without the Globe.
I cannot even imagine the Boston area without the Globe. It seems like a nightmare -- some bizarre, awful version of "the future," when the online world becomes even more dominant.
Yes, I'm one of those people who feels that newspapers play a vital role in creating a "sense of community" in a world that has become disturbingly impersonal and focused on THE INDIVIDUAL at all costs. People live, to a troubling degree, in their own worlds and feel disconnected from their hometowns, neighbors, and, often, the rest of society.
A good newspaper - like the Globe - is one vehicle that still ties us together in a special way. For generations, conversations have begun with one person saying "I saw in the paper that........"
The Globe has always been my newspaper. For most of my life, it has been my favorite paper.
I confess that, in the past few years, I've felt the Globe has gone a bit downhill, but, that has come as it has lost terrific reporters, cut back some coverage and made repeated changes.
I've enjoyed the ritual of reading the Globe every day - from seeing its familiar logo to going to the sports page first to appreciating its enthusiastic, detailed coverage of politics. The Globe has brought me so many huge news developments my whole life -- and sparked so many reactions and conversations that I can't begin to highlight its impact.
I still possess my copy of the Boston Globe's 1978 edition with the front-page headline that appeared the day after the Blizzard of '78 struck: "Worst Storm of Century." Who can forget that!
I recall vividly the June morning in 1968 when I went downstairs very early to find the Globe left at our back door. It was the day after the June presidential primary, and, though I was only 12 years old, I was closely following the Democratic primary race between Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. I was hoping so, so much the Globe would tell me of a Kennedy victory. It turned out the results weren't in that early edition - and, sadly, a short while later, I learned - by television reports - of Kennedy's assassination the night before.
I recall, after the incredibly thrilling Red Sox-Yankee playoff game in Oct. 1978, which ended with Yaz popping up on a Rich Gossage fastball, reading a front-page Mike Barnicle story titled "A Man Called Yaz." I attended that game, the most exciting sports event I ever attended. I still have that Globe too.
I recall, in high school, following the Watergate scandal by reading the Globe every day. The Globe always used to cover politics exhaustively. I used to love following presidential campaigns covered by outstanding "original" Globe staffers like Curtis Wilkie.
When the Boston University faculty went on strike in 1979, I once offered - as a student reporter - to string for the Globe, and, when I got a story published, it was an unforgettable thrill. I also have loved writing letters to the Editor of the Globe, especially when a fair number got published.
I remember when I first began to appreciate the unique baseball reporting of Peter Gammons when he used to cover the Red Sox for the Globe. It took me years to fully realize just how original and extraordinary Gammons' close-up reporting really was.
When national stories broke, the Globe usually put their own stamp on the subject somehow.
I recall, the day after 9/11, the Globe did some unique reporting on who was on one of the hijacked airplanes.
I've loved reading Globe columnists - Marty Nolan, Robert Turner, Ellen Goodman and Scott Lehigh - just to name a few. And, whether I agreed or disagreed with sports columnist Dan Shaughnessy, I've always wanted to see his column. (I loved that lengthy Will McDonough
article on the rift between Bill Parcells and Robert Kraft. Remember that?)
I recall, when I moved to Washington DC in 1984, thinking I'd go crazy without seeing the Globe every day. Well, that never happened because, I ended up buying the Globe at an increased price every single day at the Newsroom, a legendary news store that sold newspapers from all over the world. It made me feel I was at home.
Sometimes, I get a sense that young people brought up on the InterNet don't know what they've missed without having had a regular newspaper to call their own. Sometimes I'm struck by the "random" way that people get news these days. On occasion, I'll ask someone where they read or head about news they just shared, and, he or she replies: "Somewhere -- I don't know."
I guess it's true that more and more people get their news from the InterNet. Just like it's true that quite a few young people have gotten their political news from Jon Stewart's Daily Show. I like Jon Stewart, but, I find it disappointing that fewer young people are reading newspapers.
A newspaper is more than just a vehicle for transmitting headlines. It's a specific group of people with unique talents and personalities who put the news together with an approach, emphasis and philosophy that leaves their mark.
I know thousands of people share my sentiments about the Globe. Today's April 5th Globe included an article with an array of well-known people expressing dismay at just the chance of the newspaper folding.
I still hope the Globe will survive somehow. Imagining the Globe existing in only the form of an online edition is painful. If the newspaper folds, things will truly never be the same.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Random Musings
I am really tired of ...........seeing Jennifer Aniston on magazine covers at the grocery store or news stands everywhere. Why are we still seeing her after months and years have passed? Can someone explain this to me? She hasn't done anything to draw this attention. I understand there must be some "market" for Aniston gossip out there, but this never ends! Aniston has become the "permanent celebrity face" we cannot escape. She was a star on one popular television sitcom (which wasn't even good, in my view) I thought even tabloids believed in variety - but, apparently, Jennifer Aniston is SO unique that we all need constant updates or we'll suffer awful consequences. (I'm sick of "Brangelina" too!)
I am really tired of...........Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and other "phony celebrities" who seem to do anything to attract media coverage. OK, I concede that Spears is at least a singer, but, to this day, I don't know what Lohan and Hilton even do for a living. Are they entertainers? I guess I'm old-fashioned, but, I like the idea of people doing something to earn fame.
I am really tired of ..........seeing so many people get on the commuter train and stare non-stop - like robots - at their Blackberries or "super-equipped" cellphones. I guess people prefer interacting with their little electronic toys more than human beings on the train. But, what really gets me is when I hear people calling their spouses to give all-important updates by cellphone: "The train left five minutes late," a husband tells his wife in a monotone. I wince - wishing for the time when cellphones didn't exist and people didn't feel these new, unnatural impulses to do meaningless "check-ins." What would happen if people had to throw out all Blackberries, cellphones, pagers, etc? I think the human condition might improve a bit......Just my opinion.
I am really tired of..........the White House press corps distorting little events and details relating to President Obama into stories that go on for days rather than discussing Obama's policies on a substantive basis. For example, a great deal of attention was given to Obama's short, firm reply, at last week's press conference, to a television reporter who asked Obama why he hadn't responded more quickly after learning of the bonuses given to AIG executives. Obama said: "...because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."
In days that followed, many references were made to Obama being irritable or snapping at the reporter when his tone was not that glaring. In any event, it was not a BIG deal.
I am really tired of ......... members of the press acting surprised as they've complained that Obama is too "cool" and does not show emotion when he "should." Obama, in his entire campaign, maintained a cool demeanor. Why the surprise now? I would say "He is who he is..." and sometimes that means he'll probably display less emotion than some might think matches the moment.
I am really tired of......Republican members of the US House and Senate offering no substantive comments or proposals of their own (besides tax cuts), and, instead, only whining about Obama's ideas. It seems to me the "Party of No" nickname totally fits right now.
I am really tired of........so very few Democratic US House members and Senators showing support of President Obama's proposals on the economy and other issues. Talk about wimps. After eight years of Bush and control of majorities in both chambers, most Democrats have been remarkably silent in as Obama tries to take advantage of perhaps the only period of momentum he'll have during his Presidency. It seems Democrats want to see more signs of huge improvement in the sagging economy before they speak up to defend Obama.
I am really tired of..... receiving hundreds of telemarketing calls for nearly two years from companies wanting to make money to help me deal with the pending expiration of my car warranty AND other firms wanting to help me "consolidate my credit card debt." OK, I guess I'll have to take preventive measures, but, why should any of us be forced to do that?
I am really tired of ........hearing about the weather. It seems that since some TV executives decided winter weather chatter improved ratings, local TV stations are happy to discuss "possible" minor snowstorms five days away instead of real news. Thank God it's spring.
I am really tired of.............getting into bad traffic no matter where I drive around Boston. The Boston area was clearly not meant to accommodate so many people. This city so desparately needs new roads, but I never hear state officials discuss any ambitious plans to improve infrastructure. It seems we'll be driving forever on roads like Storrow Drive, a road designed more for the traffic during the 1950s.
I am really tired of...........Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton and other "phony celebrities" who seem to do anything to attract media coverage. OK, I concede that Spears is at least a singer, but, to this day, I don't know what Lohan and Hilton even do for a living. Are they entertainers? I guess I'm old-fashioned, but, I like the idea of people doing something to earn fame.
I am really tired of ..........seeing so many people get on the commuter train and stare non-stop - like robots - at their Blackberries or "super-equipped" cellphones. I guess people prefer interacting with their little electronic toys more than human beings on the train. But, what really gets me is when I hear people calling their spouses to give all-important updates by cellphone: "The train left five minutes late," a husband tells his wife in a monotone. I wince - wishing for the time when cellphones didn't exist and people didn't feel these new, unnatural impulses to do meaningless "check-ins." What would happen if people had to throw out all Blackberries, cellphones, pagers, etc? I think the human condition might improve a bit......Just my opinion.
I am really tired of..........the White House press corps distorting little events and details relating to President Obama into stories that go on for days rather than discussing Obama's policies on a substantive basis. For example, a great deal of attention was given to Obama's short, firm reply, at last week's press conference, to a television reporter who asked Obama why he hadn't responded more quickly after learning of the bonuses given to AIG executives. Obama said: "...because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."
In days that followed, many references were made to Obama being irritable or snapping at the reporter when his tone was not that glaring. In any event, it was not a BIG deal.
I am really tired of ......... members of the press acting surprised as they've complained that Obama is too "cool" and does not show emotion when he "should." Obama, in his entire campaign, maintained a cool demeanor. Why the surprise now? I would say "He is who he is..." and sometimes that means he'll probably display less emotion than some might think matches the moment.
I am really tired of......Republican members of the US House and Senate offering no substantive comments or proposals of their own (besides tax cuts), and, instead, only whining about Obama's ideas. It seems to me the "Party of No" nickname totally fits right now.
I am really tired of........so very few Democratic US House members and Senators showing support of President Obama's proposals on the economy and other issues. Talk about wimps. After eight years of Bush and control of majorities in both chambers, most Democrats have been remarkably silent in as Obama tries to take advantage of perhaps the only period of momentum he'll have during his Presidency. It seems Democrats want to see more signs of huge improvement in the sagging economy before they speak up to defend Obama.
I am really tired of..... receiving hundreds of telemarketing calls for nearly two years from companies wanting to make money to help me deal with the pending expiration of my car warranty AND other firms wanting to help me "consolidate my credit card debt." OK, I guess I'll have to take preventive measures, but, why should any of us be forced to do that?
I am really tired of ........hearing about the weather. It seems that since some TV executives decided winter weather chatter improved ratings, local TV stations are happy to discuss "possible" minor snowstorms five days away instead of real news. Thank God it's spring.
I am really tired of.............getting into bad traffic no matter where I drive around Boston. The Boston area was clearly not meant to accommodate so many people. This city so desparately needs new roads, but I never hear state officials discuss any ambitious plans to improve infrastructure. It seems we'll be driving forever on roads like Storrow Drive, a road designed more for the traffic during the 1950s.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Where's the outrage at Cheney?
After years of helping deceive the American people about the true US motives in Iraq, former Vice President Richard Cheney, in a March 15th interview televised on CNN, in a rare moment, actually addressed the subject more clearly and candidly. (and, it was very disturbing)
CNN's John King asked former Vice President Dick Cheney if - now that he was out of government - there was something he felt more free to say now.
Cheney replied:
"That's an interesting question, John, I -- I guess my general sense of where we are with respect to Iraq and at the end of now, what, nearly six years, is that we've accomplished nearly everything we set out to do. Now, I don't hear much talk about that, but the fact is , the violence level is down 90 percent. The number of casualties and Iraqis and Americans is significantly diminished. There's been elections, a constitution. They're about to have another presidential election here in the near future. We have succeeded in creating in the heart of the Middle East a democratically governed Iraq, and that is a big deal, and it is, in fact, what we set out to do.
King: It's a dangerous term because of the political debates in the past, but, mission accomplished?
Cheney: I wouldn't use that, just because it triggers reactions that we don't need. But I would ask people and the press, too, take an honest look at the circumstances in Iraq today and how far we've come. The defeat of Al Qaida in Iraq, the writing of that democratic constitution, a series of elections that involve power sharing among all the various groups, the end of sectarian violence. I thinka major defeat for the Iranians living next door to Iraq, who tried to influence events there...."
There it is: Now that Cheney's out of office, he's more direct and honest about the US goal of trying to reconfigure the make-up of the Middle East to better suit US interests. Back in 2002, when he and President Bush frantically disseminated propaganda about why we had to remove the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Cheney couldn't talk as free-ly about wanting a "democratic Iraq" to help the US meet its objectives. It was easier to tell Americans that the reason for starting a war was the false message that Saddam Hussein had WMD and ties to Al Qaida.
That Bush and Cheney lied about Iraq's WMD has been well-covered - although, I still believe it was a potentially impeachable offense and I wince every time I hear former Bush Administration officials - STILL - try to rationalize - after their lies were proven - that even if no WMD were found, Hussein still had a "capability" or "potential" to develop WMD.
The post-mortem revisionism doesn't cut it --- not when we all can remember the hysteria and drama of Bush, Cheney and company telling us how "dangerous" Iraq's threat was back in 2002 and 2003.
Which reminds me: How can Cheney or Bush have the gall to continue trying to convince us - as Cheney just did on CNN - that the US "defeat of Al Qaida in Iraq" is an accomplishment? Al Qaida was not in Iraq at all until the US invaded. Al Qaida joined the fight against the US and killed many people - as the result of the US starting the war there! So, why do we keep hearing former Bush administration officials lie to us about this?
To me, when Cheney is that lazy in his efforts to mislead, it's either a statement about how arrogant he is and detached he is from the American people OR how ignorant and gullible he thinks all of us are.
He must be in some form of denial because, in his "reflective" comments on CNN, he said nothing about the costs of the Iraq war. Cheney chose to not mention the death of so many thousands of Iraqis and Americans. He didn't mention that the US had stimulated many young men to join Al Qaida and inflamed people around the world to hate and oppose the US.
Further, his remark about Iraq's progress being a "major defeat" for Iran seems unsupportable. Has Iran ever had the power and influence it has right now? The US invasion of Iraq hurt our credibility in the Middle East, inflamed tensions with Iran and complicated continuing international concerns about Iran's developing the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.
Instead, Cheney, in the CNN interview, actually cited the reduction of violence in Iraq as part of the significant progress there. He doesn't mention that his Administration initiated all the violence by invading the country back in 2003. Sometimes, I think Americans blot out the insanity of what the US really did to Iraq. Maybe if Iraq or some other country sent troops and weapons into the United States and started killing thousands of people in New York or Philadelphia or anywhere - because, they claimed, they believed there were "WMD" here -- and, then, later, the WMD were never found, the reality might sink in more.
I am not dismissing that the United Nations had passed many resolutions that asked Iraq and Saddam Hussein to allow inspections and that it was a concern that Iraq failed to comply. However, as I recall, in one of the last inspections there, no WMD were found, and the IAE wanted to continue its work there to reach a more "final" conclusion. There was no grounds for an invasion and a war.
I was disturbed by other parts of Cheney's interview too. One particular comment is relevant to his outlook - and "denial" about Iraq.
Cheney commented on President Obama's handling of the economic crisis and his ambitious, proposed budget priorities.
"I worry a lot that they"re (Obama administration) using the current set of economic difficulties to try to justify a massive expansion in the government and more authority for the government over the private sector and I don't think that's good...."
Yes, Cheney's comment referred to Obama's handling of domestic issues, but, it reminded me of Cheney's many moves - as vice president - behind the scenes - to "expand" the power of the executive branch, particularly the handling of certain aspects of the so-called "war on terror."
Cheney - like many others in highest office - appeared to be corrupted by power. Perhaps he'll come falling down to Earth a bit in the months and years ahead, but, he seems to have a long way to go.
There was an unfortuate juxtaposition between Cheney's interview and the sight of US Congressmen, last week, jumping over each other, trying to see who could sound more "outraged" by the bonuses that AIG executives had given themselves. I always get bothered when I see members of Congress all reacting the same way --like sheep "covering" themselves - to make sure they're "on record" regarding something they fear might hurt them otherwise.
Where was the outrage when Cheney and Bush spent a year presenting a false, completely insufficient, irrational reason for the United States to start a war with Iraq?
Some might claim Cheney's remarks last week are irrelevant now, but, he and Bush had a huge, negative impact on US relations with the rest of the world and they've left many problems for the Obama Administration to clean up.
It's important to see the truth emerge -- even if that happens years later. CNN's interview sheds a bit more light on Cheney's past outlook as vice president. Cheney's comments are disturbing and worth scrutinizing as the United States attempts to re-emerge in a new, improved, more constructive and humane role in the world.
CNN's John King asked former Vice President Dick Cheney if - now that he was out of government - there was something he felt more free to say now.
Cheney replied:
"That's an interesting question, John, I -- I guess my general sense of where we are with respect to Iraq and at the end of now, what, nearly six years, is that we've accomplished nearly everything we set out to do. Now, I don't hear much talk about that, but the fact is , the violence level is down 90 percent. The number of casualties and Iraqis and Americans is significantly diminished. There's been elections, a constitution. They're about to have another presidential election here in the near future. We have succeeded in creating in the heart of the Middle East a democratically governed Iraq, and that is a big deal, and it is, in fact, what we set out to do.
King: It's a dangerous term because of the political debates in the past, but, mission accomplished?
Cheney: I wouldn't use that, just because it triggers reactions that we don't need. But I would ask people and the press, too, take an honest look at the circumstances in Iraq today and how far we've come. The defeat of Al Qaida in Iraq, the writing of that democratic constitution, a series of elections that involve power sharing among all the various groups, the end of sectarian violence. I thinka major defeat for the Iranians living next door to Iraq, who tried to influence events there...."
There it is: Now that Cheney's out of office, he's more direct and honest about the US goal of trying to reconfigure the make-up of the Middle East to better suit US interests. Back in 2002, when he and President Bush frantically disseminated propaganda about why we had to remove the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Cheney couldn't talk as free-ly about wanting a "democratic Iraq" to help the US meet its objectives. It was easier to tell Americans that the reason for starting a war was the false message that Saddam Hussein had WMD and ties to Al Qaida.
That Bush and Cheney lied about Iraq's WMD has been well-covered - although, I still believe it was a potentially impeachable offense and I wince every time I hear former Bush Administration officials - STILL - try to rationalize - after their lies were proven - that even if no WMD were found, Hussein still had a "capability" or "potential" to develop WMD.
The post-mortem revisionism doesn't cut it --- not when we all can remember the hysteria and drama of Bush, Cheney and company telling us how "dangerous" Iraq's threat was back in 2002 and 2003.
Which reminds me: How can Cheney or Bush have the gall to continue trying to convince us - as Cheney just did on CNN - that the US "defeat of Al Qaida in Iraq" is an accomplishment? Al Qaida was not in Iraq at all until the US invaded. Al Qaida joined the fight against the US and killed many people - as the result of the US starting the war there! So, why do we keep hearing former Bush administration officials lie to us about this?
To me, when Cheney is that lazy in his efforts to mislead, it's either a statement about how arrogant he is and detached he is from the American people OR how ignorant and gullible he thinks all of us are.
He must be in some form of denial because, in his "reflective" comments on CNN, he said nothing about the costs of the Iraq war. Cheney chose to not mention the death of so many thousands of Iraqis and Americans. He didn't mention that the US had stimulated many young men to join Al Qaida and inflamed people around the world to hate and oppose the US.
Further, his remark about Iraq's progress being a "major defeat" for Iran seems unsupportable. Has Iran ever had the power and influence it has right now? The US invasion of Iraq hurt our credibility in the Middle East, inflamed tensions with Iran and complicated continuing international concerns about Iran's developing the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.
Instead, Cheney, in the CNN interview, actually cited the reduction of violence in Iraq as part of the significant progress there. He doesn't mention that his Administration initiated all the violence by invading the country back in 2003. Sometimes, I think Americans blot out the insanity of what the US really did to Iraq. Maybe if Iraq or some other country sent troops and weapons into the United States and started killing thousands of people in New York or Philadelphia or anywhere - because, they claimed, they believed there were "WMD" here -- and, then, later, the WMD were never found, the reality might sink in more.
I am not dismissing that the United Nations had passed many resolutions that asked Iraq and Saddam Hussein to allow inspections and that it was a concern that Iraq failed to comply. However, as I recall, in one of the last inspections there, no WMD were found, and the IAE wanted to continue its work there to reach a more "final" conclusion. There was no grounds for an invasion and a war.
I was disturbed by other parts of Cheney's interview too. One particular comment is relevant to his outlook - and "denial" about Iraq.
Cheney commented on President Obama's handling of the economic crisis and his ambitious, proposed budget priorities.
"I worry a lot that they"re (Obama administration) using the current set of economic difficulties to try to justify a massive expansion in the government and more authority for the government over the private sector and I don't think that's good...."
Yes, Cheney's comment referred to Obama's handling of domestic issues, but, it reminded me of Cheney's many moves - as vice president - behind the scenes - to "expand" the power of the executive branch, particularly the handling of certain aspects of the so-called "war on terror."
Cheney - like many others in highest office - appeared to be corrupted by power. Perhaps he'll come falling down to Earth a bit in the months and years ahead, but, he seems to have a long way to go.
There was an unfortuate juxtaposition between Cheney's interview and the sight of US Congressmen, last week, jumping over each other, trying to see who could sound more "outraged" by the bonuses that AIG executives had given themselves. I always get bothered when I see members of Congress all reacting the same way --like sheep "covering" themselves - to make sure they're "on record" regarding something they fear might hurt them otherwise.
Where was the outrage when Cheney and Bush spent a year presenting a false, completely insufficient, irrational reason for the United States to start a war with Iraq?
Some might claim Cheney's remarks last week are irrelevant now, but, he and Bush had a huge, negative impact on US relations with the rest of the world and they've left many problems for the Obama Administration to clean up.
It's important to see the truth emerge -- even if that happens years later. CNN's interview sheds a bit more light on Cheney's past outlook as vice president. Cheney's comments are disturbing and worth scrutinizing as the United States attempts to re-emerge in a new, improved, more constructive and humane role in the world.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Media's "Amnesia" with Sarah Palin is Old Pattern
Let me get this straight: The news media, in its initial speculation, is treating Sarah Palin as a potentially serious candidate for President of the United States in 2012.
Huh? Excuse me?
This is the same news media that witnessed Palin's poor performance during the entire 2008 presidential campaign. Sarah Palin, in her words and actions, was revealed as one of the worst vice presidential candidates in modern history and embarrassingly unqualified to be President.
Let's refresh our memories for a second:
-Palin, when asked, on more than one occasion, could not describe the duties of vice president accurately. As late as Oct. 21, 2008, she made the erroneous claim that the VP was "in charge of" the US Senate, when, in fact, that's false. (The VP can cast the deciding vote in only a Senate tie).
- Palin, in an interview with ABC's Charles Gibson, did not know what the "Bush Doctrine" was.
-Palin, in her interview with CBS' Katie Couric, could not name a US Supreme Court decision - besides Roe vs. Wade - that she disagreed with or had any comment on.
-Palin, asked by Couric to name a newspaper she read regularly, could not name one.
-Palin suggested that because Alaska bordered Russia, this had enhanced her foreign policy credentials, but, made only vague, incoherent, (humorous) references to Vladimir Putin coming into air space over Alaska and "trade missions" between Alaska and Russia that she never described later.
- Amazingly, Palin, in one speech to soldiers headed for Iraq, repeated the false, outrageous claim that the US' invasion of Iraq was a response to 9/11 and told the soldiers they'd be defending people "from enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans..."
- Palin repeated reckless, malicious, false attacks on Obama, saying that he was " 'pal-ling' around with terrorists" in referring to his association with William Ayers and that he (Obama) was not patriotic and advocated "socialist" policies.
- Palin, in a speech at a North Carolina fundraiser, said: "We believe that the best of America is in the small towns that we get to visit, and in the wonderful pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you, hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation." After Joe Biden blasted her for this quote, Palin tried to "clarify" her remarks.
For the entire campaign, Palin displayed that she was simply not up to the job of vice president. She couldn't discuss national issues with any knowledge or command. (Instead, she seemed to recite rehearsed lines). She didn't even demonstrate a familiarity with her own running mate's record. She couldn't provide Couric with one example of when, in his entire political career, John McCain had pushed for more government regulation.
So, why the hell are some of the same political correspondents now telling us - with a straight face - that Palin is on the short list of Republican candidates in 2012?
"Keep your eye on Palin," MSNBC's Chris Matthews, the liberal host of Hardball, told his audience back in late January.
I think it's absurd for her to get any serious attention or respectability at this point. She has not earned that and reports on her future should include realities about her 2008 campaign.
I believe the main explanation for this "soft" speculation/coverage about Palin is that news coverage today - particularly television - is all about entertainment value. The content does not matter. The truth doesn't matter much. As long as the story attracts ratings, TV people will talk it up - especially in the days of non-stop cable coverage.
This has, unfortunately, become a familiar pattern for the news media in recent years. Even after a person is discredited, the subject of scandal, wrongdoing or some regrettable episode often he or she re-surfaces in the news without reporters attempting to give context to the person's re-entry. A recent example: Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is suddenly appearing on news shows and publicly considering a future run for President; yet, when Gingrich was last a steady subject in the news, as Speaker, he drew much negative controversy for his polarizing tactics, was reprimanded by the US House for ethical violations and criticized by some for how he handled divorces from his first two wives. He reportedly discussed his first divorce while his wife was in the hospital recuperating from cancer surgery. Recent media coverage is not keeping these parts of Gingrich's past in context.
Other examples of missing context:
1) Ross Perot was treated as a serious presidential candidate in 1992 without ever officially announcing his candidacy during the primary season. At the Democratic National Convention in July, Perot announced he would NOT be a candidate partly because the Democratic Party seemed "revitalized" as it prepared to nominate Bill Clinton. Then, in October, he announced his candidacy, and said nothing about the Democratic Party changing. In the waning days of the general election campaign, Perot made bizarre allegations - covered on the Oct. 25th "60 Minutes," - that the Republican campaign had had plans to sabotage his daughter's August wedding. He told reporters he'd heard about an alleged plan that would involve doctoring a photograph and giving it to a supermarket magazine, and, that Republican operatives had planned to wiretap his phone. Perot admitted he had no evidence to prove any of these charges. However, at least two prominent reporters said that Perot's charges raised serious questions about his temperment and readiness to be President. Yet, on Election Day, Perot received 19 percent of the vote - a near-historic high for an Independent candidate. It showed the importance of placing these stories in context!
I did a six-month study on media coverage of Perot's campaign, and learned that when Perot appeared on TV talk shows, the ratings would soar upward - and that was what contributed to his take-off. The content of his remarks and its accuracy mattered less to news executives.
2) Rev. Al Sharpton, who has emerged as a national leader and spokesman for African-Americans, ran for President in 2004 and continues in the limelight without anyone mentioning the controversial, highly questionable role Sharpton played in the Tawana Brawley episode in NY State during the 1980s.
3) Oliver North, initially convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal and who certainly appeared to lie to protect his superiors, went on to host a nationally-syndicated radio talk show, ran for - and, came fairly close to winning - a US Senate seat in Va., and, in general, was not really held accountable for his unethical conduct.
4) G. Gordon Liddy, of Watergete fame, not only admitted to outrageous acts as part of Watergate, but made some wildly controversial remarks. He, like North, had a talk show and seemed to gain a "second acceptance" into society while his past wrongdoing received little attention.
5) Monica Lewinsky - She was treated like another "hot" People magazine subject for months after her affair with President Clinton. But, she had little to say, and, the news media really should have stopped reporting on her completely after her saga with Clinton was over. Yet, the Monica story lived on - and on - and on because it had "entertainment value."
This pattern toward entertainment-driven news coverage has taken over the business. That's why you see Larry King and other interviewers competing to question "American Idol" participants or TV actors so often, and, why, last summer, Larry King dedicated so many shows to Sarah Palin. The mere mention of Palin - combined with her good looking appearance - probably hiked ratings.
If journalists choose to focus on content and remind voters of Sarah Palin's actual 2008 vice presidential campaign, she will not remain on any "short list" of the media's. Rather, she would fade, naturally, to the background. Her only chance at any re-emergence - and, it is a tiny one -would require her acknowledging her flaws and inexperience and spending many years of hard work to un-do the damage done in 2008. It'd involve "remaking" her political personality and I think it's impossible.
Despite my opinion, however, I predict we'll hear many, many meaningless, entertainment-driven stories about Palin before 2012.
What a waste of time!
Saturday, March 7, 2009
What's Missing From Political Discussion - and Why
We've all grown too accustomed to the lack of honesty and candor in American politics. We're used to hearing politicians from both parties make comments that are almost always predictable, self-serving and "safe." We accept that politicians don't say how they really feel about things.
While Barack Obama has revived some hope and is able to speak more directly about some problems, he, alone, cannot reverse this chronic undercurrent of politicians lacking the will to speak the truth about real issues affecting real people. Obama, too, needs to be more candid.
One tremendous consequence of this undercurrent is that many important issues affecting millions of people simply are not part of the political conversation anymore. Politicians have become so driven by self-interest, cowardice and fear that they do not want to be associated with even raising these subjects.
Consider the following examples of topics that receive far too little attention in Washington D.C. or in state capitals:
- Poverty. Our national leaders never bring up poor people. We hear constantly about the middle class or "middle class tax cuts" - but not about the poorest among us and the crises they deal with - hunger, homelessness, health problems and no money to pay for medical treatment. Over many years now, poverty has become less and less "acceptable" for politicians to raise. In 2008, presidential candidates barely mentioned poverty. Think about it: It has become politically "too risky" to even talk about helping those in most desparate need in our society. That's a sad state of affairs, and, an indictment of our system.
- The real causes of violent crime. Back in the 1960s, people used to discuss the underlying causes of crime and other societal ills. Now, politicians are afraid of being labled as "bleeding-heart liberals" if they try to raise factors like poverty, racism, broken families, poor schools or mental illness. What we hear, instead, is right-wing talk show hosts obsessed with venting against individual criminals like they're animals. Until we address the root causes, how will we reduce crime?
- Our deplorable, failing prison system. All my life, I've read about the indisputable facts showing that most prisons simply do not work. Recidivism is high. Yet, the United States keeps building prisons and incarcerating more people than any civilized country. Putting human beings in cages usually doesn't help "rehabilitate" them, but, it does impair them.
- Problems of inner cities. It's still a familiar dynamic in so many cities: Suburban dwellers drive in and out, leaving behind urban areas where families raise children amidst inexcapable crises - whether it's gang violence, lousy schools, economic deprivation, adult illiteracy and segregation of neighborhoods.
- Gun control. Politicians dropped this topic years ago when critics blasted gun control advocates as being unrealistic and most have taken the "safer" route of voting to allow all kinds of guns to be sold. It disgusts me that during every presidential election - including 2008 - candidates gush about the value of the 2nd Amendment, which is outmoded. Yet, as a proponent of imposing far more controls on the purchase of guns, I have yet to hear anyone present an argument that convinces me that somehow we'd be worse off if less guns are in circulation, thereby less available to use in violent crimes.
- Reducing the military budget. I heard a Congressmen, in a rare moment of candor, recently acknowledge that the US has a nuclear capacity far beyond necessity. The costs of producing weapons systems and maintaining a military presence in many locations, surely, can be reduced. We can adjust our budget to the new realities of the 21st century without sacrificing our security. Will a large enough group of Congressmen argue for such cuts?
- Addressing the Middle East without a pro-Israel bias. Are there any US Representatives or Senators who ever question or criticize the role or actions of Israel in the Middle East conflict? Similarly, do any leaders ever openly defend the legitimate rights and grievances of Palestinians? The complete unwillingness of politicans to discuss the history and current realities of the Middle East without blatantly, blindly favoring Israel -- even when that requires ignoring facts and conditions on the ground - is one of the more depressing, cowardly behaviors in Washington DC.
- Re-examining the Role of the US' Foreign Policy. It seems our leaders are usually afraid to raise topics that involve questioning or criticizing major US decisions and policies impacting other countries. Further, they seem unable or unwilling to consider the rights, perspective, priorities and interests of these other countries and their peoples. It seems - until Obama, anyway - that we've held to the same outmoded, ill-conceived notion that the United States is somehow a "superior" country entitled to more rights to intervene, influence and supersede the rights of other countries to follow their wishes. Reagan spoke of the US supporting "freedom fighters" around the world. Bush used the words "to support democracy" abroad....but, my question is: What gives the US the right to act in an imperialistic role of trying to dominate and disregard other countries? Look at Iraq. To this day, I have not heard a US congressman who dares stand up and discuss the views of Iraqi citizens and people in neighboring countries. How do they feel about the US invading without any jusitification? No, the crazy desire of some neoconservatives here to have a "beachhead" in the Middle East doesn't cut it as a good reason - but you'd never know that from watching the cowardly silence of most US congressmen. Now, I hope Obama doesn't initiate moves in Afganistan or Pakisatan without respecting and involving people who live there.
- Radically changing the campaign finance system. For my whole life, I've been hearing about how we'd all benefit from a completely public campaign finance system. Yet, politicians never stay with this and wrestle it to the ground. If they did, maybe we'd have a system that encourages more honesty among elected officials.
Instead of tackling these tougher, more controversial subjects, what we've seen in recent weeks is Congressmen or Senators regressing to old, partisan attacks. A number of Republicans and right-wing talk show hosts have called Obama and his programs "socialist." Politicians, the media and the public have gotten so cynical that we just accept this "socialist" name-calling when, in fact, we should all stand up and label it as the reckless falsehood that it is. (For Republican extremists: Socialism means the government OWNS the means of production, by the way).
Republicans - again - are whining about the evils of Big Goverment. They offer tax cuts as the solution to everything. Democrats, while at least offering more ideas to help people, are still not candid about acknowledging their mistakes, and, like Republicans, seem predisposed to return to petty, partisan fighting to getting things done.
Maybe they should all start a conversation about how the economic crisis is affecting the poorest people out there. And, if they all lose re-election, wouldn't we all be better off as a result of they're holding that discussion?
Friday, February 27, 2009
Obama, the Decisionmaker, Remains an Enigma
How does President Obama make decisions? How does he lead when he is behind closed doors at the White House?
Though we've seen a lot of Obama before various audiences for two years, we've learned very little about how he works with those around him. We know little about his day-to-day style and approach toward leadership, management and organization. This missing information is even more intriguing given that this President - in six short weeks - has already made many far-reaching decisions to address our economic crisis and just proposed a bold, ambitious, enormous FY 2010 budget that charts an alternative course for the country.
Though we've seen a lot of Obama before various audiences for two years, we've learned very little about how he works with those around him. We know little about his day-to-day style and approach toward leadership, management and organization. This missing information is even more intriguing given that this President - in six short weeks - has already made many far-reaching decisions to address our economic crisis and just proposed a bold, ambitious, enormous FY 2010 budget that charts an alternative course for the country.
Who does he talk to about all these moves he's making? How does he process and prioritize information? How does he try to control meetings? Who influences him the most?
We can deduce certain things from Obama's well-organized, disciplined presidential campaign. He found excellent people to run his campaign and he seemed comfortable delegating large, demanding pieces of it to them. It seemed he stuck to the "big picture" and his performance on the campaign trail.
We've read reports that Obama likes to hear arguments made at meetings before displaying a skill at synthesizing the salient points that must be addressed. I wonder how he runs other kinds of meetings when he must declare quickly what he needs from those in the room.
I am very curious how Obama interacts with his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, for instance. We've heard all about Emanuel's big ego, confrontational style and ability to say "No." I'm curious how and when Obama says "No" to Emanuel. In what way does he regularly tell Emanuel what he wants him to do and how does he hold Emanuel accountable?
I'd like to know how Obama gets what he wants from Larry Summers, Hillary Clinton or an array of others on his staff or in his Cabinet. What roles has Obama worked out for David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, both important advisors from Chicago days?
Obama comes across as a "big picture" thinker who likely attempts to set the large goals and strategy while leaving many details to his staff. If so, how, exactly, does he go about leaving matters to the discretion of others, including his Cabinet secretaries? I wonder if he trusts those under him so much that things might be a bit "loosey-goosey" in his Administration. Who knows?
I think it's fair to say that, overall, the details about these dynamics are very important in determining how successful a President can be over four or eight years. If Obama is regularly interested in hearing contrasting viewpoints on major issues, that alone could influence his way of defining his role and positions. Does his White House team ensure internal debate on matters to be decided?
How does Obama handle conflict and dissent? Who among his top aides really challenges him when they believe he is wrong? How does Obama then treat those individuals?
How Obama deals with Secreatry of State Clinton may be a fascinating example of how the President exercises leadership. He seems comfortable delegating to a large extent, but, how will he handle his first genuine disagreement with Clinton over a foreign policy matter? So far, they seem on the same page about early efforts to explore a new diplomatic relations with Iran. I'd love to hear their conversations. I guess I want to hear Hillary show the appropriate deference to the President. Maybe she does. Who knows?
There was one very sketchy news report weeks ago that seemed to suggest that one night, during the debate over the stimulus bill, Obama invited some House Democrats to the White House and voiced dissatisfaction with their approach in the public debate at the time. Either way, I'd like to hear a few more anecdotes like this - that provide at least a glimpse of Obama's leadership from inside the White House.
The President has been on television more steadily than almost any President I can recall; however, I think the majority of those appearances make sense because one can argue that as a new, young, inexperienced President, it's important for Obama to share his handling of the economic crisis - both to inform people and to display his skills as a means of reassurance.
Obama projects an aura of confidence and energy that, I think, helps people feel he's on top of things. If he would, occasionally, give people glimpses of how he leads and decides inside the White House, that would be another way of reassuring people even more.
Let's hope he has a strong, effective approach working with his staff and Cabinet. These days, he needs all the help he can get - with as much support, loyalty and teamwork as possible.Friday, February 20, 2009
This Subject Shouldn't Help Inspire An Oscar!
(With the Oscars scheduled for Feb. 22, this is my view on the subject of one of the movies nominated).
I’ve been unable to bring myself to see the movie, Frost/Nixon.
The movie seems like a fraud to me. I’ve heard the advertisements describe Frost and Nixon like they’re heavyweight fighters facing off for the world boxing championship.
Yet, David Frost is anything but a “heavyweight” or a “fighter.”
I know a little about Frost because I worked for him as a reporter/researcher during the summer of 1987 when he hosted a 13-part series of television interviews with the 1988 presidential candidates. I helped develop questions for Frost to use in those interviews.
First, I had found Frost’ 1977 interview with Nixon tremendously disappointing. Despite taping 28 hours with Nixon, Frost failed to extract much of anything newsworthy from Nixon. Nevertheless, in 1987, I hoped Frost would challenge the 1988 candidates at least a bit. I knew Frost was the polar opposite of Mike Wallace, but, I had no idea on the extent to which Frost would repeatedly choose to avoid seeking important truths in these interviews, and, instead, focus on having chummy conversations that allowed the candidates to dictate most of the content.
Frost conducted the 1987 interviews at the homes of the candidates.
Let me recall a few anecdotes:
· During our preparation for Frost’ interview with then-Vice President George H.W. Bush, a 1988 presidential candidate, we agreed that it’d be interesting if Frost were to ask Bush about the death of his three-year-old daughter. She had died of leukemia but Bush had rarely discussed this.
Frost raised the topic during the interview and Bush began to describe personal recollections. Bush began to get emotional, when, suddenly, his advisor, Roger Ailes, jumped up and demanded that the cameras be turned off and the interview stopped. Frost and our crew did nothing to stop this virtual “censorship” to occur and minutes later, after this “break,” I recall Frost continued the interview by moving on to other subjects.
· We traveled to the Chicago home of candidate Jesse Jackson where we were forced to wait a long time. (Painstaking preparations were made to set up each of these interviews, which required a large TV crew). Jackson, to our dismay, was not there and there was no sign of him after more than a half-hour. We waited and waited. The crew had the lights and props all set up when, finally, Jackson, arrived, incredibly late.
He greeted Frost by spontaneously inviting him to accompany him to an event about to start soon that featured then-mayor Harold Washington. Frost, who Jackson had just pushed aside to take care of his own needs, simply acquiesced to Jackson without complaining and went off with him. When Jackson and Frost returned, Frost did a remarkably uneventful interview, avoiding many potentiallly compelling, significant topics to raise with Jackson.
· Frost’ interview with Mike Dukakis, was, by a twist of circumstance, scheduled for the night of the day when Dukakis had to accept the resignation of his campaign manager John Sasso, his most trusted advisor, who was viewed as indispensable to his campaign. Many journalists would’ve seen this as an incredible opportunity to ask Dukakis probing questions about this story. Yet, Frost did not press Dukakis for any details or even spend much time on it.
· Frost chose to not ask General Alexander Haig any challenging questions about his relationship with Nixon in Nixon’s last months in office or other controversial times in his career.
I could give numerous examples, but, my own experience – as one of a few researchers developing questions – was that Frost chose never to ask my best questions – questions that would have explored new angles or uncovered ground with candidates. Instead, Frost was content to ask general, “softball” questions such as:
What is your relationship with God? Do you think there is a God or do you know there is a God?
What is your earliest memory – the first thing you can remember?
What would you say is the most important personal quality that a President needs?
What I observed was that: David Frost was an entertainer – not a journalist. I saw this – firsthand in his approach before, during and after his 1987 interviews.
And, I saw the same approach in 1977, when Frost paid Nixon $600,000 and a share of the profits to conduct the interviews. Much significance was paid to Nixon making a public apology for his Watergate role, but, that was a moment, which, by definition, would have constituted “news” whenever Nixon chose to do so. Did it come as a result of Frost’ journalistic skills?
As a Watergate buff myself, I recall that Frost did not try to shine light on all kinds of shocking Watergate details with Nixon. I also recall that certain individuals did press for the truth about Nixon in the 1970s, as events unfolded. I recall former US Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-Ct.), during the US Senate Watergate hearings, aggressively interrogating Nixon’s top aides, HR Haldeman and John Erlichman, under oath about what they knew about Watergate. I recall people like James McCord, Judge John Sirica, and, probably the most, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post. These were people who helped get the truth out with regard to Nixon and Watergate.
So, when I’ve heard the advertisements for Frost/Nixon suggesting that Frost was Nixon’s primary adversary, or, interrogator. I think back not only to the true muckrakers who brought Nixon down, but, to my own experience with David Frost – and, it bothers me.
To make a movie that greatly elevates and distorts the role of David Frost, is not only disappointing and misleading. It seems like a fraud.
I’ve been unable to bring myself to see the movie, Frost/Nixon.
The movie seems like a fraud to me. I’ve heard the advertisements describe Frost and Nixon like they’re heavyweight fighters facing off for the world boxing championship.
Yet, David Frost is anything but a “heavyweight” or a “fighter.”
I know a little about Frost because I worked for him as a reporter/researcher during the summer of 1987 when he hosted a 13-part series of television interviews with the 1988 presidential candidates. I helped develop questions for Frost to use in those interviews.
First, I had found Frost’ 1977 interview with Nixon tremendously disappointing. Despite taping 28 hours with Nixon, Frost failed to extract much of anything newsworthy from Nixon. Nevertheless, in 1987, I hoped Frost would challenge the 1988 candidates at least a bit. I knew Frost was the polar opposite of Mike Wallace, but, I had no idea on the extent to which Frost would repeatedly choose to avoid seeking important truths in these interviews, and, instead, focus on having chummy conversations that allowed the candidates to dictate most of the content.
Frost conducted the 1987 interviews at the homes of the candidates.
Let me recall a few anecdotes:
· During our preparation for Frost’ interview with then-Vice President George H.W. Bush, a 1988 presidential candidate, we agreed that it’d be interesting if Frost were to ask Bush about the death of his three-year-old daughter. She had died of leukemia but Bush had rarely discussed this.
Frost raised the topic during the interview and Bush began to describe personal recollections. Bush began to get emotional, when, suddenly, his advisor, Roger Ailes, jumped up and demanded that the cameras be turned off and the interview stopped. Frost and our crew did nothing to stop this virtual “censorship” to occur and minutes later, after this “break,” I recall Frost continued the interview by moving on to other subjects.
· We traveled to the Chicago home of candidate Jesse Jackson where we were forced to wait a long time. (Painstaking preparations were made to set up each of these interviews, which required a large TV crew). Jackson, to our dismay, was not there and there was no sign of him after more than a half-hour. We waited and waited. The crew had the lights and props all set up when, finally, Jackson, arrived, incredibly late.
He greeted Frost by spontaneously inviting him to accompany him to an event about to start soon that featured then-mayor Harold Washington. Frost, who Jackson had just pushed aside to take care of his own needs, simply acquiesced to Jackson without complaining and went off with him. When Jackson and Frost returned, Frost did a remarkably uneventful interview, avoiding many potentiallly compelling, significant topics to raise with Jackson.
· Frost’ interview with Mike Dukakis, was, by a twist of circumstance, scheduled for the night of the day when Dukakis had to accept the resignation of his campaign manager John Sasso, his most trusted advisor, who was viewed as indispensable to his campaign. Many journalists would’ve seen this as an incredible opportunity to ask Dukakis probing questions about this story. Yet, Frost did not press Dukakis for any details or even spend much time on it.
· Frost chose to not ask General Alexander Haig any challenging questions about his relationship with Nixon in Nixon’s last months in office or other controversial times in his career.
I could give numerous examples, but, my own experience – as one of a few researchers developing questions – was that Frost chose never to ask my best questions – questions that would have explored new angles or uncovered ground with candidates. Instead, Frost was content to ask general, “softball” questions such as:
What is your relationship with God? Do you think there is a God or do you know there is a God?
What is your earliest memory – the first thing you can remember?
What would you say is the most important personal quality that a President needs?
What I observed was that: David Frost was an entertainer – not a journalist. I saw this – firsthand in his approach before, during and after his 1987 interviews.
And, I saw the same approach in 1977, when Frost paid Nixon $600,000 and a share of the profits to conduct the interviews. Much significance was paid to Nixon making a public apology for his Watergate role, but, that was a moment, which, by definition, would have constituted “news” whenever Nixon chose to do so. Did it come as a result of Frost’ journalistic skills?
As a Watergate buff myself, I recall that Frost did not try to shine light on all kinds of shocking Watergate details with Nixon. I also recall that certain individuals did press for the truth about Nixon in the 1970s, as events unfolded. I recall former US Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-Ct.), during the US Senate Watergate hearings, aggressively interrogating Nixon’s top aides, HR Haldeman and John Erlichman, under oath about what they knew about Watergate. I recall people like James McCord, Judge John Sirica, and, probably the most, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post. These were people who helped get the truth out with regard to Nixon and Watergate.
So, when I’ve heard the advertisements for Frost/Nixon suggesting that Frost was Nixon’s primary adversary, or, interrogator. I think back not only to the true muckrakers who brought Nixon down, but, to my own experience with David Frost – and, it bothers me.
To make a movie that greatly elevates and distorts the role of David Frost, is not only disappointing and misleading. It seems like a fraud.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
A Need to Lower Expectations About Obama
We had grown to expect nothing from George W. Bush. Worse, we weren't that surprised when the Bush Administration, in its last two months, was astoundingly negligent in addressing our rapidly sinking economy. Meanwhile, the media and a segment of the public, expected Barack Obama to begin acting like the President even before he took office. In fact, Obama, as President-elect, took a number of steps to send signals aimed at the economy.
Since his Jan. 20th Inaugural, President Obama and his Administration have poured all their energy into wrestling with the economic crisis. Yesterday, House and Senate leaders reached agreement on Obama's $789 billion stimulus package. Still, the struggle continues. The uncertainty continues as to whether these actions in Washington will improve the economy.
It all makes me wonder:
Shouldn't we lower our expectations about what Obama can do about the economy, and, what he can do as President, in general?
Public and media expectations seem to have gone from one extreme (Bush) to the other (Obama) Obama's first three weeks should remind everyone that the President cannot and does not control much what happens nationally.
While the media has focused a lot on Obama's "ups" and "downs," they have not focused enough on some details and undercurrents, including the following:
1) Most media coverage of Obama has lacked context in that it has disregarded the incredible "mess" that he inherited from Bush -- a more pressing, overwhelming combination of crises than any President in modern history. Think about it: Obama's first days in office have been spent trying to win support for his first legislation - which happened to be the largest financial spending/tax cut deal in the history of the country! Yet, when House and most Senate Republicans didn't respond to Obama's overtures for support, some journalists concluded that Obama's attempt for a more bipartisan approach has failed - and, would be shelved now. Give me a break. Obama has been President three weeks.
2) The Republicans' stubborn position, if anything, illustrated a pattern that has prevailed in Washington for the past eight years, and, back to the Clinton years. Both parties are accustomed to spouting their partisan arguments without even trying to listen to each other, without true debate that rewards the merit of arguments and without genuine efforts to compromise and get results. Politicians in both parties are not held accountable for their unwillingness to work together. It seems Obama was accurate when he said, at his nationally televised press conference, that "old habits die hard." Hopefully, he'll convince others to "start over."
Since his Jan. 20th Inaugural, President Obama and his Administration have poured all their energy into wrestling with the economic crisis. Yesterday, House and Senate leaders reached agreement on Obama's $789 billion stimulus package. Still, the struggle continues. The uncertainty continues as to whether these actions in Washington will improve the economy.
It all makes me wonder:
Shouldn't we lower our expectations about what Obama can do about the economy, and, what he can do as President, in general?
Public and media expectations seem to have gone from one extreme (Bush) to the other (Obama) Obama's first three weeks should remind everyone that the President cannot and does not control much what happens nationally.
While the media has focused a lot on Obama's "ups" and "downs," they have not focused enough on some details and undercurrents, including the following:
1) Most media coverage of Obama has lacked context in that it has disregarded the incredible "mess" that he inherited from Bush -- a more pressing, overwhelming combination of crises than any President in modern history. Think about it: Obama's first days in office have been spent trying to win support for his first legislation - which happened to be the largest financial spending/tax cut deal in the history of the country! Yet, when House and most Senate Republicans didn't respond to Obama's overtures for support, some journalists concluded that Obama's attempt for a more bipartisan approach has failed - and, would be shelved now. Give me a break. Obama has been President three weeks.
2) The Republicans' stubborn position, if anything, illustrated a pattern that has prevailed in Washington for the past eight years, and, back to the Clinton years. Both parties are accustomed to spouting their partisan arguments without even trying to listen to each other, without true debate that rewards the merit of arguments and without genuine efforts to compromise and get results. Politicians in both parties are not held accountable for their unwillingness to work together. It seems Obama was accurate when he said, at his nationally televised press conference, that "old habits die hard." Hopefully, he'll convince others to "start over."
3) House Democrats, meanwhile, didn't do much to move things along. Did anyone notice how few House Democrats surfaced publicly - on TV, for instance, to vigorously support the stimulus package?
It was as if Obama was doing most of the "selling" while Democrats were griping and whining in the background about how hard it was to concede significant ground on parts of the stimulus.
For days, Republicans kept a constant attack on parts of the bill they claimed were wasteful "pork" while many Democrats didn't fight back with any force or effectiveness. Obama did the heavy lifting. The small minority of Republicans stole the platform from the large majorities in the House and Senate. If this dynamic continues, it will probably drive Obama crazy.
4) Obama's performance at his first press conference was about as sharp a contrast from Bush as imaginable. As the President gave his answers, he thoughtfully described the pros and cons of arguments and approached topics from different angles. He was truly thinking spontaneously as he gave each reply about the issues raised.
5) One of Obama's tendencies at the press conference was a bit troubling: Many of his answers were way too long, and, I mean much longer than necessary. The President appeared oblivious or insensitive to what impact his lengthy replies might have on his audience, which, after all, included millions of Americans watching at home. To me, when a politician rambles in this kind of extreme fashion, it can often suggest an egomania or a seeming "delusion" of grandeur. When I worked in New York state government and Mario Cuomo was governor, I noticed that Cuomo often gave strikingly lengthy opening statements (lectures) to the press, and answers that dominated the event and constrained reporters' chance to probe. I'm not suggesting Obama lacks control of his ego; however, I've noticed, on occasion, that he seems unaware that his replies are becoming not only expansive, but excessive.
6) Another point about the press conference: Why did Obama pre-select which specific reporters to call on? That was unusual. One journalist speculated in an article afterward that perhaps Obama wanted to "reward" the reporters on his list. Whatever the motivation, I hope he does not do that again. It removes spontaneity, excludes reporters and is too controlling.
7) I mentioned the lack of context in coverage of Obama's first three weeks. For example, within a period of two or three days, Obama, in reply to a quesion at his press conference, discussed his intention to look for openings that might result in starting a new diplomatic relationship with Iran. He indicated - as he promised in his campaign - that he is open to moving in a new direction with Iran, if Iran sends promising signals in return. The next day, Iranian President Ahmadinejad made a fairly positive comment in response & seemed open to listening to Obama. Shortly after that, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, followed up on Obama's remarks, by mentioning potential improvements in relations with Iran, but she seemed a bit more sober about it. It's too early to tell what Obama's signals on Iran mean, but, they certainly represent a total break from the Bush era - and, I'd argue, any such communication is better than virtually no "open or positive" signal during eight years under Bush.
8) Much was said about Tom Daschle's withdrawal from his nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. The press analyzed it primarily as a significant setback to Obama and tried to identify how it happened. Yet, the press overlooked an interesting, revealing detail smack in the middle of the episode. This detail was that after Daschle's tax problems became public, Obama remarked publicly that he "absolutely" supported Daschle's continuing nomination. The media let Obama off the hook for this by not questioning why he'd choose to not cut ties with Daschle at that moment. Obama was doing exactly what he labled as unacceptable -- giving special treatment to Daschle by downplaying his tax mistakes, which would get other Americans in trouble. I think it was probably just a typical omission by the press, which devoted "pack-mentality" coverage to that incident.
9) Don't you get the sense that the Obama team is rushing to get a little too much done at this early stage? Granted, the economy warrants urgent attention, but Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner's Feb. 10th presention about another huge bailout for banks drew tremendous criticism after Geithner offered no details in his bailout plan. My question is: If he was not ready to offer details, why did he feel compelled to give his speech Feb. 10th? Maybe he, and the Administration, should have said candidly that more time was needed to prepare the plan.
10) If one tries to imagine how the past five or six Presidents would be faring right now in handling the economic crisis, two wars and other problems, I think it reminds one of Obama's relative strengths. George W. Bush, we know would've been overmatched completely. Bill Clinton probably would have been knowledgeable & articulate on it, but, would he have been as credible when discussing ethical lapses on Wall Street? Bush Sr. would not have been as convincing in presenting arguments. Reagan would've been told what to do by his top aides and brought an ideological bias to the whole topic. In any event, it's good to have a young, energetic, highly intelligent, calm, reasonable President. At least, it seems that way after three short weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)