Much of the fallout from the Republican You Tube debate dubiously hosted by CNN this week has centered on either the incompetence or the bias of the producers who sifted through about 5,000 submitted questions.
There would seem to be a deeper issue, however. A couple of posts ago, when I reacted to the indictment of baseball star Barry Bonds for allegedly lying to a grand jury, I lamented how our culture had changed from one of striving for excellence to one of winning at all costs. That shift has come at a severe price, which is showing up in all sorts of ways.
The debate was a great example. The over-worked, low-paid and probably lightly experienced CNN producers just wanted to get the show over with so they can get back to what they normally do. They scanned through submissions faster than a speed-reader samples a lunch menu and picked out the ones that made sense to them as being representative -- which may lend credence to the bias claims.
They did not have as a goal putting on the best show they possibly could, or the most insightful debate. Instead, we got planted queries and front-runners pummeling each other over immigration. The CNN producers really didn't care, or they would have done better.
As you read this, they now care. Key word being "now." If CNN is going to have any credibility left, those tasked with sampling You Tube questions will have been given a dressing down by the big bosses.
Too bad they didn't care earlier. Like Barry Bonds, or the Enron heads, they didn't care about what they were doing when it mattered. There are consequences to your actions, good or bad.
We all have to remember that our actions do matter and they will have an impact at a future time. The more we think ahead, and think about performing the best we can, then those consequences will be good ones. It's a good rule of thumb for you and me and should be the rule of life for those in the public arena.
---
Does Iowa matter? I've always wondered why the caucuses mean so much to the primary campaigns other than the symbolism of being the first state to actually cast votes. It's not you and me out there casting ballots in a neighbor's garage. It's party officials and activists. They don't exactly represent the rest of us.
New Hampshire matters. That's us voting. New Hampshire residents are a pretty good sample of the rest of the United States with liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans, and only miss out on racial diversity.
The comments come to mind because, according to the polling, preferences in Iowa are changing rapidly.
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama now leads Hillary Clinton among party faithful by a half-point per the Real Clear Politics Web site's aggregate of polls.
For Republicans, Mitt Romney now leads Mike Huckabee by just 2 points after at times sitting on double-digit margins over Rudy Giuliani. The former New York City mayor is now mired in third place after leading in Iowa as late as May. The respected Rasmussen poll has the Arkansas governor up by three points.
Now check out New Hampshire. Clinton even after a bit of a drop following her debate disaster, still leads Obama by 11 points. Obama profited from Hillary's errors, but has even given some of that away in recent polls.
Romney is up by 15 points in the Granite State and is building his lead over Giuliani. Huckabee is still in single-digits in the polls.
Remember, in New Hampshire, it's real people who are voting.
Does Iowa matter? Or will New Hampshire? History tells us that on the Democratic side in 2004, they both mattered. For the Republicans in 2000, neither did. This time, it'll be a split, but it'll be the later primaries which tell us which direction is favored.
---
Keep in mind what I said about dog-piling on Clinton if her poll numbers fall more. It hasn't happened yet because she remains strong in New Hampshire. But if those poll figures go south on her, the attack dogs might start running loose.
---
If either Iowa or New Hampshire matter for Republicans as momentum builders, Romney is sitting pretty. In the states following, polling now has him leading in South Carolina and has about doubled his numbers there since the beginning of October. He's also close in Michigan.
This is huge for the Republican race because the Massachusetts governor has front-loaded his resources in hopes of catching a friendly breeze. It means nothing to win either of the first two states if you can't follow it up. Ask John McCain. With Giuliani holding a commanding lead in Florida, Romney needs South Carolina and Michigan.
---
Giuliani might be heading to where Hillary is. You won't find anyone who says he did well in that You Tube debate, plus the story came out on his use of publicly-funded security to take him out for trysts with the woman who is now his wife.
In some ways, the stuff about Giuliani mixing his personal and professional lives is water under the bridge. People who support him, or think they might, have taken such things under consideration already. But if his numbers slip in the next couple weeks like Clinton's, then he'll get raked over the coals.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
CNN-You Tube Debate a Blessing in Disguise
CNN is getting blasted for its performance in hosting the GOP presidential debate, and rightfully so, but this could be the best thing that's happened so far in the primary campaign. All those planted questions, which CNN producers either let by with a wink or were ill-prepared to catch, when combined with the planted questions at the Hillary Clinton event a few weeks ago will serve to prepare the public for how things are going to be next year.
Republicans, with some justification, have long complained that so-called non-partison general election debates were stacked with liberals. That was back long before the, famous to conservatives, pony-tailed man who asked Bill Clinton how government was going to take care of all of us.
Now we had a Republican primary debate in which so many of the questions were about liberal concerns. For a list of the plants, check the Michelle Malkin Web site. The early buzz was all about the gay general, but there turned out to be so many more that it gave CNN a black eye.
There's two bottom lines:
First, we at home have to realize that CNN's political coverage is a joke. The debate producers either got duped or really thought these questions were pertinent. Either way it looks real bad for them, and not so hot for us either, because now we can't depend on them for high quality coverage.
Second, Republicans simply have to be ready for this. Not just in being blindsided in debates, but eventually, one of them is going to win the nomination and is then going to have to answer to concerns of people other than committed Republicans who are paying attention to presidential politics one November too early. Like independents. Like Reagan Democrats. There's no problem with them starting last night.
Republicans, with some justification, have long complained that so-called non-partison general election debates were stacked with liberals. That was back long before the, famous to conservatives, pony-tailed man who asked Bill Clinton how government was going to take care of all of us.
Now we had a Republican primary debate in which so many of the questions were about liberal concerns. For a list of the plants, check the Michelle Malkin Web site. The early buzz was all about the gay general, but there turned out to be so many more that it gave CNN a black eye.
There's two bottom lines:
First, we at home have to realize that CNN's political coverage is a joke. The debate producers either got duped or really thought these questions were pertinent. Either way it looks real bad for them, and not so hot for us either, because now we can't depend on them for high quality coverage.
Second, Republicans simply have to be ready for this. Not just in being blindsided in debates, but eventually, one of them is going to win the nomination and is then going to have to answer to concerns of people other than committed Republicans who are paying attention to presidential politics one November too early. Like independents. Like Reagan Democrats. There's no problem with them starting last night.
Monday, November 26, 2007
A Holiday Free From Politics, Later Primaries Will Determine Presidential Candidates
I attended two family functions in and around the Thanksgiving holiday, and nary a political word could be heard. It could be that everyone was on their best behavior. More likely is that everyone is so sick of the BS out of Washington that it was more interesting to talk about whether you liked light or dark meat.
My bet is I'm not the only one to have experienced this phenomenon. Probably few people gave a darn about the fortunes of Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani or other political candidates during the past week. A week, mind you, when according to polls those front-runners were ahead by less than they had been.
My other bet is that's just where the political pros in Washington, D.C. want us. To be disinterested and ignore what's going on there. The precedent was earlier this year with the immigration reform agreement forged by President Bush and Senate leaders. Sen. John McCain was quoted as saying he wanted the measure passed before it underwent scrutiny. That's because he knew what would happen once we got a look at it. He was right.
While we certainly have more important, or at least more pressing matters to attend to in our lives, we have to remain vigilant to what our political leaders are doing. White meat vs dark meat is still more conversational, but we can't let our attention stray too far from what the politicians are doing, because more often than not, it will be fowl.
---
One of the ironic things about the presidential primary season that's soon to be upon us -- New Hampshire voters can collect and submit their absentee ballots beginning Dec. 10 -- is that with all the states rushing to be in the first group that votes and help determine the candidates, it will be the states that remain later in the calendar that will probably have the final say on who our choices will be in the general election.
States for years have been inching their primaries earlier and earlier so their voters would have a stronger influence on who will be the nominees. The greatest example is California, where state leaders decided the largest state should have the biggest impact on the races.
The inching became an all-out race after 2004, when John Kerry surprised everyone by winning the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary in the first two weeks and ran away with the Democratic nomination. We should all have such power.
Fast-forward to now, where you have on the Democratic side a near-dead heat between Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards in polling for the Iowa caucuses; and the Republicans have Mitt Romney leading in Iowa and New Hampshire and Rudy Giuliani ahead in most other locations.
In other words, the first couple of weeks might not decide anything. I see nothing changing the GOP condition. The Democratic race would only be locked up early if Clinton wins Iowa decisively, which could still happen.
So, my crystal ball says don't put too much stock in the first couple of primaries this time. Things won't get sorted out into the front-runner and challengers until Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, when 15 states have primaries and a few others have caucuses or conventions. Clinton could lock things up by then if she gets as many votes as polls currently indicate.
For the GOP, and the Dems if Hillary weakens, the nomination will probably come down to March 4, when primaries will be held in Massachusetts, Rhode Island (for Democrats), Vermont, Ohio and Texas. The New England states could put Romney over the top or be his last stand. They should also favor Hillary. Texas simply has a lot of delegates. Ohio will again be a major battleground state where the parties will want their candidate to poll well.
Ironic, because by March 4, California and most other states will have already voted, and once again it will be just four or five states that make the decision.
My bet is I'm not the only one to have experienced this phenomenon. Probably few people gave a darn about the fortunes of Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani or other political candidates during the past week. A week, mind you, when according to polls those front-runners were ahead by less than they had been.
My other bet is that's just where the political pros in Washington, D.C. want us. To be disinterested and ignore what's going on there. The precedent was earlier this year with the immigration reform agreement forged by President Bush and Senate leaders. Sen. John McCain was quoted as saying he wanted the measure passed before it underwent scrutiny. That's because he knew what would happen once we got a look at it. He was right.
While we certainly have more important, or at least more pressing matters to attend to in our lives, we have to remain vigilant to what our political leaders are doing. White meat vs dark meat is still more conversational, but we can't let our attention stray too far from what the politicians are doing, because more often than not, it will be fowl.
---
One of the ironic things about the presidential primary season that's soon to be upon us -- New Hampshire voters can collect and submit their absentee ballots beginning Dec. 10 -- is that with all the states rushing to be in the first group that votes and help determine the candidates, it will be the states that remain later in the calendar that will probably have the final say on who our choices will be in the general election.
States for years have been inching their primaries earlier and earlier so their voters would have a stronger influence on who will be the nominees. The greatest example is California, where state leaders decided the largest state should have the biggest impact on the races.
The inching became an all-out race after 2004, when John Kerry surprised everyone by winning the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary in the first two weeks and ran away with the Democratic nomination. We should all have such power.
Fast-forward to now, where you have on the Democratic side a near-dead heat between Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards in polling for the Iowa caucuses; and the Republicans have Mitt Romney leading in Iowa and New Hampshire and Rudy Giuliani ahead in most other locations.
In other words, the first couple of weeks might not decide anything. I see nothing changing the GOP condition. The Democratic race would only be locked up early if Clinton wins Iowa decisively, which could still happen.
So, my crystal ball says don't put too much stock in the first couple of primaries this time. Things won't get sorted out into the front-runner and challengers until Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, when 15 states have primaries and a few others have caucuses or conventions. Clinton could lock things up by then if she gets as many votes as polls currently indicate.
For the GOP, and the Dems if Hillary weakens, the nomination will probably come down to March 4, when primaries will be held in Massachusetts, Rhode Island (for Democrats), Vermont, Ohio and Texas. The New England states could put Romney over the top or be his last stand. They should also favor Hillary. Texas simply has a lot of delegates. Ohio will again be a major battleground state where the parties will want their candidate to poll well.
Ironic, because by March 4, California and most other states will have already voted, and once again it will be just four or five states that make the decision.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Bonds Indictment Hopefully Ends Era
The sad saga of Barry Bonds, which brought such a stain to the sport of baseball, hopefully will have some meaning to other areas of life, and therefore maybe do us all some good.
The bottom-line on the Bonds story was this: it never really mattered what he did. For a decade now, there have been thousands of Bay Area baseball fans who've ignored the fact that he used foreign substances to double his size and strength, going from a consistent 30 home run hitter to a consistent 50 home run-plus terror at the plate. It didn't matter. He led San Francisco to a World Series and another league championship series, didn't he? No big deal. He set the career home run record while wearing a Giants uniform.
Meanwhile, Major League Baseball, which recovered from its devastating 1994 labor strife by way of the exciting home run duel between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, dug its head into the sand as Bonds played bombs away. The home run was king. No matter that home runs are exciting because their special, not run of the mill. No matter that the entire game of baseball was distorted by huge sluggers who can't field their positions or drop a bunt.
Barry Bonds is by no means the only one who used steroids and/or human growth hormone. Far from it. Baseball is rife with players who, out of nowhere, had a couple huge seasons, and in the past few years, under increased scrutiny, have just as suddenly tailed off in batting performance. He is just the only one caught allegedly lying to a grand jury.
The story of Bonds, and McGwire, and Sosa, and many others, is that our culture has become one in which people will do anything to win. It used to be that, as children, we were taught to be our best. Now we're instructed to come out ahead at all costs.
Being a very good player who led his team to the playoffs just about every year was not enough for Bonds, a player who might have gone to the Hall of Fame even without the outrageous home run records. He had to have it all.
Sound familiar? How about the folks who ran Enron? Or Worldcom?
How about our national leaders? The president and Democrat congressional leaders would rather beat each other in a political squabble than improve the condition of the country. Iraq is Exhibit A, and that continues today. A great example is the failed Social Security reform effort of 2005 that failed over Personal Savings Accounts -- a minor portion of the overall program. But the two sides locked horns on that contentious point and never achieved a solution.
People who'd been raised to do their best would have put together a great energy company, a marvelous communications firm, and would not have the nation on the road to financial ruin.
I think things are slowly changing as we here at home are catching on to the shenanigans of the nation's elite. The Bonds indictment shows that, in the end, the way one conducts themselves in their profession does matter. McGwire is more or less in exile. Sosa did penance before returning to play. Most of the Enron and Worldcom do-badders were punished. Many troublemakers in Congress have been sent home.
We need to return to the "be the best we can be" theme than "win at all costs" desperately.
---
One of the really bizarre things from entertainment this year is the troika of heavy-handed anti-war movies recently released. You'll find almost no one who likes "Rendition," "Lions for Lambs" or "Redacted," even those who would be naturally inclined to appreciate their basic premise. Like movie critics. Even the reviewers, who love all liberal messages, hate these flicks.
In the good old days, it was the pro-war movies that were heavy-handed. Or have you forgotten "The Green Berets," the John Wayne primer on the Vietnam conflict. Or all the films that came out during World War II.
Bad things often come from desperation. Like the need to win at all costs. Barry Bonds always performed poorly in postseason because he got desperate. The anti-war Hollywood crowd is desperate, along with their like-minded in Congress, to get the United States out of Iraq. The tide is turning in favor of the fight again, so I think what you're seeing is desperate movie-making.
Like Bonds, Enron, and Congress, Hollywood movie-makers played to win, rather than to make the best movies they could.
The bottom-line on the Bonds story was this: it never really mattered what he did. For a decade now, there have been thousands of Bay Area baseball fans who've ignored the fact that he used foreign substances to double his size and strength, going from a consistent 30 home run hitter to a consistent 50 home run-plus terror at the plate. It didn't matter. He led San Francisco to a World Series and another league championship series, didn't he? No big deal. He set the career home run record while wearing a Giants uniform.
Meanwhile, Major League Baseball, which recovered from its devastating 1994 labor strife by way of the exciting home run duel between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, dug its head into the sand as Bonds played bombs away. The home run was king. No matter that home runs are exciting because their special, not run of the mill. No matter that the entire game of baseball was distorted by huge sluggers who can't field their positions or drop a bunt.
Barry Bonds is by no means the only one who used steroids and/or human growth hormone. Far from it. Baseball is rife with players who, out of nowhere, had a couple huge seasons, and in the past few years, under increased scrutiny, have just as suddenly tailed off in batting performance. He is just the only one caught allegedly lying to a grand jury.
The story of Bonds, and McGwire, and Sosa, and many others, is that our culture has become one in which people will do anything to win. It used to be that, as children, we were taught to be our best. Now we're instructed to come out ahead at all costs.
Being a very good player who led his team to the playoffs just about every year was not enough for Bonds, a player who might have gone to the Hall of Fame even without the outrageous home run records. He had to have it all.
Sound familiar? How about the folks who ran Enron? Or Worldcom?
How about our national leaders? The president and Democrat congressional leaders would rather beat each other in a political squabble than improve the condition of the country. Iraq is Exhibit A, and that continues today. A great example is the failed Social Security reform effort of 2005 that failed over Personal Savings Accounts -- a minor portion of the overall program. But the two sides locked horns on that contentious point and never achieved a solution.
People who'd been raised to do their best would have put together a great energy company, a marvelous communications firm, and would not have the nation on the road to financial ruin.
I think things are slowly changing as we here at home are catching on to the shenanigans of the nation's elite. The Bonds indictment shows that, in the end, the way one conducts themselves in their profession does matter. McGwire is more or less in exile. Sosa did penance before returning to play. Most of the Enron and Worldcom do-badders were punished. Many troublemakers in Congress have been sent home.
We need to return to the "be the best we can be" theme than "win at all costs" desperately.
---
One of the really bizarre things from entertainment this year is the troika of heavy-handed anti-war movies recently released. You'll find almost no one who likes "Rendition," "Lions for Lambs" or "Redacted," even those who would be naturally inclined to appreciate their basic premise. Like movie critics. Even the reviewers, who love all liberal messages, hate these flicks.
In the good old days, it was the pro-war movies that were heavy-handed. Or have you forgotten "The Green Berets," the John Wayne primer on the Vietnam conflict. Or all the films that came out during World War II.
Bad things often come from desperation. Like the need to win at all costs. Barry Bonds always performed poorly in postseason because he got desperate. The anti-war Hollywood crowd is desperate, along with their like-minded in Congress, to get the United States out of Iraq. The tide is turning in favor of the fight again, so I think what you're seeing is desperate movie-making.
Like Bonds, Enron, and Congress, Hollywood movie-makers played to win, rather than to make the best movies they could.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
More Disappointment in Congress, Other Notes
You won't know about it unless you for some reason breathlessly await the release of each poll on Gallup.com, but a new poll released by the organization this week showed continued American disappointment in Congress.
That our approval rate of the national legislature is in the teens is nothing new. What's different about the poll is how it goes into detail on issues.
-- Terrorism: 47 percent of those polled are disappointed or angry with Congress, compared to 17 percent who are pleased.
-- Economy: 53 percent disappointed or angry vs 12 percent pleased.
-- Government Reform: 55 percent disappointed or angry vs 12 percent pleased.
-- Healthcare: 60 percent disappointed or angry vs 12 percent pleased.
-- Iraq: 68 percent disappointed or angry vs 11 percent pleased.
-- Immigration: 65 percent disappointed or angry vs 8 percent pleased.
-- Budget Deficit: 60 percent disappointed or angry vs 7 percent pleased.
Note that there are two categories of dissatisfaction, and only one of a positive nature. The leftover numbers up to 100 percent are neutral.
So we're annoyed with these folks, obviously, and those are the reasons why. Those reasons, of course, cover just about everything, assuming that the massive issue of entitlement reform is covered in the government reform category.
Respondents listed as Republicans are obviously more displeased with the opposition-led Congress than those who identify themselves as Democrats. But even a majority of Democrats are unfavorable toward Congress on four of the seven issues.
The things missing in this survey, other than the fact that almost no news organizations are reporting on it, are the reasons for the dissatisfaction.
The text of the Gallup report on the findings includes some reasonable explanations for the results. For example, regarding Iraq, Republicans are likely to be upset because of the numerous mickey-mouse votes and threats to cut off funding for the war effort, and Democrats are mad because they hoped their representatives would have pulled the troops out by now.
There's a lot here for the Democrats to worry about for their re-election prospects, but not much to buoy GOP hopes. The problem is that the Democrats are losing standing, falling to Republican levels, but there's nothing to suggest the GOP image is improving.
Again, another reason for us voters to take care of our own houses during the primaries. We're unlikely to vote for the opposite party in November, so we have to take care of business early in 2008.
---
Speaking of stories that haven't circulated much this week, the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission has a new report out that says Iran is only a year away from being able to make a nuclear weapon.
There are some who equate worries about Iran's nuclear program with the bad intelligence of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction. The difference? Saddam stayed mum on whether he had any WMD. Iran's president gleefully tells anyone who listens what his plans are once he acquires the bomb. He hides nothing until he talks to Western politicians or reporters.
---
Maybe I spoke too soon about Pakistan President Pervez Musarraf releasing Benazir Bhutto from house arrest. Not long after Bhutto was released from house arrest, she was placed back in such custody. Today she was released again. My bet is this pattern will go on for a while, depending on what Pakistani security officials make of her plans.
Whatever Musarraf does, time will be the ultimate factor in this drama. Nothing over the next couple of weeks will mean much. He promises to step down as head of the military soon and to hold elections early next year. Whether he carries out those intentions is doubtful -- at least in his initial time frame. Whatever he does probably will not restore his credibility.
---
Santa Ana winds are due back in California next week. If the winds are as strong as they were in late-October, it will be a problem. Most of the fires apparently started by power lines which arced or we blown down by the winds.
I drove through some of San Diego County's once-beautiful mountainous backcountry over the weekend and while the damage was tremendous, there is still an awful lot that has yet to be burned. Pray for us.
That our approval rate of the national legislature is in the teens is nothing new. What's different about the poll is how it goes into detail on issues.
-- Terrorism: 47 percent of those polled are disappointed or angry with Congress, compared to 17 percent who are pleased.
-- Economy: 53 percent disappointed or angry vs 12 percent pleased.
-- Government Reform: 55 percent disappointed or angry vs 12 percent pleased.
-- Healthcare: 60 percent disappointed or angry vs 12 percent pleased.
-- Iraq: 68 percent disappointed or angry vs 11 percent pleased.
-- Immigration: 65 percent disappointed or angry vs 8 percent pleased.
-- Budget Deficit: 60 percent disappointed or angry vs 7 percent pleased.
Note that there are two categories of dissatisfaction, and only one of a positive nature. The leftover numbers up to 100 percent are neutral.
So we're annoyed with these folks, obviously, and those are the reasons why. Those reasons, of course, cover just about everything, assuming that the massive issue of entitlement reform is covered in the government reform category.
Respondents listed as Republicans are obviously more displeased with the opposition-led Congress than those who identify themselves as Democrats. But even a majority of Democrats are unfavorable toward Congress on four of the seven issues.
The things missing in this survey, other than the fact that almost no news organizations are reporting on it, are the reasons for the dissatisfaction.
The text of the Gallup report on the findings includes some reasonable explanations for the results. For example, regarding Iraq, Republicans are likely to be upset because of the numerous mickey-mouse votes and threats to cut off funding for the war effort, and Democrats are mad because they hoped their representatives would have pulled the troops out by now.
There's a lot here for the Democrats to worry about for their re-election prospects, but not much to buoy GOP hopes. The problem is that the Democrats are losing standing, falling to Republican levels, but there's nothing to suggest the GOP image is improving.
Again, another reason for us voters to take care of our own houses during the primaries. We're unlikely to vote for the opposite party in November, so we have to take care of business early in 2008.
---
Speaking of stories that haven't circulated much this week, the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission has a new report out that says Iran is only a year away from being able to make a nuclear weapon.
There are some who equate worries about Iran's nuclear program with the bad intelligence of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction. The difference? Saddam stayed mum on whether he had any WMD. Iran's president gleefully tells anyone who listens what his plans are once he acquires the bomb. He hides nothing until he talks to Western politicians or reporters.
---
Maybe I spoke too soon about Pakistan President Pervez Musarraf releasing Benazir Bhutto from house arrest. Not long after Bhutto was released from house arrest, she was placed back in such custody. Today she was released again. My bet is this pattern will go on for a while, depending on what Pakistani security officials make of her plans.
Whatever Musarraf does, time will be the ultimate factor in this drama. Nothing over the next couple of weeks will mean much. He promises to step down as head of the military soon and to hold elections early next year. Whether he carries out those intentions is doubtful -- at least in his initial time frame. Whatever he does probably will not restore his credibility.
---
Santa Ana winds are due back in California next week. If the winds are as strong as they were in late-October, it will be a problem. Most of the fires apparently started by power lines which arced or we blown down by the winds.
I drove through some of San Diego County's once-beautiful mountainous backcountry over the weekend and while the damage was tremendous, there is still an awful lot that has yet to be burned. Pray for us.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Dull College Football, Pakistan and Turkey
Less than a year after one of the greatest games in the history of college football, and one of the most interesting seasons, we're mired in the midst of what is the least fan-friendly seasons I can remember.
There aren't any really great story lines about teams rising to success. Ohio State is number one and offers very little in the way of interest. No one really cares about Kansas, and Hawaii hasn't played anyone to write home about. The most interesting stories are negative: the collapse of Nebraska and imminent departure of coach Bill Callahan, the greed of Texas A&M coach Dennis Franchione that will finally bring a downfall that will cause no one to shed tears, the defending national champion has three losses, and teams such as LSU, USC and Cal have not played to the level of their hype.
My biggest complaint: television coverage. I traditionally enjoy opening the Friday sports section of the newspaper to get the TV listings of the next day's college football games. I've lovingly followed this sport for decades and thoroughly enjoy catching the variety of games on the tube. This year has been without a doubt the absolute worst for TV watching.
Probably the biggest example is two weeks ago when Oregon hosted USC in what was to that point the biggest game of the year on the West Coast. It was televised on something called Fox Sports Prime Ticket which, I believe, is only available in Los Angeles. This was a game that should have been on ABC in prime time, or at least on all the Fox Sports affiliates out west. But no. We got Arizona vs. Washington -- of course that did feature a 99-yard TD pass.
That big game we've been waiting for out this way, USC at Cal, is on ABC's prime time coverage tonight. Oh boy! The winner goes to the Sun Bowl.
In a year without much interest, it would be nice for the TV people to be a little more flexible in their scheduling.
---
Hey, give some credit where it's due, to the Bush diplomacy regarding Pakistan and Turkey.
In Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf has -- albeit slowly -- started to back away from his state of emergency and promised elections before Feb. 15, and has ended a blockade around the home of Benazir Bhutto. He has arrested thousands of opposition political activists, so the next step will be seeing how long it takes to get those people freed.
Musharraf's steps are just the first. There needs to be a lot more. But at least they're in the right direction.
Turkey has so far not attacked Iraq in force, and the Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the PKK, Turkey's prime target, now says it's open to talks and could be willing to lay down its arms.
Me, I try to find some sort of at-least temporary peace between the Kurds and Turks, and aim the Kurds toward Iran, where there is also a substantial Kurdish population yearning for freedom.
There aren't any really great story lines about teams rising to success. Ohio State is number one and offers very little in the way of interest. No one really cares about Kansas, and Hawaii hasn't played anyone to write home about. The most interesting stories are negative: the collapse of Nebraska and imminent departure of coach Bill Callahan, the greed of Texas A&M coach Dennis Franchione that will finally bring a downfall that will cause no one to shed tears, the defending national champion has three losses, and teams such as LSU, USC and Cal have not played to the level of their hype.
My biggest complaint: television coverage. I traditionally enjoy opening the Friday sports section of the newspaper to get the TV listings of the next day's college football games. I've lovingly followed this sport for decades and thoroughly enjoy catching the variety of games on the tube. This year has been without a doubt the absolute worst for TV watching.
Probably the biggest example is two weeks ago when Oregon hosted USC in what was to that point the biggest game of the year on the West Coast. It was televised on something called Fox Sports Prime Ticket which, I believe, is only available in Los Angeles. This was a game that should have been on ABC in prime time, or at least on all the Fox Sports affiliates out west. But no. We got Arizona vs. Washington -- of course that did feature a 99-yard TD pass.
That big game we've been waiting for out this way, USC at Cal, is on ABC's prime time coverage tonight. Oh boy! The winner goes to the Sun Bowl.
In a year without much interest, it would be nice for the TV people to be a little more flexible in their scheduling.
---
Hey, give some credit where it's due, to the Bush diplomacy regarding Pakistan and Turkey.
In Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf has -- albeit slowly -- started to back away from his state of emergency and promised elections before Feb. 15, and has ended a blockade around the home of Benazir Bhutto. He has arrested thousands of opposition political activists, so the next step will be seeing how long it takes to get those people freed.
Musharraf's steps are just the first. There needs to be a lot more. But at least they're in the right direction.
Turkey has so far not attacked Iraq in force, and the Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the PKK, Turkey's prime target, now says it's open to talks and could be willing to lay down its arms.
Me, I try to find some sort of at-least temporary peace between the Kurds and Turks, and aim the Kurds toward Iran, where there is also a substantial Kurdish population yearning for freedom.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Independent Presidential Candidate?
Sometimes validation can come from unusual sources. In this case, here's a link to an article by CNN's Lou Dobbs, whose exposition of our current lack of national leadership is pretty well on the mark.
Lou Dobbs - The November Surprise
His points have been mentioned on this blog repeatedly. While problems creep up on America, our politicians fight for their chance to play Nero's fiddle. That's where the validation ends, though.
He goes on to say that he thinks that an independent candidate will rise to capture the imagination of the voters, make the current Republican and Democratic candidates look like hyenas and run away with the White House. In this regard, he's wrong for a couple of reasons.
First, while things on the surface appear bad now, with some foreign policy concerns, the continuing fighting in Iraq and a souring economy, conditions are really no worse than previous moments when independents ran. In 1992, the economy was in an actual free fall, where today we're just worried about the possibility. In 1980, the economy was horrible, the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan and numerous Americans were being held hostage in Iran.
In 1992, Ross Perot ran as an independent against massively unpopular President George H.W. Bush and unknown Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and still only gained 18.9 percent of the vote and failed to win any electoral votes. In 1980, Illinois' John Anderson won just 7 percent of the vote in 1980 and did not win a single precinct in the entire country. Mathematically, how does it get done?
Secondly, who? The only independent ever mentioned who actually has the resources to run like Perot did is Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, and he's ruled out a candidacy. And he's really a liberal Democrat who ran as a Republican so he could win office. Not exactly the sort of personal integrity people are looking for these days.
There really seems to be no one else.
Lastly, Dobbs is entirely dismissive of the current crop of candidates. Generally dismissive is a correct assessment. Entirely? I'm not sure. Someone, though, is going to have to address our issues head-on and speak clearly, and -- Hillary -- not waffle on key questions of the day. There might not be anyone to capture our imagination out there, but if a candidate can claim our intellect, he might get our vote.
Still and all, it's nice to see that someone out there in the national media is getting it regarding the failures of our national government. We're up to Dobbs, who has angered most elite opinion-makers with his stance on illegal immigration, and broadcast talk show host Glenn Beck, who is the first to admit that he's nuts. Hey, it's a start!
Lou Dobbs - The November Surprise
His points have been mentioned on this blog repeatedly. While problems creep up on America, our politicians fight for their chance to play Nero's fiddle. That's where the validation ends, though.
He goes on to say that he thinks that an independent candidate will rise to capture the imagination of the voters, make the current Republican and Democratic candidates look like hyenas and run away with the White House. In this regard, he's wrong for a couple of reasons.
First, while things on the surface appear bad now, with some foreign policy concerns, the continuing fighting in Iraq and a souring economy, conditions are really no worse than previous moments when independents ran. In 1992, the economy was in an actual free fall, where today we're just worried about the possibility. In 1980, the economy was horrible, the Soviet Union had invaded Afghanistan and numerous Americans were being held hostage in Iran.
In 1992, Ross Perot ran as an independent against massively unpopular President George H.W. Bush and unknown Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton and still only gained 18.9 percent of the vote and failed to win any electoral votes. In 1980, Illinois' John Anderson won just 7 percent of the vote in 1980 and did not win a single precinct in the entire country. Mathematically, how does it get done?
Secondly, who? The only independent ever mentioned who actually has the resources to run like Perot did is Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York, and he's ruled out a candidacy. And he's really a liberal Democrat who ran as a Republican so he could win office. Not exactly the sort of personal integrity people are looking for these days.
There really seems to be no one else.
Lastly, Dobbs is entirely dismissive of the current crop of candidates. Generally dismissive is a correct assessment. Entirely? I'm not sure. Someone, though, is going to have to address our issues head-on and speak clearly, and -- Hillary -- not waffle on key questions of the day. There might not be anyone to capture our imagination out there, but if a candidate can claim our intellect, he might get our vote.
Still and all, it's nice to see that someone out there in the national media is getting it regarding the failures of our national government. We're up to Dobbs, who has angered most elite opinion-makers with his stance on illegal immigration, and broadcast talk show host Glenn Beck, who is the first to admit that he's nuts. Hey, it's a start!
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Daylight Savings Time, Pakistan and Turkey
The extension of Daylight Savings Time into November is just one more example of how politicians in Washington, D.C. are way out of touch with the rest of us.
Okay, maybe that's harsh. But really, taking that extra hour of later daylight into the middle of autumn turned out to be really annoying. First, sunset in the final week or two was around 6 p.m. here in the more southern latitudes, so any benefit was negligible. Second, the definition of 0-dark-:30 shifted to when most of us woke up to go to work or school. People often like to walk or run before starting their day, but not in the last few weeks of DT. Did your kids have to walk to school in the dark? Wait and catch a bus in the dark?
Don't get me wrong. I love Daylight Savings Time. In April. When it's intended. Getting outside after dinner is a nice thing. Not so much in November, though.
Just another way that Congress, stationed in an indoor town like D.C., can really screw things up for the rest of us. Of course, my next concern is my commute home from work tomorrow. Yep, in the dark. Maybe I'll quickly change my mind.
---
In both Pakistan and Turkey, we're seeing governments acting out of their own perceived interests whether we'd like them to or not.
Pakistan has declared a state of emergency to curtail whatever civil liberties ever did exist there, ostensibly to fight its Islamic insurgency and a national Supreme Court that consistently ruled against the regime.
Turkey has declared its intention to invade the Kurdish section of Iraq -- by far the most prosperous and successful section of the war-torn nation -- in order to chase down terrorists who conduct cross-border attacks to further their goal of an independent Kurdistan. Kurds live in northern Iraq, northern Iran and southeastern Turkey, and their attacks against the latter have been noteworthy. Turkey has had enough.
I'm no longer sure how much we need Pakistan as an ally in our fight against terrorism. It was crucial in the early days so we could fly from ships in the Indian Ocean to Afghanistan. Now, with six years of Pakistani inconsistency in overcoming it's tribal areas on the Afghani border behind us, that country's support may not be worth much.
I'm not sure we should throw President Pervez Musharraf under the bus, but we and the U.K. are reviewing our financial aid plans, correctly. We have to carefully balance his value in the war on terrorism against our need to maintain our standard as a beacon to the world as a consistent source of liberty.
In the Cold War, we supported plenty of dictators, but that was a contest of sheer power. The was against terrorism is a battle of ideas, our democracy against their theocracy. Sheer power will not be the deciding factor.
Regarding Turkey, there's no getting around that they're NATO allies, have been subjected to murderous attacks and have been pretty responsible for a majority Muslim country. We need to focus on managing their fight and containing it to the border areas, instead of telling a sovereign nation that it cannot defend itself.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has some pretty interesting weeks ahead of her. By Christmas, we ought to have a good idea how she stacks up against previous holders of her office.
Okay, maybe that's harsh. But really, taking that extra hour of later daylight into the middle of autumn turned out to be really annoying. First, sunset in the final week or two was around 6 p.m. here in the more southern latitudes, so any benefit was negligible. Second, the definition of 0-dark-:30 shifted to when most of us woke up to go to work or school. People often like to walk or run before starting their day, but not in the last few weeks of DT. Did your kids have to walk to school in the dark? Wait and catch a bus in the dark?
Don't get me wrong. I love Daylight Savings Time. In April. When it's intended. Getting outside after dinner is a nice thing. Not so much in November, though.
Just another way that Congress, stationed in an indoor town like D.C., can really screw things up for the rest of us. Of course, my next concern is my commute home from work tomorrow. Yep, in the dark. Maybe I'll quickly change my mind.
---
In both Pakistan and Turkey, we're seeing governments acting out of their own perceived interests whether we'd like them to or not.
Pakistan has declared a state of emergency to curtail whatever civil liberties ever did exist there, ostensibly to fight its Islamic insurgency and a national Supreme Court that consistently ruled against the regime.
Turkey has declared its intention to invade the Kurdish section of Iraq -- by far the most prosperous and successful section of the war-torn nation -- in order to chase down terrorists who conduct cross-border attacks to further their goal of an independent Kurdistan. Kurds live in northern Iraq, northern Iran and southeastern Turkey, and their attacks against the latter have been noteworthy. Turkey has had enough.
I'm no longer sure how much we need Pakistan as an ally in our fight against terrorism. It was crucial in the early days so we could fly from ships in the Indian Ocean to Afghanistan. Now, with six years of Pakistani inconsistency in overcoming it's tribal areas on the Afghani border behind us, that country's support may not be worth much.
I'm not sure we should throw President Pervez Musharraf under the bus, but we and the U.K. are reviewing our financial aid plans, correctly. We have to carefully balance his value in the war on terrorism against our need to maintain our standard as a beacon to the world as a consistent source of liberty.
In the Cold War, we supported plenty of dictators, but that was a contest of sheer power. The was against terrorism is a battle of ideas, our democracy against their theocracy. Sheer power will not be the deciding factor.
Regarding Turkey, there's no getting around that they're NATO allies, have been subjected to murderous attacks and have been pretty responsible for a majority Muslim country. We need to focus on managing their fight and containing it to the border areas, instead of telling a sovereign nation that it cannot defend itself.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has some pretty interesting weeks ahead of her. By Christmas, we ought to have a good idea how she stacks up against previous holders of her office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)