Nothing disturbs the Bush administration more than being quoted correctly, especially when the quote is a Karl Rove catchphrase. George W Bush has been preaching to anyone who will listen that the American policy in Iraq demands that we, "stay the course". He said exactly those words in June after returning from Bagdad. He repeated the thought in July in Milwaukee and in Salt Lake City in August. These are direct quotes from speeches. They are not, out of context remarks made as the president was crossing the White House lawn to board Marine One. The message seemed clear; we will continue to get Americans killed in an Iraqi civil war regardless of the stupidity of that plan.
But wait. According to Tony Snow, former FoxNews scihophant and current White House press secretary, that's not what the pres. meant at all. When George said, "stay the course" what he actually meant was, "a study in consistant motion by the administration". Well thank God for Tony! Without his brilliant insight into the mind of George W. we might have foolishly assumed that our Commander in Chief actuall meant what he said.
We are all aware of how GWB gets into Dan Quayle-like trouble when he wanders too far off the printed script. It would now appear that even the pre-written messages can't be trusted.
What next? Will we come to find that Don Rumsfeld's, "stuff happens" actually means that we screwed up the security of one of the most valuable and important museums in the world when we allowed the building to be looted and that we are sorry? Did DickCheney's, "we will be greated as liberators" really mean that Iraq has been a sectarian mess for years and, without a strong central government in place, civil war is inevitable?
It's hard not to smile while watching the administration grope for some acceptable language to explain the incredible succession of mistakes and bad decisions. The authors of "swift-boating" and "cut and run" appear to have better luck with catch-phrases when they afix them to the opposition.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Monday, October 23, 2006
...or is TV news coverage making us afraid of everything?
Next week is Halloween and although I won't be an active participant (the ears to my Mr. Spock costume were lost last year during the arrest), I still have fond memories of both my own and my son's many years as sanctioned beggars.
It is, however, with some sadness that I observe the degree of protection required for today's trick-or-treaters. Back in the day (before CNN, MSNBC et al) kids went door-to-door in small groups. Bigger kids shepherded the little ones (the cute little ones got better stuff) and the entire enterprise was handled without the guidance of a single adult. We began right after school and continued until aggravated victims stopped opening the doors for us - usually about 7-ish. We then marched gleefully home to a parental chorus of, "Don't eat all that junk at once. You'll get sick."
Alas, those days of innocence appear to be ended. The tykes of today are accompanied on their neighborhood rounds by a phalanx of adult protectors. The only kids out there alone had to shave before making the effort. No parent worthy of the title would ever permit their small ones to traipse through our fearsome village unaccompanied. (These would be the same parents that paid a small fortune to live in what is deemed a "safe neighborhood.")
Actually, having the adults wander the streets with the kids is a great idea. Not only are they participating in their children's joy, (my father wouldn't have left our apartment on Halloween if the building were ablaze), but they get to meet many neighbors who had heretofore been strangers. Unfortunately, the motivation for this evening romp is not a desire to look into other peoples homes (well, maybe a little); it's cold, abject fear. The real fright on Halloween is that something terrible may happen to the little ones. And that, my friends, is a creation of your friendly news coverage.
Isitjustme.com is a supporter of all media all the time...even FoxNews. Face it. People who only want to hear what they already believe need a news program too. The problem with our news programs isn't that they hide or shade things, it's that they love to scare us to death. National news shows will interrupt the endless recital of today's world events if a child goes missing for an hour in a shopping mall.
Local news is much worse. If one kid in Kansas City gets a rotten apple for trick-or-treat (does anyone give fruit anymore?) the account will be discussed for a week by the local talking heads. The KC Chief of Police will be interviewed as to what happened and what his department is doing about it. Is this a serial fruit poisoner? "We have a suspect but no arrests have been made. The child has a mild stomach ache but is otherwise unharmed. We will know more at our next press briefing in fifteen minutes." Local newsies will be filming remotes from the house of the "victim" and from the local apple orchard. Grocers will be questioned. "Well Bob, I'm standing here with Fred Smute, who is the produce manager here at Al's Market. Tell me Fred, was the apple poisoned when you sold it? How many poisonous apples did you sell to people this year and was business uncommonly good?"
Sadly, the lack of anything new has never stopped news programs from finding something scary to broadcast. When things get slow, they can always send a reporter out to the local airport to show how easily they were able to sneak a butter knife aboard a plane. If they really wanted to see some frightening stuff they could film George W. trying to make a decision without Cheney or Rumsfeld around.
Americans, living in one of the safest countries in the world, are scaring themselves to death for no other reason than they are better informed than ever before. People actually choose to fly on airlines from countries that aren't having trouble with Arab countries (Think Icelandic!). Americans go to great lengths to acquire second passports from other countries to ensure that if identification as an American proves dangerous they can instantly morph into Irishmen. That's like wearing a dress to escape the Titanic.
On one wants to to hear it but if children are at risk in this country, it's due to the proliferation of legal hand guns. More kids are killed in gun accidents every year than will ever die from poisoned Snickers bars.
Caution is never a bad thing, especially where the safety of children is involved, but people, take a chill pill. Your offspring have a lot more to fear from what M&M Mars puts inside those triple-sealed candy bars than they ever will from the neighbor who gave it to them. If you really want to protect your kids, keep them out of McDonald's and Burger King. If you don't, next year may find your kiddies trick-or-treating as Bill Parcels. Now that's scary.
It is, however, with some sadness that I observe the degree of protection required for today's trick-or-treaters. Back in the day (before CNN, MSNBC et al) kids went door-to-door in small groups. Bigger kids shepherded the little ones (the cute little ones got better stuff) and the entire enterprise was handled without the guidance of a single adult. We began right after school and continued until aggravated victims stopped opening the doors for us - usually about 7-ish. We then marched gleefully home to a parental chorus of, "Don't eat all that junk at once. You'll get sick."
Alas, those days of innocence appear to be ended. The tykes of today are accompanied on their neighborhood rounds by a phalanx of adult protectors. The only kids out there alone had to shave before making the effort. No parent worthy of the title would ever permit their small ones to traipse through our fearsome village unaccompanied. (These would be the same parents that paid a small fortune to live in what is deemed a "safe neighborhood.")
Actually, having the adults wander the streets with the kids is a great idea. Not only are they participating in their children's joy, (my father wouldn't have left our apartment on Halloween if the building were ablaze), but they get to meet many neighbors who had heretofore been strangers. Unfortunately, the motivation for this evening romp is not a desire to look into other peoples homes (well, maybe a little); it's cold, abject fear. The real fright on Halloween is that something terrible may happen to the little ones. And that, my friends, is a creation of your friendly news coverage.
Isitjustme.com is a supporter of all media all the time...even FoxNews. Face it. People who only want to hear what they already believe need a news program too. The problem with our news programs isn't that they hide or shade things, it's that they love to scare us to death. National news shows will interrupt the endless recital of today's world events if a child goes missing for an hour in a shopping mall.
Local news is much worse. If one kid in Kansas City gets a rotten apple for trick-or-treat (does anyone give fruit anymore?) the account will be discussed for a week by the local talking heads. The KC Chief of Police will be interviewed as to what happened and what his department is doing about it. Is this a serial fruit poisoner? "We have a suspect but no arrests have been made. The child has a mild stomach ache but is otherwise unharmed. We will know more at our next press briefing in fifteen minutes." Local newsies will be filming remotes from the house of the "victim" and from the local apple orchard. Grocers will be questioned. "Well Bob, I'm standing here with Fred Smute, who is the produce manager here at Al's Market. Tell me Fred, was the apple poisoned when you sold it? How many poisonous apples did you sell to people this year and was business uncommonly good?"
Sadly, the lack of anything new has never stopped news programs from finding something scary to broadcast. When things get slow, they can always send a reporter out to the local airport to show how easily they were able to sneak a butter knife aboard a plane. If they really wanted to see some frightening stuff they could film George W. trying to make a decision without Cheney or Rumsfeld around.
Americans, living in one of the safest countries in the world, are scaring themselves to death for no other reason than they are better informed than ever before. People actually choose to fly on airlines from countries that aren't having trouble with Arab countries (Think Icelandic!). Americans go to great lengths to acquire second passports from other countries to ensure that if identification as an American proves dangerous they can instantly morph into Irishmen. That's like wearing a dress to escape the Titanic.
On one wants to to hear it but if children are at risk in this country, it's due to the proliferation of legal hand guns. More kids are killed in gun accidents every year than will ever die from poisoned Snickers bars.
Caution is never a bad thing, especially where the safety of children is involved, but people, take a chill pill. Your offspring have a lot more to fear from what M&M Mars puts inside those triple-sealed candy bars than they ever will from the neighbor who gave it to them. If you really want to protect your kids, keep them out of McDonald's and Burger King. If you don't, next year may find your kiddies trick-or-treating as Bill Parcels. Now that's scary.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
...or should undecided voters stay undecided and stay home?
As election time approaches, editorials and prognosticators will wax effusively about the effect that voter turnout will have on the outcome of races throughout the country. Voter apathy, weather and many other issues will be advanced as a reason why Mr. & Mrs American Voter might cast a ballot or sit the election out. Each will be dissected and evaluated to determine, in advance, which candidates will get to celebrate on the evening of Nov. 7th.
I would like to state, for the record, that this blog stands behind and, aggressively supports, low voter turnout. We here at isitjustme encourage people who are on the fence about dragging themselves to the polls, to stay the hell home. Don't come! We don't need you!
If that sounds a little harsh and even a little anti-American allow me to state the case.
Last Monday, the WSJ carried a column by Cynthia Crossen about why Americans don't vote. One of her conclusions is that turnout at the polls is low (and getting lower) because our registration system makes it impossible to cast a ballot on the spur of the moment. I say, "bravo". Do you really want your officials chosen by people who decided to vote because the weather is good and they really don't have any thing else to do that day? What sort of choices will be made by that crowd? (President Bush, please sit down.)
Voter registration was instituted to prevent spontaneous voting. In the last century, most of Chicago's elections were decided by voters that were dragged from alleys and nursing homes (many against their will) and driven to the polls. (The dead had to provide their own transportation.) At least with registration we have a system that provides for some control over who is electing our government.(and how many times)
Most candidates have been running for a year. They have spent millions explaining why they should be chosen to help run America.(They have also spent millions explaining how their opponent once shot a helpless bird in a tree.. The opponent was nine at the time.) Considering the tidal wave of media coverage that exists in America, it's virtually impossible not to have formed an opinion by now. However, if you have managed to ride the ignorance train for this long, don't jump off in Nov.
The United States is in the middle of a crisis. Whether you agree with administration policy or oppose it, it is almost impossible to imagine that any thinking person is disinterested enough to sit out the election.
Americans who opposed the war in Iraq had their opinions thwarted in 2004 by a viscous campaign that was decided on gay marriage and stem cell research. If that outcome didn't cause the American non-voting public to get off their collective asses and register to vote the next time around, then we should let them alone. If you're undecided about the direction that America has chosen then you are what is called in academic circles, a blockhead. Please, for the sake of anyone who has read a newspaper or shown any interest in what's going on in the world, don't help.
What were the lessons of '04? You had to hand it to Karl Rove and the Christian right,(and we did, "hand it to them"). They didn't wait until November to energize their supporters. There was no need for an "October Surprise". The Bush re-election people began scaring people early in the summer of and kept them frightened right thorough the election. Bone-headed Democrats, convinced that they had justice on their side, trusted that America would "see the light" come election day and pull a lever for John Kerry. Wrong! The Democratic elite believe that the American people are sheep who can be easily led. Republicans know that the electorate are cattle that must be driven.
Voting requires a little effort. First you have to register, then you have to make time to get to a poll. Making that effort indicates your level of commitment to the democratic process we profess to cherish and spill blood to export. It should also be a litmus test to determine your desire to participate in the process. Maybe we should adopt the Iraqi system and add an element of danger to the exercise. Iraqis didn't need to register. I guess one trip through the shooting gallery is enough.
Maybe I just hang around with the wrong people. I don't know anyone who is neutral about America's current situation. Forget Mark Foley. There are real issues to be decided. People are dying in Dafur and in Iraq. Nut-hatch dictators with bad hair and cheap suits are threatening the world with nuclear weapons. American citizens can't rely on their government to send a boat or a bottle of Poland Spring when the water is ten feet high and risin'.
If you have lived in this country for the last six years and haven't formed an opinion about whether to endorse or detest the present Congress then you are not likely to receive a message from God in the next three weeks (unless you're Pat Robertson). For the sake of the rest of us, stay in your Barcolounger, watch Oprah, go to WalMart, see Jackass II. Just stay away from your local polling place. We don't need you.
I would like to state, for the record, that this blog stands behind and, aggressively supports, low voter turnout. We here at isitjustme encourage people who are on the fence about dragging themselves to the polls, to stay the hell home. Don't come! We don't need you!
If that sounds a little harsh and even a little anti-American allow me to state the case.
Last Monday, the WSJ carried a column by Cynthia Crossen about why Americans don't vote. One of her conclusions is that turnout at the polls is low (and getting lower) because our registration system makes it impossible to cast a ballot on the spur of the moment. I say, "bravo". Do you really want your officials chosen by people who decided to vote because the weather is good and they really don't have any thing else to do that day? What sort of choices will be made by that crowd? (President Bush, please sit down.)
Voter registration was instituted to prevent spontaneous voting. In the last century, most of Chicago's elections were decided by voters that were dragged from alleys and nursing homes (many against their will) and driven to the polls. (The dead had to provide their own transportation.) At least with registration we have a system that provides for some control over who is electing our government.(and how many times)
Most candidates have been running for a year. They have spent millions explaining why they should be chosen to help run America.(They have also spent millions explaining how their opponent once shot a helpless bird in a tree.. The opponent was nine at the time.) Considering the tidal wave of media coverage that exists in America, it's virtually impossible not to have formed an opinion by now. However, if you have managed to ride the ignorance train for this long, don't jump off in Nov.
The United States is in the middle of a crisis. Whether you agree with administration policy or oppose it, it is almost impossible to imagine that any thinking person is disinterested enough to sit out the election.
Americans who opposed the war in Iraq had their opinions thwarted in 2004 by a viscous campaign that was decided on gay marriage and stem cell research. If that outcome didn't cause the American non-voting public to get off their collective asses and register to vote the next time around, then we should let them alone. If you're undecided about the direction that America has chosen then you are what is called in academic circles, a blockhead. Please, for the sake of anyone who has read a newspaper or shown any interest in what's going on in the world, don't help.
What were the lessons of '04? You had to hand it to Karl Rove and the Christian right,(and we did, "hand it to them"). They didn't wait until November to energize their supporters. There was no need for an "October Surprise". The Bush re-election people began scaring people early in the summer of and kept them frightened right thorough the election. Bone-headed Democrats, convinced that they had justice on their side, trusted that America would "see the light" come election day and pull a lever for John Kerry. Wrong! The Democratic elite believe that the American people are sheep who can be easily led. Republicans know that the electorate are cattle that must be driven.
Voting requires a little effort. First you have to register, then you have to make time to get to a poll. Making that effort indicates your level of commitment to the democratic process we profess to cherish and spill blood to export. It should also be a litmus test to determine your desire to participate in the process. Maybe we should adopt the Iraqi system and add an element of danger to the exercise. Iraqis didn't need to register. I guess one trip through the shooting gallery is enough.
Maybe I just hang around with the wrong people. I don't know anyone who is neutral about America's current situation. Forget Mark Foley. There are real issues to be decided. People are dying in Dafur and in Iraq. Nut-hatch dictators with bad hair and cheap suits are threatening the world with nuclear weapons. American citizens can't rely on their government to send a boat or a bottle of Poland Spring when the water is ten feet high and risin'.
If you have lived in this country for the last six years and haven't formed an opinion about whether to endorse or detest the present Congress then you are not likely to receive a message from God in the next three weeks (unless you're Pat Robertson). For the sake of the rest of us, stay in your Barcolounger, watch Oprah, go to WalMart, see Jackass II. Just stay away from your local polling place. We don't need you.
Monday, October 09, 2006
...or did you chuckle just a little when the Tigers booted the Yankees out of the playoffs?
For me this is the ultimate betrayal. I was raised in the Bronx, a scant seven subway stops (actually the #4 train is elevated) from Yankee Stadium. My earliest sports memories are of baseball. Growing up on Davidson Ave you were either a Yankee fan or a Dodger fan. (For some strange reason their were no Giants fans.) Those were the days of Mantle and Berra; of Larson and Casey Stengel, Skowron and Richardson. Every kid could tell you the starting nine for his team. In October, because the Yankees were almost always in the World Series, we would plead with teachers to let us listen to the Series games in the classroom or at least check periodically for a score.
Taking the Woodlawn/Jerome train into the city meant passing "the Stadium". As the train rumbled past the outfield there was a small gap between the right field stands and the center field scoreboard. That gap afforded riders the briefest glimpse of the field and I never missed a chance to look, even into my twenties.
In the summer I would pester my father on Friday nights when he came home from work to take me to the Yankee game. It was probably the last thing he felt like doing but occasionally he would acquiesce. I even went to the 1958 World Series.
The day after our graduation from Fordham, Paul Keane and I dragged my fiancee to the Stadium for Mickey Mantle's retirement. I probably cried more than he did.
The point being that no one was a bigger Yankee fan than me.
So what happened? At what point did it become fun to watch the Yankees take it in the shorts? At what point in my travels did I exsanguinate (too much CSI) the Yankee blue from my veins?
Moving to Chicago certainly affected my team loyalties. You become interested in the teams that are covered in the local press. First it was the Bears instead of the football Giants but gradually all of your loyalties change. Rooting for another American League team seemed like treason but the Cubs became interesting. At least I didn't have to watch them after Oct 3rd.
Then the Yankees were purchased by George Michael Steinbrenner III.
Now here's a guy that everyone can dislike. He has a big mouth a short temper and he's always right (just ask him). He has been a major shareholder of the club since 1973. When he took command, he was quoted as saying, "We plan absentee ownership as far as running the Yankees is concerned. We're not going to pretend to be something we aren't". Really? Under his "absentee ownership" there have been 20 field manager changes (Billy Martin accounting for 25% of those) and 11 general manager firings. Behind every personnel change was a quote from "The Boss" He was as hands-off as a blind man in a cat house. John McMullen, a minority partner in the team was quoted saying, "There's nothing more limited than being a limited partner in the Yankees."
Although "dead set against free agency" George has become its greatest enabler. Thanks to his cherry-picking from other clubs, Steinbrenner has a payroll larger than the GNP of Peru. This level of spending has created the sense that rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for General Motors. Unless you live in New York, there is a tendency to resent any team or owner that continually attempts to buy a championship.
Five teams have kicked sand in George's face in the last six years of post season play. They range from the church-mouse Marlins to the equally overpaid Red Sox. In the last two seasons, the Yankees couldn't get past the first round of post season play. Ouch! (It should be pointed out that the Yankees have made the post season every year for the past 12 years.)
Watching a manufactured team fall on its face restores our sense of balance. Money really can't buy happiness or, it would seem, a World Series ring. Although A-rod, Jeter, Posada and Co. are great players and (including Alex Rodriguez) worthy of their inflated salaries, the schadenfreude (I finally got to use that in a sentence) factor is irresistible. Call it David and Goliath syndrome. My team may have lost but we didn't pay $194 million for the privilege.
In 1969 I was among those rare New Yorkers that cringed during every World Series game between the Orioles and the Mets. The Yankees finished fifth that year in the American League East and I hated all the celebrating in Queens. How dare these upstart no-names usurp the crown that rightfully belonged in the Bronx.
Well, that was then and this is now so
Let's Go Mets.
Taking the Woodlawn/Jerome train into the city meant passing "the Stadium". As the train rumbled past the outfield there was a small gap between the right field stands and the center field scoreboard. That gap afforded riders the briefest glimpse of the field and I never missed a chance to look, even into my twenties.
In the summer I would pester my father on Friday nights when he came home from work to take me to the Yankee game. It was probably the last thing he felt like doing but occasionally he would acquiesce. I even went to the 1958 World Series.
The day after our graduation from Fordham, Paul Keane and I dragged my fiancee to the Stadium for Mickey Mantle's retirement. I probably cried more than he did.
The point being that no one was a bigger Yankee fan than me.
So what happened? At what point did it become fun to watch the Yankees take it in the shorts? At what point in my travels did I exsanguinate (too much CSI) the Yankee blue from my veins?
Moving to Chicago certainly affected my team loyalties. You become interested in the teams that are covered in the local press. First it was the Bears instead of the football Giants but gradually all of your loyalties change. Rooting for another American League team seemed like treason but the Cubs became interesting. At least I didn't have to watch them after Oct 3rd.
Then the Yankees were purchased by George Michael Steinbrenner III.
Now here's a guy that everyone can dislike. He has a big mouth a short temper and he's always right (just ask him). He has been a major shareholder of the club since 1973. When he took command, he was quoted as saying, "We plan absentee ownership as far as running the Yankees is concerned. We're not going to pretend to be something we aren't". Really? Under his "absentee ownership" there have been 20 field manager changes (Billy Martin accounting for 25% of those) and 11 general manager firings. Behind every personnel change was a quote from "The Boss" He was as hands-off as a blind man in a cat house. John McMullen, a minority partner in the team was quoted saying, "There's nothing more limited than being a limited partner in the Yankees."
Although "dead set against free agency" George has become its greatest enabler. Thanks to his cherry-picking from other clubs, Steinbrenner has a payroll larger than the GNP of Peru. This level of spending has created the sense that rooting for the Yankees is like rooting for General Motors. Unless you live in New York, there is a tendency to resent any team or owner that continually attempts to buy a championship.
Five teams have kicked sand in George's face in the last six years of post season play. They range from the church-mouse Marlins to the equally overpaid Red Sox. In the last two seasons, the Yankees couldn't get past the first round of post season play. Ouch! (It should be pointed out that the Yankees have made the post season every year for the past 12 years.)
Watching a manufactured team fall on its face restores our sense of balance. Money really can't buy happiness or, it would seem, a World Series ring. Although A-rod, Jeter, Posada and Co. are great players and (including Alex Rodriguez) worthy of their inflated salaries, the schadenfreude (I finally got to use that in a sentence) factor is irresistible. Call it David and Goliath syndrome. My team may have lost but we didn't pay $194 million for the privilege.
In 1969 I was among those rare New Yorkers that cringed during every World Series game between the Orioles and the Mets. The Yankees finished fifth that year in the American League East and I hated all the celebrating in Queens. How dare these upstart no-names usurp the crown that rightfully belonged in the Bronx.
Well, that was then and this is now so
Let's Go Mets.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
...or are you having trouble staying awake during the recent HP scandel?
If your response is, "What Scandal?" don't be ashamed. We're not talking Teapot Dome here.
Patricia Dunn, former Chairman of Hewlett-Packard, and four lesser lights were charged Wednesday in connection with a three-year company investigation into corporate boardroom information leaks. I can see your eyelids getting heavy already. The details won't perk you up much.
Ever since the ousting (not "outing") of Carly Fiorina as Chairman, the HP boardroom has been a virtual colander of information. Even stories about leaks were leaked. Concerned/enraged that there was a loose tongue in their midst, Ms. Dunn launched an investigation. The characters that were enlisted in this probe go by their current title... co-defendants. They include:
Kevin Hunsaker former HP ethics lawyer. (Mr Hunsaker has also been indicted separately for the unspeakable crime of using the word "ethics" and "lawyer" in the same title.)
Ronald DeLia of Security Outsourcing
Matthew DePante of Action Research
Although I have not seen bios or photos of these security specialists but it would not surprise me to learn that they are ex-cops who are showing the effects of too many Big Macs. Exactly where do you look in the phonebook for people willing to break the law for your company. Maybe Ms. Dunn ran an ad.
WANTED
knuckle-dragging, over-weight, former policeman, to collect evidence of yacking out of school. Adherence to the law not a requirement. Qualifications should include, beat-up old car, badly tailored suit, Brooklyn accent, complete absence of ethics. Smoking a plus. Fedora optional.
These would-be Sam Spades are charged with; fraudulently obtaining private information from a public utility, accessing computer data without permission, identity theft and the ever popular conspiracy. Wow! Move over Hannibal Lecter.
After watching a couple of episodes of CSI, deeds like this don't exactly make your blood run cold. Having been raised on the Rockford Files, I didn't even know that most of this activity was criminal. Who knew that you could be tossed in the hooskow for impersonating someone's cousin in order to get a little information from the phone company? As to accessing someone's computer, I thought that companies did that all the time hunting for employees who surf porn sites. I guess the rules are different in the California.
Are you asleep yet?
Sensing an "Elliot Spitzer Moment", California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed charges in plenty of time to make the morning editions on the East Coast. This isn't exactly Enron but one takes what one can get. Besides does anyone remember who prosecuted Ken Lay? The trick here will be to keep Californians, and the rest of the country, awake long enough to showcase a trial.
Americans bore easily.(Remember space travel?) The country has watched real villains like Bernie Ebbers of Worldcom and Ken Lay (nice exit) of Enron be convicted of fleecing thousands of widows and orphans out of their pensions. Watching Patty Dunn standing in the dock answering charges of pilfering phone records isn't exactly the "ripped from the headlines" stuff that makes Law and Order so popular.
Even the readership of Barron's might nod off while following this story. (Of course many Barron's readers doze before they get to the newsstand.) I'm afraid that a scandal where nobody took their pants off and no weapon deadlier than a lawyer's tongue was involved, isn't going to attract much ink.
A word to prosecutors everywhere, if you want to be launched into the governor's mansion by indicting corporate evildoers, pick a company where Paris Hilton sits on the board.
Patricia Dunn, former Chairman of Hewlett-Packard, and four lesser lights were charged Wednesday in connection with a three-year company investigation into corporate boardroom information leaks. I can see your eyelids getting heavy already. The details won't perk you up much.
Ever since the ousting (not "outing") of Carly Fiorina as Chairman, the HP boardroom has been a virtual colander of information. Even stories about leaks were leaked. Concerned/enraged that there was a loose tongue in their midst, Ms. Dunn launched an investigation. The characters that were enlisted in this probe go by their current title... co-defendants. They include:
Kevin Hunsaker former HP ethics lawyer. (Mr Hunsaker has also been indicted separately for the unspeakable crime of using the word "ethics" and "lawyer" in the same title.)
Ronald DeLia of Security Outsourcing
Matthew DePante of Action Research
Although I have not seen bios or photos of these security specialists but it would not surprise me to learn that they are ex-cops who are showing the effects of too many Big Macs. Exactly where do you look in the phonebook for people willing to break the law for your company. Maybe Ms. Dunn ran an ad.
WANTED
knuckle-dragging, over-weight, former policeman, to collect evidence of yacking out of school. Adherence to the law not a requirement. Qualifications should include, beat-up old car, badly tailored suit, Brooklyn accent, complete absence of ethics. Smoking a plus. Fedora optional.
These would-be Sam Spades are charged with; fraudulently obtaining private information from a public utility, accessing computer data without permission, identity theft and the ever popular conspiracy. Wow! Move over Hannibal Lecter.
After watching a couple of episodes of CSI, deeds like this don't exactly make your blood run cold. Having been raised on the Rockford Files, I didn't even know that most of this activity was criminal. Who knew that you could be tossed in the hooskow for impersonating someone's cousin in order to get a little information from the phone company? As to accessing someone's computer, I thought that companies did that all the time hunting for employees who surf porn sites. I guess the rules are different in the California.
Are you asleep yet?
Sensing an "Elliot Spitzer Moment", California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed charges in plenty of time to make the morning editions on the East Coast. This isn't exactly Enron but one takes what one can get. Besides does anyone remember who prosecuted Ken Lay? The trick here will be to keep Californians, and the rest of the country, awake long enough to showcase a trial.
Americans bore easily.(Remember space travel?) The country has watched real villains like Bernie Ebbers of Worldcom and Ken Lay (nice exit) of Enron be convicted of fleecing thousands of widows and orphans out of their pensions. Watching Patty Dunn standing in the dock answering charges of pilfering phone records isn't exactly the "ripped from the headlines" stuff that makes Law and Order so popular.
Even the readership of Barron's might nod off while following this story. (Of course many Barron's readers doze before they get to the newsstand.) I'm afraid that a scandal where nobody took their pants off and no weapon deadlier than a lawyer's tongue was involved, isn't going to attract much ink.
A word to prosecutors everywhere, if you want to be launched into the governor's mansion by indicting corporate evildoers, pick a company where Paris Hilton sits on the board.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
...or are our perverts worse than their perverts?
Forgive the crude label but one must be careful to use the correct terms in describing the recent (and not so recent) transgressions of our elected officials.
Mark Foley, former congressman from West Palm Beach, has IM'd his way into the spotlight this week amid disclosures that he used his charms and his computer to attempt the seduction of an under-age former congressional page. Before we continue, a clarification of terms is in order.
Mr. Foley does not meet the definition of a pedophile. Pedophiles have fantasies about pre-pubescent children. The exact term for fantasies about teenagers is hebephile. Most pedophiles and hebephiles never act on their desires.
Mr. Foley does not, as of this moment, appear to be a child molester. These people have sex with children. Quite often there is violence involved. It is a pattern of criminal behavior that, like rape, is often not sexually based.
Additionally, and this is important as you listen to all of the neocon boobs that frequent the radio airways, there is no, repeat no, evidence to support the assumption that homosexuals have a greater proclivity toward child abuse than heterosexuals. The irresponsible remark regarding homosexuals being rightly excluded as scoutmasters on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal yesterday has no place in the rational discussion of this serious issue. Paul Gigot should be ashamed.
Returning to the now-outed Mr Foley, apparently the only person in DC that didn't know about his sexual orientation was Denny Hastert, Speaker of the House. (Possibly a little more time spent around the water cooler and a little less at the "all you can eat" buffet would be productive.) Some new batteries for his hearing aid are clearly in order. We are now learning that, for months, every Republican in Congress has been whispering in Hastert's ear about the strange interest that Mr. Foley had exhibited in the Congressional teenage staff. Having chosen the ecclesiastic approach (do nothing until it's too late) Mr. Hastert may find himself behind Mr. Foley on the unemployment line.
Foley has also outed himself as an alcoholic. Apparently no one told Hastert about that either. The advantage in professing an addiction to demon rum is that you can hide away in rehab for a month. As yet undisclosed is whether Mr. Foley feels that booze made him gay or booze made him proposition young boys. We may never know. Sadly, there is no recognized sanitarium for homosexuals or crazed e-mailers.
On the way to condemning Mr. Foley, the Republicans and neocons are doing the, "Oh yeah, well what about your guy" shuffle. Way back in 1983 Congressman Gerry Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts actually had consentual sex with a male, 17 year old page. Studds (nice name) was censured by the house and went on to serve another six terms. Go figure. Foley signed his resignation from the house ( and his application to Betty Ford) so fast that we never got to find out how the Congress would have handled the issue. Possibly a lecture from Ted Kennedy on proper Congressional conduct.
Hastert has taken the case to the court of last resort; the conservative talk shows. Risky move, that! Rush, Sean and the boys are slow to condemn any Republican for any crime but they don't hold with, "boys who do boys". Most of these keepers of the public morals just closed ranks behind Mr. Hastert. He was treated like the parent of a delinquent child. "He was a good boy and his mother and I had no idea what he was capable of."
We do not need a label or Latin nomenclature to detest the actions of Mark Foley. He is merely an aging lecher who abused his power and position. He should be returned to private life and the ignominy that he so richly deserves. Unless additional facts come to light, he has committed no crime except against the people who elected him.
More importantly, there is no bigger picture here. Foley is one man with a weakness not the poster boy for the evils of homosexuality or booze or the internet. We should just leave him to the judgment of Jay, Dave, Conan and anyone else with a microphone and an audience. That's punishment enough for anyone.
Mark Foley, former congressman from West Palm Beach, has IM'd his way into the spotlight this week amid disclosures that he used his charms and his computer to attempt the seduction of an under-age former congressional page. Before we continue, a clarification of terms is in order.
Mr. Foley does not meet the definition of a pedophile. Pedophiles have fantasies about pre-pubescent children. The exact term for fantasies about teenagers is hebephile. Most pedophiles and hebephiles never act on their desires.
Mr. Foley does not, as of this moment, appear to be a child molester. These people have sex with children. Quite often there is violence involved. It is a pattern of criminal behavior that, like rape, is often not sexually based.
Additionally, and this is important as you listen to all of the neocon boobs that frequent the radio airways, there is no, repeat no, evidence to support the assumption that homosexuals have a greater proclivity toward child abuse than heterosexuals. The irresponsible remark regarding homosexuals being rightly excluded as scoutmasters on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal yesterday has no place in the rational discussion of this serious issue. Paul Gigot should be ashamed.
Returning to the now-outed Mr Foley, apparently the only person in DC that didn't know about his sexual orientation was Denny Hastert, Speaker of the House. (Possibly a little more time spent around the water cooler and a little less at the "all you can eat" buffet would be productive.) Some new batteries for his hearing aid are clearly in order. We are now learning that, for months, every Republican in Congress has been whispering in Hastert's ear about the strange interest that Mr. Foley had exhibited in the Congressional teenage staff. Having chosen the ecclesiastic approach (do nothing until it's too late) Mr. Hastert may find himself behind Mr. Foley on the unemployment line.
Foley has also outed himself as an alcoholic. Apparently no one told Hastert about that either. The advantage in professing an addiction to demon rum is that you can hide away in rehab for a month. As yet undisclosed is whether Mr. Foley feels that booze made him gay or booze made him proposition young boys. We may never know. Sadly, there is no recognized sanitarium for homosexuals or crazed e-mailers.
On the way to condemning Mr. Foley, the Republicans and neocons are doing the, "Oh yeah, well what about your guy" shuffle. Way back in 1983 Congressman Gerry Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts actually had consentual sex with a male, 17 year old page. Studds (nice name) was censured by the house and went on to serve another six terms. Go figure. Foley signed his resignation from the house ( and his application to Betty Ford) so fast that we never got to find out how the Congress would have handled the issue. Possibly a lecture from Ted Kennedy on proper Congressional conduct.
Hastert has taken the case to the court of last resort; the conservative talk shows. Risky move, that! Rush, Sean and the boys are slow to condemn any Republican for any crime but they don't hold with, "boys who do boys". Most of these keepers of the public morals just closed ranks behind Mr. Hastert. He was treated like the parent of a delinquent child. "He was a good boy and his mother and I had no idea what he was capable of."
We do not need a label or Latin nomenclature to detest the actions of Mark Foley. He is merely an aging lecher who abused his power and position. He should be returned to private life and the ignominy that he so richly deserves. Unless additional facts come to light, he has committed no crime except against the people who elected him.
More importantly, there is no bigger picture here. Foley is one man with a weakness not the poster boy for the evils of homosexuality or booze or the internet. We should just leave him to the judgment of Jay, Dave, Conan and anyone else with a microphone and an audience. That's punishment enough for anyone.
Monday, October 02, 2006
...or are you sick of being told that all traditional media has a liberal bias.
At what point did we come to the conclusion that most of the news, broadcast or print, should be given less credence because of the presumed political bias of the source.
During the Vietnam War, broadcast outlets were roundly criticized for bringing graphic images of the carnage in Southeast Asia into the living rooms of America. These newsreels were credited (or blamed) for unifying Americans against the war. It was one thing to read about 55,000 dead over nine years but quite another to see the bloody bodies night after night served up with your evening meal. Still I can't recall Walter Cronkite being blamed for America's loss of heart in Asia.
The Washington Post came in for a ton of abuse during Watergate but, between the general dislike of Richard Nixon and the preponderance of evidence uncovered, only the most radical neocons could logically blame Ben Bradlee and The Washington Post for Nixon's resignation.
At some point, possibly during the Reagan years, it became fashionable among conservatives to deflect criticism or minimize the effect of bad news by impeaching the source of the story. This insidious cynicism isn't just wrong it's dangerous. It's easy to blame Rush Limbaugh and his crowd but that would be giving these blowhards more credit than they deserve. I suspect that many working class people just didn't want to hear anything bad about good old Ronnie.
The New York Times was the first and easiest target. Located in New York, a hot bed of liberalism, and owned and operated by Jews,(what do you expect?) The Times is routinely singled out as biased and unreliable on all matters political. No Times news story, regardless of how many facts it contains, can be taken at face value. If it's in The Times, it's biased.
It should be noted that it was The New York Times that stayed in Arkansas to root out the Whitewater story after everybody else went home Also, only The Times pays an editor to produce a weekly column, evaluating how the Times is covering the news; but why confuse the issue with facts.
This idea of impugning the source of stories that you don't like is damn convenient. Republicans never have to explain or deny any deceit or questionable practice; they just blame the messenger. If the Bush administration illegally taps phones, blame The Times for printing the story. If a Planned Parenthood facility is bombed, blame The Washington Post for putting the story on the front page instead of in regional news.
This blatant misdirection has now become an indictment of all mainstream media. This would be funny if it weren't so tragic. News networks and most print publications twisted themselves into knots supporting George Bush and his invasion of Iraq. Embedded reporters filed story after story about our men and women in the field. Scenes of toppled statues and liberated Iraqis were everywhere. Jessica Lynch (a soldier with more integrity than the entire Bush administration) was covered like a rock star.
It was only about the time of Abu Grab that news sources began to run afoul of the administration and its supporters. A conservative friend once told me that The Washington Post ran 28 consecutive front page stories on Abu Grab. He never mentioned if he thought they were true or newsworthy. I guess it didn't matter.
This even works in reverse. Newspapers are criticize for not printing the "good news" on Iraq. Instead they only show the dead and dying. Where are the stories of the thousands of ink-stained fingers after the Iraqi elections? Where's the coverage of the free people of Afghanistan. The "good news" is, of course, harder to cover because there's so little of it. With hundreds of Iraqis dying each day and the zone of safety getting smaller every week reporters can be forgiven for focusing on the carnage. It is, after all, everywhere they look.
But how about the news coverage of hurricane Katrina? American journalists are to be forgiven for not showing the twelve people who were actually rescued. They were a little hard to find amid the 1,300 dead. Good news is tough to find when its buried under twelve feet of Lake Ponchartrain.
Naturally, no discourse on media would be complete without mention of FOXNews. Fox began with a general indictment of all existing broadcast media. Because mainstream media is already liberally biased, Fox would broadcast "fair and balanced" news. Translation... in order for my network to broadcast truly slanted information I must first paint your news as slanted. And you thought Nixon was tricky?
Still you have to hand it to Rupert Murdoch. He uncovered a sizable audience of Americans that didn't want to hear the truth if it conflicted with their political vision. Fox provides "shaded news". All the facts are there, (you can't hide almost 3,000 dead Americans in Iraq) but Fox uses commentators and analysts to soften the nasty bits and give their fans talking points for dealing with "liberal" viewers of NBC, ABC, etc. Let's see Fox spin Mark Foley.
We have reached a point in our media-saturated culture when, tonnage and credibility are running in an inverse relationship. The more we hear or see the less we believe. The advent of 24/7 news on TV, radio and the internet should be keeping us better informed. Instead the effect is to make us more cynical. That is the dangerous part.
News people are, almost without exception, working to get the story right. Editors try to balance what readers need to know against what they want to know. Regrettably, a news story's position in the paper will sometimes be determined by how good the accompanying photo is. The process isn't perfect but it has worked very well up to now. No amount of perceived liberal bias on TV or in print kept Americans from voting for George Bush...twice. I firmly believe that newspapers and broadcast news programs are as accurate as can be expected. If readers and viewers dismiss inconvenient coverage as bias, they do themselves, the news media and the country a disservice.
It's good to be skeptical...it's foolish to be cynical.
At what point did we come to the conclusion that most of the news, broadcast or print, should be given less credence because of the presumed political bias of the source.
During the Vietnam War, broadcast outlets were roundly criticized for bringing graphic images of the carnage in Southeast Asia into the living rooms of America. These newsreels were credited (or blamed) for unifying Americans against the war. It was one thing to read about 55,000 dead over nine years but quite another to see the bloody bodies night after night served up with your evening meal. Still I can't recall Walter Cronkite being blamed for America's loss of heart in Asia.
The Washington Post came in for a ton of abuse during Watergate but, between the general dislike of Richard Nixon and the preponderance of evidence uncovered, only the most radical neocons could logically blame Ben Bradlee and The Washington Post for Nixon's resignation.
At some point, possibly during the Reagan years, it became fashionable among conservatives to deflect criticism or minimize the effect of bad news by impeaching the source of the story. This insidious cynicism isn't just wrong it's dangerous. It's easy to blame Rush Limbaugh and his crowd but that would be giving these blowhards more credit than they deserve. I suspect that many working class people just didn't want to hear anything bad about good old Ronnie.
The New York Times was the first and easiest target. Located in New York, a hot bed of liberalism, and owned and operated by Jews,(what do you expect?) The Times is routinely singled out as biased and unreliable on all matters political. No Times news story, regardless of how many facts it contains, can be taken at face value. If it's in The Times, it's biased.
It should be noted that it was The New York Times that stayed in Arkansas to root out the Whitewater story after everybody else went home Also, only The Times pays an editor to produce a weekly column, evaluating how the Times is covering the news; but why confuse the issue with facts.
This idea of impugning the source of stories that you don't like is damn convenient. Republicans never have to explain or deny any deceit or questionable practice; they just blame the messenger. If the Bush administration illegally taps phones, blame The Times for printing the story. If a Planned Parenthood facility is bombed, blame The Washington Post for putting the story on the front page instead of in regional news.
This blatant misdirection has now become an indictment of all mainstream media. This would be funny if it weren't so tragic. News networks and most print publications twisted themselves into knots supporting George Bush and his invasion of Iraq. Embedded reporters filed story after story about our men and women in the field. Scenes of toppled statues and liberated Iraqis were everywhere. Jessica Lynch (a soldier with more integrity than the entire Bush administration) was covered like a rock star.
It was only about the time of Abu Grab that news sources began to run afoul of the administration and its supporters. A conservative friend once told me that The Washington Post ran 28 consecutive front page stories on Abu Grab. He never mentioned if he thought they were true or newsworthy. I guess it didn't matter.
This even works in reverse. Newspapers are criticize for not printing the "good news" on Iraq. Instead they only show the dead and dying. Where are the stories of the thousands of ink-stained fingers after the Iraqi elections? Where's the coverage of the free people of Afghanistan. The "good news" is, of course, harder to cover because there's so little of it. With hundreds of Iraqis dying each day and the zone of safety getting smaller every week reporters can be forgiven for focusing on the carnage. It is, after all, everywhere they look.
But how about the news coverage of hurricane Katrina? American journalists are to be forgiven for not showing the twelve people who were actually rescued. They were a little hard to find amid the 1,300 dead. Good news is tough to find when its buried under twelve feet of Lake Ponchartrain.
Naturally, no discourse on media would be complete without mention of FOXNews. Fox began with a general indictment of all existing broadcast media. Because mainstream media is already liberally biased, Fox would broadcast "fair and balanced" news. Translation... in order for my network to broadcast truly slanted information I must first paint your news as slanted. And you thought Nixon was tricky?
Still you have to hand it to Rupert Murdoch. He uncovered a sizable audience of Americans that didn't want to hear the truth if it conflicted with their political vision. Fox provides "shaded news". All the facts are there, (you can't hide almost 3,000 dead Americans in Iraq) but Fox uses commentators and analysts to soften the nasty bits and give their fans talking points for dealing with "liberal" viewers of NBC, ABC, etc. Let's see Fox spin Mark Foley.
We have reached a point in our media-saturated culture when, tonnage and credibility are running in an inverse relationship. The more we hear or see the less we believe. The advent of 24/7 news on TV, radio and the internet should be keeping us better informed. Instead the effect is to make us more cynical. That is the dangerous part.
News people are, almost without exception, working to get the story right. Editors try to balance what readers need to know against what they want to know. Regrettably, a news story's position in the paper will sometimes be determined by how good the accompanying photo is. The process isn't perfect but it has worked very well up to now. No amount of perceived liberal bias on TV or in print kept Americans from voting for George Bush...twice. I firmly believe that newspapers and broadcast news programs are as accurate as can be expected. If readers and viewers dismiss inconvenient coverage as bias, they do themselves, the news media and the country a disservice.
It's good to be skeptical...it's foolish to be cynical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)