LAS VEGAS, NV (January 27, 2008) – One of my mentors at Providence College was the late Rev. Tom Coskren. He was a Dominican Roman Catholic priest who taught an Arts Honors class called “Modalities of Religious Consciousness”. One day in that class had a great effect on me.
Fr. Tom brought out five different drinking glasses. They had different shapes. He then filled each glass with water. He explained that the water represented religion. Although it takes a different shape in each glass, it is still water. His message was clear: religion takes on different shapes whether it’s Christian, Muslim, Buddhism, etc.
It was an egalitarian and, in my belief, American way of accepting all religions.
That’s why I’m suspicious of emails sent to me explaining that the preambles of most state constitutions mentions God. The emails’ purpose is to scold the ACLU and federal judges for what most of us would say is upholding the laws.
Frankly, I’m tired of these misinformed missives. And it’s time to set the record straight.
What the Christian Right wants us to embrace is their form of religion; the same one that denies the credibility of the theory of evolution; believes that women should be subservient to men; and anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ as their savior is damned to Hell for eternity.
That form of religion in any American constitution contradicts American values and wastes our time. At a time of economic strife, a questionable war, and a financial crisis facing our kids’ futures, we’re arguing whether the Ten Commandments or a Nativity scene should be on the town hall lawn. I’ll give the Christian Right their right to argue against abortion, although I disagree with them and their tactics. But when they interfere in people’s private lives like the Terry Schiavo case with no scientific or legal basis, they deserve rebukes.
Read John Meacham’s book, American Gospel. Meacham explains that the Founding Fathers’ religious belief was based on a God of Nature and Reason. Although Meacham sees religion’s benefits to society and American society, he dismisses the Christian Right’s belief that the Founding Fathers would be on their side.
Our Founding Fathers understood the oppression of religion. In fact, it was a 14-year-old boy who understood what religion has become in modern society.
“Through the reading of popular science books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state though lies; it was a crushing impression.”
The book’s author goes on about the boy.
His “rebellion against religious dogma had a profound effect on his general outlook toward perceived wisdom. It inculcated an allergic reaction against all forms of dogma and authority, which was to affect both his politics and his science. ‘Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience, an attitude which has never again left me,’ he later said. Indeed, it was this comfort with being a nonconformist that would define both his science and his social thinking for the rest of his life.”
Obviously, his suspicion of religion hurt his career. The 14-year-old boy was Albert Einstein. Those are excerpts from the book, Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson.
Go back to the “religion speech” of Mitt Romney. As I wrote in a previous blog, I quoted New York Times columnist David Brooks who pointed out that “Romney didn’t paint a picture of religious freedom in America, but a country of believers versus non-believers; in short, a war between the religious and the secularists.” This is a candidate pandering to the Christian Right.
It’s too bad that most of the Christian Right fails to adhere to the writings of St. Paul.
Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
LAS VEGAS, NV (January 27, 2008) – Over the past two months, friends sent me websites that can calculate which candidate I should vote for.
Here are the two sites:
www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html
www.votehelp.org
The vajoe site said I should vote for Mike Gravel; yeah right. The votehelp site says my first choice is Mitt Romney; a little more realistic. Disclosure: I’ve not endorsed anyone.
If you have the time, try these two sites and let me know your results.
Don’t use these results to make your decisions. For all we know, these sites have an agenda. The vajoe site is a veterans site. The votehelp site has a Ron Paul blogger on its board.
Either way, this proves my theory that most of us don’t vote based on empirical deductions. We choose with our hearts too much.
A gentleman I met at the Nevada Caucuses told me he decided on Obama — the night before — because he liked the way Obama answered a question about a bad trait. A number of women voted for Hillary because she was a woman.
Before I get on an informed democracy vent, let me say I don’t doubt that some of these intuitive choices are good. Read the book, Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell. It’s a great read and Gladwell shows how sometimes we can know the truth in the blink of an eye.
There’s an interesting section that shows how video can reveal the psychological truth and lies in someone’s face. The technician showed the lie points in the deposition of Bill Clinton about his affair.
But it’s not just quick glance knowledge. Gladwell shows how trained and experienced police will know in a split second before they shoot the difference between an innocent person and an armed and dangerous suspect.
Get your friends to read it, please. After all, our last choice – based on choosing a president because you’d like to be with him at a barbeque – was a flaming failure.
LAS VEGAS, NV (January 26, 2008) – Bob Kasner is one of my portfolio managers at BNY Mellon. This week as the stock market dropped hundreds of points, Bob answered a frantic phone call from a client calling from his car in New York.
“I’m listening to the radio and hearing about the stock market. What should I do?”
Bob’s advice: “Turn off the radio.”
All indicators show that the next six months will be rocky in the financial markets. But if you have a plan, you’ll be ok.
Another client discovered that. This gentleman two months before had questioned our firm’s sector allocation of his assets. I was listening to the phone call. He wondered why one of our other portfolio managers, Ryder Donohue, had pulled back his exposure to emerging market stocks. After all, emerging market had been soaring. But Ryder explained that the research shows that those foreign stocks may be over-valued, but we still have him in that sector.
And this week as the emerging market sectors dove in value, the client wrote an email thanking the firm for their moves which saved him quite a bit.
Am I pushing my business here? Absolutely. Self-serving? Sure, but so many folks have been asking about the market in a tone reminiscent of their hair on fire.
The reality is this. Relax. What are you going to do? Sell your stocks now that the market is down? That’s what many folks do. Research shows the stock market historically makes 10-12-percent per year. The average person investing on their own makes only 3 percent.
No one can time the market. Historically, the stock market has risen over time. It’s a marathon, not a sprint. You should prepare for all the eventualities of the market while reducing risks and allowing for moderate growth – based on your goals and needs. What we do is make sure you sleep comfortably.
Is this something I’m just learning? No way. I can recall planning successfully to buy our first house in Glastonbury, Connecticut – in mid-1987. I took the deposit money out of stocks and mutual funds and put it into a cash account. When the stock market crashed on Black Monday in October, 1987, I was able to call to my wife and brag about my financial acumen. Did I know the market would tank then? Heck no. But I prepared.
It also helped me in 2000 when my good buddy Ken Hyne was handling my portfolio. The stock market began to list with the dot-com bust. He called me and asked, “Are you alright?” No problems, I said.
Another lesson came from the death of one of my great friends, Mike Green. He died suddenly in 1991 at the age of 45. His wife Lilli, though not left destitute, was worried about the financial future after Mike’s death. Together, Lilli and I embarked on some financial education. It has helped both of us.
The lesson was this: make sure my insurance was secure. I read a lot. I also conferred with many experts including my insurance agent, Steve Twitchell, who is today one of my good friends and financial advisors.
My research made me realize I needed to have insurance and investments for three reasons: in case I would die tomorrow; in case I lived forever; and to die broke. This way, all was covered and you never had to be frightened about life because of financial matters after you passed.
In other words, I could get on with living. I am certainly more relaxed when I travel to foreign countries or when I realize people my age are being hit with some catastrophic illnesses.
Term life insurance says if I die tomorrow I’m covered. Universal or whole life says I’ll live forever. Health, liability, and disability insurances take care of those eventualities – like an accident or illness – that you never think will happen.
Here was the quirk in my insurance plan. The only thing I was missing was nursing home insurance. Remember, this was 17 years ago. I was in my mid-30s. Why would someone at my age look at this? Steve diligently pursued the information on nursing home insurance. He said only two companies would look at this for me. Actually, he said they were floored that someone my age would ask that. But I secured a policy at a low rate for myself and Teri. We still have it today. If we were to apply today, it would be too expensive. Yet, if we need convalescing now, our savings or retirement won’t be whacked.
I think it’s cool, but I’m a bit of a geek with this stuff. You now understand why I enjoy my other job, too.
However, don’t take my word. Talk to your financial advisors. If you don’t have one, let me refer some folks from my office at 702 944-7145 or daly.b2@mellon.com. We only take folks with a million dollars or more in assets, but I can refer some other good people to you.
Your advisors should not be Kramer or Kudlow or anyone else on CNBC. Don’t get me wrong. I love their shows. But I see them more for entertainment value. Would you really decide on a stock or a sector based on them? You might get some ideas, but they don’t know you personally or your family situation and financial goals.
In addition to that, make sure you’re reading good stuff. I’m listening in the car to Alan Greenspan’s book, The Age of Turbulence. Read this book for the economic knowledge. Sure, there are parts where Greenspan might be self-serving about his place in history. But ignore that and the outside arguments about whether Greenspan was a better Fed Chairman than Bernanke or if Greenspan is partially to blame for the housing and credit crunch. Let the pundits worry about that.
Here’s a good example. One of the factors Greenspan mentions about China hit home this week. This also ties to the issue of emerging markets and the possibility of them being over-valued. Greenspan writes that China’s Communist Party today remembers history. In 1949, one of the reasons Mao came to power was the rapid inflation that hit China. Being sensitive to that, the Chinese — and this is my take — have recently raised interest rates to slow down their scorching hot economy. That, among other things like higher oil prices, certainly points to a slow-down in the worldwide economy. I haven’t heard that on TV.
Would I base financial decisions on that? No, but it gives you a better knowledge of what’s happening when you talk to a financial advisor. Plus, you’ll know whether that advisor knows his stuff.
Do these things and then you will be able to sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride.
LAS VEGAS, NV (January 26, 2008) – Kelly Tilghman is back on The Golf Channel hoping the furor over her “lynch him in the back alley” remarks about Tiger Woods has finally ended.
But it’s not over. And that is good and bad for Tilghman, Tiger, and the media.
The bad for Tilghman is this. The issue will continue to be rehashed by the media and folks in private conversations and she will be looked upon, like many sports journalists, as myopic about the world outside sports. The good for Tilghman is that her career will be fine. She has been sincere in her apologies and America loves forgiveness. The only thing that could derail her is if she fails to learn from the misstatement.
For Tiger, he has appeared to mature. He didn’t fan the flames. He knows Tilghman and, like me, he heard the remarks and realized they were innocent. In fact, she was complimenting Tiger. The bad for Tiger is that people like Al Sharpton and, unfortunately, Jim Brown want Tiger to stand up and condemn those comments.
Sharpton forced The Golf Channel to suspend Tilghman and Brown said Tiger did not criticize Tilghman fearing he would hurt his endorsements.
In my opinion, by addressing the issue with forgiveness and not dwelling on it, Tiger has shown his maturity as a celebrity and leader who leads by actions.
In 1998 when Fuzzy Zoeller made the inappropriate and apparently innocent remarks about Tiger choosing fried chicken at the Masters Dinner, a young Tiger failed to acknowledge Fuzzy’s apologies. Yes, it cost Fuzzy some big endorsements. But it cost Tiger the respect of some golfers – including the African American golfer Jim Thorpe.
A few months after the incident, I was a guest at Fuzzy’s celebrity golf event. I was paired with Jim Thorpe. When I asked Jim his opinion on the Tiger-Fuzzy controversy, he said to me, “You see me here supporting Fuzzy.” And they are good friends in a very public way.
Still, the problem lies first with Tilghman, then the media, and probably our education system.
Tilghman knows her stuff about golf. She knows the players and the precious trivia and insights we golf nuts love. And yes she used the term lynching that many of us might use in talking about a white person. But when you step in front of a TV camera, you speak for everyone out there.
The late John Chancellor, of NBC News, never allowed himself to use foul or derogatory language in his everyday conversation. That way he would never be say anything stupid on air.
My good friend Gerry Brooks, the main anchor at WVIT-TV in Hartford, Connecticut, who is one of the best in the business, but who is also one of the funniest guys I know, has a couple of rules. He told me if you’re on air and you think you can be funny, don’t. If anything, make your humor self-deprecating; turn it on yourself. My interpretation: leave the funny stuff to the comedians who are trained and who write and test their stuff.
Because I was never comfortable off the cuff, I spent hours preparing interviews. I would write and re-write my introductions to my interview-guests and I would hone down the questions meticulously. I would also have too much information so that there was no idle time in an interview for me to say something untested.
My friend Gary Mule Deer is, to me, the world’s funniest man. As a good friend, he will call me and tell me a joke. He is not only getting my reaction about how funny it is, but also how appropriate. “Do you think I can use that?” he has asked a number of times. Like Gerry Brooks, Gary is a pro.
Our media executives fail to realize this. They want low-cost talent to entertain us rather than enlighten or educate us. And it sometimes backfires. In Las Vegas a few years ago, we had the most egregious on-air errors. A weatherman failed miserably at humor and pretended to say, “Martin Luther Coon Day” during a broadcast on MLK Day. The young man was fired. Unfortunately, he will probably never work in TV again.
TV and TV news are losing their advertising margins. Budgets are tight. So, executives are hiring younger, lower-paid, and many times less qualified people. Plus, these people are required to produce more content. That means less time preparing or scrutinizing material.
The sports journalism field has a similar problem. Most journalists are fountains of information when it comes to the sports they cover. But they fail to see the world away from sports that clearly invades the lives of the fans and players. Or they’re not true journalists, but shills for their network, their newspaper, or the franchise they’re covering.
As a result, one of these failures of sports journalists allowed the steroids issue to metastasize without a word written or aired. TV sportsman Bob Costas was one of the few exceptions. Here’s another issue untouched: the number of pro athletes and their million dollar contracts who are deadbeat fathers. Watch for this one soon. Maybe here on this site.
I should mention here that the Golf Channel deserves credit. They suspended Tilghman so she could “reflect” on what she said. Then they put her back on the air. She wasn’t fired, because she made an honest mistake. There was no malice in her words or actions and ruining a career over that would be worse.
And in defense of her, there might not be even the whiff of racism on the tour – thanks to Tiger. Do we really think of him as a black golfer? I don’t. I think of him as the greatest golfer in the world. My buddy Charles Barkley told me how odd it is that the best rapper in the world is white and the greatest golfer is black. The only golf jokes I’ve heard with a racist tint was this: What do you call a gang of white men chasing one black man? The PGA tour. Sure, that’s racist, but complimentary in the same way.
Still, Tilghman, as she has, must take responsibility for her moment of ignorance – that we could partially blame on our education system and the lack of history that is taught. How could Tilghman not realize what the term “lynching” means to many African Americans in our recent history. Sure, some might say that the Civil War was nearly 150 years ago. But the violence blacks have endured is only decades, and in some cases, a few years old.
The Tilghman miscue and the Imus “nappy headed ho” flub won’t be the last. Racism is part of our history just as celebrating the Fourth of July is. Sure, folks like me could say, “Well, the Irish were oppressed when we came here and look how we’ve risen.” True, but we weren’t hated for the color of our skin, nor were we enslaved. I’m not saying we need reparations to African Americans; but I’m saying the airwaves they share with us should have some sense of consideration for the past we all share.
Al Sharpton and Jim Brown have every right to raise the issue – even though I side with Tiger’s handing of the situation. But if you’re a broadcaster or writer, and you have the privilege of representing a nation of viewers and readers, remember you also have to take the responsibility.
LAS VEGAS, NV (January 20, 2008) – I left some things unanswered or unaddressed in my previous post on the Nevada Caucus yesterday.
A night of thinking does that.
I wrote about the Hillary devotee Phyllis Beecher who played the “assassination card” while trying to sway an Edwards’ supporter who was moving toward Obama. I wrote:
Phyllis was very complimentary about Edwards and Obama. She quickly articulated her belief in Hillary’s experience. But then she went where I never thought she would go. If Obama wins, she said, “We don’t want a repeat of the Robert Kennedy, JFK thing.”
The Robert Kennedy, JFK thing? Wow. Wait a minute. Did I hear that right? Was she talking about assassination? Was she raising the issue that most of us thought but never mentioned? She was raising the issue that the first black President would be the target of a killer?
Sure I thought about the horror of this, but I hadn’t heard anyone say it out loud in a public venue.
Later I spoke to Phyllis and she told me that’s exactly what she meant. “And Martin Luther King, too. It might happen to him,” she said of Obama whom she says she has great fondness. And in a motherly tone, “I’m afraid for him. There are unstable people in society. We don’t need that to happen.”
Phyllis, however, explained her fear of whacko white supremacists is not the main reason she’s supporting Hillary over Barack. “She’s ready to go on day one.”
I don’t want to make a mountain out of a mole hill here. Truly, Phyllis said what most of us have hidden in the back of our minds.
However, here’s what I didn’t address. Was this a calculated Clinton attack on Obama? I don’t think so. If it was, then this sweet woman is a brilliant fox in sheep’s clothing. What an operative!
Sure, the Clinton campaign is a machine. However, could the “assassination card” be indoctrinated into the thinking of campaign workers without the media jumping all over it? I don’t think so.
I also never discussed what the assassination card means to the African American vote.
On the surface, it looks like it could cause a divide. Generally speaking, African Americans seem to be split for Hillary and Barack along the lines of young and old. Clearly, the older generation sides with Hillary, remembering Bill’s presidency, while the younger generation sides with Obama.
This makes sense. The older generation is less rebellious, dare I say conservative here. They know the ropes of working the party apparatus and they know the GOP is not their party. Plus, the older generation knows the horrors of the killings we endured in the 1960s; that comes with age and experience. Yet, it lacks that modern edge. The younger generation, ironically like their 60s generation counterparts once were, sees a new and exciting direction with Obama; they have no fear and yet could be prone to disappointment from not knowing the past; that comes with youth.
However, it would be wrong to see this solely as a phenomenon among blacks. It’s not. It also cuts across race, too. I saw my share of older white folks for Obama, though not as many younger black folks for Clinton. Do they wonder if some nut-case is out there lurking? I’m sure they do, but I hope it’s not a deciding factor.
But you never know what someone is thinking when they go into the voting booth.
LAS VEGAS, NV (January 19, 2008) – The Democratic Caucus at the North Rainbow Library was probably no different than most of the caucus sites in Nevada.
The two precincts here chose Hillary Clinton 4-to-3 and 5-to-2 over Barack Obama, mirroring the rest of the state. I attended as an observer. We’re 25 miles from The Strip in a predominantly middle class, white area of Las Vegas.
Folks were very polite to me and to each other despite the atmosphere of a doctor’s waiting room at times. I saw little inter-party rancor; the Clinton and Obama campaigns should take note.
Clearly everyone here was a Democrat first. The only minor exception was an African American college student who sat next to me and said he was for Obama, but if Obama didn’t get the nomination he might switch to McCain. The few Hispanic voters that I could detect in this caucus site were seated for Hillary. The majority of blacks lined up under the Obama sign.
However, there were a sizable minority of African Americans sitting on Hillary’s side. An older African American gentleman, who wouldn’t give me his name, said Hillary has “the experience.” He told me he was an Army veteran for 26 years and he thinks Hillary’s plan to gradually retreat from Iraq made more sense.
He said his second choice would have been Edwards. So, that allowed me to ask the “race” question. Why would a black man not consider Obama? He gave me that quizzical look, the kind I saw as a reporter when I asked an obviously dumb question to get that perfect reaction sound bite. And his sound bite was brilliant. “Pigmentation plays no part in my life.”
And there were a representative number of young, white women who sided with Obama. Although Renee, who wouldn’t give me her last name, admitted she had only decided on Obama this morning after conferring with friends. “I think he can bridge the gap that divides this country.”
That gave me the opportunity to ask the gender question. Why wouldn’t she back a woman whose generation helped usher opportunities for today’s younger women? “I identify with her,” Renee said, meaning Hillary, “but I don’t think all African Americans should have to vote for an African American.”
The peaceful schisms also happened inside families. Anthony and Rachel Santos, a young married couple, sat in different camps: he was for Barack and she was for Hillary.
Anthony thought Obama’s statement the night before about his major weakness of “being late” helped win him over. He thought Barack was more honest with the answer while the other candidates gave self-serving answers that never answered the question.
Rachel, meanwhile, believes Hillary would make change faster – especially with universal health care. Ironically, Anthony thought what affected Rachel was Hillary’s “emotional moment” in New Hampshire, but then he told me, “You better get that from her.” Rachel made no mention of it. But clearly, there would be no Barney Miller moment in this family on Election Day.
As a decades-long observer of politics, two things are clear. First, most people choose a candidate based on emotion or a personal perception – not a clear thought out diagnosis of the issues. Second, what a great country! I don’t want to get misty here. But I thought about this event while sitting there and watching what to many is something quite mundane. But here’s what I keep telling myself: We civilly decide who our leaders will be and “pigmentation” and hormones seem to have less dominance as time goes on.
Still, one thing – that relates to race — floored me.
It came from Phyllis Beecher, a Hillary devotee. She’s middle-age and, more importantly for this story, African American. I eavesdropped on Phyllis’ failed attempt to sway David Harrington, an Edwards’ supporter. Edwards’ supporters here did not have enough votes so they had to decide whether Hillary or Barack would be their second choice.
Phyllis was very complimentary about Edwards and Obama. She quickly articulated her belief in Hillary’s experience. But then she went where I never thought she would go. If Obama wins, she said, “We don’t want a repeat of the Robert Kennedy, JFK thing.”
The Robert Kennedy, JFK thing? Wow. Wait a minute. Did I hear that right? Was she talking about assassination? Was she raising the issue that most of us thought but never mentioned? She was raising the issue that the first black President would be the target of a killer?
Sure I thought about the horror of this, but I hadn’t heard anyone say it out loud in a public venue.
Later I spoke to Phyllis and she told me that’s exactly what she meant. “And Martin Luther King, too. It might happen to him,” she said of Obama whom she says she has great fondness. And in a motherly tone, “I’m afraid for him. There are unstable people in society. We don’t need that to happen.”
Phyllis, however, explained her fear of whacko white supremacists is not the main reason she’s supporting Hillary over Barack. “She’s ready to go on day one.”
Her argument, though, had no effect on David Harrington, the Edwards supporter who eventually stood with the Obama folks. I asked him later what he thought when she mentioned it. He actually told me that he misunderstood what she said. But he said, “In this day and age, I doubt it could happen.” Another Clinton supporter, Roger Harris, agreed. He told me if killers could get to a president then, “George Bush would be long gone.”
Let’s hope their confidence in presidential security is equal to the post 9/11 reality. I hope I don’t have to refer to this column again.
However, I do hope I get to cover another caucus. This was more fun than a primary. As a community, folks got to stand up and publicly offer their choice – even if it was just standing up and saying anything. For me, I got to hear the voters. In a primary, the voters might not tell you how they really voted. Remember New Hampshire.
I didn’t go to the GOP caucus because it was a lay-down to Mitt Romney.
Did Nevada make any decision in the elections? No. Wait until February 5.
LAS VEGAS, NV (January 16, 2008) – Finally, someone on TV asked one of the right questions that no one else has asked.
The reporter or anchor is Mark Haines of CNBC. Mark is a curmudgeon who, like my father, asks questions with sarcastic suspicion – a good trait.
He did it again, brilliantly, just before Fed Chairman Bernanke addressed Congress. He asked his guest, and I’m paraphrasing here, why not just allow a recession. It would clean out the economy, he explained, and get rid of some dead wood.
One of the answers from Haines’ guest was: it’s an election year. Yup.
If you haven’t read Alan Greenspan’s book, Turbulent Times, pick it up. My uncle, the Rev. Charles Daly, a priest with a Harvard MBA, urged me to read it, too. I have been listening on the CD in my car. (No Greenspan is not narrating; imagine the sleeping drivers.) Fr. Charles, as we call him in the family, said the book is a great economic and business history of the Twentieth and Twenty-first Century. He’s absolutely right.
The book also is a good resource while you wade through the elections. One of the themes throughout the book is creative destruction which was articulated by economist Joseph Schumpeter. In short, Haines’ is directly quoting Schumpeter. Recessions get rid of lousy businesses and create new and stronger ones. Greenspan says he sees its validity even more so in this new Internet-based economy.
Who’s talking about this theory on the campaign trail? The only one is John McCain. Mitt Romney won Michigan by telling out of work auto workers that their jobs are not lost. Meanwhile, McCain spoke about the more mundane education and re-training. Granted, that’s not as sexy, but it IS the answer.
Here’s the skinny. As a country, we have workers receiving more compensation for the same jobs that people in other countries – with equal or more education and skills – will do for far less. In Detroit, it’s worse. Not only are they being paid well, but they’re bringing little profit to their companies.
Lack of education and skills have led to the disparity in wages and wealth, the so-called gap between the rich and the poor. Granted, there are other reasons, too, namely the lack of fiscal restraint by this White House and the past two Congresses.
If you can’t get Greenspan’s book, pick up The World is Flat by Tom Friedman or Three Billion New Capitalists by Clyde Prestowitz.
Unfortunately, we are economically uninformed. In a few days, I’m going to write about a law passed in Nevada that forces every high school student to take nine hours of fiscal education before he or she graduates. This is a great step forward.
LAS VEGAS, NV (January 13, 2008) – Be careful when you hear Democratic candidates talk about bringing home our troops immediately. And be careful about Republicans who say we’ll be in Iraq for decades.
First, remember they’re campaigning for their party’s nomination. Once the two nominees begin running for the White House, the platforms on Iraq will change. And who knows what will happen in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan that will change the American sentiment and the politicians’ stands.
Second, despite the Bush Administration’s claims – that are either false or idealistic – we’re not in the Middle East to spread democracy. If we were, we wouldn’t tolerate the monarchies and dictators in the majority of countries we call allies.
We’re there for the oil. We’re there to protect the production, delivery, and refinement of oil that runs our economy. Whoever denies this doesn’t understand the economy or they’re taking money from the oil industry.
Third, we didn’t go into Iraq to oust Saddam for weapons of mass destruction. We didn’t necessarily take him out because he was a dictator. To be honest, he was a great check on Iran’s power. In reality, toppling Saddam created even more reasons for us to stay in places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
But there is a reason for War in Iraq that has slapped me on the forehead for two years. But you’ll never hear it in the mainstream media – or the majority of the new media.
In fact, I’ve only heard this theory from one source. It comes from a report by George Friedman of Stratfor, a subscription-based intelligence and reporting service. I try to read them on a consistent basis. I don’t always agree with them, but I respect their comprehensive reports.
Furthermore, there is no way to confirm the veracity of this reason for war. We won’t know for years, maybe decades, if it’s true. All I know is that despite my research efforts – reading and interviewing folks in the know – nothing has yet to diminish the legitimacy of this causis belli.
I should further note that this reason does little to find any moral justification for the Bush Administration. It might explain their incompetence in the aftermath of Iraqi invasion. But it will certainly raise ethical issues about causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqis for our American national security reasons.
OK, so here’s what could be the underlying reason of why we really went into Iraq in 2003 and we’re still there.
It was for faster gathering of intelligence on Islamic terrorism.
A war in Iraq would be a magnet for all jihadists. That way we would have a laboratory, a confined pile of sorts, to study and gather information on these terrorists.
We clearly lacked intelligence on these groups and their leaders in the months and years leading up to September 11, 2001. The intelligence services of our supposed Middle Eastern allies were either blind sided too or failed to share with us. Either way, the leaders of these countries are frightened targets, too. By creating a war and ultimately a jihadi Petri dish, all the allied services could have files and files of intelligence all in one place. Plus, it wouldn’t look like we were working directly on covert operations with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan.
It made sense. Sickos like Abu Musab al Zarkawi swarmed to Iraq. All of a sudden, there was an organization called al Qaeda in Iraq. The more he and his virus-like group expanded, the better chance of eliminating him, which happened thanks to a guided bomb and good intelligence.
Plus, look at the apparent success of the surge. Military operations could pinpoint the jihadists in a smaller area. In addition, it’s no surprise that our efforts to engage various tribes who would betray the foreign terrorists coincided with the plans to enact the surge.
The other hint was the continuous line delivered by President Bush in 2004 and 2005: it’s better to fight them over there rather than over here.
Your thoughts?
LAS VEGAS, NV (January 13, 2008) – Watch or read the transcript of Tim Russert’s interview this morning with Hillary Clinton.
It was not one of Russert’s better interviews.
Before I explain, let me say this. I’m a big fan of Russert. I mention him favorably in my book. He’s a journalist who makes the effort to show both and all sides of an issue. I still feel that way.
But today while interviewing Senator Clinton, Russert seemed to do a typical television interview. There were two main issues: Iraq and alleged racism on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
I’m not saying Russert shouldn’t have hit those issues. But he should have not hit only those issues. Again, choosing the show’s content, the issues, and questions are tough for a producer/host. Do you make them based on the audience’s need or the chance for bigger ratings or a combination of both?
In addition, I wanted to hear Hillary’s take on the economy, immigration and its effect on the economy, and education and its effect on future jobs and the economy. And yet I heard nothing.
We have little control over the War in Iraq. We’re stuck there for a long time. What President Bush did is not something that can be changed in a matter of days. Removing troops immediately causes other problems. Plus, we seem to forget that we’re there to protect the oil and our economy.
Also, Hillary’s gender and Barack’s race are givens. Arguing about who is more like MLK and JFK is not a major issue.
What’s important: our jobs; our livelihoods; and how our economy will help us in this changing world.
LAS VEGAS (January 13, 2008) – I watched the beginning of the Golden Globes press conference. I might have watched more, but I had work to do.
But from what I saw I liked it. There were great looking entertainment reporters telling us the winners. That’s it. There were no speeches. No one was talking about the celebrities’ fashions. And it took a half hour – not three hours.
It was great. I simply told my wife Teri, who was watching it, to find out the movies and TV shows we should possibly see.
This is how the awards shows should be run in the future – at least for me.
What I realized is that these award shows are nothing more than money-makers for the networks or the Academies who hold them. Think about the media niches that have popped up surround these telecasts that really only mean something substantial to people in the entertainment industry. If I win a Golden Globe chances are more folks might go see my film or watch my TV show. At least with sports, there’s a one-on-one competition that usually decided (did you catch some of the ref’s calls in the NFL playoffs today?) by the contestants.
In fact, these shows are masked as benefit galas – but the charities are the networks and the academies.
In fairness, I will emcee an Oscar Night event for the Arthritis Foundation of Southern Nevada where I emcee during the show’s commercial breaks. But the difference is I know I’m helping to raise money for the Arthritis Foundation – and so does my audience. Trust me: I could emcee this event just as easily if the Academy of Motion Pictures chose a half-hour format.
And when I emcee other charity events, everyone knows we’re there to honor folks, but we’re also there to raise money for a worthy cause.
So, I’m hoping the rest you as TV viewers will agree with me. I’m also hoping the Hollywood and TV studio executives will see in tonight’s Golden Globes “newser” a Family Feud moment.
TV legend goes something like this. (If you know the full and real story, let me know. But here’s what I’ve been told.) The original concept of Family Feud was different from the show you saw back then and even today.
The producers of Family Feud were shooting their final pilot shows before the show would air. Apparently an associate producer suggested, since they were now using a studio audience, to poll the audience and use their answers for the basis of the questions to the contestants. Reluctantly, the producers tried it for a segment of the show.
However, once the producers saw this small segment on the test show, they realized they had discovered the real Family Feud. And that’s how Family Feud became what it is today.
Again, this may be more Hollywood urban legend. But I saw the same thing happen with Real TV.
We premiered the show September 9, 1996. But a month and a half before, Real TV looked like your typical news magazine show. As host, I was dressed in a tie and suit. I sat behind a desk like a news anchor where I introduced stories and de-briefed correspondents. We shot at least two weeks of these test shows that were boring.
One day, Gia Trassati, one of the show’s executives, had some news for me. As she ducked into a secret meeting of the show’s executives, she said, “Your life is about to change.”
As a first-time host of a nationally-syndicated show, who privately felt he had no right being anywhere but on an anchor desk, I felt my career flash before my eyes. After all, I had just left the news biz for this upstart show. Now they’re pulling the rug out.
The changes, as most of you who have seen the show know, were for the better. The suit and tie were gone; casual cool was in. There was no anchor desk; either me standing or walking. And there were no reporter de-briefs; just get to the video, dude. We launched with the highest ratings of any first year syndicated show in that year.
Those show tweaks mattered. Why? They helped the audience who really only wanted to see those great videos.
But today’s award shows seem to playing to the clothing designers and the tabloids – and not about the creative work of these acclaimed shows.
So, I’m hoping the future awards shows will try this truncated structure. If it happens, it might be the best thing the striking writers did for us.
Archives
Categories
RSS Feed