Sean Taylor and unintended consequences

In the wake of the terrible tragedy of the murder of Sean Taylor, there will be some interesting consequences of the event. It is very sad to see any 24 year old killed. Taylor was a physical freak of nature with unlimited potential as a professional football player but that is not nearly as important as a young father killed inside his home by an intruder. The actual circumstances may never be known but it appears to be a home invasion robbery. Here are a few predictions:

1) There will be much speculation about his past run ins with authority. Some will raise the "where there is smoke, there is fire" speculation. Others will say that such discussion is racist because Taylor was black. If he was killed by a robber, both sides are morons.

2) There will be a spike in gun sales. Despite this being a solitary incident in Miami, there will be an elevation of the paranoia level across the US and people will purport to protect themselves with weapons. I just hope people are smart enough to buy the correct weapon, a shotgun. Since police who regularly train with weapons only hit 40% of what the fire at, a sleepy non-trained person in a dark room at three AM needs something that doesn't require accuracy. You can fire a shotgun around the corner and almost hit everything in the room.

3) The NFL will honor Taylor this week, then completely forget him by next year. In professional sports, if it doesn't make money, they aren't interested.

4) Some idiot sports fanatic somewhere is wondering how many weeks getting killed will keep him from playing and whether he should be dropped from his Fantasy Football picks.

CNN and MSNBC Off the Cliff Again

CNN and MSNBC, fading quickly in relevance and audience due to the decidedly biased reporting they are now widely recognized for, have now started using the tabloid journalism trick of trying to create controversy when none exists. In their most recent attempt to rally their liberal viewers, they have attempted to create controversy surrounding comments by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News. O’Reilly, who has the most watched program in cable news, was discussing how the gangsta rap culture does not represent the mainstream black culture in the United States with Juan Williams, a respected liberal journalist who writes for the Washington Post and is also a Fox News regular contributor. What O’Reilly said was that Sylvia’s, a well known restaurant in Harlem was no different than any other conventional American restaurant in atmosphere. CNN and MSNBC have attempted to construe those remarks as racist. Juan Williams, who is black and usually very restrained, has called the people at CNN “idiots” for their pretend controversy. I am not a big O’Reilly fan but I can certainly recognize sensationalized nonsense when it appears.

I watched this evening as Heidi Collins of CNN had two people on to discuss the topic. LaShawn Barber, a black woman, said that if you listen to his comments in context that there is nothing offensive about them whatsoever. However, in addition, they bring on a raving diatribe-spewing Boyce Watkins, who manages to accuse Bill O’Reilly of a long standing history of racism and hate and even manages somehow to insult President Bush in the process. This is their “expert” opinion? It is like Wolf Blitzer giving credibility to Jack Cafferty, the loudest whining shill of them all.

On MSNBC, there is Keith Olberman who apparently has some pathologic hatred of Bill O’Reilly as he devotes episode after episode of his cable-access style program to smearing O’Reilly and Fox News. Tonight, he had some “expert” who sounded more like an asylum escapee saying that Mr. O’Reilly is about to have a mental breakdown and talking about psychiatric diagnoses based on how Mr. O’Reilly pays for his food in restaurants. Who at MSNBC thinks that discourse of this low level has any place on television? Countdown with Keith Olberman cannot aspire to moving up to the class level of the Jerry Springer Show. The show is a total sham when it comes to any objectivity.

As I said earlier, I am not a big fan of the O’Reilly show. He is sometimes unnecessarily uncivil to guests and talks over them. But I am a fan of some semblance of objectivity. I am reminded of the McCarthy hearings. At long last, CNN and MSNBC, have you no sense of decency? Have you lost all of your self-respect? Are advertising revenues and ego so important that you are will to prostitute your journalistic values to this kind of phony controversy? It is shameful.

Leadership, Responsibility and Behavior

There is a disconnect I see relatively often when it comes to leadership positions. Many don’t seem to understand that responsibility and authority come as a package. You cannot be held responsible for things you don’t control and you cannot control things without being held responsible for the outcomes of your decisions. The more common disconnect of the two is people being reprimanded for things they did not decide. I have written earlier posts about brown-nosing and non-confrontational leadership. Being in charge is a lonely position. Those who cannot handle the isolation need not apply. In order to be effective in those positions, there are certain core requirements. First and foremost, effective leaders demonstrate that they have the welfare of their people at heart. This does not mean a leader is always nice. A leader does reprimand. A leader does hold subordinates accountable. A leader hands out unpleasant tasks. The true leader does these things fairly while simultaneously attempting to the utmost to provide the best working environment for subordinates.

There is similarity between leadership in an organization and raising kids. The two most important factors are caring and consistency. Your subordinates and your children have no reason to behave if they feel you don’t care what happens to them. They have nothing to lose from you by misbehaving. Children want to maintain the trust and caring of their parents. Subordinates need the same support from their leaders. They need to feel like their leaders have their interests at heart. The minute they don’t feel it, they lose respect for the leader. Everyone knows there are tough jobs to do but if the jobs are handed out fairly and leadership takes the time to explain why the job is important, respect will remain in place.

Consistency is a hallmark of a well-run organization. Both children and subordinates need to know where the lines are and that there will be repercussions for crossing those lines. It is not that there MAY be, it is that there WILL be. There is a lot of security in knowing the rules. A lack of rules shows subordinates that leaders don’t care. Consistency with the rules shows fairness and forethought. Everyone hates the stress of “walking on eggshells” situations where you never know what is coming next. A consistent mean-spirited leader is better than never knowing minute to minute what is coming.

Another side of responsibility is individual. I have told my children many times that at some point in your life; you have to decide what kind of person you will be. Being a reliable and conscientious person is not a grand act. It is not one day running into the burning building to save the occupants. It is a series of small daily decisions, often made when no one else is around. It is deciding to do the right thing when the right thing is inconvenient or unpopular. It is taking the harder course of action and not allowing standards to slip. It is being willing to uncomfortably confront someone to improve their performance or correct a mistake when the easier course is to let it slide.

At the end of the day, it is not the perception of others that the good leader strives to improve. The real leader holds himself/herself up to a personal standard. You cannot fool yourself. You know, even when others don’t, that you did not do your best. You know when you blew something off. If you did everything to the best of your ability, in the end it doesn’t matter what others think because you cannot control others opinions and you will have the satisfaction that comes with true accomplishment.

Here They Go Again

For the last few months, the country has been anxiously awaiting the progress report on Iraq by General David Petraeus in September. The Bush Administration and the Republican supporters of the war hope he will say that the surge in troop levels has been effective. The Democrats hope he will say the entire thing is a disaster and we should leave immediately. Everyone acknowledged when he took the job that as the US Army’s top counter-terrorism expert, he was the appropriate and best man for that job.

When Petraeus arrived in Iraq, he completely changed coalition strategy. Instead of operating out of isolated Forward Operating Bases, Petraeus instead has the troops interacting more with the local Iraqis in the population centers. This has led to more intelligence gathering as the locals begin trusting the troops and has also established working relationships between the local tribal leaders/warlords with the US troops. The result has been local cooperation and even fighting between the local population and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has been mostly driven out of several of the formerly hottest provinces due to the cooperation of the local leaders. Even Sen. Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and no friend to the Bush Administration, recently returned from Iraq saying that significant military progress had been made. The Democratic presidential candidates admit progress has been made. I can tell you since I am deployed out here seeing what is happening that they are correct in their assessment. We are making a lot of progress.

With that as a background, what do CNN and MSNBC do? Because the anticipated report by General Petraeus is now widely expected to be different than the networks own agenda, they are starting a campaign to impugn General Petraeus’ integrity before he arrives to give the report. The same guy who was the best great hope a few months ago has these same network hacks saying he is a partisan lackey and has no credibility. These people are so transparent and vile that it should surprise no one that they have less and less viewers all the time.

I wrote a piece a while back about how the other news network anchors, particularly the ones with obvious agendas, constantly publicly trash Fox News. However, on one recent ratings night, the viewer numbers were:

FNC O'REILLY 2,260,000
FNC SHEPPARD SMITH 1,308,000
FNC BRIT HUME 1,286,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 1,278,000
FNC GRETA 1,031,000
CNN DOBBS 813,000

No wonder they trash Fox News. They are being whipped like a Michael Vick dog. Like most liberals, their inflated egos lead them to believe that the people are stupid and are being led around by Fox and the evil Rupert Murdoch. They can’t imagine that most people are fed up with their trashing of the American system and character assassination tactics. In one of the seemingly hundreds of Democratic debates, Hillary Clinton recently said about her negative numbers in polls that any of the other Democratic candidates will have high numbers after the “Republican hate machine” gets through with them. She won’t acknowledge that maybe people just don’t like her or maybe people actually loathe her. In typical liberal fashion, it couldn’t possibly be her fault. Well, folks, keep railing on. People will vote with their remote controls and MSNBC, CNN and the other left agenda news organizations that purposely trash America will continue to wither on the vine. Rush Limbaugh calls them the “drive-by” media for their tactics. I will now refer to them as the “Raisin media” because they are drying up so fast.

ESPN Jumps the Shark

When did ESPN jump the shark? What was originally a sport reporting network now almost uses sports as a background for their own network self-promotion. In a period of very busy sports activity (major league baseball, football training camps, professional golf events, the Tour de France, major soccer, etc.), what does a significant portion of the hour go to? The “Who is more Now?” contest. First of all, what the heck is “now” anyway? More importantly, who CARES? The anchors at ESPN have fallen into the trap historically set for ministers and politicians who believe that they personally are more important than what or who they represent. The network has gone the way of the National Basketball Association in not promoting its product but rather its individual performers. And performers are what they are, not reporters. Each anchor has an obligation to come up with his/her own catch phrases and uniquely quirky delivery so as to become personalities rather than reporters. I personally want to know the outcome of the sporting event and don’t care to hear the next addition to the sporting lexicon. We are returning to the days of the “Battle of the Network Stars” where sporting events are not covered, they are created, like the reality shows on every network now. I would appreciate it if the people at ESPN could go “back back back back back…” to the days where they reported on sports events instead of trying to be the show themselves.

What Men Really Want

I have theory about the difference between men and women in one great respect. This is not exclusively a male characteristic but it almost always holds true. What is it that men really want? My theory is this: It doesn’t matter if you are talking about a sexual relationship, a job, a vehicle, a night out, car repairs, lawn maintenance, wives, friends or anything else. What men want most is: NO HASSLE.

There is a certain amount of hassle that is just associated with living. If you expect a paycheck, you need to show up for work. If you want to drive a car, you have to occasionally stop to get gasoline. Men can deal with those hassles because they are a given and come as part of the package. What inflames men more than anything else is: unnecessary hassle. Things that are made more complicated than they need to be or require more than an appropriate amount of effort. One of the reasons that all houses of married couples are decorated the way the wife wants it done is that women will always win any argument about things the man has little interest in because women can dial up the hassle meter until the man inevitably says “screw it” (or words to that effect). In any relationship, the last thing a man wants to hear is, “We need to talk”. That phrase always means there is some sort of mental hassle awaiting. Men don’t like deep complicated movies or dramas because it is too much hassle to worry about the feelings of the characters. That is why simple blow up the bad guy, attractive naked women movies do so well. When the check is for $31.95, the man throws in $40 and doesn’t worry about the appropriateness of the tip because he doesn’t want to have to worry about it. There are guys with calculators and a change purse, but we don’t talk about them (don’t ask, don’t tell). I would rather throw away semi-valuable things from my garage to finally be able to walk in it than hassle with a yard sale to make some not worth my time amount of money.

In the male community, those who make things simple and easy are well thought of and those who create hassle are shunned. It is a badge of honor to be someone who makes things go smoothly. So, despite being occasionally accused of being a simpleton, most guys would gladly rather have that accusation than go through the hassle of proven the critics wrong.

I was once in a discussion about how much money I wanted to make. My answer was this: I don’t know how much in actual dollars but what I want is: when I turn the key, my car starts; when I feel like Chinese food, I buy some and don’t worry about not paying my car payment; when someone calls and wants to have a picnic, I go get some munchies and go; when I pull in the driveway, I am happy to live where I do. That is what I want, an income that produces a hassle-free life. So just like all guys, the avoidance of hassle is the ultimate goal.

Cheaters Again

I wrote an earlier piece about how cheating doesn’t seem to bother people anymore. Now, on the verge of Barry Bonds breaking Hank Aaron’s home run record and the Tour de France scandal of 2007, it seems appropriate to revisit the issue. One of the things I have always admired about real golfers, not the weekend kind who cheat endlessly, is how they would rather lose than win dishonestly. In almost all other professional sports, the coaches and athletes will wink at missed calls and clear cheating and call it “part of the game”. The coaches who were really good at mentally working over referees were against instant replay. Why would anyone interested in fairness be against something which reveals the truth? Calls are not overturned without convincing credible evidence. I read an article pointing out the hypocrisy of Americans jeering the Tour de France while cheering for Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Shawn Merriman, and the other well-known cheats. Her point was valid. The Tour de France is being transparent and looking for cheats instead of ignoring or praising them. That is actually refreshing. There is a philosophy of “anything you can get away with is okay”. This is not confined to sports. Routinely, Congressmen use the phrase “I did not break any law” when justifying actions which are clearly unethical and wrong. They skirt the edge of legality and use that phrase to “prove” they did nothing wrong. Even when caught breaking the law (e.g, Bill Clinton), supporters quibble about the law. It is okay to perjure oneself as long as the subject is correct.

In the service, we use the code words of Honor, Courage and Commitment. Despite that, there are people like John Kerry saying that military members were too stupid to choose to do anything else. When 70-80% of officers have postgraduate degrees, it is hard to make that argument. In this case, though, consider the source (a proven liar).

I cannot cheer for steroid, human growth hormone using freaks of nature in baseball and football, teams using illegal components in auto racing, or erythopoetin using bicycle racers any more than I could cheer for sailors who gun deck log books or leave their post while on watch. Until the public stops rewarding the athletes who cheat by refusing to pay to attend the games and stop making money for the owners of the teams, the doping will never stop. There will always be someone of low enough moral fiber to break the rules of decency.

Brown Nosing and the Destruction of an Organization

Where is the line between enthusiasm and brownnosing? It is like the quality of a great painting. It is difficult to define but we all know it when we see it. A big part of the impression comes from what we think of the individual’s personality. People that are not well-liked are construed to have ulterior motives just because we don’t like them. It is fuel for the fire. But what is it that tips the balance? Is it one act or a series of smaller things? Most people who develop the reputation, at least in my observational experience, set a pattern but it is usually one event that seals the deal. There is a common measure of what is expected in a co-worker. All jobs have some inherent unpleasant things which need to be done. It is the nature of work. People expect that. Most people want to get the job done and go home where the enjoyment is located. The brownnoser is different. An extra duty, particularly a “face time” event where it is generally considered a pain to participate finds the brownnoser overwhelmingly excited to be able to attend. That is one of the recognizable differentiating factors which identify the individual. Another identifying factor is the desire of those individuals to stop at any moment and tell anyone at great length how valuable the brownnoser’s efforts are and how the organization would be doomed without those efforts. Other co-workers contributions are recognized but one gets the sense of a grudging acceptance and feigned over-enthusiasm rather than real enthusiasm. In order to make themselves part of the “in-crowd”, the brownnoser always speaks to others in a “just between us people in the know” attitude in order to give the impression that they are part of the inner circle. This usually involves dropping names of the powerful in the organization. This sucker fish approach to riding on the coattails of power is an attempt to leverage the brownnoser into a position of more power in the organization. In Washington, DC, the saying is “The appearance of power is power”. That is because if someone thinks you are powerful, they will treat you with the proper deference, and therefore you are powerful because you get what you want. The brownnoser uses name-dropping to associate themselves with the powerful in order to appear to be part of that group.

The error in this approach with a smart boss is that the experienced intelligent boss also recognizes brown-nosing for what it is. Unfortunately, brownnosing often works. I remember an engineering job years ago where a peer that was universally regarded as a weak performer by his entire group of peers, with good reason, was rated number one in potential by management primarily on the basis of his organizing golf tournaments which had nothing to do with his job. That is a recipe for poor morale and disgruntled employees. A number of excellent engineers left the organization because of that situation. Communism was ultimately doomed to failure because it flew in the face of human nature. If there is no incentive to work harder, why would anyone do it? The brownnoser does the same thing to an organization. If the brownnoser succeeds preferentially, the other employees stop performing because they recognize their legitimate efforts are in vain. Their only defense is to begin brown-nosing as well and you end up with an organization consisting of two factions: the competing brownnosers and the disgruntled employees doing the minimum to maintain their jobs. Unfortunately, most of us have been in an organization like that at some point. The only way to maintain your drive is to find another place to work. In fact, the most likely people to leave are the best performers because they are in the best position to get better jobs. You cannot work for long for people you don’t respect and those who unwittingly respond to the brownnoser are not respected. Therefore, to maintain the quality of an organization, managers must recognize the brownnoser and not allow their actions to reap favoritism. Only by avoiding that mistake will productivity and morale be sustained.

Leadership Skills

What has happened to leadership skills? I’ve noticed a great tendency toward non-confrontational leadership recently. There is a widespread philosophy of what I call “Punish the innocent for the offense of the guilty”. I noted this process a lot in the military, particularly during my time with the Marine Corps, but it is also present in the Navy and in civilian settings as well. The scenario is usually like this: 1) Something happens which causes some angst for the boss or gets noticed; 2) a knee jerk policy is put in place to prevent anyone from making the same misjudgment even though only one of 10,000 people did it. A more specific example: A large group of military members goes out in town in a foreign country. Of the huge crowd, one or two, misbehave. Therefore, leadership doesn’t allow any else to go out, punishing the 99% who behaved responsibly for the crimes of the one or two who didn’t. Another example: One person abuses a phone privilege. Therefore, no one can use the phone. Once again, punish the innocent. Last example: A specific individual makes an obvious error in judgment or omission. Therefore leadership states, “It is a process problem” and appoints a team to study the process and make recommendations, instead of confronting the specific individual.

Why does this happen? The first reason is laziness. Rather than investigate and hold the specific individuals accountable, it is easier to make a blanket policy despite it being the wrong course of action. The second reason is to avoid uncomfortable confrontation. I am not sure whether people are scared or wimps but sometimes leadership means getting in someone’s face and calling them to account. The R. Lee Ermey style in Full Metal Jacket is extreme but you get the picture. Wimps are terrible leaders, particularly in the military. Individual responsibility is a key to success. I find it ironic that the Marine Corps, which does individual responsibility better than anyone, uses the mass punishment a lot. By using these techniques and a “one strike, you are out” policy, our society creates a group of never make a decision, never take a chance, always form a committee leaders who are ineffective. They are always late with decisions because they run them past everyone who will listen before a decision is made. The decision is usually issued with disclaimers in case anyone doesn’t like it. I heard someone say once, “I am not sure what the path to success is but the sure path to failure is trying to please everyone”. People like Ulysses Grant, William Sherman, George Patton, etc. who were politically incorrect would not do well in today’s leadership models.
Leadership positions are lonely and involve pissing people off on occasion. I look at it this way: You can either occasionally take a turn taking on the responsibility for driving the bus or you have no right to complain when it shows up someplace you didn’t want to go. Authority and responsibility go hand in hand. One cannot be held responsible for something one has no control over. One cannot have power and not be held accountable for actions taken with that power. It is not enough to walk around with a business card that says you are a leader. The skills must be exercised daily. You don’t have to tell people if you are a leader, they will know by watching you.

Fooling Them Most of the Time

An interesting Zogby poll came out in the last couple of days which shows some of the influence of the main stream media and in some ways how it causes results it doesn’t desire. While the networks and cable outlets have been trashing the Bush Administration for years and managed to get the approval rating for the President down to the lower 30s, the approval ratings for the Democrat-led Congress they favor is down to a historically low 18%. The House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi has effectively done nothing and the Senate is the same under Harry Reid. Both leaders spend all their time making speeches about how bad the current administration is but never seem to offer more effective alternatives. In the public’s view, the Democratic Party is determined to lose the war without regard to consequences and they plan to lose it as a way to gain political power. This is clearly not the way to win in November 2008. The latest stay up all night and debate Iraq stunt was seen for the inane political theater it was and the public does not seem to be pleased. I have no idea who is advising Harry Reid but, whoever he is, his former career as a grocery bagger seems a safe bet in the near future. Reid, one of the two Senators from “the state which shouldn’t even be a state” (almost all federal property), is the poster child for inability and distasteful politics. The best thing for the Republicans to do between now and November 2008 is to have Reid and Pelosi on television as much as possible. By constantly giving coverage to these two shrill whiners, the networks have created a result they clearly don't want.

The other interesting item from that poll is how about 60-70% of people polled were quite content with their personal finances. However, despite all-time record high stock market closings, low unemployment, record home ownership, etc., only 20% thought the US economy was doing well. Let’s see if I have that straight: most feel they are doing well, almost everyone has a job and has a place to live, stocks are booming but the economy stinks. That demonstrates the mainstream media in action. They rave about how good the economy was at the end of the Clinton presidency, which was not nearly as strong as today’s, but at the same time say today’s economy stinks. These are the same people who lambaste Fox News and claim that they themselves have no political agenda. There are a lot of ill-informed and gullible people in this country but I don’t think there are enough for the Democrats to pull this off. At least I hope not.

The Real Culture of Corruption

I find it really interesting that the sex offender and convicted perjurer, William Jefferson Clinton, is still the most popular person to the Democrats. The Democratic Party constantly talks about the Republican Party as having a "Culture of Corruption". In examining history though, that conclusion may not be so obvious.
1) Rep. Mark Foley, Republican from Florida, sent some clearly inappropriate (horny) emails to Congressional pages. There was never any indication that he engaged in any sexual activity with those pages. There was a national uproar which led to the ousting of Rep. Foley from the House of Representatives. By contrast, Rep. Gary Studds, Democrat from Massachusetts, was actually caught in the act of having sex with an underage Congressional Page. Did the Democrats scream for the pedophile predator's expulsion? Did the Democrats wail about ethical standards in Congress? No. They made him a committee chairman and supported his re-election to three or four more terms.
2) When Rep. William Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, is caught red-handed with $90,000 in cash in a freezer in his house, he is not investigated by the Ethics Committee. He is given a committee chairmanship by the Democratic leadership. Just for completeness, the same Rep. Jefferson was recently indicted on nineteen counts of corruption. There is still no uproar from the Democrats in Congress.
3) Sandy Berger steals classified documents from the National Archives to cover up what the Clinton Administration knew prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and only has to pay a fine. Despite being neither indicted or accused of anything, the Democratic Party calls on Karl Rove to resign during the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation. The hypocrisy is astounding.
4) Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Majority Leader, makes hundreds of thousands of dollars from real estate he does not own. In his defense, I suppose it is impossible to be elected in Nevada without having connections to crooks, given the history of the state.
5) The most obvious example, however, is how despite abusing his power as President to have sex with a White House intern and being convicted of perjury, William Jefferson Clinton continues to be the most popular Democrat in the party. The Democrat's argument about his perjury at the time was "It is only about sex". Apparently, in the Democratic Party, individuals are free to choose which subjects they are allowed to perjure themselves about. A question was asked at the Democratic Party debate about how to use former President Clinton in a new Democratic administration. All of the candidates had grandiose plans for him. Not one candidate has the nerve or moral fortitude to call him to task for his past actions and to not hold him up as a superb leadership example.
The party that owns the true "culture of corruption" is obvious.

Pardon controversy

This whole Lewis Libby sentencing thing is becoming very intriguing. Thirty months is a long time to spend in jail when you are Libby's age. I am generally not a pardon aficionado but this case does have some interesting factors:
1) The judge said that someone in as high a position in the government as Libby's should be held to a higher standard and, therefore, the sentence would be stiff. I suppose it is redundant to point out that the President of the United States was convicted of the same offense a few short years ago and only had his law license revoked and served no jail time. It is clearly adverse and impractical to try a President while in office but it could have been once he left office. It is obvious that position is not a factor given this comparable case.
2) The Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, knew specifically that Richard Armitage was the definitive source of the information about Valerie Plame very early in his investigation. With this knowledge, he a) continued the investigation, and b) not only allowed, but encouraged speculation that that others (Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney, etc.) were involved to keep press coverage intense. This strikes me as prosecutorial misconduct.
3) Fitzgerald also continued the investigation after testimony under oath by Victoria Toensing, the individual who authored the law in question, that it specifically and clearly did not apply to Valerie Plame. Therefore, the "crime" he was investigating could not have possibly been committed.
4) Knowing that there was no crime and who the leaker was, Fitzgerald continued the investigation for at least another year.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Fitzgerald, a Clinton appointee, wanted to "get" higher profile targets and is taking out his frustration on Lewis Libby. Given the bogus nature of the investigation, many argue that Libby shouldn't have even been prosecuted. While the investigation was bogus, I still believe if he actually lied under oath, there should be a penalty. Sandy Berger paid a fine for stealing classified documents. Bill Clinton had his law license revoked for perjury. Thirty months just seems excessive.

The Pinnacle of Hypocrisy

In the past on TV, there was a sort of unwritten rule that one network never mentioned another network, as if they didn’t exist. For example, a television actor promoting their show on the Tonight Show would never state the name of the network on which the show appeared, if it wasn’t NBC. I can’t help but notice the recent coordinated effort on the part of the liberal news media to collectively try to make the Fox News network look biased and disreputable. Everyone knows that Fox News was originally created because of the liberal bent of the mainstream news media so it shouldn't be surprising that the network would be more accomodating to conservative viewpoints.
It is nauseating to see a smarmy ideologue like Keith Olberman, who does not have a reputable cell in his body, interviewing a host of an Air America program about Fox News. If Olberman had another nerve cell, he could make a connection. Air America, the ultra-liberal talk network which went bankrupt because no one watches it, is a competitor of Fox. That is like interviewing Target about how great WalMart is doing. Olberman called the people at Fox “idiots” on the air. The Air America host said that the Fox News network is a part of the Republican Party. No matter your political persuasion, that is not journalism of any quality, whatsoever. I suppose they are just upset because CNN’s viewership is at an all-time low and the six or seven people who watch MSNBC are insignificant. Fox News now has three times the viewers that CNN does. It would be a bigger deal if anyone actually watched Olberman’s show but since hardly anyone does, he can spread his rants without much consequence.
Along the same lines, CNN is another pot calling the kettle black. Lou Dobbs does a show that is supposed to be a news show but he makes biased comments about every story and never presents both sides of any story. It is like they hired him to do a one hour diatribe every night and pretend to be news. On Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room, I know Jack Cafferty is a liberal ideologue but I can’t say recently how bad he is since I started muting the television every time I see his image now. He is the most whining harpie on television and, since he never had anything resembling useful information to say, I no longer waste my time listening to his spewing. He always reinforces his rants with poll questions like “Do you think the Bush Administration should continue to starve the American people?" It is always a “Do you still beat your wife?” type question.
Don’t misunderstand. I actually like to hear both sides of a debate but I want to hear facts on the news with commentary and analysis correctly labeled as such. Even CBS, which historically is one of the most liberal networks, had Eric Severeid come on with the label “commentary” when he appeared. News is fact and commentary is opinion. They should be kept separate.
I find that when two opposing sides give information, the truth is usually somewhere between the two. That is why I like both sides to explain their views. Calling the other side names and yelling does little to clarify debate and expose truth. But since Air America, CNN, MSNBC, and the like are fading like cheap wallpaper in the sun; I guess they feel they have nothing to lose by compromising journalistic standards and whining about declining viewer numbers.

Intolerance and the Inane Media

This latest flap in Nevada about the Democratic Party not wanting to debate on Fox News reminded me of the intolerance of ideas in America. It is similar to the rhetoric post I made earlier in some ways. The same people at liberal arts universities who scream for anti-war, abortion freedom, gay rights, and entitlement program “freedom of speech”, will not allow anyone of contrary views to even make a speech. What an incredible double standard. Without taking a side on any of those issues, it is easy to see why it is just ludicrous to support that. Freedom of speech was first and foremost put into place to protect political discourse (not strippers, sorry). Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, communists, or anyone else should be able to discuss their own views with anyone who cares to listen, as long as it is not something illegal like inciting violence or creating an unacceptably dangerous public environment. The Founding Fathers knew that representative government works best with an informed electorate who are free to exchange ideas and attempt to influence others to their point of view. A group can never achieve consensus if none of the members ever communicate with the other members. The world is a Bell curve. There will always be people on both sides of any issue. To say that the other side cannot even express their views about the issue revives the specter of totalitarian societies. Ann Coulter is obnoxious in presentation to liberals but she has the right to speak. Bill Maher clearly has brain damage to conservatives but let him talk. People who make no sense, make moronic statements, or have nothing of clarity to say expose themselves by speaking loudly. It is the best way to ferret them out. It is better to have them expose their inconsistencies and errors in logic than to have people assume that their arguments are credible because their name is familiar. If you disagree heartily, you don’t have to attend a speech or you can use the ultimate weapon, the remote control. If you think about it, why would political candidates trying to reach the voters not want to appear on the most-watched cable news channel? It is going to be your own words that are broadcast. Conservatives appear in front of liberal political fronts like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews. Liberals appear with staunch conservative Sean Hannity. If your ideas have merit, you will be able to defend them.

Along those same lines, I am tired of the news media assuming that I am stupid. When I watch the State of the Union speech in January, I don’t need someone to come on immediately after the speech and tell me what the President said. After all, if I am tuned in to that channel, I listened to the speech. If you want to analyze program changes, spending initiatives, diplomatic initiatives, etc., okay, but I heard what he said. I also don’t need to hear the requisite two political hacks: the incumbent party representative talking about the second coming of Abraham Lincoln in the speech, and the opposition party declaring every program, even ones not yet thought of, “dead on arrival”. I also do not care about the staged “standing ovation” count or how many times each side stood. It is scripted and stupid. Why report on it other than to demean the artificiality of it? It is not news if it means nothing. It is an offensive and insulting waste of my time. Therefore, for major speeches, CSPAN it is. I pity those without cable television who are subjected to that nonsense each time.

Culture of Celebrity and Cheaters

Not being a psychologist, I am shooting a bit in the dark here but the media and our culture of celebrity baffles me sometimes. It used to be that someone was famous because they had accomplished something which stood them apart from the masses or had some talent or ability which made them distinct. Today, the popular media has reversed the logic. If you are famous (or infamous), you are portrayed as having special distinction and talent. Completely unaccomplished people who wouldn't make decent dinner conversation are followed by the press and there is an insatiable market for that information.
Well known examples (some are like the proverbial fish in a barrel):
1) Paris Hilton - a girl born wealthy with no apparent talent or brains whatsoever except to immediately strike a pose when a camera is in the same zip code. Interestingly enough, it is always the same pose. She is famous for: being an idiot, not wearing underwear, dropping her clothes at a moments notice in public, and making unflattering sex videos with sleazy guys. Which of those qualities deserves admiration? If it were not for her inheritance, she couldn't get a job at a convenience store. I have vowed to change the channel whenever her image appears. It just makes me feel less slimy.
2) Anna Nicole Smith - It is sad when anyone dies but 24-hour news coverage? She is famous for: posing naked (a common denominator in this group), working as a stripper, bilking an old man out of a lot of money, being an idiot (another common thread), appearing semi-conscious in public venues, and not deciding who of the many men with whom she has had sex is the father of her latest child. Which of those qualities deserve anyone's attention?

My daughter laughs at me whenever I bring it up now but the cult of celebrity is cash-based. The motion picture industry discovered this secret many years ago in the horror film genre. Slasher films do not require a star and make lots of money. Beginning with The Real World and Survivor, television networks discovered the same. Therefore, the explosion of reality shows. Instead of paying $100,000 an episode for a star to do a sitcom, you get a bunch of unknowns who will do anything for fame and a buck and make up some ridiculous contest. Every network does it, even Comedy Central and the Food Network. I personally flip the channels occasionally and almost every channel has some show to which I say "who cares?" In the case of the MTV shows, I see people I wouldn't even want to speak with and don't care a lick if they are upset by each other. You can make the argument that television is becoming more about real people and less about fictional characters but the real people I seem to see are really not very entertaining or interesting. I suppose it is too much to ask to have a Hallmark Hall of Fame or a decent variety show. Those types of shows have quality and that costs money. To paraphrase the leader in Demolition Man speaking of how Taco Bell was the only surviving restaurant, "All shows are reality, except the 17 versions of Law & Order and CSI"

Along the same line, when did cheating become admirable? Does the end truly justify the means? How can anyone in their right mind admire Barry Bonds with all of the performance enhancing substances he uses and the way he lies about it? Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi, the list goes on and on. I used to love to watch the Tour De Drugs every summer knowing they were chemical-dependent but the doping there was at least even-handed because almost ALL were using them. At least it was a fairly level playing field. I know, ye of much faith will say your personal favorite never did. Even back in the US Postal days, that team had a reputation. The Discovery Channel team lost riders, T-Mobile lost riders, and on and on. The new preventive program that the Slipstream team has in place is suspect because their coach is a former US Postal rider. Anyone who knows anything about cycling knew, after watching Floyd Landis crack like an eggshell then come back the next day and smoke the field, that something was way fishy about it. Not coincidently, that was the day his test popped positive in both samples. When the New York Yankees won a playoff game with the Baltimore Orioles they should not have won because a young fan interfered with a catch, the boy was treated like a hero by David Letterman, etc. When the University of Colorado beat Missouri on the "Fifth Down" play, they didn't forfeit the win, they claimed a national championship. Willingly accepting cheating is the beginning of a slippery slope. Will we next be celebrating the guy who has a traffic accident with a player intentionally to keep him from attending the game? With that logic, Tonya Harding will be making a comeback and female figure skaters will be wearing hockey uniforms with knee and shin guards.

Apparently, it is too much to ask for the media to exalt people who actually accomplish worthwhile endeavors without cheating and those who actually have talent for anything other than looking good and having bad morals.

Abortion rhetoric

Does the rhetoric drive you nuts, too? "Pro-life" "Pro-choice" are both happy euphemisms for something completely different. I am pretty familiar with life and death decisions in my line of work. So let's look at the issue with some sense. Granted, there are some nuts out there, but I long to believe that most people have some bit of reasonableness in them.

Even the most strident abortion foe cannot possibly believe that making a woman die to give birth, or carry a dead fetus to term is not incredibly cruel and dangerous. If a fetus is diagnosed with trisomy 13, or trisomy 18 (not trisomy 21 Down's Syndrome, before someone goes nuts), anencephaly (baby with no brain), or Tay-Sachs disease, all universally fatal, incompatible with life; who would make that woman continue to carry that fetus around at the risk of her own health and sanity? The arguments for adoption, etc. can potentially be made for rape or incest victims but not for a fetus which cannot possibly live. The people who say "no abortion" are saying they would let women die and/or deliver dead babies. Therefore, any reasonable person should admit that in some set of cases, abortion is an approprate medical procedure.

Even the most strident abortion supporter cannot honestly think that using abortion as a routine birth control technique of convenience is a good thing and that decapitating a healthy late-term fetus is a good outcome. Therefore, if you believe that a fetus is a living being, there should be some reasonable limits set by society about when abortion is an appropriate procedure.

Given those arguments, the discussion becomes not a yes/no absolute but rather, "When is abortion appropriate?" No law or set of criteria will cover all individual cases but the discussion should be couched in those terms. Of course, you don't hear that question because those reasonable terms do not fire up the hard right and hard left primary voters.

The world is not black and white. There are hundreds of abortion and end of life Terry Schiavo-type medical decisions made every day without national publicity. I have been involved in them with families. Except for political gain, there is no reason to stake out extreme unreasonable positions but to raise campaign funds and demonstrate your prostitution to the vote.

Politics as usual and bad actors

It never ceases to amaze. Democrats who stood in line to approve removing Saddam Hussein from power now selectively remember that they were never for the war. Hillary Clinton says she wouldn't have voted for the authorization if she thought the President would actually use it. Liar or moron? You make the call.
Hillary also says "if I knew then what I know now, I would have never voted for the authorization." Hmmm If Abraham Lincoln knew then what he knew later, he wouldn't have gone to Ford's Theater. What an incredibly inane argument.
The same people who were all for removing Saddam now say the President "recklessly" got us into a war and "misled the American people." Funny how they looked at the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion but where they are pure as Ivory Soap, the President is an evil plotter. I am not sure Obama has a snowball's chance in Hell but at least he said he was against it before it happened. Speaking of Abraham Lincoln, Barrack Obama is portraying himself as the second coming of Lincoln. As was once said, "I knew Abraham Lincoln, I worked with Abraham Lincoln, and YOU are no Abraham Lincoln."
I always thought Dan Quayle should have replied to Lloyd Bentsen, "You are right, I am no John Kennedy, I sleep only with my own wife", but you can't criticize someone once they are shot. It is an American rule.
Here is a question: other than to look at the classified ads and sports page, why would anyone with two neurons to make a synapse buy the Washington Post or New York Times? Those papers could burst into spontaneous flame, which would be fine if they kept opinion on the editorial pages. The economy is so good there is a surplus predicted. No credit to the administration. The White House says the Pelosi plane story is ridiculous (which it is), no credit.

Here is a random thought. Some actors (i.e., George C Scott, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Morgan Freeman) are an almost ironclad guarantee that a movie will be good, or at least interesting. I have my own list of guarantees that a movie will stink on ice. Here is a partial list (nothing personal, folks):
Jean Claude Van Damme, Shannon Tweed, Steven Seagall, Shannon Whirry, and my favorite wood carving of a human being, David Carradine. He was perfect for Kung Fu because he was supposed to barely speak. He has been doing Kung Fu ever since. I will admit I did like Kill Bill but it was despite, not because of.