If you were an independent voter who doesn’t pay that much attention to politics, who would you vote for?
A. Barack Obama
B. A team led by Obama that includes a Republican secretary of defense (Hagel?), a conservative southern Democratic national security adviser (Nunn?), someone with a long record as a foreign policy expert or diplomat as secretary of state (Biden? Richardson?), and a vice president with national security credentials (Clark? Webb? Gore?)
It is unfathomable that Obama has not sought to address the concerns of those who are, understandably, wary of a newcomer by informing people who his foreign policy leadership will be.
I know announcements of Cabinet officials are usually not made in advance, but to continue this stupid tradition shows an inability to think outside the box. The American people DESERVE to know who their leaders are. Besides, we WERE basically told in 2000 that Colin Powell would be Bush Jr.’s secretary of state, and it was of enormous benefit to the Incompetent One.
Obama’s inexplicable unwillingness to put together a team is one of two main reasons he DESERVES to lose. The second is that he has still not put together a simple-to-explain vision backed up by specific policy proposals.
People voting for Republicans think they are voting for a smaller government, lower taxes, a stronger defense, and better moral values. Of course, they are wrong, but it will take decades for millions of Americans to figure out that the Republicans’ incompetent governance shows that their simple, effective political campaigns are lies.
Why hasn’t Obama put together a list comparable to the above list for independents to vote for? Ex.–A fairer tax system, a better health care system, a balanced budget, and a tougher foreign policy in regards to real national security problems. Why isn’t Obama out there every day talking about the fact that two-thirds of corporations don’t pay taxes and the USA is something like No. 37 in quality of health care? Why aren’t there specific proposals to back up his rhetoric? Why isn’t he putting these plans within a framework that will allow him to claim that he is MORE patriotic than McCain?
Frankly, McCain DESERVES TO WIN. At least, he has a plan for our energy crisis that is easy to understand. It’s, no doubt, deeply flawed, but Americans don’t analyze plans. They know McCain was out in front of the issue and Obama has hemmed and hawed.
From my perspective, Obama thinks he is going to win because he has superior money, enthusiasm, and organization – an extraordinarily stupid viewpoint because he barely won the Democratic nomination with this plan with a far more liberal jury than the American public. And, I’ve concluded, he deliberately is being vague because he fears being painted as a liberal. This cowardice is inexcusable, particularly when Americans favor dramatic changes in taxes, health care, and lots of other issues.
And I’m infuriated by the vapid commentary I keep reading and hearing. It seems like everyone thinks the total answer is to be tough in campaign ads. Yes, McCain’s ads are despicable. And I’m all for calling out McCain on his lies.
Here’s a news flash though – the ads would NOT work nearly as well if Obama presented himself with a team and was far more substantive on the issues. These should be his priorities.
I predict, unfortunately, that Obama will lose a campaign he should win easily by replicating mistakes that Gore and Kerry also made.
Shalom,
Zwrite
Author tags:
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
WHO IS THE WORLD’S BEST ATHLETE EVER?
WROTE FOLLOWING COLUMN ON AUG. 19, 2008
WHO IS THE WORLD'S BEST ATHLETE EVER?
There are an alarming number of people who lack historical perspective in deciding who is the world’s best athlete and are close-minded in not considering athletes in individual sports (except for golfers for reasons that are mystifying to me).
The issue of who is a great athlete is a common topic this week because of the performance of Michael Phelps, who won eight gold medals in swimming in the Beijing Olympics. Listening to talk radio and reading blogs, it seems that almost everyone agrees that Phelps is the greatest Olympian of all time.
Phelps, 23, might deserve recognition someday as the greatest Olympian, but he doesn’t right now. Excelling in one more Olympics would put him near the top of my list. Currently, though, he has been great for four years. Carl Lewis, Edwin Moses, Al Oerter, and, I’m guessing, several athletes in sports that I don’t follow were great over a period of 12 years. Wasn’t there a Soviet gymnast who won several gold and other medals over several Olympics, but was ignored by the American media despite repeatedly crushing Olga Korbut because she wasn’t that cute?
I know Phelps holds the record for most gold medals, but why is that the sole criteria? If Pele scored 50 goals in six games in the 1968 Olympics and duplicated that feat in 1972 and 1976 he would have 150 goals and, at most, three gold medals. By the cumulative gold criteria, EVERY athlete in a team sport is excluded. So is every athlete in a weight-class sport (boxing, wrestling, weightlifting).
Swimming is one of the only sports that gives you an opportunity to win several gold medals in one competition. It’s no coincidence that the records Phelps broke (seven golds in one Olympics, nine overall) were also held by a swimmer – Mark Spitz.
Yet, I heard a radio talk show host proclaim Phelps the greatest Olympian of all time and not one caller disagreed with him in a three-hour show. The same broadcaster said Phelps should not be on anyone’s list of great athletes and then cited several quarterbacks and basketball shooting guards as people who should be on his list. Not one caller disagreed with him.
The fundamental argument of these sports fans was that only sports that us Americans paid attention to should be counted. Thus, they said, most of the best athletes were football and basketball players with a few baseball and hockey players also deserving consideration. There was no logic expressed in a three-hour show – no justification for ranking someone who throws a football or shoots a basketball as more athletic than someone who bicycles thousands of miles or is the world’s best runner or swimmer.
Incredibly, the broadcaster went out of his way to say that decathletes do NOT deserve to be ranked as among the world’s greatest athletes.
I believe Jackie Robinson is the best athlete ever. Most sports fans know he was courageous as Major League Baseball’s first African-American player. He was an excellent hitter, runner, and fielder who made the Baseball Hall of Fame. Fewer know he was an NCAA long jump champion who might have won Olympics track medals if World War II didn’t cancel the games, was a running back on a national college football all-star team, led the nation in scoring as a UCLA basketball player, won area tennis tourneys, and was a U.S. Army ping pong champion.
Jim Thorpe and Babe Didrikson Zaharias also deserve consideration. He won Olympics gold medals in the decathlon and heptathlon, starred at several positions in college and pro football, and played professional baseball and basketball. She won Olympic medals in hurdling, javelin throwing, and high jumping; won 41 golf tourneys, and was an all-American in basketball.
In modern times, Bo Jackson’s ability to hit a baseball 450 feet and run through and around the NFL’s best players made him one of the best athletes ever. He also won the Heisman Trophy, had world-class track speed, won two Alabama high school decathlon titles, and hit 29 home runs after having hip replacement surgery. I’m also impressed by other multisport stars like Deion Sanders, a future NFL Hall of Famer who was good enough in baseball to win a league triple title and finish second in steals, and also was a college track star.
And yes I am more impressed by decathletes like two-time Olympic champions Bob Mathias and Daley Thompson and heptathletes like three-time Olympic champion Jackie Joyner-Kersee who can in two days run fast, jump high and far, throw objects a long way, and run a distance race after nine prior events (six for women) than someone who excels in one team sport.
I don’t expect people to agree with all my conclusions, but I am flummoxed when there is unanimity that publicized achievements in popular team sports equals being a great athlete.
Who is your nominee for world’s greatest athlete?
Shalom,
ZWrite
WHO IS THE WORLD'S BEST ATHLETE EVER?
There are an alarming number of people who lack historical perspective in deciding who is the world’s best athlete and are close-minded in not considering athletes in individual sports (except for golfers for reasons that are mystifying to me).
The issue of who is a great athlete is a common topic this week because of the performance of Michael Phelps, who won eight gold medals in swimming in the Beijing Olympics. Listening to talk radio and reading blogs, it seems that almost everyone agrees that Phelps is the greatest Olympian of all time.
Phelps, 23, might deserve recognition someday as the greatest Olympian, but he doesn’t right now. Excelling in one more Olympics would put him near the top of my list. Currently, though, he has been great for four years. Carl Lewis, Edwin Moses, Al Oerter, and, I’m guessing, several athletes in sports that I don’t follow were great over a period of 12 years. Wasn’t there a Soviet gymnast who won several gold and other medals over several Olympics, but was ignored by the American media despite repeatedly crushing Olga Korbut because she wasn’t that cute?
I know Phelps holds the record for most gold medals, but why is that the sole criteria? If Pele scored 50 goals in six games in the 1968 Olympics and duplicated that feat in 1972 and 1976 he would have 150 goals and, at most, three gold medals. By the cumulative gold criteria, EVERY athlete in a team sport is excluded. So is every athlete in a weight-class sport (boxing, wrestling, weightlifting).
Swimming is one of the only sports that gives you an opportunity to win several gold medals in one competition. It’s no coincidence that the records Phelps broke (seven golds in one Olympics, nine overall) were also held by a swimmer – Mark Spitz.
Yet, I heard a radio talk show host proclaim Phelps the greatest Olympian of all time and not one caller disagreed with him in a three-hour show. The same broadcaster said Phelps should not be on anyone’s list of great athletes and then cited several quarterbacks and basketball shooting guards as people who should be on his list. Not one caller disagreed with him.
The fundamental argument of these sports fans was that only sports that us Americans paid attention to should be counted. Thus, they said, most of the best athletes were football and basketball players with a few baseball and hockey players also deserving consideration. There was no logic expressed in a three-hour show – no justification for ranking someone who throws a football or shoots a basketball as more athletic than someone who bicycles thousands of miles or is the world’s best runner or swimmer.
Incredibly, the broadcaster went out of his way to say that decathletes do NOT deserve to be ranked as among the world’s greatest athletes.
I believe Jackie Robinson is the best athlete ever. Most sports fans know he was courageous as Major League Baseball’s first African-American player. He was an excellent hitter, runner, and fielder who made the Baseball Hall of Fame. Fewer know he was an NCAA long jump champion who might have won Olympics track medals if World War II didn’t cancel the games, was a running back on a national college football all-star team, led the nation in scoring as a UCLA basketball player, won area tennis tourneys, and was a U.S. Army ping pong champion.
Jim Thorpe and Babe Didrikson Zaharias also deserve consideration. He won Olympics gold medals in the decathlon and heptathlon, starred at several positions in college and pro football, and played professional baseball and basketball. She won Olympic medals in hurdling, javelin throwing, and high jumping; won 41 golf tourneys, and was an all-American in basketball.
In modern times, Bo Jackson’s ability to hit a baseball 450 feet and run through and around the NFL’s best players made him one of the best athletes ever. He also won the Heisman Trophy, had world-class track speed, won two Alabama high school decathlon titles, and hit 29 home runs after having hip replacement surgery. I’m also impressed by other multisport stars like Deion Sanders, a future NFL Hall of Famer who was good enough in baseball to win a league triple title and finish second in steals, and also was a college track star.
And yes I am more impressed by decathletes like two-time Olympic champions Bob Mathias and Daley Thompson and heptathletes like three-time Olympic champion Jackie Joyner-Kersee who can in two days run fast, jump high and far, throw objects a long way, and run a distance race after nine prior events (six for women) than someone who excels in one team sport.
I don’t expect people to agree with all my conclusions, but I am flummoxed when there is unanimity that publicized achievements in popular team sports equals being a great athlete.
Who is your nominee for world’s greatest athlete?
Shalom,
ZWrite
I LOST MY JOB OFFER -- AND IT'S BUSH'S FAULT
WROTE BELOW COLUMN ON SEPT. 15, 2008
I LOST MY JOB OFFER – AND IT’S BUSH’S FAULT
Last week, I had my third interview for a job I really wanted. It was clear from the second the interview started that the manager had already decided to hire me, but wanted to give me a chance to ask questions about the company.
The interview went something like this:
Manager: "What questions do you have for us?"
Me: "Yeah, I’m curious, what college did your CEO, Mr. Johnson, go to?"
Manager: "He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard with a B.A. in Engineering and earned a master’s degree in Business from the University of Chicago."
Me: "Oh, that’s terrible. How can someone that smart understand someone like me? What are his hobbies?"
Manager: "I don’t know. He’s a workaholic. He spends lots of time reading books about business and innovation because he’s always looking for ideas that will improve this company."
Me: "Boy, what a drag. I haven’t read a book in years. I do read the sports pages. Does he at least like to talk about the Bears? I hope we have something in common because that’s important to me."
Manager: "He regularly walks around the office soliciting ideas for the company. In fact, he will call every employee into his office at least once a month for a one-on-one talk. He likes to make everyone feel part of this great company and regularly accepts great ideas. Those who provide him great ideas receive huge performance bonuses."
Me: "I can’t deny money is important to me, but I have trouble fitting in a workplace if my colleagues don’t share my values. Which church does Mr. Johnson belong to?"
Manager: "Mr. Johnson is very private about his religion. I do know that we have a very diverse workforce with people from all different backgrounds. You’ll find that this is a very tolerant company, and employee morale and retention is extremely high."
Me: "I hate working with people who have strong opinions that are different than mine. In the company I work for now, almost everyone agrees with the CEO’s politics. Those stupid whiners who claim they think for themselves don’t last long. What’s the biggest mistake Mr. Johnson has ever made in hiring."
Manager: "Our company is set up in such a way that Mr. Johnson and his assistants give our employees feedback regularly and are able to give them the knowledge and skills they need to become very productive and happy. Now, Mr. Johnson has made some policy mistakes in terms of introducing products and services that our customers didn’t want. However, he is very, very flexible, admits his mistakes, and has always been able to cut our losses."
Me: "Are you telling me he’s not decisive? I hate that. People with conviction should stick to their plan even if it’s wrong. Doing otherwise shows weakness."
Manager: "I understand what you’re saying, but the bottom line is that this company is amazingly profitable. Since Mr. Johnson arrived here eight years ago, our profits have doubled every year."
Me: "Profits, shmofits. Mr. Johnson just doesn’t sound like my kind of guy. I think I’d rather work with someone I can hunt and drink with than someone who does a good job."
I LOST MY JOB OFFER – AND IT’S BUSH’S FAULT
Last week, I had my third interview for a job I really wanted. It was clear from the second the interview started that the manager had already decided to hire me, but wanted to give me a chance to ask questions about the company.
The interview went something like this:
Manager: "What questions do you have for us?"
Me: "Yeah, I’m curious, what college did your CEO, Mr. Johnson, go to?"
Manager: "He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard with a B.A. in Engineering and earned a master’s degree in Business from the University of Chicago."
Me: "Oh, that’s terrible. How can someone that smart understand someone like me? What are his hobbies?"
Manager: "I don’t know. He’s a workaholic. He spends lots of time reading books about business and innovation because he’s always looking for ideas that will improve this company."
Me: "Boy, what a drag. I haven’t read a book in years. I do read the sports pages. Does he at least like to talk about the Bears? I hope we have something in common because that’s important to me."
Manager: "He regularly walks around the office soliciting ideas for the company. In fact, he will call every employee into his office at least once a month for a one-on-one talk. He likes to make everyone feel part of this great company and regularly accepts great ideas. Those who provide him great ideas receive huge performance bonuses."
Me: "I can’t deny money is important to me, but I have trouble fitting in a workplace if my colleagues don’t share my values. Which church does Mr. Johnson belong to?"
Manager: "Mr. Johnson is very private about his religion. I do know that we have a very diverse workforce with people from all different backgrounds. You’ll find that this is a very tolerant company, and employee morale and retention is extremely high."
Me: "I hate working with people who have strong opinions that are different than mine. In the company I work for now, almost everyone agrees with the CEO’s politics. Those stupid whiners who claim they think for themselves don’t last long. What’s the biggest mistake Mr. Johnson has ever made in hiring."
Manager: "Our company is set up in such a way that Mr. Johnson and his assistants give our employees feedback regularly and are able to give them the knowledge and skills they need to become very productive and happy. Now, Mr. Johnson has made some policy mistakes in terms of introducing products and services that our customers didn’t want. However, he is very, very flexible, admits his mistakes, and has always been able to cut our losses."
Me: "Are you telling me he’s not decisive? I hate that. People with conviction should stick to their plan even if it’s wrong. Doing otherwise shows weakness."
Manager: "I understand what you’re saying, but the bottom line is that this company is amazingly profitable. Since Mr. Johnson arrived here eight years ago, our profits have doubled every year."
Me: "Profits, shmofits. Mr. Johnson just doesn’t sound like my kind of guy. I think I’d rather work with someone I can hunt and drink with than someone who does a good job."
TOP 10 REASONS OBAMA LOST 2008 PREZ ELECTION
WROTE FOLLOWING COLUMN ON SEPT. 17, 2008
TOP TEN REASONS OBAMA LOST THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
According to presidential scholars, Illinois Senator Barack Obama should win the 2008 presidential election by about 10 percentage points. The scholars base these projections on all sorts of data that have proven to be historically accurate – the economic condition of the nation, the mood of people as expressed in polls, the popularity of the incumbent president, etc.
Of course, the scholars made roughly the same projection about Al Gore in 2000, but he made a confounding number of mistakes on the campaign trail. When thinking about Obama’s campaign yesterday, I was flabbergasted by the number of mistakes he has made. This compelled me to put together a list, which I later culled to 10.
Because of the factors cited by presidential scholars, Obama probably still has a roughly 40 percent chance of winning, but I decided to get a jump on the inevitable lists by putting out mine before the election. They are basically listed chronologically.
10. CONTEMPT FOR AMERICANS – The first thing that angered me about his campaign was his decision to block a revote by Michigan Democrats – a vote he probably would have won. This came back to haunt him when Michigan supported Senator John McCain. Later in his barely triumphal primary campaign, he barely set foot in West Virginia and Kentucky while focusing on collecting endorsements. And, of course, he insulted rural voters in a highly publicized comment that I personally feel was unfairly taken out of context, but I’m not a rural American.
9. AVOIDING PUBLIC FORUMS – Turning down McCain’s invitation for weekly Town Hall meetings was inexplicable. The "logic," I suppose, was that Obama was the frontrunner and McCain is really good at these forums. This logic failed to consider that millions of Americans were uncomfortable electing an unknown and talking to voters would have made them more comfortable with him. Besides that, Obama could have used the forums to improve his debating skills. Instead, he didn’t, and McCain took him apart in the three presidential debates.
8. NO CLEAR SOLUTION TO ENERGY CRISIS – I believe the campaign turned when McCain responded to soaring gas prices by changing his position on offshore oil drilling. "Drill now" is a slogan that millions of Americans understood. Since the price issue came up in the primaries, it is inexplicable that Obama was caught off guard and again opposed a rival’s position instead of proposing his own. He ripped McCain immediately, but eventually accepted drilling as part of the solution. He should have been quiet until he formulated an easy-to-explain solution.
7. NOT WELCOMING GOP – John Kerry knew Americans wanted bipartisanship in 2004. Yet, he expected McCain to accept being the only Republican in a Democratic administration rather than assemble a team with many Republicans. Obama also knew Americans want bipartisanship, but he made the same mistake. He should have announced his Cabinet and included conservatives like Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar and people independents respect. Colin Powell helped George Bush Jr. immensely in 2000 because it was clear he would be Bush’s Secretary of State.
6. VP PICK TOO SAFE – Obama’s change message would have been far more convincing if he picked an outsider. Instead, his finalists were all conventional politicians. Joe Biden was the best by far. I thought ‘it would be idiotic to pick an inexperienced governor like Tim Kaine.’ Little did I know it could be much worse. Obama should have selected a military figure like Wesley Clark, Anthony Zinni, or Jim Webb to counter McCain’s national security argument and draw independents. Or he should have begged Al Gore, whose No. 1 accomplishment is not political.
5. REFUSED TO BUCK HIS PARTY – Millions of indies oppose a traditional Democratic or Republican president. McCain has kissed GOP butt recently, but he has bucked his party on numerous issues. Even The Incompetent One bucked his party on Education and Immigration in 2000. If Obama has challenged Democratic orthodoxy on a major issue, he is keeping it a secret.
(In Chicago, Obama has said nothing about the common practice of powerful Dems taking their names off the ballot months after primaries and choosing their incompetent children as a replacement without a primary; the USA’s largest county is a wreck thanks to this practice.)
4. ATTACKED THE WRONG LIES – Moronic Dems still think the only reason that Kerry lost is the Swift Boat slanders. Talk to independents. They’ll tell you that Kerry never enunciated reasons to vote FOR him. He endorsed a children’s health insurance plan the week AFTER the election. Learning the wrong lesson, Obama attacked numerous lies advanced by a very dirty campaign. He should have focused on the lie that he wants to raise taxes – a lie that half of Americans agreed with. Attacking this lie would have simultaneously advanced his own plan.
3. FOCUSED ON COMMUNITY ORGANIZING – Bush led in pre-election 2004 polls by 1.5 percent. He won by an extra percent thanks to a superior organization. Obama spent millions on offices and staff in about 20 states, including Montana, North Dakota, Georgia, Indiana, and North Carolina while McCain spent close to ZERO. On Election Day, this effort cut McCain’s lead from 3 to 1 percent. Obama was oblivious to the fact that he was losing far more than this 2 percent by spending months deciding that ideas didn’t matter and counting on his organization.
2. THIN RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENT – I’m not referring to a lack of experience per se. Rather, I’m talking about the fact that during his two years running for president he had plenty of opportunities to take the lead on major issues in the U.S. Senate, but he didn’t. He could have easily blended his plan for the nation on the campaign trail with a leadership effort in the Senate – an effort that dozens of Democratic senators probably would have been happy to rally behind.
1. A VACUOUS CAMPAIGN – "Drill now." "Cut taxes." "Conservative judges." "The surge worked." I’ll protect you." You already know the above is McCain’s plan. He gained millions of votes by constantly repeating these bromides. Obama’s plan? "I’m for change. McCain is not for change. He is like Bush." Repeating Gore and Kerry’s stupidity, he did not give independents a few easy-to-explain reasons to vote FOR him. It was so simple – "Better health care," "Lower taxes," "Balanced budget," "Get Bin Laden." He never specified change to voters’ satisfaction.
TOP TEN REASONS OBAMA LOST THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
According to presidential scholars, Illinois Senator Barack Obama should win the 2008 presidential election by about 10 percentage points. The scholars base these projections on all sorts of data that have proven to be historically accurate – the economic condition of the nation, the mood of people as expressed in polls, the popularity of the incumbent president, etc.
Of course, the scholars made roughly the same projection about Al Gore in 2000, but he made a confounding number of mistakes on the campaign trail. When thinking about Obama’s campaign yesterday, I was flabbergasted by the number of mistakes he has made. This compelled me to put together a list, which I later culled to 10.
Because of the factors cited by presidential scholars, Obama probably still has a roughly 40 percent chance of winning, but I decided to get a jump on the inevitable lists by putting out mine before the election. They are basically listed chronologically.
10. CONTEMPT FOR AMERICANS – The first thing that angered me about his campaign was his decision to block a revote by Michigan Democrats – a vote he probably would have won. This came back to haunt him when Michigan supported Senator John McCain. Later in his barely triumphal primary campaign, he barely set foot in West Virginia and Kentucky while focusing on collecting endorsements. And, of course, he insulted rural voters in a highly publicized comment that I personally feel was unfairly taken out of context, but I’m not a rural American.
9. AVOIDING PUBLIC FORUMS – Turning down McCain’s invitation for weekly Town Hall meetings was inexplicable. The "logic," I suppose, was that Obama was the frontrunner and McCain is really good at these forums. This logic failed to consider that millions of Americans were uncomfortable electing an unknown and talking to voters would have made them more comfortable with him. Besides that, Obama could have used the forums to improve his debating skills. Instead, he didn’t, and McCain took him apart in the three presidential debates.
8. NO CLEAR SOLUTION TO ENERGY CRISIS – I believe the campaign turned when McCain responded to soaring gas prices by changing his position on offshore oil drilling. "Drill now" is a slogan that millions of Americans understood. Since the price issue came up in the primaries, it is inexplicable that Obama was caught off guard and again opposed a rival’s position instead of proposing his own. He ripped McCain immediately, but eventually accepted drilling as part of the solution. He should have been quiet until he formulated an easy-to-explain solution.
7. NOT WELCOMING GOP – John Kerry knew Americans wanted bipartisanship in 2004. Yet, he expected McCain to accept being the only Republican in a Democratic administration rather than assemble a team with many Republicans. Obama also knew Americans want bipartisanship, but he made the same mistake. He should have announced his Cabinet and included conservatives like Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar and people independents respect. Colin Powell helped George Bush Jr. immensely in 2000 because it was clear he would be Bush’s Secretary of State.
6. VP PICK TOO SAFE – Obama’s change message would have been far more convincing if he picked an outsider. Instead, his finalists were all conventional politicians. Joe Biden was the best by far. I thought ‘it would be idiotic to pick an inexperienced governor like Tim Kaine.’ Little did I know it could be much worse. Obama should have selected a military figure like Wesley Clark, Anthony Zinni, or Jim Webb to counter McCain’s national security argument and draw independents. Or he should have begged Al Gore, whose No. 1 accomplishment is not political.
5. REFUSED TO BUCK HIS PARTY – Millions of indies oppose a traditional Democratic or Republican president. McCain has kissed GOP butt recently, but he has bucked his party on numerous issues. Even The Incompetent One bucked his party on Education and Immigration in 2000. If Obama has challenged Democratic orthodoxy on a major issue, he is keeping it a secret.
(In Chicago, Obama has said nothing about the common practice of powerful Dems taking their names off the ballot months after primaries and choosing their incompetent children as a replacement without a primary; the USA’s largest county is a wreck thanks to this practice.)
4. ATTACKED THE WRONG LIES – Moronic Dems still think the only reason that Kerry lost is the Swift Boat slanders. Talk to independents. They’ll tell you that Kerry never enunciated reasons to vote FOR him. He endorsed a children’s health insurance plan the week AFTER the election. Learning the wrong lesson, Obama attacked numerous lies advanced by a very dirty campaign. He should have focused on the lie that he wants to raise taxes – a lie that half of Americans agreed with. Attacking this lie would have simultaneously advanced his own plan.
3. FOCUSED ON COMMUNITY ORGANIZING – Bush led in pre-election 2004 polls by 1.5 percent. He won by an extra percent thanks to a superior organization. Obama spent millions on offices and staff in about 20 states, including Montana, North Dakota, Georgia, Indiana, and North Carolina while McCain spent close to ZERO. On Election Day, this effort cut McCain’s lead from 3 to 1 percent. Obama was oblivious to the fact that he was losing far more than this 2 percent by spending months deciding that ideas didn’t matter and counting on his organization.
2. THIN RECORD OF ACCOMPLISHMENT – I’m not referring to a lack of experience per se. Rather, I’m talking about the fact that during his two years running for president he had plenty of opportunities to take the lead on major issues in the U.S. Senate, but he didn’t. He could have easily blended his plan for the nation on the campaign trail with a leadership effort in the Senate – an effort that dozens of Democratic senators probably would have been happy to rally behind.
1. A VACUOUS CAMPAIGN – "Drill now." "Cut taxes." "Conservative judges." "The surge worked." I’ll protect you." You already know the above is McCain’s plan. He gained millions of votes by constantly repeating these bromides. Obama’s plan? "I’m for change. McCain is not for change. He is like Bush." Repeating Gore and Kerry’s stupidity, he did not give independents a few easy-to-explain reasons to vote FOR him. It was so simple – "Better health care," "Lower taxes," "Balanced budget," "Get Bin Laden." He never specified change to voters’ satisfaction.
RACISM DOESN'T EXIST -- AND DIDN'T IN 1960 EITHER
WROTE FOLLOWING COLUMN ON SEPT. 23, 2008
RACISM DOESN’T EXIST – AND DIDN’T IN 1960 EITHER
"You’re black!!!"
The man was practically screaming at me. I was startled. I am white, but this man was proclaiming that I was being discriminated against because I was African-American.
It was 1982. I had sought a management training job in New York City. Several of my college classmates had attained such jobs, essentially company-subsidized MBA’s with large salaries, from the same companies that told me there were no openings. Perplexed, I consulted Robert Jameson Associates, a job search consulting firm.
Within seconds, Jameson’s Chris Cunningham looked at my resume and pointed at the paragraph about my internship on Capitol Hill. The conversation went something like this:
Cunningham: "Get this off your resume. If you do, you’ll get job offers."
Me: "Are you saying that companies only want people focused on Business?"
Cunningham: "No." (He just kept glaring at me like I was an idiot)
Me: "Are you saying that companies don’t want to hire people interested in Politics?" (He was now angry and his face was turning red.)......."Are you trying to tell me that companies are conservative and they won’t hire people who have worked for liberals?"
Cunningham (very loudly): "You’re black!!!"
Me: "Excuse me."
Cunningham: "You’re black!!! You worked for a black. They think you’re black. Big companies don’t hire blacks!!!"
I "fixed" my resume and sent it to a few companies that had rejected me. One week later, I received letters from Chase Manhattan Bank and Manufacturers Hanover Bank that said "Call us immediately" and expressed an interest in hiring me ASAP. Angered, I did not pursue the opportunities, but I still have copies of the four letters from the two companies.
My experience as an African-American was jolted back into my memory this week as I heard and read about two contrasting portraits of America.
In one, an Associated Press report, "more than a third of all white Democrats and independents – voters (Barack) Obama can't win the White House without – agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views."
In the second, I learned that racism doesn’t exist – and didn’t in 1960 either (my deliberately provocative headline). How do I know? A conservative radio talk show host told me so.
I had just turned on the Chicago station that was a few minutes away from broadcasting Rush Limbaugh. The Chicago Limbaugh was ranting that basketball star Josh Howard had no right to complain about racism because he earned $9 million per year. He implied several times that the high salaries of many African-Americans proved racism did not exist.
The rant inspired Dittoheads to call in to agree with him. The reactions weren’t as ugly as the racist bilge that Howard’s boss, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, received and published, but it’s fair to conclude that the host has many listeners who are stupid or racially insensitive.
Back to my headline. In 1960, Wilt Chamberlain, Willie Mays, Jim Brown, and other sports stars were very successful and admired by far more Americans than Howard. Yet, Mays could not eat in "White Only" restaurants in his native Alabama and his childhood neighbors were not allowed to vote.
Based on the talk show host’s logic, these stars had no right to complain about racism because their success proved it didn’t exist. Or maybe he was implying that they – and their 2008 equivalents – should be greedy bastards who should ignore racism even if they believe that millions of African-Americans are victims of discrimination because they are personally wealthy.
In either case, the talk show host’s outburst was emblematic of a "see no evil" approach in the USA. In this world, the nation need not worry about discrimination because Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan have mind-boggling wealth and Americans like them. I think that we do need to worry about racism although I hope that there is less of it than there was in 1982.
As for me, I learned two valuable lessons on that day in 1982. Half asleep for an early-morning appointment, I put on a suit and a tie, a dress shirt, dress pants, dress shoes – and the first pair of socks that I grabbed out of the drawer. On the train, I realized I was wearing white socks.
As I waited for Mr. Cunningham, the receptionist told colleagues while she giggled that I was wearing white socks. After Mr. Cunningham’s advice on my resume, our meeting ended. As I walked out the door, he said "one more thing. Don’t ever wear white socks with shoes."
RACISM DOESN’T EXIST – AND DIDN’T IN 1960 EITHER
"You’re black!!!"
The man was practically screaming at me. I was startled. I am white, but this man was proclaiming that I was being discriminated against because I was African-American.
It was 1982. I had sought a management training job in New York City. Several of my college classmates had attained such jobs, essentially company-subsidized MBA’s with large salaries, from the same companies that told me there were no openings. Perplexed, I consulted Robert Jameson Associates, a job search consulting firm.
Within seconds, Jameson’s Chris Cunningham looked at my resume and pointed at the paragraph about my internship on Capitol Hill. The conversation went something like this:
Cunningham: "Get this off your resume. If you do, you’ll get job offers."
Me: "Are you saying that companies only want people focused on Business?"
Cunningham: "No." (He just kept glaring at me like I was an idiot)
Me: "Are you saying that companies don’t want to hire people interested in Politics?" (He was now angry and his face was turning red.)......."Are you trying to tell me that companies are conservative and they won’t hire people who have worked for liberals?"
Cunningham (very loudly): "You’re black!!!"
Me: "Excuse me."
Cunningham: "You’re black!!! You worked for a black. They think you’re black. Big companies don’t hire blacks!!!"
I "fixed" my resume and sent it to a few companies that had rejected me. One week later, I received letters from Chase Manhattan Bank and Manufacturers Hanover Bank that said "Call us immediately" and expressed an interest in hiring me ASAP. Angered, I did not pursue the opportunities, but I still have copies of the four letters from the two companies.
My experience as an African-American was jolted back into my memory this week as I heard and read about two contrasting portraits of America.
In one, an Associated Press report, "more than a third of all white Democrats and independents – voters (Barack) Obama can't win the White House without – agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views."
In the second, I learned that racism doesn’t exist – and didn’t in 1960 either (my deliberately provocative headline). How do I know? A conservative radio talk show host told me so.
I had just turned on the Chicago station that was a few minutes away from broadcasting Rush Limbaugh. The Chicago Limbaugh was ranting that basketball star Josh Howard had no right to complain about racism because he earned $9 million per year. He implied several times that the high salaries of many African-Americans proved racism did not exist.
The rant inspired Dittoheads to call in to agree with him. The reactions weren’t as ugly as the racist bilge that Howard’s boss, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, received and published, but it’s fair to conclude that the host has many listeners who are stupid or racially insensitive.
Back to my headline. In 1960, Wilt Chamberlain, Willie Mays, Jim Brown, and other sports stars were very successful and admired by far more Americans than Howard. Yet, Mays could not eat in "White Only" restaurants in his native Alabama and his childhood neighbors were not allowed to vote.
Based on the talk show host’s logic, these stars had no right to complain about racism because their success proved it didn’t exist. Or maybe he was implying that they – and their 2008 equivalents – should be greedy bastards who should ignore racism even if they believe that millions of African-Americans are victims of discrimination because they are personally wealthy.
In either case, the talk show host’s outburst was emblematic of a "see no evil" approach in the USA. In this world, the nation need not worry about discrimination because Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan have mind-boggling wealth and Americans like them. I think that we do need to worry about racism although I hope that there is less of it than there was in 1982.
As for me, I learned two valuable lessons on that day in 1982. Half asleep for an early-morning appointment, I put on a suit and a tie, a dress shirt, dress pants, dress shoes – and the first pair of socks that I grabbed out of the drawer. On the train, I realized I was wearing white socks.
As I waited for Mr. Cunningham, the receptionist told colleagues while she giggled that I was wearing white socks. After Mr. Cunningham’s advice on my resume, our meeting ended. As I walked out the door, he said "one more thing. Don’t ever wear white socks with shoes."
Fake letters in newspapers are common
WROTE FOLLOWING COLUMN ON SEPT. 24, 2008
Kerry:
Many years ago, I was the editor of a newspaper. A local woman regularly wrote letters to the editors on the topic of Soviet Jewry. They were poorly written. I also knew her personally because of her activism. I did not think that she was bright.
One day, she walked into my office and presented me with a letter on her favorite topic. It was the most wonderfully-written letter I have ever read. In fact, it was one of the most wonderfully-written anything I have ever read.
I was shocked. I looked her in the face and asked if she had written it. She said "Yes." I didn't believe her, but I promised to publish it -- and did. I figured that a staffer from the local Soviet Jewry organization had ghost-written it. That was good enough reason to print it although I wished the woman had told me the truth.
Later, I ran into the two staffers for the local Soviet Jewry organization, one of whom was a writer. Both insisted that they didn't write it. Now, I was just perplexed.
About one week later, I was reading Jewish newspapers from around the nation. The Detroit Jewish newspaper had the SAME letter word for word, but with a different author. Then, I read the San Francisco Jewish paper. And the Cleveland paper. And on and on and on.
Yes, the SAME LETTER WAS IN ALL THE NEWSPAPERS word for word with different authors. I made a quick phone call to the national headquarters of the Soviet Jewry organization and a staffer admitted to me in about one second that a colleague of his had written the letter. He had no shame about it. He said it was standard practice.
I was infuriated, but I found that I was the ONLY person who was. No one on the newspaper's Board of Directors could give a damn.
My point is that this uproar over the "fake" McCain letters is NOT going to resonate with more than a few people. I would BET you that the Obama campaign is doing the same thing.
Shalom,
ZWrite
Author tags:
Kerry:
Many years ago, I was the editor of a newspaper. A local woman regularly wrote letters to the editors on the topic of Soviet Jewry. They were poorly written. I also knew her personally because of her activism. I did not think that she was bright.
One day, she walked into my office and presented me with a letter on her favorite topic. It was the most wonderfully-written letter I have ever read. In fact, it was one of the most wonderfully-written anything I have ever read.
I was shocked. I looked her in the face and asked if she had written it. She said "Yes." I didn't believe her, but I promised to publish it -- and did. I figured that a staffer from the local Soviet Jewry organization had ghost-written it. That was good enough reason to print it although I wished the woman had told me the truth.
Later, I ran into the two staffers for the local Soviet Jewry organization, one of whom was a writer. Both insisted that they didn't write it. Now, I was just perplexed.
About one week later, I was reading Jewish newspapers from around the nation. The Detroit Jewish newspaper had the SAME letter word for word, but with a different author. Then, I read the San Francisco Jewish paper. And the Cleveland paper. And on and on and on.
Yes, the SAME LETTER WAS IN ALL THE NEWSPAPERS word for word with different authors. I made a quick phone call to the national headquarters of the Soviet Jewry organization and a staffer admitted to me in about one second that a colleague of his had written the letter. He had no shame about it. He said it was standard practice.
I was infuriated, but I found that I was the ONLY person who was. No one on the newspaper's Board of Directors could give a damn.
My point is that this uproar over the "fake" McCain letters is NOT going to resonate with more than a few people. I would BET you that the Obama campaign is doing the same thing.
Shalom,
ZWrite
Author tags:
JOHN McCAIN'S BEST HOPE -- "I AM DUMPING SARAH PALIN"
WROTE FOLLOWING COLUMN ON SEPT. 26, 2008
JOHN McCAIN'S BEST HOPE -- "I AM DUMPING SARAH PALIN"
If John McCain makes the following speech, I will vote for him for president.
I know that my fantasy of sleeping with Sarah Palin is more realistic than the below fantasy, but I’m a dreamer.
"My friends, for most of my career, I have been regarded by the overwhelming majority of people who know me as a straight talker – someone who will tell people the truth as I see it even if it angers my conservative and Republican friends. I can show you articles written by dozens of journalists of every ideological stripe praising me for my political courage.
"Unfortunately, I have also made some very serious mistakes. I’m a human being who has in the past been persuaded to do things I should not have done. I hope you judge me by how I’ve responded to those mistakes rather than the mistakes themselves.
"For example, I reacted to my involvement in the Keating S&L scandal by becoming a diehard proponent of campaign finance reform and I’ve become more interested in civil rights issues after conservatives persuaded me to take a neutral position on the Confederate flag - a position that I knew was immoral.
"I’ve also made mistakes in this presidential campaign. So has Barack Obama. He has not confessed his errors. I am about to admit a very big one.
"On Aug. 29, I selected Sarah Palin to be my vice presidential running mate. It was not my choice. I hope you will be patient as I explain to you what happened – and why I am asking you to support the McCain-Joe Lieberman ticket.
"The truth is that I have been in public service for 26 years. Unlike Senator Obama, I did not need attorneys and investigators to help me determine who will be an excellent vice president. When I announced I was running for president in 1999, I already had a short list of potential running mates. I had a similar list when I announced my candidacy for this election.
"I have worked with Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge for decades, and I knew then and know now that they will be outstanding vice presidents. There were others on my short list. People like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Joe Biden, and Chuck Hagel. Unfortunately, the latter group was not interested in being vice president or not interested in being my running mate.
"After I won the Republican nomination in March, I began finalizing my vice presidential selection. Like all other presidential nominees, I had my staff put together a list of people I knew I would not select, but would please other politicians and voters. Senator Obama did the same thing, but he won’t tell you that. I just did.
"Because so many conservatives were opposed to my candidacy, my vetters looked for politicians who would please conservatives. My final list included Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, and Sarah Palin. I don’t consider any of them suitable to be my vice president although they all have wonderful qualities and could be wonderful presidents someday.
"I think it is clear that I never considered Sarah Palin a serious candidate. I talked to her only once in my life prior to Aug. 22, the day that Senator Obama selected Joe Biden. On that day, I decided to choose Joe Lieberman over Tom Ridge as my running mate.
"I sincerely wish that I had announced my friend Joe on that day. Unfortunately, I told other high-level Republicans about my decision before telling voters. That was an unconscionable mistake. In turn, they informed other influential conservatives about my choice.
"What I did next was even worse – I listened to my critics. The straight talk is that several influential Republicans threatened me. They said they would make sure that I would lose the election if I selected Lieberman or Ridge. They threatened highly-organized campaigns against me at the Republican Convention and voter boycotts afterward.
"I was a POW in Vietnam for six years. I pride myself on my courage. On Aug. 22, though, I was a political coward. I hope to earn your respect by admitting my mistake and being forthright about what happened.
"The people who threatened me included Karl Rove, James Dobson, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. They are all wildly popular in some circles, but they care far more about their narrow political ideology than this nation. They are not true patriots. Senator Obama is supported by liberals who have the same me-first principles, but he won’t denounce them. I just did.
"Because I never believed that I would be forced to withdraw my nomination of Joe Lieberman, I did not have a backup plan. With the Republican Convention only days away, my advisors did not have time to vet anyone who was not on the final list. I had four choices.
"On Aug. 28, I met Sarah Palin. I was astounded. She was dynamic, charismatic, and came across as someone with great courage. I was particularly impressed by her account of how she challenged the Republican establishment in Alaska and fought government waste. These characteristics blended with my past history better than Romney, Pawlenty, and Jindal.
"I know now that her account of how she opposed "The Bridge To Nowhere" and other big government projects is factually incorrect, and I owe Americans an apology for not checking out her claims. I owe you all an even bigger apology for concluding that she had the knowledge and judgment to be vice president. You will have to take my word that the principles she expressed to me on Aug. 28 made me comfortable that she had what it takes to serve as vice president.
"Unfortunately, in the last month, it is has become very clear to me that Governor Palin just doesn’t have an understanding of many important issues. I wish that members of what I used to call my base were with me on Aug. 28.
"The truth is that journalists have asked her better questions than I did. More importantly, my own advisers have been very upset about her grasp of issues while trying to prepare her for the vice presidential debate and interviews.
"I attended a debate prep session for the first time yesterday. Watching Joe Lieberman try to explain sophisticated foreign policy ideas to Governor Palin was the final straw. I cannot in good conscience ask the American people to support me with Sarah Palin as my running mate.
"The problem with the current presidency is that George W. Bush has not been able to admit his mistakes. I’m convinced that Barack Obama might have the same flaw. I don’t.
"I ask you all to forgive me and support the McCain-Lieberman ticket. In office, we will fight for bipartisan solutions to America’s problems and act like we are the president and vice president of the USA, not the president and vice president of one political party."
JOHN McCAIN'S BEST HOPE -- "I AM DUMPING SARAH PALIN"
If John McCain makes the following speech, I will vote for him for president.
I know that my fantasy of sleeping with Sarah Palin is more realistic than the below fantasy, but I’m a dreamer.
"My friends, for most of my career, I have been regarded by the overwhelming majority of people who know me as a straight talker – someone who will tell people the truth as I see it even if it angers my conservative and Republican friends. I can show you articles written by dozens of journalists of every ideological stripe praising me for my political courage.
"Unfortunately, I have also made some very serious mistakes. I’m a human being who has in the past been persuaded to do things I should not have done. I hope you judge me by how I’ve responded to those mistakes rather than the mistakes themselves.
"For example, I reacted to my involvement in the Keating S&L scandal by becoming a diehard proponent of campaign finance reform and I’ve become more interested in civil rights issues after conservatives persuaded me to take a neutral position on the Confederate flag - a position that I knew was immoral.
"I’ve also made mistakes in this presidential campaign. So has Barack Obama. He has not confessed his errors. I am about to admit a very big one.
"On Aug. 29, I selected Sarah Palin to be my vice presidential running mate. It was not my choice. I hope you will be patient as I explain to you what happened – and why I am asking you to support the McCain-Joe Lieberman ticket.
"The truth is that I have been in public service for 26 years. Unlike Senator Obama, I did not need attorneys and investigators to help me determine who will be an excellent vice president. When I announced I was running for president in 1999, I already had a short list of potential running mates. I had a similar list when I announced my candidacy for this election.
"I have worked with Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge for decades, and I knew then and know now that they will be outstanding vice presidents. There were others on my short list. People like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Joe Biden, and Chuck Hagel. Unfortunately, the latter group was not interested in being vice president or not interested in being my running mate.
"After I won the Republican nomination in March, I began finalizing my vice presidential selection. Like all other presidential nominees, I had my staff put together a list of people I knew I would not select, but would please other politicians and voters. Senator Obama did the same thing, but he won’t tell you that. I just did.
"Because so many conservatives were opposed to my candidacy, my vetters looked for politicians who would please conservatives. My final list included Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal, and Sarah Palin. I don’t consider any of them suitable to be my vice president although they all have wonderful qualities and could be wonderful presidents someday.
"I think it is clear that I never considered Sarah Palin a serious candidate. I talked to her only once in my life prior to Aug. 22, the day that Senator Obama selected Joe Biden. On that day, I decided to choose Joe Lieberman over Tom Ridge as my running mate.
"I sincerely wish that I had announced my friend Joe on that day. Unfortunately, I told other high-level Republicans about my decision before telling voters. That was an unconscionable mistake. In turn, they informed other influential conservatives about my choice.
"What I did next was even worse – I listened to my critics. The straight talk is that several influential Republicans threatened me. They said they would make sure that I would lose the election if I selected Lieberman or Ridge. They threatened highly-organized campaigns against me at the Republican Convention and voter boycotts afterward.
"I was a POW in Vietnam for six years. I pride myself on my courage. On Aug. 22, though, I was a political coward. I hope to earn your respect by admitting my mistake and being forthright about what happened.
"The people who threatened me included Karl Rove, James Dobson, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh. They are all wildly popular in some circles, but they care far more about their narrow political ideology than this nation. They are not true patriots. Senator Obama is supported by liberals who have the same me-first principles, but he won’t denounce them. I just did.
"Because I never believed that I would be forced to withdraw my nomination of Joe Lieberman, I did not have a backup plan. With the Republican Convention only days away, my advisors did not have time to vet anyone who was not on the final list. I had four choices.
"On Aug. 28, I met Sarah Palin. I was astounded. She was dynamic, charismatic, and came across as someone with great courage. I was particularly impressed by her account of how she challenged the Republican establishment in Alaska and fought government waste. These characteristics blended with my past history better than Romney, Pawlenty, and Jindal.
"I know now that her account of how she opposed "The Bridge To Nowhere" and other big government projects is factually incorrect, and I owe Americans an apology for not checking out her claims. I owe you all an even bigger apology for concluding that she had the knowledge and judgment to be vice president. You will have to take my word that the principles she expressed to me on Aug. 28 made me comfortable that she had what it takes to serve as vice president.
"Unfortunately, in the last month, it is has become very clear to me that Governor Palin just doesn’t have an understanding of many important issues. I wish that members of what I used to call my base were with me on Aug. 28.
"The truth is that journalists have asked her better questions than I did. More importantly, my own advisers have been very upset about her grasp of issues while trying to prepare her for the vice presidential debate and interviews.
"I attended a debate prep session for the first time yesterday. Watching Joe Lieberman try to explain sophisticated foreign policy ideas to Governor Palin was the final straw. I cannot in good conscience ask the American people to support me with Sarah Palin as my running mate.
"The problem with the current presidency is that George W. Bush has not been able to admit his mistakes. I’m convinced that Barack Obama might have the same flaw. I don’t.
"I ask you all to forgive me and support the McCain-Lieberman ticket. In office, we will fight for bipartisan solutions to America’s problems and act like we are the president and vice president of the USA, not the president and vice president of one political party."
WHY DID OBAMA AVOID TOWN HALL MEETINGS??
Wrote following column on Sept. 27, 2008
WHY DID OBAMA AVOID TOWN HALL MEETINGS??
I haven’t had a TV for the last few weeks (a column on that is coming soon), but here is my analysis of the debate as I heard it on the radio after declining Obama debate parties invitations.
I took three pages of notes. I wrote repeatedly that both Barack Obama and John McCain were giving detailed answers and demonstrating intellectual depth on a wide variety of topics.
Perhaps, my standards were low after reading transcripts of Sarah Palin’s interviews with Katie Couric, but Obama and McCain seemed far more substantive than previous candidates – Gore and Kerry as well as "Fuzzy Math" Bush (does anyone remember that pathetic performance?).
During the debate, I wrote "Why did Obama avoid Town Hall meetings?" Two weeks ago, I wrote that avoiding these forums was one of the Top 10 reasons Obama would lose the election. While listening to him Friday, I became more perplexed about why he declined McCain’s offer.
Looking at the stars I gave Obama and McCain after good points, Obama won the debate on substance. But I acknowledge that this may be my political bias. I’ve done lots of research and writing on how rich people use loopholes to avoid taxes and the issue infuriates me.
I also am a History buff and am infuriated (I have a blood pressure problem) when candidates use bogeymen like the idiot from Iran to score political points while ignoring the fact that high-level American officials (particularly Henry Kissinger) have repeatedly talked to brutal dictators with far more power than Ahmenijad (I know I misspelled his name, but I don’t care.)
Realistically, McCain and Obama were about equal on substance. To me, that is a HUGE victory for Obama because tens of millions of Americans are justifiably wary of choosing someone who IS inexperienced. On Friday, Obama took a huge step forward in allaying their fears. He DOES have the knowledge, and he does NOT have liberal, out-of-the-mainstream views.
I thought the key to the debate was McCain’s constant use of the phrase "Obama doesn’t seem to understand." Listening on the radio, this phrase seemed condescending and annoying. It also seemed stupid and counterproductive because Obama DID seem to understand. McCain’s phrase would have worked better if he was debating Palin.
I still think that Obama is waging a very flawed campaign because his decision-making is way too timid and he won’t give people a few specific pro-change reasons to vote FOR him (as opposed to anti-McCain reasons).
I think this also means that major long-term problems won’t be solved during his administration, but I believe his first debate performance against McCain also reinforces my belief he will be an excellent day-to-day leader of the USA if he is elected.
Shalom,
ZWrite
P.S. – Someone needs to tell Glenn Greenwald that his claims about a "conservative media" are as idiotic as conservatives’ claims about a liberal media. His favorite target, Mark Halperin, is lavishly praising Obama in a column about the debate.
WHY DID OBAMA AVOID TOWN HALL MEETINGS??
I haven’t had a TV for the last few weeks (a column on that is coming soon), but here is my analysis of the debate as I heard it on the radio after declining Obama debate parties invitations.
I took three pages of notes. I wrote repeatedly that both Barack Obama and John McCain were giving detailed answers and demonstrating intellectual depth on a wide variety of topics.
Perhaps, my standards were low after reading transcripts of Sarah Palin’s interviews with Katie Couric, but Obama and McCain seemed far more substantive than previous candidates – Gore and Kerry as well as "Fuzzy Math" Bush (does anyone remember that pathetic performance?).
During the debate, I wrote "Why did Obama avoid Town Hall meetings?" Two weeks ago, I wrote that avoiding these forums was one of the Top 10 reasons Obama would lose the election. While listening to him Friday, I became more perplexed about why he declined McCain’s offer.
Looking at the stars I gave Obama and McCain after good points, Obama won the debate on substance. But I acknowledge that this may be my political bias. I’ve done lots of research and writing on how rich people use loopholes to avoid taxes and the issue infuriates me.
I also am a History buff and am infuriated (I have a blood pressure problem) when candidates use bogeymen like the idiot from Iran to score political points while ignoring the fact that high-level American officials (particularly Henry Kissinger) have repeatedly talked to brutal dictators with far more power than Ahmenijad (I know I misspelled his name, but I don’t care.)
Realistically, McCain and Obama were about equal on substance. To me, that is a HUGE victory for Obama because tens of millions of Americans are justifiably wary of choosing someone who IS inexperienced. On Friday, Obama took a huge step forward in allaying their fears. He DOES have the knowledge, and he does NOT have liberal, out-of-the-mainstream views.
I thought the key to the debate was McCain’s constant use of the phrase "Obama doesn’t seem to understand." Listening on the radio, this phrase seemed condescending and annoying. It also seemed stupid and counterproductive because Obama DID seem to understand. McCain’s phrase would have worked better if he was debating Palin.
I still think that Obama is waging a very flawed campaign because his decision-making is way too timid and he won’t give people a few specific pro-change reasons to vote FOR him (as opposed to anti-McCain reasons).
I think this also means that major long-term problems won’t be solved during his administration, but I believe his first debate performance against McCain also reinforces my belief he will be an excellent day-to-day leader of the USA if he is elected.
Shalom,
ZWrite
P.S. – Someone needs to tell Glenn Greenwald that his claims about a "conservative media" are as idiotic as conservatives’ claims about a liberal media. His favorite target, Mark Halperin, is lavishly praising Obama in a column about the debate.
SUBSTANCE COUNTS: Obama won debate on important issues
SUBSTANCE COUNTS: Obama won debate on important issues
The commentary on the Oct. 7 McCain-Obama debate was sickeningly superficial.
Commentators not smart enough to understand issues or too lazy to pay attention are focused on absolute nonsense such as McCain’s off-hand "That one" comment – a comment that can only be read as contemptuous if you’re a mind-reader and McCain is expressing contempt.
What’s far more important to the nation’s future is substance – and Senator Barack Obama won convincingly on substance.
In my view, the two key moments of the debate were when Obama expressed his opinions on health care and Osama Bin-Laden. On health care, the senator answered moderator Tom Brokaw’s excellent follow-up question by declaring unequivocally that health care is a "right." His anecdote about his dying mother being worried about medical costs because of our immoral system was a great way of showing what happens when health care is not a right.
Obama’s answer could be important to the future of the nation if he presses forward on a health care insurance plan. I hope that he spends a lot of time as president selling Americans on the superiority of the system of other nations. We are ranked 37th in the world in health care and unnecessary deaths will continue as long as Americans continue to believe we’re No. 1.
The other key substantive remark was "if we have Bin-Laden in our sights, we should take him out." Hopefully, this presages an intensive hunt for the greatest criminal of our time – an endeavor which will probably necessitate redeploying troops now in Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Senator John McCain’s response that we shouldn’t announce an effort to pursue Bin-Laden for fear of offending a nation with a dictatorial past and contempt for its own citizens lacked moral conviction.
Obama also excelled on other issues that are important to our nation. They included:
* Favoring massive investments in energy, health care, and education while simultaneously calling for massive spending cuts while McCain advocated an across-the-board spending freeze. Said Obama about cuts: "I want to use a scalpel, not a hatchet." I wish he was more specific.
* Favoring talks with rotten leaders of America’s enemies. Obama pointed out that Bush pursued a policy of not talking to Iran and North Korea for several years and that this strategy failed miserably. He noted that Bush’s recent turnaround on this stand has produced results.
* Favoring a tax cut that benefits the middle class in contrast to McCain’s "tax cuts for everyone" theory that would give billions to already rich people.
On all five of the issues I mentioned, Obama’s responses were important to our future. Whether McCain looks at Obama is NOT important to our future. Whether he despises Obama is NOT important to our future. Whether McCain and Obama were whining about being confined to the rules of the debate is NOT important to our future.
If Americans focused on substance rather than style, this would be a better nation. Thank you.
Shalom,
ZWrite
Author tags
The commentary on the Oct. 7 McCain-Obama debate was sickeningly superficial.
Commentators not smart enough to understand issues or too lazy to pay attention are focused on absolute nonsense such as McCain’s off-hand "That one" comment – a comment that can only be read as contemptuous if you’re a mind-reader and McCain is expressing contempt.
What’s far more important to the nation’s future is substance – and Senator Barack Obama won convincingly on substance.
In my view, the two key moments of the debate were when Obama expressed his opinions on health care and Osama Bin-Laden. On health care, the senator answered moderator Tom Brokaw’s excellent follow-up question by declaring unequivocally that health care is a "right." His anecdote about his dying mother being worried about medical costs because of our immoral system was a great way of showing what happens when health care is not a right.
Obama’s answer could be important to the future of the nation if he presses forward on a health care insurance plan. I hope that he spends a lot of time as president selling Americans on the superiority of the system of other nations. We are ranked 37th in the world in health care and unnecessary deaths will continue as long as Americans continue to believe we’re No. 1.
The other key substantive remark was "if we have Bin-Laden in our sights, we should take him out." Hopefully, this presages an intensive hunt for the greatest criminal of our time – an endeavor which will probably necessitate redeploying troops now in Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Senator John McCain’s response that we shouldn’t announce an effort to pursue Bin-Laden for fear of offending a nation with a dictatorial past and contempt for its own citizens lacked moral conviction.
Obama also excelled on other issues that are important to our nation. They included:
* Favoring massive investments in energy, health care, and education while simultaneously calling for massive spending cuts while McCain advocated an across-the-board spending freeze. Said Obama about cuts: "I want to use a scalpel, not a hatchet." I wish he was more specific.
* Favoring talks with rotten leaders of America’s enemies. Obama pointed out that Bush pursued a policy of not talking to Iran and North Korea for several years and that this strategy failed miserably. He noted that Bush’s recent turnaround on this stand has produced results.
* Favoring a tax cut that benefits the middle class in contrast to McCain’s "tax cuts for everyone" theory that would give billions to already rich people.
On all five of the issues I mentioned, Obama’s responses were important to our future. Whether McCain looks at Obama is NOT important to our future. Whether he despises Obama is NOT important to our future. Whether McCain and Obama were whining about being confined to the rules of the debate is NOT important to our future.
If Americans focused on substance rather than style, this would be a better nation. Thank you.
Shalom,
ZWrite
Author tags
The Top 10 Things John McCain Should Do To Win Presidency
WROTE FOLLOWING COLUMN ON OCT. 13, 2008
(This is NOT the comedy version; this list is a plan that is roughly in recommended chronological order)
10. Pretend Sarah Palin doesn’t exist (Dump her if it’s legally possible at this late date).
9. Broadcast a television commercial that consists of him looking into the camera and praising Barack Obama’s intellect, character, temperament, and leadership potential (I’m serious).
8. Pledge to only broadcast commercials that consist of him talking directly to Americans about serious issues.
7. Declare victory in Iraq and pledge to move troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan to chase Osama Bin-Laden.
6. Drop out of the Republican Party and pledge to govern as an independent. Dare Obama to do the same.
5. Pledge to formulate a bipartisan Cabinet with an equal number of ex-Democrats, ex-Republicans, and independents. All Cabinet officials and ambassadors would be required to drop out of their party. Dare Obama to make the same pledge.
4. Pledge to nominate one liberal Supreme Court justice for every conservative nominee and make the same pledge for lower-court justices. Dare Obama to do the same.
3. Broadcast a series of television commercials about his bipartisan record of accomplishments in the U.S. Senate and his anti-GOP viewpoints.
2. Broadcast a commercial asking Obama to be specific about his plans for spending cuts and change and daring him to announce a position that isn’t identical to the traditional Democratic position.
1. Just before Election Day, ask Americans for their votes after contrasting his record with someone who has not done much for his constituents during his short public service career.
(This is NOT the comedy version; this list is a plan that is roughly in recommended chronological order)
10. Pretend Sarah Palin doesn’t exist (Dump her if it’s legally possible at this late date).
9. Broadcast a television commercial that consists of him looking into the camera and praising Barack Obama’s intellect, character, temperament, and leadership potential (I’m serious).
8. Pledge to only broadcast commercials that consist of him talking directly to Americans about serious issues.
7. Declare victory in Iraq and pledge to move troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan to chase Osama Bin-Laden.
6. Drop out of the Republican Party and pledge to govern as an independent. Dare Obama to do the same.
5. Pledge to formulate a bipartisan Cabinet with an equal number of ex-Democrats, ex-Republicans, and independents. All Cabinet officials and ambassadors would be required to drop out of their party. Dare Obama to make the same pledge.
4. Pledge to nominate one liberal Supreme Court justice for every conservative nominee and make the same pledge for lower-court justices. Dare Obama to do the same.
3. Broadcast a series of television commercials about his bipartisan record of accomplishments in the U.S. Senate and his anti-GOP viewpoints.
2. Broadcast a commercial asking Obama to be specific about his plans for spending cuts and change and daring him to announce a position that isn’t identical to the traditional Democratic position.
1. Just before Election Day, ask Americans for their votes after contrasting his record with someone who has not done much for his constituents during his short public service career.
OBAMA SHOULD PUT AYERS ISSUE TO REST
Wrote following column on Oct. 15, 2008
OBAMA SHOULD PUT AYERS ISSUE TO REST TONIGHT
By Martin Zabell
I hope John McCain brings up William Ayers at tonight’s debate so Barack Obama can put this inane issue to rest once and for all. He should say something like the following.
"I’m glad you’ve given me a chance to talk about William Ayers.
"I met Ayers in 1995 when he was an Education professor at the University of Illinois. I knew him only as an Education professor and knew absolutely nothing about his life history.
"It would have been a dereliction of my duty as a state senator to not work with Ayers on Education issues. Everyone interested in reforming and improving Chicago’s educational system worked with Ayers on educational issues – Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, civic leaders and business executives.
"By saying that I’m a pal of terrorists for working with Ayers you’re insulting not only me, but dozens, maybe hundreds, of people in Illinois who want to improve the education of children. Your insulting guilt-by-association game has impugned the integrity of the leaders of many institutions that supported work Ayers was involved with, including the Chicago Symphony, Loyola University, Northwestern University, the Chicago Children’s Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association.
"You have also insulted the integrity of the late Walter Annenberg, a longtime conservative Republican who funded the projects Ayers worked on, was once the U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain, and was close friends with your hero Ronald Reagan.
"I learned about Ayers’ activities in the 1960s a few years after I met him. I was a child in the 1960s. The individual who told me about Ayers’ history said it was impressive how he turned his life around and became an outstanding contributor to the civic life of Chicago. In 1997, the city of Chicago named Ayers its "Citizen of the Year."
"I learned in 2001 that Ayers said he had no regrets about his 1960s activities. I condemned him and have pledged that I would no longer work with him. He has zero role in my campaign or my plans for the future.
"You and Sarah Palin should apologize for talking about Ayers instead of talking about issues that Americans care about. You should also apologize for impugning the integrity of all of those people who have worked with Ayers on educational issues and were unfamiliar with his detestable ideas on American government."
OBAMA SHOULD PUT AYERS ISSUE TO REST TONIGHT
By Martin Zabell
I hope John McCain brings up William Ayers at tonight’s debate so Barack Obama can put this inane issue to rest once and for all. He should say something like the following.
"I’m glad you’ve given me a chance to talk about William Ayers.
"I met Ayers in 1995 when he was an Education professor at the University of Illinois. I knew him only as an Education professor and knew absolutely nothing about his life history.
"It would have been a dereliction of my duty as a state senator to not work with Ayers on Education issues. Everyone interested in reforming and improving Chicago’s educational system worked with Ayers on educational issues – Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, civic leaders and business executives.
"By saying that I’m a pal of terrorists for working with Ayers you’re insulting not only me, but dozens, maybe hundreds, of people in Illinois who want to improve the education of children. Your insulting guilt-by-association game has impugned the integrity of the leaders of many institutions that supported work Ayers was involved with, including the Chicago Symphony, Loyola University, Northwestern University, the Chicago Children’s Museum, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, and the Logan Square Neighborhood Association.
"You have also insulted the integrity of the late Walter Annenberg, a longtime conservative Republican who funded the projects Ayers worked on, was once the U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain, and was close friends with your hero Ronald Reagan.
"I learned about Ayers’ activities in the 1960s a few years after I met him. I was a child in the 1960s. The individual who told me about Ayers’ history said it was impressive how he turned his life around and became an outstanding contributor to the civic life of Chicago. In 1997, the city of Chicago named Ayers its "Citizen of the Year."
"I learned in 2001 that Ayers said he had no regrets about his 1960s activities. I condemned him and have pledged that I would no longer work with him. He has zero role in my campaign or my plans for the future.
"You and Sarah Palin should apologize for talking about Ayers instead of talking about issues that Americans care about. You should also apologize for impugning the integrity of all of those people who have worked with Ayers on educational issues and were unfamiliar with his detestable ideas on American government."
BASEBALL VOTING DISPROVES "BRADLEY EFFECT"
Wrote following column on Oct. 28, 2008
Baseball Voting Disproves "Bradley Effect"
By Martin Zabell
Are many Americans who have been polled covert racists or aren’t they?
Political pundits have been studying survey data and the results of past elections in an effort to determine the answer to this question, but they are wasting their time.
The answer is "No!!" How do I know this? I’m a sports fan who has a clear memory of reading something many years ago about how baseball all-star voters have become far less racist over the years. On Oct. 27, I decided to research the issue because I wanted to disprove this nonsense about the "Bradley Effect" possibly causing Barack Obama the presidency.
For those who don’t know, the Bradley Effect refers to Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley losing the race for California governor in 1982 although he was ahead in the polls. Many political experts attributed this loss to many voters who told pollsters that they would vote for Bradley, but supported Republican George Deukmejian instead because they were covertly racist.
The facts that I found on Oct. 27 are even better for Obama than I remembered.
In "Has Discrimination Lessened Over Time? A Test Using Baseball’s All-Star Vote" (Economic Inquiry Magazine, 1999, Vol. 37, Issue 2, pages 326-352), authors F. Andrew Hanssen and Torben Andersen concluded that there was substantial racism among the millions of people who cast votes for the Baseball All-Star Game during the 1970s, but that it declined dramatically during the 1980s and was gone by 1990. In the 1990s, they added, African-Americans may even have had an advantage.
What the authors did was scrutinize the statistics of baseball players and how many votes they received. From 1958 through 1969, managers chose the members of the two all-star teams, but fans began voting again in 1970. Throughout the 1970s, white players received far more votes than African-American players with similar statistics and often received more votes than blacks with superior statistics.
However, "that vote differential declined sharply as time passed and may even have eventually reversed," they wrote. There was still a differential in the early 1980s when Deukmejian surprised Bradley.
By 1990, whites and African-Americans with equal statistics received about the same amount of votes. But the news gets much better if you’re an Obama fan. Not only are baseball fans not covertly biased against African-Americans, but they’re actually biased in FAVOR of them. This comports with my long-held view that millions of people, including me, think it would be a good thing for this nation if an African-American became president and are, thus, more inclined to vote for one.
According to "Customer-based discrimination against major league baseball players," a 2006 article in Journal of Socio-Economics by C.A. Depken and J.M. Ford, the conclusions in the 1999 article are correct. "The previous findings of no evidence of customer-based racial discrimination against minority players are confirmed," they wrote.
But, Depken and Ford went further after studying the statistics and all-star votes of more recent baseball players and years. "Blacks and Latinos were actually preferred by MLB All-star voters during the 1990s," they wrote. Their studies show that there is a pro-African American bias from voters in the South and Midwest and a pro-Latino bias from voters in the Midwest and West.
And here’s a weird conclusion I learned from my research. According to a study conducted by Tennessee Technological University professor Thomas A. Timmerman titled "Violence and race in professional baseball: Getting better or getting worse?" (2002), African-Americans were hit by pitches at a much greater rate than whites from 1950 to 1969, but from 1970 to 1989 "race was not a significant predictor of being hit."
In fact, Timmerman added, whites and Latinos were hit at a significantly higher rate than Blacks (23 and 29 percent) from 1990 through 1997.
I don’t think I’m naive about racism. In 1982, I was told by a job search consultant that I wasn’t getting job offers because "you’re black." I’m actually white, but the consultant told me that companies weren’t inviting me in for interviews because my resume mentioned my Capitol Hill internship with the first African-American to wage a serious bid for the presidency and, thus, they assumed I must also be an African-American.
Upon his advice, I removed my Capitol Hill internship from the my resume. Within one week, two companies that had just told me there were no openings now wanted to interview me immediately. I was offended by this blatant racism and turned down the opportunities.
Younger generations, though, desperately want this nation’s shameful history of racism to end. This, I believe, is one reason why they have become so enamored of Obama, an exceptionally talented and intelligent person who also would not have been a serious contender for the presidency in 2008 if he was white because he has a meager record of accomplishment as a public servant.
It’s clear now that Obama will be the next president of the United States. The Reverse Bradley Effect will be one of the reasons.
Baseball Voting Disproves "Bradley Effect"
By Martin Zabell
Are many Americans who have been polled covert racists or aren’t they?
Political pundits have been studying survey data and the results of past elections in an effort to determine the answer to this question, but they are wasting their time.
The answer is "No!!" How do I know this? I’m a sports fan who has a clear memory of reading something many years ago about how baseball all-star voters have become far less racist over the years. On Oct. 27, I decided to research the issue because I wanted to disprove this nonsense about the "Bradley Effect" possibly causing Barack Obama the presidency.
For those who don’t know, the Bradley Effect refers to Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley losing the race for California governor in 1982 although he was ahead in the polls. Many political experts attributed this loss to many voters who told pollsters that they would vote for Bradley, but supported Republican George Deukmejian instead because they were covertly racist.
The facts that I found on Oct. 27 are even better for Obama than I remembered.
In "Has Discrimination Lessened Over Time? A Test Using Baseball’s All-Star Vote" (Economic Inquiry Magazine, 1999, Vol. 37, Issue 2, pages 326-352), authors F. Andrew Hanssen and Torben Andersen concluded that there was substantial racism among the millions of people who cast votes for the Baseball All-Star Game during the 1970s, but that it declined dramatically during the 1980s and was gone by 1990. In the 1990s, they added, African-Americans may even have had an advantage.
What the authors did was scrutinize the statistics of baseball players and how many votes they received. From 1958 through 1969, managers chose the members of the two all-star teams, but fans began voting again in 1970. Throughout the 1970s, white players received far more votes than African-American players with similar statistics and often received more votes than blacks with superior statistics.
However, "that vote differential declined sharply as time passed and may even have eventually reversed," they wrote. There was still a differential in the early 1980s when Deukmejian surprised Bradley.
By 1990, whites and African-Americans with equal statistics received about the same amount of votes. But the news gets much better if you’re an Obama fan. Not only are baseball fans not covertly biased against African-Americans, but they’re actually biased in FAVOR of them. This comports with my long-held view that millions of people, including me, think it would be a good thing for this nation if an African-American became president and are, thus, more inclined to vote for one.
According to "Customer-based discrimination against major league baseball players," a 2006 article in Journal of Socio-Economics by C.A. Depken and J.M. Ford, the conclusions in the 1999 article are correct. "The previous findings of no evidence of customer-based racial discrimination against minority players are confirmed," they wrote.
But, Depken and Ford went further after studying the statistics and all-star votes of more recent baseball players and years. "Blacks and Latinos were actually preferred by MLB All-star voters during the 1990s," they wrote. Their studies show that there is a pro-African American bias from voters in the South and Midwest and a pro-Latino bias from voters in the Midwest and West.
And here’s a weird conclusion I learned from my research. According to a study conducted by Tennessee Technological University professor Thomas A. Timmerman titled "Violence and race in professional baseball: Getting better or getting worse?" (2002), African-Americans were hit by pitches at a much greater rate than whites from 1950 to 1969, but from 1970 to 1989 "race was not a significant predictor of being hit."
In fact, Timmerman added, whites and Latinos were hit at a significantly higher rate than Blacks (23 and 29 percent) from 1990 through 1997.
I don’t think I’m naive about racism. In 1982, I was told by a job search consultant that I wasn’t getting job offers because "you’re black." I’m actually white, but the consultant told me that companies weren’t inviting me in for interviews because my resume mentioned my Capitol Hill internship with the first African-American to wage a serious bid for the presidency and, thus, they assumed I must also be an African-American.
Upon his advice, I removed my Capitol Hill internship from the my resume. Within one week, two companies that had just told me there were no openings now wanted to interview me immediately. I was offended by this blatant racism and turned down the opportunities.
Younger generations, though, desperately want this nation’s shameful history of racism to end. This, I believe, is one reason why they have become so enamored of Obama, an exceptionally talented and intelligent person who also would not have been a serious contender for the presidency in 2008 if he was white because he has a meager record of accomplishment as a public servant.
It’s clear now that Obama will be the next president of the United States. The Reverse Bradley Effect will be one of the reasons.
BAILOUT SHOULD GO DIRECTLY TO WORKERS
Wrote the following column on Nov. 18, 2008
BAILOUT SHOULD GO DIRECTLY TO WORKERS
Auto industry executives can’t be trusted
By Martin Zabell
Multimillionaire business executives have already proven that they can’t be trusted with the money given to them by the U.S. government – the taxpayers’ money.
But, the $700 billion bailout program for financial institutions that was approved in October needs to be extended to the auto industry. If it isn’t, another Great Depression is possible.
To me, there’s only solution – give money DIRECTLY to all workers who are not in management.
This is a win-win situation. The people who deserve – and need – the money most get it while the greedy executives are prevented from misspending it. Yet, the money also helps the auto industry because it reduces the companies’ expenditures.
I guessed that the three major auto companies employ 500,000 workers and they’re paid $50,000 per year. My math is that is $25 billion. Isn’t that what the companies asked for?
Regardless of my estimates, why can’t the government in principle bail out the industry by giving the money directly to workers?
BAILOUT SHOULD GO DIRECTLY TO WORKERS
Auto industry executives can’t be trusted
By Martin Zabell
Multimillionaire business executives have already proven that they can’t be trusted with the money given to them by the U.S. government – the taxpayers’ money.
But, the $700 billion bailout program for financial institutions that was approved in October needs to be extended to the auto industry. If it isn’t, another Great Depression is possible.
To me, there’s only solution – give money DIRECTLY to all workers who are not in management.
This is a win-win situation. The people who deserve – and need – the money most get it while the greedy executives are prevented from misspending it. Yet, the money also helps the auto industry because it reduces the companies’ expenditures.
I guessed that the three major auto companies employ 500,000 workers and they’re paid $50,000 per year. My math is that is $25 billion. Isn’t that what the companies asked for?
Regardless of my estimates, why can’t the government in principle bail out the industry by giving the money directly to workers?
IF OBAMA FIXES COLLEGE FOOTBALL, I'LL BE HAPPY
Wrote the following column on Nov. 19, 2008
IF OBAMA FIXES COLLEGE FOOTBALL, I’LL BE HAPPY
Solving this decades-old problem will make him a successful president
By Martin Zabell
I’m very concerned about the U.S. finally capturing Osama Bin-Laden, moving tens of thousands of troops from a nation where it shouldn’t have been in the first place (Iraq), and fixing the crisis in the housing and auto industries.
However, these problems have existed for a relatively short period. The real challenge is fixing a stupid procedure for determining who is the champion of NCAA Division I football. This problem has existed for decades.
Fortunately, president-elect Barack Obama has taken a keen interest in solving this problem. If he fixes it, he will have been a successful president.
For those who don’t know, there are championships in dozens of minor men’s and women’s sports as well as men’s and women’s basketball, and small college football. However, there has never been a championship in the sport that fans care the most about – major college football.
In major college football, what has been important for decades is opinions, not facts. Writers and coaches rank the top teams. For most of the sport’s history, the vote after the Jan. 1 bowl games determined the national champion. In the 1990s, a Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was constructed that resulted in votes and statistical data determining the top two teams before the bowl games with the champion being decided after a game between the top two.
In other words, there has been a two-team playoff in football and a 64-team playoff in basketball.
(I once voted in a major basketball poll because the regular voter went on vacation, his designated substitute just didn’t feel like doing it, and I happened to be there when he complained. I was 25. In football, my vote would have mattered.)
Sports fans have been outraged that so many teams have been eliminated from the football playoff OFF THE FIELD. Fortunately, Obama is one of those fans, and he has recently spoken out about this outrage. Bravo!!
The weird thing is that a solution to this problem SHOULD be remarkably easy. There are six major conferences (Big 10, Big 12, Southeastern, Atlantic Coast, Big East, and Pacific 10) and five "mid-major" conferences (Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt, Western Athletic).
My solution would be to have the 11 conference winners play in the playoffs. This way, EVERY team in the nation has had a chance to be a national champion. A team that lost in a conference championship or before that had its chance ON THE FIELD.
Then, the teams from the top five conferences, as determined by a rating process, would have a bye in the first round while the other six teams played each other in late-December. These games would be followed by quarterfinals at the sites of four major bowls on Jan. 1, and semifinals and finals in subsequent weeks at other bowl sites.
(Note: There are four independent teams, including Notre Dame. They would have to pick a conference or forsake a championship opportunity.)
On "60 Minutes," Obama advocated an 8-team playoff. This is very, very acceptable to me. Here is what he said – "Eight teams, that would be three rounds to determine a national champion. It would -- it would add three extra weeks to the season. You could trim back on the regular season. I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do."
Obama is right. No problem should go unsolved for this long – not even the health insurance crisis.
Why has this debate gone on for 30 years? Pure, unadulterated GREED. The people who make the money via the bowl process are afraid of making less money if the system is changed. They’re certainly wrong, but they’re like the dinosaurs at every level of society who resist change.
College presidents say that this system exists because of their concern about academics. They are LIARS. Here is what has happened since I began paying attention to this debate about 30 years ago:
* The number of bowl games has doubled from about 15 to about 30, meaning twice as many "student-athletes" are playing football as first-semester finals approach.
* The smaller colleges, which often are far more academic oriented than the state schools that dominate major football, have instituted playoff systems. This means there are thousands of more students playing football as finals approach.
* The regular season is now much longer. In the 1970s, 10-game seasons were common. Today, 13-game seasons are common. There are also now games on weekdays.
* The number of basketball teams in the playoffs has skyrocketed. That’s hundreds of additional athletes playing basketball for one or more weeks.
* Basketball teams frequently fly from one side of the nation to another in the middle of the school week to play games during the regular season. This was relatively rare 30 years ago.
I could go on and on. The point is that these very same college presidents have supported all of the above changes and the college football playoff system is NOT being blocked for academic reasons.
Besides, an 8-team or an 11-team playoff would mean about 50 teams and 3,000 additional "student-athletes" NOT playing in a postseason game and only the students on four to seven teams playing one or two more games.
If Barack Obama can work with potential Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he should be able to work with college presidents to fix this ridiculous problem.
IF OBAMA FIXES COLLEGE FOOTBALL, I’LL BE HAPPY
Solving this decades-old problem will make him a successful president
By Martin Zabell
I’m very concerned about the U.S. finally capturing Osama Bin-Laden, moving tens of thousands of troops from a nation where it shouldn’t have been in the first place (Iraq), and fixing the crisis in the housing and auto industries.
However, these problems have existed for a relatively short period. The real challenge is fixing a stupid procedure for determining who is the champion of NCAA Division I football. This problem has existed for decades.
Fortunately, president-elect Barack Obama has taken a keen interest in solving this problem. If he fixes it, he will have been a successful president.
For those who don’t know, there are championships in dozens of minor men’s and women’s sports as well as men’s and women’s basketball, and small college football. However, there has never been a championship in the sport that fans care the most about – major college football.
In major college football, what has been important for decades is opinions, not facts. Writers and coaches rank the top teams. For most of the sport’s history, the vote after the Jan. 1 bowl games determined the national champion. In the 1990s, a Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was constructed that resulted in votes and statistical data determining the top two teams before the bowl games with the champion being decided after a game between the top two.
In other words, there has been a two-team playoff in football and a 64-team playoff in basketball.
(I once voted in a major basketball poll because the regular voter went on vacation, his designated substitute just didn’t feel like doing it, and I happened to be there when he complained. I was 25. In football, my vote would have mattered.)
Sports fans have been outraged that so many teams have been eliminated from the football playoff OFF THE FIELD. Fortunately, Obama is one of those fans, and he has recently spoken out about this outrage. Bravo!!
The weird thing is that a solution to this problem SHOULD be remarkably easy. There are six major conferences (Big 10, Big 12, Southeastern, Atlantic Coast, Big East, and Pacific 10) and five "mid-major" conferences (Conference USA, Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt, Western Athletic).
My solution would be to have the 11 conference winners play in the playoffs. This way, EVERY team in the nation has had a chance to be a national champion. A team that lost in a conference championship or before that had its chance ON THE FIELD.
Then, the teams from the top five conferences, as determined by a rating process, would have a bye in the first round while the other six teams played each other in late-December. These games would be followed by quarterfinals at the sites of four major bowls on Jan. 1, and semifinals and finals in subsequent weeks at other bowl sites.
(Note: There are four independent teams, including Notre Dame. They would have to pick a conference or forsake a championship opportunity.)
On "60 Minutes," Obama advocated an 8-team playoff. This is very, very acceptable to me. Here is what he said – "Eight teams, that would be three rounds to determine a national champion. It would -- it would add three extra weeks to the season. You could trim back on the regular season. I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do."
Obama is right. No problem should go unsolved for this long – not even the health insurance crisis.
Why has this debate gone on for 30 years? Pure, unadulterated GREED. The people who make the money via the bowl process are afraid of making less money if the system is changed. They’re certainly wrong, but they’re like the dinosaurs at every level of society who resist change.
College presidents say that this system exists because of their concern about academics. They are LIARS. Here is what has happened since I began paying attention to this debate about 30 years ago:
* The number of bowl games has doubled from about 15 to about 30, meaning twice as many "student-athletes" are playing football as first-semester finals approach.
* The smaller colleges, which often are far more academic oriented than the state schools that dominate major football, have instituted playoff systems. This means there are thousands of more students playing football as finals approach.
* The regular season is now much longer. In the 1970s, 10-game seasons were common. Today, 13-game seasons are common. There are also now games on weekdays.
* The number of basketball teams in the playoffs has skyrocketed. That’s hundreds of additional athletes playing basketball for one or more weeks.
* Basketball teams frequently fly from one side of the nation to another in the middle of the school week to play games during the regular season. This was relatively rare 30 years ago.
I could go on and on. The point is that these very same college presidents have supported all of the above changes and the college football playoff system is NOT being blocked for academic reasons.
Besides, an 8-team or an 11-team playoff would mean about 50 teams and 3,000 additional "student-athletes" NOT playing in a postseason game and only the students on four to seven teams playing one or two more games.
If Barack Obama can work with potential Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he should be able to work with college presidents to fix this ridiculous problem.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
WHAT IF 2000 ELECTION WASN’T STOLEN?
WROTE THE FOLLOWING COLUMN ON NOV. 21, 2008
WHAT IF 2000 ELECTION WASN’T STOLEN?
You can vote on who would be president in 2009 if Gore won
By Martin Zabell
As I read reports about the recount in the Minnesota Senate race I couldn’t help but wonder what would have happened if Al Gore had won the 2000 presidential election.
I believe the election was NOT stolen by the U.S. Supreme Court. The legislature in Florida had already decided (one house formally, one informally) it was going to award the state’s electoral votes to George W. Bush no matter what the count was. In other words, the court prevented Florida Governor Jeb Bush from making the final decision.
However, the election was stolen months earlier when a Texas "security firm" that had donated millions to the Bushes for decades was hired. This company was ostensibly seeking to remove convicts from voting rolls, but instead gave Secretary of State/Bush campaign chair Katherine Harris a list of people with similar names who lived in Democratic areas. She was told of mistakes months before the election, but axed tens of thousands of voters anyway.
Here are some top options for what would have happened if the 2000 election had not been stolen. Which do you think is the most probable?
A. MITT ROMNEY ELECTED IN 2008:
Sept. 11 never happens. According to counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, Bill Clinton acted decisively when confronted with evidence of a possible terror attack, but Bush ignored repeated warnings and acted like, well Bush. I believe Gore would have acted like Clinton and prevented an attack.
In this scenario, I believe Gore presides over a huge budget surplus and has success on the diplomatic and environmental front, but makes only modest strides toward other crises like 40-plus million people not having health insurance. Then, he beats George W. Bush in a rematch of the 2000 election.
In 2008, a Democratic electorate that wants dramatic liberal change nominates Barack Obama, but he is beaten by economics expert Mitt Romney as the nation wearies of Democrats and is receptive to a tax cut plan that last occurred in the 1980s.
B. JOHN McCAIN RE-ELECTED:
Sept. 11 happens despite Gore’s best efforts. Republicans loudly and harshly blame Gore, whose approval rating plunges to 30 percent within a few days. Under enormous pressure, Gore invades Afghanistan days later. There are many military mishaps – the kind you expect when action is taken too expeditiously.
Eventually, the American military triumphs, overthrows the Taliban, and blows up lots of caves. Osama Bin-Laden is presumed dead, but never found. By this time, the GOP’s "Democrats are weak" argument is popular and Americans favor more attacks on other nations.
In 2004, John McCain is elected. His invasion of Iraq goes so smoothly that U.S. troops are withdrawn months later and he decides to overthrow other dictators. He is re-elected over ex-VP Joe Lieberman, who runs on the real-life 2002 strategy of agreeing with the GOP on military matters, but opposing it on domestic issues.
C. HILLARY CLINTON ELECTED:
Sept. 11 happens. So does the GOP’s relentless attacks. However, Gore wisely resists an immediate attack. Like Bush Jr. in real life, he waits one month before attacking Afghanistan and the invasion goes very smoothly. Bin-Laden is captured and tried.
However, the victory is as irrelevant in 2004 as the 1991 win over Iraq was in 1992. With economic growth slipping, George W. Bush runs on a tax cut/"it’s the economy stupid" platform in 2004. Americans now believe the 10-year governor is experienced and he wins.
In office, Bush overthrows Saddam Hussein. Since the public was already satisfied that Sept. 11 had been avenged, there is never any support for the war and Hillary Clinton voted against it. In 2008, she trounces John Edwards on Super Tuesday to win the Democratic nomination. Obama dropped out before the first primary. Clinton beats Bush Jr. in the election.
D. BARACK OBAMA ELECTED:
The Sept. 11 attacks lead to John McCain defeating Al Gore in 2004 as described in Scenario B.
McCain’s management of the war in Iraq that began in 2005 was superior to Bush’s, but it turned out that competence wasn’t the problem. Even a perfect military effort couldn’t prevent the Sunnis vs. Shi’ites hatred that Saddam Hussein had bottled up for decades from flaring.
The war heats up in 2008 during the primary season. This enables Barack Obama to trounce Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war in 2005 when Obama voted against it. In the general election, the economy sours ....and well you know the rest.
E. ??????
Please cast your vote.
WHAT IF 2000 ELECTION WASN’T STOLEN?
You can vote on who would be president in 2009 if Gore won
By Martin Zabell
As I read reports about the recount in the Minnesota Senate race I couldn’t help but wonder what would have happened if Al Gore had won the 2000 presidential election.
I believe the election was NOT stolen by the U.S. Supreme Court. The legislature in Florida had already decided (one house formally, one informally) it was going to award the state’s electoral votes to George W. Bush no matter what the count was. In other words, the court prevented Florida Governor Jeb Bush from making the final decision.
However, the election was stolen months earlier when a Texas "security firm" that had donated millions to the Bushes for decades was hired. This company was ostensibly seeking to remove convicts from voting rolls, but instead gave Secretary of State/Bush campaign chair Katherine Harris a list of people with similar names who lived in Democratic areas. She was told of mistakes months before the election, but axed tens of thousands of voters anyway.
Here are some top options for what would have happened if the 2000 election had not been stolen. Which do you think is the most probable?
A. MITT ROMNEY ELECTED IN 2008:
Sept. 11 never happens. According to counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, Bill Clinton acted decisively when confronted with evidence of a possible terror attack, but Bush ignored repeated warnings and acted like, well Bush. I believe Gore would have acted like Clinton and prevented an attack.
In this scenario, I believe Gore presides over a huge budget surplus and has success on the diplomatic and environmental front, but makes only modest strides toward other crises like 40-plus million people not having health insurance. Then, he beats George W. Bush in a rematch of the 2000 election.
In 2008, a Democratic electorate that wants dramatic liberal change nominates Barack Obama, but he is beaten by economics expert Mitt Romney as the nation wearies of Democrats and is receptive to a tax cut plan that last occurred in the 1980s.
B. JOHN McCAIN RE-ELECTED:
Sept. 11 happens despite Gore’s best efforts. Republicans loudly and harshly blame Gore, whose approval rating plunges to 30 percent within a few days. Under enormous pressure, Gore invades Afghanistan days later. There are many military mishaps – the kind you expect when action is taken too expeditiously.
Eventually, the American military triumphs, overthrows the Taliban, and blows up lots of caves. Osama Bin-Laden is presumed dead, but never found. By this time, the GOP’s "Democrats are weak" argument is popular and Americans favor more attacks on other nations.
In 2004, John McCain is elected. His invasion of Iraq goes so smoothly that U.S. troops are withdrawn months later and he decides to overthrow other dictators. He is re-elected over ex-VP Joe Lieberman, who runs on the real-life 2002 strategy of agreeing with the GOP on military matters, but opposing it on domestic issues.
C. HILLARY CLINTON ELECTED:
Sept. 11 happens. So does the GOP’s relentless attacks. However, Gore wisely resists an immediate attack. Like Bush Jr. in real life, he waits one month before attacking Afghanistan and the invasion goes very smoothly. Bin-Laden is captured and tried.
However, the victory is as irrelevant in 2004 as the 1991 win over Iraq was in 1992. With economic growth slipping, George W. Bush runs on a tax cut/"it’s the economy stupid" platform in 2004. Americans now believe the 10-year governor is experienced and he wins.
In office, Bush overthrows Saddam Hussein. Since the public was already satisfied that Sept. 11 had been avenged, there is never any support for the war and Hillary Clinton voted against it. In 2008, she trounces John Edwards on Super Tuesday to win the Democratic nomination. Obama dropped out before the first primary. Clinton beats Bush Jr. in the election.
D. BARACK OBAMA ELECTED:
The Sept. 11 attacks lead to John McCain defeating Al Gore in 2004 as described in Scenario B.
McCain’s management of the war in Iraq that began in 2005 was superior to Bush’s, but it turned out that competence wasn’t the problem. Even a perfect military effort couldn’t prevent the Sunnis vs. Shi’ites hatred that Saddam Hussein had bottled up for decades from flaring.
The war heats up in 2008 during the primary season. This enables Barack Obama to trounce Hillary Clinton, who voted for the war in 2005 when Obama voted against it. In the general election, the economy sours ....and well you know the rest.
E. ??????
Please cast your vote.
MY HOMETOWN'S SHAME
WROTE THE BELOW COLUMN ON DEC. 6, 2008
MY HOMETOWN’S SHAME
But Wal-Mart incident reminded me of my late father’s courage
By Martin Zabell
I left my hometown 26 years ago after graduating college and stopped visiting it when my widowed mother moved several years later.
Nevertheless, Valley Stream, N.Y., is my hometown, the only place where I grew up and went to grammar and high school.
In truth, Valley Stream is – or was – rather nondescript. It’s had about 35,000 residents for decades and is just like any medium-sized town that’s just outside a huge city – New York City, in its case.
But, Valley Stream is my only hometown, the place where I learned the values and work ethic that have helped – and hurt me – throughout my life. I’m proud of my hometown.
Several years ago, I was shocked to read in U.S. News & World Report that my alma mater, Valley Stream South High, was ranked as the 33rd-best public high school in the USA. I was covering school districts at the time and I couldn’t help but tell every educator on my beat – and every friend off the beat – about this. I still think that I got a lousy education, but the overwhelming pride I had for my hometown was more powerful than my negative memories.
I’ve also overreacted with pride whenever I heard that someone accomplished was from Valley Stream, including a classmate who was an absolutely horrible student and was contemptuous of me because I was a nerd. I beamed when he was mentioned prominently in a Sports Illustrated article because he was following in the footsteps of his famous horse trainer father. I bragged that I knew him.
I’ve even rooted for the classmate who broke the unwritten student code to help other students. In Chemistry, quizzes were graded by the student two seats to the left of you, and the teacher constantly overruled her harsh grading of my work.
That same arrogance made her a valedictorian and a Harvard University scholarship winner. I’ve always thought – and hoped – that someday she’d be in the news for some extraordinary achievement.
TRAGEDY IN MY HOMETOWN
On Black Friday, though, I was at a loss about how to feel about my hometown.
Throughout the day, I heard radio reports about a Wal-Mart employee being trampled to death by a crowd looking for bargains – and people refusing to leave the store after being told it was being closed because of the death. The reports kept saying the store was in "New York" – New York City, I assumed.
On the Internet, I saw headlines for the story, but refused to read it. The story disgusted me. In the evening, though, I finally read a story on the incident. The store was "20 miles east of Manhattan," the story said. Now, I was curious.
I kept reading. And there it was. The store was in my hometown. Frankly, I didn’t even know there was a Wal-Mart in Valley Stream.
"Where exactly was this store?" I wondered. "Should I phone my brother and sister?" I thought. What would you do? Ultimately, I did nothing.
MY FATHER FOUGHT RACISM
Later, my mind flashed back to the other time Valley Stream was prominently in the news. My hometown, you see, is 0 for 2.
While studying in London decades ago, I picked up an International Herald Tribune newspaper and read that a cross had been burned on the lawn of an African-American family that had just moved to Valley Stream.
It was really weird seeing my hometown in the news for the first time while I was half a world away, but what happened afterward was more important to me.
Shortly after my return home, I attended a temple service because of a post-service ceremony honoring my parents and about 20 other congregants who had traveled to Israel with the rabbi while I was in London.
During his sermon, the rabbi said something to the effect that Jews were superior to Catholics because the cross burning was in a Catholic neighborhood. Dozens of congregants audibly gasped. (Back then, all the neighborhoods in my hometown were segregated.)
Then, the rabbi said blacks "should live with their own kind." This time, hundreds of congregants audibly gasped.
After the service – and just before the ceremony honoring him – my father approached four other men who had just spent two weeks with the rabbi. My father was angry. He suggested that they denounce the rabbi to his face for his racist sermon.
And they did. While standing next to him, my father approached the rabbi and lit into him as dozens of people milled about. His friends nodded their heads as my father spoke, making it clear that they agreed with him.
Frankly, I can’t remember if any of my father’s friends ever said anything to the rabbi. All I remember is absorbing the lesson I was learning. Tears are streaming down my cheeks as I am writing this.
CONCLUSION
My father died suddenly the next year. (Just after praising my father at the temple's weekly service, the rabbi endorsed Ted Kennedy for president out of anger about Andrew Young, Jimmy Carter’s United Nations ambassador, meeting with the PLO.)
During the 2008 presidential campaign, I wrote and talked about the rabbi’s sermon in arguing that it was absurd to hold Barack Obama responsible for the stupid rantings of his pastor. It’s my experience, unfortunately, that religious leaders tend to be the most dogmatic, inflexible, intolerant, and ultraopinionated people around. Exactly the last group of people others should be listening to.
My guess is that more than 90 percent of the people in temple that day disagreed with the rabbi. I’m also guessing that none of them left the temple in protest.
Perhaps, though, I should have been writing and talking about my father – and the values I learned while living in my hometown.
MY HOMETOWN’S SHAME
But Wal-Mart incident reminded me of my late father’s courage
By Martin Zabell
I left my hometown 26 years ago after graduating college and stopped visiting it when my widowed mother moved several years later.
Nevertheless, Valley Stream, N.Y., is my hometown, the only place where I grew up and went to grammar and high school.
In truth, Valley Stream is – or was – rather nondescript. It’s had about 35,000 residents for decades and is just like any medium-sized town that’s just outside a huge city – New York City, in its case.
But, Valley Stream is my only hometown, the place where I learned the values and work ethic that have helped – and hurt me – throughout my life. I’m proud of my hometown.
Several years ago, I was shocked to read in U.S. News & World Report that my alma mater, Valley Stream South High, was ranked as the 33rd-best public high school in the USA. I was covering school districts at the time and I couldn’t help but tell every educator on my beat – and every friend off the beat – about this. I still think that I got a lousy education, but the overwhelming pride I had for my hometown was more powerful than my negative memories.
I’ve also overreacted with pride whenever I heard that someone accomplished was from Valley Stream, including a classmate who was an absolutely horrible student and was contemptuous of me because I was a nerd. I beamed when he was mentioned prominently in a Sports Illustrated article because he was following in the footsteps of his famous horse trainer father. I bragged that I knew him.
I’ve even rooted for the classmate who broke the unwritten student code to help other students. In Chemistry, quizzes were graded by the student two seats to the left of you, and the teacher constantly overruled her harsh grading of my work.
That same arrogance made her a valedictorian and a Harvard University scholarship winner. I’ve always thought – and hoped – that someday she’d be in the news for some extraordinary achievement.
TRAGEDY IN MY HOMETOWN
On Black Friday, though, I was at a loss about how to feel about my hometown.
Throughout the day, I heard radio reports about a Wal-Mart employee being trampled to death by a crowd looking for bargains – and people refusing to leave the store after being told it was being closed because of the death. The reports kept saying the store was in "New York" – New York City, I assumed.
On the Internet, I saw headlines for the story, but refused to read it. The story disgusted me. In the evening, though, I finally read a story on the incident. The store was "20 miles east of Manhattan," the story said. Now, I was curious.
I kept reading. And there it was. The store was in my hometown. Frankly, I didn’t even know there was a Wal-Mart in Valley Stream.
"Where exactly was this store?" I wondered. "Should I phone my brother and sister?" I thought. What would you do? Ultimately, I did nothing.
MY FATHER FOUGHT RACISM
Later, my mind flashed back to the other time Valley Stream was prominently in the news. My hometown, you see, is 0 for 2.
While studying in London decades ago, I picked up an International Herald Tribune newspaper and read that a cross had been burned on the lawn of an African-American family that had just moved to Valley Stream.
It was really weird seeing my hometown in the news for the first time while I was half a world away, but what happened afterward was more important to me.
Shortly after my return home, I attended a temple service because of a post-service ceremony honoring my parents and about 20 other congregants who had traveled to Israel with the rabbi while I was in London.
During his sermon, the rabbi said something to the effect that Jews were superior to Catholics because the cross burning was in a Catholic neighborhood. Dozens of congregants audibly gasped. (Back then, all the neighborhoods in my hometown were segregated.)
Then, the rabbi said blacks "should live with their own kind." This time, hundreds of congregants audibly gasped.
After the service – and just before the ceremony honoring him – my father approached four other men who had just spent two weeks with the rabbi. My father was angry. He suggested that they denounce the rabbi to his face for his racist sermon.
And they did. While standing next to him, my father approached the rabbi and lit into him as dozens of people milled about. His friends nodded their heads as my father spoke, making it clear that they agreed with him.
Frankly, I can’t remember if any of my father’s friends ever said anything to the rabbi. All I remember is absorbing the lesson I was learning. Tears are streaming down my cheeks as I am writing this.
CONCLUSION
My father died suddenly the next year. (Just after praising my father at the temple's weekly service, the rabbi endorsed Ted Kennedy for president out of anger about Andrew Young, Jimmy Carter’s United Nations ambassador, meeting with the PLO.)
During the 2008 presidential campaign, I wrote and talked about the rabbi’s sermon in arguing that it was absurd to hold Barack Obama responsible for the stupid rantings of his pastor. It’s my experience, unfortunately, that religious leaders tend to be the most dogmatic, inflexible, intolerant, and ultraopinionated people around. Exactly the last group of people others should be listening to.
My guess is that more than 90 percent of the people in temple that day disagreed with the rabbi. I’m also guessing that none of them left the temple in protest.
Perhaps, though, I should have been writing and talking about my father – and the values I learned while living in my hometown.
MY KENNEDY CONNECTION
WROTE THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE ON DEC. 19, 2008
MY KENNEDY CONNECTION
OK, it’s really tenuous, but it’s instructive
By Martin Zabell
Throughout this week, I have been reading columns about why Caroline Kennedy should or shouldn’t be the next U.S. senator from New York.
A common argument among the pro-Caroline crowd is that she is "smart" because she went to Harvard University. This argument is stunning to me for two reasons. First, it is being made after Americans have lived through eight years of perhaps the dumbest president in our history – a graduate of Yale and Harvard.
More importantly, the arguments reflect a lack of understanding of how our educational system unfairly gave advantages to students because of their connections. I know because I could have been a beneficiary of this unfair system.
I was a high school senior when my father came home from work happier than I had ever seen him. He excitedly told me that I could go to Harvard if I wanted to. A business associate of his, he explained, had promised him that he would use his influence to make sure that Harvard accepted me.
As my father explained it, the associate – whom I have never met to this day – had extraordinary influence at Harvard because of his very close friendship with Ted Kennedy. The associate told my father that he was Kennedy’s roommate at Harvard, had starred on the football team, was very involved in a variety of alumni activities, and had influence on who was admitted to the school.
After my father finished explaining all of this, I looked at him and said "I don’t belong at Harvard." The thought of me vaulting over much more qualified candidates for very spurious reasons violated my sense of fairness – an ethos that I had learned from my father.
And, frankly, I was too lazy and stupid to fill out yet another admissions application just after I thought I had finally finished what had been a cumbersome process to me.
The topic of my going to Harvard never came up again, but my mind flashed back to this conversation several times this week as I read about how wonderful and smart Caroline Kennedy is. As she sought to be appointed senator, I couldn’t but help think "if a friend of Uncle Teddy was willing to stick out his neck for me, I wonder how much he and her other relatives were willing to stick out their necks for her."
Of course, I could have flunked out of Harvard in a week. And, of course, I don’t know that Caroline didn’t deserve to be at Harvard without any help. (For what it’s worth, one of my best friends from college was a law school classmate of JFK Jr. and he was very unimpressed by junior’s intellect.)
But I do know that Caroline Kennedy’s – and George W. Bush’s – graduation from Harvard isn’t necessarily an accurate representation of their intelligence.
And yes I understand that some of you reading this might be thinking "don’t you realize that your father’s friend might have been blowing smoke?" Yes, I do. Frankly, I have thought the same thing myself – particularly because I have never seen this man’s name in any news story that I have ever read.
But guess what? Today – Dec. 20, 2008 – I sought information on my father’s friend for the first time ever (my father passed away long ago). I Googled his name. The very first item on my screen was a 1962 Time Magazine article. I didn’t even know that articles written that long ago were available on the Internet.
The article is about Ted Kennedy running for the U.S. Senate. My father’s friend is mentioned four times in the article. He was telling the truth.
Oh, my God, I really could have gone to Harvard. Did I make a mistake?
MY KENNEDY CONNECTION
OK, it’s really tenuous, but it’s instructive
By Martin Zabell
Throughout this week, I have been reading columns about why Caroline Kennedy should or shouldn’t be the next U.S. senator from New York.
A common argument among the pro-Caroline crowd is that she is "smart" because she went to Harvard University. This argument is stunning to me for two reasons. First, it is being made after Americans have lived through eight years of perhaps the dumbest president in our history – a graduate of Yale and Harvard.
More importantly, the arguments reflect a lack of understanding of how our educational system unfairly gave advantages to students because of their connections. I know because I could have been a beneficiary of this unfair system.
I was a high school senior when my father came home from work happier than I had ever seen him. He excitedly told me that I could go to Harvard if I wanted to. A business associate of his, he explained, had promised him that he would use his influence to make sure that Harvard accepted me.
As my father explained it, the associate – whom I have never met to this day – had extraordinary influence at Harvard because of his very close friendship with Ted Kennedy. The associate told my father that he was Kennedy’s roommate at Harvard, had starred on the football team, was very involved in a variety of alumni activities, and had influence on who was admitted to the school.
After my father finished explaining all of this, I looked at him and said "I don’t belong at Harvard." The thought of me vaulting over much more qualified candidates for very spurious reasons violated my sense of fairness – an ethos that I had learned from my father.
And, frankly, I was too lazy and stupid to fill out yet another admissions application just after I thought I had finally finished what had been a cumbersome process to me.
The topic of my going to Harvard never came up again, but my mind flashed back to this conversation several times this week as I read about how wonderful and smart Caroline Kennedy is. As she sought to be appointed senator, I couldn’t but help think "if a friend of Uncle Teddy was willing to stick out his neck for me, I wonder how much he and her other relatives were willing to stick out their necks for her."
Of course, I could have flunked out of Harvard in a week. And, of course, I don’t know that Caroline didn’t deserve to be at Harvard without any help. (For what it’s worth, one of my best friends from college was a law school classmate of JFK Jr. and he was very unimpressed by junior’s intellect.)
But I do know that Caroline Kennedy’s – and George W. Bush’s – graduation from Harvard isn’t necessarily an accurate representation of their intelligence.
And yes I understand that some of you reading this might be thinking "don’t you realize that your father’s friend might have been blowing smoke?" Yes, I do. Frankly, I have thought the same thing myself – particularly because I have never seen this man’s name in any news story that I have ever read.
But guess what? Today – Dec. 20, 2008 – I sought information on my father’s friend for the first time ever (my father passed away long ago). I Googled his name. The very first item on my screen was a 1962 Time Magazine article. I didn’t even know that articles written that long ago were available on the Internet.
The article is about Ted Kennedy running for the U.S. Senate. My father’s friend is mentioned four times in the article. He was telling the truth.
Oh, my God, I really could have gone to Harvard. Did I make a mistake?
CAROLINE, YOU KNOW, IS NOT READY
Wrote the following column on Dec. 30, 2008
CAROLINE, YOU KNOW,
IS JUST NOT READY
Like Sarah Palin, she is way too
inarticulate to be a national leader
By Martin Zabell
I wrote a column tangentially about Caroline Kennedy a week or so ago. It focused more on my opinion that her backers’ contention that she is smart because of her college degrees is naive because of my own long-ago experience of having Uncle Teddy’s best friend offer to help me get into Harvard.
The truth, though, is that I thought Kennedy was a very smart woman. From what I knew, Kennedy had forsaken the career chosen by many of her innumerable cousins and had, unlike them, thoughtfully mapped out a different way to help people.
The fact that she seemed to go out of her way to stay out of politics and, instead, devote considerable time to a wide variety of charitable causes was a plus in my book.
In addition, her intelligence seemed far more than book smart because she appeared to have her head on straight while many of her generation of Kennedy cousins partied for years (I read "Playboy" for the articles and I still can’t forget that bizarre feature about RFK’s sons and their unbelievably prolific use of drugs at a very young age.)
I can’t recall ever reading about her ever being in trouble, and she just seemed poised and gracious.
Unfortunately, my conclusion about Kennedy’s intelligence appears to be horribly wrong.
On Saturday, I read the following in a Politico article by Ben Smith. The material in quotes are Kennedy’s. "We did have a very nice, you know, conversation, and obviously I'm not gonna talk about that, except to say that she said this was the greatest job that she'd ever had and could imagine having. So, she was very encouraging, and that was, you know, that was nice because she's a huge inspiration of mine......"I've been a Democrat all my life. I am, you know, a Democrat through and through. I've always voted Democratic. You know, that is where my heart lies."
In the space of 99 words (I cut out one sentence), she had used the terms "you know" four times. I was astounded. I have NEVER used the words "you know" while I was speaking. How do I know? Because my father told me as a youngster in 1970s New York that using this phrase was a signal that you were stupid.
I can vividly recall the debate in my neighborhood whether New York Nets basketball star John Williamson or New York Rangers hockey star Nick Fotiu was dumber. Some of us used to listen to their interviews and count the number of times they used the words "you know" as they mumbled and stumbled. It was hilarious – and scary.
I don’t know whether this conclusion about using the words "you know" between unrelated thoughts was a New York thing, but Kennedy did grow up in 1970s New York.
And I wasn’t the only one who noticed the "you knows." As I read through the comments section below Smith’s article, I noticed that several other people had similar thoughts to mine.
After logging off on Saturday, I thought to myself that I was being too mean. After all, I was extremely shy and inarticulate – without using the words "you know" – when I was very young because public speaking is just plain scary and I was unbelievably nervous.
I thought about how I kept fixing my glasses as a college job counselor taped a mock interview with me – while I was watching myself on the screen fixing my glasses. But, I was 21.
I also thought about the fear I had when as the managing editor of a newspaper I was asked to make speeches and my tones were so hushed that people complained afterward that they didn’t hear a word I said. But, I was 27.
And there is nothing wrong with being 51 and being scared to death of public speaking. But why in the world is a 51-year-old with this problem seeking to get involved in politics?
Today, I was less inclined to believe that what I read two days earlier was an anomaly – or just a rookie being nervous in the early stages of one of her first interviews.
In the past few days, Smith has researched some of Kennedy’s past interviews. He reported that she used "you know" 142 times in an interview with The New York Times. That’s not a typo. I didn’t mean to type 14 or 12 or 42. Yes, one-hundred-forty-two.
I’m sorry Caroline, but you are now entering Sarah Palin territory. I really wish you the best and hope you continue your outstanding service to charities, but please don’t enter the world of politics.
CAROLINE, YOU KNOW,
IS JUST NOT READY
Like Sarah Palin, she is way too
inarticulate to be a national leader
By Martin Zabell
I wrote a column tangentially about Caroline Kennedy a week or so ago. It focused more on my opinion that her backers’ contention that she is smart because of her college degrees is naive because of my own long-ago experience of having Uncle Teddy’s best friend offer to help me get into Harvard.
The truth, though, is that I thought Kennedy was a very smart woman. From what I knew, Kennedy had forsaken the career chosen by many of her innumerable cousins and had, unlike them, thoughtfully mapped out a different way to help people.
The fact that she seemed to go out of her way to stay out of politics and, instead, devote considerable time to a wide variety of charitable causes was a plus in my book.
In addition, her intelligence seemed far more than book smart because she appeared to have her head on straight while many of her generation of Kennedy cousins partied for years (I read "Playboy" for the articles and I still can’t forget that bizarre feature about RFK’s sons and their unbelievably prolific use of drugs at a very young age.)
I can’t recall ever reading about her ever being in trouble, and she just seemed poised and gracious.
Unfortunately, my conclusion about Kennedy’s intelligence appears to be horribly wrong.
On Saturday, I read the following in a Politico article by Ben Smith. The material in quotes are Kennedy’s. "We did have a very nice, you know, conversation, and obviously I'm not gonna talk about that, except to say that she said this was the greatest job that she'd ever had and could imagine having. So, she was very encouraging, and that was, you know, that was nice because she's a huge inspiration of mine......"I've been a Democrat all my life. I am, you know, a Democrat through and through. I've always voted Democratic. You know, that is where my heart lies."
In the space of 99 words (I cut out one sentence), she had used the terms "you know" four times. I was astounded. I have NEVER used the words "you know" while I was speaking. How do I know? Because my father told me as a youngster in 1970s New York that using this phrase was a signal that you were stupid.
I can vividly recall the debate in my neighborhood whether New York Nets basketball star John Williamson or New York Rangers hockey star Nick Fotiu was dumber. Some of us used to listen to their interviews and count the number of times they used the words "you know" as they mumbled and stumbled. It was hilarious – and scary.
I don’t know whether this conclusion about using the words "you know" between unrelated thoughts was a New York thing, but Kennedy did grow up in 1970s New York.
And I wasn’t the only one who noticed the "you knows." As I read through the comments section below Smith’s article, I noticed that several other people had similar thoughts to mine.
After logging off on Saturday, I thought to myself that I was being too mean. After all, I was extremely shy and inarticulate – without using the words "you know" – when I was very young because public speaking is just plain scary and I was unbelievably nervous.
I thought about how I kept fixing my glasses as a college job counselor taped a mock interview with me – while I was watching myself on the screen fixing my glasses. But, I was 21.
I also thought about the fear I had when as the managing editor of a newspaper I was asked to make speeches and my tones were so hushed that people complained afterward that they didn’t hear a word I said. But, I was 27.
And there is nothing wrong with being 51 and being scared to death of public speaking. But why in the world is a 51-year-old with this problem seeking to get involved in politics?
Today, I was less inclined to believe that what I read two days earlier was an anomaly – or just a rookie being nervous in the early stages of one of her first interviews.
In the past few days, Smith has researched some of Kennedy’s past interviews. He reported that she used "you know" 142 times in an interview with The New York Times. That’s not a typo. I didn’t mean to type 14 or 12 or 42. Yes, one-hundred-forty-two.
I’m sorry Caroline, but you are now entering Sarah Palin territory. I really wish you the best and hope you continue your outstanding service to charities, but please don’t enter the world of politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
