ItsFourthAndLong

ItsFourthAndLong: My battle with Alzheimer's

2010-04-01T09:29:00.000-04:00

ItsFourthAndLong: My battle with Alzheimer's

My battle with Alzheimer's

2010-04-01T09:09:00.006-04:00

The Wall Street Journal, earlier this week, had a story about Alzheimer’s Disease. Here’s my account of this situation.

I've been living with Alzheimer's for nearly eight years, when my mother, at 60, was diagnosed with this God-awful disease. I've never experienced anything more stressful, more emotionally extracting than watching my mother suffer with this terrible condition.

The best reason the doctors could give me for her dementia was that she suffered from depression. And while 60 is an early age to be hobbled with Alzheimer's, there are plenty of people who were diagnosed at an even younger age.

I met a 43-year-old man with it while I was touring assisted living facilities for my mother. I heard of a 42-year-old woman who was also stricken with Alzheimer's.

Sure, they're the rarity.   

Stimulating your mind with a book or a game is a fine idea. But if you really want to prevent this disease from afflicting you, go for a run at least three times a week.   Moving the blood around your heart and your head will do more to keep your brain in shape than anything else.

Not that reading is bad by any means. But there's no getting around cardiovascular exercise.

Your heart requires it and now we now our brains do too.

Today, at 67, my mother lives in the Alzheimer's unit of an assisted living facility. The attendants bathe and dress her and make sure she eats. The annual cost? About $80,000.00. And it’s all private pay.

The annual tab for her to live where she does is being paid for through her IRA and the money she made when she sold her house.

If you want to know stress, check out what it’s like to watch the stock market take a nosedive, as it did in the final months of 2008, and then wonder how your mother will pay her bills.

It’s not like she’s employable. Her money has to last her for as long as she lives.

Thankfully, we saw a turnaround in the market. I think she’ll be able to pay her bills for as long as she lives.

Add to that stress the time I had to agree to put her on anti-psychotic drugs. In dementia patients, they’re considered “FDA-approved black label drugs,” as her doctor explained to me.

Meaning death is a real possible side effect. When it could happen is anyone’s guess.

But it’s caused me more stress and issues than I care to acknowledge. In effect, by agreeing to this medication, I signed my mother’s death warrant. At least that’s what it feels like.

And every morning, as I’m waking, my first thought is, “I killed my mother.”

Alzheimer's was first described to me as the "long, slow, goodbye."

I wish it were faster. My mother's a shell of the lady she use to be. In her youth, she was vibrant, beautiful and full of life. Now she's worn down, haggard looking, 30 pounds overweight, can't remember my name or anyone else’s. And she can only repeat three sentences.

"Stay with me. I like you. You're nice to me," are the only things she says now. She takes a battery of pills daily to keep going.

But the sharp mind that she use to have is gone.

The tragedy of this situation is that physically she's in pretty good shape. Mentally, she's a vacuum, not even remembering words said to her seconds ago.

My best wish, the one thing I pray for, is that she dies soon. Her dignity will only be restored through her passing, which can't come soon enough.

Don't let this disease happen to you. Go for a run three times a week and change your diet. And while you're at it, find a good book to read.

Do something, goddamnit!

Because if you don't, you'll cause more strain, stress and emotional upheaval on your loved ones than you can ever possibly imagine. Hopefully, that isn't one of your life goals.  

Tribune's uncertainity in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

2009-02-02T15:40:00.001-05:00

There is no predetermined outcome for bankrupt Tribune Co. Other than a likely sale of the Chicago Cubs baseball team, the company's future — as well as that of its remaining assets, employees, management, and Sam Zell's continuing leadership — is unclear.

As with other Chapter 11 bankruptcies, among the groups that suffer most are the employees. Tribune's, after enduring previous management's scuffles with the Chandlers, and then witnessing Zell's purchase, have taken it on the chin again. Their ESOP shares are worthless. Their jobs uncertain.

They may wonder who could own the piece of Tribune they work for and, in addition, they could be asking how forgiving Tribune's creditors will be toward the company.

Yet seeking protection from creditors via Chapter 11 bankruptcy, especially in today's sour economic climate, is no longer necessarily a sign of defeat. It's a credible, strategic option for today's managers, who bet that not only will creditors refuse to seek their firm's liquidation but that they themselves will also be in place when the company emerges from Chapter 11.

Foregone conclusion?

That said, when Zell took over Tribune in 2007, the firm's bankruptcy might already have been a foregone conclusion. In fact, according to bankruptcy expert Douglas Baird, a University of Chicago law professor, Tribune's finances 14 months ago looked more similar to a corporation that had undergone a 1980s-style leveraged buyout.

"Unlike the ones done in recent years, it was very highly leveraged," he said. "This was an aggressive deal."

Other than Zell's $315 million, there was no other collateral in the buyout, meaning that for Tribune to meet its debt obligations under Zell's ownership, the publisher had to be financially successful, immediately. Instead, revenues and profits went the other direction.

Under Zell's ownership, it's doubtful that Tribune's employees, through the ESOP, had much of a say about the company's direction. Under the Chapter 11 filing, they definitely have no voice in the company's future. Their shares are worthless, even powerless. For that matter, the influence of Tribune's management is potentially diminished.

"The creditors are the shareholders now and in charge of Tribune's future," said Baird. "The judge will be asking them what they want to do.
"The existing managers have not been displaced yet, but whether they (and Zell) have a role going forward will turn in large measure on whether the creditors (and especially Barclay's Bank, Tribune's debtor-in-possession lender) think that they are managing the company well," Baird added.

Economic vitality

Barclay's, which is providing Tribune with a $50 million letter of credit, will be one of the first creditors to be paid back should the company come out of Chapter 11.

Other creditors, led by JP Morgan Chase, are owed $12.9 billion, according to Tribune's bankruptcy petition. Tribune claims assets of $7.6 billion.
One of the issues that the creditors committee will need to determine is the economic viability of the assets that compose Tribune.

"That conversation (on economic viability of Tribune as a whole and its parts) is taking place right now," said Baird. "Tribune will likely go on but it may not go on as it was a year ago.

"Assets like the LA Times or WGN (Tribune's Chicago-based radio and television stations) are likely viable and may be set up on their own," he added.

Baird, in fact, is optimistic about Tribune's future.

"Once you take away the debt, they (Tribune and its parts) should be cash flow positive," said Baird, which should guide the creditors toward seeing Tribune successfully through its Chapter 11 proceedings.

"Much of what the creditors decide will be based on how much money they can get paid back."

Real estate options

New York University law Prof. Barry Adler said creditors will also likely consider the future possibility of working with Zell's real estate business.

"There are a number of issues for any creditor to think about when determining the acceptance of a reorganization plan," Adler said.

Whatever steps Tribune and its creditors might take, initial answers clarifying the publisher's reorganization plan won't be forthcoming until April. That's the new deadline U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin Carey set for Tribune to file supporting documentation regarding its bankruptcy plea.

To avoid ending with whimper, publishers must tout printed product

2009-01-30T20:19:00.004-05:00

Nobel Prize winner T. S. Eliot likely hadn’t a clue as to the versatility of the last verse of “The Hollow Men.” Not only is it a possible description for the world’s end but it also illustrates the potential closing stages of the daily newspaper industry:

“This is the way the world ends,
not with a bang but a whimper.”

Consider: On any given day there’s a publisher ordering his paper’s management team to cut back further on the printed edition because, as the annual and quarterly reports say, print revenues are down, online revenues are up. While that strategy, if you can call it that, might improve profits in the short run, this pathological behavior only diminishes the paper’s revenues, competitive stand¬ing and its future.

This self-destructive practice won’t kill the newspaper business next year or even in 10 years. If it continues, based on current run rates of circulation and advertising losses, it could take decades before the daily newspaper industry col¬lapses, echoing Eliot’s last stanza.

The Newspaper Association of America reports trends that everyone in the daily newspaper industry knows: Over the last 23 years, newspapers’ daily circ has fallen by more than 11 million; the last time the daily newspaper industry experienced a circulation increase was in 1987, when it sold 300,000 more cop¬ies than it did in 1986.

Daily newspapers peaked in 1973, when there were 1,773 titles; more than 300 newspapers have since stopped pub¬lishing. Newsprint consumption is half of what it was in 2003, meaning newspa¬pers are sizably smaller today.

Same story

Advertising revenues tell the same story: Print advertising revenues peaked in 2005 at $47 billion; since then, reve¬nues have dropped by more than $5 bil¬lion and even when online advertising revenues are added in, the newspaper industry’s ad revenue is down by more than $4 billion from 2005.

Tribune, the latest company to an¬nounce cutbacks, will soon sell news¬papers that offer more maps, graphics, lists, ranking and statistics.

Tribune owner Sam Zell and Randy Michaels, the chief operating officer, announced that they are planning to produce newspapers with a 50-50 ratio between ads and editorial content and reduce the news content, across all of the company’s newspapers, by as much as 500 pages a week.

Finding efficiencies and creating a newspaper that readers and advertisers will buy makes perfect business sense.

But while it is too early to tell if Tri¬bune’s latest initiative will lead to growth in revenues and profits, it appears as if this move is more of the same — simply cutbacks — and it can’t help but make one wonder what Tribune’s stable of dai¬lies will look like if this venture fails.

The answer

Is there any way up?

Yes. A newspaper is both a consumer product and an advertising vehicle. The latter’s success hinges on the former. So if publishers want better results, they had better find a solution to the one part of their business that no other media wishes to duplicate — the daily printed newspaper.

This requires a print strategy. This is, presumably, what Messrs. Zell and Michaels have crafted. Because if Tribune and its fellow companies fail to formulate a plan to own the one thing that no other media outlet, including the “demonic” Craigslist, is interested in producing or duplicating — a daily printed newspaper — publishers face a grim future indeed.

The results of the daily newspaper industry’s two practices — publishing a newspaper that it struggles to sell, more often than not, in a monopoly market, and updating its Web site, which is freely accessible and appears to be easier to sell to advertisers than the printed edition — has made many publishers mis¬takenly believe that the online edition doesn’t require the sales support of the printed edition.

Carries the day

But the printed product still carries the day in terms of revenue and profits and it remains a highly effective promotion vehicle for the newspaper’s Web site.

About two years ago, Netcraft, an Internet monitoring company, announced that there are 100 million Web sites, a number that’s no doubt higher today. If you‘re a newspaper publisher, take note: If you’re struggling to sell ads in a monopoly market, how are you going to effectively compete against 99.9 million other Web sites?

Here is how Harvard Business School Prof. Michael E. Porter views the competitive landscape. In his book, “Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sus¬taining Superior Performance”, Porter wrote: “A firm that engages in each generic strategy (cost leadership, differ¬entiation, cost focus or differentiation focus) but fails to achieve any of them is stuck in the middle.

“It possesses no competitive advantage. This strategic position is usually a recipe for below-average performance.”

The daily newspaper industry can differentiate and stand out from all other media by creating a printed product that people want to read and advertisers find attractive.

Consumers are overwhelmed with media choices and their time is short, so publishers need to overcome resistance to their product. One solution? Give away the paper free to consumers and adopt a print format that readers find easily ac¬cessible: the tabloid. This might better be called the Examiner model as produced in Washington, D.C., Baltimore and San Francisco.

Ultimately, the daily newspaper industry is responsible for its own health. Either it demonstrates to advertisers and readers its strength as a printed product or it lives out T. S. Eliot’s last verse.

Correspondent's note: This article orginally appeared, by the same author as this blog, in the July 2008 edition of Newspapers & Technology magazine.

The Next Bailout Scenario

2009-01-13T21:36:00.003-05:00

By Combined Wire Services

WASHINGTON — The seats in the congressional hearing room, previously occupied by the chief executives of the country’s automakers, hadn’t even cooled Thursday when they were immediately filled by America’s leading newspaper executives who were there to do what their colleagues from the auto industry had done — beg for a taxpayer-financed bailout package.

With advertising and circulation revenues hitting new lows every quarter, and newspaper job losses on the rise, the industry is in a precipitous state. As of yet, no one in the newspaper industry appears to know how to correct the situation, which worsens daily.

The newspaper industry’s recent headlines include the faithful at the Church of Christ Science no longer praying to God for a miracle to save the print edition of their prestigious newspaper, The Christian Science Monitor; instead, they’re asking Him to make the newspaper’s Internet edition a far more trafficked Web site than it was before the print edition’s demise.

“We pray every day for our Web site,” said a spokesman for the Church.

Need help

Other headlines include the newspaper industry’s leading supplier of news content, The Associated Press, announcing it would eliminate jobs in 2009; along with the precarious financial position of New Jersey’s leading daily newspaper, The Star-Ledger, few newspaper executives and analysts have hope that the industry can be turned around without government assistance.

“They (the newspaper industry) need help,” said John Morton, a former newspaper analyst.

“I’m … I’m not sure what happened to our revenue,” said Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The New York Times and chairman of the paper’s holding company, during a Senate Banking Committee hearing on Capitol Hill. “It … it … just seems to have gone away. We’re trying to find it.”

McClatchy Newspaper’s Chief Executive Gary Pruitt; MediaNews Group Chief Executive William Dean Singleton; News Corp.’s Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch; and Gannett Chief Executive Craig Dubow, publisher of USA Today, seeking approval for a government-funded bailout package, joined Sulzberger.

All four executives, who lead some of the largest and most prestigious newspaper companies in the United States, said that unless they received a portion of the $700 billion set aside to save Wall Street banking firms, they would either declare bankruptcy or be forced to shut down in the next six to eight months.

No support

Still, members of the Senate Committee and the House Financial Services Committee harshly criticized the executives’ testimony, where they later appeared, as being short-sighted and failing to address the single greatest issue facing the domestic newspaper industry — providing a newspaper people want to read and advertisers want to buy.

“We’ve been firing as many people as we can,” said MediaNews Group’s Singleton. “We’re going to fire as many people as possible in order to get our profit margins back to where they were in 1982.”

“At Gannett, we’re seriously considering making our newspapers the size of Readers Digest magazine — only thinner — and then increasing the daily cover price to a buck,” said Dubow, the company’s chief executive officer.

“Isn’t that a recipe for disaster,” asked U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez, (R-Fla.), of Dubow.

“It’s revenue maximization,” replied Dubow.

As soon as the four executives had finished their testimony before both committees, congressional members peppered them with questions about their management tactics, styles and abilities.

“Do you guys think you could run my 8-year-old nephew’s lemonade stand,” asked U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

“No, no, I’ll handle this question,” said McClatchy’s Pruitt as he shouted down and pushed Murdoch aside for the opportunity to answer Frank.

Making profit?

“If the economy was robust, and if we were within five feet of a four-way stop, I’m fairly certain we could make a profit,” Pruitt said. “Of course, my answer is predicated on weather conditions, the quality of lemonade served and the amount of traffic at the intersection, none of which we might be able to control.”

“Have you thought about, oh I don’t know, marketing your newspapers and telling people why they should read them or buy advertising in them,” asked U.S. Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), the Senate Banking Committee’s ranking Republican.

“We’re The New York Times, for God’s sake,” Sulzberger said. “We don’t need to tell anyone who we are. America and New York, they know who we are!”

“We eliminated the marketing department five layoffs ago,” answered Pruitt.

“These guys make the auto industry look good,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (D-Calif.), during a news conference after Thursday’s hearings. “At least Detroit faces real competition; these newspaper guys are a bunch of incompetent monopolists.

“Maybe they need to be replaced by executives from some major utility,” she added.

Some lawmakers, however, were in favor of evaluating a bailout.

“I’m prepared to vote in favor of this funding if I’m allowed to control your editorial pages,” announced U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, during the hearings.

“While this request doesn’t mean too much of a change to The New York Times, it does have some sharp ramifications for The Wall Street Journal,” Dodd added.

Upon hearing Dodd’s statement, the Journal’s chairman, Rupert Murdoch, collapsed and had to be revived by paramedics. He was later taken to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where doctors report he’s in stable condition and is scheduled to be released today.

Both congressional chambers are expected to debate the request from the newspaper executives today.

Correspondent's note: This article, written by this correspondent, originally appeared in the January 2009 edition of Newspapers & Technology magazine.

Unshackle the chains: The U.S. Daily Newspaper Industry -- 2009

2009-01-08T16:35:00.005-05:00

As 2009 dawns, executives and employees across U.S. daily newspapers might be worried that they’ll follow Tribune’s lead and file for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy this year.

It wouldn’t be because they’re burdened with the same amount of crushing debt as Tribune. It’ll be because their revenue stream, which will likely come under more pressure this year, will not cover their costs. Like Tribune, they may be forced to sell assets, lay off employees, or implement a new ownership structure.

Whatever they’ll do this year, daily newspaper executives will likely not focus on the one issue that can save them – Finding a new way for an effective and venerable print product to compete in the Digital Age. Failure to do so and these executives will likely find themselves in an even more precarious situation at the end of this year than they were at the end of 2008.

The Internet is a convenient crutch. Listen to any daily newspaper executive and this relatively new medium is the cause of all ills, from declining circulation to shrinking print advertising revenues. Indeed, the story of the Internet’s affect on the daily newspaper industry is the next iteration of David and Goliath, and, right now, David is winning because Goliath either doesn’t understand how to use all of the tools available to him or is too lazy to do so.

The daily newspaper industry’s problems didn’t show up yesterday or even six months ago. It’s long been criticized for providing an irrelevant product and for being difficult for advertisers to purchase. In addition, it has long evaded the basic principles of economics, raising advertising rates while demand for its product, as measured by circulation numbers, drop.

In spite of its troubles, the daily newspaper industry possesses strengths that are unique. If it can harness them, change its thinking, focus on core capabilities and correct shortcomings, it likely has a bright future.

Strengths of the business

“You still have 120 million (print) readers in the aggregate across the newspaper industry in the United States on any given Sunday,” said David Walker, chief executive officer of NSA Media, of Downers Grove, Illinois, which buys about $1.5 billion of newspaper advertising annually, in both the United States and Canada.

“You can’t get to 120 million in virtually any audience, other than television, on a specific day and date like you can with newspapers,” said Walker. “You certainly can’t get their digitally; online; with radio; with magazines; with search engine marketing, mobile blasts, addressable TV, yet.

“There’s nothing else (like the U.S. newspaper industry) that kind of hits that really superbly large, critical mass of audience and does it very precisely, on a local basis,” Walker added.

Newspapers are “opt-in media, local, a known entity and, contrary to popular belief, they’re still relevant and there’s high engagement, said Mark Johnson, a vice president of Livonia, Michigan-based Valassis, which buys around $650 million annually in newspaper advertising.

A newspaper’s relationship with its subscribers “is the most relevant thing in the value proposition,” said Walker. “The value proposition of newspapers is day and date specific, local, huge audience. The value to the advertiser is that they’re a wanted medium with … subscribers and, more particularly … wanted advertising from … subscribers.”

Newspapers are “daily, actionable, easy to read, easy to find what you’re looking for, good for branding and information,” said Merrill Lynch managing director Lauren Rich Fine, who follows the newspaper industry. “Advertising in newspapers still works.”

Weaknesses of the business

In the Digital Age, media is infinite so the daily newspaper industry, which tells marketers large and small that they need to market their products, needs to market itself and expand its footprint, providing more options and information to advertisers.

“Newspapers need to tell people why they’re important, exciting and relevant,” said Johnson. “They need to talk about their readers and how they’re consumed.”

Part of the industry’s problem, say some advertising executives, is the information newspaper executives use to make the case for buying print.

“Media kits are still fighting the fight from 20 years ago – frequency and reach,” said Chicago-based advertising and marketing consultant Rick Shaughnessy. “What I do not see is a segmented consumer behavior based model that shows me that when my target audience intersects this ad in this medium that it will mean something.”

One of the industry’s greatest weaknesses, said Shaughnessy, is “that it defines itself by its distribution medium, not by killer content.”

Walker warns that while the newspaper industry would prefer to talk about its audience, “Everyone is going to validate it with circulation because they’re not going to be too open to the notion of being counterintuitive of audience. So if you’ve been trailing along at ‘X’ circulation and suddenly you have a precipitous decline … but an increase of 25 percent in audience, you’re going to have a really hard time selling that.”

The daily newspaper industry needs to focus on its print product and upgrade its marketing skills because, “Newspapers can’t generate the same revenues online that they did in print as in print they sold on the possibility that every page was viewed and therefore monetized,” said Fine. “Online, advertisers now really know which pages are being viewed.”

Even newspapers’ traditional stronghold, coupons, is under pressure.

Coupons.com, of Mountain View, California, around since 1998, working with more than 900 top consumer brands, now has 8.2 million unique visitors every month, said the Web site’s chief executive officer, Steven Boal. While that audience number might be small compared to aggregate U.S. daily newspaper circulation, consider this warning from Boal:

“Newspaper coupon redemption rates are most often less than one percent while Coupons.com redemption rates are often 15 – 20 percent,” he said.

Ways out of this mess

The best corrective action, say NSA Media and Valassis executives, for the newspaper industry is to know its audience as intimately as magazines know theirs.

“Magazines sell the vertical niche that they represent. They deal with how relevant they are to a specific marketer’s mission,” said Walker.

Will this payoff?

“One particular group that (this information) is important to is pharmaceutical companies and yet you don’t see any really well thought through initiative on the part of the newspaper industry to address the pharmaceutical category in a way that’s relevant to a pharmaceutical marketer,” said Walker.

As a result, Walker estimates, pharmaceutical companies spend more than $5 billion a year on magazines and “close to zero in newspapers – around $50 million across the country.”

Successful advertising selling today comes down to telling the advertiser how a consumer uses the print product, said Johnson. “Does it have a shelf life and is it used as a reference piece? Do they pass it on to others? Do they clip coupons, do the puzzles, make recipes, pin articles to the bulletin board?

“Does the audience go to Web sites referenced in ads or articles? Do they write letters to the editor? Do they purchase products mentioned or advertised? Do they read it?” These are some of the questions Johnson wants answered.

Of course, if you want to know how your readers use your print product, you need to provide one that people want to read.

Free or paid?

With declining circulation numbers, there’s a debate as to whether continuing with paid distribution makes sense, especially in a time when most newspapers offer free Web sites.

“The cover price is no matter to me,” said Johnson. “The cover price does not dictate engagement. It’s the newspaper’s reach, readership and engagement with consumers that matters.”

“I’m not convinced that papers should try to win readers back to print,” said Fine.

“Making it free may devalue it,” said Shaughnessy, “But there may be a mixed revenue model, where free papers have more ads than paid ones.”

Changing the mindset

“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains,” wrote 18th century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Of course, he was writing about the world’s political institutions then but he could just as easily been describing today’s U.S. newspaper industry mentality.

The mental chains wrapped around it prohibit it from improving its print product, upgrading its marketing skills and finding a solution to its problems. Newspapers need to provide marketers with more information, a print product people want to read and a Web site that attracts users.

Said Fine: Newspapers are “focused on putting out fires right now and are distracted from investing. Further, there doesn’t seem to be an obvious plan to replace the lost classified ads or decline in readership. They are all online and doing a decent job but it is hard to compete against the online independents as they don’t have the legacy cost structure.”

It isn’t so much the business model that affects the daily newspaper industry as it is the industry’s mental model. Executives see advertisers taking their business elsewhere and feel they have no other choice than to throw in with their Internet edition.

The problem with that solution is that they risk being commoditized on the Web. No other Web site offers a print product like a daily newspaper. So rather than view the print edition as a liability, newspaper executives should consider it a strength, especially when they’re pitching any advertiser.

At the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, Jerry Wind and Colin Crook wrote a book entitled, “The Power of Impossible Thinking.” If daily newspaper executives took their advice, changed their thinking about their business – and improved their company’s marketing skills and placed an emphasis on their print edition – there’s a good chance they’ll do the impossible -- Return the daily newspaper industry to healthier days in 2009.

Editor's note: A shorter version of this article by this correspondent appeared in the January edition of Newspapers & Technology magazine.

Happy Holidays

2008-12-24T15:34:00.003-05:00

The correspondent at ItsFourthAndLong bids you peace this holiday season. He returns the week of January 5, 2009.

Moving the holidays

2008-12-23T09:02:00.004-05:00

If you’re a Christian and reading this today – YOU’VE GOT TWO MORE SHOPPING DAYS UNTIL CHRISTMAS!!!! SERIOUSLY, WHAT ARE YOU DOING READING THIS BLOG? STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND BUY SOMETHING – DAMNIT!!!!

If you’re Jewish, let’s face it, you’ve got it a tad easier. If you don’t take care of someone tonight, you’ve got five more nights in which to make it up to a loved one or whoever else is on your gift list.

Christmas and Hanukah suffer from Thanksgiving’s proximity. They fall too close to Turkey Day and, as a result, they’re the leading causes of stress, anxiety and depression in December.

Thanksgiving is the best holiday. You eat, drink and make merry – all without having to worry about buying someone a gift that requires an emotional touch point.

If your hosts hate the wine or the center piece you offered, that’s nothing. These gifts didn’t break your checking account and, emotionally speaking, they’re inconsequential.

But Christmas and Hanukah, they’re different stories. They demand your best gift giving efforts. Heaven forbid you should fail to buy that special someone anything other than that very gift that perfectly suits them.

At our house, every Christmas presents a gift giving conundrum. What to buy for whom? Our kids are easy; the kids of relatives and friends are somewhat easy; friends we buy for are easy. Our mothers are easy. Our fathers, men who have every toy they ever wanted, present difficulties. We’re never sure what to do for them.

In addition, this year’s short time frame between Christmas and Thanksgiving has presented numerous scheduling difficulties. A number of gifts will be late. I explained this to a dear friend who reminded me, because she’s always been wise beyond her years, that Christmas is a season, not a day. While a wonderful idea that works in some circles, it doesn’t cut it with our culture. Christmas remains a day!

So because these holidays demand our best efforts, we should reschedule them to a month that’s truly awful, January. Christmas and Hanukah in January would make the month so much more palatable. And once the celebrations are over, it’ll be nearly February, when spring’s just around the corner.

Is there a religious problem here? Not really.

The history of Christianity is a history of competition. One can’t just start up a new religion without figuring out ways to compete and, at times, collude with society’s domineering culture.

No one really knows when Jesus was born; stories suggest his birth was either in the summer or fall but it remains a mystery. The only thing that appears to be certain is His death, at around Passover, or sometime in either March or April.

The leading reason that Jesus’ birth is celebrated in December is because that’s when an event was celebrated during the days of the Roman Empire, Winter Solstice. In fact, green is a Christmas color because the Romans decorated with it to celebrate the pending arrival of spring.

Scholarly reports suggest that early Christians celebrated Jesus’ birth in December for two reasons: 1) so they would have something to celebrate while everyone else was marking the arrival of longer days; 2) to offer up a completely different celebration or, in other words, to compete against Winter Solstice.

So, religiously speaking, there’s nothing stopping us from moving Christmas to January 25th. If anything, it’ll give retailers, those gauges of economic health, double the time to score sales as opposed to the usual four to five weeks after Thanksgiving.

Since Hanukah is now competing with Christmas or vice-versa – take your pick – it should go along with this modest proposal and move to January as well. Religiously speaking, Hanukah can’t move as easily as Christmas can but, in the name of competition, I say, make the move. It’s stronger closer to Christmas than it is farther away.

Everybody wins here: People have more time to shop. Department stores, boutiques and others selling gifts have a longer lead time in which to make their sales figures and consumers breathe a sigh of relief.

If we implement this plan, we’ll still have New Year’s as usual. Even that song, “We Wish You a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,” while suffering from chronology problems, still works. Let’s face it, you don’t want to sing, “We wish you a Happy New Year and a Merry Christmas.” Although depending on where you are on the sobriety chart on December 31st, maybe you do.

What about the clergy? Will they like this idea? I’m not sure but their objections can be met this way: The holidays’ meanings are more important to celebrate than the exact days on which the events actually happened.

Who’s with me?

Sources:

Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Thomson Gale, 2005

Encyclopedia of religious rites, rituals and festivals. Frank A. Salamone, editor. New York: Routledge, 2004

The Morning Routine

2008-12-19T09:00:00.004-05:00

Most mornings at our house are the same: I’m out of bed at 4:20 am, putting on my exercise clothes before heading over to the local YMCA to complete my “macho” workout in about an hour. I figure the time spent running on a treadmill, lifting weights and doing those god-awful abdominal crunches will keep mortality at bay, allow me to eat and drink to my heart’s content, and see my children well into their adult years.

After completing my exercises, it’s off to a nearby convenience store to purchase a copy of The New York Times before returning home to take my wife to the train station. (In case you’re curious, The Chicago Tribune, The Daily Herald and The Wall Street Journal are home delivered.) Our sons usually join us for this ride and receive mom’s usual but necessary admonitions, which include behaving like the well-mannered boys they’re expected to be. Once at the station, she hugs them, telling them how much they’re loved.

Back home – it’s not even 7 am yet – the boys eat breakfast while I tend to shaving, showering and dressing. An hour later, the kids are dressed, their teeth are brushed, and we’re out the door again. The younger son, attending a junior kindergarten program, is the first to be dropped off.

I take him into his classroom, get him peed and his hands washed before giving him lots of hugs and kisses, telling him he’s great and loved. Once out of the building, I turn to his classroom window, wave good-bye and blow a few kisses his way. From what I understand, it eases his transition to his teachers’ care and provides the impetus he needs to start playing with his classmates

The older one, now a first grader, and I soon find ourselves sitting in a coffee shop, working on his reading skills. This lasts for about 45 minutes and gives him just enough time to read about 10 pages of a book he checked out from the school library. This exercise usually involves further memorization of words he already knows and expanding his vocabulary by sounding out words that are new to him.

This daily habit has not only been rewarding but also fraught with frustration. In the beginning, there were days he refused to read. So instead of becoming angry, I took a different approach. “We’re not doing this for my benefit,” I told him. “We’re doing this for yours. If you want to learn how to read, you better start reading this book.” That message worked and, in the 10 weeks we’ve been at this exercise, I’ve seen dramatic improvements in his reading skills. Not only that, but his confidence and enthusiasm for reading show through so much so that he enjoys showing off new words he can read. It’s especially exciting if it’s a compound word.

Our time with one another also gives me a chance to pick up new details about his young life and answer his questions, which lately have included inquiries about people’s gaits, wishing wells (the restaurant has one, sort of), election results, football and whatever else happens to be on his mind.

Like all the parents who’ve preceded me and those who will succeed me, I begin to realize the limits of my influence. Our elder son, only six, is clearly growing up and doesn’t need his parents like he use to. He will experience many of life’s trials and tribulations without our interpretation. Not that we’re shy about expressing our opinions to him but we also know he needs to experience life, sometimes, without the benefit of our experience. Because if he doesn’t, he may never become the well-adjusted, self-sufficient adult he needs to be.

This is a difficult moment for any concerned parent: It’s that time when you realize that your once little, helpless, bundle of joy, who can now walk, talk and think on their own, is working as hard to be as independent from you as you once did from your own parents. It’s that alarming moment, a day of reckoning if you will, when you realize you now understand all the concerns and worries your parents once had for you – and may still have in spite of the many years you’ve been alive.

Before long, we’ve left the coffee shop and find ourselves at school. Given the weather lately, I, along with all of the other parents, pull up in our van as close as possible to the entrance so he has a short walk into the building. I get out the van, help him with his backpack and give him two bags, one filled with snow-pants, the other with boots. He always seems overloaded.

Before he leaves my presence, I tell him I love him, how smart he is, and to learn a lot in school. He says good-bye, turns around and waddles toward the door. I usually remain standing next to the van, until I see that he’s safely inside the building. Call me overprotective. I’ll plead guilty to the charge.

As he’s making his way toward the door, his pace quickens and this look of confidence comes across his face. He’s ready for whatever challenge awaits him. All at once, I’m overwhelmed with a deep sense of pride and a longing for days since past. I’m suddenly jolted into realizing that our little Buckaroo is growing up faster than I prefer. And the same thing happens every morning – tears fill my eyes.

My experiences with Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

2008-12-08T21:54:00.006-05:00

Debtor in Possession are three words you never want to see on your paycheck. But if you’re a Tribune Company employee, those are words you’ll soon see emblazoned across your paycheck. It’s warning to the banks: The company you work for is in Chapter 11Bankruptcy.

It also tells the banks that the check is good because, should it bounce, the check issuer, in this case Tribune Company, very likely risks going into Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, which involves closing up shop and liquidating whatever assets remain. And if there’s anything Sam Zell and his bankers probably don’t want right now, it’s a Chapter 7 filing.

I still remember those three words being on every check United Press International issued. It gave every bank cashier and/or clerk I dealt with some pause before cashing a check that had been issued to me by the company.

I experienced Chapter 11 more than 20 years ago when I worked for UPI. It was one of the most turbulent experiences in my professional career. In Chapter 11, you soon learn that there are no sacred cows and that everyone is dispensable.

In UPI’s case, the revenue stream, shrinking as it was, could no longer keep up with the company’s cost structure. If UPI’s management wanted the company to continue, it needed to borrow money. But to do so, the banks wanted to protect the money they were lending. As a result, UPI filed for Chapter 11, where it remained for about 18 months until it was purchased by a newspaper publisher from Mexico, Mario Vazquez-Rana.

Mr. Zell can say what he wants about being in firm control of Tribune, but the fact is the banks, especially J.P. Morgan Chase, are running the show. They may not have their own people sitting in the executives suite today, but they’ll be there soon. And they’ll start appointing their own people into Tribune’s management. People they can trust.

The same thing happened at UPI. Suddenly people with no experience in the media business, but plenty on Wall Street, wound up in charge. Each of them had to come up to speed on the company – its nuances, history and competition, employees and clients – so they understood the situation they faced. Some were successful at this; others were complete disasters.

The bankers have one mission – get paid. Mr. Zell can say he wants to keep the company intact, but that’s the bankers’ last and least concern. They want their money – and they’ll do what they need to do to get it, especially given today’s economic and financial climate.

I count my lucky stars (if I can use that phrase) that I experienced this when I was months shy of my 23rd birthday. The many UPI people who were older than me, laden with kids, college payments and mortgages, didn’t always hold up so well. Some left UPI for greener pastures. Some divorced; and some just hunkered down and did their job.

Chapter 11 is exhausting. It challenges you mentally – how do you look out for Number 1; pay your bills; handle your unpaid expense account; make the business you run work; keep people motivated; handle a spouse’s and/or family members (nagging) questions; plan for the future – and it’s also physically challenging. You feel beat up and, at times, powerless and helpless.

It can also bring about a gallows humor. At UPI, in Dallas, where I worked when the company entered into Chapter 11, a bank, right next to our office, where many of us had checking accounts, stopped honoring our paychecks. They told us we had to wait three to five days for the checks to clear before we could access the money. You can imagine the uproar that created.

So one of my colleagues, Dan Dalton, suggested we rent a school bus, pick up the homeless around Dallas, give each of them UPI credentials and then send them into the bank, telling them that the bank was holding a party in their honor. That would show the bastards, said Dan.

Tragically, we didn’t follow up on that idea. Reflecting back on that day now, we should have. It would have been fun.

My biggest challenge, at the time, was paying $1,500.00 in charges I’d racked up on my American Express card, which I’d used on the many sales trips I’d made. I still remember talking to some nice man at American Express, explaining that I couldn’t pay the bill. I later borrowed money from my dad so I could pay the tab.

And, as I recall, I bounced one or two rent checks as a result of UPI’s Chapter 11 filing because there were some problems with payroll.

Hopefully, the many things I went through at UPI will not happen to Tribune employees.

I feel awful for the many talented professionals working at Tribune who now have to deal with this. Sam Zell won’t suffer. But the many employees who’ve staked their lives and careers on Tribune will likely find that they’re bearing the brunt of this situation. That’s what makes it completely unfair.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy for Tribune?

2008-12-08T07:14:00.004-05:00

The Wall Street Journal reports today that Chicago-based Tribune Company, owner of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, six other daily newspapers, a number of television stations, plus the Chicago Cubs baseball team, may seek Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.

What’s surprising is the Lazard, which is also handling the sale of the Chicago Sun-Times and Sun-Times Holdings, has apparently, according to the Journal, been retained to find a buyer for the assets of the Tribune Company, if not the entire company itself.

It begs the question whether Lazard has a conflict of interest because they’re working for two companies that compete with one another in Chicago.

Tribune Company went private about a year ago when real estate mogul Sam Zell purchased the company. The tragedy, however, is that instead of having the money to outright buy the company, he put it into debt, to about the tune of $13 billion.

Given the size of the company, most days a debt of that size might have been easy to handle. But before the deal was even closed, Zell’s bankers were concerned about the deal because Tribune’s revenue stream was declining.

There are no asset sales on the horizon for Tribune Company – which kept the bankers at bay – so, as the Journal reports:

“The company's cash flow may not be enough to cover nearly $1 billion in interest payments due this year, and Tribune owes a $512 million debt payment in June.

”One of Tribune's most pressing concerns: The company is likely to be in violation of debt terms that limit borrowings at the end of the year to nine times its adjusted profits. The ratio stood at 8.3 at the end of the second quarter, before Tribune reported an 83% decline in operating profit for the three months ended Sept 28.”

It was reported about two months ago that the Cubs, coming off of a good season, plus an appearance (albeit brief) in the playoffs, could command a price in the $800 million range. If Tribune Company goes Chapter 11, it’s difficult to say if such a reported price would hold up.

In addition, two years ago, David Geffen, significant player in Hollywood, was offering $2 billion for the Los Angeles Times. Here, again, if Tribune goes Chapter 11, it’s questionable if that price will hold. (Even if Tribune wasn’t seeking Chapter 11 protection, it’s hard to say if, given the state of the U.S. newspaper industry, that price would hold up today.)

McClatchy, based in Sacramento, owner of a number of daily newspapers, recently restructured its debt terms. Tribune may be able to do the same and avoid Chapter 11.

Papers missing in action as technologies develop

2008-12-07T09:55:00.004-05:00

MIAMI — For Gloria Formosa, one of this city’s leading stock brokers, it’s an
absolute necessity she remain informed about the day’s news headlines.

Entrusted with millions of dollars of her clients’ money, she and her customers
know that an uninformed broker can make investment mistakes that can result
in costly — even ruinous — mistakes.

That’s why, shortly after Formosa wakes up and starts her morning routine, she
suddenly becomes aware of the day’s top news stories. What’s more, she does this
without using a Web site, turning on her BlackBerry, listening to the radio, watching
television or even reading a printed copy of her local paper, El Herald.

Earlier this year, Formosa, 45, did something a lot of women her age might not be expected to do: She had herself injected with nanobots, microscopic-size robots programmed to receive and deliver Bloomberg News Service headlines and
stories, stock and commodity prices — 24/7 — directly to her brain.

By the time she’s dressed, Formosa has a good idea of how the markets will perform
that day.

“I’m always updated,” she said. “With nanobots, I’m never caught off guard by
some event that could affect my clients’ investments. I’m way ahead of the game!”

In addition to being used to treat heart ailments, correct blood pressure and monitor
diabetes, nanobots are now employed by some news services, like Bloomberg and
Thomson Reuters, as a means of keeping their audiences informed throughout the day. There’s a chance, their executives say, that nanobots could even replace their
Web sites.
— The Wall Street Journal, “Invasion of the Nanobots: One Broker’s Attempt to
Stay Informed,” Sept. 3, 2032

While this scenario might seem like something out of a science fiction novel, there’s a better than even chance it just might happen. Nanotechnology is already in use, and nanobots — microscopic-size robots — will soon be employed to help people fight diseases, expand their minds and, perhaps, update them about the news.

Indeed, a host of recent technological developments, which include flexible display, Amazon.com’s Kindle, The Plastic Logic reader and nanotechnology, should force the daily newspaper industry to start answering a tough question: What will society look like a generation from now?

Consider the U.S. Army’s Army After Next program. Created after the first Iraqi War, this program was designed to help the Army determine how to defeat threats it might encounter in 30 years. Now called Unified Quest, the program today encompasses all military branches, intelligence agencies, the State and Treasury departments, and academics in cultural anthropology. The goal remains the same: formulating possible
solutions to the threats, wars and battles the United States may encounter a generation from now.

“These guys make your head hurt when discussing future scenarios,” said Harvey Perritt, a spokesman for the Army’s Training & Doctrine Command Headquarters in Norfolk, Va. “Even NASA shows up at these meetings, laying out how space might play a
role in any future scenario.”

Similar approach

The daily newspaper industry should undertake a similar intellectual exercise,
exploring how it will operate 30 years from now. The technology that’s on the
immediate horizon will further modify how consumers view newspapers. As a result, newspaper publishers must determine how it will own the future and remain competitive in an even more technologically advanced setting.

A sampling of what’s on the horizon:

•The Flexible Display Center, at Arizona State University, is developing, in
conjunction with the Army, technology that will spawn a variety of new products
including laptops with foldable screens. The Army funds the Center because it
plans to equip soldiers with PDAs, laptops and maps using this technology.

“Flexible display glass is rugged, lightweight, bendable and roll-able,” said Greg Raupp, the Center’s director. “It brings a new ball game of whole new products.”

The Center’s annual budget is about $14 million, with about $10 million coming from the Army and the remaining $4 million coming from industry sources and the university. As of now, though, there isn’t a single newspaper or media company sponsoring the Center.

Raupp said a newspaper company could sponsor the Center for a minimum of $50,000 annually to reap some benefits from the research. The cash outlay can be reduced if a newspaper can provide other value to Center projects, Raupp said.

•Amazon.com, attempting to sell more books in this digital age, is selling the Kindle, a handheld, wireless reader that downloads books, magazines and 17 different newspapers, among them The New York Times.

While Amazon says newspapers are a key Kindle partner, the Webtailer’s primary goal is to sell more books. The Kindle offers consumers a new reading and buying experience of print media. While it’s difficult to say how well Kindle sales are doing — Amazon refuses to release those numbers — devices like it will become more popular.

•Plastic Logic, a Mountain View, Calif., firm, last month demonstrated its flexible e-newspaper reader. The Plastic Logic Reader offers users a larger screen than the handheld, wireless reader from Amazon.com. The Plastic Logic device — which goes on sale next June — is built with proprietary flexible display technology. The whole screen is active; there are no buttons.

Plastic Logic is talking to newspaper publishers about making their content available on their new, wireless reader, according to Vice President of Marketing Joe Eschbach.

“We’re ideally suited for newspaper content because the formats of newspapers are respected along with their branding and we can support their advertising.” He said the Reader “will be priced for massive adoption — quickly.”

Looking ahead

Author, futurist and inventor Ray Kurzweil says that 21st century technology will focus on “making things smaller.” In an essay published in the book Invisible Future: The Seamless Integration of Technology into Everyday Life, Kurzweil said that nanobot technology “will be feasible within 30 years.”

“Nanobot technology will … expand our minds in any imaginable way,” wrote Kurzweil. “Brain implants based on … nanobots will ultimately expand our memories a trillionfold … and since the nanobots are communicating with each other over a wireless area network, they can create … new hybrid biological-nonbiological networks,” Kurzweil said.

Army spokesman Perritt says nanotechnology is already employed by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan so they can see around corners before risking a fatal turn.

Unfortunately, just as with the development of the Internet, not a single newspaper is helping direct the course of these new technologies. The way newspapers will be consumed and perceived, by readers and advertisers, a generation from now is being determined with no input from newspapers.

The question the daily newspaper industry needs to answer is this: Will it catch up, join, lead or be left behind as this technology becomes reality? Will the newspaper industry own its future or will it repeat its current behavior — massive layoffs and continued downsizing of its printed product — just as it has reacted to the competition it’s experiencing from the Internet?

Consider options

Kurzweil says the world will experience 20,000 years of progress in the 21st century. The newspaper industry must start determining its future — today.

Consider this warning from Marshall McLuhan in his book, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man: “The classified ads (and stock market quotations) are the bedrock of the press. Should an alternative source of easy access to such diverse daily information be found, the press will fold.”

That book was published in 1964.

Imagine, the newspaper industry might be a thriving business today if it had taken the time 44 years ago to consider all of the possible future threats — no matter how far-fetched — to a key revenue stream.

What will the daily newspaper industry look like in 44 years? Maybe the nanobot knows.

Editor's Note: This article, written by the correspondent to this blog, first appeared in the October 2008 edition of Newspapers & Technology magazine.

CNN & The Associated Press -- Celebrity Death Match?

2008-12-03T12:29:00.007-05:00

The announcement that CNN would start selling its own branded news wire service reminded me of the time, about 11 years ago, when I suggested that Tribune Media Services, my employer at the time, start selling the network’s Web content.

It was clear then, as it is now, that CNN had stopped being just a broadcaster. It was also in the print business. And, through its Web site, it demonstrated that it was a viable competitor to The Associated Press, Reuters and other traditional wire services, at least on national and international stories.

As a former Unipresser, (ex-United Press International employee for those of you not familiar with the lingo and the AP’s largest competitor until about twenty years ago), I’m the first to say that the AP is a tough rival. It’ll do whatever is necessary, including price cutting, to keep its clients, called “members” by the AP, in line.

So if CNN’s Jim Walton, president of CNN Worldwide, which will lead this undertaking, is having thoughts that his company will replace the AP, which possesses a near monopoly position with U.S. daily newspapers, his thoughts are delusional. The AP’s value doesn’t come from the stories it files from Washington, top cities around the country or even from various international datelines. It comes from the state reports.

If CNN wants to outright replace the AP, they’ll likely have to do what they thought they’d never do – provide a credible state report in all 50 states. That takes a lot of bodies, a lot of bureaus and, last but not least, a lot of money.

AP state reports are concocted through a combination of the wire service’s own reporters (if they can bother to get off their collective duffs to cover a story) and whatever their “members” contribute to the local, statewide AP report.

That’s right. The newspapers buying the AP service are required, by their contract with the news service, to also provide stories and pictures, produced by their own staff. That’s why the AP calls their clients “members” – not “clients.”

There’s a world of difference in the terms. A “member” is someone who shares an organization’s burden while a “client” is someone who pays for a service and, rightfully so, expects a decent product and decent, if not outstanding, customer service in return. At the AP, both of those things are, like, so yesterday, which is one of the reasons there’s no such thing as a satisfied AP customer or member, if you prefer.

This is one of the reasons that The Times story on Monday focused on The Columbus Dispatch, one of the largest daily newspapers in Ohio. The Dispatch, along with a few other newspapers in the Buckeye State, is working hard to drop the AP. The Dispatch and a few other newspapers regularly share their stories with one another. There’s a chance that The Dispatch and its group of rogue newspapers (as the AP sees them) will be able to provide one another with enough statewide coverage that they’ll able to drop the AP all together; at The Dispatch, this means a tidy annual savings, somewhere in the $800,000 range, according to The Times.

The national and international report that the AP provides can be easily replaced – for a lot less money – by purchasing other supplemental news services, including the Gannett News Service, the McClatchy-Tribune News Service, the Los Angeles Times-Washington Post News Service, The New York Times News Service and, perhaps, even Reuters.

Newspaper editors are frustrated, if not intensely angry, at the AP. The problem is that the AP business model – extortionary pricing for no or damn little customer service in return and a state report that’s as good as what the “members” contribute because the AP can’t be bothered to do much original reporting – is finally obsolete. At least that’s the appearance of the situation right now.

What gives me pause here is that the Dispatch’s attempt to form its own news cooperative is eerily similar to how this problem came about. One hundred and sixty years ago, a group of 10 men representing New York City’s top six newspapers formed a news agency. They named it The Associated Press.

So what The Dispatch and some of its fellow Ohio newspapers are doing is nothing new. The question is can they do a better job of providing what the AP has done for more than a century.

The AP’s problems are larger than Monday’s New York Times story let on. In addition to the new competitive threat from CNN, their tribulations include Tribune Company, owner of the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, The Hartford Courant, The Orlando Sentinel and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, to name a few, which cancelled its AP contract. (It’ll take two years for Tribune to drop the AP service.) Other newspapers, sources tell me, have, in some cases, stopped paying their AP bill.

What’s playing out here involves two issues: 1. The economics of the newspaper industry, which are declining faster than anyone had ever anticipated, and 2) decisions made by both UPI and the newspaper industry about thirty years ago, which only exacerbated the AP’s already over-inflated sense of self worth.

The newspaper industry is primarily a print medium. And though revenues to its Web sites are increasing, they still don’t match what they bring in on the print side. In addition, the industry’s audience is fleeing the print product for the free one on the Web. This is because the industry has never figured out how to create value for the fantastic service, in some cases but not all, it provides through its printed editions.

The revenue decrease is forcing industry executives to make difficult calls. They include eliminating jobs, sections, areas where they previously sold copies, and outsourcing certain job functions; editors are dropping features and, as has been seen, seriously considering dropping their largest news content supplier, the AP.

UPI’s problems started back in the 1950s, when its forerunner, the United Press, merged with the Hearst-owned International News Service to form UPI. UP’s owner, the EW Scripps Company, named Scripps-Howard at the time, forced the new organization to give up the United Features Service, (later renamed United Media) which provides comics, columns and puzzles to newspapers. That meant that a large and very significant portion of the UP revenue stream was not transferred to the newly formed UPI. This meant that UPI’s future was based on a general news and picture service for newspapers and a broadcast wire and audio service for broadcasters.

UPI’s primary client base had been afternoon newspapers. As those papers stopped publishing in the 1960s and 1970s, the revenues at UPI declined. Some of the revenue loss was made up by selling the service to morning newspapers as well as to broadcasters, including CNN. Still the revenue slide couldn’t be stopped and the company lost money.

In addition, UPI’s owner couldn’t be bothered to invest in the service. A number of initiatives were brought to the attention of the UPI’s owner, but EW Scripps executives couldn’t be bothered to act on them, or, in some cases, even hear them out.

The last serious push to save UPI was done in the late 1970s, when the company attempted to sell a limited partnership to U.S. newspaper companies. Working against the plan was UPI’s owner, which insisted that it remain the largest shareholder and refused to give any of the limited partners much of say about UPI’s direction.

There was a Canadian newspaper publisher who was more than willing to sign up for the same deal that had been tabled to U.S. daily newspaper executives, but the forward-thinking EW Scripps executives rejected the overture because that would mean foreign ownership of a U.S. news service.

In addition, the level of UPI’s news gathering began to fall and, as a result, a number of editors felt they were better served signing up for the higher priced AP instead of paying for the cheaper service at UPI. A number of UPI sales executives, including yours truly, told newspaper editors they didn’t want to make the AP their only content provider.

Some editors continued with UPI, in spite of their reservations; some dropped UPI because they were tired of dealing with all of UPI’s problems (which were numerous), and others dropped UPI because they had delusions of grandeur, which included becoming part of the AP Board. The end result – AP was sitting in the driver’s seat.

CNN will face some of the same issues that UPI did. CNN is a profit center for a publicly held company, Time Warner, and its actions are dictated by one thing – the Almighty Profit Margin. CNN can afford to launch this service now because it’s flush with revenues; they always surge during national political campaigns – or any news event that gets people to tune in or head to their Web site. CNN, like UPI, will have to provide a strong value proposition for any editor to consider buying the service. CNN will run into all kinds of resistance from newspaper editors, including some who simply cannot imagine life without the AP at their paper.

In addition, the AP is a non-profit. Because it’s under no obligation to make money, the AP will slash and burn their rate card to prevent their membership base from eroding.

One of the questions that newspaper executives will need answered is what the CNN wire will look like during times of relative peace and quiet. While that day might seem hard to imagine right now, it will happen. Will CNN be able to provide the same level of service then that it can provide today, when revenues are healthy?

While a part of me very much likes the idea of CNN fighting the good fight against the AP, another part of me says this is much ado about nothing. The newspaper industry is filled with intransigence, which prevents it from taking the actions it needs to take to remain a healthy, viable industry. Newspaper executives will sing CNN’s praises publicly, but whether they’ll actually sign contracts for the network’s news wire is an entirely different matter.

So Mr. Walton, if I have any advice for you, it’s this: Keep your expectations modest.

Sources:

Deadline Every Minute: The Story of the United Press, Joe Alex Morris. New York: Doubleday and Company, 1957.

The Associated Press: The Story of News, Oliver Gamling. New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1940.

United Press International: Covering the 20th Century, Richard M. Harnett and Billy G. Ferguson. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing, 2003.

"CNN Pitches Wire Service To Compete With The A.P.," The New York Times, Tim Arango and Richard Perez-Pena, December 1, 2008, pp. B3.

Does Dean Singleton read this blog?

2008-12-01T11:10:00.014-05:00

I have no idea. But given his latest pronouncements about potential cost-cutting moves, it appears the chief executive officer of Denver-based Media News, owner of more than 50 daily American newspapers, is very much taking direction from a piece I posted on this blog more than 20 months ago.

In it, I suggested that newspaper companies would outsource editing functions to a company in Vietnam. This was part of a fictional account (maybe not so fictional after all) of what happened the day the last U.S. daily newspaper, The Shenandoah Valley News, located in southwestern Iowa, stopped producing a printed edition. (Yes, the newspaper really does exist – at least as of this writing.)

The tragedy of Mr. Singleton’s pronouncement, as reported in yesterday’s New York Times by Maureen Dowd, is that it will likely come true. There have already been reports about newspapers in California attempting to outsource not only editing functions – but also reporting functions – to companies located outside of the United States.

The Chicago Tribune, about two years ago, led some of this outsourcing initiative, when it farmed out its call center – the people who answer the phone if you call to complain about your newspaper delivery, cancel your subscription or put the paper on hold while on vacation – to a company based in the Philippines. Now when you call about your subscription, someone in Manila answers the phone.

It doesn’t take too much of an imagination to consider that, as Mr. Singleton sees it, his newspapers reporters, after writing their stories, would send them via e-mail to a copyeditor on the other side of the globe, who would simply look for grammatical errors.

With any luck, before the story is printed, there will be someone back at the local newspaper to question the reporter about their sources, put the story into context and add anything that might be missing to the article. Given Mr. Singleton’s plans, and his previous behavior, which includes the ability to squeeze out every last penny out of every newspaper he owns, don’t count on it.

It wouldn’t be surprising if the company providing this editing service was found in India. Given that India is home to call centers as well as jobs requiring a high-end skill set, it’s not too much of a stretch to believe that the former British colony might very well provide the employees editing English-language newspapers, including those in the United States.

Besides being cheaper, one of the reasons that India is home to jobs that require service skills as opposed to manual labor is because they once hosted a professor from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Norbert Wiener. This scientist, who assisted in the birth of the Information Age, and much of the technology we take for granted today, including cyberspace, told India’s top leaders to concentrate the country’s economic development on high-tech jobs – not manufacturing ones – about 50 years ago. Not only did India listen to Dr. Wiener, they acted on his advice.

(For more on Dr. Wiener, either buy or check out of your local library a recent biography of him, entitled Dark Hero of the Information Age: In Search of Norbert Wiener, The Father of Cybernetics, by Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman. It’s a great book and well worth your time, especially if you’re curious about the beginnings of the technology that surrounds us today.)

Mr. Singleton’s actions are par for the course in the American newspaper industry. Like the American automotive industry, this is an industry that’s been told numerous times to produce a product that people want to read and advertisers want to buy. And, too often, when it realizes that the audience has slipped away and that advertisers are reducing the amount of money they spend on newspapers to reach consumers, the American newspaper industry looks like a deer caught in the headlights.

Maybe Singleton and his fellow newspaper CEOs will borrow from the playbook of their cohorts in the American automotive industry and make a trip to Washington to beg for a federal bailout!

Singleton’s announcement is one in a long litany of cost-cutting moves. The newspaper industry has yet to provide a plan to restore its financial health. It slashes jobs, reduces the size of its papers, eliminates many of the sections that readers enjoyed, cuts back on the editorial content and then has the audacity to raise its cover price. As thinking goes in the newspaper industry, this passes for strategic planning. Is it any surprise that people who use to pay for a newspaper instead go to its Web site, which is free, read two or three stories and then consider themselves updated on the day’s events? Not at all!

Jim Oberweis owns a local dairy that sells some of the best milk and ice cream I’ve ever tasted. (He’s also a frustrated local politician who can’t seem to run a winning campaign, which is just fine with me. I’d never vote for him.) But if you order home delivery of his milk, it arrives at your doorstep in a case that keeps the milk cold until you place it in your refrigerator. Jim and his team truly show pride in the way their product is handled.

The newspaper industry would be well served to take a hard look at how Oberweis handles home delivery of its milk. If the newspaper industry stopped believing it produces and delivers a cheap, throw away product, it would take the time to deliver its product right to the doorstep – not the end of a driveway, where it’s subject to weather conditions – with the same care that Jim Oberweis delivers milk. This would demonstrate to its readers that the newspaper industry truly produces something to be treasured – not just a piece of trash.

U.S. History in the Middle East

2008-09-10T08:04:00.003-04:00

One hopes that Joe Biden knows his history, especially if he’s called to the Oval Office to advise President Obama on the next steps the United States should take against Middle Eastern terrorists.

Perhaps a Vice President Biden will recall the Betsy, the Maria and the Dauphin, American-owned merchant ships that were seized by Middle Eastern pirates, becoming the first victims in the war on terror – way back in the eighteenth century.

What, you say? The war on terror wasn’t created by President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the diabolical Donald Rumsfeld, the most evil man to ever occupy the defense secretary’s office?

No, the war against Arab terrorism is almost as old as the country itself, stemming back to the 1780s, when those three American merchant ships were hijacked and seized by Arabian pirates.

The “evildoers” back then were pirates from the Barbary sheikdoms of Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli. American political leaders were so alarmed by these attacks that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, on diplomatic duty in Europe, were ordered to negotiate a peace treaty with the sheikdoms – or, as we would say today, find out how much of a bribe the United States needed to pay annually so U.S. ships would no longer be attacked.

George Washington, frustrated with seeing American merchant ships attacked, by both Arab pirates and European navy ships, proposed the construction of the U.S. Navy during the last year of his presidency. The first Navy ships that were built would, at President Jefferson’s direction, successfully attack the Barbary Pirates, providing the young country with its first military victories since the Revolution.

Part of the reason that the United States finds itself fighting Arab terrorists is because the U.S. embraced ideas that were sprung from John Locke and the European Enlightenment, concepts that advance, endorse and support the notion that markets should be free, government should be limited, religion should be kept at an arm’s length (at least from the government), and that people are endowed with natural human rights, allowing them to live as they see fit, accepting any religion they find suitable, and selecting those who seek to govern them. In addition, the United States accepts the notion of tolerance, property rights and rule-of-law.

The acceptance of the ideas from Locke and the European Enlightenment, and the advancement of them, led the United States and its western Allies to become economically successful, tolerant of variety of people, and politically viable; these ideas stand in stark contrast to the beliefs of Arab jihadists, who are quick to blame others for all that ills their countries and their fellow believers.

That’s the word from Melvin E. Lee, a U.S. Navy captain based in Naples, Italy, where he serves as the special operations officer for the Sixth Fleet. He wrote this nearly 3,700 word article, “The Fallacy of Grievance-based Terrorism,” for the Middle East Quarterly, earlier this year.

Capt. Lee, who recently completed his master’s degree at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Penn., has written an outstanding article that is heavily sourced. He provides solid research, showing that a number of high-minded thinkers are coming to the same conclusion – Islam must embrace the ideas of John Locke and the European Enlightenment so its followers and its citizens no longer live in a ghetto; failure to accept these ideas and the Islamists will continue to resort to terrorism to resolve their problems. A former submarine commander, Capt. Lee provides a detailed account of U.S. actions in the Middle East for more than 200 years.

“Only Islam’s fundamental reform will resolve the conflict” between the United States and the terrorists, writes Lee.

In the interests of full disclosure, your correspondent knows Mel Lee. We went to college together and shared a suite in one of the residence halls. Lee, a double major in physics and chemistry, was (and, as far as I’m concerned, remains) the sharpest knife in the drawer. After receiving his bachelor’s degree, he pursued his Ph.D. at the University of Arizona but cut short his studies to pursue his naval career.

Capt. Lee is an excellent Navy officer and I hope that one day he’s advising a president on national security. I’ll rest easier at night knowing he has the president’s ear on complicated and delicate issues.

Capt. Lee’s idea – that Islam needs to reform itself – has been accepted by other leading thinkers. Max Rodenback, the Middle East correspondent for The Economist, in reviewing the Brookings Institution’s Kenneth M. Pollack’s latest book, A Path Out Of The Desert: A Grand Strategy for America in the Middle East, compliments Pollack for concluding that terrorism coming from Middle Eastern (Arab) states will not end until “they manage to produce better schools, more opportunities for youth, wider social justice and more inclusive, accountable government.”

Rodenback went on to say, in his New York Times review, that Pollack was quite right to admit that “George Bush showed unwonted acuity when he called for draining the swamps of extremism by promoting reform.”

This is a recipe for democracy.

You can find Capt. Lee’s article here: http://www.meforum.org/article/1830

Michelle Obama: Clinton and I Conceived a Love Child

2008-08-14T09:26:00.011-04:00

By Combined Wire Services

HONOLULU – Attempting to unify the Democratic Party ahead of its presidential convention, Michelle Obama, wife of the presumptive presidential nominee, announced today that she and former President Bill Clinton had a sexual encounter and, as a result, she’s carrying his baby.

With tensions running high between the supporters of U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), his party’s presumptive nominee, and his defeated rival, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-NY), pressure has been building from major financial contributors and the party’s top politicians for the two senators to find a way to unify their supporters, thereby ensuring a successful convention and increasing the chances of Senator Obama’s victory in November, said a Democratic political operative, requesting anonymity.

While it remains uncertain about who first approached the topic, it was thought that the only way that Clinton and Obama voters would unify behind the Democratic party’s presidential nominee was if the senators and their spouses jointly conceived a “Love Child,” said the political operative.

“I wouldn’t exactly refer to this baby as a ‘love child’ because, man, that was some nasty action,” said Mrs. Obama during the news conference in Honolulu, where her family is vacationing. “I put a pillow over my head and thought about the greater cause as he, you know, did his thing.

“Damn, she was great,” said the former president about Mrs. Obama’s sexual abilities during a news conference at his New York office. “This was some of the best sex I’ve had since Monica Lewinsky blew me in The White House.

“And you know what they say, ‘Once you go black, you never go back,’ man, it’s so true,” added the former president. “My next girlfriend will definitely be African American.”

“Those ‘Unity’ barbeques weren’t working. The party remained divided, so I did what so many women before me have done – had sex with my political rival, so we can end this spat once and for all,” Mrs. Obama said.

“But let me make one thing clear. I don’t know what the attraction for him is all about because he’s no great lay,” said Mrs. Obama, who, campaign aides said is in her first trimester. “Size matters and you white girls are getting cheated.”

Asked why they didn’t conceive the baby through in vitro fertilization, Mrs. Obama said, “We wanted to show our two constituencies that we’re able to put our hate for one another behind us and engage in an intimate moment.

“It didn’t even last four minutes, so it wasn’t too bad,” added Mrs. Obama.

“It’s important that we’re successful in November, so I enthusiastically supported Bill and Michelle’s decision to have an unprotected sexual encounter,” said Senator Clinton.

Senator Clinton, 60, said that she had offered to have a sexual encounter with Senator Obama but, after consulting with her gynecologist, realized she was likely too old to become pregnant.

Because of her age, 44, Mrs. Obama chances of becoming pregnant were better, Senator Clinton said.

“So that’s when Bill and I decided it was in the best interests of the Democratic Party that Bill impregnate Michelle,” Senator Clinton said.

Aides to both campaigns wouldn’t discuss who first proposed the idea of an Obama-Clinton baby.

“With unity like this, victory is assured,” said U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, (D-MA), one of the party’s leaders and an early supporter of Senator Obama’s presidential bid. “I commend President Clinton and Michelle Obama for coming together in such a remarkable way.”

Political analysts weren’t surprised to learn that this statement was released just ahead of the Democratic Presidential Convention, scheduled in two weeks time in Denver.

“This is what we’ve come to expect from these parties,” said Washington Post writer George Will. “They work to bring all factions together, especially before the party meets for its presidential convention.”

“It wasn’t so long ago that kings and queens married off their children to potential rivals so they could preserve peace, establish joint interests and come together for a cause that was greater than themselves,” said historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. “This is just the modern day version of that. It’s no big deal.”

“Of course, we’re hoping for a white, girl baby,” said Senator Clinton, signaling that there could still be further divisions between her supporters and Senator Obama’s.

“I just want a baby that Clinton supporters finds cute and cuddly,” said Mrs. Obama. “If it’s black, even better.”

Mrs. Obama refused to answer questions about when and where the sexual encounter happened, but Obama campaign aides, wishing to remain anonymous, said it happened at a highly unlikely location – a Motel 6, along Interstate 80 in Iowa.

“Hillary watched the encounter to make sure that when Bill was done, he didn’t stick around to do, you know, anything else with Michelle,” said an Obama spokesman. “Senator Obama was in the hotel’s bar, incognito, having a drink while all of this was going on.”

“I had to double up on the Viagra but it was worth it,” said former president Clinton, describing how he prepared himself for his sexual encounter with Mrs. Obama.

Reacting to this news, campaign aides to U.S. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said they couldn't think of any reason for the Senator or his wife to have sex with anyone.

"Republicans don’t have sex," said a spokesman for the campaign. “Our babies are conceived by immaculate conception.”

Details about child support payments, visitation rights and who will bring up the baby are being negotiated by aides to both the Clinton and Obama presidential campaigns.

“Abortion is off the table – unless we lose the election,” said Mrs. Obama.

Coffee, Tea or Me: One Airline's Answer to Profitability

2008-08-12T18:05:00.003-04:00

Combined Wire Services

CHICAGO – So they’ll have the money to serve Starbucks Coffee to their passengers once again, United Airlines announced Tuesday that newly minted prostitutes will replace its aging fleet of flight attendants.

“If this doesn’t work, I give up,” said Glenn Tilton, the airline’s chief executive officer, as he announced the changes at the Chicago-based carrier. This latest policy comes on the heels of charging passengers for checked luggage, which was announced earlier this year.

“Our customers have been beating me up about the loss of Starbucks,” Tilton said. “This is the only way I know how to get the money we need to bring back this premium item: Start selling an additional service – which people will buy.”

United plans to replace two rows of seats in the coach class section of its planes with what’s described as “comfort rooms,” where the carrier’s prostitutes and passengers will be able to engage in private, intimate activity, Tilton said.

“Of course, we’ll need to swipe a passenger’s credit card for $500 before anything happens,” he said. “But it’ll be the best lay … I mean 15-minute, intimate experience … our customers will ever receive.

The prostitutes, fresh off the streets of Amsterdam and other cities across the globe, will start working for the airline during the end-of-year holiday season.

“You could call it our way of making the Friendly Skies friendlier at United,” Tilton said. “Not only will our passengers arrive at their destination safely and on-time but, if they so choose, with a big smile on their face – and maybe with a Starbucks latte in hand, too.”

The airline’s customers will be able to reserve a prostitute when they buy a ticket on the carrier’s Web site. Passengers waiting to pick up a prostitute after they’ve boarded will be charged a 20 percent premium, or $600, for their 15-minute, intimate encounter.

The carrier’s flight attendants are expected to be replaced by December. Tilton said the “comfort rooms” should be completed on all of United’s planes at the same time.

Tilton said the airline will be able to accommodate a variety of sexual tastes and preferences.

“Our prostitutes will come in all shapes, sizes and genders,” Tilton said. “We’ll have male prostitutes, female prostitutes, even transgendered ones, too, so we can successfully service all of our customers – regardless of their sexual orientation.

“These prostitutes will also do all jobs our customers have come to expect from our current fleet of excellent flight attendants.”

Asked if the airline’s prostitutes will engage in sexual activities that might be considered unconventional, Tilton said, “We’ve formed a task force to uncover this issue and make recommendations for accommodating a variety of sexual requests that might be considered, uh, unusual

“Condoms must be used at all times,” he added.

In addition, Tilton announced that United will create a new customer loyalty program, called the Mile High Club. Passengers will be able to accumulate miles on their Mile High Club card as they buy the prostitutes.

United expects revenue from the prostitutes to generate 20 – 30 percent of the carrier’s total annual revenue, or an additional $4 and $6 billion a year.

“With money like that, we’ll be able to serve Starbucks again,” said Tilton. “It’ll be free, too, just like the soft drinks, and we’ll be profitable.”

Wall Street applauded the new policy, taking up the company’s stock (symbol UAUA) five points to close at $17.30.

“I’m going long on United because this is the kind of out-of-the-box thinking we’ve been waiting for from them,” said Morningstar financial analyst Brian Nelson. “It’s fantastic! They’re a leader in their industry.”

Calls placed to American Airlines, Delta and Southwest Airlines were not returned but financial analysts following the airline industry expect United’s competitors to offer similar services.

The Association of Flight Attendants, the union representing United’s fight attendants, is expected to hold a news conference on Wednesday to discuss the airline’s pending changes.

Senator Edwards Explains America and Sex

2008-08-09T17:22:00.007-04:00

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, once his party’s vice presidential nominee, used his presidential campaign theme on Saturday to explain his recent exploits, saying there are some Americans who are committed to sexually monogamous marriages while there are other married Americans like himself “who fuck around.”

“Unfortunately, I got caught,” said the former North Carolina Democrat, admitting to having engaged in a sexual liaison with a California movie maker.

The former Senator is the second prominent Democrat this year to admit to having sex outside of his marriage. Eliot Spitzer, never accused of having a libido, resigned from the New York’s governor’s office in March because of the sexual services he purchased from a prostitute.

“There are two Americas,” former Senator Edwards said. “There are married Americans who are committed to remaining sexually monogamous in their marriage and then there is another America, consisting of married men and women, who, like me, fuck around on their spouse.”

Asked if there was any comparison to the former New York Governor, Edwards said, “There are two Americas. There’s the one that pays for sex and then there’s other that gets it for free – kinda like me.”

The former Senator’s wife, Elizabeth, battling cancer, refused to issue any comment about the affair.

“There are two kinds of wives,” Edwards said. “There’s the kind of wife who puts out and who, by doing so, keeps her man safe at home, and then there’s the kind of wife who engages in risky behavior and refuses to have sex with her husband.

“She’s the one who loses her man,” Edwards said.

“We don’t really know what a ‘sexual liaison’ is,” said a man who’s no stranger to dalliances outside of his marriage, former President Bill Clinton. “He (Edwards) coulda just received a hummer and, according to the Constitution, that’s not really sex.”

“Less than one percent of all American women have had sex with me,” said Edwards. “I plan to get back out on the campaign trail to give more American women the opportunity to have sex with me.”

Asked if there was anything in particular he was looking for in a potential sexual partner, Senator Edwards, smiling, said, “As long as it’s a woman who’s over 21 – and she’s not a complete double bagger – I’m in.”

New Social Networking Site -- Funded & Thriving

2008-05-05T20:36:00.006-04:00

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. – The newest social networking Web site comes with a whole new twist: Instead of encouraging its members to connect with friends and professional acquaintances, this Web site wants its members to list their enemies.

“FuckYou-IHateYou.com,” funded by a Silicon Valley venture capital firm, Alliance Capital, claims more than 10,000 members and another 1,000,000 enemies.

“Unlike your average LinkedIn member, our members aren’t full of shit,” said James Lee, the 24-year-old chief executive officer of FuckYou-IHateYou.com. LinkedIn was one of the first companies to establish itself in the social networking space.

“The average member of our site has around 100 enemies and they hate each and every one of them – with a passion,” said Lee.

“Let’s face it, no one who connects with someone on LinkedIn or any of those other social sites really wants to be someone’s friend,” said Lee. “It’s just a place for frenemies to meet.

“Our members are honest. If they say they hate you, they really hate you,” Lee added.

Lee, who started FuckYou-IHateYou.com during his freshman year at Stanford University, says that members of his site just list their enemies.

“There’s none of this b.s. like asking for permission to be someone’s enemy. Our members just list their enemies and that’s it. They’re done!”

Members can view one another’s enemy list, Lee said, to make sure they’re hating “the right people.”

“If you and another member have someone you hate in common, that’s even better,” said Lee.

When told that his site sounded like another version of President Richard Nixon’s enemy list, Lee, looking somewhat confused, asked, “When was he president?”

Members of FuckYou-IHateYou.com are encouraged to increase their enemies list as fast as possible.

“The member who lists the most enemies any given week can win prizes, trips, even a car,” said FuckYou-IHateYou.com’s membership vice president Toby Benwick.

Perfect people to list as enemies, Lee said, include “anyone who ever dissed you or anyone you refer to as ‘ex’. That could be an ex-girlfriend, wife, husband, boyfriend, lover, employee. Bosses are always good.”

Members are encouraged, Lee said, to post pictures and video clips of the people they hate.

“Our staff always does a round of high fives if a member’s enemy dies,” said Benwick. “That’s just the coolest.”

Membership to the Web site is free. Sponsors for the Web site include divorce attorneys and various hate groups, including the Ku Klux Klan. Not to be outdone, the Nation of Islam is considering what Benwick describes as a “huge” sponsorship opportunity on the site.

Details are being finalized, Benwick said, for some of the site’s members and their selected enemies to make special appearances on various daytime television talk shows.

“We look forward to our first smack down with the FuckYou-IHateYou.com people,” Jerry Springer said through a spokesman for his television show.

05-05-08

The Illinois Earthquake

2008-04-18T12:20:00.002-04:00

Unless you’ve cut yourself from all media – not always a bad idea – you likely heard that there was an earthquake in Illinois, a truly shocking event because they’re considered California-only tragedies.

Chicago television and radio stations started reporting the news about the earthquake – it happened at 4:37 am – within 30 minutes of the tremor. It measured about 5.2 on the Richter scale and was centered around 250 miles south of the Windy City.

The experts have been predicting an earthquake for years in Illinois, but they always figured it would involve the New Madrid Fault, one of the more dangerous fault lines in the country that stretches from Indianapolis to St. Louis to Memphis.

Today’s earthquake, reported the Chicago Tribune, happened “occurred in the Ozark dome region.

Not that any of this matters. The only time this information will mean anything to anyone will be when or if there’s an earthquake that’s sizably larger, say around an 8 on the Richter Scale, that brings down skyscrapers in cities like Chicago, St. Louis, Indianapolis or Memphis. Until that time, today’s tremor – enough to wake up some people but not cause an incredible amount of damage – will soon be forgotten.

What was interesting about all the television reports this morning, at 5 am, was how many people felt compelled to call in and talk to the anchors. One lady mentioned that she originally thought her husband was turning over in bed when she felt the earthquake. How much does this guy weigh?

For a number of women, married, single, divorced, separated, etc., I’m guessing this is the first time they felt the earth move in a long, long time.

This could be a major sales opportunity for the marital aide companies.

The Vicar of Baghdad

2008-03-21T07:57:00.002-04:00

Editor's Note: I've met Canon Andrew White during his visits to Glen Ellyn's St. Mark's Episcopal Church. He's better known as the vicar of Baghdad, the only Anglican priest still working in the city. The words below are his and were printed in The Times of London on Monday, March 17.

"Five years ago today I had real hope that things would soon change in the nation of Iraq, after years of tyranny, dictatorship and suffering. Unlike any other non Iraqis I meet now in Iraq, I had been here before the war. I had experienced the fear and tyranny of the Saddam regime and I openly said we needed force to bring change. I knew that this could not be done by the Iraqi people. I feared what would happen to the people I loved during the days of the war. I was full of joy when the war finished so soon and I quickly returned to the nation I loved. On returning I found a sense of liberation, joy and freedom. There was a joy I had never seen before. Chaos was certainly there but we hoped it would soon cease. I will never forget the words of the top British General telling me to leave my return for a couple of weeks because 'security should then be sorted out'. Five years later it has still not been sorted.

"It is impossible to really describe what it is like here in Baghdad. I live in the fortified International Zone but even here I am surrounded by my bodyguards at all times and we can't move without carrying the right pieces of plastic ID around our necks. When we do move we can't move more than five miles an hour, have to stop every few yards a different security barriers and when we get to them the colour of your piece of plastic dictates how quickly you will be allowed through. All very intense, but it does not compare to my regular trips to St George's Church.

"This journey begins at the home of the Iraqi National Security Advisor. I am driven into the security compound by my bodyguards and transferred to the care of the Iraqi Army. With body armour on, I take my seat in an armoured car with blackened windows. Other military vehicles surround us and slowly we drive through the IZ stopping at it countless checkpoints. Eventually we leave the IZ and are met by an array of Iraqi police cars and further military vehicles. The sirens go on, guns are pointed out of the windows of all the vehicles and we speed down the road. If we meet a traffic jam, the other cars are yelled at through loud speakers and they try and make way. If that does not work our whole convoy just moves to the other side of the road, and moves the wrong way quickly down the road. At every crossroad, the police have stopped all other traffic. We come to the road where the church is- the road is closed off. We speed to the Church and drive into the grounds. The army run to surround the church, others check that it is safe and I am eventually allowed out of the car to be met by scores of our children.

"With the army remaining inside and outside we begin our worship. My mind goes back to the days before the war. There was none of this kind of security, and there was no congregation at our Church, why because it was Anglican. Commonly it is still known as the English Church. Our congregation is large, our worship wonderful but I only need to look at our people to realise what has really happened here following the war. We only have six men in our congregation of several hundred, the rest have been killed. Many of even the young women wear black as they are still mourning the loss of their husbands. Scores of people have been kidnapped, even this year. So from the pulpit every week I see the effect of war on these people. It is impossible for us to forget the tragedy outside. We hear the guns shooting and the bombs blasting and we simply continue worshipping. After the service food is provided for the whole congregation- we alternate; one week it is food the next week money. If we do not give, they do not have. The cost of this provision is colossal and it is primarily provided by Churches in England. Every week thanks go out to those who enable our people to live.

"So we can not forget the tragedy now, it is all around. I cannot forget the Iraq before the war, and the fear and oppression that were experienced everyday. I can not forget either the mistakes made after the war. The continual lack of engagement with the religious community and the continued belief that the secular position of Iraq would supersede was dangerous and naïve.

"Despite the many mistakes that have been made I still do not regret that the war happened. I regret deeply what happened after the war. I take hope from the work of the Multi National Forces in Iraq, not least the US and UK troops; they are doing an outstanding job. I also take hope from the way that the Iraqi Army is developing, and from the work of Dr. Mowaffak Al Rubbaie, Iraq's National Security Advisor, and General Dave Petraeus the Chief US Military Officer.

"Reconciliation is certainly needed here. It is at the very heart of our hopes in the rebuilding process. It is a process that must involve both the political and religious leaders. To this end we are met in Copenhagen from 18th February with the religious and political leaders of Iraq to try and find a way forward and to work together on this very point. It has taken months to get this meeting together but with the support of the Danish Government it did happen. We wait to see its results. Last week we met in Cairo with Sunni and Shia religious leaders, including the deputy of Muqtada Al Sadr and the representative of Ayotollah Ali Sistani. Top Sunni Clerics were also there. A total rejection of all violence was pronounced. It was a major achievement. This week a major reconciliation conference organized by the Iraqi Government is taking place. It is between political groups but key representatives have not shown up. The reality is that in our meeting last week in Cairo we had far more groups represented and it was paid for by the Pentagon. Reconciliation is the only answer. We still have a very long way to go but we can't give up.

"It can not be denied that the last five years here have been terrible. That all around we see such devastation. All I can say is that we cannot and must not give up our efforts to rebuild this once great nation. It is so hard, there are many days when we just wonder how more difficult it can get, but we have a big God on our side and we know that with His help we will succeed."

Coffee with Barack, Hillary and John

2008-03-21T05:21:00.005-04:00

“So-called ‘global warming’ is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st- century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don’t let them get away with it.” Chip Giller, founder, Grist.org, for the environmentally concerned.

“You can’t lead the people, if you don’t love the people. You can’t save the people, if you don’t serve the people.” Cornel West, professor, Princeton University

“The most important thing in life is to stop saying ‘I wish’ and start saying ‘I will.’ Consider nothing impossible, then treat possibilities as probabilities.” David Copperfield, Emmy-Award winning illusionist.

“When I wake up in the morning, I want to know that my family, friends and fans know what I believe in and what I’m all about. That’s what should be important.” Robert Randolph, Musician, music heard on XM Satellite Radio Channel 75

“Can I just get a damn cup of coffee – fast?” Doug Page, blogger.

If you’re a Barack Obama voter, those phrases from the back of Starbucks’ coffee cups are more than just quotations. They’re Scripture. Those passages move you to action, define you as a person, tell you how to live, what to consume and influence your vote. You’re an “aspirational” consumer, marketers say.

If you’re Hillary Clinton voter, however, the highlight of your day just might be a Dunkin Donuts cup of Joe with a cholesterol-laden doughnut. Your values were determined by what you read in your newspaper, saw on television, heard on the radio and the amount of money in your checkbook.

Hillary voters don’t need no stinkin’ philosophy, especially if it’s on a coffee cup. They’re lunch-pail Democrats, whose outlook was formed by the University of Real Life, the School of Hard Knocks.

That’s the word from Gerard Baker, a columnist for The Times of London, who observes the United States first hand. A British citizen, Baker comes as close as anyone lately to being a modern-day Alexis de Tocqueville, that famous Frenchman who witnessed and wrote about Americans during the 19th century.

“Mr. Obama’s supporters are the latte liberals. These are the people for whom Starbucks, with its $5 cups of coffee and fancy bakeries, is not just a consumer choice but a lifestyle. They not only have the money. They share the values,” wrote Baker after February’s Super Tuesday presidential primary.

“They live by all those little quotes on the side of Starbucks cups,” Baker said.

Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, “is the candidate of what might be called Dunkin Donut Democrats. They do not have the money to waste on multiple-hyphenated coffee drinks – double-top, no-foam, non-fat lattes and the like … They are the .75-cent coffee and doughnut crowd,” Baker said.

So, in an attempt to confirm Baker’s point – not that I have any reason to doubt him – your correspondent spoke to the public relations people at both Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts.

Here’s what they said:

The phrases were placed on the coffee cups to spark a conversation, said the Starbucks spokeswoman. Starbucks sees itself, in the United States at least, as offering up the American version of an Italian café, where people gather to drink coffee and pontificate about life.

While an interesting an idea, I’ve never once seen a Starbucks consumer read those quotations and use it as a means to strike up a conversation, either with someone they know or don’t know. So Starbucks notion that someone will use these quotes to start up a conversation seems, at the very least, presumptuous.

“We have accepted submissions from very different kinds of people with varying points of view,” she said. In other words, left-wing and right-wing extremists have an equal shot (no pun intended) of having their words published on a Starbucks cup.

Anyone can submit their words of wisdom for consideration on a Starbucks cup by going to http://www.starbucks.com/retail and then clicking on the way i see it on the left side of the page.

Under no circumstance – this is important for you Hillary voters to understand – is Starbucks sending our messages, through its coffee cups, suggesting that Democrats vote for the junior Senator who’s successfully winning the latte vote. He’s doing that all by himself, thank you.

Starbucks would not release details on how many submissions they’ve received; the spokeswoman said that each submission is reviewed by a committee. She would not say who sits on the committee or the criteria used to judge which submissions are printed or discarded.

At Dunkin Donuts, they see themselves very differently from Seattle's coffee behemoth and, possibly to Starbucks detriment, they’ve got their coffee competitor figured out.

“We’re not an aspirational brand,” said their spokeswoman. “We serve great coffee to be consumed wherever our consumers wish to drink it.

“People come into our stores, get their coffee and doughnut and then go to work,” she said. “They don’t have time to hang out and talk, which is why our stores are usually empty.”

Indeed, in a quick drive around Chicago’s western suburbs, Starbucks cafés were filled with patrons while the Dunkin Donuts stores had, at the most, one person sitting in them.

Sixty percent of all Dunkin Donuts revenue comes from coffee sales, the spokeswoman said, making coffee a high priority for them. She wouldn’t release revenue figures because the company is privately held.

Dunkin Donuts has no plans, the spokeswoman said, to print quotations on the side of their coffee cups.

So what are we to make out of all this coffee stuff? Are Barack voters the only ones who are aspirational? Are Hillary’s voters only pedestrian? What kind of coffee do Republicans drink?

I wish I had the answers but calls placed to the Obama, Clinton and John McCain presidential campaigns on their candidates’ coffee preferences went unreturned. I have noticed, in some of the television coverage, that Senators Clinton and McCain appear to drink Starbucks coffee. At least they’re holding Starbucks cups. I’m unable to confirm what’s in them. So far, I’ve not seen a Starbucks cup in the hands of Sen. Obama. (Perhaps he’s a closeted Starbucks drinker – just like he’s a closeted smoker.)

What does all this mean?

People running for president of the United States are aspirational – regardless of their coffee or their party affiliation. They believe they’re a force for positive change. And it’s my guess that many of their most enthusiastic supporters are equally aspirational – regardless of their coffee and how they take it.

Editor’s Note: Yours truly grew up in a day and age in journalism when it was considered inappropriate not to identify sources – unless of course there was some specific reason that required someone to go unidentified. In this particular article, I’m not naming the spokeswomen because they asked to remain unnamed.

In the future: Governor romantically linked to top donor and male escorts; refuses to resign

2008-03-19T05:31:00.005-04:00

Combined Wire Reports
SACRAMENTO, March 19 – A defiant and unapologetic Governor Juanita Hernandez today confessed to purchasing male escorts and engaging in an extramarital affair, saying the sexual liaisons provided her with “an emotional and physical high that has long since left” her marriage.

Gov. Hernandez, 50, married with three children, was the first woman elected governor of California and the first Latino to hold the job. In a hastily called news conference today, she confirmed rumors linking her romantically to Craig Theborg, 55, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, as well as using male escorts.

“I want to put a stop to all these rumors right now,” the governor said. “Craig Theborg and I have been seeing one another for the last five years. Yes, it has been a romantic relationship. I have been with male escorts but not for what you think.

“I did it because my marriage is on the rocks,” the governor said. “These interludes provided me, especially the ones with Craig, with an emotional and physical high that has long since left my marriage.”

The rumors about the governor, the male escorts and Mr. Theborg, a longtime financial contributor to her campaigns, surfaced two days ago, when photographs of the governor, Mr. Theborg and male escorts were posted on a number of Web sites, including Glam.com and PageSix.com, a Web site owned by a tabloid newspaper, the New York Post.

The pictures showed the governor embracing and kissing Mr. Theborg, as well as entering a Sausalito motel room with him. Other pictures showed the governor presumably with male escorts in restaurants around the San Francisco metropolitan area.

In spite of a likely legal investigation into the governor’s use of the escorts, she plans to remain in her job and says she will run for re-election. The governor refused to provide any details of her involvement with the male escorts.

“I’m not stepping down,” the governor said. “I will be the governor of California until my time in office is up. I may have broken God’s law but I didn’t violate any State and Federal laws.

“And, yes, I will run for re-election.”

The governor would not discuss her marriage to Glen Droit, 53, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt School of Law. She would not discuss her future plans with either her husband or Mr. Theborg.

The governor, a Democrat and a former state attorney general, campaigned two years ago on a platform to cut the state’s crime rate as well as to put a halt to illegal immigration. She defeated San Diego businessman John Walker, a Republican, in her run for the governor’s office.

“I was sent to Sacramento to do a job, and I plan to do it,” she said. “My marriage, my relationship with my children, and my relationship with Craig are my business and no one else’s.”

Asked if she was sorry for her actions, the governor said, “If I need to apologize to anyone, I’ll do so in private – not to you. The most important thing is the children. I very much love my children and don’t want to hurt them.”

Gov. Hernandez, Mr. Droit, and their three children, two teenage sons and a daughter, live in Berkeley; the governor has been living by herself in the governor’s mansion in Sacramento, returning to the family’s home on weekends.

Mr. Droit could not be reached for comment. University officials said he conducted his classes yesterday.

“Our heart goes out to Glen and his family,” said Robert Tomlinson, dean of the Law School.

Mr. Theborg, a venture capitalist in Palo Alto, was an early investor in Google. According to his firm’s Web site, Theborg and Associates invests in technology companies. Phone calls to his office were not returned.

Theborg, a longtime donor to the Democratic Party, has chaired the finance committee for Hernandez’s campaigns for attorney general and her gubernatorial campaign. According to OpenSecrets.org, he’s donated $20,000.00 to the Democratic Party and another $12,000.00 to Hernandez’s three state-wide campaigns.

Gov. Hernandez said she met Theborg at a Democratic Party fundraiser in Los Angeles while she served in the State Assembly.

The state attorney general’s office would not return phone calls, inquiring whether they would investigate the governor’s use of male escorts or any possible discrepancy between the governor’s actions and the donations she’s received from Theborg. The U.S. Attorney’s office in San Francisco would also not comment about their possible actions.

Meantime, political support for the governor appeared to be holding up.

“The way she handled herself, standing up there all alone in front of all those cameras, this was so very brave of the governor,” said National Organization of Woman chairwoman Patty Stompt. “We’ll support her in every possible way.”

“Women have sexual and emotional needs, too,” said 85-year-old Gloria Steinem, a
longtime leader in the women’s rights movement, from her offices in New York. “For too long we’ve only associated men with sexual needs. That’s just not true. I say to Governor Hernandez, ‘You go girl.’”

“Anyone who’s ever been married understands her feelings,” said California Assemblyman Joe Hugo, D-Fresno. “I’m not saying she’s right in what she did but, you know, there are a lot of people who understand.

“I’ll continue to support her – politically and personally.”

Republicans in Sacramento refused to comment on the governor’s announcement.

The governor’s plans to remain in office put a damper on the political career of her lieutenant governor, Henry Lee. Lee, 48, a former mayor of San Francisco, is expected to remain in office, helping the governor with her legislative plans.

“He will not resign over this,” said a member of Lee’s staff who wished to remain anonymous.

Ms. Hernandez, the daughter of farm workers, grew up in Fresno and graduated from California State University in Fresno in 1992 before heading to the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt School of Law, where she met her husband. They were married shortly after she graduated.

She moved to Los Angeles in 1995 to work for a law firm before heading into public life. She was elected to the State Assembly in 2004. She became the state attorney general 2006 and was re-elected in 2010. She worked for a law firm in San Francisco before being elected governor in 2018.

Asked about her use of male escorts, the governor said, “The world’s oldest profession serves the world’s oldest need.”
03-19-2020

The history of the American presidency & what Lyndon would do

2008-03-07T08:23:00.009-05:00

“In the United States … the national political agenda is a product of careless comparisons … The media contribute to this … Almost continuous political campaigns also contribute, for ‘ins’ have to allege that things are better now than they used to be, while ‘outs’ have to charge that things are getting worse. And the public at large has little immunity, first because change inheres in ‘the American way of life;’ second because most people have not had much schooling in history; and third because they have been so deluged with ‘news’ denoted ‘crisis’ that the memory cells are cluttered.” Richard E. Neustadt & Ernest R. May, Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers. New York: The Free Press, 1986.

If you caught Sen. John Kerry’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama, just ahead of the South Carolina presidential primary, you likely heard the Massachusetts Democrat say that America’s most transformational presidents were young men.

“Since the birth of our nation, change has been won by young presidents and young leaders who have shown that experience is defined not by time in Washington or years in office, but by wisdom, instinct and vision,” said Sen. Kerry in January, reported The New York Times.

There’s only one problem with Mr. Kerry’s conclusion – it’s wrong. The junior Senator from Massachusetts, educated at an Ivy League school, shows, with his endorsement, little knowledge of American history.

Of the eight men elected president while in their 40s, only two have been of any consequence: James K. Polk, a Democrat, and Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican. The others, which include Franklin Pierce, Ulysses S. Grant, James Garfield, Grover Cleveland, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton, were of little significance in the course of American history.

To be fair, both Garfield and Kennedy were assassinated, bringing their presidencies to a quick and unfortunate halt; there will always remain questions about what their presidencies could have been and, tragically, for their sake and ours, those questions will remain unanswered.

Should his wife win both the Democratic presidential nomination and this year’s presidential election, Bill Clinton’s legacy might improve. His will be seen as the launching pad for the first woman to be elected president.

If Sen. Obama is elected president, he’ll be the ninth U.S. chief executive to be inaugurated before turning 50. If the past is prologue, the odds are stacked against Sen. Obama’s presidency being anywhere near successful. It’s likely to wind up in failure. At the very least, a President Obama won’t come close to meeting his supporters’ expectations.

Presidents Polk and Roosevelt, taking the oath of office at the ages of 49 and 42, respectively, can lay claim to being some of the country’s more transformational and successful presidents. Compared to the many of their presidential peers, both men showed high amounts of executive skills, leadership ability, rugged determination, courage of their convictions, were opportunistic and, when necessary, conniving and ruthless in accomplishing their goals.

Looking back at the 42 men to have held the presidency, only 10 come close to being considered transformational or held the job during a period of time when the country underwent fundamental and wholesale change. These 10 showed all the traits listed in the previous paragraph. They also had something in common: They were, more often than not, older than 50 when elected president or, prior to their White House years, had a record of executive leadership.

Those presidents include Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan.

George Washington and Andrew Jackson deserve special mention. Washington set the tenor and tone for the presidency; his most important accomplishment was showing how a president abides by the Constitution, something that has gone all too underappreciated. Washington was the “indispensable man” because, at a time when the country was vulnerable to being taken over by a despot, he demonstrated, instead, how a president could live within a new political system.

One of Washington’s greatest accomplishments was to improve the country’s standing in the world’s leading capital markets of his day. That was when he agreed to Alexander Hamilton’s plan for the federal government to acquire the bonds the individual states had written to fund the Revolutionary War. By supporting Hamilton’s initiative, and seeing it passed by Congress, the young nation found a new source of revenue beyond tariffs and taxes. Suddenly foreign speculators in places like Amsterdam were buying the new U.S. government-backed bonds.

Washington’s presidency, however, is not transformational. Which doesn’t mean it’s any less important. His presidency was about establishing the country, placing him on a higher pedestal which no other president, no matter how successful, will ever ascend. Washington stands alone, and no one stands with him.

Jackson, one of the more colorful characters to have ever occupied The White House, was, compared to his immediate predecessors, the first common man to hold the office; his presidency, while marked with some historic events – the Nullification Proclamation and the closure of the Second Bank of the United States – did not transform the country. Jackson is the first president to stand up to the South, thereby enforcing the Constitution.

Here are some highlights of our most successful, transformational and consequential presidents:

• Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd president, doubled the size of the country through the Louisiana Purchase; by doing so, he showed the power of the presidency because he negotiated and signed the agreement with France without consulting Congress. This might go down as the first presidential violation of the Constitution. He also successfully fought the Barbary Pirates by launching a Naval and Marine strike against Tripoli. The Barbary Pirates, the terrorists of that time, and had been attacking U.S. shipping. Their defeat meant that the United States no longer paid them tribute. Prior to becoming president, Jefferson had been Virginia’s governor, the U.S. secretary of state and vice president. He was 57 when he became the president.
• James K. Polk, the 11th president and the first president elected while in his 40s, brought Mexico to its knees, forcing it to surrender all of its territory north of the Rio Grande River. This gave the United States territory that stretched from Texas to California. Had Polk been more ambitious, perhaps even ruthless, or had more control over his diplomat negotiating with the Mexican government at the war’s conclusion, he could have annexed all of Mexico, bringing our southern neighbor’s existence to an end. While the Mexican-American war was in full swing, Polk successfully negotiated a treaty with Great Britain, forcing it to surrender its claims to the Oregon territory. He did this by appearing to be a war-monger and the British fell for the bluff. With these two accomplishments, Polk sees to it that the United States is a country that stretches, as the song goes, from sea to shining sea. And it was all done in the course of one presidential term. Before becoming president, Polk had been speaker of the House of Representatives and governor of Tennessee.
• Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president, successfully fought the Civil War and ended slavery, thereby allowing the United States to live up to its proclamations about being a country that supported and promoted freedom for all Americans regardless of their race, creed and religion. Lincoln was 52 when he became president and had little executive experience prior to his White House years.
• William McKinley, the 25th president, a former Ohio governor and Congressional leader, transformed the United States into an empire by defeating the Spanish during our war with them in 1898, giving the United States its first territorial possessions outside of its boundaries, including the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and, for a while, Cuba. McKinley had never wanted to go to war but events and public opinion forced his hand; the most significant victory of the war was the Navy’s defeat of the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay. It put the world’s considered top naval authorities, which included the British and German Admiralties as well as the Japanese, on notice that they had a new rival for command of the high seas. McKinley was 54 when he was inaugurated as president.
• Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president, came to office just shy of his 43rd birthday. His was an accidental presidency; he had been McKinley’s vice president and became president on McKinley’s assassination. Prior to becoming vice president, Roosevelt had been New York City’s police chief, New York’s governor and assistant secretary of the Navy. During his nearly eight years as president, Roosevelt’s transformed the United States into a world power. He ended the Russo-Japan war; sent the Navy on a worldwide tour, showing the world that the United States was no sleeping giant. He supported a revolution in Columbia so the territory that would become Panama could separate and become its own nation; and then, because of his support, Roosevelt successfully negotiated a treaty with the new Panamanian government for the Canal that would completely transform worldwide shipping. It also gave the United States the ability to transfer its naval ships between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans with ease, making the United States a two-ocean power. In addition, he ended a railway trust and became the country’s first “green” president by safeguarding and enlarging parts of the country from development.
• Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president, had been the governor of New Jersey and the president of Princeton University prior to becoming president of the United States. The most significant accomplishment during his presidency was the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, thereby giving the United States an effective monetary policy that’s outside of the control of the president. He also reversed a long standing tariff that had protected American industry, and he established the Federal Trade Commission, which is empowered to investigate corporate practices. His other domestic accomplishments included passing a child labor law and limiting railroad workers to an eight-hour day, something that would become part of American lexicon. He led the United States into World War I but his attempts to make the country more influential on foreign affairs were defeated by Congress. Wilson set American foreign policy for most of the 20th century when he said that the United States would fight in World War I "for things which we have carried nearest to our hearts -- for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free people as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free ... America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured." This proposition, the centerpiece of American foreign policy, has been advanced by Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Wilson was 56 when he took office.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd president, was 51 when he was inaugurated. Prior to becoming president, FDR had been the governor of New York and, like his presidential cousin Theodore, an assistant secretary of the Navy. FDR transformed the United States into a world power by leading the country into World War II and seeing to it that had a say in global events after the war. He also pushed legislative action to end the Depression, called the New Deal, which increased the government’s role in the economy. Two of his most significant accomplishments include establishing the United Nations and the Social Security Administration.
• Harry S. Truman, the 33rd president, was the first Cold War president. He established U.S. foreign and military policy so that it could counter the Soviet Union’s attempts to achieve worldwide communism. This would become a bipartisan initiative. HST succeeded FDR upon his death in April 1945. Some of his most significant decisions included using the atomic bomb to bring about Japan’s surrender during World War II; establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; the Truman Doctrine; and bringing about racial integration of the military. Truman was 60 when he took office.
• Lyndon Johnson, the 36th president, because of his years in Congress prior to becoming John Kennedy’s vice president, successfully pushed through much of the legislation that Kennedy initiated but failed to have enacted by Congress. Besides FDR, there was likely no greater presidential force on Congress than Johnson. And because he knew just about everything about every member of Congress, he saw much of his proposed legislation, called The Great Society, successfully voted upon by Congress. The Great Society program included the 1964 Civil Rights Amendment; Medicare; Medicaid; the war on domestic poverty; the Equal Opportunity Act; and Head Start. Johnson’s accomplishments also included establishing the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The great tragedy that affect’s Johnson’s legacy is the Vietnam War. Had he either unleashed his military commanders so they could fight the war as they saw fit or, instead, decided to remove U.S. forces from the Republic of Vietnam early in his presidential tenure, his legacy would be much brighter. Still, all in all, LBJ was highly effective and very much a transformational president. LBJ was 55 when he took office.
• Ronald Reagan, the 40th president, goes down as the oldest man to ever be inaugurated; he was just shy of his 70th birthday when he took the oath of office. During his presidency, he showed the Soviet Union that it would cost them far more than they had ever anticipated if they were to carry on the Cold War. Reagan forced them to the bargaining table through a strategy that was simple but understood, “We win, they lose.” By his actions, he forced the downfall of the Soviet Union and thoroughly discredited communism as credible politics. The departure of the Soviet Union made the world safer in some ways, more dangerous in others. By defeating the Soviet Union, without firing a shot at it directly, Reagan put an end to an issue that had plagued American foreign policy and military planners for nearly half of the 20th century. Prior to becoming president, Reagan had been a labor leader and a two-term governor of California.

So what makes for a transformational president?

Transformational leadership, as defined by Pulitzer Prize winning historian James MacGregor Burns, in his book Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness, involves bringing about “a metamorphosis in form or structure, a change in the very condition or nature of a thing, a change into another substance, a radical change in outward form or inner character … It is change of his breadth and depth that is fostered by transformational leadership.”

Transformational leaders, Burns writes, “define public values that embrace the supreme and enduring principles of a people … Such values are not ordinarily part of the daily discourse of the citizenry. But at testing times when people confront the possibilities – and threat – of great change, powerful foundational values are evoked. They are the inspiration and guide to people who pursue and seek to shape change, and they are the standards by which the realization of the highest intentions is measured.”

It is impossible to predict what anyone will be like as president. The best ones never entered the job thinking their presidencies would stand out more than others. They were certainly ambitious politicians but they never thought they’d achieve all that they did.

The most successful and meaningful presidents knew what they wanted to do once they took office. President Polk stated that he’d expand the country during one presidential term, which may make him the only president to have lived up to all of his campaign promises. He didn’t run for re-election. Franklin Roosevelt, elected during the Depression, knew the economy needed help; he didn’t think he was going to fight Germany, Japan and Italy and discredit fascism. Witnessing Jimmy Carter’s presidency, Reagan knew he had to free U.S. hostages from Tehran and reduce Soviet influence. He never thought he’d wholesale defeat Soviet-style communism and liberate Eastern Europe.

Some of our better presidents entered office thinking they would do something entirely different than they did. Woodrow Wilson thought he’d spend his time working on domestic policy, not fighting Congress over the country’s role in global events. On his inauguration day, Lincoln did not see himself as the great emancipator. McKinley would have been perfectly happy to serve out his time in office with Spain possessing Cuba and its islands in the Pacific. The term “Cold War” hadn’t been invented when Harry Truman became president.

So what made these presidents better than others?

There are two things that stand out in their backgrounds: First, they more than likely came to the presidency with a record of executive leadership; second, they were more than likely over 50. Their record of executive leadership provided them with experience in working and leading a legislative body; it also gave them experience in leading a public body of voters and citizens. With the exception of Presidents Polk and Theodore Roosevelt, their age likely provided them with the confidence they needed to make difficult decisions, face troubling times and, perhaps, understand the nuances of the human condition.

There was also something that each successful president possessed, executive ability. Each one had the ability to understand the issues critical to success and then make the necessary decisions to turn their vision into reality.

In The Paradoxes of the American Presidency, authors Thomas E. Cronin and Michael A. Genovese suggest that presidential leadership comes from having vision, skill and political timing. “The most important ‘power’ a president can have is to present … a clear and compelling vision” for the future, they write. Visionary presidents include Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt and FDR; each is remembered for the ideas that they had on the country’s role.

Skill is shown by knowing to act when certain opportunities either present themselves or knowing what to do bring about attainment of political goals. Cronin and Genovese suggest that presidential executive skills are important but that success is also dependent on the task as well as the opportunity presented. This sounds like McKinley and the Spanish-American War. The authors say that “more experience (in politics) is better than less experience” in making a president successful.

Other important skills for presidents to possess, the authors say, include people skills. “They must know how to persuade, bargain, cajole and co-opt.” Think LBJ and the ‘Johnson Treatment,’ something the 36th president would bestow on wavering Congressman and Senators unsure of their vote on something near and dear to LBJ. Personality skills and self awareness also make for successful presidents, the authors write. Managerial skills, the authors write, help a president understand the institutional issues they face.

A president’s personal skills are also important, the authors say. A president “must be disciplined, intelligent, have stamina, show sound judgment and act with maturity. Good presidents are creative, empathetic, and expressive. They must also have a sense of humor, and learn to control their temper. President Reagan’s self-effacing sense of humor served him well as president, it disarmed his opponents and won over much of the public.”

Political timing, the authors write, is highly important in determining success for a president. A president-elect must know what they’ll do during their first 100 days in office. This is typically when a president holds the most clout to accomplish their goals. “Strong twentieth-century presidents such as Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan began with clear goals and pushed Congress to approve bold new programs,” the authors say.

The presidency is, on the one hand, a magnificent job, and, on the other, one filled with potential pitfalls. Americans want, simultaneously, a president who will solve their problems as well as one who will not interfere in their daily lives. At least too much.

Authors Cronin and Genovese propose nine paradoxes involving the American presidency and the American public. They include the fact that while Americans want a strong president who can solve the nation’s ills, the citizenry is equally suspicious of “strong centralized leadership.” Americans also seek a presidential candidate who can unify “diverse people … but the job requires taking firm stands, making unpopular … decisions that … upset and divide.” One of the greatest paradoxes, write the authors, is that what it takes to be elected president is often entirely different from what it takes to govern from the Oval Office.

So given what’s known about the most effective presidents we’ve had, so far, how should we vote during the remaining primaries and in the coming election? Some of that answer relies on your politics. If you’re a Democrat, and have yet to vote in the primary, you have two choices, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. If you’re a Republican, you’re likely supporting John McCain.

The best presidential candidates, based on historical information, are Senators Clinton and McCain. They’re over 50 and have some experience in executive leadership. They’re also well aware of how Congress operates and know its members. Their age and experiences will make them more effective at the presidency, should they be elected, than Sen. Obama, who’s still serving his first term in the Senate.

Sen. Obama’s resume is weak in accomplishment. Yes, he’s charismatic speaker and offers up a wonderful vision of the country. But, so far, he does not have any significant victory in public life. When Reagan hit his presidential stride in 1980, he, too, offered up wonderful speeches for what the country would look like if he was elected president; the difference between Reagan and Obama is that he’d been an effective governor of the nation’s largest state. Sen. McCain has campaign finance reform to his name; Sen. Clinton’s failed initiative to reform healthcare, during her years as the First Lady, provides her with great insight on what needs to be done to make healthcare more accessible to all Americans – and how to get it accomplished. Failure can often lead to success.

Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers, by Richard E. Neustadt & Ernest R. May, was originally intended for people in government. The idea behind the book was to educate government decision makers on a few historical examples, so they’d know to use previous experiences, historical ones even, as they considered policies that would affect the future.

You may wonder, then, what this means to you. If you’re a citizen, and a registered voter, you are the government. The lessons of Neustadt and May equally apply to you as to any government policy maker. Know the past, think in time, and you’ll likely make a better decision about the future. The authors’ lessons especially apply to you as you consider who you will vote for in the upcoming election. If you’re a Democrat, your best choice is Sen. Clinton. If you’re a Republican, even though the presidential primary is effectively concluded, your best choice was always Sen. McCain.

------------------------------------------------

This year’s Democratic presidential primary, if you heard the endorsement from Sen. Ted Kennedy and his niece, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, is akin to the one in 1960, when another young charismatic Senator from Massachusetts, John Kennedy, ran for the nomination. He was up against some of the Democratic Party’s best veterans, Senators Humphrey, Symington and Johnson.

Johnson lost the nomination to Kennedy at the Democratic Presidential convention in Los Angeles. Johnson, Kennedy thought, had been the best Senate Majority leader in the country’s history. And while Kennedy didn’t like Johnson, he knew he needed him on the ticket to be elected. Johnson would strengthen the ticket’s standing in the South and the West.

Johnson could have remained in the Senate but he knew his position as majority leader would be very much diminished if Kennedy was elected; he also knew that Richard Nixon, if elected president, wouldn’t be as gracious to him as President Eisenhower. He was caught between a rock and hard place. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., the noted historian, has suggested that Johnson thought his presence on the Kennedy ticket would help the South move into the twentieth century.

Johnson, however, had to be convinced to take the job. A number of his advisors told him not to accept Kennedy’s overtures. What moved Johnson especially was the counsel he received from his political mentor, former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, who told Johnson, in essence, it would be beneficial for him, as well as the country (and Texas) if he joined Kennedy’s ticket.

It appears that Senators Clinton and Obama are on course similar to that of Kennedy and Johnson. And the question is who will make the phone call to suggest to either Senator to join the other’s ticket, so the party is unified for the general election. Possible candidates for this task include but aren’t limited to former Vice President Al Gore, former President Jimmy Carter, former Vice President Walter Mondale and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

Who will be the great unifier for the Democratic Party? It remains to be seen.

If LBJ were alive, he’d tell that Senator, either Clinton or Obama, to accept the other’s invitation to be on the ticket. The election, he would say, must be won. The party needs to unify for the good of the country, he would say. And if the Democratic presidential ticket – whether it’s Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton – is elected, it would be a culmination of the civil rights battles that LBJ had fought for during his career. There’s no better way to mark the 36th president’s 100th birthday.

Sources:

A History of the American People, Paul Johnson, New York: HarperCollins, 1997.

Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822 – 1832, Rover V. Remini, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1981

Hamilton’s Blessing: The Extraordinary Life and Times of our National Debt, John Steele Gordon, New York: Walker and Company, 1997.

James K. Polk, John Seigenthaler, New York: Times Books, Henry Holt & Company, 2003.

Leadership, James MacGregor Burns, New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1978.

The Leadership Factor, John P. Kotter, New York: The Free Press, 1988.

Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and his times, 1908 – 1960, Robert Dallek, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

LBJ: Architect of American Ambition, Randall B. Woods, New York: Free Press, 2006.

Oregon: A History, Gordon B. Dodds, New York: W. W. Nortorn & Company, Inc., 1977.

The Paradoxes of the American Presidency, Thomas E. Cronin & Michael A. Genovese, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Presidential Ambition: How the Presidents Gained Power, Kept Power and Got Things Done, Richard Shenkman, New York: Harper Collins, 1999.

Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan, Richard E. Neustadt, New York: The Free Press, 1990.

Transforming Leadership: A New Pursuit of Happiness, James MacGregor Burns, New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2003.

The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History, Philip Bobbitt, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.

The Use of Presidential Power, 1789 – 1943, George Fort Milton, New York: Octagon Books, 1965.

Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers, Richard E. Neustadt & Ernest R. May, New York: The Free Press, 1986

WhiteHouse.gov, official Web site of The White House

Lost in American History

2007-11-12T10:44:00.000-05:00

QUINCY, MASS. – One of America’s most forgotten leaders occupies a place of honor in the house of two of America’s most forgotten presidents.

Dr. Joseph Warren, a leading physician and a general in the Massachusetts revolutionary militia, was, effectively, the commanding officer of the army unit that fought one of America’s greatest battles against British troops. The militia, with an outstanding showing in earlier skirmishes against the Redcoats, at Lexington and Concord, in April 1775, would fight across Boston Harbor, in Charlestown, on ground that would later become a consecrated part of the American Revolution, Bunker Hill.

On that fateful June day, Dr. Warren did something that no American general has ever done since: He placed his second in command, Israel Putnam, in charge of the army, telling him that he could better serve the cause if he placed himself directly in harm’s way. Dr. Warren then took his place with the troops in the front line.

It’s difficult to say how much of an inspiration Dr. Warren was to his fellow soldiers. Certainly, they weren’t expecting a man of his social prominence to stand among them to battle the enemy.

Some reports say that the men cheered once they recognized that Dr. Warren would join them – as one of them – a lowly solider fighting, and likely dieing, for the cause. Others say the men had no reaction to Warren’s presence.

Warren had been a very public and a leading figure in the Patriot cause, heading up the Massachusetts Provincial Congress as well as a principal figure, with John Hancock and Samuel Adams, in protesting various Parliamentary acts considered by the colonists, especially those in Boston, to be repressive.

Warren was one of Boston’s leading men and top physicians. As would have been appropriate for a man of his stature during his time, he married very well. 18-year-old Elizabeth Hooten, considered one of the most beautiful ladies of her day, from one of Boston’s wealthiest families, was his wife, and she bore him four children until her untimely death, at 26, in 1772.

John and Abigail Adams admired Dr. Warren because he was one of the most innovative physicians, inoculating their children, as well as other patients, against smallpox, a leading killer in the 18th century. He was also one of the Adams’ dearest friends.

It’s thought that Warren had a premonition about his fate at Bunker Hill. The night before the battle, he dined with Betsy Palmer, whose husband had fought at Lexington. At the end of the meal, Dr. Warren suggested that they have one last drink before leaving one another – for good.

Just prior to the battle, Dr. Warren, who had just been commissioned a major general, called on Israel Putnam, the general commanding the militia assembled to fight on Bunker Hill. Putnam told Warren that he was prepared to accept his orders.

Warren invoked a technicality. While he was aware that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress had elected him a major general, he was also equally aware that he hadn’t actually received the commission by the time he arrived at Bunker Hill. So rather than take up his new position, which Putnam expected him to do, Warren, instead, inquired where the brunt of the fighting would occur. Putnam said it would be by their fortifications on Breed’s Hill, just below Bunker Hill. Warren dismissed himself and headed off to the front lines, where he met the militia’s battlefield commander, Colonel William Prescott.

One of America’s finest officers, so much so that the British offered him a commission in the regular army after the French-Indian War, Prescott attempted to dissuade Warren from his actions. But Warren wouldn’t hear of it. He insisted he was there to do his job as he saw fit – fight the British as a volunteer private – and took his place among the farmers, small merchants and tradesman making up the rebel army.

By doing so, he was violating 18th century social protocol. Men like Warren, educated and wealthy, were expected to command people making up the rebel army – not fight directly alongside of them as a peer.

Twenty-two hundred British troops squared off against 1,500 American volunteers at Breeds Hill on June 17, 1775. The Redcoats marched up the hill three times before finally overwhelming the colonial army. The cost to Great Britain: 268 killed. 828 wounded. The colonists suffered 115 dead and 305 wounded.

18th century battlefield tactics were, by today’s standards, suicidal. Opposing sides lined up out in the open without taking cover. Each side could see the enemy it faced.

Lined up side by side, British troops marched up Breed’s Hill toward the American lines. The British were likely under the impression that just by marching up the hill, with their swords and muskets gleaming, the Americans would run away.

Instead, Dr. Warren and his fellow soldiers successfully stopped two British advances. Twice the American forces fired their muskets at near point-blank range, around 150 feet, inflicting numerous casualties. As a result, British lines collapsed twice as their dead and wounded fell to the ground.

“’As we approached, an incessant stream of fire poured from the rebel line; it seemed a continued sheet of fire for near thirty minutes,’” reported one British officer.

With the battle’s outcome in the balance, Britain’s leading general on the battlefield that day, William Howe, refused to be defeated. He regrouped his forces and sent them right back up the hill for a third march. He likely knew that the Americans couldn’t win a battle of attrition.

Just prior to encountering the enemy for a third time, Colonel Prescott suggested to Dr. Warren that he remove himself from the ranks, so his life would be spared.

Dr. Warren refused to leave.

By this time every American soldier was aware that they were short on ammunition, gunpowder and men.

The Americans, as they had done the two previous times, waited until the British troops were near them, around 150 feet. They fired their muskets but this volley, unlike previous ones, was no where near as effective because of the lack of ammunition as well as the number of American wounded and dead.

As the enemy continued its approach, many Americans fled either because they were out of ammunition or scared. Warren and a number of others stayed. Out of ammunition, the doctor turned his musket into a club and started swinging it at the British. Soon he drew his sword, holding his ground, determined to fight. A British officer drew his weapon and fired at Warren, striking him in the head. Warren immediately placed a hand over the wound, turned his torso slightly and fell to the ground dead. Dr. Warren was 34.

The British had secured victory. Had General Howe possessed a killer instinct, British troops would have pursued the fleeing Americans. Instead, His Majesty’s soldiers tended to their wounded and dead and took prisoners.

Dr. Warren’s death was significant, not only for the Americans but also for the British. His name was synonymous with the rebel cause. One British general, John Burgoyne, went to Charlestown to identify the body. Warren’s death, reported one historian, seemed to leave the rebels “virtually headless.”

One British officer, in charge of the burial detail from the battle, recognized Dr. Warren and boasted that he “’stuffed the scoundrel with another Rebel into one hole and there he and his seditious principles may remain.’”

Dr. Warren’s remains were later dug up and positively identified for the Americans by Paul Revere. He had inserted two false teeth into Warren. When he came across Warren’s body, he opened his mouth, found the false teeth and confirmed Warren’s death.

The battle, one of the most significant ones during the Revolution, showed that America’s rag-tag, volunteer army could fight against a seasoned, disciplined, professional and highly trained force. It inflicted casualties on nearly 50 percent of the enemy’s troops and held its ground until it ran out of ammunition – or was wounded and killed.

The British were shocked by their losses, with one officer writing, “’Damn the Rebels – that they would not flinch.’” Britain’s generals in America realized they were in for a long, hard fight and success wasn’t guaranteed.

It’ll be long debated why some men, who aren’t expected to make such a sacrifice, do so. Maybe Dr. Warren was still mourning the loss of his young wife; perhaps he felt overburdened about having to care for his children, even though he likely had assistance; perhaps he was the greatest Patriot to have ever lived, believing that he should fight, even die, for a cause to which he had contributed so many words, inspired so many and which he also led. Or, possibly, Dr. Warren thought it was abhorrent to let others fight for principles he helped create.

It’s hard to say what Dr. Warren was thinking just prior to his death. He didn’t leave much behind in terms of correspondence. John Adams thought Dr. Warren was a hero.

Sixth months prior to Bunker Hill, Dr. Warren believed that the American colonies and British Crown could resolve their differences. When he died, the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, was formulating a course of action against the British, including appointing a commanding general (George Washington) of the army units assembled in Massachusetts, just outside of Charlestown. At the time of Warren’s death, the idea of seeking independence from the Crown was just beginning to be debated in Philadelphia. It’s quite possible that Dr. Warren died thinking he was a loyal British subject, seeking to redress the rights he thought had been trampled upon by Parliament and the king.

Today, Dr. Warren’s portrait graces the living room mantle of the house that John and Abigail Adams occupied for 30 years in Quincy, just south of Boston. It’s one of the first pictures visitors notice as they enter the living room. Not even George Washington, a man the second president greatly admired, occupies such a place of honor. His portrait hangs in the hallway.

Unlike so many historical houses, everything in this one is original, from the furniture to the china and crystal collections to the living room wallpaper. Abigail bought the house, called Peacefield, in 1788. The house was occupied by a member of the Adams family for nearly 140 years.

(As you walk through the house, you’re exposed to replicas of the 3,800 books that were owned by John Adams. His original books are under lock and key at the Boston Public Library. Adams grandson built a library behind the house in the 1870s and it stores 14,000 volumes owned by various members of the Adams family. You can’t help but to feel the intellectual inferior of men long since passed.)

John Adams was not the greatest president of the United States. In fact, compared to the one he served as vice president, George Washington, he was a complete failure. One-term presidents don’t last long in America’s collective memory bank. What makes Adams great, compared to other one-term presidents, as well as a few two-term presidents, is his work during and after the Revolution and the fact that he was one of the country’s best students of politics.

He was the leading constitutional scholar of his day, writing books and articles that explained and defended them. Adams knowledge of constitutions and politics was so profound he was asked to write the constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (He was also one of the Commonwealth’s favorite sons in the 1770s.) It’s the world’s oldest, written constitution and political scholars consider it a forerunner to the U.S. Constitution.

(Many of the original 13 states also wrote and passed constitutions in the 1770s, ahead of Massachusetts. For example, the Virginia legislature ratified its first constitution in 1776. But many of the constitutions that were passed during those early days of the Republic, including that of Virginia, were later re-written. The constitution that John Adams wrote for Massachusetts remains in effect today, making it the world’s oldest, written constitution.)

John Adams’ resume is long: he was an outstanding lawyer; he represented Massachusetts in both Continental Congresses; and he was one of the first voices to push for independence; and he wrote the oldest constitution in effect today. It was his speech, at the Second Continental Congress, that persuaded the colonists to seek liberation from London.

In addition, Adams represented the United States in Europe, securing diplomatic ties and loans for the young country. He was also the first U.S. ambassador to Great Britain, establishing a working relationship with the king his country had fought so hard against, George III.

But the single greatest thing John Adams did, which doesn’t receive the prominence it deserves, is show how a defeated political leader leaves office. He didn’t turn to his allies and friends to organize an army to fight his opponents so he could hold the office he had lost in an election. Instead, like those who would succeed him, he headed home to become a private citizen – peacefully.

By this very act, Adams showed that the democracy he and his fellow founders worked to create functioned. President Adams demonstrated that America could change presidents and political parties without gunfire. By acting in such a manner, he becomes one of the most remarkable political figures to have ever graced the United States. Every time a defeated president peacefully observes their successor’s inauguration, the American Revolution and the Constitution are kept alive and John Adams is saluted.

John Adams also showed retired and defeated political leaders that there’s life after the office. He worked on his farm, doted on his family, wrote down his thoughts and re-established his friendship with Thomas Jefferson. None of this came easy. Adams left office a bitter man and it took a number of years for him to recover from the pain he felt from having been defeated in his reelection attempt.

The correspondence between Adams and Jefferson should be read by every American. Adams told Jefferson, in one letter, that he’d be long forgotten while Jefferson would be long remembered. How right he was.

Unlike the other leading Founding Fathers, John Adams was the only one to produce a son who would enter national politics. It must have come as quite the shock to Jefferson to see the son of his one-time foe become the president.

John Quincy was as much of a student of politics and law as his father, becoming one of America’s finest diplomats. In fact, many of the principles he laid down as secretary of state formed the foundations of U.S. foreign policy for nearly 100 years. Some of them continue to this very day. And yet, today, like his father, John Quincy is a figure lost in American history.

John Quincy’s presidency was hardly distinguishable. He pressed for roads and canals that would connect distant parts of the young nation. Like his father, he would only serve as president for one term. He had a far more remarkable career in the House of Representatives, where he served after having been the nation’s sixth president. To date, he is the only president to later serve in Congress.

Ask the average American to name the first four or five presidents and they’ll likely say, “George Washington … Thomas Jefferson … “ and that’s where they stop. Even James Madison and James Monroe, the fourth and fifth presidents, respectively, aren’t likely recalled; and they each served eight years as president. More often than not, John Adams is overlooked.

It’s historical irony that Dr. Warren, John Adams and John Quincy, who contributed so much, whose names were so widely known, and were so influential, become such lost figures in the American story. This appears to be the tie that binds them but there are a few others, too.

They did the unexpected. John Adams could have sat out the Revolution and no one was pressing him to make a speech on behalf of independence at the Second Continental Congress. Adams could also have acted very differently after losing the presidential election in 1800 to Thomas Jefferson. Instead, he left office peacefully and became a private citizen. Dr. Warren didn’t have to fight at Bunker Hill. He could have remained far to the rear, observing the battle from relative safety. Instead, he went to the front lines, making the ultimate sacrifice. John Quincy, a highly educated man, pressed for a national university and helped to found the Smithsonian, thinking that all Americans should possess as much knowledge as they could acquire. He was also a vociferous advocate to end slavery. And while he could have stayed home after losing the presidency – which would have been accepted and expected by his peers – he, instead, served his congressional district in the House of Representatives, something he didn’t consider beneath the stature of a former president.

Each of these men did what that they thought was correct – the immediate consequences be damned. Expedient, cautious and retiring are words that could never describe them. Brave, intelligent, idealistic, and determined are just a few of the words that come to mind, instead. It’s a tragedy these remarkable men, some of the finest sons America ever produced, who should be emulated, are long forgotten figures in the history of this political experiment.

Sources:

War for America: The Fight for Independence, 1775 – 1783, Jeremy Black, Alan Sutton Publishing, Ltd., Gloucestershire, United Kingdom, 1991

John Adams: A Life, John Ferling, Henry Holt & Company, New York, 1992

John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty, C. Bradley Thompson, University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas, 1998

John Adams, David McCullough, Simon & Schuster, New York, New York, 2001

Battles of the Revolutionary War, 1775 – 1783, W. J. Wood, Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1990

The Battle for Bunker Hill, Richard M. Ketchum, Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York, 1962

Decisive Day: The Battle for Bunker Hill, Richard M. Ketchum, Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York, 1974

The Adamses, 1735 – 1918: America’s First Dynasty, Richard Brookhiser, The Free Press, New York, New York, 2002

Heroes Among Us, Jim Ryun & Sons, Destiny Image, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, 2002

John Quincy Adams and The Foundations of American Foreign Policy, Samuel Flagg Bemis, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York, 1949

Patriots: The Men Who Started The American Revolution, A.J. Langguth, Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster, New York, New York, 1988

American National Biography, John A. Garraty and Mark Carnes, Oxford University Press, American Council of Learned Societies, 1999

Dictionary of American Biography, Dumas Malone, editor, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, New York, 1936

The Blackwell Encyclopedia of the American Revolution, Jack P. Greene and J.R. Dole, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991

The American Revolution, 1775 – 1783: An Encyclopedia, Garland Publications, New York, New York, 1993

Tour of the Adams Homestead in Quincy, Massachusetts, given by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, October 17, 2007

Tour of Bunker Hill, Charlestown, Massachusetts, given by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, October 18, 2007

Softly killing the faith: Christian conduct and communication

2007-08-06T10:11:00.001-04:00

Every Sunday, I wake up conflicted.

Part of me wants to go to church to listen to a sermon, which, with any luck, will enhance my faith and edify my understanding of antiquity, God, the ancient Hebrews and Egyptians, Jesus Christ and his apostles.

Another part of me just wants to stay home, eat breakfast, drink too much coffee and read the newspapers.

More often than not, my wife and I pack up the kids and go to church. We do so because we believe in God and think church is the best place for our children to learn morals and ethics. We also go because sometimes we’re scheduled to teach Sunday school and, often, because we enjoy the sermons.

I find tranquility at church. I’m not sure how it comes about. Maybe it’s God’s way of touching me. I don’t know. All I know is that serenity is a result of my attending church. It doesn’t last long – nothing does with two young boys in tow – but I feel better having attended church.

But there are some very strong reasons I don’t want to go. Most of them have to do with the constant bickering that’s been one of Christianity’s hallmarks over the last 500 years and continues to this very day.

Our congregation fought over and lost members because of Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire. The fight’s over. The local parish survived, and it found a new rector, a good man, to replace the one who resigned in protest. But after having experienced that fight, and seeing how vicious people will battle one another in the name of God, my faith has emerged challenged, maybe even dampened, and I cannot help but wonder about the church’s congregation. Will it battle one another again?

Protestants battle Protestants and Catholics battle Catholics. And then there all those fights between the faiths. It makes me wonder, is this what God intended? I have my doubts.

Christianity is a wonderful religion, but its faithful continually show their propensity to enter into vicious, internecine, theological battles. There’s enough drama in my life. The last place I need to experience it is at church.

And, sometimes, that’s what keeps me home on Sunday. I’m more willing to subject myself to catatonic shock from reading The New York Times editorial page than I’m prepared to listen to the tacit politics of the church. It’s not God I distrust. It’s the people who tell me I’m suppose to believe in God. They never measure up.

I’ve met all kinds of Christians. Some give every appearance of being peaceful, reverent and pure. Some of them easily become judgmental, sanctimonious, spiteful and malicious when looking upon other Christians who don’t see God and Jesus the way they do.

I’ve had Christians tell me Jews will not be allowed into Heaven because they fail to accept Jesus Christ as God’s son.

Another man told me, “If you’re going to have religion, you might as well go Catholic.” I always told him he missed his calling. He’d have been perfectly suited for the Spanish Inquisition.

And, most bothersome of all, a member of the local clergy told me that the local clergy don’t talk to one another. “They’re very competitive.”

If the clerics refuse to talk to one another, you have to wonder what kind of example they’re setting for their congregations. For the record, I’m happy to report, our new rector is attempting to reach out and speak with the other local clerics. I wish him the best of success.

This tendency by Christians to battle one another appeared yet again, a few weeks ago, when the Vatican issued a statement saying that other Christian faiths, i.e. those that aren’t in the Roman Catholic fold, have a tenuous connection to God, and therefore to eternal salvation, because, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, they cannot trace the roots of their faith to Jesus Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church, the world’s largest church, with more than a billion faithful, believes it is the one, true Christian church because its founders, the apostles Peter and Paul, walked with Christ.

That line of thinking worked for about 1500 years until Martin Luther came along, posting his 95 grievances against the Roman Church. Among other things, he challenged the Pope’s supremacy over all Christian theological thinking. It’s bound to scripture – not the Pope’s interpretation, he said.

Had cooler heads prevailed in 1541, this divide between the Roman Church and the Protestant faith might have been healed. Protestants and Catholics met in Regensburg, Germany and came close to resolving their differences.

Had the Roman Church conceded four points to the Protestants during this conference, writes the Rev. Thomas Bokenkotter in his book The Concise History of the Catholic Church, there’s a chance, maybe a slim one, that Christianity would be united today.

Protestants insisted that the clergy be allowed to marry; that communion be allowed to be given in both forms, meaning with and without the wine; that there be freedom to “teach the Real Presence (of Jesus Christ) without defining its manners as transubstantiation;” and freedom from papal authority “as distinct from papal primacy.”

Of course, none of these points on face value could be accepted by the Roman Church. They consider their clergy to be alter Christus, another Christ, which prohibits them from marrying. They believe that communion can be fulfilled with just bread; and, as result, during communion, one physically connects with Jesus and, therefore, God, i.e., transubstantiation.

As for papal primacy, part of the rejection by the Roman Church on this point was political. They didn’t want to give up the power.

Consider, for a moment, the many things the two sides agreed upon that outnumbered their disagreements. They agreed in one God, the Holy Trinity, Jesus’ divinity, the virgin birth, the importance of communion and baptism, and the 10 Commandments.

But because the Roman Church refused to yield on those four points, or the two sides failed to find middle ground on those points, the Lutheran faith, which would become the Protestant faith, gained legitimacy; it was legally recognized in Germany in 1555.

Christianity has never been the same since. And it will battle itself for time eternal.

god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is the title of Christopher Hitchens latest book. Yes, the title spells God with a small g – heresy in most religious circles. It’s Hitchens’ attempt to shock us into buying his book.

In his book, Hitchens says he’s an atheist and pans religion. As he sees it, religion is the foundation for dangerous thinking. Indeed, he says, people are intellectually arrested because of religion.

I think Hitchens is wrong. But that’s because I prefer to live in a world with God and attend a church that I know is highly fallible. God and religion give me hope and strength that I’ll meet my challenges and that there are better tomorrows ahead. (Please do not ask me what theology this comes from. I haven’t the slightest idea.)

But grant Hitchens this: He didn’t come to these conclusions entirely through his own intellectual study and experiences. Contributing greatly to his thoughts is the behavior of the faithful. He’s been to Belfast, Beirut and Sarajevo, cities where the religious have killed others – in the name of God. If you’re devout and believe your faith has a lock on God, then you’re contributing to books like his, and you’ve worked against God and your faith.

The Christian Bible says that everyone falls short of God, meaning that none of us, no matter who we are or how hard we try, ever measure up to God’s exacting standards. We’re all sinners. Whether we know it or not.

I’m grateful He’s a forgiving God. I just might make it into Heaven. But, then again, maybe not.

Christianity needs a dose of humility. In other words, all Christians, regardless of the branch of the faith they’ve taken up, would better serve the faith if they considered the possible results of their actions and their words not only to one another but also to others who are Jewish, Muslim or simply believe in God differently than they do.

No church, regardless of its affiliation, has a monopoly on God’s grace and eternal salvation. God is not a Christian, not a Jew, not a Muslim nor does He follow any faith I’ve failed to mention here. God is great. Because He’s great, He can be found in any faith.

I’m not about to condemn anyone for their beliefs. The few Jews I’ve met are more devout than the many Christians I’ve met. I’m not about to condemn the Muslims for their beliefs either. I’m not about to become a Mormon, but I’ll say this on their behalf: The ones I’ve met have been most gracious.

I’m a Protestant. Had it not been for my maternal great grandfather, an Irish immigrant, getting into a knock-down drag-out fight with his priest, I might be Catholic. The two fought tooth and nail, my grandmother reports, and finally, my great-grandfather told the priest he could read the Bible, too, and the rest is history. He joined the Baptist church.

My mother and my father, a Methodist, decided that Presbyterianism was the way to bring up their children. Whether or not this was a true theological middle ground, I have no idea.

I don’t see eye to eye with Catholicism, but I’m in more agreement with the Catholics than some of their more devout members might believe. In fact, truth be told, I enjoy the Catholic Mass, and I’m grateful that my wife and I can experience some of the same Mass in the Episcopal church we joined.

When I think about all these theological debates, I keep coming back to this thought: The answers to these many debates won’t be known until we’re dead. And, then again, maybe not. God’s plans for us once we arrive in the after life might not include sharing all His secrets.

So what to do between now and the time we meet our Maker? I suggest all Christians consider our common humanity, even of those with whom we disagree. All of us want to be accepted, admired, appreciated, loved, liked and respected not only by our friends and family but also by those we’ve never met or with whom we disagree. Christianity will be better served if we keep that in mind. We also need to remember to be diplomatic and understanding when we’re communicating about our faith to others. If we conduct ourselves in this manner, the pews stand a stronger chance of filling up and we just might live in a better world.

Regardless of your faith, may God bless you and hold you, now and forever.

Sources:

1. My experiences with religion
2. Catholicism Answer Book: The 300 Most Frequently Asked Questions, Rev. John Trigilio, Jr., Ph.D., and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, Ph.D., Sourcebooks Inc., 2007
3. The Oxford History of Christian Worship, edited by Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen B. Westerfield Tucker, Oxford University Press, 2006
4. A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Rev. Thomas Bokenkotter, Doubleday & Company, 1977
5. Protestantism in America, Randall Balmer and Lauren F. Winner, Columbia University Press, 2002
6. Protestantism: Its churches, cultures, rituals and doctrines, yesterday and today, Martin E. Marty, Holt Reinhart and Winston, 1972
7. The Reformation: A History, Diarmaid MacCulloch, Viking, 2003
8. god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens, Twelve, Hachette Book Group USA, 2007

Swimming toward the target

2007-06-27T15:29:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine called recently to say he was going in for a vasectomy. After giving life a lot of thought, he and his fiancé decided children aren’t in the cards.

His story reminded me of an entirely different time in my life. My wife and I were attempting to conceive our first born and we were experiencing difficulties.

So, like my friend, I decided to take control of the situation and consult the medical authorities.

That was the easy part of the decision. Making the appointment to see my doctor was an entirely different story.

“Why do you want to see the doctor,” the receptionist asked.

None of your damn business I wanted to say. But that’s just not an appropriate way to speak to someone if you need an appointment presto pronto.

“Oh, I just need to see the doctor,” I replied. Ordinarily these things don’t faze me. But in this case, since we were discussing things south of my belly button, I just couldn’t bring myself to be so open.

“Again, what are you coming in for,” she continued.

“I’m not telling you. And it won’t take long,” I said.

“The doctor won’t like this,” she said. As if I cared.

A few days later I found myself in my doctor’s examination room.

“So what’s up,” he said upon entering the room.

I explained the problem. And rather than suggest to my wife that she see a doctor, implying somehow that this situation was her fault – not mine, of course – I told the doctor we should start with me. So what do we do, I asked.

The great thing about this guy is that he’s able to break down complicated medical terms into language we can all understand.

“We need to find out if you’ve got enough swimmers,” he said. “And then we need to know if they can swim.”

That was an interesting way of putting it. And how do we do this, I inquired.

“Easy. We refer you to a clinic where you give a sample.”

That’s a breeze, I thought. Just go to some sterile medical clinic, by myself, and, uh, well, uh, you know, uh, uh-oh. What have I gotten myself into?

Yikes!!!!!

I’d only done that, you know, in private. So the mere thought of doing you know in a quasi-public place was enough for me to ask my doctor for some Viagra – JUST FOR THIS ONE TIME.

Don’t sweat it, the doctor said. There will be more than enough magazines and videos to get me through this exercise. How did he know, I wondered.

The next thing to do was to call the clinic. I forget its name but it was something like “The Clinic to Make Sure You’re Packing a Wallop.”

After taking down the necessary information from me, the receptionist at Packing a Wallop inquired when I’d like to stop by.

I inquired about the following Wednesday. That was just fine, she said. And then she issued an edict:

“No sex for three days before this appointment.”

“Okay,” I mumbled.

The Big Day arrived. And I was a little nervous, to say the least.

My wife was on a business trip on this particular day. And I was wondering if that wasn’t a mistake. Maybe she should have been there. That would have made this exercise easier.

I thought about calling a few women I knew to see if they’d join me on this event. But then I reconsidered. They’d probably turn me down anyway. And the clinic might have rules. Besides, I thought, that would be like Bill Clintoning this whole exercise.

Is it sex? Isn’t it sex? Those were more questions than I could handle. So forget that idea.

I put on stiff upper lip and made my way to the clinic – alone.

The first thing I noticed in the clinic was a picture gracing the lobby’s wall of a lone, very determined looking sperm. It must have been magnified 5,000 times, maybe more. I suspected it was to reinforce to all those entering Packing a Wallop what they were suppose to do during their visit. Drop off a sample!

The next thing I noticed was the receptionist. She was a hot looking Latina. Maybe her looks were part of the clinic’s plan. Look at her, they figure, and things will happen.

I checked in with her and she asked if I was ready.

“I guess.”

I was ushered into a room. I’m not sure what the room is called. It’s not exactly an examination room. Maybe it’s a play room.

I don’t know what they call that room, but it was packed with more pornography, movies included, than I’d ever seen in one place.

Now I’m not exactly a prude; for that matter, I’m not innocent either. I’ve bought my fair share of porn.

But this was something else. The shelves were staked with huge quantities of magazines and movies.

The doctor was right. There were more than enough magazines to pull me through this exercise.

I thought about asking the receptionist to stick around. If she could just stand there, naked, this would have been so much easier. And, hey, I wouldn’t have touched her. That would have defeated the exercise.

But then I thought about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and dismissed the idea.

She closed the door behind her and, suddenly, I was alone.

What the hell, I thought, let’s check out the movies. And that’s when I learned I just might be entirely out of the mainstream.

There’s nothing wrong with being gay, but lesbian porn just doesn’t do it for me. I’m straight and in today’s world that probably makes me weird.

Eventually I got comfortable with a magazine and things that needed to happen, well, happened. The sample was delivered and the most embarrassing exercise of my life was over.

I just hoped no one would notice how embarrassed I was as I walked out of the lobby. I don’t think anyone did.

A week later the doctor reported that everything was good to go. What a relief.

Six weeks later, my wife and I learned that our first born was on his way. Another relief.

Five years later, I can tell you that children provide more awkward moments than I would have ever realized. There are embarrassing moments involving the bathroom, crying, and things that they notice that they want to tell you about in their own way.

But none of those moments compare to the 30 minutes I spent at that clinic.

No longer the White Man's Burden

2007-06-12T11:33:00.000-04:00

Way back yonder, when the Democratic Party had a soul, it had a president who was a vociferous advocate for human rights.

Democracy was in the balance, yet this president, standing against the tide attempting to dominate world politics, decried the notion that anyone, regardless of what part of this world they occupied, should live without four basic, fundamental freedoms.

Freedom of expression, freedom to worship and the ability to live free of fear and from want were the cornerstones of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s policies that he announced during his State of the Union address on January 6, 1941, coincidentally enough, nearly 11 months to the day before Pearl Harbor was attacked.

“In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential freedoms.
“The first is freedom of speech and expression – everywhere in the world.
“The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way – everywhere in the world.
“The third is freedom from want – which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants – everywhere in the world.
“The fourth is freedom from fear – which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor – anywhere in the world,” said Roosevelt.

The United States, he said, would become an Arsenal of Democracy, helping defend countries in Europe and Asia that were fighting German fascists and Japanese militarists. The American way of life, he said, would never be secure so long as someone, somewhere in the world, was oppressed.

Roosevelt knew instinctively that countries seeking to oppress others have an insatiable hunger to subjugate as much of the world as possible.

As a result of FDR’s bold policies, Europe and much of Asia are free today. Over the course of more than 40 years, the United States and its allies defeated the enemies of human rights: German fascists, Japanese militarists, and then Soviet Communists.

You cannot help but to admire FDR. His domestic and foreign opponents were formidable and yet he managed to outmaneuver and, eventually, trounce them.

Did he play fair? Probably not. There’s evidence that suggests he knew Japan would strike Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen so he could gain the domestic support he so vitally needed to bring the United States into a war its citizens didn’t want to fight.

Studying Roosevelt makes you wonder what went wrong with the Democratic Party over the last 60 years. It’s gone from being a party that insisted the United States pay any price and bear any burden to support those who champion liberty to becoming a party that’s more interested in its own self-indulgence. Fortunately, for its own sake, it’s not alone: The Republicans are just as awful.

Each contender for next year’s Democratic Presidential nomination denounces the war in Iraq and, as they do, they signal to terrorists and insurgents alike that they’re more concerned about their rights – than the rights of those they slaughter.

FDR is rolling over in his grave. And Hitler and Tojo are jealous that they didn’t have the great fortune of facing the pusillanimous Democrats of today.

If you’ve joined today’s anti-war movement, keep something in mind: The people in the Middle East who want the United States out of the Middle East aren’t pacifists. They’re cold-blooded killers. The peace movement, if it’s successful in securing a United States withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, only condemns an Iraqi or Afghan citizen to a grizzly death.

The peace movement is anything but a peace movement. It’s a form of passive-aggressive fascism. Whether it realizes it or not, the movement is aligned with groups that have no compunction about killing innocent people; other than demanding an immediate U.S. departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, not a single political idea is shared between these groups.

The typical supporter of peace movement in the United States is a Democrat who should support anyone advancing liberty and human rights. The typical terrorist has likely never heard of John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thucydides, Plato and Aristotle, philosophers who influenced and created the very political freedoms that the West enjoys today.

But the average terrorist has definitely heard some hijacked version of the Koran and Islam, which inspires them to kill anyone – Muslim, Christian, Jew, man, woman or child – who doesn’t support their thinking.

Today’s anti-war movement is rooted in the one that rallied around the slogan “Give Peace a Chance,” forcing the United States to end its military and political efforts in Southeast Asia more than 30 years ago. The result: Millions of Cambodians were condemned to their Communist executioners. Communist North Vietnam was granted victory and went on to place millions of South Vietnamese into reeducation camps. Many South Vietnamese fled the country and many drowned in their attempt to live free.

If the peace movement’s conclusion is accepted at face value, once the U.S. military leaves Iraq and Afghanistan, peace breaks out. There’s only problem with the conclusion: It’ll kill some innocent man, woman or child.

The only good news from this conclusion is that the insurgents won’t have Americans to kill anymore. The bad news, however, is that innocent citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan will fall into the terrorists’ cross-hairs.

Then there’s the issue of Europe’s security vis á vis Iran as well as the security of those Persian Gulf and Middle Eastern nations allied with the United States, either covertly or overtly, since 9/11. These issues are never addressed by the peace movement.

President George W. Bush and his administration have truly mismanaged the country since September 11, 2001. The President was granted a golden opportunity to demonstrate to the terrorists and their sympathizers that Western political philosophy is far superior to the dictatorships, theocracies and monarchies they live under. In addition, the President had a wonderful opportunity to infuse the United States with a sense of patriotism and mission. He blew it.

The administration’s political aims would have been far better served had it focused on turning Afghanistan into a successful, self-supporting country. How this administration ever thought it could successfully turn around Afghanistan and, at the same time, turn Iraq into some sort of jewel of Middle Eastern democracy is anyone’s guess. Evidence suggests that they never thought through all the challenges they’d face.

Besides bad planning on Iraq, after defeating Saddam Hussein’s army, one wonders about the various companies that have benefited from contracts supplying U.S. military and political forces there. The manner in which these contacts were handled gives every appearance that the Bush Administration is more concerned about its corporate backers than it is about helping innocent civilians.

More than 100 years ago, at the conclusion of the Spanish-American War, an Indian-born British subject wrote a poem called “A White Man’s Burden.” Rudyard Kipling was in the United States as it achieved military victories over Spanish forces in Cuba and the Philippines. The war turned the United States into a global power because, for the first time in its history, it occupied land far outside of its territorial waters.

Reading the poem with the lens of the 21st century, when we’ve all been sensitized to the slightest slur, it’s hard not to look at this as something that insults people with darker skin. But, as Kipling saw the world, in this poem he was attempting to tell Americans that they had special role; their new mission, as he saw it, was to educate, lift-up and improve the native people of the lands they occupied.

Kipling was telling the United States it had a moral duty to instruct Cubans and Filipinos on democracy, freedom and human rights so they could advance themselves and their countries in ways that would never have occurred under the Spanish.

This is the same moral philosophy that guided President Roosevelt as he presented his State of the Union address under the storm clouds of early 1941, when the future of democracy, freedom and human rights was in question. It is the same philosophy that has bound American foreign policy for more than 60 years and will likely continue to do so into the foreseeable future.

FDR is known to have quoted Kipling from time to time. “A White Man’s Burden” was written when he was in his late teens; this poem, along with his education, which instilled him a sense of obligation to help the less fortunate, guided his political beliefs.

FDR is the patron saint of the Democratic Party. He infused it with a sense of obligation to those less fortunate and that’s been its hallmark throughout the 20th century and still is to this very day.

But when it comes to helping those outside of U.S. borders who are less fortunate, today’s Democratic Party sounds like the Republicans FDR faced during the first two terms of his presidency. They’re isolationists.

Aligned with the Democrats, today’s anti-war movement is without any sense of obligation. In fact, it’s racist. At the core of its message is this: Darker skinned people, Arabs in this case, are not the White Man’s Burden.

No sweeter way to say "You're Fired!"

2007-06-01T15:23:00.000-04:00

If you’re up to date on the latest business news, there’s a good chance that you’ve read that some company somewhere is laying off a sizeable portion of it workforce. Motorola just announced that its pink slipping 4,000 employees into the corporate trash bin.

Thank you for coming, folks; we appreciate all that you’ve done for the Company, is likely the message that each and every one of those employees heard as they learned that their future no longer included Motorola.

It’s always difficult to fire people. I speak with experience on this topic. It’s a nasty business. The air is tense and the person doing the firing is usually very nervous; they’re required to keep to a script prepared by the executives in human resources, which was reviewed and rewritten by an attorney. As I see it, the whole experience is akin to an execution, sans violence.

If you’re a half-decent human being, charged with firing someone, it’s one of those moments in your career that you would prefer to have never experienced. Even if I intensely disliked the person I was dismissing, and they had it coming to them, firing them never left me feeling proud. I always felt like a heap of crap.

I’m sure other managers have felt the same way, presuming they did the firing, as I always did, in person.

You have to wonder how Motorola’s employees learned they were leaving the company. Were they text messaged on their cell phone? Or, if they were younger, say in their 20s, did the folks at human resources “im” them – you know, send them an instant message.

I’m not trying to be facetious, but there was a company that actually sent e-mails to the employees it was firing. How impersonal is that?

These days, our society, through its communication, softens reality’s sharp edges. If you’re fired or laid off, it’s perfectly acceptable to say you’re “career transitioned.” That’s hardly an exact description of what occurred.

So I have a modest proposal for making layoffs softer, kinder, gentler, and, yes, even sweeter: Instead of the manager and the employee having a tense, difficult talk, the boss should just give the “condemned” a package of M&Ms candy.

M&Ms, through their Web site, http://www.mymms.com, will sell you a customized version of their candy. Not only can you pick the candy’s color but you can also write a message that appears on the candy.

Companies anticipating dismissing their employees could order pink M&Ms by the bundle that say “You’re fired.” Yes, I’ve tried this myself on their Web site. There are a few messages and words that M&Ms will not allow on their candy, but they have no problem printing the phrase “You’re fired” on those tasty little nuggets of chocolate.

I see a whole new line of business for M&Ms that they completely unanticipated. They could start selling human resources executives on the concept that handing out pink M&Ms to people that are being fired is kinder and gentler than the pink slip.

Think if Donald Trump had used pink M&Ms on his recently dropped television show, “The Apprentice.” Instead of shooting off his trademark phrase, “You’re fired!”, The Donald could have tossed packages of pink M&Ms across the conference table to the deposed contestants, saying “Catch” instead. It would have been so much nicer.

NBC would have benefited too. Not only would they have a new sponsor for the show but they would also be offering M&Ms a complete merchandising program – something that would certainly make their advertising agency proud.

For the soon-to-be-dismissed in corporate America, receiving a package of pink M&Ms would almost be like having a last meal on the company and, hey, it’s chocolate. What better way to learn the news that your days with the firm are over?

Think about what people who are part of a mass lay off will be saying to one another? “Did you get the M&Ms, too?” Or, “Uh-oh, I’ve been M&Med!”

This is so ingenious that it makes me wonder if the folks in marketing at M&Ms were planning a whole new use for their candy when they created this customization opportunity. Talk about a way to extend the M&Ms brand while, at the same time, improving its brand awareness. If this doesn’t make some marketing professor proud, what will? Way to go guys! You’re the best!

Parenthood: The challenges, joys and fears

2007-05-24T14:31:00.000-04:00

“You will know no fear until you’re a parent,” an experienced parent once told me. And it’s true. Until you’re faced with the responsibility of turning a helpless baby into a self-sufficient, well-adjusted, educated, adult, you’ve never known shear terror.

It’ll bring about sleepless nights, panic attacks, constant worry, stupidity, self-doubt, fits of anger, and the occasional need to imbibe in one-too-many.

If you look at our culture today, the demands on parents are exponential: They’re expected to keep their kids in top health by making sure they eat only organic food; they're expected to turn their baby into a genius through videos from Baby Einstein; they’re expected to discipline their children only through the use of “time-outs;” and, finally but not lastly, parents need to see to make sure their young understand algebra, biology and can read – all before they reach the 1st grade.

Thank God for places like McDonald’s, Chuck E Cheese, and The Red Robin – restaurants where you can feed your child some fat-packed, cholesterol-laden meal while witnessing other parents violating all of our culture’s “rules” about child rearing. The latter two even serve beer!

As I was growing up, my dad use to say to me, “You know, you didn’t come with a training manual.”

And that’s the problem. Go to any bookstore these days and, as far as I can tell, there are too many training manuals. What did parents do in, say, the 18th century? I’m not sure but somehow they managed to turn out a generation of children who were likely no worse – and no better – than the ones we’re creating today.

I can’t stand the parent police. We should find a boat big enough for them as well as the food police, the attorneys and the accountants – and sink it!!!

My wife and I were one of these couples who were married for a long time before we ever became parents, 14 years. When the first bundle of joy arrived, we’d done a number of things that many people might envy: We’d traveled overseas, met the “beautiful people,” dined in great restaurants and generally had a lot of spontaneous fun.

All of that came to a crashing end with the arrival of our first son. But that’s okay. I understand he, like his younger brother, needs to be brought up by us. We’re far from perfect parents, but we are responsible ones, so we stick close to home, especially at dinner time.

I’m thankful for those nights when we eat at a restaurant – without the children in tow. Even if it is a restaurant that’s nosier than I prefer, the fact that I’m eating without attempting to keep a kid in line, forced to listen to an ear drum-ringing tantrum, clean up a mess, deal with a potty issue, or just make sure they’re eating the damn food that’s been served, is a relief.

Don’t get me wrong. I dearly love our children. They’re not perfect nor will they ever be. Part of that’s due to the fact that they have a highly imperfect father who thinks most of the parenting manuals published today are gobbledygook.

I rely on my own wits, wisdom, and childhood experiences to bring up our children. The way I see it, my parents didn’t produce a serial killer or a rapist. I’m far from perfect, but I’m not a criminal.

After dinner at our house, we take our boys upstairs for a bath. Sometimes I put them in the shower. After the curtain’s closed, and the started is water, I listen to their conversation.

At nearly 5 and 3 1/2, these two little guys have a lot to say to one another. They exchange stories about their day, their friends and their interests, which includes Spiderman, Star Wars, pirates, fire trucks, the police and candy.

After they’re in their pajamas and their teeth are brushed, we read them one or two books. Then we tuck them into bed, kiss them, hug them and tell them how much they’re loved.

A few hours later, after they’ve long fallen asleep, I sneak into their bedroom to admire them and adjust their covers. The same thing always happens while I’m there. I don’t know if it’s physical or it’s mental, but there’s always this irrational fear that grips me.

I start worrying about all the things that could go wrong. Terror attacks, car accidents, school issues, and more, suddenly sweep through my mind, gripping me with more fear, than I’d ever experienced before someone started calling me daddy.

It’s like what that parent once told me: You know no fear until you’re a parent. That fear makes me a better parent. I hope it never goes away.

The Rhymes of History

2007-04-25T18:01:00.001-04:00

Sitting down in his study, the President of the United States reviews the war briefing he’s just received from his top military, political and foreign policy advisors and writes a few notes:

“This is what I know:

• We’re fighting a suicidal enemy.
• The enemy is militarily beaten but belligerent.
• There’s no sign of surrender.
• The enemy appears to be breaking up, with some saying they want peace while others want to fight. The ones wanting peace don’t speak with authority.
• The American populace is war weary.
• Problematic Allies.”

Sound like George W. Bush dealing with the war in Iraq?

Try Harry S. Truman, around June or July 1945, figuring out how to end the war with Japan so World War II could come to a conclusion.

President Truman likely never wrote those words, or anything similar, after talking with his advisors about the way to end the war with Japan, but he probably had thoughts along those lines. In the summer of 1945, as U.S. troops were occupying Germany, and the fighting on Okinawa against Japanese forces was ending, Truman was feeling pressure to end the war, on U.S. terms, as fast as possible.

Prior to Truman becoming president, senior U.S. military officers were focusing on the best way to bring the war with Japan to an end. Invasion plans were prepared for the Japanese islands and commanders and military units, as well as personnel, were selected for the pending assault, which was scheduled for November 1945. The goal was for Japan to surrender unconditionally, just like Germany did, 12 months after the Nazis gave up.

While plans were being finalized, top U.S. military officers, including the president, learned that a new weapon, the atomic bomb, would be at their disposal sometime that summer. There were a number of questions and issues about the bomb. Would it work? Was it a strategic or tactical weapon? Would it shock the enemy into surrender? Or would Japanese leaders react to it the way they did the night U.S. planes fire-bombed Tokyo, killing nearly 85,000 people? They didn’t.

These questions, the positions of top U.S. leaders, the debates between them, potential casualties resulting from the assault on Japan, as well as the complex issues the United States faced abroad and at home, are discussed with great authority by John Ray Skates, a history professor at the University of Southern Mississippi, in his book The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb.

The book is especially pertinent today as the United States debates the best way to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while extracting some sort of political-military victory from the effort that’s been expended. It forces the reader to think about how the United States can shock its enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan into ending the fight; the book also makes the reader consider that perhaps there is no possible way to stun Al Qaida and Iraqi insurgents into submission. Skates, a retired army colonel, lays out, in excruciating detail, the debates, positions and discussions had by America’s leaders on the quickest and best possible way to coerce Japan into accepting the Allied policy of unconditional surrender.

In mid-1945, Japan still had five million men under arms. They’d lost every battle they’d fought against the United States since June 1942; however, Japan’s leaders didn’t see themselves as defeated. They knew U.S. troops would likely land on Kyushu, the Japanese island that American troops would invade in Operation Olympic, and they were preparing an intricate defense. While they couldn’t stop the invasion, Japan’s top brass thought, instead, that they could bleed the United States into accepting a negotiated settlement that was far short of its clearly stated, very public, and Allied-approved objective of unconditional surrender.

Skates shows how the policy of unconditional surrender for both Germany and Japan, as pushed through by President Roosevelt in early 1943, as well as the level of casualties the United States had sustained, determined military actions and, eventually, the use of the atomic bomb. The policy, as well as the experience from fighting Japan, forced America’s top leaders into coming up with the most efficient way into forcing Japan’s surrender.

By the time the summer of 1945 rolled around, the United States had suffered nearly 400,000 combat deaths with another 600,000 troops wounded. Top military commanders worried about the additional casualties the United States would suffer should it invade Kyushu. Fleet Admiral Ernest J. King, the Navy’s top officer, thought Japan could be brought down through a blockade that would essentially starve Japan’s populace – at minimal cost of U.S. lives; others, like General of the Army George C. Marshall, the Army’s top general, feared that the blockade would extend the war beyond the patience of the American home front; he thought the invasion was the faster way to bring about an American victory.

The United States was holding more than 400,000 prisoners of war: 370,000 Germans, 50,000 Italians, and 5,000 Japanese. German and Italian troops were far more prone to surrender because it was not considered unpatriotic if they did. For the Japanese, however, surrender was simply out of the question. Japanese troops were instructed to fight to the death; if they ran out of ammunition, they were told to charge the enemy or commit suicide. Anything less would bring dishonor to themselves and their surviving family members. The fact that there were so few Japanese prisoners of war reinforced the military’s view that any battle on the Japanese mainland would be arduous and bloody.

Top U.S. military officers had also reviewed the post-action reports of the battles for Iwo Jima and Okinawa, which, combined, cost the United States more than 100,000 casualties. As Skates writes, “Public concern already simmered over the casualties of Iwo Jima and Okinawa. What would the cost of Downfall (the overall name for amphibious assaults against Japan) be and could Americans sustain it? Could any methods be used to minimize the casualties?”

General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, the Army’s commanding officer in the Pacific, would lead the ground attack on Kyushu while the Navy’s top officer in the Pacific, Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, would be responsible for transporting the troops, the amphibious assault itself, and providing all the necessary support for MacArthur’s troops, including food, fuel, ammunition and other supplies.

Operation Olympic, had it occurred, would be one of the largest amphibious assaults in all of military history. It would have entailed 12 divisions “comprising 427,400 troops and 626,800 tons of supplies,” writes Skates. The assault on Normandy, in comparison, looks small: It only involved five divisions for the beach landing and another three airborne divisions that were dropped in the middle of the night, just prior to the amphibious landings.

American military analysts thought that U.S. forces would occupy at least half of Kyushu, if not the entire Island. If Japan’s leaders still refused to surrender, even though U.S. forces were on Kyushu, then MacArthur and Nimitz would initiate Operation Coronet, an amphibious assault on Honshu, Japan’s main island, in March 1946. This operation would have involved “14 divisions with 462,000 troops,” writes Skates.

The best military estimates said that Japan would put up an all-out fight in the defense of Kyushu. They may not have had the best troops to prevent American forces from succeeding but the thinking was that at Kyushu, Japanese soldiers, sailors and airmen would make a gallant, albeit suicidal, stand.

Casualties, Skates says, would have been higher during Operation Olympic than on Operation Coronet. MacArthur’s intelligence officers estimated that “about fourteen thousand soldiers and airmen would die in the first sixty days of Olympic,” writes Skates. MacArthur estimated that there would be nearly 80,000 American casualties – killed and wounded – during the first 60 days of the invasion of Kyushu. If the battle lasted 120 days, MacArthur estimated there would be more than 100,000 American casualties.

The battle losses, Skates writes, were based on the casualties that American forces endured on both Okinawa as well as in Normandy, where the First U.S. Army suffered more than 60,000 casualties of whom 16,000 were killed during the first 48 days in France. “Much evidence exists that casualty estimates for the invasion were realistic and based on past experience,” writes Skates. And while the invasion of Kyushu would cause no more American losses than had been realized in Normandy or on Okinawa, as Skates writes, that “was small comfort” to American civilian and military leaders.

“The earlier fanatical and suicidal, yet hopeless Japanese defenses created a psychology that the normal conventions of war did not apply against a nation of potential kamikazes,” writes Skates.

In addition to facing a suicidal enemy, the United States attempted, throughout the war, to gain the participation of the Soviet Union in its fight against Japan. The Soviets made a number of promises to the United States about its willingness to fight Japan, including invading parts of the Japanese Empire, but they didn’t declare war against Japan until the day after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

Like all leaders, President Truman and those he consulted for achieving a military and political victory in World War II, couldn’t foresee the future. What they had before them, as they debated the tactics and strategy to be employed in bringing about Japan’s surrender, was the results, including the number of dead and wounded so far, as well as an idea of the level of patience that the American public had for finishing the war.

“The bomb, whether used strategically or tactically, promised to keep U.S. casualties at an acceptable level,” writes Skates. “The bomb also would shock Japanese leaders, and combined with other demonstrations of hopelessness of continued resistance, might tip the balance toward surrender.”

As a result, the President ordered the atomic bombing of Japan. The first one was dropped on August 6, on Hiroshima; the next one was dropped three days later on Nagasaki.

It took two atomic bombs killing about 200,000 people to shock Japan’s emperor into realizing the war was lost. The objective of the war, Japan’s unconditional surrender, had been achieved. More than 100,000 U.S. lives had been spared death and injury.

Overall, this is an excellent book. It’s very well researched and lays out a number of details that the average history reader would likely find tedious. The only flaw in the book is that not enough attention is given to Truman’s perspective. The reader would have been better served had the author given us some details on Truman’s fears and hopes on both the atomic bomb as well as the invasion. Perhaps this information isn’t available.

The lesson here, if there’s any, is that the victory usually comes about when the enemy is “shocked and awed.” The best way to “shock and awe” the enemy, as military historian Michael Doubler points out, is to “let your enemy tell you that you’re shocking and awesome. Don’t tell the enemy you’re going to shock and awe them.”

The idea of shocking an enemy into surrender is nothing new. During the Civil War, Union forces shocked the Confederacy into capitulation through General William Tecumseh Sherman’s march on the South. It showed the South that their position was hopeless. Only the Union could win. During the American Revolution, the Battle of Yorktown, while not exactly a stunning U.S. victory, showed the British that the French were committed to the American cause and that for the British to continue it was to put at risk more than the fight was worth.

Today, the United States faces a suicidal enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan. The difference is that neither enemy fights for a particular government. And the question remains how does the United States force these enemies into realizing their position is hopeless; for that matter can it even be achieved? Do we march an Army or Marine Division or two up into the mountains of Afghanistan, killing everyone we encounter? Or do we shock them into making peace by showing them the benefits of harmony with the United States and the West? How will we shock the Iraqi insurgency into accepting a peaceful settlement with Iraq’s government and, consequently, the countries with troops stationed in Iraq?

Any given day, President Bush might say the following to himself:

• “We’re fighting a suicidal enemy.
• The enemy is militarily beaten but remains belligerent.
• There’s no sign of surrender.
• The enemy appears to be breaking up, with some saying they want peace while others want to fight. The ones wanting peace don’t speak with authority.
• The American populace is war weary.
• Problematic Allies.”

Mark Twain is reported to have said, “History doesn’t repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.” And so it does.

(Writer’s note: The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb, published in 1994, can be found on alibris.com. The writer of this blog makes no money from alibris.com but wishes he did.)

Publishing Information: The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the Bomb, by John Ray Skates, University of South Carolina Press, 1994, 276 pages

Lessons Not Learned

2007-04-17T12:49:00.000-04:00

Instead of learning to stay above the fray, the group’s leaders taught them another lesson: How to jump into the muck.

Instead of learning one of life’s hardest lessons – ignoring your detractors – they learned how to present themselves in a display that could be considered passive-aggressive.

Instead of learning another lesson – don’t excite those who are all too ready to do your bidding – they watched two men they’ve never met, and whose characters are entirely questionable, speak for them.

Instead of learning how to handle matters discreetly, this impressionable group learned how to go public.

Instead of turning an opportunity – as gross as it was – into a learning experience that would benefit them well into their future, the Rutgers University woman’s basketball team was failed by its leaders. They taught the ladies how to get even.

The team’s coaches and the school’s administration were presented with an opportunity to prepare their young charges for the other insults and knocks they may receive later in life.

This is not to make light of what Don Imus said about the team. I don’t know if he’s is a racist, but he certainly sounded like one when offered up that gross description about them.

And I can’t help but think that the basketball team, filled with gifted student-athletes, was failed by its leaders, people who will leave a lasting impression on them.

Yes, they were insulted. Imus’ remark was gross, indecent, sophomoric, racist, sexist and absolutely inexcusable. But anyone who’s ever listened to Don Imus knows that’s his schtick. He insults people. So why stoop to his level, even if you don’t mean to?

The next time one of these ladies is insulted, the coach and Rutgers University likely won’t be standing by their side waiting for an apology on their behalf. It’s also likely that the Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rev. Al Sharpton will have forgotten them.

So the next time they’re insulted, they’ll learn the lesson they should have learned during their collegiate years -- fugeddaboutit. Toughen up, in other words.

It’s one of the hardest lessons to learn. Insults cut to our core. The ladies of the Rutgers basketball team were probably thinking they were doing all the right things in this life, when suddenly, without warning, some jerk – who happened to have a nationally syndicated radio show – deeply offended them with a few choice words.

It’s no surprise that they, their families, their coach and the University felt awful about the insult fired off at these accomplished young ladies. They should have.

But the coach and the University’s administration could have done their young charges a far better service had they quietly taken them aside, without any reporters, and delivered this message: “That’s life – especially in the fishbowl of collegiate athletics.

“There will always be someone willing to insult you. If it happens, ignore it and move on. Don’t dwell it. If you do, your assailant wins.

“Also keep this in mind: If this happens to you, after you leave college, we won’t be there to defend you. Your loved ones won’t be able to help you either. And as far as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are concerned, they’ll be off frying bigger fish.

“If you let the insult run off of you like water, there’s a better chance you’ll go through this life at peace with yourself and others. That’s what matters. That’s justice!”

And that would have been the end of it so far as the basketball team was concerned. The coach and the University’s administration would have placed themselves and their team above the fray, showing them how to deal with terrible incidents from unkind people.

Invisible Jews in Nazi Germany: A Book Review

2007-04-13T12:06:00.000-04:00

(Editor’s Note: This week ItsFourthAndLong initiates its first book review.)

Too often history comes across as dull, gray, lifeless text that will sooner put people to sleep than give them any insight on the lives we live today. Part of that is due to the way it’s taught, which is not all that well from everything this correspondent has learned from those who detest the subject. And part of it is attributable to the very nature of the subject itself: Why should anyone become excited about something that happened decades or centuries ago? How does it apply to the lives we lead today?

This is the reason I’m a fan of first-person accounts. They bring historical events to life because someone has taken the time to write down their experiences, often during a tragic, horrible or dramatic period of time.

No. 12 Kaiserhofstrass: The Story of an Invisible Jew in Nazi Germany, written by Valentin Senger, brings Nazi Germany alive. Senger and his family survived the Nazis in Frankfurt, right out in the open, even though they were Jews. And this is what makes his story all that more compelling.

Senger’s story is one of constant deception. His mother and father were Russian émigrés who had been associated with Communists revolutionaries during the early days of the 20th century; they immigrated to Germany to escape the Tsar’s henchman, well in advance of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. So no one in Germany would know they were Communists, they lied on their immigration papers that they were from Switzerland.

As they were settling into their apartment in Frankfurt in 1909, they completed residency papers for the local police who noted that the Sengers were “Hebraic.” It never occurred to Senger’s parents, the author writes, “that in a liberal, cosmopolitan city like Frankfurt, where Jews and Christians had been living side by side for centuries, the mere fact of being a Jew could ever become a mortal danger.”

The author, born in 1918, describes his neighbors, friends, acquaintances and professional colleagues; what is frightening is how some of them could so easily betray and inflict harm on people they'd known well in advance of the Nazis ever coming into power.

Whether or not they believed what they were being fed by the Nazis is something we will never know. They may have thought they were being good, patriotic Germans. They may have feared for their own safety, thinking they needed to make a deal with the devil; or, perhaps, they wanted all whose lives didn’t reflect theirs exterminated.

Senger’s childhood, with the exception of a few events, was unexceptional. He attended school and did all of the normal things any boy would do – ran around with other boys and challenged his mother and father.

In the 1930s, after the Nazis took power, everything changed. From 1933 to 1945, the Sengers “felt trapped” in their apartment, “expecting the Gestapo or the SA to arrest us (at) any minute.”

They survived the Nazis, in large part, because a local policeman, Sergeant Kasper, risking his own life, perhaps because he liked Senger's mother, altered their registration papers. He changed their religious affiliation from “Hebraic” to “Nonconformist,” thereby keeping the Gestapo on the search for others but not the Sengers.

The Sengers became as inconspicuous as possible so as not to attract the attention of the authorities. But they did have a few a moments when they were convinced they’d be arrested.

One of the more frightening times was when the author needed medical assistance. Unlike European Christians at the time, circumcision was standard practice for Jews. Since the author was suffering from a stomach ailment, his parents knew he’d be required to drop his pants, thereby giving away his religious affiliation.

To make matters worse, the local doctor wore a Nazi uniform. He looked over the young man and even noticed his circumcised penis. Senger told the doctor that his family was from Russia and a particular Christian sect that believed in self-mutilation. The doctor didn’t buy it for a minute, noting that his circumcision looked like the ones performed at a bris.

The doctor kept young Senger’s circumcision to himself. And, as it turned out, this same doctor saved a few Jews who continued to live in Germany, outside of the concentration camps, during the Nazi regime.

As the war progressed, Germany, desperate to fill the ranks of their killed and missing soldiers, started drafting eligible men who were not citizens. Senger and his younger brother soon had their papers to report for a military physical. Here, again, they thought the game was over because, certainly, the doctors would notice their circumcisions.

They may have but the doctors passed them anyway, sending the two brothers to basic training. Senger’s younger brother, Alex, was killed during the war, fighting an enemy he knew would save him. Senger himself survived the war due to some unforeseen medical issues as well as a kindly doctor who drew up orders to send him to a hospital.

One of the book’s more interesting moments happens shortly after the author leaves the doctor who had written his orders. This was weeks prior to the war’s end. Senger was making his way out of the military base when he was befriended by a local man who put him up for a few days. Essentially, the author deserted.

During Senger’s stay at the local man’s house, he met a woman, named Gerdi, who had served in Germany’s army as an auxiliary. He described her as taller, a few years older and “as strong as an ox.” He never says she’s beautiful. In spite of all that, they made love one day. One can’t help but to wonder what it was like to have sex with the enemy. Maybe this proves that hormones can overrule politics.

After the war, Senger became a reporter, working for German newspapers and at television and radio stations.

No. 12 Kasierhofstrass is a gripping account that, at times, will have readers on the edge of their seats. The tension, the fear and the downright fright of living under conditions few can imagine comes through loud and clear in this book.

At times, while reading this book, you have to wonder if the author isn’t suffering from survivor’s guilt. There are times when he’s speaking to his mother, sometimes in an accusing tone of voice.

The author appears to have mixed views about his mother. She certainly ruled the roost. She also did everything possible to keep the family intact – and alive. Compared to joining Germany’s underground, or heading off to a death camp, it may not have been particularly heroic. But by keeping her family alive, Mrs. Senger did all of us who never lived through the Nazis an incredible favor: Her son wrote a rich account about their experiences under a terrible regime.

No. 12 Kaiserhofstrass was first published in 1978 in Germany, and the English translation was published two years later. It can be purchased on alibris.com by searching under the author’s last name. (ItsFourthAndLong is not schilling for alibris.com, although any money they’d like to throw this way would be happily accepted.)

While reading this book, I wondered if anyone, at some point, will write a first-hand account of their times under more recent dictatorships, like North Korea or Saddam Hussein. I hope someone does so we gain some insight about life under these regimes.

And while George W. Bush and his band of Republicans certainly have their detractors, all of those are opposed (or consider themselves oppressed) to his presidency, his policies, his followers, and his government would be well served by reading No. 12 Kaiserhofstrass. Mr. Bush is flawed man but he is no Adolf Hitler.

Taking Time Off

2007-04-03T20:53:00.000-04:00

ItsFourthAndLong will not be writing this week. Best wishes to you and yours.

Give a damn: The obligations of a U.S. citizen

2007-04-02T08:35:00.000-04:00

So you don’t like the Iraq War, doubt the outcome of the one in Afghanistan, and just wish the War on Terror would go away. Who doesn’t?

In fact, that line of thinking could be found within anyone who ever lived through a war that’s ever been fought by the United States, from the Revolution to Vietnam to the first war we fought with Iraq.

The problem, as a noted historian said, “It’s your country, your army and your war.” And peace, as scholars Paul Seabury and Angelo Codevilla noted in their book War: Ends & Means, in spite of what you may think, is not your birthright.

This is a democracy in which the citizenry is obligated but not required all too unfortunately, to vote, understand domestic politics, foreign policy, the government – local, state and national – military affairs and, yes, war. And sometimes a country’s citizens are required to participate in a war.

The American people, wrote John Adams, the country’s second president and likely the most intellectual of the Founding Fathers, were to become, he hoped, statesmen, writes one of his biographers, C. Bradley Thompson, in the book, John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty. He sought an enlightened citizen that “could distinguish between a necessary ‘reverence and obedience to Government on the one hand,’ and its ‘right to think and act’ for itself on the other, writes Thompson. Adams wanted all men, since they were the voters at the time, to be suspicious of those in power, says Thompson.

To take Adams’ argument a step further, not only should we be suspicious of those in power but we should be equally suspicious of those who seek it. This is not, as critics might say, to be paranoid or delusional but, rather, as Adams saw it, to be “independent, reasonable, and public-spirited,” writes Thompson.

In other words, as citizens, we need to raise our level of consciousness about our government. None of us should believe the sound bites bandied about by our politicians; instead, we are required, as Adams saw our obligations, to become informed on the issues facing the country, to discount the zealots on any given side, and to determine the best course of action for the nation. If necessary, we should also be willing to defend this nation, even if it requires the ultimate sacrifice.

None of this is easy. The idea behind the American Revolution was that we had the ability and the intellectual capacity to lead ourselves. Those who fail to vote, fail to become fully informed on current events, blindly accept the arguments of any fanatic, and remain apathetic about the nation’s actions lend credence to arguments made centuries ago that people are incapable of self-government.

This blog entry seeks to put today’s foreign affairs into historical perspective, show the failings of the Bush Administration, and explain why we need to be concerned about the state of our military. We face a situation that hasn’t been seen since World War II or the Cold War. Our way of life, as well as that of the entire civilized world, runs counter to every terrorist organization in existence. All Americans are the enemy. They want the United States ruined, maybe even eliminated.

Background

We have enemies. Osama Bin Laden is one of them. Others include North Korean dictator Kim Jung-Il and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. There are likely more, and they’re not pacifists.

In fact, they’re warmongers and cold-blooded killers. And unlike the U.S. government or our allies alongside us in Iraq and Afghanistan, our enemies report to no one. They’re terrorists. They violate a basic principle of government, which is to seek legitimacy from its people through elections. Terrorists we’re fighting gain authority through fear, threats and intimidation.

Their losses are of no concern to them. The only thing that matters to them is the number of people they kill and how much damage they inflict.

“The art of war is vital to the state,” wrote Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu more than 2,000 years ago. “It is a matter of life and death, a road to either safety or to ruin … under no circumstances can it be neglected” – even if you’re opposed to the ones we’re fighting or will fight in the future.

“I must study politics and war, that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children the right to study painting, music, architecture, statuary tapestry and porcelain,” wrote John Adams to his wife Abigail during the Revolution.

Had cooler heads not prevailed, Adams would have found himself putting his knowledge about war to work as the country’s commander-in-chief. While he was president, Adams nearly took us to war with France. Fortunately, the dispute was resolved before shots were fired.

If you believe the polls, a number of people disapprove of the Iraq War because it was preemptive, or illegal, based on deceit, and the endgame isn’t in sight. All of this might be true but keep in mind that President Bush, his Cabinet, and each and every member of Congress approved the war against Iraq looking at the same intelligence.

The biggest criticism one can offer about the information used to approve the Iraq War was that it was dated. It was, based on news reports, much of the same information that was used by the Clinton Administration to secure Congressional approval for a regime change in Iraq.

Did the President Bush lie to us? Perhaps. But if he did, he wasn’t the first president to lie to the American public about foreign and military affairs.

A splendid little war

President James K. Polk deliberately provoked Mexico into a war by ordering U.S. troops to march into disputed territory – and it became almost as unpopular in the 1840s as the ones we’re fighting today – in the name of Manifest Destiny. Polk had one political goal during his term as president – expand the country to the other shining sea, the Pacific Ocean. (It makes him one of the few presidents who did what he said he was going to do.)

There are two significant differences between the Mexican-American War and the ones we’re fighting today: First, hostilities were concluded in two years; second, the war resulted in territorial gains for the United States, including resolving the status of Texas (Mexico recognized it as part of the United States), and picking up New Mexico, Arizona and California.

Had the United States Navy possessed aircraft carriers in the 19th century, perhaps President Polk would have given a victory speech on the flight deck with a banner hanging in the background proclaiming “Manifest Destiny: Accomplished.”

There’s even evidence that Franklin Delano Roosevelt set the United States on a course to fight World War II. Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor, a book about the Pearl Harbor attack, describes a memo written by naval officer who suggested eight actions to provoke Japan into a war with the United States.

Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, a naval officer working in the War Department, writes the book’s author, Robert B. Stinnett, suggested the following policies in October 1940:

1. Arrange to use British bases in the Pacific, meaning Singapore
2. Make an arrangement with Holland for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia).
3. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chaing Kai-shek.
4. Send a division of long-range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore.
5. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient.
6. Keep the main strength of the U.S. Fleet, now in the Pacific, in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.
7. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil.
8. Completely embargo all trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire.

FDR enacted many of these suggestions. They resulted in Japan attacking Pearl Harbor – which Stinnett maintains the President and his top commanders knew was coming – and, as a result, FDR gained vital public support for fighting Japan and, subsequently, Germany and Italy.

The State Department, says Stinnett, predicted what the world would look like if the Nazis stayed in power in Germany and the militarists continued to run Japan, concluding that neither was in the best interests of the United States.

As a result, FDR and his advisors, writes Stinnett, devised a strategy (outlined above) to provoke Japan into attacking the United States, which, they thought, might force Hitler into declaring war against us.

It’s important to remember that FDR was enacting his strategy against Japan in a clandestine manner while the American public believed that it had nothing to “fear but fear itself.” Did President Roosevelt lie to the American public about his intentions and the causes of the war? Most likely.

Would FDR have initiated a preemptive war against Japan or Germany? That question will remain unanswered because the U.S. military, just prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, was a fifth-rate power – on a good day. Given the limited forces at the president’s disposal, not a single member of the U.S. high command could have possibly told the commander in chief how we could successfully, and preemptively, attack anyone.

World War II was costly to the United States: There were 400,000 combat deaths and another 600,000 wounded, a heavy price to make the world safe. Our involvement in the war lasted just under four years, and we averaged about 5,000 casualties a week.

Because we entered World War II, the Holocaust ended, fascism was severely ruined, the thought that a democracy could defeat a militarist power was proven, Atlantic Ocean shipping was made safe, and Japan stopped carrying out atrocities across Asia.

If we hadn’t fought World War II, there’s a possibility that today’s Nazi Germany might possess intercontinental nuclear missiles (their scientists were attempting to build nuclear weapons and had successfully launched rockets, armed with conventional weapons, against Great Britain); Japan was developing its own weapons of mass destruction, including the world’s first intercontinental bomber as well as biological weapons.

Carl von Clausewitz

Today’s War on Terror can’t help but to make one wonder if there’s anyone in the Bush Administration who has ever read a history book, like one about the Vietnam War, or bothered to study Carl von Clausewitz’s 19th century classic On War, a tome containing lessons that remain applicable today. It’s very likely that the generals and the admirals have studied these books; but, based on performance, one might doubt if their civilian leaders have done the same.

A Prussian officer, Clausewitz recognized that there were three key elements needed for any country to be successful in war – the will of the people, a well-commanded army and a government cognizant of its political aims. To suit a 21st century populace, we might the following: The government’s leaders need to effectively communicate the reasons their country needs to endure such hardship.

“A theory that ignores any one of them or seeks to fix an arbitrary relationship between them would conflict with reality to such an extent that for this reason alone it (the war) would be totally useless,” Clausewitz wrote.

In other words, all three need to be aligned on the means, ends and goals of any war. Otherwise, the effort is doomed.

During Vietnam, the Johnson Administration was criticized for only taking the Pentagon to war. President Johnson failed to do a number of things during the Vietnam War, including preparing a strategy for victory against North Vietnam; in addition, he also failed to bring about necessary American public support for the war effort.

As a result, four years after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, in 1968, as American casualties began to escalate significantly, along with CBS News Anchor Walter Cronkite’s televised critique of the war, public support for Vietnam suddenly went cold.

Wars, especially ones fought by democracies, need to be won quickly. George C. Marshall, the Army’s World War II chief of staff, and likely the country’s most underrated military and political leader, wanted the war ended as fast as possible. He’d learned during his career that the United States public did not have an appetite for long, protracted wars.

Shortly after receiving his commission in 1903, Marshall went to the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, “when public opinion, once exultant about the new (U.S.) empire, had shifted to sympathy with the Filipinos resisting conquest,” write Richard E. Neustadt and Ernest R. May in their book Thinking in Time: The uses of History for Decision Makers.

Just prior to his retirement from the Army, with World War II concluded, Marshall “spent his final weeks as Chief of Staff coping with ‘bring the boys home’ demonstrations,” write Neustadt and May.

The problem with the current wars is that, after five years, victory isn’t in sight; the political leadership fails to communicate effectively about our challenges and what’s at stake.

The other difficulty with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is that we’re fighting a non-uniformed enemy. And unlike previous wars, with the exception of Vietnam, when we took and held enemy territory, we’re attempting to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis and Afghans. Finally, all too often, our soldiers are contacting a military lawyer about the rules of engagement prior to taking out an enemy position, says retired Army Col. Michael D. Doubler, a military historian; these discussions have caused countless missed opportunities to kill the enemy.

Are we doing the right thing?

Any thought about whether our policies are correct in Afghanistan and Iraq needs to also take into consideration what the world would have looked like had we not fought any of the wars that mark our history.

Some questions we might ask:

Had we not fought the Civil War, how long would slavery have continued? What would a Nazi Germany look like today? If we had not fought Germany, would the United States, in effect, be tacitly supporting anti-Semitism?

Should we have continued to sell oil to Japan so it could kill innocent people and force women into sexual slavery but leave us alone? Could we sell our goods into the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, Japan’s economic plan for East Asia, had we not fought World War II?

Should we have let Kim Jung-Il’s father occupy South Korea in 1950? Did our involvement in Vietnam make the Soviets reconsider any plans they might have had to occupy Western Europe? Should we have let Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein occupy Kuwait? If we had left Hussein well alone would we be complicit in supporting his domestic policies, which included using rape and torture against his own people.

Would the world be safer with Hussein in Baghdad and the Taliban allowing Afghanistan to be a sanctuary for terrorists? How will the United States be perceived, by both its friends, enemies and detractors, in the Middle East and elsewhere, should it withdraw its military forces from Iraq, or Afghanistan, before the dispute is decided?

The answers to any of these questions are likely filled with speculation. But, I believe, more of often than not, our leaders acted correctly, even in Iraq and Afghanistan. Countries go to war, write Seabury and Codevilla, because they don’t like the peace.

A peace that involves a tense standoff with neither side firing a shot isn’t peace. That’s a cold war, like the one we experienced for 44 years with the old Soviet Union, and, on occasion, it goes hot, as it did in Korea and Vietnam.

The notion that wars don’t solve anything is, as scholars Seabury and Codevilla point out, a “historical howler.” They solve all kinds of problems; but, to be accurate, they also give birth to other issues, which can become troubling.

The arguments made against our involvement in Iraq are similar to the ones that were made prior to our involvement in World War II. It was Europe’s war or Asia’s war, not ours, said the Republicans and those supporting isolationist policies. Emotions ran high on both sides of the argument.

So what does the world look like had we not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?

With Iraq, a dictator remains in power, abuses his people, snubs the United Nations, pays Palestinians to commit suicide in Israel while the Arab World looks the other way. With Afghanistan, religious zealots are in power, abuse their people, allow terrorists to occupy their country and use it as a training ground for other terrorists.

We knocked off the Taliban without too much difficulty but instead of reinforcing our troops in Afghanistan and making sure that our quick victory was actually a victory – which involves changing the hearts and minds of the people – we went, as the British say, “civilian,” meaning we installed the government we wanted and hoped that Afghanistan was resolved, says Colonel Doubler.

It wasn’t. The Taliban returned and, as a result, 25,000 U.S. troops, along with soldiers from Canada, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, are fighting them again.

Iraq is a similar story. We defeated its military without too much difficulty but then proceeded to lose the peace. Had we kept the Iraqi Army intact, many of its soldiers would not have become insurgents. In addition, we never blew up Iraqi ammunition installations, which were later raided by the insurgents.

Our biggest military accomplishment in Iraq, since defeating its Army, appears to be having divided and split the insurgency. There’s a group of insurgents made up of Iraqis, and they appear to be beginning to support the new government; in addition, this group of insurgents has provided, on occasion, information about Al Qaida in Iraq, another band of insurgents that’s composed of fighters who are from other Arab countries and tend to be more zealous in their approach.

The biggest political victory we can claim from Iraq and Afghanistan is that they have some sort of democracy. In addition, the Arab World, especially Saudi Arabia, is beginning to realize it needs to engage in a political discourse, without weapons, with Israel. Finally, the Saudis are beginning to take a leadership role in the Arab World.

The failures of the Bush Administration

The Bush Administration might be as close an example as can be found of being the Keystone Cops when it comes to directing foreign and military policies. They have effectively acerbated just about every ally we ever had; in addition, and more importantly, President Bush had an opportunity before him that no president had seen in nearly 60 years – an attack on U.S. soil.

Through a patriotic appeal, he could have won Congressional approval to expand the military. And had he bothered to explain what was at stake, both militarily and politically, America’s military forces would have grown substantially because people would have enlisted. All he had to do was appeal to the country’s sense of patriotism, which ran red hot after the 9/11 attacks.

Instead, we were told to go shopping. Or travel. We were directed to go about our lives as if nothing had happened. In fact, any change we made about our lives, as a result of the 9/11 attacks, the president said, was tantamount to conceding victory to the terrorists.

President Bush did something that no president should ever be allowed to do – he conducted a war on the cheap. It was thought that the current force could handle its challenges. It can’t. It’s stretched to its limits, resulting in our troops – regardless if they’re part of the Regular Army, reservists, in the National Guard or Marines – returning to Iraq for their third and fourth tours of duty.

Colonel Doubler, speaking at the First Infantry Division Museum in Wheaton, Illinois, last week, said that only one percent of the country volunteers for the armed forces. At some point, Doubler said, “that one percent will begin to ask why it’s doing all the fighting and the dying.”

And what’s worse, in my estimation, is that if you walk down any street in America, with the exception perhaps of those near a military base, you’d never know the country is at war. What the Bush Administration has effectively done is told the citizens to become apathetic about this war. Others will think about it. Others will fight it. Others will die in it.

Apathy is the Bush Administration’s policy for the Home Front. The last thing the Bush Administration wants is a public that cares. Because a concerned citizenry might demand either that we pull out from Iraq or Afghanistan, as it’s beginning to do, or, worse, insist on better results for the energy, blood and treasure that’s been expended.

Finally, prior to hostilities with Iraq, President Bush should have directed his secretary of state, Colin Powell, to increase his diplomatic efforts. The secretary should have been directed to travel to France, Germany and Russia, our leading critics of the war, where he would have spoken privately to their leaders about what we knew about Iraq and our intentions.

The diplomatic effort might have failed. But, at the very least, President Bush could say that he had tried to show our allies and critics what was at stake and describe for them our intentions. The Bush Administration’s refusal to reach out to its foreign critics only further strained relations with those countries.

“Your country, your army and your war.”

Our fellow Americans, which include 19-year-old men, along with those in their 20s, 30s, even their late 40s, as well as women, are dying, being wounded or maimed on the grimy, sandy, rocky grounds of Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re sacrificing their lives as well as their entire future to secure one nation against civil war and keep another safe from terrorist occupation. They deserve our highest respect.

The stakes in Iraq have increased because the insurgency just introduced chemical warfare. They’ve blown up at least one bomb laced with chlorine. If this weapon is successful in Iraq, al Qaida will likely use it in Afghanistan, and it may just make its way to our shores.

Causing additional concern is Iran. It may have a nuclear bomb or it may be creating one, which will only increase peril and anxiety in the Middle East, perhaps the world. A nuclear-armed Iran should make all of us uneasy.

The bigger problem is the Bush Administration. It insists that our foreign and military challenges can be faced down with the same size armed forces, albeit a limited increase, as we had prior to 9/11.

To hear President Bush or Vice President Cheney speak, this is a clash of civilizations. It’s us or them. If we take them at their word, this is the greatest threat the nation has seen since World War II or the Cold War.

Our troops, already with two or three tours of duty in Iraq under their belts, are returning for their fourth. The United States armed forces aren’t sized properly. They need to be increased so we have the necessary number of troops to face down these grave threats.

“It’s your country, your army and your war,” said Colonel Doubler last week, meaning that every American needs to increase their level of awareness about the armed forces. You may not approve of the war, you may not see the current challenges as threat to our national security, but you need to concern yourself, because you’re a citizen, with the shape, size and well being of our armed forces.

If we don’t prevail in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s hard to say if we’ll prevail tomorrow, when the threat might be even more severe. Our enemies will feel empowered if they’re victorious in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The best way to increase our armed forces, and end American apathy, is to reinstate the draft. Unlike the one we had during the Vietnam War, which deferred married men, those in college, as well as those over the age of 26, we need one that’s far more equitable. All men, up to age 50, should be subject to the draft. The only deferments should be for those who are veterans. A draft forces every American to live up to their obligations as a citizen.

If soldiers like 57-year-old Army Staff Sgt. Carlos Dominguez and 51-year-old Army Master Sgt. Robb G. Needham can make the ultimate sacrifice, why can’t any American who’s younger, perhaps in better physical condition, do the same?

Looking into the future: The Day the Presses Stopped

2007-03-22T10:19:00.000-04:00

bc-shenandoah
Attention: Editors & Publishers
Newspapers no longer printed
Monday, January 1, 2057

SHENANDOAH, Iowa (AP) – The last 600 copies of Iowa’s Shenandoah Valley News rolled off the presses last night, making it the last U.S. newspaper to shut down its print edition and closing a chapter in the history of the American daily newspaper industry.

Starting today, if the local population wants to read the Valley News, they’ll need to make sure their subscription is paid up so they can access the newspaper on the Internet.

The Shenandoah Valley News stood out in the landscape of the American daily newspaper industry because it was the sole, remaining holdout with a printed edition. Prior to the Valley News closing its printed edition, there had been a group of small newspapers in Kentucky that continued to offer a print edition but they were discontinued five years ago.

As of today, not a single American daily newspaper is printed. If anyone wants to read a daily newspaper published in the United States, they’ll need access to the Internet, and, more often than not, a valid subscription, so they can read it on their home, office, car or handheld computer as well as the many other ways that the Internet can be accessed.

The Shenandoah Valley News, until 10 years ago, had a daily and Sunday circulation of around 1,200 copies. But with a decline in the local population, and the ones that remained handy with a computer or other handheld devices that also accessed the Internet, the paper’s circulation slipped more than 50 percent, to around 570 on Sunday and 540 on Thursday, the only other day it was printed.

Like others in the American daily newspaper industry, the Valley News cutback on the number of pages it printed and reduced the number of days it published a printed edition; it even offered a tabloid edition of itself, starting 10 years ago.

“Nothing worked,” said Roy Oakes, publisher of the Valley News, so he and his managing editor, Wanda Lloyd, on instructions from their corporate owner, Google, started preparing for the day when they would only offer the paper on the Internet.

“We’ll save a bundle by not printing the thing,” said Oakes. “And, so far, the paper – can we still call it that? – is receiving a strong reception on the Internet.”

“The only thing that’s surprising about this move is how long we waited to make it,” said Lauren Jurgins, CEO of Google, the country’s largest newspaper publisher. “We’re an Internet company so it’s surprising we let the Shenandoah Valley News offer a print edition as long as it did. Our other newspapers stopped printing years ago.”

Google changed its strategy about 20 years ago when it decided to own information providers and intellectual property, not just broker them. As a result, they purchased a slew of newspapers, including the Gannett and McClatchy chains, as well as a number of book publishers.

“Traditional publishers, whether it was newspapers, books or other kinds of intellectual property, as we saw it, just didn’t appreciate what they had,” said Jurgins. “We’ve put these products on steroids, making them available anyway possible, and the results, so far, have exceeded our expectations.”

Microsoft soon followed, purchasing Chicago-based Tribune Company as well as a few assets from Hearst, including its newspapers and some magazines.

As of today, Oakes says, the paper’s Internet subscriptions are more than double what they were in print, around 1,300.

The Valley News has been offering its subscribers a 50 percent discount for the Internet edition. Subscribers can purchase either a 12-week or a full-year subscription for either $72.00 or $312.00, respectively.

Not only will the paper save money on newsprint costs, it also eliminated its circulation department. The paper’s classified advertising telemarketing department, based in the Philippines, will also handle consumer sales of the newspaper’s Web site.

The paper’s affiliation with Newspaper Editing, a company offering off-shore copyediting services from Vietnam, will continue.

“Our newsroom staff is composed of one editor and three reporters, one of whom is part time,” said Oakes. “Everyone in our newsroom knows how to update our Web site as well as send our stories to our digital distributor.

“Our ad folks are only selling retailers and car dealers in our designated market area,” Oakes said.

“In order to keep these subscriptions, and get a few new ones, we’ll need to make sure we’re on top of the communities we cover,” said Lloyd. “Hopefully, our advertising people we’ll be successful, too.”

It’s generally accepted by economists that the American daily newspaper industry started its decline about a century ago when television networks started offering news programming. The industry was further hindered with the advent of the World Wide Web.

“People became accustomed to reading the paper on their home PC,” said Arthur Twyinesome, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “As a result, newspaper circulation declined and the newspaper industry, for about three decades, never charged anyone to read the paper on the Internet.”

Further hindering the newspaper industry was the line of “i” products introduced by Apple Computer, starting in the century’s first decade. After the successful introduction of the iPod and iPhone, the company went on to introduce, with great success, the iBox, iCup and iShades – products that allowed people Internet access at anytime, regardless of what they were doing, and, as a result, reduced their purchases of printed products.

The iBox, sold exclusively to Kellogg’s, allows consumers Internet access from their favorite box of cereal.

“The great thing about the iBox is that consumers can learn more about our cereals or catch up on the news or even read a book – all while eating their breakfast,” said Winston Jared, a spokesman for Kellogg’s.

The iCup, initially oblong-shaped, gives consumers that ability to access the Internet from their coffee cup and was sold exclusively to Starbucks; a rounded iCup was introduced last year and Starbucks reports that consumers are accepting the rounded screen.

“The iCup is a hit with our customers,” said Anne Nestroff, Starbucks CEO. “It gives us an advantage over other coffee sellers because it allows our customers to catch up on the news, e-mail or whatever while enjoying their favorite java.”

“The beauty of the iBox and the iCup is that they’re disposable,” said a spokesman for Apple. “Once you’re done, you just throw it away – or place it in your recycling bin.”

Apple introduced iShades, a line of eyeglasses that can be used in a variety of ways, five years ago. Not only they can be used to correct vision but they’re also sunglasses and can access the Internet. They’re especially popular with train commuters or other travelers, allowing them to catch up on news and entertainment programming without having to carry anything.

Apple reports that more than 500 million iShades have been sold.

“We’re ahead of our own expectations,” said Steve Jenson, Apple CEO.

Some communities, like New York, Boston and Chicago, have cracked down on iShades, prohibiting people from wearing them if they decide to drive their car. If they’re just sitting in their car, and have placed it on automatic drive, then their allowed to wear their iShades.

Printed products took a further hit when Verizon, Microsoft and Electronic Arts teamed up to create a handheld gaming and telephone device that connects to the Internet, called the XPG.

“You can play games, go to the Internet, call your friends or download a book,” said Sally Higgins, a spokesman for Microsoft. “The XPG is the only handheld device anyone needs.”

By the time most U.S. daily newspapers stopped offering a printed edition, around 2040, the industry’s aggregate circulation had dropped to under 30 million. That was a loss of 20 million over the course of 30 years, said Juan Agranos, executive director of the Newspaper Association of America.

“Newspaper Internet subscriptions are increasing,” he said. “As of the last audit, overall newspaper Internet circulation is around 45 million.”

As a result, Agranos said, advertising on newspaper Web sites is increasing.

“Advertisers are learning that, once again, people turn to daily newspapers to be informed,” he said.

In addition to selling more subscriptions to its Web edition, the Shenandoah Valley News, like its newspaper colleagues, will sell its stories á la carte on Apple’s iNews, a system that allows consumers to have news stories covering their interests sent to their e-mail address.

“We think that’ll be a good source of revenue for us, especially since so many people have moved away,” said Oakes. “Our stories on iNews will be an easy way for them to stay in touch with southwest Iowa.”

AP-01-01-57

Pledging While Black -- The Value of Institutional Memory

2007-03-16T10:36:00.000-04:00

Institutional memory is one of those things that's easy to lose. Replace a few executives, or key personnel, and, before you know it, the current crop of managers has no idea what their organization did or didn’t do in the past.

This means that their organization – whether it’s a major corporation, a small business, a church, a school, a college, or a sorority – is vulnerable to repeating a mistake it made once before.

I’m not here to debate the merits of history lessons – I’m all for them – but I am suggesting that if there is little or no institutional memory, then there is a higher likelihood that the organization will make a mistake that could have easily been avoided – had the managers only known the past.

More years ago than I care to count, I was student at DePauw University, a humble liberal arts school located in central Indiana, that has recently found itself the focus of The New York Times, CNN and a few other media outlets, especially in the Hoosier state.

I was a reporter for the school’s student newspaper, The DePauw, when Delta Zeta, also the focus of the media lately, decided to discriminate against an African American woman who attempted to pledge the sorority.

A few members of the sorority approached University officials, saying the student was not allowed to pledge because she was black.

Heavens to Betsy!!!! If only this girl hadn’t been PWBing everything would have been okay. I mean the nerve of some people – Pledging While Black. It’s almost as a bad as Driving While Black through a wealthy, discriminating white community!

A fellow reporter and I covered the sorority and the University’s actions against Delta Zeta. As I recall, the University asked Delta Zeta to accept the student. I can’t remember if she joined the group or not.

In the latest news, Delta Zeta’s headquarters, located in Ohio, forced out what they determined were all of the ugly girls in the DePauw chapter, saying, as a cover, that they weren’t doing all they could to make their chapter successful.

What it really came down to, according to all of the news reports, was that Delta Zeta headquarters, last Fall, decided it wanted to improve its looks at DePauw. So if you were carrying a few extra pounds or didn’t possess the kind of looks that turned a guy’s head, then you were history.

Once again, some of the girls from Delta Zeta, especially those that were forced out, approached the University, telling them they had no where to live and how they had been discriminated against because of their looks.

Had someone at Delta Zeta gone through the files, or had the organization even possessed some kind of institutional memory, there’s a good chance this wouldn’t have happened. Or, perhaps, it would have gone down differently.

That’s something that will be debated long into the future – among those who care.

What is known is that DePauw possesses a long memory. The University’s president, Bob Bottoms, has been around the campus a long time, even before I was a student there. So he knew DePauw had to respond, especially because it was the focus of some of the country’s top media outlets.

To his credit, Bottoms shut down the Delta Zeta chapter at DePauw. That’s the advantage of institutional memory. Bottoms had seen this before and he’d had enough.

Too bad no one at Delta Zeta headquarters possessed the same knowledge.

Ten or twenty years from now, Delta Zeta will likely re-open on DePauw’s campus. When they do, the sorority’s top officers will likely make sure they get their fair share of the best-looking girls they can find.

The Battle of Okinawa & How the War Started

2007-03-16T08:03:00.001-04:00

Friday, June 29, 1945
By Combined News Services
GUAM – The Battle of Okinawa, lasting 83 days, was declared completed today as American forces moved into the mop-up stage of the operation, neutralizing pockets of Japanese resistance and taking far more prisoners than had been expected, Navy officials said.

Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, the top U.S. military commander of the operation, reported that the invasion’s success came at a high price: Nearly 12,000 U.S. soldiers, marines and sailors were killed during the battle that also saw the loss of more than 30 American warships, each and every one sunk by Japanese suicide planes, known as kamikazes, and nearly 800 aircraft.

About 65,000 American military personnel were wounded for a total of nearly 80,000 American casualties in the 83-day campaign, making it the bloodiest operation in the island-hopping drive against Japan.

Admiral Nimitz reported that 7,613 Army and Marine troops were killed, 31,807 were wounded and there were another 26,000 casualties, most of them suffering from combat fatigue. The Navy lost 4,320 sailors, with another 7,300 sailors wounded during the battle.

“Our casualties were high but not unexpected,” said Nimitz. “The Japs are a tough enemy, and we knew this would be a very difficult operation. It’s over.”

Included among the dead was the commanding officer of the ground troops, Lt. Gen. Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr., commanding officer of the 10th Army, which included nearly 200,000 combat soldiers.

“General Buckner, I’m sorry to report, was killed at the front, observing the Marines,” said Admiral Nimitz. “A Japanese shell blew up a nearby rock and a fragment from that rock went through the General’s chest.”

Buckner is the highest ranking U.S. officer killed in combat in the Pacific, the Admiral reported.

Okinawa, an island about 60 miles long and 18 miles wide at its widest point, was defended by more than 100,000 Japanese troops. Other than the 10,000 Japanese soldiers that surrendered, the rest were either killed by American forces or by their own hand because they refused to surrender.

The operation also cost the lives of nearly 80,000 of the island’s native, civilian inhabitants. U.S. military personnel are distributing food and medical assistance to the surviving native population.

Okinawa, considered a part of Tokyo by the Japanese, is a highly valuable prize in the war because it’s 350 miles from Japan’s Kyushu island and less than 1,000 miles from Tokyo, putting these two targets within easy range of U.S. bombers soon be based on the island. Because of its size, Okinawa is considered, highly placed military sources say, an excellent staging point for an invasion of Japan.

One of the biggest problems that the Navy faced with Okinawa is that there was very little known about the island. Few Americans had visited it since Commodore Matthew Perry stopped by on his way to Japan in 1853.

Navy intelligence did track down an American citizen who had visited the island, and he provided valuable information. But the number and type of Japan’s forces on the island was a guess, Nimitz said, and that’s the reason so many American troops were used in the attack.

General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, commanding U.S. and Allied forces in the south Pacific, has been critical of the Okinawa operation, saying there was no reason to wipe out the entire Japanese force at such a cost to American life.

“They could have cordoned off the remaining Japanese troops and starved them,” the General said from his headquarters in Manila. Most of the Japanese troops had been bottled up in the southern part of the island, MacArthur said.

Prior to the attack, military sources said, it was thought that Japanese defenders would be entrenched throughout the island. They would be so well hidden, they said, that it would be difficult for American ground troops to overwhelm the enemy.

As a result, a new weapon was introduced during the Okinawa invasion – the flame-throwing tank, Admiral Nimitz said. It was used to kill Japanese troops hidden in caves throughout the island.

As the operation on Okinawa comes to an end, U.S. and Allied military planners are figuring out the next stage of the war against the sole remaining Axis Power, Japan.

“Japan will feel the full force and weight of the United States,” said General of the Army George Marshall, the Army’s commanding general. Marshall would not comment on MacArthur’s disagreement with the Navy over tactics used on Okinawa.

The Pentagon today said that nearly 400,000 Americans had been killed during the war and that nearly 600,000 more had been wounded.

“We’ve averaged about 5,000 killed and wounded every week since we entered the war,” said a Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Cdr. Elliot Jones.

Back in Washington, a document has surfaced that shows that Roosevelt administration may have actually provoked Japan into a war. Congressional sources say they’re releasing parts of the document now because President Roosevelt is dead.

Written by a Navy officer just prior to the 1940 presidential election, the document laid out eight proposals, that if taken by the United States, would likely provoke Japan into taking hostile action against the United States.

The proposals included arranging for the United States to have access to British bases in Singapore; assisting the Chinese government of Chiang Kai-shek in its attempt to defeat the Japanese invasion of China; placing the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii; insisting that the Dutch refuse to provide oil to Japan from their holdings in the West Indies; and embargoing all trade with Japan.

“All of these actions were taken by the Roosevelt administration,” said U.S. Sen. Alben Barkley, (D-KY), whose office released the document.

“It shows that the Roosevelt Administration deliberately pushed us into a war with Japan,” said U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenburg, (R-MI). “Japan had no choice but to attack us.”

“This may hinder the Truman administration as it finds a way to end the war with Japan,” said Senator Barkley.

The Truman administration would not comment on the memo but said it was determined to find a way to accomplish both a political and military victory over Japan.

On The Other Hand: American Troops Defeated

2007-03-02T07:59:00.000-05:00

Friday, February 26, 1943
By Combined News Services
ALLIED FORCES HEADQUARTERS, NORTH AFRICA – Germany’s battle-hardened Afrika Korps soldiers, led by the infamous “Desert Fox,” attacked U.S. troops in Tunisia’s Kasserine Pass, handing the Allied forces its second defeat in two months at the cost of more than 6,000 American casualties.

The three-day battle, which pitted American troops against Nazi soldiers led by Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, nicknamed the “Desert Fox,” cost U.S. troops dearly: 300 were killed, 3,000 were wounded, and another 3,000 were reported missing, most of them likely to be prisoners of war, Allied military officials said.

German forces pushed American soldiers back more than 80 miles.

This was the second Allied defeat in North Africa in eight weeks and puts the entire Allied war plan on the continent into doubt, Allied military officials said.

“The general accepts full responsibility for this defeat,” said Maj. Gen. Walter Bedell Smith of his commanding officer, Lt. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Allies’ commander-in-chief in North Africa. “It causes us to reconsider our strategy and tactics.”

As the Germans struck U.S. lines, American military officials said, chaos ensued, with troops abandoning their positions and weapons and fleeing to the rear. It was, said a U.S. general who requested anonymity, “The worst performance of U.S. Army troops in their whole proud history.”

The first defeat came back in December, just after Christmas, when Allied forces were prevented from liberating Tunis, an important Allied objective because the city’s ports are vital to re-supplying Nazi troops in North Africa.

More than 350 U.S. troops were reported killed, wounded or missing in December’s battle while another 180 British troops were reported killed, wounded or missing.

Earlier this week, British Lt. Gen. Harold Alexander was appointed the new ground commander, leading all Allied ground forces in North Africa and reporting to General Eisenhower.

After inspecting U.S. soldiers on Wednesday, Alexander told one American reporter that “American troops are soft, green and quite untrained. They lack the will to fight.”

Officers on General Eisenhower’s staff told reporters that some American generals in the African theatre may be relieved of their duties as a result of this latest defeat. Eisenhower, however, apparently remains safe in his job.

“There will be no change at the top,” said U.S. Army chief of staff, Gen. George C. Marshall, from Washington. “Eisenhower is our general.”

The latest casualty numbers from North Africa come about six weeks after the War Department reported that the United States lost 60,000 soldiers, Marines, sailors and aviators last year.

Meanwhile, in the Pacific Theatre, Army Maj. Gen. Alexander M. Patch, commander of American forces on Guadalcanal, announced that the island has been liberated from the Japanese. Nearly 1,600 American soldiers and Marines were killed in the six-month battle for the island.

The U.S. Navy also lost of a number of ships and sailors during the battle.

“Total and complete Japanese defeat on Guadalcanal effected today,” said General Patch.

Allied forces on New Guinea are making progress against the Japanese, too.

The latest Gallop poll shows that 53 percent of Americans say that Japan is America’s chief enemy while only 34 percent report that Germany is.

Writer’s question: Would American confidence on World War II have suffered if some of the battles had been reported in this fashion?

On The Other Hand: What Could Have Been

2007-02-23T11:06:00.000-05:00

Sunday, December 27, 1942
By Combined Wire Services
WASHINGTON – While U.S. casualties continue to increase across the Pacific, and with a ground offensive recently initiated against Nazi-held North Africa, the president’s war plan to halt Germany's and Japan’s ambitions is under scrutiny by a skeptical Congress, with some members saying that President Roosevelt deliberately provoked a needless war against the two countries.

Nearly 13 months after the most damaging military attack on U.S. soil, the strike against Pearl Harbor, on the Hawaiian Island of Oahu, is now under Congressional investigation. In some quarters of Congress, there are concerns that the President may have either previously known about Japan’s plans to attack the U.S. base – or deliberately and clandestinely provoked a war with Japan, which forced Germany to declare war against the United States.

Worse, Roosevelt’s critics say, once he knew of Japan’s plans to strike Pearl Harbor, he refused to alert his military commanders, so U.S. forces in the Pacific would be caught by surprise. This would then gain U.S. public support for America’s entry into World War II, the president’s Congressional critics say.

Prior to the attack, the Gallup opinion poll said there was little domestic support for fighting either Japan or Germany. After Pearl Harbor, public opinion shifted drastically in favor of fighting both countries.

“If you look at FDR’s actions between 1940 and 1941,” said U.S. Rep. Martin Sweeney (D-OH), “he was trying to find a way to have Japan and Germany fight the United States.”

Shortly after the attack, Congress formed a joint Senate and House committee to investigate its causes as well as the administration’s policies toward Japan prior to the attack.

“We’ve come across a very interesting memo,” said U.S. Sen. Alben Barkley, (D-KY), who chairs the committee investigating the surprise attack. “It appears to confirm some concerns that the administration may have been overly aggressive in its approach to Japan” before it attacked Pearl Harbor.

The Senator would give few details about the note but described it as “written by a naval officer who appears to have great knowledge of the Japanese.”

The War Department would neither confirm nor deny the memo’s existence.

Congressional support for the Roosevelt Administration’s war policies is weakening, critics say, because of heavy U.S. military losses.

The Army and the Marines, battling Japanese troops on the Pacific Islands of New Guinea and Guadalcanal, have suffered thousands of casualties. In addition, the Navy has lost a number of ships, including five aircraft carriers, to the Japanese, this year.

Congressional critics say the United States, unprepared for war against Japan, was forced to surrender some of its most strategic Pacific possessions, including Wake and Guam Islands as well as the Philippines.

“Had our military commanders been better led by the President,” said U.S. Sen. Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), “there’s a good chance we would not have been forced to give up our strategic outposts in the Pacific.”

The loss of the Philippines was particularly devastating because 76,000 U.S. troops, the largest U.S. military force to ever capitulate in the country’s history, surrendered to the Japanese. Coincidentally, the troops surrendered on the 77th anniversary of the day that Confederate General Robert E. Lee ordered his army to lay down its arms to forces led by Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, Virginia, which ended the Civil War.

While the Navy stopped the Japanese at the Battle of the Coral Sea in May and again, in June, at the Battle of Midway, an archipelago just north of Hawaii, the losses for these two victories were costly, including hundreds of planes and two aircraft carriers. The other three U.S. aircraft carriers were lost during other Pacific battles against the Japanese.

Japan’s losses at the Battle of Midway, Navy intelligence says, were even higher, including four aircraft carriers, two cruisers, three destroyers and some small boats. Japan's losses have not been confirmed by Tokyo.

Another military success against Japan, although limited in its effect, included the bombing of Japan. Many of the operation’s details remain secret.

On the ground, however, the fighting situation is quite different. U.S. soldiers and Marines find themselves bogged down battling an entrenched enemy. U.S. losses on New Guinea and Guadalcanal are heavy – into the thousands – because Japanese troops, military commanders say, often fight to the death rather than surrender.

“I’m afraid a lot of people think the Jap is a ‘pushover,’” said Army Air Force Lt. Gen. George Kenney, who heads up the Allied Air Forces in the southwest Pacific. “We will have to call on all our patriotism, stamina, guts, and maybe some crusading spirit or religious fervor thrown in, to beat him.

“No amateur team will take this boy out. You take on Notre Dame, every time you play,” the general said.

Shortly after the mid-term elections, the Army landed troops in Algeria and Morocco to liberate North Africa from German occupation. The operation, under the command of Lt. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, if it is successful, will allow the Allies to move more freely around the Mediterranean Sea.

Prior to Germany’s declaration of war against the United States, diplomatic relations between the two countries had reached a stand-off, with the United States closing 24 German consulates across the country, saying they were havens for Nazi spies.

In addition, the United States loaned Great Britain 50 destroyers in exchange for 99-year leases on certain British Naval Bases, including those in Newfoundland, Bermuda and the West Indies.

“The destroyer trade was an ‘out-right declaration of war’,” said U.S. Sen. Gerald Nye, (R-ND). “It was a belligerent act that weakened our defenses.”

Seven months prior to the outbreak of war with Germany, the Navy started engaging the Third Reich’s submarines while escorting merchant ships sailing between the United States and Great Britain.

The United States even started supplying Great Britain with materiel it needed to survive Germany’s onslaught. The President defended U.S actions by saying, “If your neighbor’s house is on fire, you lend him your garden hose so your house is safe.”

“We were fighting Germany before the war even happened,” said Senator Ferguson. “It’s becoming quite clear that the President acted without Congressional authority to do that.”

(Writer’s note: This account is entirely fictional. Some of the information is accurate. This article is intended to be thought-provoking. Is it possible for anyone to understand the action’s any country takes during wartime? Are there any similarities between President Roosevelt’s actions, in his attempt to defeat fascism, and those of President George W. Bush, in his attempt to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq? Could World War II have ended differently?)

Why They're Running

2007-02-09T15:15:00.000-05:00

With the U.S. presidential primary season about a year away, let’s review le raison d’êtra for the candidates seeking their party’s nomination for the nation’s highest political job as well as where the campaigns stand on financing.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-NY), the Democratic Party’s frontrunner, with more than $11 million in cash, according to Political Money Line, a unit of the Congressional Quarterly, is running so she can become her husband’s co-equal. It bothers her that Bill’s a former president while she’s only a senator.

She has more than twice as much money as U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd, (CT), and has received, Political Money Line reports, nearly 27,000 individual campaign contributions. At this point in the campaign, Hillary is tough to beat. She has the organization, the money, and is owed many favors, so it’s highly unlikely that she’ll lose the primaries.

Dodd, in his fifth Senate term, is running for the nomination because he’s opposed to the Iraq War. He’s an excellent representative for Connecticut, but outside of the Nutmeg State, he’s hardly known.

Political Money Line reports that Dodd has nearly $5 million in his campaign but has received only 99 individual campaign contributions. Part of Dodd’s war chest, according to Political Money Line, comes from the money he has for his Senate campaign.

Dodd “sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission stating that he ‘is no longer a candidate in the 2010 election for the United States Senate in Connecticut,’” reports Political Money Line.

This allows Dodd to declare that his Senate campaign “has excess funds and transfer the funds to his presidential committee.” The Senate campaign, reports Political Money Line, had about $1.9 million as of the end of September 2006.

Dodd isn’t as calculating , crafty and conniving as Hillary. And his public speaking abilities pale in comparison to hers. Look for Dodd to be one of the first candidates to pull out of the primary.

John Edwards

Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, (D-NC), is running because he wants another shot at the nomination. He was a loyal solider for his party during the last presidential campaign when he served as U.S. Sen. John Kerry’s running mate. The team failed, mostly because of Kerry, so Edwards figures the nomination is rightly his.

He’s also opposed to the Iraq War and his campaign will focus on “two Americas – one rich, one poor” like he did during the last presidential primary.

Edwards, figuring he better get a jump on the competition, has been campaigning since last summer. He comes across as a sincerely nice guy but also a bit of lightweight. It’s highly unlikely his candidacy will hold up for long against the competition.

Political Money Line reports that his Political Action Committee, One America Committee, had less than $9,000 in cash as of the end of January. There doesn’t appear to be any reporting, so far, on how much money his campaign has. This is likely due to the fact that he hasn’t officially declared his candidacy.

When Democrats go to the polls during the primary season, they’ll likely recall that Edwards was part of a losing presidential ticket in 2004 and, as a result, they’ll vote for someone else.

Joe Biden

U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, (D-DE), has been running for his party’s nomination, either overtly or covertly, since 1988. Perhaps Senator Biden should realize he’s a long shot – at best! – and give it up.

While Biden has done well with campaign contributions, about $3.6 million according to Political Money Line, it’s hard to figure out what this candidacy is all about. He’ll play up his his experience on the Senate’s foreign relations committee.

Given that background, along with his inability, so far, to wage a successful national campaign, plus his foot-in-mouth issues, Biden is more likely to become the next Secretary of State to a President Hillary Clinton than he is to become the country’s next President. Perhaps that’s what he really wants, the nation’s top diplomatic job.

Barack Obama

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), is running – if he actually decides to run – to show the Democratic establishment that a good man can’t be kept down. He’s also seeks, and rightly so, to show that a black man can, indeed, be elected President.

The problem Senator Obama has is that he hasn’t been completely vetted in the same manner that his competitors have, especially Senator Clinton. If he declares that he’s candidate, he will have to survive some very harsh scrutiny, not only from the national media but also from his fellow Senate colleagues.

Obama stands out among his competitors because he’s a black man. This will make it easier for him to gain attention, which should translate into winning votes, if he decides to run. But, at this point, he doesn’t appear to be as well organized as Senator Clinton. Also, according to Political Money Line, his “Obama 2010 Inc” committee has just over $500,000.

That committee is established to help him run for reelection to the Senate in 2010. That money could also be used for any future presidential run he makes.

Evan Bayh

The true dark horse among the Democrats might be U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, (D-IN) whose campaign is almost as well-healed as Hillary Clinton’s, with nearly $11 million in the bank, according to Political Money Line, as of December 31, 2006.

This means he’s organized, aggressive at raising money, and just might be the strongest alternative to Senator Clinton. The last part depends on whether he’s as good on the campaign trail as he has been getting his campaign financed.

The problem Bayh suffers from is that the national media isn’t paying attention to his campaign. Unless he can turn that around, he’ll go down as the most well-financed forgotten presidential candidate in recent years.

Bayh can certainly tout his experience as a two-term governor in a heavily Republican state. But other than that, there’s not much about his candidacy that’s going to get someone excited about him.

Bill Richardson

The last alternative to Senator Clinton is New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who served as President Clinton’s United Nation’s ambassador and was also his Energy Secretary. He’s former a presidential exploratory committee but has yet to declare his candidacy.

Among Democrats, and even Republicans, Richardson might be the politician with the most experience. He was a member of the House of Representatives for 15 years before going on to serve in the United Nations and then in President Clinton’s cabinet. As a result, he has both domestic and foreign policy experience.

His experience overseeing America’s energy issues shouldn’t be diminished. President Bush has said he’d like reduce the country’s oil consumption. Richardson could position himself as the presidential candidate who knows how to do that.

On personal issues, Richardson is also a very attractive candidate. He was born in California, an important state to win during the primary and general election. His mother was Mexican and word is that he’s fluent in Spanish.

The question about Richardson is will he generate any excitement.

Qualifications for Office

Qualifications don’t matter all that much to the electorate, during either the primary or general campaign seasons. If experience mattered, George H. W. Bush, with a background in business, diplomacy and Congress, would have taken the presidential oath on January 20, 1981.

Instead, Ronald Reagan, a former actor and former California governor, who campaigned on America’s inherit strength, became the nation’s 40th President. Successful presidential candidates, like Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, center their campaigns primarily around their personality.

They also evoke a visceral reaction among their supports as well as their detractors. If the American electorate thinks someone’s personality is a good fit for the nation’s challenges, and they find them likeable, there’s a high probability they’ll vote for that person.

The Republican line-up

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani, the hero of 9/11, is the man to beat for the Republican presidential nomination. Like his leading counterpart for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Rudy, as he’s known to friends and foes, is a controversial figure, evoking a visceral response.

And that just might make him the next president.

Guiliani, if he runs, will center his campaign around the leadership he demonstrated during the tragic day of September 11, 2001, and the weeks that followed before he left office. He’ll also talk up the fact that he knows how to run the country’s largest city as well as his experience as a former prosecutor who convicted one of the mob’s top kingpins, John Gotti.

So far, the only thing Rudy has announced is that he’s former a presidential exploratory committee. Political Money Line reports that he has more than $2 million from his former Senate campaign committee.

He raised more than $170,000 during 2006’s fourth quarter, Political Money Line reports, out-earning his two rivals, Sam Brownback and John McCain, significantly.

Like all political candidates, Guiliani’s background, and positions, make him vulnerable to the more strident, perhaps even pure, among his party. He’s been married three times and his last divorce, from New York City television talk show host Donna Hanover, was very public and very acrimonious.

Rudy’s position on a number of social issues, like gay marriage and abortion, is out of line with traditional Republican thinking. Still, at this point, he’s the man to beat for the nomination.

Rudy will tell the Republican faithful that he’s a Republican where it counts – winning in Iraq and Afghanistan and taking on the terrorists. Rudy hopes that his moderate positions on social issues, including stem cell research, will make him palatable to the electorate during the presidential campaign.

John McCain

Like Guiliani, U.S. Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ), is running as a candidate more concerned about defeating terrorists, whether they’re in Iraq and elsewhere, than he is in making abortion illegal.

McCain will nod and wink to the Republican faithful that he’s a conservative of social issues and, at the same time, will work hard to win the votes of social moderates by saying, in one way or another, that defeating terrorists outweighs abortion.

McCain, like Guiliani, is divorced and has since remarried. But unlike his fellow Republicans, and more than a few Democrats, he’s the only one candidate who’s served in the military. He’ll campaign, often, has a Vietnam War hero.

Mitt Romney

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, if he formerly enters the race, will center around his religion and how it does not prevent him from enacting and or signing legislation that the Church of Latter Day Saints opposes.

He’ll want to spend more time talking up his background as a leading business executive, as a governor and as the president of the 2002 Winter Olympics, held in Salt Lake City.

The son of a three-term Michigan governor, Romney sees himself, at least in business, as a turnaround specialist, having erased a “$3 billion budget gap inherited when he took office,” says the Web site touting his presidential exploratory committee.

The big question every Republican should ask Romney is why he left the Massachusetts governorship after only one term. He would be in a far stronger position had he remained in the job because it would allow him to tell primary voters that he’s a conservative in a liberal state – and found to be very acceptable.

He’s opposed to abortion and, like many a Republican, is looking for victory in the Middle East. Other top concerns include taxes, China and international trade.

Prior to entering public life, Romney had been an executive with consulting firm Bain & Company. His Political Action Committee, says Political Money Line, reports having around $185,000 on hand as of January 31, 2007.

Sam Brownback

U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, (R-KS), holds the Senate seat of former U.S. Sen. Robert Dole. He’s a true-blue conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan.

Brownback is probably the most conservative Republican in the primary. He’s an evangelical Christian and is opposed to gay marriage and abortion.

At this point, his campaign, according to Political Money Line, has around $40,000.00. He’s got a long way to go to catch up with the Former Mayor of New York.

Newt Gingrich

Lurking in the background among Republicans is former U.S. Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. He hasn’t declared his presidency but he certainly has a robust Web site. More on Newt next time.

Damsel in Distress or Iron Lady?

2007-02-06T12:54:00.000-05:00

While U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, (D-IL), makes an interesting candidate for president – an attractive black man, as his Senate colleague Joe Biden said rather stupidly last week – the one who actually holds the cards to winning the nomination would likely make a far better chief executive.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, (D-NY), evokes a visceral reaction among both her supporters and those who, without any diplomacy or tact, will tell anyone within listening distance that they hate her.

Since 1992, when she came onto the country’s national political scene, Hillary has been both a source of pride and contempt for the Democratic Party. She doesn’t play by the rules established for First Ladies, either current or former. And now, here she is, barely into her second term as a United States Senator, and she’s the one to beat for her party’s presidential nomination next year.

It’s just so unfair.

The only other First Ladies who were as close to being as controversial as Hillary include Rosaylnn Carter (she announced she’d join her husband for the Cabinet meetings); Betty Ford (she supported a woman’s right to choose); and Eleanor Roosevelt (who toured the country and stumped for her husband).

Had Senator Clinton been the traditional First Lady, her husband would remain in the spotlight – or in as much of the spotlight as former presidents receive – and she would confine herself to staying within his shadow.

But anyone who knows anything about Senator Clinton knows that’s not her style. She only retreats to lick her wounds and find another way to achieve victory.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Hillary proudly announced that she didn’t stay home “and bake cookies.” While the comment may not have been intended as an insult to First Lady Barbara Bush, it certainly drew a distinction between the Baby Boomer and World War II generations.

(Bill Clinton was the first Baby Boomer to be elected President while George H.W. Bush was the last President to have served in the military during World War II.)

While her husband was Arkansas’ governor, Senator Clinton was a partner in the Rose Law Firm and, according to Wikipedia, she chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, the Rural Health Advisory Committee; she also introduced, according to Wikipedia, the Arkansas Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youth, “which trains parents to work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.”

The online encyclopedia also reports that the Senator was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984. Her business experience, during her Little Rock days, included serving on the Board of Directors of TCBY, The Country’s Best Yogurt, and Wal-Mart stores.

Shortly after her husband won the presidential election, she was appointed to lead the presidential task force investigating ways to change the nation’s healthcare system. The task force met privately, making it an easy target for Republicans, which later helped them take control of Congress during the 1994 midterm elections.

After the healthcare plan, one of the single largest controversies surrounding Senator Clinton was the way she handled herself during President Clinton’s impeachment and subsequent trial as well as the way she stood by him after it had been revealed that he’d had an affair – a sordid, quick fling is a better description – with a White House intern.

Monica Lewinsky wasn’t the President’s first mistress; during the presidential campaign in 1992, Bill Clinton admitted that he’d damaged their marriage, perhaps more than once; while in the White House, it was reported that he’d had at least one another dalliance.

The Senator had two ways to handle this affair: She could walk out on him, thereby making her the first First Lady to ever divorce and/or separate from her husband; or she could stand by him, the option she chose.

Hillary’s decision reveals a lot about her. She may not have exactly had her eyes on the Senate in 1998, when the affair with Monica was made public. At the same time, it cannot be simply dismissed that she was not planning her post-White House years either. She said, more than once, that Bill Clinton did his thing and she did hers.

While she may have forgiven the president for his transgression with Monica – we’ll never really know – it’s also equally possible that she figured that Bill Clinton’s former wife would never have as much political cache as his current wife. And that was likely one of the reasons she stood by him.

Hillary also saw in Bill Clinton something she needed – a masterful politician to guide her through the trials and tribulations that any national and state-wide politician encounters. He had an ability to confound the Republican majority in Congress and look better after every assault launched against him. She knew, especially when she decided to run for the Senate, that his advice, knowledge and experience would be required to win the campaign.

Losing the Senate seat to a relative unknown, like U.S. Rep. Rick Lazio, was simply not an option. She had to win, especially if she wanted any kind of political future that wouldn’t require her to play second fiddle to her husband.

For that matter, Bill Clinton equally knew that to place his legacy in good standing, Hillary had to win. A Hillary victory, to Bill Clinton, is spawning a politician in his own mold, and it keeps him in front of the American electorate.

As she shown already, Hillary will make sure that no one can “out-left” her. The primaries are a time when the party faithful vote, so Hillary will do whatever is necessary to show them that she’s the Democrat they want returned to The White House. Her husband will campaign for her, too.

She’ll beat Barack Obama for this simple reason – there are politicians that owe her favors. After eight years in The White House, and more than six years in the Senate, there are governors and members of Congress who owe her (and her husband) in a way that they don’t owe Senator Obama.

Senator Obama will get there, but it will take a few more years than he’d like. Who knows, there’s a good chance he could wind up as Hillary’s running mate.

After she sows up the nomination, Hillary, in an attempt to capture the votes of independents and dispirited Republicans, will move to the center – at least in her speeches. She’ll essentially tell America that she’s tough on defense and illegal immigration; supports adoption (along with a woman’s right to choose); likes hunters (but supports tough hand-gun legislation); is tough on crime; supports environmental causes; and will say that the world’s perception of America needs to be improved. She’ll dance around Iraq and Afghanistan. If necessary, she’ll talk about a time-line to bring the troops home.

All of that just might secure a White House victory. But, of course, any presidential campaign with Hillary leading the ticket contains a very possible, and very serious, vulnerability. It’s her husband.

A vote for Hillary, Republicans will say, is a vote for Bill. (In fact, you can expect the Republicans to make Hillary to look live the Devil.) The Republicans will say President Clinton left the country vulnerable to terrorism (He had a chance to kill Osama bin Laden while he was in The Sudan but failed to take it) and they’ll remind the country that the Clinton Administration was once charged with selling high-tech secrets to China. And let’s not forget the impeachment hearings.

If Hillary survives this assault – and the Republicans stumble – she’ll likely be elected.

What Kind of President will she be?

Gender will play a role in how Hillary conducts herself in office. It’ll force her to be harsher in some areas, like national defense, and softer in others, like families and children.

As the first woman to become president, Hillary will need to prove, more so than the average male president, not that she’s about to surrender the country and its interests to some of our toughest enemies, like North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

(Hillary was recently asked in Iowa if she had any background in dealing with “evil” men. Some interpreted the way she asked the question as an acknowledgement of having dealt with her husband, which she’s since denied. Even if we accept her denial at face value, let’s face it, she’s dealt with a husband who’s admitted to being less than faithful to his marriage.)

Hillary’s gender will force her to act tough when it comes to foreign policy, much in the same way it forced former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s hand. She had no choice but to retake the United Kingdom’s Falkland Islands after they’d been stormed by Argentinean troops in 1982. Failure to do so would have made Britain’s first female prime minister look feeble and incompetent on matters of national defense, something no female leader can afford.

In addition to Thatcher, there are other previous female world leaders Hillary can study for tips on how to approach certain issues. Sarah Baxter, a writer for the Sunday Times of London, reports that Hillary only needs to review the life and times of Israel’s Golda Meir and India’s Indira Gandhi to find out tough she can be on national defense.

Meir, Baxter reports, “authorized the assassination of Palestinian terrorist leaders and the annexation of conquered lands, and she led Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war.” Ghandi led India during its war with Pakistan.

Iraq and Afghanistan?

Hillary will deny, on a large stake of Bibles, that she has anything in common with former President Richard Nixon. She was a staff attorney on the Senate committee investigating Nixon over Watergate in the 1970s.

But she’ll borrow from the Nixon playbook when it comes to Iraq. Nixon knew that the domestic political climate didn’t support continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam; but he equally knew that he couldn’t be the first president to lose a war. He was in a bind.

So he started bringing the troops home while, at the same time, ordering far more aggressive attacks on Communist forces in North Vietnam and in Cambodia. By doing so, he looked tough on Communism (something he was known for) while also acknowledging that it was time for the United States to end its involvement in Vietnam.

Hillary will likely do something similar. She doesn’t want the enemies of the United States and Iraq’s current government to succeed, and likely, neither does the average American voter. But she’ll need to strike a balance between domestic desires and the harsh reality of Iraq. It’s my guess that she’ll bring some of the troops home (a way to keep the Democrats appeased) while continuing some kind of U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Afghanistan is a different story. It’s essentially a NATO operation but there are also U.S. troops in Afghanistan that are not under NATO command. This allows the United States to work with NATO allies while, at the same time, giving it the flexibility to conduct operations that may be questioned by its allies.

The operation in Afghanistan basically hides behind the one in Iraq; it will likely remain that way during the Hillary Clinton presidency.

If any of America’s enemies, like North Korea, Iran or Venezuela, start saber-rattling, expect Hillary to deal with the issue forcefully and effectively.

The one thing that people will soon notice about Hillary is that she’ll have an easier time making a decision than her husband, especially on issues of national security.

Domestic Issues

Hillary’s domestic politics can be summed up in this manner – she’ll support traditional Democratic causes whenever possible, like unions, abortion rights, domestic partnerships, but, at the same time, she’ll make every attempt to keep herself in the center, so she’s appealing to moderately conservative voters.

So, she’ll support a woman’s right to choose an abortion while supporting legislation that makes adoption easier.

Hillary will probably not want to deal with gay marriage, but she’ll certainly support domestic partnerships, enhancing them wherever possible.

She’ll talk up her religious faith on the campaign trail, when necessary, and she may even be inclined to continue the President George W. Bush’s program to give government money to faith-based charities helping the poor and downtrodden.

Hillary will be as conniving and as crafty as her husband. But I expect her to be a much more formidable executive than her husband, too. Once she makes a decision, even if it is controversial, she’ll likely stick with it.

Jesus, Democrats and the price of victory

2007-01-12T14:37:00.000-05:00

1. Iraq, the Democrats and possible outcomes

Twenty thousand additional U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq may very well not make much of a difference. But it’s something. It shows our allies and enemies that the United States is committed to the war’s successful outcome.

If the President takes up the Democrats on their suggestion and pulls out, Iraq goes to hell overnight. The Saudis, as was reported in The Wall Street Journal this week, will start funding the Sunni insurgency in Iraq; Jordan will move its troops far enough into Iraq to keep its border secure; Turkey will be forced to find a way to deal with the Kurds, people they don’t like.

And Iran, which is likely pushing ahead with its nuclear arms program, will be sitting in the cat’s seat.

There’s a good chance that Iraq will be the theatre of a proxy war between the Arab world and the Persians. And if that happens, civilian casualties in Iraq will skyrocket exponentially.

But they won’t be the only ones that are harmed.

Oil, the fundamental commodity of all western economies, will see an increase in price. Right now, it’s trading in the $55 range, good news for the developed world. But if there’s any fear in the oil markets, the price of a barrel of crude will increase. Maybe double in this scenario.

The economic fallout would be horrible. Gas prices will increase; airlines will raise their prices to keep up with additional fuel charges; and just about everything that anyone buys at the store will see a jump in prices.

Companies will layoff additional employees simply because they don’t want to pay the additional overhead expenses.

And the stock markets will likely take a turn for the worse.

Finally, the continued confrontations between the Palestinians, Israel, Syria and Lebanon will spiral out of control. Syria’s best friend is Iran; Iran will extract all kinds of promises from Syria in this scenario; that means the Palestinians and the terrorist group Hezbollah will be receiving even more assistance than they’re already receiving from Iran.

So before you add your voice to the antiwar chant, consider these possible outcomes if the United States pulls out.

2. The debate over Iraq

It’s time to have the proverbial “Come to Jesus Meeting” about Iraq. The citizens of the United States, those who vote and actually give a damn about the country, are owed far better than what they’re currently receiving from the politicians in Washington. The sound bites of “stay the course” or “pull out” just doesn’t cut the mustard.

Those lines are cheap. And it allows anyone, on either side of this debate, to take a pass at truly discussing, considering and thinking about what U.S. involvement in Iraq means, not only to us but also to the Iraqis.

It’s time for leading Congressional Democrats and Republicans, the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the National Security advisor, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his top generals, as well as the Secretary of the Treasury to hole themselves up for a few days, maybe a week, in a place like Camp David, and hash out the issues.

And do so without issuing any press releases while they’re meeting. We need to force these people to devise a plan that meets the needs of everyone involved in Iraq. Maybe even those countries who have troops on the ground in Iraq, like Great Britain and Poland, should also join the meeting.

An American pullout doesn’t mean peace in Iraq; if anything, it means the exact opposite. More insurgents killing more people; and this time they’ll be funded by the treasury departments of Iran and some countries in the Arab world.

3. The All-Volunteer Force

If anything, President George W. Bush has proven the United States can wage a war with an all-volunteer force and, frankly, there won’t be too much resistance at home. To be cynical, those troops who’ve been killed in Iraq were, after all, volunteers.

Walk down any street America and you’ll never know that our sons and daughters are dying in central Asia or on a distant, dusty, Middle Eastern battlefield. You see the occasional flag but, otherwise, you’d never know there’s a war on.

Compare that with what happened during World War II, when houses posted star flags on their windows. If you posted a flag with one star, there was one member of your family in uniform. If you posted a flag with two stars, there were two members of your family serving, etc., etc.

The stars were silver. If that house changed their flag from a silver star to one that was gold, a member of that person’s family had been killed.

Since 9/11, I’ve only seen two silver star flags.

And this is the problem with an all-volunteer force. Only those Americans with a family member in the armed force are paying the price and feeling the pain of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan or anywhere else our troops are based.

If you’re in the peace movement, you want the draft reinstated. This might help you organize major marches across the United States on behalf of an American pull out.

If you’re for the war, you need to see the draft reinstated. It’s taken us nearly six years to increase the size of the active duty Army by 30,000; we simply need more troops on the ground in Iraq – like maybe a million – if we’re going to defeat the insurgents once and for all. We could probably say the same thing about our effort in Afghanistan.

The problem with the current size of the force in Iraq is that once we defeat the insurgents in one place, we need to move to another. And that allows the insurgency to reestablish its ties to the village or province we just secured. (Almost like Vietnam. But not quite.)

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that there are 63 million American men between the ages of 18 – 49.

Here’s an idea: Draft all men between the ages of 18 – 50, regardless of their marital status and whether or not they’re in college. The only way their names and numbers wouldn’t be subjected to the draft is if they’re veterans. Unlike the last time we used the draft, this version of conscription subjects everyone, regardless of their economic and educational status, to service in the armed forces.

The only way they would be allowed out of the military would be if they couldn’t pass the physical or basic training. If I had to guess, I’d say that half of all of those drafted will fail the physical and then another 50 percent will fail basic training. Still, that will give us about 16 million men in uniform, a number unseen since World War II.

Not everyone who is north of 35 or 40 will qualify for combat duty, but they should be able to contribute in some way to the well being of our forces.

A military force that consists of draftees will spread out the cost and the pain of Iraq and Afghanistan. And it will force all Americans to come to terms with Iraq.

In addition, a larger cross section of the country will be represented in this force. Instead of the force being made up of people who either 1) patriotic or 2) don't know what else to do, the force will be made up all kinds of Americans. This was the type of military that brought about victory in World War II.

A longstanding argument against the draft is that the military brass doesn’t want it, saying the average conscript isn’t a motivated solider. This same military brass considers itself to have some of the best leadership skills in the world. It’s time to put them to use. The best leaders motivate the worst performers.

Notes on President Ford, Vietnam and Iraq

2007-01-09T11:11:00.000-05:00

Writer’s note: It’s been a while since I’ve updated this blog. So here are some thoughts on recent events and issues that continue to be discussed in the media.

1. The passing of former President Gerald R. Ford

In the early 1960s, my dad was a young reporter for United Press International in Grand Rapids, Michigan, home of Michigan’s Fifth Congressional district. Congressman Jerry Ford dropped by the office one day to take him and another reporter, from the Detroit Free Press, to lunch. They talked politics and Michigan football, and dad never forgot Congressman Ford’s generosity that day, describing him as one of the most decent men he’d ever met.

Advance 14 years and Ford is the President of the United States and my dad, by then, is UPI’s vice president and general manager.

Business took dad to Washington where he had dinner with a former UPI photographer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning David Hume Kennerly, who, by that time, was President Ford’s official White House Photographer, and Dick Growald, who covered The White House, in tandem, with Helen Thomas, for UPI. Kennerly suggested to dad that he come by The White House the next morning so he could see his office.

Although he didn’t have much of an interest in photography, a visit to The White House, even if was the photographer’s office, had some appeal. Dad arrives and Kennerly suddenly announced that they’re going to say, “Hello.”

Dad inquired, “To Whom?”

The next thing he knew, he was being led into the Oval Office and there was President Ford sitting behind his desk. He stood up and greeted dad as if they were old friends.

Ford spent about 30 minutes that day with my dad, Growald and a White House spokesman. And Kennerly photographed all of it. In fact, I have a picture of the meeting and plan to bequeath it to my children.

Ford couldn’t have been nicer, dad always said. Obviously, the President had been briefed on my dad, so he was aware that they shared a connection to Grand Rapids.

Dad was on Cloud 9. He told us all about his meeting with the President and showed us the pictures.

As a result, I’ve always held the late president in high esteem. Although I was only 14 at the time, I had hoped Ford would be elected president in 1976. And, given the times that Jimmy Carter experienced, I believe Ford would have handled many of the same events between 1977 and 1981, especially the U.S. hostage crisis in Tehran, far better than his successor.

RIP, Mr. President.

2. Gerald R. Ford as President of the United States

Ford was always my kind of Republican. As The New York Times recently said, he was the kind of politician who wanted the government “out of your bedroom, living room and the board room.”

I’m not sure about the last one but that has nothing to do with Jerry Ford. No one in the 1970s could have predicted all of the corporate transgressions we’ve witnessed in the past five years.

After Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson, two men who were prone to professional and personal antics that degraded the Presidency, Ford was clean. Very clean. And he was a steady hand at the helm of a ship that was passing through turbulent waters.

It’s easy to dismiss someone like Ford as an Accidental President. But at the time he came into office, the country needed someone like him, someone who could put the country at ease after the trials and tribulations of Watergate and Vietnam. The nation should be grateful that he successfully moved the country beyond these two debacles.

A number of the obituaries and tributes credit Ford with removing the United States from Vietnam. While some of that is true, it’s important to remember that U.S. troops started returning from Vietnam during the Nixon Administration. In fact, like it or not, Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, had more to do with ending U.S. involvement in Vietnam than President Ford.

By the time Ford became President, U.S. plans for Vietnam had been set. We’d signed a peace accord, of sorts, with the North Vietnamese in Paris in 1973, about 18 months before Ford became president. It released U.S. servicemen captured by North Vietnam and committed the United States to withdrawing from South Vietnam.

By the time Communist troops were bearing down on Saigon in April 1975, Ford had few options. As Commander-in-Chief, he could have cited national security concerns, and ordered bombing raids against Hanoi and other parts of North Vietnam in an attempt to force a stalemate.

But, by that time, that action was going to spend more political capital than the President likely wanted and maybe even had. In addition, it’s difficult to say how effective bombing raids would have been since the North Vietnamese had proven that they accepted heavy casualties.

Under no circumstance was Ford going to reintroduce U.S. ground troops to prop up the Saigon government. There was not a scintilla of political support for such action.

Probably the single best thing Ford did was assure the nation that the loss of South Vietnam to the Communists was not a ringing of the death knell for the United States as a superpower. As tragic as it was, Saigon’s fall allowed the United States to focus on more pressing international issues, like the Soviet Union, China and the Middle East.

Ford went on to score three significant victories with each one. He forced the Soviets to recognize human rights; he kept the Chinese engaged with the United States; and, finally, he was able to gain acceptance of a truce between Israel and Egypt.

Ford’s pardon of President Nixon will be debated by historians for adinfinitum. A case for either action – pardon or no pardon – can be made without too much difficulty. By pardoning Nixon, Ford put Watergate behind us just as, in the same way, by letting Saigon fall to Hanoi, he put the war behind us.

3. Iraq

It’s time to dust off our history books. Iraq is no Vietnam. Today, the United States is fighting an insurgency supported by terrorist networks likely coming from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Iran as well as what’s homegrown in Iraq. They may be coming from other countries, but those are the ones we know about.

At least we knew our enemy during the Vietnam War. It was the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong and they were primarily supported by the Soviet Union and, to a much lesser degree, the Peoples Republic of China. This makes the Vietnam War look much easier to manage than the current one in Iraq.

While the United States has been somewhat successful in separating Iraqi insurgents from foreign insurgents – namely those supported by Al Qaida – we’re not dealing with another nation. Instead, we’re dealing with mercenaries or freelancers who give every appearance of being willing to pay a high price for their cause – preventing the United States and its Iraqi allies from letting Iraq turn into a failed state – and who report to no one.

One of the big differences between our enemies in Iraq and us is the fact that they report to no one. Certainly there’s no leader of the insurgency who is held accountable politically or publicly. The insurgency, wherever it comes from, can afford high casualties and military blunders.

But the lessons of Vietnam should not be dismissed. President Nixon violated a basic lesson of negotiation when he started talking with Hanoi. As the talks were getting underway, Nixon announced he was bringing the troops home, thereby immediately weakening our position.

The North Vietnamese knew, from that point on, that it was just a matter of time before the United States ended its commitments to the government in Saigon. All Hanoi had to do was pay lip service to the negotiations while they continued to fight the war on their terms.

The newly minted Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and her Democratic colleagues, as well as a few Republicans, might review the actions taken by the Nixon Administration. If they really want the United States to fail in Iraq, all they need to do is keep pressing George W. Bush for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

If Bush caves to the pressure, and starts bringing the troops home, this will signal to the insurgents – as well as to everyone else – that it’s just a matter of time before the United States stops supporting the government in Baghdad.

Speaker Pelosi and her allies on Capitol Hill might consider what Iraq will look like if the United States pulls out. And they might also consider how such actions will be perceived by both our allies and anyone else who considers the United States its enemy.

Ridding society of its unwanted citizens

2006-12-12T10:59:00.000-05:00

A society ridding itself of its unwanted citizens is nothing new. In the western world, this idea first surfaced during the last years of Queen Elizabeth I’s reign, in either the late 16th or the early 17th century.

This was a time, Alden Vaughn writes, when England was undergoing tremendous change, some might even say upheaval. It was transitioning from being primarily an agrarian economy to one that was based on industry. In many ways, during Elizabeth I’s reign, England left the Middle Ages and entered the beginnings of the modern world.

England’s small farms crumbled, depression gripped the economy, and the population increased. It created, Vaughn writes, “the honest poor” who could not find work and “the willful poor” who turned to crime to survive.

The problem was so large that the ruling classes, or those who influenced the ruling classes, began to feel threatened, saying these two types of people were “threatening the purity and orderliness of English society.”

London “attracted the dispossessed” and they inhabited the city’s pubs, where they cursed English society and complained about the cards they’d been dealt. It’s likely they were too drunk to lead any armed rebellions against the establishment but, the ruling classes, likely found them be an unsightly lot.

This was a time when there were no government programs to help the poor. There was very little, if any charity.

But there was a need for a solution to England’s problems. And, the ruling classes began to think, it was to be found in America, or the New World.

As England’s ruling classes viewed the world, “God had ordered man to multiply and fill the earth, and the New World appeared to Englishmen a vast, empty continent,” and, therefore, a solution. In essence, it was a place to dispose of England’s unwanted, unproductive, uneducated yet Christian citizens.

The only people living in the New World, as the English rulers saw it, were a few natives. But they were considered heathens, Vaughn writes, and, therefore, needed Christian neighbors so they could enter God’s Kingdom.

As the nobles saw it, placing Englishmen, even if they were the dispossessed, in the New World was not an invasion of a sovereign nation but an attempt at peaceful colonization; and the colony’s mission was to Christianize the natives as well as a means to keep England’s dispossessed busy and productive.

Not much has changed

Today, according to Victor Davis Hanson, in his book Mexifornia, the same thing is happening in Mexico. The country’s leaders, Hanson writes, see the United States as a dumping ground for their unwanted citizens.

There’s no motivation for Mexico to stop its citizens from illegally immigrating into the United States. In fact, if anything, there’s every motivation for them to allow their dispossessed citizens out of their country, so they become someone else’s problem, namely ours.

While he doesn’t quite ask the question, Hanson wonders what domestic American politics would look like if our poor and underemployed were crossing the border in droves into Canada. What would the Canadians do? And how would our leaders react to this situation?

Mexico, as far as Hanson is concerned, wants its poor and undereducated citizens out of the country. Every citizen who leaves Mexico is one less problem the government needs to worry about.

In fact, Hanson writes, Mexico is motivated to let its citizens leave its borders illegally because it’s a way to undo the results of the Mexican-American war, which gave the United States California and large portions of the southwest.

Illegal immigrants from Mexico are also, in some ways, a solution to Mexico’s poor, Hanson writes. They send money back to their relatives and friends in Mexico. And Mexico’s citizens, living in the United States, Hanson writes, give the country “leverage in its relationship with the United States, which involves billion-dollar loan guarantees and the creation of free-trade leagues.”

Hanson writes that he’s talked about this problem with Mexico City’s elite “who privately laugh that they’re exporting their Indians and … their unwanted, into the United States.” Hanson tells them their riffraff are likely the same kind of riffraff that made the United States a great country.

“So while the powers in Mexico City regard departure (illegal immigration) as good politics – a valve of sorts that releases dangerous pressures rather than allow explosions of the type that occurred in the country’s earlier checkered history – in an odd way the joke ultimately is on them. Within twenty years the poor, brown Indian alien could enjoy a material existence in America superior to that of the upper-class white Mexican in Mexico City.”

-----------

Your correspondent hopes you’ll accept his apology for not updating this blog lately. The holiday season, along with a few other duties, prevented him from updating this blog as much as he would like. Thank you for your understanding.

Thanksgiving and America's early Puritans

2006-11-20T11:23:00.000-05:00

We’re all political beings. It doesn’t matter if we’re an elected official or making our way through life far away from any legislative body. We’re more likely to make certain statements and take certain actions that will extend our influence, keep doors open, and give us future opportunities, than we are to acerbate anyone. Of course, there are always those exceptions but, more often than not, we want to get along with as many people as possible, even those we don’t know.

The Pilgrims, on that first Thanksgiving, were doing the same thing. Not only were they thanking God for seeing them through a brutal first year – about 50 of the original 100 settlers died during the first year – in the New World but they were also playing politics with the area’s indigenous people.

To survive, writes Nathaniel Philbrick in his new book, “Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War,” required a lot of help from the Pokanokets, one of New England’s native tribes. Their leader, Massasoit, decided his people should assist the Pilgrims and, while attending that first Thanksgiving, “could only hope that the Pilgrims would continue to honor their debt” to his people “long after the English settlement had grown into maturity.”

Of course, that first Thanksgiving wasn’t called Thanksgiving. To the Puritans, a true thanksgiving was very much a religious affair, “a time of spiritual devotion,” writes Philbrick.

This first Thanksgiving was more akin to an English custom that celebrated the fall harvest, writes Philbrick, “a secular celebration that dated back to the Middle Ages which villagers ate, drank, and played games.” William Bradford, the colony’s leader, ordered his men to kill ducks and geese; earlier, they had harvested their crop of corn, squash, beans, barley and peas. Massasoit and 100 of his people arrived with five deer they’d just killed.

The Pilgrims, while in some ways a stubborn people, were better diplomats than others who had previously surveyed and landed on the Massachusetts shore. They’d accepted the help from the natives and made it point to get along with them. There were a number of native tribes in the area but they got along best with the Pokanokets.

Nothing happens in a vacuum and the Pilgrims just didn’t show up on the Massachusetts shore. They were extreme Puritans who felt persecuted by the English establishment; wanted the Church of England cleansed, as they saw it, from all of its impurities; feared that England would revert back to Catholicism; and weren’t all that sure that the monarchy and the parliament were serving England well.

As life went in the 1600s, they were extremists. They separated themselves from civilization to create Heaven on earth. In fact, prior to their arrival in Massachusetts they’d spent 11 years in Holland because it was much more welcoming to the Protestant cause. And in spite of all of their concerns about England, the Pilgrims never stopped being English. They never saw themselves as immigrants to Holland and, for that matter, they weren’t about to take up arms against England.

By today’s standards, the Pilgrims don’t look at all like radicals. They were cultural conservatives: They were devout, disciplined, believed in marriage, condemned adultery, disdained public drunkenness, and educated their young (boys).

The Puritans didn’t have any issues with sex. This is a modern day misunderstanding. While the Puritans certainly wouldn’t approve of pornography, they believed that sex was a gift from God and was a means of showing love to their spouse.

King James and the government were prepared to let the Puritans immigrate because it was an easy way, nearly cost free, of letting people they didn’t particularly like leave the country. If they survived, wonderful. Then England would lay claim to the lands they were occupying in the New World. If they died, their problems were gone.

In many ways, the Puritans are responsible for what Americans have become. The notion of the “Protestant work ethic” comes from them because they didn’t believe in idleness. This made them that much more productive. Their worries about the Church of England and the government of England gave rise to the notion, now a Constitutional amendment, of the separation of Church and State; it also caused them to question whether governments had too much power.

Given their background of having lived in Holland, these early settlers were much more successful in their first year, in spite of all of their problems, than their fellow colonists in Jamestown, because they had experience living in a land that wasn’t familiar to them. Finally, they got along with the natives because they knew they needed them.

One of the biggest differences between the two colonies was that Plymouth Rock was settled by families. Jamestown was settled only by men. This likely made the Pilgrim men work that much harder to ensure the colony’s survival. One of the issues the leaders of Jamestown had was constantly reminding the colonists what needed to be done. It was akin to managing a group of free agents.

The reason we celebrate Thanksgiving these days has nothing to do with the Puritans who came ashore back in 1620. While we reference them through popular literature and crass commercialization, Thanksgiving has more to do with the Civil War than anything else. Abraham Lincoln was looking for a way celebrate the country and established, through a proclomation, that the United States should celebrate a Thanksgiving holiday.

So if you’re prone to giving a toast or saying a prayer before eating Thanksgiving, make it a point to honor the Puritans this year. Their worries and concerns about government and religion would eventually be transferred to the people who would lead the American Revolution and then write the Constitution. They were a brave people prepared to give up everything so they could live as they felt was right. Would you make the same sacrifice?

Homosexuality and the Episcopal Church

2006-11-14T12:25:00.001-05:00

I’m about as comfortable with gay marriage as I am abortion. I understand everyone has rights, but that doesn’t mean I’m required to like them.

These days acceptance of gay marriage, gay civil unions and gay clergy are being fought over, in some of the most intense internecine warfare ever seen, within the Episcopal Church, the American arm of the United Kingdom’s Anglican Church.

At stake is whether gay men and women should be ordained as clergy, elevated to bishop and whether or not there is a role for gay parishioners. And if that’s not enough, there continues to be a debate, in some sectors of the Episcopal Church, about the acceptance of women serving as clergy.

More conservative Episcopalians will never accept women as clergy let alone as presiding bishop, which happened recently when Katharine Jefferts Schori started heading up Episcopal Church USA.

This unraveling of the Episcopal Church started about 3 ½ years ago when Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, was elected bishop of a diocese in New Hampshire. He was previously married, had children with his wife and then, somewhere along the way, discovered he was gay.

To his credit, Robinson came out of the closet and divorced his wife. It’s reported that he’s been in a committed relationship with another gay man for quite some time. And, it’s also been said, that he was an outstanding rector at his church, which qualified him to be elected to bishop.

It’s highly unlikely that Robinson will ever be forced to stand down, which gives fits to the more conservative elements of the Episcopal Church. His election to bishop, to the conservatives, was akin to approving the devil to their ranks.

For the liberals, Robinson’s elevation was analogous to the second coming of Jesus Christ. One of the last glass ceilings had been broken, and they’d demonstrated that gay men and women could be judged by their faith, not their sexuality.

Robinson’s elevation caused a huge rift, with a number of individual churches and dioceses seeking to split away from the Church. Individuals left to set up their own Anglican churches.

In Glen Ellyn, where I live, the local rector, a highly conservative man, was so upset with Robinson’s elevation that he left our Episcopal Church to set up another church in Columbia, South Carolina, that’s affiliated with the Anglican Mission in America, a group originating from Africa.

About half of the congregation fled too, saying the local bishop had committed an egregious error, if not outright sin, by voting to elevate Robinson to bishop.

This whole fight over Robinson was particularly disturbing to me as well as to my wife. We weren’t the most religious people in the world, and still aren’t, but joining a church was important to us, especially when we learned we were about to become parents.

It was our feeling that there was no better way to teach ethics to our pending baby than by joining a church. Adding to the stress of this decision was the fact that my wife was brought up in the Catholic Church, and I grew up in the Presbyterian Church.

We had to find a compromise. And it came in the form of the Episcopal Church, which incorporates elements of Catholicism within the confines of a Protestant outlook.

We really enjoyed St. Mark’s. And although the local rector was far more conservative than either of us, we liked him. He was everything a good minister should be – approachable, highly likeable, down to earth and an all-around good guy. Indeed, the Episcopal Church would be better served today had it done a better job of retaining this minister.

But it didn’t. While they didn’t force him out, the local bishop and his staff didn’t do much to reassure him that he was still accepted – in spite of his highly conservative views. Had I been writing a performance review of the local bishop, I would have scolded him for his lack of leadership skills. They were atrocious. Indeed, the local bishop gave every impression that the acceptance of a gay man to the rank of bishop superseded all else.

Today, St. Mark’s is on its way back to becoming a viable church. There’s a new rector – a good man – and the ranks of the congregation are increasing. And we remain members of the church.

Unfortunately, the issue of sexuality continues to plague the Episcopal Church. There remain some dioceses that want nothing to do with Episcopal Church USA because of Robinson’s elevation and some are very disturbed about a woman being elected as presiding bishop.

I have no problem with women as clergy. I don’t believe for a second that God and Jesus Christ expected women to play a subservient role.

But there is a problem with accepting homosexuals to the ranks of the clergy. It’s one thing to be gay in the United States, where, overall, we’re pretty accepting of sexual diversity, but it’s quite the other to be leading the Anglican cause in places like Africa and Asia, where there’s a cultural clash between Christianity and other faiths.

Robinson’s elevation makes those who are not Christian, who live outside of the United States, question those who deliver the message of Jesus. How can they preach about living a life free of sin if they themselves accept sinners, especially those who practice gay sex and are members of their clergy?

Sexuality cuts to the root of who we are. It defines us. It’s intense, powerful, forceful, strong, deep and severe. There’s no compromising about sexuality.

And as long as the Episcopal Church USA is accepting of gay men and women to the clergy, they’ll diminish the broader Anglican mission in places like Africa and Asia, which are pretty inhospitable to the story of Jesus Christ.

I’m not homophobic. I’ve lived with gay men, worked alongside gays and lesbians and, like a lot of people, have someone in my family who is gay. I could care less what they do and I believe, because ours is a secular society, gays should be allowed to marry and be afforded all the rights that come from marriage.

When Gene Robinson became a member of the clergy he vowed that he would attempt to be as much of a reflection of Jesus Christ as possible, not a challenge for the faint of heart. It requires someone to subdue many, if not all, of their normal feelings and emotions and to constantly be on guard against sinful behavior, especially their own.

Jesus Christ is also a study in selfless leadership. He always more concerned about His flock than He was about Himself.

Robinson could have demonstrated that kind of behavior when he was elected. Instead of taking up the role of bishop, he could have said that now was not the time for him to be elevated to the upper ranks of the Episcopal Church. Such action would have put gay clergy members in a better light and, at the same time, recognized that such an elevation would have caused a potential breakup of the Episcopal Church.

Instead, Robinson demonstrated that he was selfish and conceited and far more concerned about his own self-aggrandizement than he was about the larger Church in the United States and the perception of the Anglican faith overseas.

Mr. Robinson is many things. But he’s no reflection of Jesus Christ.

Veteran's Day 2006

2006-11-11T07:48:00.000-05:00

Today is Veteran's Day. Salute all who have served. And all who are serving.

The Donald: Rumsfeld & his way of thinking

2006-11-10T12:07:00.001-05:00

Like a lot of people in the media and in government, I’ve shaken hands with Donald Rumsfeld, the departing secretary of defense.

He was on the board of directors of Tribune Company in the mid-90s, while I worked there, and the one thing that the higher ups always said about Rumsfeld is that he wasn’t likeable.

He asked a lot of questions that the senior executives didn’t want to answer. He challenged their assumptions and that made them uncomfortable.

But Rumsfeld took his job as a board member seriously. In fact, looking back on it now, Rumsfeld was ahead of his time as a board member.

Given all the corporate scandals that have been uncovered and adjudicated recently – Enron, WorldCom, Tyco – anyone who sits on the board of directors of a publicly held company knows that they’re going to be held far more accountable for their actions today than they were 10 years ago.

Rumsfeld knew that 10 years ago.

He made it a point, through his questions, to understand the plans and the marketplace. He likely signed off on a lot of actions that Tribune executives went on to execute but that didn’t stop him from gaining as much of an understanding as possible of these plans during a board meeting.

There’s likely no bureaucracy in Washington that’s more set in its ways than the Defense Department. Generals and admirals are often accused of using obsolete strategy and tactics to fight the war effort they’re leading.

Rumsfeld challenged his subordinates to think differently about how they’d fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. More than one senior officer likely didn’t appreciate these questions. They probably would have preferred a defense secretary that would rubber stamp their war plans.

That’s not Rumsfeld. He doesn’t rubber stamp anything.

The results in Afghanistan were startling. The United States was the first western army to conquer Afghanistan. Compare that to the British, who lost an entire army in Afghanistan in the 19th century and, later, the Soviet Union, which decided they couldn’t successfully occupy or pacify the country.

There are a lot of questions that need to be resolved about Afghanistan. But the victory orchestrated by Rumsfeld can’t be dismissed.

The same is true with the Iraq War of 2003. The basic tenants of the plan weren’t all that new – the British basically went in the same way in the early 20th century – but the results were no less outstanding. Even military historian John Keegan confirmed that.

The mistake that Rumsfeld made in Iraq was not planning for the postwar occupation. There’s every reason to believe that he never thought about an insurgency.

Still, in the course of executing these war plans, Rumsfeld forced the generals and the admirals to think about fighting wars far differently. For some of them, it was probably the biggest challenge they’d had since they attained their high ranks.

Some of the thinking that Rumsfeld instilled in his officers will likely remain around for decades, and, yes, it could, one day, be criticized as being obsolete.

Perhaps had Rumsfeld come across as a nicer man he wouldn’t have been forced out of his job. We’ll never know. And, yes, Rumsfeld does deserve a lot of the criticism he’s received. Even he would admit that.

And while I’m sure Robert Gates, the defense secretary-designate, is a capable executive, I wonder if he’ll bring the same level of intellectual energy to the job as his predecessor.

The Morning After

2006-11-09T10:30:00.000-05:00

Thank God the election is over.

By the time Tuesday rolled around, I’d had my fill of phone calls from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, First Lady Laura Bush and others pushing the Republican cause in Illinois’ Sixth Congressional District.

Rudy called here about three times. The first time he called, I wasn’t home. So he was kind enough to leave a message. I didn’t erase it. Instead, when my wife got home from the office that night, I told her Rudy called, seeking her vote for Peter Roskam.

She didn’t believe me. Then she checked the messages and she couldn’t believe what she heard – a recorded political message from Rudy. That went on through the last four days prior to the election, with Rudy calling back three more times; Laura called only once.

I’m not sure I ever want to see another flyer ever again either. I’m not sure how many we received from the Roskam campaign, but if I had to guess, I’d say it was around six. Tammy Duckworth only sent one or two.

Now comes the hard part – governing. The Democrats and President Bush must lead the country under a new set of circumstances. The smart thinkers among the Democrats will soon learn that skills required to be an administration’s constant critic are quite different than the abilities needed to manage, govern and lead. Smart Republicans, at the same time, are figuring out where they can agree with their loyal opponents, so they’re in a stronger position in 2008 and than they were this year.

For U. S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the next likely Speaker of the House, and President Bush, their challenge will be keeping their supporters on the extreme left and right under control as they find areas where they can easily compromise and pass legislation that benefits them both.

Pelosi is a smart political thinker. She knows her margin over the Republicans is thin. The same will hold for whoever is elected as the next Senate Majority Leader.

For that matter, President Bush and the Congressional Republican leadership know that while they’re not quite down and out, they need to play their cards smarter if they want to ensure their future.

Pelosi’s challenge will be to make sure this election isn’t a fluke. Her challenge will be to hold together moderates and extremes within her party, and it’s my prediction that she’ll temper her views, at least publicly.

Bush and Pelosi, in fact, may discover that sometimes there’s nothing worse than an ally with whom you share the same political affiliation.

This is one of these times in our political history when the goals of both the executive and legislative branch are just as equally aligned as they are opposed.

For the President, his goal over the next two years will be to secure a legacy that has him riding high in the polls by the time he leaves office. He will also seek to make Republicans far more palatable to the electorate, so he’s succeeded in 2009 by another member of his party.

The Democrats also want The White House. So they’ll do whatever is necessary to hold their position, so they’re perceived as elect-able and able to govern the country.

How will all of this turn out? Stay tuned.

Election Results 2006

2006-11-08T08:10:00.000-05:00

The election results shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to anyone. The Democrats were always favored to gain the House of Representatives while control of the Senate remained debatable.

Here's some quick commentary on some of the elections:

-- Illinois' Gubernatorial Election -- This was never in doubt. It was always Democrat Rod Blagojevich's election to lose. The larger question is will he survive a second term. The scandals involving some of his supporters may also hit the governor.

-- Illinois Sixth Congressional District -- Had Tammy Duckworth stayed focused on the district, and worked the campaign harder, she'd be the toast of the Democrats today. Instead, Peter Roskam, undeterred by all the attention Tammy received, kept his nose to close the ground, worked hard for every vote, and today is Henry Hyde's successor. Tammy's loss also begs the question: Did the Democrats do everything they could to help her? Answer: No!

-- Illinois Cook County Board President -- This is machine politics at its best, resulting in Todd Stroger succeeding his father as Cook County Board President.

-- New York's U.S. Senate Race -- Hillary wins and she's reported to have a campaign war chest of around $15 million. What's in store for 2008? I'm guessing it's a run at the Democratic nomination for president.

-- California's Gubernatorial Election -- Arnold owes this victory to his wife. When the polls were down, she did a complete makeover of Arnold's office, installing a Democrat as his chief of staff. This resulted in Arnold moving toward the center and securing his re-election.

-- Connecticut's U.S. Senate Race -- What were the Democrats thinking when they deposed U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman as their candidate? Joe proved he knows Connecticut voters better than his opponent, Ned Lamont, and the national DNC party. Now the Democrats are forced into making amends to Lieberman. And Joe's in a position to do pretty much whatever he wants in the U.S. Senate. How refreshing! Hats off to Joe!

-- Virginia's & Montana's U.S. Senate Races -- As of this writing, the results show that neither election has been called. Stay tuned.