Summer Camp Fights

Sports radio was all talk the last two days about the dust-up in the New York Jets training camp Tuesday that left starting quarterback Geno Smith with a broken jaw that will sideline him anywhere from six to 10 weeks. Smith was hit, some say sucker-punched, by Ikemefuna Enemkpali, a teammate, now an ex-teammate, an egregious infraction of acceptable camp behavior. 

I was particularly amused by Mike Greenberg of ESPN’s Mike and Mike morning show. Greenberg told his sidekick, former NFL defensive lineman Mike Golic, that he had never been in a real fight. I identified with Greenberg’s experience, or lack thereof. Until I harkened back to my fifth year at sleepaway summer camp. That year my annual summer rivalry with Elliot Levine came to a head. 

A little background: I first met Elliot in 1957 when I was eight-years-old, my second year at Camp Massad Aleph in Tannersville, Pa. Though a scrawny (read that, really skinny) kid, I was a pretty good athlete. The prior year I was arguably the best in my division.

So on the first day of my second year at Massad, I was quickly alerted to the prowess of one of our new bunkmates. I was told he could punch a ball all the way up the hill outside our bunk to the flagpole, a truly prodigious feat. With trepidation, I stepped outside to witness what proved to be an accurate accounting of his talent. He also could pitch softball better than I. He was, in short, a better athlete.

Naturally, we sustained a rivalry throughout that summer and the next three that we shared together, culminating in an after-lights-out fight one Friday night when we were 11. The tussle ended after he flipped me against the metal frame of a bed and a counselor mercifully showed up to end the mismatch. Actually, it didn’t quite end there. As we wanted to tangle, the counselor said, let’s do it the old fashioned way, with boxing gloves. Elliot outweighed me by about 30 pounds, but that didn’t matter to anyone except me. I’d like to say I acquitted myself admirably in the ring, but I’m still a little woozy as to the particulars of that encounter.

Our rivalry ended that summer. The following year my brother, sister and I went to a different summer camp. By the time Elliot and I re-engaged in high school, our competition had pretty much ceased. I even turned out to be the pitcher on our school softball team, undefeated our senior year. Elliot played shortstop.

GOP Disses Wal-Mart: Twice last week Republicans disrespected Wal-Mart. Once during the candidates’ debate last Thursday and again the following night on Real Time with Bill Maher, a prominent Republican said Amazon was the largest retailer in the world.

That must have been news to the good people in Bentonville, Ark. After all, Wal-Mart had global sales last year of $473.1 billion compared to Amazon’s $89 billion. 

If anyone should have corrected the Republicans it possibly should have been Hillary Clinton. For several years she served on the retailer’s board of directors. 

A Close Shave

Its advertisements are everywhere. Right in the middle of my daily afternoon update from The New York Times. On the sports radio channels WFAN and ESPN. On CBS AM 880 News. Harry’s—the place to go for quality blades at affordable prices, or so its ads tout.

You might think looking at my picture that I don’t shave a lot. After all, except for one month back in 1973 I’ve had a beard since November 1969. The truth is, when I was a working stiff I shaved a minimum of five or six times a week, always when trudging off to work and at least once every weekend.

Nowadays, I shave maybe two or three times a week.

I shaved with a razor, usually a Gillette disposable. Or a Bic. A couple of months ago I started alternatively using an electric shaver, a plug in Norelco that used to be my father’s.

As a youngster I would watch him shave. Back then he had a Remington. He would prep his face with some pre-shave talc that came in a round stick. Or he’d splash on some Mennen pre-shave lotion. Often as not, he’d pass the shaver over my peach fuzz face to tickle or scare me.

The first time I used a blade I was 16. It was a Saturday night. I was home alone. My parents were playing cards, one of their monthly floating poker games at friends from my father’s Old World society. My brother was out on a date. My sister was in Israel attending Hebrew University.

I had traces of stubble from an electric shave several days before, an outline barely visible. Feeling a little adventurous, on a whim I decided to try out my brother’s double-edged safety razor. I lathered up and effortlessly glided the razor across my cheeks, down my neck. This shaving was a piece of cake, I said to myself.

And then I looked in the mirror. Red splotches everywhere. No pain no stinging, but lots of crimson.

I washed the blood away, along with any remaining shaving cream. The bleeding seemed to stop everywhere but one persistent spot under my chin. I applied pressure. Blood kept oozing out. I put on a band-aid. Soon it was all red. Tissue after tissue stained red. An hour went by. No relief.

With no one home to share my predicament with, I sat down at the dining room table and wrote my sister, using one of those lightweight, folding aerogram letter forms. To illustrate my misfortune I dabbed the paper to my cut. When I finished writing it was nearly two hours after the dripping began. I finally stopped bleeding.

Over the next 50 years I rarely have cut myself shaving. No cut has bled for more than a few minutes. I’ve never used a styptic pencil or walked around with pieces of tissue covering mishaps across my face. Perhaps I bled my life’s quota that Saturday night five decades ago.

A Career Based on Talent and Good Fortune

I turned the car radio to ESPN Wednesday afternoon just as Michael Kay and his sidekicks were discussing the impact of talent and luck on their respective successful careers.

One day I turned left instead of right, was the way Kay, the play-by-play television announcer of the New York Yankees, rationalized his good fortune. I readily identified with that explanation of how luck, just plain dumb luck, can differentiate equally skilled job applicants. 

As I wrote five years ago, it also doesn’t hurt to have fortuitous timing and shared background with the person who hires you. Take my first job, for example. Murray Farber, managing editor administration of The New Haven Register, hired me. Murray grew up in Brooklyn, as I did. Though he attended BTA High School, rival of my alma mater, Flatbush, Murray didn’t hold that against me. Much as blood is thicker than water, “Murraydom” trumps any reservations.

Yet, if it weren’t for Donna Doherty I would never have met Murray Farber.

Donna Doherty was the quintessential shiksa (Gentile woman) of every Jewish man’s dreams. Tall, lithe, beautiful and blonde—really blonde—, Donna Doherty entered my life as a fellow graduate student at Syracuse University. My friend Steve Kreinberg and I drooled over her, from afar mind you, considering that Steve was married and I was engaged. Donna Doherty hardly knew we existed. She left Syracuse before graduation in 1972 and headed back home to Branford, Conn., just east of New Haven.

A few months later, armed with a master’s degree in newspaper journalism, I started visiting newspapers in search of that first job. I’d cold call managing editors of papers from northern Virginia through northern Massachusetts. They lauded my moxie. They all told me they had no job openings.

July 14, 1972, I arranged a day trip from Brooklyn to five papers in southwest Connecticut. At each stop the same result—the managing editor was away attending a publishing conference in Arizona. Around noon I found myself in Ansonia, at the proverbial fork in the road. Right headed toward Bridgeport, left toward New Haven. Ah, New Haven. Wasn’t that close to Donna Doherty’s home town?, I thought. It would mean a longer ride home, but there was no question in my mind which direction I’d head.

Thirty minutes later I was inside The Register building at 367 Orange Street. Depressed with my earlier failures to meet any managing editors, I sheepishly allowed the receptionist to steer me to the head of personnel without even trying to see if the ME was present. Robert E. Lee (yes, that really was his name) gave me the standard response. No, there weren’t any openings. Yes, I’ll take your résumé just in case something happens. After all, you never know.

And then his phone rang. Yes, I have someone sitting across my desk this very moment, he said into the handset. I perked up. He sent me up to the third floor newsroom. Just my luck, The Register had two managing editors, one for news, one for administration. The ME-News was in Arizona, but the ME-Administration, Murray Farber, was in New Haven looking after the business and having to deal with a sudden resignation. I started the job two months later, September 14, 1972, thanks in no small measure to persistence, luck, timing, Donna Doherty and Murray Farber.

I left The Register four years later to be a press secretary in an unsuccessful congressional campaign. From November to early March 1977 I was jobless, unable to secure a newspaper position. Gilda said she’d move anywhere but back to New York. 

As luck would have it, a copy of the Sunday New York Times I bought in a Cumberland Farms store included Classified ads, a section not usually distributed in New Haven back then. I knew the job ads were for Manhattan-based companies, and were for trade publications, not traditional newspapers, but our bank account dictated some compromise. I answered two ads, both, it turned out, for the same spot, that of field editor on Nation’s Restaurant News. I got the job and we moved back to New York.

Luck played a part even when I didn’t get a job. A year later I was one of two candidates under consideration to be the top editor of the magazine of the Automotive After Parts Association in Washington, DC. A local candidate was chosen, but six months later the association called to say it made a mistake. I thanked them for their belated offer but in those same six months I told them I had received two promotions and was now the editorial head of Chain Store Age, a title I would not relinquish for the next 30 years. 

Lest you get the impression my success came solely from the proper alignment of the stars, let me assure you talent played a significant role, as well. Within two years I became one of six bureau chiefs on The Register’s staff of 100 reporters. 

I earned numerous accolades on Nation’s Restaurant News and Chain Store Age, including a Jesse H. Neal Award, considered the Pulitzer Prize of business to business journalism. 

Talent, however, can get you only so far. It’s far better to combine talent with a measure of luck. 

Malcolm in the Middle Super Bowl Hero

Malcolm Butler is a Super Bowl hero. Deservedly so, but not just for intercepting a goal line pass from Russell Wilson in the middle of the field that would have catapulted the Seattle Seahawks into football dynasty territory with a second straight Super Bowl victory. Instead, the New England Patriots are NFL champions for a fourth time in the Bill Belichick-Tom Brady era over the last 14 years.

Butler jumped in front of Ricardo Lockette to snare the ball and save the Patriots’ day. But in truth, it was his second save of the game, the first having come just two plays before the “catch,” the play of the game, that is, until Butler’s interception. 

The catch I refer to was Jermaine Kearse’s remarkable, unbelievable, mind- boggling, juggling snatch of a ball defended and deflected by Butler, what at first appeared to be a superb defensive play by the unheralded, undrafted small college defensive back. But if you followed the play to its conclusion, what most if not all reporters and commentators have ignored, is that the play did not end when Kearse eventually caught the ball lying flat on his back around New England’s eight yard line. He got up and would have scored if not for Butler’s presence of mind to scramble up from the turf and push Kearse out of bounds at the five yard line.

One more thing of note about Malcolm Butler: In all the interviews I read and saw Butler never thanked God. Oh, he said he was blessed, but he didn’t follow that with the trite trope of thanking God, as many athletes do, as if God somehow favored the Patriots and didn’t care about the Seahawks.

And for those who didn’t come across this analysis of Butler’s interception, it was made possible because his teammate, Brandon Browner, wouldn’t allow himself to be pushed back by Kearse, which would have blocked Butler’s direct path to the ball. Browner is the unsung hero of Butler’s heroics. 

Here’s how Tuesday’s New York Times described it, though in truth I heard ESPN analyst and former head coach Herman Edwards break it down on Monday (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/sports/football/true-hero-for-patriots-put-rookie-butler-in-spotlight.html?ref=sports&_r=0). 

I also heard an ESPN analyst explain that in forcefully going for the ball Butler legally banged into Lockette’s arms, effectively pushing them up and away from any chance of catching the pass from Wilson. 

Perhaps most fatefully, Butler caught the ball. If he had just knocked it down, Seattle would have had two more chances to punch the ball across the goal line, no doubt by either handing off to Marshawn Lynch or by Wilson bootlegging it into the end zone. 

Anniversary's Over, Now Back to the News

Almost a week since my last post, not that there weren’t things to write about but I chose to take some quality time to enjoy a long family weekend celebration of Gilda’s and my 40th wedding anniversary which officially was Monday. This last year of our four decades together has been quite eventful—Ellie married Donny, and Donny started a new job; Dan and Allison produced their second child, Dagny, they moved into a new home and Allison started working outside the home again, as a kindergarten teacher in a town near their new residence; Gilda’s spine surgery medical practice shifted to a new hospital, Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan; and I earned my real estate salesperson license. Lots of good things to be thankful for. 

The festivities over, time for some thoughts on current events ...

As the national debate on immigration reform is propelled forward by pronouncements from President Obama and a plan from a bi-partisan group of senators, I’m reminded of a Forseter family story of illegal entry into the United States by one of our cousins (for the record, my mother beat the quota in 1921 when she came from Poland, while my father arrived in 1939 from Poland, half a year before the start of World War II).

My father’s cousin Jack Fürsetzer snuck into New York in the early 1920’s, I believe. Hearing that a roundup of suspected illegal immigrants was about to happen, he asked around for a good place to hide. He was told Minnesota, so off he went to the hinterlands, settling in the Twin Cities area. He changed his name to Brushman. In the 1930s there was an amnesty for illegals, which explains why some of his six children have his assumed last name and some have his real last name. 

About 20 years ago I met with my cousins during one of my trips to Minneapolis, but sadly I did not keep up contact. ...

Immigration is but one of the hot topics being debated these days. Since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, gun control has been topic one. Sadly, during a forum last night in Hartford, pro-gun advocates heckled the father of one of the young victims as he called for stricter gun control measures. 

Even if tighter laws on guns, especially on assault rifles, are passed, the chances of a meaningful reduction in deadly firearms availability is unlikely. As Dave Ross explained in a recent commentary I heard on CBS Radio, gun runners are already passing along ideas on how to get around any potential ban. Read his short commentary: http://mynorthwest.com/813/2184540/Just-calmly-getting-ready ...

Less than a week to go before the Super Bowl, a time to ponder why we are so enthralled with watching athletes, from high school age through their late 30s, abuse their bodies in pursuit of glory and, at least on the professional level, financial gain, however fleeting that might be. Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy watching my New York Giants as much as any fan relishes rooting on his or her preferred team. I will watch some pro games in which I have no rooting interest, mostly out of curiosity or lack of anything better to do. After all, I do want to be able to be up to date on trending sports news and conversation, even if I don’t have a water cooler to hang around at work. But given repeated revelations about the medical complications football bequeaths its behemoths, don’t you wonder why so many parents permit, nay even encourage, their children to take up a sport that will torment them for life, or possibly even lead to their suicide?

The other day, president Barack Obama indicated if he had a son he might not let him play football. It’s a sentiment expressed increasingly by many parents, including sportscaster Michael Kay on ESPN Radio. Kay and his wife recently celebrated the birth of their first child, a daughter. I remember when Dan was a tween and interested in catching a football in our yard, Gilda let him know in no uncertain terms he would not be permitted to play organized football. He pouted for a while, but soon got over it. 

He played soccer, instead. Goalie. During one game he blocked a hard, close-in shot with his head. Down he went. The game stopped as the referee and coaches tended to him. On the sidelines, Gilda had to be restrained from rushing out onto the field. In her frustration she asked, “What type of game is this where a mother can’t go out to her injured son?” Dan quickly recovered and finished the game, but Gilda rarely went to see him play soccer again. She did, however, enjoy watching him play Ultimate Frisbee. ...  

Want to be truly scared? I’m not talking some creepy Nightmare on Elm Street/Freddy Kruger horror flick. I’m talking real world, red and blue state election results. 

While Democrats savor Barack Obama’s second term, and his progressive inaugural address, there’s mayhem underfoot, as Republicans wax up their plans to put the skids on any future possibility of a Democratic president. In states where Republicans control the legislature and the governorship they are exploring changes in the way Electoral College votes are allocated. Here are two links worth taking the time to explore. Unless you’re a bedrock conservative, they'll have you quaking in your boots:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/republican-vote-rigging-electoral-college_n_2546010.htmlutm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=012513&utm_medium=email&utm_content=FeatureTitle&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/423163/january-23-2013/alpha-dog-of-the-week---virginia-state-senate-republicans?xrs=share_copy

What I Heard Last Night

If one of the talking points Mitt Romney has about Barack Obama is that his presidency has disappointed us, I must say the Mittster’s nomination acceptance speech last night at the Republican National Convention did not differentiate him from the incumbent. I was not blown away by his rhetoric, his message or by his delivery. And, for sure, I was not provided an inkling as to how he would achieve his five point goals. Yes, they were lofty. But without specifics, it’s like my saying I would like a body as trim and buff as Paul Ryan’s. Unless I’m specifically willing to devote time to the exercise regimen Ryan endures each morning, it’s just not happening. 

You might already have read analyses about the speech, so I’ll try  to keep my take to a minimum of what I jotted down as Romney was smiling that awkward smile of his as he soaked up the love, if not the respect, of the conventioneers, who, honestly, seemed less enthusiastic than those I’ve seen at other party gatherings. 

First, I couldn’t believe Mitt said, “If you ask Ann and I...” I’m picky about grammar. The correct phrase is, “If you ask Ann and me ...”, “me” being the object of the verb “ask.” “I” cannot be the object of a verb. I suppose Romney might want to reconsider any suggestion to downgrade or eliminate the Department of Education.

Second, Romney said Republicans “united” behind Obama when he assumed office. What distant Bizarro world has he lived in since January 20, 2009? The only union Republicans made was with themselves in their effort to, in Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s words, make Obama a one-term president.

Third, Romney soft-pedaled the troubles Obama inherited from George Bush. He barely acknowledged Bush’s legacy—two wars, a failed economy, a rising deficit.

Fourth, he suggested the best feeling Americans had for Obama “was the day you voted for him,” ignoring the euphoria we all felt when we heard Osama bin Laden had been killed, on orders from a Democratic president.

Fifth, saying that Obama’s lack of business experience made him unqualified to be president, especially compared to his business background, Romney ignored the fact that some of our greatest or most important presidents were similarly inexperienced (FDR, JFK, Nixon, Reagan, Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt) or were failures in business (Truman, Lincoln, Jefferson).  

Sixth, Romney criticized Obama’s attacks on his record at Bain Capital, saying the president didn’t understand not every business succeeds. Fair enough. I would expect then, Romney would drop any future references to Solyndra, the solar energy company that received a $500 million federal investment but wound up filing for bankruptcy a year ago tomorrow. As Romney said, not every company succeeds.

Seventh, “As president, I’ll protect the sanctity of life,” Romney said to wild cheering. But what did he mean by that? Would he continue to defend a woman’s right to an abortion in cases of rape, incest or risk to her life? Would he work to outlaw contraception, as his running mate Ryan advocates? Would he support legislation to criminalize women and their doctors for abortions? Would he support legislation to extend rights to the unborn, from the moment of conception? Would he reject embryonic stem cell research? Would he reject federal funding for Planned Parenthood?  

Eighth, Mocking Obama’s promise “to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet,” Romney said, “My promise is to help you and your family.”  His promise is a good one, but in denigrating Obama’s, he projects his disdain for the realities of climate change and pollution. It is indisputable sea levels are rising, that the world’s air and water are getting dirtier. To ignore the long-term implications is evidence Romney is living in a dream world of the 1950s.

Ninth, Romney resurrected Reagan’s question as to whether we are better off today than four years ago. To someone currently unemployed or in danger of losing their home, the answer is obvious. But let’s look at the trends. Unemployment is slightly higher, 8.3% compared to 7.6% when Obama took the oath of office. But the trendline points down and would be lower if not for the massive layoffs of state and local government workers. Job creation is up. The Dow Jones Industrial Index was 8,281 the morning of January 20, 2009. NASDAQ was 1,529. The S&P 500 was 850. This morning they were, respectively, 13,000; 3,049; and 1,399. Gas prices are almost double what they were, despite the highest level of U.S. oil production. Housing prices seem to be creeping back up, but too many homes remain under water (and I’m not referring to Hurricane Isaac). 

To sum up, economic statistics and trends can support Obama or Romney, which is why so many pundits believe Romney must make himself more likable, and Obama less likable, for the GOP to retake the Oval Office. Which brings up a most interesting question NBC’s Brian Williams asked Tom Brokaw last night—why is it that after six years of running for the presidency, Mitt Romney remains an unknown to much of the electorate? Brokaw didn’t have an answer.

An example of how much of a blank slate Romney is could be observed in the weird Clint Eastwood segment of last night’s convention. Eastwood said he never thought it was a good idea for an attorney to be president, an obvious reference to Obama’s Harvard Law School degree. The crowd laughed and cheered. I guess Eastwood and his live audience didn’t read Romney’s resume—he, too, is a Harvard Law School graduate, class of 1975. 

Chinese Fortune: Jon Huntsman Jr., the former governor or Utah and ex-Ambassador to China, was asked by Stephen Colbert to say in Mandarin what he really thinks of Romney. Here’s a translation: "All right!  Let me put it this way.  I think that two months from now Governor Romney will have a lot of success."

But as Nathan pointed out on http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4158, “Unfortunately for Romney, the election's slightly more than two months away.”

Foreign Language: Finally, here’s another example of dumbness on the airwaves. Stephen A. Smith, an ESPN talk-radio host, said yesterday he would gladly learn Spanish if he knew he would be sent to Brazil to cover the 2016 Summer Olympics. His co-host, producer or anyone else listening in didn’t tell him Spanish would do him little good in Rio de Janeiro as Brazilians speak Portuguese. 

Chick-fil-A and Other Food for Thought

Lots of news and views to review from the last week or so ...

So liberal-minded cities and universities have rallied against Chick-fil-A because its president voiced religious opposition to same-sex marriage. Not a position I would endorse but probably not one solely held by Dan T. Cathy, son of the founder, S. Truett Cathy, a deeply religious man whose beliefs are underscored by keeping all 1,600 of his restaurants closed on Sundays.

The liberal elite wants to make an example of Chick-fil-A, denying it permission to open new units or by revoking existing permits. I wonder, though, would these same liberals denounce one of their store favorites if they knew it harbored similar anti-gay biases? As Matt Bai reported in the July 22 NY Times Sunday magazine, Target in 2010 contributed $150,000 to a Minnesota group backing a conservative candidate opposing gay marriage. 

During Sunday night’s telecast of the NY Yankees-Boston Red Sox game, the camera lingered on Paul Simon in the box seats at Yankee Stadium. Yes, he’s worth pointing out to the audience. But what about the mustachioed gentleman sitting to his left? He probably wields as much influence, if not more, than Simon, though not as an entertainer. He does it with the weight of his ideas, the scope of his vision, the power of his reasoning. That man was Thomas L. Friedman, foreign affairs columnist for The NY Times. Sadly, neither the broadcasters on ESPN nor the people in the control booth had any idea who he was.

Sticking with foreign affairs, Mitt Romney continued his gaffe-prone world tour, this time praising Poland’s vibrant economy while ignoring its 12% unemployment rate (50% higher than U.S. jobless rate), and lauding Solidarity for its part in overturning Communist rule. Solidarity, however, reacted coolly to Romney’s visit because of his anti-union positions in America. Former Solidarity leader Lech Walesa, on the other hand, who invited Romney to Poland, praised him.

On a topic that can be classified as “nothing new here,” an article suggesting Barack Obama’s mother might have had African ancestry has caused quite a stir, with conservative commentators suggesting it’s merely a ploy to make the president’s life story appear more appealing while liberals are fascinated by the possibility. 

Regardless of its veracity, the research by Ancestry.com demonstrated that just as happens today, in the distant past blacks received unequal, more severe punishment for identical crimes committed by whites. According to Ancestry.com, a geneology company based in Provo, Utah, an African indentured servant named John Punch escaped from Virginia in 1640. After his capture in Maryland along with two white escapees, Punch received a life sentence of servitude, a punishment “harsher than what the white servants received,” The Times reported. The two white men received just four additional years of servitude.

Exciting Day

Too Much CSI? Experienced a little excitement in the ‘hood this morning. Around noon our neighbors’ housekeeper rang the door bell. Seems she couldn’t unlock their front door as she’s been doing for 35 years. The lock was a-kilter, angled 45 degrees to the left as if someone had tried to jimmy it. The cylinder wouldn’t accept her key. What’s more, their golden retriever was barking in a strange way, and when she went around back she discovered the sliding glass patio door was ajar.

After checking out all her details, I advised we call the police. Neither of us desired to enter the house to discover anything untoward. We’ve all seen too many TV crime shows. They weren’t going to find my fingerprints in that house. 

We waited 15 minutes for a patrol car to arrive. After hearing our story, the policewoman called for backup. This was getting real interesting. 

We waited another 15 minutes for the second squad car to arrive. As we cooled our heels in the backyard, the officers entered the house, searched all the rooms, looking under the beds and in the closets, even in the crawl space in the basement. No bodies found, nothing tossed about, they declared the house safe to enter.  

CNN’s Worst Nightmare: In case you missed it, the U.S. Supreme Court this morning issued a ruling on the Affordable Care Act, the so-called Obamacare. 

Want to know who missed it? Or more precisely, who got it wrong? CNN. And Fox News.

At 10:09:03, CNN sent out a “Breaking News” email alert with the following message: “The Supreme Court has struck down the individual mandate for health care—the legislation that requires all to have health insurance.”

All that planning for the biggest story of the year to date and CNN, which has billed itself as “the most trusted name in news,” got it WRONG.  It took nine full minutes before CNN corrected itself. And then it compounded the error by making another mistake, this time not saying the Medicaid extension provision had been declared unconstitutional: “Correction: The Supreme Court backs all parts of President Obama’s signature health care law, including the individual mandate that requires all to have health insurance.” 

(My thanks to Casey for sending me these email alerts.)

Not to be outdone, Fox News also reported the individual mandate had been declared unconstitutional. 

Interestingly, as I was watching special CBS News coverage of the decision from 10 to 10:30 am, I wondered how NBC News and ABC News were handling the story. NBC, turned out, was airing a segment of The Today Show on swimming pools, while Rachael Ray was in the kitchen on ABC (sorry, I didn’t linger long enough to discover what she was cooking).  

I guess the news business just ain’t what it used to be.

And neither will women’s tennis, if a no-grunting rule is implemented. There’s no agreement on the civility and gentility of players grunting when stroking a ball, but the Women’s Tennis Association  “plans to launch an initiative in conjunction with the International Tennis Federation and the Grand Slam Committee—timetable to be determined—to teach young players breathing techniques to avoid grunting and to eventually adopt a rule against noises deemed too loud, with the help of a decibel meter to be designed for use by chair umpires,” ESPN reported.

Women grunting has been around at least since 1962, but those who feel it is unseemly can’t wait for a new generation of players who are silent on the court. I hadn’t given it much thought till now, but I don’t agree with those who believe some sports, like tennis and golf, demand absolute quiet from fans when a serve or shot is taken. 

Are golfers and tennis players lower forms of athletes than basketball players, baseball players, and football players that they need total silence to focus all of their concentration on the serve or shot at hand? After all, taking a free throw with the game on the line is one of the more tension-filled moments of a basketball game, as is lining up a game-deciding field goal, or pitching a baseball with the bases loaded, yet we don’t expect fans to sit placidly as the action unfolds. Let’s stop coddling these so-called “athletes” who stare down talkers. Let them learn to zone out the noise, be it from the stands or from their opponents across the net. 

Grunting may not be feminine, but if that’s what it takes for some women to play hard and win, let them do it. 

GOP's Last Stand

Regardless of who secures the Republican party presidential nomination, one overriding compulsion the Grand Old Party has is to hold back the sands of time. The election of 2012, according to Thomas Byrne Edsall, an academic and 25-year political reporter for The Washington Post, might well be the last chance for conservatives before demographic changes (more Latinos and Asians, more younger voters) deny them the opportunity to win national elections.

Speaking on NPR’s Leonard Lopate radio show last week, Edsall said if Republicans win the White House and seize both houses of Congress they will work feverishly to reverse the “welfare state” first conceptualized 80 years ago by FDR to lift the nation out of the Depression and to provide safety nets to assure we wouldn’t be so stricken again. Even if Democrats win four years later in 2016, it would take at least a decade to re-enact social welfare legislation, Edsall believes, because the rules of the Senate now require a super-majority to effectively pass any new laws.

It’s a harsh reality, or forecast, especially given the need so many in our country have for a helping hand. Republicans would have you believe private institutions and individuals, not government, can and should take care of the needy. Trouble is, as the economy sours, private contributions dry up. Last week, Crain’s New York Business reported, “Goldman Sachs Group Inc. cut its charitable contributions to its donor-advised fund by more than three-quarters to $78 million last year, amid a drop in profits. The smaller donation to Goldman Sachs Gives represents the second reduction in three years. The fund is solely supported by the bank and its partners. In 2010, $320 million was allocated for the charitable fund, down from $500 million in 2009.”

Hard really to blame Goldman Sachs and its partners. After all, the firm’s revenues dropped 26% last year vs. a year earlier. Compensation and benefits were trimmed by 21% to just $12.2 billion. Hey, you know how hard it is to get by on just $12.2 billion? Try it, some time. It’s not unlike Mitt Romney saying last week “not very much” of his multi-million dollar income came from speaker fees in 2010. Only about $374,327.62. A mere pittance. Try living on that, America!

Here’s an interesting bit of information from the Internal Revenue Service (courtesy of a Colbert Report episode last week). According to the IRS, for the year 2009, the top 1% of Americans reported adjusted gross income (AGI) of $343,927.
For the top 5%, AGI was $154,643;
for the top 10%, $112,124;
for the top 25%, $66,193;
for the top 50%, $32,396.
Half of the country earned less than $32,396 in 2009.


Sending a Message: Eartha Kitt chose a White House luncheon with Lady Bird Johnson to express her outrage over the Vietnam War. Tim Thomas, the Most Valuable Player of the reigning National Hockey League champion Boston Bruins, registered a personal political protest today against President Barack Obama by refusing to attend a White House ceremony honoring his team’s Stanley Cup victory last year.

When I first heard this story during Michael Kay’s radio show on ESPN, I agreed with Kay that Thomas, a Michigan native and a conservative Republican, was wrong, that his actions failed to show proper respect for the office of the presidency. Kay, the long-time voice of the NY Yankees, said some Yankees wanted to skip White House ceremonies with President Bill Clinton (baseball players are predominantly conservative, he explained). Owner George Steinbrenner, however, required their attendance because he felt it was a team honor bestowed by the White House, not an individual president.

The Bruins opted not to require Thomas’ attendance. I don’t agree with what Thomas did, but it seems to me he was perfectly within his rights. Athletes and other public figures do not give up their right to express their opinions, and what could be more to the point than snubbing the president?


Is Alito for Real? Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. is part of the conservative wing of the U.S. Supreme Court, the group that always seems to be looking to the Founders of the Republic for their intent before deciding a case. But in a decision Monday in which the court ruled police could not place a GPS tracking device on a suspect’s car without a warrant, Alito chastised several of his colleagues “for trying to apply 18th-century legal concepts to 21st-century technologies. What should matter, he said, is the contemporary reasonable expectation of privacy,” according to The NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/us/police-use-of-gps-is-ruled-unconstitutional.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=afternoonupdate&emc=aua2).

Wow. Is this the first indication Alito has finally recognized all truths, and constitutional rights, do not reside with the Founders? I surely hope so.

Are You Ready For Some Football

Now that ESPN’s Monday Night Football broadcast has been circumcised of any openly bigoted celebrities (thank you, Hank Williams Jr., for making it kosher to view America’s favorite sport without feeling too guilty about tuning in to redneck country), let’s turn our attention to a post-mortem on the untimely demise of our, or at least my, favorite team, the NY Yankees. I’ll try not to repeat what others have said or written.

* Right off the bat (don’t you just love that pun), I’ll violate my last sentence—the Yanks didn’t lose to the Detroit Tigers 3-2 last night because of their pitching. They lost because of the Tigers pitching. They lost because they didn’t hit, not just in the last game but throughout most of the first round playoff series. With few exceptions they did not hit with men in scoring position, and since the name of the game in baseball is to score more than your opponent in each game, not collectively throughout a series, they lost. Blame, and yes, in this case there is blame, Alex Rodriguez, Mark Teixeira, Nick Swisher, and even Derek Jeter. Robinson Cano, as well, came up short, like Jeter's fly ball to the wall in the eighth inning last night, when it really mattered, when runners were on base, except that one time in Game One when he hit a grand slam. Yes, Cano hit a solo home run yesterday, but he made out earlier in the game with two runners on.
* Some players are great during the regular season but wilt during the post-season. That’s been the pattern for years—at bat, not in the field—for A-Rod, Teixeira and Swisher. There’s no predicting how a player will perform in the playoffs, so let’s not bury these guys. Mope and hiss, but keep in mind, the difficult part of any season is making the playoffs. Only four teams make it from each league; these players have helped the Yanks continue their exemplary record of qualifying for 16 out of the last 17 years. Remarkable.
* A-Rod’s prowess at bat is diminishing. Watching A-Rod over the remaining seven years of his contract will be a flashback to watching Mickey Mantle in the twilight of his Hall of Fame career, only fewer people idolize A-Rod so his failures will be less tolerated.
* Jorge Posada showed he still can be a big-game player. He led all starters with a.429 playoff batting average. It will be sad to see him on another team next year. I was rooting for him to cap his Yankee career by smacking a tying home run in the eighth inning last night.
* Ron Darling and John Smoltz, TNT color commentators last night, made a point of saying the electronic image of a pitch was not accurate. So why bother showing it? It grossly frustrates fans when pitches clearly outside the strike zone on the graphic are called strikes against your team and balls when your pitcher throws them, or when your pitcher throws the ball inside the box and it's called a ball.
* The disappointment of unfulfilled expectations will linger for months, soothed by just one thought—The Yankees made it to the playoffs, the Boston Red Sox did not. Now, onto watching the NY Giants. My expectations going into this football season were low, so my pleasure at how well they play (they’re already 3-1) will be boundless. Unless they make it to the playoffs, at which time I’ll be crushed if they fail to win the Super Bowl.