Trump & the GOP: The Political Embodiment of the Fable of The Scorpion and the Frog

As they try to come to terms with the outrageous, bigoted, xenophobic, misogynistic, unconstitutional ravings of their presumptive presidential candidate, Republican Party leaders would do well to read the children’s animal fable “The Scorpion and the Frog.” (For those not familiar with the parable, the tale goes thusly: a scorpion implores a frog to carry it across a river. At first the frog rejects the idea, fearing it would be fatally stung. After the scorpion explains it wouldn’t do such a thing as it would then drown, the frog agrees. Halfway across, the frog is indeed stung. Before it dies it asks the scorpion why would it doom both of them. Because, replies the scorpion, it is in its nature to sting, regardless of the consequences.)

Donald Trump’s strained, symbiotic relationship with his current party’s establishment—which hopes to control him—is the embodiment of the fable. Despite their often stated distaste for him, the party elite is willing to carry Trump on its back as they navigate the election waters. But, just as the scorpion stung the frog and drowned both of them because it was in its nature, there is little doubt Trump will continue to make flagrantly divisive statements that may well sink GOP efforts to appeal to a base broader than angry white men and women.

Trump has promised a major rip-roaring speech early next week to expose both Hillary and Bill Clinton’s warts. For sure the speech will be colorful and entertaining. He is, after all, a master showman. But as two of the most heavily vetted public figures of the last quarter century, the Clintons have survived years of congressional and special prosecutor scrutiny. It would indeed be news if Trump revealed any new scandals beyond the rumor and innuendo that are his stock in trade. 

On the other hand, can a man currently defending himself in court for allegedly fraudulently bilking desperate, needy consumers into paying thousands of dollars to Trump University accuse the Clintons of engaging in get rich quick schemes? Bernie Sanders, a socialist, might legitimately question Hillary’s fees for Wall Street speeches, but Trump is a capitalist. You would think he would applaud her ability to squeeze as much lucre from the fat cats.

Can a man who cheated on two wives chastise another for infidelity?  Let’s keep in mind two points: Hillary never committed adultery, and many of the holier-than-thou crowd who tried to remove Bill from office wound up admitting they strayed from their marriage vows. 

Can a man who four times had to seek bankruptcy protection for his companies be expected to lecture on business acumen and vitality? Bill, after all, wiped out the deficit he inherited from his Republican predecessors and left a surplus. The stock market enjoyed boom times during his term of office, the budget was balanced, the economy was robust.

Can a man who lauded Putin and Kim Jong-Un, who suggested nuclear proliferation is acceptable, who would undermine longstanding bi-partisan international alliances, opine on foreign affairs? Beyond what is written for him, does he know the difference between Sunni and Shia Muslims? Does he understand the complex world of Eastern Europe and its relationship with Russia, or the rising threat of nationalist parties throughout Europe? Does he have a plan for the Southern American hemisphere beyond building a wall? 

Can a man who makes racist statements, who claims not to know who David Duke is and who does not disavow the Ku Klux Klan, who evaluates women by their physical appearance, who makes fun of the handicapped, credibly claim to be a unifier? 

Regrettably, to the rank and file Republican voters who chose him in the primaries, Trump’s inadequate resume will make no difference. Nor will it make any difference to the Hillary haters. 

The sadness in all this is that it won’t make any difference to almost all of the leaders and elected officials of the Republican Party. Few if any will listen to South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham’s lonely voice of reason.

“This is the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy,” Graham said of Trump’s attack on Federal Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. “If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it. There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”

If Hillary had made comments as explosive as Trump’s Republicans would be falling over each other as they rushed to microphones to declare her unfit for office. But, as Thomas L. Friedman pointed out in his Wednesday New York Times column, they have abandoned any principles they might have had:

“It (the Republican Party) is just an empty shell, selling pieces of itself to the highest bidders, — policy by policy — a little to the Tea Party over here, a little to Big Oil over there, a little to the gun lobby, to antitax zealots, to climate-change deniers. And before you know it, the party stands for an incoherent mess of ideas unrelated to any theory of where the world is going or how America actually becomes great again in the 21st century.” http://nyti.ms/1XCdFx7

(There have been numerous articles imagining what the first 100 days of a Trump administration would look like. Here’s one I recommend for your reading pleasure, or rather, discomfort:

http://religionnews.com/2015/11/24/trump-registration-muslims-immigrants-refugees-first-100-days/

If you have more time, listen to Leonard Lopate of WNYC interview Philippe Sands, an international lawyer and professor of law at University College London, on the subject of genocide and crimes against humanity (http://www.wnyc.org/story/philippe-sands-east-west-street/). Among the more interesting points Sands noted was that Hitler and Hans Frank, the former’s personal lawyer from 1928 to 1932, laid the groundwork for the Third Reich by challenging the authority and objectivity of Germany’s courts and judges. Sound familiar?)

Here’s you political witticism of the day, courtesy of whowhatwhy.org:

“We stand today at a crossroads: One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other leads to total extinction. Let us hope we have the wisdom to make the right choice.” —Woody Allen

A Suggestion for Chris Rock Plus My Oscars Picks; Be Wary of the Gig Economy

Here’s a thought—while everyone expects Oscars telecast emcee Chris Rock to skewer the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences with jokes highlighting the failure to nominate for a second straight year even a single black actor for an award, perhaps a more visible and enduring display of protest Sunday night would be for the entertainer to make his entrance on stage in whiteface. 

Daring? No doubt. Provocative? To be sure. Extreme? You betcha. In bad taste? No more so than the academy’s lily-white nomination list and its mostly white, elderly male membership roster.

Rock could still joke about the “benign” discrimination, but the image of him in whiteface would linger in everyone’s minds far longer than any amusing words he might utter. 

As for the awards, here are my choices for the top six categories:

Best leading actor—Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl)

Best leading actress—Brie Larson (Room)

Best supporting actor—Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies)

Best supporting actress—Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl)

Best director—Alejandro G. Iñárritu (The Revenant)

Best picture—Bridge of Spies

The Gig Economy: In case you’ve never heard of this term, it’s a modern day euphemism for outsourcing. In other words, hiring freelancers, domestic or foreign, to do work on a job-by-job basis that formerly was done in-house by staff. 

Result? Fewer full-time workers and generally lower fees as freelancers compete for assignments. Lower overhead for companies, lower earnings for workers. For an example of the Gig Economy in practice, listen to Monday’s Marketplace Money Report on NPR: http://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace-morning-report/marketplace-morning-report-monday-february-22-2016

Net Net Result? While we in America bemoan the relocation of manufacturing jobs to lower wage overseas locales and hope to combat the drain of good/high paying jobs with training for technology-based work, the Gig Economy might undermine that effort. As explained in the Marketplace Money Report, Instapage paid a Vietnamese techie just $200 to design a logo, a fee that surely was equivalent to a prince’s ransom in Vietnam but wouldn’t fill a pauper’s purse in the United States. 

There’s no holding back the tide of technological advance and the globalization of the world’s economy. I’m fortunate to be retired. My mid-30’s children’s jobs probably won’t be affected, I hope. But my grandchildren? It is not a comforting thought to consider the range of employment opportunities in the year 2036 and beyond. 

Bird Talk: Looking out the kitchen window I can report birds enjoy chocolate babka cake, the remnants of which they devoured in short order since I filled the feeders. Previously they’ve savored shredded matzoh, bagels and assorted other flour-based ethnic delights.

Car Talk: Before buying a car three years ago, I pondered getting a Subaru Forester, even going so far as asking the salesman to commit to rearranging the letters of the car’s rear nameplate to Forseter. Alas, we wound up buying a Ford C-Max hybrid, instead.

End of story, until Ellie and Donny went car shopping after their recent move to Omaha. They chose a Forester but resisted my entreaties to ask the dealership to flip the first “e” and “s” in Forester.

My extended family has often contemplated how simpler our lives would have been had my parents, when Americanizing my father’s family name, chosen Forester instead of Forseter. Or even Forsetter with two “t’s.” At least half the time we’re addressed as Forester. One high school teacher of mine called me Fenster. 

Dad, though, wanted something closer to Feursetzer. So Forseter it became. You get to roll with the punches, so to speak, but I still think it would have been cool to drive around in a Forseter Subaru. 

Copy Talk: Three times (at least) in the last few weeks I’ve been reminded the hardest task for any writer is to proofread his own copy. I won’t resurrect my mistakes other than to suggest that sometimes even a faux pas can turn out to be a slick turn of phrase.

Back on January 21, in a piece titled “The Bride of Frankenstein Is Back,” I wrote “(Sarah) Palin gave birth to the no-nothing Tea Party which only wants to tear down government, or, in her case, find excuses for behavior and commentary beyond the pale.”  

I must admit, I meant to write “know nothing Tea Party.” However, when confronted by a friend with the actual text, I justified it by the Tea Party’s history of saying no to everything. 

Quick thinking on my part, but not very truthful. More like Stephen Colbert’s truthiness standard.

The Bride of Frankenstein Is Back

The bride of Frankenstein is back on the hustings to haunt us.

Not content to have been chosen as her party’s 2008 nominee to be a heartbeat away from the presidency—but thankfully not elected—Sarah Palin now wants to influence the choice of the next Republican standard bearer. She’s thrown her support behind Donald Trump, a classic example of the blind leading the blind.

As populist speakers Trump and Palin are the mouths that roared. They can fire up an audience. But they lack depth, the ability to put together comprehensive programs based on a complex and nuanced understanding of an issue. Trump’s idea to solve the illegal immigration problem—build a wall paid for by Mexico and throw all 11 million illegals out—is a soundbite solution that fails to consider the legal status of children, the disruption of families, the economic impact of reduced labor in many industries where Americans do not want to work, such as on farms or meat/poultry processing plants, not to mention the absurdity of audaciously expecting Mexico to pay for a wall. But hey, it sounds good on the stump.

We can thank, ruefully, John McCain for saddling us with Palin, perhaps the least qualified person ever to grace a national election ticket. Even the discombobulated retired admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot’s vice presidential choice in 1992, sounded erudite compared to her.

Palin gave birth to the no-nothing Tea Party which only wants to tear down government, or, in her case, find excuses for behavior and commentary beyond the pale. She was such a good family role model that her daughter not once but twice had a child out of wedlock. And after her son was recently arrested for assaulting a woman she blamed his behavior on President Obama’s alleged indifference to the trauma American servicemen, including her son, suffered during their deployment in the Middle East. 

But here’s the problem with Trump and Palin: Too many of our fellow citizens are willing to give them a pass. They are willing to gamble our country’s future because they feel left out of its present. They forget that without Obama’s stewardship our economy would have tanked from mismanagement under Republicans; they forget that Obama has been president during one of the largest job creation periods in our history; they forget that the stock market has more than doubled under Obama (even with the recent downturn) and with that the value of their retirement plans; they forget that the car industry would have all but vanished without Obama; they forget that 17 million more Americans are now covered by health insurance (yes, Obamacare is imperfect but it is better than no insurance); they forget that Obama has championed alternative energy sources and that our country is now less dependent on imported oil; they forget that fewer illegal immigrants are crossing the Mexican border. 

Do they really want another land war in the desert? Do they really want the wealthy to get richer, with more and more influence? Do they really think in a global economy manufacturing jobs will return to our shores? Do they really think that investment in education and physical infrastructure can be postponed? Do they really think there is an armed forces anywhere in the world equal to ours, that we need to invest in new, costly armaments to fight 20th century wars while our true enemies take aim at real vulnerabilities in our power grid, our Internet and communications networks, our ports of entry, our water supplies? 

All they want to do is focus on a bogus claim that Obama wants to take guns away from individuals; or the misguided belief that ISIS can be carpet-bombed into oblivion; that nuking Iran is an option; that their lives would be better if the federal government stopped watching out for product and worker safety, that worker conditions would be improved if only unions would go away, that bosses would benevolently offer adequate raises and health care benefits. 

I don’t know about you, but it depresses me to write these things. Does it depress you to read them, depressing because you realize I am not making this up? 

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? Uncle Murray

It’s a week before Thanksgiving. I’m still waiting for my invitation to your turkey chomp. What? You can’t recall adding me to your guest list? Apparently you’re not on Minnesota U.S. Senator Al Franken’s email list (neither am I, but my sister is even though she lives in Los Angeles), for he wrote: 

“This time of year I always look forward to the usual Thanksgiving things: turkey, Franni’s famous pies, stuffing, friends, family, and football.

“And of course, Uncle Murray.”

Long-time readers of No Socks Needed Anymore may recall my being less than enamored with the pleasure comedians have in casting my given name for misanthropic characters or dogs in their films and TV shows (i.e., Murray the policeman in The Odd Couple, or Murray the dog in Mad About You, or the numerous stories about Murray told by Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner in their 2,000-year-old man skits). 

So it wasn’t too surprising that Saturday Night Live alumnus-cum-politician Franken jumped on the make-fun-of-Murray bandwagon. He did, however, redeem my namesake in the rest of his email:   

“Uncle Murray isn’t a real person. Uncle Murray represents the family member at the dinner table who inevitably brings up politics, every single year.

“Now, some people get annoyed by Uncle Murray. But I think at least some of the things Uncle Murray talks about at the table are important. After all, Senators like me are supposed to know what concerns families share with each other at dinner. Those are actually the issues that matter -- they are experienced by real people -- and they are the ones we need to focus on.

“So I want you to tell me what your “Uncle Murray” (or you) will be talking about at the Thanksgiving table this year. It can be as simple as corporations aren’t people or that women deserve equal pay for equal work. It could be that LGBT friends and family deserve equal rights. It could be that climate change is real and happening and a serious risk to the future of the planet.

“What issues are you and your family most likely to discuss this year? What problems are affecting your family the most? (Franken asked that responses be sent to http://minnesota.alfranken.com/e51118m

“Can’t wait to read your responses.

“Al”

As long as we’re on the subject of politics, let’s stick with an item culled from the newspaper:

I’ve fashioned myself into a slow, careful reader. You might say slow reading is an occupational hazard of being an editor—if you are going to review other people’s writing you best do it carefully. Without haste. 

My snail-like pace reading all things from books to newspapers might explain why I find so many anomalies, mistakes and interesting items in the stories I read. I’m often disappointed when I fail to uncover a miscue. On the other hand, I exult in discovering a mistake or contradiction. Take, for instance, the Talk interview of David Brat in last Sunday’s New York Times magazine.

A 51-year-old Tea Party Republican congressman from Glen Allen, Va., Brat is a former college professor who took over Eric Cantor’s seat. Asked what he has learned in Washington, Brat said, “It’s hard. I like Plato’s maxim to start politics at 50 because you’re near death and the appetites are —whatever. You’re past the wine, women and song.”

Oh, really? Perhaps a visit to Wikipedia’s page entitled “List of federal political sex scandals in the United States” is in order for the ol’ professor. From 2000 through 2015, there have been 22 sex scandals, of which 14 involved politicos 50 years or older!

Seems to me the evidence is overwhelming that age is no barrier to a male politician seeking sex with women or men, and, in some cases, even boys.

Game Theory for Congress, Work and the Devil

Now that the government is back in working order, if we can generously call it that, and we’ve dodged the debt ceiling limit bullet for several more months, I thought I might comment on a Tuesday NY Times Op-Ed piece by David McAdams, a professor of economics at Duke University and an apparent expert and author on game theory (for those who might not have read his essay, here’s a link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/opinion/changing-the-debt-ceiling-game.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1382049282-ZI8/HsNh+AWsWrOtB2vVLw).

Essentially, McAdams opined that the political parties could avoid another stalemate on the budget and debt ceiling by “limiting (their) own options.” Such a strategy “can be essential to getting others to do what you want.” It’s an interesting theory, but one I believe fails to appreciate the extreme thinking of Tea Party members. McAdams put forward a solution for practical politicians. Zealots are rarely practical. 

In the course of the reporting on the brinksmanship of the last two weeks, and the months before, it was consistently reported that “Congress,” meaning the House of Representatives, could not agree on a bi-partisan plan. It was an ingenuous characterization of reality. Reporters and TV anchors did back flips in their attempt to stay neutral, when all the world knew the hang-up came from three dozen or so Tea Party congressmen, a House leadership that did not have the backbone to keep them in check and dozens of GOP representatives who feared primaries from the Tea Party if they voted for the good of the country and not for the hysterical positions of the Yahoos of their party. 

Let’s be clear—the Tea Party minority wanted to overturn a duly enacted law. What they couldn’t win at the ballot box—not in the general election, the presidential election, or votes in Congress—they sought to negate by placing the economic vitality of the country and the world at risk. Moreover, they are not ashamed of their actions, so the threat of future disruptions is a clear and present danger which cannot be obviated by David McAdams’ game theory stratagem. 

I’m reminded of an exercise in behavior modification my former employer tried to infuse in its top editors. We gathered for an off-site workshop to learn how we could manage our time better, particularly when we had more pressing deadlines than to respond to a call from our respective publishers. It sounded good in theory, but each editor agreed that when the boss called it would be imprudent (read that, job-threatening) to resist his demand for immediate satisfaction. Real world vs. theory: real world won. Similarly, the Tea Party is not playing by the old rules. The Tea Party wants to play by its rules alone.

Old School vs. New:  It’s not just in politics that the old ways are giving way to the new. The other day sports radio discussions centered on the behavior of athletes who celebrate in-game success, be it for hitting a home run, striking out a batter, viciously dunking a ball, sacking the quarterback or scoring a goal. The Old School idea, as epitomized by Mariano Rivera, was to act as if you’ve been there before. Don’t show up your opponent. Act with decorum and respect. New School has no such restraints. If you’re excited, show it, to the fans, to your teammates, to your competition. 

As you might have surmised, I favor Old School. Could be a generational thing. I never once saw Rivera, a deeply religious man, point to the sky as if thanking God for helping him record a save. God has more important things to ponder than the outcome of a sporting event, especially when you consider each side has players invoking his assistance. So, enough with the godly appeals and heavenly thank-yous.

A Devilish Justice: As long as we’re on the subject of religion, did you hear or read about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s belief in the Devil? In a recent New York magazine interview Scalia said he believes the Devil exists, a belief shared by many religious folks. 

Other than as a punch line (“The Devil made me do it,” as Flip Wilson used to say), I prefer the Jewish expression of Satan. The Devil is “a metaphor for the evil inclination – the yetzer hara – that exists in every person and tempts us to do wrong.” The Devil is not a real being.  

Scalia might very well be in concert with a majority of Americans, but as one of nine supreme deciders of the law of the land, he should, I would hope, be more rational than the rest of us. 

Stepping Back from the Precipice, A Recipe for the Tea Party

Anyone who was surprised by the shakiness of the deal to end the government shutdown/slimdown as well as an extension of the debt ceiling is the sort of person who would be a good mark to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. As we stood on the edge of a precipice of unknown depth and impact on the national and global economies, more rational heads seem poised to prevail over the petulant, petty, mean-spirited Tea Party members and a House leadership that is a leadership in name only by refusing to stand up to the obstructionist, ill-conceived ideology of the Tea Party.

As I write this, the Senate and House are yet to vote on a proposal worked out earlier today by the Senate majority and minority leaders. There’s still an opportunity for mischief and mayhem to re-enter the arena.  Let’s assume the best, however.

Let’s also assume, and this assumption might be too hard for some to swallow, that Tea Partyers truly believe they were acting in the best interest of the country. It’s hard to argue with the concept that government has grown too large, that cuts should be made. The real argument is over which appropriations are cut-worthy.

Here’s an idea I’d like to float—Tea Party members, in Congress and those who elected them to office, should be required to live without many of the discretionary services the federal government provides. For example, since they claim Obamacare will destroy our country, they should not be eligible for health coverage under the Affordable Care Act. And while I don’t question their patriotism, I’d cut off their access to Veterans Affairs hospitals and other VA programs.

They’re also interested in cutting back on Medicare and Medicaid. I say they shouldn’t be permitted to enroll in either program. Don’t provide them Social Security, either. Nor unemployment or disability insurance payments. Those entitlement programs are just part of the “taker” society Mitt Romney and the Tea Party bemoan. 

I wouldn’t let them drive on federal interstate highways, unless they paid a use tax. We could issue them special license plates so we could monitor their time on the road.

Based on the intelligence they’ve shown so far, I guess there’s no interest by them in Pell Grants for their children’s education. They shouldn’t be able to enroll their pre-schoolers in Head Start programs, nor should their children be eligible for any federally funded school meals (it pains me to hurt children, but it might be the only way their parents have any empathy for the less fortunate in our society). They also should have to pay special use fees to enter national parks and the Smithsonian. 

They don’t think their stunt to shutter the government and stymie extension of the debt ceiling had any negative effect on the economy, so I’d take away FDIC insurance coverage on their bank accounts. And since they seem to be a self-reliant bunch, I’d deny them any FEMA relief from natural disasters. 

I’m sure there are other discretionary parts of the federal budget I could suggest withholding from them. But you get the idea. Let’s impose these restrictions immediately and see how they work through the time of the compromise worked out by the Senate, that is, either the January 15 funding of the government or the February 7 deadline for the  next vote on raising the debt ceiling limit. Maybe by then the Tea Party will realize there are lots of good programs worth funding.

Personalizing the News: Autobahn Driving, GOP Stubbornness, A New Pope and Penney Problems

Under snowy conditions Tuesday in Germany, about 100 vehicles crashed on an autobahn near Frankfurt. No doubt, the snow contributed to the massive crack-up. But I also have no doubt the pattern of German driving contributed, as well.

During my first trip to Germany, in 1996 to attend the EuroShop conference in Dusseldorf, I was invited by the team from Boston Retail to tour some stores. They had rented a car, a large Mercedes sedan, with a driver. I sat in the middle of the rear seat with an unobstructed view of the speedometer. German cars measure speed in kilometers per hour. It’s a simple computation to convert the number into miles per hour. Simply multiply it by 60%. 

When the speedometer needled its way toward 160, I could barely contain my anxiety as I also had an unobstructed view of the traffic in front of us, which at that moment was no more than two car lengths ahead. It wasn’t that our driver was a tailgating daredevil. Every driver on the autobahn was spaced the same one to two car lengths behind the car he was trailing. To travel less than 96 miles per hour would endanger all. 

Of course, that means when a car slows down, because of snow, fog or some other reason, there is a chain reaction should any one vehicle not brake to the precise slower speed. Large pile-ups are common in Germany.

All for Naught? Why do we bother holding elections if the party that loses just regurgitates the same garbage that cost them the election? I’m talking about the Republican budget proposal that would slash Obamacare, transform Medicare and reduce other social services programs without asking any more in taxes from the wealthy. It’s the same hogwash that voters repudiated in the last election just four months ago.

Since losing the presidential election to Barack Obama and seeing their ranks in the House and Senate shrink, Republicans have shown little if any inclination to change their national message and appeal. Their only salvation for the moment is their hammerlock on state governments where they have gerrymandered congressional districts into safe GOP seats, safe, that is, if their candidates hew to the hard right to avoid a Tea Party primary. 

Doubtful we will get a legislative branch of government in the short term that will function to the welfare and benefit of the country rather than the partisan aggrandizement of each congressman.

For Old-Time Vatican Watchers Only: As I listened to CBS News correspondent Allen Pizzey report from Rome over the last several days, I was nostalgic for the hushed, clipped tones of Winston Burdett, the network’s Papal eyes, ears and voice during the 1950s and 1960s. His weathered look gave his Vatican reports a certain ancient authenticity, not that Pizzey’s reporting hasn’t been crisp and informative. (BTW, did you know Burdett was a self-confessed spy for the Soviet Union? Rather than throw him under the bus, Edward R. Murrow had him transferred to CBS’ Rome bureau.)

No need to guess about this—with the election of Francis I Tuesday we will be subjected to a stream of articles on the significance of his elevation from archbishop of Buenos Aires to the 265th successor to Peter as the bishop of Rome. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the first pontiff to be elected from the New World, though he has roots in the Old. Before he was born 76 years ago, his parents emigrated to Argentina from Italy.  

In 2005, Cardinal Bergoglio was the runner-up to Cardinal Ratzinger’s election as Pope Benedict XVI. Yet he was not considered a front-runner this time. As he was chosen on the fifth ballot, perhaps he was a compromise candidate, someone who, in Pizzey’s words, while not a fan of the embattled, scandal-plagued Roman Curia, nevertheless is seen as an ultra-conservative and ultra-orthodox cleric not likely to shake up church dogma on such issues as abortion (which many in Argentina favor, according to Elaine Cobbe of CBS) or celibacy for priests. 

The new pope is said to be a humble Jesuit who lives simply and rides the subway to work. Though the trappings of his new office will require lifestyle changes, his emphasis on eradicating poverty and helping the indigent and less fortunate could have political repercussions in the United States where Republican efforts to limit or eliminate programs to help the poor would undercut his mission.

It was speculated the College of Cardinals would choose someone younger. After all, Francis I is only two years shy of  Benedict’s age when he ascended to the papacy. What’s more, he has only one lung. In his appearance before the crowds in St. Peter’s Square, he appeared restrained, barely cracking a smile. Perhaps exuberance is not appropriate at such a solemn occasion, but as the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics beset by numerous ecclesiastical and administrative issues (some would say scandals), Francis I will have to show more energy than he did from the balcony of St. Peter’s.

In the theater world, second acts are among the hardest to pull off. Third acts, almost impossible.

It’s that way in retailing, too; no less a luminary than Gordon Segal, founder of Crate & Barrel said, “Retailing is theater.” Few retail executives have been able to replicate success after success after success at different companies. 

Ron Johnson, the beleaguered CEO of J.C. Penney, is finding that out the hard way. After a notable career as a vice president of merchandising at Target, Johnson stunned the retail world with his evocation of retail nirvana—he developed the Apple Retail Stores. Apple stores boast among the highest sales per square foot in the industry. While almost all other mall stores can be empty on any given weekday, Apple’s are a beehive of activity. 

For sure, Apple products are key attractions. But equally magnetic have been the store design, the attention to detail and customer service, particularly the Genius Bar Johnson pioneered at the back of each location.

It was inevitable Johnson’s success would lead to his recruitment. Penney, though, is a far cry from Apple. Its products don’t have the cache of Apple’s. Apple concentrates on one category of merchandise. Penney is multi-dimensional, which means its messaging is dispersed across many areas, to many different types of customers. Its stores are way larger. Penney’s store staff are not brand proselytizers the way Apple’s are. Apple almost never ran sales; customers came into the stores because they wanted to. Penney had to rely on sales to generate traffic. When Johnson tried to change that by going to an everyday low price strategy, they stopped coming. (Johnson’s disappointment in that tactic is not unique—Food Lion recently pulled its “no sales” platform, as well.) When Johnson came to Apple, he had a supportive leader in Steve Jobs. They worked off a tabula rasa to create a unique store experience. At Penney, Johnson had to work with 100 years of heritage, arteriosclerosis and all. 

Johnson’s latest misstep is his apparent disregard for an exclusive contract between Macy’s and Martha Stewart. He seemed to encourage placement of Martha Stewart products in Penney stores, the result of which has been embarrassing revelations during a Macy’s lawsuit contesting the Stewart-Penney alliance. I won’t go so far as retail analyst Walter Loeb who suggested “this could be a fatal blow to J.C. Penney.” But I do believe it could signal the end of Johnson’s leadership of Penney. His tenure is not helped by the company’s performance in the fiscal year ended February 1: year over year sales dropped by $4.27 billion; the company lost $985 million compared to a loss of $152 million the year before. Share price tumbled by 60%; 2,200 workers were laid off last week. 

McChrystal Light in 2016

Twice in the last three days I have seen on TV the next Republican Party candidate for president. He is tall, slim, articulate, a young-looking 59, a man with vision, accomplishment and dedication. He commands, instills, inspires and practices loyalty.

He's a retired U.S. Army general, forced to resign for imprudent comments his staff made to a Rolling Stone reporter about their civilian leaders. But in the bizarro world of politics we operate under today, insulting Vice President Joseph Biden or President Barack Obama would be listed as an accomplishment on his résumé when read by the Republican elite. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the next Republican candidate for president, General Stanley McChrystal.

As a nation we have a long history of electing generals and other war heroes to lead our country. Washington. Jackson. Tippacanoe’s William Henry Harrison. Taylor. Grant. Teddy Roosevelt. Eisenhower. Kennedy. Bush 1. McChrystal would slide in quite nicely with that list.

McChrystal is making a publicity tour to promote his book, My Share of the Task: A Memoir. He's a darling of corporate America. Executives pay top dollar to soak up his leadership mantra as they sweat together jogging around the capital, stopping at various monuments so McChrystal can impart some leadership lore. 

I'm not sure he's fully on board with the main GOP planks. Heck, I don’t even know if McChrystal is a Republican. He actually has come out for limiting public access to military style weapons. That would be a novel position for any Republican standard bearer. Perhaps he would offer a more common sense alternative to the crazies who have crushed the mainstream of the party during the last two presidential elections. 

Perhaps he’s not as dogmatic when it comes to GOP platform planks. Who knows if he is anti abortion? Anti taxes? Pro debt reduction? Anti social services spending? Pro big defense spending? Blindly reveres Ronald Reagan? As a military strategist, he’s had to maneuver assets based on resources and capabilities. He’d figure out quickly what are electable positions. We might actually get a Republican candidate not so intimated to admit science proves global warming, science proves the earth is more than 6,000 years old, Creationism is bunk, evolution should be embraced, infrastructure is important to the military and our economy and money should be invested to upgrade it.  

I can't foresee any right-minded Republican presidential hopeful man enough to challenge him in the primaries. Sure, they might be correct in saying he has no government experience, but that might be appealing to Tea Party faithful and independents who consider normal politicians to be most of the problem in Washington. Let him pick a vice president with congressional experience, someone like senator Marco Rubio, and we might be looking at the ticket that restores the Grand Old Party to the White House, with perhaps strong enough coattails to sweep majorities along in the House and Senate.

McChrystal believes all Americans should engage in national service, not just military service. Having commanded troops most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, he's fulfilled his military obligations. Now he's primed for public service at the highest level. There's no way Republican poobahs are not salivating at the prospect. There's no way Democratic strategists are not shivering at the possibility. Democrats will need a really strong counter-candidate, someone who can keep together the Obama coalition of women, minorities, East and West Coast liberals and independents. Are you up to the challenge, Hillary?

Losing Weight, Religion, Raising Taxes, Baking Bread

I understand a new season of The Biggest Loser will start next month. Never watched the show but if you need any more evidence Americans are overweight and looking mostly for short-term solutions to their bulges, here’s a news flash: Spanx, the company whose body-slimming products have been available only through department and specialty stores or online, will be opening stores (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-30/can-spanx-stores-fit-into-americas-malls#r=hpt-fs). In other words, there are enough fatties out there to make the cost of store construction and staffing worthwhile. When, oh when, will we stop eating ourselves to shortened lives ...

Hard to think such a thing could occur during this season of gluttony. Not just turkeys and stuffing and marshmallow-topped sweet potatoes and glazed hams and you-name-it, but also sugar plums and caramel popcorn and cookies galore. But then, anything can happen. Consider this—last week Fox News star entertainer-cum-newscaster Bill O’Reilly opined, “It is a fact that Christianity is not a religion. It is a philosophy.”  

I apologize for being late in reporting this mind-blowing news. I don’t make it a habit of watching Fox News. I rely on Jon Stewart for my daily dose of Fox News absurdities. The O’Reilly revelation was broadcast last Thursday. I had to wait until Monday night for Stewart to alert the masses O’Reilly had downgraded them from religious adherents to philosophy groupies. 

Perhaps, and this is just a prayer, O’Reilly’s pomposity will finally be visible to the Fox News nation and this could be the beginning of his end ...

As long as we’re wishing on a star, here’s another person worthy of downgrading—Grover Norquist, he of the “no tax increase” pledge that has cowed many a Republican elected official into abandoning the principle of working for his or her country in favor of working to stay in office and avoid a Tea Party primary challenge. 

I’m always amused to read creative ways Republicans could get around abandoning the pledge. Monday’s NY Times carried a letter to the editor from the former chairman of the American Bar Association’s Taxation Section. Peter L. Faber argued “there’s a loophole in the pledge. Under its literal language, a signer agrees to ‘oppose’ any efforts to increase taxes but does not irrevocably commit to voting against them. A signer could vigorously ‘oppose’ a tax increase and yet vote for it as part of a compromise solution.”

Written like a true lawyer, parsing every word. But such a rational approach to an irrational situation would not work. Tea Party extremists are not rational. They will primary anyone who votes for a tax increase. The Republicans’ only hope—nay, the country’s only hope—is that reasonable, patriotic elected representatives will display profiles of courage and agree to a tax increase for the wealthy elite, even if it means a primary challenge. Mainstream Republicans must take their party back from the extremists. 

I know. I don’t think it will happen either, but it’s nice to dream of life and politics the way they could be ...

Which brings me back to a food item. Last week I heard a story on NPR about a process to bake bread that resists mold for two months without the use of preservatives. It’s done by bombarding loaves with microwaves no stronger than those emitted by your everyday kitchen appliance. It’s just done more comprehensively. 

Trust me on this. I’m no scientist, but the researchers in Lubbock, Texas, were, and they explained how it could be done. Only it probably won’t be done because bread companies would lose a fortune in repeat sales if bread actually lasted that long. It’s like car fuel economy. Do you really believe we don’t have the wherewithal to produce cars that get 100 miles per gallon? We put a man on the moon 43 years ago, for God’s sake. Only the political might of the oil and car companies has stymied development of fuel efficient, safe cars.

Sound of Silence, Broken

Six days. Betcha didn’t think I’d be able to stay silent six days without a word about politics. I could’ve lasted longer, but the pursuit of the Latino vote by Mitt Romney and Barack Obama left me with little resolve to remain mum. 

I’m not surprised Mitt wouldn’t give specifics about his immigration reform policy should he become president. Though his tone might have been softer than what he conveyed during the primaries, Romney cannot promise relief to illegal immigrants and the Latino community for a simple reason—the right wing of his party would not stand for it. Not that they’d vote for Obama, but they could become less supportive if he espoused a softer line. If elected, Romney will have no more success mustering Tea Party members behind a more progressive immigration policy than House Speaker John Boehner has had trying to herd these cats into compromise budget positions. 

The lesson to be learned: voting for Mitt will be like buying a pig in a poke. You won’t know what you are getting despite his lofty rhetoric.

Here’s what passes for political reporting these days. Last week WCBS 880 news radio aired a clip of Romney saying he would win Wisconsin and Michigan on his way to the White House. What a surprise! Real news would have been Romney conceding he wouldn’t carry a state, but then that would mean getting Mitt to say something honest.

Over the weekend Romney hosted hundreds of fat cat supporters at a retreat in Utah. The monied set got to mingle with the candidate and his advisors, giving them a piece of what’s on their minds. I wonder, how many advocated for improving the lot of workers? How many lobbied for more aid to families under financial stress? How many suggested that providing affordable health care for all citizens should be a priority? How many sought more food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, aid for dependent children? How many volunteered that perhaps their success living the American Dream brought them to the realization that the super-rich could afford to pay more taxes to help those less fortunate? D’ya think any of them pressed for greater scrutiny of the financial sector? Of pharmaceuticals? Of food and product safety? How many of them figured out that cuts in police, fire, teachers and other municipal workers put everyone’s quality of life and safety at risk?

I’m not holding my breath that any of them asked for anything more than lower income taxes, lower capital gains taxes, lower estate taxes and the elimination of regulations that protect the public. I’m also confident Romney was all ears. He was, after all, rubbing elbows with his type of people. 

Softball, Stop Signs and Blunts

Chilly start to the softball season this morning. Grey day, with a stiff breeze. More of a wind, I’d say, that kept temperatures in the 50’s. Surely not a day to unveil my standard pitching attire of shorts and high sweat socks, though I did have them on beneath my baseball pants. Started to spritz around the 4th inning, not enough to even consider being a nuisance or a reason to call the game. 

Legged out an infield hit. In my prime I might have outrun another infield chopper, but those are days I can only talk about, barely remember. Didn’t strike out anyone; only walked one batter. All in all, not a bad day on the mound, especially since I returned home without injury. Slathering up with he-man doses of Mineral Ice on my lower back, Achilles tendons and knees before heading off to the ball field surely helped. 

The team’s a work in progress. They gave maximum effort. Now all we need to work on is some fundamentals and skill improvement. We hit decently, even socked a home run. But we ran ourselves out of two rallies. It’s a good thing I’ve been in this rebuilding situation before. Much easier to take a 23-3 shellacking when you’re just out to have a good time, and not get hurt.

Dmitri Krioukov, a Russian researcher and Web data analysis professor in California, has become an Internet darling for posting a paper on how to beat a traffic ticket like the one he received for allegedly rolling through a stop sign (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=20035542&nid=1012).

Big deal. I managed the same feat more than 33 years ago, way before the Internet was widely known. Even more difficult was winning over my wife’s participation in my ultimate defense. As I wrote in January 2010, a policeman in the hamlet of Pine Bush, NY, outside Middletown, claimed I rolled through a stop sign, which Gilda and I denied to no avail. To fight the ticket we had to return six weeks later for night court. Gilda was a willing witness for the defense, but quickly changed her mind when she discovered I had miscalculated the court date. We showed up a day early. She was in no mood to leave work early the next day and trek 60 miles up north to testify in my behalf. I reeeeally had to do some major groveling to get Gilda to go back to Pine Bush with me the next night.

Even so, her demeanor was not friendly. She had the comportment of a hostile witness, but she was all I had. Without her it would be my word against the cop’s. Even though I extracted from him an admission that he was stationed 300 yards, three football fields!, away from the stop sign I allegedly “rolled through,” it was still just the two of us squaring off, and in most jurisdictions that’s bad news for a defendant. 

After Gilda testified, the judge asked if the policeman had a witness. He did. It was the chief of police, who was riding with him that night. OK, where was he?, the judge asked. On patrol, came the reply, followed swiftly by good, old-fashioned country justice—two against one, case dismissed. 

Take that, Dmitri!

Last Wednesday, Thomas L. Friedman devoted his column in the NY Times to a call for Michael Bloomberg to mount an independent run for president, not because he would win, but rather because it would influence Democrats and Republicans to soften their rigid stances and meld their positions into more centrist ones that would benefit the country. “By taking part in the televised debates,” Friedman wrote, “he could impose a dose of reality on the election that would otherwise be missing. Congress would have to take note” (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/opinion/friedman-one-for-the-country.html).

Let me be blunt about this: Friedman must have been smoking something (maybe a blunt) when he wrote that. How anyone could think the GOP and its Tea Party wing will soften their radical platform clearly has not been paying attention to politics over the last three years. To expect them to change should they win the White House or both houses of Congress is delusional. One of the main criticisms of Barack Obama by his supporters has been his misguided belief he could work with the Republicans, that he failed to make use of the majorities he helped sweep into office in 2008, that he capitulated time and again to conservative demands. 

No, Mr. Friedman, a third party candidacy from a progressive thinker like Bloomberg would only hurt Obama by siphoning off votes from Independents and some Democrats. It could be argued that Ralph Nader’s Quixotic runs for the presidency gave us two terms of George W. Bush. I’m sure Michael Bloomberg has an ego at least as large as Nader’s, but I’m also of the opinion the mayor of New York City is not so enamored of himself that he would purposely tip an election to Republicans who reject almost all of his social and economic beliefs. 

GOP Dilemma: Party or Country First?

Florida Republicans will troop to the polls Tuesday (ok, maybe some of them will roll in wheelchairs or shuffle along using walkers, while others drive in pick-up trucks with gun racks) to provide the latest answer to a dilemma facing their counterparts across the country—are they more interested in choosing a presidential standard bearer who could attract a spectrum of support among independents and even some Democrats, or are they more interested in ideological conservative purity deeply tinged with personal and emotional failings?

Polls show Mitt Romney comfortably ahead of Newt Gingrich by double digit figures. The perception of electability, along with confidence he would not be as divisive as Gingrich, his business background and his stain-free past (other than, in the repetitive refrain of Gail Collins of the NY Times, driving to Canada for a vacation with his dog strapped to the roof of the family car) make Romney a formidable challenger to President Obama’s re-election. True, there’s not much passion behind his candidacy, but it’s rare to see an automaton provoke deep feelings in humans.

Gingrich, on the other hand, stirs emotions. He is the personification of the “tumulter,” a term from many languages identifying someone who thrives on “the commotion or agitation of a multitude, usually accompanied with great noise, uproar, and confusion of voices; hurly-burly; noisy confusion.”

The former House speaker says he will stay in the race all the way to the GOP convention (or, more realistically, until the Adelsons stop funding his campaign). If he continues to rile up the conservative base against Romney he’ll be doing double-barreled damage. First, he’ll be providing fodder to Obama’s campaign. There’s nothing better than using fellow Republican smears to smear your Republican opponent in the general election. Obama benefits regardless of who becomes the GOP nominee.

Second, and perhaps more troubling for Romney, will be the cumulative effect on the hard-core right wing of the Republican/Tea Party. Will arch conservatives, evangelical Christians, have enough passion (read that, hatred) in their hearts against Obama to swallow hard, hold their noses and vote for Romney if he’s the candidate, or will they stay home?

Back in 1964, moderate Republicans abandoned the party’s nominee, Barry Goldwater, and voted for President Lyndon Johnson. In 1968, lots of disaffected Democrats failed to rally in time to Vice President Hubert Humphrey, letting Richard Nixon eke out a narrow victory. In 1976, President Gerald Ford couldn’t command enough Ronald Reagan-inspired conservatives to beat back a challenge by Jimmy Carter. Vice President Al Gore couldn’t attract enough of Ralph Nader’s ardent environmental supporters nationwide in 2000 to prevent George W. Bush from eventually getting the keys to the White House handed to him by the U.S. Supreme Court after the hanging chad fiasco in Florida.

Nothing will be decided tomorrow except who gets Florida’s 50 convention votes. But the size of Gingrich’s tally might provide an indication of how strong the anti-Romney sentiment is and whether the GOP in the fall will be able to mount a full-frontal, broadly coordinated assault on the White House’s current occupant.

A Blink Before Brinkmanship Returns

Now that House Republicans have blinked and joined their Senate counterparts in recognizing politics as the art of compromise, 160 million Americans can enjoy two more months of lower payroll taxes, while the unemployed can breathe easier for another eight weeks with jobless benefits before brinkmanship returns to the nation’s capital in the form of another exasperating debate on fiscal policy.

Try as I might to avoid political commentary, it’s virtually impossible. So here goes...

During his tenure representing the state of Wyoming in the U.S. Senate (1979-1997), Alan Simpson was not on my list of favorite senators. The tall, craggy 80-year-old conservative Republican could be quite charming, folksy and jocular, but his politics was clearly way to the right for my tastes.

Simpson, however, by his own admission on the Brian Lehrer Show on NPR Wednesday, would find it impossible to get a Republican nomination today as he’s an advocate of personal privacy, which means he supports gay rights and abortion rights. As co-chairman with Erskine Bowles of the Deficit Reduction Commission, he also acknowledged the need to raise more revenue through new or higher taxes, heresy among Tea Party members and the Republican faithful who have lined up like lemmings behind them.

Switching over to the EIB (Excellence in Broadcasting) Network to listen to some conservative talk show “wisdom,” I was disappointed Rush Limbaugh was on vacation. But his substitute, Mark Davis of WBAP in Dallas, didn’t fail to deliver more grist to the mill. He praised, for example, Republican members of the supercommittee charged with working out a deal on the budget for sticking to their guns. In other words, for not compromising. It was another unfortunate example of standing on principle at all costs, even if it meant the government might shut down, the public would be hurt and trust in elected officials to effectively govern and legislate decreased.

Davis also debunked the argument that conservatives are racist. His proof—they went “ga-ga” over Herman Cain and their favorite Supreme Court justice would be Clarence Thomas. At the same time he decried Attorney General Eric Holder for playing the race card to explain why he and Barack Obama are viciously attacked. It’s just policy differences that bring on the attacks, he said.

My need for some Rush was somewhat sated by a commercial featuring his mellifluous voice. He was pitching membership in the Heritage Foundation, a think tank dedicated, he said, to personal liberties. I wonder, though. What’s more personal than choosing your sexual orientation, or choosing whether to carry a pregnancy to full term? Not sure, but I would guess Alan Simpson would have a hard time being a member of this right-wing organization.

Simpson also had some interesting thoughts on Newt Gingrich and why so many Republican leaders have trouble supporting his candidacy for president. Seems that when Newt was Speaker of the House he agreed during a private meeting with President George Bush the First to a plan to buttress the economy that included a tax hike. Bush reluctantly agreed despite his “Read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. But when it came time to vote, Gingrich publicly repudiated the agreement. He is untrustworthy, not a man of his word, said Simpson. Not surprising, therefore, that Bush 1 yesterday endorsed Mitt Romney.

Of course, Republicans aren’t the only ones dishing out disappointment this holiday season. Obama has indicated he would sign a bill permitting indefinite detention for not only foreign nationals but also for American citizens thought to be supporters of terrorism. Incarceration without trial could last as long as hostilities remain active. Since there’s no foreseeable end to terrorism, even after Osama bin Laden was killed, anyone detained could languish in prison forever. Obama has been as bad for civil liberties as Bush 2.

I Am America

Did you see the article in Monday’s NY Times about the unofficial anthem of the Tea Party, I Am America, a song Herman Cain is using to jazz up his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination? Here’s a link to the story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/us/politics/krista-branchs-i-am-america-aims-to-be-tea-party-anthem.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=krista%20branch&st=cse

And for those who are curious, here’s a link to the song itself, sung by Krista Branch, wife of the composer, pastor Michael Branch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw . That’s right, Michael Branch is a pastor, so if the song has some evangelical tones, cut it some slack.

My problem (I always have a problem, it seems) with the song and its positioning as a Tea Party/Cain standard is the implication that those who don’t share its views are not real Americans, that they’re un-American, that they’re not patriotic.

I’d rather see politicians choose uplifting songs, such as Bill Clinton’s use of Fleetwood Mac’s Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow, than a song that pits one group against the other.

Speaking of pitting one group against another, did you hear about the Republican state representative in Florida, Ritch Workman, who wants to repeal the 1989 state ban on dwarf tossing in bars because it would provide employment to dwarfs. Though he told the Palm Beach Post dwarf tossing is “repulsive and stupid” and he would never watch it, Workman said of the ban, "All that it does is prevent some dwarfs from getting jobs they would be happy to get. In this economy, or any economy, why would we want to prevent people from getting gainful employment?"

See, Republicans do have a jobs program, albeit for little people only.

For Ritch Workman (you just gotta love that perfect name for a Republican politician) it comes down to Big Government intruding into the lives of ordinary citizens. Dwarf tossing is "none of the state's business," he told the Post.

From small people to giants: I, for one, am not too distressed about the NBA lockout. I’m not a basketball fan. Maybe it stems from my basic ineptitude on the court. That being said, I do feel sorry for everyone but the players and owners who are affected by the lockout, people such as the concession stand workers, the restaurant owners and their staffs who depend on game night traffic, parking lot attendants and others whose income is dependent on the games. “But if you want to watch millionaires throwing elbows,” Stephen Colbert said Tuesday, “there’s still the Republican presidential race.”

Watching Tuesday night’s Republican presidential candidate debate in Las Vegas (I hope you appreciate the sacrifices I make to bring you this blog), I was struck by how often the contenders blamed government regulations for tamping down job creation. It’s hard to disagree with the regulatory burden argument on the same day the U.S. Senate displayed rare bipartisanship by voting down a proposed Dept. of Agriculture mandate to limit the amount of potatoes and other starches in school meal programs. Instead of focusing on the foodstuff, perhaps the USDA should have tried to control the preparation technique. Outlaw frying, not potatoes.

So, yes, regulations can go too far. Big government can be destructive and intrusive. But then there are regulations that are helpful, such the one issued by the Federal Communications Commission requiring cell phone carriers to alert customers when they are approaching their monthly contractual minutes, enabling them to avoid huge overage charges. Unless you’re an executive with a cell phone company, or a Ron Paul libertarian, I seriously doubt you’d find that regulation objectionable.

Giving a Mulligan

Do you get a mulligan—a golf term for a do-over for a bad shot—for ill-advised comments if you’ve served in the military?

That’s what Tony Bennett is hoping after the 85-year-old singer and WWII veteran made some injudicious remarks on the Howard Stern radio show last week suggesting the 9/11 terrorists might have had reason to attack us.

“They flew the plane in, but we caused it. Because we were bombing them, and they told us to stop,” said Bennett, a native New Yorker. Subsequently, Bennett apologized if anyone misconstrued his words, adding, “I am sorry if my statements suggested anything other than an expression of my love for my country, my hope for humanity and my desire for peace throughout the world.”

I have no reason to doubt Bennett’s patriotism. He put his life on the line for all of us. He’s earned a mulligan, as this is the first instance I know of where he stumbled publicly. He’s different from other communications-challenged celebrities like Mel Gibson who is a multiple affronter.

What Bennett does provide, however, is a civics lesson on our expectations of public figures, especially politicians. As a nation we’ve arrived at a point where we demand perfection and strict adherence to dogma, even if it’s disseminated by a small, vocal minority.

It’s not a new story. In 1976, President Ford misspoke during a debate with Jimmy Carter when he said Poland, Rumania and Yugoslavia were not under Soviet domination. The gaffe cemented thinking Ford was not intellectually worthy of earning a full term as president.

Under the klieg lights and pressure to perform, candidates may stumble. As long as they don’t do it repeatedly, thus showing a lack of education and historical context, as Sarah Palin continually does, we should be tolerant of their mistakes. Give them a mulligan, when warranted. We’re too judgmental if we think they are not fallible. Choosing a president is not like voting for the best vocalist on American Idol. What we’re seeing today, from both sides of the presidential field, is a beauty contest of personality rather than ideas, a talent contest of sound bites versus careful exposition of principled positions, a my-way-or-the-highway evaluation of candidates.

I cringe at the prospect of a Rick Perry presidency. But I find myself sympathetic to his plight. He is not a good debater. Like most politicians, he takes credit for achievements that should be shared. Most of his policies would be repugnant to me. But I agree with Perry’s views on the need to integrate the children of illegal immigrants into our society so they can become contributing members and not burdens. I also believe his advocacy of a vaccination of young girls against the human papillomavirus was in the best interests of his state’s citizens.

Yet, because Tea Party Conservatives do not share those beliefs, and because they are so powerful in today’s Republican party, Perry has seen his candidacy suffer. The narrow base of the Republican party choosing the GOP standard bearer demands 100% adherence to its narrow-minded platform. It will accept no independent thinking.

Left wing Democrats express similar disdain for President Obama for deviating from the programs they espouse and which they thought he should implement. They do not accept Obama’s willingness to compromise, to govern from the center.

Given the state of our politics today, when neither side appears willing to work with the other, we seem to be at a tipping point. Will we choose our next leaders based on a clash of ideas or a clash of one-liners? A discussion of principles or a popularity contest? A thoughtful analysis of our national strengths and weaknesses or an emotional appeal to return to an era no longer relevant to our current and future global standing?


Wednesday night marks the beginning of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah, followed 10 days later by Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. It’s a period of reflection intended not just between humans and their concept of an Eternal Being but also, mainly, as a time when men and women must focus on and seek forgiveness for any wrongs they might have done to other people. It’s a Jewish version of an interpersonal mulligan. You’re supposed to request forgiveness in person, but this being the Internet age, let me ask your indulgence if during the past year this blog, or any personal contact we might have had, offended you in any way.

A happy and healthy New Year to all.

Passing Hail Mary

With the clock ticking down the final seconds of a close game, a trailing football team often resorts to a last-ditch scoring effort. The quarterback fades back and lofts toward the end zone a long, arcing “Hail Mary” pass, so named because it will take an answered prayer to succeed in overturning a seemingly inevitable loss.

With his address to the nation in front of a joint session of Congress Thursday night, Barack Obama is about to launch a Hail Mary pass, aptly timed to coincide with the opening night of the new National Football League season after a spring and half-summer of labor-management unrest and ultimate compromise.

Unlike the owners and players who worked out a deal to get the games going again, there is no realistic partner to work with Obama. Despite vague language from some Republicans about the need to stimulate the economy to jumpstart more hirings, anyone who believes the president and the GOP/Tea Party will reach a fair, equitable and non-acrimonious settlement also believes the Cincinnati Bengals will hoist the Lombardi Trophy at the conclusion of the next Super Bowl.

Obama’s ratings are lower than a quarterback who throws more interceptions than completions, who fumbles the snap before he can hand off to a running back. Even a rookie presidential candidate, the nationally untested governor of Texas, Rick Perry, beats Obama in a head to head contest, 44% to 41%, according to a new Rasmussen poll.

The president’s Thursday night speech will define his intentions over the next 14 months. He will either involuntarily concede his impotence by tossing out an often repeated and unaccepted pitch for bi-partisan compromise, or he will morph into a chief executive with backbone by staking out an irreversible battle plan to rekindle the passion of those who supported him in 2008.

He has shown an inability to connect with Republicans. So why bother extending an olive branch. They’d only reject it. How often must he be humiliated? When push comes to shove, they’ll corner Obama and the Democrats into accepting their cuts, their budget, on their terms, which means no tax increases for the wealthy, continued loopholes for the rich and corporations, no viable plan to energize job growth except by reducing or eliminating consumer and environmental protections.

If Obama recognizes, at long last, the GOP prevent defense, he can perhaps salvage his re-election drive by forcefully decoding the X’s and O’s that differentiate the Republican agenda from his own. He shouldn’t be afraid to use tables, charts and graphs (a la Ross Perot and even Michele Bachmann) to illustrate how under Republican stewardship the nation’s working and middle classes suffered while the rich benefited, and how more of the same could be expected should they succeed in the next election.

Don’t think for a moment a measured tone in the well of the Congress will accrue civility and points from the opposition. Obama can and must use this forum to get the attention of Congress and the American people that he intends to fight for the welfare of the country as a whole, not for an elite, special interest minority.

He needs to convincingly detail how supporting GM and Chrysler when they were bankrupt saved the American automobile industry, how millions of jobs were saved, from the small shop that supplies new car mats to the huge plant that makes car batteries. He needs to push for jobs to rebuild infrastructure, for teachers to educate future generations.

Republicans already label him a deficit spender. He needs to reassuringly explain why short term debt is necessary to rebuild an economy shattered by two wars started by a Republican president, by that president’s profligate Medicare drug reimbursement plan, by that president’s eight year reign of terror on government oversight of the financial markets that led to the current woes on Wall Street and around the world.

Does he have it in him? Does he have the arm to reach the end zone? Hail Mary passes seldom work, but when they do they can be a game changer, turning a loser into a winner. Obama has nothing to lose by playing offense. Indeed, it’s his only hope of reaching the end zone—securing four more years in a residence paid for by The American taxpayer.

Do Nothing Congress II

The parallels to events of our time are eerily similar.

In the third and fourth years of a Democrat’s initial term as president of the United States, a Republican-controlled Congress repeatedly and stubbornly undermined his agenda. The GOP favored pro-business bills. The president advocated for civil rights, more unemployment compensation, universal health care. As the election campaign heated up, the president wound up maligning the Congress for thwarting his proposals as much as he ran against his opponent.

That 1948 campaign is perhaps best known for the infamous “Dewey Defeats Truman” Chicago Daily Tribune headline mockingly raised up for the cameras by the real winner, President Harry S. Truman. But to election buffs, Truman’s labeling of the legislature as the “Do Nothing Congress” is perhaps a more telling perspective on how events will unfold in the 15 months before the 2012 elections.

To secure a second term, to secure the type of support required for his progressive plans, Barack Obama will have to champion not only his credentials but he also will have to convince voters of their need for a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. One without the other will result in continued stalemate at the federal level. Truman’s Do Nothing Congress attack worked. It can work again, but only if Obama vigorously stumps for Democrats across the land.

Unless he’s a very good actor, Obama does not have the same feistiness Truman possessed. He does have a temper, but he’s cool, too cool, in public. After nearly three years in office, after three years of trying to portray a presidential-above-the-fray demeanor, Obama has left too many of his supporters wondering about his commitment to Democratic, progressive principles. Plus, they wonder how good a poker player he is (Truman, fyi, loved playing poker), considering his failed attempts to roll back the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy and the lack of any revenue enhancement provisions in the recent debt ceiling deal. When your opponent (John Boehner) boasts he got 98% of what he wanted, it’s hard to find backers for a stake in the game.

Yet that is what Obama must do. He must re-invigorate the coalition of voters who elected him in 2008. He must campaign in lock-step with congressional candidates. He must convince the disenchanted that sitting out the election, abstaining, is not really an opt-out choice. Not voting for the lesser of two evils, or as a protest against his performance, is, in fact, support for the worst candidate. People in opposition usually are more passionate than those content with the status quo, so they’ll turn out to the polls in droves.

Obama and the Democrats also have to contend with the misguided suggestion by Starbucks founder and CEO Howard Schultz for a boycott of campaign contributions to all incumbents until they act more responsibly and compromise their rigid positions. Was he not listening to Boehner’s remarks? Did he not hear or read how Democrats caved so a debt ceiling deal could be reached? Withholding funds from Democratic incumbents would only exacerbate Washington’s problems, unless Schultz seeks a Republican/Tea Party mandate, a result seemingly incompatible to his previous socially progressive positions.

Obama must define for those on the fence what a Republican/Tea Party win would mean: a more conservative-leaning Supreme Court; an anti-labor, anti-working class White House and Congress; less enforcement of civil rights; attacks on the separation of church and state; tax policies more favorable to the wealthy; fewer consumer protections; less environmental regulation; weakened food and product safety laws; less emphasis on education and the introduction of questionable science; restrictions on medical research; elimination of universal health care. The list could go on and on, but I’m sure you get the point.

Mythbusters Edition

Davy Crockett, Illegal Immigrant? Disney’s “king of the wild frontier,” who preferred to be called David Crockett, and who, in the words of new biographer Chris Wallis, was “the lion of the west,” actually was an illegal immigrant to Texas who wound up at the Alamo not by choice but through assignment by those fomenting rebellion against Mexico, the rightful owner of Texas.

Speaking on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Thursday night (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-11-2011/michael-wallis), Wallis punctured some long-held myths about the folk hero. He was, for example, born in the State of Franklin, not Tennessee. At one time Franklin hoped to become a state of the Union, but was later absorbed mostly into eastern Tennessee.

Crockett was a not above self-promotion, even attending a play about his exploits. An Indian fighter, he served two terms in the U.S. Congress, only to be swept out of office after he broke with President Andrew Jackson for the latter’s treatment of the Cherokee Nation and their forced removal from Tennessee land granted them by treaty.

While the Cherokee were moved to Oklahoma, Crockett made his way down to Texas where American settlers sought to build plantations worked by slaves in a land where slavery was outlawed by Mexico. To be part of this illegal migration, Crockett had to join the local militia and was assigned to the mission in San Antonio where he died at the age of 49.


The American Dream: “Nobody understands the American dream today better than an Indian, a Chinese or a Mexican,” said Anthony Bourdain on last week’s Real Time with Bill Maher.

The chef and host of the Travel Channel’s No Reservations said there’s a “failure of will” in our society today, “we’ve become a lazy and entitled population.” He said in 20 years of running a kitchen he never once had an American-born kid ask him for a job as a dishwasher, cleanup person or even an entry-level prep cook.

“There’s a whole strata of jobs Americans don’t want, frankly haven’t wanted for a while, don’t think they should do and think they’re too good for,” said Bourdain.

His thoughts were echoed by Stephen K. Bannon, a Tea Party activist and filmmaker of the Sarah Palin bio-pic The Undefeated. Young Americans, he said, are competing with the upwardly mobile in China and India, (metaphorically) “their parents and grandparents.”


Corporation Are People: In defending his no new taxes position while in Iowa Thursday, Mitt Romney said corporations are people, too, as their profits go to shareholders and employees.

You can’t argue with that reasoning, but it does make one wonder if we should stop and do a quick asset check on anyone we might consider friending. You wouldn’t, for example, want to be BFF with someone responsible for, say, the housing debacle of the last few years. So ignore anyone who worked for Countrywide or any other mortgage lender. While you’re at it, strike off your friendship list anyone who works for Standard & Poors, Fitch or Moody’s, as those companies gave high ratings to all those mortgage-backed securities that got us all in trouble with our investments.

Don’t like paying high gas and oil prices? Then cross off anyone from any energy company. Angry at rising food costs? Look again at your LinkedIn and Facebook contacts and delete those who work for agri-businesses or any the processed food makers.

Under Romney’s rules, the rich and powerful, and that includes corporations, shouldn’t be taxed more. It won’t matter to them that you’ve dropped them from your social circle. They’ll be quite content to mingle with their own behind the gated walls of their communities that keep the rest of the world, like us, away from them.


You Read It First: While the rest of the world waited until Thursday to read a front-page NY Times article on a European test that charges drivers based on the miles they travel (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/science/earth/11meter.html?scp=3&sq=elisabeth%20rosenthal&st=cse), No Socks Needed Anymore readers were treated to my pay-as-you-go formula four days earlier (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2011/08/pay-as-you-go-government.html).

My idea incorporated passenger fees as well, including fares for fetuses (applicable only to right-to-life supporters).

It’s reassuring to know even in retirement I’ve not lost my ability to be on top of the news.

Playing Catch-up

Turns out my personal swimming instructor/friend Ken (aka Don Quixote and Sancho Panza) actually was a swimming instructor at a summer camp in his youth. Since he’s older than I, take it from me it was a loooong time ago. But we got through the first lesson without either us losing anything, Ken his cool, me my life. Weather permitting, we’re scheduled for another frolic in his pool on Friday.


Gee-Ka: That’s the way grandson Finley pronounces grandpa, so I guess Gee-Ka will be my nickname going forward. Finley had it much easier saying Gee-Gee for Grandma Gilda.

Finley & Co. (Allison and Dan) visited last weekend so his parents could attend their first game at the new Yankee Stadium on his mother’s birthday (Yanks won). Hard to find a better age to babysit than a 20-month-old who eats well, lays down to nap without fuss, laughs a lot, doesn’t poop too much, always startles you with new words he can vocalize, and pretty much understands everything you say to him. Even when I mistakenly shortened his nap time it afforded us one of the more pleasurable experiences of the weekend—cuddling in our bed with him for about 20 minutes.


Credit Rating Fake-out? The NY Times implied Wednesday it would be no big deal if the credit rating of the United States dipped from AAA to AA, or even lower. Noting that most corporations long ago abandoned the quest for triple-A ratings with hardly a misstep, the article suggested only national pride and a possible blow to consumer confidence would be at risk (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/business/aaa-rating-is-a-rarity-in-business.html?scp=2&sq=eric%20dash&st=cse).

So was this whole debt ceiling pas-de-deux debate (okay, a pas-de-trois, if you count the Tea Party) really a sham, just political posturing? Could be, except the deal struck is not good news for those in need of government support, people like the long-term unemployed.

What’s also exasperating in this whole scenario is the three major credit rating agencies—Fitch, Standard & Poors and Moody’s—are the very same organizations that green-lighted all those hazardous derivative bonds that contributed to the financial failures of the last few years, precipitating the recession which shuttered businesses, reduced employment and cut tax revenues causing our national debt to skyrocket. These rating agencies did not suffer. How ironic that today they pass judgment on U.S. credit worthiness.


Jewish Humor: We might not be exposed to it frequently, but Arabs have a keen sense of humor, I’ve heard. They’re even developing stand-up comedians, according to a recent NPR segment.

Strangely, some of the comedians choose to compare themselves to American comics. One calls himself the Jon Stewart of the Middle East. Another refers to himself as the Jerry Seinfeld of the Middle East.

How comforting to know the Arab world appreciates American humorists. But do they also realize these comedians are Jewish?


Burned by Burnett: The NY Yankees should end the charade of contemplating a six-man pitching rotation by dumping A.J. Burnett. Add him to the scrapheap of failed free agent pitcher signings. He’ll fit snugly alongside Kevin Brown, Kenny Rogers, Carl Pavano, Jaret Wright, Javier Vazquez, Ed Whitson, Hideki Irabu and Kei Igawa.

Time to concentrate on developing Ivan Nova and Phil Hughes and other prospects. After last night’s outing in Chicago against the light-hitting White Sox, when the Yanks scored 13 runs in the first four innings, only to see him give up seven before being relieved with one out in the fourth, Burnett continues to show he is unreliable.

Though his stuff (for those non baseball-literate readers, “stuff” is a term used to connote the quality of a pitcher’s pitches) can be electric, more often than not since becoming a Yankee he has shocked his team and its fan base with inconsistency and disappointment. He hasn’t won a game since June 29.

Better to admit Burnett can’t pitch for New York and work a deal to dispatch him to another team, even if the Yankees have to pay his bloated salary.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President

It’s Barack Obama’s 50th birthday Thursday. I can’t think of too many cheerful Democrats eager to wish him many happy returns.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to rationalize reasons to support his re-election. He’s forsaken much of his 2008 platform and progressive positions.

It will be hard to show up at the polls in November 2012. That is, until one contemplates the gang of right-wing politicians who not only want to reside in the White House but also want to take the country back to a time when we cared more about individual selves than our fellow citizens, when private business could run roughshod over workers, when it took muckrakers like Upton Sinclair to shame government into regulating industries, when our country threw up an almost impenetrable wall against foreign involvement, when bankers and Wall Street moguls could play with America’s solvency without fear of being held to account.

Yes, Barack Obama will be the lesser of two evils. But that is no way to fire up the troops for what will be a grueling campaign.

I get sick thinking of the prospects of Democrats and rational independents sitting out the election, thereby allowing the country to enter a dark age when our next leader might be someone who does not believe in evolution, who does not recognize the threat of global warming, who does not see the value of stem cell research, who does not respect the rights of all Americans, who does not understand the banner of states rights is shorthand for discrimination, who does not appreciate inequality is bred when 25% of our households possess 87% of the nation’s wealth, who does not comprehend that without compassionate reform to social security and Medicare our aging population will not live golden years but rather rust-filled ones, who doesn’t accept that the Christian thing for the richest country on Earth is to provide affordable universal health care.

Barack Obama today called once more for tax increases on the rich and industry so we don’t just “balance the budget on the backs of the very people who have borne the brunt of the recession.”

It all sounds so righteous. So good. If only he followed through. If only he drew a line in the sand that wouldn’t be washed away by the next wave of Republican and Tea Party demands.

Okay. Enough wishing. The next election for president and control of Congress and the Senate will be a referendum on which way the country wants to go—toward a tough, but enlightened future, or toward a dark passage back in time. Sitting out the election is not an option.