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. 

Royal Wedding Edition, Plus a Court Jester

Contrary to what you might have heard, contrary to what Matt Lauer said on The Today Show, the royal wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton did not go off without a hitch.

It hit a snag, specifically at Kate’s second knuckle, as Wills tried to deftly slip the wedding band onto his bride’s left ring finger. Only in a televised and Internet age would such a dramatic, inopportune nudge by a future king be forever recorded in British history. Though no one could say the bride was reluctant, to anyone watching the broadcast it was painfully obvious Kate’s knuckle was not as dainty as the rest of her.

In case any of you missed the ceremony, here’s a 3:16 minute replay. The slip-on-turned-to-shove-on of the ring is at the 1:59 mark: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/prince-william-marries-kate-middleton/2011/04/29/AFmyHICF_video.html

For the record, Princess Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, looked beautiful in her Sarah Burton designed gown. Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, looked dashing in his bold red Irish Guard military uniform.

Also for the record, 4th-hour Today co-hosts Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb pointed out when Queen Elizabeth entered Westminster Abbey she did not formally greet Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, second wife of her son, Prince Charles, and stepmother of the groom. On closer inspection of the tape, however, while the Queen does at first skip over Camilla to greet Prince Charles, she does wind up shaking Camilla's hand.

And Now on to the Court Jester: By whom I mean Donald Trump.

He wasn’t at the wedding, but he’s almost as colorful. And definitely more profane, lacing a speech in Las Vegas last night with F-bombs about our government and its leaders.

I understand why some people are attracted to his brand of populism. Anyone with a high profile who is media savvy and speaks like a foul-mouthed gunslinger is bound to generate whoops and hollers, even a few hosannas. But I would like someone, anyone, to explain how rank and file Republicans, even conservative Tea Partiers, can square Trump’s positions with their doctrinaire approach to government. To wit:

Trump lambastes President Obama for failing to stem the rising tide of oil and gasoline prices. But aren’t Republicans supposed to believe in a free market, even if it means higher prices?

Trump decries the state of our infrastructure, our roadways and airports. Yet Republicans are cutting back funds for essential services.

As Jason Linkins noted on The Huffington Post, Trump’s past positions don’t line up with those he is courting: “Some highlights include Trump's support of the ‘banking and auto bailouts,’ his previous description of President Ronald Reagan as a con artist, his affection for Canada's single-payer health care system, and his donations to Obama White House insiders Rahm Emanuel and Bill Daley.”

Trump hasn’t told us if he will seek the GOP presidential nomination. Comedians like Jon Stewart hope he runs. Seeking elective office, however, is not like hosting a reality TV show competition. The highest office in the land demands someone with qualifications, not someone who will serve an apprenticeship in government.

Anger Management

My Anger Exploded: Driving around town earlier today I listened to the noon radio broadcast of the news from CBS. The anchor matter-of-factly recounted how two sisters were released from prison in Mississippi on the condition Gladys Scott would donate a kidney to Jamie Scott. The anchor finished the story by noting the women were in prison for 16 years on an armed robbery conviction.

I couldn’t believe my ears. I was so angered I almost slammed on the brakes. Yes, everything reported was true. But soooooo incomplete.

Did you know the sisters, 21 and 19 at the time of the robbery, were each given consecutive life sentences? Must have been a big haul, you’d think. Not quite. Just $11 (though some reports say as much as $200 was taken). Did you know three boys, ages 14-18 were also charged and convicted, that they served their time and were long ago released? Did you know the sisters denied involvement in the crime? Did you know the sisters are Afro-American?

Did you know the only reason Gov. Haley Barbour suspended their double life sentences was to avoid the $200,000 a year medical bills the state incurred from providing kidney dialysis treatment to Jamie? And that the sisters now wonder where they will get the money to pay for the transplant operation?

I like being updated by the news, hearing headlines. But it is so infuriating when the story is incomplete. Had I not known the background I could easily have been led to believe these sisters were beneficiaries of a benevolent governor rather than victims of heinous injustice, for even if they were indeed guilty of the $11-$200 armed robbery, how is a double life sentence warranted? (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/us/08sisters.html?_r=1&hp)


Call me old-fashioned, but I think it’s too exploitive, all the hullabaloo surrounding Ted Williams, the homeless man-cum-radio/TV announcer who has become an Internet sensation. I’m happy for him, but did the reunion with his 90-year-old mother have to be televised? Couldn’t they get together off-camera after 20 years instead being a cause bellum for the CBS Early Show and NBC Today Show (which, thankfully, the networks worked out)? http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/01/06/2011-01-06_ted_williams_homeless_man_with_a_golden_voice_reunites_with_mom_after_being_apar.html

Why must everything be a media event? Why must we see everything. Can’t our culture accept private moments in people’s lives? Yes, it’s wonderful to celebrate human achievement, second chances in life, whether it be Williams (who seems to have more than just one second chance) or the miners in Chile. At some point in time, though, we need to rebalance our priorities and distance ourselves from an all-consuming desire to know. Facebook and Twitter may be worth mega-billions, but good old fashioned privacy—maybe modesty would be a better word—is slated for a comeback. I hope it happens soon.

Until that happens, no doubt we will see a film in a year or less on Ted Williams, one like The Soloist which celebrated a street musician “discovered” by a Los Angeles reporter.


No Honor: He might have been a heckuva pilot, and a good seaman, but film is what done-in the promising career of Capt. Owen Honors who was relieved of his command of the USS Enterprise for inappropriate behavior while he was the ship’s executive officer.

Honors produced and starred in videos intended to boost morale aboard the aircraft carrier. But the films contained scenes and comments that were sexually explicit and also offensive to gays and lesbians. Bottom line—if ever there was a person unworthy of his name, Honors is it.


Statesmanship vs. Brinksmanship: Here’s why the U.S. Senate filibuster cloture rule might get changed—Republicans will deem it in their long term interest even if they suffer some short term setbacks.

Currently, it requires 60 votes to stifle debate. To get it down to a simple 51-vote majority, the GOP must agree to a change of rules. They’ll do so because they believe the 2012 election will give them control of the Senate, though probably not by 60 or more votes. To forestall Democrats using the same stalling tactics they have used, the GOP will accept a rule change now. Since Republicans control the House, their downside risk is limited to actions the Senate alone has the power to control, namely treaty and cabinet/executive appointment approvals.

By agreeing to the rules change, the Republicans could spin the action favorably as an example of their putting country first. Of course, it is not a foregone conclusion Democrats will go along with the idea. If they, too, believe the GOP will gain majority status after the next election, they won’t be able to stymie the right-wing agenda if they amend the cloture rule.

Harry Reid and his dragoons, along with President Obama, have a lot of strategic soul-searching to do before they put statesmanship ahead of brinksmanship.