Feb 09 2010
Although winter throttled much of the joy out of my weekend, I did manage to watch the Super Bowl, starting at my friend's house and then moving to see it on a bigger screen elsewhere after half-time.
It was a great game - and for a Steelers fan something of a reality check, because both teams were so good that it came across as a sort of a blessing that we weren't in it this year. In this company, we might have been clobbered.
As it turned out, the game proved absorbing to many people. It was watched by more than 106.5 million people. As the AP reported, this surpassed the 1983 finale of "M-A-S-H" - which drew 105.97 million viewers - making it the most-watched program in TV history.
It also broke the record for viewership of a Super Bowl - which was set last year by, yes, Pittsburgh and Arizona when 98.7 million people watched.
Yet another record was set in the dubious category of the number of ads - commercials took up nearly 48 minutes of the game, nearly three minutes longer than last year's record total.
To my mind, more commercials didn't add up to more entertainment. No outstanding clunker comes to mind - although it is not altogether clear what product Go Daddy advertises, because when women rip off their shirts men tend to lose their focus. Otherwise, it is hard to think of memorable ones.
(That said, I did like the sleepwalker who wanders off from an African safari and, oblivious to the dangerous wildlife, gets himself a Coca Cola. And I liked the fiddle playing groundhog, although again I couldn't figure out the product. If the commercial was advertising groundhogs, we don't need any at our house - especially after Phil's recent prediction).
Concerning the half-time show: As it was talking about my generation, I naturally thought it was good, but my colleagues here at the office thought it was terrible and pretty much suggested The Who should retire to a nursing home. The PG's Scott Mervis was also quite cruel in his article this morning about the geriatric rockers.
By today's standards, they do belong to antiquity. The Who was a group originally formed 46 years ago. Pete Townshend is close to 65, Roger Daltrey is almost 66. Thanks to Janet Jackson's right breast coming loose from its moorings at the Super Bowl in 2004, the likes of Lady Gaga need not apply for this gig. It's senior citizens only.
So disregard the group's earlier lyric: "Hope I die before I grow old." You should hope not to die before playing the Super Bowl and getting a rich paycheck.
To Mugsy: You are right. There's not a darn thing wrong with Sarah Palin using crib notes. I use them myself when making speeches. In fact, she is a goof, but not because she uses crib notes. And because she is a goof, liberals are irritated by her. We are old-fashioned like that. We don't think goofs should aspire to run the country and we remember the disaster wrought by the last goof who tried.
Feb 08 2010
OK, this was my revenge for being sarcastic in my last post about what I believed was doomsday media coverage of the impending snow storm. On Friday night, lying in bed at 11.20 p.m., I saw through a tired eye the sky outside light up in spectacular sheets of light. It was not lightning. It was a snow-stressed transformer blowing up down the street.
Doomsday had arrived. Everybody on my street was without power until about 6.30 this morning. What a cold and miserable weekend! The house quickly became a polar bear habitat, with our faithful hound Sooner being cast in the role of the polar bear. Last night we had to flee and go to a friend's house to sleep (thank you Dennis and Lisa!). Sooner came too. To a dog, any change in routine is a holiday whereas with us it is more likely to be an irritation.
The dog's life for us was certainly irritating. The most frustrating part was that the very next street had power and was awash in lights. You could look through people's windows and see them tending their tropical plants. I think they were showing off. They had that cozier-than-thou attitude.
Having been in an igloo all weekend, with no TV, no radio, no computer access and only the Sunday PG with no light to read it, I have no knowledge of anything. A couple of people I saw at the Eat 'n Park at Sunday breakfast told me that Sarah Palin had made an appearance to the tea partiers - one said she was ridiculous, the other seemed to approve. At least I was spared this.
Now another snowstorm is on the way. My advice is buy toilet paper and bread. I am thinking twice now before I ever denounce storm fear-mongering again.
Feb 05 2010
As the greatest snow storm in the history of Pittsburgh is soon going to bury us, or so I infer from the extravagant media coverage, I will make this just a short lament.
Former Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., announced today that it is not feasible for him to run for governor because he has too many professional commitments. This is understandable. As they used to say down at the morgue, dead men tell no tales unless they have Cyril on the job to help them.
But everybody, with the possible exception of Mary Beth Buchanan, should be disappointed by this news. It's not that the governor's race lacks for candidates - it's just that it is one Cyril Wecht short of a load of excitement.
As a lover of characters in general, I have a soft spot for Cyril in particular. Now I won't be able to form "Goombahs for Cyril" in support of his candidacy.
Let the snow come to cover our disappointment.
Feb 04 2010
Not that my last post conjured up a huge number of comments - apparently America snoozes on in anticipation of the coming era of corporations buying elections - but I wish to add a PS.
In response to my column this week, a lady sent me the following e-mail concerning the Supreme Court:
And the Bush legacy goes on....and on....and on.....
Yes, indeed, Justices Roberts and Alito are the gift that keeps on giving.
Whether they are jumping through legal hoops to deny justice to a woman foreman at a rubber plant denied equal pay because she didn't know she was being paid less than the men (and hence couldn't bring a suit in time), or whether they are declaring that corporations are just like you and me, there is no end to their mischief.
But there is another thing that keeps on poisoning us: Blind hatred of the Clintons. It was such animus that got Bill into legal and impeachment trouble concerning his liaison with Monica Lewinsky. Without that hatred, no right-wing fishing expedition would have dredged up Paula Jones from his past. And because her suit needed corroboration, her lawyers eventually found Monica, courtesy of the world's worst friend, Linda Tripp.
And just at the time when Clinton should have been paying the greatest attention to the growing threat posed by Osama bin Laden, some people in America thought they had the luxury of focusing the president's and the nation's attention on a two-bit affair.
And the bacillus still infects. The recent case about corporate influence on elections involved Citizens United, a right-wing group that wanted to distribute a wretched, hatchet-job video on Hillary Clinton that clearly aimed at sinking her chances of becoming president.
They say elephants never forget and they may be right. But it still amazing how they stomp on so much to such ill effect.
Feb 03 2010
I was in Maine when the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which gave the green light to corporations to buy elections (in my view, of course). I wanted to write a column about it immediately but Tony Norman beat me to the punch.
My first column mentioned the case in passing, but with a decent interlude of time having passed, I returned to it in today's column to give it my full attention. While instinctively against the ruling from the first, I had only read the press accounts - which were damning enough from my point of view. While I trusted that the quotes were accurate, I thought I should get the full flavor of the arguments before devoting a whole column to the subject.
So I sat down yesterday and read the main opinions and I am now even more persuaded that the court majority got it horribly and recklessly wrong. I am not a lawyer, although I have read many opinions in my time, but frankly I don't think you need to be a lawyer to judge the competing views. As they say in the old country, you don't have to be a chicken to know a bad egg when you smell one.
The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Although it has frequent genuflections to the sacredness of the First Amendment, and how it cannot be infringed, it is written in a turgid and largely unfathomable style as if the justice was hiding in the thicket of the law lest the shocking nakedness of his argument be revealed. OK, maybe if I were a lawyer it would seem more compelling to me but it is still a dry thing that any reader might suspect will give off dust.
The dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens is the polar opposite - lively, well written, strong, remorselessly logical, accessible to anyone with a reasonable education (but not short of the closely reasoned legalisms and citations that are to be expected).
It is a veritable wrecking ball that to my mind demolishes the logic of the majority opinion. It is also an indictment of the majority's judicial activism. To devastating effect, it shows how this case could have been decided on narrow grounds and how the majority went out of its way to go beyond what the plaintiff's were asking. It details the long history of laws on free speech and corporations that the majority discounted. It shows to great effect that the Framers of the Constitution were no great fans of corporations and certainly did not think they had the same rights as individual Americans.
For example, he wrote that "The Framers ... took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare. Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind."
When you lose an argument to an 89-year-old (Justice Stevens will be 90 in April), it doesn't look good.
Read it and weep.
Feb 02 2010
The accursed groundhog saw its shadow. In retaliation for six more weeks of winter, I believe that the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should be held in Punxsutawney, Pa.
No problem with crowds there. Every Feb. 2, they appear to handle the thousands of early-rising booze hounds very effectively.
No problem with Punxsutawney becoming a target. It is doubtful if the terrorists could pronounce it let alone find it.
The administration's apparent decision to buckle to wimp NIMBY politicians is a mistake. The problem with re-thinking holding the trial in New York City is that everybody will now claim the same excuses not to have it in their neighborhood.
Still, Punxsutawney is looking better and better. KSM could bunk with the groundhog.
Note to letsplay18: Good to hear from you. To answer your question, yes, I do think the basic components of health-care reform have been well explained by Obama and others. The details are, of course, complicated but not the basic ideas.
I must correct you when you write that "Nobody said Obama was a dummy." I regularly hear from people who say that and firmly believe it. Why do you think they go on about his use of teleprompters and his campaign trail mistatement that there are 57 states? The clear subtext is that they think he's stupid.
As for blaming the last administration, he only blames it to the extent that it is to blame - which, as much as Republicans want to change the subject, is a lot. That doesn't absolve Obama but he is right to put his own lackluster performance in context.
Feb 01 2010
Having heard rave reviews about it, I finally got around to hearing President Obama address the GOP House Issues Conference in Baltimore last Friday. The White House Web site carries both the transcript and the video and I urge you to look at it.
Although the exchanges were sometimes pointed, and nobody was in the mood to take any guff, everybody was on their best behavior. While obviously a politically charged event, it was that rarest of things - a frank and largely unscripted give-and-take between a president and his greatest critics (Obama did have an opening statement that lasted about 20 minutes).
Anybody who thinks Obama is some dummy who doesn't know the number of states should pay special attention to this. He was pretty impressive in his role of Daniel in the lion's den. But the Republicans came off well too and a number of them showed what seemed to be genuine pleasure that he was there. They certainly deserve credit for inviting him.
Finally, politics for adults.
Note to the Reg-ulators. By my count, three or four of you are interested in coming in to the PG on a field trip, so I will get back to this when the weather warms up. Remind me in April, please.
Special note to kevin morris, mugsy and callsigntourist - further concerning my word to the wise last week about cranky people, please be advised you guys are not the problem and you are most welcome here. I think you know whom I am talking about.
Why, if all cranky people were banned here, I'd have to ban myself. No, I was talking about a few chronic jerks who exist to be miserable and wish to infect the rest of us. All I am saying is that we should refuse to be infected.
Jan 29 2010
I am not one of those who believes that every story on a newspaper front page needs to be serious or important. There is room for something off-beat, whimsical and more of a human-interest feature than straight news. As serious as The Wall Street Journal is, it has always found room for such stories and it works very well.
Editing a newspaper is like serving someone dinner. Most people like meat and potatoes - but after that is digested, it is nice to serve dessert. To belabor the analogy, the news is the meat and potatoes, human interest stories are the dessert.
Nothing wrong with offering a bit of dessert. If you don't like dessert, you don't have to eat it - or read it on your front page.
So I have no philosophical problem with the story titled "Joke Seems to be on Apple in Regard to Naming of iPad" on the PG's front page this morning. The New York Times did an amazingly similar story on its front page this morning, so we have impressive company.
Nor do I have a problem with how the story was done in the PG. Mackenzie Carpenter is a fine reporter and lively writer. She could make a conference on natural gas pricing sound interesting.
I don't even doubt that this issue is culturally significant and has caused a sensation on Twitter and the blogosphere in general.
But that's where I have the problem: I think the only cultural significance of this news is that the basic premise - that Apple has made a huge faux pas by giving its new device a name associated with feminine hygiene products - is unbelievably stupid.
Let me count the ways. Notwithstanding the existence of Maxi-Pads, pad is not a word reserved for feminine hygiene. Students and hippies live in pads. Pads are used to scour pots and pans. Helicopters land on pads. Rockets are launched from them. Reporters and students use note pads and big and hairy football players wear them. People with muscular aches apply heating pads to them. Cats and dogs have pads at the bottom of their feet. And so forth and such like.
Now, I am a 62 year-old man, long of tooth and short of hair, so I suppose I am not going to think of the feminine hygiene angle first. But the women I have talked to today did not think of this first either, perhaps for all the reasons described above.
So I am thinking that Apple's alleged mistake was not the fact that women did not have input in the name process, but they didn't consult anyone who had their mind in the gutter.
An end-of-week word to the Reg-ulators: This is meant as a tip to the wise, prompted by a recent exchange. Without naming names, I observe that sometimes the people who comment about this blog use it as a place to be cranky. Misery loves company, after all.
My advice for dealing with them is the same as for disagreeable people who come into a bar. Ignore them. Do not encourage them. They can stew in their own dyspeptic juices without your help. In bars, such people get tired of being ignored and eventually go away.
I recognize this can be hard but ignore provocations. Everybody else here is pretty smart and civil and a non-response will speak louder than any other words. The rest of us will understand.
On happier matters, Ceijai wrote: "The Governor of Virginia reminded me of Smilin' Bob of the "natural male enhancement" commercials for Enzyte." That's it! Brilliant! I was searching my mind about who he reminded me of.
Callsigntourist suggests that we go on a field trip. I could arrange one if enough of you are interested in coming to the Post-Gazette. I am thinking some lunch hour when the weather is warmer, say in April. I could give you not only a tour but also arrange to have some editors and writers address you.
What do you think?
Jan 28 2010
The State of the Union Address last night didn't live up to my worst expectations but it did incorporate many of the features that for me always render the occasion somewhat farcical.
I have decided that the best analogy is seal-feeding time at the zoo. The president - the presidential seal? - throws various sardines to the crowd. If the sleek-coated ones like what has been tossed their way, they get up on their hindquarters and clap their flippers together - arf, arf, arf!
A lot was tossed in the direction of the Republicans last night - tax cuts for small businesses, tough talk on Iran, support for nuclear energy, praise in general for private enterprise - but they were generally suspicious and off their feed. They would look around at each other after each sardine was thrown to see if they should rise up and make a show for the people at home. But many times they just sat on their flippers and looked bored.
Anybody who still thinks President Obama is a socialist would be hard-pressed to cite any evidence of that in this speech - not that evidence matters to those who think such a thing.
I was watching the PBS broadcast and David Brooks, New York Times columnist and reliably fair-minded conservative, was struck by the fact that, take health care out of it, and what Obama said was moderate. As for me, I would even include health care as part of this accurate assessment - a proposed system that leaves health insurers sitting pretty and does not include a public option strikes me as not all that radical.
It was a curious speech in some ways. It was almost as if it was written by two speech writers. A part of it - the first part, mostly - lacked electricity and was rather wonky. In part, this was because the tone of the first section was a pessimistic telling of the nation's economic difficulties and only later did it become optimistic. It was only after he spoke for about half an hour did the familiar Obama rhetorical flourishes kick in. I wonder if enough people tuned in long enough to hear that.
I did like the fact that Obama reminded the American people that he had cut taxes in a number of ways when he first came into office. This is something that many conservatives refuse to believe - when I wrote this in a column some months ago, I was called a liar or else challenged by people who jumped through hoops to explain why this did not matter. Heck, he's a Marxist. How could he have cut taxes? Ridiculous!
I also liked the fact that he firmly and effectively remade the case for health-care reform. I applauded the fact that he took on the partisanship that is poisoning the country. He projected some welcome toughness and resolve, even as he extended the hand of bipartisanship.
And I liked the fact that he finally committed to ending the don't-ask-don't-tell policy in the military - his one great concession last night to his liberal base.
It is past time. With gay marriage having made a beachhead in half a dozen states without uprooting the foundations of church and state, public attitudes have begun to change. Anyway, Obama has given the military brass pretty much everything they want - they in turn can salute and get on with the job of making military life less homo-phobic.
That said, parts of the speech were not especially believable. How can the deficit be brought down with large swatches of the budget (such as the military) off limits to cutting? Don't know. And do the American people really hate partisanship? My guess is only in principle. In practice, they seem to love it.
If the American people really hated partisanship, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck would be out of jobs, not adored by millions.
And for that reason, I think this good speech is likely not to matter much in the long run. Obama threw out some good sardines last night but they were pre-doomed to smell like dead fish to his incorrigible critics.
For a sense of what he said not making much of an impression, one only had to stay tuned to the Republican response by Virginia's new Gov. Bob McDonnell. This broke new ground. Instead of delivering the response from a sterile office as has been done with a sense of heightened boredom in the past, Gov. McDonnell spoke from the Virginia State Capitol surrounded by family and friends, who clapped enthusiastically at every opportunity.
There was some added entertainment value to this but the overall effect was somewhat weird. It came off as a political tupperware party for Stepford wives and others of like mind. The governor himself looked like a nice, engaging guy in a country club sort of way but the new setting didn't overcome the basic problem of such responses - it wasn't particularly responsive to what the president had just said.
There were cursory attempts at responsiveness but they looked like they had been added at the last minute. Mostly, it was just the usual recitation of conservative ideology. We need to help business - yes, Obama said that too - we need nuclear power - yes, Obama said that, too - we need less regulation. As for that point, Obama had been at his most forceful and persuasive in pointing out that the less-regulation idea was the very thing that had brought the country to ruin over the last 10 years. But the governor didn't respond to that challenge, he just repeated the worn-out idea.
As the perceptive David Brooks also observed, it was as if Gov. McDonnell was giving a counter argument to an argument that Obama had not made.
So I was left in the end not saying "arf, arf, arf" or clapping my flippers together.
Jan 27 2010
Tonight is the State of the Union Address. No matter who is the president, I look forward to these occasions as much as a plague of boils. To see the ranks of congressional hypocrites, alternately sitting on their hands or cheering wildly out of all proportion to what the president is saying, is a special torture.
George Washington had the right idea - he just mailed his address to Congress. If we must suffer like this, I believe the broadcast should be piped to the detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay. That should teach them for messing with America.
Of course, I will watch. It is my civic duty - but I will enjoy it as much as any kid made to eat spinach and I reserve the right to whine later. And what can Obama say anyway? Things are all screwed up, as I described this morning in my column. Its point was that the free-ranging anger in the body politic is fast rendering America ungovernable. To unwittingly confirm this point, various rabid people wrote to me today all full of pus and vinegar. It always amazes me that something written in good humor can evoke such bad humor, but apparently that is my special talent.
But not everybody was so cranky. I received the following note, an oasis of cheerfulness in a harsh desert. I note that the faithful hound of this blog, Rover Fido Spot III, was thinking along the same lines in his last comment. Good boy!
I reprint this with the permission of the author:
"Poetry lovers, can you rhyme the word ‘filibuster'"?
I will try, Reg. Ahem.
Seldom was seen such storm and bluster
As once was found in a filibuster
In off year races, New England moans, the ghost of Ted the lion groans, and now our corns will grow corn pones, health care reform's forgot.
Yet 2012 will soon be near, non-stop campaigning we don't fear, we have seen that change is here
And it's more of the same old lot.
Nary a congress passes muster
To avoid the dreaded filibuster
Now screaming down the hill we go, to find imaginary foes, the injuns from the cowboy shows, those racist tropes of old...
We must cast blame both far and wide, congresscritters cannot hide, and all our comments will be snide, as power makes them bold.
T'was easier to glorify General Custer
Than t'is to miss a filibuster.
Eh, it's a little clumsy, but so am I.
Jamie Fritz
Penn Hills (despairing, yet a democrat all the same)
More Posts
Next page »