"Seize the Day" #3 - Now I get it.

The AJC today finally addressed the question that's been nagging at me for weeks: How these two motivational, celebrity-filled, day-long programs advertised at $1.95 and $4.95 could possibly break even, when they've been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on newpaper ads, with speaker fees as high as $100,000 for some. Even selling every seat in the 71,250 seat Georgia Dome wouldn't pay for the advertising alone, I figured.

Turns out, it's the old bait-and-switch advertising. Yes, you can get a seat for $1.95 or $4.95, somewhere like a football field away from the speakers' stand. And if you want to sit up front it will cost more like $200.

And the real reasons: there have been complaints against such meetings for the high pressure tactics used to sell expensive, continuing programs to help you realize all that potential to get rich, etc.

The big celebries do actually talk about something inspiring and informative. But they are mostly the crowd draw -- it's the products they sell where they make money.

So -- OK. Now it makes sense. Maybe some people will get fired up and actually start that small business venture or write that book. More power to them.

I still don't know why I cared so much to get the bigger picture. Maybe it's envy that they would pay someone like Sarah Palin or Rudy Guiliani big bucks to utter a few words. Maybe it's wanting to poke fun at the whole thing.

Whatever. Now I can quit thinking about it; and soon those insistent, daily, full page ads will be gone; because the events will have already happened and everybody will have gone home.

Ralph

DADT is dead #6

Silly reason #39 not to repeal DADT: "Freedom of religion."

A group of 65 retired military chaplains has sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates presenting what they consider an insurmountable problem if DADT is repealed. For some chaplains it will become "impossible to serve both God and the military."

If a chaplain preaches against homosexuality, he could be considered a bigot.

Well, yes, of course. How is that different from a Catholic priest telling a woman that her abortion is a mortal sin? Should the military kick out anyone who has an abortion -- or might have an abortion, both men and women -- in order not to pose priests with a dilemma?

How do you minister in a pastoral way to someone who does not share your religious beliefs? That should have been covered in Pastoral Care 101. Is their military mission to convert everyone to their faith -- or is it to provide pastoral care to all the troops and their families? And, if you can't do that, should you be a military chaplain?

I think this may be territory they might rather not open up. If they raise "freedom of religion" as an issue (as in their right to be bigots), then what about "separation of church and state?" And why do we provide military chaplains anyway? What's the government doing in the business of having sectarian clergy on the payroll if they think they're there "to save souls" according to their own sectarian beliefs?

Even if that can be justified, then how do you justify allowing them to preach their own individual brand of religion with all the attendant and various conflicting proscriptions that might run counter to official policy and regulations?

It's both a swamp and a slippery slope. These 65 retirees are worried some of their younger colleagues might have to leave the military. They should be worried that the whole concept of military chaplains could be called into question.

Ralph

Anderson Cooper confronts a bully

Anderson Cooper did a TV interview with Clint McCance, an Arkansas school board member who had posted really vile anti-gay diatribes on his FaceBook page. Reported on HP:

The posts, which emerged on Wednesday, were written in response to the "Wear Purple Day" that was launched to show solidarity with gay youth in the wake of a recent string of suicides. In one post, McCance protested the idea behind the initiative.'

"They want me to wear purple because five queers committed suicide," he wrote. "The only way I'm wearing for them is if they all commit suicide. I can't believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid.

In another post, he wrote, "it pisses me off, though, that we make special purple fag day for them. I like that fags can't procreate. I also enjoy that they often give each other AIDS and die...I would disown my kids if they were gay. They will not be welcome at my home or in my vicinity. I will absolutely run them off."

Cooper then confronted him with these really extreme anti-gay statements, and McCance said that he "went too far;" and he said he would never support bullying or suicide for kids. Cooper pressed further:

"But, I mean, do you have any idea of the... pain and fear you have caused to kids maybe even in your own district who are being bullied or who are gay or who don't feel safe telling anyone that they're gay?" he asked him.

McCance tried to wiggle out, saying Copper was setting up a "what if" situation; but in the end Cooper persisted and McCance announced on air his resignation from the school board and admitted that his comments were "hateful;" and he apologized "for hurting people on a broad, broad spectrum."

Good for you, Anderson !!

Ralph

DADT is dead #5

A leak from the military's survey of troops' attitudes about repealing DADT shows an overall positive response !!

As described in an interview with Rachel Madow, the NBC Chief Foreign Correspondent described the aggregate response to a number of questions as being of four types:

1. It's no big deal.
2. I'm a little uncomfortable, but I'll talk with the individual directly about it.
3. I'm a little uncomfortable, but I'll talk with someone in the chain of command about it.
4. I hate it.

#1 and #2 are considered positive responses. Combined, they constituted a majority of those surveyed.

Another finding was that it matters how the superior officers handle it; those who are uncomfortable will follow orders and will accept it if presented as what is expected.

These are only part of two large surveys, but they seem the most significant parts of it, in terms of going forward with repeal.

Take THAT, John McCain !!! Now stop grandstanding -- ok, you can wait until after the election in four days.

Ralph

An honest Republican appraisal of Deal

Kyle Wingfield is the young conservative columnist for the AJC. For a present-day Republican, he seems pretty reasonable, and his tone is that of gentle debate rather than single-mindedly trying to make the Democrats look bad.

So, it was no great surprise that he might give a more reasonable appraisal of his party's nominee for governor. But it was a surprise to me how candid he was about Deal's limitations and ethical lapses.

He begins by assuming that Deal is going to be the next governor, and he outlines some questions that Deal should plan to answer:

Given his lackluster years in Congress, will he be able to deal with a legislature that is often hostile to the governor's agenda? Given his attempts to get around any government regulations concerning his own business, how will he justify enforcing such regulations as governor? Since he considered it appropriate for him as a congressman (ie a part of the federal government) to travel to Georgia to protest local control over a contract that affects him personally, will he as governor push for local/state autonomy against federal control?

These are pointed questions to be coming from a member of Deal's own party, and they are framed by Wingfield's telling of Deal's questionable behavior in the past.

In fact, he begins his article by saying that Nathan Deal had been his congressman for 12 years, and when Deal announced his intention to run for governor, "I found I couldn't name a single thing he had done while in Washington. Not one."

He goes on:

If he does win, it will happen despite his thin congressional record and thick paper trail of mixing public office and personal business interests in a way that is questionable at best.

That's pretty strong stuff coming from a supposed supporter -- or at least a fellow conservative. Let's hope enough people agree with him that he won't actually become our next governor.

Ralph

Halliburton and Cheney --- again in the news

Dan Froomkin, writing on the Huffington Post today, reveals the following:

It seems increasingly likely that when investigators determine the precise cause of the oil-rig explosion that threatens to poison huge swaths of the Gulf of Mexico, what they'll conclude is that something went catastrophically wrong with the work done by Halliburton.

BP owns the well, and Transocean Ltd. owns the drilling rig, but Halliburton was the subcontractor in charge of sealing the bottom of the well. At two Senate hearings Tuesday, executives from Halliburton, BP and Transocean will be furiously blaming each other for the disaster.

For Halliburton, it's just the latest in a seemingly endless series of brushes with notoriety.

During the Bush years, Halliburton was so omnipresent that its very name became synonymous with crony capitalism and the corrupt intersection between government and the military-industrial complex -- particularly when oil and/or big money were involved.

The company most famously reaped huge profits by bilking the government on billion-dollar sweetheart contracts to support a war in Iraq that its former chairman, Dick Cheney, helped lead the nation into as vice president.

Under just one of the deals, as the Washington Post reported in 2006, "Halliburton had exclusive rights to provide the military with a wide range of work that included keeping soldiers around the world fed, sheltered and in communication with friends and family back home. Government audits turned up more than $1 billion in questionable costs. Whistle-blowers told how the company charged $45 per case of soda, double-billed on meals and allowed troops to bathe in contaminated water."

OK. So, now what? Will this bring any further investigation or charges against the Big H? Or is it just more of the same -- we'd rather not go there. And, of course, if the Republicans take control of Congress, they will pass all kinds of laws to prevent it.

In the end, crony capitalism and the military industrial complex will probably go right on doing what they do. Especially now that they can buy and own enough Congressmen -- aided and abetted by a friendly Supreme Court.

Ralph

What am I missing?

In a forum at the University of Delaware, Howard Dean and Karl Rove were exchanging views about the NPR firing of Juan Williams and the relative merits of FoxNews and NPR.

Dean cited a poll that showed that 45% of Fox News viewer believe that Sadaam Hussein had something to do with the 9/11 terrorist attack.

Rove interrupted him to say: "45% of NPR listeners were Sadaam Hussein." Apart from the stupidity of that remark, please tell me exactly what does he mean: "were Sadaam Hussein???" I've been trying for two days to get it. There's no online commentary that I have found that even tries to explain it -- except that it was just a throw-away line, trying to take the emphasis off the damning poll cited by Dean.

I guess I should just chalk it up to being "vintage Rove."

But, damn, when people like that make stupid remarks, I like at least to try to get what it is they're saying. This just sounds unhinged.

Ralph

Dangerous to society

I recently identified Newt Gingrich as the most dangerous man in politics. Now I have another award of negative distinction: Most dangerous man in society.

That's Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council. He routinely makes pronouncements about homosexuality that are exactly backwards and wrong-headed. Now he has gone a step too far and is endangering gay teens with his anti-gay misinformation.

True, what he's saying is what many psychoanalysts believed 50 years ago, even 30 years ago. It's what psychoanalyst Charles Socarides was still preaching 20 years ago. But we've come a long way since then.

Here's what Perkins told NPR in a discussion of the recent gay teen suicides, some of which clearly seem to be linked to bullying (as reported by HuffingtonPost):

Perkins told NPR that gay rights groups were exploiting the concern over anti-LGBT bigotry to build momentum for their movement, an argument that he has made before.

"There's no correlation between inacceptance of homosexuality and depression and suicide," Perkins told NPR. Here's how Perkins explained the issue:

"These young people who identify as gay or lesbian, we know from the social science that they have a higher propensity to depression or suicide because of that internal conflict," he says.

Homosexuality is "abnormal," he says, and kids know it, which leads them to despair. That's why he wants to confront gay activism in public schools. For example, his group supports the Day of Truth, when Christian high-schoolers make their case that homosexuality is a sin.

He's right that there is a higher tendency to depression and suicide in gay teens -- but the internal conflict is socially-induced, not inherent in being gay. It comes from people like Perkins telling them they are abnormal -- and unfortunately it reinforces kids' tendency to believe that being different means being abnormal.

What if Perkins is wrong (which I know he is). What if a guilt-ridden, shame-immersed 15 year old with no family support, who gets teased and bullied at school and preached against on Sunday, listens to such stuff? Even more likely, what if the parents of that teen listen to him and carry that message home to their troubled son or daughter?

There's bullying by obvious bullies; and then there is reprehensible misinformation coming from those taken to be authorities, which may do even more harm. I wonder if Tony Perkins ever thinks about the number of gay teens he has encouraged to kill themselves? It's probably quite a few.

This is a dangerous man.

Ralph

Seize the Day #2 - I still don't get it

Two week ago, I wrote about those two motivational/inspirational all-day, celebrity-filled programs being offered in Atlanta one week apart. And I wondered how the heck they were funding them, given that they were advertising admission fees at $1.95 for one and $4.95 for the other. A little math suggested to me that, even if they sold every seat in the giant Philips Arena and Georgia Dome, they couldn't pay for the relentless spate of full-page ads in the AJC almost every day for weeks.

The full-page ads have continued almost daily, at least 5 times a week, touting the likes of Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Bush, Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and Rudi Giuliani as inspiring motivational speakers.

It still doesn't make sense. They must be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars just on these ads; then there is the rent for these two venues, and all those speakers fees and expenses.

I don't get it. What's the catch? Is there a story here? Do they lock people inside and make them buy 10 books apiece before they can go home? Is it a recruitment program to sell people expensive continuing motivational programs? Is there some sort of Ponzi scheme involved?

Not that it really matters in the scheme of things right now. But I've become increasingly curious, and the question has lodged in my brain like an annoying burr under the saddle.

Ralph

Rummy and Wolfie, again

Yes, it continues to leak out -- the true story of why we invaded Iraq.

As reported on Huffington Post:

Former Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton says that, during the Bush administration, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, and other Pentagon officials pushed to go to war with Iraq "almost to the point of insubordination."

"There was a very strong push in those days for us to go into Iraq, and there was absolutely no intelligence, zero, that pointed toward the Iraqis.," he told Christiane Amanpour on ABC's 'This Week' on Sunday. "It was all Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden. And yet there was an element there that was -- that was pushing to go into Iraq at the same time."

George Bush was focused on Afghanistan and initially resisted the pressure to invade Iraq, Shelton says. But he was eventually convinced.

"Afghanistan, remember, was going very, very well," Shelton said. "The drumbeat back here in Washington was still pushing, coming out of the Pentagon, let's go to Iraq, let's get -- take him out. And he finally said, let's go."

He only names Rummy and Wolfie, but there's no doubt that Cheney was behind those two.

Now, what do we do with that? Think of what a colossal mistake that was: the devastation of Iraq, the loss of Afghanistan, the loss of respect for the US worldwide, the recruiting stimulus for ever more terrorists, the huge cost in lives and money, the domestic programs that had to be curtailed, the enormous debt for generations to come.

Is there nothing that can be said that would induce Obama to open an investigation and try those turkeys for war crimes? Probably not.

Ralph

The problem with liberals

Yesterday's New York Times Book Review had two long essays on "The Ideological Divide," one written from the liberal perspective and one from the conservative, both including commentary on a slew of recent relevant books.

What grabbed my attention in the liberal slant, written by Jonathan Alter, began with this:

It's a sign of how poorly liberals market themselves and their ideas that the word "liberal" is still in disrepute . . .

It goes on to say that clarity has such an advantage over nuance, "just as emotion so often beats reason, and the varsity fullback will most likely deck the captain of the debate team in a fistfight." Yes, it's true, we knew all that -- and Drew Westen has been trying to drive that message home for years.

But here is what gave it a new sense of clarity:

Liberals are at a disadvantage because politics, at its essence, is about self-interest, an idea that at first glance seems more closely aligned with conservatism. To make their more complex case, liberals must convince a nation of individualists that enlightened self-interest requires mutual interest, and that the liberal project is better constructed for the demands of an increasingly interdependent world.

So we have the Republicans who know how to exploit this self-interest and the sense that big brother government is going to take it away from you and give it to the undeserving poor -- when in fact the government they want to vote in would take it from them, even more, and give it to the wealthy and the corporations.

If there's genius involved here, it's the Republican genius for inducing the people to vote against their own self-interest by convincing them that the conservatives are exactly the ones who will serve their self-interest. What the Republicans actually deliver feeds the self-interest of the wealthy and powerful; all the little people get is the hope that someday they may be rich and powerful too. It's the old royalty system: we poor just love to slave so that somebody has it all and we can dream that it could be us.

It's even worse: The Republican marketing genius also convinces these conservatives, often self-proclaimed Christians, to vote against the teachings of the one they worship: what about Jesus' teachings about being your brother's keeper, feeding the hungry, taking care of the sick and needy? Or no, those are entitlements, they say. Entitlements are bad -- but don't touch my Social Security and Medicare, you socialists.

We ridiculed our once-governor Lester Maddox for saying that the problem with our prisons was that we needed a better class of criminals. But I'm here to declare that the problem with our electorate is that we need a better educated, less prejudiced, less faux-religious and more humane populace that will see through the lies and misinformation that seduces them into voting against their own interests in favor of snake oil.

Ralph

Barnes and Deal

The AJC today had long essays on Roy Barnes and Nathan Deal, written by staff writers and purported to be objective analysis of their campaigns, their strengths and weaknesses. With Barnes they focused on his prior term as governor and his self-acknowledged problems because he tried to muscle through legislation and changes without building the needed coalitions and negotiating support. They didn't put it this way but the idea was that he was too successful in using his power and thus made enemies and evoked backlash.

Deal was portrayed primarily as a quiet, steady, go-along guy who doesn't cause waves or accomplish much but was always a reliable conservative vote. In all his 30 years in politics, he has few accomplishments to show, although they did find that he generally does a good job taking care of his constituents and getting funding for his district. His accomplishments as subcommittee chair were primarily obstructing liberal programs. He would call it cutting federal spending. His ethical and financial troubles were addressed, including his defensive tactics of being a father who helps his children.

But here was the disturbing end of the article, addressing all the charges of corruption and using improper influence for personal advantage:

Deal denies any wrongdoing. He chalks the ethics allegations up to election year politics. "I had never had any allegations about anything until I decided to run for governor," Deal said. "Then all of the sudden people want to make issues about things that I don't think have any relevancy for a governor's race."

HUH ??

You mean pulling strings to keep a sweetheart financial deal for his car salvage company instead of having to compete for a government contract worth nearly half a million a year? And repeatedly failing to properly file expense claims? And failing to report various assets and debts on his campaign financial reports? And, for that matter, being an interested party in a bankruptcy claim that failed to disclose that the principle had had a previous bankruptcy? And, for that matter, making utterly foolish loans to his kids whose failing business was ill-conceived from the start?

Read carefully and note that he does not say "I did nothing wrong." He says, "I never had any allegations . . ." That's consistent with saying that "nobody noticed I was doing something wrong" until I ran for governor. And then he makes the gratuitous comment that, anyway, these things don't have any relevance now.

None of that is relevant to choosing our next governor? What are you smoking???

Seems to me that Deal's in a hard place on this latter issue about the loans to his kids: either he admits that he didn't use good business sense in taking on so much debt obligation; or he admits that he knew it but didn't worry because he knows how to pull strings to take care of financial woes -- like having friends on bank boards that will give him easy money access.

Well, on second though, the voters seem quite willing to overlook all that, dazzled by the cards he played: the "good father who helps his kids" card and the "I've had financial setbacks because of the economy, just like all the rest of you" card.

And as to "I never had any allegations:" Let us remind you, Little Nathan, that the ethics arm of Congress did make allegations, and you escaped a formal investigation only by resigning at the 11th hour, timing it perfectly to stay just long enough to vote against health care reform but escape before the opening of an ethics investigation.

And you will likely be our next governor.

Ralph

Juan Williams and NPR

Juan Williams got fired by NPR for expressing his feelings about seeing people in Muslim-style clothes on airplanes. Conservatives are howling "suppression of free speech" and plan to introduce a resolution in Congress to revoke any federal funding for NPR.

NPR says that Williams was fired because his contract is for news analysis, not opinion; and they are, rightly -- and rarely, these days -- upholding the important rule of journalism that you don't mix news reporting/analysis with personal commentary and opinion. It's the difference between reporting news as objectively as possible -- just the fact, ma'am -- and opinion which should be somewhat subjective.

Others, less polarized, suggest that NPR hasn't been quite so quick to hold Cokie Roberts and Nina Totenberg to such standards, that NPR is really upset with Williams and looking for an excuse to get rid of him because he also provides commentary on FOX News.

Take you pick: but I have long been dismayed at the way journalism has lost its professionalism, and TV news especially has blurred the distinction between news and opinion.

Ralph