A soldier from Elkin, N.C., was killed in Afghanistan yesterday. Capt. Mark Garner graduated from Elkin High a year before I graduated from a high school across the county. He was one of seven soldiers killed in the attack. A few years ago, one of my good friends from high school died after an IED attack in Afghanistan.
And Michael Jackson is still the top story on CNN.com. I swear... I love my country, but there are times when I want to slap several million of its citizens.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Remembering Steve McNair
Mike Tanier has a truly wonderful piece up on Football Outsiders about Steve McNair, who was murdered over the weekend. Tanier explores the paradox of a player remembered most for the game he lost - the "one yard short" Super Bowl - who nevertheless was universally respected within the NFL for his legendary toughness.
It's interesting to me that CNN still has wall-to-wall coverage on Michael Jackson's untimely death almost two weeks after, but the MSM and public are all but silent on McNair. Yes, Jackson was a once-in-a-lifetime entertainer who was in the public eye for four decades. But is he more or less of a role-model to the African American community? After all, McNair was one of the only players from an HBCU selected in the first round of the draft. He was a black quarterback who almost won the Super Bowl four years before Rush Limbaugh made his controversial comments about the media giving special treatment to black QBs.
McNair may have had plenty of personal issues, but I choose to remember him as an athlete - a physically and mentally tough athlete and a born leader. My thoughts are with his family and the people who loved him.
It's interesting to me that CNN still has wall-to-wall coverage on Michael Jackson's untimely death almost two weeks after, but the MSM and public are all but silent on McNair. Yes, Jackson was a once-in-a-lifetime entertainer who was in the public eye for four decades. But is he more or less of a role-model to the African American community? After all, McNair was one of the only players from an HBCU selected in the first round of the draft. He was a black quarterback who almost won the Super Bowl four years before Rush Limbaugh made his controversial comments about the media giving special treatment to black QBs.
McNair may have had plenty of personal issues, but I choose to remember him as an athlete - a physically and mentally tough athlete and a born leader. My thoughts are with his family and the people who loved him.
Monday, July 6, 2009
CaringBridge
I wanted to draw attention to the Web site CaringBridge, which sets up free Web journals for families with a loved one undergoing medical treatment. Users can set up a site to provide updates, and friends and family can post messages of support in a guestbook. I think this is a great service.
Unfortunately, I learned of CaringBridge because the husband of one of my former classmates and co-workers was in a life-threatening accident at work last week. Please keep their family in your prayers, and support this wonderful site in the future. I plan to send them a donation as soon as I can.
Unfortunately, I learned of CaringBridge because the husband of one of my former classmates and co-workers was in a life-threatening accident at work last week. Please keep their family in your prayers, and support this wonderful site in the future. I plan to send them a donation as soon as I can.
Unsolicited advice for Gov. Palin: sit this next one out
So yesterday I wrote about the political historical context of Gov. Sarah Palin's resignation, concluding that stepping away from government would not - in and of itself - prevent her from successfully running for office again one day. But the particulars of this specific case change the game somewhat. Basically, Palin and her people need to tone down the crazy if she ever wants to have any credibility as a national political figure ever again.
For starters, having your attorney threaten a blogger/radio host with a libel suit - on the Fourth of July, no less - is overkill of the highest order. In a post on the governor's apparent resignation, Shannyn Moore wrote that rumors of an FBI investigation into Palin's finances had been swirling for months. She didn't say the rumors were true, she just reported on their existence. Then on Saturday, Palin's attorney released a letter refuting that Palin did anything improper with respect to the construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex. That's actually a good idea, if you ask me - state the facts, nip it in the bud; the FBI's announcement that they're doing no such investigation only helps Palin out. This is where you want to stop talking and allow the story to disappear.
Unfortunately, the letter went on to mention Moore by name, and further threatening legal action against any mainstream media outlet that reported the existence of the rumors (none of which had done so... and all of which have since reported on the zany letter). The thing is, libel suits are incredibly hard to pull off even for an ordinary citzen. For a public figure, like a governor, there's a lot more latitude for criticism. In order for Palin to successfully sue Moore or anyone else, she would have to prove that Moore knew the information was false and published it anyway, AND that this caused definable damage to the governor's reputation. Palin would also have to do a deposition under oath, which is what got Bill Clinton in trouble.
Stupid, stupid idea. And to release a letter designed to cast a chill on free speech and freedom of the press on frakking Indepence Day is like bizarro PR - it's the worst possible message to send.
Of course, the people Palin was really trying to reach heard her loud and clear. The "poor pitiful me" act isn't going to gain her new fans in the moderate swath of the spectrum, but it does land right in the wheelhouse of those conservatives who already harbor a persecution complex. Which I guess makes Palin the right-wing version of Ralph Nader.
Palin isn't going to get anywhere if she continues to behave as though she's special and immune to the rules. Newsflash: there are entire actual Web sites devoted to proving that President Obama is the anti-Christ. There are people who are convinced that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed, or that President Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. I don't recall Bush resigning over that, or Clinton slinking off where the wingnuts couldn't get to her. Criticism, both fair and unfair, is as much a part of holding elected office as sitting in boring meetings and kissing babies at campaign rallies.
As I wrote yesterday, it's entirely possible that a politician can buck the established M.O. and still succeed. But it won't happen for Gov. Palin if she insists on stacking the deck against herself.
In the immortal words of Paul Rudd in "Anchorman," "Why don't you sit this next one out? Stop talking for awhile."
For starters, having your attorney threaten a blogger/radio host with a libel suit - on the Fourth of July, no less - is overkill of the highest order. In a post on the governor's apparent resignation, Shannyn Moore wrote that rumors of an FBI investigation into Palin's finances had been swirling for months. She didn't say the rumors were true, she just reported on their existence. Then on Saturday, Palin's attorney released a letter refuting that Palin did anything improper with respect to the construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex. That's actually a good idea, if you ask me - state the facts, nip it in the bud; the FBI's announcement that they're doing no such investigation only helps Palin out. This is where you want to stop talking and allow the story to disappear.
Unfortunately, the letter went on to mention Moore by name, and further threatening legal action against any mainstream media outlet that reported the existence of the rumors (none of which had done so... and all of which have since reported on the zany letter). The thing is, libel suits are incredibly hard to pull off even for an ordinary citzen. For a public figure, like a governor, there's a lot more latitude for criticism. In order for Palin to successfully sue Moore or anyone else, she would have to prove that Moore knew the information was false and published it anyway, AND that this caused definable damage to the governor's reputation. Palin would also have to do a deposition under oath, which is what got Bill Clinton in trouble.
Stupid, stupid idea. And to release a letter designed to cast a chill on free speech and freedom of the press on frakking Indepence Day is like bizarro PR - it's the worst possible message to send.
Of course, the people Palin was really trying to reach heard her loud and clear. The "poor pitiful me" act isn't going to gain her new fans in the moderate swath of the spectrum, but it does land right in the wheelhouse of those conservatives who already harbor a persecution complex. Which I guess makes Palin the right-wing version of Ralph Nader.
Palin isn't going to get anywhere if she continues to behave as though she's special and immune to the rules. Newsflash: there are entire actual Web sites devoted to proving that President Obama is the anti-Christ. There are people who are convinced that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed, or that President Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. I don't recall Bush resigning over that, or Clinton slinking off where the wingnuts couldn't get to her. Criticism, both fair and unfair, is as much a part of holding elected office as sitting in boring meetings and kissing babies at campaign rallies.
As I wrote yesterday, it's entirely possible that a politician can buck the established M.O. and still succeed. But it won't happen for Gov. Palin if she insists on stacking the deck against herself.
In the immortal words of Paul Rudd in "Anchorman," "Why don't you sit this next one out? Stop talking for awhile."
Sunday, July 5, 2009
We won't have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore
Every time I go on vacation, something weird and big-time newsworthy happens - the London bus bombing, the taking-out of Saddam Hussein's sons. This time (Friday afternoon) it was Gov. Sarah Palin announcing that, not only will she not run for re-election as Alaska's governor, but that she'll be stepping down at the end of July with almost two years remaining in her term.
There's been a good deal of speculation about why Palin is leaving now - big scandal? family problems? (I hope for the Palins' sake that neither of those are true.) Personally, I think Palin learned a great deal from running with Sen. McCain last year, and she doesn't see the point in toiling away and battling her legislature for another three years when she could be building her national profile (and making big bucks on appearances in the process). Surely Palin looks at Barack Obama - another young, charismatic regional politician who managed to overcome a relative lack of experience and win the presidency - and asks herself, why not me?
I can see why she would think that. But the thing to remember is that Obama got incredibly lucky (luck = preparation + opportunity). His opponent in the 2004 Senate race self-destructed; his freshness landed him a huge platform at that year's Democratic convention, where he was pretty much the only bright spot; he had the fortune of being the new kid running against several establishment candidates in a year when many Americans couldn't wait to throw out the old guard. Palin could easily follow that path.
But she could also end up like John Edwards, another talented pol who jumped the gun but didn't get lucky (not the way I mean, at least). Rudy Giuliani was another one who stepped out of politics for a few years and then found that his ship had sailed. Every now and then you can get away with leaving the limelight for a time and then, at the right moment, making a comeback. I think that's what Newt Gingrich is trying to do now, for instance.
But what this situation reminds me of more than anything is Richard Nixon's trajectory. He dutifully climbed the ladder up the legislature to vice president, then just barely lost to JFK in 1960. After losing the California governor's election in 1964, Nixon announced that he was quitting politics for good. Like Palin, he was tired of being kicked around. But then four years later Nixon emerged as the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president. (Kind of like the Obama-Clinton primary battle, Nixon was almost tied with Ronald Reagan in the popular vote, but Nixon got more delegates.)
Palin would do well to study how Nixon did it. His timing was right - LBJ was almost as unpopular in 1968 as George W. Bush was last year - but he was also able to position himself as the more moderate Republican, the voice of the "silent majority" frustrated with rising crime, the war in Vietnam and those darn hippies. Reagan was the hard-right conservative... and Reagan lost. In the general election, George Wallace stepped in as a conservative third-party candidate, again allowing Nixon to appeal to the wide swath of voters in the middle.
So I'm not ready to write off Sarah Palin. I think she's capable of being an extraordinarily gifted politician, but she's got to do two things: a) grow a thicker skin (you think the Clintons didn't want to go off on Rush Limbaugh when he called their daughter the White House dog?); and b) LISTEN. Listen to voters who may not agree with you on every issue, listen to leaders who know more than you do, and above all, listen to your PR people. (I know I'm biased, but c'mon - we're professionals, and we can help you look your best if you will let us.) Fire the syncophants who kiss your ass and hire someone who's not afraid to tell you what you don't want to hear. And then trust that person.
All right, good luck.
There's been a good deal of speculation about why Palin is leaving now - big scandal? family problems? (I hope for the Palins' sake that neither of those are true.) Personally, I think Palin learned a great deal from running with Sen. McCain last year, and she doesn't see the point in toiling away and battling her legislature for another three years when she could be building her national profile (and making big bucks on appearances in the process). Surely Palin looks at Barack Obama - another young, charismatic regional politician who managed to overcome a relative lack of experience and win the presidency - and asks herself, why not me?
I can see why she would think that. But the thing to remember is that Obama got incredibly lucky (luck = preparation + opportunity). His opponent in the 2004 Senate race self-destructed; his freshness landed him a huge platform at that year's Democratic convention, where he was pretty much the only bright spot; he had the fortune of being the new kid running against several establishment candidates in a year when many Americans couldn't wait to throw out the old guard. Palin could easily follow that path.
But she could also end up like John Edwards, another talented pol who jumped the gun but didn't get lucky (not the way I mean, at least). Rudy Giuliani was another one who stepped out of politics for a few years and then found that his ship had sailed. Every now and then you can get away with leaving the limelight for a time and then, at the right moment, making a comeback. I think that's what Newt Gingrich is trying to do now, for instance.
But what this situation reminds me of more than anything is Richard Nixon's trajectory. He dutifully climbed the ladder up the legislature to vice president, then just barely lost to JFK in 1960. After losing the California governor's election in 1964, Nixon announced that he was quitting politics for good. Like Palin, he was tired of being kicked around. But then four years later Nixon emerged as the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president. (Kind of like the Obama-Clinton primary battle, Nixon was almost tied with Ronald Reagan in the popular vote, but Nixon got more delegates.)
Palin would do well to study how Nixon did it. His timing was right - LBJ was almost as unpopular in 1968 as George W. Bush was last year - but he was also able to position himself as the more moderate Republican, the voice of the "silent majority" frustrated with rising crime, the war in Vietnam and those darn hippies. Reagan was the hard-right conservative... and Reagan lost. In the general election, George Wallace stepped in as a conservative third-party candidate, again allowing Nixon to appeal to the wide swath of voters in the middle.
So I'm not ready to write off Sarah Palin. I think she's capable of being an extraordinarily gifted politician, but she's got to do two things: a) grow a thicker skin (you think the Clintons didn't want to go off on Rush Limbaugh when he called their daughter the White House dog?); and b) LISTEN. Listen to voters who may not agree with you on every issue, listen to leaders who know more than you do, and above all, listen to your PR people. (I know I'm biased, but c'mon - we're professionals, and we can help you look your best if you will let us.) Fire the syncophants who kiss your ass and hire someone who's not afraid to tell you what you don't want to hear. And then trust that person.
All right, good luck.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
It's that time again!
Ours was a road-tripping family, albeit one that prized depth above pure distance covered. On one of our backwoods journeys, my youngest sister (at the time still answering to "Lizard Breath") noticed a sign for whatever podunk town we were passing through which listed the town's population (in the hundreds, if memory serves). Lizard asked, innocently enough, how they knew how many people lived in a town. I explained that, every 10 years, our government sent people to every house in the country to count people, and also to find out other demographic info.
To which she said, "Yeah, right." Yes, the child who managed to convince her best friend's parents that our dad was related to the Beach Boys found the prospect of the U.S. Census to be just a little too far-fetched. It took the surveyers coming around in the flesh in 2000 to finally convince her.
In her defense, she was in elementary school at the time. I don't at all blame a small child for being skeptical of the census. But when nationally televised columnists and actual U.S. Congresspeople get in on the act, I have to shake my head. WTF?
So, apparently there are a fair number of right-wingers who are convinced that the 2010 census (now hiring!) is an Obama/socialist/new world order plot to take their guns... or something. Look, there have been serious problems with the accuracy of the census in the past, and - as with any government agency - there's potential for politics to interject. But it's kinda required by the Constitution. If Michelle Bachman has ideas about how to improve the census, she's in a position to do that with legislation - not by ranting on TV.
Haven't the wingnuts thought this through? Don't they know that the census is the primary tool for assigning Congressional districts (the House of Representatives is and always has been based on population) and all-important Electoral College votes? So, NOT filling out your census form (aside from being against the law and a healthy 210-odd years of legal precedent) is pretty damned counter-productive.
Think it through: you, a hard-core small-government anti-Obama conservative trash your form. The worst-case scenario has you firing your assault rifle at the census-taker and inciting the next Ruby Ridge. Best case: congratulations, now the government doesn't know you exist. Your Congressman and Electoral vote now go to, say, my Obama-lovin' district down here in N.C. where me and the other Young Dems have made damn sure that everybody is counted. Don't you feel better already?
Sweet merciful Jesus, what's happened to the Republican party in this country??? I, a flaming liberal, am downright begging you to stand up and contribute some ideas to fix our country, and please please pretty please take your party back from these idiots that would have you go the way of the Whigs. You deserve better than leaders who are only going to scream at you about flash-in-the-pan "issue of the week" BS that does NOTHING to advance your philosophy.
If our positions were reversed - if I were a GOPer watching the Dems fan the crazy - I'd probably be encouraging it, or at the least sitting back, watching and smirking. But this is bad for our country, people. We've got two wars to manage, a climate change bill that just cleared the House, president-mandated health care reform and a continually shaky economy. Going all apesh*t conspiracy theory on one of the oldest traditions in our country (one that arguably does more than any other to promote our direct representation) is just stupid. The census-bashers need to grow the hell up.
To which she said, "Yeah, right." Yes, the child who managed to convince her best friend's parents that our dad was related to the Beach Boys found the prospect of the U.S. Census to be just a little too far-fetched. It took the surveyers coming around in the flesh in 2000 to finally convince her.
In her defense, she was in elementary school at the time. I don't at all blame a small child for being skeptical of the census. But when nationally televised columnists and actual U.S. Congresspeople get in on the act, I have to shake my head. WTF?
So, apparently there are a fair number of right-wingers who are convinced that the 2010 census (now hiring!) is an Obama/socialist/new world order plot to take their guns... or something. Look, there have been serious problems with the accuracy of the census in the past, and - as with any government agency - there's potential for politics to interject. But it's kinda required by the Constitution. If Michelle Bachman has ideas about how to improve the census, she's in a position to do that with legislation - not by ranting on TV.
Haven't the wingnuts thought this through? Don't they know that the census is the primary tool for assigning Congressional districts (the House of Representatives is and always has been based on population) and all-important Electoral College votes? So, NOT filling out your census form (aside from being against the law and a healthy 210-odd years of legal precedent) is pretty damned counter-productive.
Think it through: you, a hard-core small-government anti-Obama conservative trash your form. The worst-case scenario has you firing your assault rifle at the census-taker and inciting the next Ruby Ridge. Best case: congratulations, now the government doesn't know you exist. Your Congressman and Electoral vote now go to, say, my Obama-lovin' district down here in N.C. where me and the other Young Dems have made damn sure that everybody is counted. Don't you feel better already?
Sweet merciful Jesus, what's happened to the Republican party in this country??? I, a flaming liberal, am downright begging you to stand up and contribute some ideas to fix our country, and please please pretty please take your party back from these idiots that would have you go the way of the Whigs. You deserve better than leaders who are only going to scream at you about flash-in-the-pan "issue of the week" BS that does NOTHING to advance your philosophy.
If our positions were reversed - if I were a GOPer watching the Dems fan the crazy - I'd probably be encouraging it, or at the least sitting back, watching and smirking. But this is bad for our country, people. We've got two wars to manage, a climate change bill that just cleared the House, president-mandated health care reform and a continually shaky economy. Going all apesh*t conspiracy theory on one of the oldest traditions in our country (one that arguably does more than any other to promote our direct representation) is just stupid. The census-bashers need to grow the hell up.
Maybe $400 grand will get their attention
... because a court-designated threat leaving a note for his future victims reading "I will kill you" was apparently too subtle.
A domestic abuse survivor who sued the Jonesville, N.C., police department that she claimed failed to enforce a protection order has settled with the city for $430,000. Unfortunately, the settlement doesn't require the city to admit any wrongdoing, which - bureacratically speaking - means they aren't compelled to actually change anything about how they handle DV cases.
The comments to this article on the Journal's Web site bring up victim-blaming (thankfully shot down promptly) and also a sort of defense of the husband/father in the case. He was "a hard-working, respectable and loving father" while the wife/mother (who filed the protection order) was "bitter" and "unfriendly," according to this commenter. Sure, he/she's right that none of us were there. But the facts show that a judge thought there was enough cause to issue the order in the first place, and that Richard Ellerbe DID stab to death his own daughter and wound his wife before killing himself.
In cases of alleged sexual assault or DV, I freely admit that I'm biased toward the alleged victim. And I have to be aware of that bias, especially since I also personally know men who've been falsely accused of abusing their partners. While I can cite a handful of cases where men were railroaded, the overwhelming tendency is for law enforcement to blow off cases that involve violence against women (something I know both from personal experience and from national trends).
Any case involving intimate partner violence can be difficult for a cop to understand, because of their (the cases') nature. Why didn't you leave? Why did you talk to him? Why did you let him in your house? What was it that made you so scared of him? The answers to these questions can be impossible to articulate, and I can sympathize with police officers who are asked to build a case with only those answers as evidence.
But in this case, that wasn't all they had. I say again, a judge (a Yadkin County judge, at that) thought that the danger to Ms. Cockerham was real enough to warrant a restraining order. The Jonesville police failed to enforce that order even after repeated threats from Ms. Cockerham's estranged husband - whatever their reasons. (And trust me, it's not like Jonesville is the crime capital of the universe. Next to DV, their biggest problem is 15 year-olds shoplifting beer.) And now two people are dead, and a family devastated.
Hopefully, this will be a wake-up call to law enforcement agencies that seriously need to re-evaluate how they handle cases of partner violence - including DV and sexual assault, almost 90 percent of which are committed by someone known to the victim. They need to be educated that most of these cases aren't going to be as clear-cut as, say, a robbery. But they're still crimes, and their victims still deserve justice.
A domestic abuse survivor who sued the Jonesville, N.C., police department that she claimed failed to enforce a protection order has settled with the city for $430,000. Unfortunately, the settlement doesn't require the city to admit any wrongdoing, which - bureacratically speaking - means they aren't compelled to actually change anything about how they handle DV cases.
The comments to this article on the Journal's Web site bring up victim-blaming (thankfully shot down promptly) and also a sort of defense of the husband/father in the case. He was "a hard-working, respectable and loving father" while the wife/mother (who filed the protection order) was "bitter" and "unfriendly," according to this commenter. Sure, he/she's right that none of us were there. But the facts show that a judge thought there was enough cause to issue the order in the first place, and that Richard Ellerbe DID stab to death his own daughter and wound his wife before killing himself.
In cases of alleged sexual assault or DV, I freely admit that I'm biased toward the alleged victim. And I have to be aware of that bias, especially since I also personally know men who've been falsely accused of abusing their partners. While I can cite a handful of cases where men were railroaded, the overwhelming tendency is for law enforcement to blow off cases that involve violence against women (something I know both from personal experience and from national trends).
Any case involving intimate partner violence can be difficult for a cop to understand, because of their (the cases') nature. Why didn't you leave? Why did you talk to him? Why did you let him in your house? What was it that made you so scared of him? The answers to these questions can be impossible to articulate, and I can sympathize with police officers who are asked to build a case with only those answers as evidence.
But in this case, that wasn't all they had. I say again, a judge (a Yadkin County judge, at that) thought that the danger to Ms. Cockerham was real enough to warrant a restraining order. The Jonesville police failed to enforce that order even after repeated threats from Ms. Cockerham's estranged husband - whatever their reasons. (And trust me, it's not like Jonesville is the crime capital of the universe. Next to DV, their biggest problem is 15 year-olds shoplifting beer.) And now two people are dead, and a family devastated.
Hopefully, this will be a wake-up call to law enforcement agencies that seriously need to re-evaluate how they handle cases of partner violence - including DV and sexual assault, almost 90 percent of which are committed by someone known to the victim. They need to be educated that most of these cases aren't going to be as clear-cut as, say, a robbery. But they're still crimes, and their victims still deserve justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)