Are they keeping this stat? How many times has Eli Manning followed an "Unstoppable Eli Manning Eco-Drive" commercial with an interception or a sack?
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Ho Ho Ho
I'm Jewish, and I've been fortunate to learn about Christmas from wonderful friends, who welcome me into their celebrations, teach me about their faith beyond the popular public stereotypes, and understand a little better how gentle and kind the holiday can be.
In fact, from what I've been able to gather, the phrase, "final clearance" doesn't even appear in the Gospels. Nor do they mention the Beverly Center's "Hunky Santa and the Candy Cane Girls". The report is courtesy of the Los Angeles Times, or more specifically, from their "Health." (I know, I know, strip-aerobics is an exercise thing, I'm a prude, yadda yadda.)
Maybe I'm being offended on behalf of my friends, and maybe they're not offended at all. It's just that, it's one thing to try to make every last dime on the holiday; it's another thing entirely to turn a sacred celebration into a festival of soft porn.
And I can tell you this: if they were pushing "Passover Pin-Ups," I'd be picketing.
Crawling Toward Oblivion
To the Cable News and Sports Networks:
To tell a story, you have to make choices. Every day, at every moment in the world, there’s an infinite number of stories are taking place.
The human brain can process, give or take, about 1 story at a time.
If you decide to simply fling at me all the pieces of “information” you’ve got at once, I’ll end up with a bunch of unrelated bits swimming randomly in my head. And I'll be no more aware or informed than I was before switching on your circus.
To tell a story well, you have to focus on that story.
Most of us have made the concession that, okay, you’ve resolved to run a crawl at the bottom of the screen. So that, while you’re doing a story about pandas, the bottom of the screen will tell us about a severe winter storm in the Ural Mountains.
But, at least, you could make the decision that some stories don’t belong on the crawl. And that some stories that you cover shouldn’t have a crawl beneath them.
Somehow, watching your coverage of the Mumbai (Bombay) terrorist attacks, and the suffering and the destruction, as it was happening, I felt that perhaps at a moment like this, I don’t need to know who is BFF with Lindsay Lohan.
To tell a story, you have to make choices. Every day, at every moment in the world, there’s an infinite number of stories are taking place.
The human brain can process, give or take, about 1 story at a time.
If you decide to simply fling at me all the pieces of “information” you’ve got at once, I’ll end up with a bunch of unrelated bits swimming randomly in my head. And I'll be no more aware or informed than I was before switching on your circus.
To tell a story well, you have to focus on that story.
Most of us have made the concession that, okay, you’ve resolved to run a crawl at the bottom of the screen. So that, while you’re doing a story about pandas, the bottom of the screen will tell us about a severe winter storm in the Ural Mountains.
But, at least, you could make the decision that some stories don’t belong on the crawl. And that some stories that you cover shouldn’t have a crawl beneath them.
Somehow, watching your coverage of the Mumbai (Bombay) terrorist attacks, and the suffering and the destruction, as it was happening, I felt that perhaps at a moment like this, I don’t need to know who is BFF with Lindsay Lohan.
Perhaps, I don’t need to know which pro athlete has been offered a three year extension on his contract, or which Las Vegas venue will host a special episode of a TV show. Yet, I saw such stories rolling over and over again at the bottom of your terrorism coverage.
How you cover stories, what you cover, and what you emphasize, are the three most important factors in establishing who you are as a news network, and whether you perform a valuable service to society. If you can’t make these choices, you’re no better than the randomness of the Internet world.
About 20 years ago, Andy Rooney wrote, about the dismantling of his company’s news operation, "CBS, which used to stand for the Columbia Broadcasting System, no longer stands for anything." How about you?
How you cover stories, what you cover, and what you emphasize, are the three most important factors in establishing who you are as a news network, and whether you perform a valuable service to society. If you can’t make these choices, you’re no better than the randomness of the Internet world.
About 20 years ago, Andy Rooney wrote, about the dismantling of his company’s news operation, "CBS, which used to stand for the Columbia Broadcasting System, no longer stands for anything." How about you?
Not I, Said the Duck
It’s in the back of your mind. Something else is still bothering you about these hundreds of billions of dollars going to banks, car companies, or anyone else. It’s not the greed, or the mismanagement, or the smug attitude of the suits coming to pick up bales of bailout money.
It’s not the spa retreats, the ruining of pension plans, or the uncertainty that all this bailout money will achieve its intended purpose. It’s not even the fact that, already, we don’t know where the first couple hundred billion went.
Nope. The thing we don’t talk about is, these companies hire large staffs of tax lawyers and accountants, who spend every waking moment trying to figure out how to pay the fewest possible dollars in taxes.
In the case of the car companies, this money could have gone toward developing a family vehicle that’s more fuel efficient than a Sherman tank.
We all try to limit our tax bill, but most Americans agree, we need to pay our fair share.
But the banks, the mortgage companies, the car companies, want money from a fund they didn’t kick in to.
They violated the Little Red Hen rule. You don’t plant or harvest or grind the wheat, you don’t bake the bread, you don’t even get a crouton.
We’ve gotta somehow pump money back into the system anyway. But I feel a little better figuring out what that other outrage was, scratching in the back of my head.
It’s not the spa retreats, the ruining of pension plans, or the uncertainty that all this bailout money will achieve its intended purpose. It’s not even the fact that, already, we don’t know where the first couple hundred billion went.
Nope. The thing we don’t talk about is, these companies hire large staffs of tax lawyers and accountants, who spend every waking moment trying to figure out how to pay the fewest possible dollars in taxes.
In the case of the car companies, this money could have gone toward developing a family vehicle that’s more fuel efficient than a Sherman tank.
We all try to limit our tax bill, but most Americans agree, we need to pay our fair share.
But the banks, the mortgage companies, the car companies, want money from a fund they didn’t kick in to.
They violated the Little Red Hen rule. You don’t plant or harvest or grind the wheat, you don’t bake the bread, you don’t even get a crouton.
We’ve gotta somehow pump money back into the system anyway. But I feel a little better figuring out what that other outrage was, scratching in the back of my head.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Auto Efficiency
Anyone who’s been to a Department of Motor Vehicles office knows that bureaucracy has the power to suck the momentum, life force, and money out of any individual, family, or business.
Yet, we may be entering a time when government influence can potentially speed up innovation and progress.
Our country’s car companies are asking to be bailed out. Some argue that we should simply allocate money and give it to these critically wounded companies.
But some economists argue that bankruptcy will be good for the industry, forcing the companies to reorganize and restructure their debt, and reworking their antequated product line and dealership systems.
Sounds like progress—unless you’re a union member, one of the remaining autoworkers whose job wasn’t exported to Mexico or elsewhere; or a former employee with benefits still in effect.
But what if we got some sort of equity in the company in exchange for the bailout? No, we wouldn’t have to nationalize the industry—but we would be treated as an important member of the board.
If Warren Buffett owned 20% of your company’s stock, that wouldn’t make him a majority stockholder, but that’s a lot of voting shares. If you were planning a major move, you’d be checking in with Warren before making them.
If, for the time being, the federal government had a boardroom seat at the “Big 3” car makers, sure, there’d be cries of “socialism.” But these companies would be quicker to respond to the human and technological demands of our time.
For over fifty years, Ford, GM and Chrysler have repeated the same cyclical dance with the government:
1. The government sets a new standard, like higher gas mileage, seat belts or air bags, then sets a date, five ten or fifteen years in the future, when the new models must comply.
Yet, we may be entering a time when government influence can potentially speed up innovation and progress.
Our country’s car companies are asking to be bailed out. Some argue that we should simply allocate money and give it to these critically wounded companies.
But some economists argue that bankruptcy will be good for the industry, forcing the companies to reorganize and restructure their debt, and reworking their antequated product line and dealership systems.
Sounds like progress—unless you’re a union member, one of the remaining autoworkers whose job wasn’t exported to Mexico or elsewhere; or a former employee with benefits still in effect.
But what if we got some sort of equity in the company in exchange for the bailout? No, we wouldn’t have to nationalize the industry—but we would be treated as an important member of the board.
If Warren Buffett owned 20% of your company’s stock, that wouldn’t make him a majority stockholder, but that’s a lot of voting shares. If you were planning a major move, you’d be checking in with Warren before making them.
If, for the time being, the federal government had a boardroom seat at the “Big 3” car makers, sure, there’d be cries of “socialism.” But these companies would be quicker to respond to the human and technological demands of our time.
For over fifty years, Ford, GM and Chrysler have repeated the same cyclical dance with the government:
1. The government sets a new standard, like higher gas mileage, seat belts or air bags, then sets a date, five ten or fifteen years in the future, when the new models must comply.
2. The car companies announce that the new regulation will make it impossible for them to stay in business.
3. There are hearings, court battles, and intense lobbying efforts, sometimes involving suddenly massive campaign contributions. Perhaps timelines are adjusted, or slightly easier-to-meet standards are set.
4. Eventually, the car companies end up complying.
5. Back to step 1, with another innovation that the industry will fight tooth and nail.
Every step of the way, America’s automakers have fought every possible innovation, until it was forced on them.
But, suppose a prominent member of the board of directors was pushing for higher fuel economy, and more alternative technology? Wouldn’t that make the industry more responsive to innovation? Wouldn’t the process be less cumbersome?
This way, it becomes a partnership. That way, GM, Ford and Chrysler have a strong incentive to move forward, and Americans have a strong incentive to demand better cars, and then to buy them.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Fear Itself
"I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter.” –Newscaster Howard Beale, played by Peter Finch, speaking Paddy Chayefsky’s words in “Network.” (1976)
It is time for us, as Americans, to get our act together. I am tired of the moaning and hand wringing about the task awaiting President-elect Obama. Since I am doing some of that wailing myself, I’m going to dial that back starting now.
Government has never been the answer to our problems, but there are things that government can do awfully well. Not at a profit, not cheaply, but well.
We’re coming out of a time of cynicism and indulgence, based on the assumption that nothing’s worth believing in, just get yours while you can, and if there’s a problem, just turn on the t.v., a bigger t.v., a flat screen, and soak your consciousness away.
It’s time for us to look in the mirror, and look at each other, and start to have faith in each other. If you’re an optimist, that will be easy. If you’re a pessimist, let me assure you—we have no other choice.
Barack Obama, his advisors, the Congress, people of every political stripe are going to hunker down now, and focus on making progress. As of January 20th, 2009, what ever happened before is over. Loosen our grip on those quarrels from before. And we have to look at each other with hope and open hearts.
If you worked long and hard on this campaign, and you wish this historic first African-American President didn’t have so many crises on his plate, foreign and domestic, let me give you a gentle reminder.
Take a look at our money; sneak a peak at Mount Rushmore. Lincoln and Washington; Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt. You don’t become a great American President by taking over when things are quiet and leaving things as they are. .250 hitters don't make the Hall of Fame.
Barack Obama is already in the history books, no matter what he does. The only question is, will he be remembered only as our first African-American President, or as a great President?
He’s going to have some difficult decisions to make. And we’re going to have to work together, hope together, fail together and ultimately succeed together, to make the Change and the Hope he campaigned for, take shape, take root, and rejeuvenate this country we love.
It is time for us, as Americans, to get our act together. I am tired of the moaning and hand wringing about the task awaiting President-elect Obama. Since I am doing some of that wailing myself, I’m going to dial that back starting now.
Government has never been the answer to our problems, but there are things that government can do awfully well. Not at a profit, not cheaply, but well.
We’re coming out of a time of cynicism and indulgence, based on the assumption that nothing’s worth believing in, just get yours while you can, and if there’s a problem, just turn on the t.v., a bigger t.v., a flat screen, and soak your consciousness away.
It’s time for us to look in the mirror, and look at each other, and start to have faith in each other. If you’re an optimist, that will be easy. If you’re a pessimist, let me assure you—we have no other choice.
Barack Obama, his advisors, the Congress, people of every political stripe are going to hunker down now, and focus on making progress. As of January 20th, 2009, what ever happened before is over. Loosen our grip on those quarrels from before. And we have to look at each other with hope and open hearts.
If you worked long and hard on this campaign, and you wish this historic first African-American President didn’t have so many crises on his plate, foreign and domestic, let me give you a gentle reminder.
Take a look at our money; sneak a peak at Mount Rushmore. Lincoln and Washington; Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt. You don’t become a great American President by taking over when things are quiet and leaving things as they are. .250 hitters don't make the Hall of Fame.
Barack Obama is already in the history books, no matter what he does. The only question is, will he be remembered only as our first African-American President, or as a great President?
He’s going to have some difficult decisions to make. And we’re going to have to work together, hope together, fail together and ultimately succeed together, to make the Change and the Hope he campaigned for, take shape, take root, and rejeuvenate this country we love.
All right, people! Forward we march, voluntarily and energetically together. Eyes front and upward, hearts open, we roll up our sleeves and get ready, comforted by the knowledge that we chose well.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Gotcha
This is not the first campaign where we’ve heard whining about “gotcha” –type questions from reporters. Usually, these complaints come from Republicans; George W. Bush has a record of complaining about them. Now Governor Palin makes the same claim. Perhaps it’s not a matter of party affiliation; it could just be page 31 of the Karl Rove playbook.
Both Bush and Palin are correct—among the softballs, fastballs and curves the media throw at you, there are some “gotcha” questions mixed in.
But, remember—in the White House, they’re ALL gotcha questions.
Issues don’t reach the White House unless they’re at some critical point.
Spin-meisters aside, there are no questions you can “hit out of the ballpark.” There are going to be thousands of decisions that make winners and losers—you balanced your budget but cut funding for pre-school kids; you shored up our military, but left in money for failed weapons systems; you pushed through a plan to bail out our financial institutions, and in doing so abandoned your own administration’s economic plans and promises.
The questions you’ll have to deal with, as President, are going to be much tougher than “What’s your foreign policy experience?” and “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?”
Those are questions for sophomores. Those questions are in “Politics for Jocks.”
The job requires that you constantly give your answer to questions that don’t have answers. Even if that means you begin by saying, “I don’t know,” a phrase that neither the President nor the Governor feel confident enough to say.
Both Bush and Palin are correct—among the softballs, fastballs and curves the media throw at you, there are some “gotcha” questions mixed in.
But, remember—in the White House, they’re ALL gotcha questions.
Issues don’t reach the White House unless they’re at some critical point.
Spin-meisters aside, there are no questions you can “hit out of the ballpark.” There are going to be thousands of decisions that make winners and losers—you balanced your budget but cut funding for pre-school kids; you shored up our military, but left in money for failed weapons systems; you pushed through a plan to bail out our financial institutions, and in doing so abandoned your own administration’s economic plans and promises.
The questions you’ll have to deal with, as President, are going to be much tougher than “What’s your foreign policy experience?” and “Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?”
Those are questions for sophomores. Those questions are in “Politics for Jocks.”
The job requires that you constantly give your answer to questions that don’t have answers. Even if that means you begin by saying, “I don’t know,” a phrase that neither the President nor the Governor feel confident enough to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)