While doing some essential web surfing during business hours, I ran across a copy of a memo David Mamet sent out in October 2005 to the writers on the CBS drama The Unit, setting out his philosophy on what makes good television drama. I think it's an interesting mediation on writing and I want to put it somewhere that I won't lose it. I do think it's interesting, however, that a guy known for a talky, action-static writing style would proselytize about keeping things moving:
“TO THE WRITERS OF THE UNIT
GREETINGS.
AS WE LEARN HOW TO WRITE THIS SHOW, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.
THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN *DRAMA* AND NON-DRAMA. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.
EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO MAKE THE SHOW CLEAR. WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, CRAMMING A SHITLOAD OF *INFORMATION* INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.
OUR FRIENDS. THE PENGUINS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO COMMUNICATE *INFORMATION* — AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.
BUT NOTE:THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN’T, I WOULDN’T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA.
QUESTION:WHAT IS DRAMA? DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, *ACUTE* GOAL.
SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES *OF EVERY SCENE* THESE THREE QUESTIONS.
1) WHO WANTS WHAT?
2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON’T GET IT?
3) WHY NOW?
THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS DRAMATIC OR NOT.
IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.
THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER. *YOU* THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE *EVERY* SCENE IS DRAMATIC.
THIS MEANS ALL THE “LITTLE” EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD. THIS BUSHWAH (AND WE ALL TEND TO WRITE IT ON THE FIRST DRAFT) IS LESS THAN USELESS, SHOULD IT FINALLY, GOD FORBID, GET FILMED.
IF THE SCENE BORES YOU WHEN YOU READ IT, REST ASSURED IT *WILL* BORE THE ACTORS, AND WILL, THEN, BORE THE AUDIENCE, AND WE’RE ALL GOING TO BE BACK IN THE BREADLINE.
SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE SCENE DRAMATIC. IT IS NOT THE ACTORS JOB (THE ACTORS JOB IS TO BE TRUTHFUL). IT IS NOT THE DIRECTORS JOB. HIS OR HER JOB IS TO FILM IT STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND REMIND THE ACTORS TO TALK FAST. IT IS *YOUR* JOB.
EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. THAT MEANS: THE MAIN CHARACTER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS HIM OR HER TO SHOW UP IN THE SCENE.
THIS NEED IS WHY THEY *CAME*. IT IS WHAT THE SCENE IS ABOUT. THEIR ATTEMPT TO GET THIS NEED MET *WILL* LEAD, AT THE END OF THE SCENE,TO *FAILURE* – THIS IS HOW THE SCENE IS *OVER*. IT, THIS FAILURE, WILL, THEN, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL US INTO THE *NEXT* SCENE.
ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE EPISODE, CONSTITUTE THE *PLOT*.
ANY SCENE, THUS, WHICH DOES NOT BOTH ADVANCE THE PLOT, AND STANDALONE (THAT IS, DRAMATICALLY, BY ITSELF, ON ITS OWN MERITS) IS EITHER SUPERFLUOUS, OR INCORRECTLY WRITTEN.
YES BUT YES BUT YES BUT, YOU SAY: WHAT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF WRITING IN ALL THAT “INFORMATION?”
AND I RESPOND “*FIGURE IT OUT*” ANY DICKHEAD WITH A BLUESUIT CAN BE (AND IS) TAUGHT TO SAY “MAKE IT CLEARER”, AND “I WANT TO KNOW MORE *ABOUT* HIM”.
WHEN YOU’VE MADE IT SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THIS BLUESUITED PENGUIN IS HAPPY, BOTH YOU AND HE OR SHE *WILL* BE OUT OF A JOB.
THE JOB OF THE DRAMATIST IS TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. *NOT* TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT JUST HAPPENED, OR TO*SUGGEST* TO THEM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
ANY DICKHEAD, AS ABOVE, CAN WRITE, “BUT, JIM, IF WE DON’T ASSASSINATE THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE NEXT SCENE, ALL EUROPE WILL BE ENGULFED IN FLAME”
WE ARE NOT GETTING PAID TO *REALIZE* THAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS THIS INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE NEXT SCENE, BUT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE SCENE BEFORE US SUCH THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL BE INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.
YES BUT, YES BUT YES *BUT* YOU REITERATE.
AND I RESPOND *FIGURE IT OUT*.
*HOW* DOES ONE STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN WITHHOLDING AND VOUCHSAFING INFORMATION? *THAT* IS THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF THE DRAMATIST. AND THE ABILITY TO *DO* THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LESSER SPECIES IN THEIR BLUE SUITS.
FIGURE IT OUT.
START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE: THE *SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC*. it must start because the hero HAS A PROBLEM, AND IT MUST CULMINATE WITH THE HERO FINDING HIM OR HERSELF EITHER THWARTED OR EDUCATED THAT ANOTHER WAY EXISTS.
LOOK AT YOUR LOG LINES. ANY LOGLINE READING “BOB AND SUE DISCUSS…” IS NOT DESCRIBING A DRAMATIC SCENE.
PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR OUTLINES ARE, GENERALLY, SPECTACULAR. THE DRAMA FLOWS OUT BETWEEN THE OUTLINE AND THE FIRST DRAFT.
THINK LIKE A FILMMAKER RATHER THAN A FUNCTIONARY, BECAUSE, IN TRUTH, *YOU* ARE MAKING THE FILM. WHAT YOU WRITE, THEY WILL SHOOT.
HERE ARE THE DANGER SIGNALS. ANY TIME TWO CHARACTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.
ANY TIME ANY CHARACTER IS SAYING TO ANOTHER “AS YOU KNOW”, THAT IS, TELLING ANOTHER CHARACTER WHAT YOU, THE WRITER, NEED THE AUDIENCE TO KNOW, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.
DO *NOT* WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. WRITE A RIPPING THREE, FOUR, SEVEN MINUTE SCENE WHICH MOVES THE STORY ALONG, AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, BUY A HOUSE IN BEL AIR *AND* HIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE THERE FOR YOU.
REMEMBER YOU ARE WRITING FOR A VISUAL MEDIUM. *MOST* TELEVISION WRITING, OURS INCLUDED, SOUNDS LIKE *RADIO*. THE *CAMERA* CAN DO THE EXPLAINING FOR YOU. *LET* IT. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERS *DOING* -*LITERALLY*. WHAT ARE THEY HANDLING, WHAT ARE THEY READING. WHAT ARE THEY WATCHING ON TELEVISION, WHAT ARE THEY *SEEING*.
IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA.
IF YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF THE CRUTCH OF NARRATION, EXPOSITION,INDEED, OF *SPEECH*. YOU WILL BE FORGED TO WORK IN A NEW MEDIUM - TELLING THE STORY IN PICTURES (ALSO KNOWN AS SCREENWRITING)
THIS IS A NEW SKILL. NO ONE DOES IT NATURALLY. YOU CAN TRAIN YOURSELVES TO DO IT, BUT YOU NEED TO *START*.
I CLOSE WITH THE ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE *SCENE* AND ASK YOURSELF “IS IT DRAMATIC? IS IT *ESSENTIAL*? DOES IT ADVANCE THE PLOT?
ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.
IF THE ANSWER IS “NO” WRITE IT AGAIN OR THROW IT OUT. IF YOU’VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, CALL ME UP.
LOVE, DAVE MAMET
SANTA MONICA 19 OCTO 05
(IT IS *NOT* YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT IT IS YOUR, AND MY, RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND TO *ASK THE RIGHT Questions* OVER AND OVER. UNTIL IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE. I BELIEVE THEY ARE LISTED ABOVE.)”
March 25, 2010
March 19, 2010
King of Rock?
Reading Peter King's weekly pro football column on the Sports Illustrated website is a guilty pleasure. For one thing, for a guy who writes the most popular football column around King doesn't show a whole lot of football acumen. Whether he is picking games, analyzing the draft, or choosing his all-pro team, King leaves many of his readers scratching their heads. Even worse, he is not a very good writer, prone to cliches, self -righteousness, and an artificial folksiness that you just have to ignore. A typical King entry: "The folks at Webster's might want to consider using a photo of Kurt Warner next to the definition of "courage." Heckuva a football player, and an even better human being." Yuck.
Still, King always provides an incredible amount of information, rumors and quotes from all 32 teams. He has the best Rolodex in the business and football people give him the dirt. There would be no way to have a feel for what goes on around the league without reading King's column. The guys at ESPN know more about football but they can't touch King for the sheer breadth of his weekly reportage.
So Peter King remains an enduring guilty pleasure. Even in the offseason I try to catch his column. There are times, however, when King apparently has run out of things to write about football and lapses into other areas of expertise, and this past Monday's column was enough to curdle the milk in one of King's cherished Starbuck's hazelnut lattes:
But does Peter King even know who The Dells are? They have been together for over 50 years. They sang "Oh, What a Night." They backed up Ray Charles and Dionne Warwick. They consulted on the movie The Five Heartbeats. They had hit albums spanning from 1955 to 1981. In R&B circles their harmonies and vocals are revered. King cites their eight top-40 hits as if it were a demerit. Do we even need to review the musical greats who had only one top-40 hit, much less eight? Maybe Peter thinks that Jimi Hendrix, The Velvet Underground, Randy Newman and the Grateful Dead should all get out of the way for KISS as well? That's just the "one hit wonders" much less other great acts with less Top 40 hits than The Dells. Okay you get the point: number of Top 40 hits is no way to judge a band's greatness. Just because the preteen Peter King didn't have a Dells poster next to his Farrah Fawcett poster over his bed doesn't mean KISS has gotten the snub from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
But King also throws around a couple of other names: The Stooges. Bobby Womack. People that King thinks need to take a back seat to the legend of Def Leppard. Let's take Womack first.
Q: What do Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, James Brown, the Rolling Stones, Patti LaBelle, Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin, Wilson Pickett, Janis Joplin, J. Geils Band, Sly and the Family Stone and Quentin Tarantino have in common? A: They all worked with Bobby Womack, used his songs, had him play in their backup bands. Now, nobody is even suggesting that this roster of collaborators can hold a candle to the band with a) the greatest one-armed drummer in the world and b) the greatest strip club song of all time, but I will point out that The Dells and Bobby Womack are both R&B legends. I'm guessing Peter King doesn't have a lot of Frankie Beverly and Maze CD's in his collection.
As for The Stooges, all I can say is if you want to know how we ever got to grunge and alt-punk, not to mention how we got to KISS for god sakes, start with The Stooges. Their influence on American rock is massive. They didn't make a ton of music but what they made carries a raw energy that sounded like nothing else coming out of the music scene 1969-73, something primitive and dangerous, an energy I'm not sure has ever really been surpassed. KISS wrote some nice power pop tunes, but nobody ever cites KISS as a musical influence. The Stooges were influential and don't deserve King's dismissal.
I'm not going to get into as much detail with Spooner Oldham but here are some of the people this great organist has played for and written songs for: Aretha Franklin, Percy Sledge on "When a Man Loves a Woman," Janis Joplin, Wilson Pickett, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Jackson Browne, Everly Brothers. A legendary musician and songwriter, but unfortunately an R&B legend and, therefore, does not pass muster in the eyes of musicologist Peter King.
In sports, an athlete earns hall of fame consideration based on the numbers: home runs, touchdowns, goals. While there is always room for debate every time an Andre Dawson or Bruce Sutter is voted into the Hall of Fame, the debate rages over relatively narrow discrepancies in opinion. Sports fans look at the player's career statistics. Some athletes are clearly qualified, most are not, and a few have resumes that straddle the fence. But everyone agrees, more or less, on the criteria. They are readily and easily identified.
Music operates on a different frequency. The achievements, the influences, not easily quantified. In football we might argue that one running back was truly great while another back with similar statistics benefited from a great offensive line, but the two players are both trying to gain yards, score touchdowns. Musicians make music for all kinds of reasons, for all kinds of audiences. Yes, there are numbers available - album sales, Top 40 hits, Grammy Awards. That tells us who won the popularity contest, perhaps, or who got marketed the best. But music doesn't happen on a court or between the hash marks. There is no shot clock, no three strikes and you're out. Every song is painted on a blank canvas. While there may be rules to making music, those rules are meant to be broken. Trying to distill the creative process and its impact on each and every listener down to sales figures is like ranking orchids. That's why a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame can never be taken as seriously as its sports-related counterparts, and why citing the number of Top-40 hits a band has is irrelevant at best.
I get the feeling Peter King judges bands on how often he saw their cassette tapes offered for sale in the Columbia House music catalogs. "11 albums for $1. What a great country we live in."
Still, King always provides an incredible amount of information, rumors and quotes from all 32 teams. He has the best Rolodex in the business and football people give him the dirt. There would be no way to have a feel for what goes on around the league without reading King's column. The guys at ESPN know more about football but they can't touch King for the sheer breadth of his weekly reportage.
So Peter King remains an enduring guilty pleasure. Even in the offseason I try to catch his column. There are times, however, when King apparently has run out of things to write about football and lapses into other areas of expertise, and this past Monday's column was enough to curdle the milk in one of King's cherished Starbuck's hazelnut lattes:
Cool story in the Boston Herald Sunday about the great omissions to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Not in: KISS, Chicago, Neil Diamond, Yes, Tom Waits, Def Leppard, Dire Straits, The Commodores. I wasn't sure of the great injustices there (except for Neil Diamond, with his incredible 37 top-40 hits), but then I looked at the roster of inductees and found: The Stooges, Spooner Oldham, Bobby Womack, The Ventures, The Dells (eight top-40 hits), Gene Pitney, and let's not forget Frankie Lymon and the Teenagers. Sometime, when you think me and my fellow Pro Football Hall of Fame Committee members are off our rockers, please refer to a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame that excludes KISS and includes The Dells.I actually like KISS, or at least like them enough to have the KISS My Ass tribute covers album. KISS was a mega-sensation from 1975-77. They had some huge songs and were one of rock's most successful bands at a time when people were wondering if rock was dead. Their makeup and theatrics are enduringly famous and have made the pantheon of Halloween costumes. They probably deserve a place in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, eventually, though it would be more for their fame and fortune than for their musical chops. But still, a noteworthy band that made its mark.
But does Peter King even know who The Dells are? They have been together for over 50 years. They sang "Oh, What a Night." They backed up Ray Charles and Dionne Warwick. They consulted on the movie The Five Heartbeats. They had hit albums spanning from 1955 to 1981. In R&B circles their harmonies and vocals are revered. King cites their eight top-40 hits as if it were a demerit. Do we even need to review the musical greats who had only one top-40 hit, much less eight? Maybe Peter thinks that Jimi Hendrix, The Velvet Underground, Randy Newman and the Grateful Dead should all get out of the way for KISS as well? That's just the "one hit wonders" much less other great acts with less Top 40 hits than The Dells. Okay you get the point: number of Top 40 hits is no way to judge a band's greatness. Just because the preteen Peter King didn't have a Dells poster next to his Farrah Fawcett poster over his bed doesn't mean KISS has gotten the snub from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
But King also throws around a couple of other names: The Stooges. Bobby Womack. People that King thinks need to take a back seat to the legend of Def Leppard. Let's take Womack first.
Q: What do Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, James Brown, the Rolling Stones, Patti LaBelle, Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin, Wilson Pickett, Janis Joplin, J. Geils Band, Sly and the Family Stone and Quentin Tarantino have in common? A: They all worked with Bobby Womack, used his songs, had him play in their backup bands. Now, nobody is even suggesting that this roster of collaborators can hold a candle to the band with a) the greatest one-armed drummer in the world and b) the greatest strip club song of all time, but I will point out that The Dells and Bobby Womack are both R&B legends. I'm guessing Peter King doesn't have a lot of Frankie Beverly and Maze CD's in his collection.
As for The Stooges, all I can say is if you want to know how we ever got to grunge and alt-punk, not to mention how we got to KISS for god sakes, start with The Stooges. Their influence on American rock is massive. They didn't make a ton of music but what they made carries a raw energy that sounded like nothing else coming out of the music scene 1969-73, something primitive and dangerous, an energy I'm not sure has ever really been surpassed. KISS wrote some nice power pop tunes, but nobody ever cites KISS as a musical influence. The Stooges were influential and don't deserve King's dismissal.
I'm not going to get into as much detail with Spooner Oldham but here are some of the people this great organist has played for and written songs for: Aretha Franklin, Percy Sledge on "When a Man Loves a Woman," Janis Joplin, Wilson Pickett, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Jackson Browne, Everly Brothers. A legendary musician and songwriter, but unfortunately an R&B legend and, therefore, does not pass muster in the eyes of musicologist Peter King.
In sports, an athlete earns hall of fame consideration based on the numbers: home runs, touchdowns, goals. While there is always room for debate every time an Andre Dawson or Bruce Sutter is voted into the Hall of Fame, the debate rages over relatively narrow discrepancies in opinion. Sports fans look at the player's career statistics. Some athletes are clearly qualified, most are not, and a few have resumes that straddle the fence. But everyone agrees, more or less, on the criteria. They are readily and easily identified.
Music operates on a different frequency. The achievements, the influences, not easily quantified. In football we might argue that one running back was truly great while another back with similar statistics benefited from a great offensive line, but the two players are both trying to gain yards, score touchdowns. Musicians make music for all kinds of reasons, for all kinds of audiences. Yes, there are numbers available - album sales, Top 40 hits, Grammy Awards. That tells us who won the popularity contest, perhaps, or who got marketed the best. But music doesn't happen on a court or between the hash marks. There is no shot clock, no three strikes and you're out. Every song is painted on a blank canvas. While there may be rules to making music, those rules are meant to be broken. Trying to distill the creative process and its impact on each and every listener down to sales figures is like ranking orchids. That's why a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame can never be taken as seriously as its sports-related counterparts, and why citing the number of Top-40 hits a band has is irrelevant at best.
I get the feeling Peter King judges bands on how often he saw their cassette tapes offered for sale in the Columbia House music catalogs. "11 albums for $1. What a great country we live in."
March 08, 2010
How to Remove Plaque
Like many adults, when I go home to stay with my parents I return to a bedroom left mostly preserved from my teen years. It's not exactly a shrine, more like seeing the set of Leave it to Beaver or Fonzie's jacket at the Museum of Natural History. Resting on bookshelves are the various sports trophies, ribbons and medals I won as a kid and high schooler, mostly in basketball and soccer.
Among the prizes on display are two plaques, one for being the Most Improved Player on my high school basketball team, the other a wood and metal representation of a basketball going into a basket. I think I won that plaque for winning the one-on-one basketball competition at sports camp. I was 12-13 years old at the time and I remember facing a guy named Goldstein in the finals, with the entire camp watching. Goldstein was quick, crafty, and a good shooter. It was a real dogfight and I think I prevailed 10-9. For this they gave me a plaque.
Back in September we visited my parents in Maryland for Rosh Hashana. Archie, now 5, asked me about the trophies and awards on display, what I got them for and how old I was at the time. At the end of the visit he gave the two plaques to Ora to pack up and bring back to Brooklyn. When we got home he placed them on the window sill near his bed. At bedtime that night he showed me the plaques. In the dark I whispered "someday you're going to win your own trophies and then you won't need mine."
This winter Archie played on his first real soccer team and in his first basketball clinic. He was playing with older kids in both sports; many of the basketball kids were 7 years old. Archie handled himself admirably. He never looked to me for help and he never stopped trying. He also played damn well, his skill level leapfrogging over many of the older players. He was lucky to have excellent coaches in both sports: The soccer coach is the coach at Poly Prep and his basketball coach just won his 300th game at Friends Seminary. Plus both coaches are great guys.
Pathetically, predictably, I silently lived and breathed every goal and made basket of every game and practice. I felt less like a rabid zealot when the soccer coach, whose daughter was on the team, confessed to a similar level of excitement. Basically, I loved every minute of these first opportunities to watch Archie play - and enjoy - sports. He couldn't get enough. In the spring he will play on his first Little League baseball team with two of his friends (I am a co-coach) and I hope for more of the same.
This past weekend the soccer and basketball seasons came to a close. After the soccer game Archie got a nice trophy, 12 inches tall with a spinning soccer ball on top. His basketball group got to perform a dribbling exhibition at halftime of a game between older kids in the same youth league, after which he and his co-players each received a nice medal, not to mention pizza and juice. A great way to wrap things up.
Later in the evening I went out to play tennis. When I got back Archie was asleep. I went into my room and saw that he had moved my two plaques to the night table next to my bed. I tiptoed over to his room and peeked in. The soccer trophy and basketball medal rested on his window sill. I don't know whether Archie took my whispered message literally or if he found the same poignancy I felt in his achievements. I am not going to ask.
Among the prizes on display are two plaques, one for being the Most Improved Player on my high school basketball team, the other a wood and metal representation of a basketball going into a basket. I think I won that plaque for winning the one-on-one basketball competition at sports camp. I was 12-13 years old at the time and I remember facing a guy named Goldstein in the finals, with the entire camp watching. Goldstein was quick, crafty, and a good shooter. It was a real dogfight and I think I prevailed 10-9. For this they gave me a plaque.
Back in September we visited my parents in Maryland for Rosh Hashana. Archie, now 5, asked me about the trophies and awards on display, what I got them for and how old I was at the time. At the end of the visit he gave the two plaques to Ora to pack up and bring back to Brooklyn. When we got home he placed them on the window sill near his bed. At bedtime that night he showed me the plaques. In the dark I whispered "someday you're going to win your own trophies and then you won't need mine."
This winter Archie played on his first real soccer team and in his first basketball clinic. He was playing with older kids in both sports; many of the basketball kids were 7 years old. Archie handled himself admirably. He never looked to me for help and he never stopped trying. He also played damn well, his skill level leapfrogging over many of the older players. He was lucky to have excellent coaches in both sports: The soccer coach is the coach at Poly Prep and his basketball coach just won his 300th game at Friends Seminary. Plus both coaches are great guys.
Pathetically, predictably, I silently lived and breathed every goal and made basket of every game and practice. I felt less like a rabid zealot when the soccer coach, whose daughter was on the team, confessed to a similar level of excitement. Basically, I loved every minute of these first opportunities to watch Archie play - and enjoy - sports. He couldn't get enough. In the spring he will play on his first Little League baseball team with two of his friends (I am a co-coach) and I hope for more of the same.
This past weekend the soccer and basketball seasons came to a close. After the soccer game Archie got a nice trophy, 12 inches tall with a spinning soccer ball on top. His basketball group got to perform a dribbling exhibition at halftime of a game between older kids in the same youth league, after which he and his co-players each received a nice medal, not to mention pizza and juice. A great way to wrap things up.
Later in the evening I went out to play tennis. When I got back Archie was asleep. I went into my room and saw that he had moved my two plaques to the night table next to my bed. I tiptoed over to his room and peeked in. The soccer trophy and basketball medal rested on his window sill. I don't know whether Archie took my whispered message literally or if he found the same poignancy I felt in his achievements. I am not going to ask.
Don't Call It a Comeback
I haven't used the blog in a long time. I would like to find a focus for it but for now, using it as a journal for random thoughts is better than not using it at all. Sometimes I will ramble and sometimes I will post 50 words and sign out. Either way, something rather than nothing.
January 10, 2009
Beatles survey results
Sorry for being overdue on this. I've compiled the results from the Beatles survey. I am going to lay out some stats in this email. If you have any questions about the results, just let me know. But if anybody wants to comment on the results, please follow this link to a defunct blog I once set up, where I will post this information and you can comment to your heart's content without clogging up anyone's email inbox:
http://generalrodetsky.blogspot.com/
The Beatles are not my favorite band, but I do think they wrote more great songs than any other musical act in the past 50 years. Lennon and McCartney - and George Harrison in his own right - were incredible, prolific songwriters who combined the romantic and cynical, and who evolved in lockstep with the 60's, and burned out in synchronicity with the 60's as well. I just can't get my head around how much incredible music they churned out in a 5-6 year span. The Beatles are also as ubiquitous as it gets, except maybe for Bob Marley. And my son, Archie (4) is currently obsessed with the Beatles, and I've enjoyed listening to CD's I'd kind of forgotten about and finding lots of new songs to get into. So I thought it would be fun to see which songs - and albums - were the most popular.
The results surprised me to some extent. For example, I was sure that Hey Jude or Yesterday would be the most popular song choice. Hope you enjoy seeing who picked what.
Number of respondents: 53
Number of different songs cited: 92 (!)
Most popular songs:
Here Comes the Sun 15
In My Life 11
Let It Be 10
Come Together 9
Eleanor Rigby 9
Hey Jude 8
Blackbird 8
A Day in the Life 8
While My Gutar Gently Weeps 8
Yesterday 7
I Am the Walrus 6
Norwegian Wood 6
With a Little Help From My Friends 6
I never expected Here Comes the Sun to be that popular....
Most frequently cited albums:
Abbey Road 45
White Album 38
Revolver 24
Sgt Pepper 23
Rubber Soul 22
Let It Be 21
Help! 21
Magical Mystery Tour 18
Abbey Road total doesn't even include several people who wanted to name the second side medley as one of their selections.
I think Rubber Soul and Help! are under-represented.
I think this distribution is further proof that Sgt. Pepper is the greatest Beatles album in reputation only.
Josh K's top 5:
I am the Walrus
Don’t Let Me Down
Got to Get You Into My Life
In My Life
Something
My list changed constantly but the top 3 were consistent.
Josh K's next 5:
Glass Onion
Come Together
Rain
The Word
Across the Universe
Dear Prudence
Okay now I'm up to 11....it's rough.
In addition to the 92 songs nominated, here are another 33 super-worthy songs that didn't even make anybody's list:
A Hard Day’s Night
And I Love Her
Any Time At All
Birthday
Fixing a Hole
Fool on the Hill
Getting Better
Girl
Glass Onion
Good Day Sunshine
Hello Goodbye
I Should Have Known Better
I’ll Be Back
I’m a Loser
If I Needed Someone
It Won’t Be Long
It’s All Too Much
Lady Madonna
Love You To
Magical Mystery Tour
Mother Nature’s Son
Ob La Di Ob La Da
P.S. I Love You
Rocky Raccoon
She Loves You
She’s Leaving Home
The Word
Think for Yourself
Twist and Shout
Yellow Submarine
Yer Blues
You Can’t Do That
You Won’t See Me
Finally, here are all the songs nominated and how many times they got named. No number means they were only mentioned once.
A Day in the Life 8
Across the Universe 2
All My Loving
All Together Now
All You Need Is Love 4
Baby You’re a Rich Man
Back in the USSR
Because
Blackbird 8
Can’t Buy Me Love 2
Carry That Weight
Come Together 9
Cry Baby Cry
Dear Prudence 4
Don’t Let Me Down
Don’t Pass Me By
Drive My Car
Eight Days a Week 2
Eleanor Rigby 9
Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey
Get Back 2
Getting Better
Good Day Sunshine
Got to Get You Into My Life 4
Happiness Is a Warm Gun 3
Help! 2
Helter Skelter
Here Comes the Sun 15
Here There and Everywhere 4
Hey Bulldog
2
Hey Jude 8
I Am the Walrus 6
I Dig a Pony
I Feel Fine
I got a Feeling
I Saw Her Standing There
I Want to Hold Your Hand 2
I Want You
I Will
I’ll Cry Instead 2
I’m Looking Through You 2
I’m Only Sleeping
I’m So Tired 3
I’ve Just Seen a Face 6
If I Fell
In My Life 11
Julia
Let It Be 10
Love Me Do
Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds 3
Maxwell’s Silver Hammer
Michelle
Norwegian Wood 6
Not a Second Time
Nowhere Man
Octopus’s Garden 2
Oh! Darling 2
Old Brown Shoe 3
Paperback Writer 2
Penny Lane 2
Please Please Me 2
Rain 2
Revolution 1 4
Rock and Roll Music
Savoy Truffle
Sexy Sadie
Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band 3
Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (reprise)
She Came in Through the Bathroom Window 3
She Said She Said
She’s Leaving Home
Something 5
Strawberry Fields Forever 4
Taxman 3
Tell Me Why 3
The Ballad of John and Yoko 2
The End 3
The Long and Winding Road 4
Ticket to Ride
Tomorrow Never Knows 2
Two of Us 2
We Can Work It Out
When I Get Home
When I’m 64
While My Guitar Gently Weeps 8
With A Little Help Fom My Friends 6
Within You Without You
Yesterday 7
You Know My Name
You Never Give Me Your Money 2
You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away 5
Your Mother Should Know 2
http://generalrodetsky.blogspot.com/
The Beatles are not my favorite band, but I do think they wrote more great songs than any other musical act in the past 50 years. Lennon and McCartney - and George Harrison in his own right - were incredible, prolific songwriters who combined the romantic and cynical, and who evolved in lockstep with the 60's, and burned out in synchronicity with the 60's as well. I just can't get my head around how much incredible music they churned out in a 5-6 year span. The Beatles are also as ubiquitous as it gets, except maybe for Bob Marley. And my son, Archie (4) is currently obsessed with the Beatles, and I've enjoyed listening to CD's I'd kind of forgotten about and finding lots of new songs to get into. So I thought it would be fun to see which songs - and albums - were the most popular.
The results surprised me to some extent. For example, I was sure that Hey Jude or Yesterday would be the most popular song choice. Hope you enjoy seeing who picked what.
Number of respondents: 53
Number of different songs cited: 92 (!)
Most popular songs:
Here Comes the Sun 15
In My Life 11
Let It Be 10
Come Together 9
Eleanor Rigby 9
Hey Jude 8
Blackbird 8
A Day in the Life 8
While My Gutar Gently Weeps 8
Yesterday 7
I Am the Walrus 6
Norwegian Wood 6
With a Little Help From My Friends 6
I never expected Here Comes the Sun to be that popular....
Most frequently cited albums:
Abbey Road 45
White Album 38
Revolver 24
Sgt Pepper 23
Rubber Soul 22
Let It Be 21
Help! 21
Magical Mystery Tour 18
Abbey Road total doesn't even include several people who wanted to name the second side medley as one of their selections.
I think Rubber Soul and Help! are under-represented.
I think this distribution is further proof that Sgt. Pepper is the greatest Beatles album in reputation only.
Josh K's top 5:
I am the Walrus
Don’t Let Me Down
Got to Get You Into My Life
In My Life
Something
My list changed constantly but the top 3 were consistent.
Josh K's next 5:
Glass Onion
Come Together
Rain
The Word
Across the Universe
Dear Prudence
Okay now I'm up to 11....it's rough.
In addition to the 92 songs nominated, here are another 33 super-worthy songs that didn't even make anybody's list:
A Hard Day’s Night
And I Love Her
Any Time At All
Birthday
Fixing a Hole
Fool on the Hill
Getting Better
Girl
Glass Onion
Good Day Sunshine
Hello Goodbye
I Should Have Known Better
I’ll Be Back
I’m a Loser
If I Needed Someone
It Won’t Be Long
It’s All Too Much
Lady Madonna
Love You To
Magical Mystery Tour
Mother Nature’s Son
Ob La Di Ob La Da
P.S. I Love You
Rocky Raccoon
She Loves You
She’s Leaving Home
The Word
Think for Yourself
Twist and Shout
Yellow Submarine
Yer Blues
You Can’t Do That
You Won’t See Me
Finally, here are all the songs nominated and how many times they got named. No number means they were only mentioned once.
A Day in the Life 8
Across the Universe 2
All My Loving
All Together Now
All You Need Is Love 4
Baby You’re a Rich Man
Back in the USSR
Because
Blackbird 8
Can’t Buy Me Love 2
Carry That Weight
Come Together 9
Cry Baby Cry
Dear Prudence 4
Don’t Let Me Down
Don’t Pass Me By
Drive My Car
Eight Days a Week 2
Eleanor Rigby 9
Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey
Get Back 2
Getting Better
Good Day Sunshine
Got to Get You Into My Life 4
Happiness Is a Warm Gun 3
Help! 2
Helter Skelter
Here Comes the Sun 15
Here There and Everywhere 4
Hey Bulldog
2
Hey Jude 8
I Am the Walrus 6
I Dig a Pony
I Feel Fine
I got a Feeling
I Saw Her Standing There
I Want to Hold Your Hand 2
I Want You
I Will
I’ll Cry Instead 2
I’m Looking Through You 2
I’m Only Sleeping
I’m So Tired 3
I’ve Just Seen a Face 6
If I Fell
In My Life 11
Julia
Let It Be 10
Love Me Do
Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds 3
Maxwell’s Silver Hammer
Michelle
Norwegian Wood 6
Not a Second Time
Nowhere Man
Octopus’s Garden 2
Oh! Darling 2
Old Brown Shoe 3
Paperback Writer 2
Penny Lane 2
Please Please Me 2
Rain 2
Revolution 1 4
Rock and Roll Music
Savoy Truffle
Sexy Sadie
Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band 3
Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (reprise)
She Came in Through the Bathroom Window 3
She Said She Said
She’s Leaving Home
Something 5
Strawberry Fields Forever 4
Taxman 3
Tell Me Why 3
The Ballad of John and Yoko 2
The End 3
The Long and Winding Road 4
Ticket to Ride
Tomorrow Never Knows 2
Two of Us 2
We Can Work It Out
When I Get Home
When I’m 64
While My Guitar Gently Weeps 8
With A Little Help Fom My Friends 6
Within You Without You
Yesterday 7
You Know My Name
You Never Give Me Your Money 2
You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away 5
Your Mother Should Know 2
March 18, 2008
Change I Can Believe In
I was wrong.
Barack Obama is the right candidate, warts and all.
Any politician who could make the speech he made today, synthesizing our country's socioeconomic challenges with the highest level of insight, diplomacy and compassion I have ever witnessed from a national figure, earns my vote.
Ask yourself whether Hillary Clinton, in a dozen lifetimes, could speak with the honesty that Obama delivered today.
I voted for Hillary in the primary, but I will support and volunteer for Obama going forward.
And yes, the speech was that good. But I was already on the verge of switching after Hillary broadcst the 3 AM ad and failed to dismiss Ferraro immediately (waiting a few days to see how the wind was blowing and then axing Gerry was almost worse, showed cold calculation and nothing more). I hesitated because of how unfairly Hillary's appearance on 60 Minutes was handled by the media (http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002) and learning that even some of Bill's comments in South Carolina were taken out of context.
But it's no longer about voting for or against Hillary. It's about voting for a candidate who showed the guts I've been desperately waiting for a Democratic candidate to have for a long time. I don't know how the national media will play the speech; I'm not exactly optimistic. But I can't imagine that anyone who heard and read every word wouldn't be moved by the moment.
Here's the full text of the speech:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031808A.shtml
Barack Obama is the right candidate, warts and all.
Any politician who could make the speech he made today, synthesizing our country's socioeconomic challenges with the highest level of insight, diplomacy and compassion I have ever witnessed from a national figure, earns my vote.
Ask yourself whether Hillary Clinton, in a dozen lifetimes, could speak with the honesty that Obama delivered today.
I voted for Hillary in the primary, but I will support and volunteer for Obama going forward.
And yes, the speech was that good. But I was already on the verge of switching after Hillary broadcst the 3 AM ad and failed to dismiss Ferraro immediately (waiting a few days to see how the wind was blowing and then axing Gerry was almost worse, showed cold calculation and nothing more). I hesitated because of how unfairly Hillary's appearance on 60 Minutes was handled by the media (http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002) and learning that even some of Bill's comments in South Carolina were taken out of context.
But it's no longer about voting for or against Hillary. It's about voting for a candidate who showed the guts I've been desperately waiting for a Democratic candidate to have for a long time. I don't know how the national media will play the speech; I'm not exactly optimistic. But I can't imagine that anyone who heard and read every word wouldn't be moved by the moment.
Here's the full text of the speech:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031808A.shtml
Obama's pivotal speech later today
I am really pulling for Obama to come up with a speech that makes the Gettysburg Address look like a to-do list, because I don't want to see him win or lose based on this. It's bad enough that Obama has backed off his standard stump speech farewell (see end of article). When I say "bad," I refer to what it signifies: Obama is feeling the heat and feels compelled to change his core message. That's unfortunate, because there is nothing offensive about his core message. I still believe he's more pomp than circumstance, but I respect the power of his rhetoric and I think principle means more to him than the other remaining candidates. So what is it that made Obama feel like he had to change his carefully-chosen goodbye?
What did Jeremiah Wright actually say?
Here's the text of his Audacity of Hope speech from 1990, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan's blog: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html
And here is a much more comprehensive look at the issues and people involved, with lots of good links:
http://jimbuie.blogs.com/journal/2008/03/obamas-pastor-j.html
Everyone should read these sources before they offer any comment, except one: rest assured that the media has no interest in getting this story correct. They want to "spark debate," "investigate allegations." Bull. They want good old-fashioned controversy so they can sell more ads. This kind of storyline is more than enough to pull white voters away from Obama in November. How many people are going to bother delving deeper?
Which is why it's so important for Obama to address this story head on. He's doing what Kerry should have done on Swift Boat: DON'T WAIT. BE CLEAR. RESPOND DIRECTLY.
None of which gets to the real heart of the matter. The Times article mentions "Mr. Wright’s characterizations of the United States as fundamentally racist and the government as corrupt and murderous." As far as I am concerned, two out of those three adjectives are inarguable. This country is still fundamentally racist. We've made progress from slavery, segregation, George Wallace. But does anyone really believe racism isn't still prevalent in this country? Is this even debatable? Old habits die hard. This country, and this world, has a long way to go. And calling the government corrupt - doesn't everybody feel that way to some degree or another? I for one, agree to a radical degree that our government is corrupt, that there is a military-industrial complex that works against the public good, that we should only elect candidates who support campaign finance reform. Those comments should not be considered controversial, much less something that brings down Obama's candidacy.
I don't know Wright's words that are the basis for the Times saying he considers the United States government "murderous." In fact, in his 1990 speech, the most relevant comments are simply:
Our world cares more about bombs for the enemy than about bread for the hungry. This world is still more concerned about the color of skin than it is about the content of character—a world more finicky about what's on the outside of your head than about the quality of your education or what's inside your head.
I don't have a problem with that. Who would?
If he called the United States murderous, I wouldn't find that unpatriotic. Just like you can be against a war but pray for your soliders to come back safely, you can love your country but hate some of the things it does. The United States killed a lot of innocent Iraqis when it invaded Baghdad, Iraqis with just as much a right to live as anyone else - even Americans. If Wright considered the invasion a murderous act, he's not unpatriotic for doing so.
I need to find some Youtube clips to be more thorough, but I am going to pray for Obama to make a speech of a lifetime today. If he's going to lose, I don't want it to be on these terms.
March 18, 2008
On Defensive, Obama Plans Talk on Race
By JODI KANTOR and JEFF ZELENY
Faced with what his advisers acknowledged was a major test to his candidacy, Senator Barack Obama sought on Monday to contain the damage from incendiary comments made by his pastor and prepared to address the issue of race more directly than at any other moment of his presidential campaign.
Though he has faced questions about controversial statements by the pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., for more than a year, Mr. Obama is enduring intense new scrutiny now over Mr. Wright’s characterizations of the United States as fundamentally racist and the government as corrupt and murderous.
Mr. Obama, in a speech Tuesday in Philadelphia, will repeat his earlier denunciations of the minister’s words, aides said. But they said he would also use the opportunity to open a broader discussion of race, which his campaign has said throughout the contest that it wants to transcend. He will bluntly address racial divisions, one aide said, talking about the way they play out in church, in the campaign, and beyond.
Mr. Obama continued to write the speech on Monday evening, which he believes could be one of the most important of his presidential candidacy, aides said. His wife, Michelle, had not been scheduled to travel with him this week, but hastily made plans to be in Philadelphia.
Mr. Obama said Monday that in his speech, to be given at the National Constitution Center, he would “talk a little bit about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church community, for example, which I think views this very differently.”
After removing Mr. Wright from a religious advisory committee on his campaign on Friday, Mr. Obama concluded over the weekend that he had not sufficiently explained his association with the pastor. He told several aides he was worried that if voters did not hear directly from him — in the setting of a major speech — doubts and questions about him might grow.
Some associates advised him against giving the speech. “Race is now officially on the table. It’s not going away after this,” a senior aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, recalled one adviser saying.
The episode has left Mr. Obama tending to a firestorm fed by matters no less combustible than faith, patriotism and race. It could help Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign advance its argument that Mr. Obama is “unvetted,” and that he is less electable than Mrs. Clinton come fall. In interviews, Republican strategists mapped out how Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Wright could be used against him in a general election.
By addressing head-on such sensitive topics, his speech, aides and other Democrats said, could be a pivotal moment for Mr. Obama, who, for all of his electoral victories and copious news coverage, is still known only in the broadest terms by many Americans.
“This isn’t red and blue America,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic consultant, referring to the address that catapulted Mr. Obama to prominence at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. “This is black and white America.”
“And when you really have a serious conversation about race, people clear the room,” said Ms. Brazile, who as the manager of Al Gore’s bid for the White House in 2000 was the first black woman to run a major presidential campaign.
Mr. Obama is particularly vulnerable because voters are still getting to know him, said Democratic and Republican strategists — and a few voters as well. The Wright affair “makes me question other things. What else do we not know?” asked Karen Norton, 58, a computer saleswoman in North Carolina and a Republican who said that, until now, she had been stirred by Mr. Obama’s message of national reconciliation.
Mr. Wright’s statements, said strategists, threaten his greatest strength, his reputation as a unifying, uplifting figure, capable of moving the country past old labels and divisions.
“The problem is the complete contradiction between the message of the Obama campaign and the message of the minister who’s been his close friend and confidant for 20 years,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican consultant unaffiliated with any campaign.
Mr. Obama has also pitched himself as a candidate who can attract religious voters back to the Democratic Party, one who speaks the language of the Bible fluently and testifies about what he says is the impact of Christianity on his own life.
“What better way to try to undercut the way he integrates faith and political vision than to say we should all be secretly afraid of his church?” said Jim Wallis, a left-leaning evangelical who has had longstanding relationships with both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, and who says that Mr. Wright has been unfairly caricatured in recent portrayals.
In strategic terms, Mr. Wright’s statements are tricky for the Obama campaign to address. The more the candidate denounces the minister’s words, the more voters may question why Mr. Obama attached himself to Mr. Wright in the first place and stuck with him for so long, not only attending his church but naming a book after one of his sermons.
Because of his own emphasis on powerful oratory, said Todd Harris, a Republican strategist, Mr. Obama cannot dismiss Mr. Wright’s words as mere rhetoric.
“At the core of the campaign is the fact that words matter,” said Mr. Harris, who is not now affiliated with any campaign. “Central to the idea of his candidacy is the idea that a speech can change the world. You can’t have a campaign that has that notion at its core and then point to other people’s words and say, those don’t really matter.”
Asked how Republicans might use the Wright matter in the general election, Mr. Harris cited several incidents that could be used to question Mr. Obama’s patriotism. “Negative ads are built on negative patterns,” he said.
He pointed to Mr. Obama decision to stop wearing a American flag lapel pin and the statement that his wife made about being proud of her country for the first time in her lifetime. (Mr. Obama has called the lapel pin an empty symbol of patriotism, and Mrs. Obama has said she was quoted out of context).
Five weeks before the Pennsylvania primary, Mr. Obama had hoped to be refining his strategy to win over the support of white male voters — a demographic that began to slip away in his Ohio defeat. Instead he is facing his second straight week of negative news coverage. In a television interview with PBS on Monday, Mr. Obama called his pastor’s remarks “stupid” and conceded, “it has been a distraction from the core message of our campaign.”
If his earlier appearances in the day were any guide, he is making a few subtle alterations to his routine on the campaign trail.
In his many months of stumping, Mr. Obama has rarely bid farewell to an audience the way he did at a morning event in Monaca, Pa. “God bless you and God bless America!” he proclaimed.
Jeff Zeleny reported from Monaca, Pa.
What did Jeremiah Wright actually say?
Here's the text of his Audacity of Hope speech from 1990, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan's blog: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/for-the-record.html
And here is a much more comprehensive look at the issues and people involved, with lots of good links:
http://jimbuie.blogs.com/journal/2008/03/obamas-pastor-j.html
Everyone should read these sources before they offer any comment, except one: rest assured that the media has no interest in getting this story correct. They want to "spark debate," "investigate allegations." Bull. They want good old-fashioned controversy so they can sell more ads. This kind of storyline is more than enough to pull white voters away from Obama in November. How many people are going to bother delving deeper?
Which is why it's so important for Obama to address this story head on. He's doing what Kerry should have done on Swift Boat: DON'T WAIT. BE CLEAR. RESPOND DIRECTLY.
None of which gets to the real heart of the matter. The Times article mentions "Mr. Wright’s characterizations of the United States as fundamentally racist and the government as corrupt and murderous." As far as I am concerned, two out of those three adjectives are inarguable. This country is still fundamentally racist. We've made progress from slavery, segregation, George Wallace. But does anyone really believe racism isn't still prevalent in this country? Is this even debatable? Old habits die hard. This country, and this world, has a long way to go. And calling the government corrupt - doesn't everybody feel that way to some degree or another? I for one, agree to a radical degree that our government is corrupt, that there is a military-industrial complex that works against the public good, that we should only elect candidates who support campaign finance reform. Those comments should not be considered controversial, much less something that brings down Obama's candidacy.
I don't know Wright's words that are the basis for the Times saying he considers the United States government "murderous." In fact, in his 1990 speech, the most relevant comments are simply:
Our world cares more about bombs for the enemy than about bread for the hungry. This world is still more concerned about the color of skin than it is about the content of character—a world more finicky about what's on the outside of your head than about the quality of your education or what's inside your head.
I don't have a problem with that. Who would?
If he called the United States murderous, I wouldn't find that unpatriotic. Just like you can be against a war but pray for your soliders to come back safely, you can love your country but hate some of the things it does. The United States killed a lot of innocent Iraqis when it invaded Baghdad, Iraqis with just as much a right to live as anyone else - even Americans. If Wright considered the invasion a murderous act, he's not unpatriotic for doing so.
I need to find some Youtube clips to be more thorough, but I am going to pray for Obama to make a speech of a lifetime today. If he's going to lose, I don't want it to be on these terms.
March 18, 2008
On Defensive, Obama Plans Talk on Race
By JODI KANTOR and JEFF ZELENY
Faced with what his advisers acknowledged was a major test to his candidacy, Senator Barack Obama sought on Monday to contain the damage from incendiary comments made by his pastor and prepared to address the issue of race more directly than at any other moment of his presidential campaign.
Though he has faced questions about controversial statements by the pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., for more than a year, Mr. Obama is enduring intense new scrutiny now over Mr. Wright’s characterizations of the United States as fundamentally racist and the government as corrupt and murderous.
Mr. Obama, in a speech Tuesday in Philadelphia, will repeat his earlier denunciations of the minister’s words, aides said. But they said he would also use the opportunity to open a broader discussion of race, which his campaign has said throughout the contest that it wants to transcend. He will bluntly address racial divisions, one aide said, talking about the way they play out in church, in the campaign, and beyond.
Mr. Obama continued to write the speech on Monday evening, which he believes could be one of the most important of his presidential candidacy, aides said. His wife, Michelle, had not been scheduled to travel with him this week, but hastily made plans to be in Philadelphia.
Mr. Obama said Monday that in his speech, to be given at the National Constitution Center, he would “talk a little bit about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church community, for example, which I think views this very differently.”
After removing Mr. Wright from a religious advisory committee on his campaign on Friday, Mr. Obama concluded over the weekend that he had not sufficiently explained his association with the pastor. He told several aides he was worried that if voters did not hear directly from him — in the setting of a major speech — doubts and questions about him might grow.
Some associates advised him against giving the speech. “Race is now officially on the table. It’s not going away after this,” a senior aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, recalled one adviser saying.
The episode has left Mr. Obama tending to a firestorm fed by matters no less combustible than faith, patriotism and race. It could help Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign advance its argument that Mr. Obama is “unvetted,” and that he is less electable than Mrs. Clinton come fall. In interviews, Republican strategists mapped out how Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Wright could be used against him in a general election.
By addressing head-on such sensitive topics, his speech, aides and other Democrats said, could be a pivotal moment for Mr. Obama, who, for all of his electoral victories and copious news coverage, is still known only in the broadest terms by many Americans.
“This isn’t red and blue America,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic consultant, referring to the address that catapulted Mr. Obama to prominence at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. “This is black and white America.”
“And when you really have a serious conversation about race, people clear the room,” said Ms. Brazile, who as the manager of Al Gore’s bid for the White House in 2000 was the first black woman to run a major presidential campaign.
Mr. Obama is particularly vulnerable because voters are still getting to know him, said Democratic and Republican strategists — and a few voters as well. The Wright affair “makes me question other things. What else do we not know?” asked Karen Norton, 58, a computer saleswoman in North Carolina and a Republican who said that, until now, she had been stirred by Mr. Obama’s message of national reconciliation.
Mr. Wright’s statements, said strategists, threaten his greatest strength, his reputation as a unifying, uplifting figure, capable of moving the country past old labels and divisions.
“The problem is the complete contradiction between the message of the Obama campaign and the message of the minister who’s been his close friend and confidant for 20 years,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican consultant unaffiliated with any campaign.
Mr. Obama has also pitched himself as a candidate who can attract religious voters back to the Democratic Party, one who speaks the language of the Bible fluently and testifies about what he says is the impact of Christianity on his own life.
“What better way to try to undercut the way he integrates faith and political vision than to say we should all be secretly afraid of his church?” said Jim Wallis, a left-leaning evangelical who has had longstanding relationships with both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, and who says that Mr. Wright has been unfairly caricatured in recent portrayals.
In strategic terms, Mr. Wright’s statements are tricky for the Obama campaign to address. The more the candidate denounces the minister’s words, the more voters may question why Mr. Obama attached himself to Mr. Wright in the first place and stuck with him for so long, not only attending his church but naming a book after one of his sermons.
Because of his own emphasis on powerful oratory, said Todd Harris, a Republican strategist, Mr. Obama cannot dismiss Mr. Wright’s words as mere rhetoric.
“At the core of the campaign is the fact that words matter,” said Mr. Harris, who is not now affiliated with any campaign. “Central to the idea of his candidacy is the idea that a speech can change the world. You can’t have a campaign that has that notion at its core and then point to other people’s words and say, those don’t really matter.”
Asked how Republicans might use the Wright matter in the general election, Mr. Harris cited several incidents that could be used to question Mr. Obama’s patriotism. “Negative ads are built on negative patterns,” he said.
He pointed to Mr. Obama decision to stop wearing a American flag lapel pin and the statement that his wife made about being proud of her country for the first time in her lifetime. (Mr. Obama has called the lapel pin an empty symbol of patriotism, and Mrs. Obama has said she was quoted out of context).
Five weeks before the Pennsylvania primary, Mr. Obama had hoped to be refining his strategy to win over the support of white male voters — a demographic that began to slip away in his Ohio defeat. Instead he is facing his second straight week of negative news coverage. In a television interview with PBS on Monday, Mr. Obama called his pastor’s remarks “stupid” and conceded, “it has been a distraction from the core message of our campaign.”
If his earlier appearances in the day were any guide, he is making a few subtle alterations to his routine on the campaign trail.
In his many months of stumping, Mr. Obama has rarely bid farewell to an audience the way he did at a morning event in Monaca, Pa. “God bless you and God bless America!” he proclaimed.
Jeff Zeleny reported from Monaca, Pa.
back in business
I am really going to try to post more of our political discussions on the site. We've had some great debates lately and it's a shame they aren't documented somewhere. I'll start it up today with my Obama/Wright response.
May 11, 2007
O mama, Obama!
Sorry for the delayed reaction but I wanted to share some thoughts about my encounter with THE NEXT VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, Barack Obama. Okay look, he absolutely has a chance of winning the Democratic nomination. I'm a Friend of B.O.
Last week I was invited to a fundraiser for Barack at the Harvard Club in midtown. I broked out the houndstooth and ascot and harrumphed my way past the doorman (there was no metal detector or special security; maybe they do that sort of thing at the CORNELL Club, but not here). The event was sponsored by certain partners at Lehman Brothers and the Nixon Peabody law firm. Sponsors were expected to donate $2,300. actually, I believe attendees were as well. My donation fell just short.
I looked forward to hearing Obama in person, but I also wanted the experience of seeing a presidential candidate in action on the campaign trail, in an intimate setting. Hot hors d'ouvres would be a bonus but not the sine qua non for my being there. Which is a good thing, because $2,300 got you one open bar for over 100 people and some cut up veggies. Conversely, every night is Taco Night on the Mitt Romney campaign trail. That's the GOP for you though.
Obama entered the room through a rear entrance with almost zero fanfare. He just sort of appeared and people started to mill about hm. He wore his standard blue blazer, slacks and cream colored dress shirt, and no tie in a room full of pinstripes and Windsor knots. I couldn't stop looking at his shirt. Obama's shirts are custom-tailored so that the buttons are not equidistant. I think they want to go with the open collar but not expose too much neck area, without making him look like Nehru or Ed Grimley. The button pattern looks like this: [not sure the autoformatting is going to do this justice]
^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
O
O
O
O
Obama has very purple, A-Rod lips in person. His hands were surprisingly soft when I met him. I don't like to make a big scene when I meet famous people, but I did prepare what I was going to say so I didn't just stand there like a halfwit. "Senator, it is an honor to meet you and I wish you luck in the upcoming year." He fixed his gaze on me and asked....
"what's your name?"
"Joshua Kranz"
"Thank you Joshua"
He used the same line on everyone: "What's your name?", no matter how elaborate their greeting. Just whatsyourname and move on. Frankly, he looked exhausted.
Once everyone in the crowd had gotten their piece of flesh, it was time for him to speak. I stood no more than 20 feet from the lectern. He gave a fairly canned but natural-sounding introduction about who he is and why he's running. His comments were savvy: "most of you are probably here because you want to know 'who is this Obama guy running for President?'" and "I think that at this point in American history, maybe time inside the Beltway is the liability, not lack thereof." [I'm paraphrasing the latter comment]
Obama offered his top priorities if he's elected: 1. get out of Iraq 2. universal health care and improved education 3. Casual Friday for all branches of goverment, including Supreme Court. Maybe the topics were predictable, but Obama presented them mostly with erudition and what sounded like honesty.
He still seemed tired and more than once paused in mid-sentence to collect his thoughts, but he was effective and showed command of his facts. He talked about his early career in public service, helping the disadvantaged as a civil rights attorney in Illinois. He talked about the inequality of children without health care, single moms who can't afford a doctor visit. All the while his voice carried him. Mellifluous. Smooth. Commanding. What a great voice. Obama isn't a crowd-pleasing charmer like Clinton or, in his own, way Dubya. But he is charismatic by dint of his presence and command of his material. He tells jokes but he comes off a very serious person.
There was a Q&A session. International relations again - he talked about how the next President has the opportunity to go to foreign leaders and say "it's a new day, let's talk about working together and sharing accountability." Most interesting was his response to a question about solving the budget deficit. "Well, the first thing we are going to do is get out of the war." Then he said "and we're probably going to have to repeal some of those tax cuts, which everyone in this room has benefited from." [He must have thought I had already left] There were some murmurs after that comment. To me this was his most impressive moment of the evening. To walk into a room full of Wall Street types who just gave you a load of cash and tell them they're going to have some new taxes if he's elected - that showed me something.
One answer I didn't like as much was in response to how he differs from Hillary. He boiled it down to one point: Hillary voted for Iraq, and Barack didn't. He cited a letter on his website that he says was written at the war's outset, in which he opposes the aggression from Day One. I respect that he took that position and have no reason to doubt it (please don't tell me he wrote multiple letters that day). And I have always been dismayed that Senate Democrats voted to authorize the potential use of force without properly investigating or controlling Bush, and they did it because they didn't want to be caught not on the bandwagon if we sailed into a quickly democratized Baghdad. Those votes lacked a conscience. But who is to say that if Obama had been a senator in 2003, he would have done any differently? I don't fault Obama for trying to make the comparison so cut and dry, but I find it a little disingenuous.
Then a Lehman Brother guy asked him about capital gains taxes, and was obnoxiously following up, challenging Obama, asking of the single mom who had the baby "well how did she have the baby in the first place?" Obama kept his cool, did not get self-righteous, just stuck to the facts and message. Interesting exchange. He left almost immediately thereafter, also to little fanfare.
I think Barack Obama is charismatic, but he presents himself with a little more arrogance than Bill Clinton or other charmers. I wonder if he can turn on a different kind of charm when he's dealing with Middle America, show a more engaging side. In the barbecue test (the winning candidate is always the guy more people would want to invite to a barbecue) he trails Edwards and McCain and maybe even Romney and Giuliani, but he's still ahead of Hillary (she's still making the potato salad in the kitchen).
Obama is an ambitious, confident guy. He sets the bar very high for himself and you can tell he is hard-working and diligent. He didn't convince me to vote for him but he didn't dissuade me either. I liked the honesty with which he answered certain questions, but he's already come under fire for comments about Israel and other black leaders. I wonder if his sense of candor will prove his downfall.
Last week I was invited to a fundraiser for Barack at the Harvard Club in midtown. I broked out the houndstooth and ascot and harrumphed my way past the doorman (there was no metal detector or special security; maybe they do that sort of thing at the CORNELL Club, but not here). The event was sponsored by certain partners at Lehman Brothers and the Nixon Peabody law firm. Sponsors were expected to donate $2,300. actually, I believe attendees were as well. My donation fell just short.
I looked forward to hearing Obama in person, but I also wanted the experience of seeing a presidential candidate in action on the campaign trail, in an intimate setting. Hot hors d'ouvres would be a bonus but not the sine qua non for my being there. Which is a good thing, because $2,300 got you one open bar for over 100 people and some cut up veggies. Conversely, every night is Taco Night on the Mitt Romney campaign trail. That's the GOP for you though.
Obama entered the room through a rear entrance with almost zero fanfare. He just sort of appeared and people started to mill about hm. He wore his standard blue blazer, slacks and cream colored dress shirt, and no tie in a room full of pinstripes and Windsor knots. I couldn't stop looking at his shirt. Obama's shirts are custom-tailored so that the buttons are not equidistant. I think they want to go with the open collar but not expose too much neck area, without making him look like Nehru or Ed Grimley. The button pattern looks like this: [not sure the autoformatting is going to do this justice]
^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
O
O
O
O
Obama has very purple, A-Rod lips in person. His hands were surprisingly soft when I met him. I don't like to make a big scene when I meet famous people, but I did prepare what I was going to say so I didn't just stand there like a halfwit. "Senator, it is an honor to meet you and I wish you luck in the upcoming year." He fixed his gaze on me and asked....
"what's your name?"
"Joshua Kranz"
"Thank you Joshua"
He used the same line on everyone: "What's your name?", no matter how elaborate their greeting. Just whatsyourname and move on. Frankly, he looked exhausted.
Once everyone in the crowd had gotten their piece of flesh, it was time for him to speak. I stood no more than 20 feet from the lectern. He gave a fairly canned but natural-sounding introduction about who he is and why he's running. His comments were savvy: "most of you are probably here because you want to know 'who is this Obama guy running for President?'" and "I think that at this point in American history, maybe time inside the Beltway is the liability, not lack thereof." [I'm paraphrasing the latter comment]
Obama offered his top priorities if he's elected: 1. get out of Iraq 2. universal health care and improved education 3. Casual Friday for all branches of goverment, including Supreme Court. Maybe the topics were predictable, but Obama presented them mostly with erudition and what sounded like honesty.
He still seemed tired and more than once paused in mid-sentence to collect his thoughts, but he was effective and showed command of his facts. He talked about his early career in public service, helping the disadvantaged as a civil rights attorney in Illinois. He talked about the inequality of children without health care, single moms who can't afford a doctor visit. All the while his voice carried him. Mellifluous. Smooth. Commanding. What a great voice. Obama isn't a crowd-pleasing charmer like Clinton or, in his own, way Dubya. But he is charismatic by dint of his presence and command of his material. He tells jokes but he comes off a very serious person.
There was a Q&A session. International relations again - he talked about how the next President has the opportunity to go to foreign leaders and say "it's a new day, let's talk about working together and sharing accountability." Most interesting was his response to a question about solving the budget deficit. "Well, the first thing we are going to do is get out of the war." Then he said "and we're probably going to have to repeal some of those tax cuts, which everyone in this room has benefited from." [He must have thought I had already left] There were some murmurs after that comment. To me this was his most impressive moment of the evening. To walk into a room full of Wall Street types who just gave you a load of cash and tell them they're going to have some new taxes if he's elected - that showed me something.
One answer I didn't like as much was in response to how he differs from Hillary. He boiled it down to one point: Hillary voted for Iraq, and Barack didn't. He cited a letter on his website that he says was written at the war's outset, in which he opposes the aggression from Day One. I respect that he took that position and have no reason to doubt it (please don't tell me he wrote multiple letters that day). And I have always been dismayed that Senate Democrats voted to authorize the potential use of force without properly investigating or controlling Bush, and they did it because they didn't want to be caught not on the bandwagon if we sailed into a quickly democratized Baghdad. Those votes lacked a conscience. But who is to say that if Obama had been a senator in 2003, he would have done any differently? I don't fault Obama for trying to make the comparison so cut and dry, but I find it a little disingenuous.
Then a Lehman Brother guy asked him about capital gains taxes, and was obnoxiously following up, challenging Obama, asking of the single mom who had the baby "well how did she have the baby in the first place?" Obama kept his cool, did not get self-righteous, just stuck to the facts and message. Interesting exchange. He left almost immediately thereafter, also to little fanfare.
I think Barack Obama is charismatic, but he presents himself with a little more arrogance than Bill Clinton or other charmers. I wonder if he can turn on a different kind of charm when he's dealing with Middle America, show a more engaging side. In the barbecue test (the winning candidate is always the guy more people would want to invite to a barbecue) he trails Edwards and McCain and maybe even Romney and Giuliani, but he's still ahead of Hillary (she's still making the potato salad in the kitchen).
Obama is an ambitious, confident guy. He sets the bar very high for himself and you can tell he is hard-working and diligent. He didn't convince me to vote for him but he didn't dissuade me either. I liked the honesty with which he answered certain questions, but he's already come under fire for comments about Israel and other black leaders. I wonder if his sense of candor will prove his downfall.
May 03, 2007
The Next President of the World Bank: Wolfman Jack
May 3, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Wolfowitz?s Big Mistake
By DAVID BROOKS
Let me offer some advice.
Let?s say you?re a Republican appointed to an important job in Washington.
You?ll probably find that 90 percent of the people who work in your agency are Democrats, as are 90 percent of the media types who cover you and 90 percent of the academics who comment on your work.
But here?s the thing to remember: There are Democrats, and then there are Democrats. A quarter of the Democrats you?ll work with are partisans. They believe the rantings of the agitprop pundits, and they?ll never be open-minded toward you. But the other three-quarters are honorable, intelligent people. If you treat these people with respect, and find places where you can work together, they will teach you things and make you more effective. If you treat them the way you treat the partisans, they?ll turn into partisans and destroy you.
The choice seems pretty obvious, yet Republican after Republican mucks this up.
Which brings us to the case of Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank.
Wolfowitz came to the bank with the heavy baggage of Iraq. Nonetheless, most of the (left-leaning) employees were open to him, and even saw ways his background could help him solve the bank?s problems. Furthermore, you have to remember that the bank is staffed by people who are criticized from all directions and are desperate for approval and support.
Wolfowitz had an opportunity to be their champion, but he forfeited that opportunity by being aloof. As David E. Sanger and Steven R. Weisman of The Times have detailed, he entered a treacherous swirl of political, institutional and personal currents and navigated them poorly. Having failed to woo the open-minded people at the bank, it was inevitable they?d be out to get him.
Wolfowitz now argues that the scandal involving his girlfriend?s pay raise is ?plainly bogus.? He tried to recuse himself from her case but was forbidden by the ethics committee. Moreover, last year the committee looked into the general arrangements he?d made for her and concluded ?after careful review? that the allegations ?do not appear to pose ethical issues appropriate for further consideration by the Committee.?
Wolfowitz has a point. The conflict of interest charge is out of proportion to the hubbub. But scandals are like that ? they are never about what they purport to be about. The Clarence Thomas scandal wasn?t about a hair on a soda can. The Larry Summers scandal wasn?t about comments at a conference. Most scandals are pretexts for members of an establishment to destroy people they don?t like.
In most scandals, people adjust their standards of rectitude, depending on whether they support or oppose the person at issue. The subject?s enemies whip themselves into a fever of theatrical outrage, and the subject?s defenders summon up fits of indignation at the lies of the accusers. Scandals are playgrounds for partisans, and everybody else gets to play the role of the junior high school bully, ganging up on whoever seems weakest and most alone.
The Wolfowitz scandal is no exception. People who never called for Kofi Annan to resign amid the $12.8 billion oil-for-food scandal are calling for Wolfowitz?s head over a $60,000 raise. Employees at an institution that, according to one report, wasted $300 million last year, and where roughly 1,000 people make $175,000 to $200,000 a year, are suddenly outraged at lavish spending.
Editorials and statements by critics around the world are carefully crafted to avoid mentioning any of the exculpatory evidence on Wolfowitz?s side.
There has indeed been an explosion of Machiavellian posturing. But the core reality is the context Wolfowitz allowed to develop. He let potential allies turn into enemies.
The fact is, you go into politics with the establishment you have, not the establishment you wish you had. For Republicans, this is an establishment that is initially suspicious, but is filled with human beings who can be worked with.
They need to feel respected. They need to be consulted on things they know a lot about. If they feel disrespected, they?ll cut you no slack, and a small misstep could be career-ending. They will make it impossible for you to do your job.
This has happened to dozens of Republicans (and unpopular Democrats), and it is happening to Wolfowitz. And the only question is when will these appointees start learning the simple rules of effective democratic leadership?
"Kranz, Joshua"
I continue to ask: how does this guy get a column in NYT? It's not that he's a conservative. It?s that his arguments are consistently shallow.
- first of all, I'd love to know how Brooks is such an authority
when it comes to the hearts and minds of World Bank employees, many of
whom might care more about their homeland's political arena more than
Washington D.C.'s. I don't know if that's true but I doubt Brooks did a
lot of extensive investigation and interviewing before writing this
column.
- I can't comment on the exculpatory evidence Brooks cites. If
accurate, I agree that the headlines could have captured a fairer picture
of the situation by including this information.
- However, as Dad has pointed out what really set off World Bank
employees is Wolfowitz's handling of the matter, claiming he had no
involvement in the appointment. I see no difference between castigating
Wolfowitz for this and wanting to impeach Bill Clinton for lying under
oath during a bogus, politically driven investigation by Ken Starr.
Brooks is careful to cite Clarence Thomas and Larry Summers instead as
people who were tripped up for the wrong reason. The Clinton omission is
glaring, in my opinion, given the point he is trying to make.
- About Clarence Thomas: he benefited from the Anita Hill
scandal. Once Hill's allegations turned out to be less than damning, he
was appointed. If the Committee had simply stuck to the intended process
they would have concluded that Thomas was unqualified to serve on the
Court. But his lack of qualifications never came to the foreground.
- I don't have enough knowledge of the Kofi Annan scandal to
opine whether the comparison is fair. However, citing how much World Bank
employees make, throwing around a "waste" dollar figure and accusing the
people who want Wolfowitz out of hypocrisy - again, Brooks is burying his
head in the sand. It's the way Wolfowitz lied about what went on with the
appointment and his unapologetic, confrontational attitude in the
aftermath. I just can't believe that Brooks, with a straight face, can a)
equate World Bank employees with Democrats and b) suggest that Democrats
are the ones who are keen on using pretexts to depose authority figures.
Outrageous.
- I can't argue with Brooks's point that leaders who treat their corps with
disdain often suffer the consequences for their arrogance. But that message is contaminated by Brooks's partisanship.
"Kranz Frederick"
David Brooks is pathetic and his article shows how little he knows about the World Bank. He mixes half-baked truths with preconceived ideas and some sort of cockamamy ideology. It's not even worth committing on his piece.
At one point, not too long ago, Wolfensohn (not Wolfowitz) hired Nicholas Stern, a world-class, widely respected British economist, to be the Bank's Chief Economist. A great catch! However, his brother Richard Stern was VP of Human Resources at that time, and according to Bank rules, two close relatives may not serve in areas where their work might bring them into contact with each other.
In this case, they would both report to the President as senior executives.
There were immediate protests from the staff, because this long-standing rule had made life difficult for some of the staff whose spouses also worked for the Bank and were in line for promotions but unable to make the necessary moves.
Wolfensohn never made an apology or tried to explain his decision to anybody.
Within a month, Richard Stern announced that he had accepted another position and was leaving the Bank. End of story - end of conflicts of interest - end of protests.
This is the difference between an accomplished leader (who was not universally liked and had many personality flaws) and a wimp and loser who is left with no dignity or respect.
I hope this nightmare ends next week. Otherwise, the damage to the Bank's reputation will become devastating.
Op-Ed Columnist
Wolfowitz?s Big Mistake
By DAVID BROOKS
Let me offer some advice.
Let?s say you?re a Republican appointed to an important job in Washington.
You?ll probably find that 90 percent of the people who work in your agency are Democrats, as are 90 percent of the media types who cover you and 90 percent of the academics who comment on your work.
But here?s the thing to remember: There are Democrats, and then there are Democrats. A quarter of the Democrats you?ll work with are partisans. They believe the rantings of the agitprop pundits, and they?ll never be open-minded toward you. But the other three-quarters are honorable, intelligent people. If you treat these people with respect, and find places where you can work together, they will teach you things and make you more effective. If you treat them the way you treat the partisans, they?ll turn into partisans and destroy you.
The choice seems pretty obvious, yet Republican after Republican mucks this up.
Which brings us to the case of Paul Wolfowitz at the World Bank.
Wolfowitz came to the bank with the heavy baggage of Iraq. Nonetheless, most of the (left-leaning) employees were open to him, and even saw ways his background could help him solve the bank?s problems. Furthermore, you have to remember that the bank is staffed by people who are criticized from all directions and are desperate for approval and support.
Wolfowitz had an opportunity to be their champion, but he forfeited that opportunity by being aloof. As David E. Sanger and Steven R. Weisman of The Times have detailed, he entered a treacherous swirl of political, institutional and personal currents and navigated them poorly. Having failed to woo the open-minded people at the bank, it was inevitable they?d be out to get him.
Wolfowitz now argues that the scandal involving his girlfriend?s pay raise is ?plainly bogus.? He tried to recuse himself from her case but was forbidden by the ethics committee. Moreover, last year the committee looked into the general arrangements he?d made for her and concluded ?after careful review? that the allegations ?do not appear to pose ethical issues appropriate for further consideration by the Committee.?
Wolfowitz has a point. The conflict of interest charge is out of proportion to the hubbub. But scandals are like that ? they are never about what they purport to be about. The Clarence Thomas scandal wasn?t about a hair on a soda can. The Larry Summers scandal wasn?t about comments at a conference. Most scandals are pretexts for members of an establishment to destroy people they don?t like.
In most scandals, people adjust their standards of rectitude, depending on whether they support or oppose the person at issue. The subject?s enemies whip themselves into a fever of theatrical outrage, and the subject?s defenders summon up fits of indignation at the lies of the accusers. Scandals are playgrounds for partisans, and everybody else gets to play the role of the junior high school bully, ganging up on whoever seems weakest and most alone.
The Wolfowitz scandal is no exception. People who never called for Kofi Annan to resign amid the $12.8 billion oil-for-food scandal are calling for Wolfowitz?s head over a $60,000 raise. Employees at an institution that, according to one report, wasted $300 million last year, and where roughly 1,000 people make $175,000 to $200,000 a year, are suddenly outraged at lavish spending.
Editorials and statements by critics around the world are carefully crafted to avoid mentioning any of the exculpatory evidence on Wolfowitz?s side.
There has indeed been an explosion of Machiavellian posturing. But the core reality is the context Wolfowitz allowed to develop. He let potential allies turn into enemies.
The fact is, you go into politics with the establishment you have, not the establishment you wish you had. For Republicans, this is an establishment that is initially suspicious, but is filled with human beings who can be worked with.
They need to feel respected. They need to be consulted on things they know a lot about. If they feel disrespected, they?ll cut you no slack, and a small misstep could be career-ending. They will make it impossible for you to do your job.
This has happened to dozens of Republicans (and unpopular Democrats), and it is happening to Wolfowitz. And the only question is when will these appointees start learning the simple rules of effective democratic leadership?
"Kranz, Joshua"
I continue to ask: how does this guy get a column in NYT? It's not that he's a conservative. It?s that his arguments are consistently shallow.
- first of all, I'd love to know how Brooks is such an authority
when it comes to the hearts and minds of World Bank employees, many of
whom might care more about their homeland's political arena more than
Washington D.C.'s. I don't know if that's true but I doubt Brooks did a
lot of extensive investigation and interviewing before writing this
column.
- I can't comment on the exculpatory evidence Brooks cites. If
accurate, I agree that the headlines could have captured a fairer picture
of the situation by including this information.
- However, as Dad has pointed out what really set off World Bank
employees is Wolfowitz's handling of the matter, claiming he had no
involvement in the appointment. I see no difference between castigating
Wolfowitz for this and wanting to impeach Bill Clinton for lying under
oath during a bogus, politically driven investigation by Ken Starr.
Brooks is careful to cite Clarence Thomas and Larry Summers instead as
people who were tripped up for the wrong reason. The Clinton omission is
glaring, in my opinion, given the point he is trying to make.
- About Clarence Thomas: he benefited from the Anita Hill
scandal. Once Hill's allegations turned out to be less than damning, he
was appointed. If the Committee had simply stuck to the intended process
they would have concluded that Thomas was unqualified to serve on the
Court. But his lack of qualifications never came to the foreground.
- I don't have enough knowledge of the Kofi Annan scandal to
opine whether the comparison is fair. However, citing how much World Bank
employees make, throwing around a "waste" dollar figure and accusing the
people who want Wolfowitz out of hypocrisy - again, Brooks is burying his
head in the sand. It's the way Wolfowitz lied about what went on with the
appointment and his unapologetic, confrontational attitude in the
aftermath. I just can't believe that Brooks, with a straight face, can a)
equate World Bank employees with Democrats and b) suggest that Democrats
are the ones who are keen on using pretexts to depose authority figures.
Outrageous.
- I can't argue with Brooks's point that leaders who treat their corps with
disdain often suffer the consequences for their arrogance. But that message is contaminated by Brooks's partisanship.
"Kranz Frederick"
David Brooks is pathetic and his article shows how little he knows about the World Bank. He mixes half-baked truths with preconceived ideas and some sort of cockamamy ideology. It's not even worth committing on his piece.
At one point, not too long ago, Wolfensohn (not Wolfowitz) hired Nicholas Stern, a world-class, widely respected British economist, to be the Bank's Chief Economist. A great catch! However, his brother Richard Stern was VP of Human Resources at that time, and according to Bank rules, two close relatives may not serve in areas where their work might bring them into contact with each other.
In this case, they would both report to the President as senior executives.
There were immediate protests from the staff, because this long-standing rule had made life difficult for some of the staff whose spouses also worked for the Bank and were in line for promotions but unable to make the necessary moves.
Wolfensohn never made an apology or tried to explain his decision to anybody.
Within a month, Richard Stern announced that he had accepted another position and was leaving the Bank. End of story - end of conflicts of interest - end of protests.
This is the difference between an accomplished leader (who was not universally liked and had many personality flaws) and a wimp and loser who is left with no dignity or respect.
I hope this nightmare ends next week. Otherwise, the damage to the Bank's reputation will become devastating.
April 27, 2007
Shrillary
Here's something from Karina:
Did you know that Hillary tried to join the Marines in the 70's?
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20070402&s=crowley040207
Also, if one more commentator mentions the word "shrill" in the same sentence as "Hillary" I'm going to be sick - men are never tagged with this word.
Thanks for sending Karina. I mostly agree. "Shrill" is defined as a piercing, high-pitched sound. Since women generally have higher-pitched voices than men, it is not totally sexist that the term would be more often ascribed to women. What is sexist is tagging the husky-voiced junior Senator from the Empire State with that description. I wouldn't call Hillary's voice high-itched and piercing, would you? Midwestern, flat and grating, but not shrill.
There's no question the word shrill has become code for "uppity woman complaining about something while wearing tasteful and very expensive business wear." It marginalizes the message. Strangely, Republican women have avoided the shrill factor - Condi, Harriet Miers, Mamie Eisenhower. All are respected not only for what they say, but for the tone with which they say it.
Did you know that Hillary tried to join the Marines in the 70's?
https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20070402&s=crowley040207
Also, if one more commentator mentions the word "shrill" in the same sentence as "Hillary" I'm going to be sick - men are never tagged with this word.
Thanks for sending Karina. I mostly agree. "Shrill" is defined as a piercing, high-pitched sound. Since women generally have higher-pitched voices than men, it is not totally sexist that the term would be more often ascribed to women. What is sexist is tagging the husky-voiced junior Senator from the Empire State with that description. I wouldn't call Hillary's voice high-itched and piercing, would you? Midwestern, flat and grating, but not shrill.
There's no question the word shrill has become code for "uppity woman complaining about something while wearing tasteful and very expensive business wear." It marginalizes the message. Strangely, Republican women have avoided the shrill factor - Condi, Harriet Miers, Mamie Eisenhower. All are respected not only for what they say, but for the tone with which they say it.
April 16, 2007
April 13, 2007
FREE IMUS (kidding)
Don Imus - history of stupid, racist, offensive comments. I also always thought he just plain sucked. One could argue (and I think I will) the reason he's in trouble and people love Howard Stern is that Stern is often hilarious while Imus is about as funny as his colostomy bag (am I going to get fired for that comment?). The phrase "nappy headed ho's" carries little amusement or mirth in 2007 not because it's more offensive than things Stern, Dave Chappelle or a lot of other folks say, but because it's just stupid and ugly-sounding. That's my take on it.
So, should Imus have been fired? Put a different way, should Imus be singled out? Is that really accomplishing anything? Is it fair? I know he's a repeat offender but so are a lot of other folks, on radio and elsewhere. Would you have shredded your American Express card if they continued to advertise on Imus? Not me. Who cares? If you want to consistently rebuke this kind of material and fire the people who make offensive jokes, fine. So are we going to crack down across the board on racist/racial humor? How can you even possibly be consistent about it?
Why Imus? I think a lot of grandstanding and opportunism is going on.
Imus said a lot of terrible things along the way, so believe me I am not lamenting his downfall. Maybe it sets an example for others, keeps people on their toes, raises the level of discourse.
Any thoughts out there? I'd like to hear from our listeners. We're talkin' bout the First Amendement, bitches! (copyright Dave Chapelle)
So, should Imus have been fired? Put a different way, should Imus be singled out? Is that really accomplishing anything? Is it fair? I know he's a repeat offender but so are a lot of other folks, on radio and elsewhere. Would you have shredded your American Express card if they continued to advertise on Imus? Not me. Who cares? If you want to consistently rebuke this kind of material and fire the people who make offensive jokes, fine. So are we going to crack down across the board on racist/racial humor? How can you even possibly be consistent about it?
Why Imus? I think a lot of grandstanding and opportunism is going on.
Imus said a lot of terrible things along the way, so believe me I am not lamenting his downfall. Maybe it sets an example for others, keeps people on their toes, raises the level of discourse.
Any thoughts out there? I'd like to hear from our listeners. We're talkin' bout the First Amendement, bitches! (copyright Dave Chapelle)
November 06, 2006
Seeing Red
Thought I’d share my personal story on the passing of Red Auerbach last week:
I was 16 years old and the sports editor on my high school newspaper.
> That same year, Red came out with his autobiography Red Auerbach: On
> and Off the Court. Red and I were both residents of Montgomery
> County, Maryland, and somehow I learned that he would be speaking at
> our local JCC as part of their annual book fair. So I made a few
> calls, and the head of the book fair arranged for me to attend the
> talk and sit down with Red afterward for a one-on-one interview.
> Pretty big stuff for a young Jewish reporter, though Red and Sandy
> Koufax have always inspired highly conflicted feelings for me; I am a
> Yankees and Bullets fan (born in Bronx, raised in Maryland) just as
> much as I am a Jew. I HATED the Celtics. The fact that Koufax and
> Auerbach played for my biggest rivals was twistedly b'shert.*
>
>
> I arrive at the talk with notepad and handheld tape recorder. There
> are about 20-30 people in attendance. So I'm sitting there, listening
> to and recording the talk and taking notes, just hoping Red didn't
> talk longer than 60 minutes because I didn't have a backup tape. Red
> is regaling everyone and smoking a cigar in a public building (ahhh,
> the
> 80's) and people are enjoying his talk, though I would say he was less
> than a Clinton-esque public speaker. So now it's Q&A time and some
> people are asking questions. I figure I'll get a head start on the
> interview, so in one of a lifelong series of fateful mistakes, I raise
> my hand.
>
> Red pointed his cigar at me and said "Okay, this kid, he's dressed
> nice." (gray crewneck sweater over dress shirt tucked inside sweater
> collar, tan
> slacks) I stood up and squeakily asked "what was the single most
> important thing that separated your Celtics from Wilt's 76ers in the
> 60's?" Red paused, took a big puff on his cigar, paused again, and
> was about to answer my question when he said "son, is that a tape
> recorder in your hand?"
>
> "Uh, yes. School newspaper."
>
> Red shook his head, muttered "next question" and turned his attention
> elsewhere. I didn't sit down as much as I dissolved into my chair.
> Another guy started asking him a question but Red interrupted him,
> turned back to me and said "son, what you did tonight was a terrible
> thing. I might say something I don't want to be repeated, and you
> would have it on tape, and that's illegal." Then he went back to the
> other guy. Hey, thanks for the advice Red!
> Three things:
>
> 1) it is legal to tape any public speaking engagement in Maryland, and
> practically anywhere else in the 50 states;
>
> 2) I had received permission to tape his talk from the book chair
> woman beforehand, and
>
> 3) can I have my soul back?
>
> I sat there until the end of the talk, picked my heart up off the
> floor and headed out the doors, too mortified to show up for the
> post-talk interview (big mistake, and in fact a friend of mine
> interviewed Red instead. But at the time I was way too nervous and
> intimidated to recover). I stood catatonically outside the auditorium
> while some friends consoled me, then I went home to tell my eagerly
> expectant family that Red took all 16 NBA title trophies, melted them
> down into one large blunt object and used it to teach me the meaning
> of the word respect. It was a somber eggplant casserole I ate that
> night in the Kranz household.
>
> The next morning I am walking around school, still in shock, when I
> get a call to come to the front office. It's the book fair lady on
> the phone, telling me that Mrs. Auerbach (who died in 2000) was
> standing outside the waiting to drive home with her husband and
> overheard what happened to me, and on the way home she gave Red an
> earful for being such a lout to a young reporter, and that Red called
> and wanted to do "something to make it up to that kid."
> Wow. So that's what brought me back to the JCC 2-3 days later, at
> which time the book fair lady bestowed upon me an autographed copy of
> Red's autobiography, and an inscription. "To Joshua Kranz:
> You were doing a job. I apologize for getting on you. You didn't
> know what you were doing - Red Auerbach."
A prick to the end, and the greatest Jewish sports figure of all time. F__ the Celtics
- JK
* “meant to be” in Yiddish
I was 16 years old and the sports editor on my high school newspaper.
> That same year, Red came out with his autobiography Red Auerbach: On
> and Off the Court. Red and I were both residents of Montgomery
> County, Maryland, and somehow I learned that he would be speaking at
> our local JCC as part of their annual book fair. So I made a few
> calls, and the head of the book fair arranged for me to attend the
> talk and sit down with Red afterward for a one-on-one interview.
> Pretty big stuff for a young Jewish reporter, though Red and Sandy
> Koufax have always inspired highly conflicted feelings for me; I am a
> Yankees and Bullets fan (born in Bronx, raised in Maryland) just as
> much as I am a Jew. I HATED the Celtics. The fact that Koufax and
> Auerbach played for my biggest rivals was twistedly b'shert.*
>
>
> I arrive at the talk with notepad and handheld tape recorder. There
> are about 20-30 people in attendance. So I'm sitting there, listening
> to and recording the talk and taking notes, just hoping Red didn't
> talk longer than 60 minutes because I didn't have a backup tape. Red
> is regaling everyone and smoking a cigar in a public building (ahhh,
> the
> 80's) and people are enjoying his talk, though I would say he was less
> than a Clinton-esque public speaker. So now it's Q&A time and some
> people are asking questions. I figure I'll get a head start on the
> interview, so in one of a lifelong series of fateful mistakes, I raise
> my hand.
>
> Red pointed his cigar at me and said "Okay, this kid, he's dressed
> nice." (gray crewneck sweater over dress shirt tucked inside sweater
> collar, tan
> slacks) I stood up and squeakily asked "what was the single most
> important thing that separated your Celtics from Wilt's 76ers in the
> 60's?" Red paused, took a big puff on his cigar, paused again, and
> was about to answer my question when he said "son, is that a tape
> recorder in your hand?"
>
> "Uh, yes. School newspaper."
>
> Red shook his head, muttered "next question" and turned his attention
> elsewhere. I didn't sit down as much as I dissolved into my chair.
> Another guy started asking him a question but Red interrupted him,
> turned back to me and said "son, what you did tonight was a terrible
> thing. I might say something I don't want to be repeated, and you
> would have it on tape, and that's illegal." Then he went back to the
> other guy. Hey, thanks for the advice Red!
> Three things:
>
> 1) it is legal to tape any public speaking engagement in Maryland, and
> practically anywhere else in the 50 states;
>
> 2) I had received permission to tape his talk from the book chair
> woman beforehand, and
>
> 3) can I have my soul back?
>
> I sat there until the end of the talk, picked my heart up off the
> floor and headed out the doors, too mortified to show up for the
> post-talk interview (big mistake, and in fact a friend of mine
> interviewed Red instead. But at the time I was way too nervous and
> intimidated to recover). I stood catatonically outside the auditorium
> while some friends consoled me, then I went home to tell my eagerly
> expectant family that Red took all 16 NBA title trophies, melted them
> down into one large blunt object and used it to teach me the meaning
> of the word respect. It was a somber eggplant casserole I ate that
> night in the Kranz household.
>
> The next morning I am walking around school, still in shock, when I
> get a call to come to the front office. It's the book fair lady on
> the phone, telling me that Mrs. Auerbach (who died in 2000) was
> standing outside the waiting to drive home with her husband and
> overheard what happened to me, and on the way home she gave Red an
> earful for being such a lout to a young reporter, and that Red called
> and wanted to do "something to make it up to that kid."
> Wow. So that's what brought me back to the JCC 2-3 days later, at
> which time the book fair lady bestowed upon me an autographed copy of
> Red's autobiography, and an inscription. "To Joshua Kranz:
> You were doing a job. I apologize for getting on you. You didn't
> know what you were doing - Red Auerbach."
A prick to the end, and the greatest Jewish sports figure of all time. F__ the Celtics
- JK
* “meant to be” in Yiddish
June 14, 2006
A LIST FROM OUR APARTMENT RENOVATIONS THAT I NOW BELIEVE WORKS MUCH BETTER AS POETRY
Dining room light
Backsplash is sloppy, needs to be cleaned up.
Stains and marks on backsplash
Gap on backsplash, right side
Dishwasher not attached, is loose, needs to be attached
Doors and side panel to cabinets, back panel to bar
Paint over mark on wall near front door
Extra shelves for closet and pantry
Redo rubber strip on shower door
Fix/check pole/shelves in shower
Paint the bathrooms
Metal shelf
Spice rack
Tie rack
Glass shelf in dining room
Credit for cabinet above refrigerator
Credit for lighting
Backsplash is sloppy, needs to be cleaned up.
Stains and marks on backsplash
Gap on backsplash, right side
Dishwasher not attached, is loose, needs to be attached
Doors and side panel to cabinets, back panel to bar
Paint over mark on wall near front door
Extra shelves for closet and pantry
Redo rubber strip on shower door
Fix/check pole/shelves in shower
Paint the bathrooms
Metal shelf
Spice rack
Tie rack
Glass shelf in dining room
Credit for cabinet above refrigerator
Credit for lighting
March 21, 2006
World Series/Shmorld Shmeries?
I don't understand all these oh-so-clever columnists making the case that MLB has to change the name of the World Series, because not that Japan won the WBC they are the real world champion, or some such nonsense. Does anyone honestly believe that if the 2005 Chicago White Sox played the 2006 Japan WBC squad, that it would take the Sox more than five games to win? the White Sox were the best team in the world in 2005, just like the Marlins were the best team in the world in 2003, and the Angels in 2002 (did i skip anyone? I don't think so...). The World Series stays as is. So it shall be written. So it shall be done.
March 07, 2006
A study just came out which concluded that six months of regular exercise can undo thirty years of inactivity and poor habits. This has me very excited. I have been out of shape for 4-5 years now, so I have another 25 years before I have to hop on the treadmill like a gerbil in a habitrail. Now excuse me while I grab my second lunch of the day.
March 06, 2006
oh the juices are flowing now
Some thoughts on the Oscars, which I think makes me the 10 millionth blogger to offer a unique insight in the past 24 hours:
The only dramatic moment during any of the major award presentations was Crash's surprise victory for Best Picture. Even the supremely unflappable Jack Nicholson was moved to say "Whoa!" as he made the presentation. The cast's impromptu celebration was giddy enough to make the 36 Mafia look droll. Ryan Phillippe was greased lightning as he rushed across the room to join the party, his wife Reese Witherspoon left to celebrate with her newly-acquired golden boy. Clearly, the cast and crew of Crash did not expect to win the Best Picture award. Brokeback Mountain was the odds on favorite and, in my opinion, was the superior movie. BM had emotional depth and persuasion that Crash's contrived melodrama couldn't match, despite fine performances from most of the sterling cast.
It's likely that Crash benefited from a strong PR campaign to the Oscar voters, or perhaps there were other politics afoot. What struck me was how different an Oscar upset is from an upset in sports. When a sports underdog wins, it has defeated the favorite on a level playing field. The Goliath has been slain by an expert sling shot. Goliath usually has noone to blame but itself and its subpar performance, or sometimes the Goliath does almost everything right (Georgetown 1985) and still loses to a truly superlative effort. In the case of Brokeback Mountain, however, most people agreed that after watching both movies - in fact, after watching all five nominees, Brokeback was the most deserving of the Oscar. Both the Wall Street Journal and Entertainment Weekly, with two very disparate readerships, had Brokeback as the odds-on favorite going into Sunday. One could argue that the Academy voters have very different, more refined tastes than the moveigoing public AND most critics. Otherwise, one must conclude that there were factors totally unrelated to the actual content of the two films that pushed the plurality of votes in Crash's direction.
In this respect, the "upset" win that Crash pulled off cannot carry the same level of satisfaction for the victors that as a sports upset earned on the playing field. To win by superior PR or other external chicanery falls short of becoming a compelling memory for those who watched last night's telecast. Can you imagine Jon Stewart asking "do you believe in miracles?" at the end of the show last night? Neither can I.
The only dramatic moment during any of the major award presentations was Crash's surprise victory for Best Picture. Even the supremely unflappable Jack Nicholson was moved to say "Whoa!" as he made the presentation. The cast's impromptu celebration was giddy enough to make the 36 Mafia look droll. Ryan Phillippe was greased lightning as he rushed across the room to join the party, his wife Reese Witherspoon left to celebrate with her newly-acquired golden boy. Clearly, the cast and crew of Crash did not expect to win the Best Picture award. Brokeback Mountain was the odds on favorite and, in my opinion, was the superior movie. BM had emotional depth and persuasion that Crash's contrived melodrama couldn't match, despite fine performances from most of the sterling cast.
It's likely that Crash benefited from a strong PR campaign to the Oscar voters, or perhaps there were other politics afoot. What struck me was how different an Oscar upset is from an upset in sports. When a sports underdog wins, it has defeated the favorite on a level playing field. The Goliath has been slain by an expert sling shot. Goliath usually has noone to blame but itself and its subpar performance, or sometimes the Goliath does almost everything right (Georgetown 1985) and still loses to a truly superlative effort. In the case of Brokeback Mountain, however, most people agreed that after watching both movies - in fact, after watching all five nominees, Brokeback was the most deserving of the Oscar. Both the Wall Street Journal and Entertainment Weekly, with two very disparate readerships, had Brokeback as the odds-on favorite going into Sunday. One could argue that the Academy voters have very different, more refined tastes than the moveigoing public AND most critics. Otherwise, one must conclude that there were factors totally unrelated to the actual content of the two films that pushed the plurality of votes in Crash's direction.
In this respect, the "upset" win that Crash pulled off cannot carry the same level of satisfaction for the victors that as a sports upset earned on the playing field. To win by superior PR or other external chicanery falls short of becoming a compelling memory for those who watched last night's telecast. Can you imagine Jon Stewart asking "do you believe in miracles?" at the end of the show last night? Neither can I.
March 03, 2006
what have I done
I am just old enough to have no idea how to operate a blog, change settings, hyperlink with panache, draw advertising revenue, change the world with the click of a mouse...and here I am with my very own blog.
......
......
......
Twix break.
......
......
......
Twix break.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)